How we can foreground the collaborative nature of academia? We inhabit a constant culture of anxiety. Senior colleagues worry about sustaining status quo while junior colleagues worry about "making it". And everyone is neurotic about our work being "stolen".

Expanding our sense of acknowledgement: Most (if not all) of our ideas are a product of community and conversations. We can acknowledge this as we go along and not simply in footnotes or formal acknowledgement sections of books.

Academic articles/writing can be prefaced with thoughts or contain within themselves a sense of our "method" and ideation. The present form is not sacrosanct. And, this subverts the illusion of isolation or solitary thinking.

Collaborative praxis: Collaboration goes beyond co-authoring within the academe. It can take the form of co-producing with communities we ground our research in, merging our teaching communities, not pitting teaching and research against each other.

Publication spectre: The myth and stranglehold of "high" ranking journals and a "certain number" of publications need to go. Writing is a demanding exercise. The additional demands of neoliberal publicity and university branding are counterproductive.

Universities should re-imagine their hiring standards and think beyond a) number of peer reviews b) book projects and c)work experience. This is a form of epistemic violence on knowledge production that is not mainstream. There is more to learning than that.

Reimagining labour: Our work is not just the output. It is much more than a) the publications, b) graded papers, c)conferences. Thinking, mentoring, reading together, teaching-learning together - all of this should be made visible and centred in academia.

If we try to think beyond "output" and "outcome" or think of them differently, academia is likely to be far more inclusive (and not just in terms of representation of views and identity). The form is just as contingent as the substance.

Predatory practice: One of the lessons passed down in academia is to not share your work prematurely for fear of it being stolen! And all of us are susceptible to this in our battle to be relevant. Conferences cannot be venues to "steal" each others' work.

And this harks back to the "output" spectre. If the goal is to get a publication, those with seniority and experience are much more likely to find time to "complete" the paper than their junior counterparts. The very act of sharing thoughts is at risk!

If workshops are to share ideas then the anxiety of output make them counterproductive. Because, while we learn from each other, we continue to posture as solitary thinkers and writers with sole ownership over our labour (sometimes unintentionally).

There is no shame in acknowledging community or that our ideas are shaped by colleagues (especially juniors), students and a range of other factors (and actors). Doing this may help navigate our collective anxiety and the spectre of "output" as a community.

It will encourage early career scholars to be more forthcoming and less anxious about their journey. And break the ranks of academia to nurture a genuine sense of community and respect. I suspect there is much to learn at each stage of our "careers". Always.

This is not to negate the value of solitary thinking. But that is not the cornerstone of knowledge making and circulation. For instance, unlike research the "output" of teaching is not tangible. And it involuntarily recedes in importance.

Similarly, the gate-keeping practices of journals (even the inclusive ones) cater towards a certain sense of output and form. Rigour is important. But there must be more than one way to demonstrate it. And in places outside of "ranks" and "pedigree".

Diluting cults: Academic cohorts are invaluable. And if we are to question normative standards we can do it best as cohorts. And often, cohorts are constituted around friendships, solidarity and alliances. This is mostly welcome but can also turn exclusionary.

"Cults" makes it harder for those who do not wish to align with cohorts and/or disagree with the most relevant ideas/frames/names. They are left to disagree in isolation or align with other "camps" to gain a sense of belonging. And subsequently, isolated.

Differences and navigating them are very much a part of praxis. And gravitating towards like-minded thinkers is but natural. But, there should be room to acknowledge considered disagreement and those who stand outside of cults as a form of community itself.

The anxiety of being relevant, employable and "be heard" cannot be the preface to what we do. Our options have to be more than just either play the game well or do not play at all. There may be other ways to be, think and even play (the system).

We are all in this together and the anxiety is what binds us, motivates us to collaborative, inspires us to consider other ways of being and unwittingly pits us against each other. An acknowledgement of what informs our action may pave the way to change them.