{"id":1938,"date":"2018-02-14T15:33:07","date_gmt":"2018-02-14T14:33:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/?p=1938"},"modified":"2018-02-14T15:33:07","modified_gmt":"2018-02-14T14:33:07","slug":"open-access-in-the-francophone-global-south-between-collective-empowerment-and-neocolonialism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/fr\/2018\/02\/14\/open-access-in-the-francophone-global-south-between-collective-empowerment-and-neocolonialism\/","title":{"rendered":"Open Access in the Francophone Global South: Between Collective Empowerment and Neocolonialism"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is a guest post by Florence Piron from\u00a0Universit\u00e9 Laval, Qu\u00e9bec, Canada.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"fpiron_01\"<\/p>\n

An anthropologist and ethicist, Florence Piron<\/a><\/strong> is a professor in the Department of Informatio<\/span><\/em>n and Communication at Universit\u00e9 Laval where she teaches courses on ethics and democracy. She is the founding President of the Association for Science and Common Good <\/a>and its open access publishing house. She is interested in the links between science, society\u00a0<\/span><\/em>and culture, both as a researcher and advocate for a science that is more open, inclusive, socially responsible and focused on the common good. She\u2019s doing research on open science, and cognitive justice with universities in Africa and Haiti.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Two major issues are often lacking within the general conversation about open access, whether in blogs, discussion lists or papers. Indeed, their invisibility is in itself a symptom of the problem that I want to briefly expose here. <\/span><\/p>\n

The first issu<\/span>e is the difference between openness and accessibility. Depending on where a person lives or what their resources are, they may forget that there exists such a difference, whereas it is obvious to others. A door may be open, but if a person does not have the ability to walk or find the path that leads to it, if many obstacles prevent them from moving forward, they will not be able to go through it: what then is the value or the meaning of the door\u2019s openness? In other words, are articles and books in open access always accessible \u00a0and, if not, what does openness really mean? This question demands that more precise social and political analyses of accessibility be added to the usual discussions of publishers, copyright or policies.<\/p>\n

The second issue concerns what lies behind the door, in other words what kind of knowledge is so precious that the opening of the door to get it justifies all kinds of fighting and arguing and huge amounts of money? This fundamental epistemological debate seems to me very seldom dealt with within the general conversation about open access. Should all types of knowledge be covered by the open access movement? Or only the \u201cscience\u201d that lies within the boundaries of the Web of Science, Google Scholar and Scopus databases, that is to say the \u201ccentre\u201d of the science world-system? Should knowledge produced outside these boundaries, for instance non-English non-indexed knowledge produced in universities from the periphery of the science world-system, be left out of the fight for open access because it is not \u201cproperly scientific\u201d? \u00a0Should the invisibility of knowledge coming from minorities or the Global South continue to be seen as not a problem?<\/span><\/p>\n

A detour to the Global South, particularly Haiti and Francophone Sub-Saharan African universities where I have been doing research for several years through the SOHA project<\/a> (Piron et al. 2016, 2017), can open eyes and ears. In the North, open access is equivalent to effective access because a researcher or a student always has a computer, web access, electricity and a basic digital literacy that enable them to have immediate access to ev<\/span>erything that is open. But this is not the case in the Francophone Global South, where our SOHA project has identified and documented several huge cognitive injustices. In this part of the world, not only is Internet access far from being generalized and remains very expensive, but students often touch a computer for the first time when entering university, lecturers rarely know how to use the web in their teaching and sometimes mistrust it, electricity can be cut for several hours a day, the quality of the connection is usually very low and connectivity is often not the priority of university leaders. Most important of all is the fact that digitalization of African theses and journals is very rare, which contributes to their invisibility. We have also met African academics who still hope to compensate for their meagre salary by selling books and are thus opposed to open access in general. Let\u2019s add that very few of these countries have a research and innovation policy able to fund research, libraries and equipment, so that they usually depend on \u201cpartners\u201d from the North who have their own research agenda, a neocolonial situation in itself (Mv\u00e9-Ondo 2005). That many people manage to do brilliant research there, without leaving to the North, is a feat in itself! Believing that \u201copen access\u201d is the grand solution to problems of research in the Global South is therefore a huge mistake, mirroring the general ignorance of the centre about the periphery. Open access is a necessary, but not at all sufficient, condition.<\/p>\n

The second issue may be more complex to grasp, since it is of a socio-epistemological nature. Let\u2019<\/span>s just recall here the postcolonial and feminist scholarship that has shown that \u201cscience\u201d is in fact a situated (fascinating) knowledge anchored in European male white history which became hegemonic during Modernity and its colonial project. This knowledge carries a specific epistemology based on the hope of producing a decontextualized (\u201cuniversal\u201d), neutral (value-free, culture-free, gender-free), explicative, predictive type of knowledge which I call \u201cpositivist\u201d in short. Such a knowledge, defined as a normative ideal, obviously considers any mention of cultural\/political context as irrelevant or even anti-science, anti-truth. Let\u2019s do it anyway. If open access only concerns the hegemonic positivist science that is produced and showcased in journals obeying the norms and rules created in the North, it would contribute to maintaining other epistemologies or knowledges not quite following the said rules in their state of invisibility and inaccessibility, whether in the North or in the (Francophone) Global South. Yet these knowledges are indispensable to overcome the challenges in these countries, each country needing local relevant nuanced knowledge that could help its action, that \u201cspeaks\u201d to local social actors.<\/p>\n

In summary, if open access reinforces the visibility and usability of papers, theses and books from the North (even if only because they have a digital life), knowledge from the (Francophone) Global South, mainly constituted by un-digitized theses and research reports (Piron et al. 2017), will remain invisible and little used, unless published in journals from the North. This is why, if open access is only interpreted as facilitating access to \u201cscience\u201d without any analysis of material conditions of access and without any conscience of the necessity of maintaining a \u201cknowledge diversity\u201d within an ecology of knowledges (Santos 2007), it could become just another tool of neocolonialism.<\/span><\/p>\n

Conversely, open access can become a formidable tool of collective empowerment for the Global South \u2013 and of i<\/span>mprovement of world science – \u00a0if its leaders and proponents make a sincere commitment to creating and maintaining within \u201cscience\u201d a real openness to the plurality of epistemologies, of knowledges (in the plural form) and of normative frameworks. My African and Haitian colleagues and I have been working on numerous concrete projects in this regard, notably a pan-African open repository. We are convinced that DOAJ could also play a major role not only in showcasing African and Haitian journals without necessarily imposing on them a rigid normative positivist framework, but also in helping journals from the North become more open to epistemologies, languages and ideas from the Global South.<\/p>\n

Let me conclude with a sad paradox: many critics of hegemonic science, whether from a decolonial, feminist or constructivist standpoint, do not care whether their own work is available in open access or not, and therefore accessible or not to the people suffering from cognitive injustices\u2026 The road is long!<\/span><\/p>\n

References<\/span><\/p>\n

Alcoff, L. M. (2007). Mignolo\u2019s epistemology of coloniality. CR: The New Centennial Review, 7(3), 79<\/span>\u2011<\/span>101.<\/span><\/p>\n

Connell, R. (2014). Using southern theory: Decolonizing social thought in theory, research and application. Planning Theory, 13(2), 210<\/span>\u2011<\/span>223. <\/span><\/p>\n

Connell, R.\u00a0<\/span>(2015). Social Science on a World Scale: Connecting the Pages. Sociologies in Dialogue, 1(1).<\/p>\n

Escobar, A. (2000). Beyond the Search for a Paradigm? Post-Development and beyond. <\/span>Development<\/span><\/i>, 43(4), 11<\/span>\u2011<\/span>14. <\/span><\/p>\n

Escobar, A. (2007). Post-development as concept and social practice. In (Aram Ziai ed.) Exploring Post-development. Theory and practice, problems and perspectives (Routledge). London: Routledge.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ezema, I. J. (2013). Local contents and the development of open access institutional repositories in Nigeria University libraries: Challenges, strategies and scholarly implications. <\/span>Library Hi Tech<\/span><\/i>, 31(2), 323<\/span>\u2011<\/span>340. <\/span><\/p>\n

Fanon, F. (2002). Les damn\u00e9s de la terre – tome 1. Paris: D\u00e9couverte\/Poche.<\/span><\/p>\n

Fredua-Kwarteng. (2015). The case for developmental universities. University World News, (338). <\/span><\/p>\n

Hall, B. L., and R. Tandon (2017). Decolonization of knowledge, epistemicide, participatory research and higher education. Research for All, 1(1), 6<\/span>\u2011<\/span>19. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.18546\/RFA.01.1.02<\/span><\/p>\n

Keim, W. (2010). Pour un mod\u00e8le centre-p\u00e9riph\u00e9rie dans les sciences sociales. Revue d\u2019anthropologie des connaissances, 4(3), 570<\/span>\u2011<\/span>598.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mignolo, W. (2012). Local Histories\/Global Designs. Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton: Princeton University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mv\u00e9-Ondo, B. (2005). Afrique\u202f: la fracture scientifique \/ Africa: the Scientific Divide. \u00c9ditions Futuribles. Accessed at https:\/\/www.futuribles.com\/en\/base\/bibliographie\/notice\/afrique-la-fracture-scientifique-africa-the-scient\/<\/span><\/p>\n

Piron, F., et al. (2016). Une autre science est possible. R\u00e9cit d\u2019une utopie concr\u00e8te, le projet SOHA. <\/span>Possibles<\/span><\/i>, 40(2). Accessed at http:\/\/redtac.org\/possibles\/2017\/02\/11\/une-autre-science-est-possible-recit-dune-utopie-concrete-dans-la-francophonie-le-projet-soha\/<\/span><\/p>\n

Piron, F., Mboa Nkoudou, T. H., Pierre, A., Dibounje Madiba, M. S., Alladatin, J., Michel, R. I., Achaffert, H. R. (2016). Vers des universit\u00e9s africaines et ha\u00eftiennes au service du d\u00e9veloppement local durable\u202f: co<\/span>ntribution de la science ouverte juste. In Piron, F., Regulus, S., and Dibounje Madiba, M. S. (\u00c9d.). (2016<\/span>). Justice cognitive, libre acc\u00e8s et savoirs locaux. Pour une science ouverte juste, au service du d\u00e9veloppement local durable<\/span><\/i> Qu\u00e9bec: \u00c9ditions science et bien commun. p 3-25.<\/span><\/p>\n

Piron, F., Regulus, S., and Dibounje Madiba, M. S. (\u00c9d.). (2016<\/span>). Justice cognitive, libre acc\u00e8s et savoirs locaux. Pour une science ouverte juste, au service du d\u00e9veloppement local durable<\/span><\/i> Qu\u00e9bec: \u00c9ditions science et bien commun. Accessed at https:\/\/scienceetbiencommun.pressbooks.pub\/justicecognitive1\/. The project has been funded by OCSDnet (iHub and IDRC).<\/span><\/p>\n

Piron F., Diouf A. B., Dibounje Madiba, M.S. Mboa Nkoudou T. H., Ouangr\u00e9 Z. A., Tessy D. R., Achaffert H. A., Pierre A. et Lire, Z. (2017). Le libre acc\u00e8s vu d\u2019Afrique francophone subsaharienne. In Revue fran\u00e7<\/span>aise des sciences de l\u2019information et de la documentation vol. 11. Accessed at https:\/\/rfsic.revues.org\/3292.<\/p>\n

Polanco, X. (1990). Naissance et d\u00e9veloppement de la science-monde: production et reproduction des communaut\u00e9s scientifiques en Europe et en Am\u00e9rique latine. Paris: Unesco.<\/span><\/p>\n

Santos, B. de S. (2008). Another knowledge is possible: beyond northern epistemologies. London: Verso.<\/span><\/p>\n

Santos, B. de S. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide. Boulder CO: Paradigm Publishers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sch\u00f6pfel, J., and M. Soukouya (2013). Providing Access to Electronic Theses and Dissertations: A Case Study from Togo. D-Lib Magazine, 19(11\/12).<\/span><\/p>\n

Thiong\u2019O, N. W. (2011). D\u00e9coloniser l\u2019esprit. Paris: La fabrique \u00e9ditions.<\/span><\/p>\n

Wallerstein, I. (1996). Restructuration capitaliste et le syst\u00e8me-monde. Agone, (16), 207<\/span>\u2011<\/span>233.<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This is a guest post by Florence Piron from\u00a0Universit\u00e9 Laval, Qu\u00e9bec, Canada. An anthropologist and ethicist, Florence Piron is a professor in the Department of Information and Communication at Universit\u00e9 Laval where she teaches courses on ethics and democracy. She is the founding President of the Association for Science and Common Good and its open…<\/p>","protected":false},"author":378,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":"","_kadence_starter_templates_imported_post":false,"_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[615,619],"tags":[39],"class_list":["post-1938","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-guest-post","category-open-access","tag-global-south"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1938","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/378"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1938"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1938\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1938"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1938"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1938"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}