moral foundations
Glenn Hampson
The moral argument for open is potentially the most powerful argument in this arena. However, a US federal judge ruled last week that “access to literacy” is not a fundamental right: https://nyti.ms/2m654oc. (More accurately, the ruling--- https://bit.ly/2u8I3oK --- says that “the Supreme Court has neither confirmed nor denied that access to literacy if a fundamental right.”):
“Plainly, literacy—and the opportunity to obtain it—is of incalculable importance. As
Plaintiffs point out, voting, participating meaningfully in civic life, and accessing justice
require some measure of literacy. Applying for a job, securing a place to live, and applying
for government benefits routinely require the completion of written forms. Simply finding
one's way through many aspects of ordinary life stands as an obstacle to one who cannot
read.
But those points do not necessarily make access to literacy a fundamental right.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized, in Rodriguez and elsewhere, that the
importance of a good or service "does not determine whether it must be regarded as
fundamental[.]"
How does this reasoning affect our work (or does it)? For the US and globally, we’re arguing that in fact, access is essential---that inequity abounds in access to research findings and that levelling the playing field is in the best interest of science and society. By the reasoning of US courts, we might need more hard evidence that broad access is essential, that harm is occurring, and that the remedies being proposed provide necessary and appropriate relief---our proposed studies might be able to fill in some of these knowledge gaps. But are there other existing moral/ethical/legal frameworks we can hang our hat on as well?---from UNESCO or the EU, for instance?
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
Rick Anderson
For one thing, I think we need to be careful about equating “access to literacy” with “access to literature.” We could make somewhat similar arguments in favor of each, but the differences between “literacy” and “literature” are deep and important.
As for the founding assumption that “access is essential”: I think we need to be careful here. Are we saying that, in fact, access to the literature should be considered a basic human right? If not, then in what do we mean by “essential”? And if so, then where are we going to locate the boundary that separates the literature we’re talking about (scholarly, scientific, research-based) from other kinds of literature to which we’re NOT saying everyone has a fundamental right (novels, popular magazines, etc.)? Or are we, in fact, saying that access to all literature of every kind is a fundamental human right?
There’s a deeper issue as well: if we say that access to the literature (however defined) is a fundamental human right, then we’re necessarily saying that toll-based access to that literature represents an offense against human rights. Is that our position?
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit
http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Mel DeSart
I agree with Rick, both about the differences in “literacy” and “literature”, and about the access to literature bit. I think we can easily say that more equitable and balanced access to scholarly [my add of “scholarly”] literature for all is an OSI goal or desired outcome, and something that we will be working toward, but I think “essential” might be going too far, especially in regard to what degree of change on that front we might actually be able to reasonably effect. And I don’t think we should even be considering the whole legal “basic human right” definition in regard to access to the scholarly literature.
Depending on the kind of bar you set, sometimes anything short of reaching that bar can be perceived as failure. I think we need to set the kind of bar that strongly challenges us, that makes us work toward better and more equitable access to the scholarly literature for all, but a kind of bar that’s a scale or a spectrum, where positive movement along that spectrum is still considered a modest “win”, and where the farther we’re able to move things along that spectrum, the bigger the win.
mel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mel DeSart (he/him/his)
Head, Engineering Library
University of Washington des...@u.washington.edu
Box 352170 voice: 206-685-8369
Seattle, WA 98195-2170 fax: 206-543-3305
"There's nothing like the Eureka moment of discovering something that
no one knew before. I won't compare it to sex, but it lasts longer."
Dr. Stephen W. Hawking, 1/11/02, during
a lecture in celebration of his 60th birthday
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Glenn Hampson
Some good links from Nina Collins…
From: Collins, Nina K <nkco...@purdue.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 12:01 PM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Subject: RE: moral foundations
Hi Glenn,
Please forward if you feel this will be useful to discussions.
UNESCO Right to Education:
https://en.unesco.org/themes/right-to-education
UN resolution on the Right to Education (adopted last summer):
Earlier this year, I found myself exploring ideas underlying “information as common good”. I found “Rethinking Education: Towards a global common good” quite helpful:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002325/232555e.pdf
I’m curious to hear what our friends in the EU have to share on this topic.
-Nina
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Glenn Hampson
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 2:33 PM
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: moral foundations
The moral argument for open is potentially the most powerful argument in this arena. However, a US federal judge ruled last week that “access to literacy” is not a fundamental right: https://nyti.ms/2m654oc. (More accurately, the ruling--- https://bit.ly/2u8I3oK --- says that “the Supreme Court has neither confirmed nor denied that access to literacy if a fundamental right.”):
--
Glenn Hampson
Adding the usual caveats that I’m not a lawyer and don’t play one on TV, this ruling follows the same thinking as yours, Rick, and distinguishes between education and a right to education. It doesn’t dispute that both are important---only that the latter is difficult to enforce in the affirmative (e.g., you have a right to not die from the flu, but do you have a right to good health?). It also highlights the difficulty of proving cause and effect, assigning responsibility (does the right to education exist at the federal level?; it’s normally not even a state-enforced right), promoting every just cause to the level of being “fundamental right,” and so on. I don’t think it parses the difference between literacy and literature---interesting angle.
I don’t know about the anti-toll argument. By extension, charging for internet access would be a human rights violation, too, and no one is going there (or are they?). More so, it seems many localities simply recognize that unfettered access creates a stronger citizenry and are therefore working to provide universal free access to wi-fi. Maybe building on this affirmative approach is the way to go---just cut to the chase.
Rick Anderson
Right, except that I’m not talking about the distinction between education and a right to education – I’m talking about the distinction between a right to literacy and a right to literature. That’s a whole different issue, and a much more fundamental one, I think.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
Glenn Hampson
Well, you’ve identified a pretty big loophole it seems. The word “literature” isn’t mentioned in this ruling---I’m not sure how one can become literate without accessing literature (as defined by Webster’s). And as you note, literacy is all relative, so where is this baseline legally defined for what constitutes being “literate” for different age and professional groups? The answer, it seems, is nowhere. It’s not in this ruling, nor does it seem to be mentioned anywhere---except in passing reference---in the UN member state documents listed under the UNESCO Observatory on the Right to Education.
So, maybe that’s another good angle to take on this effort---i.e., to work with UNESCO to expand upon and clarify exactly what we mean when we talk about “literacy” (and the role of “literature” in achieving literacy).
David Wojick
Sent from my iPad
Rick Anderson
Sorry to keep being a “stickler for language” (hi, Ivy!) but honestly, I haven’t said anything about literacy being relative. What I’m being a stickler about is the difference between having a right to literacy (which is really just another way of saying a “right to education,” or at least one category of education) and having a right to literature (which is really just another way of saying a “the right to have access to literature”).
Let me put this a different way:
* A “right to literacy” (i.e. education) is not really an issue OSI has claimed as part of our bailiwick in the past (as far as I can recall).
* A “right (of access) to literature” is central to what OSI has been talking about since the beginning.
That’s one reason I think the difference between “access to literacy” and “access to literature” is so fundamentally important here. It’s not a nitpicky or semantic difference, but a really fundamental one that goes to the basis of OSI’s agenda.
Glenn Hampson
Hi David,
I think you’re looking at this from a purely historical point of view, not a modern legal one. Here’s a good primer from UNESCO’s files on the various modern and international definitions and applications of “literacy”: http://www.unesco.org/education/GMR2006/full/chapt6_eng.pdf
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 1:46 PM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
David Wojick
Sent from my iPad
Eric L Olson
"Arguing that people have a right to that which they presently do not have is not a strong argument."
Regardless of where one might fall in his or her position on open, this statement would mean that all social movements are made up of radical idealists making poor arguments. I can't possibly believe that. Maybe I am reading this wrong.
Eric
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 5:29:35 PM
To: Glenn Hampson
Cc: Rick Anderson; The Open Scholarship Initiative
Subject: Re: moral foundations
Glenn Hampson
Oh my---you’ve just been disinvited from Independence Day parties on many continents David!
Anyway…
To recap, the reason all this matters here is that many in the open advocacy community rely on the argument (or assertion anyway) that open is a right, and is morally right. To the extent we can strengthen this argument, or at least clarify what it means, the more persuasive it will become.
As far as our own work is concerned, the OSI2016 “Moral Dimensions of Open” workgroup issued this statement back in April of 2016---good stuff (the authors are Karina Ansolabehere, Cheryl Ball, Medha Devare, Tee Guidotti, Bill Priedhorsky, Wim van der Stelt, Mike Taylor, Susan Veldsman, and John Willinsky):
Principles/Dimensions
(1) Most fundamentally, we recognize the moral responsibility to maximize the benefits of scholarly publishing for the larger society. Thus, we need to optimize the dissemination and distribution of scholarly knowledge, for all kinds of users with diverse reading needs, and limit extended embargoes (e.g., they should be no more than 12 months) that prevent researchers, locally and globally, from using, and benefitting from, the most up-to-date research.
We want to take full advantage of the introduction of the Internet as a publishing medium without turning our back on the value associated with the historical continuities of scholarly publishing. At the forefront of what has changed: duplication of digital information is a mechanism for creating additional value without additional effort. This fundamental change implies a corresponding, foundational moral imperative to take advantage of the opportunity—to extend the value of research as a public good by increasing public access to it.
Because of the huge potential of research to improve the human condition, failure to seek ways of improving scholarship, scientific understanding, and innovation by openly sharing new knowledge and enabling verification of prior results is a moral lapse. Change should be guided by the goal of improving the quality and availability of research and scholarship. This involves reducing barriers to participation that result from economic and geopolitical factors that may impede research contributions, collaborations, and utilization.
(2) The moral argument for open access to scholarly publications is strengthened by the nature of OA as an enterprise, which is distinguished from other types of publishing, and intellectual property more generally, by several factors:
1. OA funding models, for example, are based on researchers being paid in advance to conduct research, which includes writing up the work and seeing it published, while not being dependent on royalties from this publication to make a living or being paid for this writing as a work-for-hire, which apply to writers and authors more generally.
2. A work of research and scholarship finds its value in its use by others rather than in the extent of its sales. Anything that interferes with or diminishes that use reduces its value to its creator.
3. Claims of veracity or accuracy in a work of research and scholarship depend on the principle of the work being subject to review by any and all; this again calls for the maximum possible access at the time of publication.
(3) Researchers have a moral obligation to make scholarship discoverable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. This requires budgeting accordingly. Likewise, users of research outputs, including data, have a moral obligation to cite or otherwise give credit to this use in their published research.
(4) Economic models have moral implications (e.g., APCs, subscriptions, “gratis OA,” “libre OA,” etc.). They should be designed with a view to global fairness as well as how they reward ethical and effective behavior.
(5) Transparency in finance and cost is a moral principle (e.g., where and for what are the costs of publishing and services such as copy-editing, etc.). The moral principle behind cost effectiveness ensures that money is not needlessly spent on publishing that could be spent on research itself, as the economist Ted Bergstrom and colleagues have effectively shown.[1] Publishers of all varieties should comply with standards of transparency (as far as the law allows) that enable judgement to be made regarding cost effectiveness. Fairness in cost effectiveness is key. In this OA transition, we need transparency of costs and cost effectiveness so that all research stakeholders know what publishing costs, why they are paying for publishing services, and how they can budget money towards research, data management, and publishing where appropriate.[2]
Transparency is also relevant to research methods and processes, including peer review, that result in more ethical research and less duplication of results.
(6) The scholarly system has a moral obligation to realign academic incentives. The incentive system must take into account many factors other than the traditional “articles published in prestigious, high impact journals,” since the strong emphasis on this measure alone encourages bad behavior such as claim-jumping, inflation or even falsification of results, and over-hyping of the implications of research.
For example, a researcher whose data-set is reused in someone else’s subsequent publication deserves credit for their original data contribution. Standards are beginning to be developed for such practices.[3] We believe that data-sharing must be rewarded if we want this moral, beneficial behavior to increase. At the same time, we believe that researchers and scholarly publishers need to respect rights of privacy, both individual and socio-cultural (e.g., indigenous peoples who have a right to their own property and protocols).
(7) Moral ends should be pursued via moral means. This is a broad requirement that can be interpreted in many ways, but may include the following:
· Respect for ethical discourse: Treating each other well and attentively, even when we disagree (some workgroup members conceded that they have not always done well at this).
· Thoughtfulness: Making an effort to avoid, be on the look-out for, and be prepared to remedy the unintended consequences of changes intended to increase the openness of research and scholarship.
· Respect for the rule of law within the academic community, including, but not limited to, respect for intellectual property law. This does not preclude efforts to challenge in the courts or change through legislation the law when it is seen to fail “to promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts” (in the case of the U.S. constitutional clause on intellectual property). Examples include excessive copyright terms barring access to historic publications (which has been challenged unsuccessfully to date in the courts) and rights for researchers to conduct text-mining. The moral underpinning here is that the law is intended to be a reflection of our morality, and that laws change as our moral understanding changes.
David Wojick
David
Content-Type: image/jpeg;
name="image002.jpg"
Content-Description: image002.jpg
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="image002.jpg";
size=4945;
creation-date=Mon, 09 Jul 2018 21:30:03 GMT;
modification-date=Mon, 09 Jul 2018 21:30:03 GMT
Content-ID: <image0...@01D4178D.53372EE0>
Content-Type: image/jpeg;
name="image003.jpg"
Content-Description: image003.jpg
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="image003.jpg";
size=4946;
creation-date=Mon, 09 Jul 2018 21:30:03 GMT;
modification-date=Mon, 09 Jul 2018 21:30:03 GMT
Content-ID: <image0...@01D4178D.53372EE0>
Rob Johnson
Rob
I agree completely. But arguing that everyone in the world has a moral right to read every journal article is a big push. I fail to see the foundation.
David
At 06:11 PM 7/9/2018, Eric L Olson wrote:
- "Arguing that people have a right to that which they presently do not have is not a strong argument."
Regardless of where one might fall in his or her position on open, this statement would mean that all social movements are made up of radical idealists making poor arguments. I can't possibly believe that. Maybe I am reading this wrong.
Eric
--
Eric Olson
Membership Specialist, North America, ORCID
e.o...@orcid.org
Cell: +1 (757) 817-0608
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5989-8244
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 5:29:35 PM
To: Glenn Hampson
Cc: Rick Anderson; The Open Scholarship Initiative
Subject: Re: moral foundations
Let me put it this way. The moral high ground is hard to take and even harder to hold. If you think that open access has the legal moral high ground I suggest you find a case where a doctor is convicted of malpractice because they did not read a recent journal article.
Literacy per se is not a winning argument. Given that you are arguing against the way the world is, how could it be? Arguing that people have a right to that which they presently do not have is not a strong argument.
Open access is a desirable policy goal, not a right.
David
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 9, 2018, at 5:01 PM, Glenn Hampson < gha...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
Hi David,
I think you’re looking at this from a purely historical point of view, not a modern legal one. Here’s a good primer from UNESCO’s files on the various modern and international definitions and applications of “literacy”: http://www.unesco.org/education/GMR2006/full/chapt6_eng.pdf
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
From: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us >
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 1:46 PM
To: Glenn Hampson < gha...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu >; The Open Scholarship Initiative < osi2...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: moral foundations
Literacy is about requiring children to go to school, which was a big deal at the time. It has nothing to do with open access to scholarly literature,
David
Sent from my iPad
- --
- As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
- ---
- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
- To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25...@googlegroups.com.
- To post to this group, send email to osi2...@googlegroups.com.
- Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
- For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
- --
- As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
- ---
- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
- To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25...@googlegroups.com.
- To post to this group, send email to osi2...@googlegroups.com.
- Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
- For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
- --
- As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
- ---
- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
- To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25...@googlegroups.com.
- To post to this group, send email to osi2...@googlegroups.com.
- Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
- For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi2...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Content-Type: image/jpeg;
name="image002.jpg"
Content-Description: image002.jpg
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="image002.jpg";
size=4945;
creation-date=Mon, 09 Jul 2018 21:30:03 GMT;
modification-date=Mon, 09 Jul 2018 21:30:03 GMT
Content-ID: <image002.jpg@01D4178D.53372EE0>
Content-Type: image/jpeg;
name="image003.jpg"
Content-Description: image003.jpg
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="image003.jpg";
size=4946;
creation-date=Mon, 09 Jul 2018 21:30:03 GMT;
modification-date=Mon, 09 Jul 2018 21:30:03 GMT
Content-ID: <image003.jpg@01D4178D.53372EE0>