Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T01:22:23.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact on Society Versus Impact on Knowledge: Why Latin American Scholars Do Not Participate in Latin American Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2022

Enrique Mu  and
Milagros Pereyra-Rojas
Enrique Mu
Affiliation:
Carlow University
Milagros Pereyra-Rojas
Affiliation:
Latin American Studies Association and Case Western Reserve University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Although Latin America is home to 8 percent of the world's population, only 1.7 percent of scholarly knowledge about Latin America is produced there. The limited voice of Latin American scholars in Latin American studies constitutes the loss of a valuable and unique cultural perspective. To address this issue, we interviewed Latin American studies scholars residing in Latin America as well as those residing in the United States and United Kingdom to reveal how and to what extent these scholars participate in the international academic community. Our findings show that the two groups were markedly different. Latin American scholars identify themselves as agents of change, motivated by a desire to solve problems and fulfill social needs in the region, whereas US/UK-based scholars see themselves mainly as experts in the field, driven by a desire to impact the knowledge about the region.

Resumen

Resumen

Aunque Latinoamérica constituye el 8 por ciento de la población mundial, solo el 1.7 por ciento del conocimiento académico acerca de Latinoamérica se produce en la región. Esta limitada voz de académicos latinoamericanos en los estudios de Latinoamérica constituye la pérdida de una perspectiva cultural única y valiosa. Para investigar este problema, entrevistamos académicos de estudios latinoamericanos residentes en Latinoamérica (LAT) así como en Estados Unidos e Inglaterra (US/UK) para descubrir como y que tan extensamente ellos participan en la comunidad académica internacional. Nuestros resultados sugieren que ambos grupos (LAT y US/UK) son marcadamente diferentes. Los académicos latinoamericanos se identifican a si mismos como agentes de cambio, motivados por un deseo de resolver los problemas y satisfacer las necesidades de la región, mientras que los académicos basados en US/UK se ven a si mismos como expertos en la disciplina, motivados más bien por un deseo de impactar el conocimiento sobre la región.

Type
Research Reports and Notes
Information
Latin American Research Review , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , 2015 , pp. 216 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 by the Latin American Studies Association

References

Alperin, J. P., Fischman, G. E., and Willinsky, J. 2008 “Open Access and Scholarly Publishing in Latin America: Ten Flavours and a Few Reflections.” Liinc em Revista 4(2): 172–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1998 “Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action.” Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Boyatzis, R. 1998 Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Boyatzis, R. 2006 “The Ideal Self as the Driver of Intentional Change.” Journal of Management Development 25 (7): 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, E. L. 1990 Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
Boyer, E. L. 1996 “The Scholarship of Engagement.” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 49 (7): 18–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, A. S. 1996 “‘Nondiscursive’ Requirements in Academic Publishing, Material Resources of Periphery Scholars, and the Politics of Knowledge Production.” Written Communication 13 (4): 435–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, A. S. 2006 “TESOL at Forty: What Are the Issues?” TESOL Quarterly 40 (1): 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charmaz, K. 2006 Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Cline, H. F. 1966 “The Latin American Studies Association: A Summary Survey with Appendix.” Latin American Research Review 2 ((1)): 57-79.Google Scholar
Corbin, J. M., and Strauss, A. L. 2008 Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englander, K. 2009 “El mundo globalizado de las publicaciones científicas en inglés: Un enfoque analítico para comprender a los científicos multilingües.” Discurso & Sociedad 3 (1): 90–118.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. 1999 “Problems in Writing for Scholarly Publication in English: The Case of Hong Kong.” Journal of Second Language Writing 8 (3): 243–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gecas, V. 1982 “The Self-Concept.” Annual Review of Sociology 8:1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, W. W. 1995 “Lost Science in the Third World.” Scientific American, July 17, pp. 92–99.Google Scholar
Guarda, R. 2002 “El papel de la investigación.” In La universidad pública en la respuesta iberoamericana a la globalizatión, edited by González, J., Mix, M. Rojas, and Brovetto, J. Montevideo: Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Asociación de Universidades Grupo Montevideo.Google Scholar
Harzing, A. W. 2011 The Publish or Perish Book. Melbourne: Tarma Software Research.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1996 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LASA (Latin American Studies Association) 2011 Internal Report. Pittsburgh, PA: LASA.Google Scholar
Mohrman, S. A., and Lawler, E. E. III 2011 Useful Research: Advancing Theory and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
Said, E. 1978 Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, F. 2008 “Scientific Publishing in Developing Countries: Challenges for the Future.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7:121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terra-Figari, L. I. 2009 “Information and Communication Technology for the Dissemination of Scholarly Knowledge in a Public University in the Periphery: The Case of Social Sciences and Humanities in the Universidad de la República, Uruguay.” PhD diss., University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
UNESCO 2010 World Social Science Report: Knowledge Divides. Paris: International Social Science Council.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. 2007 Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar