STS Between Centers and Peripheries: How Transnational are Leading STS Journals?

IF 1 Q3 SOCIAL ISSUES
Noela Invernizzi, A. Davyt, Pablo Kreimer, Leandro Rodriguez Medina
{"title":"STS Between Centers and Peripheries: How Transnational are Leading STS Journals?","authors":"Noela Invernizzi, A. Davyt, Pablo Kreimer, Leandro Rodriguez Medina","doi":"10.17351/ests2022.1005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the context of increasing internationalization of the science and technology studies (STS) field, and reflections on post-coloniality and provincialization of STS, we examine to what extent a set of twelve leading journals of the field have published papers from different regions worldwide. In this exploratory work, based on information retrieved from the Web of Science for the period 2010–2019, we often use Latin America as an example, but reflect on peripheral regions of the field more broadly. Our findings show that the historical West-European–North-American centers of the field maintain their hegemony, dominating the discussions in leading journals. Some Latin American and East Asian countries gained some visibility in journals focused on scientometrics and science and technology (S&T) policy and innovation, whereas the journals specialized in the socio-anthropological studies of S&T are the less transnationalized. Our preliminary hypothesis to explain such sub-field variations is that these objects (scientific policy, innovation) and methods (scientometrics) seem to be more universal and consensual, facilitating transnationalization, while peripheral science, the preferred object of study for peripheral STS, has not attracted attention from leading journals. Emphasizing the relational character of centers and peripheries, we argue that the invisibilization of the academic production of certain regions of the world in leading journals makes this work peripheral.","PeriodicalId":44976,"journal":{"name":"Engaging Science Technology and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engaging Science Technology and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2022.1005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In the context of increasing internationalization of the science and technology studies (STS) field, and reflections on post-coloniality and provincialization of STS, we examine to what extent a set of twelve leading journals of the field have published papers from different regions worldwide. In this exploratory work, based on information retrieved from the Web of Science for the period 2010–2019, we often use Latin America as an example, but reflect on peripheral regions of the field more broadly. Our findings show that the historical West-European–North-American centers of the field maintain their hegemony, dominating the discussions in leading journals. Some Latin American and East Asian countries gained some visibility in journals focused on scientometrics and science and technology (S&T) policy and innovation, whereas the journals specialized in the socio-anthropological studies of S&T are the less transnationalized. Our preliminary hypothesis to explain such sub-field variations is that these objects (scientific policy, innovation) and methods (scientometrics) seem to be more universal and consensual, facilitating transnationalization, while peripheral science, the preferred object of study for peripheral STS, has not attracted attention from leading journals. Emphasizing the relational character of centers and peripheries, we argue that the invisibilization of the academic production of certain regions of the world in leading journals makes this work peripheral.
中心与外围之间的STS:领先STS期刊的跨国程度如何?
在科学技术研究(STS)领域日益国际化的背景下,以及对STS后殖民主义和省区化的反思,我们研究了该领域的12种主要期刊在多大程度上发表了来自世界不同地区的论文。在这项探索性工作中,基于2010-2019年期间从Web of Science检索的信息,我们经常以拉丁美洲为例,但更广泛地反映了该领域的外围地区。我们的研究结果表明,历史上西欧和北美的研究中心保持着他们的霸权地位,主导着主要期刊的讨论。一些拉美和东亚国家在以科学计量学和科技政策与创新为重点的期刊上获得了一定的知名度,而以科技社会人类学研究为重点的期刊的跨国化程度较低。我们对这些子领域变化的初步假设是,这些对象(科学政策、创新)和方法(科学计量学)似乎更具有普遍性和共识性,从而促进了跨国化,而外围科学作为外围STS的首选研究对象,尚未引起领先期刊的关注。强调中心和边缘的关系特征,我们认为,世界上某些地区的学术成果在主要期刊上的隐形化使得这项工作处于边缘。
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
自引率
5.60%
发文量
23
×
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