AO: The analysts argue that every contributor should be able to draw the project into new and original directions and that the project should continually shift because of its collaborative innovations. They use their Matsutake Research Group to discuss how they have separate and well-defined areas of expertise and combine their expertises towards the project. They note that collaborative experiments (at their best) are more about the process than the race. (383).
AO: The analysts note that “our works may show that we are not assimilable to others and that we may have productive tension among our conclusions.” They note that they may not come to a consensus and that “we are often better off agreeing to disagree” (398).
“We welcome the method of “looking several ways” (Clifford 2004) and see multivocality as a productive outcome of collaborations with each other.” (399)
AO: “Specialists on research teams recognize that value comes from interdisci- plinary or interspecialty dialogue, but there is generally little sense that disciplines or specialties might change their basic relations with each other or undergo internal reorga- nization on the basis of dialogue” (399)