AO: The analysts propose six theoretical perspectives to explain and examine collaborative behavior: resource dependence, corporate social performance/institutional
AO: She does not describe this but it would be assumed that the colonial acts of taking native lands and one's relationship to those lands.
AO: Citing Kelty, the analyst calls collaboration: “mutifaceted and rhizomic” and asks if it could be too weak of a word to describe the entanglements of complicity, cultural
AO: A convening power that has legitimacy among the stakeholders and the authority to organize the domain as well as an unbiased and even-handed approach to the problem
AO: This is a discourse analysis of the way that organizational theorists are thinking about collaboration (authors map nine papers over 6 domains of collaboration to
AO: Not mentioned but the creation of numerous journals that touch on econ and psych are noted.
AO: The analysts note that increasingly, the only way to identify whether someone is a psychologist or economist is to look at their institutional affiliation.
AO: Contrary to much of the development literature I have been reading which emphasizes the normative value of collaboration as empowering and benefiting, this piece highlights
AO: Fortun and Cherkasky develop the term “counter-expertise” to conceptualize ways that people who work with one foot in academia and one food in direct advocacy for political change...Read more
AO: She does not point to data practices explicitly although she mentions methodology and attempts to develop more “decolonized methodologies” (citing Smith).
AO: Fortun and Cherkasky introduce essays that speak from the “messy middle” between the university and direct engagements with politics to suggest how “critiques of expertise can...Read more
In this article, Mike Fortun discusses discusses the complicated double-binds that impacted his "response-ability" while working in and on the Institute for Science and Interdisciplinary Studies (ISIS).Read more