Beyond the Dichotomy between Natural and Knowledge Commons

Abstract

The question of sustainability in the open access movement has been widely debated, yet satisfactory answers have yet to be generated: How do we move from an approach entirely based on temporary projects to an approach based on community-based sustainable infrastructure? What kinds of social and technical infrastructures could support the Knowledge Commons? What values and services are being delivered, by which stakeholders, and for whom? What governance and financial models are possible? Given the global nature of scholarly communication, how do we ensure that the designs of the Commons are inclusive of voices from the global South? This volume collects nine selected papers presented at ELPUB2018 Conference in June 2018 in Toronto. Each paper was carefully selected, reviewed and edited to bring to an international audience the latest contributions from researchers and experts in the field. In addition to the technical issues related to interoperability of systems, research workflow, content preservation, and other services, the selected papers address the design and implementation of a community-based research communication infrastructure. ELPUB Conference has featured research results in various aspects of digital publishing for over two decades, involving a diverse international community of librarians, developers, publishers, entrepreneurs, administrators and researchers across the disciplines in the sciences and the humanities.

Full text

HAL Id: hal-01816671
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01816671
Submitted on 15 Jun 2018
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entic research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diusion de documents
scientiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License
Beyond the Dichotomy between Natural and Knowledge
Commons: Reections on the IAD Framework from the
Ubatuba Open Science Project
Sarita Albagli, Anne Clinio, Henrique Parra, Felipe Fonseca
To cite this version:
Sarita Albagli, Anne Clinio, Henrique Parra, Felipe Fonseca. Beyond the Dichotomy between Natural
and Knowledge Commons: Reections on the IAD Framework from the Ubatuba Open Science Project.
ELPUB 2018, Jun 2018, Toronto, Canada. �10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2018.28�. �hal-01816671�

Beyond the Dichotomy between
Natural and Knowledge Commons:
Reflections on the IAD Framework
from the Ubatuba Open Science
Project
Sarita Albagli, Anne Clinio, Henrique Parra and Felipe Fonseca
This work was funded by OCSDNet/IDRC/UKAid, Fundação Carlos Chagas de Apoio à Pesquisa do
Estado do Rio de Janeiro (Faperj) e Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
(CNPq). We also thank the contributions of the reviewers.
Introduction
1 The paper presents a critical analysis of the possibilities and limits of the Institutional
Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, proposed by Elinor Ostrom and researchers
from Indiana School, specially addressing the mutual relations between natural and
knowledge commons. It is based on the results of an action-research project on the role of
open science (OS) in development, carried out in 2015–2017, as part of the Open and
Collaborative Science in Development Network–OCSDNet1. Focusing on the institutional,
political, and governance issues affecting knowledge production and circulation, the
project provided the opportunity to observe how these dynamics take place in a relatively
small-scale (while heavily interconnected) context—the municipality of Ubatuba, on the
North Coast of the State of São Paulo, Brazil. Our study produced rich empirical and
theoretical material for analysis, offering possibilities for critical reflection as well as
social learning relevant to other territorial and social contexts (See Albagli et al., 2018).
2 Ubatuba is located in the Atlantic Rain Forest region, a strategic and vulnerable
environmental area, with a high level of endangered socio-biodiversity, and a focus of
Beyond the Dichotomy between Natural and Knowledge Commons: Reflections on th...
ELPUB 2018
1

intense scientific research. Ubatuba’s key development challenges are related to how to
conciliate:
a. its rich and strategic natural, cultural, and knowledge commons;
b. the necessity to provide access to local populations to social and economic benefits derived
from the use of that wealth from a sustainable development perspective;
c. political empowerment of local communities in a context of inequality of access to
institutional deliberation processes; and
d. the contributions that information and knowledge may make for these processes.
3 While most of the Ubatuba’s territory (around 80%) is located within the protected area of
the State Park of Serra do Mar (PESM), its economy is based on seasonal and predatory
tourism that encourages real estate speculation, as well as, more recently, oil exploration
boosted since the pre-salt discoveries. These aspects characterize a highly contentious
action arena regarding its natural and immaterial commons.
4 This paper presents a part of the research and it involved the following steps:
a. Systematizing the literature on the IAD framework, in order to understand its rationale and
consider its possible uses (and limits) in our case study. We were particularly interested in
understanding how this framework expanded to include knowledge commons as part of its
analysis.
b. Mapping and selecting literature representative of other theoretical approaches to the
concept of common(s) (Hardin, Bollier, Negri, Laval and Dardot, among others), observing
their convergence and divergence with Ostrom’s perspective.
c. Developing a two-way exercise. On the one hand, we mobilized aspects of the IAD framework
as a toolkit to help us select and organise relevant information, to characterize our “action
arena” and to define an “action situation”, focusing on the local socio-institutional context,
key actors and their (cooperative or conflictive) relationships. We expected this approach
would be helpful to analyze our case, because: it opposes a path dependence perspective,
giving place to future alternative scenarios; and it could be used to analyze dynamic and
changing situations. On the other hand, we confronted the IAD framework with our
empirical research results, also considering other interpretative approaches identified in
previous steps.
5 At the end we observed that the relevance of IAD framework lies in the fact that the
diffusion and adoption of open science is closely related to institutional issues (both
formal and informal) that affect the open and collaborative nature of knowledge
production and circulation. On the other hand, those issues are inextricably invested with
conflicts and power relations over natural and immaterial commons. In this sense, it has
also highlighted the mutual and contradictory relations between the new e-
infrastructures and the vulnerability/robustness of information and knowledge
commons, which requires going beyond the access paradigm.
The IAD framework and the commons
6 The IAD framework was developed by Elinor Ostrom2 and other researchers of the Indiana
School, based on extensive empirical research that demonstrated that a community can
self-organize to “successfully”3 use and manage a common pool resource (CPR)4 (Ostrom
1990). In other words, they argued that local and self-organized populations can
economically exploit a CPR in a sustainable way for long periods of time. The IAD
framework was first built on research on urban public goods, and it was further
Beyond the Dichotomy between Natural and Knowledge Commons: Reflections on th...
ELPUB 2018
2

developed based on the work on the formal and informal rules that positively or
negatively affect the sustainable management of natural CPRs (such as groundwater
basins, irrigation systems, grazing systems, and forests). Ostrom team main question was:
“[...] how a group of principals who are in an interdependent situation can organize and
govern themselves to obtain continuing joint benefits when all face temptations to free-
ride, shirk, or otherwise act opportunistically?” (Ostrom, 1990, p. 29).
7 The results from the case studies helped them to question widely accepted theories—such
as “The Tragedy of Commons” (Hardin, 1968), “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” (Dawes, 1973–
1977) and “The Logic of Collective Action” (Olson, 1965)—for whom individuals
necessarily develop opportunistic behavior towards the maximum exploitation of
common resources, putting individual profit above all, and disregarding the collective
losses of overexploitation. According to those theories, predatory behavior is an inherent
feature of collective management of common resources, which necessarily leads to their
ruin. This would justify the prescription of either the privatization of the commons or the
imposition of rules by the State. In all cases, those theories envisaged the necessity of an
external authority to supervise the use of common resources either by limiting their
access or by applying sanctions to those who violate the rules established to ensure long-
term sustainability and productivity.
8 Commons were later defined as a general term referring to “a shared resource that is
vulnerable to social dilemmas” (Ostrom & Hess, 2007, p. 13), meaning: high vulnerability
to subtraction (also referred to as rivalry, when the use of something by someone
prevents its use by another one) and difficulty to exclude free riders (opportunistic
behaviour)5. Ostrom and Hess did not differentiate common (singular) and commons
(plural). For them, “Commons is an awkward word in the English language. The same
word is used for both the singular and plural forms.” (Ostrom & Hess, 2007, p. 21). Other
authors would argue that the distinction between these two terms is a significant point,
as we will discuss later.
9 Ostrom and Hess focused on the institutional dimension—“the rules, decisions, and
behaviors people make in groups in relation to their shared resource” (Ostrom & Hess,
2007, p. 10). A set of eight “design principles” of institutional robustness in
(un)successfully managing common-pool resources were pointed out (Ostrom, 1990),
provided that they should not be seen in a prescriptive way, as models, but rather as
“insightful findings in the analysis of small, homogeneous systems” (Ostrom & Hess, 2007,
p. 7). Their institutionalist approach emphasized rules-in-use (those practiced by actors)
and “invisible” institutions (widely recognized sets of rules-in-use), as key aspects at
times of institutional change. In this sense, institutions were conceived as “formal and
informal rules that are understood and used by a community. […] [They] are not
automatically what is written in formal rules. They are rules that establish the working
“do’s and don’ts” for the individuals in the situation that a scholar wishes to analyze and
explain” (Ostrom & Hess, 2007, p. 42). Ostrom was particularly interested in developing a
“microsituational level” of analysis and “more configural approaches”, based on
empirical work in order to confront “an immense diversity of situations in which humans
interact”, and to stress the importance of fitting policy prescription and institutional
rules to specific social-ecological settings. “‘One-size-fits-all’ policies are not effective.”
(Ostrom 2009, p. 409).
10 The authors also highlighted the role of informed and communicative patterns of
interaction within the community as ways to develop a common language and a collective
Beyond the Dichotomy between Natural and Knowledge Commons: Reflections on th...
ELPUB 2018
3

understanding of the use of common resources, elaborating norms on rights and duties in
resource management and evaluating the cost-benefits of agreed rules. “With adequate
information [participants] may develop increasing trust so that the situation can lead to
productive outcomes” (Ostrom & Hess, 2007, p. 59)
11 The IAD methodology was conceived as a “multitier conceptual map” (Ostrom, 2005) and
a “metatheoretical language”, designed “to enable scholars to analyze systems that are
composed of a cluster of variables, each of which can then be unpacked multiple times
depending on the question of immediate interest” (Ostrom, 2009, p. 414). It is organised in
three clusters of variables schematically represented by Figure 2. Depending on the
research question, it is possible to privilege one of these clusters as the starting point of
the analysis.
Figure 1: Institutional Analysis and Development Framework
Adapted by Clinio (2017) from Ostrom (2010)
12 The action arena refers to “the social space where individuals interact, exchange goods
and services, solve problems, dominate one another, or fight (among the many things
that individuals do in action arenas).” (Ostrom, 2010, s.p). Action arenas include one or
more action situations and the participants in those situations (Ostrom, 2005). The action
situation, “enables an analyst to isolate the immediate structure affecting a process of
interest to the analyst for the purpose of explain regularities in human actions and
results, and potentially to reform them” (Ostrom, 2010, p. 286). Action arenas and action
situations are considered to be at the core of the IAD framework and they are affected by
a set of broadest categories of “external factors” (biophysical characteristics, attributes of
the community, and rules in use).
Beyond the Dichotomy between Natural and Knowledge Commons: Reflections on th...
ELPUB 2018
4

Traditional and new commons
13 Ostrom’s initial focus on natural commons (Ostrom, 1990) was further expanded to the
analysis of information and knowledge as “new commons” (Ostrom & Hess, 2007). With
the rise of distributed information and knowledge in digital form on the web, the concept
of the commons helped “to conceptualize new dilemmas” (Ostrom & Hess, 2007, p. 4),
given the way new information and communication technologies have affected “how
knowledge is managed and governed, including how it is generated, stored, and
preserved” (Ostrom & Hess, 2007, p. 9). Ostrom and Hess emphasized the fact that these
new technologies can promote either “the robustness or vulnerability of a commons”. For
them, digital forms made knowledge “more vulnerable than ever before”, enabling the
“ability to capture the previously uncapturable” (Ostrom & Hess, 2007, p. 10, 14).
When hard-copy journals, for instance, were sold to libraries and individuals, the
decentralization of multiple copies made the works robust. When journals are in
digital form and licensed to libraries or individuals, the works are centralized and
vulnerable to the whims or happenstance of the publisher. (Ostrom & Hess, 2007,
p. 14)
14 Therefore the authors alerted to the importance of keeping the conditions for the
preservation and sustainability of knowledge as a common good for present and future
generations. They highlighted the emergence of scientific and social movements in favor
of knowledge and information commons, as a central pillar of the struggle for democracy.
On the other hand, they argued that “knowledge commons is not synonymous with open
access”, stressing their understanding that “a commons is a shared resource that is
vulnerable to social dilemmas” (Ostrom & Hess, 2007, p. 14).
15 The authors pointed out similarities and differences between knowledge and “traditional
commons”. Both were considered goods, resources jointly used and managed by groups at
different levels and scales. For them, “the essential questions for any commons analysis
are inevitably about equity, efficiency, and sustainability.” (Ostrom & Hess, 2007, pp. 6).
On the other hand, they highlighted the cumulative character, the complex nature and
the “dual functionality” of knowledge—“as a human need and an economic good”, “both a
social process and a deeply personal process”. They advocated that the IAD framework
could be “of value in understanding knowledge as a commons—in regard to both the
public-good aspects of this commons and the common-pool resource aspects.” (Ostrom &
Hess, 2007, p. 16).
16 Understood as global commons, neither a private nor a strict public resource, knowledge
was defined as:
“all intelligible ideas, information, and data in whatever form in which it is
expressed or obtained. […] to all types of understanding gained through experience
or study, whether indigenous, scientific, scholarly, or otherwise nonacademic. It
also includes creative works, such as music and the visual and theatrical arts.”
(Ostrom & Hess, 2007. pp. 7-8).
17 In this sense, Ostrom and Hess were not only referring to scholarly and scientific
knowledge, but to more extended knowledge concepts and issues “far beyond the ivory
tower.”
Beyond the Dichotomy between Natural and Knowledge Commons: Reflections on th...
ELPUB 2018
5

Alternative views
18 Alternative and complementary perspectives on the common(s) have been developed
relative to that proposed by Ostrom and team. We summarize below those that address
more directly the aspects that we want to emphasize here.
19 A first set of arguments refutes a rigid division between natural and intellectual
commons, arguing that this distinction should rather be re-interpreted as a matter of
emphasis in the analysis, considering the necessary dual character of the common (see
Vieira, 2014). From this perspective, Hardt and Negri (2009, p. xviii) claim that their
notion of the common “does not position humanity separate from nature, as either its
exploiter or its custodian, but focuses rather on the practices of interaction, care, and
cohabitation in a common world, promoting the beneficial and limiting the detrimental
forms of the common.”. In this sense, Massimo De Angelis (2007) recalls the contribution
of historian Peter Linebaugh (2008) who popularized the term “commoning” as
corresponding to “the (re)production of commons”. David Bollier (2014, p. 351) also refers
to Linebaugh when he states that “there is no common good without commoning”,
understood as “a set of ongoing practices, not an inert physical resource”. He claims that
“the commons is not only about shared resources; it’s mostly about the social practices
and values that we devise to manage them” (Bollier, 2014, p. 351).
20 A second set of arguments questions the idea of intrinsic characteristics of the commons,
considering they are the result of collective and conflicting decisions and actions that
promote or hamper practices that ensure their equitable and sustainable management.
For Dardot and Laval (2015, p. 271),
Nothing is in itself or by nature “common”. Ultimately it is social practices and only
them that decide on the “common” character of a thing or a set of things.
Therefore, against any naturalism or essentialism it is necessary to maintain that it
is the activity of men which makes something a common, keeping it from any logic
of appropriation and reserving it for collective use.
21 A third set of arguments criticizes the idea that more information leads to better politics
as concealing the conflicts and inequalities within social relations. On the contrary, social
actors usually diverge about expectations and objectives and hardly establish long-lasting
agreements based on consensus and mutual truth. The conflicting dimension is an
integral part of the commons and its governance. From this perspective, Dardot and Laval
(2015, p. 271) argue that
The conflict dimension must be recognized as part of the common and not
considered an unfortunate ‘side effect’ that should be avoided: the common it does
not constitute itself, it does not perpetuate itself and it does not expand in any way
other than in and through conflict. What is instituted as common is in active
opposition to a privatization process (be it urban space, water or seeds).
22 Finally, Lafuente and Estalela (2015) developed a theoretical-conceptual approach in
which common does not only mean common goods (the commons), referring to an
economic sense. Common also—and mainly—refers to the relationship with otherness, “in
between”, in a more anthropological sense. From this perspective, they propose the
notion of “common science”, which combines knowledge activism and knowledge
production, opening up science agenda, concepts and methods to the scrutiny and
contribution of other epistemic groups. This mode of science acknowledges the epistemic
value of the “experiential” as well as the ordinary knowledge. In this sense, lay people
Beyond the Dichotomy between Natural and Knowledge Commons: Reflections on th...
ELPUB 2018
6

should be recognized as “experts in experience” (Callon & Rabeharisoa, 2003) who
produce relevant knowledge from solving problems in everyday life and from
participating in social movements. Actors with differents points of view not only alter the
social composition of science, but also promote alternative modes of knowledge. Lafuente
(2012, p. 144) considers that it favors “more robust” decisions because “each new
collective incorporated represents a lower degree of exclusion, implies an extension of
freedoms, and, finally, makes visible an expanded society beyond the limits we believed
to be insurmountable”6.
A “situated” view from Ubatuba: possibilities and
limits of the IAD framework
23 Our case study on open science in the context of the municipality of Ubatuba helped us to
identify both possibilities and limits in the use of the IAD framework in a concrete
situation. Among the limits, we point out:
a. The difficulty in delimiting of a single common pool resource in that region, since our action
arena is not restricted to the management of a single resource of common use, but it refers
to a medley of resources.
b. The larger scale and heterogeneity of perspectives and interests of its population, which
hinders trust relations and mutual agreement. While the IAD case studies reported by
Ostrom and team encompass small-scale resource systems, usually involving communities
with about 50 to 15,000 people who depend heavily on that resources for their livelihoods,
Ubatuba municipality has a population of about 80 thousand inhabitants, in a heterogeneous
composition and diverse interests and conflicts: indigenous communities, fishermen,
caiçaras, quilombolas and a multitude of floating residents and seasonal tourists.
c. The difficulty to operationalize the IAD framework, since it requires information that is not
easily available to the researcher, which would require an intense and prolonged fieldwork,
broader than what was feasible for the project.
d. Finally, the fact that, as pointed by Vieira (2014), the IAD framework does not sufficiently
address considerations about broader socio-political and economic relations and-long term
historical processes, nor the analysis of power relations, conflicts and inequalities among
actors with different expectations. In our case, the economic and territorial occupation
through tourism, real estate, oil and gas industries place local dynamics in strong
interaction and interdependence with broader scales (regional, national and global).
24 On the other hand, the IAD framework was useful to think of our research field as an
action situation, in motion, a non-static reality, therefore quite consistent with our
perspective of action research.
25 We defined as our action situation the process of revision of the ecological-economic
zoning (EEZ) of the North Coast of São Paulo, which is a legal responsibility of the State
Government. With the help of the Municipal Department of Environment, public hearings
were held in the region, aiming to inform the population about the process and mobilize
residents to draw up a plan in line with local demands. More than 80 requests for
modifications were submitted by the municipal government, responding to demands
submitted by the local population. The effort of the Traditional Communities Forum (FCT)
to develop its own map to support the EEZ revision reveals the understanding that the
role of information users is very limited for those who aim to interfere politically. These
communities wish not only to contribute their accumulated experience and knowledge in
Beyond the Dichotomy between Natural and Knowledge Commons: Reflections on th...
ELPUB 2018
7

the sustainable management of common resources but also to influence the decisions that
affect them.
26 Nevertheless several local leaders reported problems in the traditional communities
participation in the EEZ revision process. Our research evidenced that overlapping the
roles of policy-makers and information providers is not mere coincidence. It is an
essential strategy for data production that legitimates the arguments competing for the
definitions of the EEZ and, in the end, disputing different conceptions and strategies of
development. In this process, scientific knowledge, produced in research institutes,
universities and laboratories, is mobilized by public policymakers with the purpose of
certifying and, therefore, legitimating their proposals. In this sense, the mastery of
technical language and the ability to translate this knowledge into information
represented in maps - and, even more so, in rules-in-form—is an important advantage for
policymakers.
27 We concluded that the role assigned to information and knowledge, from different points
of view and strategies, lies at the heart of disputes between a managerial logic that also
implies the normalization of new forms of control versus a logic of dissent that disputes
the criteria of “measure” of instrumental reason and defines new instituting forms of the
common. And this represents the opposite of the idea of an “institutional robustness”
based on the co-construction of rules-in-use involving different actors and perspectives.
At the end, the perpetuation of the commons depends on the ability of actors to evolve
rules and to build democratic ways to dispute antagonistic views.
28 These findings are congruent with the criticisms of the open science initiatives focused
only on “access”, since they may reinforce the equivalence between a “well informed”
policy and a “certified” one. In this sense, we adopted the notion of common science,
proposed by Lafuente and Estalella (2015), emphasizing the importance of favoring the
interlocution of science with other cognitive actors and their knowledge bases.
29 Finally, the IAD framework served us as an analytical tool that was instrumental in
dealing with different variables and dimensions. Congruent with our territorial
perspective, the IAD framework made us critically interrogate about the mutual feedback
between natural (or more widely, material) and knowledge/information commons.
Nevertheless, When in our action research project, we aimed not only to combine, on the
one hand, the IAD framework´s initial focus on the collective management of natural
commons, and, on the other, the latter one oriented to the knowledge commons. We
proposed to reflect on the interaction and co-determination between these two common
resources. Moreover, we shed light on the fact that they are not just two different types
of commons, but are mainly two dimensions of the same “commoning” process.
Concluding remarks
30 From the outset of our project, we questioned the current idea in the open science
movement that open access to scientific information would be capable or be sufficient to
reduce asymmetries and promote “better informed” and more egalitarian policies. We
observed that, although democratization in access to information and knowledge—and
even the recognition of the contribution of different modes of knowledge—is important,
this does not solve the asymmetries of power over common pool resources. The disputes
Beyond the Dichotomy between Natural and Knowledge Commons: Reflections on th...
ELPUB 2018
8

over the natural commons and the information and knowledge commons are part of a
local institutional dynamics characterized by:
1. the flow of public, private and non-governmental interests through different spaces, within
an informal network of influence;
2. the existence of a complex movement of alliances and tensions between actors and their
different institutional positions;
3. the diversity of forms of information and knowledge production and demands as a central
aspect of the positioning of the actors in affirming and defending their views and claims
with respect to the commons.
31 In this sense, we adopted a substantive socio-territorial approach, relying on the
Brazilian geographer Milton Santos’s conception of space as a hybrid made up of the
indissociable union of systems of objects and systems of actions (Santos, 1996, Albagli,
2017). The sustainable and equitable management of the local natural resources as a
commons is inextricably co-related to the disputes over the production and circulation of
knowledge and information as a commons. The production of knowledge commons
involves the social appropriation of the territory, as well as a common material base,
composed of natural and artificial goods that support life in common. On the other hand,
the so-called “exogenous” variables in the IAD framework—biophysical characteristics,
attributes of the community, and rules-in-use—are an intrinsic part of an action situation.
32 Our common science approach, based on Lafuente and Estalela (2015), implied the
recognition that a pluralistic ecosystem of knowledge modes is closely related to a
pluralistic ecosystem of modes of existence (Albagli, Parra, Fonseca, & Maciel, 2018). From
this perspective, in our case, we considered the territory as the very infrastructure of the
production and reproduction of knowledge common, both as the material basis of life in
common and as the space where modes of subjectivation for the commoning takes place.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
References
Albagli, S. (2017). “Technical-Scientific-Informational Milieu, Networks and Territories.” In L.
Melgaço, C. Prouse, Carolyn (Ed.) Milton Santos: A Pioneer in Critical Geography from the Global South,
33–43. London: Springer International Publishing.
Albagli, S., Parra, H., Fonseca, F., & Maciel, M.L. (2018). “Open Science and social change: a case
study in Brazil.” In L.Chan (Ed.) Contextualizing and Situating Openness: Understanding the Diversity
and Contexts of Open Science in Development. University of Ottawa Press.
Angeli, M.D. (2006). “Introduction.” The Commoner. n. 11. Available at http://
www.commoner.org.uk/?p=24. Access on April 4, 2018.
Bollier, D. (2014). Think Like a Commoner: A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons. Gabriola
Island: New Society Publishers.
Beyond the Dichotomy between Natural and Knowledge Commons: Reflections on th...
ELPUB 2018
9

Callon, M., & Rabeharisoa, V. (2003). “Research ‘in the wild’ and the shaping of new social
identities.” Technology in Society, v. 25: 193–204.
Clinio, A. (2017). Reflections on the Application of the IAD Framework to analyze the Ubatuba Open
Science Platform. Blog post published at OSCDNet website. Available at http://ocsdnet.org/
reflections-on-the-application-of-the-institutional-analysis-and-development-iad-framework-to-
analyze-the-ubatuba-open-science-platform/. Access March, 29, 2018.
Dardot, P., Laval, C. (2015). “Propriedade, apropriação social e instituição do comum.” (Tradução
do francês de Naira Pinheiro dos Santos). In Tempo Social, revista de sociologia da USP, v. 27, n. 1.
Available at http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ts/v27n1/0103-2070-ts-27-01-00261.pdf. Access 18 March,
2018.
Lafuente, A. (2012). “Modernización epistémica y sociedad expandida.” In R. Diaz (Ed). Educación
expandida. Sevilla: Zemos98. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10261/56386 Access 27 Dec, 2015.
Lafuente, A., & Estalella, A. (2015). “Ways of science: public, open, and commons.” In S. Albagli, S.,
M.L. Maciel, & A.H. Abdo (Eds). Open Science, open issues. Brasília: Ibict, Rio de Janeiro: Unirio.
Laval, C., & Dardot, P. (2014). Común: Ensayo sobre la revolución en el siglo XXI. Barcelona: Editorial
Gedisa.
Hardin, G. (1968). “The tragedy of commons.” Science Magazine.
Hardt, M., Negri, A. (2009). Commonwealth. Cambridge: The Harvard University Press.
Linebaugh, P. (2008). The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.
Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E., Hess, C. (2007). Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. The MIT
Press.
Ostrom, E (2009). Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems,
Prize Lecture, December 8, 2009.
Ostrom, E. (2010). “Institutional Analysis and Development: Elements of The Framework in
Historical Perspective.” In Crothers, C. (Ed). Historical Developments and Theoretical Approaches in
Sociology, vol. II. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems Publishers & Unesco, Singapura.
Santos, M. (1997). A Natureza do Espaço: Técnica e Tempo. Razão e Emoção. São Paulo: Hucitec.
Vieira, M.S. (2014). Os bens comuns intelectuais e a mercantilização. Tese (doutorado). Faculdade de
Educação, Universidade de São Paulo: São Paulo.
NOTES
1. See https://ocsdnet.org/projects/ibict-instituto-brasileiro-de-informacao-em-ciencia-e-
tecnologia-okbr-open-knowledge-brasil-participating-institution/ and http://
cienciaaberta.ubatuba.cc/
2. In 2009, Ostrom shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with Oliver E.
Williamson for “her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons” (Wikipedia).
Beyond the Dichotomy between Natural and Knowledge Commons: Reflections on th...
ELPUB 2018
10

3. For Ostrom, the notion of “successful” management of common goods refers to the twofold
objective of (1) avoiding overexploitation and exhaustion of resources, and (2) generating quality
of life, understood here as the effective people´s participation in the management of the common
goods through principles of coexistence shared by all involved.
4. “[...] it refers to a natural or man-made resource system that is sufficiently large as to make it
costly (but not impossible) to exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits from its
use.” (Ostrom, 1990, p. 30).
5. Vincent and Elinor Ostrom’s (1977) previous work had typified four kinds of goods—public
goods, toll or club goods, common-pool resources, and private goods, classified according to their
level of exclusion (easy, difficult) and subtractability (low, high).
6. “[...] cada nuevo colectivo incorporado representa un grado menor de exclusión, implica un
ensanchamiento de las libertades y, por fin, hace viable una sociedade expandida más allá de los
límites que creíamos infranqueables.”
ABSTRACTS
The paper presents a critical analysis of the possibilities and limits of the Institutional Analysis
and Development (IAD) framework, proposed by Elinor Ostrom and team, specially addressing
the mutual relations between natural and knowledge commons. It results from an action-
research project on the role of open science (OS) in development, carried out in the municipality
of Ubatuba, on the North Coast of the State of São Paulo, Brazil, in 2015-2017. The work involved:
systematizing the literature on the IAD framework; mapping and selecting literature
representative of other theoretical and conceptual approaches; critically using and adapting the
framework to the case studied. The project provided the opportunity to observe how these
dynamics take place in a relatively small-scale (while heavily interconnected) context. While the
IAD framework helped us to analyse the institutional, political, and governance issues affecting
knowledge production and circulation, we observed the higher complexity of our action arena,
shedding light on the fact that natural and knowledge commons are the two dimensions of the
same “commoning” process.
INDEX
Keywords: Commons, Open Science, Institutional Analysis and Development, Ubatuba, Brazil
AUTHORS
SARITA ALBAGLI
Institute of Information in Science and Technology, IBICT–Brazilian, Brazil
sarita.albagli@gmail.com
(corresponding author)
Beyond the Dichotomy between Natural and Knowledge Commons: Reflections on th...
ELPUB 2018
11

ANNE CLINIO
Liinc–Interdisciplinary Laboratory of Information and Knowledge Studies, Brazil
anneclinio@gmail.com
HENRIQUE PARRA
Unifesp–Federal University of São Paulo, Brazil
opensocialsciences@gmail.com
FELIPE FONSECA
Ubalab, Brazil
felipefonseca@gmail.com
Beyond the Dichotomy between Natural and Knowledge Commons: Reflections on th...
ELPUB 2018
12