AO: Cerwonka and Malki focus on Cerwonka’s experience and feelings in the field, turning the gaze on her. They focus less on Malkki and do not explicitly write about their...Read more
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: Shared commitments, intellectual, ideological and political convictions and assumptions (in this case, commitment to lucid writing; significance between popular and “high”
AO: The authors focus primarily on meso level analysis given that their focus on institutional co-authorship. They lack any sort of nano or micro level analysis and mention legal and
AO: Cerwonka and Malkki use collaboration (in analysis and write-up) as a way to make explicit assumptions (about method, interpretation, etc.) and as a way to “tack” between theory
AO: This example of collaboration would fit under what Matsutake Group called intimate co-authorship (on the opposite spectrum of “Big Science”). They spend the essay reflecting on the...Read more
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
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...Read more
Collaboration (perhaps we could even go so broad as saying discussing/writing about our work with others) necessitates making
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
