Knowledge in the Shrinking Commons: Libraries and Open Access in a Market-Driven World

Background

Libraries and the open access movement are, of course, not the same. They can both be viewed as educational institutions or gateways to self-directed learning. They are both key players in the curation, arrangement and storage of information. They are both engaged in the processes of making information readily available, but while both play similar educational and organizational roles, there are several distinctions that set them apart. Libraries are physical institutions, while OA is a primarily virtual idea. OA can take place within the structure of the library, may utilize the library as a tool toward its realization, or may mirror the library in its delivery of information, but it has no physical presence of its own. The access to information provided by a library, meanwhile, does not necessarily carry the same specificity as the access referred to within the “Open Access Movement.” OA, as defined by Peter Suber’s (2004) “A Very Brief Introduction to Open Access,” refers specifically to scholarly literature and research of the sort not typically found on the shelves of public libraries. The particular access problem that OA attempts to address is the restrictive and rising cost of scholarly publications. The basic solution it presents is that research and information should be digitized, archived and made available without charge. The reality of OA is far more complicated. Terms like free and open mean many different things in many different contexts. Access can be free in terms of cost, or free in terms of usage and permission. Information which is free to a reader is not necessarily free to produce. There are significant costs to providing things for free, and there are significant differences in the ways that various stakeholders propose to make that happen.

Open access, then, is a hotly contested concept, even while it is also a relatively specific one. It fits loosely into the framework of libraries – and roughly follows the library model – but it does not necessarily operate like the library itself. Direct comparisons may not be entirely accurate, but the obstacles and objectives shared by both seem to merit their consideration here together. Both are influenced—or perhaps under attack– by the forces of consumerism and market globalization (Buschman, 2003, D’Angelo, 2006, Rikowski, 2005). Both run the risk of witnessing their principle mission undermined by commodification, and both face considerable struggles with an economic future that seems inevitable.