全球森林科学的地域不平等:文献计量学视角

IF 4 2区 农林科学 Q1 ECONOMICS Forest Policy and Economics Pub Date : 2024-06-07 DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103250
Nelius Boshoff , Similo Ngwenya , Susanne Koch , Jonathan Dudek , Olena Strelnyk , Rodrigo Costas , Amani J. Uisso
{"title":"全球森林科学的地域不平等:文献计量学视角","authors":"Nelius Boshoff ,&nbsp;Similo Ngwenya ,&nbsp;Susanne Koch ,&nbsp;Jonathan Dudek ,&nbsp;Olena Strelnyk ,&nbsp;Rodrigo Costas ,&nbsp;Amani J. Uisso","doi":"10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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 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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":12451,"journal":{"name":"Forest Policy and Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124001047/pdfft?md5=d3b3947fccb81cde529d2bee216dd25b&pid=1-s2.0-S1389934124001047-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Geographical inequalities in global forest science: A bibliometric perspective\",\"authors\":\"Nelius Boshoff ,&nbsp;Similo Ngwenya ,&nbsp;Susanne Koch ,&nbsp;Jonathan Dudek ,&nbsp;Olena Strelnyk ,&nbsp;Rodrigo Costas ,&nbsp;Amani J. Uisso\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103250\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>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 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.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12451,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forest Policy and Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124001047/pdfft?md5=d3b3947fccb81cde529d2bee216dd25b&pid=1-s2.0-S1389934124001047-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forest Policy and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124001047\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124001047","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项文献计量学研究是在人们日益意识到森林科学中的不平等现象的背景下进行的。它由一个核心问题引导:全球森林科学在地理上存在哪些不平等现象,它们与林区的自然地理分布有何关联?布尔迪厄的田野理论被用来研究这些不平等现象,重点关注被认为对参与全球科学非常重要的三类资本:科学资本(知识产品和认可行为)、合作资本和资金资本。为了使文献计量分析中的资本类型可操作化,制定了八个地区级指标和七个国家级指标。维度数据库作为数据源,根据数据库的出版物级领域分类,提取了 2000 年至 2021 年森林科学领域的相关出版物。利用非文献计量数据,特别是每个地区和国家的覆盖范围,确定了与森林有关的研究需求。这样就可以计算出世界森林出版物份额与世界森林份额之间的差距比率。结果凸显了全球科学中不同形式的资本分布中持续存在的不平等,以及与森林面积地理分布的(不)一致。虽然布尔迪厄斯关于 "资本孕育资本 "的假设似乎适用于两个主要地区(欧洲和北美洲),解释了它们作为森林科学中心的持续中心地位,但这一假设似乎并不普遍适用。这项研究指出了研究重点与需求之间的不匹配,鉴于地点和背景在森林科学中的重要性,这一点令人担忧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Geographical inequalities in global forest science: A bibliometric perspective

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 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Forest Policy and Economics
Forest Policy and Economics 农林科学-林学
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
7.50%
发文量
148
审稿时长
21.9 weeks
期刊介绍: Forest Policy and Economics is a leading scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed policy and economics research relating to forests, forested landscapes, forest-related industries, and other forest-relevant land uses. It also welcomes contributions from other social sciences and humanities perspectives that make clear theoretical, conceptual and methodological contributions to the existing state-of-the-art literature on forests and related land use systems. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, sociology, anthropology, human geography, history, jurisprudence, planning, development studies, and psychology research on forests. Forest Policy and Economics is global in scope and publishes multiple article types of high scientific standard. Acceptance for publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review process.
期刊最新文献
Reviewing factors that influence voluntary participation in conservation programs in Latin America Preliminary evidence of softwood shortage and hardwood availability in EU regions: A spatial analysis using the European Forest Industry Database How contracted tree farmers engage in and benefit from inclusive value chains: Evidence from Vietnam Outsourcing stumpage price uncertainty with American put option for active timber management1 Multiple crises as a policy window for forest and nature a power-analysis from Germany
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1