text:
Open Scholarship Press Collections: Connection/Introduction

Creating Connections in and through Knowledge Commons
Graham Jensen (UVic)

This annotated bibliography gathers and synthesizes scholarship on the digital spaces, tools, and technologies that have increasingly facilitated open communication among researchers, organizations, and the public in the last few decades. In particular, it examines the possibilities and problems associated with “digital knowledge commons” or “digital research commons”—that is, digital spaces for publishing, sharing, and accessing information. Examples of digital knowledge commons include Wikipedia as well as academic social networking sites such as Academia.edu and ResearchGate, which have now enabled millions of researchers to share information and connect with others online. Indeed, this latter form of knowledge commons has helped researchers share their work within and beyond their existing academic networks using sharing features that are familiar to users of Facebook, Twitter, and other popular commercial social networking sites. Although many of the works compiled in this bibliography compellingly outline the problems associated with academic social networking sites, and with social media more generally, the cumulative and overwhelming message of this body of work is nevertheless clear: it is difficult to overstate the impact of such platforms—and the rapidly changing technologies that enable them—on the present shape and future possibilities of academic research. As Peter Suber (2006), Caroline Winter et al. (2020), and other authors represented below suggest, to realign the modern academic enterprise in relation to digital knowledge commons and to the open, social scholarly practices that these spaces can foster is to begin to forge meaningful new connections between scholars, librarians, administrators, stakeholders, and the various publics they serve.

This Open Scholarship Press Connection research scan gathers recent writing and resources on these topics and others. While far from exhaustive, it speaks to many of the research objectives of the Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE) Partnership’s Connection cluster and collaboratively developed Canadian Humanities and Social Sciences Commons (hsscommons.ca). The intent of this project is to develop a scan of how the knowledge commons has been conceived historically, how the digital knowledge commons has evolved in recent years, and how scholars are thinking about its implementation now. Taken together, the bibliography’s selected writings work toward an increasingly feasible manifestation of this concept: the digital knowledge commons or digital research commons. Its authors gesture to the many affordances—but also the many extant challenges—of adopting commons-based platforms and practices.

The research scan consists of approximately 240 individual annotations, which are organized into three core themes: Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection; Forms of Connection and Collaboration in Digital Knowledge Commons; and Maintaining Connections and Fostering Care in Digital Knowledge Commons. These core themes are further divided into sub-sections. Some resources are relevant to more than one sub-section, in which case the citations for these resources appear in duplicate and are accompanied by the symbol Φ as well as information indicating in which previous sub-section the full annotation may be found. Many annotations represent original research, formally published in this scan for the first time. Other annotations are drawn from previous annotated bibliographies and research scans compiled by members of the Electronic Textual Cultures Lab (ETCL). Annotations published concurrently in the Open Scholarship Press Community Collection and written by Alyssa Arbuckle are signalled by ¤. Entries drawn from “Open Social Scholarship Annotated Bibliography” (El Khatib et al. 2019) are marked with +. Entries drawn from “An Annotated Bibliography of Social Knowledge Creation” (Arbuckle et al. 2017) are identified with †. Unpublished annotations originally developed by Vitor Yano or Anna Honcharova through Mitacs Globalink internships in the Electronic Textual Cultures Lab (2018–2019) are marked by *; unpublished annotations originally developed by Tyler Fontenot during his 2019 Graduate Research Assistantship in the Electronic Textual Cultures Lab are indicated by ▲; unpublished annotations developed by Alan Colín-Arce during his 2021 Mitacs Globalink internship in the Electronic Textual Cultures Lab are noted with Δ; and unpublished annotations by Caroline Winter are marked by Θ.

Acknowledging the rich intellectual histories that inform discussions of knowledge commons in our own digital, global age, the Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection section begins with scholarship on the centuries-old concept of a “commons,” grouped under the sub-section “Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Knowledge Commons.” This concept, which receives substantial treatment in this first sub-section, serves as a touchstone for subsequent entries. The idea of a commons has various historical roots that shed important light on ongoing debates about scholarly communication, access to information, and the stewardship of digital resources. For instance, in the European tradition, today’s knowledge commons have pre-digital origins in the English medieval practice of designating certain lands for shared use. Over time, most of these commons were gradually parcelled out and privatized (Boyle 2008; Winter et al. 2020). Similar trends in the enclosure of shared spaces and privatization of shared resources proceed apace in the twenty-first century; enclosure has resulted in the cordoning off of scholarly research behind paywalls (Bollier 2002; De Angelis and Harvie 2013), as well as the commercialization of mass media (Benkler 2006) and academic social networking sites (see “Commercialization, Commodification, and the Common Good,” below). As the bibliography seeks to show, then, and as media accounts of the Open Access movement in the past decade or so demonstrate, the knowledge commons is in some respects simply a new instantiation of previous attempts to provide public access to information. John Willinsky (2006) notes that this new knowledge commons draws inspiration from libraries used by scholars in the past, including the fabled collections of Alexandria in Egypt, the Sankore Mosque in Mali, or the many public libraries that sprang up in more recent centuries (see also Winter 2020). Detailing the developments of this historical idea made possible by digital technology, Yochai Benkler (2006) argues that Internet-facilitated access to the process of producing and circulating texts is potentially revolutionary for every aspect of the social life of texts. Other critics modulate their excitement about such developments vis-à-vis calls for greater attention to issues such as Indigenous ways of knowing (Joranson 2008), resource management (Bollier 2006; Madison et al. 2019), and market pressures (Bollier 2002; De Angelis and Harvie 2013; Marin 2019).

Platforms such as digital knowledge commons facilitate previously unimaginable ways of sharing information and connecting with others. Many of the resources contained in the “(Academic) Social Networking Sites as Knowledge Commons” sub-section reflect on the positive repercussions of this transformation for academics and non-academics alike—though many of the resources on academic social networking sites, in particular, also provide extensive commentary on the challenges and potential pitfalls associated with this shift. Of note, these academic platforms are the primary focus of this bibliography, given its intended scope and objectives. Countless studies of social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have been published in recent years; the relatively few resources on these non-academic social networking sites included here were chosen not because they give an exhaustive overview of current developments in social media studies writ large, but because they address issues pertinent to digital knowledge commons or the conception of the Internet itself as a commons—including the effect of design on user participation and interaction (Hart et al. 2008; Liu 2011; Veletsianos 2016) and knowledge exchange (Manca and Ranieri 2016). Yet there is significant overlap in terms of the issues faced by non-academic and academic knowledge commons. Many of the publications in ''Really, We’re Helping To Build This. . . Business: The Academia.edu Files'' (Adema et al. 2015) and throughout this sub-section offer trenchant critiques of the ways market pressures have directly and indirectly shaped academic social networking sites and their stewardship of research data, among other practices (see, for example, Adema 2016; Duffy and Pooley 2017; Eve 2015; Fitzpatrick 2015; Fortney and Gonder 2015; Geltner 2015; Hall 2015; Pooley 2018; Rushforth 2015; Tennant 2017; Winter et al. 2020). Additionally, some of the authors call for improvements to existing academic commons—both for-profit (Bhardwaj 2017) and not-for-profit (Joy 2019)—while others highlight tensions between the functionality and stated priorities of academic social networking sites and the ways in which academics actually use them (Meishar-Tal and Pieterse 2017; Jordan 2019; Nández and Borrego 2013). Finally, several of the resources advocate explicitly for the adoption of open knowledge commons (see, for example, Fitzpatrick 2015; Gold and Otte 2011; Joy 2015; Winter et al. 2020), noting the transformative potential of open, digital scholarship and scholarly platforms.

The “Noteworthy Examples of Digital Knowledge Commons” sub-section represents a snapshot of digital knowledge commons. Both for-profit and not-for-profit platforms are represented. Moreover, while it is far from exhaustive, this partial list nevertheless covers many different forms of commons, including general knowledge commons geared toward public as well as academic audiences (Creative Commons; Wikipedia Commons); digital commons intended to facilitate the preservation and sharing of research data of various kinds (Mendeley; Zotero); and the sub-set of digital knowledge commons covered in the previous sub-section, academic social networking sites (Academia.edu; the Canadian Humanities and Social Sciences Commons; the City University of New York [CUNY] Academic Commons; Humanities Commons; ResearchGate)—some of which attempt to harness both the reliability and rigour of institutional repositories and the interactive features of popular social networking sites. Even so, many other sites—such as Archive.org, arXiv, Commons In A Box, Dataverse Project, Digital Commons Network, Figshare, HUBzero, MediaCommons, SocArXiv, and Zenodo—also warrant consideration as noteworthy examples of digital knowledge commons.

The second section, Forms of Connection and Collaboration in Digital Knowledge Commons, is grounded in the two interrelated concepts that give the first sub-section its name: “Open Social Scholarship and Social Knowledge Creation.” The INKE Partnership defines open social scholarship as “academic practice that enables the creation, dissemination, and engagement of open research by specialists and non-specialists in accessible and significant ways.” Emphasizing the interpersonal aspects of this kind of academic practice, the authors of “Overview of the Annotated Bibliography of Social Knowledge Creation” define social knowledge creation as “acts of collaboration in order to engage in or produce shared cultural data and/or knowledge products” (2017). While these terms are linked through their framing of scholarly and cultural production as social endeavours, the forms of engagement and collaboration subtending both also rely on a certain degree of openness—a concept at the heart of many critics’ conception of the knowledge commons vis-à-vis the Open Access movement and related policies (see, for example, Suber 2011). Indeed, the kinds of historical knowledge commons that prefigure the modern Open Access movement were radically open, social spaces (Anderson 1998). As several of the critics gathered in this deliberately wide-ranging sub-section suggest, digital knowledge commons carry on the legacy of earlier commons and the pre-digital forms of open, social scholarship and knowledge creation activities that they strove to support (Borgman 2007; Martin 2019; Willinsky 2006). Many approach these issues via discussions of open access (Ahmed 2007; Ayris et al. 2014; Björk 2004; Canadian Association of Research Libraries n.d.; Chan 2004; Chang 2015; Coonin and Younce 2009; Eve 2014; Guédon 2008; Heath et al. 2008; Kitchin et al. 2015; Lorimer 2014; Maxwell 2015; Meadows 2015; Rath 2015; Rodriguez 2014; Snijder 2015; Suber 2015; Zheng and Li 2015), open science (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 2015), or open data and open source software (Bauer and Kaltenböck 2012; Bonaccorsi and Rossi 2003; Bruns 2008; Feller and Fitzgerald 2002; International Council for Science 2015; Kelty 2008; Kogut and Metiu 2001; Molloy 2011; Piwowar and Vision 2013; Von Krogh and Von Hippel 2006; Weber 2004). Others present case studies of collaborative scholarly projects organized around digital knowledge commons or socially minded approaches to contemporary knowledge production and sharing (Hiebert et al. 2015; Lane 2014; Saklofske 2016; Siemens 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2014, 2016; Siemens et al. 2012). Speculating on the potential future directions of academia or even specific academic fields, still others embrace new as well as old forms of open social scholarship and social knowledge creation in order to contribute to the common good or simply advance the causes of their respective scholarly communities (Arbuckle et al. 2016; Brown 2016; Burdick et al. 2012; Jones 2013; Siemens 2002).

In Generous Thinking: A Radical Approach to Saving the University, Kathleen Fitzpatrick (2019) stresses the importance of social bonds and knowledge creation today, particularly in the context of academia’s relationship to the public. She consistently urges academics to listen to and commune with the public, which she sees as a critical step toward developing consensus in an era of divided knowledges. The entries in the “Community Engagement” sub-section attempt to bridge this academic-public divide in a variety of ways, with reference either to digital knowledge commons in particular or to the commons of the Internet in general. For example, some authors foreground the increasingly vital role of academic social networking sites and other digital tools in facilitating collaborative partnerships and research projects (Arbuckle et al. 2016; Gold 2011). Others document the historical and present ties between libraries, universities, and the communities they serve (Ang 2004; Glass and Fitzgerald 2010; Jordan 2015; McGrath 2020; Peters et al. 2012), or the role of technology in helping instructors from a variety of backgrounds educate and connect with interested members of the public—including youth and adult learners (Bennett 2006; Bowdon and Carpenter 2011; Gold 2011). Taking a more general approach, a number of the authors also discuss the challenges associated with community engagement, as well as what it means to be a “public” scholar or “public-facing” field (Brennan 2016; Burg 2020; Cuthill 2012; Ellison 2013; Hsu 2016; Jay 2010; Morrison 2018; Ross 2012; Woodward 2009). In addition, this section also includes specific case studies of platforms that support community engagement (Gold 2011; Hiebert et al. 2015; Lane 2014; Saklofske 2016).

As the resources collected in the “Commons-based Approaches to Teaching and Research” sub-section attest, digital knowledge commons and commons-based tools can support a variety of effective teaching and research practices. In the case of Commons In A Box, for example, open-source software has been used to create the CUNY Academic Commons, Humanities Commons, and other open, collaborative spaces. Other blogging, content management, and academic social networking tools such as WordPress or BuddyPress have also been productively employed as part of larger pedagogical and open scholarship strategies (Gold 2011; Gold and Otte 2011); and massive open online courses (or MOOCs) have emerged as a particularly popular and effective commons-based method of sharing open educational resources (OERs), including in and with the Global South (Israel 2015; Keskin et al. 2018; King et al. 2018; Raposo-Rivas et al. 2015; Ruipérez-Valiente et al. 2020; Shen and Kuo 2015; Toven-Lindsey et al. 2015; Weinhardt and Sitzmann 2019; Zhang et al. 2019). Across the globe, OERs published and shared through digital knowledge commons or institutional repositories have been invaluable for faculty and other individuals lacking institutional or other means of access and support (Veletsianos 2015). For this reason, perhaps, some critics argue that researchers are ethically obligated to engage with communities and share their work with the public whenever possible (see, for example, Cuthill 2012, as well as many of the entries in the previous sub-section, “Community Engagement”). Sounding a similar note, others underscore the value of open, participatory platforms as tools for collaborative international partnerships (Broekman et al. 2014), or for librarian-librarian and librarian-scholar partnerships and knowledge-creation projects (Chang 2015; Glass 2018). How commons-based knowledge creation plays out in different institutional and disciplinary—not to mention governmental, professional, and social—contexts can vary tremendously (Brown 2016; Kondratova and Goldfarb 2004); however, as Hensher et al. (2020) assert in a recent intelligence briefing, open knowledge commons have tremendous value beyond each of these individual domains, insofar as they can help contribute to the resolution of global pandemics and other large-scale crises.

The growth of digital knowledge commons and widespread adoption of academic social networking sites in a variety of scholarly, geographical, and political contexts raises important questions about data management, the privatization of previously open platforms, community governance, and who is excluded from virtual spaces. Many of the authors in the Maintaining Connections and Fostering Care in Digital Knowledge Commons section and especially its first sub-section, “Commercialization, Commodification, and the Common Good,” share the belief that the enclosure of knowledge commons poses a threat to scholarly production on multiple fronts, offering commentary on the tension between open, public knowledge systems and closed, corporate ones (see, for example, Chan 2019; De Angelis and Harvie 2013; Hensher et al. 2020; Levine 2002; Ossewaarde and Reijers 2017). Some explain, for instance, how Academia.edu, ResearchGate, and Mendeley—which have enjoyed success as open research-sharing sites because of their social media-style interfaces—are run by multinational corporations that will eventually have to turn a profit for their venture-capitalist investors (Fitzpatrick 2015; Geltner 2015; Hall 2015; Tennant 2017). Opposing this process of enclosure, Gary Hall (2015) and others contend that, as it unfolds, platforms will either move drastically away from an open access model, sell the massive amounts of user data they have collected to third parties, or shut down; the fact that researchers have populated a digital database that corporations can profit from without funding researchers’ intellectual labour has led swaths of users to feel exploited and to abandon these sites. A slightly different angle of the critique is that the analytics-focused nature of research commons with monetized “premium” features fosters paranoia among academics about who is reading and citing their work (Duffy and Pooley 2017; Pooley 2018). In a similar vein, some critics argue that these sites promote harmful social stratification and academic class politics (Fortney and Gondner 2015), referencing Academia.edu’s experimental offer for users to pay an additional fee to have their articles reviewed and potentially recommended to other users (Adema 2016; Eve 2015). Setting aside this example of the commodification of knowledge and scholarly communication in a realm that many believe should remain neutral, other scholars concede that there are nevertheless benefits to increased metrics transparency, since certain data can be useful to scholars who want to know where and how their work is circulating.

As recent studies of social networking sites and other shared digital spaces indicate, the mechanisms that enable open sharing and discourse among academics, or between academics and the public, can also make researchers and their work vulnerable to being misunderstood or—worse yet—attacked. The entries in the “Governance and Conduct in Digital Knowledge Commons” sub-section examine these kinds of interactions—and the platforms where they occur—with reference to the intersecting fields of information and communication studies, design studies, and digital sociology, among others. As the results of several recent studies highlight, there is a significant need for further intervention into these kinds of harmful activities and the concomitant failure of governance policies and other safeguards—not only in academia, but in political, legal, law-enforcement, and consumer-protection circles as well (Digital Citizens Alliance 2017). The inevitability of negative interactions within social networks is implied in Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom’s (2006) influential collection, Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: they define knowledge as “a commons—a resource shared by a group of people that is subject to social dilemmas” (3; emphasis added); that is, sooner or later, digital research commons will need to grapple with the “tensions, dilemmas, and conundrums” that George Veletsianos (2016) associates with networked scholarship in general and shared virtual spaces in particular (53). Other critics outline frameworks or strategies for analyzing and maintaining knowledge commons in the face of such conflicts (Ossewaarde and Reijers 2017). Significantly, these frameworks or theoretical approaches can be applied in the case of emergent technologies and social spaces, including digital instances of commons (such as the academic social networking sites and institutional repositories discussed in earlier sections). Additionally, thoughtful interface design can be leveraged as part of larger governance strategies to encourage positive forms of interaction and neutralize the threat of bad actors (Dyer 2017). Where such preventative measures have failed, however, community-based initiatives such as Geek Feminism Wiki (n.d.) have stepped in to offer practical advice regarding identity theft, personal safety, mental health, and other topics relevant to considerations of digital (mis)conduct. Finally, several of the authors in this sub-section and the next also draw on their own experiences as academics who use social media platforms and who have had to deal with sexual harassment, racism, and other forms of abuse (McMillan Cottom 2015; Morrison 2018).

Although academic and non-academic social networking sites have been adopted across the globe, many conversations taking place in and around knowledge commons continue to foreground Anglophone, Global North perspectives and scholarship. In an attempt to correct this bias, some scholars have called for greater emphasis on—and sensitivity to—Indigenous and other marginalized information ecosystems (Albornoz et al. 2020; Chan 2019; Joranson 2008; Okune et al. 2019). Other resources included here in the “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Digital Spaces” sub-section stress the need for scholars to embrace bibliodiversity and continue the work of addressing issues of injustice and inequity as they relate to recent developments in open access publishing and scholarly communication (Chan 2019). Along these lines, critics in digital humanities and digital scholarship more generally have also taken steps to address the field’s historical lack of social, cultural, and intersectional critique (Liu 2012; McPherson 2012). Still others point out that open access tools and platforms are not neutral—nor are they necessarily agents of positive social change, despite their transformative potential in this and other areas. Indeed, the imbricated technologies and infrastructures upon which digital knowledge commons are built can just as easily re-create as help resolve the systemic issues of inequality and injustice that routinely affect the experiences of marginalized communities (Morrison 2018; Okune et al. 2019). While acknowledging the disproportionate social risks affecting scholars who have been, and continue to be, racialized and marginalized online (McMillan Cottom 2015; Morrison 2018), the resources in this sub-section move beyond mere diagnosis; they also outline a variety of possible solutions to the problems that prevent meaningful, respectful, and inclusive forms of connection and communication.

The entries in the “Ethical and Responsible Data Management” sub-section comment on the intersection of ethics, care, and academic rigour in relation to data management—holistically and broadly conceived here as a suite of interconnected practices encompassing curation, preservation, policy development, the implementation of cultural protocols, and much more. Such practices are highly relevant in discussions of knowledge commons, which are organized around shared information. On the one hand, scholars such as Katie Fortney and Justin Gonder (2015) and Gary Hall (2015) compare the popular academic social networking site Academia.edu with institutional repositories in terms of their data management practices, which are dictated in part by their for-profit business model. Fortney and Gonder register their concerns with the ways that Academia.edu and ResearchGate differ from institutional repositories in terms of their access, use, and exploitation of member data—including through partnerships with Facebook. Hall (2015) also details several additional concerns about the sometimes-questionable ethics of commercially interested companies and their data management practices. On the other hand, certain open access social networking platforms and tools deployed by college and university instructors make a point of protecting students and their data (Gold 2011). Moving away from the question of for-profit versus not-for-profit digital tools and knowledge commons, resources in this sub-section also address questions regarding the ethical and responsible management of research data in a variety of international contexts, including in Canada (Research Data Canada 2013), Australia (Henty et al. 2008), the United Kingdom (Wilson et al. 2011), and the United States (Akers and Doty 2013; Fear 2011). Meanwhile, others discuss how to deal ethically and responsibly with Indigenous knowledges and cultural materials that may or may not map neatly onto Eurocentric conceptions of the commons, intellectual property, or research data management best practices (Joranson 2008; Local Contexts n.d.; Research Data Alliance International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group 2019). Overall, the authors collected in this sub-section stress the importance of careful and respectful data management regardless of one’s disciplinary training, profession, or even the specific type of knowledge commons in question.

The final sub-section, “Relevant Policies and Guidelines,” provides a brief sampling of policies and guidelines that are frequently cited in larger discussions about digital knowledge commons and data management. As digital research infrastructure and scholarly practices continue to evolve in the coming years, this partial and provisional list will necessarily need to be expanded, updated, and revised. Significantly, unlike the entries included in the previous sub-section—which takes a more theoretical approach to the question of policy as it relates to data management—the entries listed below are almost exclusively primary sources (that is, actual policies or guidelines). Notable exceptions to this rule include documents urging open access and open licensing policy changes (Ahmed 2007; Ayris et al. 2014; Green 2017; Morrison et al. 2010; Shearer 2011); the African Copyright and Access to Knowledge Network’s reports and executive policy briefs (2016); and Josephine Asmah’s report for the Canadian-based Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences (2014), which provides comparative analyses of various global policies on open access and their impact on monograph publication and use.

While this research scan reflects the breadth of recent work in digital humanities, scholarly communication, library and information studies, digital sociology, and many other academic fields, it also speaks directly to the need for ongoing academic and non-academic inquiry into knowledge commons as sites of social connection, scholarly and university-community collaboration, and ethical engagement with researchers and research data. In the process, it provokes as many questions as it answers—about how these spaces can build community and support academic research, for example, but also about how they can benefit an engaged public and contribute to the common good. Ultimately, then, it does not mark the end of the INKE Partnership Connection cluster’s exploration into the history and present-day applications of digital knowledge commons; rather, it serves as an open-ended invitation to continue these conversations in the many shared spaces we inhabit.

''This annotated bibliography is an output of the Open Scholarship Press. For related work, please see the Community, Policy, and Training bibliographies.''


text:
Open Scholarship Press Collections: Policy/Introduction

Surveying the Open Scholarship Policy Landscape
Caroline Winter (UVic)

As momentum behind the Open Scholarship movement has increased over the past several years, policy has emerged as a key issue. In particular, questions about open scholarship policy include: How and to what extent does policy advance open scholarship? What effect does policy have on individuals and their work? How does policy affect open scholarly practices?

This Open Scholarship Press Collections Policy document surveys current literature about open scholarship policy, offering a snapshot of the field of policy analysis and criticism. It does so with the goal of mapping the contours of this field and identifying the major critical pathways, recognizing that, as a snapshot, it cannot capture the entirety of the field in detail.

This resource builds upon the Open Scholarship Policy Observatory, a hub for information and resources related to all aspects of open scholarship that includes a collection of policy documents as well as policy analysis. The Open Scholarship Policy Observatory is an initiative of the Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE) Partnership’s Policy Cluster, co-facilitated by Tanja Niemann and Lynne Siemens, and is coordinated by the Canadian Social Knowledge Institute (C-SKI), based in the Electronic Textual Cultures Lab (ETCL) at the University of Victoria. It follows and reflects policy developments related to open scholarship in Canada and beyond, analyzing policy changes and their relevance to researchers, information professionals, librarians, faculty, and policymakers. Its roots in the Open Scholarship Policy Observatory lend this bibliography a Canadian focus and an interest in the humanities and social sciences (HSS), but it takes a broad view, considering open scholarship as an international and interdisciplinary movement. The Observatory was created in recognition of the development of numerous and increasing numbers of open access policies and mandates, as well as confusion about the various routes to open access and which approach works best (Milligan et al. 2019).

Open scholarship is an umbrella term that refers both to open scholarly practices, such as open peer review, and their outcomes, such as open access publications. Although open scholarship is sometimes referred to as “open science,” it is not discipline specific, comprising all disciplines and a variety of interrelated practices and principles. What began more than 20 years ago as small-scale and local has evolved into a global movement, but one that advances unevenly and, in many ways, uneasily (Tennant et al. 2019a).

Because open scholarship encompasses so many things, it is difficult to define. George Veletsianos (2016) describes it as “the wide and broad dissemination of scholarship by a variety of interconnected means (e.g., technology, licensing) aiming to broaden knowledge and reduce barriers to access to knowledge and information” (16; see also Veletsianos and Kimmons 2012). In “Foundations for Open Scholarship Strategy Development,” Jonathan Tennant et al. (2019a) define it as “the process, communication, and re-use of research as practised in any scholarly research discipline, and its inclusion and role within wider society” (sec. 3). This definition reflects the complexity of the phenomenon itself: as Tennant et al. (2019a) point out, there is no one definition, framework, policy, or declaration that captures the movement as a whole: it is a complex of people, organizations, ideas, values, practices, and outcomes. They usefully describe open scholarship as a “boundary object,” which Samuel Moore (2017) defines as “a concept that has a specific understanding in a local community of practice but is rigid enough to maintain its definition across communities too” (para. 5). Understanding it as a boundary object allows for flexible definitions and conceptions of what constitutes open scholarship while maintaining enough of a common understanding to make the term meaningful.

As outlined in “Foundations for Open Scholarship Strategy Development,” a foundational policy strategy document drafted by an international team of open scholarship practitioners and stakeholders, scholarship is founded upon the ideal of “advancing our collective knowledge to the benefit of all humankind,” but this ideal is under tension from the complex and often competing values and structures within which scholarship is performed, such as competition for jobs and publication opportunities (Tennant et al. 2019a, sec. 1). Open scholarship seeks to “realign modern research practices with this ideal” so that openness becomes the norm (sec. 1). Although the movement is diverse, its proponents share the belief that “increased adoption of Open Scholarship practices (and more generally, simply open practices) is generally a good thing” (sec. 4).

Open scholarship can be understood as comprising two main categories, which we might also think about as axes: “knowledge and practices and principles and values” (Tennant et al. 2019a, sec. 4.1.3). Along the “knowledge and practices” axis sit the components of open scholarship, such as open access and open data; along the “principles and values” axis are ideas such as “participation, equality, transparency, cognitive justice, collaboration, sharing, equity, and inclusivity.” In addition to categorical structure, Tennant et al. (2019) draw on five schools of thought that Benedikt Fecher and Sascha Friesike (2013) proposed as a way of understanding open science:

"the infrastructure school (which is concerned with the technological architecture), the public school (which is concerned with the accessibility of knowledge creation), the measurement school (which is concerned with alternative impact measurement), the democratic school (which is concerned with access to knowledge) and the pragmatic school (which is concerned with collaborative research). (Abstract)"

As might be expected of such a complex movement, there are tensions within it, many having to do with geographical and disciplinary differences as well as the varying needs and priorities of its stakeholder groups, which include researchers and institutions as well as funding bodies, publishers and other industry groups, and policymakers (Tennant et al. 2019a). Some of the strongest tensions are related to licenses and licensing practices, the various models of and routes to open access, the responsibility for and control of infrastructure, and the “role of policy mandates in driving openness” (sec. 4.2.3). That said, Tennant et al. (2019a) identify policy as one of the movement’s strengths, noting that “it remains important that the imperative and agenda for Open Scholarship remains recognised at the highest political levels” (sec. 6). However, problems arise when top-down policies, such as those dictated by international and national funding bodies, are not accompanied by resources (e.g., appropriate infrastructure) to ensure their successful implementation. Bottom-up policies, such as those developed by institutional libraries or even individuals, tend to be opt-in and not enforced or enforceable (Tennant et al. 2019a).

Open scholarship is facilitated and made possible by digital technologies, but openness is not inherently digital, and those digital technologies are not necessarily open. Noting that digital technologies have enabled scholarly journals to have a broader reach through open access, for instance, John Maxwell (2015) argues that scholarly communication as a whole needs to move away from models based on the paradigm of print production and embrace a “Web-based publishing model” (4). Moving toward this “network paradigm” (4) allows us to reconsider not only the forms of scholarly publication—reimagining, for instance, what an article or a monograph look like—but also what it means to publish. The print paradigm is founded on the idea of making something public by printing it; now that the challenge is no longer how to make works public but how to make them relevant and findable, publication under a network paradigm refers to “not the production of books but the production of a public for whom those books have meaning” (Stadler 2010). In order to create this public, scholarship—scholarly practices and their outcomes—must be social (Maxwell 2015).

The term policy is already broad, and it is applied here broadly as well to encompass not only formal international, national, and institutional policy statements but also formal and informal policies about the issues and topics that constitute open scholarship (e.g., open access, open data) and adjacent issues (e.g., copyright; review, tenure, and promotion). Policy alone is not enough to effect change, however: as MacCallum et al. (2020) note, “OA policy is a tool that must be partnered with additional resources in order to increase impact,” such as training of librarians and scholarly communications practitioners (9). Moreover, a cultural shift is necessary in order for open scholarship to become the default scholarly mode; this will involve dispelling persistent myths about the nature of open access and open scholarship, such as the myth that open access journals are not peer-reviewed and are largely predatory. It will also involve shifting how we value scholarship from a model of exclusivity, in which publishing in the most exclusive, subscription-based journals confers the most scholarly value, to one of open inclusivity, what Kathleen Fitzpatrick (2019) calls “generous thinking” (see also MacCallum et al. 2020). In outlining the scope of the field, the authors of this scan recognize that policy plays a role in many areas of the scholarly ecosystem and is not always named or understood as policy. While policy is part of a complex of interrelated fields, disciplines, and stakeholder groups, the focus of this scan is on the role of policy in the scholarly communication ecosystem.

One significant theme in this bibliography is the vital role played by libraries, librarians, scholarly communications practitioners, and the field of library and information science (LIS) more generally in the open scholarship movement. As noted in Advancing Open: Views from Scholarly Communications Practitioners (MacCallum 2020), a report by the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL-ABRC), openness is a fundamental value of library and information science, and information professionals have been and continue to be instrumental in advancing open access and open scholarship, both by supporting it locally, such as through institutional repositories, and by supporting large-scale infrastructure initiatives. The advocacy work performed by librarians and information professionals, such as negotiations with publishers, has also driven open scholarship forward.

Another important theme is that, although the scholarly communications ecosystem is global in scale, it is heterogeneous, with significant variations among local environments. This means, among other things, that solutions that work well in one context do not necessarily work in another. MacCallum et al. (2020), for instance, note that although Canada is aligned in principle with Plan S, a European open access initiative, its engagement with open scholarship is newer, and it has not yet developed the infrastructure—financial, technical, or cultural—necessary for implementing such a sweeping transformation.

A third, related theme that emerges is that there are significant tensions within the movement. These include, for example, whether a top-down or bottom-up approach to open scholarship is best, whether revolutionary or evolutionary change has the greatest chance of success, and what role commercial publishing should play in the transformed ecosystem, if any.

A final theme that emerges is that open scholarship is inherently social and collaborative. MacCallum et al. (2020) point out, for example, that the only way to successfully advance open scholarship in Canada is to work collaboratively and transparently with all stakeholders, including researchers, scholarly communications practitioners, information professionals, and national organizations such as funding bodies and scholarly associations.

Informed by Tennant et al.’s (2019a) description of the field of open scholarship and Fecher and Friesike’s (2013) five schools of open science, this bibliography is organized into four sections. The first, Foundational Policies and Policy Frameworks, includes foundational policies that have informed the open scholarship movement and its constituent movements. The Open Scholarship and the Open Scholarship Movement section comprises resources about the movement’s history, values, and progress. The Scholarly Communication section includes resources describing the scholarly landscape and how it has changed over time, the role of libraries in open scholarship, various publication and business models at play, and the issue of open monographs. The Infrastructure section presents resources addressing digital research infrastructure, funding models, bibliometrics, intellectual property, identity management, linked open data, and research data management. The Collaboration and Community section includes resources related to knowledge mobilization and translation, community engagement, public scholarship, and crowdsourcing and citizen science. The final section, Policy Development, Implementation, and Analysis, contains resources related to open scholarship practices, institutional policies, national and international policy, and social justice. Although each resource in this bibliography appears within a single section, this is done with the recognition that the sections overlap and intersect in complex and meaningful ways.

Many annotations represent original research, written by Caroline Winter and Jesse Thomas Kern and formally published in this scan for the first time. Other annotations are drawn from previous annotated bibliographies and research scans compiled by members of the Electronic Textual Cultures Lab (ETCL). Entries drawn from “Open Social Scholarship Annotated Bibliography” (El Khatib et al. 2019) are marked with +. Entries drawn from “An Annotated Bibliography of Social Knowledge Creation” (Arbuckle et al. 2017) are identified with †. Unpublished annotations originally developed by Vitor Yano or Anna Honcharova through Mitacs Globalink internships in the ETCL (2018–2019) are marked by *; unpublished annotations developed by Alan Colín-Arce during his 2021 Mitacs Globalink internship in the ETCL are noted with Δ; unpublished annotations developed by Tyler Fontenot are noted with ▲. In addition, some annotations appear in other bibliographies in the Open Scholarship Press Collection: those written by Alyssa Arbuckle for the Community Annotated Bibliography are noted with ¤, and those written by Graham Jensen for the Connection Annotated Bibliography are noted with ζ.

''This annotated bibliography is an output of the Open Scholarship Press. For related work, please see the Community, Connection, and Training bibliographies.''

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Open Scholarship Press Collections: Training/Introduction

Open Scholarship Perspectives on Digital Pedagogy and Training
Randa El Khatib (UTSC)

Embracing new media and digital technologies in higher education has caused a profound shift in training and pedagogy. The unprecedented access to education facilitated by the Internet has extended skills training and knowledge exchange beyond the confines of the university and lowered barriers for accessing education. At the same time, today’s digital economy requires additional training and skills to improve digital literacy, including the use of digital technologies for information-seeking and research purposes, as well as knowledge production and dissemination. These shifts pose several challenges for higher education, ranging from how digital training and pedagogy can be adopted in the classroom, curricula, and universities, to thinking about best practices for engaging and training active publics. These concerns are also the focus of the Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE) Partnership’s (2021) Training Cluster, co-facilitated by Constance Crompton (U Ottawa) and Laura Estill (St. Francis Xavier University) who pose the research question:

"What innovative training strategies and approaches improve digital literacy, information-seeking, and knowledge production for students, researchers, industry, and engaged members of the public, within a theoretical framework of open scholarship?"

The last decade in particular has seen an increased discourse on digital pedagogy, defined in 2013 by Brian Croxall as “the use of electronic elements to enhance or change the experience of education” (n.p.). This purposefully broad definition includes everything from using technology in the classroom such as PowerPoint and flip classrooms, to the expansion of massive open online courses (MOOCs) such as Coursera that offer free education to the public. Focusing this definition further is the peer-reviewed journal Hybrid Pedagogy that defines digital pedagogy as “precisely not about using digital technologies for teaching and, rather, about approaching these tools from a critical pedagogy perspective. So, it is as much about using digital tools thoughtfully as it is about deciding when not to use digital tools, and about paying attention to the impact of digital tools on learning”. From this perspective, digital pedagogy focuses not only on using digital technologies for learning but is much more extensive and also involves reflecting on how and whether such implementation advances knowledge and understanding. Digital pedagogy, then, is concerned with both looking at how digital technologies affect learning in institutions, as well as offering free education to the public.

The Open Scholarship Press Training Collection provides a snapshot of topics pertaining to training and pedagogy that reflect the aim of the Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE) Partnership Training Cluster. To capture current discourse on digital pedagogy and training, this bibliography looks to digital humanities and open resources. This focus is necessarily narrow for several reasons. No one bibliography can capture an exhaustive discourse on digital pedagogy today since it spans most disciplines that are in various ways adopting digital technologies and facing concomitant challenges, some of which are shared and others that are field specific. This bibliography reflects the disciplinary background of its authors, whose expertise lies in digital humanities, a field that Booth and Posner (2020) refer to as “advanced humanities research that uses and reflects on computational methods or digital tools” and “promotes public engagement and humanistic knowledge and understanding” (10). Both digital pedagogy and public engagement and training sit at the core of the field and are tackled from a humanities perspective. Therefore, the first section—Digital Humanities Pedagogy and Training—addresses the theory, best practices, and challenges involved in digital pedagogy and training in the humanities. It also looks at the place of digital humanities pedagogy and training in university curricula and programs, as well as how they affect student labour. Beyond the confines of a classroom, this section highlights the active involvement of libraries in digital humanities pedagogy and training, and addresses current practices for community engagement and training in digital skills and digital literacy. Altogether, the first section brings together resources that explore issues related to teaching and learning within, about, and through the field of digital humanities.

The second section, Open Resources, looks at discourse and educational materials that align with the philosophy of open education. Open education “combines the traditions of knowledge sharing and creation with 21st century technology to create a vast pool of openly shared educational resources, while harnessing today’s collaborative spirit to develop educational approaches that are more responsive to learner’s needs”. Under this umbrella fall works that address open education principles and practices and their many forms, with a particular focus on open educational resources (OERs) and massive open online courses (MOOCs). OERs are educational materials that are provided free of cost, with a license that allows for their use, adaptation, and redistribution (Wiley et al. 2014). MOOCs are online course that can be accessed by anyone with a computer and Internet connection, which is why they are considered “massive” since they offer knowledge and training to the public as well as to students, sometimes reaching thousands of participants. While these educational materials can be aimed at any level, this bibliography is particularly concerned with educational materials at the postsecondary level and beyond, with only a few entries that focus on school-level open resources. Although annotations in this category are rooted in multiple disciplines including education and philosophy, the content of the annotations is non-discipline specific in the sense that readers can gain knowledge about the opportunities and many challenges related to open education practices today that could help create more effective materials for their disciplines and for public training.

The two sections, Digital Humanities Pedagogy and Training and Open Resources, share an essential principle: they are concerned with digital pedagogy and training in the context of open scholarship. The bibliography also comes at a time when most pedagogy and training has, in a sense, become digital, since the switch to e-learning and away from more traditional in-person environments during lockdowns and the shift to hybrid modes with the gradual reopening of institutions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. During this time, teaching and learning have been occurring in virtual environments, accompanied by increasing scholarship studying the effects of digital technologies on teaching and the benefits and challenges they bring, with more scholarship surely to follow this sudden and drastic shift toward digital modes of pedagogy and training. In 2012, Brett Hirsch pointed to the exclusion of discourse on digital pedagogy in the field of digital humanities. In the decade since the publication of his volume, digital humanities pedagogy has come to occupy a more central stage, seen in various avenues. In addition to Hybrid Pedagogy, another ongoing digital pedagogy journal that currently comprises 20 published issues is the Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy (JITP), which promotes “open scholarly discourse around critical and creative use of technology in teaching, learning, and research” (JIPT 2012, Homepage). Multiple resources that address digital humanities pedagogy in particular have also been released or are forthcoming, ranging from theoretical works to more practical guides. A notable example of the latter is Claire Battershill and Shawna Ross’ 2018 guide Using Digital Humanities in the Classroom: A Practical Introduction for Teachers, Lecturers and Students, with a second edition released in 2022. Several calls for papers for forthcoming volumes on digital humanities pedagogy have been issued by the Debates in the Digital Humanities series edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein (University of Minnesota Press), including the 2019 call for Debates in Digital Humanities Pedagogy by Brian Croxall and Diane Jakacki that addresses current digital humanities pedagogy and training in the many sites in which they occur, from more formal programs and curricula to lab-based and informal training venues. Another example is the 2020 call for papers on The Digital Futures of Graduate Study in the Humanities by Simon Appleford, Gabriel Hankins, and Anouk Lang that looks at digital futures for graduate research in the humanities. Also addressing the role of digital pedagogy and training in humanities graduate education is the recent special collection edited by Colette Colligan and Kandice Sharren published with Digital Studies / Le champ numérique. Excluded from this bibliography are discipline-specific humanities research and discourse that use digital pedagogy methods, since the rich research on digital pedagogy happening in the various branches of the humanities would be too difficult to capture in a single bibliography. The discipline-specific digital pedagogy resources that made it into this bibliography offer insight into digital humanities pedagogy beyond their disciplinary confines.

Providing much-needed training in digital skills for university faculty, students, librarians, and staff, as well as for members of the public, digital humanities training institutes typically take place over the course of a few days and up to a couple of weeks, with a focus on learning and applying practical digital skills in a variety of branches of digital humanities and digital pedagogy. While some of this training might be available in certain institutions, there is still a lack of formal digital humanities training in many universities, making these training sites a popular destination for those seeking to learn digital skills that can be applied to their research or brought back to the classroom in their home institutions. Some of these sites are the Digital Humanities Summer Institute (DHSI), the European Summer University in Digital Humanities (ESUDH), the Digital Humanities at Oxford Summer School, the Digital Humanities Institute Beirut (DHIB), the Humanities Intensive Learning and Teaching institute (HILT), DH@Guelph, NYCDH, DH Downunder, and others. Expanding digital humanities training to different locales are the new training institutes that were launched over the past few years, including the Winter Institute in Digital Humanities, DHSI East, DHSI Atlantic, among others. Additional sites that produce scholarship on digital pedagogy and training are conferences, such as the Open/Social/Digital Humanities Pedagogy, Training, and Mentorship conference at DHSI, co-organized by Laura Estill and Ray Siemens, with the Alliance of Digital Humanities Organization (ADHO) Special Interest Group (SIG) for Digital Humanities and Pedagogy and the INKE Open Social Scholarship Cluster launched in 2021, built on earlier gatherings by the ADHO SIG at DHSI. Another example is the annual Computers and Writing conference that brings together professionals who use digital technologies to teach writing. While these institutes and conferences are hubs for digital skills training and discourse on digital pedagogy, they fall outside the scope of this annotated bibliography, which focuses instead on books, volumes, chapters, journals, articles, and online digital pedagogy and training resources. The latter includes resources such as Programming Historian, the peer-reviewed journal and digital training resource, the Digital Pedagogy and Training in the Humanities resource that offers teaching materials in digital humanities that can be adapted by educators, as well as the journals Hybrid Pedagogy and the Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy. While there is a proliferation of tutorials that teach audiences how to use a variety of digital humanities approaches on personal blogs and YouTube channels of practitioners and institutions, these also fall outside the scope of this bibliography.

The first section constitutes five sub-sections that offer a snapshot of digital humanities pedagogy and training in practice and theory. Throughout, authors communicate that digital humanities cannot be limited to learning how to use digital tools; rather, they foster the development of a new pedagogy, in a broad and most complete sense of the term. The first sub-section, “Digital Pedagogy and Training Discourse, Theory, and Best Practices,” addresses the place of digital technologies in digital humanities pedagogy (Brier 2012; Montfort 2016) and how to balance teaching digital skills with critical thinking (Bonds 2014; Mahony and Pierazzo 2012; Morgan 2018). This sub-section also looks at the intersection of theory and digital humanities pedagogy, including feminism (DeSpain 2016) and postcolonialism (Risam 2018; Gajjala 2020), as well as philosophical discourse on digital pedagogy and its effects on learning (Lewin 2016; Lewin and Lundie 2016). Finally, the sub-section includes broad thinking about how to involve the public in humanities work and increase community literacy by cultivating rooted spaces, such as opening up graduate student conferences to the public (Burg 2020).

In the second sub-section, “Practical Approaches to Digital Humanities Pedagogy and Training,” practitioners propose models and disciplinary approaches for integrating digital humanities into pedagogical practices. More specifically, authors focus on models for teaching students programming (Birnbaum and Langmead 2017); digital skills in the literature classroom (Crompton 2017); digital storytelling for educational purposes (Robin 2007); and pedagogy through gaming (Jing, Seng, Murugesan 2015; Van Staalduinen and Freitas 2011). This section also includes annotations of several open resources for learning practical digital skills.

The third sub-section, “Digital Humanities Assignments, Curricula, and Programs” brings together discussions on digital humanities programs, including how they ought to be structured and what needs to be included in their curricula (Clement 2012; Montfort 2016; Saklofske, Clement, and Cunningham 2012). It also maps the current digital humanities landscape by studying digital humanities programs and syllabi in institutions around the world (Mapes 2020; Sula, Hackney, and Cunningham 2017; Walsh et al. 2021). Together, the first three sub-sections deliberately focus on digital humanities pedagogy and training in institutional settings, from looking at how it is practiced in the classroom and sharing pertinent resources and assignments, to focusing more globally on digital humanities curricula and programs, what they currently look like, and how they can be improved.

Integrating digital pedagogy and training into the humanities curricula raises some important questions about how to teach digital skills while also ensuring that students are having meaningful learning opportunities for developing humanities knowledge and critical thinking. In the fourth sub-section, authors explore more explicitly student training and labour in digital humanities classrooms, programs, and project-based settings, ultimately recommending best practices for fostering digital skills training, collaboration, and community building, while ensuring that any work is properly attributed and contributes to career advancement (Anderson et al. 2016; Keralis 2018; Murphy and Smith 2017; Nowviskie 2012).

The fifth sub-section, “Digital Humanities Training in Libraries” offers a critical look at the role of libraries as hubs of digital humanities training and pedagogy for students, staff, and faculty members (Rasmussen, Croxall, and Otis 2017), and highlights the central role of the library in teaching information literacy and skills (Lightman and Reingold 2005; Russell and Hensley 2017).

Enabled by digital media and information and communication technologies, open resources for education have changed knowledge exchange and acquisition. Falling under the philosophy of open education that believes education to be a human right for people around the world, Section 1 offers a snapshot of the theory, practices, and challenges that open education faces today. One way in which open education seeks to lower the barriers to education is by decentralizing and democratizing access to educational materials. This is done in several ways, perhaps most notably through open resources.

Section 2 of this bibliography addresses issues related to open resources, including OERs and OpenCourseWare (OCW) that focus specifically on university-level open course materials, open textbooks (Jhangiani and Jhangiani 2017), and massive open online courses (MOOCs). Both advocates (Caswsell et al. 2008; DeRosa and Robinson 2017; Wiley et al. 2014) and critics (Bali and Sharma 2017) of OERs—as well as those who consider how open resources are produced and used (Bennett and Kent 2017; Huijser et al. 2008)—are included in this section. There are also proposals for addressing some of the main challenges posed by open resources, such as technical, content, and staffing issues for maintaining OERs (Downes 2017), challenges related to promoting quality and innovation in teaching and learning (Ehlers 2011), as well as the digital divide and offering content in multiple formats to enable access by countries with lower physical bandwidths and costly Internet (Haßler and Jackson 2010), among others. Thus, the publications listed here provide an overview of the main impacts and challenges of an increasingly open culture, especially in educational and academic contexts, that can foster reflections about its benefits and limitations.

This section consists of three sub-sections. The first, “Open Educational Principles and Practices,” addresses how open education can cause disruption that can be harnessed as a means for innovation to challenge the status quo of higher education (Broekman et al. 2014). This category also contextualizes the open education movement and open education philosophy, and addresses its challenges and potentials for education (Conole and Brown 2018; DeRosa and Robinson 2017; Ehlers 2011; Farrow 2017; Huijser, Bedford, and Bull 2008; Jhangiani and Biswas-Diener 2017; Weller 2013). It also highlights the role of OERs during the COVID-19 pandemic when schools pivoted into online venues (Huang et al. 2020).

“Open Educational Resources” presents critical discussion about OERs and the place they occupy in higher education today. Their role in democratizing access to knowledge, breaking down the barriers to education, and innovating pedagogy are addressed (Caswell et al. 2008; DeRosa and Robinson 2017; Orr, Rimini, and Damme 2015; Toledo 2017; Zhang 2019), including how open textbooks are up to par with commercial ones in quality and learning outcomes, and ought to replace them so that students and libraries save on book and subscription expenses (Hilton 2016; Jhangiani et al. 2018; Johnson 2020; Okamato 2013). Other authors problematize this embrace of OERs and point to the shortcomings of studies that claim to detect their positive learning outcomes (Grimaldi 2019). Additional barriers to embracing OERs are addressed in this sub-section, including limited Internet access, resistance to online learning, irrelevant contexts for audiences from the Global South, and imbalances of knowledge flow between the Global North and South (King, Pegrum, and Forsey 2018).

Similar trends can be seen in the third sub-section, “Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs),” in which proponents of MOOCs highlight their positive impacts on learning (Israel 2015), while others criticize them for perpetuating colonial and racial inequalities, or for pitching their content primarily to Western audiences despite their uptake by the Global South (Bali and Sharma 2017; Bennett and Kent 2017; Zhang et al. 2019). Several resources are also dedicated to studying the impact of MOOCs and their various models (Montero-Colbert et al. 2019; Raposo-Rivas et al. 2015; Ruipérez-Valiente et al. 2020; Shen and Kuo 2015). The annotations in this section point to the rich critical discourse on open resources, and demonstrate how creating open resources comes with a new host of challenges that ought to be addressed for open education to reach its ultimate goal of making high-quality knowledge and training accessible for everyone.

The reviews in this annotated bibliography focus on English language resources and look primarily at discourse and practices in North America and Europe. Each entry follows a standard format to communicate the overall thesis and purpose of the resource that can be read as a coherent document or by sections and categories. By no means exhaustive, it is meant to provide a snapshot of the various conversations related to digital pedagogy and training under the umbrella of open scholarship, with a particular focus on the discourse happening in digital humanities and in relation to open resources in the context of open education. Some annotations are relevant to more than one category, in which case the duplicates have been demarcated with the symbol F next to the citation, with a bracketed indicator of the section and sub-section where the full annotation can be found. Most of the annotations were developed as part of the Mitacs Globalink research internship program over the course of three years, in three-month intervals annually, authored by Alan Colín-Arce (2021), Vitor Yano (2019), and Anna Honcharova (2018), and are being published for the first time. The annotations authored by Colin Arce are denoted with a Δ symbol and those by Yano or Honcharova with *. Some entries are duplicated from a previous bibliography “An Annotated Bibliography on Social Knowledge Creation” (Arbuckle et al. 2017), marked by †.

''This annotated bibliography is an output of the Open Scholarship Press. For related work, please see the Community, Connection, and Policy bibliographies.''


text:
User:Ninjinnot232

Class of 25. Learning Chem.

title: User:Ninjinnot232


text:
User:Chemaw12345

I am learning about chemistry.

title: User:Chemaw12345