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 editors argue that counter-experts at the level of the organization recognize how power works - not as brute force but by establishing what counts as a legitimate statement.Read more
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
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
AO: Fortun and Cherkasky introduce essays that speak from the “messy middle” between the university and direct engagements with politics to suggest how “critiques of expertise can...Read more
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
“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 draw their conceptual framework around Bateson’s notion of the “double bind”. They ask multiple sets of questions includeing:
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 analyst notes that decolonization in the 60s led many anthropologists to reflect on the role of the discipline in the colonial project and to be sensitive to the role of