The ‘where’ of EU social science collaborations: How epistemic inequalities and geopolitical power asymmetries persist in research about Europe

• Published in: The Sociological review (Keele) 2024-09, Vol.72 (5), p.975-997
• Main Authors: Fishberg, Rachel, Larsen, Anton Grau, Kropp, Kristoffer
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Collaboration; Data; Epistemology; Ethnography; Funding; Geopolitics; Inequality; Knowledge; North and South; Production; Social inequality; Social sciences; Transnationalism
• ISSN: 0038-0261; 1467-954X
• DOI: 10.1177/00380261231201473

A growing body of work has problematised how global epistemic inequality is reproduced in contemporary university settings and epistemic cultures – thinking through the lens of Eurocentrism and utilising the language of a Global North and South. However, the extent to which a relationship between geopolitical and epistemic inequality is woven into knowledge production within Europe has received less attention. Rising EU funding opportunities have facilitated a corresponding climb in transnational European social science collaborations, in concert with an expansion of empirical locations with which these projects engage. Still, increases in member state participation do not necessarily contribute to a more balanced epistemic landscape for knowledge production. Not all countries are treated equally as cases and often, these patterns of inequality reflect what Maria do Mar Pereira calls the epistemic status of nations: the idea that certain countries and continents are considered more or less likely to produce valuable or exportable scholarly knowledge. In this article, Pereira’s theory of epistemic status is extended in its implications to study choices for the selection of countries as cases. We use both quantitative data from the EU CORDIS register and ethnographic data exploring academic and collaborative practices in transnational EU-funded projects. The article addresses the ‘where’ of collaborative research by focusing on epistemic attributes rather than participatory optics. In doing so, we reflect not only on the structures and strategies of science funding in Europe but also further unsettle discussions around global epistemic inequality within academic theory and practices.