Governing Knowledge Commons -- Introduction & Chapter 1 (original) (raw)

Cole offers encouragement and caution to scholars seeking to use Ostrom's work as a starting point for studying knowledge commons. He encourages those seeking "conceptual, analytical, and methodological guidance, " arguing that Ostrom's work can provide a foundation for "improv[ing] understanding of information and information flows under alternative institutional arrangements, " "diagnos[ing] problems in existing institutional arrangements, " and even "predict[ing] outcomes under alternative institutional arrangements." He cautions, however, that those looking to Ostrom's work for normative guidance as to the proper structure of intellectual property law are "bound to be disappointed (or dishonest)" for two reasons: First, Ostrom's work teaches that there are "no panaceas." Second, researchers necessarily choose metrics for assessing commons outcomes. Whereas long-run sustainability is a widely accepted goal for natural resource commons, Cole suggests that outcome metrics for knowledge commons are likely to be much more contested. In Chapter 3, Yochai Benkler provides a conceptual map for understanding the range of different types of commons that are important to society and deserve systematic study. He argues that there are important differences between the institutional arrangements studied by Ostrom and colleagues, in which a "defined set of claimants" share resources in a self-governing arrangement, and public domain or open access commons, which provide "freedom-to-operate under symmetric constraints, available to an open, or undefined, class of users." Benkler reminds us that knowledge commons arrangements are layered on top of and dependent upon substantial resource sets governed either as public domain commons or through private property arrangements. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 apply the knowledge commons research framework to commons arrangements for scientific research, where tradition and custom teach that formal intellectual property rights are particularly unlikely to play key roles in institutional governance, but where the knowledge commons research framework nonetheless reveals meaningful structure and governance of knowledge sharing. In Chapter 4, Jorge Contreras targets the genomics research collaborative that constituted the Human Genome Project. Geertrui Van Overwalle follows that chapter with a comment that notes the global context of research on genomic commons, illustrating that commons in general have important international and comparative dimensions. In Chapter 5, Katherine Strandburg, Brett Frischmann, and Can Cui delve into a network of medical researchers and patient advocacy groups titled the Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network, and the related Urea Cycle Disorders Consortium. In Chapter 6, Michael Madison describes a citizen science project, called Galaxy Zoo, that pairs professional astronomers with amateurs. Chapters 7 and 8 involve commons cases situated in the context of information and communications technologies (sometimes abbreviated ICTs). In Chapter 7, Charles Schweik presents the results of a comparative analysis of open source software development communities. In Chapter 8, Mayo Fuster Morell reports a study of online creation communities (OCCs) such as the photosharing site, Flickr, used for sharing creative content supplied by individuals.