AO: These analysts are worried that although Digital Humanities has collaboration built into its practice, the concept of collaboration is under theorized and also understood in
AO: The analysts note that in using the concept of refusal, “rather than “the terms of accommodation [...] being determined by and in the interests of the hegemonic [more powerful]
AO: The analysts note that information sharing embeds the notion of a “willingness to share”. They cite other literature that has found that “the more the person believes that
AO: The analysts are very strong at the nano, meta, macro levels. They are largely missing an eco level of analysis (at least as expressed in this genre which was targeting natural...Read more
AO: The analysts do not focus on broader non-organizational macro contexts but note that the organizational infrastructures matter heavily.Read more
AO: The analysts focus on computer-based systems within organizations to see if they increase the sharing of “data” and or “information” noting. Specifically, they look at information...Read more
“Community consent to disseminate knowledge and/or to decrease harm and increase benefit is more nuanced and subtle than academic publishing consent.” (4)
AO: Citing Star, Kenner holds that the technical infrastructure and human expertises (the “standards, wires, and settings”) need to be understood to understand the “aesthetics, justice, and...Read more
AO: While the analysts look in interesting ways at collaboration across human - material; material - material ways, they do not talk about ecological ways that these collaborations
AO: The analysts focus on the data and findings and their circulation, stating that community members should be able to decide where they want it published and also how or which data
AO: Little discussion of the actual data practices. This is a limitation of their data collection method. They also do not discuss their own data practices.Read more
