AO: The paper puzzles over why there might be more collaboration in a theoretical field like mathematics over others where they assumed material constraints like lack of expensive
AO: Cerwonka and Malkki use an interpretive approach to think about questions of hermeneutics and epistemology especially with regards to ethnographic fieldwork. (page 2)
AO: Making explicit those things that “go without saying.” (page 3). This is an example of how/why cross-disciplinary collaborations can be productive because they help to make the
AO: Cerwonka writes: “one of my motivations for collaborating with Liisa on this book was my sense that as more and more scholars undertake interdisciplinary work, they face
AO: The analysts are interested in thinking about collaboration from an embodied perspective, positing the trope of lesbian collaboration. They ask if their collaboration was
AO: The authors talk about how lack of lab materials, etc. may incentivize greater collaboration in certain fields.
AO: Authors categorize the existing literature about collaboration around economic, cognitive and social factors to explain it. They argue that attention needs to be paid to external
AO: The analysts look at power differentials within the academy and the volunteer labor of collaborative projects.
AO: Their data is the email correspondence between Malkki (member of committee) and Cerwonka as she was in Australia for her fieldwork. They used the emails in a class (taught at UCI
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).
