AO: The analysts do not discuss technical infrastructures.
AO: Technological infrastructure is not discussed.
AO: The analysts noted that while face-to-face meetings are costly, they are more likely to help build relationships, trust and social capital rather than virtual tools. But with resource constraints, they note that virtual tools need to be used such as hosting regular thematic research webinars where research findings are shared and also the hosting of internal conversations addressing specific topics, holding open dialogues (via social media) and providing additoall programmatic support to emergent communities of practice to lessen administrative burdens (7).
AO: The analysts used varying technologies to advertise about the meetings for community peer review. These included: “advertised the meeting on posters in the area in general stores, directly to core groups such as the Fisherman’s Union and Mini-Aquarium, by word of mouth when we collected samples on the wharves, through lab members who were from local communities, in the university events listings, and, most importantly, on the radio via the Fisheries Broadcast, a public local radio show widely listened to by the province’s fishing communities.” (13)
AO: The technology is less of the focus within the stories although they talk about bringing in of equipment, riding around in land rovers, etc.
AO: They do not discuss technological infrastructures.
AO: Analysts are concerned with how “digital technologies might facilitate bad or inappropriate editorial practices—and how they might also be harnessed to refuse or resist such practices.” They noted that the same digital communication technologies that allow a publication to be run by collaborators who are spatially isolated from one another can also create challenges that need to be actively and continuously addressed, not the least of which is the potential for abuse. In other words, the same tool cannot be expected to lead to the same results across different contexts.
AO: The analysts note the power of social media in bringing these issues to light as well as the labor that goes into making those contributions.
AO: The analyst describes a collaborative co-taught course on Indigenous Agency and Innovations offered in various institutions where various scholars and activists would offer a lecture to be recorded and delivered via podcast or live conference all. The analyst notes that there was difficulty in the synchronizing of academic calendars and resources that made the co- teaching particularly challenging. But affirms that she believe this type of proposals should be revisited and implemented as viable forms of collaborative methodologies.
AO: Analysts note that an understanding of machines as collaborators in knowledge production, and an awareness of the impacts of materiality on such production, becomes a disciplinary as well as philosophical concern. Specifically, they note the effects, typically on reading, of the materiality of media (e.g. hyperlinks) (28). They highlight a need for appreciation of how agency might always flow back and forth, with humans impacting on technologies and the ways in which they might be deployed, and technologies impacting on their users such that the outcome of use is not determined by either side (32).
AO: Analysts highlight how tools are never neutral and so argue that they, like technicians and crowds, are more rightly thought of as collaborators, whether they are conceived of as such by their users or not.
AO: The analysts mention that they usually work physically separated from each other and use mail or modem to exchange and edit drafts. They note that once in the course of any project they meet in person to brainstorm or wrestle over the definition and development of basic concepts and to write together.