STS Between Centers and Peripheries: How Transnational are Leading STS Journals?
Abstract
In the context of increasing internationalization of the science and technology studies (STS) field, and reflections on post-coloniality and provincialization of STS, we examine to what extent a set of twelve leading journals of the field have published papers from different regions worldwide. In this exploratory work, based on information retrieved from the Web of Science for the period 2010–2019, we often use Latin America as an example, but reflect on peripheral regions of the field more broadly. Our findings show that the historical West-European–North-American centers of the field maintain their hegemony, dominating the discussions in leading journals. Some Latin American and East Asian countries gained some visibility in journals focused on scientometrics and science and technology (S&T) policy and innovation, whereas the journals specialized in the socio-anthropological studies of S&T are the less transnationalized. Our preliminary hypothesis to explain such sub-field variations is that these objects (scientific policy, innovation) and methods (scientometrics) seem to be more universal and consensual, facilitating transnationalization, while peripheral science, the preferred object of study for peripheral STS, has not attracted attention from leading journals. Emphasizing the relational character of centers and peripheries, we argue that the invisibilization of the academic production of certain regions of the world in leading journals makes this work peripheral.
References
Albornoz, Denisse, Angela Okune, and Leslie Chan. 2020. “Can Open Scholarly Practices Redress Epistemic Injustice?” In Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access, edited by Martin P. Eve and Jonathan Gray, 65-79. Cambridge, MA and London, England: MIT Press.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11885.003.0009.
Anderson, Warwick. 2017. “Postcolonial Specters of STS.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 11(2): 229–233.
https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-3828937.
Baber, Zaheer. 2003. “Provincial Universalism: The Landscape of Knowledge Production in an Era of Globalization.” Current Sociology 51(6): 615–623.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921030516004.
Babini, Dominique. 2020. “Toward a Global Open-Access Scholarly Communications System: A Developing Region Perspective.” In Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access, edited by Martin P. Eve and Jonathan Gray, 331-341. Cambridge, MA and London, England: MIT Press.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11885.003.0033.
Biagioli, Mario, and Alexandra Lippman, eds. 2020. Gaming the Metrics: Misconduct and Manipulation in Academic Research. Infrastructures Series. Cambridge, MA and London, England: MIT Press.
http://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.001.0001.
Bianco, Mariela, Natalia Gras, and Judith Sutz. 2016. “Academic Evaluation: Universal Instrument? Tool for Development?” Minerva 54(4): 399–421.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9306-9.
Brandão, Tiago, and Carolina Bagattolli. 2017. “‘Best Practices’ as Mimesis? Innovation Policies in Peripheral Countries.” In Critical Studies of Innovation, edited by Benoît Godin and Dominique Vinck, 48–67. Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367229.00011.
Budzinski, Oliver, Thomas Grebel, Jens Wolling, and Xijie Zhang. 2020. “Drivers of Article Processing Charges in Open Access.” Scientometrics 124(3): 2185–2206.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03578-3.
Chen, Ruey-Lin. 2017. “This Way Does Not Come to the Point: Comments on ‘Provincializing STS: Postcoloniality, Symmetry, and Method.’” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 11(2): 251–256.
https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-3825960.
Chubin, Daryl E., and Edward J. Hackett. 1990. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. SUNY Series in Science, Technology, and Society. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales-Foro Latinoamericano de Evaluación Científica (CLACSO-FOLEC). 2020. Para una Transformación de la Evaluación de la Ciencia en América Latina y el Caribe. Diagnóstico y Propuestas para una Iniciativa Regional. [Towards a Transformation of Research Assessment in Latin America and the Caribbean. Diagnosis and Proposals for a Regional Initiative] Buenos Aires: CLACSO.
http://FOLEC-EVALUANDO-ESPANOL.pdf (www.clacso.org).
Dahler-Larsen, Peter. 2018. “Making Citations of Publications in Languages Other than English Visible: On the Feasibility of a PLOTE-Index.” Research Evaluation 27(3): 212–221.
https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy010.
Davyt, Amilcar, and Léa Velho. 2000. “Avaliação da ciência e a revisão por pares: passado e presente. como derá o futuro?” [Evaluation in Science and Peer Review: Past and Present. How will the future be?] História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos 7(1): 93–116.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-59702000000200005.
Dear, Peter, and Sheila Jasanoff. 2010. “Dismantling Boundaries in Science and Technology Studies.” Isis 101(4): 759–774.
https://doi.org/10.1086/657475.
De Filippo, Daniela. 2014. “Visibilidad internacional del campo CTS en Latinoamérica a través de su producción científica.” [International Visibility of Latin American STS Based on Scientific Production] In Perspectivas Latinoamericanas en el estudio social de la ciencia, la tecnología y la sociedad [Latin American Perspectives in the Study of Science, Technology and Society], edited by Pablo Kreimer, Hebe M. C. Vessuri, Léa Vehlo, and Antonio Arellano. First Edition, 113–136. Ciencia y Tecnología. México: Siglo XXI.
De Filippo, Daniela, and Luciano Levin. 2017. “Detección y análisis de ‘clústers bibliográficos’ en las publicaciones de Iberoamérica sobre ciencia, tecnología y sociedad (1970–2013).” [Detection and Analysis of ‘Bibliographic Clusters’ in Iberoamerican Publications on Science, Technology and Society (1970-2013)] Investigación Bibliotecológica: Archivonomía, Bibliotecología e Información S1: 123-148.
https://doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2017.nesp1.57888.
Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). 2014. “San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment.” Accessed February 17, 2022.
Dubois, Michel, Yves Gingras, and Claude Rosental. 2016. “Pratiques et rhétoriques de l’internationalisation des sciences.” [Practices and Rhetoric of the Internationalization of Science] Revue Française de Sociologie 57(3): 407-415.
https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.573.0407.
Feld, Adriana, and Pablo Kreimer. 2019. “¿Cosmopolitismo o subordinación? La participación de científicos Latinoamericanos en programas europeos: motivaciones y dinámicas analizadas desde el punto de vista de los líderes Europeos.” [Cosmopolitanism or Subordination? Latin American Scientists’ Participation in European Programs: Motivations and Dynamics Analyzed from the European Scientific Leaders’ Point Of View] História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos 26(3): 779–799.
https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-59702019000300004.
Gerber, Alexander, Peter Broks, Markus Gabriel, Lars Lorenz, et al. 2020. Science Communication Research: An Empirical Field Analysis. Berlin: Innovare Edition.
Godin, Benoît. 2009. “The Making of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy: Conceptual Frameworks as Narratives (1945–2005).” Montréal: Centre Urbanisation, Culture, Societé, Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique.
Grass, Natalia, Daniel Inclán, Carlos E. Rodríguez, and Gonzalo Varela. 2018. La evaluación de los académicos: Instituciones y Sistema Nacional de Investigadores, aciertos y controversias [The Evaluation of Academics: Institutions and National System of Researchers, Successes and Controversies], edited by Graciela I. B. Areous and Giovanna V. Nigrini. First Edition. Ciudad de México: FLACSO-México.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt21kk1b9.
Hackett, Edward J., John N. Parker, Niki Vermeulen, and Bart Penders. 2017. “The Social and Epistemic Organization of Scientific Work.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Ulrike Felt, Rayvon Fouché, Clark A. Miller, and Laurel Smith-Doerr, Fourth Edition, 733–764. Cambridge, MA and London, England: The MIT Press.
Halffman, Willem, and Hans Radder. 2015. “The Academic Manifesto: From an Occupied to a Public University.” Minerva 53(2): 165–187.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-015-9270-9.
Harding, Sandra G. 2008. Sciences from Below: Feminisms, Postcolonialities, and Modernities. Next Wave: New Directions in Women’s Studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
⸻. 2011. “Beyond Postcolonial Theory: Two Undertheorized Perspectives on Science and Technology.” In The Postcolonial Science and Technology Studies Reader, edited by Sandra G. Harding, 1–30. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Herrera, Amílcar O. [1971] 2015. Ciencia y política en América Latina. [Science and Politics in Latin America] Ciudad de México: Siglo XXI.
Hicks, Diana. 2006. “The Dangers of Partial Bibliometric Evaluation in the Social Sciences.” Economia Politica 23(2): 145–162.
https://doi.org/10.1428/22461.
Hicks, Diana, Paul Wouters, Ludo Waltman, Sarah de Rijcke, et al. 2015. “Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics.” Nature 520: 429–431.
https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a.
Invernizzi, Noela, and Amilcar Davyt. 2019. “Críticas recientes a la evaluación de la investigación: ¿vino nuevo en odres viejos?” [Recent Critiques of Scientific Evaluation: New Wine into Old Wineskins?] Redes. Revista de Estudios Sociales De La Ciencia Y La Tecnología 25(49): 233–252.
https://revistaredes.unq.edu.ar/index.php/redes/article/view/78.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2010. “A Field of Its Own: The Emergence of Science and Technology Studies.” In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, edited by Robert Frodeman, Julie T. Klein, and Carl Mitcham, 191–205. First Edition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Keller, Evelyn F. 2017. “Language Matters—in Science, as in Science Studies.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 11(3): 423–431.
https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-4149080.
Kreimer, Pablo. 2015. “Los mitos de la ciencia: desventuras de la investigación, estudios sobre ciencia y poíticas científicas.” [Myths of Science: Misadventures of Research, Studies About Science and Scientific Policies] Nómadas 42: 33–51.
⸻. 2022. “Constructivist Paradoxes Part 1: Critical Thoughts about Provincializing, Globalizing, and Localizing STS from a Non-Hegemonic Perspective.” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 8(2): 159–175.
https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2022.1109.
Kreimer, Pablo, and Hernán Thomas. 2006. “Production des connaissances dans la science périphérique: l’hypothèse CANA en Argentine.” [Knowledge Production in Peripheral Science: the AKNA Hypothesis in Argentina] In La société des savoirs: trompe-l’œil ou perspectives? [The Knowledge Society: Trompe-l’oeil or Accurate Perspective?], edited by Michel Carton and Jean-Baptiste Meyer, 143–167. Travail et Mondialisation. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Kreimer, Pablo, and Hebe Vessuri. 2018. “Latin American Science, Technology, and Society: A Historical and Reflexive Approach.” Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society 1(1): 17–37.
https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2017.1368622.
Larivière, Vincent, Stefanie Haustein, and Philippe Mongeon. 2015. “The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era.” PLOS ONE 10(6): 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502.
Law, John, and Wen-Yuan Lin. 2017. “Provincializing STS: Postcoloniality, Symmetry, and Method.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 11(2): 211–227.
https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-3823859.
Law, John, and Annemarie Mol. 2020. “Words to Think with: An Introduction.” The Sociological Review 68(2): 263–282.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120905452.
Leydesdorff, Loet. 1989. “The Relations between Qualitative Theory and Scientometric Methods in Science and Technology Studies: Introduction to the Topical Issue.” Scientometrics 15(5–6): 333–347.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017058.
Martin, Ben R. 2016. “Twenty Challenges for Innovation Studies.” Science and Public Policy 43(3): 432–450.
https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv077.
Martin, Ben R., Paul Nightingale, and Alfredo Yegros-Yegros. 2012. “Science and Technology Studies: Exploring the Knowledge Base.” Research Policy 41(7): 1182–1204.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.010.
Ortiz, Renato. 2004. “As Ciências Sociais e o Inglês.” [Social Sciences and the English Language] Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 19(54): 6–22.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-69092004000100001.
Phillipson, Robert. 2012. “English: From British Empire to Corporate Empire.” Sociolinguistic Studies 5(3): 441–464.
https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.v5i3.441.
Sábato, Jorge, and Natalio Botana. 1968. “La ciencia y la tecnología en el desarrollo futuro de América Latina.” [Science and Technology in the Future of Latin America] Revista de la Integración, INTAL 1(3): 15–36.
Saldaña, Juan J., ed. 1996. Historia social de las ciencias en América Latina. [Social History of the Sciences in Latin America] First Edition. Problemas Educativos de México. Universidad Nacional de México, Coordinación de Humanidades and Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Coordinación de la Investigación Científica. México, DF: M.A. Porrúa.
https://wellcomecollection.org/works/gnyxyckg.
Şengör, Ali M. C. 2014. “How Scientometry Is Killing Science.” GSA (Geological Society of America) Today 24(12): 44–45.
https://doi.org/10.1130/GSATG226GW.1.
Soete, Luc. 2019. “Science, Technology and Innovation Studies at a Crossroad: SPRU as Case Study.” Research Policy 48(4): 849–857.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.029.
Sugimoto, Cassidy R., and Vincent Larivière. 2018. Measuring Research: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press.
Thelwall, Mike, Kayvan Kousha, Paul Wouters, Ludo Waltman, et al. 2015. “The Metric Tide: Literature Review.” Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.5066.3520.
Tollefson, Jeff. 2018. “China Declared World’s Largest Producer of Scientific Articles.” Nature 553(7689): 390.
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-00927-4.
van den Besselaar, Peter. 2000. “Communication between Science and Technology Studies Journals: A Case Study in Differentiation and Integration in Scientific Fields.” Scientometrics 47(2): 169–193.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005686123917.
⸻. 2001. “The Cognitive and the Social Structure of STS.” Scientometrics 51(2): 441–460.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012714020453.
Velho, Léa. 2011. “Conceitos de ciência e a política científica, tecnológica e de inovação.” [The Concept of Science, and the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy] Sociologias 13(26): 128–153.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-45222011000100006.
Vessuri, Hebe. 2011. “La Actual Internacionalización de las Ciencias Sociales en América Latina, ¿Vino Viejo en Barricas Nuevas?” [The Current Internationalization of Social Sciences in Latin America: Old Wine in New Winesinks?] In Estudio social de la ciencia y la tecnología desde América Latina, edited by Antonio A. Hernández and Pablo Kreimer, First Edition, 12–36. Bogotá: Siglo del Hombre.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14bs5p0.
⸻. 2013. “El nuevo ‘mantra’ de la diplomacia científica internacional: ¿Co-diseño de conocimiento? ¿Investigación integrativa?” [The New Mantra of International Science Diplomacy: Co-design of Knowledge? Integrative Research?] Universitas Humanística 76: 25–50.
Williams, Robin. 2019. “Why Science and Innovation Policy Needs Science and Technology Studies?” In Handbook on Science and Public Policy, edited by Dagmar Simon, Stefan Kuhlmann, Julia Stamm, and Weert Canzler, 503-522. Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784715946.00038.
Wyatt, Sally, Staša Milojević, Han W. Park, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2017. “Intellectual and Practical Contributions of Scientometrics to STS.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Ulrike Felt, Rayvon Fouché, Clark A. Miller, and Laurel Smith-Doerr, Fourth Edition, 87–112. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Copyright (c) 2022 Noela Invernizzi, Amílcar Davyt, Pablo Kreimer, Leandro Rodriguez Medina
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors of all content published in ESTS retain the copyright to their work, and agree to license them under one of the following Creative Commons licenses CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, CC BY 4.0, CC BY-SA 4.0, and refer to the individual article footer for specific licensing data. Please read our open access policy for more information.
