International Science Labor Division
On the other hand, even if collaboration in the South-North Global axis may be visible, the contradiction in the division of labor among the researchers must be taken into consideration. In a certain way, even if there are international relationships and networks that have taken shape, the question of research labor division has been pointed as a deterrent to the growth of the internationalization of scientific production of countries in the Global South (Adams, 2013; Kreimer, 2007). The expression “international division of labor” would be applied to the networks or meganetworks of Latin American researchers that work with partners from countries with strong economies. In this case, the Latin American scientists could express themselves in a dependent manner. They would make part of the networks that research wide problems, approached by renowned specialists across different countries, but would be invited to act in a subsidiary way.
In this context, according to Kreimer (2007), there would be a subcontracting or an outsourcing of research labor falling upon researchers of less developed countries’ institutions, the routine research or the least important or repetitive theme. There could then be a delocalization of scientific work, in which the research labor would be subjected to the themes of reference centers in countries of high scientific or technological production. Because of this, the themes researched would not always be the most necessary ones for the development of the underdeveloped. There would be a kind of subordination to which the researchers would subject themselves in search of prestige and symbolic, cultural and scientific capital. In such a way that the Latin American researchers, in acquiring international status, would oftentimes only manage to insert themselves in a subordinate manner, they would be more input providers than proper science creators (Kreimer, 2007, 2011).
In the age of science, there are other angles to the international division of labor. International and financial separation also takes place among the highly institutionalized institutions, part of the elite, and the domestic or national institutions operating inside the countries. It is in the countries’ internal scope that the separation between elite and smaller, or less prestigious universities, takes place.
There are also borders for the world distribution of knowledge wealth, between who can and who cannot have access to the latest information about the most recent (as well as the most ancient) scientific discoveries (Adams, 2013; Piketty, 2014). In practice, the possibility of earnings for everyone is not excluded, partially contradicting Kreimer’s analysis and position about a “scientifically subordinate America,” at least when counting results in terms of publications and citations that the networks perform. But we must also consider, more important perhaps, that the earnings may also be attained in unequal and combined development grounds, with the asymmetrical dissemination of knowledge produced by the interactive processes of networks of the center-periphery type. In the same way, we must also consider the positions of dominance, leadership, and subordination among countries. Networks of the center-periphery-type South- North Global direction are also established between researchers where there are more S&T and R&D incentives, in relation to the scientifically least developed. Across countries and contexts, science and higher education policies, intertwined, use publication evaluation as the foremost component of their evaluation processes. This has been done in such a way that
Scientific quality has been linked to journal rankings, a move that has effectively left evaluation in the hands of an international oligarchy made up of publishers and large scientific societies. The tools used to rank journals are in the hands of private companies. (Vessuri et al., 2013, p. 6)
Having Bernstein’s (1990) teachings in mind—evaluation deems which knowledge is worthy; the communication codes are matrices of social principles for the transmission of knowledge—when an option for a type of evaluation is chosen, you are also creating differential access to cultural and symbolic capital that education produces and reproduces. Many years after Bernstein, it makes sense to determine that the knowledge was undressed of its intimate relationship with the one who knows it; that the ramifications unearth two almost independent markets—the knowledge market and the market of the knowledgeable, of the productive, of those who know and rate the knowledge (Bernstein, 1990), the market of researchers that publish their work and ascend academically based on the score of their publications.