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: The analysts do not focus on broader non-organizational macro contexts but note that the organizational infrastructures matter heavily.Read more
AO: Analysts cite Hockey (2012) who uses the term “indirect collaboration” to describe the “reusability” of data and tools produced in the academy that find application and use
AO: The analysts do not expressly use the term collaboration. However, I have included this reading because I believe the analysts are in fact describing their version of what
AO: The analysts describe collaboration as co-working (often simultaneously). They note that the work might be differentially priviledged, acknowledged or not acknowledged at all.
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 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: Analysts note how Digital Humanities workers can become marginalized through the denigration of certain kinds of expertise, noting power differentials may manifest themselves in
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 are worried about risks and harms involved in research (1)
AO: “Community peer review is premised on the idea that research is not
