Academic research is not something to which free access is possible.
Academic research is a process – a process which universities teach (at a
fee). It is neither a database, nor the ways and techniques by which the
database is manipulated. Just as my database is useless to you without your
having the skills to manipulate it, so those skills are useless to you without
the database . . . academic research publication is a form of teaching that
assumes some prior knowledge. For those who wish to have access, there is
an admission cost.61
Osborne’s basic arguments are: that ‘[i]f there are fees for access to teaching there should be fees for access to research’;62 that the publications that result from a research project ‘are only trivially a result of the research-funding’ provided by the broader public (and hence should not be subject to funder requirements to make this work available to taxpayers);63 and that OA makes no sense because those who wish to have access ‘must invest in the education prerequisite to enable them to understand the language used’.64
This book chapter, written by Osborne for the British Academy, caused some furore among OA advocates on its publication for obvious reasons. On the one hand, the thrust of Osborne’s argument is clear: humanities research must be seen as more than simple Gradgrindesque facticity and the provision of utilitarian databases for consultation. Osborne is correct that this is not the purpose of work in the humanities. On the other hand, though, this particular argument raises three specific questions in opposition: why should fees to access teaching (which is not the situation in every country, anyway) entail fees to access research, when teaching is that which provides the prerequisite to understanding research? If (taxpayer65) funding only contributes such a small amount to the overall gain in knowledge and efforts of a project, should those in the humanities receive it?66 Finally, are there not a large number of humanities graduates who do not work in the university but who would be able to understand this work? Osborne’s argument is among the more extreme of objections to open access, even if rooted in a fairly accepted view of the function of humanities research; most arguments, as I will go on to discuss, take issue with specific aspects of open access implementation.
In the more moderate camps, there are several groups of academics who have objected, not to the basic principle of open access, but rather to the way in which it is to be implemented through article or
