AO: The paper is co-authored and authors note the first author’s “insider” status and second and third authors’ “outsider” status (although they all reside in Switzerland?). Here,
AO: The issue of authorship begins even before the actual writing of the paper as the analysts note: “Who is given the opportunity to contribute, and thus potentially qualify as an
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
AO: The authors point to bad practices with data sharing and “intellectual ownership” in “collaborations” that have created a barrier towards collaborations: “Northern researchers
AO: I don’t have an edxo question but the analysts are interested in how to train the next generation of transdisciplinary scholars. They argue that metrics (that are “valid and
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 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: Analysts note that “understanding of and sensitivity to cultural differences and their impact on teamwork” is important but it is unclear what kinds of “culture” they mean… Seems
AO: Unsurprisingly given that the authors are publishing in ICTD, the techno level of analysis is very strong. They focus on collaboration in a part of the
AO: Like Matsutake group, they explicitly note they are not interested in a division of labor (86)
AO: They give an example of collaboration with “Bert”
Guidelines for data and publications;
bilingual training process “was crucial for the relationship between the doctoral researcher and the assistants to
