Introduction: Current tensions and trends in the World Scientific System

Beigel, Fernanda

doi:10.1177/0011392114548640

Cited by 51 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…international visibility of Argentinian sociology for example -with real deprivation -a lack of productive capacity in Argentina (Beigel, 2014a). 2 See Benson (2005Benson ( , 2013 and Krause (n.d.) on the different forms of autonomy.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Western Hegemony’ in the Social Sciences: Fields and Model Systems

Krause¹

2016

The Sociological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the role of privileged research objects ('model systems') in producing patterns in transnational knowledge production. In its approach it follows Bourdieu's call to focus on contexts of production and forces internal to disciplines as well as his insistence on practice. Learning from work in science and technology studies it also considers material objects of knowledge and spaces of knowledgeproduction. It discusses the case of sociology and argues that conventions surrounding privileged research objects matter relatively independently of authors' national origin or field-position. Examining model systems, I argue, can contribute to our understanding of how some well-established inequalities are produced and reproduced. This focus adds specific stakes to the debates about global knowledge production: we can discuss the problem of neglected cases in ways that are not always included in current reflections that draw on general political -rather than specifically knowledge-politicalcategories.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Western Hegemony’ in the Social Sciences: Fields and Model Systems

Krause¹

2016

The Sociological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Meneghini, Packer and Nassi-Calo, 2008;Kosanović. and Šipka, 2013;Alperin, 2014;Collazo, 2014;Beigel, 2014a;Aman, 2015). This geographic bias generates serious doubts about the objectivity of the scientific evaluation, based on the number of papers published in the SCI (van Leeuwen, Moed, Tijssen, Visser and Van Raan.…”

Section: Underlying Scientific Communication Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific communication networks. Analysis of journals and International Bibliographic Indexes

Socha

Valderrama

2017

TEKN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recibido: 31 de octubre de 2016 / Aceptado: 11 de febrero de 2017 Resumen. Los Índices Bibliográficos Internacionales (IBIs) como Science Citation Index y Scopus, han adquirido protagonismo en la ciencia. Sin embargo, su ascenso ha sido polémico y alrededor de ellos se han configurado visiones a favor y en contra de su uso como herramientas objetivas para representar y seguir el estado de la ciencia. Esto ha conducido a profundas tensiones entre ambos polos expresadas en oposiciones del tipo: "los IBIs son/no son herramientas objetivas, científicas y universales". No obstante, es paradójico que ambos polos se presenten como excluyentes entre sí cuando en la realidad las denuncias de uno y otro dan cuenta de aspectos que coexisten en el proceso comunicativo. En este artículo analizamos esta coexistencia. El artículo resultado de investigación se concibe aquí como un objeto tecno-científico, en el contexto de la teoría del actor red y las metáforas de seguimiento: óptica, industrial y asociativa, para analizar las redes de comunicación científica. Este artículo tiene un objetivo doble: primero, proponer tres redes de seguimiento de la comunicación científica: manifiesta, subyacente y asociativa, para reconsiderar las denuncias a favor y en contra de los IBIs, y segundo, contribuir a la reflexión sobre la oposición enunciada a partir de una visión relacional, no sustancial, del proceso de la comunicación científica. Palabras clave: CTS; cienciometría; teoría del actor-red; mediaciones, revistas especializadas.[en] Scientific communication networks. Analysis of journals and International Bibliographic Indexes Abstract. International Bibliographic Indexes (IBIs) like Science Citation Index and Scopus have played an important role in the field of science. However, IBIs increased use has been controversial and has raised positive and negative standpoints regarding their use as objective tools to represent and track the state of science. This has led to the emergence of deep tensions between both sides, expressed in oppositions like: IBIs are/are not objective, scientific, and universal. However, it is paradoxical that both sides are presented as mutually exclusive when all their complaints consider aspects that coexist in the communication process. We present evidences of this coexistence. In our approach, research papers are conceived as a techno-scientific object in the context of actor-network theory and metaphor tracking: optical, industrial, and associative, to analyze scientific communication networks. The aim of this study is twofold: first, we propose three networks to track scientific communication: manifest, underlying, and associative, to reconsider both positive and negative allegations about IBIs. Secondly, we encourage to rethink the opposition, starting from a more relational approach rather than an essentialist one to the process of scientific communication.

show abstract

“…In this type of horizontal autonomy, American social science is more autonomous than Argentinian or German social science, which highly values publications in American journals. But that does not necessarily mean that American sociology, for example, is more autonomous from American political or economic forces than Argentinian or German sociology is from Argentinian or German political or economic forces (Gingras ; Beigel ).…”

Section: Dimensions Of Field‐variationmentioning

confidence: 99%

How fields vary

Krause

2017

British Journal of Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field theorists have long insisted that research needs to pay attention to the particular properties of each field studied. But while much field-theoretical research is comparative, either explicitly or implicitly, scholars have only begun to develop the language for describing the dimensions along which fields can be similar to and different from each other. In this context, this paper articulates an agenda for the analysis of variable properties of fields. It discusses variation in the degree but also in the kind of field autonomy. It discusses different dimensions of variation in field structure: fields can be more or less contested, and more or less hierarchical. The structure of symbolic oppositions in a field may take different forms. Lastly, it analyses the dimensions of variation highlighted by research on fields on the sub- and transnational scale. Post-national analysis allows us to ask how fields relate to fields of the same kind on different scales, and how fields relate to fields on the same scale in other national contexts. It allows us to ask about the role resources from other scales play in structuring symbolic oppositions within fields. A more fine-tuned vocabulary for field variation can help us better describe particular fields and it is a precondition for generating hypotheses about the conditions under which we can expect to observe fields with specified characteristics.

show abstract

Introduction: Current tensions and trends in the World Scientific System

Abstract: Several studies have delved into the globalization of academic exchanges, the expansion of internet search engines, transnational networks and the multiplication collaborative flows (

Cited by 51 publications

References 9 publications

‘Western Hegemony’ in the Social Sciences: Fields and Model Systems

‘Western Hegemony’ in the Social Sciences: Fields and Model Systems

Scientific communication networks. Analysis of journals and International Bibliographic Indexes

How fields vary

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About