AO: The authors note heavy use of online communication and collaboration tools including Facebook groups, Wiki pages, blogs, email and message groups. (page 50).
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 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: Analysts credited their collaborators “substantial experience in Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques and their willingness to utilise PRA” to make the main research
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: Internal team information circulation: “ART (global North partner) regularly produces newsletters in an effort to introduce partners to each other, and to keep everyone updated on...Read more
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: 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
Guidelines for data and publications;
bilingual training process “was crucial for the relationship between the doctoral researcher and the assistants to
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
