In this article, Mike Fortun discusses discusses the complicated double-binds that impacted his "response-ability" while working in and on the Institute for Science and Interdisciplinary Studies (ISIS).Read more
AO: Editors are responding to binaries of political vs scholarship (academia vs direct advocacy) to argue that such reductions are ill-fitted to the complexities of the world. Editors...Read more
AO: Not discussed although it is suggested that greater collaboration between economists and psychologists can lead to better policy and “efficiency of interventions” (390)Read more
AO: The analyst is interested in power differentials within researcher-researched relationships and understanding why Anthroplogists are now (again) interested in engagement. She is
AO: The analysts are thinking about “collaboration” as “cooperation.” They note severally the growing common language which is facilitating “more and more collaboration and cross-...Read more
AO: The analyst notes complaints that went to AAA against unethical practice by some anthropologists in the field which led to reports against that individual.
AO: Strategically engaging the “double binds” within which we operate. The analysts note that “double bind situations create a persistent mismatch between explanation and everyday
AO: The editors believe that the task of academia is to question the silences that technoscientific politics engender - to parse the values, interests and purposes that so often
AO: Contrary to much of the development literature I have been reading which emphasizes the normative value of collaboration as empowering and benefiting, this piece highlights
AO: The analysts do not talk about data within their analyses of the way collaboration is discussed.
AO: Authors argue for working the metaphoric image of the “double bind” which project situations of disjuncture and unresolvable contradictions.