Open Scholarship

Most of the discussions around “open scholarship” seem to presuppose that access is an unambiguous good. Inasmuch as the inclusion of the views and analyses of trained professionals might influence (and perhaps elevate) the discourse, this assumption makes sense.

However, is the influence reciprocal? Does writing with a larger audience (a different public) affect the level of discourse in the final product? It seems to me that there is a very good argument that imagines access as not only an economic or political concern, but also a “level of discourse” concern.

Academic writing is in many cases inaccessible because it relies on a shared theoretical underpinning and vocabulary that are acquired through a particular kind of training. There is certainly an exceedingly important place for translating that specialist discourse to a more general audience; however, if that translation becomes a guiding principle or “best practice” in a given field, is something else being lost?