AO: A researcher who operates under the methodological premise of deferral allows for generative different collaborative confirgurations of ethnography (82).
AO: para-ethnographic communities that have a critical consciousness and novel registers of politics and experience (83)
AO: engaging with research “subjects” as “epistemic partners that define the imaginary and plot of our own inquiries” (83)
AO: Analysts mention that ethnography advances today by “deferring to, absorbing, and being altered by found reflexive subjects” (84)
AO: Unlike many of the discussions about “bringing together people from diverse disciplinary backgrounds”, these analysts interestingly note that they are not interested in collaboration “as a gesture to a canonical interdisciplinarity” (86)
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 they are writing this paper to provide a “strong basic terminology”
AO: QUOTE: “Such variations in definitions and operationalizations of key terms can result in highly divergent measure- ment approaches to evaluating team science, which are likely to perpetuate confusion in the literature and impede progress in the science of team science” (S244).
AO: Multi-partner rather than multi-stakeholder in order to highlight the sense of shared commitment necessary for the relationships described. “Multi-partner collaborations consist of “a group of individuals from different institutions choosing to work together towards a common goal” (2)
AO: The analysts mention unplanned examples of collaborative synthesis projects that were developed after having face-to-face discussions, with the incentive and opportunity of additional available funding, after which the online collaborative tools were utilized. The analysts use this example to highlight the importance not just of being connected but of knowing each other. The analysts note that the participating individuals knew one another, shared mutual interests, and a sufficient level of trust had been established that enabled the development of a new idea and a funding proposal (5).
AO: The analysts note that consent is an ongoing process and changes over time. They therefore advocate for continuous check-in at moments such as when new information about plastic harm becomes available or if a community’s political or economic situation were to change (5).
AO: The analysts also note that an individual is not the same as a community (“so it is important not to conflate an individuals’ acceptance or rejection of research with that of a community’s.” (5)
AO: The analysts mention Consensus-oriented decision making (CODM) as a process where everyone in a group agrees to move forward on a plan of action. They note “this does not mean everyone agrees equally, but that everyone has agreed to move forward regardless of unevenness and differences of opinion. Because it is a method that aims to reach agreement despite difference, it should be carefully and intentionally facilitated.” (12)
AO: The analysts call for more deliberation as a process where everyone concerned by the decision is considered a valid moral agent, obligated to give
AO: They note that good collaborators should develop an ability to express and confront overarching conditions and contradictions, to negotiate agreements about direction and purpose, to seek allies and identify obstacles, and to be open to disagreement and failure. They note that such deliberation “has no easy solutions but encompasses multiple perspectives” (232).
They write: “The goal of this process is not the reaching of a consensus but the enrichment of one’s own point of view with that of the others, increasing in this way the maturity of one’s own decision, in order to make it wiser or prudent. The people involved in deliberating the case may have different opinions as to how the issues should be resolved, but debating the issues will help change their perceptions of the problem. This is the benefit of the deliberation process.”
AO: As the analyst’s definition showed (see Micro), they assume that a good collaborator follows the shared rules, norms and structures to act/decide. They note that the stakeholders must explicitly agree on the rules and norms to govern their interactive process (a change-oriented relationship).
AO: Their definition assumes an autonomous stakeholder which they say is crucial because stakeholders should retain their independent decision-making powers. While stakeholders might agree to relinquish some autonomy to the collaborative alliance, if they relinquish all autonomy, then a different organizational form is created, a merger perhaps, but not a collaboration.
AO: The analysts note that stakeholders can have both common and differing interests at the start of a collaborative venture, but the interests may change or be redefined as the collaboration proceeds (noting change over time).
AO: The analysts note that a collaboration is directed towards an objective but that doesn’t imply that the intended objective must be reached for the collaboration to occur.
AO: Analysts note agency being conceptualized not in terms of separation and control but in terms of fusion and acceptance. Authority is not derived from power or status but from “commonality of experience”; the process of building a joint appreciation enables all stakeholders to increase their understanding of the problem by learning the desired and intended actions of others. (160)
AO: The analysts iterated the importance of self-reflection on practices in order to better create a “respectful collaborative space... for scholarship to flourish.” They argued that such spaces need to be concerned with diversity … and rooted in an ethic of care.” For collaborative spaces to “work” according to these analysts, it appears that acknowledgment of diverse voices (they define diversity as that which is “defined by the voices of diversity not from a colonial centre blind to its own position”) as well as mindfulness about the role of technologies in shaping these interactions is important.
AO: It is unclear what exactly they mean by “respectful” – What do “respectful” practices look like? Agreeing to disagree? Agreeing?
AO: Citing Kelty, the analyst calls collaboration: “mutifaceted and rhizomic” and asks if it could be too weak of a word to describe the entanglements of complicity, cultural orientation, suspicion and paranoia, commitment and intimate involvement, credit and authority, and the production of reliable knowledge for partially articulated goals” (102)
AO: The analyst asks if collaboration might be too much of a “feel-good” or friendly term for the commitment, fights and compromises that all actors involved experience.
AO: the analyst highlights the situated nature of the moment and its change over time. She seems to hold that polyvocality is important for collaboration: “taking into consideration the different perspectives, experiences, and points of views of the many voices involved in the collaborative moment as well as the multitextual nature of the knowledge produced in collaboration.”
AO: The authors notes that “collaboration is truly entangled, developing over time in ways which are complex to track.” They seem to be most interested in how collaborations change over time (rather than stabilize).
AO: “Collaboration is fraught, achieved against and despite odds” (26)
AO: They believe research collaboration is important as it can deliver intellectual and emotional synergy. They note that their authorial voice cannot be distinguished between the two of them as individuals (by Carey or by Ellen) which they see as a positive so it appears that they are interested in how collaboration stabilizes. They note: “we are both feminists and the same kind of feminists” (548).
AO: They describe valuing each other’s diverse perspective but note that they always come to some sort of agreement: “each clings to her individual vision, pigheadedly, in a dialectic struggle that always results in a synthesis on which “we” can agree.” (553).
AO: “Our minds meet in the air between us and we achieve, at our best, an unfettered, creative, generous reciprocity” (556).
AO: The analysts see the other examples of collaboration (esp. heterosexual collaboration) as antithetical to their idea of collaboration. For example, they cannot understand the notion of “clearing the air with a shouting match” (559).