AO: Analysts do not note specific practices but they call for “strengthening of respectful collaborative spaces for scholarship to flourish in a way that is truly concerned with...Read more
AO: The analyst calls into question the viability of and the kind of ethnographic knowledge that a “detached researcher” who enters the field and pretends not to define their
AO: Their data is the email correspondence between Malkki (member of committee) and Cerwonka as she was in Australia for her fieldwork. They used the emails in a class (taught at UCI
AO: The analysts wonder what factors can be targeted to increase information sharing within organizations. They explicitly are writing this paper for those working within
AO: The analysts describe collaboration as co-working (often simultaneously). They note that the work might be differentially priviledged, acknowledged or not acknowledged at all.
AO: The analysts are worried that values of mutual respect, equity, intellectual generosity, difference, and care are not being incorporated into open-access (OA), digital
AO: the analysts argue that psychology and economics are merging into a new single, distinct perspective (economic-psychology). They argue that it is becoming a collaborative field
AO: They call out a certain kind of “love” for big, Euro-American, largely white and male theory has come to be the distinguishing mark of “serious” scholarship for so much of the
AO: The analysts are thinking about collaborations between the fields of psychology and economics and believe it is important to have more in order for greater societal benefit:
AO: The analysts cite similarities with feminist methodological work from the 1980s and 1990s where questions of “what counts” (what knowledge, what skills, what experience etc.)