AO: The analysts mention the often-strained historical relationship between communities and research institutions (7) that thinking about refusal as a way of affirming and
AO: In describing organizational cultures: “open versus closed, factually oriented or rumor and intuition-based, internally or externally focused, controlling or empowering.”Read more
“Community consent to disseminate knowledge and/or to decrease harm and increase benefit is more nuanced and subtle than academic publishing consent.” (4)
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: 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: 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 stress that someone from the community should be hired to conduct this method noting: “Researchers from outside of these communities cannot obtain full or nuanced
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
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 wonder what factors can be targeted to increase information sharing within organizations. They explicitly are writing this paper for those working within
