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: The analysts generally note that shared agreement on the rules to govern the collaborative alliance need to be made but given the wide range of collaborations they
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: She does not point to data practices explicitly although she mentions methodology and attempts to develop more “decolonized methodologies” (citing Smith).
AO: The analysts focus on computer-based systems within organizations to see if they increase the sharing of “data” and or “information” noting. Specifically, they look at information...Read more
AO: “The increase in open-access journal–university library partnerships (such as in the case of ShareCA and CA’s move to place OJS at Duke Libraries) is a crucial step towards...Read more
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: As the analyst’s definition showed (see Micro), they assume that a good collaborator follows the shared rules, norms and structures to act/decide. They note that the
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: The analysts highlight that the strategic use turning the diversity of epistemic cultures into a resource marks the politics of collaboration. It is a bit difficult to nail
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
