Though Hegel does identify possible benefits of collaboration, these benefits are not described in detail. Rather, the reader is called to think about the possible benefits on their own.
“Although it’s not our disciplinary habit, I think it’s worth pondering the possible gains of collaborative improvisation with our peers. A model of collaborative work in which we listen and respond in real time and think through one another’s data in unfinished states, whether in the field or in lab/studio environments (as opposed to symposia or workshops, where we share mostly finished work), could enrich how we produce knowledge and make our concepts portable. Agreeing to agree in collaborative analysis could mirror what we do in the field, with the aim not of supplanting debate and critique but rather advancing a lateral analytic process.”
Hegel portrays the possibility of “anthropologists [being able to] improvise with one another and not only with their interlocutors” as an open question. Two constraints are identified. The first is the traditional “lone wolf” mentality, where the researcher and their audience assume the need to produce anthropology/ethnography individually.
