AO: The analysts describe the process of community peer review as: “hiring a community member to the team; researching the social, cultural, and economic contexts of the community;
AO: While the analysts look in interesting ways at collaboration across human - material; material - material ways, they do not talk about ecological ways that these collaborations
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: iterative discussion; Kenner holds that “open participation in academic culture should be principles that guide the design of digital infrastructure” (284)Read more
AO: Little discussion of the actual data practices. This is a limitation of their data collection method. They also do not discuss their own data practices.Read more
AO: The analysts used varying technologies to advertise about the meetings for community peer review. These included: “advertised the meeting on posters in the area in general stores
“Community consent to disseminate knowledge and/or to decrease harm and increase benefit is more nuanced and subtle than academic publishing consent.” (4)
AO: The analysts are very strong at the nano, meta, macro levels. They are largely missing an eco level of analysis (at least as expressed in this genre which was targeting natural...Read more
AO: In describing organizational cultures: “open versus closed, factually oriented or rumor and intuition-based, internally or externally focused, controlling or empowering.”Read more
AO: Analysts note that in crossdisciplinary collaborations, individuals experience their alterity and both sides’ work is defamiliarized and out of that emerges a need
AO: The analysts focus on the data and findings and their circulation, stating that community members should be able to decide where they want it published and also how or which data
