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: 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: Kenner is thinking about how digital infrastructures (the “layers of electronics, institutions, code, paradigms, experts, networks, service providers, information systems,...Read more
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 note that research funders (of humanities projects) are increasingly calling for collaborative research projects, universities in many countries continue to, or
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 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
“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: iterative discussion; Kenner holds that “open participation in academic culture should be principles that guide the design of digital infrastructure” (284)Read more