Against collaboration – or the native who wanders off

Musila, Grace A.

doi:10.1080/13696815.2019.1633283

Cited by 17 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, while considerable literature contrasts specifically "good" and "bad" collaborations both in principle and in practice (Coetzee, 2019;Hoekman et al, 2010;Intriligator, 1990;Jermann et al, 2011;Lutomia, 2019;Madela, 2020;Moyi Okwaro & Geissler, 2015;Ordóñez-Matamoros et al, 2011), other literature describes "unpleasant" collaborations (Cocchiara et al, 2020;Youtie & Bozeman, 2016;Hajmohammad & Vachon, 2016;Kalinga, 2019;Mose, 2019;Musila, 2019;Omanga & Mainye, 2019). These latter reports comprise collaborative interactions that might repeat despite being unpleasant, in contrast to bad collaborative interactions that forestall any future work.…”

Section: Grounding Of Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Positive Project Outcome: Lessons from a Non-Dominant Government University-Based Program

Lutomia

Bello‐Bravo

Medendorp

et al. 2020

IJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores factors contributing to a non-dominant collaboration paradigm in a partnership between a government-based international development agency and a university-based non-governmental organization. Anchored in Wood’s and Gray’s collaborative framework, this article describes how the steeply hierarchical partnership navigated the elements of collaboration – organizational autonomy; shared problem domain; interactive processes; shared rules, norms, and structures; and decision making – to produce non-dominant values and practices deriving from negotiated processes, rules, norms, and structures that produced positive collaboration outcomes. In particular, a history of prior mutually beneficial interactions emerges as a critical precondition for achieving a non-dominant collaboration in this case study’s steeply hierarchical organizational relationship, one in which egalitarianism and equal decision-making regarding the agenda and the goals of the collaboration could have been highly constrained.

show abstract

Section: Grounding Of Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Positive Project Outcome: Lessons from a Non-Dominant Government University-Based Program

Lutomia

Bello‐Bravo

Medendorp

et al. 2020

IJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On 1 September 2020, the editor of the Journal of African Cultural Studies on the JACS Twitter profile (@AfricaJacs) posed to followers an unfamiliar scenario, et al 2018;Chakravartty et al 2018;Collyer 2016;Connell 2014;Green 2019;Kalinga 2019;Mose 2019;Musila 2019;Omanga and Mainye 2019;Posada and Chen 2018;Roh 2016;Thomson, Salazar, and Ecklund 2020), yet which nonetheless continues to structure the systems that African academics must navigate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“My Flight Arrives at 5 am, Can You Pick Me Up?”: The Gatekeeping Burden of the African Academic

Tilley

Kalina

2021

Journal of African Cultural Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decade, there has been increased awareness and discourse around the inequalities which structure North-South academic collaboration. The purpose of this discussion is to look at the other side of this dynamic: the gatekeeping burden of African scholars in facilitating Northern fieldwork within the African continent. We argue that this burden further exacerbates inherent inequalities within North-South relationships. By way of conclusion, we offer a number of practical steps that Northern researchers can take when engaging African academics which will contribute to more ethical collaboration, and a more positive and lasting impact within African institutions. KEYWORDSgatekeeping; Africa; fieldwork; research Imagine this: a young woman, a Tanzanian researcher, arriving in the UK for a 2 month long fieldwork, to write the definitive study on the sexual practices of academics in North Oxford. Demanding access, expecting intimacy, being invited into homes. Welcomed.The satire is obviously thinly veiled, as few academics from the Global South, and Africa in particular, enjoy opportunities for fieldwork within Northern communities, or get opportunities to establish expertise on Northern subjects or within Northern contexts. Meanwhile numerous Northern academics prominently make careers out of their "African" expertise, often to the exclusion of their African colleagues, while the continent seasonally abounds with Northern researchers on their summer sabbaticals: scholars, graduate students, study abroad programmes, all treating the lived realities of 1.2 billion individuals as part of their personal and career development. The unidirectional nature of this exchange speaks to the lingering colonialism and racism inherent within global academia, a topic that has drawn considerably scholarly attention within recent years (see for example

show abstract

“…Discrimination due to sexual orientation and gender is widespread in academia where, like in most spaces, hetero-cisnormativity -a system of norms, privilege, and oppression that places heterosexual cisgender people above all others -is prevalent (Boustani and Taylor, 2020;Worthen, 2016). Furthermore, racism is another important and often underplayed factor in research institutions (Harper, 2012), and manifests in knowledge production and resources being advantageous to past and present colonizers (Musila, 2019). In order to strive for fairness, we have to consider the intersections of these various identities that lead to bias, discrimination, and oppression (Crenshaw, 1989).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clear, transparent, and timely communication for fair authorship decisions: A practical guide

Gani¹,

Kohl²,

Baalbaki³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Authorship conflicts are a common occurrence in academic publishing, and they can have serious implications on the careers and well-being of the involved researchers, as well as the collective success of research organizations. In addition to not inviting relevant contributors to co-author a manuscript, the order of authors, as well as honorary, gift, and ghost authors are all widely recognized problems related to authorship. Unfair authorship practices disproportionately affect those lower in the power hierarchies – early career researchers, women, researchers from the Global South, and other minoritized groups. Here we propose an approach to preparing author lists based on clear, transparent, and timely communication. This approach is aimed to minimize the potential for late-stage authorship conflicts during manuscript preparation by facilitating timely and transparent decisions on potential co-authors and their responsibilities. Furthermore, our approach can help avoid imbalances between contributions and credits in published manuscripts by recording planned and executed responsibilities. We present authorship guidelines which also include a novel authorship form, along with the documentation of the formulation process for a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary center with more than 250 researchers. Other research groups, departments, and centers can use or build on this template to design their own authorship guidelines as a practical way to promote fair authorship practices.

show abstract

Against collaboration – or the native who wanders off

Cited by 17 publications

References 8 publications

A Positive Project Outcome: Lessons from a Non-Dominant Government University-Based Program

A Positive Project Outcome: Lessons from a Non-Dominant Government University-Based Program

“My Flight Arrives at 5 am, Can You Pick Me Up?”: The Gatekeeping Burden of the African Academic

Clear, transparent, and timely communication for fair authorship decisions: A practical guide

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About