ARTICLE LEVEL

Table 4.5 summarizes for all articles analyzed, the type of collaboration that has taken place. 85,4% of all articles were the result of some type of collaboration. National collaboration, comprising of inter-departmental collaboration, intra-organizational collaboration, and collaboration within a country (inter-organizational collaboration) is the most frequent sort of collaboration, with 69,91% of all articles. Interesting is, that scientists favor collaborating with other scientists from different organizations within a country rather than any other form of collaboration: 40,71% of all articles resulted from this form of collaboration. The least favored form of collaboration was between scientists from the same organization but belonging to different departments, for example between scientist working at the same university with some working in forestry departments and others in ecology departments (which can be taken as an indicator that there is no interdisciplinary research in the discourse on forest science analyzed here, thus an indicator that deliberative discourse is absent).

Table 4.5. Type of collaboration in all scientific articles analyzed (Source: own calculations) Type of collaboration Number of articles Percentage of total articles

No collaboration 33 14,60%

Collaboration within a department 57 25,22%

Collaboration within an organization 9 3,98%

Collaboration within a country 92 40,71%

International Collaboration 35 15,49%

TOTAL 226 100%

Going further with the analysis, figure 4.13 shows the type of collaboration present for the three issues throughout the whole of the time period analyzed.

Figure 4.13 reinforces the results shown in table 4.5. Collaboration within a country is the predominant type of collaboration taking place for all issues. For forest fires this type of collaboration has a very strong presence: 55,07% of all its articles are a product of scientists collaborating between different organizations within a same country. The

Results and Discussion

99

second most frequent type of collaboration for two of the three issues -biodiversity and forest fires- is that which is being carried out by scientists who belong to the same department of an institution: for example, between scientists of a forestry department in a university. For biodiversity this is 29,35% of all the articles and for forest fires 18,84%.

For climate change the second most frequent form of collaboration is the international one, which may be related to the more global approach that this issue has when reporting on events in comparison to the other issues (see figure 4.11). International collaboration however only takes third place (13,04%) within the types of collaboration of the biodiversity issues and the last place (7,25%, fourth place) for forest fires. The option of collaborating with scientists from the same organization but belonging to different departments (for example department of forestry and department of biology) does not seem to be favored by the scientists participating in all three issues. For biodiversity and climate change this type of collaboration ranks last (2,17% and 1,54% respectively); for forest fires it ranks second to last (8,70%).

Figure 4.13. Collaboration in the scientific discourse on forest science (Source: own calculations)

From the data shown above it is clear that the issue of forest fires is the most closed-off to international collaboration (as it is the issue with proportionally less international collaboration) while climate change is the most open to international collaboration (proportionally compared to the other two). There is however a presence of international collaboration in the issue of forest fires, as table 4.6 shows. This is a noteworthy case, because the international collaboration that was carried out reported on local level research, in other words, events that happened at specific localities within a specific country. Additionally, the global events that were covered are not a product of international collaboration but of national collaboration, specifically between scientists from different organizations within a country. Thus, the local discourse is influenced in some degree by foreign scientists (global influencing local) and the global discourse incorporated the views of specific single countries.

International collaboration that deals with biodiversity issues, concentrates as well on a local level: 11,80% of all articles are a product of international collaboration on issues dealing on the local level. This once again comes to verify the „locality‟ of the issue of biodiversity, or in other words it is not seen as a global topic. There is some international

100

collaboration that deals with issues that transcends nations (regional): 3,90% of all biodiversity articles. This is an example of how deliberation, following Habermas‟ idea, should work: in those issues that touch upon interests of different actors (in this case different countries or specific regions) then, it should be expected that the interests of all those who are affected are represented in the discussion (here the publishing of the research). If regional topics are dealt with, then the articles produced should be expected to be a product of international collaboration, where those actors belonging to the place where the event takes place are represented. This is seen in a somewhat greater measure through the climate change articles. There, both global and regional events do have some degree of international collaboration. However, international collaboration is aimed at either covering national or local events; once again external interests joining in the discussion of internal affairs. This is once again what can be seen as the dominance of the Center over the Periphery –or following Galtung‟s concepts imperialism, as the Center is carrying out and publishing research regarding the Periphery. Therefore clear evidence for the domination of Center over the Periphery is found, as the Center actors publish research regarding national events of the Periphery.

Table 4.6. Type of collaboration compared to location of event of articles for three issues (Source: own calculations)

The picture that is depicted from the data above, where national topics are predominantly researched by national scientists is what might be labeled „scientific nationalism‟ (Wagner, 2008: p.2), which was the traditional way of carrying out science during the twentieth

Results and Discussion

101

century. Wagner (2008, p. 25) argues that since the 1990s the role of national policies in directing scientific research has diminished significantly and that the influence of global networks has grown; being the rise of social networks between scientists one of the main reasons of this growth. Inequalities are still present but the rise of networks has allowed the structure of science to open up. If this opening up of the structures of science means, as Wagner notes, that opportunities are being created to incorporate other actors (scientists) who previously did not have a chance to participate then, it should be expected that this is reflected through the presence of a high percentage of articles resulting from international (or also in this case regional) collaboration. From the result above this is not the case, making it clear that within forest science the structures that allow participating in the scientific process are still very much in place (inequalities do exist).

It is true that for forest science the norm is to carry out science at a local level and report on it, at most collaborating at a national level. However, international collaboration is making a breakthrough. Figure 4.14 shows how international collaboration for every issue has been gaining ground throughout the years analyzed.

Figure 4.14. International collaboration through time per issue (Source: own calculations)

When mapping the world of science through co-authored articles, Wagner and Leydorf (2005, p.203) in a comparative study of the world scientific ties between 1990 and 2000, concluded that the global network of science has expanded in the year 2000 to include other nations that were not included in 1990. They as well found that ties were constructed, measured through the co-authorship of articles, which evidences the growth of international collaboration. In further research Wagner (2008) also notes the rise of international collaboration as a path that leads away from a traditional scientific nationalism. With the result from figure 4.15, the increase in international collaboration in forest science can be ratified. However, it is far from the percentages representing national collaboration. Forest science is thus slowly following tendencies of the entire scientific community.

102