AO: The analysts are looking at “team science” which they note can be conducted within a single, focused discipline or can span multiple disciplines. They also describe
AO: The analysts believe that a shared set of terms is needed for the progress of the science of team science. They note that there is too much variation in definitions used and so
AO: The analysts note that the science of team science is currently in its nascent stage and that definitions are being debated. For example, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary
AO: The analysts note that their restating of field relationships includes a sense of the “dynamics of power and the intellectual standing of the reflexive subject. For us,
AO: Analysts note that “understanding of and sensitivity to cultural differences and their impact on teamwork” is important but it is unclear what kinds of “culture” they mean… Seems
AO: The authors are focused on collaboration as not equal between global North and global South partners and despite a desire to be more equal, structural inequalities continue to lend...Read more
AO: The analysts use post-structuralist work to aruge that the current imaginary of the “subject as informant” does not stand given the desire for the epistemic partner to perform an
AO: The analysts argue that contemporary ethnography’s preferred collaboration is with “the expert” who is now a preferred subject because within the expert’s cultural milieu,
AO: Unsurprisingly given that the authors are publishing in ICTD, the techno level of analysis is very strong. They focus on collaboration in a part of the
AO: Less about data practices in the collaboration and more about how the research team collected their data of what was going on online: “We are taking screenshots of Facebook