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 authors talk about how lack of lab materials, etc. may incentivize greater collaboration in certain fields.
AO: The analysts describe their own collaboration largely focused around co-authorship (of collective volume, book, grant proposal). They describe collaboration as in solidarity with
“international (trans-national) institutional co-authorship from a select database from 1981 - 86 that looks at Earth and space, Math, Physics, Biomedicine; Biology; Chemistry;...Read more
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).
AO: Authors note that attention needs to be paid to external factors like communications channels, governmental initiatives, travel money, intergovernmental science programs, and
AO: According to these analysts, the ideal collaboration requires being part of the same shared epistemic culture.Read more
AO: The authors appear to grow out of a dependency theory mindset arguing: “A closer analysis of the collaborative patterns of individual countries also points to relations of
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
