The Internationalization of Sociology in Argentina 1985–2015: Geographies and Trends

Abstract

This article examines how recent generations of Argentine sociologists relate to current global processes that are shaping international academic exchanges and explores the local impact of internationalization trends. More specifically, it analyzes the geographic circulation of Argentine sociologists and their products (books and journal articles) and reveals the participation of these sociologists on the most coveted circuits based on the current dynamics of international academic exchange. The article explores how the internationalization of sociologists’ careers influences their intellectual prestige and power in local academia.

Introduction

Since the mid-1980s in Argentina, unusual academic processes have influenced the institutional development of sociology which is still a relatively young discipline having been introduced at into universities only in 1957. For over three decades now sociology has developed in a context of political stability. In the 1960s and 1970s successive coups d’état hindered sustained intellectual and institutional growth in the field (Sidicaro 1993; Blanco 2006; Blanco and Jackson 2015).

In addition to the unprecedented stability of national institutions under democracy since 1983, a series of institutional innovations has altered the configuration of the university system, strengthening science and technology at all levels and contributing to increased professionalization among Argentine sociologists. Some of the most important modifications include the expansion of the higher education system through new public and private universities and increased investments in research in science and technology. There has also been a considerable rise in the number of full-time teaching positions at universities, graduate fellowships and research-track positions at the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, or CONICET). Finally, the number of master’s and doctoral programs in the social sciences in Argentina grew significantly in the mid-1990s, as did the number of periodicals in the social sciences and humanities (Beigel and Salatino 2015).

However, one persistent phenomenon—the focus of this chapter—has also characterized Argentine sociology in recent decades. Much has been written about the internationalization of sociology since it became a recognized part of university education in Argentina in the 1950s. The discipline’s most renowned intellectual and institutional advocate in Argentina, Gino Germani (a foreigner himself),¹ made the then new Department of Sociology at the Universidad de Buenos Aires into an unofficial international center for study and research. One aspect of this internationalization was a program for intensive scientific cooperation with professors and researchers from Europe , the United States (U.S.) and other countries across Latin America. In the first few years of the discipline, around twenty professors from other countries taught or conducted research at the Department of Sociology at the Universidad de Buenos Aires and the Sociology Institute headed by Germani in Buenos Aires.

Another initiative that Germani put into motion was to develop links with a network of international organizations which provided support and funding for the social sciences (UNESCO , OAS), with U.S . institutions that offered fellowships for scholars (the Ford and Rockefeller foundations), and with global organizations like the International Sociological Association. Germani ’s active involvement in two regional centers, both founded in 1957, proved critical to the activities of international networks and decisive for the immediate future of the social sciences. These were the Latin American School of the Social Sciences (Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, or FLACSO , in Chile) and the Latin American Center for Research in the Social Sciences (Centro Latinoamericano de Pesquisas en Ciências Sociais, or CLAPCS, in Rio de Janeiro), (Franco 2007).

Perhaps most importantly, Germani promoted graduate studies abroad as a strategy for increasing the intellectual capital of the new sociologists, making the international facet of the social sciences prominent among its first recruits. As there were no graduate programs in the social sciences in Argentina at the time, studying abroad was the only way to earn a higher degree in the discipline for many years. With the help of subsidies from the Ford Foundation , most of Germani ’s closest collaborators earned graduate degrees abroad, mainly in the U.S . and the United Kingdom (U.K.), and, to a lesser degree, in France . Of the forty sociologists born between 1928 and 1945 who earned graduate degrees abroad between 1960 and 1980 (and whose academic records are available), sixteen received their degree in the U.S ., eleven in France , seven in the U.K . and six in Chile. In this regard, study abroad took root as a method for internationalizing intellectual capital during these first years and went on to become a veritable tradition in the social sciences in Argentina.

These strategies consolidated the discipline and helped shape an intellectual milieu around this first generation of sociologists characterized by their international experience. The sociologists who embarked upon their academic careers in the mid-1980s assimilated this tradition while also maneuvering global processes that have since redefined international academic exchanges. Recent studies have shown that the current process of internationalization in the social sciences takes place in segmented circuits: the hyper-central, central, semi -peripheral or peripheral circuit . As a hierarchy took shape, particular academic spheres (the Anglo-Saxon world, especially the U.S .) became more prominent and a certain work style (publishing in journals) became the norm, along with a specific language (English). The literature on this topic has contributed significantly to the creation of a “core-periphery model” for analyzing the power relations at work behind the globalization of the academic market, emphasizing the inequalities associated with international academic exchanges.² While the asymmetrical relations of these international circuits have long been acknowledged, researchers have yet to explore the impact of trends in internationalization on local academia. This article intends to address precisely this aspect of the academic globalization process.

In keeping with that objective, we will examine how the new generations of Argentine sociologists relate to the actual global processes that are shaping international academic exchanges. In pursuing this task, we have set four specific objectives:

• 1. analyze the geographic circulation of Argentine sociologists and their products (books and journal articles);

• 2. understand the stratification of this group based on the level of internationalization of their career paths;

• 3. determine the participation of these sociologists in the most coveted circuits based on the current dynamics of international academic exchange;

• 4. examine how the internationalization of sociologists’ careers influences their intellectual prestige and power in local academia.

Between 1984 and 2007, a total of 3079 sociologists graduated from the Universidad de Buenos Aires (Blois 2012). According to recent studies (Rubinich and Beltrán 2010; Blois 2012), 16% of these graduates held academic appointments or were researchers at the end of the 1990s. Taking into account growth at Argentina’s universities and research centers between 2003 and 2015, this percentage is estimated now to stand at 20% or approximately 610 sociologists. From this population, we selected 136 curricula vitae of sociologists.

The population under study are Argentine sociologists who meet the following conditions: a degree in sociology from the country’s oldest and most prestigious program, a doctorate,³ affiliations at institutions located in a geographic area with extensive resources and opportunities for academic recognition, and an academic career at the university and/or research institute that began no later than 1985. These are the characteristics we determined most important to high-ranking appointments in the academic field of sociology. The study of this population provides insight into the internationalization processes of trajectories that most accurately reflect patterns of contemporary academic globalization.

We selected résumés with a view to having enough cases to consider professionals who have been in the field for two decades along with others whose careers have just begun. When selecting the cases for our study, we also contemplated the need to include both sociologists who had earned their doctorate in Argentina and others who completed theirs abroad. As we will see, these two variables—seniority in the field and country where the Ph.D. was completed—both prove critical in our study. The study population was 52.6% men and 47.4% women; the majority are aged 35–55 years and their principal workplace is an academic institution in the city of Buenos Aires or its metropolitan area.

The analysis of the Argentine case provides insight into the contemporary dynamics of internationalization in the social sciences and the processes of building academic prestige and power in an internationally peripheral sociological field.

Geographies of Internationalization

To examine the geographies of internationalization, it is necessary to establish the hierarchy of the international circuits in which Argentine sociologists and their products circulate. There are three main circuits: the global hyper-central circuit (U.S .), the global-central circuit (France , U.K ., Germany), and the central peripheral circuit (Brazil , Mexico). Table 8.1 offers a basic analysis of foreign circulation among Argentine scholars.

Table 8.1 Argentine sociologists and their activities abroad

Circulation Among Agents

Thirty-seven per cent of the population of sociologists analyzed went abroad for their doctoral studies. The circuit of European countries (France , Germany and the U.K .) was the most popular choice among sociologists who left Argentina to obtain their Ph.D. (52.9%). If we add Spain (13.7%) to this pole, Europe becomes the predominant option for international study outside the U.S . and the countries of Latin America. Within Europe , France is the most frequent destination, attracting 45% of Argentine sociologists who traveled abroad for their doctoral studies.⁴ The central circuit within Latin America (Brazil and Mexico) attracted 21.5% of the sociologists who went abroad for their Ph.D. The U.S . is not one of the predominant sites chosen for this level of graduate studies (9.8%).

The predominance of this pole of European countries (especially France ) continues when we examine circulation abroad through research stays. Thirty-eight per cent of the entire population went on research stays, which are considered part of professional advancement after completing a Ph.D. As Table 8.2 shows, in terms of geography, 64.5% of visiting scholars went to European countries, 43.5% on its global central circuit (France , the U.K . and Germany). If we examine the weight of each country, we find that 28.5% of stays were in France , 14% in Spain, 12% in Germany, 3% in the U.K . and 6% in other countries of Europe (Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the Czech Republic). It is important to note that the preponderance of the United States increases among visiting scholars (17.5%). However, when analyzing this aspect of internationalization among Argentine sociologists, it also becomes clear that although circulation is most predominant in the European pole, it is mainly limited to non-Anglo-Saxon institutions (as seen in the low percentage of research stays in the U.K . and the high number of stays in France ).

Table 8.2 Academic activities abroad by circuit

The countries of Latin America and its most important circuit (Brazil and Mexico) regain ground in comparison to the European pole when considering the Argentine sociologists who travel abroad as visiting professors. Thirty per cent of the sample taught abroad, with scholars gravitating towards the regional pole due to the language factor. The countries of Latin America captured 42% of Argentine sociologists who traveled abroad as visiting scholars. Brazil has a particularly prominent place on this circuit, surpassing even Mexico.⁵ While Brazil attracted 17% of visiting professors, Mexico received just 7%, giving Brazil the highest preponderance among Latin American countries (19%). If we bring Spain into the picture, Table 8.2 shows that Spanish and Portuguese -speaking institutions attracted 56% of all visiting Argentine scholars.

This brief overview of the circulation of Argentine sociologists who entered academia since the end of the 1980s allows us to reach some preliminary conclusions. Internationalization through doctoral studies, research stays and being visiting scholars abroad is neither widespread nor rare. From the point of view of the segmentation of the global academic sphere, the dominant path of internationalization is the central circuit comprised of European countries, especially France . In spite of its secondary place in terms of degrees, the hyper-central circuit is increasingly chosen as an alternative for professional advancement and teaching after completing graduate studies. When considered together, the two circuits capture 63% of degrees earned abroad, 61% of research stays and 40% of teaching outside of Argentina. In terms of the last type of circulation (teaching abroad), the Latin American circuit recovers its standing in comparison to the hyper-central and global-central academic spheres. The visiting scholar circuit brings into the fold other countries in the region that were absent as alternatives for learning and professional advancement.

The Circulation of Books and Articles

This section will focus on the international circulation of products (books, book chapters and journal articles) by Argentine sociologists. The majority of publications, including 78.2% of books, 72.2% of book chapters and 57.8% of journal articles, are published in Argentina. This population thus releases most of its intellectual production on the local academic market. However, the geographic destination of books and journal articles published outside Argentina is also of interest.

As shown in Table 8.3, the geography of the products by Argentine sociologists in circulation is similar in some aspects to the circulation of the agents themselves, but different in others. The table shows that 12.2% of book and 8.8% of journal articles by Argentine sociologists in the period under consideration were published in the United States . The circulation of both the agents and their products on this hyper-central circuit is therefore limited. Unlike the agents, who gravitate towards the global-central circuit (France , the U.K . and Germany), however, the dominant pole for books and journal articles is Spain, which released 29% of the books published by Argentine sociologists outside Argentina. If we examine the other countries in Latin America, the prevalence of Spanish and Portuguese -speaking outlets becomes evident in terms of the international circulation of books, with 58.2% published in Spain and Latin American countries. Putting aside these outlets, France is the country where Argentina sociologists published the most books (15.5%).

Table 8.3 Publication of books and articles by circuit

When the circulation of journal articles abroad is the focus, the central-peripheral circuit of Latin America predominates (36.6%). The weight of circulation outside the other circuits (hyper-central and central) increases if we include the journal articles published in Spain and other Latin American countries, which published 69.8% of all articles appearing in journals abroad. France also loses ground in this type of circulation, taking fourth place on the list. The order by country is Spain (18%), Mexico (16%), Brazil (13.5%) and France (9%).

Given that Brazil ian journals accept articles written in Spanish , the data presented allow us to infer that Spanish is the main language for export among Argentine sociologists whose career in academia began over the past three decades. This is different from what occurs in Europe , where “internationalization and a certain diversification of international collaborations have been accompanied by a gradual rise in the use of English as the language for disseminating research findings, with the resulting drop in the use of French and German ,” (Gingras and Heilbron 2009: 378).

Two consonant trends can be detected in the global overview of geographies and circuits of internationalization among the Argentine sociologists who were the focus of this study. The first is the internationalization of the education and professional advancement of agents, with Europe —and, more specifically, France —as the dominant region. The circulation of the products authored by these sociologists is also international, but generally occurs outside the central and hyper-central circuits. Latin America and Spain are the most common destinations for these “exports,” which are mainly written in Spanish . This global overview reveals an incongruity between a strategy for the accumulation of scientific capital that mainly takes place in the central and hyper-central circuits (degree programs and in some cases, stays for professional advancement abroad) and the placement of the products resulting from the accumulated capital (books and articles) in central peripheral or peripheral circuits.

The Density of Internationalization

Internationalization Segments

In the previous section, we argued that internationalization is not ubiquitous among Argentine sociologists, though it is prevalent. To gauge the extent of internationalization among the selected population, we designed a typology with dimensions on the circulation of people and their products to measure the density of interactions abroad.⁶ In this way, we hope to provide insight into the impact international experiences have on the career of the scholars included in the study. The members of this population were then divided into three categories according to their level of internationalization (high, intermediate or low). Figure 8.1 reveals the distribution of the population according to the typology of internationalization.

Fig. 8.1

Typology of internationalization

The lowest internationalization category is comprised of sociologists who graduated between 1996 and 2007 (70%), with the remaining 30% having graduated between 1985 and 1995. A total of 76.5% of the members of this category earned their Ph.D. in Argentina. Forty per cent of the intermediate category corresponds to the first cohort and the remaining 60%, to the more recent graduates. Fifty per cent of the intermediates earned their doctorates in Argentina. The highest internationalization category is comprised of sociologists who graduated between 1985 and 1995 (65.2%), with the remaining 34.8% graduating the following decade. Seventy-five per cent of this group received their doctorates abroad.

From these numbers, it becomes clear that earning a doctorate abroad is closely tied to high international career paths, as a Ph.D. in Argentina correlates with the lowest category included in this typology. Eighty-four per cent of those included in the low category earned their Ph.D. in Argentina, while 78.3% of sociologists with the highest level of internationalization completed their doctoral studies abroad. The weight of study abroad as a key investment for a more international career path also becomes clear when the generational variable is taken into account (see Table 8.4). Over this entire period, and despite changes in the institutional context (the creation of a system of graduate degree programs in Argentina) earning a doctorate abroad still enhanced overall performance in terms of internationalization.

Table 8.4 Place where doctoral studies were completed by types of internationalization and graduation cohort

This initial approximation leads us to consider that the lowest category entails different realities depending on whether it is viewed as structural or as a point along the career path where advancement is still possible. Belonging to the 1985–1995 cohort, especially among those who did not earn their academic credentials abroad (76.5% of this group), increases the possibilities of structural relegation in the lowest internationalization category. Sociologists who are in the lowest category of our internationalization typology but belong to the younger cohort are more likely to remain in this relegated position only temporarily. As we have seen, the weight of a doctorate abroad affects sociologists’ capacity to increase their internationalization. The projection of this variable within the 1996–2006 cohort is limited to 12.5% of the group’s members. In comparison with the lowest category, the number of members of the 1985–1995 cohort and the number of sociologists with academic credentials obtained outside Argentina grows for this younger cohort. There are also differences among the 17% of the population that occupies the highest category. The analysis showed that certain members from the first cohort earned their doctorate abroad at a young age, yielding the lengthiest internationalized career paths. It also revealed a more dynamic group within the second cohort that earned doctorates abroad and brought to bear strategies to foster more international exchanges; this group thus stood out professionally, even among peers who earned their Ph.D. outside the country. Finally, there is a small group within the 1985–1995 cohort that did not do doctoral studies abroad but did find ways to compensate for this initial disadvantage.

Types of Internationalization

The dynamics of internationalization have a bearing on the different kinds of circulation of both the agents and their products over the course of their careers. This section focuses on the types of internationalization of the scholars examined here and addresses the following questions: what channels or venues for the circulation of people and products can be used to categorize this population? How frequently do these experiences recur in the career paths of the Argentine scholars?

Table 8.5 offers information relevant to these questions. Thirty per cent of the population has published at least one book abroad and taught classes outside Argentina and 37–39% have been part of an international research project, received an international grant or undertaken a research stay abroad. The most common experience is publishing articles abroad (98%) while the least common is directing an international research project (15%).

Table 8.5 Activities abroad by types of internationalization

This global overview serves as a reference when analyzing each of the categories of internationalization and the career paths of the members of each category in terms of possible types of circulation. The publication of books abroad, teaching at foreign universities and leading international projects define the highest category, whereas these activities are (almost) entirely absent in the lowest internationalization category. Undoubtedly, these three circulation channels require much greater (international) social capital than the rest of the internationalization venues, which explains why they are so scarce among the least internationalized agents: international networks are critical to academic endeavors abroad. The lowest position in the typology, held by 41% (see Fig. 8.1 above) of the population in this study, is reinforced by the near absence of other internationalization channels in their career paths. Only 19% of the members of this category went on research stays or participated in projects abroad, with 26% receiving international grants. For the low internationalization category, the publication of journal articles is the most common experience abroad.

According to the information on the intermediate category of internationalization venues—which comprises around 42.2% of the sociologists analyzed, 38% published a book abroad, 38% taught outside of Argentina, 49% received an international grant and participated in an international project and 45% went on a research stay abroad. The least common venue in the career paths of the agents in this category is that of research project director. The publication of journal articles is once again the most common type of circulation abroad. Unlike the low category, the internationalization paths that allow people and their products to circulate abroad are more diversified in the middle category. Unlike the highest category, however, and as we will now see, the degree of this diversification is lower.

The category of high internationalization, which represents 17% of the population studied, includes the agents most likely to have had experience in all types of international activities. In fact, 87% of this group has published books abroad, 83% have taught abroad, 52% have directed an international project, 70% have received international grants, 61% have gone on research stays and 61% have participated in international projects.

To continue this analysis, it is important to consider the distances between the internationalization categories as measured by the recurrence of each circulation channel within the category. In the highest category, members have published, on average, 1.6 books; traveled abroad 3.4 times as visiting scholars; served as research project directors 1.75 times and participated in such projects 3.7 times; received 2.68 international grants; and traveled abroad for research stays 2.07 times. The members of this segment have published, on average, 12.3 articles abroad. In the intermediate category, the numbers are as follows: an average of 1.23 books published abroad, 1.5 trips as visiting scholars, one position directing an international project and three involvements in such a project. In this same category, on average, agents received 1.4 international grants and went on 1.9 research stays abroad, publishing 9.27 articles in foreign journals. Finally, the lowest segment has the most meager levels in each channel or mode of circulation. In principle, as mentioned earlier, international career paths among this category do not commonly involve publishing books, teaching abroad or directing projects. Those who did participate in international projects did so, on average, 1.4 times, received 1.3 international grants and went on 1.5 research stays abroad. Members of this low segment have published 6.6 articles abroad.

Participation in the International Publication Circuits

In this chapter, we analyze the circuits in which Argentine sociologists allocate their products based on their position in the internationalization segments. This section aims to address two questions. First, do the books and articles of the more internationalized sociologists circulate on the hyper-central and central circuits? And second, do their career paths follow the general pattern described above, thus reinforcing the incongruities between the accumulation of scientific capital on the central circuit—and hyper-central circuit, in some cases—and the reinvestment of the accumulated capital in the semi -peripheral or peripheral circuits? Or does their privileged position instead translate into a more intense and continuous interaction with the hyper-central and global-central circuits?

To begin to address these questions, we compared the index of book and article publication for each segment. The members of the lowest segment did not publish any book abroad but 34% of all of the articles they published went to foreign journals. Among the middle segment, 23% of books and 43% of articles went abroad, while the amounts rise to 35% (books) and 53% (articles) for the highest segment.

When we analyze this participation on the circuits of journal circulation, it becomes clear that publishing abroad is important in all of the categories of internationalization. The members of the lowest category who completed their doctorate in Argentina sent 32% of their journal articles abroad while their colleagues in the same category who earned a Ph.D. abroad published more than half (51%) of their articles with foreign journals. In the middle category, these percentages are 41% (books) and 47% (articles), rising to 50% and 54% (respectively) for the highest segment.

Table 8.6 helps us reconstruct the participation of the sociologists in the circuit of international publishing according to the national origin of the publishing houses and foreign journals that print their products. As noted in the analysis of the entire population of sociologists regardless of their internationalization path, the Spanish and Portuguese -speaking outlets also take priority when considering the books and articles published abroad by all three segments. These outlets attract half of all the products exported by these sociologists, if we consider other countries of Latin America in addition to Mexico and Brazil . In this regard, there seems to be no qualitative difference in terms of the internationalization of the highest and lowest segments. If we focus on the countries where the products of Argentine sociologists circulate, disregarding a few exceptions (like the number of books published in Spain among the intermediate segment), the central-peripheral circuit is where the products of all three segment circulate most frequently.

Table 8.6 Books and journal articles by types of internationalization and location of publisher

To follow up on this initial finding, it is necessary to hone in on the circuit with the highest level of internationalization. The members of this segment place their products on the hyper-central and global-central circuits more frequently than their colleagues in the other segments. While 21% of journal articles by the entire population are on these two circuits, this percentage rises to 31% for only the highest segment, compared to 14% for the lowest segment and 21.9% for the intermediate segment. When the publication of articles among the high segment is further examined, we find that its members more frequently export their products to the European circuit (mainly France ) than to the United States , like the general population.

The weighting associated with the circuit where one’s doctorate was earned is critical to reversing this trend. The members of the most internationalized segment who earned their Ph.D. in the United States sent 40% of the articles they published abroad to this academic market and 11% of their articles to the global-central circuit. When the same analysis is applied to those who did their Ph.D. on the global-central circuit—while bearing in mind the predominant role of France —we find that 11% of the articles this group published abroad went to the hyper-central circuit (USA) and 32% were sent to the academic market of the central European circuit. The sociologists in the highest internationalization segment who earned their Ph.D. in Brazil and Mexico rarely sent articles to the hyper-central (4%) or central circuit (12%), publishing 60% of the articles they sent abroad in Brazil and Mexico. A similar trend can be seen among those who earned their doctorate in Argentina, who published 41% of all their foreign journal articles in Mexico and Brazil , 12% on the global-central circuit and 6% on the hyper-central circuit.

When these publication circuits are compared with the journal indexing rates, the results are quite similar. The Argentine sociologists examined in the study send 29.8% of their articles to “mainstream” circuits,⁷ 17.6% to transnational circuits, 22.1% to regional circuits and 29.1% to non-indexed publications. One initial observation to consider is that the quantity of articles published in mainstream journals in Argentina drops in comparison to the total. When all articles are considered, 57.2% are published in Argentina. However, just 22.7% of the articles are published in indexed Argentina journals that are part of the mainstream circuit. The universe of social science journals in Argentina is rarely considered within the most prestigious circuits because its journals are non-indexed (Beigel and Salatino 2015). More than 70% of the articles by Argentine scholars in mainstream journals abroad are published in Latin America and Spain: 36% in Mexico and Brazil , 13% in Spain, and 21% in the other countries of Latin America. Mainstream journals published in the United States capture 13% of the articles sent to this type of journals and 1% goes to journals in France , Germany and the United Kingdom .

It is important to determine whether this trend also applies to the distribution of articles in the most internationalized segment of Argentine scholars. Among this segment, 18% of the articles published in mainstream journals abroad go to the hyper-central circuit, 15% to the central circuit, 16% to Spain, 43% to Latin American countries and 8% to other countries. The information reveals that even for this more internationalized segment, Spanish and Portuguese -speaking countries are the most common destination for their articles, though the journals where their articles are published are better positioned on index rankings.

Internationalization and Academic Prestige

In the previous section, we examined the participation of Argentine sociologists in the academic circuits for the international circulation of symbolic goods (books and articles). The goal of this section is to show how the segments of internationalization correlate with intellectual prestige and academic power in the field of Argentine sociology. Examining this correlation is useful when assessing how the international scientific capital scholars accumulate affects their performance on the local academic market.

How do the members of each segment contribute to the local publishing market? Are the most internationalized members the ones who publish with the most prestigious publishing houses? These two questions are critical in the framework of an academic field whose criteria for renown are weakly institutionalized, a field which borrows from a broader intellectual field in order to establish its hierarchies . For this reason, book deals with important publishing houses become an indicator of intellectual prestige.⁸

For each segment, we have calculated the average number of books published with Argentine publishers. The lowest segment published an average of 1.15 books; the intermediate segment, 2.05; and the highest segment, 2.75. The length of one’s academic career affects these numbers, since the highest category is also the one with a proportionally higher number of sociologists from the 1985 to 1996 cohort.

The difference between segments is not just quantitative but also qualitative. Table 8.7 reveals how the sociologists included in the study are distributed according to the publishing houses that most frequently publish the books by these scholars. As Sorá and Dujovne note in this volume, three publishing houses are considered the most prestigious among Argentine sociologists: Siglo XXI, Fondo de Cultura Económica and Paidós. The information provided on this table shows that the first two tend to publish the authors from the highest internationalization segment. In both cases, around 70% of the authors published are in the highest segment. The third publishing house that most commonly recruits these authors is EUDEBA (30%), the Universidad de Buenos Aires press. It is important to note that in most of the cases, the authors published are the ones with the lengthiest careers i.e. members of the 1985–1996 cohort.

Table 8.7 Publication with Argentine publishers according to types of internationalization

We define the academic power category using three indicators: placement on the scientific research track, teaching position in the university system, and positions as research project directors. Table 8.8 (below) shows the likelihood of getting on the research track at CONICET, the most important public entity for scientific investigation in Argentina, increases with internationalization. Sixty-three per cent of the members of the lowest segment are CONICET researchers, compared to 80% in the intermediate category and 91% of the highest category.

Table 8.8 Academic power indicators by types of internationalization

As per cursus honorum, positions of academic power require considerable time investments. It is thus necessary to compare the cohort of sociologists who graduated from 1985 to 1995 to see how internationalization affected their likelihood of becoming a CONICET researcher. As shown on Table 8.8, the data show a high correlation between the types of internationalization and the likelihood of this cohort’s members obtaining this position of academic power.

A similar analysis can be done using the teaching positions that scholars hold in the university system. Table 8.8 shows that 28% of the lowest category and 29% of the middle segment are full professors (the highest position in Argentina’s university system), while this jumps to 69% for the highest category. Given the high proportion of sociologists with longer careers in this category—and the length of one’s career obviously affects one’s chance of being appointed to a position of academic power—it is important to compare only the members of each category of internationalization from the 1985 to 1995 cohort. Even in this case, members of the highest internationalization segment still have more chances of success. Thirty per cent of this cohort holds the most prestigious positions as university professors in comparison to 57% of the highest segment from the same cohort.

Positions as research project leaders in Argentina reveal the same trend: a positive correlation between types of internationalization and positions of academic power. For the lowest internationalization category, the average number of positions at the head of a research project funded and assessed by public and private entities within Argentina is 1.8 for each of its members, 3.3 for sociologists in the middle category and 5.26 for the highest. To gauge the effect of career length, we observed the performance of the 1985–1995 cohort in each segment and noted the same trend for the highest category (2.47 projects for the members of the low category vs. 3.9 for the intermediate category and 4.6 for the highest category).

This section has shown that the most internationalized Argentine sociologists are not any more likely to get their scholarly products placed on international circuits than academics from the other categories. However, these same sociologists are more likely to obtain more prestigious positions of academic power in the local field of sociology.

Final Considerations

As mentioned in the introduction, a regional education circuit played an important role in the education of the first generations of Argentine sociologists. Founded in 1957, the most important school on this circuit was FLACSO , and its first graduate school program, the Latin American School of Sociology (Escuela Latinoamericana de Sociología, or ELAS), opened in 1958. Fifteen per cent of the graduate degrees earned in the early years of sociology were at FLACSO , a percentage that rises to 20% if we consider those who received their doctorate in France after completing their master’s at FLACSO . Although no systematic information is available on the types of circulation of intellectual production among the FLACSO cohorts, the work by Blanco and Sorá included in this volume shows how a separate regional circuit of periodicals was created in parallel to the academic circuit. As a result, journals like América latina (1958) and Revista Latinoamericana de Sociología (1965) channeled a vast portion of the intellectual production of the sociologists during this period. More recent experiences reveal that the regional circuit continues to draw Argentine sociologists studying abroad for a graduate degree as well as a significant amount of their intellectual production, though Brazil —and to a lesser extent, Mexico—has replaced Chile at the center of the circuit.

Independently of the geographical shift (Brazil instead of Chile), the engagement of Argentine scholars on the regional circuit no longer appears to be the political wager it represented in the first years of the social sciences (Blanco and Sorá in this volume), when the pioneering generation of sociologists made Latin America a priority, building a regional system for education and research. Instead, the recent participation on regional circuits may correspond to current imperatives associated with professionalization within sociology in a structural context characterized by two major restrictions: (a) a great number of new sociologists with graduate degrees, and (b) a national market of journals with a low level of indexing.

Indirect evidence of this can be found by comparing publication in foreign journals and in indexed journals as indicators of internationalization and professionalization , respectively. Figure 8.2 reveals that the latter is more pronounced. The decrease in publishing in non-indexed journals is more pronounced than the drop in publications in national journals.

Fig. 8.2

Publication of journal articles abroad and in non-indexed journals from 1987 to 2016

Therefore, in a context characterized by a scarce number of indexed national journals, it is important to consider the proximity of Brazil and Mexico, whose academic markets boast a vast selection of indexed journals. On these markets, Argentine sociologists have the chance to get their work out there without incurring the translation costs required on other markets. Under conditions such as these, professionalization fosters a peripheral internationalization.

In relation to this last aspect of internationalization, this study has revealed that even the most internationalized sociologists circulate and allocate their products to the peripheral circuits more frequently than to the hyper-central and central circuits. What are the reasons for the lack of participation on more central international circuits among the scholars in the highest category? An initial—and frequently recurring—theme in the literature on this topic involves linguistic capital and the mastery of foreign languages, as options for internationalization depend on them. Linguistic capital can in fact explain a good portion of this population’s relegated position on global circuits, though it is also necessary to consider what occurs on local academic markets in this explanation. Such markets have their own criteria for achieving prestige that do not necessarily coincide with global standards. In this regard, the limited involvement of Argentina’s most internationalized sociologists on global circuits could be attributed to incongruities between the criteria for intellectual excellence within Argentina and those of the predominant academic markets. From this perspective, the new generations of Argentine sociologists examined here are exposed to the tensions that accompany an academic field open to global tendencies but also bound to a tradition strong enough to assert its own autonomous criteria for intellectual recognition.

Appendix: Developing a Typology of Internationalization

This typology classifies sociologists according to the intensity of their involvement in international academic practices: publication of books and articles abroad; coordination of and participation in international research projects; teaching experiences abroad; success in obtaining international grants; visiting scholarships. In order to subsume these different practices into a single “internationalization” category, we attributed numerical values to each of them. While this quantification is to a certain extent arbitrary, it allowed us to obtain a clearer picture of the patterns of behavior represented within our sample.

In attributing numerical values, we gave more importance to practices that required the a priori accumulation of international academic capital (e.g. the publication of books with foreign publishers, teaching abroad, coordination of international projects, etc.) and those that were repeated over time (e.g. publication of numerous articles in foreign journals).

• 1. Publication of books abroad: 19 points for 4 books, 17 for 3, 15 for 2, 13 for 1.

• 2. Publication of articles abroad: 19 points for 15 articles or more, 17 for 10 to 14, 15 for 5 to 9, 13 for 1 to 4.

• 3. Teaching abroad: 15 points for 4 times or more, 13 for 3, 11 for 2, 9 for 1.

• 4. Experience as an international research project director: 12 points for more than 3 times, 13 for 3, 10 for 2, 8 for 1.

• 5. International grants: 5 points for 3 times or more, 3 for 2, 1 for 1.

• 6. Experience participating in an international research project: 5 points for 3 times or more, 3 for 2, 1 for 1.

• 7. Visiting scholar experiences: 5 points = 5 points for 3 times or more, 3 for 2, 1 for 1.

From these metrics, three groups were clearly distinguished: the internationally most active scholars (41–80 points), the internationally least active ones (0–20 points), and an intermediary group (21–40 points). While this categorization can and should be criticized, we believe our argument shows that it has an analytical added value.

It should be noted that we decided to leave out the earning of a doctorate abroad as one of the relevant dimensions for forging this typology. This decision was driven by the idea that one of the research questions aimed to determine how earning a doctorate abroad impacted the agents’ career paths. By excluding this variable from the typology, we were able to incorporate it into the analysis as an explanatory variable.