ABSTRACT
Science is an international activity, not only because its assertions claim to be universal, that is, valid beyond the context in which they are produced, but also because it is practised, with significant differences, in almost all countries around the world. At the same time, science is international because of the scope of its content and the location of its practitioners. This leads us to two different ways of studying the international dimension of science. Some studies focus on collaboration between scientists and assume that, although differences can be found, science is practised homogeneously around the world. In such a landscape, some countries and their scientific communities play a leading role and become centres of knowledge production (e.g. Schott 1988, 1993a, 1993b, 1998; Schott et al. 1998; Meadows 1997; Forero-Pineda 2002; Wagner, C. 2006, 2008; Ziman 2000). However, there is a growing body of literature that recognises the importance of location and concentrates on the dif erences between sites of knowledge production and how places alter knowledge, the way it circulates, and how it is both produced and received (e.g. Kemple and Mawani 2010; Burawoy 2008; Livingstone 2003, 2005, 2007; Latour 1987, 1988; Mignolo 2000, 2002; Delbourgo and Dew; 2008; Anderson and Adams 2008; Chakrabarty 1992; Fujimura 2000; Abraham 2000; Star and Greisemer 1989; Wallerstein 1996a; Keim 2008; Comarof and Comarof 2012). While scholars of the first group look at the shared, common practices that Western science has delivered across the planet, those in the second group attempt to figure out how divergent practices, academic cultures, and institutions (or networks) converge to an international scenario. From this perspective, once place is as important as reasoning, the geography of knowledge ties in with philosophical concerns of epistemology.
