AO: The analysts note that increasingly, the only way to identify whether someone is a psychologist or economist is to look at their institutional affiliation.
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.
AO: The author calls for more reflection on the intertwining of multi-textual forms of knowledge production to see how multi-textuality can address the complexity of the ‘global’ world...Read more
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: This editorial intro by Fortun and Cherkasky focuses largely on the meta, nano and practice (micro) levels of conceptualizing “counter-expertise”.Read more
AO: This is a discourse analysis of the way that organizational theorists are thinking about collaboration (authors map nine papers over 6 domains of collaboration to
AO: The editors argue that counter-experts at the level of the organization recognize how power works - not as brute force but by establishing what counts as a legitimate statement.Read more
AO: She does not describe this but it would be assumed that the colonial acts of taking native lands and one's relationship to those lands.
AO: The greater convergence between the fields of psychology and economics which has led to distinct field of behavioral economics.
“Analysts note the
AO: The analysts do not talk about data within their analyses of the way collaboration is discussed.
AO: Fortun and Cherkasky develop the term “counter-expertise” to conceptualize ways that people who work with one foot in academia and one food in direct advocacy for political change...Read more
AO: The analyst looks at collaborative relationship anthropologists establish with indigenous intellectuals and activists, arguing that these relationships necessarily make