AO: They write: “Differences in the propensity of countries to collaborate internationally can be explained partly by intellectual influence: The less developed the scientific
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
“More important, good social research clearly demands a highly developed, ceaseless, daily engagement with ethics as a process—an engagement that far exceeds the requirements of...Read more
AO: The analysts look at power differentials within the academy and the volunteer labor of collaborative projects.
AO: The analysts note that increasingly, the only way to identify whether someone is a psychologist or economist is to look at their institutional affiliation.
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: The authors notes that “collaboration is truly entangled, developing over time in ways which are complex to track.” They seem to be most interested in how collaborations change
AO: Fortun and Cherkasky develop the term “counter-expertise” to conceptualize ways that people who work with one foot in academia and one food in direct advocacy for political change...Read more
AO: They do not discuss this as much but the correspondence was largely only possible because of Internet and email. These are largely like letter correspondence previously (between...Read more
AO: Strategically engaging the “double binds” within which we operate. The analysts note that “double bind situations create a persistent mismatch between explanation and everyday
