AO: iterative discussion; Kenner holds that “open participation in academic culture should be principles that guide the design of digital infrastructure” (284)
AO: Analysts credited their collaborators “substantial experience in Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques and their willingness to utilise PRA” to make the main research project (after their botched pilot project experience) work.
AO: The analysts study the failure in order to see how to obtain collaboration. They are interested in collaboration succeeding and the paper offers tips and ideas for how to make collaborations more “collaborative.”
AO: The analysts appear to assume that a good collaborator is open with how they feel and share back their thoughts to the other. They give an example of a guideline they created and assume that if there are issues with it, that the Southern researcher will be the one to speak up about it and contest it. Assumes a particular type of person (which for example in my opinion would never happen in Japan where it is taboo to speak up against a boss) : “the guidelines have been a good device for creating a forum which allows people to bring their expectations to the table, and to negotiate in the case of competing claims.”
“More important, good social research clearly demands a highly developed, ceaseless, daily engagement with ethics as a process—an engagement that far exceeds the requirements of currently existing “ethics committees” and “human-subjects protocols” on university campuses. It is increasingly clear that the conventional understanding of eth- ics as a code—rather than as a process, as we see it here—needs to be critically examined.”