Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 76, Issue 2, pp 343–368 | Cite as

International graduate training, digital inequality and professional network structure: An ego-centric social network analysis of knowledge producers at the “Global South”

  • Marcus Antonius YnalvezEmail author
  • Wesley Shrum
Article

Abstract

Based on a face-to-face survey of 312 scientists from government research institutes and state universities in two Philippine locations — Los Baños, Laguna and Muñoz, Nueva Ecija — we examine how graduate training and digital factors shape the professional network of scientists at the “Global South.” Results suggest that scientists prefer face-to-face interaction; there is no compelling evidence that digitally-mediated interaction will replace meaningful face-to-face interaction. What is evident is that among none face-to-face modes of communication a reordering maybe in progress.

The effect of digital factors — expressed through advance hardware-software-user interaction skills — lies on network features pertaining to size, proportion of male and of core-based alters, and locational diversity. International graduate training and ascribed factors (gender and number of children) also configure the professional network of scientists — actors traditionally viewed as the epitome of rationality and objectivity. We argue that these factors influence knowledge production through a system of patronage and a culture that celebrates patrifocality. We forward the hypothesis that knowledge production at the “Global South” closely fits Callon’s [1995] extended translation model of science.

Keywords

Graduate Education Professional Network Postal Mail Scientific Core Landline Phone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beggs, J. J., Hurlbert, J. S. (1997), The social context of men’s and women’s job search ties: Membership in voluntary organizations, social resources, and job search outcomes, Sociological Perspectives, 40: 601–625.Google Scholar
  2. Beggs, J. J., Hurlbert, J. S., Haines, V. A. (1996a), Revisiting the rural-urban contrast: Personal networks in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan settings, Rural Sociology, 61: 306–325.Google Scholar
  3. Beggs, J. J., Hurlbert, J. S., Haines, V. A. (1996b), Situational contingencies surrounding the receipt of informal support, Social Forces, 75: 201–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bijker, W. E. (1995), Sociohistorical technology studies. In: Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Petersen, J. C., Pinch, T., (Eds)), pp. 229–256. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  5. Bijker, W. E. (1999), Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward A Theory of Sociotechnical Change, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Borgatti, S. P., Jones, C., Everett, M. G. (1998), Network measures of social capital, Connections, 21: 27–36.Google Scholar
  7. Callon, M. (1995), Four models for the dynamics of science. In: Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Petersen, J. C., Pinch, T., (Eds), pp. 29–63. Sage Publication, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  8. Castells, M. (1989), The Informational Mode of Development and the Restructuring of Capitalism.Google Scholar
  9. Castells, M. (2000), The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture: The Rise of the Network Society. 2nd edit, 1, Blackwell Publishers, Inc., Malden, MA.Google Scholar
  10. Castells, M. (2001), The Internet Galaxy. Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society, Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, NY.Google Scholar
  11. Coleman, J. S. (1988), Social capital in the creation of human capital, American Journal of Sociology, 94: S95–S120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins, H. M. (1983), The sociology of scientific knowledge: studies of contemporary science, Annual Review of Sociology, 2: 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collins, H. M. (2001), Tacit knowledge, trust and the q of sapphire, Social Studies of Science, 31: 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crane, D. (1972), Invisible College: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  15. Down, J. (2000), [Review of the Book Tracit Knowledge in Professional Practice: Researcher and Practitioner Perspectives] Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 170–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ehikhamenor, F. A. (2003), Internet facilities: Use and non-use by Nigerian university scientists, Journal of Information Science, 29: 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gieryn, T. F. (1995), Boundaries of science. In: Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Petersen, J. C., Pinch, T., (Eds)), pp. 393–443. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  18. Granovetter, M. (1973), The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Granovetter, M. (1974), Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  20. Hurlbert, J. S., Beggs, J. J., Haines, V. A. (2001), Social networks and social capital in extreme environments. In: Social Capital: Theory and Research (Lin, N., Cook, K., Burt, R. S., (Eds)), pp. 209–231. Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne, NY.Google Scholar
  21. Hurlbert, J. S., Haines, V. A., Beggs, J. J. (2000), Core networks and tie activation: What kinds of routine networks allocate resources in non-routine situations? American Sociological Review, 65: 598–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1995), Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science. In: Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Petersen, J. C., Pinch, T., (Eds). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  23. Latour, B. (2002), We Have Never Been Modern. Trans. Porter, C., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  24. MacKenzie, D., Spinardi, G. (1995), Tacit knowledge, weapons design, and the uninvention of nuclear weapons, American Journal of Sociology, 101: 44–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marsden, P. V. (1987), Core discussion networks of Americans, American Sociological Review, 52: 122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marsden, P. V. (1990), Network data and measurement, Annual Review of Sociology, 16: 435–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marsden, P. V. (2003), Models and methods in social network analysis. In: Recent Developments in Network Measurements (Carrington, P. J., Scott, J., Wasserman, S., (Eds)). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  28. McPherson, J. M., Smith-Lovin, L. (1987), Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the compositions of face-to-face groups, American Sociological Review, 52: 370–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McPherson, J. M., Smith-Lovin, L., Cook, J. M. (2001), Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks, Annual Review of Sociology, 27: 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., Brashears, M. (2006), Social isolation in America: Changes in core discussion network over two decades, American Sociological Review, 71: 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Neuman, W. L. (2006), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 6th edit, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  32. Olesko, K. M. (1993), Tacit knowledge and school formation. Osiris 2nd Series 8: 19–29.Google Scholar
  33. Otte, E., Rousseau, R. (2002), Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28: 441–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ritzer, G., Goodman, D. (2004), Sociological Theory. 6th edit, Mc-Graw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Rogers, E. M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  36. Sassen, S. (2000), Cities in a World Economy, Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  37. Schott, T. (1993), World science: Globalization of institutions and participation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 18: 196–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shrum, W., Bankston, C. (1993/1994), Organizational and geopolitical approaches to international science and technology networks. Knowledge and Policy, 6: 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shrum, W., Beggs, J. (1997), Methodology for studying research networks in the developing world: Generating information for science and technology policy. Knowledge and Policy, 9: 62–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sklair, L. (2001), The Transnational Capitalist Class, Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  41. Smelser, N. J. (1997), Problematics of Sociology: The Georg Simmel Lectures, 1995, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  42. Smith-Lovin, L., Mcpherson, J. M. (1993), You are who you know: A network approach to gender. In: Theory on Gender/Feminism on Theory (England, P., (Ed.)). Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
  43. Stehr, N., Ed. (2000), Modern Societies as Knowledge Societies. Handbook of Social Theory. Edited by Ritzer & Smart. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Wasserman, S., Faust, K. (1994), Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  45. Wellman, B., Berkowitz. (1991), Structural analysis: From method and metaphor to theory and substance. In: Social Structures: A Network Approach (Wellman, B., Berkowitz, S. D., (Eds)), pp. 19–62. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  46. Ynalvez, M., Duque, R. B., Mbatia, P., Sooryamoorthy, R., Palackal, A., Shrum, W. (2005), When do scientists “adopt” the internet? Dimensions of connectivity in developing areas. Scientometrics, 63: 39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ynalvez, M., Shrum, W. (2006), International training and the digital divide: Computer and email use in the Philippines. Perspective on Global Development and Technology, 5: 277–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Behavioral, Applied Sciences and Criminal JusticeTexas A&M International UniversityLaredoUSA
  2. 2.Louisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations