From “Patchy Endorsements” to Intentional Advocacy: Deconstructing Bias in the Language of Open Access

Q2 Social Sciences
Lauren B. Collister, Melissa H. Cantrell
{"title":"From “Patchy Endorsements” to Intentional Advocacy: Deconstructing Bias in the Language of Open Access","authors":"Lauren B. Collister, Melissa H. Cantrell","doi":"10.7710/2162-3309.2395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues that linguistic features common in discourse around Open Access Publishing are socially constructed in ways that lend themselves to implicit bias against the Open Access (OA) movement. These biases materialize through common linguistic practices such as de-centering OA and highlighting the uncertainty of OA Publishing, resulting in “patchy endorsements” of the status quo of Subscription Publishing. Following previous research that demonstrates how educational content on OA can lead to cognitive load and biases that reinforce the status quo in scholarly publishing, we analyze publicly available, online content from our own institutions with an eye towards how these biases manifest specifically in the practice of librarianship. Using examples from this analysis, we suggest strategies and intentional language that can be used by librarians and other OA advocates to counteract bias and shift towards a construction of OA Publishing as the status quo. While many strategies and difficult negotiations are needed to functionally establish OA as the default in scholarly publishing, language choice is a device through which advocates at any level can advance towards an open-centered culture.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":"9 1","pages":"2395"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2395","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper argues that linguistic features common in discourse around Open Access Publishing are socially constructed in ways that lend themselves to implicit bias against the Open Access (OA) movement. These biases materialize through common linguistic practices such as de-centering OA and highlighting the uncertainty of OA Publishing, resulting in “patchy endorsements” of the status quo of Subscription Publishing. Following previous research that demonstrates how educational content on OA can lead to cognitive load and biases that reinforce the status quo in scholarly publishing, we analyze publicly available, online content from our own institutions with an eye towards how these biases manifest specifically in the practice of librarianship. Using examples from this analysis, we suggest strategies and intentional language that can be used by librarians and other OA advocates to counteract bias and shift towards a construction of OA Publishing as the status quo. While many strategies and difficult negotiations are needed to functionally establish OA as the default in scholarly publishing, language choice is a device through which advocates at any level can advance towards an open-centered culture.
从“补丁背书”到有意倡导:解构开放获取语言中的偏见
本文认为,围绕开放获取出版的话语中常见的语言特征是社会建构的,其方式有助于对开放获取运动产生隐性偏见。这些偏见是通过常见的语言实践实现的,例如去中心化OA和突出OA出版的不确定性,导致对订阅出版现状的“零星认可”。之前的研究表明,OA上的教育内容会导致认知负荷和偏见,从而强化学术出版的现状。在此之后,我们分析了我们自己机构的公开在线内容,着眼于这些偏见如何在图书馆工作实践中具体表现出来。利用这一分析的例子,我们提出了图书馆员和其他OA倡导者可以使用的策略和有意的语言,以抵消偏见,并将OA出版的建设转变为现状。虽然需要许多策略和艰难的谈判才能在功能上将OA确立为学术出版的默认模式,但语言选择是任何级别的倡导者都可以向以开放为中心的文化迈进的一种手段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信