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 that in using the concept of refusal, “rather than “the terms of accommodation [...] being determined by and in the interests of the hegemonic [more powerful]
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
AO: The analysts are talking about a “knowledge transfer” model, talking about knowlege as if it is a concrete and discrete object that travels the same everywhere (and isn’t changed
AO: The analysts cite the interdependence notion in social exchange theory that implies that organizational context causes people to rise above their self-interest rational impulses
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
AO: Citing Star, Kenner holds that the technical infrastructure and human expertises (the “standards, wires, and settings”) need to be understood to understand the “aesthetics, justice, and...Read more
AO: Kenner writes: “The need and desire for digital infrastructure—often seen as a format that can extend the reach of our work—creates opportunities for collaboration with experts...Read more
AO: “mistake to view the crowds that are sourced as uninvested or as purely, or neatly, a means to a research end [Wolfenstein 2016].” (18)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: Analysts note how Digital Humanities workers can become marginalized through the denigration of certain kinds of expertise, noting power differentials may manifest themselves in