AO: The two authors appear to work in the field of global health (based at UK university) and focus on economic inequalities of research funding (“Research and devel- opment
AO: Participation as users. “Our engagement with CTVC is allowing us to discover “local protocols” of collaboration and discussion. After joining these channels, we can adapt them to...Read more
AO: The analysts note that their restating of field relationships includes a sense of the “dynamics of power and the intellectual standing of the reflexive subject. For us,
AO: The analysts believe that a shared set of terms is needed for the progress of the science of team science. They note that there is too much variation in definitions used and so
AO: The analysts are looking at “team science” which they note can be conducted within a single, focused discipline or can span multiple disciplines. They also describe
AO: the analysts noted that conceptualization and investigation around interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration processes and outcomes has been led by behavioral
AO: The analysts use post-structuralist work to aruge that the current imaginary of the “subject as informant” does not stand given the desire for the epistemic partner to perform an
AO: The analysts argue that contemporary ethnography’s preferred collaboration is with “the expert” who is now a preferred subject because within the expert’s cultural milieu,
AO: The analysts note that the science of team science is currently in its nascent stage and that definitions are being debated. For example, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary
AO: The authors don’t seem to question the concepts of “global North” and “global South.” (I think this is common of most of the work around this (see Pollock who also
