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 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 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: 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 analysts are thinking about collaborations between the fields of psychology and economics and believe it is important to have more in order for greater societal benefit:
AO: Shared topic interests (e.g. discussion about the self-interested nature of people; historically different opinion with regard to the rationality of people).Read more
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 analysts studied nine analyses of collaboration. They noted that at least 7 definitions of collaboration appeared (e.g. “collaboration as a process through which
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 analysts leverages scholarship critiqing the “lone (male) ethnographer” to highlight the inherently interactive process of knowledge production.
