The Labor of Open

This is the first in a series of posts about each of the teams that will be attending SCI 2019, and their projects. This one was submitted by Danielle Cooper.

Painting titled "The Harvesters" by Léon Augustin Lhermitte

This project, The Labor of Open, will examine the labor of scholar-led independent open access publishing as an equity issue in scholarly communications.

There is growing policy pressure on scholars from funders, governments, and academic institutions to disseminate their work through open access publications, including venues that are not associated with for-profit publishers.[1] These policies are being advanced under the auspices of increasing equity in higher education by alleviating the cost burdens associated with journal subscriptions for publicly funded institutions and readers who do not have access through institutional affiliations (e.g. non-academics, unaffiliated academics, academics at institutions with limited subscriptions, including those beyond the West). Some of these policies also target the article processing fees charged by some journals to authors to make their articles open access and seek to limit or regulate them.

Financial burdens for readers and authors, however, is just one component of the equity equation in open scholarly communications, as the onus for scholars to work with or on scholar-led independent open access venues constitutes considerable labor. This labor is often unacknowledged and neglected in emerging open access policies, particularly with respect to scholar-led open access journals and pre-print venues. Independent open access journals and pre-print platforms are intended to challenge the oligopoly of academic publishing wherein the majority of journals are in the hands of five commercial publishers with net profit margins parallel to automotive industries and big pharma.[2] Despite the important role of independent open access in knowledge creation, however, sufficient attention has not been paid to the labor involved in their creation and sustainability.

In this project, the team will interrogate the labor of scholar-led independent open access publishing as an equity issue in scholarly communications. Scholar-led independent open access publishing often constitutes a form of “hope labor” wherein work done for free is deemed “a good opportunity for exposure” and invoking the promise of employment and financial compensation that may or may not arrive in the future. The project will identify and critically examine the full range of labor responsibilities for scholars when publishing and/or working in an editorial capacity on scholar-led independent open access publishing paradigms. The project will focus especially on how such responsibilities relate to the evolving economic context of higher education, especially the increasingly precarious status of postdocs, graduate students, and faculty in the academic labor market. In doing so we will bring much needed attention to how the labor of open scholarly communications intersects with the politics of work in higher education more broadly and identify ways forward to ensure that the open access agenda is enacted equitably for contributors and consumers.

How equity issues of gender, class, race, and other marginalized positionalities intersect with the politics and labor of open scholarly communications paradigms will be a focus of the project. For example, often termed a “labor of love,” facilitating independent open access publishing venues is feminized work, expected to be undertaken for no pay and little recognition.[3] Further, while open access has been celebrated as a tool of increasing access to knowledge, Indigenous scholars have raised questions around whom this knowledge is open for and at what cost. As Kimberly Christen highlights, open access relies on Western colonial understandings of knowledge sharing that thieve Indigenous and traditional knowledge, while promoting “openness” to knowledge “at any and all costs.”[4] By examining questions of labor and inequality in the move to independent open access, our project will highlight the possibilities, limits, and labor of making open access equitable.

Our team is uniquely composed to undertake a project of this aim and scope. Members of this international team include individuals who study and research at the intersection scholarly communications, publishing, researcher information practices and equity issues; editors and authors of open access publications and platforms; librarians supporting scholar-led publishing; scholars at all stages of their careers in a variety of academic and applied settings; and, labor activists. The team’s strong expertise in the project’s subject areas is coupled with demonstrated ability to effectively communicate with stakeholders in higher education about social justice issues in scholarly publishing.

Team Members

Leslie Chan is an Associate Professor, teaching stream, and Associate Director of the Centre for Critical Development Studies at the University of Toronto Scarborough. His teaching and professional practice centers on the role of “openness” in the design of inclusive knowledge infrastructure, and the implications for the production and flow of knowledge and impact on local and international development. An original signatory of the Budapest Open Access Initiative, Leslie is active in the implementation of scholarly communication initiatives around the world, serving as Director of Bioline International and principal investigator for the Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network and for the Knowledge G.A.P project. He is a member of the advisory board of the Directory of Open Access Journals, the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, and the Investing in Open Infrastructure working group.

Danielle Cooper is the Senior Researcher of Libraries, Scholarly Communications and Museums at Ithaka S+R, a not-for-profit research organization working on issues at the intersection of information, technology, and education. She is an applied qualitative social scientist with expertise in studying the information needs of researchers in higher education contexts and working with stakeholders, including librarians, publishers and scholarly societies, towards meeting those needs. Her work focuses on information practices and needs in underrepresented and under-resourced academic communities, including recent and ongoing projects on Indigenous studies scholars, community colleges, and post-secondary correctional education. Examples of recent publications for Ithaka S+R include: Scholars ARE Collectors: A Proposal for Re-Thinking Research Support and When Research is Relational: Supporting the Research Practices of Indigenous Studies Scholars.

Emily Drabinski is Associate Professor and Critical Pedagogy Librarian at the Graduate Center, CUNY. She is on the board of Radical Teacher, a journal she flipped to diamond open access in 2013 with the University of Pittsburgh’s library publishing program. She is also a union activist who has written and presented widely on organized labor in libraries and archives. Emily’s research interests include the politics of knowledge organization, power and library infrastructures, and gender and sexuality issues in information studies.

Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe is Professor/Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction in the University Library and Affiliate Professor in the School of Information Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. During her term as President, the Association of College and Research Libraries flipped its flagship journal, College & Research Libraries, to diamond open access. She is also the current editor of Library Trends, an embargoed gold open access journal, and writes for The Scholarly Kitchen.

Jojo Karlin is a PhD student in English at the Graduate Center, CUNY, and adjunct at Brooklyn College. A member of the editorial collective of the open access Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, she co-edited Issue 14: Teaching and Research with Archives. She has contributed to MLA’s Literary Studies in the Digital Age. As the Graduate Fellow to Manifold Scholarship, an open source publishing platform built by the Graduate Center, University of Minnesota Press, and Cast Iron Coding, she is researching open educational resources.

Ela Przybylo is presently a Ruth Wynn Woodward postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies at Simon Fraser University. Starting in August 2019 she will be Assistant Professor of Publishing Studies in the Department of English at Illinois State University. Ela is also a founding co-editor of the peer-reviewed, open access, independent journal Feral Feminisms. Her teaching and research examines questions of digital publishing as they relate to feminism, anti-racism, and decolonialism.

Painting titled "The Gleaners" by Léon-Augustin Lhermitte

Team Engagement and Output Plan

The team’s participation will result in a handbook that accounts for the different forms of labor, and their trade-offs, associated with scholar-led independent open access publishing. We anticipate developing the handbook in an accessible and entertaining digital zine format. The handbook will be designed with scholars as the main audience and will include a supplementary section for those involved in scholarly research support (e.g., academic librarians, policymakers and grants officers, and those involved with developing and supporting open access publishing platforms). The handbook will be distributed through social media, listservs, blogs and other high-impact channels for promoting scholarly communications issues to scholars and their stakeholders. A webinar and/or conference session about working with the handbook will also be developed for stakeholders to further promote using the tool.

The team will begin their work in advance to ensure maximum use of their time together at the institute. Prior to the institute the team will hold a remote introductory meeting to brainstorm the breadth of the thematic categories related to the labor of open access.  Following that meeting, the members will do independent research to further refine their understanding of those categories, building up a shared repository of resources that will be shared and finalized through consensus as the first collective activity at the institute. The remainder of the time at the institute will be devoted to designing and creating the handbook as well as identifying next steps for external review and feedback, a revision process, and the dissemination of the handbook.

 

[1] For examples of funder policies, see Wellcome Trust and  Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. For examples of government policies, see Plan S in Europe, CIHR in Canada, NIH in the US .

[2] Larivière, Vincent, Stefanie Haustein, and Philippe Mongeon. “The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era.” PloS one 10, no. 6 (2015): e0127502.

[3] McLaughlin, Lisa. “Feminist Journal Editing: Does This Job Include Benefits?” Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology 4 (2014): https://adanewmedia.org/2014/04/issue4-mclaughlin/

[4] Christen, Kimberly A.. “Does information really want to be free? Indigenous knowledge and the politics of open access.” The International Journal of Communication 6 (2011): 2870-2893.

[ Images: The Harvesters and The Gleaners, by Léon-Augustin Lhermitte, public domain. ]

Runners on a track, seen from above, with shadows beside them

SCI 2019 project teams

We’re pleased to be able to announce the teams that will be participating in this year’s Triangle Scholarly Communication Institute, on the theme of Equity in Scholarly Communications.

The selection process was difficult, as we received a very strong set of proposals and diverse team participants again this year – from 29 different countries and 78 different organizations, many different backgrounds and disciplines, and different stages in people’s careers.

Here are the projects and teams that will be coming together at SCI 2019 in October:

Congratulations to all of these teams, and we look forward to seeing you in Chapel Hill in October!

[ Photo by Steven Lelham used under Unsplash free license. ]

[ Edited 15 July, 5 August, and 5 and 12 and 19 September to reflect changes in members of several teams, and to add links to blog posts about each team. ]

Photo of colorful flags

Submit your proposal to join SCI 2019 in October – this year’s theme is Equity in Scholarly Communications

[Update on June 3, 2019: We received many excellent proposals again this year, with over 100 participants from 29 countries and 78 organizations. The TriangleSCI Advisory Board selected five teams from among these to participate in SCI 2019, and invitations were sent out earlier today. Once invited teams have confirmed they can participate, information about each of them will be posted here.]

The Scholarly Communication Institute invites you to participate in SCI 2019, its sixth year in North Carolina’s Research Triangle region. This year’s theme will be Equity in Scholarly Communications and the program will take place October 13 through 17, in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Triangle SCI is not your typical academic conference – it’s four days of concentrated but relaxed time with a diverse cohort of individuals who have come to start new projects they have proposed, in teams they have built and with advice and contributions from participants on other teams and a set of interlocutors and experts who work across teams.

You set the agenda, and you define the deliverables – TriangleSCI provides the scaffolding for your team to develop its project. If your team’s proposal is selected, SCI will cover all the costs for team members to participate, including travel, meals, and accommodations, including for international participants. For more information about how TriangleSCI works, see the FAQ and links from previous years of SCI.

Probably the best way to get a sense of what it’s like is through the words of participants from past years: they have described TriangleSCI as “One of the best scholarly experiences I’ve had.” and “an amazing incubator of ideas, innovation and collaboration. Grateful to be a part of this incredible experience!” Learn more about TriangleSCI from the perspective of participants via this podcast (with transcript), this summary blog post, and other highlights from SCI 2018 and previous years.

This year’s theme is Equity in Scholarly Communications, described this way in the page about the theme:

Discussions around scholarly communications, at this Institute and elsewhere in North America and Europe, tend not to account for the wide range of factors that influence whether and how different communities create and access scholarship: not all stakeholders are from well-resourced institutions or nations; not all of us speak, write, read, search, and think in the same language; not all of us enjoy robust support for scholarship, or reliable access to the Internet, or modern research tools, or easy access to libraries, or means of keeping in touch with colleagues and abreast with global developments in our disciplines. Too many platforms, standards, systems, publications, projects, and discussions move forward with only some of us in view.

For the 2019 Triangle Scholarly Communication Institute, we invite proposals from teams that aim to build a more inclusive and equitable global network of scholarship. SCI is an opportunity to spend a few days with a diverse set of people to investigate challenges, develop plans, test processes, come to agreements, and launch initiatives. SCI is an ideal place to bring together perspectives and expertise that may not normally intersect, and to build understandings and new models based on them. We encourage pragmatic, proactive optimism, and hope participants will use SCI as a platform to nurture positive change.

We especially encourage teams with participants from the “global south”, historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions, tribal colleges and universities, community colleges, K-12 schools, independent scholars, and other institutions and backgrounds whose needs and perspectives are often overlooked in discussions about scholarly communications and the infrastructures and processes that support it.

Please see the theme page for more information, including some ideas of who you might bring together to form a team, and questions you might address – we’re looking for a broad and diverse set of perspectives, and teams that will address both specific and general problems and opportunities. This is a great opportunity to launch a new project, have some concentrated time to develop an existing project with a broader set of collaborators, or just to begin to explore and experiment with ideas that are difficult to pursue in your usual work context. Remember that if your proposal is selected, your expenses to participate will be covered by SCI, so this is a great opportunity for potential participants who might normally find traveling to such a program cost-prohibitive.

To participate, form a team of 4 to 6 people, and submit a proposal along the lines of what’s described in the Request for Proposals (RFP). Proposals are due by the end of the day on April 24, 2019.

If you have questions about any of this that aren’t already answered in the FAQ, please contact scholcomm-institute@duke.edu and we’d be glad to help. You might also find some people you know in TriangleSCI cohorts from past years, and you can ask them about their experience and get tips from them about what made their proposal and project successful.

 

Thanks as always to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for continuing to provide funding for the Triangle SCI and making all of this possible!

[ Photo by Marco Bianchetti on Unsplash used under Unsplash free license. ]

SCI 2018 has concluded – join us in 2019!

The 2018 Triangle Scholarly Communication Institute concluded a few weeks ago, and we’re already planning for 2019. If you’d like to participate in 2019, keep an eye on this site and the @TriangleSCI Twitter account, where we’ll announce the Request for Proposals for SCI 2019 in January.

The best way to learn more about what the SCI experience is like is to read it from the perspective or participants. Many of us were active on Twitter during the program, and highlights of photos and tweets from the 5 days of SCI 2018 have been collected in this post. You can also see the full stream at the #TriangleSCI hashtag, and this slide show with some photos.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Each year on the Tuesday night of the Institute we go to the National Humanities Center for a reception with colleagues from the NHC and local community, and hear some thoughtful remarks on working in collaborative spaces like the Humanities Center and TriangleSCI and the theme of this year’s SCI (for 2018 it was “Overcoming Risk”). Here’s what one of the speakers (Josh Sosin, Duke Classics professor and member of the TriangleSCI advisory board) said that evening:

The first few years of the SCI Don Waters from A. W. Mellon Foundation gave the speech at the NHC dinner. When he couldn’t attend last year Paolo asked all of the other Advisory Board members whether someone would fill in, and then all of the former attendees, and then the nieces and nephews of the former attendees, and then their high school friends, and then he came to me. So I told a cute story about family dinners when I was a kid and a friend of mine who grew up to be a mixed martial arts fighter.

This year I wasn’t moved to say something cute.

The theme for this year’s SCI was suggested during the roundup at the end of last year’s SCI. The definition of ‘risk’ at the time was rather different from where we wound up. I think the word floated was in fact not ‘risk’ but ‘safety,’ or ‘security.’ That was November 9th, one year after the election, 6 months after the events at Charlottesville, a month after the Harvey Weinstein story broke in the New York Times.

The risks that were so much on our minds one year ago of course aren’t abated. But neither were they new at the time.

The prompts for this year’s SCI are much the same. I went and translated the bullet points from the call into language that seemed suited to 2018. How do we protect those who speak the truth in settings in which facts seem not to matter? How do we protect scholars who work on the edges of what is valued at the moment? How do we protect against the tribalism to which we are so prone in so many contexts? or against the tendency of powerful institutions to distort our very views on the virtues of sharing, or to disincentivize collaboration and collective action? How do we protect the integrity of the scholarly enterprise against the twin forces of big business and small government? Why are the ‘we’ in these questions so few and so alike? And so on.

And so I wonder what is new here.

Academia has a long history of looking inward. We built these walled environments with libraries at the center, little paradises, alternate universes where we at least aspire to speak a common language founded in truth and facts. Academic disciplines support the large normative core of community-based investigation, and academic tenure protects inquiry at the edges and at the bridge points between what we value and what we don’t yet understand. Peer-review, whatever its faults, provides a layer of protection against our tendency simply to accept the word of the strong and prominent. We muster in societies because many issues cannot be advanced or problems solved except at scale. We rely on endowments and DIY publishing and tool-building on the conviction that the scholarly enterprise is too important to be subject to the shifting and sometimes ruinous tides of politics, markets, industries. We’ve rushed headlong into the realm of the digital and open out of a laudable desire to share with others the harvest of this protected walled garden that we’ve built up over years, decades, centuries.

And so, the risks that we’ve arrayed ourselves against this week are in large part artifacts of our own efforts. The challenges that we identify today are the result of previous generations’ attempts to address some of the same basic questions. Their solutions give rise to the challenges that we wrestle with now. Probably better to say that our solutions are our challenges.

In many ways the underlying arithmetic has not changed. Scholarly production is still painfully slow, wildly expensive, and the privilege of but a few. Skepticism and mistrust of knowledge, expertise, and basic human competence are as widespread as ever. A culture of hearing others, learning from others, countenancing the possibility of a world that is larger than our individual experience, is still a dream.

The internet did not re-write those facts (it might even have made them worse).

One thing that has changed is our conception of our audience. For the 900 years that universities have been around we’ve known who our audience is: The members of our own walled garden, and the others like it, sometimes, via well-defined channels, people who live, you know, in the world. That posture is changing fast. Just look at this year’s SCI teams; and last year’s and the year’s before that, and before that. More and more of us are looking to audiences outside the garden wall, and good.

But even as members of the scholarly community—and I mean this in the most ecumenical sense—grow in their commitment to a wider audience, in much of the world it is not at all clear that our social and cultural and political and economic commitments to humane education, to teaching and learning, to the cultivation and application of widely shared knowledge toward the good, are safe or secure. Even as we send more and more information up, over, and outside the garden wall (which is good), somehow we are bringing fewer and fewer people into its compass. I mean public higher education, which is increasingly none of those things.

And you have to be more optimistic than I am to think that the last century’s commitment—not everywhere and not perfect but nonetheless widespread and powerful—that the last century’s commitment to the progressive virtues that inform our work at SCI, is not at grave, grave risk. But I don’t think it’s grandiose or a gesture of hubris to say that one of the virtues of the SCI, and since we are here, of the National Humanities Center as well, is that it provides us all with an opportunity to breathe deep, take stock of where we are, find support in the company of peers, and return to our home institutions re-energized, re-charged, re-committed to the shared enterprise of leaving the next generation with better tools and more resources than we ourselves inherited. Lord knows, they’ll need them if they want to solve the problems that our solutions will inevitably create!

We hope you’ll consider joining us in 2019. SCI 2019 will be held October 13-17 at the Rizzo Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The Request for Proposals will be announced here in January, with proposals due in April and teams invited in late May or early June. If your proposal is selected, the Institute will cover all expenses for your team to attend, with funding generously provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Stay tuned, here on this web site and on @TriangleSCI!

Photo of child looking at the first step of a series of steps going up

Overcoming risk at SCI 2018

SCI 2018 is starting soon (October 7) and this year’s theme is “Overcoming Risk”. As I write this, Hurricane Florence is bearing down on North Carolina, so risk is certainly on our minds here in the Research Triangle region of NC.

Scrabble tiles reading "RISK"SCI is not about that kind of risk, of course. The six teams that will be gathering in Chapel Hill will be exploring risk as it applies to different aspects of scholarly communication, and using SCI as a launch pad for projects that aim to overcome some of these risks. They’ll be addressing legal risk, risks to equity, diversity, and inclusiveness, risks related to new forms of digital publishing and emerging methods of public engagement, risks inhibiting quicker moves toward open scholarship and risks open scholarship can help overcome, and challenges facing scholarly societies as they try to move toward open access publishing models. You can read more about all the teams and their projects and this year’s theme in these earlier posts.

SCI isn’t like a traditional academic conference – it’s more like an informal planning retreat, with a diverse set of participants working on their own projects and cross-pollinating between them. The best way to learn about it is to read what participants in previous years have written and done – as in the description and links from this page from after SCI 2017 concluded, and these archived Storify threads from 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. This post from SCI 2015 outlines the structure of the program, and how it all works.

You can join in the conversation too. Each year many SCI participants have been active on Twitter during the program, using the #TriangleSCI hashtag. Follow along there or in this list gathering the SCI 2018 cohort, send us questions, give us your suggestions, and engage with us as we develop and implement ideas and projects, and contribute to all of it. If you’re interested in participating in person in SCI 2019, look for the next theme and request for proposals on this site in January. See you all online and in person in a few weeks!

Understanding and Mitigating the Risks of Open Access for Scholarly Societies

This is the sixth and final in a series of posts about each of the teams that will be attending SCI 2018, and their projects. This one was submitted by Marcel LaFlamme.

Photo of office building facade with open window

Scholarly societies have a vested interest in making the knowledge that their members produce accessible to a broad range of publics. Yet many societies depend on subscription revenue from the publications they sponsor, along with membership dues and conference fees, to support organizational activities. In recent years, rank-and-file scholars have begun to champion open-access publication models, in concert with librarians whose budgets have been stretched thin by unsustainable increases in journal pricing. But societies have been more reluctant to embrace open access, viewing it as a risky departure from a working business model in the midst of uncertainty on other fronts.

Our team aims to take an inventory of those perceived risks with respect to two peer societies, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) and the Canadian Anthropology Society/Société Canadienne d’Anthropologie (CASCA), and to explore possible strategies for mitigating them. Since 2008, the AAA has contracted with the commercial publisher Wiley to publish its portfolio of twenty-two journals on a subscription basis, while experimenting with open access on a limited scale. The University of Toronto Press has published CASCA’s flagship journal, Anthropologica, on a subscription basis since 2013. But the shifting landscape of scholarly publishing—and, in CASCA’s case, new funding priorities at Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council—has compelled society leadership to consider open futures.

In 2015, the open-access publishing cooperative Libraria was formed out of a desire to develop alternatives to the existing ecology of scholarly communication. Over the past three years, Libraria has worked to develop a financial and organizational model for flipping journals in anthropology, archaeology, and adjacent fields to open access without relying on article processing charges (APCs). Under this model, libraries would redirect subscription payments for participating journals to a transparently governed cooperative comprised of societies and other key stakeholders, which would publish the journals on a not-for-profit, open-access basis. Both the AAA and CASCA have expressed interest in this model, but thus far neither society has committed itself to taking part.

Over the course of the 2018 Triangle Scholarly Communication Institute, our team aims to address the following questions:

Photo of a road with arrows pointing in opposite directions

  • What financial, operational, and cultural risks would moving toward open access pose for scholarly societies like the AAA and CASCA? How can open-access advocates more fully apprehend these risks?
  • Are there risks for societies like the AAA and CASCA in not moving toward open access? In other words, are the existing publishing models for these two societies likely to remain viable into the future? In the context of broader shifts toward open data and open infrastructure, how might decisions made today about access to content result in path dependencies in other areas?
  • What other actors have a stake in mitigating the risks of open access for scholarly societies? How might they be enlisted in doing so? What forms of support would be useful, and how could they be structured such that societies could rely on them?
  • Does the Libraria model, as it is currently formulated, mitigate the risks of open access for the AAA and CASCA? If not, then how could the model be refined or further specified? What other social and technical infrastructures might be required?
  • How do the answers to these questions map onto the actually existing governance structures of these societies? What role would sections, committees, boards, and society staff need to play in moving toward open access?

Our team sees the Institute as a rare opportunity for open-access advocates and society leadership to spend time together in an unhurried, low-pressure setting, building trust and working through differences. We also see the inclusion of a representative from a leading research library as essential to understanding how libraries see their own role in the scholarly communication landscape changing. By structuring our team in this way, we hope to elaborate a process for discovery and deliberation that can help other societies and the communities they serve to push past a shared sense of impasse.

Team Members

Anna Agbe-Davies is Associate Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She chairs the Anthropological Communication Committee of the American Anthropological Association and serves on the association’s Executive Board.

Alberto Corsín Jiménez is Reader in Social Anthropology at the Spanish National Research Council and a member of the Executive Committee (as well as co-founder) of Libraria. He researches and writes on free culture and open-source activism, with a focus on architecture and participatory urbanism.

Ellen Dubinsky is the incoming Scholarly Communication Librarian at the University of Arizona Libraries. For over a decade, she has been involved in promoting open-access publishing, managing institutional repositories, and facilitating the publication of titles including the Journal of International Women’s StudiesJournal of Cape Verdean Studies, and International Journal of Cybersecurity Intelligence and Cybercrime.

Marcel LaFlamme is Visiting Scholar in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Washington and Managing Editor of Cultural Anthropology, the only journal currently published on an open-access basis by the American Anthropological Association. He is a member of the Executive Committee of Libraria, and previously served as a community college library director.

Caura Wood is an energy anthropologist working in Calgary, Alberta. She is a former treasurer of the Canadian Anthropology Society/Société Canadienne d’Anthropologie and now co-chairs the society’s Open Access Working Group.

Next Steps

Our team envisions sharing the results of our participation in the Institute both within the discipline of anthropology and beyond. We will present detailed reports on our work to the executive boards of the two societies and identify point persons to coordinate next steps. This may include a working session at the joint annual meeting of the two societies, which is scheduled for November 2019. We will also report out to key members and staff at the Association of Research Libraries, which is considering what role it can play in catalyzing an open-access transition in targeted disciplines.

In a more public-facing vein, we will develop a freely available toolkit on understanding and mitigating the risks of open access for scholarly societies, drawing on our experiences leading up to and at the Institute. Not every society can send a team to Triangle SCI, so we want to distill the process that we develop and some of our lessons learned into a portable format that can be used to guide discussions in other settings. We plan to promote the toolkit with blog posts in publications such as The Scholarly Kitchen or Associations Now.

[ Photos by Chris Barbalis, Yeshi Kangrang, and Leyre Labarga used under Unsplash free license. ]