Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice

Citation

Haider, J. (2008), "Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 168-169. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844204

Understanding Knowledge as a Commons. From Theory to Practice is an anthology consisting of 12 essays written by leading scholars and also activists from various corners of digital commons research and the commons movements. It arose from a workshop on “Scholarly communication as a commons” hosted by the editors, Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom, in 2004. It seems fair to describe the book's uniting thread as its intention to argue fervently and on all levels against the persistent myth of the “tragedy of the commons”.

The essays are organised in three sections. In accordance with the title, these move from theory to practice:

1. 1.

   Studying the knowledge commons.

2. 2.

   Protecting the knowledge commons.

3. 3.

   Building new knowledge commons.

The editors, Hess and Ostrom take the lead and open the book's first section on “Studying the knowledge commons” with an introduction to the topic. They manage to deliver a very concise, thorough, interesting, as well as historically anchored overview of the various aspects relevant for the study of the commons and to clarify some of the confusions surrounding the issue (pp. 3‐26). This is followed by David Bollier's outline of the “Growth of the commons paradigm” in which he argues for a synergistic interpretation of the relationship between the market and the commons (pp. 27‐40). The first section closes with Hess and Ostrom presenting the institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework in which they gauge its suitability as a “framework for analyzing the knowledge commons” (pp. 41‐81).

The book's second part, dedicated to the “Protection of the knowledge commons”, unites a further three essays. All are concerned with the various aspects of the knowledge commons in research and scholarly communication. The focus is either on reclaiming access and countering tendencies for enclosure, as in the essay by Nancy Kranich (pp. 85‐122), or on preserving the knowledge commons, as in the text by Donald J. Water (pp. 145‐167). Water concentrates in particular on the difficulties associated with archiving scholarly online journals. Finally, James Boyle argues for the need to extend Mertonianism, a concept derived from the sociology of science, beyond the world of scholarly communication (pp. 123‐141).

The third and final section of the book, dedicated to “Building new knowledge commons” contains the majority of the book's essays. Here Peter Suber writes about open access (pp. 171‐208), while Shubha Gosh describes the various faces of intellectual property regimes (pp. 209‐245). Peter Levine develops the concept of an “associational commons” which he sees in opposition to the “libertarian commons” of public goods and which “exists when some good is controlled by a group” (p. 251). He anchors it in the description of a community project carried out by the University of Maryland (pp. 247‐275). Charles M. Schwejk argues for the extension of the Free/Open Source software paradigm to scientific research (pp. 277‐309). Under the title “Scholarly communication and libraries unbound: the opportunity of the commons” Wendy Pradt Lougee investigates the research library's changing role from “archive or steward of information goods” to “collaborator and potentially a catalyst within interest‐based communities” (pp. 311‐332). The book closes with a chapter by James C. Cox and J.Todd Swarthout who describe an open access project, EconPort “a digital library of microeconomic for students, teachers, researchers and the general public” (pp. 333‐47).

In total, the 12 essays cover a number of interesting issues and projects. The book is well worth reading and suitable for readers of all levels. Yet, on a more critical note, it was the editors stated intention to move away from the narrow focus of scholarly communication, since in their words, “equating the knowledge commons with the scholarly‐communication arena was too limiting, and perhaps, parochial” (p. xi). Yet, despite this intention, of the 12 chapters in the book the majority is concerned precisely with scholarly communication; granted, sometimes in a fairly wide sense, but still. Clearly, the majority of authors have their background in this field and their concern with issues in the area can be felt throughout. This is understandable, it is however also a shortcoming since a lot more could be said about role and relevance of the (knowledge) commons in other fields. It seems this tendency is rooted in a strong association and at times even equation of knowledge with science or the results of scholarly investigation. This is not only limiting, but also problematic, and it is an issue that needs to be broached more critically. Moreover, the selection of essays, while generally interesting and relevant, is also culturally and geographically biased and US‐American projects and concerns prevail. At times I would have liked to see more analytical and in particular self‐critical reflection. However, I understand that this is not within the immediate focus of the book which wants to move from to theory to practice, something that it certainly achieves with the presentation of a number of interesting and important projects. Still, at times – and especially for readers already familiar with the topic area – the argument tends to become repetitive as the same issues are being presented in similar words by different authors. This is caused in particular by the way in which some authors introduce their topics as if starting from anew, not taking sufficient account of the fact that these are not articles standing on their own, but that context and starting points are already determined by them being united in this very book and also by the editors' introductory essay.

However, leaving these limitations aside, the book is a timely selection of interesting essays on various aspects of what, I believe, is clearly one of the most pressing issues of our times. In its totality it certainly manages to show that the “tragedy of the commons” myth is but that, an ideologically underpinned myth and that there are many ways to move beyond it.