‘West is must, the rest is optional’: epistemic injustice and positional good in international research collaboration

Abstract

<p>The global research system is pluralising as more researchers and institutions around the world contribute to knowledge creation. However, global research remains highly unequal because of the hegemonic influence yielded by Global North/West. The unequal dynamics impact the dynamics of international research collaboration (IRC). Through in-depth qualitative interviews, this study investigates the dynamics of epistemic injustice, positional good and hegemony in IRC. The data are collected from the Turkish higher education system because its unique position at the Global North/West and South/East borders can make the distinctions and inequalities more visible. Findings indicate that Fricker’s (<a title="Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice. Oxford University Press. https://doi-org.eproxy.lib.hku.hk/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001

" href="https://link-springer-com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk/article/10.1007/s10734-023-01127-4#ref-CR18">2007</a>) epistemic injustice and Hirsch’s (<a title="Hirsch, F. (1976). Social limits to growth. Taylor & Francis." href="https://link-springer-com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk/article/10.1007/s10734-023-01127-4#ref-CR25">1976</a>) positional competition are crucial factors in creating or reinforcing hegemony in IRC. A strong value is attached to collaborating with Global Northern/Western scholars or institutions. IRC with the West seems to procure a higher epistemic value. The higher epistemic value increases positional competition to collaborate with those in the Global North/West. Also, funding obtained from the Global North/West is seen as more credible and valuable, reinforcing the main argument for the higher epistemic value and positional good ascribed to IRC with the Global West/North.<br></p>