Thanks to Paul Gutherson for his response. I have not given my own
views yet, but I have outlined some of the issues implicit and
explicit in the past twenty-five years of debate.
I did not list issues of ownership of knowledge in the note. These
are one group of challenges among many. These have not been discussed
as much as the other issues.
Copyright law today grants an author of intellectual property full
and complete copyright in original research. We own what we produce.
Should we post it or publish it under our own name with our own
copyright, we retain all rights.
Under today's journal system, the large publishers of journals demand
assignment of copyright. This policy seems to prevail at Elsevier,
Blackwell, Gower, Sage, Carfax, and others. This includes some, but
not all, university presses. The author of a document transfers to
the publisher all rights for the duration of current copyright law.
In Europe, this means the life of the author plus seventy years.
When a design research scholar publishes in an Elsevier journal such
as Design Studies, or a Gower journal such as Design Journal, the
publishing firms become the complete owner of the article. If an
author wishes to publish his or her own article in a book, for
example, he or she must ask permission from the publisher.
The companies assert that this permits them to protect the rights of
the author efficiently, but one may observe that assignment of rights
with joint rights over further use would have the same effect.
New systems may give authors greater control over their own work, not less.
The other issue not mentioned - the use of ICT as a tool of
democratization - did not seem properly part of this specific thread.
I am aware of the issues, and discuss them in many places (f.ex.,
Friedman 1996, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, also in selections as editor of
1998d). Scholarly and scientific communication is clearly related to
issues of democracy and information. The specifics of the Science
debate are already so large that it did not seem fruitful to address
democratization in that context.
While the issues listed relate to control of information and capital
interests, this is not control of information and capital interests
by regulatory authorities. It includes control of information by
those who do research and create information. It includes the capital
interests of the owners and producers of knowledge capital and human
capital, and these are the scholars and scientists who do the
research and writing.
It is important to remember a vital issue about the most important
group of regulatory authorities governing scholarship and science.
Universities, research centers, and libraries play an important role,
along with professional associations, research boards, editorial
boards, and the rest. These are regulatory authorities are comprised
of working scholars and scientists. The same people who in another
role are content creators establish these institutions and make their
decisions. To paraphrase a cartoon character of the 1950s, "I have
seen the enemy, and they is us."
This leads to the issue of gate keeping. It does not seem to be a
major problem. There are multiple levels of publishing, refereeing,
commentary, and therefore multiple levels of control on paper and in
libraries. That is how it is and how it will continue to be on the
Web.
The physics preprint server at Los Alamos is one model, a
self-selected mechanism. In physics, scholars think before they post
because the level of scholarship is high. At the same time, many
physicists are willing to float bold ideas as they seek progress
through interaction, criticism, dialogue, and critical inquiry.
Physicists also give a fair hearing to radical ideas provided they
are argued out on substantive grounds or serious speculation.
Part of what will build this system is the work we are willing to put
in. This includes the systems we create for different levels of
placement, access, gate keeping, and all the rest.
These large issues require a large and generous view. There is as
much reason for enthusiasm as for skepticism. What is clear is that
things are not what they ought to be today.
There are many ways to model libraries. There are many ways to model
journals. There are many ways to create a comprehensive and
accessible series of databases. These will meet many needs at once.
They will be all encompassing only in their totality across fields.
That totality cannot be comprehensively egalitarian. That is simply
not how scholarship and science work. Refereed journals require
decisions on merit, not on the presumption that all ideas are equally
valid when they are not. The moon is not made of green cheese, a
stork does not bring babies, and no scientific paper that is based on
these notions has an equal right to publication in a refereed forum.
This does not imply a totalitarian system, though. One can imagine a
reasoned egalitarian system. The Los Alamos physics preprint server
is such a system.
One can imagine a system in which some kinds of publishing are
guarded, as, for example, refereed journals or book chapters, or the
selection mechanism for Social Science Citations Index.
Moreover, one can imagine many kinds of system cooperated with
cross-referencing structures for all parts that cannot be
totalitarian because it is so widespread. There will also be room for
nonsense. The web proves this today, and it is clearly demonstrated
by the contents of several sites for design research posted at the
web sites of a few of our university design departments. These have
not disappeared, nor will they.
There seems to be no way to remove demonstrable rubbish. Even
credible universities seem unwilling to delete sites posting
assertions that violate the laws of physics and chemistry or the
facts of history. That being the case, there will be plenty of room
for serious sites offering multiple interpretations. Pluralism will
grow with the new system, rather than diminish. We have no need to
fear a totalitarian system.
I have yet to post my own view in response to Praveen Nahar's
question, but I thought Paul's skeptical yet reasonable points
deserved a response.
-- Ken Friedman
References
Friedman, Ken. 1996. "Individual Knowledge in the Information
Society." In Information Science: From the Development of the
Discipline to Social Interaction. Johan Olaisen, Erland
Munch-Pedersen and Patrick Wilson, editors. Oslo: Scandinavian
University Press, 245-276.
Friedman, Ken. 1998a. "Cities in the Information Age: A Scandinavian
Perspective." In The Virtual Workplace. Magid Igbaria and Margaret
Tan, eds. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Idea Group Publishing, 144-176.
Friedman, Ken. 1998b. "Building Cyberspace. An Introduction." Built
Environment. 24: 2/3, 77-82..
Friedman, Ken. 1998c. "Information, Place and Policy." Built
Environment. 24: 2/3, 83-103.
Friedman, Ken, ed. 1998d. Information, Place and Policy. Oxford:
Alexandrine Press. A special issue of Built Environment on urban
planning and design in the information age.
--
********************************************
Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Knowledge Management
Norwegian School of Management
Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University
Norway
+47 22.98.50.00 Telephone
+47 22.98.51.11 Telefax
Home office
Byvaegen 13
S-24012 Torna Haellestad
Sweden
+46 (46) 53.245 Telephone
+46 (46) 53.345 Telefax
email: [log in to unmask]
********************************************
|
