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: 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: This editorial intro by Fortun and Cherkasky focuses largely on the meta, nano and practice (micro) levels of conceptualizing “counter-expertise”.Read more
AO: The analysts note that the presence of a convener facilitates the formation of an alliance.
AO: The analysts note that there
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: 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 analyst notes complaints that went to AAA against unethical practice by some anthropologists in the field which led to reports against that individual.
AO: Not discussed although it is suggested that greater collaboration between economists and psychologists can lead to better policy and “efficiency of interventions” (390)Read more
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
Kim Fortun and Todd Cherkasky explicate how they are thinking about "counter-expertise" as "a way of taking responsibility for expert knowledge and status, while questioning the conventional role experts play in framing political choices" (1998, 141).Read more