• TheSis
• ExPose20070124

N.B.: This text is made available under the following licence:
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Germany License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/de/deed.en
(please follow the link to be informed in simple words what you may and may not do with this text, thank you

Research dissemination on the web. Revisiting the Open Access publishing policy from a Queer Studies perspective

Dissertation exposé by Claudia Koltzenburg, M.A.

(24 January 2007 - with minor updates since then, mostly re language editing and proof reading - thanks!)

1. Aim

I wish to investigate what are the opportunities and limitations of policy transfer and/ or participative policy making in electronic research publishing by reassessing the Open Access policy from European Queer Studies perspectives. <1> ¹

2. Description of the topic

Over the past few years, Open Access (OA) has evolved from merely being a quicker way to communicate scientific papers into an interdisciplinary movement whose proponents today aim to promote Open Access as a new, universally beneficial electronic publishing strategy. OA can also be described as a multi-stakeholder policy transfer process from the field of Physics to other academic disciplines. I intend to conduct the reassessment from an interdisciplinary perspective. My case in point is the field of Queer Studies in European countries. By conducting a case study on this field (more on which appears below), I hope to highlight a specific academic community's publishing culture and see what insights from this community's culture may bring to a reflection on the OA policy's underlying concepts, e.g. “openness” and “accessibility”. <2>

In my feminist technoscientific approach, I suggest seeing the research document in electronic form as a material instrument, a "transducer" (Barad). Karen Barad (2001) uses "transducer" to signify an entity in a complex techno-scientific process, which functions as a kind of mediator imbued somehow with Foucaultdian bodily reactions, and as a tool to examine the relation between the material and the discursive (Barad is using the example of the piezoelectric crystal in ultrasound technology). I hope my inquiry will serve to unravel the influence of a discipline's traditions on a researcher's habits and expectations when it comes to publishing electronically. I am also reflecting on a possible influence of this kind for future publishing strategies. In the context of my topic, what e.g., is the "transducer" function of a research document in the publishing processes undertaken to further an academic career? <3>

Disciplinarily speaking, Queer Studies (QS) forms an interesting case, because unlike other emerging fields of inquiry with which QS may share a certain co-disciplinary constitution (i.e., every researcher entering the field has most likely been educated in academic traditions of a different and more established field), QS shows an intercultural dynamic which may be due to a culture's/a country's different regimes of sexual politics as well as intellectual and social taboo-ising. As OA is currently also being promoted by funding agencies (and QS is sometimes being funded, too), it is about time to reassess the policy's conceptual foundations of "openness" and "accessibility" as allegedly unquestionable positives and look into the issue of how (and by whom) possible inclusion/exclusion borders are being drawn, also strategically and technologically. <4>

What is receiving public attention today as an “Open Access movement” began as a technological procedure devised in High Energy Physics about fifteen years ago². It was devised as a way to serve the need of researchers to know sooner than in traditional "publishing" what others have already done in a specific field. Already initially this procedure had strategic aspects: Alongside the functions of getting a document authenticated ("I am the author of what is made accessible here") as well as time-stamped ("I am the first to have found out about this issue"), researchers were meant to place their results on the net for free, as so-called "pre-prints"³. The aim was to abridge the "publication process" by letting colleagues judge for themselves which of the new work they needed to know about – instead of having journal editors choose for their audience and do peer-reviewing. For new documents in a repository like www.arxiv.org, researchers most likely organize a peer-review by themselves (in their own working group) before uploading the document on the net. This "pre-print" culture today also makes visible a lot more work than what gets "published"⁴. Journal editors are recognizing this service (self-organized by a scientific community) when they access a field's open repositories, e.g. www.arxiv.org, in order to select new articles for peer-review to be undertaken by their editorial board. From the vantage point of science studies, "pre-print" culture is interesting, since, as an open pool of documents, it has created a more democratic alternative to the gate-keeping function of journal branding and (mostly non-transparent) editorial board policies. With an open repository, anyone who has done some research and wishes to make it known to others can upload a document. <5>

My reassessment study is directed towards both interdisciplinary and intercultural policy issues of transfer and/or participative policy making: If claims, manifestos and guidelines of a policy have been created and purported with view to a certain (group of) field(s) or culture(s), what do other groups of possible users see in this concept: Which aspects are being accepted, which of them go unquestioned and which aspects are being rejected; by which measures are they rejected and for which reasons? I am reassessing OA from two vantage points: an interdisciplinary one and an intercultural one. By "interdisciplinary" I mean that the technological procedure has been devised by researchers in Physics and is now claimed to be the right way to publish for every other field of research. By "intercultural" I mean two things at the same time: namely likenesses and differences between ethnically/ nationally created cultures (e.g., what is acceptable in each culture to write publicly) as well as between different ways of life defined socio-sexually (e.g., what is "openness" in one's cultural expressions of being related to one another, e.g., among heterosexuals as compared to homosexuals). If we see these perspectives in the context of the following two statements, it becomes apparent why it may be fruitful to reassess OA in both intercultural and interdisciplinary terms:

• “Technologies such as the internet and wiki software create the possibility of making all science observations and results "open source". The possibility now exists of movement away from the traditional system of personal ownership of data towards a new way of doing science. Individual scientists can now make all of their observations, results, notes and writings available to the world as soon as they are recorded. There are reasons why cultural momentum will restrain scientists from such "open sourcing" of science, but there are also forces in play that could in the future make open science the new dominant paradigm in science.” (Schmidt 2006)
  
  “Social relations are subtly inscribed in the architecture of the scholarly communication system.” (Cronin 2005:82) <6>

Let us focus for a moment on QS as the case chosen for this study, and give an example of the functional aspects of an electronic document as a "transducer" for studying the relation between the material and the discursive. The young, non-established, badly-funded, strongly networked field of QS is characterised by the fact that, due to being social anathema in many European countries – and often intellectual anathema in neighbouring academic fields – a very large percentage of QS researchers belong to queer communities themselves (it seems that "non-queers" hesitate to enter this field of study altogether). Thus, to take an obvious example which I hold may be at stake here, quite a number of QS researchers are likely to face social risks within academia and in other parts of society if they continue with the academic convention of authoring their articles with their "proper" names (which, technically speaking, is merely one of many metadata tags). The risk amounts to being seen, through results of web search engines and the like, by a larger public than hitherto, as a non-heterosexual "other", the consequences being at times unforeseeable. Let us link this example to a current issue in the sociology of science which tackles the issue

• “to what extent democratic participation in the design and performance of scientific processes may be realized, and which are the structures of societal power distribution bearing on science and being at work within science itself that prevent or restrict such participation.” (Scheich 2004:93, my translation) <7>

In our example, what authorial practices might be used as transducive strategies against maybe too much "openness", too much "accessibility" of various types – if so intended? And, more generally speaking in the overall frame of this research project, what are the chances of participative policy making when it comes to e.g., QS perspectives on OA? <8>

3. Practical, theoretical and political relevance of this topic

The practical relevance of my project is twofold: br a. With my research project, I am acting equally as researcher and policy-maker, since I am a general proponent of OA as a publishing strategy for research. By discussing my topic with others, OA as a new research publishing strategy is being made known and – where known – better known.
b. With my case study I intend to put OA into critical focus for a policy reassessment, which should help to improve the whole idea of publishing for free on the net, especially in academic fields. By shifting OA attention away from the field of origin (Physics) to Queer Studies, new disciplinary aspects of what is relevant in a publishing process come into view, and this should enhance the interdisciplinary applicability of OA.
Both a. and b. contribute to the practical relevance of my topic in that the very project itself forms part of an ongoing international multi-stakeholder negotiation process which is being undertaken not only by researchers as "self-interested individuals" (Dye 2002:25) and conference participants (EASST-Forum 2006) or by research institutions⁵, but also in a supranational political arena like the European Commission, with its Study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific publication markets in Europe (2006),⁶ a public consultation,⁷ as well as at an upcoming international conference entitled "Scientific Publishing in the European Research Area -- Access, Dissemination, and Preservation in the Digital Age."⁸<9>

The theoretical relevance of my study will most likely be its contribution to Policy Studies in combination with Feminist Technoscience (or vice versa). By shifting OA concepts from a known context to a new one, certain black-boxing processes in scientific epistemology as well as in a discipline's publishing process are being made visible and, hopefully, negotiable. Inspired by insights from Feminist Technoscience (Barad 2001, 2003; Björkman 2005; Björkman/ Trojer 2006; Elovaara 2004; Gulbrandsen 2004; Haraway 1985/1991; Suchman 2000/2003; Trojer 2004) and Feminist and Queer Studies (Barad 2001, 2003; Baxi 2006; Engel 2002; Ernst 1999), my research may contribute to showing policy transfer and participative policy making in new perspectives. I suggest analysing this policy as technopolitics, from where to take the next steps towards a more diversified way to publishing OA. It is likely that intercultural issues such as those regarding "what is OK to say in public", and the dominance in academic publishing of Anglo-American ways of dealing with the public/private dichotomy will also contribute to the theoretical relevance of my research project, the politico-cultural scope of which is European (East-West-South-North). <10>

The overall political relevance of my project lies in the fact that it is referring critically to current public discourses on the alleged needs of what is termed the "Information and Knowledge Society". In politicians' speeches and mainstream media discourses, the accessibility of knowledge as well as "Life-Long Learning" are often not founded well enough in a historical perspective. As has recently been pointed out convincingly, Open Source as well as Open Access can be seen as counteracting a tendency that materialized through the introduction of patenting in Italy in the 15th century: a steady increase of the commercial hand's influence on the utilization of knowledge (Gruppo Laser 2005). Hence, in reassessing OA as a possible alternative strategy for enabling net users to benefit from a more equal distribution of knowledge (through disseminating research OA on the web), I am taking seriously the proclaimed importance of access to knowledge also socio-technologically. <11>

4. Motives for working on this topic

I see myself as acting in the contexts of an interdisciplinary community of feminist researchers as well as belonging to the OA movement. In their feminist readings of collective imaginings in Baruch de Spinoza's 17th century Dutch Jewish philosophy, Moira Gatens and Geneviève Lloyd phrase very well what I also understand as my motives for working on this topic:

• „The feeling of belonging ... confers upon us both benefits and burdens or obligations. One of these obligations is to take responsibility in the present for the manner in which one's constitutive imaginary harms, excludes or silences others.” (Gatens/ Lloyd, 1999:143) <12>

What can be described as the current OA policy's constitutive imaginary? Which are the new differences and attendant exclusionary practices of this policy, how can these be addressed, and maybe also overcome? Another way of putting responsibility into context is Karen Barad's view of how reality is created. This I find helpful for my feminist epistemological motives:

• ”[R]eality is sedimented out of the process of making the world intelligible through certain practices and not others. Therefore, we are not only responsible for the knowledge that we seek, but, in part, for what exists.” (Barad 2001:109) <13>

With my background in LGBT human rights (having been inspired by the struggle to make visible exclusionary practices in a country's socio-sexual legal provisions), I am now turning to a technopolitical field of study. The OA policy lends itself very well to questioning dividing lines such as those commonly drawn between “technology” and “politics”, European “periphery” and “centre”⁹, “privacy” and “publishing”. By taking the case of European QS, I intend to look more closely at what exactly may be (in)visible inclusionary/exclusionary factors¹⁰ of the proclaimed central tenets of “openness” and “accessibility” in the OA policy as it stands today. I hope to succeed in drawing up a fairer offer to actors from emerging non-privileged academic fields such as QS in European countries, following Karen Barad by taking, in part, responsibility for what exists. <14>

5. Which theoretical concepts am I intending to use?

My way to approach my topic can be viewed as a study in feminist technopolicy assessment which proceeds by using the concept of "studying through": „tracing ways in which power creates webs and relations between actors, institutions and discourses across time and space" (orig. Reinhold 1994, Shore/Wright 1997:14). I am linking this anthropology of policy stance to the useful idea that the concept of policy is at once emic and etic, both an empirical object and an analytical concept (Hoeyer 2005:S72). For my project in policy studies this means considering two discourses in relation to one another: a. how my informants or other actors speak about OA (the emic side), and b. which interrelations are seen and formulated by the researcher as observer, i.e. by myself (the etic perspective). For this bridging effort, I am taking Karen Barad's notion of a "transducer" and transferring it to the electronic document as an entity; the shape, conditions and function of which are attracting attention in OA (e.g., what makes it accessible: legally, technically, financially, linguistically etc.) and hence also in the discourses to be studied. Last but not least, I am studying issues of policy transfer (cf. Stubbs 2005), using the concept critically in order to find out where “policy transfer” begins and ends and where “participative policy making” in OA contexts may begin and end. This definition work is to help me consider more closely (in my case study on European QS) the opportunities and limitations of policy transfer processes and/ or participative policy making in electronic research publishing. <15>

6. Which empirical methods am I intending to use?

I am thinking of conducting a case study in the shape of a small scale qualitative investigation. During my testing period since mid 2006, I have been using methods of qualitative sociological research, namely interviews (tests run by phone, face-to-face, email). I am also thinking of doing analyses of other written material such as that which can be accessed at research publishing projects (incl. three new European Queer Studies journals with OA affinities: interalia (Polish), trickster (Scandinavian), SQS (Finnish)) as well as in official research publishing policy statements. Likewise, I am taking into account my own presentations and subsequent discussions, conversations, as well as some participant observation at meetings focussing on electronic publishing and/or QS (e.g., Warsaw in August 2006). <16>

English language data created in mail based interviews with European Queer Studies authors (all of whom are non-native speakers of English – for reasons of better comparability) would form the basis of my data pool, the other written material I am planning to use in addition, mostly as a contrasting foil. It seems to me today that discourse analysis would be an appropriate method to interpret both types of data. <17>

7. What have I done so far? What am I planning to do next?

Time-wise, I am approaching the second third of my dissertation project. Before I might actually start shifting from test interviews to contacting target group informants, I am currently allowing myself to open up towards what may become a new transdisciplinary context in which to continue my project. <18>

Starting on my thesis in early September 2004 (writing an application for a unique Hamburg Gender Studies scholarship opportunity, won for 2005-2006), I have since undertaken an interdisciplinary journey with visits to information ethics (Capurro, Kuhlen), to feminist political philosophy (Gatens/Lloyd reading Spinoza, Baxi reading Arendt), to the sociology and philosophy of science (Fausto-Sterling, Fleck), to science in Mode-2 contexts of implication (Nowotny et al. 2001), to Feminist Technoscience (see my string of references above), to social sciences data co-creation methods, e.g. mail based interviewing (Murray/ Sixsmith 1998), intercultural academic studies including issues of cosmopolitanism (Appiah), and, last but not least, since 2005 I have been undertaking my own hands-on wiki experiments (using mediawiki and moinmoin softwares as research publishing platforms; also, for management purposes, a few blog experiments with WordPress). Previously, from December 2001 to December 2004 when project managing a network of academic institutions in Germany wishing to publish OA, and ever since, I have taken the opportunity to gain insights on current Open Access technological architecture projects (while listening to conference papers in Berlin, La Rochelle, Zurich, Cologne, Budapest, Lund) which convinced me – thinking of the socio-political construction of technology (cf. Bauchspies et al. 2006:32) – that it would be worth while to conduct an intercultural and interdisciplinary reassessment of OA. <19>

As my next step I am thinking of having a closer look at what studies of participative policy making might bring to my topic. Also, I wish to reconsider my empirical methods and see how it might be possible to proceed more quickly while maintaining an equally good data basis. <20>

8. What will be the structure of the thesis?

I see at least two ways of putting my thesis together in chapter structures, one being suggested by a preliminary TOC (below), another way would be to proceed in such a way that a number of independent papers written and presented over the next 2-3 years on my topic could be bundled together into a nice conceptual framework (for this I have no suggestion yet). <21>

Table of Contents (suggested)
0. Metadata
0.1 Title
0.2 Author
0.3 Publication details
0.4 Abstract
0.5 Keywords
0.6 Acknowledgements
0.7 Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Topical issues (Research Publishing, Publishing models, Visibility of Research Results)
1.1.1 Research Output
1.1.2 Research processes
1.1.3 Publishing research results
1.1.4 'Publishing' vs. what?
1.1.5 Electronic Publishing
1.1.6 Publishing Open Access
1.2 Delimitations
1.3 Research design
1.4 Summary of the introduction
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Feminist Technoscience
2.2 Policy Studies
2.3 European Studies
2.5 Queer Studies: (Dis)Solving Dichotomies
2.5.1 Technopolicies (Technology & Politics)
2.5.2 '(Semi-)Periphery / Centre
2.5.3 'Private' / (semi-)'Public'
3. Publishing models
3.1 Types of publishing models/ strategies
3.2 Technology reviews
3.2.1 'A System that Scholars Deserve' – Cornell University's state of the art
3.2.2 Journal software (technology review)
3.2.3 Document management tools (technology review)
3.2.4 Dissemination technology (OAI et al.)
3.3 Debating research publishing
3.3.1 The debate on Open Access (state of the art discussion review)
3.3.2 How other publishing strategies appear in this perspective today
4. Methodology & Method
4.1 Politico-ethical concerns
4.2 Discourse analysis
5. Data Generation
5.1 Interviews
5.1.1 How find which informants
5.1.2 What to ask
5.1.3 Interpretation and outcome
5.2 Other sources (Publishing projects, official research publishing policy statements, own presentations & subsequent discussion, conversations, participant observation at meetings)
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
7.1 Summary
7.2 Suggestions for further study
8. References
9. Appendix (incl. Glossary)
<22>

9. References

• Appiah, Kwame Anthony [2006]: Cosmopolitanism. Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: Norton & Norton, 2006
  

• Barad, Karen [2001]: Performing Culture/ Performing Nature: Using the Piezoelectric Crystal of Ultrasound Technologies as a Transducer between Science Studies and Queer Theories. In: Christina Lammar (Ed.): Digital Anatomy. Wien: Turia & Kant, 2001, 98-114.
  

• Barad, Karen [2003]: Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. In: Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2003, 801-831.
  

• Bauchspies, Wenda K.; Croissant, Jennifer; Restivo, Sal: Science, Technology and Society. A Sociological Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006
  

• Baxi, Upendra [2006]: Politics of reading human rights. Inclusion and exclusion within the production of human rights. In: The legalization of human rights: multidisciplinary perspectives on human rights and human rights law. Başak Çalı, Saladin Meckled-García (Eds.). London: Routledge, 2006, 182-200.
  

• Berlin Declaration [2003]: Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, 22 Oktober 2003, http://www.mpg.de/pdf/openaccess/BerlinDeclaration_en.pdf [last accessed 2007-01-23]
  

• Björkman, Christina [2005]: Crossing Boundaries, Focusing Foundations, Trying Translations: Feminist Technoscience Strategies in Computer Science. Karlskrona: Blekinge Institute of Technology Dissertation Series No 2005:02, 2005, http://masl.to/?H2F45254E [last accessed 2007-01-23]
  

• Björkman, Christina; Trojer, Lena [2006]: What does it mean to Know Computer Science? Perspectives from Gender Research. In: tripleC (cognition, communication, co-operation) 4(2), 2006: 316-327, http://tripleC.uti.at [last accessed 2007-01-23]
  

• Blagojević, Marina [2004]: Creators, Transmitters and Users: Women's Scientific Excellence at the Semi-Periphery of Europe. In: European Education, Vol. 36, Number 4/ Winter 2004, 70-90.
  

• Capurro, Rafael [2004]: Informationsethik. Eine Standortbestimmung, International Journal of Information Ethics, Vol. 1, June 2004

• Cronin, Blaise [2005]: The Hand of Science. Academic Writing and its Rewards. Lanham, MD: 2005.
  

• Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [2005]: Publishing Strategies in Transformation? Results of a study on publishing habits and information acquisition with regard to open access, http://tinyurl.com/324qyc [last accessed: 2007-01-23]
  

• Dye, Thomas R. [1972/ 2002]: Understanding Public Policy. Upper Saddle River; NJ: Pearson Education. 10th edition, 2002
  

• EASST-Forum [2006]: Addressing the 'unease' about the current publication system (Convened by Ragna Zeiss, VU Amsterdam), http://www2.unil.ch/easst2006/Prog%20Update%20180806.pdf (page 16) [last accessed: 2007-01-23]
  

• Elovaara, Pirjo [2004]: Angels in Unstable Sociomaterial Relations: Stories of Information Technology. Karlskrona: Blekinge Institute of Technology Dissertion Series No 2004:02, 2004, http://tinyurl.com/yuo66d [last accessed 2007-01-23]
  

• Engel, Antke [2002]: Wider die Eindeutigkeit. Sexualität und Geschlecht im Fokus Queerer Politik der Repräsentation. Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 2002

• Ernst, Waltraud [1999]: Diskurspiratinnen. Wie Feministische Erkenntnisprozesse die Wirklichkeit verändern. Wien: Milena Verlag, 1999.
  

• European Commission, DG Research [2006]: Study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific publication markets in Europe. Final report January 2006. Brussels: European Commission/ DG Research, 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf [last accessed: 2007-01-23]
  

• Fleck, Ludwik [1935, 1980]: Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Frankfurt/ Main: Suhrkamp, 5. Auflage 2002.
  

• Gatens, Moira; Lloyd, Genevieve [1999]: Collective Imaginings. Spinoza, past and present. London and New York: Routledge, 1999
  

• Ginsparg, Paul [2004]: Scholarly Information Network. In: Eli Ben-Naim, Hans Frauenfelder, Zoltan Toroczkai (Eds.): Complex Networks. Lecture Notes in Physics; 650. Heidelberg: Springer, 2004, 313-336.
  

• Gruppo Laser [2005]: Il Sapere Liberato. Il movimento dell'open source e la ricerca scientifica. Nuova Serie Feltrinelli; 1. Milano: Giangiacomo Feltrinelli Editore, 2005.
  

• Gulbrandsen, Elisabeth [2004]: How can Universities become more active Partners in Innovation Systems? Lessons from the Nordic Countries? In: Gulbrandsen, Elisabeth; Nsengiyumva, Albert; Rydhagen, Birgitta; Trojer, Lena: ICT, innovation systems and the role of universities in societal development. A (post)colonial strain? Butare: National University of Ruanda Press, 2004, 107-126, http://tinyurl.com/2ofra2 [last accessed 2007-01-23]
  

• Gunnarsdóttir, Kristrún [2005]: Scientific Journal Publications: On the Role of Electronic Preprint Exchange in the Distribution of Scientific Literature. In: Social Studies of Science 35/4 (August 2005), 549-579.
  

• Haraway, Donna [1985/ 1991]: A Cyborg Manifesto. In: Donna Haraway: Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. The Reinvention of Nature. New York and London: Routledge, 1991, 149-181.
  

• Hoeyer, Klaus [2005]: Studying Ethics as Policy. The Naming and Framing of Moral Problems in Genetic Research. In: Current Anthropology, 46, Supplement, 2005, S71-S90.
  

• Kuhlen, Rainer [2004]: Informationsethik. In: Handbuch Grundlagen von Information und Dokumentation, Hg. R. Kuhlen, T. Seeger, D. Strauch, München: K. G. Saur, 5. Auflage, 2004a, http://www.inf-wiss.uni-konstanz.de/People/RK/Publikationen2004/a05-kuhlen-AA.pdf [last accessed 2007-01-23]
  

• Murray, Craig D. and Judith Sixsmith [1998]: E-Mail: A Qualitative Research Medium for Interviewing? In: Nigel Fielding, Ed., Interviewing. London: Sage: 2003, Vol II, Section XI: Online Interviewing, 128-148.
  

• Noguchi, Judy [2006]: The Science Review Article. An Opportune Genre in the Construction of Science. Berne: Peter Lang.
  

• Nowotny, Helga; Scot, Peter; Gibbons, Michael [2001]: Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity, 2001.

• Reinhold, Susan [1994]: Local Conflict and Ideological Struggle: ‘Positive Images’ and ‘Section 28’. University of Sussex : unpublished D.Phil. thesis, referred to in Shore, Cris; Wright, Susan [1997:14, 20], see below.
  

• Scheich, Elvira [2004]: Objektivität, Perspektivität und Gesellschaft: Zum Verhältnis von soziologischer Theorie und Wissenschaftsforschung. In: Frey Steffen, Therese; Rosenthal, Caroline; Väth, Anke (Eds.): Gender Studies. Wissenschaftstheorien und Gesellschaftskritik. Würzburg: Könighausen & Neumann, 2004, 83-95.
  

• Schmidt, J. W. [2006]: Science collaboration in the wiki age. In: “Science” (entry version 10 Oct 2005), http://collaboration.wikia.com/wiki/Science [last accessed 2007-01-23]
  

• Shore, Cris; Wright, Susan [1997]: Policy. A new field of anthropology (Introduction). In: Anthropology of Policy. Critical perspectives on governance and power, Hg. Cris Shore, Susan Wright. London and New York: Routledge, 1997, 3-39.
  

• Stubbs, Peter [2005]: Stretching concepts too far? Multi-Level Governance, Policy Transfer and the Politics of Scale in South East Europe. In: Southeast European Politics, Vol. VI, No. 2, November 2005, 66-87.
  

• Suchman, Lucy [2000/ 2003]: Located Accountabilities in Technology Production. Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YN, UK, 2003, http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Suchman-Located-Accountabilities.pdf, last revised 2003 [last accessed 2007-01-23]
  

• Trojer, Lena [2004]: ICT and the Role of Universities – a Technopolitical and Postcolonial Challenge? In: Gulbrandsen, Elisabeth; Nsengiyumva, Albert; Rydhagen, Birgitta; Trojer, Lena: ICT, innovation systems and the role of universities in societal development. A (post)colonial strain? Butare: National University of Ruanda Press, 2004, 81-106. http://tinyurl.com/2ofra2 [last accessed 2007-01-23]
  

• Zižek, Slavoj [2005]: Die politische Suspension des Ethischen (Aus dem Englischen von Jens Hagestedt). Frankfurt/ Main: Suhrkamp, 2005.
  

<23>

Endnotes