As an editor in two international journals, I have learnt four things:
1) that scholars from academically strong countries tend to write as if they were always revolutionizing the field; scholars from peripheral countries, as if they had to ask permission to speak.
1) that scholars from academically strong countries tend to write as if they were always revolutionizing the field; scholars from peripheral countries, as if they had to ask permission to speak.
2) that scholars from academically strong countries tend to talk in universal terms, as if their finds were always of universal relevance; scholars from academically disadvantaged countries always talk in local terms, as if not sure whether they can contribute to larger debates.
3) that scholars from academically strong countries see no need in locating their research. They might be working in Philipsburg, Montana, but this will not appear in the title. And if it appears, there will be no reference to the fact that Montana is in the US.
4) that scholars from academically peripheral countries cite more, more diversely and more generously than scholars from academically strong countries.
Asymmetrical relations in academia are not changed with lofty decolonial discourses only, but with introspection, self-critique, sensitivity towards the work of power, and attention to others.
Molaría que este hilo lo leyera alguien que no sea latinoamericano o español, claro.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
