This paper discusses the funding and other instruments and the way they define distance between core and peripheries, and how the curent literature frames these debates.
Paper long abstract:
Losego and Arvanitis (2008) have proposed that non-hegemonic countries can be defined by the fact they have little opportunity to modify the worldwide research agenda. This presentation would like to examine the instruments of hegemony, beyond financial power. I suggest that, although the main instrument is still financial, given the complexity of the new international environment, funding becomes both an instrument and a negotiation arena. Additionally, other instruments (databases, language policy, publication policies, instrumentation) seem to guarantee the distance between core and periphery. I re-examine also what has been named 'southern theory' (Connell) and build on the work of some 'younger' contributors to this particular subject (W. Keim, P. Kreimer, F. Beigel, S. Hanafi, L. Cabane, J. Tantchou) rather than the 'post-colonial' (Alatas, Houtoundji, Appadurai). In this way, we assist to the recent formation of a new way in thinking about future evolution of globalized science. This particular strand is not entirely born out from STS field and stresses new avenues for research that had been marginalized but become very central in international debates about research. Central to these debates is the dilemma between internationalization vs. relevance.