Advertisement

The Globalization of European Research in the Social Sciences and Humanities (1980–2014): A Bibliometric Study

  • Johan Heilbron
  • Yves Gingras
Chapter
Part of the Socio-Historical Studies of the Social and Human Sciences book series (SHSSHS)

Abstract

On the basis of bibliometric data, this chapter shows that international collaboration in the social sciences and humanities has increased strongly between 1980 and 2014, but that the pattern of exchange has known few structural changes. At the basic level of production capacity and article output, the global field of the SSH is best described as a Euro-American duopoly. At the higher level of co-authorships and citations, however, the field structure tends to be monopolistic: no language can compete with English, no country can rival with the USA. Globalization effects (the extension of collaboration and exchange on a world scale) have been relatively weak, and the growth of transnational exchange has reproduced rather than undermined existing hierarchies. Due to its hegemonic position, USA journals remain largely national in their authorship and references, and researchers in the USA are less frequently involved in transnational co-authorship than their colleagues in Europe. For European researchers, transnational collaboration has become somewhat more global in scope, but most of it has remained with the USA and other English speaking countries; China is the only country that has become significantly more important. In European countries the reference pattern indicates that bi-nationalism is the predominant form of transnational exchange: citation hierarchies are dominated by a combination of national and American journals, whereas international and European journals are virtually absent. Patterns of transnational collaboration and exchange thus tend to be structured like star networks with many relations to the center, less frequent relations among semi-central countries, and infrequent or absent relations among semi-peripheral and peripheral countries.

Keywords

Bibliometrics Globalization Transnational regionalization Transnational co-authorship Core-periphery structure Field of the social sciences and humanities (– global, – European) English (as lingua franca) Duopoly (or duopolistic structure) Humanities (as compared to the social sciences) Economics (as a discipline) Law (as a discipline) Sociology (as a discipline) China (see also hegemony) Domination (see also hegemony) Hegemony (see also domination) Centrality (see also core-periphery structure) 

References

  1. Alatas, Syed Farid. 2003. Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labor in the Social Sciences. Current Sociology 51 (6): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alatas, Syed Farid, and Kathinka Sinha-Kerkhoff, eds. 2010. Academic Dependency in the Social Sciences: Structural Reality and Intellectual Challenges. New Delhi: Manohar.Google Scholar
  3. Ammon, Ulrich. 2010. The Hegemony of English. In World Social Science Report 2010, ed. UNESCO, 154–155. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Archambault, Éric, Étienne Vignola-Gagné, Grégoire Côté, Vincent Larivière, and Yves Gingras. 2006. Benchmarking Scientific Output in the Social Sciences and Humanities: The Limits of Existing Databases. Scientometrics 68 (3): 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beigel, Fernanda, ed. 2013. The Politics of Academic Autonomy in Latin America. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2014. Current Tensions and Trends in the World Scientific System. Current Sociology 62 (5): 617–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boli, John, and George Thomas, eds. 1999. Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations Since 1875. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Boncourt, Thibaud. 2011. L’Internationalisation de la science politique. Une comparaison franco-britannique (1945–2010). Thèse de doctorat, Université de Bordeaux.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2018. Roles, Fields, and Internationalisms in the History of the Social Sciences. A Comparison of the International Political Science and Sociology Associations. In The Social and Human Sciences in Global Power Relations, ed. J. Heilbron, G. Sorá, and T. Boncourt. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1999a. The Social Conditions of the International Circulation of Ideas. In Bourdieu: A Critical Reader, ed. Richard Shusterman, 220–228. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 1999b. Epilogue: On the Possibility of a Field of World Sociology. In Social Theory for a Changing Society, ed. Pierre Bourdieu and James Coleman, 373–387. Boulder/New York: Westview Press/Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  12. Connell, Raewyn. 2007. Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  13. Danell, Rickard, Anna Larsson, and Per Wisselgren, eds. 2013. Social Science in Context: Historical, Sociological, and Global Perspectives. Lund: Nordic Academic press.Google Scholar
  14. De Swaan, Abram. 2001a. English in the Social Sciences. In The Dominance of English as a Language of Science, ed. Ulrich Ammon, 71–84. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2001b. Words of the World. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Drori, Gili, John Meyer, Francisco Ramirez, and Evan Schofer. 2003. Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fleck, Christian. 2011. A Transatlantic History of the Social Sciences: Robber Barons, the Third Reich and the Invention of Empirical Social Research. London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fourcade, Marion. 2006. The Construction of a Global Profession: The Transnationalization of Economics. American Journal of Sociology 112 (1): 145–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fourcade, Marion, Etienne Ollion, and Yann Algan. 2015. The Superiority of Economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives 29 (1): 89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Friedman, Thomas. 2005. The World Is Flat. New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.Google Scholar
  21. Gingras, Yves. 2002. Les formes spécifiques de l’internationalité du champ scientifique. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 141–142: 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ———. 2011. L’évolution des collaborations scientifiques entre le Québec, le Canada et l’Union européenne (1980–2009). Globe. Revue internationale d’études québécoises 14 (2): 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. 2016. Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation. Uses and Abuses, 2016. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gingras, Yves, and Johan Heilbron. 2009. L’internationalisation de la recherche en sciences sociales et humaines en Europe (1980–2006). In L’espace intellectuel en Europe, XIX e -XX e siècles, ed. Gisèle Sapiro, 359–388. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  25. Grossetti, Michel, Philipe Losego, and Milard Béatrice. 2009. La territorialisation comme contrepoint à l’internationalisation des activités scientifiques. In L’internationalisation des systèmes de recherche en action. Les cas français et suisse, ed. Philippe Laredo, Jean-Philippe Leresche, and Karl Weber, 281–300. Lausanne: Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes.Google Scholar
  26. Heilbron, Johan. 1999. Toward a Sociology of Translation: Book Translations as a Cultural World-System. European Journal of Social Theory 2 (4): 429–444.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 2002. Echanges culturels transnationaux et mondialisation: quelques réflexions. Regards sociologiques 22: 141–154.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2009. La sociologie européenne existe-t-elle? In L’espace intellectuel en Europe, XIXe-XXe siècles, ed. Gisèle Sapiro, 347–358. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2014. The Social Sciences as an Emerging Global Field. Current Sociology 62 (5): 685–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heilbron, Johan, and Anaïs Bokobza. 2015. Transgresser les frontières en sciences humaines et sociales en France. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 210: 109–121.Google Scholar
  31. Heilbron, Johan, and Gisèle Sapiro. 2016. Translation: Economic and Sociological Perspectives. In The Palgrave Handbook of Economics and Language, ed. Victor Ginsburgh and Shlomo Weber, 373–402. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Jacobs, Jerry. 2014. Defense of Disciplines. Interdisciplinarity and Specialization in the Research University. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keim, Wiebke. 2011. Counterhegemonic Currents and Internationalization of Sociology: Theoretical Reflections and Empirical Example. International Sociology 26 (1): 123–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keim, Wiebke, Ercüment Çelik, Christian Ersche, and Veronika Wöhrer, eds. 2014. Global Knowledge Production in the Social Sciences. Made in Circulation. Dorchester: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  35. Kennedy, Michael. 2015. Globalizing Knowledge. Universities, Intellectuals and Publics in Transformation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kennedy, Michael, and Miguel Centeno. 2007. Internationalism and Global Transformations in American sociology. In Sociology in America, ed. Craig Calhoun, 666–712. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kirchik, Olessia, Yves Gingras, and Vincent Larivière. 2012. Changes in Publication Languages and Citation Practices and Their Effect on Scientific Impact on Russian Science (1993–2010). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63 (7): 1411–1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Larivière, Vincent, Éric Archambault, Yves Gingras, and Étienne Vignola-Gagné. 2006. The Place of Serials in Referencing Practices: Comparing Natural Sciences and Engineering With Social Sciences and Humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (8): 997–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Medina, Leandro Rodriguez. 2014. Centers and Peripheries in Knowledge Production. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Mongeon, Philippe, and Adèle Paul-Hus. 2016. The Journal Coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Analysis. Scientometrics 106 (1): 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mosbah-Natanson, Sébastien, and Yves Gingras. 2014. The Globalization of Social Sciences? Evidence from a Quantitative Analysis of 30 years of Production, Collaboration and Citations in the Social Sciences (1980–2009). Current Sociology 62 (5): 626–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ollion, Étienne. 2011. De la sociologie en Amérique. Éléments pour une sociologie de la sociologie étasunienne contemporaine. Sociologie 3 (2): 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pieters, Rik, and Hans Baumgartner. 2002. Who Talks to Whom? Intra- and Interdisciplinary Communication of Economics Journals. Journal of Economic Literature 40 (2): 483–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sapiro, Gisèle. 2009. L’Europe, centre du marché mondial de la traduction. In L’espace intellectuel en Europe: De la formation des États-nations à la mondialisation XIXe-XXe siècles, ed. Gisèle Sapiro, 249–297. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  45. ———, ed. 2012. Traduire la littérature et les sciences humaines: conditions et obstacles. Paris: DEPS (Ministère de la Culture).Google Scholar
  46. Sapiro, Gisèle and Mauricio Bustamante. 2009. Translation as a Measure of International Consecration. Mapping the World Distribution of Bourdieu’s Books in Translation. Sociologica 2–3. Online. http://www.sociologica.mulino.it/journal/article/index/Article/Journal:ARTICLE:340/Item/Journal:ARTICLE:340
  47. Sapiro, Gisèle, and Ioana Popa. 2008. Traduire les sciences humaines et sociales: logiques éditoriales et enjeux scientifiques. In Translatio. Le marché de la traduction en France à l’heure de la mondialisation, ed. Gisèle Sapiro, 107–138. Paris: CNRS Éditions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. UNESCO. 1999. World Social Science Report 1999. Paris: UNESCO Publishing/Elsevier.Google Scholar
  49. ———. 2010. World Social Science Report 2010. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johan Heilbron
    • 1
  • Yves Gingras
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre Européen de Sociologie et de Science Politique (CESSP)CNRS – EHESS – Université Paris 1-Panthéon-SorbonneParisFrance
  2. 2.Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST), Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)MontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations