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 assume that strategies of creativity and innovation are needed to move the field forward and further improve public health science and practice (S243).
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: Western funding organizations are said to shape collaborations because they often give funding (and power) to western researchers.Read more
AO: Less about data practices in the collaboration and more about how the research team collected their data of what was going on online: “We are taking screenshots of Facebook
AO: The issue of authorship begins even before the actual writing of the paper as the analysts note: “Who is given the opportunity to contribute, and thus potentially qualify as an
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: The analysts use post-structuralist work to aruge that the current imaginary of the “subject as informant” does not stand given the desire for the epistemic partner to perform an
AO: not discussed at all. It is unclear how the interlocutors are interested in the collaboration.Read more
AO: unequal funding (Northern funding is much more prolific and then sets the agenda for the project).Read more
