Linguistic capital and international circulation: A comparative study between Argentina, Brazil and Chile¹

Abstract

While the hyper centrality of English has been considered a central feature of the world academic system and an increasing tendency in the Latin American academic circuit, one that has been pushed by state scientific policies and by the beliefs of researchers, no attempt has been made so far to observe to which extent publication in English is indeed a requirement for developing an academic career in the region. We attempt to shed new light in this issue by exploring the results of a survey that compares the use of foreign languages in publications and the experiences of acquiring linguistic competence in English for researchers based in Argentina, Brazil and Chile. The results show a more complex reality than that advanced by the evidence of hyper centrality of English. Bibliodiversity and multilingualism seems to be more the norm than the exception among these researchers. A steady stream of publication in the national language was identified among them, as well as the use of other languages. As these results vary by disciplinary field and related to phd formation abroad, the article proposes a more nuanced view of the processes and dynamics of publication practices in the Southern Cone.

Keywords:
Hyper centrality of English; Linguistic capital; multilingualism.

Resumen

Si bien la hipercentralidad del inglés ha sido considerada un rasgo central del sistema académico mundial y una tendencia creciente en el circuito académico latinoamericano, impulsada por las políticas científicas estatales y por las creencias de los investigadores, no se ha intentado hasta ahora observar hasta qué punto la publicación en inglés es efectivamente un requisito para desarrollar una carrera académica en la región. Intentamos aportar a la comprensión sobre esta cuestión explorando los resultados de una encuesta que compara el uso de lenguas extranjeras en las publicaciones y las experiencias de adquisición de competencia lingüística en inglés de investigadores radicados en Argentina, Brasil y Chile. Los resultados muestran una realidad más compleja que la adelantada por la evidencia de la hipercentralidad del inglés. La bibliodiversidad y el multilingüismo parecen ser más la norma que la excepción entre estos investigadores. Se identificó entre ellos un flujo constante de publicaciones en la lengua nacional, así como el uso de otras lenguas. Dado que estos resultados varían según el campo disciplinario y en relación con la formación de doctores en el extranjero, el artículo propone una visión más matizada de la dinámica de las prácticas de publicación en el Cono Sur.

Palabras clave:
Hipercentralidad del inglés; Capital lingüístico; Multilingüismo.

Resumo

Embora a hipercentralidade do inglês tenha sido considerada característica central do sistema acadêmico mundial e tendência crescente no circuito acadêmico latino-americano, impulsionada pelas políticas científicas estatais e pelas crenças dos pesquisadores, até agora não se tentou observar até que ponto a publicação em inglês é efetivamente requisito para desenvolver uma carreira acadêmica na região. Intentamos contribuir para a compreensão dessa questão explorando os resultados de uma pesquisa que compara o uso de línguas estrangeiras em publicações e as experiências de aquisição de competência linguística em inglês de pesquisadores radicados na Argentina, Brasil e Chile. Os resultados mostram uma realidade mais complexa do que a avançada pela evidência da hipercentralidade do inglês. A bibliodiversidade e o multilinguismo parecem ser mais a norma do que a exceção entre esses pesquisadores. Identificou-se entre eles um fluxo constante de publicações na língua nacional, bem como o uso de outros idiomas. Dado que esses resultados variam segundo o campo disciplinar e em relação com a formação de doutores no exterior, o artigo propõe uma visão mais matizada da dinâmica das práticas editoriais no Cone Sul.

Palavras-chave:
Hipercentralidade do inglês; Capital linguístico; Multilinguismo.

Introduction

For a long time, researchers in different latitudes have lived (or cursed) the parable “publish or perish”, but most of them eventually believe that publishing in mainstream journals is the golden door to enter “world science”. After the globalization of the criteria established by the Institute of Scientific Information (isi) created in 1959 was fulfilled, publishing in English became the most efficient means to acquire “universal” scientific prestige. The American journals were the legitimate model of this new style of production and dominant language that conquered almost all disciplines. Several studies (Gingras, 2002; Ortiz, 2009) have observed that the indexing database created by Garfield was for forty years the only source for international reports and comparative studies and, consequently also for the “universalization” of indicators for the assessment of individual careers and institutions. There is no doubt that the hyper centrality of English prevailed in this process as the most valuable transactional linguistic capital (Gerhards, 2014). De Swaan (2002) argues that this dominance is also part of the logic of a global linguistic system that is sustained in relations of power and exchange, which do not evolve independently of the political and cultural economic dynamics.

In the case of Latin America, this seems to be corroborated in various ways in the long term: the imposition of one language over others was a form of symbolic violence that began during the conquest in 1492 and continued during colonization, as a result of physical violence exercised against the original communities of this subcontinent. Two dominant languages, Spanish and Portuguese, were established as officially legitimate while the extermination of much of the native population occurred, subjugating hundreds of indigenous languages such as Nahuatl, Quechua, Aymara, Guarani, Mapudungun and others. Nowadays, survivors of these communities continue to speak those languages and native traditions have resisted.

In the realm of the production and circulation of scientific knowledge it seems like these two official languages have been put down by English, at least within biologists, health and medicine researchers, engineers, physicists, astronomers, and others. Recent reports affirm that English is used in more than 90% of the documents published in academic journals (Badillo, 2021). What is not clearly said is that this observation is limited to the mainstream databases that include mainly the production of the traditional high-ranked universities. This focus obscures the considerable scholarly activity that continues to take place around the world in multiple languages, signaling the value these languages have for academic writers as well as readers. The global reality of multilingualism across domains, not least the academic, calls into question the naturalization of English as the privileged language of publication (Curry and Lillis, 2022). From the perspective of the periphery, other realities can be observed, along with a dynamical regional circuit with more than 6.000 scientific journals edited in Spanish and Portuguese, published in diamond access (Beigel, 2019).

The features of the integration of these semi-peripheral scientific elites to global standards have been examined in historical, sociological and bibliometric studies (Vessuri, Guédon and Cetto, 2014; Vessuri and Kreimer, 2018 Aguado-López et al., 2018; Alperin and Rosemblum, 2017 Vasen and Lujano, 2017, Piovani, 2020). However, so far it has not yet been studied how they mastered English as a foreign language, weighing the causal effect of social origin and the role played by academic training. The survey examined in this paper (Ecapin, 2018) gathers the results of a tri-national study carried out in Argentina, Brazil and Chile by a team composed of senior researchers from the three countries. After determining the universe of study for each national field, its structural conditions and comparative axis, the survey was applied to three populations of scholars. The results of this survey are analyzed in different articles presented in this journal, while this paper focuses particularly on the means for the construction of linguistic abilities for academic publishing in English. In the first part, we discuss the available literature on building linguistic transnational capital. Secondly, we delve on the description of the three populations surveyed and the weight of doctoral studies abroad in their trajectories. Finally, we point out the main aspects of the cross-national comparison that explain similarities and differences in the modes of circulation of knowledge in the Southern Cone.

Academic writing in English, in the crossroads between social origin and social capital

Linguistic capital, as a kind of cultural capital, is made up of both the competence itself and the process of acquisition or incorporation, that constitutes a mark of origin that will later determine its use in the cultural field (Bourdieu, 2003). Early language learning and scholar capital, however, do not naturally lead to publishing in mainstream circuits. Linguistic exchanges in the academic world are asymmetrical because languages are valued differently and scholars do not have the same access to the skills associated with scientific writing in English (Chardenet, 2012; Lillis and Curry, 2010; Gerhards, 2014). As Gérard and Wagner (2015) argue, the knowledge of an academic elite is never a result of exclusively scholar practices, but always involves some kind of savoir-faire (know-how) and savoir-être (know-how to be). Such knowledge is cultivated at the institutions where elites get their education and in order to be effective, they must always be bound to certain types of social and political resources.

To understand the working and the reproduction of this institutional know-how, it is useful to recall Bourdieu’s distinction between the “three states” of cultural capital: embodied, objectified and institutionalized. The first state, embodied, is tied to an individual through his or her family and education; the second, is related to the material products and outlooks developed at the academic institutions. Institutionalized cultural capital consists of academic credentials whose symbolic value exceeds the capacities and outlooks acquired by the individual because are capable of making others believe and of consolidating prestige regardless of the current status of the bearer (Bourdieu, 1979). The institutional know-how is an interactional competence that increases academic success and differs from the abilities of the non-chosen. The elite constructs itself but seeks approval from above and also from below, because the groups whom the elites intend to dominate must also accept the principle of their superiority. Between the structural properties of the scientific field and the properties that the agents embody, there is a set of different symbolic capitals responsible for this power of making others believe, establishing worth, acknowledging and distinguishing.

However, within structurally heterogeneous academic fields as the peripheral ones observed in this study, the magical transition into a transnational writing habitus requires more than scholar capital or an academic title abroad. As Beigel (2017) observed, the differential for defining circuits of recognition lies in dispositions and skills that are acquired through research experience at certain institutions or groups and not in others. These savoir-être and savoir-faire are incorporated in academic training, assistant teaching, participating in competitions for fellowships, learning in laboratories with senior researchers, acquiring the know-how passed on by successful researchers, becoming familiar with the publication styles at the institute in which their work is done, collaborating in collective publishing and research networks. This institutional capital is much more than an institutionalized form of academic capital involved in a degree: it is social capital and embodied knowledge that operates when seeking an entry-level post as a researcher or when writing a paper. These skills and savoir-dire (know-how to say) are relevant when building the academic métier in tenure competitions or when drafting an application or a project proposal for a research grant.

Many studies traditionally assigned a strong incidence of doctoral training abroad as a determination of the forms of circulation and styles of publication (Gantman, 2011; several others). Indeed, that was the case for the average researchers two or three decades ago. Recent studies show that 92% of the Conicet researchers (Argentina), one of the populations of this study, have doctorate degrees obtained in their own country and, however, they are highly internationalized with considerable levels of publication in English (Beigel, Gallardo and Bekerman, 2018). Contrary to the common-sense idea that “younger is better”, adults can advance faster in the acquisition of a second language as long as that learning takes place in an appropriate context (Krashen, 2009).

The survey, the target population and the cross-national comparison of the incidence of doctoral formation abroad

The Ecapin survey aimed to compare the use of foreign languages in publications and the experiences of acquiring linguistic competence in English for Argentine, Brazilian and Chilean researchers, based on a self-administered questionnaire. To make this comparison possible, taking into account the classic problem of equivalence of contexts, it was decided to work with “matched” populations according to the fulfillment of a series of conditions related to the definition of “scientist”. The idea was to study the most qualified members of the scientific system of each country and, therefore, those most prone to internationalization. However, given that each country has a different science and technology (sandt) system; it was not possible to achieve a perfect equivalence. For Argentina, the target population were the researchers from the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (Conicet), whereas in Brazil the study focused on the researchers ascribed to doctoral programs of excellence (level 7, according to Capes’ qualification), and in the Chilean case, on those involved in research projects financed by Fondecyt in the period from 2000 to 2014.

The data collection was performed during 2017-2018 by email using selfadministered questionnaires. In Argentina and Brazil all members of the target population were invited to participate in the study, while in Chile a systematic probability sampling procedure was adopted. However, taking into account the low response rates (as expected in this type of survey), the final result was that of self-selected samples. In relation to the questionnaire, its structure was made up of several modules common to the three countries: a) basic sociodemographic and academic data; b) academic background and current institutional insertion; c) language skills (reading comprehension, oral comprehension, oral expression and writing) and the use of foreign languages; and d) the experience of the acquisition of writing competence in English. The questionnaires used were very similar in the three countries. However, it was necessary to make some adjustments to account for local specificities, which led to some differences that ended up affecting some expected indicators of comparison.

The combined database (which includes the samples of the three countries) is made up of 3,195 records, of which 2,390 correspond to Argentina, 597 to Brazil, and 208 to Chile. The Argentine sample includes 54.9% women, compared to 39.9% in Brazil and 33.2% in Chile. The Argentine sample is not only the larger but also the youngest: the eldest respondent is a researcher born in 1940, while in Brazil there is the case of a researcher born in 1928 and in Chile one born in 1936. Furthermore, the average year of birth is 1972 for Argentinians, 1967 for Chileans, and 1964 for Brazilians. In Brazil and Argentina, the youngest were born in 1987, while in Chile they were born in 1984. As can be seen in Figure 1, 71.1% of Argentinians were born from 1970 onwards, compared to 51.4% of Chileans and 33.5% of Brazilians in the same situation. In the Figure it can also be observed that in the distribution corresponding to Brazil the mode is the interval 1960-1964 (17.9% of the total), while in Argentina and Chile the mode is the interval 1975-1979, although in the first case this includes 32.4% of the researchers and in the second 21.6%

The Argentine sample is also the one with the highest proportion of researchers born in the country (97%), a figure that drops to 88.8% in Brazil and 80.8% in Chile. The few Argentinian researchers born abroad are mainly Europeans (especially Spaniards or Italians), Latin Americans (particularly Uruguayans and, to a lesser extent, Brazilians or Colombians) and Americans. In the Brazilian sample, researchers of European origin stand out (4.5%), but also Argentinians (2.7%) and to a lesser extent Americans (1%). For its part, the Chilean sample, which is the one with the highest proportion of foreign-born researchers, has 6.7% Europeans (born mainly in Germany, France, Russia and Spain), and 4.3% Argentinians. From the point of view of the mobility of researchers between the three countries under study, Brazil and Chile have a net negative balance with Argentina, in the sense that there is a significant presence of Argentinian researchers in them, while in Argentina the presence of Chilean and Brazilian researchers is rather marginal. Nor is the presence of Brazilian researchers in Chile and Chileans in Brazil quantitatively significant. Another interesting aspect to note is that, beyond the fact that some of the researchers born abroad are not migrants in the strict sense (for example, in the case of children of diplomats in service or political exiles who had nationality - or the right to nationality - of the country in which they currently work), the proportion of foreign-born in the Argentinian sample (3%) is lower than the proportion of migrants in the total population of the country (4.8%), while in Brazil and Chile it is much higher (11.2% versus 0.3%, in the Brazilian case, and 19.2% versus 2.6%, in the Chilean case)².

Figure 1
Year of birth of the researchers, by country (%)

As for the variables that could be associated with the use of foreign languages, a relevant issue to be acknowledged - beyond the fact of being born and raised in a place where another language is spoken -, is the country where the doctorate was carried out. Argentina seems to have the most endogenous dynamics, since 83.7% of the surveyed researchers completed their doctorate in their own country. Note that this proportion of researchers with national doctorates is even lower than the percentage registered in the total target population (92%), as mentioned above. And this figure is even increasing in the younger generations given that the doctoral scholarship granted by Conicet only admits the completion of a doctorate in an Argentinian university. In Brazil, despite having a strong tradition of postgraduate studies, with institutionalized and consolidated programs earlier than in Argentina, the percentage of researchers with a national doctorate falls to 69.3%. In the case of this country, the two main public entities that grant doctoral scholarships, cnpq and Capes, support national doctorates, but they also have an extended system of international scholarships, either for the completion of the full doctorate (four or five years) or to carry out short-term research stays abroad, as is the case of the socalled sandwich scholarships.

In the case of the sample from Chile, which has the highest proportion of researchers with postgraduate studies abroad, it should be taken into account that although Conicyt has a scholarship program for national doctorates, the Becas Chile scheme, unlike the Conicet scholarships in Argentina, require a doctorate abroad and, preferably, in high-ranked universities. Indeed, these scholarships are awarded according with the oecd ranking of universities by subject area. Likewise, and although it is not binding for the granting of scholarships, agreements have been implemented with universities in several developed countries, especially the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and the United States.

Among the Argentine researchers who received their doctorates abroad, the main destinations where the United States (3.6%), Spain (3.6%), France (1.3%) and Brazil (1.3%). In the case of Brazil, stand out the percentages of those who did their doctorates in the United States (8.5%), the United Kingdom (7.9%), France (5.5%) and Germany (2.5%). Among those from Chile, the United States (21.2%), Spain (13.5%), France (8.7%), the United Kingdom (6.7%) and Germany (4.3%) were the most popular destinations for phd studies. If the sum of all those who did doctorates in English-speaking countries is considered, it is observed that in Argentina this figure rises to 5.3%; in Brazil to 17.4% and in Chile to 31.2%.

So far, we have analyzed the percentages of those who completed their doctorate in their own country of work or in another, and this was traditionally considered relevant in relation to knowledge of foreign languages. Instead, the presence of foreign-born researchers in each country cannot be taken linearly as an indicator of academic internationalization, especially if it is assumed that many of them arrived at their current place of residence and work after completing their studies. Accordingly, it is important to analyze the percentages of completion of the doctorate abroad exclusively of those born, respectively, in Argentina, Brazil and Chile. Among those born in Argentina, 83.8% received a doctorate in their country, while 3.6% did so in the United States, 3.4% in Spain, 1.9% in France and 1.6% in Brazil. Among those born in Brazil, 72.2% received their doctorates from a local university, while 8.4% did so from an American one, 7.1% from a British one, 5% from a French one and a 2.6% from a German one. Chile has the highest proportion of locally-born researchers with foreign doctorates, with 20.6% in the United States, 13.5% in Spain, 8.2% in France, 6.5% in the United Kingdom, 1.8% in Brazil and 1.2% in Argentina. Although they are not among the most important doctoral destinations, Brazil, and to a lesser extent Argentina, have been poles of attraction for the completion of the doctorate among researchers from the Southern Cone: 1.6% of those born in Argentina and 1, 8% of those born in Chile completed their doctorate in Brazil, while 0.4% of researchers born in Brazil and 1.8% of those born in Chile did so in Argentina. On the other hand, there are no cases of Brazilian-born researchers who obtained their doctorate in Chile, and only 0.3% of those born in Argentina did it there.

The percentages relative to the place of completion of the doctorate, as will be seen later, vary according to the scientific discipline of the researchers. The data about this last point, on the other hand, are visualized in Figure 2. The social and human sciences, the biological and health sciences, and the exact and natural ones comprise, each one, approximately a quarter of the sample. Agricultural science and engineering account for about 17% of the total, while the researchers who specialize in technological development barely represent 3%.

In the Argentinian sample, although the three main areas have a relatively even distribution, biological and health sciences stand out slightly. It is worth noting that these disciplines traditionally had a preponderant place in Conicet and were central to its international prestige. This country, moreover, is the only one in which the area of technology is “officially” registered, and its low relative weight is due, at least in part, to the fact that it began to acquire relevance and institutional recognition in recent times. In the Brazilian and Chilean samples, the area of exact and natural sciences stands out, with 34.3% and 40.4% of researchers, respectively. In second place, the area of biological and health sciences appears in Brazil (29.1%) and in Chile that of social and human sciences (35.1%). Engineering and agricultural sciences have fairly equivalent percentages of researchers in the three countries, ranging approximately between 16.5 and 18.5%.

Figure 2
Researchers by discipline (%)

When considering the relationship between the scientific discipline and the place of completion of the doctorate, it is observed that in the Argentine case the proportion of local doctorates varies between 73.9% for social sciences and 88.5% for the biological and health sciences, with values that also exceed 85% in the three remaining areas. The lower proportion of local doctorates among researchers in the social and human sciences is possibly related to the tardy institutionalization of these programs in Argentine universities. Researchers in these disciplines who completed their doctorates abroad did so mainly in Spain (5.4%), France (5.3%), the United States (3.7%), Italy (2.5%), Brazil (2.2%) and the United Kingdom (2.2%). Among those in the biological and health sciences, Spain (3.1%) and the United States (3%) stand out; while in the exact and natural sciences the most frequent foreign destinations were the United States (4.2%), Spain (2%) and Germany (1.5%). Finally, among the researchers in engineering and agricultural sciences, the United States (4.2%) and Spain (4%) stand out; and in the case of Technological Development Spain (4%), France (2%) and Germany (2%).

In the Brazilian sample, the percentage of researchers with national doctorates is 63.9% in the exact and natural sciences, 66.3% in engineering and agricultural sciences, 68.3% in the social and human sciences, and 78.2 % in biological and health sciences. As for this latter area, the United Kingdom (6.3%), the United States (4.6%) and France (2.3%) were the most frequent destinations for phd studies. Among the researchers in social and human sciences, French (10.6%), American (9.8%) and British (7.3%) doctorates stand out. In the case of the exact and natural sciences, the relative weight of doctorates in the United States (11.7%) and the United Kingdom (8.3%) remain high, but that of the French (3.9%) fall markedly. Brazilian researchers in engineering and agricultural sciences who received their doctorates abroad did so mainly in the United Kingdom (10.5%), France (8.4%), the United States (7.4%) and Germany (4.2%).

In the Chilean sample there are 24.7% of researchers in the social and human sciences who received a phd in Spain, while nearly 14% did so in France, as well as in the United States and the United Kingdom. In the biological and health sciences, the majority of foreign doctorates were obtained in the United States (53.8%), Germany (15.4%) and Spain (7.7%). In the exact and natural sciences, the United States stands out again (22.6%), followed by Spain (8.3%), France (4.8%) and Germany (3.6%). Finally, in the area of engineering and agricultural sciences, the majority of foreign doctorates also come from the United States (21.1%), France (10.5%), Germany, Australia, Spain and Belgium (around 5% in each of these countries).

Conclusions

While the hyper centrality of English has been considered a central feature of the world academic system and an increasing tendency in the Latin American academic circuit, one that has been pushed by state scientific policies and by the beliefs of researchers, no attempt has been made so far to observe to which extent publication in English is indeed a requirement for developing an academic career in the region. We attempt to shed new light in this issue by exploring the results of a survey that compares the use of foreign languages in publications and the experiences of acquiring linguistic competence in English for researchers based in Argentina, Brazil and Chile. The results show a more complex reality than that advanced by the idea of the hyper centrality of English. Bibliodiversity and multilingualism seems to be more the norm than the exception among these researchers. A steady stream of publication in the national language was identified among them, as well as the use of other languages. As these results vary by disciplinary field it was also relevant to observe diversity related to phd formation abroad.

The survey showed that publishing in English is not directly linked to doctoral studies abroad as it was decades ago. It revealed that it is mostly attached to the ability to master a language through the help of native-speaking colleagues, research networks and diverse sources for translation. All of which depends not only on academic capital but most of all on the social capital acquired during doctoral formation along with the participation in certain internationalized research teams. The survey revealed the relevance of the institutional context where the linguistic competences required for writing and publishing an academic article in English are forged. These abilities differ according with the discipline and involve an expert knowledge of the formal structure of the scientific papers, along with the uses and habits in terms of citation. Thus, the transformation of language skills learned in childhood towards academic capital implies familiarity with contexts, available literature and other practical knowledge. The results of this study provide evidence of the importance of personalized training given by native English speakers and/or the aid of academic colleagues who are highly experienced in writing in English.

The most important differences are expressed by disaggregating the data by discipline and in relation to the self-perception of the skills. At least three quarters of Brazilian researchers declared that they have an advanced competence in the four language skills examined in the survey. In all the items they present the highest values. Argentineans and Chileans, on the other hand, only in reading comprehension perceive an advanced competence. For the other three, the averages are significantly lower, 51% for the Argentine case and 43% for the Chilean case. A better self-perception of competence in English is not necessarily associated with an earlier start of training. When comparing the three countries it is verified that Argentina presents the highest levels of early start of English learning but this does not result in a higher self-perception of competence than in the Brazilian case, where there is almost a quarter of cases who declare having started their apprenticeship in graduate school or even afterwards.

Even if the survey targeted the internationalized academic elites of the three countries, which are supposed to be more internationalized and better integrated into the English-dominated world academic system, surprisingly, the results show significant bibliodiversity and multilingualism in publishing practices. The Brazilian report shows a strong representation of a well-defined globalized profile, that of the researcher who is perceived with an advanced level of English, who has published three quarters, or more, of his/her publications in that language, more than five articles outside Brazil in the last five years, and who writes autonomously in English. There is, however, a group of researchers who “survive” in the highly competitive programs surveyed while publishing in their national language, Portuguese. A smaller minority, on the other hand, also tend to publish in Spanish, French and German. The Chilean and Argentine reports corroborate this general panorama. Furthermore, Beigel and Bringel (2022) proved the distance between self-perceptions and publishing practices through an analysis of the complete curricula of the researchers of the target populations of this survey.

Latin America is at the forefront of the non-commercial Open Access movement. Accordingly, only a few of its journals are indexed in wos or Scopus, while the majority of the more than 7,000 existing journals are indexed in regional systems such as Redalyc, Scielo and Latindex Catalogue. Other thousands of journals remain not indexed in any repositories, but they are published regularly, sustained by the work of full-time professors, under the shelter of public universities. This is possible because at least in some disciplines, in certain institutions, publishing in native languages and local journals are accepted in the assessment procedures. This is why double-headed academic elites can be observed, ones mainly facing global publishing standards and international collaboration, others basically oriented to local circulation. In the midst of these polarized groups, multi-scalar and multilingual research agendas can be found.

Referencias

• Aguado-López, Eduardo; Becerril-García, Arianna & Godínez-Larios, Sheila. (2018), “Asociarse o perecer: la colaboración funcional en las ciencias sociales latinoamericanas”. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 161: 3-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.5477/cis/reis.161.3
  » https://doi.org/10.5477/cis/reis.161.3
• Badillo, A. (2021), El portugués y el español en la ciencia: apuntes para un conocimiento diverso y accesible Madri, oei/Real Instituto Elcano.
• Beigel, Fernanda. (2017), “Científicos periféricos, entre Ariel y Calibán. Saberes institucionales y circuitos de consagración en Argentina. Las publicaciones de los Investigadores del Conicet” (publicado en español y en inglés). Dados: Revista de Ciências Sociais, Rio de Janeiro, 60 (3): 825-865.
• Beigel, Fernanda. (2019), “Indicadores de circulación: Una perspectiva multi-escalar para medir la producción científico-tecnológica latinoamericana”. Ciencia, Tecnología y Política, 2 (3), 028. https://doi.org/10.24215/26183188e028
  » https://doi.org/10.24215/26183188e028
• Beigel, F.; Gallardo, O. & Bekerman, F. (2018), “Institutional expansion and scientific development in the periphery: The structural heterogeneity of Argentina’s academic field”. Minerva, 1-27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9340-2
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9340-2
• Beigel, F. & Bringel, B. (2022), forthcoming.
• Bourdieu, Pierre. (1979), “Les trois états du capital culturel”. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 30: 3-6.
• Bourdieu, P. (2003), El oficio del científico Barcelona, Anagrama.
• Chardenet, P. (2012), “Langues et savoirs: perceptions et réalités du capital linguistique dans la circulation des connaissances”. Coloquio Circulación Internacional del Conocimiento México, Cinvestav-iiesu.
• Curry, M. J. & Lillis, T. (2022), “Multilingualism in academic writing for publication: Putting English in its place”. Language Teaching: 1-14 doi:10.1017/S0261444822000040.
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444822000040.
• De Swaan, Abram. (2002), The world language system. A political sociology and political economy of language Cambridge, Polity Press.
• Gantman, Ernesto. (2011), “La productividad científica argentina en ciencias sociales: economía, psicología, sociología y ciencia política en el Conicet (2004-2008)”. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 34 (3): 408-425.
• Gérard, Étienne & Wagner, Anne-Catherine. (20 mai 2015), “Introduction: Élites au Nord, élites au Sud : des savoirs en concurrence?”. Cahiers de la Recherche sur l’Education et les Savoirs [En ligne], 14 . Disponível em: http://journals.openedition.org/cres/2722, consulado em 19/01/2022.
  » http://journals.openedition.org/cres/2722
• Gerhards, Jürgen. (2014), “Transnational linguistic capital: Explaining English proficiency in 27 European countries”. International Sociology, 29 (1): 56-74. doi: 10.1177/0268580913519461.
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580913519461.
• Gingras, Yves. (2002), “Les formes spécifiques de l’internationalité du champ scientifique”. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 141-142: 31-45.
• Krashen, S. D. (2009), Principles and practice in second language acquisition Retrieved from http://www.sdkrashen.com/
  » http://www.sdkrashen.com/
• Kreimer, P. & Vessuri, H. (2018), “Les sciences en Amérique latine. Tensions du passé et défis du présent”. In: Kleiche-Dray, Mina (dir.). Les ancrages nationaux de la science mondiale xviii^e-xxi^e siècles Paris, Éditions des Archives Contemporaines - ird Éditions, pp. 99-131.
• Lillis, Theresa & Curry, Mary Jane. (2010), Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English Londres, Routledge.
• Ortiz, Renato. (2009), La supremacía del inglés en las ciencias sociales Buenos Aires, Siglo Veintiuno.
• Piovani, Juan Ignacio. (2020), “Styles of academic production in the Argentine social sciences: heterogeneity and heterodoxy”. Serendipities. Journal for the Sociology and the History of the Social Sciences, 4 (1-2): 27-48.
• Vasen, F., & Lujano Vilchis, I. (2017), “National systems of classification of academic journals in Latin America: Recent trends and implications for academic evaluation in the social sciences”. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, 62 (231): 199-228.
• Vessuri, H.; Guédon, J-C. & Cetto, A. M. (2014), “Excellence or quality? Impact of the current competition regime on science and scientific publishing in Latin America and its implications for development”. Current Sociology, 62 (5): 647-665.

• 2
  The data on the percentage of immigrants in each country are taken from the World Bank and correspond to the year 2015: https://datos.bancomundial.org/indicador/sm.pop.totl.zs.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  27 Jan 2023
• Date of issue
  2022

History

• Received
  22 Jan 2022
• Accepted
  16 Sept 2022