AO: The analyst calls into question the viability of and the kind of ethnographic knowledge that a “detached researcher” who enters the field and pretends not to define their
AO: The editors explicitly call the diversity within direct advocacy organizations as “collaboration” rather than collegiality or solidarity (which connote sameness of those who work...Read more
AO: The analyst looks at collaborative relationship anthropologists establish with indigenous intellectuals and activists, arguing that these relationships necessarily make
AO: The analysts heavily cite a 1994 article by Lopes in the “Annual Review of Psychology” that argued that psychologists and economists view one another with suspicion and distaste to...Read more
AO: The analysts draw their conceptual framework around Bateson’s notion of the “double bind”. They ask multiple sets of questions includeing:
AO: The editors believe that the task of academia is to question the silences that technoscientific politics engender - to parse the values, interests and purposes that so often
AO: The analysts do not talk about data within their analyses of the way collaboration is discussed.
AO: Fortun and Cherkasky introduce essays that speak from the “messy middle” between the university and direct engagements with politics to suggest how “critiques of expertise can...Read more
AO: The analyst describes a collaborative co-taught course on Indigenous Agency and Innovations offered in various institutions where various scholars and activists would offer a
AO: She does not point to data practices explicitly although she mentions methodology and attempts to develop more “decolonized methodologies” (citing Smith).
AO: Fortun and Cherkasky note that collaboration “draws people with different interests, perspectives and skills into synchronized effort to accomplish something that could not be...Read more
AO: The analyst notes that even within the discipline, there is great divide over the “integrity” of research as it relates to engagement with the study community.
