(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Performance, Specialization and International Integration of Science in Brazil: Changes and Comparisons with Other Latin American Countries and Israel"

Science and technology should play a 
strategic role in Brazil, given the need 
to improve productivity in the 
economy, to deal with problems of 
poverty, education, health and 
environment degradation, and to 
participate more fully in an integrated 
world economy and society. 




SCIENCE AND 
TECHNOLOGY 
IN BRAZIL: 

A NEW POLICY FOR A 
GLOBAL WORLD 



Z 



Simon Schwartzman (coord.) 
Carlos Osmar Bertero 
Eduardo Augusto Guimaraes 
Eduardo Krieger 
Eugene B. Skolnikoff 
Fernando Galembeck 
Georges Fern£ 
Lewis M. Branscomb 
Michael Gibbons 
Thomas Schott 



FUNOACAO GETUUO VARGAS 
E D I TOR A 



FuNDACAO GETUUO VARGAS 
EDITORA 




Science and Technology in Brazil: 
A New Policy for a Global World 



Volume 1 

Simon Schwartzman (coord.) 

Carlos Osmar Bertero 

Eduardo Augusto Guimaraes 

Eduardo Krieger 

Eugene B. Skolnikoff 

Fernando Galembeck 

Georges Feme" 

Lewis M. Branscomb 

Michael Gibbons 

Thomas Schott 



FUNDACAO GETUUO VARGAS 

E D I T O R A 



ISBN 85-225-0182-3 



All rights reserved to Fundacao Getulio Vargas 
Praia de Botafogo, 190 — 22253-900 
CP 62.591 — CEP 22257-970 
Rio de Janeiro, RJ — Brasil 

Papers prepared for the science policy study carried on by the Escola de Admi-nistracao de Empresas, 
Fundajao Getulio Vargas, for the Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology, within the Program 
for Scientific and Technological Development in Brazil (PADCT II). The opinions expressed in these 
texts are the sole responsibility of the authors. 

No part of this publication may be reproduced. 

Copyright © Fundacao Getulio Vargas 

1st edition — 1995 

Project coordinator. Simon Schwartzman 
Editing: Lucia Klein 

Information Management Division (DIGI) 
Director. Moacyr Antonio Fioravante 

Getulio Vargas Foundation Publishing House 

Editor in chief. Francisco de Castro Azevedo 

Editorial assistant. Cristina Mary Paes da Cunha 

Copydesk: Clovis Alberto Mendes de Moraes, Luiz Alberto Monjardim de Calazans Barradas and 

Maria Lucia Velloso de Magalhaes 

Desktop publishing: Eliane da Silva Torres, Jayr Ferreira Vaz, Marilza Azevedo Barboza, Osvaldo 

Moreira da Silva and Simone Ranna 

Proof-reading: Aleidis de Beltran and Fatima Caroni 

Production assistant: Helio Lourenco Netto 



Science and technology in Brazil: a new policy for a global world/Simon 
Schwartzman (coord.); Carlos Osmar Bertero...[et al.]. - Rio de Janeiro: 
Fundacao Getulio Vargas, 1995. 



Inclui bibliografia 

1 . Ciencia e tecnologia — Brasil. 2. Ciencia e estado — Brasil. 3. Tecno- 
logia e estado — Brasil. I. Schwartzman, Simon, 1939 — . II. Bertero, Car- 
los Osmar, 1937 — HI. Fundacao Getulio Vargas. 

CDD- 607.281 



Summary 



Foreword / 

Science and technology in Brazil: a new policy for a global world, 

by Simon Schwartzman, Eduardo Krieger, Fernando Galernbeck, Eduardo 
Augusto Guimaraes and Carlos Osmar Bertero 1 

Comments on "Science and Technology in Brazil", 
by Michael Gibbons 57 

Science & technology in the new world order, 
by Georges Ferae 72 

United States science and technology policy: the effects of a changing 
international environment, 
by Eugene B. Skolnikoff 105 

United States science and technology policy: issues for the nineties, 
by Lewis M. Branscomb 140 

Performance, specialization and international integration of science in Brazil: 
' changes and comparisons with other Latin American countries and Israel, 
by Thomas Schott 227 



Performance, specialization and international 
integration of science in Brazil: changes and 
comparisons with other Latin American countries 
and Israel 



Thomas Schott* 



Acknowledgments 

This analysis is also a by-product of the project Center-periphery relations 
and international diffusion of scientific information, funded by the US National 
Science Foundation. The survey of scientists was funded by faculty grants from 
the Center for Latin American Studies and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at the 
University of Pittsburgh. I am also grateful to the interviewed scientists in Bra- 
zil, other parts of Latin America, Israel and elsewhere, to my project staff, and to 
Drs. Rachel Hovne and Simon Schwartzman for comments on the study. 

National scientific development and participation in world science 

Throughout history people have interpreted sensed phenomena, and their 
interpretations have fueled intellectual traditions within many civilizations. Typ- 
ically, a tradition has been parochial insofar as its cultivators have not been inter- 
ested in extending participation, and even if they occasionally have sought to 
extend participation, it has remained a local endeavor because people in other 
civilizations aware of the exogenous tradition have refrained from participating 
in it (Shils, 1981). 

Science, however, is an atypical tradition in its extensive communality. 
Present-day participation in the scientific tradition is worldwide. Not only is science 
practiced in every society but its practitioners are receptive to ideas from any place 
on earth, pursue long-distance collegia] ties, and disseminate their creations globally. 
This globality has evolved only recently. Until the 19th century, the tradition was 
concentrated within one area, Europe, where it had become established just a few 
centuries earlier. Global participation emerged in the 20th century. The formation 
of a global communal endeavor was a process of institution-building: both institu- 
tionalization, that is, granting legitimacy, appreciation and autonomy, and establish- 
ing institutional arrangements for global communal participation. 



Department of Sociology, University of Pittsburgh. 

227 



I 



In early 17th century Europe, the pursuit of knowledge about natural phe- 
nomena had some legitimacy and some appreciation but little autonomy. It was 
controlled by political and ecclestial authorities who respected religious dogma 
over natural knowledge. But a social movement had formed in Europe which 
was inspired by an Utopian faith in progress by advancing empirical knowledge 
applicable to controling and exploiting nature. This scientistic movement advo- 
cated legitimation for the search for truth through empirical inquiry as an activity 
worthy of cultivation. The movement was successful first in England in the mid- 
dle of the 17th century. The movement won legitimation for science as an intel- 
lectual tradition cognitively distinguishable from intellectual traditions such as 
contemplative philosophy, practical arts, crafts and religious thought. The shift 
to a considerable appreciation for empirical inquiry into God's creations, espe- 
cially nature, was triggered by Puritan thought (see the content analysis of Puri- 
tan statements by Merton, [1938] 1970, chap. 4-5). But the enhanced apprecia- 
tion was broad as evidenced by the participation in science of not only Puritans 
but also many people from diverse other faiths (Merton, [1938] 1970, chap. 6, 
shows the high participation of Puritans, and the high participation from diverse 
other faiths is shown in many studies; whether Puritans were overrepresented is 
debated but not crucial here where the documented great diversity of participa- 
tion is the relevant evidence showing the breadth of the appreciation of natural 
inquiry). Political and religious authorities granted natural inquiry considerable 
autonomy and authority as a source of truth along with the Bible. This institu- 
tionalization in England was imitated in the continental societies that in the cul- 
turally well-connected but politically decentralized Europe were competing for 
national esteem through appreciated cultural forms (Ben-David, [1971] 1984: 75- 
87; Greenfeld.1987; Wuthnow, 1987: 265-98). Empirical inquiry became appre- 
ciated as worthy of pursuit and support, it was granted autonomy from control by 
other spheres, and it was differentiated from other activities by establishing orga- 
nizational arrangements specifically for this endeavor. These arrangements 
included the separation of a dignified social role or vocation devoted to empirical 
inquiry and organizational arrangements for formulating and implementing poli- 
cies shaping the endeavor, for recruiting and training incumbents of the new 
social role, for validating claims to knowledge and disseminating knowledge, for 
evaluating and rewarding role-performance, for promoting and regulating com- 
munication and other role-relations, and, more generally, arrangements for inte- 
grating the practitioners into a community with a self-organization spanning 
across long distances, across nations, religions and other social divisions. This 
differentiated tradition became coined science and the social role became coined 
scientist. Science became supported by the provision of social resources such as 
laboratories, apparatus, libraries, and livelihood of the incumbents of the new 
role. Many of the scientists were employed as teachers in universities and in the 
19th century scientific research became adopted as another purpose of many uni- 
versities, along with teaching, especially in Germany. Although the scientific 

228 



role became anchored on universities, hospitals, museums and other organiza- 
tions, science continued to be practiced as a communal enterprise. The establish- 
ment of distinctiveness, legitimation and autonomy for the pursuit of science is 
commonly referred to as the institutionalization of science (Ben-David, [1971] 
1984). 

This first institutionalization occurred mainly in Northwestern and Central 
Europe but less extensively on the Iberian Peninsula and elsewhere. Institution- 
alization was then extended to the European settler-societies around the world, 
notably in North America, Australia and in what became Israel, but it did not 
extend much beyond the boundaries of Western civilization. There was little 
institutionalization of science on the Iberian Peninsula and therefore institutional- 
ization did not extend to the colonies in Latin America (Schwartzman 1991: 
chap. 2-3). Despite the boundedness of the scientistic movement within Europe, 
the institutionalization of science had a potential for expansion. 

The institutionalization of science in Europe codified a conception of nature 
as invariant in time and place. Knowledge was conceived to have a truth value 
independent of the researcher and therefore have the same truthfulness in all civ- 
ilizations. The participants were recognized and considered themselves as dis- 
coverers of truth. Knowledge was considered to be cumulative and to be a com- 
ponent in the broader vision of human progress as an ongoing advancement of 
humanity. The doctrine of progress of humanity as an imagined global civiliza- 
tion promoted a cosmopolitan orientation among the participants (Ander- 
son,1983; Robertson, 1992; Schott, 1993b, forthcoming). Natural inquiry was to 
be open to participation from any part of mankind (extended later to include 
women), and the resulting knowledge was to be widely disseminated as a collec- 
tive good of humanity. This cosmopolitan orientation sustained knowledge diffu- 
sion and collegia] ties across social divisions and long distances (Daston, 1991). 
The faith in invariance of nature and in truthfulness of knowledge across places, 
together with the cosmopolitan orientation of the participants, created a potential 
for adoption of the European tradition in the non-Western civilizations. 

The non-Western civilizations encountered European civilization mainly 
through its military, political, economic, and religious expansion. European 
intruders were not interested in imposing the European scientific tradition on 
indigenous peoples, but brought local people into contact with European goods 
and equipment; systems of communication, transportation, extraction, and pro- 
duction; and means for curing diseases and conducting warfare. Some local peo- 
ple considered European techniques better than their own and therefore judged 
European knowledge worth obtaining. Their efforts to import that knowledge 
promoted interest in participating in the creation of such knowledge, especially 
when some went to study at universities in Europe where they acquired a taste for 
research and upon their return home advocated establishing scientific organiza- 
tions. This local legitimation and appreciation for science led to some autonomy 
for efforts to assimilate the tradition from the West (Adas, 1989, 1991; Altbach & 



229 



Selvaratnam, 1989; Eisemon & Davis, 1991; Petitjean; Jami & Moulin, 1992; 
Shils, 1976, 1991). The adoption of the scientific tradition seems to have pre- 
ceded the adoption of other Western traditions such as the ideology of human 
progress and rationalization. The institutionalization proceeded, albeit with fra- 
gility and frequent moves toward deinstitutionalization, mainly around the 19th 
century in the non-colonial societies and also in the colonial societies, despite 
many colonizers' opposition. Institutionalization was one step of institution- 
building; the other step was to establish social arrangements for practicing sci- 
ence. . , 

The institutionalization was accompanied by establishing institutional 
arrangements comprizing a specific social role or vocation for science, organiza- 
tions for housing the scientific role, and arrangements for mobilizing needed 
social resources. Such arrangements, established in every society, are strikingly 
similar around the world. The similarity of institutional arrangements can be 
explained by their common source in world standards, both model arrangements 
diffusing through the web of scientists from center to periphery and doctrines 
promulgated by a global science policy regime. 

Over the centuries scientific ideas and institutional arrangements have dif- 
fused from a center, located where scientists have recognized the greatest accom- 
plishment (Ben-David, [1971] 1984; Shils, [1961] 1972a, [1961] 1972b). Scien- 
tists have attributed the achievements of the center partly to its institutional 
arrangements and therefore considered the center arrangements to be especially 
effective. In addition, their deference toward the achievements created in these 
institutions have infused a sense of appropriateness in the center arrangements so 
they have become standards to which adherence is expected. The foreign observ- 
ers' beliefs in the effectiveness and in the appropriateness of the center arrange- 
ments have made them standards for imitation in their home countries (Schott, 
1980, 1987b). Notably, non-Western participants regarded Western practitioners 
of science as role-models and the Western role-definition of a "scientist" became 
imitated as a new role in the non-Western societies. This role of assimilator-cre- 
ator-disseminator of knowledge also included a cosmopolitan orientation and an 
identity as a participant in a communal endeavor transcending traditional civili- 
zational boundaries. Modified by the local social ecology, organizations for the 
practice of science were likewise established in the non-Western societies as cop- 
ies of Western organizational forms such as the university and the scientific acad- 
emy. Mobilization of social resources has been regularized, as in the West, by 
taxes, by grants and contracts for research, and by combining science with higher 
education. 

Institutional arrangements are established not only by the process of diffu- 
sion of center models through the global scientific community, but also by adher- 
ence to doctrines promulgated by the global science policy regime, that is, the 
complex of arrangements shaping science policy around the world (King, 1974; 
on international regimes in general, see Young, 1989). Science policy, including 

230 



doctrines of science and policies for and through science, is increasingly formu- 
lated and advocated by a regime sustained by and operating through a network of 
organizations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
Organization (Unesco), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Devel- 
opment (OECD), the Rockefeller Foundation, and the World Bank. These scien- 
tistic doctrines become standards that are adhered to around the world partly 
because organizations such as Unesco and OECD work through experts in ratio- 
nal organization and acceleration of progress with authority to design and recom- 
mend policies and strategies, because organizations such as the Rockefeller 
Foundation sponsor scientific endeavors selectively around the world, and 
because organizations such as the World Bank make loans to a state contingent 
on its policy for science. The scientistic doctrines of the global science policy 
regime are also influential because by adhering to the standards, nation-states and 
their leaders can enhance their esteem as participants in the emerging global civi- 
lization of modernity in which the scientistic doctrines are part of the prevailing 
broad ideology of human progress that is also promulgated by these organiza- 
tions. Indeed, the global science policy regime is an element of the world-polity 
(Meyer, 1987; Ramirez, 1987). Science continues to be considered a component 
of the progress of individuals, nations, and humankind, and there is a widespread 
belief that such progress can be accelerated by rational organization and mobili- 
zation of resources for the pursuit of science. The meaning of human progress, 
though, is no longer mainly religious, but focuses on social and economic 
growth, power, and wealth. In mighty and wealthy societies, progress is consid- 
ered in terms of national security and competitiveness (Hill, 1989), and in poor 
societies it is concretized in terms of catching-up, development and moderniza- 
tion (Apter, 1974; Sagasti, 1979; Shahidullah, 1991). Thus the rapid growth of 
scientific activity in virtually all societies since mid-century can be explained as a 
result of the scientism and the doctrines promulgated by the global science policy 
regime (Ben-David, 1991: 521-59). 

The science policy regime also shapes communal participation. The rational 
organization of science for national progress is thought to require integration of 
the national research endeavor with world science. The doctrine against intellec- 
tual protectionism, combined with the scientists' cosmopolitanism, counteracts 
parochialism and enhances participation in communal formations spanning the 
globe. 

Although each scientist knows very few of the other practitioners, they con- 
sider themselves cultivators of a collective tradition, forming not only local com- 
munities but even a global community (Anderson, 1983). Their sense of intellec- 
tual and moral communion is reinforced by their ties across social divisions and 
long distances and by institutional arrangements such as the Nobel Prize ritual 
and international scientific meetings and organizations, e.g. the International 
Council of Scientific Unions, and the agreement on free dissemination of scien- 
tific literature, an international agreement that is vital. The global scientific com- 



231 



munity of all scientists is informally organized into a global web of collegia] ties. 
Between the macro-level of the global scientific community and the micro-level 
of the individual scientist are numerous intermediate groupings. The kinds of 
groupings commonly examined are a Kuhnian community of specialists, a 
research team, the scientists in an organization, and those in a country (reviewed 
by Shrum & Mullins, 1988). Specialization, membership in a research team, 
organizational affiliation and societal location are groupings that all shape the 
web of ties among scientists (e.g. Schott, 1987a; Shrum, 1985). For understand- 
ing national participation in science, an especially significant grouping is the 
national scientific community. The national scientific community of the scien- 
tists in a country is informally organized by the web of their ties with one another 
and with foreign colleagues. Their foreign ties shape national participation in 
world science. Individual participation in world science can be described by the 
concept of a social circle consisting of a scientist's web of collegial ties with the 
local and distant peers who are significant for the scientist's work. These indi- 
vidual, national, and global webs are nested: a scientist's collegial circle is nested 
in the web of the scientist's national scientific community, which in turn is nested 
in the global scientific community. These web enable network modeling (Schott, 
1991a). 

Brazil in regional and peripheral locations 

The scientific tradition is being adopted in virtually every society around the 
world. Science is becoming legimated and appreciated and practiced with sup- 
port and backing from the local population or at least from a powerful stratum of 
the society. Science is being valued variously as an endeavor worthy in itself and 
variously for its multiple uses in nation-building and national development, and 
perhaps also as a symbol of modernization signalling participation in the world 
system of significant societies. Institutional arrangements for scientific activity 
are typically not local innovations but are usually modeled on arrangements pre- 
vailing in the place of highest performance, the center of world science. Scien- 
tists from much of the world congregate in the center. They consider the institu- 
tional arrangements in the center as most appropriate and also as most efficient 
insofar as the high performance of the center plausibly can be attributed to its 
institutional arrangements. 

Despite the widespread modeling of the central institutional arrangements, 
however, there are considerable differences among societies in their institutional- 
ization of science. Institutionalization differs among societies in degree and 
manner. Societies differ in their appreciation of science, in their granting of 
autonomy, in their provision of social resources, and in their institutional arrange- 
ments for science, and this shapes their scientific activities, including their 
research performance (Schott, 1987b). Scientific activity in a small national sci- 
entific community cannot be self-reliant — not even Soviet research was self- 

232 



reliant (Schott, 1992a, 1992b). Local scientific work is more or less integrated 
with scientific traditions elsewhere, especially in the places of greatest creativity 
World science has had its shifting center, the center was in England at time of 
mstautmnalization, then moved to France, then to Germany, and since World 
War II the major center has been in the United States (Ben-David, [1971] 1984) 
with Western Europe emerging as a secondary center (Schott, 1 99 1 b) Scientifi ' 
cally small countries have tended to be peripheries that are attached to and vari- 
ously integrated with the center (Shils, [1961] 1972a, D961] 1972b). Integration 
of the periphery with the center shapes the specialization in the periphery and 
enhances performance (Schott, 1987b, 1992a). 

This study focuses on a scientifically rather small country, Brazil I shall 
ascertain Brazilian research performance and specialization and examine the 
manners and degrees of integration of Brazilian research into world science I 
shall also attempt to ascertain how these developments have been shaped by the 
institutionalization of science in Brazil. 

Brazilian society is part of .the Latin American region. Brazil has rather 
intense links with other Latin American societies in most cultural domains espe- 
cially ,n religion and life style. In the economic and political spheres, Brazil par- 
ticipates in the regional life of Latin America and is dependent on trade and polit- 
ical links with other continents, mainly North America and Europe. Scientific 
ties are partly embedded in political-economic and other links (Schott 1988) 
But insofar as scientists are attracted to loci of creative work, their scientific ties 
may also transcend political and economic constraints, so also for this reason we 
would expect Brazilian scientists to pursue ties with colleagues in the North 
American and Western European centers of world science. In short, we would 
expect Brazilian research to be attached to and variously integrated with science 
done in elsewhere in Latin America, in North America, and in Western Europe. 

Historical and comparative perspectives: changes and contrasts 

My purpose is to ascertain contemporary science in Brazil. But contempo- 
rary science can be understood better when contrasted to its own past and to sci- 
ence elsewhere. Therefore I adopt a historical perspective and shall ascertain 
changes in recent decades (as many years as time series data are available which 
is back only a few decades). Furthermore, I adopt a comparative perspective and 
shall contrast Brazil to a place that is similar in its institutionalization of science 
and therefore expectedly also similar in its research, namely the rest of Latin 
America, and I shall compare Brazil to a place that is different in its institutional- 
ization of science and therefore expectedly also different in its research, namely 
Israel These two comparisons are suitable insofar as one is highly similar to and 
the other IS highly different from Brazil in institutionalization of science. 

I shall attempt to provide an interpretation that is up to date. However 
although data go up to 1992, they tap outcomes of processes that have occurred 



233 



over some years. For example, I shall use indicators derived from publications 
up to 1992. But, typically, publications appear a year or so after submission of a 
manuscript and a manuscript is the result of a project conducted in the preceding 
year or so which has been designed earlier on the based of influence received 
even earlier. I shall use responses from interview surveys of scientists which I 
directed around 1991, but the questions focused on the scientists' activity in the 
period from 1985 to time of interview. Futhermore, changes in policy and in 
funding do not have instant effects but affect scientific activity, especially results 
of research, with a lag of some years (for example, funding reductions in the 
United Kingdom entailed decline in publications only about three years later; Irv- 
ine et al„ 1985). I am emphasizing that the effects are lagged because the recent 
acknowledged crisis in Brazilian science (see, e.g.Schwartzman, 1991: chap. 10) 
may not yet have had its impact on the currently available outcome measures up 
to 1992. 

My study of individual, national, and global communal formations in sci- 
ence takes an institutional and interactional approach — the institutional 
approach is reviewed in Zuckerman (1988) and the interactional approach is 
reviewed in Shrum & Mullins (1988). My conceptualization of nested commu- 
nal formations was developed over the years mainly from the general center and 
periphery theory — e.g. Greenfeld & Martin (eds.), (1988), see especially the 
essay by Shils. Accordingly, my perspective shares much with world-polity the- 
ory (e.g. Meyer, 1987; Ramirez, 1987) and globalization theory (Robertson, 
1992) and complements or supplements the more specific political-economic 
world-systems theory (e.g. Chase-Dunn, 1989) and organizational field perspec- 
tive (e.g. Powell & DiMaggio, 1991; Shrum, 1985). The general usefulness of 
my nested-level approach for disentangling complex local and global dynamics 
has been emphasized by Knoke (1990: 201-2), and it is compared and contrasted 
to the organizational approach to research endeavors by Shrum & Bankston 
(forthcoming). 

Institutionalization of science in Brazil, other Latin America, and Israel 

Science has become institutionalized in Brazil, in other Latin American 
societies and in Israel insofar as science is legitimated, appreciated and practiced 
with public backing and support. Science is appreciated in these societies partly 
as a cultural endeavor in its own right and partly for its multiple uses, notably for 
nation-building and national development in higher education, industry, agricul- 
ture, health services, the military, and as a channel for social mobility. The soci- 
eties differ, however, in the firmness and pervasiveness of institutionalization and 
in their institutional arrangements for practicing science. 

In Brazil, like in other Latin American countries, an emerging local scien- 
tific community has in the course of this century created a space for natural, med- 
ical and technological science around research institutes, some of the hospitals 



234 



iii: 



and some of the universities (on Brazil, see Schwartzman 1978, 1991, esp. part 2; 
Velho, 1990; Velho & Krige, 1984; Verhine, 1991; and also Ben-David, 1976, 
1987; on other parts of Latin America, see Albornoz, 1991; Frame, 1977; Glick, 
forthcoming; Inter-American Development Bank, 1988; Levy, 1986; Schwartz- 
man, 1985, 1986; Vessuri, 1986, 1990). But most of the up toward one hundred 
universities and university-like institutions in Brazil, like the many professional 
schools and other tertiary schools, have primarily emphasized teaching. In by far 
most of the nearly one thousand tertiary institutions in Brazil, research has not 
been a significant organizational purpose, and the faculty has had little training 
and experience in research and has not engaged in training researchers. The 
small space for the education of researchers implied that when the educational 
system expanded rapidly since the late sixties in Brazil, like in other Latin Amer- 
ican societies, the supply of researchers was far below the number of available 
academic positions, which in turn entailed a perpetuation of the two-tier aca- 
demic system of a small fraction of research-oriented universities and a mass of 
teaching-oriented universities and professional schools. The financial support 
for scientific research, furthermore, has been rather turbulent and the public 
backing of science as a value in itself and as a means for national development is 
not widely rooted. The institutionalization of science is therefore rather precari- 
ous in Brazil and elsewhere in Latin America. 

Earlier studies comparing scientific research in Brazil to that in other Latin 
American countries have found Brazil to be rather typical of Latin America with 
respect to social and human resources expended on scientific activity relative to 
population, such as stock of scientists and engineers, employment of scientists 
and engineers in research and experimental development, and expenditures on 
research and experimental development. Brazil has also been rather typical in 
terms of outcomes of scientific activity such as scientific publications relative to 
the national economic product and the influence of these publications on world 
science (Inter-American Development Bank, 1988). This similarity between 
Brazil and the rest of Latin America in both institutional conditions and some 
outcomes of course entails the hypothesis that the more detailed analyses under- 
taken here will show more similarities. Indeed, insofar as similarities are shown 
by all indications in the analyses, this will show the reliability of the indicators. 

Israel provides a contrasting case. Israel is already known to be exceptional 
among the societies in the world by its high extent of scientific activity. Already 
in the sixties were Israeli scientific authors exceptionally numerous relative the 
the national economic product (Price, 1986). This high scientific activity has 
continued until today when Israel is the nation with the higest number of scien- 
tific articles relative to population and also relative to gross national product 
(Schott, 1993a), This exceptional activity is the results of several conditions. 

In Israel science has been highly appreciated, both in the dominant stratum 
and increasingly throughout the population (Ben-David, 1962, 1964, 1986, 1991: 
chap. 3 with Aran and chap. 13 with Katz; Katz, 1979; Tal & Ezrahi, 1973; 

235 



1 



Zahlan, 1970). There has been a traditionally high appreciation of learning in the 
Jewish culture and there has been a historically high tendency among Jews in 
Europe and North America to pursue higher education and scientific activities. 
Israeli society has an especially high demand for new and useful knowledge and 
for highly educated labor in several sectors, specifically health services, agricul- 
ture, industry, and the military in particular. The Israeli government and the aca- 
demic institutions have had a policy of treating knowledge as a commodity that 
can be produced in a transnational market for research, notably by obtaining 
research grants and contracts from local and foreign funding sources. In short, 
science has in Israel been treated as a cultural endeavor as well as a social and 
economic investment, especially somewhat like an export industry. 

Israeli science is institutionally integrated with higher education, seemingly 
more than anywhere else in the world. By the middle of this century the Israeli 
institutions of higher education were all converging on the 19th century German 
university model combining research and teaching and were also all modeling the 
American education of researchers through doctoral programs. This widely insti- 
tutionalized training has produced a supply of researchers largely matching and 
occasionally even exceeding the demand for academic staff in the expanding 
Israeli system of universities (Ben-David, 1986; Schott, 1987a). By the early 
seventies the Israeli research enterprise had crystallized as an essentially one- 
tiered set of seven universities and several university-related hospitals perform- 
ing by far most of the research in the natural, mathematical, medical and techno- 
logical sciences. The Israeli universities have been similar insofar as they all 
emphasize scientific research far more than teaching or direct service to the local 
community, provide research facilities and have a moderate teaching load. The 
self-governing faculty have been appointed largely on the basis of research 
accomplishment and the typical qualification for entry into an academic career 
has been a doctoral education and postdoctoral research training, frequently 
abroad, and some research experience. Likewise, advancement up through the 
several levels in the professoriate has been based chiefly on the criterion of 
accomplishments in research. These standards have been promoted by including 
foreign eminent scientists in the evaluation of staff, departments and universities, 
and also on the editorial boards of the journals published in Israel. Moreover, the 
universities and their affiliated hospitals have been providing facilities for 
research and have been promoting ties with foreign colleagues in several ways, 
by annual travel funds to each scientist and regularized sabbaticals and frequently 
granted leaves of absence for sojourns in foreign research institutes, and also by 
bringing visiting scientists from abroad. Actually, the policies of the Israeli 
authorities in government and the academic institutions have included establish- 
ing rather comprehensive bilateral scientific cooperation agreements with foreign 
institutions and countries, for example the United States-Israel Binational Sci- 
ence Foundation. These comprehensive institutional arrangements have pro- 
moted an uncommonly strong integration of Israeli research with the centers of 

236 



SchmU9 e 87 C b) WhiCh ^ tUm h3S enhanCSd *' reSCarCh perfomiance (Katz - 197 * 
The differences in institutionalization of science makes Israel a contrast to 
Brazil, a contrast that expectedly is informative insofar as it can be used to ascer 
tain and explain developments in Brazilian research. 

Concepts and their indicators based on the literature and a survey 

The concepts for describing the scientific research enterprise are either 
attributes or relations. Performance is an attribute, a characteristic of a scientist 
or in the aggregate, of a national scientific community. Specialization is also an 
attribute, here a characteristic of a national scientific community. The other con- 
cepts are kinds of role-relations between scientists or, in the aggregate, between 
their national scientific communities (Burt & Schott, 1989). I shall consider six 
analytically distinct kinds of role-relations _ namely deference, travels influ- 
ence, collaboration, emulation, and concern for recognition. I shall briefly con- 
sider each concept and how the concept can be measured by one or two mdica- 

sr 5 erf °, r T Ce In Sdentifk research refers to the crea ti°n °f new public scien- 
tific knowledge. Performance in a country can be indicated by the articles in the 
worlds major journals in science which are written by authors in the country 
Another indicator is the extent to which the articles written in the country are 
subsequently cited in the literature. Two other indicators are the extents to which 
scientists in the country are named as principal contributors or as influences on 
researchers surveyed in other parts of the world. These four measures are indica- 
tors of scientific performance. 

Specialization refers to the substantive foci of scientific attention, the culti- 
vation of some rather than other fields of research. Specialization in a country 
can be indicated by the concentration of publishing in some disciplines and sub- 
disciplines. 

Deference of researchers refers to their appreciation of others' performance. 
Researchers deference toward performance can be indicated by asking them to 
name principal contributors to the field. 

Travels by researchers can be indicated by asking them to report their visits 
to other institutions and their participation in meetings abroad. 

Influence upon research refers to the transfer of intellectual material and its 
impact on research. Influence upon researchers can be indicated by asking them 
who influenced their research. Another indicator of influence upon researchers 
can be based on their bibliographic citations to earlier publications. 

Collaboration refers to joint research. Collaboration between researchers 
can be mdicated by asking researchers about their work jointly with others 
Another indicator of collaboration is jointly authored publications. 

237 



i'i I 



1 



ii 



ill 



i 






Emulation refers to competition among researchers to excel in the perfor- 
mance of the scientific role. A researcher's emulation can be indicated by asking 
about felt competition with others to be first or best in research. 

Recognition refers to the validation and acknowledgment of contributions to 
public knowledge, and as a social reward for role performance such recognition 
is often of great concern to a researcher. A scientist's desire for recognition from 
others can be indicated by asking about caring about others recognizing the 
research. 

These indicators are based on data from two sources: the literature of world 
science and surveys of scientists in Brazil and other countries. Some of the 
above concepts have several indicators, based on different approaches. This 
enables methodological triangulation by which the imperfection of each 
approach is countered by using several approaches. Influence, for example, can 
be indicated both by survey data and by literature data. Questionnaire responses 
to a question asking about influence are not perfect, e.g. because the sample is 
not perfectly representative or because the respondent does not recall influences. 
Also citations in articles are far from perfect, e.g. because not all influence is 
reflected in citations and because not all citations reflect influence. But if sur- 
veys and citations show similar distributions then we consider the indicators 
rather reliable. 

The literature-based indicators for this study are derived from the Science 
citation index which largely covers the world's important journals in the natural, 
medical and technological sciences, including journals published in the poorer 
parts of the world (Frame, 1985; Garfield, 1979, 1983a, 1983b; Stevens, 1990). 
The main criterion for including a journal is its quality or impact, so the volume 
of indexed articles written by authors in a country is a reasonably good indicator 
of research performance in the country. Since 1973, the number of indexed arti- 
cles has exceeded 260,000 annually. Annually, more than 4,400 of the articles 
were coauthored between people at different institutions. And the articles 
indexed in 1980-82 contained more than 1,835,000 citations referring to indexed 
articles published in 1978-80. The citations and coauthorships are indicators of 
influence and collaboration occurring in collegial ties. These indicators derived 
from the scientific literature are far from perfect, especially when the focus is on 
the areas of the world where there may be considerable research for local dissem- 
ination but few journals are published with significant impact on world science 
(Eisemon & Davis, 1989; Frame, 1985; Moed, 1989; Morita-Lou, 1985). This is 
one reason for supplementing the literature-based indicators with survey data. In 
fact, the survey yields indications similar to the indications derived from the liter- 
aure and thereby validate the indicators based on the literaure. 

The other indicators are derived from a survey of collegial ties among scien- 
tists in Brazil, elsewhere in Latin America, and in Israel, using a questionnaire 
administered during 1990/91. Focusing on collegial networks, the unit of analy- 
sis will not be a respondent but a relationship or a dyad of researchers within a 

238 



country or in different countries. More precisely, the unit of analysis will be var- 
iously a travel (a visit to another institution or a trip to a conference), an expres- 
sion of deference, a named influences a collaborator, a competitor, or another 
specific kind of role-relation. Brazilian, other Latin American, and Israeli partic- 
ipation in collegial networks will in the analyses be indicated by their reported 
709 travels, 499 expressions of deference, and 1,228 influencers, and so forth, as 
listed in the tables. These relations were reported by 167 scientists, namely 64 in 
Brazil, 87 in other parts of Latin America (47 in Chile and 40 in Uruguay), and 
16 in Israel. 

Scientists were selected for the survey as follows. In each country I selected 
a geographically circumscribed site for survey. In Brazil, the site was a large city 
some distance from Sao Paulo with a large university with considerable research 
in the natural, medical and technological sciences. In the other part of Latin 
America, the sites were the capitals in Chile and Uruguay. In Israel the site was a 
city with a comprehensive university. These sites were selected because of avail- 
ability of contacts and local interviewers. In each site the respondents were sam- 
pled mainly from a list, namely the list of authors of articles covered by the Sci- 
ence citation index which has a listing of authors in each city in the geographi- 
cally arranged author index. The most recent list provided a sample of authors 
which was classified into disciplines according to the classification of journals 
they published in. This provided a classification of the sampled scientists into 
the disaggregate of science as eight disciplines: clinical medicine, biomedicine, 
biology, chemistry, physics, earth and space science, technology and engineering 
science, and mathematics. Each discipline is so broadly defined that the eight 
disciplines comprize all sciences. In each site the respondents were thus ran- 
domly sampled. However, this does not assure representativeness. 

The restrictive selection of sites, one or two cities in each place, implies that 
the ties of the selected respondents are not assured to be representative of the ties 
of all scientists in Brazil, the other part of Latin America, and Israel. Representa- 
tiveness can be gauged by methodological triangulation. It turned out, as will be 
shown in the tables, that in each place the respondents' reported collaborations 
and received influences are similar to the collaborations and influences indicated 
by the coauthorships and the citations in the articles by authors in the place. 
Therefore we can be reasonably confident that the ties reported by the respon- 
dents are rather representative of the ties of all the scientists. 

The participation rate in the survey in each site exceeded 90 per cent of the 
contacted scientists (except that I do not know the participation rate in Israel) and 
the response rate on any single item in the questionnaire was also above 90 per 
cent. 

A questionnaire was used for tapping ties of the respondents. The question- 
naire briefly asked for attributes of the respondent such as education, career, 
research orientation (pure versus applied research), and research mode (experi- 
mental versus theoretical). Travels were tapped by two questions, Which institu- 

239 



tions have you visited in the last 12 months? and To which conferences abroad 
have you gone in the years from 1985 to present? The respondent's deference 
was tapped by asking about contributors, Who are the people in the world who 
have performed the best scientific research in your field since 1985? noting also 
the place of each named contributor. 

The main part of the questionnaire tapped the collegial circle around the 
respondent. The interpersonal circle around a respondent can be tapped by first 
identifying the significant others and then asking about their attributes and their 
relations, a procedure that has recently gained codification by adoption in the 
General Social Survey in the United States (Burt, 1984). In my survey, each sci- 
entist listed significant colleagues in response to the question. Who are the people 
whose specific ideas have influenced your research since about 1985? 

The tie to each named colleague was tapped by the following questions: 
Through which media did their ideas influence your research? 
To what extent has each person influenced your choice of problems for research? 
To what extent has each person influenced your research through your reading of 
the person's publications? 

To what extent has each person influenced your research through personal com- 
munication? 

To what extent has the person been a collaborator on your research? 
To what extent do you feel that you and the person are competing with one 
another to be first or best in research? 
To what extent do you care about each person 's recognition of your research? 

The attribute of a named colleague which is crucial for this study is of 
course the colleague's location, Where in the world is each person? 

This questionnaire provides rather detailed information on collegial net- 
works (for validation, see Schott, 1992b). 

The surveyed scientists were mostly working in academic settings, in uni- 
versities or in university-affiliated hospitals. Typically they had a doctoral 
level education and were performing research for publication in the literature 
gaining international circulation. In each place roughly half reported to be 
doing mainly pure research and roughly half reported to be doing mainly 
applied research. In each place, several were doing primarily theoretical work 
and several were doing primarily experimental work. The age composition 
was also similar across the places, most had obtained their highest degree in 
the seventies or first half of the eighties, a few were further in their careers and 
a few had less experience. The groups of respondents were thus rather similar 
in these personal background characteristics. They differed, however, in their 
participation in the international collegial networks, as will be shown in the 
later analyses. 

240 



Performance and specialization in research 

How much of the world's scientific research has been performed in Brazil 
and how does this compare to the size of the country in terms of population and 
economy? How much of the world's research in each discipline has been per- 
formed in Brazil? What have been the directions of specialization in Brazilian 
research? How have the performance and the specialization changed during 
recent decades? B B 

Performance in Brazil and in every other place is here indicated by its scien- 
tists share of scientific articles, the extent to which their articles are cited in 
other articles, other researchers' mentions of them as principal contributors and 
mentions of them as influencers upon research elsewhere in the world These 
four indicators of scientific performance are juxtaposed to two important condi- 
tions of science (Teitel, 1987), namely the share of Brazil in the world's popula- 
tion and Gross National Product, as listed in table 1 . 

Table 1 shows that Brazil is a scientifically small country, performing much 
ess than 1 per cent of the scientific research in the world, and this attracts much less 
that 1 per cent of the citations in subsequent literature. No Brazilian scientist was 
among the nearly three thousands mentioned as principal contributors or significant 
mfluentials m a survey of scientists elsewhere. Brazilian research amounted to a lit- 
tle less than haff of the research performed in the rest of Latin America and about a 
durd of thatperformed in Israel, where scientific performance was high as indicated 
by the rather frequent mentioning of Israelis as great contributors and influentials 
In economy and population, Brazil is roughly half the size of the rest of Latin Amer- 
ica, as m science. But Brazil is a whole order of magnitude larger than Israel in 
terms of the economy and even more in terms of population and yet far less research 
is performed m Brazil than in Israel. This shows that scientific performance in a 
country is not a reflection of the size of the country in terms of population or econ- 
omy (there is only a very weak correlation with population and a weak correlation 
with the economy; see Schott, 1991b). These differences in scientific performance 
seem shaped by differences in institutionalization of science. 

Brazil and other Latin American countries have in recent decades been investing 
many human and material resources in expanding their scientific activities So the 
question is not only one of the width of the gap to nations with higher scientific per- 
formance, but the question is also whether the gap is narrowing. The historical per- 
spective is adopted by exarmmng data from different years (table 2). The available 

tthSTrf, T dCCadeS m mf0 ^^ not spiled by exactly the same 

method, but they are from similar sources, so the different counting methods presum- 
ably do not alter the indications. The earliest data are counts of authors recorded in 
^Current contents which is published by the Institute for Scientific Information 
tiiat also publishes the Science citation index, which has been used to count articles 
from the seventies to the eighties and to estimate the volume of listings up to 1993. 

241 



Tkble 1 

Scientific performance, juxtaposed to economy and population 

Percentage distribution of articles, 1986. 

Percentage distribution of citations, 1980-85. 
Percentage distribution of contributors named in a survey. 
Percentage distribution of influencers named in a survey. 
Percentage distribution of Gross National Product, 1986. 

Percentage distribution of population, 1986 



Performance in scientific research 



Gross 
National 



Articles 



Cites Contributors Influencers Product Population 



Brazil 


.3 


.2 


Other LA 


.8 


.4 


Israel 


1.0 


.9 


North America 


40.9 


54.8 


Western Europe 


30.8 


30.8 


Rest of world 


26.1 


13.0 





.1 

2.0 

49.0 
35.2 

13.7 





.3 

.6 

45.9 

33.9 

19.3 



1.7 

3.0 

.2 

31.3 

22.7 
41.2 



2.8 
5.3 

.1 

5.4 

7.2 

79.2 



Notes: The percentages in each column sum to 100 per cent except for rounding. 
Sources: Articles (298,815) are from a dataset derived from the Science citation index for 1986 
(Institute for Scientific Information) (dataset compiled by CHI Research; Stevens, 1990). 
Citations (exceeding 5 million) are derived from the Science citation index 1980-85 (Institute for 
Scientific Information) (data published by Schubert et al„ 1989). 

Contributors (759) and influencers (2,159) are reported in a survey of scientists in Bangladesh, 
Czechoslovakia, Greece, India, Indonesia, Japan and the then Soviet Union (Schott, 1992b). Their 
mentions of compatriots are excluded from the counts. 

Gross National Product is from World Bank. World Tables 1989-90. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Uni- 
versity Press); Shoup, P. S. The East European and Soviet data handbook. New York, Columbia 
University Press, 1981; and Taylor C. L. & Jodice, D. A. World handbook of political and social 
indicators. 3rd ed. New Haven, Yale University Press. 

Population is from World Bank, World Tables 1989-90. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press; 
United Nations. Demographic yearbook 1987. New York, United Nations, 1988. 



Table 2 indicates that Brazilian scientific performance grew considerably in 
its share of world science from the sixties throughout the seventies and the eight- 
ies to the early nineties. Research in the rest of Latin America grew slowly from 
the sixties to the early eighties but leveled off around the early eighties and has 
been rather constant in the last decade. Israeli research grew during the early 
seventies and was a rather constant share of world science from the mid-seventies 
through the mid-eighties but its share has been declining in recent years. Con- 
stant share of a place during a growth of world science of course means a contin- 
ued growth of research in the place. 

242 



Table 2 

Changes in scientific performance 

Authors in Brazil, in the rest of Latin America, and in Israel, as percentage of the world's 
authors in Who is publishing in science, annually, 1967 to 1973. 

Articles by authors in Brazil, in the rest of Latin America, and in Israel, as percentage of 
world's articles in a fixed set of journals in the Science citation index, annually, 1973 to 1986 
Listings of articles by authors in Brazil, in the rest of Latin America, and in Israel, as per- 

centage of the world's volume of listings in the Science citation index, 1975 to 1993 

Brazil Other LA Israel 

. % % % 



Authors 

1967 

1968 

1969 

1970 

1971 

1972 

1973 

Articles 

1973 

1974 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

1979 

1980 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

Listings 

1975-79 

1980-84 

1985-89 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 (Jan./Feb.) 



.17 
.14 
.18 
.19 
.19 
.24 
.28 

.21 

.25 
.27 
.31 
.31 
.31 
.35 
.36 
.38 
.33 
.35 
.36 
.35 
.35 

.40 
.49 

.54 
.63 
.69 
.71 

.74 



.38 
.50 

.35 
.45 
.43 
.46 
.60 

.73 
.71 
.65 
.63 
.63 
.64 
.67 
.71 
.76 
.81 
.81 
.78 
.79 
.82 

1.07 
1.19 

1.22 
1.25 
1.25 
1.29 
1.20 



.92 
.87 
.87 
.77 
.86 
.90 
.91 

.96 
.97 
1.00 
1.02 
1.07 
1.03 
1. 01 
1.02 
1.00 
1.08 
1.07 
1.05 
1.08 
1.02 

1.05 
1.11 
1.10 

.97 

.96 

.93 

.96 



Note: Total numbers of authors exceeded 125,000 and of indexed articles exceeded 265 000 annu- 
ally. 

Source: Authors are from Who is publishing in science (Institute for Scientific Information)' the 
numbers of authors are listed in Price, 1986: 203-5. 

Articles are from the Science citation index from 1973 to 1986 (Institute for Scientific Information)- 
they are the articles in a set of journals that has been constant, namely fixed as those indexed in 1973 
and articles are classified by address of author (dataset compiled by CHI Research- cfr Stevens 1990) 
Listings are from the published Science citation index 1975 through Feb. 1993; the percentage for a 
country is its percentage of the printed columns in the geographical section of the author index. 



243 



J 



Another way to consider these shifts is in terms of rank ordering. 
According to the listings, Israel ranked 15th among the nations in scientific 
activity in 1975-79 and was in the eighties surpassed by Spain and the Peo- 
ple's Republic of China, so that Israel moved down to 17th in science by the 
early nineties. Brazil ranked 26th in 1975-79, trailing Austria, Norway, Fin- 
land, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and South Africa, which it surpassed in the 
eighties, during which it was surpassed by the People's Republic of China, so 
that Brazil moved up to be the 21st among the nations in scientific activity by 
the early nineties. 

Let me, however, reemphasize that the continued growth in Brazilian sci- 
entific activity as measured by this outcome up to 1993, does not fully capture 
the developments in the early nineties because of the timelag between perfor- 
mance of research and its resulting publication. The precarious institutional- 
ization of science in Brazil makes science very vulnerable to political and eco- 
nomic crises and the current turbulence, crisis and decay in Brazil is quite 
likely to lead to some withdrawal of social support for science (Schwartzman, 
1991: chap. 8). Following the decades of enthusiasm and growing support for 
science, which gave the scientists considerable self-confidence, the recent 
lessening of appreciation of science and a leveling of support is likely to lead, 
if not to contraction of the national endeavor, to a loss of sense of purpose and 
meaning among scientists, a situation of anomie (Ben-David, [1971] 1984: 
chap. 9). 

National research endeavors are not evenly distributed across fields of sci- 
ence, but are more or less concentrated in selected fields. The selection of foci of 
attention in a country entails a national specialization. Diversity among countries 
in national specialization entails a global division of labor in research. Special- 
ization can be revealed when controling for the research performance of each 
place. I shall therefore indicate the specialization in a particular field in a country 
not only relative to the world effort in the field but also relative to the overall 
research effort of the country. Specialization in a particular field is high to the 
extent the measure exceeds 1 and it is low to the extent the measure is less than 1 , 
as listed in table 3. 

Table 3 shows that Brazilian research was somewhat specialized. Whereas 
the Brazilian cultivation of the disciplines of biomedicine and earth and space 
science was similar to their cultivation in the world as a whole, Brazilian research 
emphasized biology, physics and mathematics, with comparatively less research 
in clinical medicine, chemistry and technological science. This indication of spe- 
cialization is similar to an indication obtained by a somewhat different classifica- 
tion procedure which shows a Brazilian specialization in physics and mathemat- 
ics and a de-emphasis especially in chemistry but also in engineering (but did not 
separately classify clinical medicine, biomedicine, biology, and earth and space 
science; Schubert et al., 1989: 401). 



244 



Table 3 

Specialization into eight disciplines and their subdiscipunes, 70's and 80*s 

Ratio of the percentage of the articles from Brazil (from the other Latin America and fmm 

Israel) that are ,„ the (sub) discipline to the percentage of the worutSJ ^at 

are in the (sub) discipline 

Braril Other LA i srae i 



Disciplines and subdisciplines 



Clinical medicine 

General and internal medicine 
Allergy 

Anesthesiology 
Cancer 

Cardiovascular system 
Dentistry 

Dermatology and veneral diseases 
Endocrinology 
Fertility 

Gastroenterology 
Geriatrics 
Hematology 
Immunology 
Obstetrics & gynecology 
Neurology & neurosurgery 
Ophtalmology 
Orthopedics 

Arthritis & rheumatology 
Otorhinolaiyngology 
Pathology 
Pediatrics 
Pharmacology 
Pharmacy 
Psychiatry 

Radiology & nuclear medicine 
Respiratory system 
Surgery 

Tropical medicine 
Urology 
Nephrology 
Veterinary medicine 
Addictive diseases 
-Hygiene & ?uH«: health 
Miscellaneous clinical medicine 



1970's 1980's 1970's 1980's 1970's 1980*s 



.70 

.4 
l.S 
.2 
.3 
.4 
2.2 
.4 
.6 
1.6 
.8 
.1 
.2 
.6 
.6 
.6 
.2 
.2 
.4 
.2 
1.2 
.2 
1.8 
.3 
.2 
.3 
.1 
.7 
9.2 
.5 
2.8 
.5 
.7 
2.1 
.0 



.58 

.2 
.4 
.1 
.2 
.6 
1.1 
.6 
.6 
1.4 
.4 
.0 
.4 
.7 
.3 
.4 
.3 
.5 
.4 
.5 
.9 
.3 
1.1 
.1 
.1 
.4 
.5 
.6 
10.8 
1.0 
.9 
.5 
.8 
.9 
.1 



139 

3.1 
.8 
.1 
.6 
.6 
.8 
.7 
2.3 
5.2 
1.0 
.2 
.7 
.6 
1.6 
1.1 
.6 
.4 
1.2 
.3 
2.2 
.7 
1.0 
.3 
.4 
.4 
.9 
.5 
6.6 
.3 
1.1 
.6 
.6 
3.1 
.2 



1.13 

3.2 
.8 
.2 
.6 
.6 
.5 
.4 
1.5 
2.2 
.4 
.1 
.6 
.6 
.6 
.9 
.4 
.4 
.8 
.2 
.7 
.6 
1.2 
.1 
.2 
.2 
.7 
.3 
6.5 
.2 
.4 
.7 
1.0 
.5 
.3 



1.02 

1.2 
1.0 
.7 
1.0 
1.0 
1.8 
1.1 
1.1 
2.3 
.8 
1.7 
2.0 
1.5 
1.9 
1.0 
1.6 
1.1 
.5 
.9 
.8 
1.2 
.7 
.2 
1.0 
.5 
.8 
.8 
.6 
.7 
1.8 
.6 
.6 
.6 
1.4 



1.15 

1.6 
1.0 
.6 
1.1 
1.3 
1.7 
1.0 
.9 
2.4 
.9 
.9 
1.8 
1.2 
2.4 
1.1 
1.3 
1.9 
.8 
2.1 
.6 
2.0 
.6 
.3 
.9 
.5 
1.2 
.9 
.9 
1.1 
2.1 
.3 
2.2 
.6 
1.7 



(com.) 



245 



(cont.) ___ 

Disciplines and subdisciplines 



(cont.) 



Brazil 



Other LA 



Israel 



1970's 1980's 1970's 1980's 1970's 1980's 






Biomedicine 

Physiology 

Anatomy & morphology 

Embryology 

Genetics & heredity 

Nutrition & dietetics 

Biochemistry & molecular biology 

E iophysics 

Cell biology, cytology & histology 

Microbiology 

Virology 

Parasitology 

Biomedical engineering 

Microscopy 

Miscellaneous biomedicine 

General biomedical research 

Biology 

General biology 

General zoology 

Entomology 

Miscellaneous zoology 

Marine biology & hydrobiology 

Botany 

Ecology 

Agriculture & food science 

Dairy & animal science 

Miscellaneous biology 

Chemistry 

Analytical chemistry 

Organic chemistry 

Inorganic & nuclear chemistry 

Applied chemistry 

General chemistry 

Polymers 

Physical chemistry 

Physics 

Chemical physics 



246 



133 

1.1 

4.5' 

1.1 

2.3 

1.2 

.8 

.6 
1.9 

.6 

.2 
6.0 

1.7 

1.4 

.8 

1.5 

1.39 

IB 
A 

1.4 

1.9 
5 

2.0 
.3 

1.3 
.1 
.5 



.72 

12 

.7 

1.4 

.2 
.7 
.2 
.7 

1.60 

1.1 



1.03 

.7 

2.4 

.6 

1.6 

1.4 

.6 

.6 
1.9 

.7 

.2 
5.9 
1.0 

.4 

.6 
1.1 

1.60 

2.4 

.8 
1.8 
3.1 
1.1 
2.1 

.2 
1.3 

.4 
1.1 

.74 

1.0 
.6 
1.0 
.4 
.6 
.4 
1.1 

1.82 
1.0 



1.28 

3.5 
1.7 
1.0 
1.1 

2.3 

1.0 

.6 
1.1 

.6 

.5 
2.7 

.4 

.8 

.5 
1.4 

139 

.6 

.7 

1.2 

1.2 

.8 
1.5 
1.0 
2.1 

.3 
1.6 

.61 

.5 
.6 

.5 
.3 
.7 
.4 



.61 

.7 



.98 

1.7 
1.6 
.7 
1.3 
2.1 

.9 

.4 

.9 

.8 

.7 
2.1 

.6 

.4 

.4 

.8 

1.52 

.5 

.5 
1.4 
2.2 

.8 ' 
2.1 
1.5 
1:6 

.4 

1.5 

M 

.5 
.9 
.7 
.5 
.8 
.7 
1.2 

.91 

.9 



1.13 

.5 
1.0 

.7 
1.4 
1.0 
1.6 

.6 
1.0 
1.1 
1.5 

.8 
1.1 

.2 

.7 

.8 

1.15 

.4 

1.5 

.9 

1.0 

.5 

2.0 



.9 
1.1 

.8 

.71 

.4 
1.2 
.5 
.3 
.5 
.8 
.9 

1.11 
2.1 



.98 

.4 

.9 

.8 
1.1 

.8 
1.2 

.9 

.9 

1.0 

1.2 

1.2 

1.6 

.3 

.6 

.8 

1.12 

.6 

1.3 

.8 

1.1 

.6 

1.7 

.6 

.9 

12 

.8 



.62 

.5 
.8 
.3 
.5 
.4 
.6 
.9 

1.15 

1.6 



(cont.) 



Disciplines and subdisciplines 


Brazil 


Other LA 


Israel 


1970's 


1980's 


1970's 


1980's 


1970's 


1980's 


Solid state physics 


3.2 


4.0 


. .6 


1.2 


1.4 


1.0 


Fluids & plasmas 


.4 


.7 


.2 


.6 


1.3 


1.0 


Applied physics 


.8 


.9 


.3 


.5 


.8 


1.0 


Acoustics 


.1 


.2 


.7 


.7 


.8 


.7 


Optics 


.6 


.8 


.7 


1.1 


1.0 


1.6 


General physics 


1.7 


1.8 


.6 


.9 


.7 


.8 


Nuclear & particle physics 


22 


23 


1.1 


1.4 


1.6 


1.2 


Miscellaneous physics 


3.0 


3.0 


2.1 


3.2 


1.1 


1.1 


Earth and space science 


1.08 


1.24 


1.12 


U3 


.85 


.76 


Astronomy & astrophysics 


1.3 


1.5 


2.2 


2.3 


.8 


.5 


Meteorology & atmospheric science 


.2 


1.1 


.2 


.2 


.7 


.7 


Geology 


.8 


.7 


.8 


.4 


1.0 


.8 


Earth & planetary science 


13 


15 


.7 


.6 


1.0 


1.0 


Geography 


.0 


■■ .0 


.0 


.0 


.0 


.7 


Oceanography & limnology 


.4 


.4 


.6 


.9 


.4 


.5 


Technological science 


.44 


.63 


.33 


.48 


.83 


.95 


Chemical engineering 


.3 


.3 


.6 


1.1 


.8 


.8 


Mechanical engineering 


.3 


.3 


.2 


.4 


1.0 


1.4 


Civil engineering 


.4 


.5 


.7 


' .5 


2.0 


1.9 


Electrical engineering & electronics 


.7 


1.0 


.2 


.3 


.7 


.8 


Miscellaneous engineering & 
technology 


.0 


.0 


.0 


.0 


.6 


.0 


Industrial engineering 


.0 


- 


.7 


- 


1.1 


- 


General engineering 


.1 


.1 


.1 


.1 


1.6 


1.7 


Metals & metallurgy 


.5 


.6 


.4 


.7 


.3 


.5 


Materials science 


3 


.6 


2 


.4 


.5 


.6 


Nuclear technology 


.6 


.5 


.6 


.6 


.5 


9 


Aerospace technology 


.4 


.3 


.0 


.1 


1.2 


1.4 


Computers 


.4 


.9 


.2 


.5 


1.3 


1.4 


Library & information science 


.3 


.9 


.6 


.2 


.2 


.8 


Operations research & management 
science 


.8 


.6 


.3 


.6 


1.9 


1.9 


Mathematics 


1.49 


1.58 


.49 


.71 


1.56 


1.61 


Probability & statistcs 


.7 


.9 


.7 


.7 


1.1 


1.5 


Applied mathematics 


.9 


1.0 


.4 


.7 


1.5 


1.6 


General mathematics 


1.7 


1.8 


.5 


.7 


1.6 


1.4 


Miscellaneous mathematics 


2.7 


2.5 


.4 


.9 


2.5 


3.7 



Notes: The I970's denote 1973-79 and the 1980's denote 1980-86. Industrial engineering was not 
reported as a subdiscipline in the 1980's. 

Source: Science citation index from 1973 to 1986 (Institute for Scientific Informations); (dataset 
compiled by CHI Research; Stevens, 1990). 



247 



The discipline with most rapid growth from the seventies to the eighties was 
technological science. The increasing specialization in the discipline of techno- 
logical science was largely concentrated in its subdisciplines of computers, infor- 
mation science and electrical engineering and electronics. These fields are 
known to have been expanding in Brazil, as a result of deliberate research poli- 
cies (Schwartzman, 1991: 232-6). Although these are fields of increasing spe- 
cialization, they have not become the fields of major concentrations. Specializa- 
tion shows concentrations mostly in tropical medicine and in parasitology; again, 
relative to the world distribution across fields (also this subfield specialization is 
consistent with that obtained by another procedure; Schubert, 1989: 448). Con- 
versely, Brazilian research has de-emphasized the fields of geriatrics and acous- 
tics. 

By comparison, specialization has been somewhat different in the rest of 
Latin America, where there has been more emphasis on the disciplines of clinical 
medicine and less emphasis on physics and mathematics. But, like Brazil, other 
parts of Latin America have concentrated on tropical medicine and to some 
degree also on parasitology. Israeli research is less specialized into particular 
disciplines except mathematics which is known to be exceptionally strong in 
Israel (Schott,1987b). But there are subdisciplines with particular concentrations 
in Israel, notably fertility. These indications of Israeli specialization is similar to 
that obtained by a somewhat different procedure (Schubert et al., 1989: 416 and 
458). 

These specializations can be partly explained as resulting from national 
needs and interests. Brazil and other Latin American countries have a consider- 
able need for knowledge in tropical medicine and parasitology, whereas Israel 
has an interest in enhancing the fertility of the Jewish population (and in reducing 
the high birthrate of the Arab population). But the scientists' research is also 
shaped by their attention to science done elsewhere. 

Deference to world science 

Scientists continually evaluate work that they are aware of. They assess not 
only the truthfulness but also the worth of new knowledge. The appreciated con- 
tributions may become exemplars influencing their own research. Their defer- 
ence toward contributions provides a mental map for orientation in the world of 
science. To indicate Brazilian and other scientists' deference, the respondents in 
the survey were asked to name those who had made the major contributions in 
their field in recent years and to report the location of each named contributor 
(table 4) 

Table 4 shows that Brazilian scientists have deferred most to science in 
North America, second most to science in Western Europe and third most to sci- 
ence done in Brazil. Likewise, scientists in the rest of Latin America and in 
. Israel also have deferred most to science in North America, second most to sci- 



248 



ence in Western Europe and third most to local science. Deference is thus toward 
the easily observed and intimately understood local work and toward work in the 
world centers of science. Despite Israel's spatial proximity to Europe, the Israeli 
scientists defer less to European science and more to North American science 
than the Brazilian and other Latin American scientists do. This can be explained 
by the embeddedness of collegial ties, including deference, in political and eco- 
nomic links which are especially strong between Israel and the United States. 

Table 4 

Deference to contributors to science 

Percentage distribution across places of people named as outstanding by respondents in 
Brazil, in other Latin America and in Israel 



Country of contributors 



Brazil 



Country of respondents 



Other LA 



Israel 



Brazil 

pther LA 

Israel 

North America 
Western Europe 
Rest of world 
N contributors 



18 
1 
1 

41 

34 

6 

170 



2 
6 
.4 

47 

36 

9 

282 





19 
60 
15 
6 
47 



Note: The percentages in each column sum to 100 per cent except for rounding. 
Source: Survey of scientists in Brazil, other Latin America and Israel. 



The deference toward science in various places makes for attraction toward 
those places and we should expect scientists to travel mainly to those places. 

Travels 

To what degree do scientists in Brazil travel to interact with colleagues and 
what are the destinations of their travels? Scientists in Brazil and the other coun- 
tries were asked to report their visits to other institutions in the latest 12 months 
until the time of interview and to report their participation in meetings abroad 
from 1985 until the interview (table 5). 



249 



Table 5 
Travels to other institutions and to meetings abroad 

Percentage distribution of respondents' visits to other institutions; and percentage 
distribution of participation in meetings abroad 





Brazil 

% 


Other LA 

% 


Israel 

% 




Visits 


Meetings 


Visits 


Meetings 


Visits 


Meetings 


Brazil 


68 


n.a. 


8 


18 








Other LA 


1 


9 


48 


38 








Israel 











.4 


31 


n.a. 


North America 


11 


31 


17 


16 


54 


56 


Western Europe 


10 


49 


26 


27 


15 


34 


Rest of world 


9 


12 


1 


1 





10 


Mean visitis or meetings 
for a respondent 


1.5 


1-9 


1.8 


3.1 


1.7 


4.9 



Note: The percentages in each column sum to 100 per cent except for rounding; n.a. = not avail- 
able. 
Source: Survey of scientists in Brazil, other Latin America and Israel. 



Table 5 shows that Brazilian scientists on average made 1.5 visits to another 
institution in the latest year and participated in 1.9 meetings abroad in the latest 
six or so years. This traveling frequency is somewhat less than that of scientists 
in the other surveyed Latin American countries (which are much smaller than 
Brazil and thereby encourage travel) and much less than that of Israeli scientists 
whose geographical location provides little opportunity for travel. This major 
difference in travel has rather little to do with geographically shaped opportunity, 
but can be explained as a consequence of different institutional arrangements, 
notably the Israeli scientists' annual funds for travel as mentioned in the section 
on Institutionalization of science. 

The Brazilian scientists' visits to other institutions were mainly within Bra- 
zil. Their travels abroad were primarily to Western Europe and secondarily to 
North America. But travels were also frequent between Brazil and other Latin 
American countries, in both directions. Table 5 also shows that scientists in other 
Latin American countries also traveled more to Western Europe than to North 
America, while Israeli scientists traveled far more frequently to North America 
than to nearby Western Europe. These destinations of traveling reflect their def- 
erence orientations. 

The scientists' travels and deference should expectedly be reflected in the 
intellectual influence upon their research. 

250 



Influences from and upon world science 

To what extent has research in Brazil been influenced by results from within 
Brazil and from other places? And, reciprocally, to what extent has research in 
each place been influenced by the results of Brazilian research? Into which envi- 
ronment has Brazilian research been most cohesively integrated in terms of influ- 
ence? How have influences from and upon Brazilian scientists changed in recent 
decades? Through which channels have Brazilian scientists been influenced? 
What are the origins of influence through publications and through personal com- 
munication? What are the sources of influence on selection of problems for 
research by Brazilian scientists? These questions will be answered here, compar- 
ing Brazilian influences with influences involving scientists in the rest of Latin 
America and in Israel. 

Influences upon scientists in each place are indicated by the percentage dis- 
tribution of the citations in their articles, as listed in a column in table 6. 

Table 6 

Influence among national scientific communities, 1980 

Percentage distribution of citations in articles by authors in each place (column) across 
places of cited author (rows) 



Influencing (cited) 
scientists 




Influenced (citing) scientists 




Brazil 


Other 
LA 


Israel 


North 

America 


Western 
Europe 


Rest of 

world 


Brazil 


23.2 


.8 


.1 


.1 


.1 


.1 


Other LA 


1.4 


20.2 


.3 


.3 


.3 


.2 


Israel 


.7 


.9 


24.1 


.8 


.8 


.8 


North America 


41.3 


47.9 


48.4 


75.7 


39.0 


35.5 


Western Europe 


24.0 


22.7 


21.5 


18.0 


52.7 


21.3 


Rest of world 


9.4 


7.4 


5.6 


5.3 


7.1 


42.1 


N citations 


3,960 


9,449 


18,041 


914,857 


621,210 


267,590 



Note: The percentages in each column sum to 100 per cent except for rounding. 

Source: Science citation index (Institute for Scientific Information); citations in articles 1980-82 

referring to articles 1978-80. 



The first column in table 6 shows that Brazilian research was influenced 
mostly by results from North America and then by results from Western Europe 
and from within Brazil. Likewise, comparing to the second and third columns, 
scientists in the rest of Latin America and in Israel were also mainly influenced 



251 



II ! 



by results from North America and then from Western Europe and from within 
their place. These origins of influence are highly similar across the three com- 
pared places. The origins of influence upon the scientists follow the patterns of 
their deference more than the patterns of their travels. Notably, although Brazil- 
ian and other Latin American scientists have traveled much more to Western 
Europe than to North America, they have deferred much more to North American 
science and have been much more influenced by science in North America than 
in Western Europe. 

The first row in table 6 shows that Brazilian scientific results exerted 
some influence on research in the rest of Latin America, but very little on 
research in other continents. By comparison, the second and third rows show 
a little more influence from other Latin American science and much more 
influence from Israeli science upon research in North America, Western 
Europe and elsewhere. 

Table 6 shows that influence has been rather strong between Brazil and the 
rest of Latin America, in both directions, relative to their small influence on 
research elsewhere. This suggests some regional integration in influence. 
Regional integration can be indicated as the occurring influence (in table 6) rela- 
tive to the influence that we should expect if influence were not embedded in par- 
ticular links between countries but influencees were independent of influencers. 
If influence were not selective, influence would just be proportional to the influ- 
encer's tendency to exert influence and also to the influencee's tendency to 
receive influence. This conception of independent influence can be formalized 
— such formalization is considered in Schott (1986), and used in studies of sci- 
entific influence in Schott (1987a, 1988, 1992a). 

The conception of behavioral independence between influencers and 
influencees can be formalized by the model of statistical independence in a 
two-way table and involves computing expected values. The expected values 
are like those for the usual chi-square test of independence in a two-way fre- 
quency table except that we have no diagonal in the table of citations from 
each scientific community to the other communities. Under the model of 
independence, the expected number of citations from an influenced commu- 
nity r to an influencing community c is the product of two numbers P r Q c 
where P r is the tendency of r to cite others and Q c is the tendency of c to be 
cited by others. The expected number can be computed from the observed fre- 
quencies of citations from each community to the other communities. The 
diagonal-less matrix of expected numbers has the same row-sums and column- 
sums as the diagonal-less matrix of observed citations — modeling of a diago- 
nal-less table with formulas for use in computing expected numbers is in Hab- 
erman (1979: chap. 7) and is implemented in publicly available software, Elia- 
son (1990: 16-8). 

The ratio of the observed citations to the expected number of citations is a 
measure of integration in the web of influence. The measures of integration are 

252 



listed in table 7. Integration has been weak to the extent the measure is less than 
1 and integration has been strong to the extent the measure exceeds 1. 

Table 7 

Integrations in influence among national scientific communities 



Influencing (cited) 
scientists 




Influenced 


[citing) scientists 




Brazil 


Other 
LA Israel 


North 
America 


Western 
Europe 


Rest of 
World 


Brazil 




6.8 .8 


1.0 


.9 


1.0 


Other LA 


4.4 


.9 


1.1 


.9 


.9 


Israel 


.7 


.9 


1.1 


.9 


1.0 


North America 


1.0 


1.1 1.1 




1.0 


1.0 


Western Europe 


1.0 


.9 .9 


1.0 




1.0 


Rest of world 


1.2 


.9 .7 


1.0 


1.0 





Note: Influence within each place is here ignored. 
Source: Same as for table 6. 



Table 7 shows in the first row that Brazilian research has been highly inte- 
grated with science in the rest of Latin America, and influence has been more 
than six times higher than expected. Reciprocally, as shown in the first column, 
other Latin American research has also been highly integrated with Brazilian sci- 
ence, and influence has been more than four times higher than expected. Integra- 
tion has been stronger between Brazil and the rest of Latin America, in both 
directions of influence, than between any other listed places. Such regional inte- 
gration also exists among, for example, the Scandinavian national scientific com- 
munities (Schott, 1992a). Contrasting the regional integration in influence, inte- 
gration has been as expected between Brazil and the other major places such as 
North America and Western Europe, but comparatively weak between Brazil and 
Israel that has been integrated with North American science. The Latin Ameri- 
can regional integration in science can be explained by the embeddedness of sci- 
entific ties in integrative links among Latin American countries in other spheres 
of life such as education, religion, language, economy and politics. The scientific 
integration between Israel and North America can be explained by its embedded- 
ness in the strong political, economic and educational links between Israel and 
the United States. Collegial ties between scientists in different countries, more 
generally, tend to be embedded in other links between their societies, notably in 
education, language, politics and economy (Schott, 1988). 

Influence can be indicated not only by citations but also by a survey asking 
scientists to report influence on their research (as discussed in the earlier section 
on Concepts and their indicators). Scientists in Brazil, in the rest of Latin Amer- 

253 



ican, and in Israel named people who had influenced their research. Sources of 
influence are indicated by the distribution of these named influencers across their 
locations (table 8). 

TableS 

Influence upon scientists from local and distant colleagues, circa 1990 

Percentage distribution of influencers named by respondents in Brazil, in other Latin 

America and in Israel 



Brazil 



Other LA 



Israel 



Brazil 
Other LA 
Israel 

North America 
Western Europe 
Rest of world 
N influencers 



43 


4 





1 


35 





I 


1 


26 


25 


32 


55 


25 


25 


13 


6 


4 


7 


408 


710 


110 



Note: The percentages in each column sum to 100 per cent except for rounding. 
Source: Survey of scientists in Brazil, other Latin America and Israel. 



Table 8 shows, like the citations in table 6, that influences upon scientists in 
Brazil, other Latin America, and Israel originate primarily from North America 
and secondarily from Western Europe, with considerable influence from local 
colleagues. These survey responses also indicate, like the citations, that there is a 
small but notable regional integration in influence among scientists in different 
parts of Latin America. 

Influence seems to have changed from 1980 to 1990 as can be seen by juxta- 
posing tables 6 and 8. Around 1980 North American influence upon research in 
Latin America was roughly twice as strong as the influence from Western Europe 
(table 6) but by 1990 North American influence seemed only slightly stronger 
than influence from Western Europe upon research in Latin America (table 8). 
Opposite changes seem to have occurred in the case of influence upon research in 
Israel, namely as follows. Around 1980 North American influence was roughly 
twice that from Western Europe, but by 1990 North American influence was 
roughly four times the influence from Western Europe upon research in Israel. 
These changes in scientific influence may be explained as consequences of 
changes in the political-economic links between the places. During the eighties, 
Latin American political-economic links seem to have grown more with Western 
Europe than with North America. Conversely, West European political-eco- 
nomic links with Israel have cooled during the eighties. Explaining the main dif- 

254 



ferences between tables 6 and 8 as changes in influence resulting from changing 
geopolitical-economic links seems more plausible than attempting to attribute the 
differences between the tables to differences in the data sources (indexed journals 
for one table and sampled scientists for the other table) or in the indicators (cita- 
tions in one table and a questionnaire item in the other table). 



Table 9 

Media channeling influence upon scientists from colleagues 

Percent of the colleagues in each location who influenced through each medium 





Public- 
ations 


Pre- 
prints 


Lect- 
ures 


Disc- 
ussion 


Tele- 
phone 


Fax 


Elec. 

mail 


Post 
mail 


Rumor 


Number of 
colleagues 


Brazil 






















Brazil 


48 


19 


31 


89 


10 


2 


2 


12 


5 


177 


Other LA 


75 


100 


50 


100 











50 





4 


Israel 


100 























50 


2 


North 
America 


94 


22 


16 


24 


1 


1 


1 


6 


12 


101 


Western 
Europe 


97 


19 


26 


50 


2 


3 


6 


17 


9 


101 


Rest of 
world 


91 


29 


9 


22 








9 








23 


Other Latin America 


















Brazil 


50 


4 


31 


85 


4 








15 





26 


Other LA 


42 


11 


25 


96 


4 


2 


3 


9 





244 


Israel 


75 


25 


25 


25 











50 





4 


North 
America 


92 


18 


31 


47 


8 


10 


8 


20 


2 


226 


Western 
Europe 


82 


13 


28 


61 


5 


17 


6 


36 


1 


180 


Rest of 
world 


90 





17 


31 








3 


28 





29 


Israel 






















Israel 


50 


44 


43 


82 


29 


7 


18 


18 


4 


28 


North 
America 


52 


38 


18 


70 


25 


15 


28 


37 


2 


60 


Western 
Europe 


57 


71 


21 


79 


21 





57 


43 





14 


Rest of 
world 


100 


75 


38 


25 


13 


25 


38 


38 


38 


8 



Notes: Number of colleagues in a location is the number of colleagues in that location who were 
reported to have exerted influence through one or more media. The Israeli respondents reported no 
colleagues in Brazil and the rest of Latin America. 
Source: Survey of scientists in Brazil, other Latin America and Israel. 



255 



Influence is channeled through a variety of media, notably publications, pn. 
prints, lectures, discussions, telephone, facsimile messages, postal mail, and pei- 
haps also through rumor. The interviewed scientists reported which one or more 
media channeled influence from each named colleague (table 9). 

The left-most column in the upper part of table 9 shows that Brazilian scien- 
tists were influenced by publications by about half their significant colleagues in 
Brazil, publications by more of their colleagues in the rest of Latin America, and 
publications by the vast majority of their significant colleagues elsewhere. Publi- 
cations were the most frequent medium of influence from colleagues outside 
Latin America. But influence from colleagues in Brazil and in the rest of Latin 
America was more frequently channeled through face-to-face discussions. Also 
other interpersonal media were channels of influence more frequently from local 
and Latin American colleagues than from colleagues outside Latin America. 

Scientists in the other part of Latin America reported influence through the 
various channels to be rather similar to the channels of influence upon Brazilian 
scientists. Face-to-face discussion was the most frequent medium of influence 
from Latin American colleagues and publications were the far most frequent 
medium of influence from colleagues outside Latin America. 

Brazilian scientists, however, differed from scientists in the other part of 
Latin America in that they less frequently were influenced through interpersonal 
media such as face-to-face discussion and postal mail. This difference indicates 
that Brazilian scientists, compared to scientists in the rest of Latin America, were 
slightly less integrated into networks of colleagues in the North American and 
European centers. 

The bottom part of table 9 shows that Israeli scientists differed considerably 
from scientists in Brazil and other parts of Latin America in that publications 
were a less significant channel of influence upon the Israelis, while the interper- 
sonal media were a highly utilized channel of influence, not only from local col- 
leagues but also from colleagues in North America and Europe. Through a mul- 
tiplicity of interpersonal media, Israeli scientists have been intensely integrated 
into circles of colleagues in the world centers, evidently far more integrated than 
Brazilian and other Latin American scientists. 

The influence is exerted through the professional mass media, i.e. publica- 
tions, and through interpersonal media, i.e. direct contact between scientists. 
Each respondent was asked to rate the extent to which each named colleague's 
publications influenced the research of the respondent. The influence from each 
colleague's publications was rated on a scale going from for none through 1 for 
little and 2 for some up to 3 for great influence of the publications on the respon- 
dent (the questionnaire was described in the earlier section on Concepts and their 
indicators). These ratings of influence of each named colleague's publications on 
the respondents can be used to indicate influence from the various places, namely 
as follows. The influence from a place is indicated by the sum of the rated influ- 
ences from the colleagues in that place, as a percentage of the overall sum of 

256 



influences from all the colleagues. A colleague whose publications had no influ- 
ence, i.e. was rated 0, is ignored by the computation, and a colleague weighs 
heavily according to the rated influence. In other words, the computation is a 
weighted distribution across the sources; it is the distribution of the colleagues 
across places where the colleagues are weighted by the rated influence of each 
colleague's publications. This indication of sources of influence through publi- 
cations is listed in the left side of table 10. 

The left-most column in table 10 shows that Brazilian scientists were influ- 
enced through publications written by colleagues mainly in Brazil, North Amer- 
ica, and Europe, and in similar amounts from these three places. Also scientists 
in the rest of Latin America were influenced through publications by colleagues 
from Latin America, North America, and Europe, and in similar degrees from 
these three places. The Latin American scientists differed from the scientists in 
Israel who received influence from publications by colleagues in North America 
much more than in Europe. 

Table 10 

Influence upon scientists from publications and from personal contacts 

Percentage distribution of named colleagues, weighted by their rated 

influence through their publications. 

Percentage distribution of named colleagues, weighted by their rated influence 

through their personal communications 





Influenced from publications 


Influence from contacts 




Brazil 

% 


Other LA 

% 


Israel 
% 


Brazil 

% 


Other LA 

% 


Israel 
% 


Brazil 


30 


3 





65 


4 





Other LA 


1 


21 





1 


45 





Israel 


1 


1 


24 


.4 





28 


North America 


28 


39 


51 


11 


23 


53 


Western Europe 


33 


31 


15 


22 


25 


17 


Rest of world 


8 


5 


11 


2 


2 


3 


N influencing through 
medium 


324 


564 


96 


• 256 


501 


88 



1 



Note: The percentages in each column sum to 100 per cent except for rounding. 
Source: Survey of scientists in Brazil, other Latin America and Israel. 



The respondent was also asked to rate extent of each named colleague's 
influence through personal contact, using the same scale from to 3. The influ- 
ence from a place through personal communication is then indicated by the sum 
of the rated influences from the colleagues in that place. In other words, influ- 

257 



ences from direct contacts in the various places are indicated by the distribution 
of the colleagues weighted by each colleague's direct influence, as listed in the 
right side of table 10. 

The right side of table 10 shows that the personal contacts influencing Bra- 
zilian scientists were mainly with colleagues within Brazil, whereas they were 
less influenced through personal contacts with colleagues in other places such as 
North America and Europe. In this respect, the Brazilian scientists differed from 
scientists in the rest of Latin America, who were more influenced through per- 
sonal contact with colleagues outside Latin America. But the Brazilians and 
other Latin Americans differed more from the scientists in Israel, who were far 
more influenced by personal contact with foreign colleagues, especially in North 
America. 

Influence is an encompassing concept. Influence on research in general 
encompasses influence on selection of problems for research, influence on con- 
ceptual frameworks, influence on methods of investigation, and influence on yet 
other aspects of research. The selection of problems for research is of most inter- 
est for understanding the direction of scientific research. Brazilian agricultural 
researchers have earlier reported to be much influenced by regards for national 
usefulness in their selection of problems for research (Velho, 1990). Here, the 
respondent was asked to rate each named colleague's influence on selection of 
problems for research by the respondent, again using the scale from to 3 as 
described earlier. The sources of influence on problem choice are then indicated 
by the distribution of the ratings across places (table 11). 

Table 11 

Influence upon scientists' problem selection 

Percentage distribution of named colleagues, weighted by their rated influence on the 
respondents* problem selection 



Brazil 

% 



Other LA 



Israel 



Brazil 




42 


4 





Other LA 




1 


34 





Israel 




1 


.4 


24 


North America 




24 


32 


55 


Western Europe 




27 


25 


10 


Rest of world 




5 


4 


11 


N influencing problem 


choice 


382 


633 


99 



Note: The percentages in each column sum to 100 per cent except for rounding. 
Source: Survey of scientists in Brazil, other Latin America and Israel. 



258 



Table 11 shows that the main source of influence on Brazilian scientists' 
selection of problems was their local colleagues. Secondarily, their problem 
choice was influenced by colleagues in North America and in Europe, with influ- 
ences in similar amounts. Their sources were rather similar to the sources influ- 
encing selection of problems for research by other Latin Americans. The scien- 
tists in the rest of Latin America were influenced mainly by Latin American col- 
leagues, secondarily by colleagues in North America, and third most by 
colleagues in Europe. The Brazilian and other Latin American scientists differed 
from the Israeli scientists, who were less influenced by their local colleagues and 
more influenced by their foreign colleagues, especially North Americans, in their 
choice of problems for research. 

The above analyses have disentangled sources and channels of influence on 
research in general and problem selection in particular. The analyses show that 
there has been a small but notable degree of regional integration in influence 
among scientists in Brazil and other parts of Latin America. But Brazilian sci- 
ence, like science done in other Latin America countries, has had little impact on 
research outside Latin America, in contrast to the notably larger impact of sci- 
ence done in Israel. Brazilian research, like research elsewhere in Latin America, 
has been influenced mainly by science done in North America and Europe. Ear- 
lier, North American influence was stronger than influence from Western Europe, 
but during the eighties the European influence has become equally strong. By 
contrast, research in Israel has continually been far most influenced by science in 
North America and this influence has become even stronger during the eighties. 
These influences have been influences on research in general and on problem 
selection in particular. Brazilian scientists, like scientists in the rest of Latin 
America and in Israel, have selected problems under the influence of local col- 
leagues and have been even more influenced by their distant colleagues. The 
influences have been channeled through a variety of media. Brazilian scientists, 
like scientists elsewhere in Latin America, have been influenced by Latin Ameri- 
can colleagues most frequently by face-to-face discussions and other interper- 
sonal media, while influences from outside Latin America have been mediated 
mainly by these distant colleagues' publications. Contrastingly, influences upon 
scientists in Israel from their foreign colleagues have been channeled through a 
multiplicity of media, not primarily through publications but mainly through 
multiple interpersonal media, especially face-to-face discussions, telephone, fac- 
simile messages, electronic mail, and postal mail. The Israeli scientists have 
been more intensely integrated into circles of distant colleagues, especially in 
North America. Israeli scientists' strong international integration is in some 
degree a consequence of their past high performance, but the high integration has 
a separate and considerably enhancing effect on performance — the enhancing 
effect of integration on performance was estimated in another study; Schott 
(1987a). 



259 



i 

1 



Influence is the intellectual substance of collegial ties in science. Another 
kind of intellectual role-relation among scientists is collaboration. 

Collaboration 

To what extents have Brazilian scientists been collaborating with local, 
Latin American and distant colleagues? Conversely, to what degrees have they 
been sought out for collaboration by scientists in various other places? Has there 
been a notable degree of regional integration among Latin American scientists in 
collaboration? How has Brazilian collaboration changed in recent decades, in 
science-as-a- whole and in each discipline? How does Brazilian collaboration 
compare to the collaboration of scientists in the rest of Latin America and in 
Israel? These questions will be answered in this section. 

Scientists' collaboration will be indicated first by scientists' own reports 
about joint research. In the survey in Brazil and elsewhere, each respondent was 
asked to rate the extent of collaboration with each colleague named by the 
respondent (as discussed in the earlier section on Concepts and their indicators). 
Each colleague's collaboration was rated on the scale going from for none 
through 1 for little and 2 for some and up to 3 for much collaboration with the 
respondent. The respondents' extent of collaboration with colleagues in a partic- 
ular place can then be indicated by the sum of the rated collaboration with col- 
leagues in that place, computed as a percentage of the overall sum of collabora- 
tion with all colleagues. In other words, the extent of collaboration with various 
places is indicated by the distribution of the colleagues across places, where each 
colleague is weighted by her or his rated collaboration (table 12). 

Table 12 

Collaboration with local and foreign colleagues 

Percentage distribution of named colleagues, weighted by their rated collaboration 

with the respondents 



Brazil 



Other LA 



Israel 



Brazil 
Other LA 
Israel 

North America 
Western Europe 
Rest of world 
N collaborators 



66 


5 








47 











26 


9 


21 


55 


25 


24 


18 


1 


3 


1 


190 


425 


71 



Note: The percentages in each column sum to 100 per cent except for rounding. 
Source: Survey of scientists in Brazil, other Latin America and Israel. 



260 



Table 12 shows that Brazilian scientists have been collaborating mainly with 
colleagues within the country, secondarily with colleagues in Europe and thirdly 
with colleagues in North America. Scientists in the other part of Latin America 
had about half of their collaboration with Latin American colleagues, and most of 
the other half with colleagues in Europe and North America. Israeli scientists 
had only about one fourth of their collaboration with local colleagues, most of 
their collaboration was with colleagues in North America, and a small fraction 
was with colleagues in Europe. A notable difference is that the Israelis have 
mainly been collaborating with the center in North America, whereas the Brazil- 
ians' foreign collaboration has been mainly in Europe. 

Table 13 

Collaboration among national scientific communities, 70's and 80's 

Percentage of the articles by authors in the scientific community (column) which have 
coauthors in other institutions (rows) 



Authors 


Coauthors Brazil 


Other 
LA 


Israel 


North 

America 


Western 
Europe 


Rest of 

world 


70's 80's 


70's 80's 


70's 80's 


70's 80's 


70's 80's 


70's 80's 



Brazil 16.1 .8 .1 .1 .1 .02 

19.7 1.1 .2 .1 .2 .05 

Other LA L9 20.8 .1 .2 .1 .06 

2.4 22.8 .1 .3 .3 .13 

Israel .3 .1 25.7 .3 .2 .03 

-5 .2 29.9 .5 .4 .07 

North 

America 12.8 12.8 10.3 31.0 4.2 2.4 

13.6 14.1 17.0 36.9 - 6.9 3.9 

Western 

Europe 8.5 6.1 6.0 3.3 26.1 2.7 

12.4 9.7 10.6 5.5 35.9 4.5 

Rest of 

world 2.0 2.1 0.8 1.5 2.1 17.1 

3.2 3.9 1.5 2.5 3.6 22.0 

N articles 6,149 14,252 20,916 814,350 628,527 500,696 

8,452 18,523 24,534 873,649 696,177 561,055 

Notes: The percentages in each column sum to less than 100 per cent insofar as many articles are not 
coauthored. The 70's denote 1973-79 and the 80's denote 1980-86. 

Source: Science citation index from 1973 to 1986 (Institute for Scientific Information); dataset com- 
piled by CHI Research; Stevens (1990). 



261 



Scientists' collaboration with others can also be indicated by the extent to 
which their publications are coauthored with people at other institutions, either 
within the country or in other countries. To detect change over time, the degrees 
of local and foreign collaboration are listed for both the earliest and latest periods 
for which data are available (table 13). 

The coauthorships in table 13 are similar to scientists* reported collabora- 
tions in table 12, which show that the indicators have satisfactory reliability. The 
Brazilians' most extensive collaboration with colleagues at other institutions has 
been with colleagues at other Brazilian institutions. An earlier study observed a 
rather extensive in-house publication (i.e. publishing in printed materials issued 
by the institution of the author) and that the publications had 13 to 20 per cent of 
their citations to publications by scientists at other Brazilian institutions and on 
this basis concluded that there was very little communication between scientists 
at different Brazilian institutions (Velho & Krige, 1984). This percentage, how- 
ever, is quite high compared to the less than 1 per cent of the world literature that 
is written by Brazilian scientists, so the observed percentages actually indicate a 
considerable communication among Brazilian institutions. That Brazilians col- 
laborate more with colleagues at other Brazilian institutions than with peers in 
any other country and that this percentage is not much lower than the percentage 
of other Latin American's publications that are with colleagues at other Latin 
American institutions (a pool of publications about twice that in Brazil) or the 
percentage of Israeli's publications that are with peers at other Israeli institutions 
(a pool of publications about twice that in Brazil), as shown in table 13, also indi- 
cate considerable collegial ties among the Brazilian institutions, quite compara- 
ble to those among other Latin American institutions and among Israeli institu- 
tions. 

Table 13 shows that the foreign collaboration has been concentrated in 
North America and Europe. The foreign collaboration from the seventies to the 
mid-eighties was apparently mainly with North American colleagues (table 13), 
but then became mainly with European colleagues (table 12). The Brazilians' 
switch in collaboration from North America toward Europe is consistent with the 
switch in Brazilians' received influence, from mainly American influence toward 
mainly European influence (as was discussed in the preceding section). 

Table 13 shows that Brazilian scientists' collaboration has increased from 
the seventies to the eighties, both with colleagues at other Brazilian institutions 
and with colleagues in every foreign place. But their foreign collaboration has 
increased at a faster rate than their local collaboration. This fast increase in for- 
eign collaboration is not unique to Brazil but obtains in every place as shown in 
the table. The increasing transnational collaboration is part of the globalization 
of science, which may be partly explained by the embeddedness of scientific ties 
in links among nations in spheres such as the economy and the polity which are 
in a process of globalization (Schott, 1991b). 

262 



Table 13 shows that Brazilian scientists have had some collaboration with 
colleagues in the rest of Latin America. Their Latin American collaboration has 
been small relative to their collaboration with colleagues in North America or 
Europe, but evidently large compared to, say, Israeli scientists' collaboration with 
colleagues in Latin America. This suggests some regional integration in collabo- 
ration within Latin America. To highlight this integration we can control for the 
tendency of each country's scientists to collaborate. 

Integration in collaboration between places can be indicated by their actual 
coauthorships relative to their expected frequency if collaboration occurred inde- 
pendently between scientific communities, that is, in proportion to each commu- 
nity's tendency for outside collaboration. The expected frequency of coauthor- 
ships between two communities can be computed from the diagonal-less matrix 
of coauthorships, like earlier described for influence. Integration in collaboration 
between two places is then indicated by the ratio of the actual coauthorships to 
their expected frequence. The resulting measures of integration in collaboration 
are listed in table 14. Collaboration between two places is dense to the extent the 
measure exceeds 1 and collaboration is sparse to the degree the measure is less 
than 1. 

Table 14 

Integration in collaboration among national scientific communities, 70's and 80's 

Authors 



Coauthors 



Brazil 



Other 
LA 



North Western Rest of 

Israel America Europe world 



70's 80's 70's 80's 70's 80's 70's 80's 70*s 80's 70's 80's 



Brazil 4.2 .7 1.3 .9 .4 

4.5 .7 1.1 1.0 .6 

Other LA 4.2 .3 1.4 .7 .5 

4.5 .2 1.3 .8 .7 

Israel .7 .3 1.5 .9 .3 

.7 .2 1.5 .9 .3 

North America 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.0 1.0 

1.1 1.3 1.5 1.0 1.0 

Western Europe .9 .7 ,9 1.0 1.1 

1.0 .8 .9 1.0 1.1 

Rest of world .4 .5 .3 1.0 1.1 

.6 .7 .3 1.0 1.1 

Notes: The 70's denote 1973-79 and the 80's denote 1980-86. 
Source: Same as tablel3. 



263 



Table 14 shows that there has been a considerable regional integration in 
collaboration between Brazilians and scientists in the rest of Latin America, and 
collaboration has been four times more frequent than expected. The regional 
integration in Latin America has exceeded the integration in collaboration 
between Israelis and scientists in North America which has also been strong. The 
integration in Latin America has even increased slightly from the seventies to the 
eighties. In the seventies Brazilian researchers collaborated especially much 
with colleagues in North America, but that integration has weakened and instead 
Brazilians have intensified collaboration with colleagues in Western Europe and 
other parts of the world. 

Collaboration varies from one discipline to another. Collaboration may be 
easier in some disciplines than in others, perhaps especially long-distance collab- 
oration. Research in some disciplines may be so complex that it requires exten- 
sive collaboration. The extents of local and foreign collaboration in each disci- 
pline can be indicated by the frequency of coauthorships, listed in table 15. 



Table 15 . 
Collaboration with local and foreign colleagues, by discipline, 70's and 80's 

The percentage of the articles involving scientists in Brazil (and in the rest of Latin 

America, and in Israel) which had coauthors at other institutions within the country, and 

the percentage which had coauthors abroad 



Local collaboration 



Foreign collaboration 



Brazil 



Other LA 



Israel 



Brazil 



Other LA 



Israel 



70*s 80's 70's 80's 70's 80's 70's 80's 70's 80*s 70's 80's 



Science-as-a-whole 18 23 24 27 28 35 25 32 24 30 17 28 

clinical medicine 27 33 34 39 55 61 19 31 17 20 10 15 

biomedicine 21 29 19 26 23 30 21 33 20 28 20 33 

biology 22 25 16 21 22 26 34 36 35 41 11 22 

chemistry 16 21 10 13 11 16 17 19 19 23 14 27 

Physics 13 17 18 23 16 15 28 31 37 35 27 50 

earth & space science 10 10 12 13 16 22 48 47 59 74 26 47 

technological science 12 20 16 23 12 13 35 44 29 38 17 28 

mathematics 4 13 8 7 5 9 43 47 42 38 38 53 



Notes: The 70's denote 1973-79 and the 80's denote 1980-1986. 

The number of articles involving Brazilian authors (and authors in each of the other two places) in 
each discipline in each period is at least 238. 

Source: Science citation index from 1973 to 1986 (Institute for Scientific Information): dataset com- 
piled by CHI Research. 



264 



Table 15 shows that collaboration varied considerably among the disci- 
plines^ In all three places collaboration in mathematics has been infrequent 
within the place but frequent with foreigners, which is undoubtedly due to the 
ease of long-distance collaboration in this discipline that does not depend on 
tinkering with apparatus for making empirical observations and experiments. 
The more experimental disciplines have higher degrees of local collaboration. 

The increase in both local and foreign collaboration in science as a whole 
has occurred in some disciplines more than in others. In Brazilian earth and 
space science there has been no increase in local or in foreign collaboration. But 
there have been considerable increases in local collaboration in mathematics, 
technological science and biomedicine and in foreign collaboration in technolog- 
ical science, biomedicine, and clinical medicine. The simultaneous increases in 
local and foreign collaboration suggest that a discipline may be both local and 
cosmopolitan in its collaborative orientations. 

The above analyses of collaboration have shown that Brazilian scientists 
have had a considerable degree of collaboration with one another and with for- 
eign colleagues, mainly in North America earlier and increasingly in Western 
Europe. They have also had a notable collaboration with colleagues in other 
Latin American countries, so that there is some regional integration in collabora- 
tion, but the regional collaboration is infrequent compared to the extensive col- 
laboration with colleagues in the North American and European centers. 

Communal attachments: emulation and recognition 

The above analyses of influence and collaboration have examined the scien- 
tists' intellectual integration into collegial networks. A scientist lives not only 
from intellectual material. The intellectual integration is also sustained by a 
social integration, by the scientist's communal attachments to her collegial circle 
which in turn integrates her into wider circles in the world scientific community. 
A scientist's social integration will here be examined in terms of her emulation 
with colleagues and her caring about receiving collegial recognition of her work. 

Emulation refers to the desire to excel, the ambition to equal or surpass 
others (the word emulation also occasionally denotes imitation but that is not 
the meaning used here). A researcher competes with others in the perfor- 
mance of the scientific role, and competes with others in the creation of con- 
tributions to public knowledge, specifically for rewards for making contribu- 
tions. Emulation was tapped in the survey of scientists in Brazil, in other parts 
of Latin America, and in Israel by asking each respondent to rate the degree of 
felt competition with each named colleague to be first or best in research. The 
respondent rated competition with each colleague on the scale from for none 
up to 3 for much competition with the colleague. Sources of emulation are 
then indicated by the distribution of the colleagues, weighted by their degree 
of competition (table 16). 



265 



Table 16 

Emulation of local and distant colleagues 

Percentage distribution of named colleagues, weighted by their rated extent of 
competition with the respondents 



Brazil 



Other LA 

% 



Israel 



Brazil 
Other LA 
Israel 

North America 
Western Europe 
Rest of world 
N emulators 



64 


3 








35 





2 





25 


5 


40 


48 


27 


21 


15 


3 


1 


11 


75 


158 


53 



Note: The percentages in each column sum to 100 per cent except for rounding. 
Source: Survey of scientists in Brazil, other Latin America and Israel. 



Emulation is seen, from table 16, to originate partly from the local environ- 
ment and partly from abroad, but the scientists differ in their feelings of local ver- 
sus foreign competition. The Brazilian scientists feel competition mainly from 
their local colleagues, some from their European colleagues but little from their 
North American colleagues. Scientists in other parts of Latin America feel less 
competition from their local colleagues but feel much more competition from 
their North American colleagues. Scientists in Israel feel even less local compe- 
tition and even more competition from North American colleagues. Therefore, 
also in terms of emulation, Brazilian scientists seem less integrated into the world 
scientific community than other Latin American scientists and, especially, than 
scientists in Israel. 

Social integration can also be ascertained in terms of caring for collegial 
recognition as a validation and a social reward available for the performance 
of the scientific role. Scientists often care about receiving recognition for 
their work, but they consider recognition more important from some than 
from others. Each respondent rated her/his caring about receiving recogni- 
tion of her/his work from each named colleague, using the scale from to 3. 
The distribution of the colleagues, weighted by the salience of their recogni- 
tion, indicates the salience of various places as valued sources of recognition 
(table 17). 

266 



Table 17 

Importance of receiving recognition from local and distant colleagues 

Percentage distribution of named colleagues, weighted by their rated importance 
as recognizers of the respondent's work 



Brazil 



Other LA 



Israel 
% 



Brazil 
Other LA 
Israel 

North America 
Western Europe 
Rest of world 
N recognizers 



51 


4 





1 


35 





•4 


1 


28 


20 


32 


49 


23 


26 


15 


5 


3 


3 


338 


629 


100 



Note: The percentages in each column sum to 100 per cent except for rounding. 
Source: Survey of scientists in Brazil, other Latin America and Israel. 



Recognition is valued from local colleagues and from foreign colleagues. 
But the salience of the local environment and of foreign places as sources of rec- 
ognition differ among the respondents. Brazilian scientists attach about the same 
importance to local and foreign sources of recognition. Scientists in other parts 
of Latin America attach less importance to local recognition and more impor- 
tance to recognition from colleagues in North America. Israeli scientists attach 
even less significance to local recognition and care even more about recognition 
from their collegues in North America. 

In short, the scientists are not only intellectual lly but also socially integrated 
in terms of emulating and desiring recognition from local and distant colleagues. 
Brazilian scientists seem a little more integrated with local colleagues and a little 
less with distant colleagues than do scientists in other parts of Latin America and, 
especially, than do scientists in Israel. 



Audience-orientations 

The last kind of role-relation among scientists to be examined here is the ori- 
entation towards collegial audiences. A scientist makes her/his findings common 
property by publishing them and may often want to reach the widest possible 
audience, namely the global scientific community in the scientist's specialty, but 
a scientist also has a primary audience, the colleagues that are primarily 
addressed. 



267 



Scientists' addressing of audiences can be indicated by where they publish 
their articles. They publish some works in locally published journals and some in 
journals published in various other places. The distribution of articles written by 
authors in a scientific community across places of publication is listed in a col- 
umn in table 18. As emphasized at the beginning of this essay, however, this 
study does not examine research for local consumption, but focuses on research 
contributing to world science. Specifically, for example, the distribution in the 
first column of table 18 largely ignores Brazilian authors' works in Brazilian 
journals published mainly in Portuguese and in other Latin American journals 
published mainly in Spanish. Rather, the first column shows the primary audi- 
ences that Brazilian authors address when they present their contributions to 
world science. 

Table IS 

Audience-seeking among national scientific communities, 1982 

Percentage distribution of the articles written by authors in the scientific community 
(column) across places of publication (rows) 











Author 








publication 


Brazil 


Other 
LA 


Israel 


North 
America 


Western 
Europe 


Rest of F. 
World 


Second 
World 


T. World 
(ex LA) 


Brazil 


13.5 


.04 


.0 


.00 


.00 


.00 


.00 


.00 


Other LA 


.5 


20.9 


.0 


.03 


.01 


.01 


.00 


.04 


Israel 


.0 


.3 


11.1 


.04 


.07 


.00 


.01 


.06 


North America 


44.1 


41,4 


46.1 


77.6 


24.2 


26.3 


6.3 


24.8 


Western Europe 


39.1 


35.6 


41.0 


21.1 


73.5 


39.0 


16.3 


39.2 


Rest of First World 


.4 


.3 


.4 


.4 


.3 


33.8 


.6 


.7 


Second World 


2.1 


1.5 


1.0 


.8 


1.8 


.8 


76.8 


4.3 


Third World 
(ex LA) 


.5 


.0 


.3 


.1 


.1 


.1 


.0 


31.0 


N articles by 
authors in place 


1,060 


2,233 


3.795 


187,054 


135,028 


8,987 


33,350 


15,689 



Notes: The percentages in each column sum to 100 per cent except for rounding. 

Rest of First World denotes Japan, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand; the Second World denotes 

the then communist East Bloc of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe; and the Third World, excluding 

Latin America, denotes most of Asia and Africa. 

Source: Science citation index for 1982 (Institute for Scientific Information). 



The first column of table 18 shows that Brazilian authors had their primary 
audiences in North America and Europe. Also authors in the rest of Latin Amer- 
ica and in Israel addressed these primary audiences. Authors in North America 
and in Western Europe addressed their works primarily toward their local col- 

268 



leagues. Authors in the rest of the so-called First World addressed themselves 
toward local audiences and audiences in Europe and North America. Works by 
authors in the then communist countries, the so-called Second World, were 
addressed mainly to local audiences, much less often were their primary audi- 
ences in Western Europe and even far less frequently in North America. Authors 
in the so-called Third World (here excluding Latin America listed in other col- 
umns) addressed local audiences and audiences in Europe and North America. 
Nowhere outside Brazil did authors notably address colleagues in Brazil. And 
nowhere outside Latin America did authors notably address colleagues in Latin 
America. Only to a very small extent did Brazilian authors address collegial 
audiences in the rest of Latin America and to an even lesser extent did authors in 
the rest of Latin America address a Brazilian audience. The smallness of this ori- 
entation is probably due to the difference in language, Portuguese in Brazil and 
Spanish elsewhere in Latin America. 

The phenomenon of audience-orientation can of course also be viewed from 
the other end of the tie, the audience. The attraction of each national scientific 
community as a primary audience can be indicated by the extent to which their 
locally published journals are outlets for works by authors around the world. 
This is indicated by counts of articles by various countries' authors published in 
journals in various countries as for table 18, but now percentaging across coun- 
tries of authors, as listed in a row in table 19. 

The first row in table 19 shows that Brazilian scientists have been a primary 
audience only for work by local authors. They have not been an audience addressed 
by foreign authors. The second row shows that scientists in the rest of Latin America 
have been an audience for work by Latin American authors and also somewhat of an 
audience for work by authors outside Latin America, notably work by authors in 
North America. Scientists in Israel have also been an audience for local work and 
also rather frequently a significant audience for work by foreign authors. Likewise, 
scientists in each part of the First World have been an attractive audience for local 
work and also for work by others. Scientists in the Second World were an audience 
mainly for local work and much less for work by authors in the First or Third Worlds. 
Scientists in the Third World have been an audience mainly for local work and, like 
Brazilian scientists, have hardly been addressed by other authors. 

Audience-seeking and audience-attraction result partly from the performance 
of authors in the various scientific communities, partly from the volume of main- 
stream publications published in the various countries, the preferences of authors in 
certain places for publishing in certain places, and of course also the quality of the 
journals through which the audience-seeking is expressed. 

Journals 

The last aspect of the research enterprise to be examined here is the journals 
through which the scientists present their contributions to the common stock of 

269 



1 



00 
0\ 



B 

a 
E 

e 

o 
{J 
y 

•J3 
C 

^ -a 
3 .S 

(SO 

c 
o 

6 

a 

C 

.2 

o 





c 



< 



3 

s 



8 



■° 2 
a* 

'I" 

CO o 

o 



o 

E 

.2 

3 

B 

ea 

s 
u 

a 



■a" 

a § 



12 

o 

3 






^3 






j£U 



II 






ffl 



B 
O 



v> 






S 


ft 


«3 


o 

CO 






(T> 


VO 


■* 


o 


m 






~1 ^ 

-- pi 



PI CI 



CM 



U3 



o 






PI 



— » \o 



pi' 



r— 
r- 



r< — 



o 



—. a 



— — O 



PI M — W- 



co 



-*■ 




E 


ifl 


J 




< 


E 




"S 




a 


■a 


& 


£ 


o 




Z 



I 

iE 






I 



XI 

H 



s 



8- 
a 3 

.. u 

is a 

•Z. w 



knowledge. I shall examine the influence of a journal on subsequent research. 
Brazilian journals shall be compared to journals published in the rest of Latin 
America, in Israel, and to the mainstream journals in the world (whether or not to 
include a journal of course occasionally becomes a conflict; for a Latin American 
case, see Vessuri, 1987). The journals to be examined are those that have been 
covered by the Journal citation reports of the Science citation index during 1975- 
88. The Brazilian journals are: 

Revista Brasileira de Medicina in internal and general medicine; 

Revista Brasileira de Pesquisas Medicos e Bioldgicas in internal and general 
medicine; 

Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research in experimental and 
research medicine; 

Memdrias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz in experimental and research medicine; 

Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo in tropical medicine; 

Arquivos da Escola de Veterindria da Universidade Federal de Minos Gerais in 
veterinary medicine; 

Revista Brasileira de Genitica in genetics and heredity; 

Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias in multidisciplinary sciences; and 

Pesquisa Agropecudria Brasileira in multidisciplinary sciences. 

Their six fields are classes constructed by the source of these data which 
also provided the classification of the Brazilian journals except two (Revista 
Brasileira de Medicina and Pesquisa Agropecudria Brasileira) which we classi- 
fied into one of these six fields mainly according to the provided classification of 
journals that they referred to. 

These Brazilian journals shall be compared to the journals in their field 
which were also covered by the Science citation index. The index in the period 
1975 to 1988 included 433 journals in these six fields, namely 109 journals in 
internal and general medicine, 55 in experimental and research medicine, 14 in 
tropical medicine, 93 in veterinary medicine, 74 in genetics and heredity, and 88 
in multidisciplinary sciences, but not all these journals were included in a partic- 
ular year. 

These fields in the index also included seven journals published in the rest of 
Latin America, namely; 



270 



271 



Archivos de Biologia y Medicina Experimentales in internal and general medi- 
cine; 

Medicina — Buenos Aires in internal and general medicine; 

Revista de Investigacidn Clinica in internal and general medicine; 

Revista Midica de Chile in internal and general medicine; 

Archivos de Investigacidn Medica in experimental and research medicine; 

Interciencia in multidisciplinary sciences; and 

Acta Cientifica Venezolana in multidisciplinary sciences. 

The six fields in the index also included four journals published in Israel, 
namely: 

HaRefuah in internal and general medicine; 

Israel Journal of Medical Sciences in internal and general medicine; 

Refitah Veterinarith in veterinary sciences; and 

IsraelJournal of Technology in multidisciplinary sciences. 

These journals will be compared to the journals published in Brazil with 
respect to their influence. The influence of a journal refers to the impact of its 
articles on further research, like the phenomenon of influence of people exam- 
ined earlier in this study. Influence of an article can be indicated by its subse- 
quent citations, citations in subsequent publications referring to the article (as 
influence was also operationalized for table 6). Such frequency of citations to the 
articles appearing in the journal have been listed in the Journal citation reports 
(Institute for Scientific Information, annually) published together with the Sci- 
ence citation index. More precisely, this measure of impact of a journal in a year 
is the ratio of the number of citations' given in the year referring to articles that 
appeared in the preceding two-year period to the number of these articles in that 
period in the journal. The influence of a journal is hereby measured as the aver- 
age impact of its articles and is thus not affected by the number of articles appear- 
ing in the journal (considerations of this impact measure are provided by Sivert- 
sen, 1991: 64-8). 

A journal may be compared each year to the other journals in its field which 
are reported in the Journal citation reports in the year. The reported journals can 

272 



be ranked according to their impact each year. The percentile rank of a particular 
journal denotes the percentage of the reported journals in its field that have 
impact at or lower than the particular journal. The annual percentile rank of each 
Brazilian, other Latin American and Israeli journal, within their fields, are listed 
in table 20. A journal is of course ranked only for those years in which its impact 
measure was reported in the data source. 

Tabela20 

Influence of journals, by field and year, 1975-88 

Percentile rank of each Brazilian, other Latin American and Israeli journal 
1975 76 77 78 79 '80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 *88 
Internal and general medicine: 
Revista Brasileira de Medicina 

121221211111 
Revista Brasileira de Pesquisas Me'dicas e Bioldgicas 

4 2 8 6 7 

Archivos de Biologia y Medicina Experimentales 

47 65 69 50 63 60 59 59 58 

Medicina — Buenos Aires 

43 17 57 47 49 52 53 40 40 27 35 34 42 29 
Revista de Investigacidn Clinica 

14 33 21 27 31 23 38 27 13 19 13 19 3 4 
Revista Midica de Chile 

11 20 31 26 13 20 24 17 35 20 33 21 22 12 
HaRefuah 

3 5 

Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 

53 57 69 63 60 67 59 53 62 45 42 40 38 41 
Experimental and research medicine: 
Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 

28 47 31 25 29 28 30 

(cont.) 



273 



(cont.) 



1975 '76 '77 *78 '79 '80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 

^ ^ ^ 

Memdrias do Institute Oswaido Cruz 

n 

Archivos de Investigacidn Midica 

8 7 17 12 6 38 10 21 5 8 2 2 2 6 
Tropical medicine: 
Revista do Institute/ de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo 

16 28 21 30 

Veterinary medicine: 

Arquivos da Escola de Vererindria da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais 

2 2 3 5 2 1.... 
Refuak Veterinarith 

. 32 25 

Genetics and heredity: 
Revista Brasileira de Genitica 

4 4 6 7 .11 

Multidisciplinary sciences: 

Anais da Academia Brasileira de CUncias 

28 5 15 51 34 29 29 41 22 49 23 17 10 12 
PesquisaAgropecudria Brasileira 

10 3 3 5 6 5 

Interciencia 

. 29 52 52 26 20 33 45 51 60 37 29 
Acta Cienttfica Venezolana 

33 22 50 42 42 38 20 . ■ 

Israel Journal of Technology 

45 49 25 7 19 8 12 23 1 11 

Note: Years in which influence was not reported are indicated by a dot (.). 

Source: Journal citation reports for 1975 to 1988 (Institute for Scientific Information), 



274 



Before interpreting the rankings in table 20, 1 reemphasize that the journals 
included in the Journal citation reports (as in the Science citation index) are 
largely the journals that are of eminence. Therefore, the listed journals and their 
comparisons are largely journals with considerable influence, so the ranking is 
among influential journals. A journal listed with a low percentile rank is thus a 
journal which seemingly is influential and much more influential than most jour- 
nals in the world (largely those that are not included in the data source) but is not 
among the few most influential journals in its field. Table 20 shows a tendency 
for the least influential ones to be included only occasionally, notably the two 
Israeli journals with titles in Hebrew for medicine and veterinary medicine (in 
HaRefuah the articles are published in Hebrew and the abstracts are also pub- 
lished in English). 

The first row of table 20 shows that the Revista Brasileira de Medicina has 
not been one of the top journals among the covered journals in internal and gen- 
eral medicine which were reported in the Journal citation reports. Another Bra- 
zilian journal in the same field, Revista Brasileira de Pesquisas Medicos e 
Biologicas, has also not been among the top journals. The four journals pub- 
lished elsewhere in Latin America have ranked somewhat high while one Israeli 
journal ranked low and one Israeli journal ranked rather high among the covered 
journals in internal and general medicine. 

In experimental and research medicine, the Brazilian Journal of Medical 
and Biological Research has been quite influential while another Brazilian jour- 
nal, Memdrias do Instituto Oswaido Cruz, was less influential (and was probably 
found not to be so influential as to be covered since the seventies). A journal 
published elsewhere in Latin America has been among the rather influential jour- 
nals in experimental medicine. 

In tropical medicine, the Brazilian journal Revista do Instituto de Medicina 
Tropical de Sao Paulo has been quite influential. 

In veterinary medicine, the Brazilian journal Arquivos da Escola de Veteri- 
ndria da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais has been one of the less influen- 
tial ones and also the Israeli journal Refuah Veterinarith has been one of the less 
influential ones among the covered journals in the field. 

The journal Revista Brasileira de Genitica has been among the less influen- 
tial ones in genetics and heredity. 

In the multidiciplinary sciences, the Anais da Academia Brasileira de Cien- 
cias has been of changing influence, apparently more influential around the first 
half of the eighties than earlier and later. The other Brazilian journal in this field, 
Pesquisa Agropecudria Brasileira, has been among the less influential one. The 
two journals published elsewhere in Latin America have been somewhat more 
influential, while the Israeli journal has apparently become less influential over 
time. 

To summarize these rankings among the influential journals within each 
field, about a handful of Brazilian journals have evidently been among the highly 



275 



influential journals in the world, and a couple of these Brazilian journals have 
actually been especially influential. Another handful have been somewhat influ- 
ential. Apart from annual fluctuations which may be due to just an occasional 
influential article, the influence of each Brazilian journal has apparently been 
rather stable over the years, with the exception of one journal that apparently had 
an especially influential period. Among the other Latin American and Israeli 
journals in these fields, some were more and some were less influential, and most 
were stable but several were apparently of declining influence. Compared to the 
mixed stable and declining influence of journals published in the rest of Latin 
America arid Israel, the stability of influence of the Brazilian journals appears as 
a slight comparative increase. 

Conclusions 

The above series of analyses were undertaken to answer the question of how 
Brazilian scientific performance, specialization and ties with local, regional and 
central colleagues have been shaped by the institutionalization of science in Bra- 
zil. Therefore trends in Brazilian research were ascertained and Brazil was com- 
pared to the other Latin America and to Israel which have had similar and differ- 
ent, respectively, institutional arrangements. 

Science has become institutionalized in Brazil insofar as it has become 
rather appreciated and been granted considerable autonomy and some support. 
Scientific activities such as research and training of researchers, however, have 
been concentrated in a fraction of the universities in Brazil and elsewhere in 
Latin America, unlike in Israel where scientific research and training has been 
the primary purpose at all the universities. 

This difference between Brazil, or Latin America more generally, and Israel 
in their institutional arrangements for science has enhanced scientific perfor- 
mance in Israel so that research performance has been higher in Israel than in 
Brazil and in the rest of Latin America. Israeli performance has been higher not 
only relative to population and the economy but also in total, despite the small- 
ness of the country. But scientific research has expanded in Brazil, and the Bra- 
zilian rate of increase was higher than in the rest of Latin America, in Israel, and 
• in the world as a whole. The Brazilian performance has been increasing through- 
out the eighties. A decline in social and human investment in scientific activity 
takes some years to cause a decline in the outcomes of research. The recent Bra- 
zilian crisis has not showed up as a decline in the Brazilian publications by 1993, 
but will probably entail a decline within a few years. 

Brazilian research has been specialized insofar as certain disciplines and 
specialties have been foci of scientists' attention in Brazil more than elsewhere. 
Brazilian specialization has emphasized the disciplines of physics, biology and 
mathematics, it has been more typical in biomedicine and earth and space sci- 
ence, and has de-emphasized clinical medicine, chemistry and technological sci- 

276 



ence. Within medicine, though, tropical medicine and parasitology have been 
fields of strong specialization in Brazil, like in other parts of Latin America, but 
unlike in Israel where specialization has focused on mathematics and fertility. 
Brazilian growth has been highest in technological science, especially in fields of 
computing. These directions of Brazilian specialization seem shaped by national 
needs and research policies. 

Brazilian scientists have been tied to colleagues who have influenced their 
research, and also been variously collaborators and competitors in research, and 
often also been significant recognizers of their work. None of these ties have 
been confined within Brazil but have also been rather extensive with foreign col- 
leagues. Brazilian research has been integrated with science in the rest of Latin 
America insofar as regional influence and collaboration have been higher than 
expected. This integration in collegial ties has been promoted by their embed- 
dedness in the strong links between Brazil and the rest of Latin America in other 
spheres of life. The regional integration has been notable but has been overshad- 
owed by the attachment to the centers of science, located in North America and 
Western Europe. Scientists in Brazil, like elsewhere, have deferred mainly to 
these centers, have traveled there, been influenced by science in the centers, 
occasionally collaborated there and valued recognition from colleagues in the 
centers. The involvement of Brazilian scientists with the centers, though, has 
been slightly less than the involvement of other Latin American scientists and 
much less than the participation of Israeli scientists in the centers. The Israeli ties 
with the centers, especially the North American center, have been enhanced by 
their embeddedness in the strong political and economic links between Israel and 
the United States and also by institutional arrangements for science such as com- 
prehensive scientific cooperation agreements with the centers and travel funds 
which are results of Israeli research policies enhancing research performance 
through integration with centers of science. 



Bibliography 

Adas, Michael. Men, machines as the measure of men: science, technology and 
ideologies of Western domination. Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University Press, 1989. 

. Scientific standards and colonial education in British India and French 

Senegal. In: Meade, Teresa & Walker, Mark (eds.). Science, medicine and cul- 
tural imperialism. New York, St. Martin's Press, 1991. pp. 4-35. 



Albornoz, Orlando. Latin America. In: Altbach, Philip G. (ed.). International 
higher education: an encyclopedia. New York, Garland, 1991. pp. 853-67. 



277 



Altbach, Philip G. & Selvaratnam, Viswanathan (eds.). From dependence to 
autonomy: the development of Asian universities. Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1989. 

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined communities. London, Verso, 1983. 

Apter, David E. The role of the new scientific elite and scientific idelology in 
modernization. In: Restivo, Sal P. & Vanderpool, Christopher K. (eds.). Compar- 
ative studies in science and society. Columbus, Ohio, Merrill, 1974. pp. 398-408. 

Ben-David, Joseph. Scientific endeavor in Israel and the United States. The 
American Behavioral Scientist, 6 (4): 12-6, Dec. 1962. 

. Mada BaEretz Katana [Science in a small country]. HaOniversita, 

Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 10:12-1, 1964. 



. Report on a visit to Brazil. Rio de Janeiro, Financiadora de Estudos e 

Projetos, 1976 [manuscript; translated and published in 1987 as listed below]. 

. The scientist's role in society; a comparative study. [1971] 2nd ed. Chi- 
cago, University of Chicago Press, 1984. 

. Universities in Israel: dilemmas of growth, diversification and adminis- 
tration. Studies in Higher Education, 11: 105-30, 1986. 

. Universidade e ciencia observadas por Ben-David. Relatoiio de uma 

visita ao Brasil (25 de julho — 8 de agosto de 1976). Ciencia Hoje, 7:68-73, 
Nov. 1987. 



. Scientific growth: essays on the social organization and ethos of science. 

Berkeley, University of California Press, 1991. 

Burt, Ronald S. Network items and the general social survey. Social Networks, 
5:293-339, 1984. 

& Schott, Thomas. Relational contents in multiple network systems. In: 



Freeman, L. C; Romney, A. K. & White, D. R. (eds.). Research methods in 
social network analysis. Fairfax, Va., George Mason University Press, 1989. 
pp. 185-213. 

Cabral, Regis. Latin America, Spain and Portugal: scientific networks and 
exchange with Sweden. Science Studies, 5 (2):97-107, 1992. 

278 



Chase-Dunn, Christopher. Global formation: structures of the world economy. 
Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1989. 

Daston, Lorraine. The ideal reality of the Republic of Letters in the Enlighten- 
ment. Science in Context (4):367-86, 1991. 

fisemon, Thomas O. & Davis, Charles H. Publication strategies of scientists in 
four peripheral Asian scientific communities: some issues in the measurement 
and interpretation of non-mainstream science. In: Altbach, Philip G. et al. Scien- 
tific development and higher education: the case of newly industrializing nations. 
New York, Praeger, 1989. pp. 325-75. 



. University research and the development of scientific capacity in sub- 

Saharan Africa and Asia. In: Altbach, Philip G. (ed.). International higher edu- 
cation: an encyclopedia. New York, Garland, 1991. pp. 275-95. 



Eliason, Scott R. The categorical data analysis system version 3.5 user's man- 
ual. Iowa City, University of Iowa, 1990. 

Frame, J. Davidson. Mainstream research in Latin America and the Caribean. 
Interciencia, 2:143-47, 1977. 

. Problems in the use of literature-based science and engineering indica- 



tors in developing countries. In: Morita-Lou, H. (ed.). Science and technology 
indicators for development. Boulder, Westview, 1985. (The United Nations Sci- 
ence and Technology for Development Series.) 

Garfield, Eugene. Citation indexing: its theory and application in science, tech- 
nology, and humanities. New York, Wiley, 1979. 



. Third World research. Part 1. Where is it published, and how often is it 

cited. Current Contents, 33 (August 15): 5-15, 1983a. 



. 1983b. Third World research. Part 2. High impact journals, most-cited 

articles, and most active areas of research. Current Contents, 34 (August 22) :5- 
16, 1983b. 

Glick, Thomas F. Science in the twentieth century. Cambridge history of Latin 
America, forthcoming, v. VII. 

Greenfeld, Liah. Science and national greatness in seventeenth-century England. 
Minerva, 25:107-22, 1987. 



279 



& Martin, Michael (eds.). Center: ideas and institutions. Chicago, Uni- 
versity of Chicago Press, 1988. 

Haberman, Shelby. Analysis of qualitative data. New York, Academic Press, 
1979. 

Hill, Christopher T. Technology and international competitiveness: methaphor 
for progress. In: Goldman, S. L. (ed.). Science, technology, and social progress. 
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Lehigh University Press, 1989. 

Institute for Scientific Information. Journal Citation Reports. Philadelphia Insti- 
tute for Scientific Information, various issues. 

. Science citation index. Philadelphia, Institute for Scientific Information, 



various issues. 

Inter-American Development Bank. Economic and social progress in Latin 
America. 1988 report. New York, Inter-American Development Bank, 1988. 

Irvine, John; Martin, Ben; Peacock, Tim & Turner, Roy. Charting the decline in 
British science. Nature, 316 (August 15):587-90, 1985. 

Katz, Shaul. Quantity and quality in Israeli science. Science and Public Policy, 
5:348-58, 1978. 

King, Alexander. Science and policy: the international stimulus. Oxford, Oxford 
University Press, 1974. 

Knoke, David. Political networks: the structural perspective. Cambridge, Cam- 
bridge University Press, 1990. 

Levy, Daniel C. Higher education and the State in Latin America. Chicago, Uni- 
versity of Chicago Press, 1986. 

Merton, Robert K. Science, technology and society in seventeenth-century 
England. [1938] New York, Harper and Row, 1970. 

Meyer, John W. The world polity and the authority of the nation-state. In: Tho- 
mas, G. M.; Meyer, J. W.; Ramirez, F. O. & Boli, J. (eds.). Institutional struc- 
ture: constituting State, society, and the individual. Newbury Park, Sage, 1987. 
pp. 41-70. 

280 



Moed, Henk K The use ofbibliometric indicators for the assessment of research 
performance in the natural and life sciences. Leiden, DSWO Press, 1989. 

Morita-Lou, H. (ed.). Science and technology indicators for development. Boul- 
der, Westview, 1985. (The United Nations Science and Technology for Develop- 
ment Series.) 

Petitjean, Patrick; Jami, Catherine & Moulin, Anne Marie (eds.). Science and 
empires: historical studies about scientific development and European expan- 
sion. Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1992. 

Powell, Walter W. & DiMaggio, Paul J. (eds.). The new institutionalism in orga- 
nizational analysis. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1991. 

Price, Derek & Solla, J. de. Little science, big science ... and beyond. New 
York, Columbia University Press, 1986. 

Ramirez, Francisco O. Institutional analysis. In: Thomas, G. M.; Meyer, J. W.; 
Ramirez, F. O. & Boli J. (eds.). Institutional structure: constituting state, society, 
and the individual. Newbury Park, Sage, 1987. pp. 316-28. 

Robertson, Roland. Globalization: social theory and global culture. London, 
Sage, 1992. 

Sagasti, Francisco R. Technology, planning, and self-reliant development: a Latin 
American view. New York, Praeger, 1979. 

Schott, Thomas. Fundamental research in a small country: Mathematics in Den- 
mark 1928-1977. Minerva (18): 243-83, 1980. 



. Models of dyadic and individual components of a social relation: appli- 
cations to international trade. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 12:225-49, 
1986. 



. Interpersonal influence in science: mathematicians in Denmark and 

Israel. Social Networks, 9:351-74, 1987a. 



. Scientific productivity and international integration of small countries: 

mathematics in Denmark and Israel. Minerva, 25:3-20, 1987b. 



. International influence in science: beyond center and periphery. Social 

Science Research, 17: 219-38, 1988. 



281 



. Network models. In: Structure reference manual. New York, Columbia 

University, 1991a. pp. 107-206. 

. The world scientific community: globality and globalisation. Minerva, 

29:440-62, 1991b. 



. Scientific research in Sweden: orientation toward the American centre 

and embeddedness in Nordic and European environments. Science Studies, 5:13- 
27, 1992a. 

. Soviet science in the scientific world system: was it autarchic, self-reli- 



ant, distinctive, isolated, peripheral, central? Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, 
Utilization, 75:410-39, 1992b. 

. Israel's scientific performance. Near East Report, 37 (1): 4, Jan. 1993a. 



. World science: globalization of institutions and participation. Science, 

Technology & Human Values, 78:196-208, 1993b. 

. The rise, spread and growth of science: Joseph Ben-David's contribution 



and a continuation, forthcoming. 



Declining and emerging centers of technological science: the United 



States and Japan, forthcoming. 

Schubert, A.; Glanzel, W. & Braun, T. Scientometric datafiles. A comprehensive 
set of indicators on 2,649 journals and 96 countries in all major science fields and 
subfields. 1981-1985. Scientometrics, 76:3-478, 1989. 

Schwartzman, Simon. Struggling to be born: the scientific comunity in Brazil. 
Minerva, 75:545-80, 1978. 

. The quest for university research: policies and research organization in 

Latin America. In: Wittrock B. & Elzinga, A. (eds.). The university research sys- 
tem: the public policy of the home of scientists. 1985. pp. 101-16. 



. Coming full circle: a reappraisal of university reform in Latin America. 

Minerva, 24:456-75, 1986. 

. A space for science: the development of the scientific community in Bra- 



zil. College Park, Pennsylvania State University, 1991. 
282 



Shahidullah, Shahid M. Capacity-building in science and technology in the Third 
World: problems, issues, and strategies. Boulder, Westview Press, 1991. 

Shils, Edward. Center and periphery. In: The constitution of society. [1961] Chi- 
cago, University of Chicago Press, 1972a. pp. 93-109. 



Metropolis and province in the intellectual community. In: 



— . The 

intellectuals and the powers, and other essays. [1961] Chicago, University of 
Chicago Press, 1972b. pp. 355-71. 

-. The cognitive expansion from centre to periphery. In: Say not the strug- 



gle. Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1976. pp. 63-95. 

. Tradition. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1981. 

-. Center and periphery: an idea and its career, 1985-1987. In: Greenfeld, 



Liah & Martin, Michael (eds.). Center: ideas and institutions. Chicago, Univer- 
sity of Chicago Press, 1988. pp. 250-82. 

. Reflections on tradition, centre and periphery, and the universal validity 



of science: the significance of the life of S. Ramanujan. Minerva, 29:393-419, 
1991. 



Shrum, Wesley. Organized technology: networks and innovation in technical sys- 
tems. West Lafayette, Purdue University Press, 1985. 

& Bankston, Carl. Organizational and geopolitical approaches to interna- 



tional science and technology networks. Knowledge and Policy, forthcoming. 
& Mullins, Nicholas C. Network analysis in science and technology. 



In: van Raan, Anthony F. J. (ed.). Handbook of quantitative studies of science 
and technology. Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1988. pp. 107-34. 

Sivertsen, Gunnar. Internationalization via journals: scientific and scholarly 
journals edited in the Nordic countries. Nord 1991:49. Copenhagen, Nordic 
Council of Ministers, 1991. 

Stevens, Kimberly A. Updating and maintaining fourteen bibliometric data 
series through 1986. Haddon Heights, N. J„ CHI Research, 1990. 

Tal, Eliezer, & Ezrahi, Yaron (eds.). Science policy and development. London, 
Gordon, 1973. 

283 



Teitel, Simon. Science and technology indicators, country size and economic 
development: an international comparison. World Development, 75:1,225-35, 
1987. 

Velho, Lea. Sources of influence on problem choice in Brazilian university agri- 
cultural science. Social Studies of Science, 20:503-17, 1990. 

& Krige, John. Publication and citation practices of Brazilian agricultural 



scientists. Social Studies of Science, 14:45-62, 1984. 

Verhine, Robert E. Brazil. In: Altbach , Philip G. (ed.). International higher edu- 
cation: an encyclopedia. New York, Garland, 1991. pp. 885-98. 

Vessuri, Hebe (ed.). Ciencia academica en la Venezuela moderna. Caracas, 
1984. 

. The universities, scientific research, and the national interest in Latin 

America. Minerva, 24:1-38, 1986. 



. La revista cientifica periferica: el caso de Acta Cientifica Venezolana. 

Interciencia, 12:124-34, 1987. 



O inventamos o erramos: the power of science in Latin America. World 



Development, 75:1,543-53, 1990. 

Wuthnow, Robert. Meaning and moral order: explorations in cultural analy- 
sis. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1987. 

Young, Oran R. International cooperation: building regimes for natural 
resources and the environment. Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University Press, 1989. 

Zahlan, Antoine. Science and higher education in Israel. Beirut, Institute for 
Palestine Studies, 1970. 

Zuckerman, Harriet A. The sociology of science. In: Smelser, Neil (ed.). Hand- 
book of sociology. Newbury Park, Sage, 1988. pp. 511-74. 

284