THE CONTRADICTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION: A STUDY ON THE ENERGY SECTOR
Keywords:
internationalization of science, energy research, center-periphery, scientific values, international cooperationAbstract
This study analyzes the contradictions inherent to the process of science internationalization, focusing on collaboration strategies employed by research groups linked to CENPES (Petrobras, Brazil) and Y-TEC (YPF, Argentina). Using qualitative methods, including semi-structured interviews and content analysis, we investigate how researchers navigate significant tensions between national and international objectives, as well as between scientific and technological production. The results reveal the operation of a "regime of management of irrelevance" that deeply structures research practices and internationalization strategies. This regime is anchored in real constraints—internalization of perceptions of inferiority, differential access to high-impact journals, institutional evaluation practices—affecting choices of research themes, publication strategies, and conceptions of scientific relevance. We observe a predominant preference for publications in English-language international journals and adaptation of research agendas to global interests. However, the data reveal that researchers develop varied strategies to deal with these pressures: some choose technical objects that facilitate internationalization; others invest in analogies that preserve local relevance; still others make deliberate choices to prioritize national agendas. Questions of intellectual property and technology transfer emerge as genuine points of tension, reflecting legitimate historical concerns about how locally-produced knowledge can be captured in cooperative arrangements. We conclude that international scientific cooperation functions in contradictory ways: it opens genuine opportunities for advancement and recognition but contains a structural inclination toward imbalances. The relative weight of these two movements varies according to contexts and individual choices, suggesting possibilities for alternative forms of partnership that acknowledge asymmetries without accepting them as inevitable.
Downloads
References
Adams, J. (2012). Collaborations: The rise of research networks. Nature, 490(7420), 335 -336.
Beigel, Fernanda (2014). Publishing from the Periphery: Structural Heterogeneity and Segmented Circuits. The Evaluation of Scientific Publications for Tenure in Argentina's CONICET. Current Sociology, v. 62, n. 5, p. 743-765.
Beigel, Fernanda (2017). Peripheral Scientists, between Ariel and Caliban. Institutional Know-how and Circuits of Recognition in Argentina. The "Career-best Publications" of the Researchers at CONICET. Dados – Revista de Ciências Sociais, Rio de Janeiro, v. 60, n. 3, p. 825-865.
Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599-616.
Calkins, S. (2021). Between the Lab and the Field: Plants and the Affective Atmospheres Of Southern Science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 47(5), 931-955. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211055118
Duque, R. B., Ynalvez, M., Sooryamoorthy, R., Mbatia, P., Dzorgbo, D. B. S., & Shrum, W. (2005). Collaboration paradox: Scientific productivity, the Internet, and problems of research in developing areas. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 755-785.
Dutra, R. (2020). Por uma sociologia sistêmica pós-colonial das diferenças no interior da sociedade mundial moderna. Revista Sociedade e Estado, 35(1), 259-288.
Dutra, R. (2023). Sociedad mundial, diferenciación funcional, centro/periferia y dependencia. Revista MAD, 48, 1-26.
Georghiou, L. (1998). Global cooperation in research. Research Policy, 27(6), 611-626.
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort = double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50(2), 199-214.
Henriques, L., Ungar, M., & Rebelo, G. (2017). A critical assessment of INPA's scientific cooperation based on publications from 2004 to 2014. Acta Amazonica, 47(3), 247-258. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4392201602902
Herrera, A. (2015). Ciencia y política en América Latina. Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva.
Katz, J. M. (2011). Patentes, corporaciones multinacionales y tecnología. Un examen crítico de la legislación internacional. In El pensamiento latinoamericano en la problemática ciencia-tecnología-desarrollo-dependencia (p. 512). Ediciones Biblioteca Nacional.
Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1-18.
King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430(6997), 311-316
Kreimer, P. (2006). ¿Dependientes o integrados? La ciencia latinoamericana y la nueva división internacional del trabajo. Nómadas, 24, 199-212.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.
Malhado, A. C. M., de Azevedo, R. S. D., Todd, P. A., Santos, A. M. C., Fabré, N. N., Batista, V. S., Aguiar, L. J. G., & Ladle, R. J. (2014). Geographic and Temporal Trends in Amazonian Knowledge Production. Biotropica, 46(1), 6-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12079
Mirowski, P., & Van Horn, R. (2005). The Contract Research Organization and the Commercialization of Scientific Research. Social Studies of Science, 35(4), 503-548.
Neves, F. (2022). Some elements of the regime of management of irrelevance in science. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 5(1), 2035951. https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2022.2035951
Neves, F. (2023). Knowledge Inequality. In S. S. Jodhka & B. Rehbein (Eds.), Global Handbook of Inequality (pp. 1-15). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97417-6_11-1
Duarte, R. (2008). Cooperação Internacional para o Desenvolvimento em Ciência e Tecnologia: A Participação Brasileira na Organização Européia para Pesquisa Nuclear (CERN). Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 3, 133-151.
Ponds, R., Van Oort, F., & Frenken, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 423-443.
Remapping science. (2024). Science, 383(6682), 590-591. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ads2667
Rodriguez Medina, L. (2013). Objetos subordinantes: La tecnología epistémica para producir centros y periferias. Revista Mexicana de Sociología, 75(1), 7-28.
Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. The Royal Society.
Sábato, J. (2011). El pensamiento latinoamericano en la problemática ciencia-tecnología-desarrollo-dependencia. Biblioteca Nacional.
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.
Shapin, S. (2012). Enlightenment, Modernity and Science: Geographies of Scientific Culture and Improvement in Georgian England. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 43(1), 96-98. https://doi.org/10.1162/JINH_r_00312
Silva, D. (2007). International cooperation in science and technology: Opportunities and risks. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 50(1), 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-73292007000100001
Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643-681.
Thomas, H., Dagnino, R., & Davyt, A. (1996). El pensamiento en ciencia, tecnología y sociedad en Latinoamérica: Una interpretación política de su trayectoria. Redes, 3(7), 13-51.
Toivanen, H., & Ponomariov, B. (2011). African regional innovation systems: bibliometric analysis of research collaboration patterns 2005-2009. Scientometrics, 88(2), 471-493.
Vaitsos, C. (2011). Opciones estratégicas en la comercialización de tecnología: el punto de vista de los países en desarrollo. In J. A. Sabato, El pensamiento latinoamericano en la problemática ciencia-tecnología-desarrollo-dependencia. Ediciones Biblioteca Nacional, 241-259.
Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608-1618.
Wagner, C. S., Brahmakulam, I., Jackson, B., Wong, A., & Yoda, T. (2001). Science and technology collaboration: Building capacity in developing countries? RAND Corporation.
Wagner, C. S., Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). The continuing growth of global cooperation networks in research: A conundrum for national governments. PLoS One, 10(7), e0131816.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Fabrício Monteiro Neves
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
