AO: The analysts do not think of collaboration as a new methodological tool (as it has for example been treated in development work), rather, they argued that it is central to the refunctioning of ethnography given the changing times. They are concerned with ethnography and its place in contemporary times.
AO: The analysts are concerned with examining “ways to categorize and measure collaborative efforts; developing models to conceptualize key aspects of the field; and devising strategies to enhance, support, and sustain team science projects.” (S243)
AO: The intent behind studying team science according to the analysts is to develop findings to be to develop rich conceptual and theoretical models (that can then can be tested in subsequent studies examining team science collaborations).
AO: The analysts are also very worried about funding and long term sustainability of interdisciplinary science.
AO: The analysts are worried about “how to produce syntheses within and across research projects that bring together results to have greater impact – so that the sum is greater than its individual parts and partners” (2)
AO: The analysts are worried about risks and harms involved in research (1)
AO: “Community peer review is premised on the idea that research is not inherently good and can cause harm, and that the best people to know whether and what kinds of harms are likely to occur are community members rather than researchers. The second premise is that the researcher’s “right” to research never supersedes a community’s right to not be harmed.” (1)
AO: The analysts are interested in the relational ethics of medical research in Africa. They are particularly worried about ethics in these contexts because the global health research invariably involves major economic and political inequalities. They argued that global inequalities should worry transnational medical researchers persistently since the first step in any attempt to address system-level inequalities must be to engage one’s ‘conscience’, “taking note of larger and smaller stumbling-blocks and the personal challenge which these pose to each of us.” (232)
AO: The analysts are focused on the preconditions that make collaboration possible and motivate stakeholders (why would one participate in a collaboration?), the process of collaboration, and the outcomes of collaboration. They are trying to come up with a comprehensive theory of collaboration.
AO: Analysts identify a central question: “To what extent do stakeholders of a domain enter into collaborations intending to reduce environmental complexity and enhance their control over environmental factors and to what extent are such objectives actually met? If collaboration actually increases environmental complexity, what does it offer to stakeholders in exchange for this undesirable effect?”
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 scholarship and publication.
AO: The analysts highlighted that there are successful Open Access projects but that the goal of OA should not be OA itself, rather dedication to fostering respect and care for divergent communities of scholars, an attention to unremarked-upon inequalities that are fundamental to disciplinary lineages, the material conditions of academic labor, and the economies of citation, prestige, and affiliation.
AO: The analyst is interested in power differentials within researcher-researched relationships and understanding why Anthroplogists are now (again) interested in engagement. She is particularly interested how collaboration between indigenous actors and anthropologists can help to “decolonize anthropology.”
AO: The analyst is particularly interested in the production of different types of texts which each have their own internal coherence, logic and audience but can also be a piece in a multi-textual form of inquiry and hermeneutics (100).
AO: These analysts are worried that although Digital Humanities has collaboration built into its practice, the concept of collaboration is under theorized and also understood in various ways depending on academic cultures. The analysts believe that the concept needs to be better typologized to build a more nuanced discourse of collaboration in order to capture the complexities of collaboration and develop a better language for articulating the fact that coproduction of knowledge is typical and not the anomaly.
AO: The analysts note the importance of noting when power differentials go unarticulated by remaining silent about their processes, sidelining, or invisibilizing, certain categories of workers in DH or academe more broadly. They note that silence is also a form of articulation – it speaks (16).
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 extraordinary or could be reproduced and wonder if collaboration is a peculiarly female and/or feminist mode of production.