“Hot Spots, Dark-Side Dots, Tin Pots”: The Uneven Internationalism of the Global Academic Market

  • Anssi PaasiEmail author
Part of the Knowledge and Space book series (KNAS, volume 7)


The international community of social scientists has become increasingly sensitive not only to the fact that language and context are crucially related in the construction of scientific accounts, but also to the forms of power (or geopolitics) involved in such relations. The role of language and the links between knowledge and power have also become significant issues in human geography, where many scholars have challenged so-called Anglophonic hegemony. This article will scrutinize how human geography, a context-bound social science, has become understood as international, what internationality means in this new constellation, and how power relations and hegemony are structuring (and are structured in) practices and discourses related to internationality. The paper shows how many institutions—national governments and ministries included—are struggling to transform the operation of the global scientific community according to one format, which increases the importance of the English language as an almost self-evident lingua franca.


Power Scientific community Lingua franca Role of language Anglophonic hegemony Human geography Internationality 



This article is a revised and considerably enlarged version of author’s earlier paper, published originally in Danish (Paasi, 2006). The first draft of the paper was prepared while the author was serving as an Academy Professor at the Academy of Finland. The institution’s support is gratefully acknowledged. The author would also like to thank Peter Meusburger and an anonymous referee for their useful comments.


  1. Ackerman, E. A. (1945). Geographic training, wartime research, and immediate professional objectives. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 35, 121–143. doi: 10.1080/00045604509357271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agnew, J. (2009). The impact factors. AAG Newsletter, 44, 3.Google Scholar
  3. Agnew, J. A., & Duncan, J. S. (1981). The transfer of ideas into Anglo-American human geography. Progress in Human Geography, 5, 42–57.Google Scholar
  4. Alasuutari, P. (2004). The globalization of qualitative research. In C. Seale, D. Silverman, J. Gubrium, & G. Gobo (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 595–608). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Albert, M. (2003). Universities and the market economy: The differential impact of knowledge production in sociology and economics. Higher Education, 45, 147–182. doi: 10.1023/A:1022428802287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnes, T. J. (2004). Placing ideas: Genius loci, heterotopia and geography’s quantitative revolution. Progress in Human Geography, 28, 565–595. doi: 10.1191/0309132504ph506oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Buttimer, A., Brunn, S., & Wardenga, U. (1999). Text and image: Social construction of regional knowledge (Beiträge zur regionalen Geographie, Vol. 49). Leipzig, Germany: Institut für Länderkunde.Google Scholar
  10. Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  11. Castree, N., & Sparke, M. (2000). Professional geography and the corporatization of the university: Experiences, evaluations, and engagements. Antipode, 32, 222–229. doi: 10.1111/1467-8330.00131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frijhoff, W., & Spies, M. (2004). Dutch culture in a European perspective. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Fuller, S. (2002). Knowledge management foundations. Oxford, UK: Butterworth Heinemann.Google Scholar
  14. Garcia-Ramon, M. D. (2003). Globalization and international geography: The questions of languages and scholarly traditions. Progress in Human Geography, 27, 1–5. doi: 10.1191/0309132503ph409xx.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gregson, N., Simonsen, K., & Vaiou, D. (2003). Writing (across) Europe: On writing spaces and writing practices. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10, 5–22. doi: 10.1177/0969776403010001521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guetzkow, J., Lamonot, M., & Mallard, G. (2004). What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences. American Sociological Review, 69, 190–212. doi: 10.1177/000312240406900203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hartshorne, R. (1939). The nature of geography. Lancaster, PA: Association of American Geographers.Google Scholar
  18. Harvey, D. (1984). On the history and present condition of geography: An historical materialist manifesto. The Professional Geographer, 36, 1–11. doi: 10.1111/j.0033-0124.1984.00001.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harvey, D. (2006). Editorial: The geographies of critical geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS, 31, 409–412. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00219.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kallo, J. (2009). OECD education policy: A comparative and historical study focusing on the thematic reviews of tertiary education (Research in Educational Sciences, Vol. 45). Jyväskylä, Finland: Finish Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  21. King, R. (2004). The university in the global age. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Kitchin, R. (2005). Commentary: Disrupting and destabilizing Anglo-American and English-language hegemony in geography. Social & Cultural Geography, 6, 1–15. doi: 10.1080/1464936052000335937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krieger, J. (2006). American hegemony and the postwar reconstruction of science in Europe. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhn, T. (1962/1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kyvik, S., & Larsen, I. M. (1997). The exchange of knowledge: A small country in the international research community. Science Communication, 18, 238–264. doi: 10.1177/1075547097018003004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Livingstone, D. N. (2003). Putting science in its place: Geographies of scientific knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Minca, C. (2000). Venetian geographical praxis. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18, 285–289. doi: 10.1068/d1803ed.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nayak, A., & Jeffrey, A. (2011). Geographical thought: An introduction to ideas in human geography. Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Paasi, A. (2005). Globalisation, academic capitalism and the uneven geographies of the international journal publishing spaces. Environment and Planning A, 37, 769–789. doi: 10.1068/a3769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paasi, A. (2006). “Internationalismens” ulige geografi inden for den globale akademiske basar [“Internationalism”: Unequal geography within the global academic market]. In K. Buciek, J.-O. Baerenholdt, M. Haldrup, & J. Ploger (Eds.), Rumlig Praksis (pp. 49–62). Roskilde, Denmark: Roskilde Universitetforlag.Google Scholar
  31. Paasi, A. (2011). From region to space – Part II. In J. A. Agnew & J. S. Duncan (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to human geography (pp. 161–175). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paasi, A. (2013). Fennia: Positioning a ‘peripheral’ but an international journal under conditions of academic capitalism. Fennia, 191, 1–13. doi:10.11143/7787.Google Scholar
  33. Paasi, A. (2015). Academic capitalism and the geopolitics of knowledge. In J. Agnew, V. Mamadouh, A. Secor & J. Sharp (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to political geography (pp. 509–523). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Parmar, I. (2002). American foundations and the development of international knowledge networks. Global Networks, 2, 13–30. doi: 10.1111/1471-0374.00024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parsons, T. (1947/1966). Introduction. In M. Weber (Ed.), The theory of economic and social organization (pp. 3–86). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  36. Rodriquez-Pose, A. (2004). On English as a vehicle to preserve geographical diversity. Progress in Human Geography, 28, 1–4. doi: 10.1191/0309132504ph467xx.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Samers, M., & Sidaway, J. (2000). Exclusions, inclusions, and occlusions in ‘Anglo-American geography’: Reflections on Minca’s ‘Venetian geographical praxis’. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18, 663–666. doi: 10.1068/d1806ed.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schoenberger, E. (2001). Interdisciplinarity and social power. Progress in Human Geography, 25, 365–382. doi: 10.1191/030913201680191727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scholte, A. (2000). Globalization: A critical introduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  40. Shusterman, R. (2000, August 11). The perils of making philosophy a lingua Americana. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(49), B4–B5. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  41. Tietze, S., & Dick, P. (2009). Hegemonic practices and knowledge production in the management academy: An English language perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25, 119–123. doi: 10.1016/j.scaman.2008.11.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ward, K., Johnston, R., Richards, K., Matthew, G., Taylor, Z., Paasi, A., et al. (2009). The future of research monographs: An international set of perspectives. Progress in Human Geography, 33, 101–126. doi: 10.1177/0309132508100966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wright, J. K. (1966). Human nature in geography. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of OuluLinnanmaa, OuluFinland

Personalised recommendations