Thinking about how open access differs in sociology than in the other discipline that dominate this arena. I indicated in my earlier post that I would prefer to make data open to all, but the first issue (sometimes different from history, etc.) is confidentiality promised by institutional review boards on interview, survey, or observational data. It’s not insurmountable, just takes some thinking about how to protect those rights that don’t have be thought about in the same ways for traditional research or even posted on a closed system like Canvas.
And, because I am a sociologist, I realize these questions of access are really questions about social class, education, and other demographic naughties that sociologists like to throw into the mix just to mess things up. What does “open” mean, exactly for those who have less access to the on line environment and little cultural capital to know what to do with it when they do get there? Even figuring how students deal with “information overload” or how they navigate through websites or determine which on-line information is worth using or not is highly classed, I think. An open system is pretty closed for those who don’t know what to do with it, and it actually might be even more insidious given its purported democratic nature.