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 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 authors are focused on collaboration as not equal between global North and global South partners and despite a desire to be more equal, structural inequalities continue to lend...Read more
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: 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: A discursive risk in this analysis is the assumption of intellectual partners among “elite” communities. I think the example of “professionalized” Kibera research subjects who
AO: The authors write: “We thus express commitment to an inductive process of research, where the emergence of design problems comes through grounded and participatory inquiry. We
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”
AO: The authors write: they are“finding the design problem through participation with the community” but it is very unclear what exactly they are doing that is “collaborative” other
AO: The authors note heavy use of online communication and collaboration tools including Facebook groups, Wiki pages, blogs, email and message groups. (page 50).
