Geographical inequalities in global forest science: a bibliometric perspective

Boshoff, N.; Ngwenya, S.; Koch, S.; Dudek, J.; Strelnyk, O.; Costas Comesana, R.; Uisso, A. J.

doi:doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103250

This bibliometric study is situated in the context of increasing awareness of inequalities in forest science. It was led by a single, core question: What geographical inequalities structure global forest science and how do they align with the natural geographical distribution of forest areas? Bourdieu's field theory was used to investigate the inequalities, focusing on three types of capital considered important for participation in global science: scientific capital (products of knowledge and acts of recognition), collaboration capital, and funding capital. To operationalise the types of...Show moreThis bibliometric study is situated in the context of increasing awareness of inequalities in forest science. It was led by a single, core question: What geographical inequalities structure global forest science and how do they align with the natural geographical distribution of forest areas? Bourdieu's field theory was used to investigate the inequalities, focusing on three types of capital considered important for participation in global science: scientific capital (products of knowledge and acts of recognition), collaboration capital, and funding capital. To operationalise the types of capital for bibliometric analysis, eight regional-level indicators and seven country-level indicators were developed. The Dimensions database served as the data source to extract relevant publications in forest science from 2000 to 2021 based on the database's publication-level field classification. Forest-related research needs were determined using non-bibliometric data, specifically the extent of cover per region and country. This enabled the calculation of disparity ratios between the world shares of forest publications and the world shares of forests. The results highlight persisting inequalities in the distribution of different forms of capital in global science, as well as (mis)alignment with the geographical distribution of forest areas. While the Bourdieusian assumption that “capital breeds capital” seems to apply to two dominant regions (Europe and Northern America), explaining their continued centrality as loci of forest science, it does not seem to apply more generally. The study points to a mismatch between research foci and needs, which is concerning given the importance of place and context in forest science.
Show less

Leiden University Scholarly Publications

View statistics

Documents

In Collections

Geographical inequalities in global forest science: a bibliometric perspective