The ‘where’ of EU social science collaborations: How epistemic inequalities and geopolitical power asymmetries persist in research about Europe

IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q2 SOCIOLOGY
Rachel Fishberg, Anton Grau Larsen, Kristoffer Kropp
{"title":"The ‘where’ of EU social science collaborations: How epistemic inequalities and geopolitical power asymmetries persist in research about Europe","authors":"Rachel Fishberg, Anton Grau Larsen, Kristoffer Kropp","doi":"10.1177/00380261231201473","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A growing body of work has problematised how global epistemic inequality is reproduced in contemporary university settings and epistemic cultures – thinking through the lens of Eurocentrism and utilising the language of a Global North and South. However, the extent to which a relationship between geopolitical and epistemic inequality is woven into knowledge production within Europe has received less attention. Rising EU funding opportunities have facilitated a corresponding climb in transnational European social science collaborations, in concert with an expansion of empirical locations with which these projects engage. Still, increases in member state participation do not necessarily contribute to a more balanced epistemic landscape for knowledge production. Not all countries are treated equally as cases and often, these patterns of inequality reflect what Maria do Mar Pereira calls the epistemic status of nations: the idea that certain countries and continents are considered more or less likely to produce valuable or exportable scholarly knowledge. In this article, Pereira’s theory of epistemic status is extended in its implications to study choices for the selection of countries as cases. We use both quantitative data from the EU CORDIS register and ethnographic data exploring academic and collaborative practices in transnational EU-funded projects. The article addresses the ‘where’ of collaborative research by focusing on epistemic attributes rather than participatory optics. In doing so, we reflect not only on the structures and strategies of science funding in Europe but also further unsettle discussions around global epistemic inequality within academic theory and practices.","PeriodicalId":48250,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Review","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261231201473","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A growing body of work has problematised how global epistemic inequality is reproduced in contemporary university settings and epistemic cultures – thinking through the lens of Eurocentrism and utilising the language of a Global North and South. However, the extent to which a relationship between geopolitical and epistemic inequality is woven into knowledge production within Europe has received less attention. Rising EU funding opportunities have facilitated a corresponding climb in transnational European social science collaborations, in concert with an expansion of empirical locations with which these projects engage. Still, increases in member state participation do not necessarily contribute to a more balanced epistemic landscape for knowledge production. Not all countries are treated equally as cases and often, these patterns of inequality reflect what Maria do Mar Pereira calls the epistemic status of nations: the idea that certain countries and continents are considered more or less likely to produce valuable or exportable scholarly knowledge. In this article, Pereira’s theory of epistemic status is extended in its implications to study choices for the selection of countries as cases. We use both quantitative data from the EU CORDIS register and ethnographic data exploring academic and collaborative practices in transnational EU-funded projects. The article addresses the ‘where’ of collaborative research by focusing on epistemic attributes rather than participatory optics. In doing so, we reflect not only on the structures and strategies of science funding in Europe but also further unsettle discussions around global epistemic inequality within academic theory and practices.
欧盟社会科学合作的“何处”:认知不平等和地缘政治权力不对称如何持续存在于有关欧洲的研究中
越来越多的工作提出了全球认知不平等是如何在当代大学环境和认知文化中再现的问题——通过欧洲中心主义的视角思考,并利用全球北方和南方的语言。然而,地缘政治和认知不平等之间的关系在多大程度上融入了欧洲内部的知识生产,这一点受到的关注较少。不断增加的欧盟资助机会促进了欧洲跨国社会科学合作的相应攀升,与此同时,这些项目所涉及的经验地点也在扩大。尽管如此,成员国参与的增加并不一定有助于知识生产的更平衡的认识格局。并不是所有的国家都被平等对待,通常,这些不平等的模式反映了Maria do Mar Pereira所说的国家的认知地位:某些国家和大陆被认为或多或少有可能产生有价值的或可出口的学术知识。在本文中,佩雷拉的认识论地位理论在其含义扩展到研究选择国家作为案例的选择。我们使用欧盟CORDIS登记的定量数据和民族志数据,探索欧盟资助的跨国项目的学术和合作实践。本文通过关注认知属性而不是参与性光学来解决合作研究的“位置”问题。在这样做的过程中,我们不仅反思了欧洲科学资助的结构和策略,而且还进一步扰乱了学术理论和实践中围绕全球认知不平等的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sociological Review
Sociological Review SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
4.00%
发文量
72
期刊介绍: The Sociological Review has been publishing high quality and innovative articles for over 100 years. During this time we have steadfastly remained a general sociological journal, selecting papers of immediate and lasting significance. Covering all branches of the discipline, including criminology, education, gender, medicine, and organization, our tradition extends to research that is anthropological or philosophical in orientation and analytical or ethnographic in approach. We focus on questions that shape the nature and scope of sociology as well as those that address the changing forms and impact of social relations. In saying this we are not soliciting papers that seek to prescribe methods or dictate perspectives for the discipline. In opening up frontiers and publishing leading-edge research, we see these heterodox issues being settled and unsettled over time by virtue of contributors keeping the debates that occupy sociologists vital and relevant.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信