Citation:

• Collyer, F.M. (2014) ‘Sociology, Sociologists, and Core-Periphery Reflections’ Journal of Sociology 50(3):252-268.

Sociology, Sociologists, and Core-Periphery Reflections

Abstract

This paper reports on a citation-context analysis of journal articles from Australia, the United

Kingdom and the United States of America. Examining publications from the sociology of

health and medicine, the study draws a number of conclusions about the state of sociology,

inter-country relationships between knowledge workers, and national systems of sociological

knowledge production. It finds that core-periphery relations define significant features of

sociological work, impacting on citation patterns, inter-country collaboration and the selection

of reference materials. Core-periphery relations are also found to influence the sociological

production of knowledge across the Australian university sector.

Key Words

Knowledge, Periphery, Citations, Sociology, global knowledge production

Word Count

7,817 (including references and tables)

Introduction

Sociologists are increasingly aware of themselves as academic workers within a global

system, where their work is generated within locally situated institutions but shaped by the

social relations and material conditions of the broader social context. Recent efforts to

examine intellectual workers in a truly global society (rather than offer a Euro- or US-centric

analysis), have resulted from a union of the sociology of knowledge and theories of

globalisation (see Connell et al. 2005; Connell and Wood 2002; Alatas 2006). This

developing school of thought rejects the interpretation of globalisation as an homogenising or

equalising force, and insists on re-connecting it with the processes of imperialism and

cultural domination (Connell 2007a:376). Thus it builds an alternative framework derived

from world systems analysis (Wallerstein 1979, 1974) and Sklair’s (2001, 1995) thesis on

transnational capitalism. The result is a theory of the global system of knowledge production

which operates in a similar way to other aspects of the economic system. Just like the latter,

it is hierarchical, infused with the relations of power, and characterised by a fundamentally

unequal relationship between the intellectual ‘core’ and its periphery.

A variety of terms have been developed to describe these relations. Gareau (1988) uses the

older, yet still apt terminology of imperialism, oligopoly, and Third World Social Science.

Langer (1992:4,6) refers to the ‘theory producing centres’ and uses the term ‘indigenisation’

to question the applicability of Western sociology to non-European civilisations and cultures.

Sanda (1988:195) employs the terms subordination and under-development to refer to the

operation of sociology in the Third World. For Alatas (2006:13), discussion centres around

the ‘world social science powers’ of the United States, the United Kingdom and France.

These countries are said to generate large amounts of published research, and to have a

significant influence on the other, ‘consuming’ countries. Hountondji (1990:7-8) speaks of

‘scientific dependence’, of the subordination of pre-colonial knowledges to world systems of

knowledge, and the reduction of colonial knowledge production to data banks for export to

ruling countries. Connell (2007b) uses another set of terms, speaking of the ‘global

metropole’ or key intellectual centres (Europe and North America), when referring to the well-

resourced and capital-exporting countries. Opposed to this global centre is the ‘South’, a

term referring not to geographical location but a social category which seeks to ‘emphasise

relations - authority, exclusion and inclusion, hegemony, partnership, sponsorship,

appropriation - between intellectuals and institutions in the metropole and those in the world

periphery’ (Connell 2007b:viii-ix).

Despite the growing interest in the possibility of a world system of knowledge production and

exchange, theoretical development has barely kept pace. We now have more knowledge

about the challenges faced by public intellectuals and academic workers in the ‘global

South’, but little conceptual clarity about the operational mechanisms driving the world

knowledge system. In contrast, we have had nearly forty years to debate Wallerstein’s (1974,

1979) original thesis about the world economy and subject this to analysis. Scholars have

debated its logics, developed various typologies (e.g., Arrighi and Drangel 1986), and raised

questions about the historical formation of the system (e.g., Arrighi 1998; Skocpol 1977), the

characteristics positioning countries in the core rather than periphery (including their level

and type of industrial development, see Tsokhas 1996:198), their local political systems (e.g.,

Taylor 1985; Alexander 1989), and capacity to convert economic into political power in world

exchange (Tsokhas 1992). Scholars have even pondered the possibility of whether the

industrialisation of the periphery or the de-industrialisation of the core might imply

transformation or even an end to the current system (Arrighi 1990). If we are to pattern a

system of knowledge production on Wallerstein’s original model of tradable commodities and

exchange relations, there needs – at the very least - to be more comparative analysis of the

system of production and exchange in knowledge commodities. This will enable analysis of

its variation from core to periphery and we might, in the future, better theorise the factors and

mechanisms of its operations.

Of particular concern in this paper is the production of sociological knowledge in Australia: a

country of indeterminate status in the world system. For some, Australia is classified as a

country of the ‘core’ (Arrighi and Drangel 1986; Taylor 1988), though elsewhere as part of the

periphery or semi-periphery (Wallerstein 1979:100; Connell 2007b:212; Alatas 2003).

Surprisingly, Wallerstein’s original model specified few of the characteristics of the semi-

periphery, though two of these are relevant for our analysis. The first is that the semi-

periphery sits in a location between the core and the periphery where it is open to

exploitation by core countries whilst simultaneously able to trade to advantage among the

countries of the periphery (see Wallerstein 1979:71-2). The second is that it has a political

role in the international division of labour, deflecting the tensions of the periphery which

would otherwise be directed at the countries of the core (see Wallerstein 1974:349-50). In

subsequent research by other scholars, the semi-periphery has nevertheless become a

default category for a diverse range of countries that fit neither the core nor periphery with

regard to their level of industrialisation, level of dependency or history of development (e.g.,

Canada and Russia, Algeria, Cuba and Vietnam). In some senses, the indeterminacy of the

concept of the semi-periphery, and the lack of consensus over its precise economic (as well

as political) role within the world system, provides room for theoretical development in this

rapidly emerging field.

If we are to better understand the inequalities of knowledge production and exchange in the

global arena, and acknowledge, as does Connell (2007b:213), that the ‘production of

knowledge is a very different enterprise in an affluent peripheral country such as Australia

and a poor peripheral country such as Indonesia’; then the concepts of core and periphery

may help provide for a process of mapping these patterns of diversity and similarity.

Important claims have been made about the marginalisation of the periphery within this

global knowledge system. For instance Langer (1992:9) argues societies outside Europe are

viewed in sociology as ‘objects’ rather than ‘a source of knowledge worth being integrated’;

Connell (2005:13) suggests the periphery is merely a ‘data mine’, a source of ethnographic

material for the theory-makers of the metropole; while Hountondji (1983, 1990:7-8, 2002)

points to the continuing location of sociological theory in the metropole; Descarries

(2003:625) to the identification of scholarship in the core as important and universal, but in

the periphery as secondary, culturally related and particular; and Nandy (1983) to the

exclusion, or rather overly narrow selection of ideas from the periphery. Despite the

compelling nature of such claims, considerable research and theoretical development

remains if we are to identify the many mechanisms through which knowledge production is

shaped within this tripartite system of core, semi-periphery and periphery.

How do these mechanisms differentiate the countries of core from those of the periphery and

semi-periphery? And what is the nature of the global division of labour of this system?

Perhaps a peripheral country is one in which its publications do not appear in the major

citation indices, or where national universities are absent and research is taken up by foreign

foundations or agencies (as found for instance in sub-Saharan Africa, see Mouton 2010:66).

Perhaps a country of the semi-periphery might be defined simply by its interim position in the

world system, with some representation in the citation indices, the presence of a small

number of its universities in the second or third tier of world rankings, but where a PhD from

an overseas university remains essential for individual advancement (as found in China, see

Ping 2010:74), or where only public or state-owned universities and research institutes are

present (as in India, see Krishna and Krishna 2010:77). Alternatively, we might eschew the

trait system of classifying countries and suggest a more dynamic approach to understanding

the significance of country location in the operation of the world knowledge system.

Whatever our approach, it is clear that without systematic mapping and analysis of the

tripartite global knowledge system we can only speculate about the relationship between a

country’s location, the knowledge-related practices of its academic workers, and the system

of rewards and exclusions through which control over expert knowledges in the metropole is

reproduced and maintained.

This paper offers a small step towards furthering our understanding of the world knowledge

system. It draws from an empirical study of sociological knowledge about health and

medicine in three countries – Australia, Britain and America – to illustrate some of the ways

core-periphery relationships can shape the production of knowledge and the academic

practices of workers in the countries of the core and the periphery. Bibliometric and citation

indicators have been employed elsewhere in the literature to examine differences in scientific

styles between, for instance, colonial and non-colonial science (Chatelin and Arvanitis 1992;

Arvanitis et al. 2000). In this study a variation on existing citation methodology, developed by

Collyer (2012, 2009), is applied. The methodology – citation-context analysis – shows the

orientation of academic workers toward the global knowledge system, and includes a set of

empirical indicators constructed to provide evidence of dependency, i.e., control of the

country’s knowledge production by a coalition of other, more powerful countries.

The Study and its Method

The empirical study contrasts the publications of a group of authors from Australia - a

‘peripheral’ or semi-peripheral nation - with those from two ‘core’ countries, the United

Kingdom and the United States. The focus is on sociology, for members of this discipline

have been asking questions for some time about the impact of globalisation and the

changing academic market on the social sciences (e.g., Sanda 1988; Akiwowo 1988;

Loubser 1988; Willis 1982, 1991; Baldock 1994; Macintyre 2010; Keim 2011). In order to

analyse the impact of core-periphery relations on the large and heterogeneous discipline of

sociology, one speciality was selected. This was the sociology of health and medicine, a field

with many substantive similarities across the three countries (Collyer 2012, 2011; Willis and

Broom 2004). Evidence was sought through a quantitative analysis of refereed articles,

published since 1990, in the journals closely associated with the national professional

associations of each country: the Health Sociology Review (HSR) (Australia), the Sociology

of Health and Illness (SHI) (United Kingdom), and the Journal of Health and Social Behavior

(JHSB) (United States). Given the propensity of these journals to primarily publish authors

from their own country, and publish papers with a specific methodological persuasion

(qualitative in the cases of HSR and SHI, and quantitative for JHSB); papers were also

collected from the Journal of Sociology, Social Science and Medicine, the Australian and

New Zealand Journal of Public Health, and refereed conference proceedings from The

Australian Sociological Association. The proportion of papers from each journal and country

is shown in table one, with an overall study population of 842 papers.

[Table one about here]

Papers from these journals were selected if they could be regarded as refereed research

articles. A few rejoinders or commentaries and research notes were included, but only where

these offered substantial, and fully referenced analyses of an issue. Book reviews and

editorials were excluded. Codes were developed to capture each article as a ‘case’, with

demographic details (e.g., author name, country and university affiliation) as well as

manuscript content (e.g., country focus, percentage of reference materials from country of

origin, citations etc). These two sets of variables – demographic and manuscript content –

enabled cross tabulation between the independent variables (indicators of the location or

context of a paper) and the dependent variables (e.g., information about citation practices

and the substantive focus of the paper). This method is best described as citation-context

analysis due to its capacity to map some of the effects of global location on knowledge

production.

The originating country of each paper is taken from the institutional affiliation of the first

author as provided on the manuscript. This provides an indicator of ‘professional citizenship’

rather than personal nationality at the time of publication. A few of the more prolific authors

appear on the data base on more than one occasion but less than 5% shifted (either

temporarily or permanently) to new institutions in new countries, indicating the general

reliability of this variable as a country indicator. Moreover the majority of papers are sole-

authored (55%), strengthening the classification of papers by country, and where there are

collaborations, these are almost wholly published with authors from the same country (a

matter discussed in some detail below).

The relative strengths of the study’s method include its reliance on journal articles rather than

books, as the former are thought to best reflect the majority of health sociology research

(Willis 1991:49). While some have argued for the inclusion of books in any scoping study of

sociology (e.g., Halpern and Anspach 1993:288), it should be pointed out that books and

journals are written for different audiences and purposes, and are therefore not directly

comparable. A second strength is found in the manual, rather than computer-generated data

of the study. Studies relying on computer-generated key word analyses (e.g., Seale 2008),

are subject to inaccuracies as papers are often replete with misspellings (e.g., Scrambler

rather than Scambler), inaccurate sources (e.g., manuscripts ascribed to the wrong authors),

missing citations (a very common problem), and the non-inclusion of reference materials

such as books, reports, unpublished papers and papers from journals which are not indexed.

The method in use in this study, in contrast, relies on the careful reading and systematic

coding of each article by a researcher with an appropriate familiarity with the field. The

citation-context analysis method is also more rigorous than review-based analyses

containing personal selections of well-known texts (e.g., Willis 1991, 1982). Finally, this

study, with its alternative method of analysing evidence from the written manuscript,

overcomes problems associated with questionnaires and the self-reporting of a participant’s

alleged use of overseas journals, conference attendance or local/global orientation (e.g.,

Connell et al. 2005). Coding reliability was ensured through the blind re-coding of a random

selection of articles, and where necessary, the re-building of codes and re-coding until full

reliability was achieved. The statistical program SPSS was used to record and analyse the

data. Ethical clearances were unnecessary, but the financial support of the School of Social

and Political Sciences at the University of Sydney is acknowledged and appreciated.

Authors and Collaboration

The extent to which academics and knowledge workers are oriented toward, or ‘connected’

to the world has been measured in various ways, including through their use of the internet,

telephone and email (e.g., Connell and Crawford 2007; Connell et al. 2005). One of the

measures in this study is the extent to which co-authored papers are based on collaboration

with ‘in country’ or ‘out of country’ partners.

The first point to note from the study population is that the proportion of single-authored

papers from Australia is higher than from the UK and the USA. Among the Australian

authors, 68% (or 250/366) of the papers are sole-authored, compared with 49% (or 122/251)

from the UK, and 40% (or 90/225) from the USA. This difference largely reflects the low level

of funding available to Australian sociologists, encouraging small studies which can be

conducted with few resources. The trend in all three countries has been toward larger

authorship teams between 1990 and 2011 (statistically significant, where p=.001), but in the

Australian case this has involved only a shift from single to double-authored papers of about

7%, with no change in the proportion of papers with three or more authors. In contrast, there

are relatively more papers from the UK with three or four or more authors over the same

period. For instance, while only 2% of the papers in the 1990s are authored by four or more

individuals, a decade later this rises to 19% of the UK papers. Likewise in the USA, we see a

shift to larger authorship teams, and the number of papers authored by four or more

individuals rises in the second decade from 11 to 18% of the USA papers. This suggests that

while there is a strong element of individualism among knowledge workers, as other studies

have found (Connell and Crawford 2007:199-200), factors in the broader funding

environment appear to be re-shaping knowledge production practices. This is evident

particularly in the UK where an increase in commissions and grants from health and medical

sponsors seems to be encouraging the growth of larger collaborative teams (Collyer

2012:228). In contrast, in Australian sociology, despite the efforts of the Australian Research

Council (ARC) and the universities to encourage collaboration, multiple authorship remains

uncommon.

When sociologists publish with others, who do they collaborate with? Among the multi-

authored papers, a comparison was made between the ‘professional citizenship’ of the first

and second authors. As described in table two, among the Australian first authors, 91%

collaborated with other Australian-based authors, and other partners came mainly from the

USA (3%) or the UK (3%). A similar pattern appeared in the UK, with 92% of collaborations

occuring ‘in-house’; and likewise in the USA, with 95% of collaborations occuring with others

from the USA. Cross-country collaborations increased very slightly in the second decade in

both Australia and the UK (by 5% and 7% respectively), but decreased in the USA (by 85%).

[Table 2 about here]

The small number of inter-country collaborations in our sample makes it difficult to generalise

about international interaction among Australians, but the trend is for a very low level of

collaboration with non-European or non-American countries. The same trend was found in

another Australian study of knowledge workers:

If our respondents had worked abroad, it was almost always in the UK or USA. Current

overseas links mentioned in the interviews were usually to the same countries. This pattern

of ‘quasi-globalisation’, that is, orientation to the global metropole rather than to Australia’s

own region or to global society as a whole, is common in the Australian intellectual workforce

(Connell 2006:9).

Use of Local or International Material

A second part of our analysis has been to examine the reference materials cited in the

journal papers as evidence of a global or local orientation. All citations in the reference lists

of all papers were examined. Each paper was coded according to its percentage of locally-

authored reference material. Papers were then re-coded into two categories, low or high,

with the ‘high’ group referring to papers reliant on reference materials primarily from the

country in which the (first) author was working at the time of publication (50% or more), while

papers in the ‘low’ group use fewer local materials and rely instead on materials authored in

other countries (less than 50% of materials).

As indicated in table three, there are markedly different patterns from authors in each

country. Australian authors are more likely to source their reference materials from overseas,

while their colleagues from the UK and the USA are much higher users of their own country’s

materials. In other words, only 33% of the Australians are high users of their own locally-

produced publications, compared with the 79% of UK authors and 98% of USA authors who

are high users of local materials. Another way of explaining this statistically significant

relationship is to state that Australian authors tend to look ‘outward’ for their sociological

material, while UK and USA authors focus inward and source ‘in-country’.

[Table 3 about here]

When this issue is examined to see if there have been changes over time, a shift is apparent

toward a greater use of overseas material for both UK and USA authors but not for Australian

authors in the second decade (statistically significant, where p=.000). The already high use

of overseas material for Australian authors continued, while authors in the USA showed a

small increase of 4% in the second decade towards using overseas material, and those in

the UK showed a somewhat larger increase of 8%.

A Sense of Place in the Global System

A third aspect of the analysis was to examine the papers for indications of whether the

authors articulate a sense of their place within the global system. This indicator measures the

way an author introduces their topic or subject of study, or constructs a title for their paper.

Some authors are reflexive about their location, and make it immediately and readily

apparent that their paper is about hospital services in the north of England or the problems

encountered by children with disabilities in Wollongong, Australia. Others however, do not

disclose the location of their study, perhaps assuming this to be apparent to the readership

or that their subject has universal relevance. This latter group of authors often write as if their

readers are in the same room, country and time period as themselves, with little thought for

the many differences in understanding and experience from one society to the next.

[Table 4 about here]

The results of this variable are shown in table four. Here we can see an entirely different

level of reflexivity between the Australian and American authors. Most of the Australians in

our study are highly reflexive (68%), clearly stating the location of their study. Most British

authors in our population are equally so, perhaps due to their location within the European

Union. The majority of the American authors in contrast do not contextually locate their study.

Key Texts and Citations

The final measure in our study consists of an examination of the key authors cited by

Australian, UK, and USA-based authors in this field of research. This provides an indicator of

the extent to which there might be a common academic culture between the sociologists of

different countries, and whether the system might be porous or closed. The results are

shown in table five, where the first pair of columns lists the most popular authors cited by

Australian-based authors, plus the usual place of work for each of those authors. The second

and third pair of columns indicate the choices of UK and USA based authors respectively.

[Table 5 about here]

Two significant points should be noted. First, our Australian-based authors are similar to the

British in their propensity to cite local authors, for 48% (or 10/21) of the most-cited authors for

the Australians are other Australian-based authors, and 52% (or 11/21) of the most-cited

among the British authors are other British authors. In stark contrast, 100% of the American-

based authors cite other American-based authors, showing a very insular approach toward

the source of reference materials in that country.

A second point of interest lies in the contrast between Australian-based authors and their

counterparts in the UK and USA. Australian-based authors share 57% (12/21) of their Top 21

list with the British-based authors, though only two of these are Australian-based (Lupton and

Turner). In contrast, there is very little sharing between the USA and UK, with only 19%

(4/21) of the authors on the most-cited lists common to both countries. These figures again

indicate an in-country orientation for both UK and USA authors, and an outward orientation

for the Australians. They also lend further support to the view that there is a greater level of

shared culture between the core countries – Britain and America – than there is between

these and the periphery (or semi-periphery), though it is apparent that the latter country is

decidedly more insular than the former. Scholars from the periphery may have their works

utilised by scholars in the core research countries only when they publish in the European,

American or British journals, or publish with international publishers such as Sage or Oxford

and actively marketed (e.g., Lupton). Moreover, high citation rates within their own countries

are no guarantee of being acknowledged by scholars from core countries (e.g., Willis,

Collyer, Short and White), and journals from the core research countries, particularly the US,

have long been noted for their lack of inclusion of foreign authors (Arvanitis and Chatelin

1988:133).

Differences within Australia

This final section examines whether a similar patterning of relations, as found between the

UK, USA and Australia, might also be in operation within Australia. If the UK and USA are

representative of core countries, and Australia a country of the periphery or semi-periphery, it

is hypothesised that similar relations of exclusion, hegemony and appropriation might be

expressed between the better-resourced, high status, well-established universities and the

newer, less well-resourced institutions within Australia.

For purposes of analysis, the Australian universities were classified according to Marginson’s

(1999) typology, which hierarchically organises the institutions with regard to the timing of

their establishment, and, not incidentally, coincides with their prestige and market power. The

dominant position in this hierarchy is taken by the ‘Sandstones’ (e.g., the Universities of

Sydney and Melbourne), which were the first to be established and the wealthiest in terms of

assets and research income (Marginson 1999:18-20). The ‘New Universities’ (e.g.,

Swinburne, Southern Cross or the University of Western Sydney), at the bottom of the

hierarchy, are less successful in competing for research funds, provide access to students

from more diverse and lower socio-economic backgrounds, and seek to differentiate

themselves in the academic market by offering more vocational courses. Such differences in

orientation are treated by Marginson (1999:20) as post hoc rationalisations:

The match between institution and students is a function not of niche position, in which

specialist courses match to particular needs, but of the unequal workings of supply and

demand within a common system-wide competition. Vertical differentiation remains the

dominant element.

In our study we reported above on the differences between the three countries with regard

their use of local rather than overseas reference materials, finding the core countries to be

very high users of their own local materials, and Australia, in contrast, a high user of

overseas materials. Table six compares these country differences with those found in the

internal, Australian university system. What these figures reveal is while there is not a

reversal of this trend between the various Australian universities, the Sandstones are more

likely than the New Universities to mimic the pattern of the core country universities and look

inward for materials, while the less well-resourced universities are more outwardly oriented

and seek reference materials from overseas.

[Table 6 about here]

Similar patterns emerge when we return to our variable measuring reflexivity (a sense of

place within the global system). The first few columns of table seven show the country

comparisons already discussed, where Australian authors are much more likely to locate and

contextualise their studies than are the American-based authors. In the final two columns,

the differences between Australian universities are shown. While these are not as marked as

those between core and peripheral countries, they nevertheless indicate that authors working

in the elite universities are less likely to contextualise their work than their counterparts in the

‘New Uni’s’. This suggests a similar tendency for authors from the more powerful countries

and institutions to be less reflexive about their location within the global system, for they

reveal less interest in possible differences in the experiences and understandings of others.

[Table 7 about here]

Discussion and Conclusion

All inter-country relationships are in some sense unique, and need to be considered on a

case-by-case basis. Nevertheless this study of sociological knowledge production from three

countries has shown that it is possible to examine the nature of this relationship using the

concepts of ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ and a set of empirical indicators of dependency and

centrality. These have revealed a level of intricacy in the relations of knowledge production,

for though some of these relations have definitive and unequivocal impacts on the academic

workers located in various parts of the production system, others are more subtle in the

extent to which they encourage reflexivity or orient practices.

To take first of all the least subtle of these production relations, we might focus on the stark

differences which operate between the countries of the core and those of the periphery or

semi-periphery. Taking the USA and the UK as examples of the former, and Australia as one

of the latter, this study has empirically demonstrated some of the differences in knowledge

production practices resulting from global location. Scholars in core countries have been

shown to rely primarily on their own locally-produced reference materials and to incorporate

few ‘foreign’ perspectives. Elsewhere this has been referred to as a low level of

‘domestication’, that is, a tendency not to adopt texts from elsewhere, and modify them to

ensure local relevance (Gareau 1988:177). In addition, the trend for core countries is to limit

inter-country collaborations, undertaking work ‘in-house’ with others from the core, ignoring

often explicit government policies to collaborate with developing countries (Arvanitis and

Vessuri 2001:201). Sociology in the periphery in contrast, is characterised by an orientation

toward the metropole, a strong reliance on ‘core’ country reference material, and, as has

been argued elsewhere, a tendency to regard local material as weak and unimportant

(Arvanitis and Chatelin 1988:113). This dependence on the concepts, theories and

publications of the ‘core’ countries has been the observation of Alatas (2006:15) in the

Singaporean context, Sall (2010:45) in Africa, and Connell and colleagues (2005:17) in

Australia:

Australian intellectual workers keep up their international connections so carefully because

they need to. Asked whether ‘In order to keep up with developments in my field, one must

read books and journals published abroad’, 75 percent of our respondents agreed. Perhaps

the most important issue is where people would look for innovation. Asked ‘When you are in

search of new ideas or methods, which country are you most likely to look to?’, only 27

percent of respondents said Australia or New Zealand. Nearly twice as many, 48 percent,

said North America; 16 percent nominated a European country (including the UK), and few

mentioned anywhere else. As a group, it seems, our respondents are acknowledging the

realities of cultural dependence (Connell et al. 2005:17).

The study has also indicated a small number of less obvious differences between the core

countries of the UK and the USA in the knowledge practices of their authors. Although there

is little to distinguish the two countries with regard their mutual lack of interest in reference

materials from non-core countries; they are not alike in their levels of reflexivity, because

authors from the UK are much more likely to contextualise their studies than those from the

USA. Likewise, scholars in Britain engage with a broader range of reference materials,

particularly materials deriving from Europe and the USA. Such findings suggest future

studies of core-periphery relations should take some care with the classification of countries,

allowing for differences within, as well as between, categories.

This study of health sociology in three countries was not designed to reveal differences

between peripheral or semi-peripheral countries, nor ascertain the appropriate global

category for Australian academic workers. Nevertheless a comment or two is required about

knowledge production in this location because it is apparent from the literature that there are

some very important differences between countries often placed alongside one another in

the periphery or semi-periphery. Compared with, for example, Singapore, where little other

than European or Western texts are studied, and local materials used only for empirical

material to demonstrate the relevance of Western concepts and theoretical frameworks

(Alatas 2006:15); Australia has been developing its own scholars and perspectives on the

sociology of health and medicine. In this sense Australia might be appropriately classified as

in an intermediary position in the world system. At the same time however, measures of

peripherality must take into account the problems for Australian sociologists posed by the

very similarity of their culture to that of the metropole, where it is difficult to articulate the

more subtle variations in habit, attitude, practice and structure. Loubser (1988:184) makes a

similar point with regard to Canada, and Langer observes that sociology in Western countries

is not homologous but fragmented across many culturally dependent communities, and:

... the socio-cultural dependency in sociology exists not only between the West and the Third

World but also inside the Western system. And here the dependency might even be stronger,

because with respect to the now more or less common ‘grammar’ of modernity, the

participating societies are more homologous but still do not have the same opportunities ...

The inclination to rely on ‘big brothers’ is strong, also because they seem to be so similar ...

[and hence] the national milieus do not generate significant alternative interpretations of life

anymore (Langer 1992:5).

Thus Australian scholars are in a unique position in the world system, for while they rarely

engage with scholars of their own region, but read and cite the knowledge productions of the

metropole; they nevertheless vigorously enter into the local production of acceptably Western

scholarly works and celebrate their own local theorists.

Finally, this study of sociological knowledge production has thrown up some variations within

Australia itself. Intra-country relationships between the well-resourced and the least-

resourced Australian universities display some of the characteristics of dependency. Like the

workers of the ‘core’ countries, those in the elite universities of Australia rely more on local

materials and are less reflexive than their counterparts in the less prestigious and less well-

resourced institutions. This intra-country pattern may be interpreted as evidence of a greater

confidence in local scholars and knowledge products among those in elite universities, or

alternatively, as the result of greater pressure on workers in the non-elite universities to turn

toward the global metropole in the competitive arenas of publishing and funding. A less

positive interpretation of these trends suggests the former group of institutions encourage a

more insular approach to knowledge production and the global context.

We might choose between the same set of alternatives in drawing conclusions about

differences between knowledge production in the core and periphery. In some contexts, a

high reliance on local materials might be a sign of a vigorous internal intellectual culture,

where concepts and theories are abundant, relevant, useful and more appropriate than

imported products. In others, this may be a sign of isolation from the rest of the world, where

the scholars see no reason to examine the ideas or concepts of others. The choice between

these possible conclusions cannot be made without further inquiry into the work context of

sociologists and the functioning of the global system. Certainly the findings of this study offer

only a glimpse at the world of sociologists. All societies need a vigorous, local sociology to

ensure the recording and analysis of relevant events and histories, but there needs also to

be a reciprocal, global exchange of ideas and a participatory form of theory construction.

Only this will ensure concepts and frameworks do not parade as universal when they are, in

truth, culturally-specific. The value of this study may lie in its demonstration of the extent to

which the metropole-periphery relationship, laid down over two centuries of European

colonialism and migration, continues to dominate the production of sociological knowledge in

Australia and elsewhere.

References

Akiwowo, A. (1988) ‘Universalism and Indigenisation in Sociological Theory’, International

Sociology 3(2):155-60.

Alatas, S.F. (2006) Alternative Discourses in Asian Social Science. London: Sage.

Alatas, S.F. (2003) ‘Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social

Sciences’, Current Sociology 51(6):599-613.

Alexander, M. (1989) ‘Conservatism, Counterrevolution, and Semiperipheral Politics:

Australia and Argentina in the Interwar Period’ Review XII(2):299-333.

Arrighi, G. (1998) ‘Capitalism and the Modern World-System: Rethinking the Nondebates of

the 1970s’, Fernand Braudel Center Review 21(1):113-29.

Arrighi, G. (1990) ‘The Developmentalist Illusion: A Reconceptualisation of the

Semiperiphery’, pp. 11-42 in W.G. Martin (ed.) Semiperipheral States in the World-Economy.

Westport: Greenwood Press.

Arrighi, G. and Drangel, J. (1986) ‘The Stratification of the World-Economy: An Exploration of

the Semiperipheral Zone’, Fernand Braudel Center Review 10(1):9-74.

Arvanitis, R. and Chatelin, Y. (1988) ‘National Scientific Strategies in Tropical Soil Sciences’,

Social Studies of Science 18:113-46.

Arvanitis, R. and Vessuri, H. (2001) ‘Cooperation Between France and Venezuela in the

Field of Catalysis’, International Social Science Journal 53(168):201-17.

Arvanitis, R.; Waast, R. and Gaillard, J. (2000) ‘Science in Africa: A Bibliometric Panorama

Using PASCAL Database’, Scientometrics 47(3):457-73.

Baldock, C. (1994) ‘Sociology in Australia and New Zealand’, pp. 587-622 in R. Mohan and

A. Wilke (eds.) International Handbook of Contemporary Developments in Sociology.

Greenwood Press: Westport.

Chatelin, Y. and Arvanitis, R. (1992) ‘Representing Scientific Activity By Structural Indicators:

The Case of Cote D’Ivoire 1884-1968’, Scientometrics 23(1):235-47.

Collyer, F.M. (2012) Mapping the Sociology of Health and Medicine: America, Britain and

Australia Compared. Palgrave Macmillan: Houndmills, Basingstoke.

Collyer, F.M. (2011) ‘The Sociology of Health and Medicine in Australia’, Politica Y Sociedad

48(2):101-118.

Collyer, F.M. (2009) ‘Work Environments: Their Impact On Theorising in the Sociology of

Health, Illness and Medicine’ presented at The Australian Sociological Association national

conference, December 1-4, 2009 The Future of Sociology, at the Australian National

University, Canberra. Refereed proceedings available at http://www.tasa.org.au/tasa-

members/conference-proceedings/

Connell, R.W. (2007a) ‘The Northern Theory of Globalisation’, Sociological Theory

25(4):368-85.

Connell, R.W. (2007b) Southern Theory. Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin.

Connell, R.W. (2006) ‘Core Activity’, Journal of Sociology 42(1):5-23.

Connell, R.W. (2005) ‘Australia and World Sociology’, pp. 3-27 in J. Germov and T. McGee

(eds.) Histories of Australian Sociology. Melbourne University Press: Carlton.

Connell, R.W. and Crawford, J. (2007) ‘Mapping The Intellectual Labour Process’, Journal of

Sociology 43(2):187-205.

Connell, R.W. and Wood, J. (2002) ‘Globalisation and Scientific Labour’, Journal of Sociology

38(2):167-190.

Connell, R.W.; Wood, J. and Crawford, J. (2005) ‘The Global Connections of Intellectual

Workers’, International Sociology 20(1):5-26.

Descarries, F. (2003) ‘The Hegemony of the English Language in the Academy: The

Damaging Impact of the Sociocultural and Linguistic Barriers on the Development of Feminist

Sociological Knowledge, Theories and Strategies’, Current Sociology 51(6):625-36.

Gareau, F. (1988) ‘Another Type of Third World Dependency’, International Sociology

3(2):171-178.

Halpern, S. and Anspach, R. (1993) ‘The Study of Medical Institutions’, Work and

Occupations 20(3):279-95.

Hountondji, P. (2002) ‘Knowledge Appropriation in a Post-Colonial Context’, pp. in Hoppers,

C. (ed.) Indigenous Knowledge and the Integration of Knowledge Systems Claremont: New

Africa Books.

Hountondji, P. (1990) ‘Scientific Dependence in Africa Today’, Research in African

Literatures 21(3):5-15.

Hountondji, P. (1983) African Philosophy: Myth and Reality London: Hutchinson.

Keim, W. (2011) ‘Counterhegemonic Currents and the Internationalisation of Sociology:

Theoretical Reflections and an Empirical Example’, International Sociology 26(1):123-45.

Krishna, V. and Krishna, U. (2010) ‘Social Sciences in South Asia’, pp. 77-81, in International

Social Science Council and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organisation, World Science Report: Knowledge Divides UNESCO Publishing: Paris.

Langer, J. (1992) ‘Emergence of Sociology’, pp. 1-18 in J. Langer (ed.) Emerging Sociology,

Aldershot and Sydney: Avebury.

Loubser, J. (1988) ‘The Need for the Indigenisation of the Social Sciences’, International

Sociology 3(2):179-87.

Macintyre, S. (2010) The Poor Relation: A History of Social Sciences in Australia. Carlton:

Melbourne University Press.

Marginson, S. (1999) ‘Diversity and Convergence in Australian Higher Education’, Australian

Universities’ Review 42(1):12–23.

Mouton, J. (2010) ‘The State of Social Science in Sub-Saharan Africa’, pp. 63-67, in

International Social Science Council and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and

Cultural Organisation, World Science Report: Knowledge Divides UNESCO Publishing:

Paris.

Nandy, A. (1983) The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self Under Colonialism. New

Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Ping, H. (2010) ‘The Status of the Social Sciences in China’, pp. 73-76, in International

Social Science Council and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organisation, World Science Report: Knowledge Divides UNESCO Publishing: Paris.

Sall, E. (2010) ‘Council For the Development of Social Science in Africa (CODESRIA)’, pp.

44-47, in International Social Science Council and the United Nations Educational, Scientific

and Cultural Organisation, World Science Report: Knowledge Divides UNESCO Publishing:

Paris.

Sanda, A. (1988) ‘In Defence of Indigenisation in Sociological Theories’, International

Sociology 3(2):189-199.

Seale, C. (2008) 'Mapping The Field of Medical Sociology’, Sociology of Health and Illness

30(5):677-95.

Skocpol, T. (1977) ‘Wallerstein’s World Capitalist System: A Theoretical and Historical

Critique’, American Journal of Sociology 82(5):1075-90.

Sklair, L. (2001) The Transnational Capitalist Class. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Sklair, L. (1995) Sociology of the Global System. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University

Press.

Taylor, P.J. (1988) ‘Alternative Geography: A Supportive Note on Arrighi and Drangel’,

Fernand Braudel Center Review 11(4):569-79.

Taylor, P.J. (1985) Political Geography: World Economy, Nation-State and Locality. London:

Longman.

Tsokhas, K. (1996) ‘War, Industrialisation, and State Intervention in the Semiperiphery’,

Review XIX(2):197-223).

Tsokhas, K. (1992) ‘Protection, Imperial Preference, and Australian Conservative Politics,

1923-39’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History XX(1):65-87.

Wallerstein, I. (1979) The Capitalist World-Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Wallerstein, I. (1974) The Modern World-System. New York: Academic Press.

Willis, E. (1991) ‘The Sociology of Health and Illness in Australia’, Annual Review of Health

Social Science 1:46-53.

Willis, E. (1982) ‘Research and Teaching in the Sociology of Health and Illness in Australia

and New Zealand’, Community Health Studies 6(2):144-53.

Willis, E. and Broom, A. (2004) ‘State of the Art’, Health Sociology Review 13(2):122-44.

Table 1: The Study Population – Journals and Countries, 1990-2011

The Journals

No. of papers

Australia United Kingdom United States

Health Sociology Review

207

57%

17

7%

8

4%

Journal of Health and Social Behavior - - - - 89 40%

Sociology of Health and Illness 30 8% 213 85% 41 18%

Social Science and Medicine 16 4% 18 7% 87 39%

Journal of Sociology 57 16% 3 1% - -

Australian and NZ Journal of Public

Health

8 2% - - - -

TASA Conference Proceedings 48 13% - - - -

Total (n=842) 366 100% 251 100% 225 100%

Note: totals may not add to 100% due to rounding. Nationality based on the country affiliation of the first author (as stated on the

manuscript).

Table 2: Authors and Collaboration – Australia, the UK and the USA

No. of papers

Country of second author

First author, Australia First author, UK First author, USA

Australia 106 91% 4 3% 1 1%

Africa - - 1 1% - -

Bulgaria 1 1% - - - -

Canada 1 1% 1 1% 1 1%

Jamaica - - - - 1 1%

New Zealand 1 1% - - - -

Russia - - - - 2 2%

Sweden - - 2 2% - -

United Kingdom 4 3% 119 92% 2 2%

United States 3 3% 2 2% 128 95%

TOTAL (n=456) 116 100% 129 100% 135 100%

Note: totals may not add to 100% due to rounding. Nationality based on the country affiliation of the first and second authors.

Only papers with two or more authors included in this table (n=456).

Table 3: Use of Reference Material – Country Comparisons

Local or Overseas Material

Australia UK USA

Low use of local materials

235

67%

49

21%

5

3%

High use of local materials

117 33% 187 79% 199 98%

TOTAL (n=792) 352 100% 236 100% 204 100%

Note: totals may not add to 100% due to rounding. Nationality based on the country affiliation of the first author. Statistically

significant using Pearson’s Chi Square (p=0.000). Figures do not include the 48 articles where the author is studying a country

other than their own, though this removal does not itself make a statistical difference.

Table 4: A Sense of Place – Reflexivity in the Authors

Australia UK USA

Low reflexivity

116

32%

83

33%

143

64%

High reflexivity

250 68% 168 67% 82 36%

TOTAL (n=842) 366 100% 251 100% 225 100%

Note: totals may not add to 100% due to rounding. Nationality based on the country affiliation of the first author. Statistically

significant using Pearson’s Chi Square (p=0.000).

Table 5: Most Cited Authors by Country of First Author

Top 21 Authors cited in Australia Top 21 Authors cited in the UK Top 21 Authors cited in the USA

Place of work Place of work Place of work

Willis, Evan Australia Strauss, Anselm USA Mechanic, David USA

Lupton, Deborah Australia Bury, Mike UK Ross, Catherine USA

Turner, Bryan Australia/UK Giddens, Anthony UK Pearlin, Leonard USA

Foucault, Michel France Williams, Gareth UK Goffman, Erving USA/Canada

Giddens, Anthony UK Foucault, Michel France Conrad, Peter USA

Connell, Raewyn Australia Lupton, Deborah Australia Freidson, Elliot USA

Strauss, Anselm USA Williams, Simon UK Strauss, Anselm USA

Beck, Ulrich Germany/UK Turner, Bryan Australia/UK House, James USA

Broom, Dorothy Australia Armstrong, David UK Berkman, Lisa USA

Collyer, Fran Australia Rose, Nikolas UK Kleinman, Arthur USA

Goffman, Erving USA/Canada Freidson, Elliot USA Link, Bruce USA

Rose, Nikolas UK Goffman, Erving USA Mirowsky, John USA

Bourdieu, Pierre France Blaxter, Mildred UK Thoits, Peggy USA

Kellehear, Allan Australia/UK Charmaz, Kathy USA Verbrugge, Lois USA

Freidson, Elliot USA Dingwall, Robert UK Dohrenwend, Bruce USA

Short, Stephanie Australia Gabe, Jonathon UK Light, Donald USA

White, Kevin Australia Callan, Michael UK Waitzkin, Howard USA

Petersen, Alan Australia/UK Parsons, Talcott USA Krieger, Nancy USA

Armstrong, David UK Bourdieu, Pierre France McKinlay, John USA

Williams, Simon UK Corbin, Juliet USA Parsons, Talcott USA

Bury, Mike UK Kleinman, Arthur USA Zola, Irving USA

Notes: The Top 21 lists were compiled by noting whether or not an author is cited in each paper. Multiple citations of the same

author in a given paper were discounted. ‘Professional citizenship’ of Top 21 authors are based on the country affiliation of the

author as provided on the manuscripts. ‘Place of work’ is gathered from similar sources plus institutional web-sites to ascertain

the most consistent location, though some individuals, notably B.S. Turner have worked for lengthy periods in more than one

country so must be noted as having a plural professional citizenship. Other authors, such as J.B. McKinlay, were born ‘out of

country’ (New Zealand), but have worked primarily in one country since graduation (the USA), and hence are considered to

have a single professional citizenship.

Table 6: Country Comparisons - Use of Local Reference Materials

UK USA Australia Sandstones New Uni’s

Low use of local materials

21%

3%

67%

63%

72%

High use of local materials 79% 98% 33% 37% 28%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. For the comparison between the three countries, n=792. For the

comparison between Australian institutions, n=353. Percentages indicate the number of papers in each category showing either a

high or low usage of local materials. For instance, 33% of Australian authors in our population are high users of local (Australian)

materials. The categories of ‘Sandstones’ versus ‘New Uni’s’ are based on Marginson’s (1999) typology.

Table 7: Reflexivity: Country and Australian University Comparisons

UK USA Australia Sandstones New Uni’s

Low reflexivity 33% 64% 32% 36% 28%

High reflexivity 67% 36% 68% 64% 72%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. For the Australian data, n=354. For the country comparisons, n=792.

Universities classified according to Marginson (1999).