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, collaboration is overt, epistemic, and mutually invested in.” (85)
AO: Power relations are not discussed.
AO: The analysts describe a rolling pot of money that was available to support emergent ideas. The ideas were assessed collaboratively by a steering committee with representation from all consortia and had to involve members from more than one consortium as well as contribute to the programme objectives to obtain approval.
AO: The analysts note that they are experimenting with various styles of leadership, describing programme-staff leadership where CARIAA management officers are working to create new ways to share information, noting that it is time consuming but key to enable cross-consortia synthesis activities (7).
AO: The analysts note that in using the concept of refusal, “rather than “the terms of accommodation [...] being determined by and in the interests of the hegemonic [more powerful] partner in the relationship” [21: p.17], communities set the terms of how and whether research that impacts their communities should occur, be conducted, and circulate.” (7)
AO: The analysts note that good facilitation looks to address power relations to “[en]sure that everyone gets to participate and share ideas in a meeting, not just those who feel most comfortable speaking up and making cases for their ideas or proposals” by disrupting power dynamics that always exist in group communication [28: p.1,29]. Facilitation is crucial for moving the community meeting from a dissemination-oriented event to an ethics-oriented event.” (11)
AO: Community peer review is about not giving everyone the “same” rights to gain, access, or disseminate data because an evenness in those rights does not (yet) exist. Community peer review is designed as a solidarity research methodology that addresses the unevenness of existing communities—academic, industry, government, local—in scientific research.” (26).
AO: the analysts argued for three levels of debate and action: individual, institutional and structural (page 15). They argue that ethical challenges arise from collaborative engagements.
AO: Data case study: the research relationship started informally and was established in a spirit of networking. Both parties perceived that they benefited from this relationship: the doctor’s workplace was improved and could serve more patients, and the scientist accessed valuable data to further his research. However, over time, doctor senses that collaboration is not equal the scientist assumes primary ownership of the data and fails to actively involve him in the dissemination of findings and plans for new studies. The fact that communication between both parties is very limited contributes to the deterioration of the relationship.
AO: A convening power that has legitimacy among the stakeholders and the authority to organize the domain as well as an unbiased and even-handed approach to the problem domain as well as the ability to identify all relevant stakeholders is important to facilitate a collaboration amongst diverse stakeholders.
AO: Analysts highlight attention is needed to the gendered forms of harassment, bullying, and abuse within anthropology and to the ways that exclusion and exploitation along the lines of race, class, national origin and language, sexuality, disability, and other forms of difference are reproduced through the academy’s own power differentials.
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: The analyst looks at how the positions held on the objective/subjective spectrum by individuals at funding institutions
AO: The analyst notes the inherant power in anthropologists translating and making intelligible subjects that are not intelligible to others. She asks: “if translation is anthropology’s straight jacket, how can we decolonize such translations?
AO: The analyst notes that equal attention needs to be put on the perverse modalities with which racism, discrimination, and exclusion still affects (and in some cases alter) relationships and interactions within indigenous societies (Harrison 1997) (AO: not idealizing or homogenizing “indigenous communities”)
AO: Analysts note how Digital Humanities workers can become marginalized through the denigration of certain kinds of expertise, noting power differentials may manifest themselves in myriad ways. They emphasize that power structures both within and beyond the immediate interactions can lead to the work of one or more collaborators being reduced or going uncredited, and to the detriment of their institutional and subject standing.
AO: Citing Terras, analysts note that power heirarchies can pressure collaborators into promising too much, or blinding them to the complexity of projects that rely on still new methods and practices (19).
AO: The analysts seem to largely see themselves as equal and non-heirarchical. They describe themselves (middle aged, academic feminists with diverse sexual orientations over time). They do not note their ethnicities (assumed whiteness?).