Jointly published by Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest and Springer, Dordrecht
Scientometrics, Vol. 81, No. 2 (2009) 413–434 Scientometrics
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-008-2211-8
Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa NELIUS BOSHOFF Centre for Research on Science and Technology (CREST), Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602, Stellenbosch, South Africa
The study examines aspects of both neo-colonial ties and neo-colonial science in research papers produced by Central African countries. The primary focus is on the extent and pattern of neo-colonial ties and other foreign participation in the co-authorship of Central African research papers. The analysis revealed that 80% of Central Africa’s research papers are produced in collaboration with a partner from outside the region. Moreover, 46% of papers are produced in collaboration with European countries as the only partner, and 35% in collaboration with past colonial rulers. The top collaborating countries are France (32%), the USA (14%), and the UK and Germany (both 12%). Foreign powers also facilitate the production of regionally and continentally co-authored papers in Central Africa, where European countries participate in 77% of regionally co-authored papers. The practice of neo-colonial science, on the other hand, features in a survey of reprint authors of Cameroonian papers. The survey investigated specific contributions made by Cameroon coauthors to the research processes underlying a paper. Cameroonian researchers contribute intellectually and conceptually to the production of research papers, irrespective of whether the collaboration involves partners from past colonial or non-colonial countries. Their most frequent role in collaborative research with foreign researchers remains the conduct of fieldwork.
Introduction Scientific and research activity in developing countries is almost invariably seen by the global community as an endeavour in need of capacity building and strengthening. This is particularly true for sub-Saharan Africa, where countries are struggling to reach the target of allocating at least 1% of GDP to R&D, as proposed in the African Science and Technology Consolidated Plan of Action [NEPAD, 2006]. Moreover, it is only recently that sub-Saharan African governments have committed themselves to investing in research and science and technology (S&T) for socio-economic development, and actively demonstrated their commitment through new science policies and initiatives and the revision of outdated ones.
Received October 6, 2008; Published online April 17, 2009 Address for correspondence: NELIUS BOSHOFF E-mail:
[email protected] 0138–9130/US $ 20.00 Copyright © 2009 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest All rights reserved
BOSHOFF: Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa
The focus of this study is on research capacity in Central Africa, the poorest region in sub-Saharan Africa. The principal area of investigation is the participation by foreign countries (particularly France, the UK and USA) in the production of Central African research papers, and hence in strengthening research capacity in the region. The focus is largely a bibliometric one but includes a case study of the reprint authors of Cameroonian research papers. The case study was conducted as an electronic survey and examines how the Cameroonian-foreign co-authorship in the papers originally started and what contributions the Cameroonian researchers made to the processes underlying the research in the papers. In order to contextualise the findings a literature overview will first be provided, highlighting topics such as the scientific core-periphery constellation and neocolonialism within North-South relations. This is followed by a brief sketch of regional S&T in Central Africa. Literature overview The world scientific core and periphery Since the advent of modern science there has always been a world scientific core and periphery although, historically, the core has shifted over time. At the heart of the core lies the ability to innovate and to contribute to important scientific discoveries, i.e. scientific creativity. SCHOTT [1991] explains the dominance of the core as follows: “A place emerges as a centre [core] by an approximate consensus regarding its creativity. It accumulates recognition, conceivably even over and beyond its accomplishments. Its centrality gives its authority. The centre has authority derived from and legitimated by the widespread consensus about its accomplishment. The works of the centre diffuse easily; they may, because they emanate from the centre, be valued over and above their intrinsic value. They become exemplars influencing the choice of topics of research and methods at the periphery” (p. 448). In an earlier paper SCHOTT [1988] argued that the scientific world is not only stratified in terms of a core and periphery (with the core influencing the periphery) but also in terms of geopolitical regions where the influence by one region upon another can partly be explained by collegial and educational ties which, in turn, are shaped by broader conditions such as political-economic affinity, language commonality and cultural co-operation. Thus, the periphery’s propensity to be influenced by the core is not exclusively explained by the core’s scientific creativity and the periphery’s relative lack thereof but also by these collegial and educational ties. Different attempts have been made to theorise about the relationship between the scientific core and the periphery, especially when the core is interpreted as affluent
414
Scientometrics 81 (2009)
BOSHOFF: Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa
countries in the western world (the USA and former colonial powers such as the UK and France) and the periphery as the poorer countries in the developing world, most of them of course former colonies. Often the dichotomy is also expressed in terms of a political ‘North’ and ‘South’. NAGTEGAAL & DE BRUIN [1994], for instance, referred to dependency theory and interdependency theory, two schools of thought that originated in the field of international economic relations. Dependency theory stresses the unequal aspect of the scientific relationship between the core and periphery – research funding, scientific equipment and skilled human resources are strengths that are concentrated in the core. Scientific collaboration between the core and periphery will therefore always benefit the core the most because of the latter’s advanced capacity to disseminate, absorb and act upon knowledge produced. Moreover, although the knowledge of both the periphery and core increase as a result of joint activity the peripheral country only manages to do so because of partnering with a scientific power at the core. Thus, the periphery is becoming increasingly dependent on the core to improve its scientific position. The focus of interdependency theory, on the other hand, is on positive growth that occurs in both the periphery and the core as a result of their collaboration (e.g. improved knowledge, increased publications, and more citations) rather than on the inequality of the relationship and differences in growth. Another line of theoretical thought is that of institutionalism, where the focus is on isomorphism, interpreted within the core-periphery context as the adoption and often mimicking of Western scientific models, policies and practices by countries at the periphery [SHRUM & SHENHAV, 1995]. MOUTON [2008], for instance, observed that the majority of African countries display a “tendency to imitate – rather slavishly and uncritically – science, technology and innovation policy approaches and paradigms from elsewhere.” Underlying such imitations is a shared belief in the universalism of science, where science, as practiced and organised at the core, acquires almost a rulelike status. Collegial and educational ties between the core and periphery are the principal carriers by which the principles and beliefs of the core are mainstreamed into the science systems of peripheral countries. North-South collaboration and neo-colonialism North-South partnerships – because of structural inequalities and historical patterns of dominance – have the potential risk of not being a true partnership but being controlled by the foreign partner in a semi-colonial fashion. COSTELLO & ZUMLA [2000], for instance, summarised the characteristics of a semi-colonial or foreign-led research model of North-South partnerships, and the implied negative consequences for scientific sustainability.
Scientometrics 81 (2009)
415
BOSHOFF: Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa
Moreover, North-South collaboration in science – whether formal or informal, or driven by institutions or individuals – is expected to generate scientific papers in national and international journals that involve as co-authors both Northern and Southern researchers. Jointly co-authored papers between the North and South can be regarded as evidence of research capacity strengthening. Even stronger evidence of research capacity is a paper solely authored by Southern researchers. However, as LANGER & AL. [2004] pointed out, research papers in the field of public health and medicine are heavily concentrated in the USA and Western Europe, with an almost negligible presence of papers singularly authored by researchers from developing countries. This remains the case even though the developing world carries the overwhelming burden of the world’s diseases. Semi- or neo-colonialism (i.e. processes of indirect control exerted by the North over the South [JENTSCH & PILLEY, 2003]) can sometimes emerge in publication and authorship decisions in North-South collaborations. Examples are provided by DAHDOUH-GUEBAS & AL. [2003] who performed a bibliometric study of research carried out in the 48 least developed countries, and which were published in Current Contents between 1999 and 2000. Their bibliometric study was supplemented by a short survey of the corresponding authors of the published research. They found that: x
x
x
69% of papers based on research carried out in the developing world, and involving at least one author from an industrialised country, did not include an institution from the developing world as co-author Between 60–70% of corresponding authors from industrialised countries failed to acknowledge collaborators from developing countries in the research paper as co-authors, although they said in the survey that they had collaborated intensively with developing countries, and that the collaborative issue was considered in the drafting of manuscripts About 40% of corresponding authors said that North-South collaboration mostly involved fieldwork, with the developing country authors carrying out fieldwork in their own country for the foreign researchers.
These findings represent to DAHDOUH-GUEBAS & AL. [2003] clear evidence of neocolonial science, “a spirit in science in which authors from the [industrialised] countries realise the importance of publications, recognise the contribution, but deliberately and systematically exclude co-authorship of [developing] countries”. Whereas neo-colonial science is invariably interpreted as negative the same cannot be said about neo-colonial ties. The latter refers to a form of North-South collaboration that involves collaboration between an ex-colonial ruler and its former colony in the developing world. France is a very good example of a former colonial power that has maintained close relations with its former colonies since their independence [STANILAND, 1987]. NAGTEGAAL & DE BRUIN [1994] studied the neo-colonial dependency of 12 former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and Asia, and found that
416
Scientometrics 81 (2009)
BOSHOFF: Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa
neo-colonial ties in science reflect a strong regional focus. Ex-colonial countries in SubSaharan Africa, for instance, have stronger ties with their former colonisers than countries in other regions. NAGTEGAAL & DE BRUIN also reported a correlation between the volume of scientific output, Gross National Product (GNP) and the extent of neocolonial ties – the smaller the GNP and scientific output the larger the extent of colonial ties. Moreover, where neo-colonial patterns in science are lacking, even in cases when the country has a relatively small GNP and little scientific output, the relative absence of neo-colonial ties is normally the result of violent decolonisation. In the present study, aspects of both neo-colonial ties and neo-colonial science are investigated. Neo-colonial ties receive attention in so far that the primary focus is on the extent and pattern of foreign participation – including participation by former colonisers – in the co-authorship of research papers in Central Africa. The practice of neo-colonial science features in the survey of reprint authors of Cameroonian papers. The survey investigates specific contributions made by Cameroonian co-authors to the research processes underlying a paper and whether these contributions extend beyond fieldwork. The survey also investigates how the collaboration between the foreign and Cameroonian co-authors started. Regional S&T: The case of Central Africa In Africa, Regional Economic Communities (RECs) are primarily targeted with the development of regional S&T. The regional economic integration institution for Central Africa is the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), known in French as the Communauté Economiquedes Etats de l’Afrique Centrale (CEEAC). The 11 member countries of ECCAS are Angola; Burundi; Cameroon; Central African Republic; Chad; Congo Republic; Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC); Equatorial Guinea; Gabon; Rwanda; and São Tomé and Principe. Although primarily an economic institution, the mission of ECCAS involves, among other things, also the harmonisation of national policies for the promotion of ECCAS activities in the field of S&T. Recently, in September 2006, the position of the Central African countries on S&T was brought in line with that of the rest of the African continent. Science ministers from the region met in Cameroon and agreed to implement Africa's Science and Technology Consolidated Plan of Action. Central Africa up to that point in time has lagged behind other countries in implementing the plan. The science ministers also promised to invest and contribute to national, regional and continental S&T programmes [www.scidev.net /content/news/eng/central-african-states-to-enact-science-plan.cfm]. The S&T emphasis in Central Africa is largely on assisting science and scientists to recover from conflict, specifically by developing programmes that will reconstruct the S&T infrastructure. Central African priorities are likely to include the rebuilding of infrastructure ruined by
Scientometrics 81 (2009)
417
BOSHOFF: Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa
soldiers occupying laboratories and offices, and upgrading Internet, computer and telephone equipment [www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/april/war.htm]. Only one Central African country appears in the list of ‘top 10’ African countries in terms of the production of research papers. It is Cameroon, which occupies the 10th rank and accounts for 1.9% of the share of African papers, according to a study by POURIS & POURIS [2007] for the period 2000–2004. This share is significantly less than that of the two most prolific countries on the African continent, namely South Africa (30%) and Egypt (20%). Data and methodology Bibliometric component The source for the bibliometric analysis is the on-line version of the Web of Science by Thomson Scientific. All Central African research papers published between 2000 and 2006 in journals indexed by the Web of Science were extracted. A Central African paper was taken to mean an article, letter or review with at least one author address located in any of the 11 member countries of ECCAS. A total of 3245 research papers were identified and extracted during August 2007. The extracted papers were imported into a Microsoft Access database, where after the countries and Central African institutions were standardised and the data manipulated for the bibliometric analysis. The identification of papers by the DRC and the Congo Republic presented a particular challenge because the Web of Science assigns papers from both these countries to a single country category of ‘Congo’. (Some papers produced by the DRC are also assigned to the category of ‘Zaire’, which refers to the previous name of the country.) Thus, institutional and city names had to be used to correctly classify papers produced by the two Congolese countries. In standardising the Central African institutions, clusters of institutions had to be created at times because of multiple links between institutions, which made it difficult to separate main institutions from sub-institutions. For instance, the following institutional cluster was created: Int Inst Trop Agr (IITA) [incl. Humid Forest Ecoreg Ctr; Ctr Int Forestry Res (CIFOR); WorldFish ICLARM]
The cluster incorporates the following institutional addresses in the Web of Science database: Ctr Int Forestry Res, Yaounde, Cameroon WorldFish Ctr, Yaounde, Cameroon Int Inst Trop Agr, Humid Forest Ecoreg Ctr, Yaounde, Cameroon Worldfish ICLARM, Humid Forest Ecoreg Ctr, Yaounde, Cameroon Int Inst Trop Agr, Humid Forest Ecoreg Ctr, Ctr Int Forestry Res, Cent & W Africa Reg Off, Yaounde, Cameroon
418
Scientometrics 81 (2009)
BOSHOFF: Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa
The 3245 papers were categorised into scientific fields by using the journal subject categories of the Web of Science. The Centre for Research on Science and Technology (CREST) at Stellenbosch University has developed a structure according to which these journal subject categories are classifiable into five broad fields: agricultural sciences; natural sciences; engineering and applied technologies; health sciences; and social sciences. (See the Appendix for an indication of how the relevant journal subject categories were amalgamated into five broad fields.) The broad fields of natural sciences and engineering and applied technologies were collapsed in cases where the analytical sub-total for engineering became too small. Lastly, an index of neo-colonial ties was computed by following the methodology used by NAGTEGAAL & DE BRUIN [1994]. The ‘neo-colonial relation index’ (NCR index) expresses the number of co-authored research papers between a former colonial power and its colony as a share of the total research papers produced by the colony. The resulting values range between 0 and 1 – a value of 1 indicates total dependence, i.e. all papers by the former colony are produced in collaboration with its colonial ruler. In creating the NCR index France was specified as the colonial ruler for Cameroon, although the country had three rulers during its colonial history – up to 1919 it was a German colony, but after World War I it was divided into French Cameroon (incorporating four fifths of territory), and British Cameroon (incorporating only one fifth of territory). British Cameroon was composed of a northern and southern region. After independence, however, the southern region of British Cameroon merged with French Cameroon to form the current Cameroon, whereas the northern region of British Cameroon was incorporated into Nigeria. Thus, less than one fifth of current Cameroon belonged to the British during the colonial period. Survey component The eligibility criteria for inclusion in the electronic survey of reprint authors were as follows: (1) the paper produced by the reprint author had to be part of the pool of papers used in the bibliometric component; (2) the paper had to include at least one Cameroonian address; (3) the paper had to be published between 2003 and 2006 and not earlier in order to prevent memory distortions; and (4) the reprint authors had to have a Cameroonian, French, UK or USA address as the latter three countries dominate the production of research papers in Cameroon, and reflect both neo-colonial and noncolonial ties. The methodology involved the following: (1) All reprint authors (of Cameroonian papers) who have addresses in Cameroon, France, the UK and USA were identified. This resulted in a total of 1027 reprint authors who published papers during the period 2003–2006 (see [B] in Table 1).
Scientometrics 81 (2009)
419
BOSHOFF: Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa
Table 1. Reprint authors of articles with at least one Cameroonian co-author (2003–2006) [A] Cameroon France UK USA Valid total Other
[B] 676 188 70 93 1027 287
[C] 220 188 70 93 571 –
[D] 125 113 41 56 335 –
[E] 98 105 40 54 297 –
[F] 81 93 36 50 260 –
[G] 31 38 18 26 113 –
[H] 38% 41% 50% 52% 43% –
Note: UK = England/ Scotland/ Wales/ Northern Ireland [A] Country address of reprint author [B] Total number of reprint authors [C] Number of reprint authors – Cameroon adjusted [D] ‘Unique’ reprint authors [E] ‘Unique’ reprint authors with email address [F] ‘Unique’ reprint authors with valid email address [G] Reprint authors who completed survey [H] % Survey response ([G]/[F]*100)
(2) However, not all the papers produced by Cameroonian reprint authors involved co-authorship with France, the UK or the USA. Only 220 papers by the 676 Cameroonian reprint authors qualified as these papers involved collaboration with one or more of the three foreign countries. (3) The total of 571 reprint authors in [C] are not unique in the sense that the same reprint author could produce more than one paper, therefore appearing more than once in the reprint author dataset. Since the unit of observation in the survey is a paper, only the most recent paper produced by each reprint author was selected. For instance, in the case of Cameroonian reprint authors, 125 papers were selected for the survey and none of these papers had the same reprint author. (4) It was discovered that not all reprint authors had email addresses in the Web of Science. This brought down the number of reprint authors to be surveyed to 297. An email was sent to the 297 reprint authors. The email explained the background of the survey and provided the author with a hyperlink to access the questionnaire in English (and also in French in the case of French-speaking authors in Cameroon and France). The foreign (French, UK and USA) reprint authors were asked to indicate the contributions made by the Cameroonian researchers to the processes (fieldwork, data analysis, etc) underlying the research in the paper. A list of potential contributions was provided and they had to tick the applicable ones. The foreign reprint authors were also asked to describe how the collaboration with the Cameroonian co-authors started. The Cameroonian-based reprint authors, on the other hand, were asked to indicate their own contributions to the research and to describe how their collaboration with the foreign co-authors (where applicable) started.
420
Scientometrics 81 (2009)
BOSHOFF: Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa
(5) A number of emails were returned as undeliverable due to invalid addresses. Where possible, alternative email addresses were searched on the Internet, resulting in a total of 260 reprint authors with valid addresses. (6) Altogether 43% (113) of reprint authors with valid email addresses (260) completed the survey. The highest response rates are associated with the two Englishspeaking countries (USA: 52% and UK: 50%). Moreover, the survey responses were linked to the original papers based on a unique code in the hyperlink that was distributed. Results Bibliometric component Table 2 profiles the 11 Central African countries in terms of total research output in the Web of Science database (2000–2006), scores on the NCR index, and two socioeconomic indicators (population size and GDP – obtained from World Development Indicators database, April 2008 version). Cameroon dominates in terms of research output, accounting for 61% of the 3245 research papers. Moreover, four countries (Cameroon, Gabon, DRC and Congo Republic) are responsible for about 90% of the region’s research papers. In terms of the NCR index, 66% of Chad’s research papers are produced in collaboration with its former colonial power, namely France. This is the second highest NCR index score in the region, apart from that of São Tomé and Principe, which produced 85% of its 13 research papers in collaboration with its former coloniser, Portugal. Rwanda shows the lowest level of neo-colonial ties in the region – only 24% of its papers are produced in collaboration with Belgium. However, the neo-colonial ties of Rwanda have increased over time (from 0.14 in 2000–2001 to 0.29 in 2005–2006), and so did those of the Central African Republic, Congo Republic and Equatorial Guinea. According to the non-parametric Spearman rho test, a significant negative correlation exists between the NCR index scores and GDP (r = –0.606, p50%), with the exception of two. The exceptions are both resource-related (financial and scientific). Foreign reprint authors, on the other hand, reported that their Cameroonian co-authors largely participated in fieldwork and data collection (80% overall) and the interpretation of results (60%). Assistance with fieldwork and data collection was most frequently mentioned by reprint authors from all three foreign countries (78–85%). Table 9. Contributions made by Cameroonian co-authors to the research processes underlying the papers, by country of reprint author and by broad field The Cameroonian co-author(s) … *Helped to formulate/shape the initial research proposal Helped to secure funding for the research proposal Helped with the project management and administration Helped to bring together (link up) the researchers listed in the paper Provided the research setting (e.g. access to diseases, samples, specimen, natural phenomena and artefacts) Provided scientific resources (facilities, equipment, instruments)
Cameroonian reprint authors
France
UK
94%
34%
50%
29%
13%
68%
42%
58%
Foreign reprint authors By broad field Agri Nat. sci. Health Social USA Total cult. & eng. sciences sciences sci.
By country
31%
37%
50%
40%
33%
13%
39%
4%
16%
38%
14%
17%
0%
50%
46%
45%
63%
46%
40%
75%
11%
11%
15%
12%
6%
14%
14%
0%
52%
55%
50%
58%
55%
56%
51%
62%
38%
26%
13%
28%
27%
21%
25%
17%
29%
25%
*Helped with the experimental design
65%
34%
28%
35%
33%
56%
29%
31%
25%
Helped with the field-work/data collection
81%
79%
78%
85%
80%
81%
77%
83%
88%
*Helped with the data analysis
77%
55%
28%
31%
41%
44%
43%
36%
50%
*Helped with the interpretation of the results
87%
68%
50%
54%
60%
69%
57%
55%
75%
47%
67%
42%
50%
63%
49%
*Helped with the writing up of the results Total
*Intellectual/conceptual
77% (N=31)
100%
(N=38) (N=18)
76%
78%
(N=26) (N=82) (N=16) (N=35)
69%
74%
81%
74%
55%
50%
(N=42)
(N=8)
74%
100%
Note: Field totals do not add to the total number of papers due to the multiple field classification of journals in which papers appear.
Scientometrics 81 (2009)
427
BOSHOFF: Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa
Table 10. Foreign co-authors’ perception of how their collaboration with the Cameroonian co-authors started Explanation of how collaboration started
Country of reprint author France UK USA
Cameroonian collaborator a student/trainee/post-doc of foreign collaborator (Examples: This work was part of the thesis work of a Cameroonian 43% student; the co-author was a MPH student and this was a graduate research project for him) Cameroonian and foreign collaborators brought together through mutual acquaintances (Examples: Our collaboration was initiated through a French scientist 9% who co-ordinated the measurement network in Africa; a mutual acquaintance introduced us originally and participated in the collaboration) Cameroonian and foreign collaborators already had established personal/work relationship ('old boys') 14% (Examples: My Cameroonian co-author and I have been collaborating for two decades; we studied together in medical school) Cameroonian and foreign collaborators brought together by research institution/programme/funding agency 14% (Examples: We were brought together by the Centre for Tropical Forest Science; through a research grant from Fogarty International Foundation) Contact made during professional visit by Cameroonian collaborator to foreign collaborator 6% (Examples: The collaboration began with a Cameroonian researcher visiting France (several months); contact during the visit of a professor of Cameroon to our laboratory) Long-standing/existing collaboration between institutions of Cameroonian and foreign collaborators 9% (Examples: The collaboration between the two research institutions had existed for 20 years; it was a long-standing collaboration between CIRAD and LANAVET in Cameroon) Role/skills of Cameroonian collaborator warranted his/her collaboration (Examples: The Cameroon author was the scientist in charge of the 3% germplasm that we used in the study; X has worked at OCEAC in Yaounde and we sought his expertise) Cameroonian and foreign collaborators met at meeting 0% (Example: Met at WHO meeting) Cameroonian student studied in both Cameroon and France 3% (Example: PhD studies at University of Limoges, France, and University of Yaounde I , Cameroon) Foreign collaborator a student of Cameroonian collaborator 0% (Example: I worked in Cameroon for 3 years as a research assistant and developed my PhD with colleagues there) 100% Total (N=35) No response / Response not specifying how collaboration started (N=3)
Total
13%
17%
29%
47%
29%
23%
13%
13%
14%
7%
17%
14%
13%
8%
8%
0%
4%
5%
0%
8%
4%
0%
4%
1%
0%
0%
1%
7%
0%
1%
100% 100% 100% (N=15) (N=24) (N=74) (N=3) (N=2) (N=8)
Note: Explanations by Cameroonian reprint authors are not included as only 9 of the 31 reprint authors provided explanations.
However, a re-classification of the contributions to represent intellectual/conceptual contributions (versus all others), shows that 74% of foreign reprint authors believe that the Cameroonian co-authors made some intellectual or conceptual contribution. The
428
Scientometrics 81 (2009)
BOSHOFF: Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa
comparative figure is 100% in the case of Cameroonian reprint authors. Table 9 also shows field differences with regard to the contributions made by Cameroonian authors to research papers, based on the perception of foreign reprint authors. As far as the origin of Cameroon-foreign collaboration is concerned, the two primary explanations are that the Cameroonian co-author was a student/trainee/post-doc of the foreign reprint author (29% overall) and that the collaborators were brought together by mutual acquaintances (i.e. networking, 23%). These two explanations account for over 50% of collaborations. French reprint authors (43%) were most inclined to mention the student-supervisory connection, whereas reprint authors from the UK (47%) and USA (29%) were most likely to mention mutual acquaintances in their explanation on the start of collaborations. Discussion The prevailing situation in Central Africa is one of low levels of economic development, as reflected in GDP, that are coupled with significantly low levels of research production which, in turn, are characterised by relatively high levels of neocolonial ties. The most productive research institutions in Central Africa produce their scientific output in collaboration with outside forces, mostly with researchers and institutions in Europe. The few ‘pockets’ of research productivity that do exist are concentrated in Cameroon and these ‘pockets’ maintain strong European and international ties through personal and institutional relations. Examples of the latter are the French-based Pasteur Institute and Insitut de Recherche le Developpment (IRD) in Cameroon. The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) also has a research station in Cameroon, as does the International Council for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), through its African Humid Tropics Regional Programme. Thus, Cameroon constitutes a regional core, but within a global perspective, the region in its totality is operating at the periphery of world science. Foreign countries that traditionally were not part of the colonial rule of Francophone Africa (such as the USA and UK – except where the UK ruled over a small northern strip of Cameroon), are increasingly emerging in Central African science, despite language barriers. This shows the global influence of science emanating from the world core. However, as the Cameroonian survey results showed, Anglo-Saxon countries have no strong history of collaboration with Francophone Africa and for that reason their collaboration with Francophone Africa tends to be facilitated by third parties and mutual acquaintances. In the case of France, on the other hand, many Cameroonian coauthors are either past or current students of French-based researchers, implying that the production of research papers between France and Francophone Africa often follows a ‘mentor-apprentice model’. Also, the centrality of France is intensified and strengthened through its attraction of students from Central Africa, as the ability to attract foreign
Scientometrics 81 (2009)
429
BOSHOFF: Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa
students is a defining characteristic of the core [SCHOTT, 1998]. Moreover, Cameroonian researchers contribute intellectually and conceptually to the production of research papers, irrespective of whether the collaboration involves partners from past colonial or non-colonial countries. Their most frequent role in collaborative research with foreign researchers nevertheless remains the conduct of fieldwork. Educational and collegial ties between the core and periphery, when considered within a capacity building paradigm, to a large extent represent individual-based modes of capacity strengthening. Such individual-based modes are not necessarily conducive to the institutionalisation of science in the long run because, as individuals become empowered in their scientific and research role, their movement is often invariably away from the periphery and towards the core. The institutionalisation and sustainability of science is better accomplished through capacity building strategies that target institutions and networks, rather than individuals [LANSANG & DENNIS, 2004]. Examples are institutional partnerships between developing and developed countries, and centres of excellence. Centres of excellence, particularly, are important for capacity strengthening because, as the name implies, these arrangements can be perceived of as ‘miniature cores’ to which the activities of the periphery should be directed. However, a centre of excellence must be scientifically creative in order to be in the core, meaning that it needs to pursue, among others, a basic research agenda because “core science has a continuing heritage of basic research at its foundation” [HWANG, 2008]. Africa’s Consolidated Plan of Action for S&T also “places emphasis on developing an African system of research and technological innovation by establishing networks of centers of excellence dedicated to specific R&D and capacity building programmes” [NEPAD, 2006, P.6]. The focus is on indigenous knowledge and technologies to contribute to the continent’s development and innovations; almost a case of ‘African solutions for African problems’. However, the result of this study shows that regional and continental collaboration – at least in the case of Central Africa – cannot succeed without the continuous involvement of foreign powers. Currently, the majority of research collaborations within Central Africa, as well as between Central Africa and the rest of the continent, involve a partner from Europe. Thus, greater dependency on foreign participation and neo-colonial ties is required in order for regional and continental integration to be established. This should not necessarily be seen as a form of over-dependency but as interdependency as both Central Africa and foreign countries could benefit from the process. In the case of France, for instance, collaborative ties with Francophone Africa could serve as entry point for research relations with nontraditional African partners. Moreover, it is recommended that Central African countries develop strategies to ‘tap’ the scientific network of former colonial countries in order to diversify the pattern of international collaboration at the same time. Lastly, a limitation of the study is that it is greatly influenced by the prevailing discourse on capacity building, where by and large the capacity of researchers in the
430
Scientometrics 81 (2009)
BOSHOFF: Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa
South is being built, with little reference to the capacity of the North that is being built as well through collaboration. Exceptions are reported elsewhere in the scientific literature (e.g. [JENTSCH & PILLEY, 2003]). The single main limitation of the study, however, is that it does not include papers in journals produced by the Central African countries themselves. The incorporation of papers from outside the Web of Science would have significantly strengthened the study. Assuming that the majority of such papers would be in French (as opposed to English, Portuguese and Spanish), even stronger collaborative ties could be expected between Central Africa and France. * The author wishes to thank Derick van Niekerk for developing the web interface for the questionnaire and Daniel Veliz-Bernaola for assisting in cleaning the bibliometric data.
References COSTELLO, C., ZUMLA, A. (2000), Moving to research partnerships in developing countries, British Medical Journal, 321 (7264) : 827–829. DAHDOUH-GUEBAS, F., AHIMBISIBWE, J., VAN MOLL, R., KOEDAM, N. (2003), Neo-colonial science by the most industrialised upon the least developed countries in peer-reviewed publishing, Scientometrics, 56 (3) : 329–343. HWANG, K. (2008), International collaboration in multilayered center-periphery in the globalization of science and technology, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33 (1) : 101–133. JENTSCH, B., PILLEY, C. (2003), Research relationships between the South and the North: Cinderella and the ugly sisters? Social Science & Medicine, 57 : 1957–1967. LANGER, A., DÍAZ-OLAVARRIETA, C., BERDICHEVSKY, K., VILLAR, J. (2004), Why is research from developing countries underrepresented in international health literature, and what can be done about it? Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 82 (10) : 802–803. LANSANG, M. A., DENNIS, R. (2004), Building capacity in health research in the developing world, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 82 (10) : 764–770. MOUTON, J. (2008), Regional Report on Sub-Saharan Africa, A meta-review produced for the Symposium on Comparative Analysis of National Research Systems, 16-18 January 2008, UNESCO, Paris, France. NAGTEGAAL, L. W., DE BRUIN, R. E. (1994), The French connection and other neo-colonial patterns in the global network of science, Research Evaluation, 4 (2) : 119–127. NEPAD (2006), Africa’s Science and Technology Consolidated Plan of Action, Office of Science and Technology of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), Pretoria, South Africa. POURIS, A., POURIS, A. (2007), The state of science and technology in Africa: A scientometric assessment, Proceeding of ISSI, 619–630. SCHOTT, T. (1988), International influence in science: Beyond center and periphery, Social Science Research, 17 : 219–238. SCHOTT, T. (1991), The world scientific community: Globality and globalization, Minerva, 29 : 440–462. SCHOTT, T. (1998), Ties between center and periphery in the scientific world-system: Accumulation of rewards, dominance and self-reliance in the center, Journal of World-Systems Research, 4 (2) : 112–144. SHRUM, W., SHENHAV, Y. (1995), Science and technology in less developed countries. In: S. JASANOFF, G. E. MARKLE, J. C. PETERSEN, T. PINCH (Eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (revised edition), Sage Publications, Chapter 7, pp. 627–651. STANILAND, M. (1987), Francophone Africa: The enduring French connection, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 489 : 51–62.
Scientometrics 81 (2009)
431
BOSHOFF: Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa
Appendix: Field classification
Natural sciences
Agricultural sciences
Broad field
432
Subject categories of journals in which Central African researchers published articles Agricultural Economics & Policy Agricultural Engineering Agriculture, Dairy & Animal Science Agriculture, Multidisciplinary Agronomy Fisheries Food Science & Technology Forestry Horticulture Plant Sciences Soil Science Veterinary Sciences Acoustics Astronomy & Astrophysics Biochemical Research Methods Biodiversity Conservation Biology Biophysics Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology Cell Biology Chemistry, Analytical Chemistry, Applied Chemistry, Inorganic & Nuclear Chemistry, Multidisciplinary Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Physical Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence Computer Science, Hardware & Architecture Computer Science, Information Systems Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications Computer Science, Software Engineering Computer Science, Theory & Methods Crystallography Developmental Biology Ecology Electrochemistry Entomology Evolutionary Biology Geochemistry & Geophysics Geography, Physical Geology Geosciences, Multidisciplinary Limnology Marine & Freshwater Biology Mathematical & Computational Biology Mathematics Mathematics, Applied Mathematics, Interdisciplinary Applications Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences Microbiology Mineralogy Multidisciplinary Sciences Mycology Oceanography Optics Ornithology Paleontology Physics, Applied Physics, Atomic, Molecular & Chemical Physics, Condensed Matter Physics, Fluids & Plasmas Physics, Mathematical Physics, Multidisciplinary Physics, Nuclear Physics, Particles & Fields
Fields displayed in Table 7
Agronomy
Plant sciences
Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry
Ecology
Geosciences, multidisciplinary Marine & freshwater biology
Multidisciplinary sciences
Physics Physics Physics Physics Physics Physics Physics Physics
Scientometrics 81 (2009)
BOSHOFF: Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa
Health sciences
Engineering sciences & applied technologies
Broad field
Scientometrics 81 (2009)
Subject categories of journals in which Central African researchers published articles Polymer Science Remote Sensing Reproductive Biology Social Sciences, Mathematical Methods Spectroscopy Statistics & Probability Thermodynamics Water Resources Zoology Automation & Control Systems Construction & Building Technology Energy & Fuels Engineering, Aerospace Engineering, Biomedical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Geological Engineering, Industrial Engineering, Manufacturing Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Multidisciplinary Engineering, Petroleum Imaging Science & Photographic Technology Instruments & Instrumentation Materials Science, Ceramics Materials Science, Characterization & Testing Materials Science, Coatings & Films Materials Science, Composites Materials Science, Multidisciplinary Materials Science, Paper & Wood Mechanics Metallurgy & Metallurgical Engineering Mining & Mineral Processing Nanoscience & Nanotechnology Nuclear Science & Technology Operations Research & Management Science Telecommunications Transportation Science & Technology Allergy Anatomy & Morphology Andrology Anesthesiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems Chemistry, Medicinal Clinical Neurology Critical Care Medicine Dermatology Emergency Medicine Endocrinology & Metabolism Gastroenterology & Hepatology Genetics & Heredity Health Care Sciences & Services Health Policy & Services Hematology Immunology Infectious Diseases Integrative & Complementary Medicine Medical Laboratory Technology Medicine, General & Internal Medicine, Research & Experimental Neuroimaging Neurosciences Nutrition & Dietetics Obstetrics & Gynecology Oncology Ophthalmology
Fields displayed in Table 7
Zoology
Biochemistry & molecular biology Chemistry
Infectious and tropical diseases Infectious and tropical diseases
433
BOSHOFF: Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa
Social sciences & humanities
Broad field
434
Subject categories of journals in which Central African researchers published articles Orthopedics Otorhinolaryngology Parasitology Pathology Pediatrics Peripheral Vascular Disease Pharmacology & Pharmacy Physiology Psychiatry Public, Environmental & Occupational Health Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging Rehabilitation Respiratory System Rheumatology Surgery Toxicology Transplantation Tropical Medicine Urology & Nephrology Virology Anthropology Archaeology Area Studies Behavioral Sciences Business Business, Finance Communication Demography Economics Education & Educational Research Environmental Sciences Environmental Studies Ethics Ethnic Studies Family Studies Geography History Industrial Relations & Labor Information Science & Library Science International Relations Language & Linguistics Law Literary Reviews Literature Literature, African, Australian, Canadian Literature, Romance Management Medical Ethics Philosophy Planning & Development Political Science Psychology Psychology, Biological Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Multidisciplinary Psychology, Social Public Administration Religion Social Issues Social Sciences, Biomedical Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary Social Work Sociology Sport Sciences Theater Urban Studies Women’s Studies
Fields displayed in Table 7
Infectious and tropical diseases
Pharmacology & pharmacy
Infectious and tropical diseases
Infectious and tropical diseases Infectious and tropical diseases
Scientometrics 81 (2009)
