Cosmopolitanism in Science: A Productivity Study
Susan M. exas A & M International University
Marcus A. exas A & M International University
John C. exas A & M International University
Noriko ndiana University
Ruby exas A & M International University
Kuo-Hua mkang University
Yoshinori ouisiana State University
What does cosmopolitanism have to do with scientific processes? Robert K. Merton’s classic 1943 study, “Patterns of Influence: Local and Cosmopolitan Influentials” (1968) reveals that influentials in society follow two distinct patterns of orientation which came to be termed as local and cosmopolitan. This was an innovative leap from prior written understandings of cosmopolitanism, a term derived from the Greek cosmos (the universe) and polis (city), and commonly applied to modern elite society, the world travelers. And, it was thus that Merton introduces a much emulated prototype of the empirically based concept of cosmopolitanism.
The six decades that have passed since Merton’s study have produced developments in globalization and in utilization of ICT, as well as increases in migration, population growth, and affordability of travel (Vertovec and Cohen 2002). This progression of time and the way that we encounter “the stranger” or “the other” has altered such that it necessitates a change in Merton’s concept. ICT, where it is available, is changing and has changed the way society travels, works, meets, and functions. Media usage via ICT is correlated with cosmopolitanism in the mass communications literature (Guillén and Suárez 2005), which is consistent with Merton’s findings that cosmopolitans tend to consume different types of media and more of it.
In examining these relationships, we look to Callon’s (1995) four models of science elucidating perceptions of scientific practice. The fourth model, “Extended Translation” describes the process, once knowledge is discovered, in which it is passed on through codification, inscription, and interaction as it travels through multiple paths in translation networks. These networks are comprised not only of formal scientists, but technicians, coworkers, ICT, technical equipment, and even the objects of scientific study, all participating in the transmittance and translation of information. As this information is transformed into knowledge, it represents the product of multiple translations, even as it is influenced by the orientation of the scientists’ world view.
This essay employs original face-to-face survey data to examine scientific productivity levels of East Asian scientists as influenced by the cosmopolitan aspects of scientific practices that we identify. Utilizing Merton’s concept of cosmopolitanism as a template, and updating it, we cast these aspects (cosmopolitanism in ICT utilization, of professional networks, in research collaboration, and in attendance at scientific conferencing) using Callon’s “Extended Translation” framework, to elaborate on the role of cosmopolitanism in shaping and facilitating scientific productivity. In other words, we want to know how aspects of cosmopolitanism in scientific practices shape the volume, pace, and quality of scientific productivity.
The surveys were conducted in three countries of East Asia: Japan (n=100), Singapore (n=94), and Taiwan (n=100). The main questions we address include: 1) is scientific conferencing at the international level associated with productivity? 2) DoesICT utilization to communicate with colleagues in developed or in developing countries relate to productivity? 3) Do diversity of citizenship and country location in professional networks enhance productivity? 4) To what extent is collaboration with scientists in other countries related to productivity? This research will not only provide an improved understanding of best practices in science, but will also assist science policy formation and prioritization.
The focus is on the publication dimension of scientific productivity. This is measured using three indicators: First, the number of manuscripts written over the course of a year which captures a rather informal form knowledge production. Second, the combined total of peer-reviewed national and international journal publications published in the last 2.5 years. And third, the number of publications in top journals, a subset of the previous measure, to capture a higher tier of accomplishment in knowledge production and dissemination. Although bibliometric methods yield large samples and reliable measures, face-to-face surveys afford data about macro- and micro-contextual (e.g. number of people worked with and number of people supervised), personal (age, gender, marital status, and number of children) not easily obtainable though bibliometrics.Because the distributions of all three measures are severely positively skewed, we log transformed these in order to yield valid inferential tests based on a normal error regression framework.
In sum, we found that certain aspects of cosmopolitanism, as defined by Merton, were conducive to productivity. Thus, we update and affirm Merton’s model as it applies to contemporary science culture and we associate cosmopolitan dimensions of ICT, scientific conferencing, professional affiliations, and personal attributes to written productivity. Consequently, we also affirm Callon’s “Extended Translation” view of science, and the sociocultural implications of science research communities in the way scientific knowledge is learned, performed, produced, and disseminated. With regard to implications on science and innovation policy, our results suggest that graduate schools and research administrators should put more emphasis in developing training programs that enhance a cosmopolitan mindset and behavior among scientists and future scientists, especially as the challenges and problems (e.g., precarious food and energy security, decreasing biodiversity, degradation of the environment) presented by the 21st century are at a global scale.
References
Callon, M. (1995).Four Models for the Dynamics of Science. In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Petersen & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (revised ed., pp. 29-63). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Guillén, M. F., & Suárez, S. L. (2005). Explaining the Global Digital Divide: Economic, Poli-tical and Sociological Drivers of Cross-National Internet Use. Social Forces, 84(2), 681-708.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Patterns of Influence: Local and Cosmopolitan Influentials. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), Social Theory and Social Structure (revised and enlarged ed., pp. 441-474). New York: Free Press.
Vertovec, S., & Cohen, R. (2003).Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.