Exile dispersed the Institute’s staff into private homes and outside affiliations, dissolving collective research.

Evidence

These were the physical conditions forming the background to the Institute’s work. How had it come about that continuous collaboration between various specialists' had become a phrase that could only be used with considerable reservations in connection with the Institute, and that the fusion of constructive and empirical methods’ was taking place to a lesser extent than before? What was behind it? Was it the result of doubts about the continuing significance of large-scale collective research? Was it the result of disorientation among people in exile? Was it merely a pause for reorientation? — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 269

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the earlier account of the Institute’s collective-research model and its interdisciplinary method. — connects to: Exile dispersed the Institute’s core members but preserved its journal work.; The Institute’s emigration tore apart intimate partnerships among its members; Geographic separation of research coordination perpetuated the Institute’s internal split. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 421 (+3 more)
• yield-rescued: below the book’s yield-target cutoff, included anyway for connecting to: Exile dispersed the Institute’s core members but preserved its journal work.; The Institute’s emigration tore apart intimate partnerships among its members; Geographic separation of research coordination perpetuated the Institute’s internal split. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 421 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Exile intensified hierarchy and dependency within the Institute. #complicates (0.75) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 589