Aalbers and Rossi (2007) ‘A coming community.’
Citation: Aalbers, Manuel B. and Rossi, Ugo (2007) ‘A coming community: young geographers coping with multi-tier spaces of academic publishing across Europe,’ Social & Cultural Geography, 8:2, pp. 283-302.
Time Period Covered:
Theory, Research Question, Hypothesis:
Aalbers and Rossi (2007:298): “to what extent do the publishing practices and strategies of geographers based in European countries other than the UK (or based there but of another country of origin) differ from those pursued by Anglo-American, UK- and US-based scholars?”
Relationship to Other Research/Ideas Contested/Noted Gaps:
Concepts and Definitions:
Method:
Aalbers and Rossi (2007): Used semi-structured, anonymous questionnaires with 32 ECRs from 13 European countries, asking questions about their publication strategies. Asked country of birth, nationality, education and the countries where (s)he was trained, and present working place. Native language, main language of publication, why they chose to publish in those languages, whether they are encouraged by their institutions to publish in English, whether they publish essentially the same piece in multiple languages [could ask not only how they adjust to different language audiences, but whether the nature of feedback changes]
Primary/Original Data:
Argument/Conclusion:
Limitations/Flaws:
Abstract: Little is still known about the publishing practices of scholars based outside the leading Anglophone countries. More generally, little is known about the contemporary machineries of writing spaces within human geography and the other social sciences. In responding to a recent editorial by Ron Johnston, this paper seeks to start filling this void by providing the results of a research project investigating the multi-language publishing practices pursued by a selected sample of young European human geographers. The research findings throw light on multi-tier publishing spaces in European human geography today. The paper concludes by outlining a critique of the homo publicans emerging from rationalist accounts of academic publishing. In particular, by embracing a critical perspective informed by the attempt to build a ‘social geography of scientific knowledge production’, the paper argues that publication strategies and practices do not only follow the direct paths of maximization of publication records, but can follow the more complex and differentiated paths of multi-level and heterarchical academic spaces and networks.
Notes:
Aalbers and Rossi (2007:284): Notes Anglo-American hegemony in knowledge production, positing that it is more pronounced in human geography but also exists to a lesser degree in other social science disciplines. ”As a result, what are considered to be ‘relevant’ or ‘influential’ international journals are almost exclusively English-language journals in which predominantly native English speakers publish.”
Aalbers and Rossi (2007:284): Native English speakers not only have an advantage when it comes to producing work in their native language, but also through the gatekeeping and cultural advantages that such hegemony offers. [Scholars are expected to situate themselves within existing discourses, something that is much easier to do for someone who is native to those discourses. The knowledge production of English-speakers trained in an Anglo-American academic environment is more likely to align with the expectations of editors, who essentially look for themselves in the submissions they receive]. See English-speaking forums offering little support in bridging the language gap [which is also a question of resources].
Aalbers and Rossi (2007:284-285): “scholars based in the leading Anglophone countries play an unchallenged role in the development of academic debate. However, these scholars are able to do so not just because they have a competitive edge in publishing in the ‘relevant’ journals, but also because they have the opportunity to set the research agenda. In fact, non-native speakers are allowed to participate in this debate as long as they adhere to the conventions of the native speakers, cite the ‘right’ — i.e. Anglo-American — literature, and show the relevance of the argument of their ‘Otherness’ to the core of native speakers.”
Aalbers and Rossi (2007:285): Non-native scholars are expected to keep abreast of literature in their own language as well as English, while English-language natives not only are able to ignore non-English literature, they frequently ignore English-language literature produced outside of the US and UK [we can extend this to political science and IR, where American scholars only cite those based in the US and ignore even UK scholarship].
Aalbers and Rossi (2007:285): “we still know little about the ways in which social scientists based outside the Anglophone world disseminate their scientific results: they also publish, or are likely to publish, in ‘international’ outlets, but their publication records and curricula are much more complex and multifaceted than those of their colleagues based in the USA or the UK.”