AO: As the analyst’s definition showed (see Micro), they assume that a good collaborator follows the shared rules, norms and structures to act/decide. They note that the
AO: The analysts highlight that the strategic use turning the diversity of epistemic cultures into a resource marks the politics of collaboration. It is a bit difficult to nail
AO: The analysts generally note that shared agreement on the rules to govern the collaborative alliance need to be made but given the wide range of collaborations they
AO: Strategically engaging the “double binds” within which we operate. The analysts note that “double bind situations create a persistent mismatch between explanation and everyday
AO: The analysts heavily cite a 1994 article by Lopes in the “Annual Review of Psychology” that argued that psychologists and economists view one another with suspicion and distaste to...Read more
AO: The analysts are focused on the preconditions that make collaboration possible and motivate stakeholders (why would one participate in a collaboration?), the process
AO: The analysts leverages scholarship critiqing the “lone (male) ethnographer” to highlight the inherently interactive process of knowledge production.
AO: The analysts argue that double binds are created and sustained by work within organizations. They define “organization” both as a social body in which intersubjective exchange is
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
Kim Fortun and Todd Cherkasky explicate how they are thinking about "counter-expertise" as "a way of taking responsibility for expert knowledge and status, while questioning the conventional role experts play in framing political choices" (1998, 141).Read more