Search Results

This chapter proposes a conception of democracy based on a system of shared liability and that captures the moral value of democratic institutions in a way that is more purely nonconsequentialist than ordinarily supposed. In this approach, citizens relate to each other horizontally and vertically—as cosubjects of the law and coauthors sharing authority over the coercive terms of our state. In Thomas Hobbes's elegant picture, we have to understand ourselves as simultaneously “makers” and “matter.” The chapter argues that what we ultimately value about democratic practice is that it makes possible for us to stand in a certain kind of relation with others—a relationship that recognizes them as mutually accountable, free, and rational persons. This is the sense in which democracy places us in an infrastructure of mutual liability.

For those who work in alliances across borders, coauthoring stories can become a powerful tool to mobilize experience in order to write against relations of power that produce violence, and to imagine and enact contextually grounded visions and ethics of social change. Such work means not only grappling with the complexities of identity, representation, and political imagination, but also rethinking assumptions and possibilities associated with engagement, expertise, and the very ideas of storytelling and authorship. Drawing on partnerships with sangtins and others, this chapter reflects on the labor process, assumptions, possibilities, and risks associated with coauthorship as a medium for mobilizing intellectual spaces, in which stories from multiple locations in an alliance can speak with one another and evolve into more nuanced critical interventions that destabilize dominant discourses and methodologies. The chapter ends with the last scene of a play in Hindi and Awadhi that the author wrote with members and supporters of Sangtin Kisaan Mazdoor Sangathan (SKMS), Aag Lagi Hai Jangal Ma (The Forest Is Burning), in 2010. Even as this scene articulates the ways in which rural lives and livelihoods are relentlessly violated by structures of power and by our own complicities with those structures, it calls for continuing to place our hopes in fighting, dreaming, writing, and singing together.

This chapter examines international and domestic collaborations using an original survey of corresponding authors and Web of Science data of articles that had at least one US coauthor in Particle and Field Physics, Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, and Biotechnology and Applied Microbiology. The data identify the connections among coauthors and the views of corresponding authors about the collaboration. Collaborations have found to have increased across US cities and between US researchers and researchers abroad. However, they show sufficient similarity to indicate that collaborations are best viewed in many regards as occurring across space broadly rather than in terms of international vs. domestic collaborative activity. The main reason scientists give for collaborations to combine the specialized knowledge and skills of coauthors is also documented. The vast majority report that face-to-face meetings are important; most collaborators first met working in the same institution and communicate often through meetings with coauthors from distant locations. Finally, for biotech, it is found that citations to international papers are higher compared to papers with domestic collaborators only, but not for the other two fields. Moreover, in all three fields, papers with the same number of coauthors had lower citations if they were international collaborations.

This chapter covers how to move from first draft to submittable draft. The chapter enumerates many of the writing problems that are present in first drafts, such as redundancy, logical leaps, unfinished thoughts, and unjustified statements. Ways to correct these problems are suggested, and writers are advised to consult with their mentors and coauthors as often as they feel they need to. The chapter also offers suggestions for cutting length to meet target journals’ space limits. The iterative character of editing is stressed, where text that is essential to the paper may become tangential (and vice versa) as the manuscript evolves. Authors are cautioned not to view earlier writing sessions as a waste of time if text generated during those sessions is removed from the paper.

This chapter allows for a reflection on the many lessons learned as an organizational behavior scholar. On the topic of doing rigorous, reliable, and relevant research, the focus is on the importance of organizational life eliciting interesting and relevant research ideas, the upside and downside of “high risk/high reward” research, how to “go big” theoretically, how to “go big” in methods, and the importance of realism and specific lessons learned in conducting both lab and field studies. Other topics such as learnings about working most effectively with coauthors, including addressing authorship issues candidly and upfront are addressed as well. Importantly addressing how having a full and balanced life is not only helpful in its own right but is helpful to one’s career is discussed. Last, just as importantly are the things to learn not to do, such as not holding on too long to projects that are not salvageable, not being a disagreeable reviewer, not looking to saying no to new opportunities. Indeed learning to try to actually say yes (judiciously). Ultimately the chapter exhorts scholar to be kinder to ourselves, and ends with the hope that these learnings from this author’s journey will spark ideas, offer insights, and help in the journeys of other scholars.

Careers are outcomes of stochastic excursions, wherein unexpected peers and events lead to conversations that blossomed into research projects and, eventually, studies in journal articles and books. I recount my career by describing how the arrival of stochastic opportunities unfolded as excursion—that is, adventures with people.