Social and epistemic differences in local and international scientific publishing: a case study of Tanzanian forest governance research
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Scientific knowledge circulates through multiple publishing spaces. They play a key role in structuring scholarly communication by assigning differential visibility to authors and their research. In this exploratory study, we approach publications as products through which social and epistemic differences between local and international scientific spaces can be examined. Drawing on Bourdieusian theory, we understand science as a social field in which actor positions and epistemic choices are co-constitutive and related to capital. The study investigates this relation by combining a qualitative content analysis of Tanzanian-authored forest governance articles in local and international outlets with a quantitative analysis of their bibliometric metadata. The articles were coded for selected epistemic choices (choice of topics, methods, purpose, framing of forests), and then comparatively analysed for social aspects of authorship (gender, first authorship, institutional affiliation, single/co-authorship, collaboration, funding).Our findings show patterns of similarity and difference between the local and international datasets examined. They suggest that the field of forest governance is homogeneous in terms of the researchers’ choice of methods and their study purpose; also, men dominate as authors both in Tanzanian and international journals. However, they display differences in topics, geographical research focus, and framing of forests, which correspond to contrasting trends in funding opportunity and collaborations. The latter provide insight into differentiated access to cycles of social and scientific capital accumulation. The implication is that the current focus on ‘international’ research – as represented by international, digital science databases – reproduces a cycle of scientific and social capital accumulation for those who already have it, as well as a high barrier to entry for Tanzania-affiliated authors whose local journals are not as integrated and visible.