Mapping open knowledge institutions: an exploratory analysis of Australian universities

PeerJ. 2021 May 11:9:e11391. doi: 10.7717/peerj.11391. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

While the movement for open research has gained momentum in recent years, there remain concerns about the broader commitment to openness in knowledge production and dissemination. Increasingly, universities are under pressure to transform themselves to engage with the wider community and to be more inclusive. Open knowledge institutions (OKIs) provide a framework that encourages universities to act with the principles of openness at their centre; not only should universities embrace digital open access (OA), but also lead actions in cultivating diversity, equity, transparency and positive changes in society. This leads to questions of whether we can evaluate the progress of OKIs and what are potential indicators for OKIs. As an exploratory study, this article reports on the collection and analysis of a list of potential OKI indicators. Data for these indicators are gathered for 43 Australian universities. The indicators provide high-dimensional and complex signals about university performances. They show evidence of large disparities in characteristics such as Indigenous employment and gender equity, and a preference for repository-mediated OA across Australian universities. We demonstrate use of the OKI evaluation framework to categorise these indicators into three platforms of diversity, communication and coordination. The analysis provides new insights into the Australian open knowledge landscape and ways of mapping different paths of OKIs.

Keywords: Altmetrics; Diversity; Higher education; Open access; Open knowledge institutions; Open research; Principal component; Scholarly communication; Scientometrics; Universities.

Grants and funding

This work was funded by the Research Office of Curtin University through a strategic grant, the Curtin University Faculty of Humanities, and the School of Media, Creative Arts and Social Inquiry. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.