AO: Authors are worried about how the prevalent model splits research contribution into fractions such that every collaborator dilutes the pool and they are interested in changing institutional structures such that acknowledges that every contributor reformulates the research, adding exponentially to its contribution (380).
AO: Fortun and Cherkasky develop the term “counter-expertise” to conceptualize ways that people who work with one foot in academia and one food in direct advocacy for political change take responsibility for expert knowledge and status while questioning the conventional role that experts play in framing political choices (141). They highlight that there needs to be continued direct engagement with politics by “counter-experts.”
Gorman is concerned with constructing models to help scholars think about collaboration across domains of expertise in order to facilitate “multidisciplinary collaboration” on large-scale, complex projects like Earth System Engineering Management.
Christine Hegel is fretting about what she considers to be non-collaborative about the way contemporary anthropologists analyze data. This is influenced in part by the “lone wolf” mentality inherited from traditional ethnography as well as the career-oriented temptation to use discussions of others’ works-in-progress as an opportunity to establish oneself as an authority on certain topics/theoretical domains.
As the title indicates, Bouka is concerned with the potential for collaborative research to further/reproduce already entrenched social inequalities. So, she is not painting a panglossian picture of collaboration. Instead she sees naive notions of collaboration as an incontrovertible good as being part of the conditions that make North-South research relations ripe for exploitation and abuse.
AO: The analysts are thinking about collaboration as a politics of difference and the labour that is required to work across such different to turn diversity into a resource. They note that collaboration can be nefarious and that collaboration marks difference rather than sameness.
Star and Griesemer are trying to both explain how large, cooperative, scientific projects, with groups of diverse participants, inhabiting different social worlds, can take place without the need of first establishing consensus.
Star reflects on the history of her research program to help clarify her intent behind the development of the concept of “boundary objects.” She then uses this discussion to address a question that she often encountered about the concept: "What isn't a boundary object?" While Star explicitly resists the temptation to claim authority over the proper use of the concept, in this article, she spends some time discussing the scope and scale at which the concept of “boundary object” becomes useful. Primarily, she argues that the concept should be applied to situations where the certain objects with interpretive flexibility arise organically to suit the informational needs of diverse groups.
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:
“the lack of cooperation that existed between economists and psychologists has cost society dearly. Theories based on insights from both fields can provide a better understanding and prediction with regard to all kinds of societal phenomena, which should lead to an improvement in policy and an increase in the efficiency of interventions and possible solutions by institutions on many different levels of society.” (390)
AO: The authors are thinking about how they can address ICT design problems through engagement with their users.