Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Jay Dolmage: [email protected]
Open Access(ibility?) Pedagogies of Scholarly Publishing
Jay Dolmage, University of Waterloo
As we explore the future of open access composition technologies and texts, we need to
critique the ways in which our ideals fail to address the needs of users with a diverse range of
abilities. If we indeed want “greater freedom, possibility, transparency, and equality” in our
pedagogical and communicative activities, we need to extend our understanding of access to
incorporate standards of accessibility. Open Access means little if the needs of individuals with a
rich range of literacies and disabilities are ignored. This panel as a whole aims to challenge
assumptions made by the Open Access movement and to assert a more fully open approach to
the future of composition.
My particular angle within this argument is to suggest that what compositionists learn
from changes in the circulation of composition scholarship, facilitated by rapidly evolving
systems, spaces, processes, and economies, should also reshape our pedagogy. I will specifically
examine the reshaping offered by Open Access scholarly publishing. Open Access (from now on
often referred to as just OA) publishing holds the ambitious promise of fostering "an
inclusionary and egalitarian networked commons" (Dawson 272). Open Access publishing can
create an environment in which "decisions over the publication and distribution of research can
be made, not by the market […] but according to other criteria, not least its intellectual value and
quality" (Hall 8). I will extend these criteria to show how Open Access publishing allows us to
draw more attention to the accessibility of texts for a broad audience with varying abilities and
needs.
1
Open Access(ibility?)
First, I will discuss the key difference between the concept of access as it is invoked in
Open Access scholarly publishing, and the concept of accessibility as it is understood in
disability studies.
Second, I will show some specific examples of the ways that accessibility and Open
Access intersect, focusing on the journal that I edit, the Canadian Journal of Disability Studies,
but also at some other examples from within comp/rhet scholarship. My suggestion here is that
there is clear momentum towards both Open Access and accessibility, and that I feel
compositionists and rhetoricians are leading the way in academia, as we should be.
Finally, this presentation will focus on the conflicts of access involved in Open Access
publishing: how specific access needs clash, but also how OA publishing appeals to neo-liberal
administrative values that obscure its costs. For instance, the Open Access ideal promises to
remove economic barriers between learners and knowledge, making it possible, for example, for
everyone who teaches rhet/comp to access the scholarship of rhet/comp without incurring
unnecessary expense. Yet the intense labour involved in creating, maintaining and editing Open
Access journals is rarely recognized and almost never compensated.
Here is the key question of this presentation: what is the difference between Open Access
and accessibility, and why is important to ask that question (or, why do we still have to ask that
question)?
The Bethesda Statement suggests that Open Access means anyone can access research on
the public internet, for free, and “"copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly
and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose,
subject to proper attribution of authorship" (Suber et. al. n.p.). Gary Hall has defined Open
2
Jay Dolmage: [email protected]
Access as "an alternative model for the sharing and exchange of knowledge to that afforded by
capitalist neoliberalism: one in which the participants are able to give and receive information at
comparatively little cost; and in which decisions over the publication and distribution of research
can be made, not by the market […] but according to other criteria, not least its intellectual value
and quality" (Hall, Digitize 8). Open Access doesn’t exactly mean what Open Source does – you
can’t really get under the hood. Open generally means the text itself is free, though of course
more and more OA scholarly projects are also tapping into a more open digital commons in
which interaction between peers really does revise and redevelop texts.1
Whether defined simply as “free,” or further distinguished as an alternative economic
model, the key to defining the access in Open Access has hinged on money – the cost barrier is
removed. This should really matter to comp/rhet teachers and scholars, as at the very minimum
70 percent of composition classes are taught by untenured professors (based on the AAUP’s
latest “Report on the Economic Status of the Profession”: more than 70 percent of American
professors are now off the tenure track). And “contingent faculty, particularly those with part-
time status, get late and limited access to key instructional resources," notably library and
database access (Street et. al. n.p.). Currently, most large university libraries pay in the
neighborhood of $2-3 million a year for database subscriptions, costs that trickle directly
downstream to the least empowered stakeholders in an age of austerity. When asked by
Lawrence Lessig how much JSTOR would need to be paid to make all of their content open
1 In later footnotes I discuss peer review in a bit more detail. One thing I have noted about the OA digital platform is that there is indeed more "tolerance for error" – a concept central to the disability studies concept of Universal Design. That is, while tolerance for error in the built environment might mean creating a door handle that can be opened by pushing or pulling in a variety of directions, or simply pressing a button, tolerance for error through OA means that authors and editors can make changes to texts even after they have "published." An exploration of what this will mean to OA is important, particularly as it bears on accessibility. The CJDS, for instance, has an accessibility policy that encourages the audience to tell us if any aspect of any text is inaccessible for them, so we can make immediate changes.
3
Open Access(ibility?)
access, the answer [the ransom figure] was $250 million dollars – showing just how valuable this
information really is, and how valuable continued control over access to this information will be.
Open Access has to matter to us, or we have to stop calling ourselves a profession – we
simply cannot continue to cut off the majority of comp/rhet teachers from the scholarship of our
field, nor should we continue to contribute to such an upside-down economy.
Removing the financial or resource barrier certainly does make Open Access scholarship
more accessible, often. Consider, for instance, what you have to do to get an accessible format
of an article for a student, if that article were published in a Routledge or Taylor and Francis
non-Open-Access, expensive, very proprietary journal. You have to join a disturbingly
euphemistic club called “Academic VIPs,” disclose that student’s name and the fact that they
have a “visual (or physical) impairment, or a learning difficulty” (see: Taylor and Francis).
[There doesn’t appear to be any provision for a faculty member with a disability seeking
accessible formats – maybe their Chair or Dean would need to authorize this? I am only half
joking.] There are then a long series of legal provisions and rules. So, yes, putting scholarship
online, and making it free, goes a long way. And yet access does not ensure accessibility.
In comp/rhet, we generally look to Jim Porter to define the distinction between these
terms. In his words, “it is important to distinguish between “access” and “accessibility,”
overlapping terms that nonetheless refer to distinct spheres of concern. “Access” is the more
general term related to whether a person has the necessary hardware, software, and network
connectivity in order to use the Internet — and to whether certain groups of persons have a
disadvantaged level of access due to their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, age, or
other factors. “Accessibility” refers to the level of connectedness of one particular group of
persons — those with disabilities [and] the reason to write/design for accessibility is not only to
4
Jay Dolmage: [email protected]
allow people with disabilities to consume information, but to help them produce it (216).”
Further, as Sushil Oswal has argued, accessibility has an important spatiality and temporality –
accessibility means that nobody should have to wait or jump through hoops or go somewhere
else first to get access: “Accessibility can be defined as the ability to use, enjoy, perform, work
on, avail of, and participate in a resource, technology, activity, opportunity, or product at an
equal or comparable level with others. Separate is not equal and before or after the fact is also
not equal. In the context of technology and systems, accessibility at the interface level, not as a
retrofit or add-on, is true accessibility; all other options are fixes and are intrinsically inferior to
the primary access available to the able-bodied because such an access sets the disabled apart in
a separate category. It says to the world, it’s okay for the disabled to wait a bit longer. It says that
it’s alright if they get a little less” (n.p.).2
So what we really need to think about, I am going to argue, is the fact that most of the
web is not at all accessible, and that includes a lot of what we call Open Access. Just as one way
to illustrate this, in 2007, Thompson et. al., using fairly robust criteria, tested a huge sample of
government and education websites from hundreds of countries, internationally, to try and assess
their accessibility. In the US, only 45% of these pages even used text equivalents to describe
visual elements and images, only 50% followed HTML standards and only 24% “passed” basic
2 Outside of disability studies, this distinction between access and accessibility usually cuts the other way – scholars of information and technology assume that, for instance, anything in the public domain is accessible, because it is free, and they argue that true access means getting people to visit your content, interact with it, and share it. As Maria Popova suggests, “information curators are that necessary cross-pollinator between accessibility and access, between availability and actionability, guiding people to smart, interesting, culturally relevant content […] Just because public domain content is online and indexed, doesn’t mean that those outside the small self-selected group of scholars already interested in it will ever discover it and engage in it" (n.p.). But she is making a basic error here: she is saying that the only barrier to access is cost. So “accessibility” doesn’t really matter, because basically everything on the web has this – because it is free.
5
Open Access(ibility?)
navigational criteria.3 The research is a bit old now – but let me just say this: the fact that there is
very little knowledge about what is a huge problem, disenfranchising such a huge segment of the
world population, speaks to how little most people ever think about accessibility, believing
instead that the web is generally open and free and that is all that matters. In our own field,
excellent OA publishing efforts, like Susan DelaGrange’s award-winning book Technologies of
Wonder, which heavily focuses on visual rhetorics and technologies, don’t even have alt text to
describe images, making huge segments of their meaning inaccessible, even if more people can
access them for free.4 Likewise, Hybrid Pedagogy, a superb open-access venue which is image
heavy, offers no alt tags or descriptions and while its editors have put forward some of the most
important recent viewpoints about scholarship and access, they seemingly have an agnostic view
of accessibility. In their words, "we preface each article with images that aren’t merely
illustrative but make the reader work to find connections. All images are Creative Commons
licensed. When articles are shared on social media, these images auto-populate and help articles
spread" (n.p.). It is great that they care about copyright, but if these images mean so much to
them, they also need to care about accessibility.
But now I want to show some specific examples of the ways that accessibility and Open
Access can intersect. My suggestion here is that there is clear momentum towards both Open
Access and accessibility in scholarly publishing, and that I feel compositionists and rhetoricians
are leading the way in academia, as we should be, but that we have work to do to ensure that we
are moving towards access and accessibility in mutually constitutive ways.
3 In Canada, it wasn’t much better: only 57% of pages used text equivalents, 55% followed basic HTML guidelines, and only 25% of pages “passed” basic navigational tests.4 I would add that the accessibility of a text has real bearing on the sustainability of a text, a general obsession for digital humanists. If you have no alt tags for these very important images, you have lost so much of the potential meaning – and the metadata – of the text, moving forward.
6
Jay Dolmage: [email protected]
One good example is the journal Disability Studies Quarterly (DSQ). Way back in 2000
when DSQ first started publishing issues, the journal was online because it had to be, offering
articles in HTML and PDF formats because the expectation was that many readers would need
these digital formats to access the scholarship. For many years, DSQ weathered the reputational
hit that this required – in an era in which publishing an article in an online-only format was not
seen as “real” publishing, DSQ had to be comfortable with that insinuation, and value
accessibility over prestige.5
The journal that I edit, the Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, admittedly, followed
DSQ’s lead. There was never any question that a new disability studies journal needed to be
open access, to reach the huge part of the disability studies and disability rights community that
is not a part of academia, for instance, and that everything needed to be made accessible. What I
didn’t expect was what kind of impact this would have on how many more people would actually
access the journal. In just two years of existence, we’ve had over 21,000 readers. That surprised
me. What surprised me even more was that those readers have come from 136 different
countries.
DSQ’s entire OA policy is focused on this broad dissemination: “This journal provides
open access on the principle that making research freely available supports a greater global
exchange of knowledge” (n.p.). As Suresh Canagarajah has argued, this is another entailment of
5 Of course DSQ never did itself any favors in this compromise, refusing to add page numbers at least to the PDF version of articles, thus making it impossible for many scholars to cite the work in traditional ways. Hall has argued that "the rapidly increasing process of digitizing the academic research literature tends to be regarded for the most part as having merely a prosthetic effect on the performance of our existing disciplines and "Paper" forms of publication” (12). Yet DSQ, from the beginning, shunned one key part of this prosthesis, never working too hard to make the online format look like a print page, focusing instead on screen-readability, for instance.
7
Open Access(ibility?)
OA, one I hadn’t anticipated, but am now paying careful attention to: "creating more democratic
processes of knowledge construction isn't purely an intellectual exercise […] this is an argument
for changing the relationships in the publication networks so that we can reconstruct knowledge
– and [presumably] conduct international relations – in more egalitarian and enriching terms"
(302; 305). And this can’t just be about getting Western knowledge across the world, a kind of
colonial impulse. This has to be about using “openness” to offer venues and arenas for
international students and scholars to participate.6 My own journal has published articles from
scholars working and studying disability in Germany, Sudan, Czechoslovakia, and we continue
to solicit and receive research from all over the world.
In addition to this internationalization, as editor, I also began to feel that the journal was
not really providing access or accessibility if we only published peer-reviewed scholarly articles
that look exactly like their print relatives or predecessors.7 As Gary Hall argues, a lot of open
access venues are “regarded for the most part as having merely a prosthetic effect on the
6 As Canagarajah says, "Academic writing holds a central place in the constructing, disseminating, and legitimizing of knowledge; however, for discursive or material reasons, Third World scholars experience exclusion from academic publishing and communication; therefore the knowledge of third world communities is marginalized or appropriated by the West, while the knowledge of Western communities is legitimated and reproduced; and as part of this process, academic writing/publishing plays a role in the material hegemony of the West" (6).7 I don't have enough time to really get into the peer review issues that OA can raise – there are ways to really push the platform to crowdsource peer review, or to flip it upside down by allowing for the sort of interactive review in which a paper gets revised even after it has been "published." At Hybrid Pedagogy, they use "“collaborative peer review,” in which members of the editorial collective engage directly with authors to revise and develop articles, followed by post-publication peer review" for instance (n.p.). The open-ness of OA stands to revolutionize not just who publishes what, and who the audience is, but how peer interaction gets structured to vet and revise work. These things, in turn, have led to controversies. For instance, John Bohannon "tested" OA peer review processes in 2012 by submitting 304 different versions of a fake scientific paper full of errors to OA journals, and it was accepted 157 times (Scielo n.p.). But this experiment was both motivated by, and resulted in negative findings about, OA journals that levy article processing charges. There are many, many such OA journals in the STEM disciplines – but they are apples and oranges, for the time being, with OA journals in the humanities, very few of whom charge authors anything at all. Of course – the pay-to-publish model is worth watching carefully, because it may be coming to a discipline near you soon.
8
Jay Dolmage: [email protected]
performance of our existing disciplines and "Paper" forms of publication” (12).8 But online, we
can do a lot more than publish huge chunks of text with slightly relaxed word counts. So the
CJDS, last fall, published an entire issue as a digital art exhibition. This didn’t just provide
access to the venue and the conversation to new authors and audiences, but it also allowed us to
work on developing some best practices around making this art accessible. For instance, we
asked artists to describe their work, and we provided those descriptions as both transcripts and as
MP3 files; we even had a text description of an audio installation. As Amanda Cachia stated in
her curatorial essay, “First, audio description as conventional and sensorial mode of access that is
occasionally found in a museum setting (note its distinctive difference from audio guides)
functions as a dynamic tool for interpretation and communication on the Cripping Cyberspace
website. But second, it also effectively becomes independent works of art in themselves, which
carries its own weight and space in this virtual crip architecture. This is because the audio
description becomes an extension of the artists’ work, where the artist is made more aware of
thinking critically about a fuller spectrum of audiences, and how they might access their art
beyond the ocular. This is especially true for artists who might identify with a particular
disability, but who neglect to think beyond the implications and challenges of their own
embodiment” (29). Gary Hall argues that OA is "a means of producing and performing" and not
just a repository or museum of what already exists (79). In my experience with the digital
exhibit, this was true for accessibility too – it was a way to produce and perform the work
differently, not just a way to retrofit it – it was a way to move.
Another great example of accessibility as a “way to move” is an article published just this
week in the OA rhet-comp journal Enculturation by Nathaniel Rivers. The essay includes MP3
8 I could talk a lot about the theory of "prosthesis" from a disability studies perspective, and how Hall's quote offers an interesting opportunity to think this theory through, but I won't here.
9
Open Access(ibility?)
files "provided as accessible versions of the print content and not [as] additional or supplemental
material" (n.p.) I like the Derridean double-meaning here, because too often the accessibility
features of a text are not seen as central to the meaning or the argument, and instead are just seen
as add-ons. We are beginning to use digital affordances to break past that barrier. Another
excellent example that many will be familiar with is the recent multi-authored Kairos essay
“Multimodality in Motion.” The “ethic of accessibility” in this text really distills how access and
accessibility need to come together, arguing that centering on accessibility as an argument, not
just a series of practices or boxes to tick, would allow us to “explore the potential contribution to
culture that would come from further interrogating the relationships that make society a
powerfully disabling force, limiting to physical, social, and lifeworld potentials for millions”
(n.p.). This is such an important caveat: accessibility is a way to move against ableism.9
The truth is that in the push for Open Access, too much of the accessibility that comes
along with it is just by chance and not by design – making it free is already half the battle, but it
is also only half the battle. For instance, I think we are lucky that digital humanists care so much
about the accuracy of technologies like Optical Character Recognition (OCR), or that
smartphone users have shown they want effective voice recognition.10 If the mainstream didn’t
want these things, they’d still be as inefficient, frustrating, time consuming and expensive as they
were when they were primarily “just” for people with disabilities. The truth is that much like the
9 Hall suggests that OA also "risks failing, visibly if not indeed spectacularly – precisely because of the questions it encourages us to address" -- because OA won't just be a repository, will have an undecidability (102). The same has to be said of accessibility: what is accessible for one person in one moment is totally inaccessible for another in another moment.10 It is also interesting that University Presses have been working with programs like Bookshare for a while now, to make print books accessible, and they are now developing their own Open Access lines as well – the University of Michigan Press is one good example. But will the "small" gesture of working with Bookshare to make titles accessible for what is generally seen to be a "small" audience of people with disabilities inform the "large" gesture of moving scholarly book publishing to OA?
10
Jay Dolmage: [email protected]
unintended consequences of other technological shifts initiated by people with disabilities, these
technologies will have unintended and widespread uptake by temporarily able-bodied people,
and people with disabilities will also expose the unintended consequences of technologies and
spaces not designed for them.11 Likewise, the OA movement has to assume a very broad, global
audience, and a very broad, global group of contributors, and this has to include people with
disabilities. For these folks to have access, the technologies must also have accessibility.
Now, in the final part of this talk, I am going to trouble much of what I have just said. I
am going to look at OA now from an economic perspective.
Gary Hall has proposed three economic models for OA scholarly publishing:
1. "The liberal, democratizing approach sees open access as enabling the production
of global information commons" (108).
11 There is some danger here of falling into what critical race theorists would call interest convergence—the idea that conditions for the minority group improve only once the effort can be justified as helping the majority as well (see Bell). As Georgina Kleege and Brenda Brueggeman point out, for instance “much of what has always disturbed us about the rhetoric around mainstreaming has to do with the way it is presented as something that is valuable for the majority culture…culturally enriching non-disabled students” (“Gently” 183 italics mine). The worry for me is that if we always only work to make things accessible when that goes along with another argument that is based on what is good for the mainstream, we aren't actually moving against ableism, we are in fact moving with it as far as it will take us – we may find out that we are just along for the ride, that this won’t take us far, or that we end up in a compromised position. To extend my OCR example, it has been tremendously fortuitous that Digital Humanities scholars have cared so much about converting old print texts into digital forms, because this has brought a lot of skilled people forward to work on making technologies like OCR much more precise and accurate, or to expend human resources to make corrections when it is not. But if the final output of this scholarship is in an equally inaccessible format to print text, like a digital book in a poorly planned PDF format, or if the advances in OCR are not shared with the community for which OCR was originally developed (people with visual impairments), then ableism has just been reinforced.
11
Open Access(ibility?)
2. "The renewed public sphere approach perceives open access as having the
potential to facilitate the creation of a revitalized form of […] discussion, debate,
information networking, and exchange" (110).
3. "The gift economy approach positions OA as helping to establish a new kind of
radical, digital economy of the gift […] compensated by indirect means […] by
greater levels of feedback and recognition" (111-112).12
So far in this talk, I have addressed the first two models in suggesting that in my own
editorial practice, OA has led me to conceive of a broader international audience, and to rethink
what exactly a scholarly publication has to be, online. I would suggest that both of these
economic models are also very much amenable to thinking through accessibility: to think
internationally, democratically, and of a renewed public sphere, we have to think about a
tremendously diverse group of stakeholders – any limit to the broad conceptualization of the
"public" is a diminishment of the potential of these models. The third model, the "gift economy"
approach, has also been key to my experience as an OA editor. We work hard through social
media venues, for instance, to actively promote the publications and the people who publish in
the journal.13 When there is a story in the news that connects to an article in some way, for
instance, we post that story and link it to the journal through Facebook and Twitter. So, we care
about the "rhetorical velocity" of the scholarship we publish – how the authors or creators, but
also the editorial strategies we use, "strategically design texts for re-appropriation by third
12 As Jesse Stommel, editor of Hybrid Pedagogy writes, in a statement I certainly identify with: "When it comes to promoting academic projects, there is for me a single golden rule: share and spread the work of your peers more than your own. The work of scholarship should ultimately be about generosity. Champion yourself and your own scholarly work. But put even more effort into championing the work of your colleagues and students" (n.p.).13 As Jesse Stommel, editor of Hybrid Pedagogy writes, "before you can successfully promote an article, post, or project, you have to build a network" and "I see it as the job of an article’s editors to help generate discussion. We do a disservice to our writers if we don’t promote their work" (n.p.).
12
Jay Dolmage: [email protected]
parties” (Ridolfo n.p.).14 Our "gift" back to the authors who publish in the CJDS is a sort of
relentless effort to get their work read and used by others, the opposite of the traditional, much
more passive practices of trying to get included in databases, trying to optimize search results,
and so on.
But it is this work and effort – the need to actively promote scholarship rather than just
putting it up on the web, that leads me to talk about the other side of Open Access. Because
Open Access is also a gift to the University that no one pays me for, that in general no one pays
anyone for. As Mark Bousquet has argued, "laboring in an informatic mode does not mean
laboring with less effort – as if informationalized work was inevitably some form of knowledge
teamwork scootering around the snack bar, a bunch of chums dreaming up the quarterly
scheduled product innovation. Laboring in an informatic mode means laboring in a way that is
effortless for labor management [… and is a] major source of the value that the university
accumulates as capital" (63; 84).
I have found that what we can do with OA publishing, in terms of scholarly disciplinary
work, and where we can go with it and who we reach, exceeds intended and anticipated goals.
But as Hall warns, "the ethical and political consequences of open-access publishing extend far
beyond, and in excess of, those anticipated and intended" (12). For instance, OA "provides an
extremely cost-effective means of disseminating knowledge and research" to support a neoliberal
14 In addition to velocity, we might also think of Matt Fuller's idea of "affordances" – how a text will be circulated, and by whom, in what modes/media – its capacities for interaction. So, "the capacities of activity, thought, sensation, and affect possible to each composition whether organic or not are shaped by what it is, what it connects to, and the dimensions of relationality around it" (174). This certainly applies to the online digital art exhibit we worked on for the CJDS, which linked into an actual art exhibit in Northern Ontario, the located practices of the artists themselves, their interaction with the curator in real-time, and the ways that accessibility was fore-grounded instead of retrofitted in every interaction and product was a way of thinking of the affordances of accessibility, something I hope to explore more in future work.
13
Open Access(ibility?)
knowledge economy that might "actually sustain and even intensify capitalism through its
overreliance, indeed dependency, on free labor" (199; 193).
Thus, as Ashley Dawson argues, "Academics need to assert our collective agency in
establishing the contours of the digital future rather than allowing administrators and
corporations to define that future for us" (272).
So that is one of the takeaways for me here, if I were asked to try and summarize the
"pedagogy" of OA – what we can learn from it, and how we can teach from it, as compositionists
and rhetoricians: Open Access is a way to more deeply examine the geographies and the
economics of belonging to a scholarly field or discipline; what we value, who decides on those
values, and how we can regain control of that conversation.
Another lesson: OA has lent some real energy to the idea of access. Did I ever believe
that the Cs would have the word "Access" in the title of the national conference? Probably not.
But now is the time to take this attention to access and ensure that no one forgets about or
disconnects from something just as important: accessibility.
Finally, I do believe that that energy and attention have to go both ways – if OA makes us
think about things like the velocity or the affordances of the texts we create, that should also
reorient how we think about textual and discursive accessibility too – we need to create
accessible texts that are easy to share and repurpose without losing accessibility, keeping in mind
that we cannot foresee access conflicts or the sustainability of any one accessibility practice; we
need accessible texts that also democratize, reinvigorate the public sphere, and which accrue
value as they are shared, commented upon, and redeployed. And we need to carefully connect
the work of accessibility with the economics of accessibility.
14
Jay Dolmage: [email protected]
Works Cited
AAUP. “Report on the Economic Status of the Profession.” Academe 99.2 (March-April 2013).
Bousquet, Mark. How The University Works. New York: NYU Press, 2008.
Cachia, Amanda. “‘Disabling’ the Museum: Curator as Infrastructural Activist.” CJDS 2.4 (Fall 2013): 1-39.
Canagarajah, Suresh. A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. Pittsburgh: U. Pittsburgh Press, 2002.
Dawson, Ashley. "DIY Academy? Cognitive Capitalism, Humanist Scholarship and Digital Transformation." The Social Media Reader. Michael Mandberg, Ed. New York: NYU Press, 2012. 363-390.
DSQ. "Open Access Policy." http://dsq-sds.org/about/editorialPolicies#openAccessPolicy
Fuller, Matthew. Media Ecologies. Materialist Energies in Art and Technoculture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2005.
Hall, Gary. Digitize This Book!: The Politics of New Media, or Why We Need Open Access Now. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.
Lessig, Lawrence. "Lessig on Aaron's Laws: Law and Justice in a Digital Age." Harvard Law School YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HAw1i4gOU4#t=44m39
Oswal, Sushil. “Ableism.” In “Multimodality in Motion.” Kairos 18.1 (Fall 2013): n.p. http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/18.1/coverweb/yergeau-et-al/pages/ableism/tech.html
Popova, Maria. “Accessibility vs. access: How the rhetoric of “rare” is changing in the age of information abundance” Nieman Journalism Lab 23 Aug. 2011.
Porter, James E. "Recovering Delivery for Digital Rhetoric and Human-Computer Interaction." Genre 27 (Fall 2008) n.p.
Ridolfo, Jim and Nicole Devoss. "Composing for Recomposition." Kairos 13.2 (Spring 2009): n.p.
Rivers, Nathaniel. "Tracing the Missing Masses: Vibrancy, Symmetry, and Public Rhetoric Pedagogy." Enculturation (17 March 2014).
Scielo. "Controversial Article in The Journal “Science” exposes the weaknesses of Peer-Review in a set of Open Access Journals." Scielo in Perspective Blog. http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/11/05/controversial-article-in-the-journal-science-exposes-the-weaknesses-of-peer-review-in-a-set-of-open-access-journals/#.UyEctxble5Q
15
Open Access(ibility?)
Street, Steve, Maria Maisto, Esther Merves and Gary Rhoades. “Who Is Professor “Staff”? Center for the Future of Higher Education http://futureofhighered.org/policy-report-2/
Stommel, Jesse. "Promoting Open Access Projects." Hybrid Pedagogy. 11 Dec. 2013. http://www.hybridpedagogy.com/journal/promoting-open-access-publications-and-academic-projects/
Suber, et. al. Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm, June 20, 2003.
Taylor and Francis. Alternative Format Requests. http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/info/viprequests/
Thompson, Terry, et al. "International research on web accessibility for persons with disabilities." Managing Worldwide Operations and Communications with Information Technology. Hershey, PA: Information Resources Management Association, 2007.
16
