Thanks, Barbara,
> - I don't understand the resistance by a few of Talat's university
authors
> to 'mandates'. When a scientist is employed to do research by the
> university, there is a 'requirement' to do research. If the research
arising
> from public funding is good enough, there is a 'requirement' to
publish it
> is the problem? I rate this 'core to the job'.
Let's not forget - as people tend to in OA circles, that *not all
academics are scientists*. Though we of course agree that the public
should be able to see publicly funded research, many arts and humanities
academics view their research as their own personal property quite
distinct from their teaching work. The ownership of intellectual rights
is not really the issue, as they transfer copyright to publishers freely
- what they oppose is the idea that the university "owns" (i.e.
controls) the work or has any interest in it other than the mere fact
that it is done and is of high quality. This is an old academic
publishing tradition from a different age, but is clearly engrained very
deeply. These are primarily the people that I'm talking about - though
of course it would not be politic in the light of what I am trying to
achieve here to name departments, still less academics who I need to
work with. Younger academics in these fields tend not to have inherited
these attitudes so often, so perhaps that is a positive sign that the
psychological block described is on the way out. There is a historical
problem in the culture of some disciplines, you might say.
I must also say that the false "all academics are scientists" assumption
really puts off academics in arts subjects from working with OA and thus
negotiating positively towards the sort of working practices that imply
mandates.
I agree entirely with all of the rest of your very positive comments.
All the best,
Talat
|