Advertisement

Research Excellence and Anglophone Dominance: The Case of Law, Criminology and Social Science

  • Patricia Faraldo-Cabana
Chapter

Abstract

Having English as a global language that is used in international relations, for global communications and by the majority of the media represents an enormous advantage. Notwithstanding this, this paper argues that there is a dramatic and hitherto largely underestimated language effect in the bibliometric, citation-based measurements of research performance in law and the social sciences, and a widely overlooked impact on these fields in the global South. It explores the idea that English as a global language ‘not only contributes to the advancement of science but also hampers its progress by disregarding the cognitive potential of other languages’ (Ammon, World Social Science Report: Knowledge Divides. UNESCO, 2010). English as the language of science creates a hierarchy of knowledge that favors knowledge produced in Anglophone countries and promotes the success of native English-speaking scholars.

Keywords

English Lingua franca Hierarchy of knowledge Research assessment 

References

  1. Aalbers, M. B. (2004). Creative destruction through the Anglo-American hegemony: A non-Anglo American view on publications, referees and language. Area, 36(3), 319–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0004-0894.2004.00229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albarillo, F. (2014). Language in social science databases: English versus non-English articles in JSTOR and Scopus. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 33(2), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2014.904693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amin, M., & Mabe, M. (2000). Impact factors: Use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing, 1, 1–6.Google Scholar
  4. Ammon, U. (2001). Editor’s preface. In U. Ammon (Ed.), The Dominance of English as a Language of Science (pp. v–x). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ammon, U. (2008). How could international scientific communication be made fairer and more efficient? The Scientist, 1 April. Retrieved January 17, 2017, from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/26274/title/How-Could-International-Scientific-Communication-Be-Made-Fairer-and-More-Efficient-/
  6. Ammon, U. (2010). The hegemony of English. In UNESCO (Ed.), World Social Science Report: Knowledge Divides (pp. 154–155). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  7. Andersen, H. (2000). Influence and reputation in the social sciences—How much do researchers agree? Journal of Documentation, 56(6), 674–692. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagne, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0115-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baird, L. M., & Oppenheim, C. (1994). Do citations matter? Journal of Information Science, 20(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555159402000102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bajerski, A. (2011). The role of French, German and Spanish journals in scientific communication in international geography. Area, 43(3), 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2010.00989.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2004). Towards a single language in science? A Spanish view. Serials, 17(2), 189–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burgess, S. (2014). Centre-periphery relations in the Spanish context: Temporal and cross-disciplinary variation. In K. Bennett (Ed.), The Semiperiphery of Academic Writing: Discourses, Communities and Practices (pp. 93–104). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burgess, S., Gea-Valor, M. L., Moreno, A. I., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2014). Affordances and constraints on research publication: A comparative study of the language choices of Spanish historians and psychologists. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Canagarajah, S. (1996). ‘Nondiscursive’ requirements in academic publishing, material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production. Written Communication, 13, 435–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013004001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carrington, K., Hogg, R., & Sozzo, M. (2015). Southern criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 56(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azv083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Connell, R. (2007). Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  17. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Egghe, L., Rousseau, R., & Yitzhaki, M. (1999). The ‘own-language preference’: Measures of relative language self-citation. Scientometrics, 45(2), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0245B434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elsevier. (2016). Scopus Content Coverage Guide. Retrieved February 4, 2017, from Elsevier.com/_data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/scopus_content_coverage_guide.pdf
  21. Engels, T. C. E., Ossenblok, T. L. B., & Spruyt, E. H. J. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics, 93(2), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0680-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferguson, G. (2007). The global spread of English, scientific communication and ESP: Questions of equity, access and domain loss. Ibérica, 13, 7–38.Google Scholar
  23. Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an additional language: What can Goffman’s ‘Stigma’ tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Forbes, I., & Abrams, D. (2004). International social science research: Craft industry or baby behemoth? International Social Science Journal, 56(180), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-8701.2004.00486.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frame, J. D., & Carpenter, M. P. (1979). International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 9, 481–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277900900405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garfield, E. (1967). English—An international language for science? The Information Scientist, 1, 19–20.Google Scholar
  27. Garfield, E., & Welljams-Dorof, A. (1990). Language use in international research: A citation analysis. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 511(1), 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716290511001002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gea-Valor, M. L., Rey-Rocha, J., & Moreno, A. I. (2014). Publishing research in the international context: An analysis of Spanish scholars’ academic writing needs in the social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 36, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Glänzel, W. (1996). A bibliometric approach to social sciences. National research performance in 6 selected social science areas 1990–1992. Scientometrics, 35, 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44(2), 193–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social sciences. In H. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), The Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (pp. 473–496). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  32. Holmes, A., & Oppenheim, C. (2001). Use of citation analysis to predict the outcome of the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise for Unit of Assessment (UoA) 61: Library and Information Management. Information Research, 6(2). Retrieved from www.informationr.net/ir/6-2/paper103.html
  33. Huang, M., & Chang, Y. (2008). Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1819–1828. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  35. Kachru, B. (1986). The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions and Models of Non-Native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  36. King, J. (1987). A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 13, 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555158701300501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Large, J. A. (1983). The Foreign-Language Barrier: Problems in Scientific Communication. London: André Deutch.Google Scholar
  38. Larivière, V., Archambault, É., Gingras, Y., & Vignola-Gagné, É. (2006). The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 997–1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic Writing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. López-Navarro, I., Moreno, A. I., Quintanilla, M. A., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2015). Why do I publish research articles in English instead of my own language? Differences in Spanish researchers’ motivations across scientific domains. Scientometrics, 103, 939–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1570-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mas-Bleda, A., & Thelwall, M. (2016). Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? A comparison of Spanish and UK research. Scientometrics, 109, 2007–2030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2118-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mela, G. S., Cimmino, M. A., & Ugolini, D. (1999). Impact assessment of oncology research in the European Union. European Journal of Cancer, 35(8), 1182–1886. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-8049(99)00107-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Merton, R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Moed, H. F., Nederhof, A. J., & Luwel, M. (2002). Towards research performance in the humanities. Library Trends, 50(3), 498–520.Google Scholar
  45. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Montgomery, S. L. (2013). Does Science Need a Global Language? English and the Future of Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., Martín-Martín, A., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). About the size of Google Scholar: Playing the numbers. Granada: EC3 Working Papers 18.Google Scholar
  49. Paasi, A. (2005). Globalisation, academic capitalism and the uneven geographies of international journal publishing spaces. Environment and Planning A, 37, 769–789. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the Discourses of Colonialism. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Pierce, S. J. (1987). Characteristics of professional knowledge structures: Some theoretical implications of citation studies. Library and Information Science Research, 9(3), 143–171.Google Scholar
  53. Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Salager-Meyer, F. (2014). Writing and publishing in peripheral scholarly journals: How to enhance the global influence of multilingual scholars? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 13, 78–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schoepflin, U. (1992). Problems of representativity in the Social Sciences Citation Index. In P. Weingart, R. Sehringer, & M. Winterhager (Eds.), Representations of Science and Technology: Proceedings of the International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 177–188). Leiden: DSWO-Press.Google Scholar
  56. Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.00011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Short, J. R., Boniche, A., Kim, Y., & Li, P. L. (2001). Cultural globalization, global English, and geography journals. Professional Geographer, 53, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-0124.00265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Tardy, C. (2004). The role of English in scientific communication: Lingua franca or Tyrannosaurus rex? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2003.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thomson Reuters. (2012). Repository Evaluation, Selection, and Coverage policies for the Data Citation Index within Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge. Retrieved February 4, 2017, from http://wokinfo.com/media/pdf/DCI_selection_essay.pdf
  61. Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Leeuwen, T., Moed, H., Tijssen, R., Visser, M., & Van Raan, A. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the science citation index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51(1), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010549719484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Webster, B. M. (1998). Polish sociology citation index as an example of usage of national citation indexes in scientometric analysis of social science. Journal of Information Science, 24, 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555159802400103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weingart, P., & Schwechheimer, H. (2007). Conceptualizing and measuring excellence in the social sciences and humanities. In UNESCO (Ed.), World Social Science Report: Knowledge Divides (pp. 249–250). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  65. Wood, A. (2001). International scientific English: The language of research scientist around the world. In M. Peacock & J. Flowerdew (Eds.), Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes (pp. 71–83). Cambridge: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahary, S., & Bassecoulard, E. (2003). Correcting glasses help fair comparisons in international science landscape: Country indicators as a function of ISI database delineation. Scientometrics, 56(2), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021923329277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Faraldo-Cabana
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidade da CoruñaA CoruñaSpain

Personalised recommendations