Hegemony and Inequality in Global Science: Problems of the Center-Periphery Model
Saved in:
| Title: | Hegemony and Inequality in Global Science: Problems of the Center-Periphery Model |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Marginson, Simon, Xu, Xin |
| Source: | Comparative Education Review. Feb 2023 67(1):31-52. |
| Availability: | University of Chicago Press. Journals Division, P.O. Box 37005, Chicago, IL 60637. Tel: 877-705-1878; Tel: 773-753-3347; Fax: 877-705-1879; Fax: 773-753-0811; e-mail: subscriptions@press.uchicago.edu; Web site: http://www.press.uchicago.edu |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 22 |
| Publication Date: | 2023 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Descriptors: | Models, Problems, Networks, Scientific Research, Anglo Americans, English (Second Language), Faculty Publishing, Systems Approach, English, Native Speakers, Power Structure, Developing Nations, Knowledge Economy, Economic Factors, Agenda Setting, Intellectual Disciplines, Criticism, Global Approach, Collegiality, Scientists, International Cooperation |
| DOI: | 10.1086/722760 |
| ISSN: | 0010-4086 1545-701X |
| Abstract: | The autonomous global system of science, grounded in collegial networks of scientists, publishing, and cross-border papers, is expanding rapidly and spreading to a growing number of countries. Strong national science systems have emerged outside Euro-America. Yet the multipolarization of economic capacity and scientific output plays out within a continuing Euro-American science world regulated by an inside/outside binary. Global science remains primarily Anglo-American in language, leading institutions, disciplinary and publishing regimes, agendas, and topics. Non-English and endogenous knowledges are excluded. The article critiques the world-systems theory interpretation of relations of power in science. The determinist center-periphery model fails to grasp the growth and pluralization of global science and its relation with national science systems. It normalizes the Eurocentrism it opposes, radically underestimating agency outside the "center" countries. The article argues for a more ontologically open theorization of global power in science, in terms of cultural hegemony, and for an ecology-of-knowledges approach. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2023 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1365173 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHvBLboMMWgac2lth-JWHovAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDE-Cjyrw10nftMyolwIBEICBm44bm270A--mZCkDRWjW1FVLj2HcZO3dhobXaSsuMkdvpL-u48QjY3MuWpyd5v5nPGBU3hS3PNlPiXrPCcsz1umf-J0Em-PxhwaDSZ_ie8LM_XaSZUzhfjyEJrH9rmaE1Ee16VQl4eDAP3CZbWooe3QVeXN5FJdm3vlj6SgPIm4i6njbWvCELT-zI7VrrMgZY04qaOWrXBRad9Yb Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0161656901;cer01feb.23;2023Feb06.04:22;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0161656901-1">Hegemony and Inequality in Global Science: Problems of the Center-Periphery Model </title> <sbt id="AN0161656901-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>The autonomous global system of science, grounded in collegial networks of scientists, publishing, and cross-border papers, is expanding rapidly and spreading to a growing number of countries. Strong national science systems have emerged outside Euro-America. Yet the multipolarization of economic capacity and scientific output plays out within a continuing Euro-American science world regulated by an inside/outside binary. Global science remains primarily Anglo-American in language, leading institutions, disciplinary and publishing regimes, agendas, and topics. Non-English and endogenous knowledges are excluded. The article critiques the world-systems theory interpretation of relations of power in science. The determinist center-periphery model fails to grasp the growth and pluralization of global science and its relation with national science systems. It normalizes the Eurocentrism it opposes, radically underestimating agency outside the "center" countries. The article argues for a more ontologically open theorization of global power in science, in terms of cultural hegemony, and for an ecology-of-knowledges approach.</p> <p>In the last 3 decades, basic science centered on universities and research institutes across the world has been transformed, in some but not all respects. A distinctive global science system has formed, with partial autonomy in relation to nation-states and connections into the local scale (Marginson and Rhoades [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref1">44</reflink>]). Science has become networked, much larger, and more distributed and diverse. Yet it has changed little in language and agendas. It remains monocultural in process and content.</p> <p>This article is focused on relations of power in science and the drivers of inequality and suppression of diversity. It considers the nature of the emergent global science system and interpretations of science, which shape understandings and affect practices. An explanation of relations of power in global science must include three elements: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>) the dynamism of its material growth and diversification, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>) relations between global science and national science and the interstate order, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref4">3</reflink>) global homogeneity and inequality. The article reviews each in turn, followed by a critical review of one explanation of power, world-systems theory and its center-periphery model (Wallerstein [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref5">75</reflink>]; Wallerstein et al. [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref6">81</reflink>]). The fixed world-systems hierarchy of nations bolted down by political economy closes off the potential of national and individual agents. It cannot explain the evolution of science.</p> <p>In developing alternatives to the vortex-like compulsion of the center-periphery model of science, the article works with an open ontology in which change is continuous and reality is not fixed but emerging (Sayer [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref7">64</reflink>]). Each of the four domains of structure (material and institutional factors), the "ideational" (knowledge, ideas, ideologies), social relations, and human agency is autonomous, and they continually interact (Archer [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref8">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref9">5</reflink>]). The article draws on Gramsci's ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref10">21</reflink>]) discussion of cultural hegemony in the national and international scales and the counterhegemonic decolonizing perspective of Santos and his "ecology of knowledges" approach ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref11">62</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref12">63</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0161656901-3">Global Science</hd> <p>After World War II, science evolved within nationally normed and funded systems. On the world scale it was an uneven Euro-American ("Western") duopoly, dominated by the United States, with Japan as outlier and Soviet Russia fenced off behind the Cold War barrier. Epistemologies, assumptions, and mechanisms were Eurocentric (meaning the European civilizational bloc, including North America) and, within that, primarily Anglo-American.</p> <p>From the 1990s onward two changes occurred. First, there was the development of a discrete internet-based global communications system in science, a synchronous professional community grounded in networked interaction and collaboration between scientists and a single pool of publications in bibliometric collections. By "global" is meant activities and relations that constitute a planetary ontology and tend to the evolution of the world on an integrated basis (Conrad [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref13">14</reflink>]). The internet accelerated intersubjectivity according to a network logic, in which each node is added at negligible cost while augmenting the existing nodes by expanding their connections. Networks extend toward every possible connection, growing more rapidly than linear forms (Castells [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref14">8</reflink>]). Wagner et al. ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref15">74</reflink>]) describe global science as a "dynamic" open communication system, developing endogenously, an "emerging organization" in its own right (11–12). Second, there was a partial shift in the geopolitics of science toward multipolarity, as in political economy (Pieterse [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref16">58</reflink>]), with large national systems emerging outside Euro-America and rapid growth in emerging countries.</p> <p>These transformations fed each other (Marginson [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref17">40</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref18">41</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref19">43</reflink>]). The collegial global science system catalyzed investment in national science (OECD [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref20">54</reflink>]), as nations accessed the common pool of knowledge. Growing national infrastructures were materially essential to global collaboration and output growth. There was an evolving symbiosis.</p> <p>Between 2000 and 2018, papers in Scopus increased by 4.94 percent a year. That is, codified knowledge was doubling every 15 years (NSB [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref21">52</reflink>], table S5A-2). The proportion authored in more than one country grew from 1.9 percent in 1970, before electronic networks, to 22.5 percent in 2018 (Olechnicka et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref22">55</reflink>], 78; NSB [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref23">52</reflink>], table S5A-32).</p> <p>University science, research centers, and doctoral training have spread to middle-income and some low-income countries. Wagner et al. ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref24">74</reflink>], 12) find that global science is increasingly open to new members, and "network betweenness" has declined, meaning a declining proportion of communications pass through the leading countries: there is less gatekeeping. Choi ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref25">12</reflink>], 34) finds that links between scientists in emerging countries are the fastest growing connections. Of the 20 countries whose scientists produced more than 5,000 papers in 2018 (and whose papers grew most rapidly in 2000–2018), 12 had per capita incomes below the world average of $16,635 in purchasing power parity (PPP). They included India, Indonesia, Brazil, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Africa, and China, which was just below average income (NSB [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref26">52</reflink>], table S5A-2; World Bank [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref27">85</reflink>]). Since 2016 China's scientists have produced the most papers in English, and India is now the third largest producer. East Asia outproduces Europe. In China, India, Iran, and South Korea science grows more through national collaboration than international links (NSB [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref28">52</reflink>], tables S5A2, S5A32, S5A36-49). The Euro-American duopoly is not as central as it was.</p> <p>In 2019 the United States spent £78.7 billion PPP on research in higher education compared to China's £42.7 billion and Germany's £25.8 billion (OECD [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref29">54</reflink>]). The United States is a strong overall leader in high citation science and far ahead in biomedicine. The quality of the newer producers is often questioned. However, there is no context-free "quality," and as discussed below, both paper counts and citation rates—a questionable proxy for quality (Tahamtan and Bornmann [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref30">70</reflink>])—are loaded in favor of the duopoly. Even so, citation of non-Euro-American papers grows rapidly. China is first in high-citation papers in mathematics and approaching this in computer science. Its top university in physical sciences, Tsinghua, is ahead of MIT and all other US universities in high-citation papers. Singapore's citation rates are well ahead of the United States and similar to Switzerland (Leiden University [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref31">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0161656901-4">Data and Interpretations</hd> <p>These data on the tendencies in global science are sourced from national comparisons of research resources (OECD [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref32">54</reflink>]); secondary compilations (Leiden University [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref33">34</reflink>]; NSB [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref34">52</reflink>]) developed from the main bibliometric collections on scientific papers and citations, those of Scopus/Elsevier and Web of Science (WOS)/Clarivate Analytics; and papers in science policy and scientometrics that draw on the bibliometric data. Bibliometric collections in science (Waltman [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref35">82</reflink>]) have normative, practical, and empirical-analytic functions. They set the boundaries of recognized knowledge, facilitate epistemic collaboration and exchange, and source investigations of global science. They enable the categorization and analysis of papers, authors, scientific groups, and citations by discipline, topic, institutional affiliation, author demographics, and geographic location. Bibliometrics also determine hierarchies and exclusions, as will be discussed.</p> <p>The current article is in social theory, not scientometrics, and sees bibliometric data as indicators of the materiality of global science, not as the science itself. Numbers of papers and collaborations are partial proxies for knowledge, practices, and social relations. However, not all aspects of social relations are quantifiable or even empirically observable. Theorization has an irreducible role in explanation, including causal explanation (Marginson [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref36">42</reflink>]). At the same time, data summaries, theorizations, and narratives of science are forms of discourse, and discourses can have effects, colonizing the practices of agents. The choice between world-systems theory and other interpretations is consequential.</p> <hd id="AN0161656901-5">National and Global Systems</hd> <p>As the above account suggests, networked science has evolved into two orthogonal systems, heterogeneous and coupled: the global science system and national science systems. National science systems are normed by governments and structured by laws, policies, resources, and institutions. Their mission is to advance national security and economic capability. They do not contain or control global science. Global science has no normative agent: its mission is knowledge creation, and it is regulated by the accumulated interactions of scientists. Scientists bring to bear their individual and collective goals, cognitive cultures, knowledge, imagination, associations, beliefs, and habits. Studies of science (e.g., Winkler et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref37">83</reflink>]; Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref38">9</reflink>]) discuss motivations for collaboration, including cognitive affinity, excitement at the cutting edge, friendship, proximity, cultural affinity, shared values, and preferential attachment for status and career benefits (Marginson [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref39">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>Resource allocations are necessary to scientific creativity but not in themselves sufficient. Because scientists mobilize across borders, they are not limited by national affiliation. Many move freely between global disciplinary links and their national institutional systems. For some, the disciplinary loyalties are stronger (Adams [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref40">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>The dual global/national system structure in science fosters a double set of world relations. First, there are international relations in the interstate system, in which zero-sum nations alternately cooperate and compete and where neoimperial Western configurations of power openly influence the whole. Second, there are the primarily collaborative global relations pursued by autonomous scientists. Both sets of relations feed the growth and diversification of global science. If national ambition helps to explain the spread of capacity, much of the rapidity of growth and ease of diversification derives from the autonomous global network.</p> <p>Haas ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref41">26</reflink>]) refers to cross-border "epistemic communities" (see also Jerdén [[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref42">30</reflink>]] on "epicoms"), which highlights the role of agents while acknowledging systemic conditions. Here science parallels transnational advocacy networks, which likewise gained impetus after 1990, forming global norms and feeding back to national practices (Keck and Sikkink [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref43">31</reflink>]). Critics note that such networks may adapt to dominant national cultures and reproduce knowledge hierarchies (e.g., Dunlop [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref44">17</reflink>]; Shahjahan [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref45">67</reflink>]; Koskinen [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref46">33</reflink>]). Individuals are free to bring any identities into cross-border communities, but when autonomous global systems are filtered through neoimperial relations of power, the new potentials opened up by global convergence are partly closed again.</p> <hd id="AN0161656901-6">Inequality and Homogeneity in Science</hd> <p>Thus it is in global science. Its foundational assumptions and culture have changed less than its membership. US-based scientists were at the forefront of the internet, and the early global science system was shaped by that nation's strong universities, talent concentration (including immigrant talent), and federal research system. These largely American origins, in faculty cultures normally free of direct state intervention, fostered open-ended freedoms and autonomous growth. On the debit side, global science was patterned by US hierarchies of value, local norms, and monolingualism that have changed little since the 1990s.</p> <p>Unregulated global science is both open to all and notably constrained—any outside agents can enter, provided they adopt the culturally specific rules within. As a result there is a poor fit between the wide global distribution of capability in science, in terms of economic capacity and scientific output, and the global narrowing of intellect and imagination. A science system patterned by a single exclusive culture sharply reduces global potential.</p> <hd id="AN0161656901-7">Mechanisms of Exclusion</hd> <p>Global science creates common knowledge in relation to shared human problems, for example, global climate change and COVID-19 vaccines. Yet public and common goods can be captured by powerful interests and their commonality stymied in distribution (Marginson [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref47">39</reflink>]). The potentials of global science are limited by inequalities and cultural homogeneity. Conrad ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref48">14</reflink>]) remarks that networks do not operate in a vacuum. They are "embedded in structural inequalities." Hierarchies also shape networks inside, although network diagrams typically underestimate internal stratification (<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref49">127</reflink>). Network analyses highlight nodes and edges and miss the dark spots: connections not made, conversations untranslated, knowledge undervalued, agents that are excluded by rules, protocols, and agendas.</p> <p>Science combines the horizontal with the vertical. Cognitive accumulation, knowledge building, is partly collective. There is an irreducible moment of equality in every research conversation. There is often also hierarchy. As well as the epistemic distinctions between truth/untruth and strong/weak explanation, there is stratification of status/resources and structured injustice between national systems, universities, and disciplines in journal rankings and inside academic professions. These modulate epistemic distinctions: all else being equal, a Harvard professor's paper has authority. Ideas matter, and some subaltern scientists break through, but this does not negate the two meta-inequalities in the global system: the exclusion of knowledge in languages other than English and expectations that universal global knowledge is framed by Anglo-European and primarily Anglo-American norms.</p> <p>Global science is structured by a Euro-American (mostly Anglo-American) inclusion/exclusion binary that operates at two levels: in the determination of what is included in the global system and in the ordering of value inside it. Why does this matter? Because beyond the codified science in bibliometric collections there is a wealth of other knowledge. It is often different to recognized knowledge. As with bibliometric knowledge, not all of it has lasting importance. The point is that it is hidden.</p> <p>English is the first language (L1) of 378 million people, 5 percent of the world, and the second language of 750 million (Ethnologue [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref50">19</reflink>]). Yet because of 200 years of British-American military, political, economic, and cultural primacy, it dominates science, having displaced Latin, French, German, and Russian as world scientific languages. Of the 300,000 periodicals in Ulrichs's comprehensive directory, 69 percent are in English (UlrichsWeb [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref51">71</reflink>]). English constitutes 80 percent of indexed journals in Scopus, 89 percent in the WOS Science Citation Index Expanded, and 90 percent in the Social Sciences Citation Index (Elsevier [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref52">18</reflink>]; WOS [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref53">86</reflink>]). Ulrichs lists 9,857 scholarly journals in Chinese; only 42 are in WOS (UlrichsWeb [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref54">71</reflink>]). In WOS, 95.37 percent of all publications are in English; in Scopus it is 92.64 percent. Spanish is second in WOS with 1.26 percent, and Chinese is second in Scopus with 2.76 percent (Vera-Baceta et al. [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref55">72</reflink>]).</p> <p>English rules also in translation. Almost half of all translations are from English to other languages, while less than 1 in 10 are from other languages to English (Naravane [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref56">51</reflink>]). Again, little non-English knowledge enters the common pool. In a triumphal account of global English, Crystal ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref57">15</reflink>]) remarks that "it is possible that people who write up their research in languages other than English will have their work ignored by the international community" (<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref58">16</reflink>). Good that he noticed. L1 speakers of Mandarin Chinese and Spanish, both outnumbering L1 English speakers, must be bilingual to fully share in global science. The asymmetry is stark. English-speaking scientists move smoothly between the local national and the global. Other scientists must deal with friction or outright barriers.</p> <p>The global science that functions as universal knowledge is culturally specific, and its claim to universality is naturalized as normal business. Euro-American organizations control knowledge formation, circulation, and codification. The top 10 publishers share over half the global market (Wischenbart and Fleischhacker [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref59">84</reflink>]). They are all in Europe or the United States, as are Clarivate/WOS and Elsevier/Scopus. The United States dominates editors, reviewers, and reviews despite the diversity of contributors, particularly from emerging countries (Mazov and Gureev [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref60">46</reflink>]; Publons and Clarivate Analytics [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref61">60</reflink>]). Global intellectual property is Western in legal form, and Anglo-European scientists lead disciplinary standards and conventions.</p> <p>The homogeneity of language, norms, and knowledge is powerfully sustained by Anglo-American universities. The Leiden University ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref62">34</reflink>]) ranking carries data on 2016–19 WOS papers in the top 5 percent by citation. Of the leading 50 universities, 48 percent were in the United States, and 70 percent were Anglophone. Global university rankings are grounded in the customary profiles of the top US and UK universities: bibliometric papers, citations, number of leading researchers, Nobel Prizes, and surveys of university reputation (Marginson [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref63">38</reflink>]). Ranking defines, affirms, and recycles the Anglo-American control of science (Shahjahan et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref64">68</reflink>]). Institutional science is more unequal than the global economy. The United States had 20 percent of world gross domestic product in 2018 (World Bank [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref65">85</reflink>]) but half the universities leading high-citation science.</p> <p>The forms of global science are installed not through coercion by neoimperial states but in day-to-day institutional practices and autonomous professional habits. In science "normative processes may be as 'closed' to outsiders as are state power and commercial markets, and may not be quite as illustrative of meritocracy as Merton and others assumed" (King [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref66">32</reflink>], 369). Whether scientists across the world are motivated by curiosity and cognitive accumulation, or status and preferential attachment, they are pulled gravitationally to the familiar hierarchy and the works fashioned at its peak.</p> <hd id="AN0161656901-8">Pushback against Monoculture</hd> <p>Control systems based on language and cultural uniformity can persist for long periods. Consider the Qin dynasty's (221–206 BCE) standardization of written language in China, which facilitated a unified polity that, with breaks, has survived since, or, in Europe, the universalizing role of Latin in the cultural-political authority of the medieval Catholic Church. However, there is nothing inevitable about this. Other states, empires, and civilizations have been multilingual and fostered intercultural mixing and diversity.</p> <p>The current Euro-American centrism and hierarchy in knowledge draw trenchant critiques from non-English-speaking and postcolonial countries (e.g., Posholi [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref67">59</reflink>]). Vessuri et al. (2014) states that journal lists in bibliometric collections are composed by "self-selection," while work in national languages is rendered invisible. Non-English-speaking jurisdictions appear as intellectually impoverished yet are not (<reflink idref="bib654" id="ref68">654</reflink>). "The mainstream has been self built on the supposition that outside there was backwardness and lack of academic value" (Beigel [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref69">7</reflink>], 619). Santos ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref70">62</reflink>], 48) describes a "radical denial of copresence," an inside/outside dualism that maintains the intellectual outlook of the colonial period, creating a distinction between universal science and local nonscience—although all knowledge begins as local, and, as Mato ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref71">45</reflink>]) puts it, intercultural collaboration is "indispensable" (<reflink idref="bib409" id="ref72">409</reflink>).</p> <p>Non-English-speaking science systems face a recurring dilemma of inclusion versus identity. Ministries and universities "internationalize" research by incentivizing publications in internationally indexed journals (Xu [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref73">87</reflink>]), but this is a double-edged sword (Yang [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref74">89</reflink>]). Theories, methods, and topics are reworked for Anglo-American journals. Articles that do not tick standard boxes are desk rejected as nonrigorous. National agendas are displaced by "global" topics localized to American society. Subaltern universities contribute to "problems affecting mostly rich countries (a kind of foreign aid in reverse)" (Vessuri et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref75">73</reflink>], 649). Ostler ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref76">57</reflink>]) states that "the world has as yet exacted no price" for Anglophone monolingualism (<reflink idref="bib542" id="ref77">542</reflink>). Not so. The price of cultural uniformity is the loss of diverse knowledge, including endogenous (indigenous) knowledge (Connell [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref78">13</reflink>], 212; Nyamnjoh [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref79">53</reflink>], 2).[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref80">2</reflink>]</p> <p>Critical scholars adopt differing positions, although all want to advance subaltern agency. Some reject existing science wholesale as an act of decolonization, demanding its replacement by alternative knowledges, a position critiqued in Roy ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref81">61</reflink>]). Others call for not the abolition or subordination of monocultural science but its dethroning and supplementation by knowledges previously marginalized or ignored, in an open framework. "We don't want another system of intellectual dominance" (Connell [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref82">13</reflink>], 218). Many just want a broader inclusion of voices and localities.</p> <p>Non-Anglo-American systems and persons have much greater agency than bibliometric collections acknowledge, but in global relations they can exercise it only in Anglo-European science, radically reducing the potential of multipolarity. For Beigel ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref83">7</reflink>]) the goal is not to build autonomous science and social science in subaltern sites. That already exists. It is global plurality in models, standards, institutions, professional practices, and values. In identifying the potential of epistemic plurality, the scholarship of science has a role.</p> <hd id="AN0161656901-9">The Center-Periphery Model</hd> <p>How are unequal relations in knowledge understood in the scholarship of science? Most studies are in scientometrics, which conducts quantitative analyses of bibliometric data (Mingers and Leydesdorff [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref84">48</reflink>]; Chen and Chen [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref85">10</reflink>]). Although scientometric papers are rarely highly theorized, the most used framework is world-systems theory. While world-systems theory acknowledges a monocultural hierarchy, it sees this as inevitable.</p> <hd id="AN0161656901-10">Wallerstein's Theorization</hd> <p>The global structure of center-periphery or "core-periphery" relations originated in the dependency theory of Argentine economist Raul Prebisch who headed the 1950s UN Economic Commission for Latin America (Wallerstein et al. [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref86">81</reflink>], 44–45). However, it has become largely associated with Immanuel Wallerstein.</p> <p>In this narrative, over time all nations become incorporated into an expanding Euro-American world system grounded in the capitalist world economy (Wallerstein [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref87">79</reflink>], 1). "The only kind of social system is a world-system ... a unit with a single division of labor and multiple cultural systems," states Wallerstein. Power is calibrated by the strength of states and grounded in the economy. There is a three-way division between the world "center" of strong states in the United States, parts of Western Europe, and Japan; nations on the "periphery" whose states are endemically weak or nonexistent; and the intermediate "semi-periphery" (Wallerstein [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref88">75</reflink>], 390). The center countries command advanced technologies and manufacturing, while in colonial fashion periphery countries provide raw materials and cheap labor and purchase the center's manufactured goods at exploitative prices.</p> <p>World-systems theory is statist. It sees only nation-states. There are no autonomous global relations crisscrossing nations. Yet, remarkably, within the world system nations do not have even partial autonomy. For countries in the periphery and semiperiphery it is very difficult to move between categories (Wallerstein [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref89">77</reflink>], 7). The world "totality" locks them in. They exist only within the rigid mosaic of nations that is the world system. As Wallerstein puts it bluntly: "There is no such thing as 'national development'" ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref90">75</reflink>], 390).</p> <p>To support his premise of a largely closed world system, Wallerstein scales up Marx's idea of the class struggle over surplus value to relations between national economies. There is a limited political-economic "surplus" at the world level subject to zero-sum competition between countries. To reach the core, a "semi-peripheral" country "must garner a heavy portion of the collective advantage of the semi-periphery as a whole to itself," at the expense of core countries and all other semiperipheral countries. "This is not 'development' but successful appropriation of world surplus" (Wallerstein [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref91">76</reflink>], 466). On the periphery, states are weak because foreign capital controls local elites and blocks development (Wallerstein [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref92">78</reflink>], 23–41). It is impossible for multiple countries to rise together.</p> <p>In 1974 Wallerstein saw no end of his world system for another century (Smith [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref93">69</reflink>], 251). He assigned a long list of countries to the semiperiphery, including those in Eastern and Southern Europe, Norway, Finland, parts of Latin America, Anglo settler states including Canada and Australia, Israel, Turkey, Iran, stronger Arab countries like Egypt, Nigeria, Zaire, Indonesia, India, China, Vietnam, and South Korea (Wallerstein [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref94">76</reflink>], 465). Three decades later, after state strategy and advanced manufacturing had secured for South Korea a spectacular global role as a research-and-development powerhouse, knowledge-intensive exporter, and cultural leader, it was still stuck in Wallerstein's semiperiphery ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref95">78</reflink>], 30).</p> <p>Wallerstein is not Eurocentric by conviction. He began with Africanist critiques of colonialism (Wallerstein [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref96">80</reflink>], 196), and his later work endorses Said's decolonial critique of Orientalism and multiple and subaltern perspectives (Wallerstein [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref97">79</reflink>]). He wants "universal universalism" in place of "Eurocentric universalism" in science (71–84). But he argues that major change in the world system can occur only when global capitalism is abolished (Wallerstein et al. [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref98">81</reflink>], 30–31). His rigid economic determinism and statism parallels neorealism in international relations theory, which also imagines the absolute predominance of the whole over the parts (Ashley [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref99">6</reflink>], 235, 283). This helps to explain the wide take-up of the center-periphery model. Inevitable Eurocentrism is readily endorsed by those who, unlike Wallerstein, support Euro-American domination, bask in the alleged cultural primacy of the center, and see capitalism as not just inevitable but desirable.</p> <p>In an early and prescient critique, Smith ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref100">69</reflink>]) takes issue with Wallerstein's "insistence that it is not internal characteristics of particular countries so much as the structure of the international system—particularly in its economic aspects—that is the key variable" (<reflink idref="bib248" id="ref101">248</reflink>). "Part and whole must be comprehended at the same time as an aspect of each other and as analytically autonomous." Change can come not only from the evolution of the whole but endogenously, from individual parts (<reflink idref="bib259" id="ref102">259</reflink>). Determination by the "totality" leads Wallerstein to underplay contextual variations and the potential of national agency to escape the dependence trap, especially through "the organisation of the state" (<reflink idref="bib260" id="ref103">260</reflink>). The state is not necessarily reducible to either national class interests or the world system (270–71). Strong states can precede economic development, as in nineteenth-century Meiji Japan (<reflink idref="bib264" id="ref104">264</reflink>), and peripheral economies do not always remain captured by foreign capital. Within a decade Wallerstein's world system was being remade by multinationals, global supply chains, the move of manufacturing to emerging countries, and an uneven surge of state building, industrialization, modernization, and growth in science.</p> <hd id="AN0161656901-11">Center Periphery in Science</hd> <p>The broad theoretical sweep of Wallerstein 's theory, with determination at a world level, seems to resonate with the worldwide scope of bibliometric collections. "Center/core" and "periphery" in world-systems theory also seem to match corresponding terms in social network analysis. It looks like a short journey from Wallerstein to scientometrics. It is not, and the transfer creates ambiguities. Nonetheless center periphery is often referenced in studies of science and of higher education (e.g., Altbach [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref105">2</reflink>]). Not all studies using these terms conform with Wallerstein. In some, center and periphery are just tiers of a hierarchy.</p> <p>Schott ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref106">65</reflink>]) uses mobility patterns and citations to describe worldwide stratification. Ties accumulate at the center. Scientists from the periphery gain status by visiting the center, which is inwardly focused and complacent. In social science, papers from outside Euro-America have a weak presence in global publishing, and critical scholars reference center periphery (e.g., Helibron [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref107">27</reflink>], 685). Xu ([<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref108">88</reflink>]) defines it as a West/non-West dual.</p> <p>In scientometrics, an influential paper by Leydesdorff and Wagner ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref109">35</reflink>]) adopts a center-periphery framework, although other papers by these scholars reject this and assert openness and dispersed agency (e.g., Wagner et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref110">74</reflink>]). Chinchilla-Rodriguez et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref111">11</reflink>]) use world-system concepts to investigate agency and dependency in emerging national systems. They find that citation counts, author order, and the international share of papers are blunt tools for studying relations of power. Choi ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref112">12</reflink>]) frames a social network analysis in center-periphery language, although his focus on newly rising science in Turkey and South Korea undermines Wallerstein's fixed positions. Similarly, in a study of high-energy physics Jang and Ko ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref113">29</reflink>]) point to advantages that "core" countries gain from international collaboration, but they note the often successful strategies of "latecomer countries" (<reflink idref="bib440" id="ref114">440</reflink>).</p> <p>Here is the ambiguity between Wallerstein and scientometrics. The "center" in world-systems theory is not equivalent to the concentrated connections in social network diagrams (Scott [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref115">66</reflink>], 95–111). The latter are not necessarily one-half of a dominance/subordination dyad or an exploitation/dependence dyad. Network analyses permit multiple centers. Here center-periphery relations are not always zero-sum. However, when scientometrics buys into world-systems theory, it can also slip into assumptions about a locked-down world order, inevitable Eurocentrism, and weak agency in "the periphery."</p> <p>Olechnicka and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref116">55</reflink>]) name Wallerstein (<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref117">102</reflink>) and apply his theorization closely. "The world of science reproduces the global structure of center and periphery. ... New ideas are generated predominantly in the center and then imitated in the periphery." There are "horizontal relations" among core countries, while "core and periphery relations tend towards domination and subordination" (<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref118">102</reflink>). It is not explained how that science is patterned by the center periphery in the political economy. What are the mechanisms of correspondence? Is science tied to the economy through the platform capitalism of publishing companies or commercial research and consultancy? Or do states pattern science as the servant of corporations? What of the fact that scientists retain collegial forms and agendas and mostly shape their own projects?</p> <p>Olechnicka et al. ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref119">55</reflink>]) want to explain the "increasingly central role of collaboration" (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref120">2</reflink>). Because they cannot see an autonomous global science system with distributed agency, they have no plausible explanation for the rapid growth and spread of science and collaborative papers. They follow other studies in arbitrarily splitting collaborative papers on the basis of author nationality as if only the national scale exists (Marginson [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref121">42</reflink>]). Remarkably, they explain the exponential growth of networks as unconscious acts of neoimperial power. "Research collaboration is one of the means that the center uses—even if unintentionally—to ensure its scientific domination over the periphery" (<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref122">102</reflink>).</p> <p>Everything is run through the world-systems idea. Center countries "control knowledge flows and thus maintain a competitive advantage," set the rules and "the institutional framework" of science, and impose a research agenda "not necessarily consistent with the needs and wants of the periphery." Center countries attract and hold "talented scholars from peripheral countries." Peripheral researchers become "subcontractors or routine research providers for core countries." Authors from the periphery network upward for jobs, publications, citations, and finance (Marginson [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref123">42</reflink>], 103). Although the authors miss the language factor, the description of inequality is valid in itself. Yet it is not the sum of the actual or possible.</p> <p>Domination for its own sake does not wholly explain networking downward from research-strong countries (Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref124">9</reflink>], 158). Not all collaboration fosters hierarchy, not all motives are transactional, and Olechnicka and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref125">55</reflink>]) underplay the emergent agency and potential of emerging countries and their scientists, for example, in first authorship and nation-only collaborations (Chinchilla-Rodriguez et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref126">11</reflink>]; Jang and Ko [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref127">29</reflink>]), and the links into other emerging systems (Choi [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref128">12</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0161656901-12">Changing World, Unchanging Paradigm</hd> <p>The pellucid imaginary of center periphery negates the autonomy of global relations, the autonomy and agency of nations and persons, and the potency of context and culture as distinct from uniform economic drivers. It denies the possibility of any autonomy for science, including national science policy. This prevents it from explaining global science in three areas that have been discussed. First, there is the mobilization and collaboration of active scientists who network freely across borders. Second, there is the simultaneous construction of science systems in many countries categorized as semiperiphery and some on the periphery. The differing strategies, from emphasis on international partnerships (e.g., Singapore) to national collaboration (e.g., Iran) or a mix (e.g., China), are not inhibited by a zero-sum battle over a fixed "surplus." Third, there is the growing multipolarity in science and the emerging disjunction between economic capacity and cultural power in science.</p> <p>Olechnicka et al. ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref129">55</reflink>]) struggle with the pluralization of science, which violates the fixed Euro-American centric order. Their data plainly indicate pluralization. There is "a great shift of world-wide knowledge flows" (<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref130">93</reflink>), in East Asia, India, and secondary regional nodes (92–93). "The recent examples of Singapore, South Korea and, in particular, China indicate that transfer from periphery to semi-periphery, or even to the core, is possible" (<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref131">105</reflink>). Is the Eurocentric world system (and world-systems theory) finished? Not quite yet.</p> <p>China is "a new scientific superpower" state the authors. Yet this rests on "massive investments from the Chinese government," and "cultural and organizational obstacles to scientific collaboration" may hinder "further expansion of the research sector" (Olechnicka et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref132">55</reflink>], 177). "The Confucian tradition does not support collaborative behavior. It attaches great importance to the social hierarchy, loyalty, and subordination to authority. Chinese education traditionally does not encourage critical thinking" (<reflink idref="bib155" id="ref133">155</reflink>). Rules, centralized funding, and "all-pervasive bureaucracy and central planning" inhibit Chinese science. It is not meritocratic. <emph>Guanxi</emph> networks shape collaboration and determine access to resources. "The political system ... hampers the freedom of choice of scientific topics and partners for collaboration, and the freedom of speech. ... It is in conflict with the notion of innovativeness and creativity" (<reflink idref="bib156" id="ref134">156</reflink>).</p> <p>In short, science in China is not bona fide, not genuinely collaborative, and not creative in a Euro-American sense. Amid this barrage of othering, the empirical weight of China's science evaporates. Eurocentrism is briefly dethroned and almost immediately reinstated.</p> <p>Olechnicka and colleagues join the long list of Western commentators who forecast a "glass ceiling" that will block further improvement of science in China (e.g., Altbach [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref135">3</reflink>]). Such predictions have a poor track record. Again, some of their points are right, like the role of <emph>guanxi</emph>, rules, and lack of freedom in some disciplines, but these insights are embedded in a normative and selective picture that protects the world-system vision. Olechnicka and colleagues expect to find a Wallerstein world, and, despite their own data, they succeed.</p> <p>World-system explanations fail to grasp the potency of political-cultural factors, except for European-heritage culture. Post-Confucian statecraft and self-cultivation in China, South Korea, and Singapore have been not a weakness but a strength, facilitating accelerated science building (Marginson [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref136">37</reflink>]). Olechnicka and colleagues are likewise uncurious about relations between global scientists and nation-state policy, a pivotal issue. There can be tensions between global networks and national agendas (Wagner et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref137">74</reflink>], 11–12), but structuring those relations effectively is one of the keys to science in China. This national/global congruence is achieved within a specific political culture (Marginson [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref138">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Others puzzle about reconciling world-systems theory with the observable realities. Mulvey ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref139">49</reflink>]) discusses China in higher education in Africa. World-systems theory says China is semiperipheral, not part of the colonizing North, but its relations in Africa are asymmetrical. Mulvey suggests "semi-peripheral (post) coloniality" (<reflink idref="bib441" id="ref140">441</reflink>) to explain this. This protects world-systems theory by adding another layer of complexity, but the term is ambiguous and opaque. Some scholars fragment the definitions. Helibron ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref141">27</reflink>]) asserts a global social science system whose "predominant characteristic" is "a core-periphery structure with a duopolistic Euro-American core, multiple semi-peripheries and a wide range of peripheries" (<reflink idref="bib685" id="ref142">685</reflink>). At this point it is better to talk in terms of cases, not categories. Gymnastic redefinitions and applications, with concepts alternately too rigid and too loose, are signs of a paradigm in decay. It is not worth the effort made to preserve it.</p> <p>World-systems theory emerged during the Cold War. Because of its ontological closure it cannot comprehend post-1990s globalization, networks, and the new Eurasia. It has long been decoupled from the history of science. It is a dangerous obsolescence, normalizing received hierarchies by diminishing the potential of agency. A new approach is needed.</p> <hd id="AN0161656901-13">Cultural Hegemony in Science</hd> <p>How is it that while economic and scientific capacity is spreading across the world, the near absolute dominance of Euro-American knowledge is undiminished? The trajectory of global science has inverted the world-systems assumption that political economy necessarily drives culture. Here it is cultural factors that sustain control. This challenges perceptions of the drivers of inequality. Resources matter, but they are not the only factor.</p> <p>Richer insights into power in science can be gleaned from the conceptual toolbox of Antonio Gramsci ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref143">21</reflink>]). Gramsci breaks with the "standard economic determinism and philosophy of actor-less historical necessity" (Fonseca [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref144">20</reflink>], 24) exemplified by world-systems theory. He does not provide an account of world relations parallel to world-systems theory, or specifically focus much on science, but provides a nuanced account of processes of hegemony and of sectors like science that lie outside the core machinery of state. Gramsci shows how relations of power in science are partly autonomous and also how ideological leadership in this sector contributes to the overall configuration of power. He takes these ideas to the international as well as national fields.</p> <p>Gramsci's hegemony is more than simple dominance, the main usage of the term in neorealist theory (Ashley [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref145">6</reflink>]). Relations of power have two modes: coercion or force exercised directly by the state and hegemony, the fostering of active agreement in the state and civil society. "The ruling class not only justifies and maintains its dominance, but manages to win the active consent of those over whom it rules" (Gramsci [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref146">21</reflink>], 178). Its vision of the world is diffused through the capillaries of social networks and secured in subjectivity and day-to-day conduct. Here Gramsci anticipates Foucault. Hegemony is the "glue" binding the leading socioeconomic group to the rest of society (Fonseca [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref147">20</reflink>], 80). It requires strenuous investment in normative processes, including law, schooling, media, publishing, and the arts. Intellectuals, who articulate universalizing ideas, play a key role in the formation of hegemony and in moments of counterhegemony.</p> <p>Gramsci extrapolates these ideas to "combinations of states in hegemonic systems" ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref148">21</reflink>], 176) and the "colonial subjection of the whole world to Anglo-Saxon capitalism" ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref149">22</reflink>], 79–82, 89–93). Writing 60 years before the internet, he does not discuss autonomous global systems. "International" power is seen as an outgrowth of the strongest nation-states (arguably, global science began like this but has evolved beyond it). International consent is engineered by the same processes as at a national level. In his passages on "Americanism and Fordism" Gramsci highlights the universalizing element in American culture, propagated worldwide in industrial production, mass consumption, and ideologies of individualism and "internationalizing" associations like Rotary and the YMCA ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref150">21</reflink>], 277–318). The sciences are especially fitted for universalization: "Every relationship of 'hegemony' is necessarily an educational relationship and occurs not only within a nation, between the various forces that comprise it, but in the entire international and world field" (Gramsci [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref151">24</reflink>], 156–57). "Up to now experimental science has provided the terrain on which a cultural unity of this kind has revealed its furthest extension. This has been the element of knowledge that has contributed most to unifying the 'spirit' and making it more universal. It is the most objectified and concretely realized subjectivity" (Gramsci [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref152">21</reflink>], 446).</p> <p>No country other than the United States allows its intellectuals greater freedom to "detach themselves from the dominant class." Mostly they choose to "unite themselves to it more closely" (Gramsci [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref153">25</reflink>], 355), but they are also central to counterhegemony.</p> <p>Gramscian hegemony is readily seen inside science. Lukes ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref154">36</reflink>]) discusses "the mobilization of bias" (20–21) and control over processes and agendas (25–29). Ordorika ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref155">56</reflink>]) refers to "shaping and incorporating perceptions, cognitions and preferences into a dominant ideology" (<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref156">27</reflink>) in higher education in Mexico. Leading institutions sustain authorities and processes (e.g., journal hierarchies and topic selection) that calibrate value in science on the basis of the hegemonic order.</p> <p>The Gramscian theorization understands power in systems such as science as grounded in voluntary consent, the investment of subjects. This explains how dominant forms and ideas are bedded down in global science without the necessity for an interventionist state. Hegemony explains how scientists outside Euro-America "consent to the terms of the game as if they were their own" and invest in their own subordination (Fonseca [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref157">20</reflink>], 81).</p> <p>Gramsci's open ontology enables a more comprehensive and supple explanation of power in science than that of world-systems theory. He recognizes the distributed character of agency, knowing that subaltern nations and persons have scope for action, and understands the fluidity of relations between national and international activity. Today's multipolarity and growing science on the "periphery" would not have phased Gramsci. He would have been fascinated by the possibilities opened up by global science.</p> <p>World-systems theory sees inequality and homogeneity as inevitable and cannot grasp the main tendencies in global science. Gramsci understands relations of power as open to challenge and sees intellectuals, not only states, as key to transformation.</p> <hd id="AN0161656901-14">Conclusion: The Ecology of Knowledges</hd> <p>The purpose of cognitive accumulation is building knowledge, not systems of power. Yet science and other knowledge can be annexed to one or another configuration of power. The question is how to develop their potentials for openness, democratization, and equalization.</p> <p>Those potentials are always there. Globalization fosters both cultural homogenization and cultural heterogenization, bringing people face to face with difference on the basis of common templates. The present global science works only the homogenizing side of the globalization dyad. Is it possible to evolve science with multiple centers, national-cultural diversity, and continuous intercultural conversations, as in some interpretations of the Chinese <emph>tianxia</emph> 天下? The multipolarization of capacity encourages a move to unity in diversity—from centripetal and stratified knowledge to a system that recognizes and respects a fuller corpus of languages, concepts, theories, methods, and topics.</p> <p>"In history, in social life, nothing is fixed, rigid or definite. And nothing ever will be. New truths increase the inheritance of knowledge" (Gramsci [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref158">23</reflink>], 31). Creating an accessible shared diversity entails significant work, as the European Union experience shows. The first and crucial step is the will to make it happen. In emerging countries there is a continuing need to materially strengthen science, but if multiple agential perspectives are to be valued in science and social science, this requires not just resources but cultural freedom.</p> <p>A Gramscian understanding of hegemony emphasizes that the struggle to pluralize knowledge is partly about language, institutions, and processes. Mbembe ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref159">47</reflink>]) suggests a "pluriversity" in place of a university, with "a process of knowledge production that is open to epistemic diversity. It is a process that does not necessarily abandon the notion of universal knowledge for humanity, but which embraces it via a horizontal strategy of openness to dialogue among different epistemic traditions" (<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref160">37</reflink>). "Pluriversal" knowledge recurs in decolonial literatures in Latin American and Africa.</p> <p>Santos ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref161">62</reflink>]) proposes an "ecology of knowledges" in place of "the monoculture of modern science" (<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref162">66</reflink>). He emphasizes "sustained and dynamic interconnections between" heterogeneous knowledges, "without compromising their autonomy" (<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref163">66</reflink>), and also intercultural translation. "This requires renouncing any general epistemology. ... Not only are there very diverse forms of knowledge of matter, society, life, and the spirit, but also many and diverse concepts of what counts as knowledge and the criteria that may be used to validate it" (<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref164">67</reflink>). Santos does not want to weaken scientific knowledge but to promote "the interaction and interdependence between scientific and nonscientific knowledges" (<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref165">70</reflink>), including endogenous knowledges. This does not mean that all truths have equal status. It means that structural exclusion is discarded. There is cosmopolitan openness: "The novelty of subaltern cosmopolitanism lies, above all, in its deep sense of incompleteness without, however, aiming at completeness. ... The diversity of the world is inexhaustible and ... such diversity still lacks an adequate epistemology. In other words, the epistemological diversity of the world does not yet have a form" (<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref166">64</reflink>).</p> <p>One step toward epistemological diversity is to move from sole reliance on global English to a multilingual publishing and translation regime as the primary repository in each field. English would remain the shared language, but every effort would be made to bring knowledge in diverse languages to the common pool. All global field journals, and leading national language journals, would be available in the major languages (some journals already do this). Citation counts would aggregate different versions of one text. Book publishers would facilitate online translation of books, from all languages to each other.</p> <p>Developments in technology can facilitate multilingual publishing: software should include scientific languages. Languages with over 100 million L1 speakers or 130 million L2 speakers are English, Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, Hindi, French, Arabic, Russian, Bengali, Portuguese, Indonesian, Urdu, and German (Ethnologue [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref167">19</reflink>]). In some fields the normalization of translation would encourage open source modes. Resources would still be unequal, but multilingual publishing would be a game-changer, fundamentally extending the common pool to knowledges outside the English-dominated academic world.</p> <p>The crucial agents are not just publishers and bibliometricians but scientists themselves, their collegial networks, universities, and potentially supportive non-English-speaking governments (e.g., Helsinki Initiative [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref168">28</reflink>]). Science will not move as a whole. The path to structured plurality is via individual disciplines. New norms in one field can trigger change elsewhere.</p> <p>Before that much can be done. The habits of self-regulating scientists reinforce structural injustice but can also transform it. It is difficult to enter the imagination of another community. A first step is reflexivity about the ordering of value: Why elevate our own cultural practices above others? Each monocultural scientist who starts to work across language divides or draw on endogenous insights, each editor curious about diverse papers, each cross-cultural group embodying equality of respect, each person who reflects on Eurocentrism and unlocks the imaginary of "centers" and "peripheries," and each new voice and way of seeing has unanticipated effects. In the multiplication of these small steps, the ecology of knowledges begins.</p> <ref id="AN0161656901-15"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The research for this article took place in the ESRC/RE (Economic and Social Research Council/Research England) Centre for Global Higher Education (CGHE), funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (awards ES/M010082/2 and ES/T014768/1). Earlier versions of this article were presented at a Centre for Global Higher Education webinar on February 16, 2021, and a webinar organized by the Scholarly Communication Research Group at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poland on April 27, 2021, and it was circulated as CGHE Working paper 63 in April 2021. We thank participants for their questions and feedback at the two webinars.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> <emph>Endogenous</emph> "emerges from a society," while <emph>indigenous</emph> is "inherent to a given society" as innate and instinctive (Murithi [50], 17). Devisch and Crossman ([16]) note that indigenous knowledge has been applied in Western development discourses in restrictive ways, such as the exclusion of modern forms. They advocate endogenous knowledge, meaning "a community-, site- and role-specific epistemology governing the structures and development of the cognitive life, values and practices shared by a particular community (often demarcated by its language) and its members, in relation to a specific life-world" (108).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0161656901-16"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Adams, Jonathan. 2013. "The Fourth Age of Research." Nature 497 (7451): 557–60.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Altbach, Philip. 2009. "Peripheries and Centers: Research Universities in Developing Countries." Asia Pacific Education Review 10:15–27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref4" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Altbach, Philip. 2016. "Chinese Higher Education: 'Glass Ceiling' and 'Feet of Clay.'" International Higher Education 86:11–13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref8" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Archer, Margaret. 1995. Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref9" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Archer, Margaret. 2000. Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref99" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ashley, Richard 1984. "The Poverty of Neorealism." International Organization 38 (2): 225–86.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref69" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beigel, Fernanda. 2014. "Introduction: Current Tensions and Trends in the World Scientific System." Current Sociology 62 (5): 617–25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref14" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Castells, M. 2000. The Rise of the Network Society. Vol. 1 of The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref38" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, Kaihua, Yi Zhang, and Xiaolan Fu. 2019. "International Research Collaboration: An Emerging Domain of Innovation Studies?" Research Policy 48 (1): 149–68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, Rex H.-G., and Chi-Ming Chen. 2016. "Visualizing the World's Scientific Publications." Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67 (10): 2477–88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Zaida, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, and Vincent Larivière. 2019. "Follow the Leader: On the Relationship between Leadership and Scholarly Impact in International Collaborations." PLOS ONE 14 (6): e0218309.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choi, Sujin. 2012. "Core-Periphery, New Clusters, or Rising Stars? International Scientific Collaboration among 'Advanced' Countries in the Era of Globalization." Scientometrics 90 (1): 25–41.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connell, Raewyn. 2014. "Using Southern Theory: Decolonizing Social Thought in Theory, Research and Application." Planning Theory 13 (2): 210–23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conrad, Sebastian. 2016. What Is Global History? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crystal, David. 2003. English as a Global Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Devisch, Rene, and P. Crossman. 2002. "Endogenous Knowledge in Anthropological Perspective. In Indigenous Knowledge and the Integration of Knowledge Systems: Towards a Philosophy of Articulation, ed. C. Odora Hoppers. Claremont: New Africa.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunlop, Claire. 2000. "Epistemic Communities: A Reply to Toke." Politics 20 (3): 137–44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elsevier. 2020. Scopus Source Title List. https://<ulink href="http://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content">www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ethnologue. 2018. "Languages of the World." https://<ulink href="http://www.ethnologue.com">www.ethnologue.com</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fonseca, Marco. 2016. Gramsci's Critique of Civil Society: Towards a New Concept of Hegemony. New York: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks, trans. Quintin Hoare, ed. Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. London: Lawrence &amp; Wishart.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gramsci, Antonio. 1977. Selections from Political Writings, 1910–1920, trans. and ed. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. London: Lawrence &amp; Wishart.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gramsci, Antonio. 1985. Selections from Cultural Writings, trans. William Boelhower, ed. David Forgacs and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. London: Lawrence &amp; Wishart.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gramsci, Antonio. 1995. Further Selections from the Prison Notebooks, trans. and ed. David Boothman. London: Lawrence &amp; Wishart.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gramsci, Antonio. 1996. Prison Notebooks. Vol. 2, trans. and ed. Joseph Buttigieg. New York: Columbia University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haas, Peter M. 1992. "Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination." International Organization 46 (1): 1–35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helibron, Johan. 2014. "The Social Sciences as an Emerging Global Field." Current Sociology 62 (5): 685–703.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helsinki Initiative. 2019. "Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication." Federation of Finnish Learned Societies, Helsinki. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7887059.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jang, Young-Sun, and Young Joo Ko. 2019. "How Latecomers Catch Up to Leaders in High-Energy Physics as Big Science: Transition from National System to International Collaboration." Scientometrics 119:437–80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jerdén, Bjorn. 2017. "Security Expertise and International Hierarchy: The Case of 'The Asia-Pacific Epistemic Community.'" Review of International Studies 43 (3): 494–515.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. 1999. "Transnational Advocacy Networks in International Politics." International Social Science Journal 51 (159): 89–101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, Roger. 2011. "Power and Networks in Worldwide Knowledge Coordination: The Case of Global Science." Higher Education Policy 24 (3): 359–76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koskinen, Inkeri. 2017. "Where Is the Epistemic Community? On Democratization of Science and Social Accounts of Objectivity." Synthese 194 (12): 4671–86.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leiden University. 2020. "CWTS Leiden Ranking." https://<ulink href="http://www.leidenranking.com/ranking/2020/list">www.leidenranking.com/ranking/2020/list</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leydesdorff, Loet, and Caroline S. Wagner. 2008. "International Collaboration in Science and the Formation of a Core Group." Journal of Informetrics 2 (4): 317–25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lukes, Steven. 2005. Power: A Radical View. 2nd ed. Houndmills: Palgrave.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marginson, Simon. 2011. "Higher Education in East Asia and Singapore: Rise of the Confucian Model." Higher Education 61 (5): 587–611.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marginson, Simon. 2014. "University Rankings and Social Science." European Journal of Education 49 (1): 45–59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marginson, Simon. 2016. Higher Education and the Common Good. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marginson, Simon. 2021. "Heterogeneous Systems and Common Objects: The Relation between Global and National Science." CGHE Special Research Report. Oxford: ESRC/OFSRE Centre for Global Higher Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marginson, Simon. 2022a. "'All Things Are in Flux': China and Global Science." Higher Education 83 (4): 881–910.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marginson, Simon. 2022b. "Global Science and National Comparisons: Beyond Bibliometrics and Scientometrics." Comparative Education 58 (2): 125–46.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marginson, Simon. 2022c. "What Drives Global Science? The Four Competing Narratives." Studies in Higher Education 47 (8): 1566–84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marginson, Simon, and Gary Rhoades. 2002. "Beyond National States, Markets, and Systems of Higher Education: A Glonacal Agency Heuristic." Higher Education 43 (3): 281–309.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mato, Daniel. 2011. "There Is No 'Universal' Knowledge, Intercultural Collaboration Is Indispensable." Social Identities 17 (3): 409–21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mazov, N. A., and V. N. Gureev. 2016. "The Editorial Boards of Scientific Journals as a Subject of Scientometric Research: A Literature Review." Scientific and Technical Information Processing 43 (3): 144–53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mbembe, Joseph-Achille. 2016. "Decolonizing the University: New Directions." Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 15 (1): 29–45.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mingers, John, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2015. "A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics." European Journal of Operational Research 246 (1): 1–19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mulvey, Benjamin. 2021. "Conceptualizing the Discourse of Student Mobility between 'Periphery' and 'Semi-periphery': The Case of Africa and China." Higher Education 81:437–51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murithi, Tim. 2008. "African Indigenous and Endogenous Approaches to Peace and Conflict Resolution." In Peace and Conflict in Africa, ed. David Francis. London: Zed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Naravane, V. 1999. "Fifty Years of Translation: The Index Translationum Completes a Half century." Publishing Research Quarterly 15 (4): 23–38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NSB (National Science Board). 2020. "Science and Engineering Indicators." https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nyamnjoh, Francis B. 2019. "Decolonizing the University in Africa." In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. 2021. "Main Science and Technology Indicators." https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=MSTI_PUB.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olechnicka, Agnieszka, Adam Ploszaj, and Dorota Celinska-Janowicz. 2019. The Geography of Scientific Collaboration. Oxford: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ordorika, Imanol. 2003. Power and Politics in University Governance: Organization and Change at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ostler, Nicholas. 2006. Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World. London: Harper Perennial.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. 2018. Multipolar Globalization: Emerging Economies and Development. London: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Posholi, Lerato. 2020. "Epistemic Decolonization as Overcoming the Hermeneutical Injustice of Eurocentrism." Philosophical Papers 49 (2): 279–304.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Publons and Clarivate Analytics. 2018. "Global State of Peer Review." https://doi.org/10.14322/publons.GSPR2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roy, Rohan Deb. 2018. "Decolonise Science: Time to End Another Imperial Era." The Conversation, April 5. https://theconversation.com/decolonise-science-time-to-end-another-imperial-era-89189.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 2007. "Beyond Abyssal Thinking: From Global Lines to Ecologies of Knowledges." Review: Fernand Braudel Center 30 (1): 45–89.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 2014. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. London: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sayer, Andrew. 2000. Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schott, Thomas. 1998. "Ties between Center and Periphery in the Scientific World-System: Accumulation of Rewards, Dominance and Self-Reliance in the Center." Journal of World-Systems Research 4 (2): 112–44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, John. 2017. Social Network Analysis. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shahjahan, Riyad. 2016. "International Organizations (IOs), Epistemic Tools of Influence, and the Colonial Geopolitics of Knowledge Production in Higher Education Policy." Journal of Education Policy 31 (6): 694–710.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shahjahan, Riyad, Gerardo Blanco Ramirez, and Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti. 2017. "Attempting to Imagine the Unimaginable: A Decolonial Reading of Global University Rankings." Comparative Education Review 61 (S1): S51–S73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, Tony. 1979. "The Underdevelopment of Development Literature: The Case of Dependency Theory." World Politics 31 (2): 247–88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tahamtan, Iman, and Lutz Bornmann. 2019. "What Do Citation Counts Measure? An Updated Review of Studies on Citations in Scientific Documents Published between 2006 and 2018." Scientometrics 121:1635–84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UlrichsWeb. 2021. "Global Serials Directory." <ulink href="http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com">http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vera-Baceta, Miguel Angel, Michael Thelwall, and Kayvan Kousha. 2019. "Web of Science and Scopus Language Coverage." Scientometrics 121:1803–13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vessuri, Hebe, Jean-Claude Guedon, and Ana Maria Cetto. 2014. "Excellence or Quality? Impact of the Current Competition Regime on Science and Scientific Publishing in Latin America and Its Implications for Development." Current Sociology 62 (5): 647–65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagner, Caroline S., Han Woo Park, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2015. "The Continuing Growth of Global Cooperation Networks in Research: A Conundrum for National Governments," ed. Wolfgang Glanzel. PLOS ONE 10 (7): e0131816.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. "The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis." Comparative Studies in Society and History 16 (4): 387–415.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1976. "Semi-peripheral Countries and the Contemporary World Crisis." Theory and Society 3:461–83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1984. The Politics of the World Economy: The States, the Movements, and the Civilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2004. World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2006. European Universalism: The Rhetoric of Power. New York: New Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2013. "The Itinerary of World-Systems Analysis; or, How to Resist Becoming a Theory." In Uncertain Worlds: World-Systems Analysis in Changing Times, ed. Immanuel Wallerstein, Charles Lemert, and Carlos Aguirre Rojas. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallerstein, Immanuel, Charles Lemert, and Carlos Aguirre Rojas, eds. 2013. Uncertain Worlds: World-Systems Analysis in Changing Times. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waltman, Ludo. 2016. "A Review of the Literature on Citation Impact Indicators." Journal of Informetrics 10 (2): 365–91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winkler, Anne E., Wolfgang Glanzel, Sharon Levin, and Paula Stephan. 2015. "The Diffusion of the Internet and the Increased Propensity of Teams to Transcend Institutional and National Borders." Revue Economique 66 (1): 115–42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wischenbart, Rüdiger, and Michaela Anna Fleischhacker. 2020. "Global 50: The World Ranking of the Publishing Industry, 2020." https://<ulink href="http://www.publishersweekly.com/binary-data/Global50%5f2020.pdf">www.publishersweekly.com/binary-data/Global50%5f2020.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Bank. 2020. "Indicators." https://data.worldbank.org/indicator.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> WOS (Web of Science). 2020. "Web of Science Core Collection." https://mjl.clarivate.com/collection-list-downloads.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, Xin. 2019. "Incentives for International Publications in the Humanities and Social Sciences: An Exploratory Study of Chinese Universities." DPhil diss., Department of Education, University of Oxford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, Xin. 2020. "China Goes out in a Centre-Periphery World: Incentivizing International Publications in the Humanities and Social Sciences." Higher Education 80:157–72.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, Rui. 2014. "China's Strategy for the Internationalization of Higher Education: An Overview." Frontiers of Education in China 9 (2): 151–62.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Simon Marginson and Xin Xu</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib654" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib409" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib542" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib248" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib259" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib260" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib264" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib440" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib155" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib156" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib441" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib685" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref168"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1365173 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Hegemony and Inequality in Global Science: Problems of the Center-Periphery Model – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marginson%2C+Simon%22">Marginson, Simon</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xu%2C+Xin%22">Xu, Xin</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Comparative+Education+Review%22"><i>Comparative Education Review</i></searchLink>. Feb 2023 67(1):31-52. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: University of Chicago Press. Journals Division, P.O. Box 37005, Chicago, IL 60637. Tel: 877-705-1878; Tel: 773-753-3347; Fax: 877-705-1879; Fax: 773-753-0811; e-mail: subscriptions@press.uchicago.edu; Web site: http://www.press.uchicago.edu – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 22 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2023 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problems%22">Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Networks%22">Networks</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scientific+Research%22">Scientific Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anglo+Americans%22">Anglo Americans</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Publishing%22">Faculty Publishing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Systems+Approach%22">Systems Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English%22">English</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Native+Speakers%22">Native Speakers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Power+Structure%22">Power Structure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Developing+Nations%22">Developing Nations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Economy%22">Knowledge Economy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Economic+Factors%22">Economic Factors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Agenda+Setting%22">Agenda Setting</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intellectual+Disciplines%22">Intellectual Disciplines</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Criticism%22">Criticism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Global+Approach%22">Global Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Collegiality%22">Collegiality</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scientists%22">Scientists</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22International+Cooperation%22">International Cooperation</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1086/722760 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0010-4086<br />1545-701X – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: The autonomous global system of science, grounded in collegial networks of scientists, publishing, and cross-border papers, is expanding rapidly and spreading to a growing number of countries. Strong national science systems have emerged outside Euro-America. Yet the multipolarization of economic capacity and scientific output plays out within a continuing Euro-American science world regulated by an inside/outside binary. Global science remains primarily Anglo-American in language, leading institutions, disciplinary and publishing regimes, agendas, and topics. Non-English and endogenous knowledges are excluded. The article critiques the world-systems theory interpretation of relations of power in science. The determinist center-periphery model fails to grasp the growth and pluralization of global science and its relation with national science systems. It normalizes the Eurocentrism it opposes, radically underestimating agency outside the "center" countries. The article argues for a more ontologically open theorization of global power in science, in terms of cultural hegemony, and for an ecology-of-knowledges approach. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2023 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1365173 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1365173 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1086/722760 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 22 StartPage: 31 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Models Type: general – SubjectFull: Problems Type: general – SubjectFull: Networks Type: general – SubjectFull: Scientific Research Type: general – SubjectFull: Anglo Americans Type: general – SubjectFull: English (Second Language) Type: general – SubjectFull: Faculty Publishing Type: general – SubjectFull: Systems Approach Type: general – SubjectFull: English Type: general – SubjectFull: Native Speakers Type: general – SubjectFull: Power Structure Type: general – SubjectFull: Developing Nations Type: general – SubjectFull: Knowledge Economy Type: general – SubjectFull: Economic Factors Type: general – SubjectFull: Agenda Setting Type: general – SubjectFull: Intellectual Disciplines Type: general – SubjectFull: Criticism Type: general – SubjectFull: Global Approach Type: general – SubjectFull: Collegiality Type: general – SubjectFull: Scientists Type: general – SubjectFull: International Cooperation Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Hegemony and Inequality in Global Science: Problems of the Center-Periphery Model Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Marginson, Simon – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Xu, Xin IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2023 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0010-4086 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1545-701X Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 67 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Comparative Education Review Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
