AO: The analysts argue that every contributor should be able to draw the project into new and original directions and that the project should continually shift because of its collaborative innovations. They use their Matsutake Research Group to discuss how they have separate and well-defined areas of expertise and combine their expertises towards the project. They note that collaborative experiments (at their best) are more about the process than the race. (383).
AO: The analysts note that “our works may show that we are not assimilable to others and that we may have productive tension among our conclusions.” They note that they may not come to a consensus and that “we are often better off agreeing to disagree” (398).
“We welcome the method of “looking several ways” (Clifford 2004) and see multivocality as a productive outcome of collaborations with each other.” (399)
AO: “Specialists on research teams recognize that value comes from interdisci- plinary or interspecialty dialogue, but there is generally little sense that disciplines or specialties might change their basic relations with each other or undergo internal reorga- nization on the basis of dialogue” (399)
AO: The editors explicitly call the diversity within direct advocacy organizations as “collaboration” rather than collegiality or solidarity (which connote sameness of those who work together).
Hegel is specifically interested in the possible benefits of adopting the “yes, and” model of collaboration in the practice of data analysis. Thus, a “good collaborator” would be one who affirms their partner’s thinking and contributes by delving deeper/spinning off/backing up/ etc. That is, to Hegel, the “agreeing to agree” element of the “yes, and” model is essential.
Bouka is trying to call attention to the ways in which collaborations work better for some than others. That is, how people can manipulate/abuse power relations so as to lay claim to analytical contributions that were not their own. In this sense, Bouka is implicitly characterizing a “good” collaborator as one who puts effort and care into discerning, acknowledging, crediting, and rewarding the contributions of all research participants.
AO: These analysts are most interested in how collaboration shifts over time and note that organizations reposition themselves in response to new cultural forces and political-economic contexts.
AO: According to these analysts, the politics of collaboration requires critically engaging new associations between people, linking micro and macro processes to turn pluralism into a strategic resource. They find collectivity can not only be difficult to produce but also can be marginzalizing and alienating. (146)
AO: They note that challenges described are not a failed attempts at solidarity or neutrality and their goal is not to stand apart or within but “alongside,” “aligning themselves in ways that respect different positions, different kinds of expertise and new ways of assuming political responsibility.” (148)
AO: The analysts describing being “at risk” (which is not the same thing as identifying with the subjects of study), rather, they argue an ethnographic attitude is a mode of practical and theoretical attention, a way of remaining mindful and accountable. It is about risks, purposes and hopes embedded in knowledge projects. (160).
Star and Griesemer do not delineate a list of character traits that would characterize an “ideal collaborator,” rather they take a more ecological approach. Through their analysis of this particular historical example of a successful collaboration, they show how the collaborative interaction of numerous parties, inhabiting appreciably different “social worlds,” was facilitated by material semiotic process of identifying/utilizing boundary objects and developing standardized practices (For more detail see the TECHNO, META, and PRACTICE annotations). The fact that both Grinnell and Alexander were rather personable and had strong personalities did of course play a role, but the point of the article is to argue that collaboration is not so much dependent on the character traits of individuals as it is on the configuration of the relations between unique groups and individuals, and the way these relations are mediated by material-semiotic objects and practices.
AO: the analysts argue that psychology and economics are merging into a new single, distinct perspective (economic-psychology). They argue that it is becoming a collaborative field because those working at the intersection are becoming more similar and developing a shared language.
“Most people working at the cross-section of economics and psychology share many features: they share re- search topics, such as interpersonal interaction, interdependence, games, judgment, decision-making, consumer behavior. They also use the same or similar methods. Both use lab experiments and field data; both groups are interested in behavior as expressed in the field as well as the more theoretical underpinnings of this behavior.”
AO: “Participation” is generally promoted as a main tenet in conducting the design of ICT for development” (49)
AO: shared value system (“Members of CTVC share an interest in benefiting from open-source culture and modern online collaborative tools to promote their learning and to contribute to Arab and Syrian societies.”) (page 50)
AO: Cerwonka and Malki focus on Cerwonka’s experience and feelings in the field, turning the gaze on her. They focus less on Malkki and do not explicitly write about their collaboration in the book project. They appear to suggest that a good collaborator responds to emails and spends a lot of time and effort writing up and sharing thoughts with the other. They definitely focus on how the collaboration grows and stabilizes over time. (As evidenced by the book as the ultimate pinacle of their email correspondences!).