MACRO: (How) are economic and legal infrastructures said to shape, enable and constrain collaboration at this stage of the research process? What incentives and benefits are said to be part of collaboration at this stage of the research process?


Enter a comma separated list of user names.
August 31, 2018
  • AO: They do not talk about this explicitly but they note the collaborative milieu that is now the normative environment of research (which is supported by research grants and “broader impacts” sections of grant proposals, etc. (86)

August 31, 2018
  • AO: The analysts mention that “in a globalized world” demands for cross-national collaborations grow. They also note decrease in funding and a need to coordinate different funding sources.

  • AO: Analysts are interested in how “sustainable” such transdisciplinary research collaboratives are because after the funding ends then critics say that the network collapses.

August 31, 2018
  • AO: The IDRC noted that “by requiring multiple partners to co-apply in order to obtain funding, partnerships did effectively emerge in response to those calls, but were primarily a means to leverage funding and coordinate activity, but did not effectively translate into the “sum being more than its individual parts”. (3)

  • AO: “funding modalities required careful foresight and reflexive adaptive planning with regard to processes, resources and tools that would enable meaningful collaboration” (3)

  • AO: The analysts note that “many donor-funded partnerships allocate funding at the outset, and once the agreements are in place, the projects are unable to take advantage of emergent ideas, windows of opportunities, or unexpected collaborations.” (5)

August 28, 2018
  • AO: The analysts mention the often-strained historical relationship between communities and research institutions (7) that thinking about refusal as a way of affirming and strengthening community values and knowledge might help with. They argue that refusal is a way to support the self-determination of communities who are not usually able to govern how they are represented in research and academia.

  • AO: The analysts interesting touch on the question of labor within the process noting that someone from the community should be hired (and paid) to do this work (9). However, they do not go into detail in terms of how to decide who to hire and what the possible risks of that might also be.

  • AO: Analysts note that it is important for researcher to “gain knowledge about community- institutional relationships that you, as a researcher, are already part of.” (9) due to historical context in a particular location.

August 27, 2018
  • AO: The analysts note that research ethics cannot be separated from the economic context of global research (“Material realities dictate ethical possibilities, and ethics are political. Ethical challenges in transnational research arise not only in relation to vulnerable participants, but also from collaborative and institutional engagements.”)

  • AO: institutional IRB ethical frameworks are identified as shaping the relational ethics (although not dictating them). Improved regulation but also more overly simple solutions and emphasizing participants’ individual, discrete choices, without exploring the wider context and also fostering culture of superficial compliance (238)

  • AO: Legacy of colonialism is mentioned and “imperial science” (234)

  • AO: The analysts note that public medical research is under threat from particular economic and political interests. They also note public-private partnerships that emphasize technical fixes and use private funding and expertise (235). Therefore analysts note the importance to maintain the analytic distinction between public and private science. This analytic difference is particularly relevant for my project because there is little locally publicly funded research on technology in the same way there is for health. Nonetheless I think it is imporant to still maintain and keep the distinction – perhaps to eventually make the case that there should be publicly funded research!

August 26, 2018
  • AO: The analysts generally note that shared agreement on the rules to govern the collaborative alliance need to be made but given the wide range of collaborations they studied, they did not go into specific details.

August 26, 2018
  • AO: The analysts look at power differentials within the academy and the volunteer labor of collaborative projects.

August 23, 2018
  • AO: The analyst notes that decolonization in the 60s led many anthropologists to reflect on the role of the discipline in the colonial project and to be sensitive to the role of anthropology and anthropologists.

  • AO: The analyst notes the push towards critical reflection of social sciences also came from disenfranchised groups and indigenous activists (96)

  • AO: Analyst notes the collapse of Soviet Union and destruction of Berlin Wall and communist and socialist ideologies led to post-modern critique of reason and empirical truth (Writing Culture as epitomizing the idea for debunking an anthroplogical discourse of truth).

August 21, 2018
  • AO: The analysts note that research funders (of humanities projects) are increasingly calling for collaborative research projects, universities in many countries continue to, or start to, base scholars in research clusters, centres, or similar groupings, and an “impact” agenda demands engagement with stakeholders and partners beyond the immediate academic context.

  • AO: The analyst argue that collaboration has been under­ and slowly explored in DH research and contributes to maintaining a stagnant culture in academe, in particular in relation to the fact that collaboration structures learning.

August 21, 2018
  • AO: The authors note their “coming of age” as feminist academics in the 1970s when they were dealing with institutions that had only recently begun admitting women students and promoting women faculty (554).

  • AO: One of the author notes that she believes her institution doesn’t value her collaborative work and doesn’t give her time to work on her own research. They also mention that despite rhetoric that honors collaboration, cooperation and shared authority, most colleges and universities neglect or underutilize group rewards for group performances. (558) They cite Chait (1988) who discovered in researching his article that "some universities assign numerical values to the scholarly publications of promotion and tenure candidates and then divide the 'points' by the number of co-authors". Shockingly, I believe the same practice STILL holds true in some of the departments in the social sciences for example at UCI.