Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 75, Issue 1, pp 21–35 | Cite as

The internal migration of Indian scientists, 1981–2003, from an analysis of surnames

  • Grant Lewison
  • Ramesh Kundra
Article

Abstract

Although many Indian surnames are common across the whole country, some are specifically associated with just one or a few of the 35 states and union territories that comprise India today. For example, Reddy comes from Andhra Pradesh and Das, Ghosh and Roy from West Bengal. We investigated the extent to which researchers with names associated with some of the larger states were writing scientific papers in those states, and in other ones, and to see how these concentrations (relative to the whole of India) had changed since the early 1980s. We found that West Bengalis, for example, were now significantly less concentrated in their home state than formerly, and that their concentrations elsewhere were strongly influenced by the state’s geographical distance from West Bengal and, to a lesser extent, by the correlation between the scientific profile of their host state and their own preferences (which favoured physics and engineering over biology and mathematics). Thus they were strongly represented in nearby Bihar, Assam and Orissa, and much less so in Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

Keywords

Internal Migration Science Citation Index Scientific Output Major Field Bone Marrow Donor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Darwin, G. F. (1875), Marriages between first cousins in England and their effects. Journal of the Statistical Society, 38: 153–184.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shami, S. A., Grant, J. C., Bittles, A. H. (1994), Consanguineous marriage within social/occupational class boundaries in Pakistan. Journal of Biosocial Science, 26(1): 91–96.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bittles, A. H., Grant, J. C., Shami, S. A. (1993), Consanguinity as a determinant of reproductive behaviour and mortality in Pakistan. International Journal of Epidemiology, 22(3): 463–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crow, J. F., Mange, A. P. (1965), Measurement of inbreeding from the frequency of marriages between persons of the same surname. Eugenics Quarterly, 12: 199–203.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crow, J. F. (1980), The estimation of inbreeding from isonymy. Human Biology, 52: 1–14.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biondi, G., Perrotti, E., Mascie-Taylor, C. G. N., Lasker, G. W. (1990), Inbreeding coefficients from isonymy in the Italian-Geek villages. Annals of Human Biology, 17: 543–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Biondi, G., Lasker, G. W., Raspe, P. D., Mascie-Taylor, C. G. N. (1993), Inbreeding coefficients from the surnames of grandparents of the schoolchildren in Albanian-speaking Italian villages. Journal of Biosocial Science, 25: 63–71.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Biondi, G., Raspe, P., Mascie-Taylor, C. G. N. (2000), Genetic structure through surnames in Campobasso province, Italy. Journal of Biosocial Science, 32: 459–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choi, B. C., Hanley, A. J., Holowaty, E. J., Daley, D. (1993), Use of surname to identify individuals of Chinese ancestry. American Journal of Epidemiology, 138: 723–734.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tjam, E. Y. (2001), How to find Chinese research participants: use of a phonologically-based surname search method. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 92(2): 138–142.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Quan, H., Ghali, W. A., Dean, S., Norris, C. M., Faris, P. D., Galbraith, P. D., Graham, M. M., Knudtson, M. L. (2003), Validity of using surnames to define Chinese ethnicity (meeting abstract). Journal of General and Internal Medicine, 18(s1): 186.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quan, H., Ghali, W. A., Dean, S., Norris, C. M., Galbraith, P. D., Faris, P. D., Graham, M. M., Knudtson, M. L. (2004). Validity of using surname to define Chinese ethnicity. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 95(4): 314.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coldman, A. J., Braun, T., Gallagher, R. P. (1988), The classification of ethnic status using name information. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 42: 390–395.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Balarajan, R., Bulusu, L., Adelstein, A. M., Shukla, V. (1985), Patterns of mortality among migrants to England and Wales from the Indian sub-continent. BMJ, 289: 1185–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nicoll, A., Bassett, K., Ulijaszek, S. J. (1986), What’s in a name? Accuracy of using surnames and forenames in ascribing Asian ethnic identity in English populations. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 40: 364–368.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harding, S., Dews, H., Simpson, S. L. (1999), The potential to identify South Asians using a computerized algorithm to classify names. Population Trends, 97: 46–49.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cummins, C., Winter, H., Cheng, K. K., Maric, R., Silcocks, P., Varghese, C. (1999), An assessment of the Nam Pehchan computer program for the identification of names of south Asian ethnic origin. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 21(4): 401–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Degioanni, A., Darlu, P., Raffoux, C. (2003). Analysis of the French National Registry of unrelated bone marrow donors, using surnames as a tool for improving geographical localization of HLA haplotypes. European Journal of Human Genetics, 11: 794–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lagerberg, D., Magnusson, M., Sendelin, C. (2005), Surname as a marker of ethnicity. A study from child health services shows that immigrant respective Swedish families seem to be isolated in different ways. Lakartidningen, 102(30–31): 2145–2148.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shin, E. H., Yu, E. Y. (1984), Use of surnames in ethnic research: the case of Kims in the Korean-American population. Demography, 21(3): 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Piazza, A., Rendine, S., Zei, G., Moroni, A., Cavelli-Sforza, L. L. (1987), Migration rates of human populations from surname distributions. Nature, 329: 714–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chakraborty, R., Barton, S. A., Ferrell, R. E., Schull, W. J. (1989), Ethnicity determination by names among the Aymara of Chile and Bolivia. Human Biology, 61(2): 159–177.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Startseva, E. A., Elchinova, G. I., Mamedova, R. A., Ginter, E. K. (1994). The use of the migration index, the parameter of surname diversity, and the values of entropy and redundancy of surname distribution for description of population-structure. Genetika, 30(7): 978–981.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Degioanni, A., Lisa, A., Zei, G., Darlu, P. (1996), Italian surnames and Italian migration to France 1891–1940. Population (Paris), 51(6): 1153–1180.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lewison, G., Igic, R. (1999), Yugoslav politics, “ethnic cleansing” and co-authorship in science. Scientometrics, 44: 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lauderdale, D. S., Kestenbaum, B. (2000), Asian American ethnic classification by surname. Popuational Research Policy Review, 19(3): 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Biondi, G., Raspe, P., Mascie-Taylor, C. G. N. (2001), Migration through surnames in Campobasso province, Italy. Journal of Biosocial Science, 33: 305–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Webster, B. M. (2004), Bibliometric analysis of presence and impact of ethnic minority researchers on science in the UK. Research Evaluation, 13(1): 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shukla, R. (2005), India Science Report: Science Education, Human Resources and Public Attitude towards Science and Technology. New Delhi, India: National Council of Applied Economic Research. Available at: http://www.insaindia.org/India%20Science%20report-Main.pdf Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Arunachalam, S., Singh, U. N. (1992), Access to information and the scientific output of India. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research in India, 51: 99–119.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nagpaul, P. S. (1995), Contribution of Indian universities to the mainstream scientific literature: a bibliometric assessment. Scientometrics, 32(1): 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jayaraman, K. S. (2002), India’s scientists agonize over fall in publication rate. Nature, 419: 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Prathap, G. (2004), Indian science slows down: V: The slack in the university sector. Current Science, 87(6): 732–734.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sen, B. K., Lakshmi, V. V. (1992), Indian periodiclas in the Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 23(2): 291–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Basu, A. (1999), Science publication indicators for India: questions of interpretation. Scientometrics, 44(3): 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sinha, S. C., Dhiman, A. K. (2000). Science Citation Index: a failure under Indian scientific environment. Annals of Library Science and Documentation, 47(2): 63–66.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jayaraman, K. S. (2007), Indian science is in decline, says prime minister. Nature, 445: 134–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Basu, A., Kumar, B. S. V. (2000), International collaboration in Indian scientific papers. Scientometrics, 48(3): 381–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIBER, School of Library, Archive & Information StudiesUniversity College LondonLondonEngland
  2. 2.National Institute of ScienceTechnology and Development StudiesNew DelhiIndia
  3. 3.Evaluametrics Ltd.Kew, Richmond, SurreyEngland

Personalised recommendations