Querying Collaboration in Dissemination

Cite as:

Okune, Angela and Adams, James. 2018. "Querying Collaboration in Artifact Dissemination." In PhD Orals Document: Querying Analyses of Collaboration, created by Angela Okune and James Adams. PhD Orals Document. UC Irvine Anthropology. October.

Essay Metanarrative

This section foregrounds artifacts that have looked at collaboration as part of the dissemination process (including publication, etc.).

The following description (drafted prior to reading the works) outlines how we were thinking about this particular research life cycle phase:

AO (July 2018): Collaboration at the level of dissemination to me would seem to encompass the process of sharing the outputs produced from the research. For example, at iHub Research we ran a round table discussion with Nairobi technology developers to share key insights from a 6 month project that we conducted to understand how mobile phones were being used by Kenyans at the base of the economic pyramid. The project was run collaboratively with another research agency (called RSA) and so the Director from RSA and I (main author of the final report) sat down with about 10 developers and chatted about the research. I would consider this collaborative dissemination on two fronts: 1) two research organizations came together to do the sharing; 2) rather than just a one-sided reporting of findings, we sat down and fielded questions and opened up a discussion about the research. I hold this to be a more “collaborative” format for dissemination because it was centered around the interests and areas of inquiry of attendees (rather than the researchers). I think that especially amongst development practitioners and scholars, there is an increased expectation that research should be fed back to the communities that were studied (or relevant stakeholder groups that can use the research outputs). However, I’m sorry to say that this is still the exception and not the rule. Often the research process stops at artifact production.

This essay is part of a broader orals document querying collaborative formations. Works were categoried under one part of the “research life cycle” as a heuristic. Sub-essays within the orals doc can be accessed directly through the following links: Research Design (Artifacts | Analysis); Data Gathering and Production (Artifacts | Analysis); Data Analysis (Artifacts | Analysis); Artifact Production (Artifacts | Analysis); Dissemination (Artifacts | Analysis); Political Practice (Artifacts | Analysis).

Angela Okune's Orals Documents in Brief

This essay is part of three orals documents submitted by University of California, Irvine Anthropology doctoral student Angela Okune i n partial fulfillment of her requirements for advancement to candidacy. Within UCI Anthropology, the orals documents typically take the form of three documents...Read more
Griffin, Gabriele, and Matt Steven Hayler. 2018. “Collaboration in Digital Humanities Research – Persisting Silences.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 012 (1).

AO: This 2018 article by Griffin and Hayler looks at the question of what is collaboration within Digital Humanities Research. They note resistance they have received when asking colleagues to describe in more depth the nature of the collaborations they have taken on.Read more

Liboiron, Max, Alex Zahara, and Ignace Schoot. 2018. “Community Peer Review: A Method to Bring Consent and Self-Determination into the Sciences,” June.

AO: In this pre-print article, feminist activist scholar Max Liboiron and her collaborators put forward the concept and method of "community peer review" as a method to extend the ethics of consent into scientific practices. Building on concepts of refusal to research and principles of no...Read more

Kenner, Ali. “Designing Digital Infrastructure: Four Considerations for Scholarly Publishing Projects.” Cultural Anthropology 29, no. 2 (May 19, 2014): 264–87.

ABSTRACT: As we move discussions around publishing forward and adopt open-access models, social scientists need to consider how digital infrastructure opens and closes possibilities for scholarly production and engagement. Attention to changes in publishing infrastructure— which, like most...Read more