A recent failed attempt to pass a resolution in support of open access at the University of Maryland (UM), while disappointing to the librarians involved and to many observers, nevertheless provides some important lessons for working with teaching faculty to address the scholarly communication crisis. ...
The [University Senate Faculty Affairs Committee] committee decided that a resolution, rather than a mandate or a policy, was the best beginning step, a general expression of support for the principle of open access that could be used as a conversation starter among the departments and colleges. ...
The resolution was worded with plenty of wiggle room (“encouraged,” “where appropriate,” “where practical and not detrimental to their careers”)—a suggestion more than a prescription—and not terribly controversial.
Or so the resolution’s supporters thought. The week of the vote, [repository coordinator Terry] Owen sent out via the Senate e-mail list a short article on the basics of open access he had published in the faculty newsletter. In response, a faculty member from Women’s Studies wrote an unexpected and lengthy e-mail citing an opposing view on open access, including arguments that simultaneously demonstrated her misunderstanding and fear of what open access would mean. ...
On April 23, 2009, the resolution was introduced on the floor of the University Senate and, once again, the Chair of Faculty Affairs offered an eloquent case for open access as a necessary corrective to the crisis in scholarly communication.
Unsurprisingly, when discussion was opened, the author of the initial opposing view e-mail rose to voice her concerns and express her opposition. But the libraries’ senators watched in disbelief as faculty members rose one after another to speak against the resolution, with reasons as varied as they were misguided. ...
When the vote came it was far from a landslide (25 in favor and 37 opposed, with four abstentions), but it was nevertheless a clear defeat. ...
[T]he most important lesson from our experience at UM is that the majority of faculty members may not have a sufficient knowledge base to even begin such a conversation. As librarians, we made a number of assumptions that turned out to be incorrect (and thus fatal to our cause.) We assumed that most faculty members understood the current crisis in scholarly communication and, more importantly, agreed that it was a crisis. We also assumed that most faculty members understood (at least to some extent) the concept and aims of open access. As a result, our efforts to educate the faculty were not as robust as they should have been. ...
One positive outcome of the defeated resolution is that a number of faculty members have since contacted their subject specialist librarians expressing their interest in the issue and offering to work with us on next steps. ...
In the case of my institution, we hope to take the lessons learned from this open access defeat and use them to help us craft a stronger program of education and advocacy that will lead to future successes. ...
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
