AO: The analysts focus on the data and findings and their circulation, stating that community members should be able to decide where they want it published and also how or which data is analyzed or how and where future studies might occur. (7)
AO: The analysts have an explicit paragraph where they describe their own data ethics practices noting that their original data was gathered under an exemption but they still obtained verbal consent from participants. After success of method, they applied for ethics review of secondary use of data from Canadian body. (8)
AO: The analysts noted that some community members wanted access to raw data whereas others just wanted summaries. They argued that all aspects and data of the project is crucial for informed consent to ensure people have enough information to fully understand the risks or benefits associated with a research project.” (14)
AO: in this case study, the analysts are concerned with the ethics of data sharing, and the development of policies and guidelines to support practice.
AO: The analysts do not talk about data within their analyses of the way collaboration is discussed.
AO: She does not point to data practices explicitly although she mentions methodology and attempts to develop more “decolonized methodologies” (citing Smith).
AO: Analysts cite Hockey (2012) who uses the term “indirect collaboration” to describe the “reusability” of data and tools produced in the academy that find application and use outside of that space, although she also argues that “the humanities computing community has not been particularly good at promoting its activities beyond academia” [Hockey 2012, 90].
AO: They describe how they work together: “Ellen sits at the computer and Carey on the window seat nearby; one starts a sentence and the other finishes it. At the end of several hours we are scrolling through something neither of us would or could have written alone and honestly cannot say which word “came from” Carey, which idea “came from” Ellen.”