@article{Marcel Knöchelmann_2021, title={The Democratisation Myth: Open Access and the Solidification of Epistemic Injustices}, volume={34}, url={https://sciencetechnologystudies.journal.fi/article/view/94964}, DOI={10.23987/sts.94964}, abstractNote={<p><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 519.147px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.894352);">Open access (OA) in the Global North is considered to solve an accessibility problem in scholarly </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 542.48px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.948153);">communication. But this accessibility is restricted to the consumption of knowledge. Epistemic </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 565.814px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.94528);">injustices inhering in the scholarly communication of a global production of knowledge remain </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 589.147px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.92012);">unchanged. This underscores that the commercial or big deal OA dominating Europe and North </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 612.48px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.960749);">America have little revolutionary potential to democratise knowledge. Academia in the Global North, </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 635.814px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.953099);">driven by politics of progressive neoliberalism, can even reinforce its hegemonic power by solidifying </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 659.147px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.980213);">and legitimating contemporary hierarchies of scholarly communication through OA. In a critique of </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 682.48px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.899029);">the notion of a democratisation of knowledge, I showcase manifestations of OA as either allowing </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 705.814px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.902843);">consumption of existing discourse or as active participation of discourse in the making. The latter </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 729.147px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.927019);">comes closer to being the basis for a democratisation of knowledge. I discuss this as I issue a threefold </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 752.48px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.962785);">conceptualisation of epistemic injustices comprising of testimonial injustice, hermeneutical injustice, </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 775.814px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.938945);">and epistemic objectification. As these injustices prevail, the notion of a democratisation of knowledge </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 799.147px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.973461);">through OA is but another form of technological determinism that neglects the intricacies of culture </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 822.48px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.953646);">and hegemony</span>.</p>}, number={2}, journal={Science & Technology Studies}, author={Marcel Knöchelmann}, year={2021}, month={Feb.}, pages={65–89} }