ELPUB 2018

Google Docs Session Notes

Whose infrastructure? Towards inclusive and collaborative knowledge infrastructures in Open Science
Authors:  Rebecca Hillyer, Stellenbosch University; Angela Okune, UC Berkley; Denisse Albornoz, University of Toronto; Alejandro Posada, University of Toronto; Leslie Chan, University of Toronto
The current discourse around Open Science has tended to focus on the creation of new technological platforms and tools to facilitate sharing and reuse of a wide range of research outputs. There is an assumption that once these new tools are in place, researchers - and at times, members of the general public- are able to participate in the creation of scientific knowledge in more accessible and efficient ways. While many of these new tools have indeed assisted in the ease of collaboration through online spaces and mechanisms, the narrowness of how infrastructure is imagined by open science practitioners tends to put the use of technology ahead of the issues that people are actually trying to solve, and fails to acknowledge the systemic constraints that exist within and between some communities. Drawing on an analytical framework grounded in Actor Network Theory (ANT), this paper highlights the need for inclusive knowledge infrastructures, particularly in the context of sustainable development. Three case studies from the Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network (OCSDNet), are outlined in order to illustrate the importance of moving beyond a definition of infrastructure as merely a technical or physical entity. These cases demonstrate how more sustainable and nuanced forms of collaboration and participation can be enabled through broader understandings of knowledge infrastructures.

Beyond the dichotomy between natural and knowledge commons: reflections on the IAD framework from the Ubatuba Open Science Project
Authors: Sarita Albagli, Ibict – Brazilian Institute of Information in Science and Technology; Anne Clinio, Liinc – Interdisciplinary Laboratory of Information and Knowledge Studies; Henrique Parra, Unifesp – Federal University of São Paulo; Felipe Fonseca, Ubalab
The paper presents a critical analysis of the possibilities and limits of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, proposed by Elinor Ostrom and team, specially addressing the mutual relations between natural and knowledge commons. It results from an action-research project on the role of open science (OS) in development, carried out in the municipality of Ubatuba, on the North Coast of the State of São Paulo, Brazil, in 2015-2017. The work involved: systematizing the literature on the IAD framework; mapping and selecting literature representative of other theoretical and conceptual approaches; critically using and adapting the framework to the case studied. The project provided the opportunity to observe how these dynamics take place in a relatively small-scale (while heavily interconnected) context. While the IAD framework helped us to analyse the institutional, political, and governance issues affecting knowledge production and circulation, we observed the higher complexity of our action arena, shedding light on the fact that natural and knowledge commons are the two dimensions of the same "commoning" process.

Game not over: End-user programming and game system modding as models for extending community engagement
Author: Matthew Wells, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada
In certain digital gaming subcultures, specific games are extended and enhanced by players who create "mods", or modifications, that add new artwork, new scenarios, and even new rules. "Modders" meet in online communities that foster engagement through the discussion and self-publication of mods, and these can keep interest in a given game going years after it is released. These DIY efforts could be adapted by academic publishers, particularly those focused on design research, to encourage sustained engagement with scholarly materials. This article discusses the history of modding, provides examples, and sketches one online modding community in detail. It then makes the argument that modding is a form of end-user engagement of the sort advocated by scholars such as Gerald Fischer, and compares modding to other online academic publishing efforts, such as webtexts.