# Open Social Scholarship Annotated Bibliography/Document Intent and Bibliographic History

The “Annotated Bibliography on Open Social Scholarship” was compiled in 2016-2017 by a collaborative team at the Electronic Textual Cultures Lab (ETCL). This document was inspired by two previous annotated bibliographies authored by ETCL members in collaboration with the Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE) Research Group: the initial “Social Knowledge Creation: Three Annotated Bibliographies” (Arbuckle et al. 2013), and an updated version, “An Annotated Bibliography of Social Knowledge Creation” (Arbuckle et al. 2017). The 2013 publication provided a snapshot of contemporary scholarship, initiatives, and research technologies related to social knowledge creation. The later iteration of the bibliography updated the materials with publications authored between 2013–2016, and expanded the scope by including resources on crowdsourcing, open access, public humanities, digital publishing, and collaborative games. The document also put forth a definition of social knowledge creation: “acts of collaboration in order to engage in or produce shared cultural data and/or knowledge products” (Arbuckle et al. 2017, 29).
The authors of “An Annotated Bibliography on Open Social Scholarship” enacted social knowledge creation practices in the assemblage of this bibliography by collaboratively setting the intellectual direction of the work, compiling resources, and annotating them. Research was carried out on platforms that facilitate collaborative research such as Google Drive (https://drive.google.com) and Zotero (https://www.zotero.org/). As scholarship in this area is being rapidly and continually produced, it is important to note that this bibliography is a snapshot, rather than an exhaustive list, of the topics covered. Some resources span more than one delineated category, in which case duplicated entries have been marked with an asterisk (*) after their first appearance.
The intention of this document is to present a working definition of open social scholarship through the aggregation and summation of critical resources in the field. As the environmental scan demonstrates, open knowledge practices date back hundreds of years. The exchange of scholarly information can be seen in the publication of historical journals, the development of public libraries, and, contemporarily, through access to online resources and the various “Open” movements (e.g., Open Access, Open Source, Open Education, Open Data). The iterative dialogue between academic, alternative-academic, and community-based audiences is central to the principles of open social scholarship. For this reason, the bibliography pays particular attention to modes and models for university-community partnerships through crowdsourcing or collaboration. Further, this document attests to the fact that open social scholarship practices are not only present in traditional, formal scholarship but also manifest, increasingly, in grassroots, social movements. The objective of this bibliography is to draw together various examples of knowledge output, and to highlight their points of intersection.

## Forms of Open Knowledge

The “Forms of Open Knowledge” section addresses the circulation of open knowledge in both digital and non-digital environments. The entries in this section are divided into separate categories that showcase different forms of knowledge creation and dissemination, including historical instances of open knowledge, major shifts in knowledge production in the Western world, and contemporary manifestations of knowledge creation in the digital medium. Included authors share the conviction that knowledge is a universal human right, and that it should be accessible to all. Resources in this category tie some of the early instances of open knowledge to the development of public libraries. Other, more contemporary forms of open knowledge are explored in the context of scholarly communication, as well as open access and open source movements beyond academia. The infrastructure of these movements is in part built on the commitment of organizations, such as the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN, responsible for the open protocols of the Internet) and the Free Software Movement (defense for the stability of open structures). A general increase in access to knowledge on a global scale marks one of the central defining and differentiating distinctions of the contemporary world from previous generations (Kelty 2008).
The majority of the 157 entries in this section were published after 2000; each of the 5 categories showcase between 12 to 47 annotations. Categories include:
* Traditional Forms of Open Knowledge and their History
* New Modes of Scholarly Communication
* Open Access
* Open Source
* Open Data
Some of the key historical moments in the formation and cementation of open knowledge are addressed in the “Traditional Forms of Open Knowledge and their History” category, including the development of the public library system in the Western world; the switch to journals from private letters as means of sharing knowledge, marked by Philosophical Transactions; and the rise of the philosophy of public access in 17th-, 18th-, and 19th-century institutions. The second category, “New Modes of Scholarly Communication,” traces the evolution of scholarly communication with the advent of the digital age, specifically focusing on the means by which knowledge is produced and disseminated as a result of open access culture. “Open Access” is the movement and practice addressed in the third category, which aligns itself with the ideology that knowledge is a human right and should be accessible to anyone with Internet access. This position is justified by authors who offer practical paths for successfully implementing open access in a capitalist society. By collating resource related to the umbrella term “Open Source,” the fourth category generally refers to the practice of openly sharing, modifying, and reusing software code. Initiatives such as the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement have played an important role in the current structure of the Internet and continue to be prominent voices defending user-interest in contemporary web-related debates (Kelty 2008). This category also covers the development of open source programs, from its origins in Linux and Apache, to its potential for collaborative software development (Godfrey and Tu 2000; Hars and Ou 2001; Lerner and Triole 2002). Resources range from the theoretical to the technical to the political. The fifth and final category, “Open Data,” includes resources that debate making research data publicly available and utilizable. This category also explores the motivations for institutions and researchers to openly publish, or refrain from publishing, their data (Murray-Rust 2008; Piwowar and Vision 2013).

## Community-based and Collaborative Forms of Open Knowledge

This section addresses collaborative forms of knowledge production in contemporary society, largely as a result of the ubiquity and accessibility of digital tools that facilitate knowledge production. Instead of only focusing on collaborations within field-specific or academic contexts, publications in this section focus on interdisciplinary collaborations, on university-community collaborations, and on knowledge production by non-university affiliated citizens in the form of crowdsourcing, citizen science, and citizen scholarship. These modes of research have drastically expanded the scope of questions that can be asked. The steepest rise in citizen science is seen in the social sciences, with stellar examples such as the Cornell Lab of Ornithology (CLO)—a key organization that focuses on environmental studies projects and has been practicing citizen science for over twenty years. The CLO has thousands of participants gathering tens of millions of observations each year—demonstrating the power of crowdsourcing and the impact of non-academic participants on research projects. CLO researchers provide a model for setting up a successful citizen science project (Bonney et al. 2009). While the section “Traditional Forms of Open Knowledge and their History” evinces that open social knowledge has been practiced long before the advent of the digital age, the purpose of this section is to point to how open knowledge is currently practiced and systematized. For example, many funding agencies require research organizations and individuals to have a public-facing element to their projects. This can be enacted in multiple ways, such as having community members involved in the project (through citizen science or crowdsourcing) or by openly publishing the data and results.
The 123 entries in this section are divided into 5 distinct categories that range from 10 to 54 annotations each. Categories include:
* Community Engagement
* Citizen Science
* Crowdsourcing
* Collaborative Scholarship
* Groups/Initiatives/Organizations Discussing Open Social Scholarship
The “Community Engagement” category focuses on university representatives that are invested in creating and maintaining partnerships with community members, often in the form of goal-oriented projects that benefit the broader society. Resources in this section detail the benefits of these partnerships—both for the university and the community—as well as challenges that may arise when representatives of these two groups collaborate, and how to overcome them. In order to ensure that working with outside groups is professionally rewarding, authors argue for the need for university administrations to formally recognize university-community partnerships. A number of resources also discuss the role of technology in community engagement and collaboration. Scholarship on research initiatives that are partially or wholly conducted by non-scientists, in most cases by volunteers who receive the necessary training to collect and interpret data for a targeted research investigation, is covered in the “Citizen Science” category. The authors argue that the rise of citizen science is due to the advancement of technology that allows the collection and transfer of data by non-professionals, as well as the more recent demand of funding agencies to seek the public’s approval of scientific research endeavours, since taxpayer dollars often fund these initiatives. Moreover, authors unanimously agree that, if done properly, citizen science can go a long way in educating the public, supporting scientific research, and improving the ecological environment through targeted nature-based research. The third category, “Crowdsourcing” refers to projects built on information gathered by large groups of unrelated individuals through digital means. Crowdsourced data is quickly becoming a common element of many academic projects. The collected resources both define crowdsourcing and offer a rich depiction of existing crowdsourcing practices, as well as suggestions for optimal implementation. The “Collaborative Scholarship” category addresses the rise of disciplinary and interdisciplinary research partnerships. An extended study of collaboration throughout the life cycle of the seven-year INKE project is communicated through a series of articles that explore how this particular collective evolved over time, how to develop and maintain productive team relationships, how to effectively integrate new team members into a project, and how to deal with unexpected challenges that may arise in collaborative environments (Siemens 2012-2016). Overall, this category serves as a solid starting point for those preparing to launch collaborative projects. Finally, the “Groups/Initiatives/Organizations Discussing Open Social Scholarship” category catalogues those who are currently active and engaging with open social scholarship. Advocacy for open access to information is the most dominant trend among the groups listed.

## Knowledge in Action

Resources in this category investigate how knowledge is mobilized and implemented in real-world settings. Instead of defining knowledge as static—something that sits on shelves and in machines—authors in this category trace the dynamism of knowledge and how it is made useful to others. This focus can also be seen as a shift away from overly-specialized niches of knowledge to a more practical approach that investigates to what end knowledge is created and to what extent it is utilized. This section also addresses and assesses the impact of technology on society at large, especially including the public voice in political movements and decisions. It explores how technology facilitates communication and mobilizes crowds—both virtually and in real life—to partake in various actions and activist movements. The role of technology and open knowledge in facilitating social justice in various scenarios is also addressed.
The 74 entries in this section are divided into 5 distinct categories that range from 8 to 23 annotations each. Categories include:
* Knowledge Mobilization
* Data Management
* Prototyping
* Social Justice and Open Knowledge Facilitated by Technology
* Action and Activism
The “Knowledge Mobilization” category includes works that reference the dissemination of research output, as well as knowledge engagement by groups outside of the pertaining research team. Notably, Colin R. Anderson and Stéphane M. McLachlan advocate for knowledge mobilization as a practice that opposes the traditional models of knowledge transfer, which often reign in academic environments and manifest a hierarchical transmission of knowledge (2015). This top-down structure is challenged by giving voice to typically marginalized groups—mostly those outside of academia—by establishing productive channels of communication (Anderson and McLachlan 2015). Authors in this category acknowledge the value of implementing knowledge mobilization strategies, and delve into possibilities, problems, and solutions using concrete examples that employ a variety of theoretical frameworks. The “Data Management” category hones in on effective methods for organizing data and documents through the application of systematic mechanisms. The resources collected address metadata and database management, as well as data visualization. Overall, the core foci of this section are data lifecycles, infrastructural mechanisms, and effective governance of digital information. The “Prototyping” category addresses scholarly prototyping that has proliferated over the last two decades. By experimenting with traditional forms of scholarly communication, the research prototypes in this category offer alternative modes of production, presentation, and dissemination that are supported by the digital medium. Although they have different end goals, all the prototypes in this category possess an experimental quality that seeks to innovate particular aspects of their respective field. The “Social Justice and Open Knowledge Facilitated by Technology” category engages with the effects that the digital medium has on social justice operations. Authors argue that open knowledge is a tool for social justice and demonstrate how it can advance diverse, scholarly fields, as well as society more generally. Overall, this category explores the various technologies and approaches that enable the development of open knowledge and social justice. Finally, the “Action and Activism” category navigates how digital media impacts the scope, outreach, and visibility of activist groups and movements.

## Notes

* ↑ The Electronic Textual Cultures Lab (ETCL) is a digital humanities research lab at the University of Victoria, directed by Dr. Ray Siemens. It serves as an intellectual hub of ~20 local faculty, staff, students, and visiting scholars. Through a series of highly collaborative relationships, the ETCL’s international community comprises over 300 researchers. The ETCL welcomes more than 800 students per year through their organization of the annual Digital Humanities Summer Institute (DHSI) and INKE.

## Works Cited

Anderson, Colin R., and Stéphane M. McLachlan. 2015. “Transformative Research as Knowledge Mobilization: Transmedia, Bridges, and Layers.” Action Research, December, 1476750315616684. doi:10.1177/1476750315616684.
Arbuckle, Alyssa, Nina Belojevic, Tracey El Hajj, Randa El Khatib, Lindsey Seatter, and Raymond G. Siemens, with Alex Christie, Matthew Hiebert, Jon Saklofske, Jentery Sayers, Derek Siemens, Shaun Wong, and the INKE and ETCL Research Groups. 2017. “An Annotated Bibliography of Social Knowledge Creation.” In Social Knowledge Creation in the Humanities, edited by Alyssa Arbuckle, Aaron Mauro, and Daniel Powell, 29-264. Arizona: Iter Academic Press and Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.
Arbuckle, Alyssa, Alex Christie, and Lynne Siemens, eds. 2016. Special Issue, Scholarly and Research Communication 7 (2): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/issue/view/24
Arbuckle, Alyssa, Alex Christie, and Lynne Siemens, eds. 2015. Special Issue, Scholarly and Research Communication 6 (4): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/issue/view/22
Arbuckle, Alyssa, Nina Belojevic, Matthew Hiebert, and Ray Siemens, with Shaun Wong, Alex Christie, Jon Saklofske, Jentery Sayers, and with the INKE and ETCL Research Groups. 2014. “Social Knowledge Creation: Three Annotated Bibliographies.” Scholarly and Research Communication 5.2.
Bonney, Rick, Caren B. Cooper, Janis Dickinson, Steve Kelling, Tina Phillips, Kenneth V. Rosenberg, and Jennifer Shirk. 2009. “Citizen Science: A Developing Tool for Expanding Science Knowledge and Scientific Literacy.” BioScience 59 (11): 977–84. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9.
Godfrey, Michael W., and Qiang Tu. 2000. “Evolution in Open Source Software: A Case Study.” In ICSM “00 Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM”00). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
Hars, Alexander, and Shaosong Ou. 2001. “Working for Free? - Motivations of Participating in Open Source Projects.” In Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2001). Washington, DC: IEEE.
Kelty, Christopher M. 2008. Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software. Durham: Duke University Press.
Lerner, Josh, and Jean Tirole. 2002. “Some Simple Economics of Open Source.” The Journal of Industrial Economics 50 (2): 197–234.
Murray-Rust, Peter. 2008. “Open Data in Science.” Serial Reviews 34 (1): 52–64. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00987913.2008.10765152.
Piwowar, Heather A., and Todd J. Vision. 2013. “Data Reuse and the Open Data Citation Advantage.” PeerJ 175. https://peerj.com/articles/175/.