(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"

Performance, Specialization and International Integration of 
Science in Brazil: Changes and Comparisons with Other Latin 

America and Israel. 



Thomas Schott 

Department of Sociology 
University of Pittsburgh 



Paper prepared for a science policy study carried on by the Escola de Administracao 
de Empresas, Fundacao Getulio Vargas for the Brazilian Ministry of Science and 
Technology and the World Bank, within the PADCT II agreement. The opinions 
expressed in this text are the sole responsibility of its author. 

N ovember, 1993 



Acknowledgments. 

This analysis is also a by-product of the project "Center-periphery relations and 
international diffusion of scientific information" funded by theU.S. 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 Brazil, other parts of Latin 
America, Israel and elsewhere, to my project staff, and to Drs. Rachel Hovneand Simon 
Schwartzman for comments on the study. 



Contents. 



Acknowledgments. 1 

Contents. 2 

Summary. 1 

National scientific development and participation in world science. 1 

Brazil in regional and peripheral locations. 5 

Historical and comparative perspectives: changes and contrasts. 6 

Institutionalization of science in Brazil, other Latin America, and Israel. 7 

Concepts and their indicators based on the literature and a survey. 10 

Performance and specialization in research. 14 

Deference to world science. 22 

Travels. 23 

Influences from and upon world science. 24 

Collaboration. 33 

Communal attachments: Emulation and recognition. 39 

Audience-orientations. 4 1 

Journals. 43 

Conclusions. 47 

Bibliography. 48 



Summary. 

How have Brazilian research performance, specialization and ties with local, 
regional and distant colleagues been shaped by the institutionalization of science? 
Changes in Brazilian research are here ascertai ned and compared to research in the rest 
of Latin America and Israel which have similar and different, respectively, institutional 
arrangements for science. 

Science is now institutionalized in Brazil insofar as it is appreciated and granted 
autonomy and support. Scientific activities such as research and training of researchers, 
however, have been concentrated in a fraction of the universities in Brazil, like 
elsewherein Latin America but unlike in Israel where scientific research and training 
has been the primary purpose at all the institutions of higher education. 

This difference between Brazil, or Latin America more generally, and Israel in 
their institutional arrangements for science has enhanced scientific performance in 
Israel so that research performance has been higher than in Brazil and in the rest of 
Latin America. Israeli performance has been higher despite the smallness of the 
country; actually, relative to its population and economy, Israeli performance has been 
higher than any other nation. But scientific research has expanded in Brazil, and the 
Brazi I ian rate of i ncreasefrom the 1960s up to 1993 was higher than i n the rest of Lati n 
America, in Israel, and intheworld asa whole. The current Brazilian crisisand doubts 
about the worthiness of science may entail a decline in the creation of scientific 
knowledge in the near future. 

Brazilian research is specialized i nsofar as certai n disciplines and specialties are 
foci of scientific attention in Brazil more than elsewhere. Brazilian specialization 
emphasizes the disciplines of physics, biology and mathematics, it is rather typical in 
biomedicine and earth and space science, and it deemphasizes clinical medicine, 
chemistry and technological science. Within medicine, though, tropical medicine and 
parasitology are fields of strong specialization in Brazil, like in the rest of Latin 
America, butunlikein Israel where specialization is more concentrated on mathematics 
and fertility. Brazilian growth has been highest in technological science, especially in 
computing. These directions of Brazilian specialization seem shaped by national needs 
and research policies. 

Brazilian scientists are tied to col leagues who have influenced their research, and 
also are variously collaborators and competitors in research, and often also are 
significant recognizers of their work. These ties are not confined within Brazil but are 
also rather extensive with foreign colleagues. Brazilian research is somewhat 
integrated with science in the rest of Latin America insofar as regional influence and 
collaboration are higher than expected. This integration in collegial ties is promoted 
by the embeddedness of scientific ties in the I inks between Brazil and the rest of Lati n 
America in other spheres of life. Although this regional integration is noticable, it is 



1 



rather weak and is overshadowed by the attachment to the world centers of science, 
located in North America and Western Europe. Scientists in Brazil, like elsewhere, 
defer to science in these centers, travel there, receive influence from science in the 
centers, seek collaboration there and value recognition from colleagues in the centers. 
The involvement of Brazilian scientists with the centers, though, has been slightly less 
than the participation of other Latin American scientists and much less than the 
integration of Israeli scientists in the centers. The Israeli ties with the centers, especially 
the North American center, is enhanced by their embedded ness in the strong political- 
economic links between Israel and the United States and also by institutional 
arrangements for science such as comprehensive scientific cooperation agreements with 
the centers and travel funds which are results of Israeli research policies for enhancing 
research performance through integration with the world centers of science. 



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. Typically, 
a tradition has been parochial insofar as its cultivators have not been interested in 
extending participation, and even if they occasionally have sought to extend 
participation, is has remained a local endeavor because people in other civilizations 
aware of the exogenous tradition have ref rai ned from participating in it (Shi Is 1981). 

Science, however, is an atypical tradition in its extensive communal ity. Present- 
day participation in the scientific tradition is world-wide. Not only is science practiced 
in every society but its practitioners are receptive to ideas from any place on earth, 
pursue long-distance collegial ties, and disseminate their creations globally. This 
global ity 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 
institutionalization, that is, granting legitimacy, appreciation and autonomy, and 
establishing institutional arrangements for global communal participation. 

In early-seventeenth-century Europe the pursuit of knowledge about natural 
phenomena 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 
control ing and exploiting nature. Thisscientistic movement advocated legitimation for 
the search for truth through empirical inquiry as an activity worthy of cultivation. The 
movement was successful first in England in the middle of the seventeenth century. 
The movement won legitimation for science as an intellectual 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, especially nature, was triggered by Puritan thought (see 
the content analysis of Puritan statements by M erton [1938] 1970, chapters 4-5). But the 
enhanced appreciation was broad as evidenced by the participation in science of not 
only Puritans but also many people from diverse other faiths (M erton [1938] 1970, 
chapter 6, shows the high participation of Puritans and the high participation from 
diverse other faiths is shown in many studies; whether Puritans were over rep resented 
is debated but not crucial here where the documented great diversity of participation 
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 institutionalization in England 
was imitated in the continental societies that in the culturally 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, 265-298). Empirical inquiry became appreciated as worthy of pursuit and 
support, it was granted autonomy from control by other spheres, and it was 
differentiated from other activities by establishing organizational 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 policies 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 communication and other role-relations, 
and, more generally, arrangements for integrating 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 nineteenth century scientific research became adopted as another 
purpose of many universities, along with teaching, especially in Germany. Although 
the scientific role became anchored on universities, hospitals, museums and other 
organizations, science continued to be practiced as a communal enterprise. The 
establishment of distinctiveness, legitimation and autonomy for the pursuit of science 
iscommonly refered 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. 
Institutionalization 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 institutionalization 
did not extend to the colonies in Latin America (Schwartzman 1991, chapters 2-3). 
Despite the boundedness of the scientists 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 
civilizations. The participants were recognized and considered themselves as 
discoverers of truth. Knowledge was considered to be cumulative and to be a 
component in the broader vision of human progress as an ongoing advancement of 
humanity. The doctrine of progress of humanity as an imagined global civilization 
promoted a cosmopolitan orientation among the participants (Anderson 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 collective good of humanity. 
This cosmopolitan orientation sustained knowledge diffusion and collegial ties across 



social divisions and long distances (Daston 1991). Thefaith in invariance of nature and 
i n truthful ness of knowledge across places, together with the cosmopol itan 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 production; and means for 
curing diseases and conducting warfare. Some local people considered European 
techniques better than their own and therefore judged European knowledge worth 
obtaining. Thei r 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 organizations. This local legitimation and 
appreciation for science led to some autonomy for efforts to assimilate the tradition 
from the West (Adas 1989, 1991; Altbach and Selvaratnam 1989; Eisemon and Davis 
1991; Petitjeanjami and Moulin 1992; Shils 1976, 1991). The adoption of the scientific 
tradition seems to have preceded the adoption of other Western traditions such as the 
ideology of human progress and rationalization. The institutionalization proceeded, 
albeit with fragility 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 establ ish social arrangements for practici ng science. 

The institutionalization was accompanied by establishing institutional 
arrangements comprizing a specific social roleor vocation for science, organizations 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 thei r 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 diffused 
from a center, located where scientists have recognized the greatest accomplishment 
(Ben-David [1971] 1984; Shils [1961] 1972a, [1961] 1972b). Scientists have attri buted 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 i n the center arrangements so they have become standards to which 
adherence is expected. The foreign observers' beliefs in the effectiveness and in the 
appropriateness of the center arrangements have made them standards for i mitation i n 
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-creator-disseminator of knowledge also included a cosmopolitan orientation 
and an identity as a participant in a communal endeavor transcending traditional 
civilizational boundaries. Modified by the local social ecology, organizations for the 
practi ce of sci ence were I i kew i se establ i shed i n the non-Western soci eti es as copi es of 
Western organizational forms such as the university and the scientific academy. 
M obilization 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 diffusion 
of center models through the global scientific community, but also by adherence 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). Sci ence policy, including doctrines of sci ence and 
policies for and through science, is increasingly formulated 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 Development (OECD), the Rockefeller Foundation, and 
the World Bank. These scientists doctrines become standards that are adhered to 
around the world partly because organizations such as UNESCO and OECD work 
through experts in rational organization and acceleration of progress with authority to 
design and recommend 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 scientists doctrines of the global sci ence 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 civilization of modernity 
in which the scientists doctrines are part of the prevailing broad ideology of human 
progress that is also promulgated by these organizations. 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 mobilization 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 considered in terms of national security and competitiveness (Hill 1989), 
and in poor societies it is concretized in terms of catching-up, development and 
modernization (Apter 1974; Sagasti 1979; Shahidullah 1991). Thusthe 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, 521-559). 

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 intellectual 
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 consider 
themselves cultivators of a collective tradition, forming not only local communities but 
even a global community (Anderson 1983). Their sense of intellectual 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, eg. the International Council of Scientific Unions, and the 
agreement on free dissemination of scientific literature, an international agreement that 
is vital. The global scientific community of all scientists is informally organized into 
a global web of collegial ties. Between the macro-level of the global scientific 
community and the micro-level of the individual scientist are numerous inter mediate 
groupings. The kinds of groupings commonly examined areaKuhnian community of 
specialists, a research team, the scientists in an organization, and those in a country 
(reviewed by Shrum and M ullins 1988). Specialization, membership in a research team, 
organizational affiliation and societal location are groupings that all shape the web of 
ties among scientists (eg. Schott 1987a; Shrum 1985). For understanding national 
participation in science, an especially significant grouping is the national scientific 
community. The national scientific community of the scientists 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 individual, 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 intheglobal 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 support 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 prevai I i ng in the pi ace of highest 
performance, the center of world science. Scientists from much of the world congregate 
in the center. They consider the institutional 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 institutionalization 
of science. Institutionalization differsamong 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 arrangements for science, and thisshapes 
their scientific activities, including their research performance (Schott 1987b). Scientific 
activity in a small national scientific community cannot be self-reliant - not even Soviet 
research was self-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 institutionalization, then moved to France, then to Germany, and si nee the Second 
World War the major center has been in the United States (Ben-David, [1971] 1984), 
with Western Europe emerging as a secondary center (Schott 1991b). Scientifically 
small countries have tended to be peripheries that are attached to and variously 
integrated with the center (Shils [1961] 1972a, [1961] 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. 

Brazi I i an soci ety i s part of the Lati n A meri can regi on. Brazi I has rather i ntense 
links with other Latin American societies in most cultural domains, especially in 
religion and lifestyle. In the economic and political spheres, Brazil participates in the 
regional life of Latin America and is dependent on trade and political I inks 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 wewould expect Brazilian scientists to pursueties 
with col leagues in the North A meri can and Western European centers of world science. 
In short, wewould expect Brazilian research to be attached to and variously integrated 
with sciencedone 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 contemporary 
science can be understood better when contrasted to its own past and to science 
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 expected I y 
also similar in its research, namely the rest of Latin America, and I shall compare Brazi I 
toa place that isdifferent in its institutionalization of science and therefore expected I y 
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 occured 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; Irvine et al. 1985). I am emphasizing that the effects are lagged 
because the recent acknowledged crisis in Brazilian science (see, e.g. Schwartzman 
1991, ch. 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 science 
takes an institutional and interactional approach (the institutional approach is reviewed 
in Zuckerman 1988, and the interactional approach is reviewed in Shrum and Mull ins 
1988). M y conceptual ization of nested communal formations was developed over the 
years mainly from the general center and periphery theory (e.g. Greenfeld and Martin 
(eds.) 1988, see especially the essay by Shils). Accordingly, my perspective shares much 
with world-polity theory (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 perspective (e.g. 
Powell and 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, pp. 201-202), and it is compared and contrasted to the organizational 
approach to research endeavors by Shrum and 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, agriculture, health services, 
the military, and as a channel for social mobility. The societies 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 scientific 
community has in the course of this century created a space for natural, medical and 
technological science around research institutes, some of the hospitals and some of the 
universities (on Brazil, see Schwartzman 1978, 1991, esp. Part 2; Velho 1990; Velho and 
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; Schwartzman 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 thefaculty 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 si nee the late 1960s in Brazil, I ike in other Latin 
American societies, the supply of researchers was far below the number of available 
academic positions, which in turn entailed a perpetuation of the two-tier academic 
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 precarious in Brazil and elsewhere in 
Latin America. 

Earlier studies comparing scientific research in Brazil to that in other Latin 
American countries havefound 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 i n 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 undertaken here will show more similarities. Indeed, 
insofar as similarities are shown by all indications in the analyses, this will show the 
rel iabil ity of the i ndicators. 

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 
1960s 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 scientific 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 thedominant stratum and 
increasingly throughout the population (Ben-David 1962, 1964, 1986, 1991, chapter 3 
with Aran and chapter 13 with Katz; Katz 1979; Tal and Ezrahi 1973; Zahlan 1970). 
There has been a traditionally high appreciation of learning inthejewish 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, agriculture, industry, and the military in particular. 
The Israeli government and the academic 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. I n short, science has i n Israel been treated as a cultural endeavor as wel I as a 
social and economic investment, especially somewhat likean 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 nineteenth century German 
university model combining research and teaching and were also all modeling the 
American education of researchers through doctoral programs. This widely 
institutionalized 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 1970s the Israeli 
research enterprise had crystallized as an essentially one-tiered set of seven universities 
and several university- related hospitals performing by far most of the research in the 
natural, mathematical, medical and technological sciences. The Israeli universities have 
been similar in so far as they al I emphasize scientific research far more than teaching 
or d i rect servi ce to the I ocal commu nity, provi de research faci I iti es 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 establishing rather comprehensive bilateral scientific cooperation agreements 
with foreign institutions and countries, for example the U.S.-lsrael Bi national Science 
Foundation. These comprehensive institutional arrangements have promoted an 
uncommonly strong integration of Israeli research with the centers of world science 
which in turn has enhanced the research performance (Katz 1978; Schott 1987b). 

The differences in institutionalization of science makes Israel a contrast to Brazil, 
a contrast that expected ly is informative insofar as it can be used to ascertain and 
explain developments in Brazilian research. 



Concepts and their indicators based on the literature and a survey. 

The concepts for descri bi ng the scientific research enterprise are either attri butes 
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 concepts are kinds of role- 
relations between scientists or, in the aggregate, between their national scientific 
communities (Burt and Schott 1989). I shall consider six analytically distinct kinds of 
role-relations - namely deference, travels, influence, collaboration, emulation, and 
concern for recognition. I shall briefly consider each concept and how the concept can 
be measured by one or two i ndicators. 

Performance i n scientific research refers to the creation of new public scientific 
knowledge. Performance in a country can be indicated by the articles in the world's 
major journals in science which are written by authors in the country. Another 
indicator isthe 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 influencers on researchers surveyed in other 
parts of the world. These four measures are indicators of scientific performance. 

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

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. 



Travel s by researchers can be i nd i cated by aski ng them to report thei r vi sits 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 



10 



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 
indicated by asking researchers about thei r work jointly with others. Another indicator 
of collaboration is jointly authored publications. 

Emulation refers to competition among researchers to excel in the performance 
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 desi re 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, eg. because the sample is not perfectly representative or 
because the respondent does not recall influences. Also citations in articles are far from 
perfect, eg. because not all influence is reflected in citations and because not all 
citations reflect influence. But if surveys 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 i ncl ud i ng a journal i s its qual ity or i mpact, so the vol ume of i ndexed arti cl es written 
by authors in a country is a reasonably good indicator of research performance i n the 
country. Since 1973, the number of indexed articles 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 refering to indexed articles published 1978-80. The citations and 
coauthorships are indicators of influence and collaboration occuring in collegial ties. 
These indicators derived from the scientific literature are far from perfect, especially 
when thefocus is on the areas of the world where there may be considerable research 
for local dissemination but few journals are published with significant impact on world 
science (Eisemon and Davis 1989; Frame 1985; Moed 1989; Morita-Lou 1985). This is 
one reason for supplementi ng the I iteratu re- based i ndicators with survey data. I n fact, 



11 



the survey yields indications si mi lar to the i ndications derived from the I iteraure and 
thereby validate the indicators based on the literaure. 

The other indicators are derived from a survey of collegial ties among scientists 
in Brazil, elsewhere in Latin America, and in Israel, using a questionnaire ad ministered 
during 1990-91. Focusing on collegial networks, the unit of analysis will not be a 
respondent but a relationship or a dyad of researchers within a country or in different 
countries. More precisely, the unit of analysis will be variously a travel (a visit to 
another institution or a trip to a conference), an expression of deference, a named 
influences, a collaborator, a competitor, or another specific kind of role-relation. 
Brazilian, other Latin American, and Israeli participation in collegial networks will in 
the analyses be indicated by their reported 709 travels, 499 expressions of deference, 
and 1,228 influencers, etc., 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 Chileand 40 in 
Uruguay), and 16 in Israel. 

Sci enti sts were sel ected for the su rvey as fol I ows. In each cou ntry I sel ected 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 avai labi I ity of contacts 
and local interviewers. In each site the respondents were sampled mainly from a list, 
namely the list of authors of articles covered by the Science Citation Index which has 
a listing of authors in each city in the geographically 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. Thisprovided 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 
randomly sampled. H owever, 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. Representativeness 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 
coauthorshi ps and the citations i n the articles by authors i n the place. Therefore we can 
be reasonably confident that the ties reported by the respondents are rather 
representative of the ties of all the scientists. 



12 



The participation rate in the survey in each site exceeded 90% of the contacted 
scientists (except that I do not know the participation rate in Israel) and the response 
rate on any si ngle item i n the questionnai re was also above 90%. 

A questionnairewasusedfortappingtiesoftherespondents. The questionnai re 
briefly asked for attributes of the respondent such as education, career, research 
orientation (pure versus applied research), and research mode (experimental versus 
theoretical). Travels were tapped by two questions, "Which institutions haveyou visited 
in the last 12 months?" and "To which conferences abroad haveyou gone in the years from 
1985 to present?" The respondent's deference was tapped by aski ng about contri butors, 
" Who are the people in the world who have performed the best scientific research in your field 
since 1985?" noti ng also the place of each named contri butor. 

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 theGeneral 
Social Survey in the U nited States (Burt 1984). 

In my survey, each scientist listed significant colleagues in response to the 
question, "Who are the people whose specific ideas have influenced your research sinceabout 
1985? ".The tie to each named col league was tapped by the foil owing questions, 

"Through which media did their ideas influenceyour 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 communication?" 
"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 careabout each person's recognition of your research?" 

The attri bute of a named col league which is crucial for this study is of course the 
colleague's location, "Wherein the world is each person?" 

This questionnaire provides rather detailed information on collegial networks 
(for validation, see Schott 1992b). The surveyed scientists were mostly working in 
academic settings, in universities 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 weredoing 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 1970s or first half of the 1980s, a 



13 



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. 



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 performed in Brazil? 
What have been thedirections of specialization in Brazilian research? How have the 
performance and the specialization changed during recent decades? 

Performance i n Brazil and in every other place is here indicated by its scientists' 
share of scientific articles, the extent to which their articles are cited in other articles, 
other researchers' mentions of them as pri nci pal contri butors, and mentions of them as 
influencers upon research elsewhere in the world. These four indicators of scientific 
performance are juxtaposed to two important conditions of science (Teitel 1987), 
namely the share of Brazil in the world's population and Gross National Product, as 
listed in Table! 



14 



Table 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 
Articles Cites Cont r i but or s I nf I uencer s GN P 



Brazil 

Other LA 

I srael 1. 

North Amer i ca 40, 

We stern Europe 30, 

Rest of world 26 . 



3 % 
8 


9 
8 
1 



54 
30 
13 



2 % 

4 

9 







2 
49 
35 
13 



45 
33 
19 



1 
3 

31 
22 
41 



Popul at i on 



2 
5 

5 

7 

79 



Notes: The percentages in each column sum to 100% 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 University Press), P. S. Shoup, 
The East European and Soviet Data Handbook (New York : 
Columbia University Press, 1981) and C. L. Taylor and D. A. 
Jodice, 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) and United 
Nations, Demographic Yearbook 1987 (New York: United 
Nations, 1988) . 

Table 1 shows that Brazil is a scientifically small country, performing much less 
than 1% of the scientific research in theworld, and thisattracts much less that l%of the 
citations in subsequent literature. No Brazilian scientist was among the nearly three 
thousands mentioned as principal contributors or significant influential in a survey of 
scientists elsewhere. Brazilian research amounted to a little less than half of the 
research performed i n the rest of Lati n A meri ca and about a thi rd of that performed i n 
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 America, as in science. 
But Brazil is a whole order of magnitude larger than Israel i n terms of the economy and 



15 



even more in terms of population and yet far less research is performed in Brazil than 
in Israel. This showsthat scientific performance i n a country is not a reflection of the 
size of the country in terms of population or economy (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 
performance, but the question is also whether the gap is narrowing. The historical 
perspective is adopted by exami ning data from different years; Table 2. The avai lable 
data covering different decades are unfortunately not compiled by exactly the same 
method, but they are from similar sources, so the different counting methods 
presumably do not alter the indications. The earliest data are counts of authors 
recorded in the Current Contents which is published by the Institute for Scientific 
Information that also publishes the Science Citation Index which has been used to 
cou nt arti cl es from the 1970s to the 1980s and to esti mate the vol u me of I i sti ngs u p to 
1993. 



16 



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 percentage of the world's volume of 
listings in the Science Citation Index, 1975 to 1993. 



A uthors 

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 

1985 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 



84 
89 



an- Feb' 



Br az i 



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 



Other LA Israel 



38 
50 
35 
45 
43 
46 
60 

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

07 
19 
22 
25 
25 
29 
20 



92 
87 
87 
77 
86 
90 
91 

96 
97 
00 
02 
07 
03 
01 
02 
00 
08 
07 
05 
08 
02 

05 
11 
10 
97 
96 
93 
96 



N ote: Total numbers of authors exceeded 125,000 and of indexed articles exceeded 265,000 annually. 
Source: Authors are from Who Is Publishing In Science (Institute for Scientific Information; the 
numbers of authors arelisted in Price, 1986, pp. 203-205). A rticles 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). Li stings are from the published Science Citation 
Index 1975 through February 1993; the percentage for a country isits percentage of the printed columns 
in the geographical section of the author index. 



17 



Table2 indicates that Brazilian scientific performance grew considerably in its 
share of world science from the 1960s throughout the 1970s and the 1980s to the early 
1990s. Research in the rest of Latin America grew slowly from the 1960s to the early 
1980s but leveled off around the early 1980s and has been rather constant in the last 
decade. I srael i research grew duri ng the early 1970s and was a rather constant share 
of world science from the mid-1970s through the mid-1980s but its share has been 
declining in recent years. Constant share of a place during a growth of world science 
of course means a conti nued growth of research i n the place. 

Another way to consider these shift 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 1980s surpassed by Spain and the People's Republic of China, so that Israel 
moved down to 17th in science by the early 1990s. Brazil ranked 26th in 1975-79, 
trailing Austria, Norway, Finland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and South Africa, which 
it surpassed in the 1980s 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 1990s. 

Let me, however, reemphasize that the conti nued growth in Brazilian scientific 
activity as measured by this outcome up to 1993, does not fully capture the 
developments in the early 1990s because of the timelag between performance of 
research and its resulting publication. The precarious institutionalization of science in 
Brazil makes science very vulnerableto political and economic crises and the current 
turbulence, crisis and decay in Brazilian is quite likely to lead to some withdrawal of 
social support for science (Schwartz man, 1991, ch. 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, actuation of anomie (Ben-David [1971] 1984, 
ch. 9). 

N ational research endeavors are not evenly distri buted across fields of science, 
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. Specialization can be 
revealed when control ing 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 land it is 
I ow to the extent the measu re i s I ess than 1, as I i sted i n Tabl e 3. 



18 



Table 3. Specialization into eight disciplines and their subdisciplines, 1970s and 1980s. 

Rati o of the percentage of the arti cl es from Brazi I (from the other Lati n A meri ca 
and from I srael ) that are i n the (sub)disci pi i ne to the percentage of the world's 
arti cl es that are i n the (sub)disci pi ine. 



Brazil 



PI SCI PLI NE S and subdi sci pi i nes 1970s 1980s 
CLI Nl CAL MEDI Cl NE . 70 . 58 



Other LA 
1970s 1980s 



1. 39 1. 13 



I srael 



1970s 1980s 



1. 02 1. 15 



system 
vener al 



di seases 



General and internal medicine 

Allergy 

Anesthesi ol ogy 

Cancer 

Cardi ovascul ar 

Dent i s t r y 

Der mat ol ogy and 

Endocri nol ogy 

Fertility 

Gastroenterology 

Ger i a t r i c s 

H e ma t o I ogy 

I mmunol ogy 

Obs t etrics & gynecology 

Neurology & neurosurgery 

Opht a I mo I ogy 

Orthopedics 

Arthritis & rheumatology 

Otorhi nol aryngol ogy 

Pathology 

Pedi a t r i c s 

Pha r mac ol ogy 

Pha r mac y 

Ps yc hi a t r y 

Radiology & nuclear 

Respiratory system 

Surgery 

Tropical medicine 

Urol ogy 

Nephrol ogy 

Veterinary medicine 

Addictive diseases 

Hygiene & public health 

Miscellaneous clinical medicine 

Bl OMEDI Cl NE 



me d i c i n e 



1 



3 

2 

3 

1 

7 

2 10 

5 1 

8 

5 

7 

1 





3.1 3.2 



1. 33 1. 03 



1 
6 
6 
8 
7 
3 

2 ; 


2 
7 
6 
6 
1 
6 
4 
2 
3 
2 
7 

o : 

3 

4 

4 

9 

5 

6 I 

3 

1 

6 

6 

1 

2 

1. 2! 



98 



1. 13 



98 



Phy 
Ana 
Emb 
Gen 
Nut 
Bi o 
Bi o 
Cel 
Mi c 
Vi r 
Par 
Bi o 



si ol ogy 

to my & morphology 

r yol ogy 

etics & heredity 

rition & dietetics 

c he mi s t r y & mo I ec ul 



phys i cs 

I biology 

r obi ol ogy 

ol ogy 

as i t ol ogy 

medical engineering 



a r biology 
cytology & histol 



1 


1 




4 


5 


2 


1 


1 




2 


3 


1 


1 


2 
8 
6 


1 


1 


9 
6 
2 


1 


6. 


5 


1 


7 


1 



5 


1 


7 


1 







1 


1 


3 


2 







6 




1 




6 




5 




7 


2 


4 





19 



Microscopy 1.4 .4 .8 .4 

Miscellaneous bio medicine .8 .6 .5 .4 

General biomedical research 1.5 1.1 1.4 .8 



Bl OLOGY 



1. 39 1. 60 



1. 39 1. 52 



1. 15 1. 12 



General biology 2 

General zoology 

Entomology 1 

Mi seel I aneous zoology 1 

Marine biology & hydrobi ol ogy 

Botany 2 

Ecol ogy 

Agricultures food science 1 

Dairy & a ni ma I science 
Miscellaneous biology 

CHEMI STRY 



9 


2 


4 




4 


1 


9 


3 


5 


1 





2 


3 




3 


1 


1 




5 


1 



7 




2 


1 


2 


2 


8 




5 


2 





1 


1 


1 


3 




6 


1 



72 



74 



61 



5 
5 
4 
2 
8 
1 
5 
6 
4 
5 

. 84 



4 




5 


1 


9 







1 


5 







1 


8 




9 




1 


1 


8 





71 



62 



Analytical chemistry 1 

Or ga ni c c hemi s t r y 

Inorganic & nuclear chemistry 1 

Applied chemistry 

Gener a I c hemi s t r y 

Pol y me r s 

Physical chemistry 

PHYSI CS 



1. 60 1. 82 



2 


1 


7 




4 


1 


2 




7 




2 




7 


1 



61 



91 



1. 11 1. 105 



Che mi c a I phys i cs 1 

Sol i d s t at e phys i cs 3 

Fluids & pi as mas 

Applied physics 

Acous t i cs 

Opt i cs 

Generalphysics 1 

Nuclear & particle physics 2 

Miscellaneous physics 3 

EARTH AND SPACE SCI ENCE 
Astronomy & astrophysics 1 

Meterorology & atmospheric scien 

Geol ogy 

Earth & planetary science 1 

Geogr a phy 

Oceanography & limnology 

TECHNOLOGI CAL SCI ENCE 



1 


1 


2 


4 


4 




8 




1 




6 




7 


1 


2 


2 





3 



1. 08 1. 24 

5 
1 

7 
5 

4 



. 3 


1. 


. 2 


1. 


. 8 




. 3 


1. 


. 




. 4 





1. 12 1. 13 

2 2. 3 



7 




6 


1 


2 




3 




7 




7 


1 


6 




1 


1 


1 


3 



1 


1 


4 


1 


3 


1 


8 


1 


8 







1 


7 




6 


1 


1 


1 



85 



76 



44 



63 



33 



48 



95 



Chemical engineering 

Mechanical engineering 

Civil engineering 

Electrical enginee & electronics 

Miscellaneous engin & technology 

Industrial engineering 

General engineering 

Met a I s & met a I I ur gy 

Ma t er i a I s science 

Nuclear technology 

Aerospace technology 



3 


3 


6 1 


1 




8 


. 8 


3 


3 


2 


4 


1 





1. 4 


4 


5 


7 


5 


2 





1. 9 


7 1 





2 


3 




7 


. 8 
















6 


. 







7 




1 


1 


- 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


6 


1. 7 


5 


6 


4 


7 




3 


. 5 


3 


6 


2 


4 




5 


. 6 


6 


5 


6 


6 




5 


. 9 


4 


3 





1 


1 


2 


1. 4 



20 



Computers .4 .9 

Library & information science .3 .9 

Operations res & management sci .8 .6 

MATHEMATI CS 1. 49 1. 58 

Pr obabi I i t y & st at i st i cs .7 .9 

Applied ma the ma tics .9 1.0 

Gener a I ma t he mat i c s 1.7 1.8 

Miscellaneous mathematics 2.7 2.5 



2 


, 5 




1. 3 


1. 4 


6 


. 2 




. 2 


. 8 


3 


, 6 




1. 9 


1. 9 


. 49 




71 


1. 


56 : 


7 


, 7 




1. 1 


1. 5 


4 


, 7 




1. 5 


1. 6 


5 


, 7 




1. 6 


1. 4 


4 


, 9 




2. 5 


3. 7 



1. 61 



N otesJhe 1970s denote 1973-79 and the 1980s denote 1980-86. Industrial engineering was not 
reported as a subdiscipline in the 1980s. Source. Science Citation Index from 1973 to 1986 
(Institute for Scientific Information), (dataset compiled by CHI R esearch; Stevens 1990). 



Table 3 shows that Brazilian research was somewhat specialized. Whereasthe 
Brazilian cultivation of the disciplines of biomedi cine 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 specialization is 
similar to an indication obtained by a somewhat different classification procedure 
which shows a Brazilian specialization in physics and mathematics and adeemphasis 
especially in chemistry but also in engineering (but did not separately classify clinical 
medicine, biomedi cine, biology, and earth and space science; Schubert et al., 1989, p. 
401). 

The discipline with most rapid growth from the 1970s to the 1980s was 
technological science. The increasing specialization in the discipline of technological 
science was largely concentrated in its subdisciplines of computers, information science 
and electrical engineering and electronics. These fields are known to have been 
expanding in Brazil, as a results of deliberate research policies (Schwartzman, 1991, pp. 
232-236). Although these are fields of increasing specialization, they havenot become 
the fields of major concentrations. Specialization 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, p. 448). Conversely, Brazilian research hasdeemphasized 
the fields of geriatrics and acoustics. 

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 obtain by a somewhat different 
procedure (Schubert et al., 1989, p. 416 and 458). 



21 



These specializations can be partly explained as resulting from national needs 
and interests. Brazil and other Latin American countries have a considerable need for 
knowledge in tropical medicine and parasitology whereas Israel has an interest in 
enhancing the fertility of thejewish 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 conti nual ly eval uate work that they are aware of. They assess not only 
the truthfulness but also the worth of new knowledge. The appreciated contributions 
may become exemplars influencing their own research. Their deference 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. 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 Count r y of respondents 

contributors Brazil Other LA Israel 

Brazil 1 8 % 2 % % 

Other LA 16 

Israel 1 .4 19 

Nor t h Amer i ca 41 47 60 

We s t e r n E u r o p e 3 4 3 6 15 

Rest of wor I d 6 9 6 

N cont r i but ors 170 282 47 



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



Table 4 shows that Brazilian scientists have defered most to science in N orth 
America, second most to science in Western Europe and third most to sciencedonein 
Brazi I.Li kew i se, sci enti sts i n the rest of Lati n A meri ca and i n I srael al so have defered 
most to science in North America, second most to science in Western Europe and third 
most to local science. Deference is thus toward the easily observed and intimately 



22 



understood local work and toward work in the world centers of science. Despite 
I srael 's spati al proxi mity to Eu rope, the I srael i sci enti sts defer I ess to Eu ropean sci ence 
and more to North American science than the Brazilian and other Latin American 
scientists do. Thiscan be explained by theembeddednessof collegial ties, including 
deference, in political and economic links which are especially strong between Israel 
and the United States. 

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 countries were 
asked to report thei r visits to other i nstitutions i n the latest 12 months unti I the ti me of 
interview and to report their participation in meetings abroad from 1985 until the 
interview; Table 5. 



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. 

Br az i I Ot her Latin Am. I srael 

Visits Meet i ngs Visits Meet i ngs Visits Meet i ngs 

Brazil 6 8 % n a 8 % 1 8 % % % 

Other LA 19 48 38 

Israel .4 31 na 

North Ameri ca 11 31 17 16 54 56 

Western Europe 10 4 9 2 6 2 7 15 3 4 

Rest of world 9 12 11 10 

Mea n visits or 

me e t i n g s f o r a 1.5 1.9 1.8 3.1 1.7 4.9 

respondent . 

Note. The percentages in each column sum to 100% except for rounding. Source: 
Survey of scientists in Brazil, other Latin A merica 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 meeti ngs abroad in the latest six or 
so years. This travel i ng frequency is somewhat less than that of scientists i n 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 



23 



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 Brazil. 
Their travels abroad were primarily to Western Europe and secondarily to North 
America. But travels were also frequent between Brazil and other Latin American 
cou ntri es, i n both d i recti ons. Tabl e 5 al so shows that sci enti sts i n other Lati n A meri can 
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 deference orientations. 

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



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 environment has 
Brazilian research been most cohesively integrated in terms of influence? 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 communication? What are the 
sources of influence on selection of problems for research by Brazilian scientists? These 
questions will be answered here, comparing Brazilian influences with influences 
i nvol vi ng sci enti sts i n the rest of Lati n A meri ca and i n I srael . 

Influences upon scientists in each place are indicated by the percentage 
distribution of the citations in their articles, as listed in a column in Table 6. 



24 



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). 



I n f I uenc i ng 
( ci ted) 
scientists 
Brazil 
Other LA 
I s r ael 

North A me r i c a 
We stern Europe 
Rest of wor I d 

N citations 



Influenced (citing) scientists 



Brazil 
23 

1 

41 

24 

9 



Ot her 



Nort 



LA I s r ael Amer 



. 2 


. 8 




. 4 


20. 2 




. 7 


. 9 


24. 


. 3 


47. 9 


48. 


. 


22. 7 


21. 


. 4 


7. 4 


5. 



75 

18 

5 



We s t e r n Rest of 
ca Europe wor I 



39 

52 

7 



. 1 




. 3 




. 8 




. 


35. 


. 7 


21. 


. 1 


42. 



3,960 9,449 18,041 914,857 621,210 267,590 



Note: The percentages in each column sum to 100% except for rounding. Source: Science 
Citation Index (Institute for Scientific Information); citations in articles 1980-82 refering to 
articles 1978-80. 



The first column in Table 6 shows that Brazilian research wasinfluenced 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 by results from North 
America and then from Western Europe and from within their place. These origins of 
i nf I uence are highly si mi lar across the three compared pi aces. The origi ns of i nfl uence 
upon the sci enti sts fol low the patterns of thei r deference more than the patterns of thei r 
travels. Notably, although Brazilian and other Latin American scientists have traveled 
much more to Western Europe than to North America, they havedefered 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 scienceupon 
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 beindicated astheoccuring influence (in Table 6) relative to the influence that we 
should expect if influence were not embedded in particular I inks between countries but 
influencees were independent of influencers. If influence were not selective, influence 
would just be proportional to thei nfl uencer's tendency to exert influence and also to 



25 



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 scientific influence in Schott 1987a, 1988, 1992a). 

The conception of behavioral independence between influencersand influencees 
can be formalized by the model of statistical independence in a two-way table and 
involves computing expected values. The expected values are I ike those for the usual 
chi-square test of i ndependence i n a two-way frequency 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 community r to an influencing community c is the product of two 
numbers P r Qc w here P r is the tendency of r to cite others and Q c is the tendency of cto 
be cited by others. The expected number can be computed from the observed 
frequencies of citations from each community to the other communities. Thediagonal- 
less matrix of expected numbers has the same row-sums and column-sums as the 
diagonal-less matrix of observed citations (modeling of a diagonal-less table with 
formulas for use in computing expected numbers is in Haberman 1979, ch. 7, and is 
implemented in publicly available software, Eliason 1990, pp. 16-18). 



The ratio of the observed citations to the expected number of citations is a 
measu re of i ntegrati on i n the web of i nf I uence. The measu res of i ntegrati on are I i sted 
in Table 7. Integration has been weak to the extent the measure is less than 1 and 
i ntegrati on has been strong to the extent the measure exceeds 1. 

Table 7. Integration in influence among national scientific communities. 



I nf I uenc i ng 
( ci ted) 
scientists 
Brazil 
Other LA 
I s r ael 

North A me r i c a 
We stern Europe 
Rest of wor I d 



Influenced (citing) scientists 



Ot her 



Brazil 



LA I s r ael Amer 
6.8 .8 



lorth We stern Rest of 

ca Europe wor I 



. 9 

. 9 

. 9 

1. 

1. 



N ote: 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 integrated 
with science in the rest of Latin America, 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 science, influence has been more 
than four times higher than expected. Integration has been stronger between Brazil and 
the rest of Latin America, in both directions of influence, than between any other listed 
places. Such regional integration also exists among, for example, the Scandinavian 
national scientific communities (Schott 1992a). Contrasting the regional integration in 



26 



influence, integration 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 American 
regional integration in science can be explained by the embeddedness of scientific 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 embeddedness 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 American, 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. 

Table8. Influence upon scientists from local and distant colleagues. Circa 1990. 

Percentage distribution of influencers named by respondents in Brazil, in other 
Lati n A meri ca and i n I srael . 

Br azi I Other LA Israel 

Brazil 4 3 % 4 % % 

Other LA 1 35 

I srael 1 1 26 

Nort h Amer i ca 25 32 55 

Western Europe 25 25 13 

Rest of wor I d 6 4 7 

N i nf I uencer s 408 710 110 

Note. T he percentages in each column sum to 100% except for rounding. Source Survey of 
scientists in Brazil, other Latin A merica 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, I ike 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 juxtaposing 
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 

27 



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 Europeupon research in Israel. These changes i n scientific influence may 
be explained as consequences of changes in the political -economic links between the 
places. During the 1980s, Latin American political-economic links seem to have grown 
more with Western Europe than with North America. Conversely, West European 
political-economic I inks with Israel havecooled during the 1980s. Explaining the main 
differences 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 thedata sources (indexed journalsfor 
one tabl e and sampl ed sci enti sts for the other tabl e) or i n the i nd i cators (ci tati ons i n one 
table and a questionnaire item in the other table). 

Influence is channeled through a variety of media, notably publications, 
preprints, lectures, discussions, telephone, facsimile messages, postal mail, and perhaps 
also through rumor. The interviewed scientists reported which one or more media 
channeled influence from each named col league; Table 9. 



28 



Table 9. Media channeling influence upon scientists from colleagues. 

Percent of the col leagues in each location who influenced through each medium. 

BRAZI L 

Public- Pre- Lect- Disc- Tele- Fax Elec. Post Rumor NUMBER OF 

a t i ons pr i nt s ur es us s i on phone ma i I ma i I COLLEAGUES 

Brazil 48 19 31 89 10 2 2 12 5 177 

Other LA 75 100 50 100 50 4 

Israel 100 50 2 

North Ameri ca 94 22 16 24 111 6 12 101 

Western Europe 97 19 2 6 5 2 3 6 17 9 101 

Rest of world 91 29 9 22 9 23 

OTHER LATI N AMERI CA 

Public- Pre- Lect- Disc- Tele- Fax Elec. Post Rumor NUMBER OF 

a t i ons pr i nt s ur es us s i on phone ma i I ma i I COLLEAGUES 

Brazil 50 4 31 85 4 15 26 

Other LA 42 1 1 25 96 4 2 3 9 244 

Israel 75 25 25 25 50 4 

North Ameri ca 92 18 31 47 8 10 8 202 226 

Western Europe 82 13 2 8 61 5 17 6 3 6 1 180 

Rest of world 90 17 31 3 28 29 

I SRAEL 

Public- Pre- Lect- Disc- Tele- Fax Elec. Post Rumor NUMBER OF 

a t i ons pr i nt s ur es us s i on phone ma i I ma i I COLLEAGUES 

Israel 50 44 43 82 29 7 18 18 4 28 

North Ameri ca 52 38 18 70 25 15 28 37 2 60 

Western Europe 57 71 21 7 9 21 5 7 4 3 14 

Rest of worl d 100 75 38 25 13 25 38 38 38 8 

N otes: N umber 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 A merica and Israel. 



The I eft-most col u mn i n the u pper part of Tabl e 9 shows that Brazi I i an sci enti sts 
were influenced by publications by about half their significant colleagues in Brazil, 
pu bl i cati ons by more of thei r col I eagues i n the rest of Lati n A meri ca, and pu bl i cati ons 
by the vast majority of their significant colleagues elsewhere. Publications 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 col I eagues outsi de Lati n A meri ca. 

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 
i nf I uence from col leagues outsi de Lati n A meri ca. 



29 



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, whilethe interpersonal media 
were highly utilized channel of influence, not only from local colleagues but also from 
colleagues in North America and Europe. Through a multiplicity 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. publications, 
and through interpersonal media, i.e. direct contact between scientists. Each 
respondent was asked to rate the extent to which each named col league's publ i cations 
influenced the research of the respondent. The influence from each colleague's 
publications was rated on a scalegoing from Of or 'none' through lfor 'little 1 and 2for 
'some' up to 3 for 'great' influence of the publications on the respondent (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 influences from the 
colleagues in that place, asa percentage of the overal I sum of influences from all the 
colleagues. A colleague whose publications had no influence, 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 col leagues across places where the colleagues are 
weighted by the rated influence of each colleague's publications. This indication of 
sources of influence through publications is listed in the left side of Table 10. 

The left-most column in Table 10 shows that Brazilian scientists were influenced 
through publications written by colleagues mainly in Brazil, North America, and 
Europe, and in similar amounts from these three places. Also scientists in the rest of 
Latin America were influenced through publications by col leagues from Latin America, 
North America, and Europe, and in similar degrees from these three pi aces. 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. 



30 



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. 



Br azi I 

Brazil 3 % 

Other LA 1 

I srael 1 

North America 28 

We stern Europe 33 

Rest of world 8 

N influencing 324 
through medium 



Influence from publications 



Other LA Israel 



3% 



0% 



21 
1 

39 

31 

5 

564 




24 
51 
15 
11 

96 



Influence from contacts 



Br azi I 

6 5% 



11 

22 

2 

256 



Other LA Israel 



4% 



0% 



45 



23 

25 

2 

501 




28 
53 
17 

3 



Note The percentages in each column sum to 100% except for rounding. Source: Survey of 
scientists in Brazil, other Latin A merica 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 influence 
from a place through personal communication isthen indicated by the sum of the rated 
influences from the colleagues in that place. In other words, influences 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 Brazilian 
scientists were mainly with col leagues 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 personal 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 conceptual 
frameworks, influence on methods of investigation, and influence on yet other aspects 
of research. The selection of problems for research is of most i nterest for understandi ng 
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 
probl em choi ce are then i nd i cated by the d i stri buti on of the rati ngs across pi aces; Tabl e 
11. 



31 



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 4 2% 4 % % 

Other LA 1 34 

Israel 1 .4 24 

N o r t h A me r i c a 2 4 3 2 5 5 

We s t e r n E u r o p e 2 7 2 5 10 

Rest of wor I d 5 4 11 

N i nf I uenci ng 382 633 99 

problem choice 

Note The percentages in each column sum to 100% except for rounding. Source Survey of 
scientists in Brazil, other Latin A merica and Israel. 

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 influences in similar 
amounts. Their sources were rather similar to the sources influencing selection of 
problems for research by other Latin Americans. The scientists in the rest of Latin 
America were influenced mainly by Latin American colleagues, 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 science, I ike science 
done in other Latin America countries, has had little impact on research outside Latin 
America, in contrast to the notably larger impact of science done in Israel. Brazilian 
research, like research elsewhere in Latin America, has been influenced mainly by 
science done in North America and Europe. Earlier, North American influence was 
stronger than influence from Western Europe but during the 1980s the European 
influence has become equally strong. By contrast, research in Israel has continually 
been far most influenced by science in N orth America and this influence has become 
even stronger during the 1980s. These influences have been influences on research in 
general and on problem selection in particular. Brazilian scientists, likescientistsinthe 
rest of Latin America and in Israel, haveselected problems under the influence of local 
colleagues 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 American 



32 



colleagues most frequently by face-to-face discussions and other interpersonal 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, 
especi al I y face-to-face d i scussi ons, tel ephone, facsi mi I e messages, el ectron i c mai I , 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). 

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-w hole 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 Ofor 'none' through 1 for 'little 1 and 2 for 'some' and 
up to 3 for 'much' collaboration with the respondent. The respondents' extent of 
collaboration with colleagues in a particular pi ace can then be indicated by the sum of 
the rated col laboration with col leagues i n that place, computed as a percentage of the 
overall sum of collaboration 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. 



33 



Table 12. Collaboration with local and foreign colleagues. 

Percentage distribution of named colleagues, weighted by their rated 
collaboration with the respondents. 

Br azi I Other LA I sr ael 

Brazil 6 6 % 5 % % 

Other LA 47 

Israel 26 

Nort h Amer i ca 9 21 55 

We s t e r n E u r o p e 2 5 2 4 18 

Rest of wor I d 1 3 1 

N col I aborat ors 190 425 71 

Note. The percentages in each column sum to 100% except for rounding. Source Survey of 
scientists in Brazil, other Latin A merica and Israel. 

Table 12 shows that Brazilian scientists have been collaborating mainly with 
col leagues 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 
notabl e d ifference i s that the I srael i s have mai nl y been col I aborati ng w ith the center i n 
North America, whereas the Brazilians' foreign collaboration has been mainly in 
Europe. 

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 avai I abl e; Tabl e 13. 



34 



Table 13. Collaboration among national scientific communities, 1970s and 
1980s. 

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

Authors 

Brazil Other Israel North Western Rest of 

Coauthors LA Amer i ca Europe world 

L0j_81i_ L0j_81i_ 71i_ 8_0_s_ 7_0_s_ 8_0_s_ 7_0_s_ 8_0_s_ 70s 80s 

Brazi I 16.1 .8 .1 .1 .1 .02 

19.7 1.1 .2 .1 .2 .05 

Other LA 1.9 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 Ameri ca 12. 8 12. 8 10. 3 31. 4.2 2.4 

13. 6 14. 1 17. 36. 9 6.9 3.9 

We s t e r n E u r o p e 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 wo r I d 2.0 2.1 0.8 1.5 2.1 17. 1 

3.2 3.9 1.5 2.5 3.6 22. 

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 

N otes: The percentages in each column sum to less than 100% insofar as many articles 
are not coauthored. The 1970s denote 1973-79 and the 1980s denote 1980-86. 
Source. Science Citation Index from 1973 to 1986 (Institute for Scientific Information) 
(dataset compiled by CHI Research; Stevens 1990). 

The coauthorsh i ps i n Tabl e 13 are si mi I ar to sci enti sts' reported col I aborati ons 
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 percent of their citations to publications 
by scientists at other Brazilian institutions and on this basis concluded thattherewas 
very little communication between scientists at different Brazilian institutions (V el ho 
and Krige, 1984). This percentage, however, is quite high compared to the less than 1 
percent of the world literature that is written by Brazilian scientists, so the observed 
percentages actually indicate a considerable communication among Brazilian 
institutions. That Brazilians collaborate 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 

35 



institutions (a pool of publi cations about twice that in Brazil), as shown in Table 13, also 
i ndicate considerable col I egial ties among the Brazilian institutions, quite comparable 
to those among other Latin American institutions and among Israeli institutions. 



Table 13 shows that the foreign collaboration has been concentrated in North 
America and Europe. Theforeign collaboration from the 1970s to the mid-1980s 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 
1970s to the 1980s, 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. Thisfast increase in foreign collaboration is 
not unique to Brazil but obtains in every place as shown in the table. The i ncreasi ng 
transnational collaboration is part of the globalization of science, which may be partly 
explained by the embedded ness of scientific ties in I inks among nations in spheres such 
as the economy and the polity which are in a process of globalization (Schott 1991b). 

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 collaboration within Latin 
America. To highlight this integration wecan control for the tendency of each country's 
sci enti sts to col I aborate. 

Integration in collaboration between places can be indicated by their actual 
coauthorships relative to their expected frequency if collaboration occured 
independently between scientific communities, that is, in proportion to each 
community's tendency for outside collaboration. The expected frequency of 
coauthorships 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. 



36 



Table 14. Integration in collaboration among national scientific communities, 1970s and 
1980s. 

Authors 



Brazil Other Israel North Western Rest of 

Coauthors LA Amer i ca Europe world 

L0j_81i_ L0j_81i_ L0j_81i_ L0j_81i_ L0j_81i_ 70s 80s 

Brazi I 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 Ameri ca 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.0 1.0 

1.1 1.3 1.5 1.0 1.0 

We s t e r n E u r o p e . 9 .7 .9 1.0 1.1 

1.0 .8 .9 1.0 1.1 

Rest of wor I d . 4 .5 .3 1.0 1.1 

.6 .7 .3 1.0 1.1 



Note: The 1970s denote 1973-79 and the 1980s denote 1980-86. 
Source: Same as Table 13. 



Table 14 shows that there has been a considerable regional integration in 
collaboration between Brazilians and scientists in the rest of Latin America, 
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 1970s to the 1980s. In the 1970s 
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. 

Col I aborati on vari es from one d i sci pi i ne to another. Col I aborati on may be easi er 
in some disciplines than in others, perhaps especially long-distance collaboration. 
Research in some disci pi i nes may be so complex that it requi res extensive collaboration. 
The extents of local and foreign collaboration in each discipline can be indicated by the 
frequency of coauthorships, listed in Table 15. 



37 



Table 15. Collaboration with local and foreign colleagues, by discipline, 1970s and 
1980s. 

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 

L0i_81i_L0i_81i_L0i_81i_ 70s 80s 70s 80s 70s 80s 

Sci ence- as- a- whol e 18 23 24 27 28 35 25 32 24 30 17 28 



clinical medicine 27 33 

biomedicine 21 29 

biology 22 25 

chemistry 16 21 

physics 13 17 

earth & space sci 10 10 

technological sci 12 20 



4 39 55 61 19 31 17 20 10 15 

9 26 23 30 21 33 20 28 20 33 

6 21 22 26 34 36 35 41 11 22 

13 11 16 17 19 19 23 14 27 

8 23 16 15 28 31 37 35 27 50 

2 13 16 22 48 47 59 74 26 47 

6 23 12 13 35 44 29 38 17 28 



ma t h e ma t i c s 4 13 8 7 5 9 4 3 4 7 4 2 3 8 3 8 5 3 

Notes: The 1970s denote 1973-79 and the 1980s 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 compiled by CHI Research). 



Table 15 shows that collaboration varied considerably among the disciplines. 
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 
occured 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 technological 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 foreign 
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 collaboration, but the regional 
collaboration is infrequent compared to the extensive collaboration with colleaguesin 
the North American and European centers. 

38 



Communal attachments: Emulation and recognition. 

The above analyses of influence and collaboration have exami ned the scientists' 
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 circlewhich in turn 
i ntegrates her into wider circles in the world scientific community. A scientist's social 
integration will here be exami ned 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 i n the performance of the scientific role, 
and competes with others in the creation of contributions to public knowledge, 
specifically for rewards for making contributions. 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 colleagueto be first 
or best in research. The respondent rated competition with each col league 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 col leagues, weighted by their 
degree of competition; Table 16. 

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 6 4 % 3 % % 

Other LA 35 

Israel 2 25 

North America 5 40 48 

We s t e r n E u r o p e 2 7 21 15 

Rest of wor I d 3 1 11 

N e mu I a t o r s 7 5 15 8 5 3 

Note. The percentages in each column sum to 100% except for rounding. Source. Survey of 
scientists in Brazil, other Latin A merica and Israel. 



Emulation is seen, from Table 16, to originate partly from the local environment 
and partly from abroad, but the scientists differ in their feelings of local versusforeign 
competition. The Brazilian scientists feel competition mainly from their local 
colleagues, some from their European colleagues but little from their N orth American 
colleagues. Scientists in other parts of Latin A merica feel less competition from their 
local col leagues but feel much more competition from their North American col leagues. 

39 



Scientists in Israel feel even less local competition 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 i mportant from some than from others. Each respondent 
rated her/ his caring about receiving recognition of her/ his work from each named 
colleague, using the scale from to 3. The distribution of the col leagues, weighted by 
the salience of their recognition, indicates the salience of various places as valued 
sources of recognition; Table 17. 

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 Ot her LA I s r ael 

Brazil 5 1 % 4 % % 

Other LA 1 35 

Israel .4 1 28 

Nor t h Amer i ca 20 32 49 

Western Europe 23 26 15 

Rest of world 5 3 8 

N r ecogni zers 338 629 100 

Note. The percentages in each column sum to 100% except for rounding. Source Survey of 
scientists in Brazil, other Latin A merica and Israel. 



Recognition is valued from local col leagues and from foreign colleagues. But the 
salience of the local environment and of foreign places as sources of recognition differ 
among the respondents. Brazilian scientists attach about the same i mportance to local 
and foreign sources of recognition. Scientists in other parts of Latin America attach less 
importance to local recognition and more importance to recognition from colleagues in 
North America. Israeli scientists attach even I ess significance to local recognition and 
care even more about recognition from their col legues in North America. 

In short, the scientists are not only intellectual I ly 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. 



40 



Audience-orientations. 

The last kind of role-relation among scientists to be examined here is the 
orientation 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 col leagues that are primarily addressed. 

Scientists' ad dressing 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 byauthorsina 
scientific community across places of publication is listed in a column in Table 18. As 
emphasized at the beginning of this essay, however, this study does not examine 
research for I ocal consu mpti on, but focuses on research contri buti ng to worl d sci ence. 
Specifically, for example, the distribution in the first column of Table 18 largely ignores 
Brazilian authors' works in Brazilian journals published mainly in Portugese and in 
other Latin American journals publishing mainly in Spanish. Rather, the first column 
shows the primary audiences that Brazilian authors ad dress when they present their 
contributions to world science. 



Table 18. 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). 

Aut hor 



Place of 

publ i c a t i on 
Brazil 
Other LA 
I s r ael 

North Ame r i c a 44 

We s t e r n Europe 39 

Rest of First Wor I d 
S e c o n d Wo r I d 2 

Thi rd Worl d (ex LA) 



Brazil Other Israel North Western Rest of Second Third 



13 



N articles by 
authors in place 



LA 



Amer 



20 

41 
35 



04 

9 

3 

4 

6 

3 

5 





11 
46 
41 



77 
21 



ca Europe F . Wo r I d Wor I d WexLA 



00 

03 

04 

6 

1 

4 



24 
73 



00 

01 

07 

2 

5 

3 



26 
39 
33 



00 
01 
00 
3 



6 
16 

76 



00 

00 

01 

3 

3 

6 



24 
39 

4 
31 



00 

04 

06 

8 

2 

7 

3 





1,060 2,233 3,795 187,054 135,028 8,987 33,350 15,689 



/Votes: The percentages in each column sum to 100% except for rounding. Rest of First World 
denotes Japan, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand; the Second World denotes the then 
communist East Bloc of theSoviet U nion 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. A I so authors in the rest of Latin America and 
in Israel addressed these primary audiences. Authors in North America and in 



41 



Western Europe addressed their works primarily toward their local colleagues. 
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 i n the then 
communist countries, the so-called Second World, were addressed mainly to local 
audiences, much I ess often were their primary audiences 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 columns) addressed local audiences and 
audiencesin Europe and North America. Nowhere outside Brazil did authors notably 
address col leagues in Brazil. And nowhere outside Latin America did authors notably 
address colleagues in Latin America. Only to a very small extent did Brazilian authors 
add ress col I egi al aud i ences i n the rest of Lati n A meri ca and to an even I esser extent d i d 
authors i n the rest of Lati n America address a Brazi I ian audience. The smal I ness of this 
orientation is probably due to the difference in language, Portugese 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 
Tabl e 18, but now percentagi ng across cou ntri es of authors, as I i sted i n a row i n Tabl e 
19. 

Table 19. Audience-attraction among national scientific communities; 1982. 

Percentage distribution of the articles published in each place (row) across 
countries of the authors (columns). 



Aut hor 



Place of 
publ i cat i on 
Brazil 
Other LA 
I s r ael 

North A me r i c a 
We stern Europe 
Rest of First Wi 
Second Wo r I d 
Third Wo r I d (ex 



Brazil 



94 



rl d 



LA) 



Ot her 

LA 



I s r ae 



No r t h 

Amer i 



West 
Eur op 



of Second 
irl d 



>r 



1 




7 







2 





2 


6 









7 




9 


84 


8 







10 


5 


2 


4 




2 







1 





1 





68 


7 


13 


4 


15 


1 









3 


1 


2 




5 




9 


76 


7 


17 


3 


1 


3 


1 


1 


2 


3 




5 


1 





25 


2 


63 


4 


2 


2 


3 


5 


3 


1 




1 




4 


14 


9 


9 


2 


68 


6 


4 


4 


2 


1 




1 




1 


5 





8 







2 


84 


3 


2 


1 









2 


2 


7 


2 


7 




2 




3 


93 



Thi rd 
WexLA 


3 
5 
1 
9 
3 
2 



N articles 
in journals 
in place 

152 

551 

614 

189, 240 

156, 661 

4, 422 
30, 376 

5, 180 



Note The percentages in each row sum to 100% except for rounding. Source: Same as Table 
18. 



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 



42 



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 mainstream 
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 
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 
jou rnal of cou rse occasi onal I y becomes a conf I i ct; for a Lati n A meri can case, see Vessu ri , 
1987). The journals to be examined are those that have been covered by the Jou rnal 
Citation Reports of the Science Citation Indexduring 1975-88. The Brazilian journals 
are, 

Revista BrasileiradeMedicina in Internal and General Medicine, 

Revista Brasileira de Pesquisas Medicas e Biologicas in Internal and General Medicine, 

Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research in Experimental and Research Medicine, 

Memoriasdo Institute Oswaldo Cruz in Experimental and Research Medicine, 

Revista do Institute deMedicina Tropical deSao Paulo inTropical Medicine, 

Arquivos da Escola de Veterinaria da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais in Veterinary 

Medicine, 

Revista Brasileira deGenetica in Genetics and Heredity, 

Anaisda Academia Brasileira deCienci as in Multi disciplinary Sciences, and 

Pesq uisa A gropecuari a 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 
Medici na and Pesquisa A gropecuari a Brasileira) which weclassified into one of these 
six fields mainly according to the provided clasification of jou rnal s that they refered 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 



43 



Medicine, 55 in Experimental and Research Medicine, 14 in Tropical Medicine, 93 in 
Veterinary Medicine, 74 in Genetics and Heredity, and 88 in M ultidisci pi i nary Sciences, 
but not all thesejournals were included in a particular year. 

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

ArchivosdeBiologicay Medici na Experi mental es in Internal and General Medicine. 

Medicina- Buenos Aires in Internal and General Medicine. 

Revistade Investigation Clinica in Internal and General Medicine. 

Revista MedicadeChile in Internal and General Medicine, 

Archivosde Investigation Medica in Experimental and Research Medicine, 

Interciencia in Multidisciplinary Sciences, and 

ActaCientifica Venezolana in Multidisciplinary Sciences. 

Thesixfieldsin 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, 

Refuah Veterinarith in Veterinary Sciences, and 

Israel Journal of Technology in Multidisciplinary Sciences. 

Thesejournals 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, I ike the phenomenon of influence of people examined earlier in this 
study. Influence of an article can be indicated by its subsequent citations, citations in 
subsequent publications refering to the article (as influence was also operationalized 
forTable6). 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 Science 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 average impact of its articles and is thus not affected by the 
number of articles appearing in the journal (considerations of this impact measure are 
provided by Sivertsen 1991, 64-68). 

A journal may be compared each year to the other journals in its field which are 
reported in thejournal Citation Reports in the year. The reported journals can 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. Theannual 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. 



44 



Table 20. Influence of journals, by field and year, 1975-1988. 

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 M edicina 

12 12 2 12 11111 
Revista Brasileira de Pesquisas M edicas e Biologicas 

4 2 8 6 7 

Archivos de Biologica y M edicina Experimental es 

. . . . 47 65 69 50 63 60 59 59 58 

M edicina - Buenos Aires 

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

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

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

3 5 

Israel Journal of M edical 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 

M emorias do I nstituto Oswaldo Cruz 

12 

Archivos del nvestigaci on Medica 

8 7 17 12 6 38 10 21 5 8 2 2 2 6 
Tropical Medicine: 
Revista do I nstituto de M edicina Tropical de Sao Paulo 

16 28 21 30 

Veteri nary M ed i ci ne: 

Arquivos da Escola de Veteri naria da Universidade Federal de M inas G erais 

2 2 3 5 2 1.... 
R ef u ah V eteri n ari th 

. 32 25 

Genetics and H eredity: 
Revista Brasileira de G en etica 

4 4 6 7. 11 

M ultidiciplinary Sciences: 

Anais da Acad emia Brasileira deCienci as 

28 5 15 51 34 29 29 41 22 49 23 17 10 12 
Pesq u i sa A gropecu ari a B rasi I ei ra 

10 3 3 5 6 5 

Interciencia 

. 29 52 52 26 20 33 45 51 60 37 29 
ActaCientifica Venezolana 

33 22 50 42 42 38 20 

Israel Journal of Technology 

45 49 25 7 19 8 12 23 1 11 

N ote: Years in which influence was not reported are indicated by a dot (.) Source: Journal Citation 
Reports for 1975 to 1988 (Institutefor Scientific Information). 

Before interpreting the rankings in Table 20, I reemphasize that the journals 
included in the Journal Citation Reports (as in the Science Citation Index) are largely 

45 



the jou rnal s that are of emi nence. Therefore, the I i steal jou rnal s and thei r compari sons 
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 journals 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 published in English). 

The first row of Table 20 shows that the Revista Brasileirade Medici na has 
not been one of the top journals among the covered journals in Internal and General 
Medicine which were reported in the Journal Citation Reports. Another Brazilian 
journal in the same field, Revista Brasileira de Pesquisas Medicas e Biologicas, has 

also not been among the top journals. The four journals published 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 journal, 
Memoriasdo Institute Oswaldo Cruz, was less influential (and was probably found 
not to be so influential as to be covered since the 1970s). A journal published elsewhere 
in Latin America has been among the rather influential journals in Experimental 
Medicine. 

In Tropical Medicine, the Brazilian journal Revista do Institute de Medicina 
Tropical deSao Paulo, has been quite influential. 

In Veterinary Medicine, the Brazilian journal, Arquivos da Escola de 
Veterinaria da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, has been one of the less 
influential ones and also the Israeli journal Refuah Veterinarith has been one of the I ess 
influential ones among the covered journals in the field. 

The journal Revista Brasileira deGenetica has been among the I ess influential 
ones in Genetics and Heredity. 

In the Multidici pi i nary Sciences, the A nais da Academia Brasileira deCiencias 
has been of changing influence, apparently more influential around the first half of the 
1980s than earlier and later. The other Brazilian journal in this field, Pesquisa 
Agropecuaria 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 I ess influential overtime. 



46 



To summarize these rankings among the influential journals within each field, 
about a handful of Brazilian journals have evidently been among the highly influential 
journals in the world, and a couple of these Brazilian journals have actually been 
especially influential. Another handful have been somewhat influential. Apartfrom 
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 onejournal that apparently had an especially influential period. 
A mong the other Latin American and Israeli journals in these fields, some were more 
and some were I ess influential, and most were stable but several were apparently of 
declining influence. Compared to the mixed stableand declining influence of journals 
published in the rest of Latin America and 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 Brazil. Therefore 
trends in Brazilian research were ascertained and Brazil was compared to the other 
Latin America and to Israel which have had similar and different, respectively, 
institutional arrangements. 

Science has become institutionalized in Brazil in so far 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 performance 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 smal I ness of the country. But 
scientific research has expanded in Brazil, and the Brazilian 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 throughout the 1980s. A decline in social and human 
i nvestment i n scientific activity takes some years to cause a decl i ne i n the outcomes of 
research. The recent Brazilian crisis has not showed up as a decline in the Brazilians' 
publications by 1993 but will probably entail a decline within a few years. 

Brazilian research has been specialized in so far 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 



47 



mathematics, it has been more typical in biomedi cine and earth and space science, and 
has deemphasized clinical medicine, chemistry and technological science. Within 
medicine, though, tropical medicine and parasitology have been fields of strong 
specialization in Brazil, I ike 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 colleagues. 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 embedded ness 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 overshadowed by the attachment to the centers of 
science, located in North America and Western Europe. Scientists in Brazil, like 
elsewhere, havedefered 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 I inks between Israel andtheUnited 
States and also by institutional arrangements for science such as comprehensive 
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. 1989. Men, Machines as the Measure of Men: Science, Technology and 
Ideologies of Western Domination . Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. 

Adas, M ichael. 1991. Scientific standards and colonial education in British India and French 
Senegal. Pp. 4-35 in Teresa Meade and Mark Walker (eds.), Science, Medicine 
and Cultural Imperialism . N ew York: St. M arti n's Press. 

Albornoz, Orlando. 1991. Latin America. Pp. 853-867 in Philip G. Altbach (ed.), 
International Higher Education: An Encyclopedia . N ew York: Garland. 

Altbach, Philip G., and Viswanathan Selvaratnam (eds.). 1989. From Dependence to 
Autonomy: The Development of Asian U niversities . Dordrecht: Kluwer. 



48 



Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities . London: Verso. 

Apter, David E. 1974. The role of the new scientific elite and scientific idelology in 
modernization. Pp. 398-408 in Sal P. Restivo and Christopher K. Vanderpool 
(eds.), Comparative Studies in Science and Society . Columbus, Ohio: Merrill. 

Ben-David, Joseph. 1962. Scientific endeavor in Israel and the United States. The 
American Behavioral Scientist , 6, 4 (December): 12-16. 

Ben-David, Joseph. 1964. M ada BaEretz Katana [Science in a small country]. 
H aOni versita (H ebrew magazine published by the Hebrew University of 
Jerusalem). 10:12-17. 

Ben-David, Joseph. 1976 Report on a visit to Brazil. Rio dejaneiro: Financiadora de 
Estudos e Projetos [manuscript; translated and published in 1987 as listed 
below]. 

Ben-David, Joseph. [1971] 1984. The Scientist's Role in Society: A Comparative Study . 
2 nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Ben-David, Joseph. 1986. Universities in Israel: dilemmas of growth, diversification and 
administration. Studies in Higher Education , 11:105-130. 

Ben-Davi d, J oseph. 1987. U niversidade e ciencia observadas por Ben-D avid. R elatorio de uma 
visita ao Brasil (25 dejulho - 8 de agosto de 1976). Ciencia Hoje , 7 (November 
1987):68-73. 

Ben-David, Joseph. 1991. Scientific Growth: Essays on the Social Organization and 
Ethos of Science . Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Burt, Ronald S. 1984. Network items and the General Social Survey. Social Networks , 
6:293-339. 

Burt, Ronald S, and Thomas Schott. 1989. Relational contentsin multiple network systems. 
Pp. 185-213 in L. C. Freeman, A. K. Romney, and D. R. White (Eds.), 
Research Methods in Social Network Analysis . Fairfax, Va.: George Mason 
University Press. 

Cabral, Regis. 1992. Latin A merica, Spain and Portugal: Scientific networks and exchange 
with Sweden. Science Studies , 5, 2:97-107. 

Chase-Dunn, Christopher. 1989. Global Formation: Structures of the World-Economy . 
Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 



49 



Daston, Lorraine. 1991. Theideal and reality of 'the Republic of Liters in the Enlightenment. 
Science in Context 4:367-386. 

Eisemon, Thomas O., and Charles H . Davis. 1989. Publication strategies of scientists in 
four peripheral Asian scientific communities: Some issues in the measurement and 
interpretation of n on -main stream science. Pp. 325-375 in Philip G. Altbach et al., 
Scientific Development and Higher Education: The Case of Newly 
Industrializing Nations . New York: Praeger. 

Eisemon, Thomas O., and Charles H. Davis. 1991. University research and the 
development of scientific capacity in sub-Saharan A frica and A sia. I n International 
H igher Education: An Encyclopedia , edited by Philip G. Altbach, 275-295. New 
York: Garland. 

Eliason, Scott R. 1990. The Categorical Data Analysis System Version 3.5 User's 
Manual . Iowa City: University of Iowa. 

Frame, J. Davidson. 1977. M ain stream research in Latin America and the Carribean. 
Interciencia, 2:143-147. 

Frame, J . Davidson. 1985. Problems in the use of literature-based science and engineering 
indicators in developing countries. Pp. 117-122 in H . M orita-Lou (ed.), Science and 
Technology Indicators for Development . The United Nations Science and 
Technology for Development Series. Boulder: Westview. 

Garfield, Eugene. 1979. Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science, 
Technology, and Humanities . New York: Wiley. 

Garfield, Eugene. 1983a. Third World research. Parti. Whereis it published, and how often 

it is cited. Current Contents , 33 (August 15):5-15. 
Garfield, Eugene. 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. 

Glick, Thomas F. Forthcoming. "Science in the Twentieth Century." Cambridge 
History of Latin America. Vol VII . 

Greenfeld, Liah. 1987. Science and national greatness in seventeenth-century England. 
Minerva 25:107-122. 

Greenfeld, Liah, and Michael Martin (eds.). 1988. Center: Ideas and Institutions . 
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Haberman, Shelby. 1979. Analysis of Qualitative Data . New York: Academic Press. 



50 



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

Institutefor Scientific Information. Annually, journal Citation Reports . Philadelphia: 
Institute for Scientific Information. 

Institutefor Scientific Information. Annually. Science Citation Index . Philadelphia: 
Institutefor Scientific Information. 

Inter-American Development Bank. 1988. Economic and Social Progress in Latin 
America. 1988 Report . New York: Inter-American Development Bank. 

Irvine, John, Ben Martin, Tim Peacock and Roy Turner. 1985. Charting the decline in 
British science. Nature , 316 (August 15)587-590. 

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

King, Alexander. 1974. Science and Policy: The International Stimulus . Oxford: 
Oxford University Press. 

Knoke, David. 1990. Political Networks: The Structural Perspective . Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. 

Levy, Daniel C. 1986. Higher Education and the State in Latin America. Chicago: 
University of Chicago Press. 

Merton, Robert K. [1938] 1970. Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth- 
Century England . N ew York: H arper and Row. 

M eyer, J ohn W. 1987. The world polity and the authority of the nation-state. Pp. 41-70 i n 
G. M. Thomas, J. W. Meyer, F. O. Ramirez, and J. Boli (eds.), Institutional 
Structure: Constituting State, Society, and the Individual . Newbury Park: Sage. 

Moed, Henk F. 1989. The Use of Bibliometric Indicators for the Assessment of 
Research Performance in the Natural and Life Sciences . Leiden: DSWO Press. 

Morita-Lou, H. (ed.). 1985. Science and Technology Indicators for Development . The 
United Nations Science and Technology for Development Series. Boulder: 
Westview. 

Petitjean, Patrick, Catherinejami and Anne Marie Moulin (eds.). 1992. Science and 
Empires: Historical Studies About Scientific Development and European 
Expansion . Dordrecht: Kluwer. 



51 



Powell, Walter W., and Paul J. DiMaggio (eds.). 1991. The New Institutional ism in 
Organizational Analysis . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Price, Derek J. de Sol la. 1986. Little Science, Big Science . . . And Beyond . New 
York: Columbia University Press. 

Ramirez, Francisco O. 1987. Institutional analysis. Pp. 316-328 in G. M . Thomas, J. W. 
Meyer, F. O. Ramirez, and J. Boli (eds.), Institutional Structure: Constituting 
State, Society, and the Individual . Newbury Park: Sage. 

Robertson, Roland. 1992. Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture . London: 
Sage. 

Sagasti, Francisco R. 1979 Technology, Planning, and Self-Reliant Development: A 
Latin American View . New York: Praeger. 

Schott, Thomas. 1980. Fundamental research in a small country: M athematics in Denmark 
1928-1977. Minerva 18:243-283. 

Schott, Thomas. 1986. M odels of dyadic and individual components of a social relation: 
applications to international trade, journal of Mathematical Sociology , 12:225-249 

Schott, Thomas. 1987a. Interpersonal influence in science, mathematicians in Denmark and 
Israel. Social Networks , 9:351-374. 

Schott, Thomas. 1987b. Scientific productivity and international integration of small 
countries: mathematics in D enmark and Israel. M i nerva , 25:3-20. 

Schott, Thomas. 1988. International influence in science beyond center and periphery. Social 
Science Research , 17:219-238. 

Schott, Thomas. 1991a. N etwork models. Pp. 107-206 i n STRU CTU RE Reference M anual . 
New York: Columbia University. 

Schott, Thomas. 1991b. The world scientific community: globality and globalisation. 
Minerva , 29:440-462. 

Schott, Thomas. 1992a. Scientific research in Sweden: orientation toward the A merican centre 
and embeddedness in N ordic and European environments. Science Studies , 5:13-27. 

Schott, Thomas. 1992b. Soviet science in the scientific world system: was it autarchic, self- 
reliant, distinctive, isolated, peripheral, central? Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, 
Utilization, 13:410-439. 



52 



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

Schott, Thomas. 1993b. World science, globalization of institutions and participation. 
Science, Technology, & Human Values , 18:196-208. 

Schott, Thomas. Forthcoming. Therise, spread and growth of science-Joseph Ben-David's 
contribution and a continuation. 

Schott, Thomas. Forthcomi ng. D eclining and emerging centers of technological science The 
United States and Japan. 

Schubert, A., W. Glanzel, and T. Braun. 1989. Scientometric datafiles. A comprehensive set 
of indicators on 2649 journals and 96 countries in all major science fields and subfields. 1981- 
1985. Scientometrics , 16:3-478. 

Schwartzman, Simon. 1978. Struggling to be born: the scientific comunity in Brazil. 
Minerva , 16:545-580. 

Schwartzman, Simon. 1985. The quest for university research: policies and research 
organization in Latin America. Pp. 101-116 in B. Wittrock and A. Elzinga (eds.), 
The University Research System: The Public Policy of the Home of Scientists . 

Schwartzman, Simon. 1986. Coming full circle: a reappraisal of university reform in Latin 
America. Minerva , 24:456-475. 

Schwartzman, Simon. 1991. A Space for Science: The Development of the Scientific 
Community in Brazil . College Park: Pennsylvania State University. 

Shahidullah, Shahid M. 1991. Capacity-Building in Science and Technology in the 
Third World: Problems, Issues, and Strategies . Boulder: Westview Press. 

Shils, Edward. [1961] 1972a. Center and periphery. Pp. 93-109 in E. Shils, The 

Constitution 
of Society . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Shils, Edward. [1961] 1972b. M etropolis and province in the intellectual community. Pp. 
355-371 in E. Shils, The I ntel lectuals and the Powers, and Other Essays . Chicago: 
University of Chicago Press. 

Shils, Edward. 1976 The cognitive expansion from centreto periphery. Pp. 63-95 in Say 
Not the Struggle , 63-95. Delhi: Oxford University Press. 

Shils, Edward. 1981. Tradition . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 



53 



Shi Is, Edward. 1988. Center and periphery: an idea and its career, 1985-1987. Pp. 250-282, 
in Liah Greenfeld & Michael Martin (Eds.), Center: Ideas and Institutions . 
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Shi Is, Edward. 1991. Reflections on tradition, centre and periphery, and the universal validity 
of science, the significance of the life of S. Ramanujan. M i nerva 29:393-419. 

Shrum, Wesley. 1985. Organized Technology: Networks and Innovation in Technical 
Systems . West Lafayette: Purdue University Press. 

Shrum, Wesley, and Carl Bankston. Forthcoming. Organizational and geopolitical 
approaches to international science and technology networks. Knowledge and Policy . 

Shrum, Wesley, and Nicholas C. Mullins. 1988. Network analysis in science and 
technology. Pp. 107-134 in Anthony F. J. van Raan (ed.), Handbook of 
Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology . Amsterdam: North-Holland. 

Sivertsen, Gunnar. 1991. Internationalization via journals: Scientific and Scholarly 
journals Edited in the Nordic Countries . Nord 1991:49 . Copenhagen: Nordic 
Council of Ministers. 

Stevens, Kimberly A. 1990. Updating and maintaining fourteen bibliometric data 

series 
through 1986 . H addon Heights, N.J. : CHI Research. 

Tal, Eliezer, and Yaron Ezrahi (eds.). 1973. Science Pol icy and Development . (London: 
Gordon). 

Teitel, Simon. 1987. Science and technology indicators, country size and economic 
development: A n international comparison. World Development , 15:1225-1235. 

Velho, Lea, and John Krige. 1984. Publication and citation practices of Brazilian 
agricultural 
scientists. Social Studies of Science , 14:45-62. 

Velho, Lea. 1990 Sources of influence on problem choice in Brazilian university agricultural 
science. Social Studies of Science , 20:503-517. 

Verhine, Robert E. 1991. Brazil. Pp. 885-898 in Philip G. Altbach (ed.), International 
Higher Education: An Encyclopedia . New York: Garland. 

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

Vessuri, Hebe. 1986. The universities, scientific research, and thenational interest in Latin 
America. Minerva , 24:1-38. 



54 



Vessuri, H ebe. 1987. La revista cientifica periferica: El caso de A eta Cientifica Venezolana . 
Interciencia , 12:124-134. 

Vessuri, Hebe. 1990. inventamosoerramos: the power of science in Latin America. World 
Development , 18:1543-1553. 

Wuthnow, Robert. 1987. Meaning and Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural Analysis. 
Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Young, Oran R. 1989. International Cooperation: Building Regimes for Natural 
Resources and the Environment . Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. 

Zahlan, Antoine. 1970. Science and Higher Education in Israel . Beirut: Institute for 
Palestine Studies. 

Zuckerman, Harriet A. 1988. The sociology of science. Pp. 511-574 in Neil Smelser (ed.), 
Hand book of Soci ol ogy . Newbury Park: Sage. 



55