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: A convening power that has legitimacy among the stakeholders and the authority to organize the domain as well as an unbiased and even-handed approach to the problem
AO: Cerwonka highlights how the political scientists viewed her project as “somewhat literary?” and how the book emerged in part to “justify my process of knowledge production to
AO: The analysts note a tension in that collaboration is becoming a demand for humanities scholars even as many types of research audits continue to predominantly consider individual
AO: The analysts wonder what factors can be targeted to increase information sharing within organizations. They explicitly are writing this paper for those working within
AO: The authors are thinking about transnational institutional co-authorship as “collaboration” (not individual co-authorship). “we assume that in most cases coauthorship indicates a...Read more
AO: Fortun and Cherkasky note that collaboration “draws people with different interests, perspectives and skills into synchronized effort to accomplish something that could not be...Read more
AO: The analysts note that information sharing embeds the notion of a “willingness to share”. They cite other literature that has found that “the more the person believes that
AO: The analysts studied nine analyses of collaboration. They noted that at least 7 definitions of collaboration appeared (e.g. “collaboration as a process through which
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
AO: The analysts do not talk about data within their analyses of the way collaboration is discussed.
