Social networks of knowledge production in Brazilian psychology: comparing sub-areas

ABSTRACT

The social processes underlying the production of scientific knowledge make it an inherently social endeavor. The interaction between systems of thought and affiliation has been subject of the sociology of science, with remarkable developments in studies on the structure of scientific fields based on social networks analysis. Although psychology is one of the pioneer fields investigated in this literature, there is scarcity of research on psychology. The objective of this paper is to describe the social networks’ dynamics of knowledge production in psychology in Brazil, comparing association patterns among its sub-areas. For this purpose, 395 researchers responded an electronic questionnaire about their relationships. Networks of nine psychology sub-areas were analyzed for structural properties (i.e. density, centrality) and relational exchanges (the connecting roles of boundary spanners and central connectors). Findings showed different structures and connectivity patterns between networks, but most of these areas configure as small worlds. Discussion explores implications of these findings for the production of knowledge within areas, and for the national production of psychological knowledge as a whole, with effects on the international projection of knowledge produced in Brazil.

KEYWORDS:

• Social networks
• researchers
• psychology
• production of scientific knowledge

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the institutional, financial and academic support of the Brazilian Association of Graduate Research in Psychology (A.N.P.E.P.P.), and information and institutional support of the psychology graduate programs for the data collection. We are certainly indebted to the hundreds of Brazilian researchers who took the time to participate in our study. We also acknowledge the contribution of the ad hoc reviewer, whose comments helped us improve the quality of this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Ariane Agnes Corradi is a psychologist and researcher in organizational studies. She is currently assistant professor of Organizational Psychology at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. For the last fifteen years, she achieved to consolidate significant experience in teaching, research and consulting in Brazil and Europe. Her areas of interest are Social Networks, Entrepreneurship, Learning, and Innovation. She holds a PhD in Development Studies from the International Institute of Social Studies (Erasmus University of Rotterdam, The Netherlands) and a Master's Degree in Work and Organizational Psychology from the University of Brasilia (Brazil).

Elaine Rabelo Neiva is a psychologist and researcher, expert in Institutional Analysis. She is currently assistant professor at the University of Brasilia (Brazil), working mainly on Organizational Change, Intervention for Change, Evaluation of Change, Organizational Power and Organizational Analysis. She holds a Master's degree from the University of Brasilia and a PhD from both the University of Brasilia and the University of Madrid (Spain). She also did a Post-doctorate in Social and Organizational Psychology at Teacher's College at Columbia University of New York.

ORCID

Ariane Agnes Corradi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3023-3425

Notes

1. C.A.P.E.S. (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) is the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, the Brazilian agency for higher education support and evaluation, linked to the Ministry of Education.

2. C.N.Pq. (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) is the Brazilian Federal Agency for Scientific and Technological Development, linked to the Ministry of Science and Technology.

3. F.A.P. (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa) is the general acronym for the State Research Foundations. These state-level foundations are linked either to the State Secretariat of Science and Technology, or State Secretariat of Economic Development, Science and Technology.

4. Contents in bold are the most frequent, selected by more than 50% of the respondents.

5. We indicate here the three most frequent factors.

6. Totals in the sub-groups vary in relation to the whole network because of respondents who belong to more than one sub-group, respondents who were appointed as belonging to a sub-group other than that of their national curricula, and other dynamics of nominations that appear in the sub-group but not in the whole network.

Additional information

Funding

This work was financially supported by a grant of Professor Sylvia Koller from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul.