AO: Analysts are concerned with how “digital technologies might facilitate bad or inappropriate editorial practices—and how they might also be harnessed to refuse or resist such
AO: The analysts look at power differentials within the academy and the volunteer labor of collaborative projects.
AO: Lack of time and conflicting institutional schedules and duties makes it challenging to collaborate.
AO: The analysts are interested in thinking about collaboration from an embodied perspective, positing the trope of lesbian collaboration. They ask if their collaboration was
AO: The analysts do not explicitly note this but as Somatosphere’s Editorial Collaborative, they write to discuss the collective work it takes to run and organize their online
AO: The authors appear to grow out of a dependency theory mindset arguing: “A closer analysis of the collaborative patterns of individual countries also points to relations of
AO: Making explicit those things that “go without saying.” (page 3). This is an example of how/why cross-disciplinary collaborations can be productive because they help to make the
AO: According to these analysts, the ideal collaboration requires being part of the same shared epistemic culture.Read more
AO: Shared commitments, intellectual, ideological and political convictions and assumptions (in this case, commitment to lucid writing; significance between popular and “high”
AO: The analysts seem to largely see themselves as equal and non-heirarchical. They describe themselves (middle aged, academic feminists with diverse sexual orientations over time).
“More important, good social research clearly demands a highly developed, ceaseless, daily engagement with ethics as a process—an engagement that far exceeds the requirements of...Read more