Open Access: Notes on Knowledge and Recompense | Edges | George Mason University

" ... Here in the Cultural Studies program at George Mason University, we grapple with the promises and the perils of new media, which like strands of a Möbius strip are continuous with those of globalization. Our faculty members participate in various digital initiatives and our students research subjects like Web 2.0 and digital 'piracy' in global contexts. So recently, we took note of and debated the implications of an academic news item, as it bears on the production and circulation of knowledge and conditions of work in our field. Last month, the American Historical Association issued a statement on best practices for PhD dissertations in history: the organization strongly encouraged university libraries 'to adopt a policy that allows the embargoing of completed history PhD dissertations in digital form for as many as six years.' The logic of the AHA statement is straightforward. Historians in tenure-track positions are generally expected to publish revised versions of their dissertations within six years, as a precondition for tenure. Open access potentially undermines the tenure prospects of newly minted PhDs, since scholarly presses may be uninterested in bringing out works that are already freely available on the Internet. The historians’ statement reflects strong academic reflexes: Discretion is the better part of valor. Present your arguments and findings under controlled, vetted conditions. The sped-up world of blogging and online commentary reflects other instincts; responses were fast—and sometimes furious. 'Stupid and stunting,' wrote one commentator on the Association’s website. 'The AHA should be recommending that departments change how they grant tenure—citation should matter not publication.' Others nit-picked points while missing the historians’ argument, or noted that the publishing world was changing rapidly, or accused the historians of operating on the basis of rumors, anecdotes, and 'ghost stories.' Even the librarians got into it, calling the AHA statement a 'policy based on fear.' (I have no doubt that librarians understand the nature of their own work, but one would have thought that they might be cautious about venturing firm opinions about the interests of other professions.) * * * * The issue sparked a lively debate among faculty on the Cultural Studies listserv ..."