Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:28:56.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canadian Foreign Policy: A Linguistically Divided Field

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2011

Jérémie Cornut  and
Stéphane Roussel
Jérémie Cornut*
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)
Stéphane Roussel*
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)
*
Jérémie Cornut, Département de science politique, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Case postale 8888, succursale Centre-ville, Montréal (Québec), CanadaH3C 3P8, [email protected]
Stéphane Roussel, Département de science politique, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Case postale 8888, succursale Centre-ville, Montréal (Québec), CanadaH3C 3P8, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. This study analyses the French-language scholars' place in Canadian foreign policy. More precisely, it measures and compares their productions in French and in English (output) and the citations to this output (impact) in works by English-language scholars. The output is measured using the Canadian Foreign Relations Index. Then a representative sample of bibliographies taken from books and articles written by English-language scholars and published between 1997 and 2007 is analyzed. Various conclusions on the place of French and French-language scholars in the field are drawn from these data, including their small contribution to Canadian foreign policy and the absence of citations to works in French by English-language scholars. Political implications of the results are discussed.

Résumé. Cette analyse examine la place des chercheurs francophones dans l'étude de la politique étrangère canadienne. Plus précisément, elle mesure et compare leurs publications en français et en anglais (la production) et les citations tirées de cette production (l'incidence) que l'on retrouve dans les travaux des chercheurs anglophones. La production est mesurée à l'aide du Canadian Foreign Relations Index. Puis un échantillon représentatif de bibliographies de travaux anglophones publiés entre 1997 et 2007 est analysé. Ces données permettent de tirer diverses conclusions sur la place du français et des chercheurs francophones dans ce champ d'étude. Il apparait, notamment, que la contribution des francophones au domaine de la politique étrangère canadienne est réduite et que les chercheurs anglophones ne citent pratiquement jamais les travaux en français. Les auteurs dégagent, en conclusion, les conséquences politiques de ces résultats.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 685 - 709
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archambault, É. and Vìgnola-Gagné, E.. 2004. The Use of Bibliometrics in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Report presented to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Montreal: Science-Metrix.Google Scholar
Cole, J. and Cole, S.. 1973. Social Stratification in Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comité national d'évaluation de la recherche. 2003. Évaluation de la recherche publique dans les établissements publics français. Paris: La Documentation française.Google Scholar
Cornut, J. and Roussel, S.. 2011. “Un champ et deux univers? Les francophones dans l'étude de la politique étrangère canadienne.” Politique et Société 30 (1): 139–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingras, Y. 1984. “La valeur d'une langue dans un champ scientifique.” Recherche sociographique XXV (2): 285–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingras, Y. and Mosbah-Natanson, S.. 2009. “Traduire les sciences sociales françaises? Les cas de Population et de la Revue française de sociologie.” Unpublished.Google Scholar
Gingras, Y. and Warren, J.-P.. 2006. “A British connection? A quantitative analysis of the changing relations between American, British and Canadian sociologists.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 31 (4): 509–22.Google Scholar
Jordan, R., Maliniak, D., Oakes, A., Peterson, S. and Tierney, M.J.. 2009. One Discipline or Many? TRIP Survey of International Relations Faculty in Ten Countries The Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations. Williamsburg VA: The Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations.Google ScholarPubMed
Kirton, J. 2009. “The 10 most important books on Canadian foreign policy.” International Journal 64 (2): 553–64.Google Scholar
Larivière, V., Gingras, Y. and Archambault, É.. 2006. “Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities.” Scientometrics 68 (3): 519–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNenly, J. 2004. “The John Holmes Library at the Canadian Institute of International Affairs.” The Courrier 41 (3): 9.Google Scholar
Montpetit, E., Blais, A. and Foucault, M.. 2008. “What Does it Take for a Canadian Political Scientist to be Cited?” Social Science Quarterly 89 (3): 802–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nossal, K. R., Roussel, S. and Paquin, S.. 2007. Politique internationale et défense au Canada et au Québec. Montréal: Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocher, F. 2007. “The End of the ‘Two Solitudes’? The Presence (or Absence) of the Work of French-speaking Scholars in Canadian Politics.” Revue canadienne de science politique 40 (4): 833–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roussel, S. 2009. “About Solitude, Divorce and Neglect: The Linguistic Division in the Study of Canadian Foreign Policy.” In Canadian Foreign Policy in Critical Perspective, ed. Wylie, L. and Beier, J. M.. Don Mills ON: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turenne Sjolander, C. 2008. “Two Solitudes? Canadian Foreign Policy/Politique étrangère du Canada.” Canadian Foreign Policy 14 (1): 101–08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar