AO: The analysts are talking about a “knowledge transfer” model, talking about knowlege as if it is a concrete and discrete object that travels the same everywhere (and isn’t changed
AO: The analyst is interested in power differentials within researcher-researched relationships and understanding why Anthroplogists are now (again) interested in engagement. She is
AO: This editorial intro by Fortun and Cherkasky focuses largely on the meta, nano and practice (micro) levels of conceptualizing “counter-expertise”.Read more
AO: The analysts do not talk about data within their analyses of the way collaboration is discussed.
AO: They believe research collaboration is important as it can deliver intellectual and emotional synergy. They note that their authorial voice cannot be distinguished between the
AO: The analysts heavily cite a 1994 article by Lopes in the “Annual Review of Psychology” that argued that psychologists and economists view one another with suspicion and distaste to...Read more
AO: I find this quote to be very important because many of the recent discussions about Open Access and HAU focused on the open access business models, the individuals and their abuses of power,...Read more
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
AO. The co-authored book is the collaboration itself, but the authors don't spend much time reflecting on that and instead focus on their communications and back and forth exchange
AO: Analysts note how Digital Humanities workers can become marginalized through the denigration of certain kinds of expertise, noting power differentials may manifest themselves in
AO: This is a discourse analysis of the way that organizational theorists are thinking about collaboration (authors map nine papers over 6 domains of collaboration to
