The following are two very similar statements that I am posting here for archival purposes, especially since I seem to continually misplace them in my own files and they are starting to vanish from the Internet.

**********

Posted by the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association (CSAA)
SSHRC Transformation – Commentary and discussion pages

Maximilian Forte, University College of Cape Breton

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to share the following suggestions with you regarding the proposed changes to SSHRC’s structure and funding operations. In essence, the message below focuses on what I see as the social and ethical implications of public funding, alternative publishing avenues, and networking. I would be grateful for any comments.

As ambitious and ostensibly “innovative” as the whole package sounds, what I consider to be major analytical deficits seem to persist. One basic question: why must universities and tax payers pay for the same research twice? First, the researcher is paid a salary plus publicly-funded research grants. Then, once the research has been completed, the public and the universities must pay once again to re-import / purchase that same research which they originally funded, that is, in order to acquire the book or journal article which is a product of the research. Once that is done, third parties, who had nothing to do with the research process, let alone paying for it, intervene and appropriate the profits for themselves. Here I am speaking of commercial publishers. They lord over the copyrights as if they were the authors, in effect restricting access to the author’s work, and privatizing what was publicly-funded knowledge.

Now, in my view, if SSHRC really wanted to be innovative, it would insist that SSHRC funded research be made available for free to the public once it is available as a more or less finalized product. The way to do that is to insist on open-access web publishing. And the way to ensure some measure of quality control is to set up large and diversified boards of peer reviewers responsible for examining and evaluating materials before they appear online in an open access database that is funded by SSHRC and managed by a team.

What I am suggesting is that SSHRC use its many resources, its contacts with scholars in all disciplines of the social sciences and humanities across all Canadian universities, to help foster, facilitate, or otherwise manage either a single all encompassing scholarly portal or a series of them.

The function of such a portal, or portals, would combine what we already see being done by The Social Sciences Information Gateway in the UK, allowing us to post CVs, conference announcements, course syllabi, etc., and creating an online, open access, database of scholarly papers and even book length manuscripts that are peer reviewed.

The resources we need are already in place, this is mostly a question of organization and planning, not to mention will. It essentially involves sidelining commercial and other print publishers, the monopolistic obsessions of the copyright culture, thus ensuring the widest possible access to publicly-funded research. This can have beneficial spin off effects for our own research and teaching and study in general.

Libraries–especially for those of us in small universities–cannot afford subscriptions to journals that are doubling in number and often quadrupling in cost. Research published in journals basically vanishes for all intents and purposes–you have to hope that many libraries will subscribe to the journal in which you published in the hope of getting feedback and recognition. Research published in book format is often hacked down to a marketable size, especially now that paper costs have increased by over 30%. No book allows for a truly engaging multi-media format, with photographs, audio clips and/or video clips, let alone the dynamic potential of hyperlinked referencing.

These are things we all know already. I just wish that they would be acted upon rather than acknowledged, or repeated.

In summary, I am not frightened or worried about most of the changes proposed in the SSHRC transformation. Much of it is exciting and on the right track in my view. The irony is that, if anything, I think it has a rather conservative vision of change.

Dr Maximilian C. Forte
Assistant Professor in Anthropology
Department of Anthropology and Sociology
University College of Cape Breton
P.O. Box 5300, Sydney, NS, Canada, B1N 1A3
Tel: 902-563-1947
Fax: 902-563-1247
E-mail: mailto:max_forte@uccb.caWebsite
Website: http://faculty.uccb.ns.ca/mforte/

**********

From:

REPORT OF CONSULTATIONS ON SSHRC TRANSFORMATION 

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF CAPE BRETON 

MAY, 2004 
 

Joanne Gallivan, Ph.D. 
Dean of Research 
 

An interesting proposal emerged for a new approach to research communication. Dr. Max Forte, Assistant Professor, Anthropology, argued the need to describe what we do more effectively:

One basic question: why must universities and taxpayers pay for the same research twice? First, the researcher is paid a salary plus publicly funded research grants. Then, once the research has been completed, the public and the universities must pay once again to re-import/purchase that same research which they originally funded, that is, in order to acquire the book or journal article which is a product of the research. Once that is done, third parties, who had nothing to do with the research process, let alone paying for it, intervene and appropriate the profits for themselves… privatizing what was publicly-funded knowledge… if SSHRC really wanted to be “innovative”, it would insist that SSHRC funded research be made available for free to the public once it is available as a more or less finalized product. The way to do that is to insist on open-access web publishing. And the way to ensure some measure of quality control is to set up large and diversified boards of peer reviewers responsible for examining and evaluating materials before they appear online in an open access database that is funded by SSHRC and managed by a team.

What I am suggesting is that SSHRC use its many resources, its contacts with scholars in all disciplines of the social sciences and humanities across all Canadian universities, to help foster, facilitate, or otherwise manage either a single all encompassing scholarly portal or a series of them.

The function of such a portal, or portals, would combine what we already see being done by The Social Sciences Information Gateway in the UK, allowing us to post CVs, conference announcements, course syllabi, etc., and creating an online, open access, database of scholarly papers and even book length manuscripts that are peer reviewed.

The resources we need are already in place, this is mostly a question of organization and planning, not to mention will. It essentially involves sidelining commercial and other print publishers, the monopolistic obsessions of the copyright culture, thus ensuring the widest possible access to publicly-funded research. This can have beneficial spin off effects for our own research and teaching and study in general. 

Generally, reactions to the ideas of a clearinghouse for advanced expertise and exchange/mobility programs were positive, but participants felt the need for more details about how such programs would operate. With respect to the human sciences foundation and knowledge mobilization units, reaction was mixed. Response ranged from cautious approval accompanied by a need for clearer explanation of goals and implementation; to rejection of these as priorities for funding, especially if they might jeopardize current core programs; to outright rejection, whatever the circumstance. For some, the idea of knowledge mobilization units, in particular, seemed contradictory, since they might focus knowledge mobilization efforts too narrowly; for those participants, the preferred approach was a mechanism to encourage knowledge mobilization more generally.

There was positive response to the suggestion to establish scholarly-based journals for lay audiences. Participants believe that social science and humanities research would provide a host of material of interest to lay readers. Both print and web media should be considered. Many UCCB researchers believe this approach would promote interest in and support of research and, over the long term, could increase “research literacy” among the public.