Page:Open access and the humanities - contexts, controversies and the future.pdf/25

 radical overhaul of the scholarly communications system were straightforward and universally accepted. That said, any alignment of OA with speciﬁc political positions is complex. As Nigel Vincent and Chris Wickham noted in the foreword to a British Academy volume on the topic, open access ‘has a current force, however, which is not only moral but now political, with Conservative politicians in effect lined up with unequivocal egalitarians’.10 This political ambivalence has been seconded by Cameron Neylon, a prominent ﬁgure in the OA world of the sciences, who recently likewise pointed out that to work on open-access projects is to ﬁnd oneself accused one day of being a neoliberal sell-out and the next of being an anti-corporatist Marxist.11 In reality, open access was born within various contexts of both corporate and radically anticorporate politics in which one side proclaims the beneﬁts for freemarket business and the other believes ‘in an ethical pursuit [of] democratization, fundamental human rights, equality, and justice’.12 This means that it is extremely difﬁcult to situate the entire phenomenon at such political polarities; different aspects of open access perform different functions that may align with different political agendas.13

Fundamentally, however, there is also an understanding of OA emerging that seems desirable to a large number of stakeholders, regardless of political position: open access would function simply to allow researchers and the general public to have access to academic research material when they otherwise could not. Broader motivational differences for desiring this, of course, remain. Some also think open access to be pragmatically impossible, particularly on the economic front. As an ideal goal, though, the proposition of OA is fairly well accepted by a range of ﬁgures, with a seeming tipping point of consensus reached in 2013, as can be seen in the section of Chapter 2 on international mandates for open access. It is now more often the practicalities of achieving such a goal that are the focus of disagreement: how should open access be implemented? How is the labour underpinning this operation to be subsidised and who will pay? Such questions are hardly tangential and, even if OA was deemed desirable across the majority of the stakeholder spectrum, without satisfactory answers, it may remain under-realised. In other words: while many different factions now agree that open access is a