Values and global science: the epistemic and social relevance of geographic diversity

According to current philosophical proposals concerning the role of values in science, diversity is a necessary and desirable feature of our epistemic communities for managing and justifying the values that shape the production of knowledge. However, the discussion up until now has lacked a global p...

Full description

Autores:
Gutiérrez Valderrama, Juliana
Tipo de recurso:
Doctoral thesis
Fecha de publicación:
2025
Institución:
Universidad de los Andes
Repositorio:
Séneca: repositorio Uniandes
Idioma:
eng
OAI Identifier:
oai:repositorio.uniandes.edu.co:1992/75428
Acceso en línea:
https://hdl.handle.net/1992/75428
Palabra clave:
Values in science
Geographic diversity
Epistemic oppression
Filosofía
Rights
openAccess
License
Attribution 4.0 International
id UNIANDES2_5995d173b46117d5977672424188af19
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.uniandes.edu.co:1992/75428
network_acronym_str UNIANDES2
network_name_str Séneca: repositorio Uniandes
repository_id_str
dc.title.eng.fl_str_mv Values and global science: the epistemic and social relevance of geographic diversity
title Values and global science: the epistemic and social relevance of geographic diversity
spellingShingle Values and global science: the epistemic and social relevance of geographic diversity
Values in science
Geographic diversity
Epistemic oppression
Filosofía
title_short Values and global science: the epistemic and social relevance of geographic diversity
title_full Values and global science: the epistemic and social relevance of geographic diversity
title_fullStr Values and global science: the epistemic and social relevance of geographic diversity
title_full_unstemmed Values and global science: the epistemic and social relevance of geographic diversity
title_sort Values and global science: the epistemic and social relevance of geographic diversity
dc.creator.fl_str_mv Gutiérrez Valderrama, Juliana
dc.contributor.advisor.none.fl_str_mv Fernández Pinto, Manuela
dc.contributor.author.none.fl_str_mv Gutiérrez Valderrama, Juliana
dc.contributor.jury.none.fl_str_mv Wolf, Allison Brooke
Nieto Olarte, Mauricio
Leonelli, Sabina
Rolin, Kristina
dc.subject.keyword.eng.fl_str_mv Values in science
Geographic diversity
Epistemic oppression
topic Values in science
Geographic diversity
Epistemic oppression
Filosofía
dc.subject.themes.spa.fl_str_mv Filosofía
description According to current philosophical proposals concerning the role of values in science, diversity is a necessary and desirable feature of our epistemic communities for managing and justifying the values that shape the production of knowledge. However, the discussion up until now has lacked a global perspective. It has primarily focused on abstract, national, or local contexts and mainly on scientific communities located in resource-rich environments. Accordingly, the normative tools at hand remain insufficient when we move on to explore matters of values and diversity on a global scale. In the dissertation, I explore how we can address the value-laden nature of global science, given the existing inequalities among scientific communities in different geographic locations. If indeed diversity is a promising avenue for managing the values that shape global scientific knowledge and encouraging a socially and epistemically just science, what sort of diversity is the one we should foster at this global level, and how? Here, I argue in favor of fostering geographic diversity. My main claim is that promoting non-oppressive collaborations among scientific communities in diverse locations and, consequently, in different material and social circumstances is a fruitful strategy to address the challenges posed by value-laden global science. With this in mind, first, I review the literature on values and diversity in science and argue that current philosophical frameworks omit this geographic dimension of diversity. Consequently, they do not offer normative recommendations for building a geographically diverse and non-oppressive global science. Furthermore, these proposals run the risk of being epistemically unjust towards scientific communities in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Second, I explain why remedying this gap is epistemically and socially relevant. I claim that scientific communities in LMICs suffer different forms of epistemic oppression within the structure of global science, and I point out the social and epistemic detrimental effects of this oppression. Finally, I attempt to outline a set of normative and ameliorative recommendations to counteract this epistemic oppression and foster geographic diversity in order to manage and address the values and social structures that shape global scientific knowledge.
publishDate 2025
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv 2025-01-15T15:32:28Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv 2025-01-15T15:32:28Z
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv 2025-01-10
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv Trabajo de grado - Doctorado
dc.type.driver.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis
dc.type.version.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dc.type.coar.none.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_db06
dc.type.content.none.fl_str_mv Text
dc.type.redcol.none.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/TD
format http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_db06
status_str acceptedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/1992/75428
dc.identifier.instname.none.fl_str_mv instname:Universidad de los Andes
dc.identifier.reponame.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositorio Institucional Séneca
dc.identifier.repourl.none.fl_str_mv repourl:https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/
url https://hdl.handle.net/1992/75428
identifier_str_mv instname:Universidad de los Andes
reponame:Repositorio Institucional Séneca
repourl:https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/
dc.language.iso.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.references.none.fl_str_mv Agnew, J. (2007). Know-Where: Geographies of Knowledge of World Politics. International Political Sociology, 1(2), 138–148.
Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the Divide Between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge. Development and Change, 26, 413–439.
Albuquerque, U. P. D., & Alves, A. G. C. (2010). “Ethno what?” Terminological problems in ethnoscience with a special emphasis on the Brazilian context.
Albuquerque, U. P. D., Ludwig, D., Feitosa, I. S., De Moura, J. M. B., Gonçalves, P. H. S., Da Silva, R. H., Da Silva, T. C., Gonçalves-Souza, T., & Ferreira Júnior, W. S. (2021). Integrating traditional ecological knowledge into academic research at local and global scales. Regional Environmental Change, 21(2), 45.
Alcoff, L. M. (2022). Extractivist epistemologies. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 5(1), 2127231.
Alexander, J. M., Himmelreich, J., & Thompson, C. (2015). Epistemic Landscapes, Optimal Search, and the Division of Cognitive Labor. Philosophy of Science, 82(3), 424–453.
Alperin, J. P., & Rozemblum, C. (2017). La reinterpretación de visibilidad y calidad en las nuevas políticas de evaluación de revistas científicas. Revista Interamericana de Bibliotecología, 40(3), 231–241.
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations and Realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305.
Ambrosj, J., Dierickx, K., & Desmond, H. (2023). The Value-Free Ideal of Science: A Useful Fiction? A Review of Non-epistemic Reasons for the Research Integrity Community. Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(1), 1.
Andersen, H. (2016). Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 56, 1–10.
Anderson, E. (2004). Uses of Value Judgments in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce. Hypatia, 19(1), 1–24.
Anderson, E. (2006). The Epistemology of Democracy. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 3(1–2), 8–22.
Anderson, E. (2012). Epistemic Justice as a Virtue of Social Institutions. Social Epistemology, 26(2), 163–173.
Angus, S. D., Atalay, K., Newton, J., & Ubilava, D. (2021). Geographic diversity in economic publishing. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 190, 255–262.
Ankeny, R., Chang, H., Boumans, M., & Boon, M. (2011). Introduction: Philosophy of science in practice. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1(3), 303–307.
Ankeny, R., & Leonelli, S. (2016). Repertoires: A post-Kuhnian perspective on scientific change and collaborative research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 60, 18–28.
Apfelbaum, E. P., Phillips, K. W., & Richeson, J. A. (2014). Rethinking the Baseline in Diversity Research: Should We Be Explaining the Effects of Homogeneity? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 235–244.
Asgarilaleh, T. (2023). On Being a ‘Migrant Academic’: Precarious Passports and Invisible Struggles. In O. Burlyuk & L. Rahbari (Eds.), Migrant Academics’ Narratives of Precarity and Resilience in Europe (1st ed., pp. 95–101). Open Book Publishers.
Bacon, F. (2000). The New Organon (L. Jardine & M. Silverthorne, Eds.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published in 1620)
Baedke, J., & Nieves Delgado, A. (2019). Race and nutrition in the New World: Colonial shadows in the age of epigenetics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 76, 101175.
Bailey, A. (2014). The Unlevel Knowing Field: An Engagement with Dotson’s Third-Order Epistemic Oppression. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 3(10), 62–68.
Bartrolí, M. A., Huang, X., & Arvanitis, R. (2023). Knowledge Circulation and Unequal Partnerships. In W. Keim & L. Rodriguez-Medina (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Academic Knowledge Circulation (pp. 307–318). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Basalla, G. (1967). The Spread of Western Science. Science, 156(3775), 611–622.
Beigel, F. (2014). Publishing from the periphery: Structural heterogeneity and segmented circuits. The evaluation of scientific publications for tenure in Argentina’s CONICET. Current Sociology, 62(5), 743–765.
Beigel, F. (2016). El nuevo carácter de la dependencia intelectual. Cuestiones de Sociología, 14, e004.
Beigel, F. (2023). Circulation of Academic Knowledge and Recognition. In W. Keim & L. Rodriguez-Medina (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Academic Knowledge Circulation (pp. 75–87). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Beigel, F., Packer, A. L., Gallardo, O., & Salatino, M. (2024). OLIVA: La Producción Científica Indexada en América Latina. Diversidad Disciplinar, Colaboración Institucional y Multilingüismo en SciELO y Redalyc (1995-2018). Dados, 67(1), e20210174.
Bell, K. (2017). ‘Predatory’ Open Access Journals as Parody: Exposing the Limitations of ‘Legitimate’ Academic Publishing. TripleC, 15(2), 651–662.
Benezra, A. (2020). Race in the Microbiome. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 45(5), 877–902.
Bennett, K. (2007). Epistemicide!: The Tale of a Predatory Discourse. The Translator, 13(2), 151–169.
Berenstain, N. (2016). Epistemic Exploitation. Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 3(22), 569–590.
Betz, G. (2013). In Defence of the Value Free Ideal. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 3(2), 207–220.
Bhabha, H. (1984). Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse. October, 28, 125–133.
Biddle, J. B. (2013). State of the field: Transient underdetermination and values in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 44(1), 124–133.
Biddle, J. B., & Kukla, Q. (2017). The Geography of Epistemic Risk. In K. C. Elliott & T. Richards (Eds.), Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science (pp. 215–238). Oxford University Press.
Biddle, J. B., & Leuschner, A. (2015). Climate skepticism and the manufacture of doubt: Can dissent in science be epistemically detrimental? European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5(3), 261–278.
Boncourt, T., Koch, S., & Matviichuk, E. (2023). International scientific associations and conferences as agents in the unequal circulation of knowledge. In W. Keim & L. Rodriguez-Medina (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Academic Knowledge Circulation (pp. 169–181). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Boncourt, T., & Mills, D. (2023). The Changing Economics of Academic Publishing And The Discourse of “Predatory” Science. In W. Keim & L. Rodriguez-Medina (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Academic Knowledge Circulation (pp. 307–318). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Bright, L. K. (2018). Du Bois’ democratic defence of the value free ideal. Synthese, 195(5), 2227–2245.
Brown, M. J. (2013a). The source and status of values for socially responsible science. Philosophical Studies, 163, 67–76.
Brown, M. J. (2013b). Values in Science Beyond Underdetermination and Inductive Risk. Philosophy of Science, 80(5), 829–839.
Brown, M. J. (2017). Values in Science: Against Epistemic Priority. In K. C. Elliott & D. P. Steel (Eds.), Current Controversies in Values and Science (pp. 64–77). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Brown, M. J. (2020). Science and Moral Imagination: A New Ideal for Values in Science. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Burlyuk, O., & Rahbari, L. (Eds.). (2023). Migrant Academics’ Narratives of Precarity and Resilience in Europe. Open Book Publishers.
Butler, L.-A., Matthias, L., Simard, M.-A., Mongeon, P., & Haustein, S. (2023). The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(4), 778–799.
Carrier, M. (2011). Underdetermination as an epistemological test tube: Expounding hidden values of the scientific community. Synthese, 180(2), 189–204.
Carrier, M. (2013). Values and Objectivity in Science: Value-Ladenness, Pluralism and the Epistemic Attitude. Science & Education, 22(10), 2547–2568.
Castro-Gómez, S. (2005). La hybris del punto cero: Ciencia, raza e ilustración en la Nueva Granada (1750-1816) (1. ed). Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.
Castro-Gómez, S. (2007). Decolonizar la universidad: La hybris del punto cero y el diálogo de saberes. In S. Castro-Gómez & R. Grosfoguel (Eds.), El giro decolonial: Reflexiones para una diversidad epistémica más allá del capitalismo global (pp. 79–91). Siglo del Hombre Editores : Universidad Central, Instituto de Estudios Sociales Contemporáneos, IESCO-UC : Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Instituto de Estudios Sociales y Culturales, Pensar.
Chugh, M., & Joseph, T. (2024). Citizenship privilege harms science. Nature, 628(8008), 499–501.
Collyer, F., Connell, R., Maia, J. L. de A., & Morrell, R. (2019). Knowledge and Global Power: Making New Sciences in the South. Monash University Publishing.
Conkey, M. W. (2003). Has Feminism Changed Archaeology? Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 867–880.
Crombie, A. C. (1994). Styles of Scientific Thinking in the European Tradition: The History of Argument and Explanation especially in the Mathematical and Biomedical Sciences and Arts. Gerald Duckworth & Company.
Dasgupta, D. (2021). Creativity from the Periphery: Trading Zones of Scientific Exchange in Colonial India. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Davis, E. (2016). Typecasts, Tokens, and Spokespersons: A Case for Credibility Excess as Testimonial Injustice. Hypatia, 31(3), 485–501.
De Albuquerque, A., De Oliveira, T. M., Dos Santos Junior, M. A., & De Albuquerque, S. O. F. (2020). Structural Limits to the De-Westernization of the Communication Field: The Editorial Board in Clarivate’s JCR System. Communication, Culture and Critique, 13(2), 185–203.
De La Bellacasa, M. P. (2011). Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things. Social Studies of Science, 41(1), 85–106.
De Melo-Martín, I., & Intemann, K. (2023). Socially responsible science: Exploring the complexities. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 13(3), 33.
Dickison, M. (2009). The asymmetry between science and traditional knowledge. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 39(4), 171–172.
Dirlik, A. (1999). Is There History after Eurocentrism?: Globalism, Postcolonialism, and the Disavowal of History. Cultural Critique, 42, 1.
Dotson, K. (2011). Tracking Epistemic Violence, Tracking Practices of Silencing. Hypatia, 26(2), 236–257.
Dotson, K. (2012). How is this paper philosophy? Comparative Philosophy, 3(1), 3–29.
Dotson, K. (2014). Conceptualizing Epistemic Oppression. Social Epistemology, 28(2), 115–138.
Douglas, H. E. (2000). Inductive Risk and Values in Science. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 559–579.
Douglas, H. E. (2003). The Moral Responsibilities of Scientists (Tensions between Autonomy and Responsibility). American Philosophical Quarterly, 40(1), 59–68.
Douglas, H. E. (2004). The Irreducible Complexity of Objectivity. Synthese, 138(3), 453–473.
Douglas, H. E. (2009). Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Douglas, H. (2013). Review: Philip Kitcher, Science in a Democratic Society. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64(4), 901–905.
Duhem, P. (1984). Teoría física y experimento. Teorema, 14(3–4), 547–582. (Original work published in 1906)
Dupré, J. (2007). Fact and Value. In H. Kincaid, J. Dupré, & A. Wylie (Eds.), Value-free Science? Ideals and Illusions (pp. 27–41). Oxford University Press.
Duster, T. (2015). A post-genomic surprise. The molecular reinscription of race in science, law and medicine. The British Journal of Sociology, 66(1), 1–27.
El-Hani, C. N., Poliseli, L., & Ludwig, D. (2022). Beyond the divide between indigenous and academic knowledge: Causal and mechanistic explanations in a Brazilian fishing community. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 91, 296–306.
Elliott, K. C. (2011). Is a Little Pollution Good for You? Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research. Oxford University Press.
Elliott, K. C. (2017). Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. Oxford University Press.
Escobar, A. (1998). La invención del Tercer Mundo: Construcción y deconstrucción del Desarrollo. Grupo Editorial Norma.
Escobar, A. (2004). Beyond the Third World: Imperial globality, global coloniality and anti-globalisation social movements. Third World Quarterly, 25(1), 207–230.
Escobar, A. (2005). Más allá del tercer mundo: Globalización y diferencia. Instituto Colombiano de Antropología e Historia, Universidad del Cauca.
Escobar, A. (2008). Territories of difference: Place, Movement, Life, Redes. Duke University Press.
Escobar, A. (2020). Thinking-Feeling with the Earth: Territorial Struggles and the Ontological Dimension of the Epistemologies of the South. In B. de S. Santos & M. P. Meneses (Eds.), Knowledges Born in the Struggle: Constructing the Epistemologies of the Global South (pp. 41–57). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Eurostat. (2022). R&D expenditure. Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=R%26D_expenditure#R.26D_expenditure_by_source_of_funds
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality (1st ed). Basic Books.
Fazelpour, S., & Steel, D. (2022). Diversity, Trust, and Conformity: A Simulation Study. Philosophy of Science, 89(2), 209–231.
Fehr, C. (2011). What Is in It for Me? The Benefits of Diversity in Scientific Communities. In H. E. Grasswick (Ed.), Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science (pp. 133–155). Springer Netherlands.
Fehr, C., & Jones, J. M. (2022). Culture, exploitation, and epistemic approaches to diversity. Synthese, 200, 465.
Fehr, C., & Plaisance, K. S. (2010). Socially relevant philosophy of science: An introduction. Synthese, 177(3), 301–316.
Feld, A., & Kreimer, P. (2020). Latinoamericanos en proyectos europeos: Asimetrías en la cooperación científica internacional. Ciencia, Tecnología y Política, 3(4), 035.
Fernández Pinto, M. (2015). Commercialization and the Limits of Well-Ordered Science. Perspectives on Science, 23(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_a_00166
Fernández Pinto, M. (2017). To Know or Better Not to: Agnotology and the Social Construction of Ignorance in Commercially Driven Research. Science & Technology Studies, 53. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.61030
Fernández Pinto, M. (2019). Doubly disadvantaged: On the recruitment of diverse subjects for clinical trials in Latin America. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 2(1), 391–407.
Fernández Pinto, M. (2021). Science and industry funding. In D. Ludwig, I. Koskinen, Z. Mncube, L. Poliseli, & L. Reyes-Galindo (Eds.), Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science (pp. 164–173). Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Fernández Pinto, M. (2022). Ciencia comercial en América Latina: Análisis de los retos de la financiación privada de la investigación. In H. Vessuri (Ed.), Conocimientos, sociedades y tecnologías en América Latina (pp. 180–192). Universidad de los Andes, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Fernández Pinto, M., & Fernández Pinto, D. (2018). Epistemic Landscapes Reloaded: An Examination of Agent-Based Models in Social Epistemology. Historical Social Research, 43(1), 48–71.
Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (R. K. Merton & T. J. Trenn, Eds.; T. J. Trenn & F. Bradley, Trans.; Repr. 11. Aufl). University of Chicago Press.
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
Frye, M. (1983a). In and Out of Harm’s Way: Arrogance and Love. In The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (pp. 52–83). Crossing Press.
Frye, M. (1983b). Oppression. In The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (pp. 1–17). Crossing Press.
Frye, M. (1983c). To Be and Be Seen: The Politics of Reality. In The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (pp. 152–174). Crossing Press.
Galison, P. L. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. University of Chicago Press.
García Carrillo, M., Testoni, F., Gagnon, M.-A., Rikap, C., & Blaustein, M. (2022). Academic dependency: The influence of the prevailing international biomedical research agenda on Argentina’s CONICET. Heliyon, 8(11), e11481.
Garfield, E. (2006). Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas†. International Journal of Epidemiology, 35(5), 1123–1127.
Gingras, Y. (2016). Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation: Uses and Abuses. The MIT Press.
Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2016). Governing Science: How Science Policy Shapes Research Content. European Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 117–168.
Gómez Lee, M. I., & Roth Deubel, A.-N. (2023). Traditional knowledge policy co-production in Colombia and Ecuador. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 6(1), 2188107.
González-Santos, S. P., & Saldaña-Tejeda, A. (2023). “Hecho en México”: A media analysis of the first MRT baby. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 6(1), 2245990.
Goodman, N. (1979). Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Harvard University Press.
Grasswick, H. E. (2017). Epistemic Injustice in Science. In I. J. Kidd, J. Medina, & G. Pohlhaus (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice (pp. 313–323). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Grim, P., Singer, D. J., Bramson, A., Holman, B., McGeehan, S., & Berger, W. J. (2019). Diversity, Ability, and Expertise in Epistemic Communities. Philosophy of Science, 86(1), 98–123.
Grosfoguel, R. (2013). The Structure of Knowledge in Westernized Universities: Epistemic Racism/Sexism and the Four Genocides/Epistemicides of the Long 16th Century. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 11(1), 73–90.
Grosfoguel, R. (2020). Epistemic Extractivism: A Dialogue with Alberto Acosta, Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, and Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui. In B. de S. Santos & M. P. Meneses (Eds.), Knowledges born in the struggle: Constructing the epistemologies of the Global South (pp. 203–218). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Hacking, I. (1992). Style for historians and philosophers. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23(1), 1–20.
Hall, B. L., & Tandon, R. (2017). Decolonization of knowledge, epistemicide, participatory research and higher education. Research for All, 1(1), 6–19.
Hall, S. (2018). The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power. In D. Morley (Ed.), Essential Essays (pp. 141–184). Duke University Press. (Original work published 1992).
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.
Harding, S. (1992). After Eurocentrism: Challenges for the Philosophy of Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1992, v. 2, 311–319.
Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What Is “Strong Objectivity”? In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist Epistemologies (pp. 49–82). Routledge.
Harding, S. (1995). “Strong Objectivity”: A Response to the New Objectivity Question. Synthese, 104(3), 331–349.
Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and Diversity: Another Logic of Scientific Research. The University of Chicago Press.
Harding, S. (2018). One Planet, Many Sciences. In B. Reiter (Ed.), Constructing the Pluriverse: The Geopolitics of Knowledge (pp. 39–62). Duke University Press.
Harding, S. (2019). State of the field: Latin American decolonial philosophies of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 78, 48–63.
Harding, S. (2021). Anti-colonial feminisms and their philosophies of science: Latin American issues. In D. Ludwig, I. Koskinen, Z. Mncube, L. Poliseli, & L. Reyes-Galindo (Eds.), Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science (pp. 39–50). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Haslanger, S. (2024). Agency under Structural Constraints in Social Systems. In J. Browne & M. McKeown (Eds.), What Is Structural Injustice? (pp. 48–64). Oxford University Press.
Heesen, R., & Bright, L. K. (2021). Is Peer Review a Good Idea? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72(3), 635–663.
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Science and Human Values. In Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science (pp. 81–96). The Free Press.
Henke, C. R., & Gieryn, T. F. (2008). Sites of Scientific Practice: The Enduring Importance of Place. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (3rd ed, pp. 353–376). The MIT Press.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.
Hess, D. J. (1995). Science and Technology in a Multicultural World: The Cultural Politics of Facts and Artifacts. Columbia University Press.
Hicks, D. (2011). Is Longino’s Conception of Objectivity Feminist? Hypatia, 26(2), 333–351.
Hofstra, B., Kulkarni, V. V., Munoz-Najar Galvez, S., He, B., Jurafsky, D., & McFarland, D. A. (2020). The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(17), 9284–9291.
Holman, B., & Wilholt, T. (2022). The new demarcation problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 91, 211–220.
Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), 16385–16389.
Hrdy, S. B. (1986). Empathy, Polyandry, and the Myth of the Coy Female. In R. Bleier (Ed.), Feminist approaches to science (pp. 119–146). Pergamon Press.
Hubbard, R. (1983). Have only men evolved? In S. Harding & M. B. Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science (pp. 45–69). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hudson, R. (2021). Should We Strive to Make Science Bias-Free? A Philosophical Assessment of the Reproducibility Crisis. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 52(3), 389–405.
Hume, D. (1888). A Treatise of Human Nature (L. A. Selby-Bigge, Ed.). Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1739).
Intemann, K. (2009). Why Diversity Matters: Understanding and Applying the Diversity Component of the National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Criterion. Social Epistemology, 23(3–4), 249–266.
Intemann, K. (2010). 25 Years of Feminist Empiricism and Standpoint Theory: Where Are We Now? Hypatia, 25(4), 778–796.
Intemann, K. (2011). Diversity and Dissent in Science: Does Democracy Always Serve Feminist Aims? In H. E. Grasswick (Ed.), Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science (pp. 111–132). Springer Netherlands.
Ito, K. (2021). Modeling the apparent spread of science: Some insights from the history of science in Japan. In D. Ludwig, I. Koskinen, Z. Mncube, L. Poliseli, & L. Reyes-Galindo (Eds.), Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science (pp. 265–273). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Jaggar, A. M., & Tobin, T. W. (2024). Moral Justification and Structural Epistemic Injustice. In J. Browne & M. McKeown (Eds.), What Is Structural Injustice? (pp. 168–186). Oxford University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244.
Jasanoff, S. (2004). Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order (pp. 13–45). Routledge.
Jasanoff, S. (2015). Future Imperfect: Science, Technology, and the Imaginations of Modernity. In S. Jasanoff & S.-H. Kim (Eds.), Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power (pp. 1–33). The University of Chicago Press.
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (Eds.). (2015). Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. The University of Chicago Press.
Jeffrey, R. C. (1956). Valuation and Acceptance of Scientific Hypotheses. Philosophy of Science, 23(3), 237–246.
Keet, A. (2014). Epistemic “Othering” and the Decolonisation of Knowledge. Africa Insight, 44(1), 23–37.
Keevak, M. (2011). Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking. Princeton University Press.
Kincaid, H., Dupré, J., & Wylie, A. (2007). Introduction. In H. Kincaid, J. Dupré, & A. Wylie (Eds.), Value-free Science? Ideals and Illusions (pp. 3–23). Oxford University Press.
Kitcher, P. (1990). The Division of Cognitive Labor. The Journal of Philosophy, 87(1), 5–22.
Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. Oxford University Press.
Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford University Press.
Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in A Democratic Society. Prometheus Books.
Kloß, S. T. (2017). The Global South as Subversive Practice: Challenges and Potentials of a Heuristic Concept. The Global South, 11(2), 1.
Koskinen, I. (2020). Defending a Risk Account of Scientific Objectivity. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 71(4), 1187–1207.
Koskinen, I. (2021). Objectivity in contexts: Withholding epistemic judgement as a strategy for mitigating collective bias. Synthese, 199(1–2), 211–225.
Koskinen, I. (2022). How institutional solutions meant to increase diversity in science fail. Synthese, 200(6), 483.
Koskinen, I., & Rolin, K. (2019). Scientific/Intellectual Movements Remedying Epistemic Injustice: The Case of Indigenous Studies. Philosophy of Science, 86(5), 1052–1063.
Koskinen, I., & Rolin, K. (2021). Structural epistemic (in)justice in global contexts. In D. Ludwig, I. Koskinen, Z. Mncube, L. Poliseli, & L. Reyes-Galindo (Eds.), Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science (pp. 115–125). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Kourany, J. (2010). Philosophy of Science after Feminism. Oxford University Press.
Kourany, J. (2016). Should Some Knowledge Be Forbidden? The Case of Cognitive Differences Research. Philosophy of Science, 83(5), 779–790.
Koyré, A. (1957). From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. The Johns Hopkins Press.
Krawczyk, F., & Kulczycki, E. (2021). On the geopolitics of academic publishing: The mislocated centers of scholarly communication. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 4(1), 1984641.
Kreimer, P. (2006). ¿Dependientes o integrados? La ciencia latinoamericana y la nueva división internacional del trabajo. Nómadas, 24, 199–212.
Kreimer, P. (2019). Science and society in Latin America: Peripheral modernities. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. (1977). The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. The Chicago University Press.
Kulczycki, E. (2023). The evaluation Game: How Publication Metrics Shape Scholarly Communication. Cambridge University Press.
Lacey, H. (1999). Is Science Value Free? Values and Scientific Understanding. Routledge.
Lacey, H. (2005). Values and Objectivity in Science: The Current Controversy about Transgenic Crops. Lexington Books.
Lacey, H. (2017). Distinguishing Between Cognitive and Social Values. In K. C. Elliott & D. P. Steel (Eds.), Current Controversies in Values and Science (pp. 15–30). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Lacey, H. (2021). Multi-strategic research and traditional saberes. In D. Ludwig, I. Koskinen, Z. Mncube, L. Poliseli, & L. Reyes-Galindo (Eds.), Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science (pp. 155–163). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Laudan, L. (1984). Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate. University of California Press.
Lenharo, M. (2023a). Scientists who don’t speak fluent English get little help from journals, study finds. Nature, 620(7976), 931–931.
Lenharo, M. (2023b). The true cost of science’s language barrier for non-native English speakers. Nature, 619(7971), 678–679.
Leonelli, S. (2017). Global Data Quality Assessment and the Situated Nature of “Best” Research Practices in Biology. Data Science Journal, 16(32), 1–11.
Leonelli, S. (2023). Philosophy of Open Science (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Leonelli, S., & Ankeny, R. A. (2015). Repertoires: How to Transform a Project into a Research Community. BioScience, 65(7), 701–708.
Leuschner, A. (2018). Is it appropriate to ‘target’ inappropriate dissent? On the normative consequences of climate skepticism. Synthese, 195(3), 1255–1271.
Leuschner, A., & Fernández Pinto, M. (2022). Exploring the limits of dissent: The case of shooting bias. Synthese, 200(4), 326.
Livingstone, D. N. (2003). Putting Science in its Place: Geographies of Scientific Knowledge. University of Chicago Press.
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton University Press.
Longino, H. E. (1995). Gender, Politics, and the Theoretical Virtues. Synthese, 104(3), 383–397.
Longino, H. E. (1996). Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy. In L. H. Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science (pp. 39–58). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Longino, H. E. (2002). The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton University Press.
Ludwig, D. (2016). Ontological Choices and the Value-Free Ideal. Erkenntnis, 81(6), 1253–1272.
Ludwig, D., & El-Hani, C. N. (2020). Philosophy of Ethnobiology: Understanding Knowledge Integration and Its Limitations. Journal of Ethnobiology, 40(1), 3–20.
Ludwig, D., Koskinen, I., Mncube, Z., Poliseli, L., & Reyes-Galindo, L. (Eds.). (2021). Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Lugones, M. (1987). Playfulness, “World”-Travelling, and Loving Perception. Hypatia, 2(2), 3–19.
Lugones, M. (1990). Structure/Antistructure and Agency Under Oppression. The Journal of Philosophy, 87(10), 500–507.
Lugones, M. (2003). Boomerang Perception and the Colonizing Gaze: Ginger Reflections on Horizontal Hostility. In Pilgrimages/Peregrinajes: Theorizing Coalition Against Multiple Oppressions (pp. 151–164). Rowman & Littlefield.
Lundh, A., Lexchin, J., Mintzes, B., Schroll, J. B., & Bero, L. (2017). Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017(2).
Lusk, G. (2021). Does democracy require value-neutral science? Analyzing the legitimacy of scientific information in the political sphere. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 90, 102–110.
Machamer, P. K., & Wolters, G. (2004). Introduction. In P. K. Machamer & G. Wolters (Eds.), Science, Values, and Objectivity (pp. 1–12). University of Pittsburgh Press.
Maniglio, F. (2023). Knowledge dependency and circulation. In W. Keim & L. Rodriguez-Medina (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Academic Knowledge Circulation (pp. 265–277). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Martin, E. (2013). El óvulo y el espermatozoide. Cómo ha construido la ciencia una novela rosa basada en estereotipos de lo masculino y lo femenino. In M. Cabré i Pairet & F. Salmón Muñiz (Eds.), Sexo y género en medicina: Una introducción a los estudios de las mujeres y de género en ciencias de la salud. Editorial de la Universidad de Cantabria.
McGoey, L. (2015). No Such Thing as A Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and The Price of Philanthropy. Verso.
McKeown, M. (2024). Pure, Avoidable, and Deliberate Structural Injustice. In J. Browne & M. McKeown (Eds.), What Is Structural Injustice? (pp. 65–84). Oxford University Press.
McMullin, E. (1982). Values in Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1982, 3–28.
Medina, J. (2013). The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and Resistant Imaginations. Oxford University Press.
Medina, J. (2017). Varieties of hermeneutical injustice. In I. J. Kidd, J. Medina, & G. Pohlhaus (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice (pp. 41–52). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science. Science, 159, 56–63.
Mignolo, W. (2007a). Delinking: The rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of de-coloniality. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 449–514.
Mignolo, W. (2007b). El pensamiento decolonial: Desprendimiento y apertura. In S. Castro-Gómez & R. Grosfoguel (Eds.), El giro decolonial: Reflexiones para una diversidad epistémica más allá del capitalismo global (pp. 25–46). Siglo del Hombre Editores : Universidad Central, Instituto de Estudios Sociales Contemporáneos, IESCO-UC : Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Instituto de Estudios Sociales y Culturales, Pensar.
Mignolo, W. (2009). Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and Decolonial Freedom. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(7–8), 159–181.
Mignolo, W. (2012). Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton University Press.
Mill, J. S. (1998). On Liberty and Other Essays (J. Gray, Ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1859).
Mills, C. W. (1997). The Racial Contract. Cornell University Press.
Mills, C. W. (2005). “Ideal Theory” as Ideology. Hypatia, 20(3), 165–184.
Mills, C. W. (2007). White Ignorance. In S. Sullivan & N. Tuana (Eds.), Race and epistemologies of ignorance (pp. 13–38). State University of New York Press.
Mills, D., & Inouye, K. (2021). Problematizing ‘predatory publishing’: A systematic review of factors shaping publishing motives, decisions, and experiences. Learned Publishing, 34(2), 89–104.
Muldoon, R. (2013). Diversity and the Division of Cognitive Labor: Diversity and the Division of Cognitive Labor. Philosophy Compass, 8(2), 117–125.
Muldoon, R. (2018). The paradox of diversity. Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, 16(Special Issue), 807–820.
Müller, S. M. (2017). Academics as rent seekers: Distorted incentives in higher education, with reference to the South African case. International Journal of Educational Development, 52, 58–67.
Muthukrishna, M., Bell, A. V., Henrich, J., Curtin, C. M., Gedranovich, A., McInerney, J., & Thue, B. (2020). Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) Psychology: Measuring and Mapping Scales of Cultural and Psychological Distance. Psychological Science, 31(6), 678–701.
Nagel, T. (1986). The View from Nowhere. Oxford University Press.
Namatende-Sakwa, L. (2023). Wiping the Smudge off the Window: The Darkest Time as a Student in Europe. In O. Burlyuk & L. Rahbari (Eds.), Migrant Academics’ Narratives of Precarity and Resilience in Europe (1st ed., pp. 183–189). Open Book Publishers.
Navarrete, R. (2008). Cucharas y picos: Contribuciones de la arquelogía feminista al estudio de género. Revista Venezolana de Estudios de La Mujer, 13(30), 133–154.
Nelson, L. H. (1990). Who knows: From Quine to a Feminist Empiricism. Temple University Press.
Nieto Olarte, M. (2009). Orden natural y orden social: Ciencia y política en el Semanario del Nuevo Reyno de Granada. Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales-CESO, Departamento de Historia.
Nieto Olarte, M. (2010). Americanismo y eurocentrismo: Alexander von Humboldt y su paso por el Nuevo Reino de Granada. Universidad de los Andes, Vicerrectoría de Investigaciones, Ediciones Uniandes.
Nieto Olarte, M. (2019). Remedios para el Imperio: Historia natural y la apropiación del Nuevo Mundo (Tercera edición). Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Departamento de Historia.
Nieves Delgado, A., & Baedke, J. (2021). Does the human microbiome tell us something about race? Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 97.
National Science Foundation (NSF). (2022). Science and Engineering Indicators: The State of US Science & Engineering 2022. National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20221
Nuti, A. (2024). Towards a Pluralistic Account of Structural Injustice. In J. Browne & M. McKeown (Eds.), What Is Structural Injustice? (pp. 221–240). Oxford University Press.
Odeny, B., & Bosurgi, R. (2022). Time to end parachute science. PLOS Medicine, 19(9), e1004099.
Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos (OEI). (2023). El Estado de la Ciencia: Principales Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología Iberoamericanos/Interamericanos 2023. Altuna Impresores.
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2011). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press.
Page, S. E. (2014). Where diversity comes from and why it matters?: Where diversity comes from and why it matters? European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 267–279.
Page, S. E. (2017). The Diversity Bonus: How Great Teams Pay off in the Knowledge Economy. Princeton University Press.
Pesonen, R. (2022). Argumentation, cognition, and the epistemic benefits of cognitive diversity. Synthese, 200(4), 295.
Peters, U. (2021). Hidden figures: Epistemic costs and benefits of detecting (invisible) diversity in science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11(1), 33.
Phillips, K. W. (2017). What Is the Real Value of Diversity in Organizations? Questioning Our Assumptions. In The Diversity Bonus: How Great Teams Pay off in the Knowledge Economy (pp. 223–245). Princeton University Press.
Phillips, K. W., Liljenquist, K. A., & Neale, M. A. (2009). Is the Pain Worth the Gain? The Advantages and Liabilities of Agreeing with Socially Distinct Newcomers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(3), 336–350.
Pinheiro, D. L. (2023). The Construction of Academic Prestige and Its Role in Knowledge Circulation. In W. Keim & L. Rodriguez-Medina (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Academic Knowledge Circulation (pp. 369–379). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Plaisance, K. S., & Elliott, K. C. (2021). A Framework for Analyzing Broadly Engaged Philosophy of Science. Philosophy of Science, 88(4), 594–615.
Pohlhaus, G. (2012). Relational Knowing and Epistemic Injustice: Toward a Theory of “Willful Hermeneutical Ignorance.” Hypatia, 27(4), 715–735.
Pohlhaus, G. (2014). Discerning the Primary Epistemic Harm in Cases of Testimonial Injustice. Social Epistemology, 28(2), 99–114.
Pöyhönen, S. (2017). Value of cognitive diversity in science. Synthese, 194(11), 4519–4540.
Proctor, R. (1991). Value-free Science?: Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. Harvard University Press.
Proctor, R. (2011). Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition. University of California Press.
Putnam, H. (2004). The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Harvard University Press.
Quijano, A. (2000). Colonialidad del poder, eurocentrismo y América Latina. In E. Lander (Ed.), La colonialidad del saber. Eurocentrismo y ciencias sociales: Perspectivas latinoamericanas (pp. 193–234). CLACSO.
Quine, W. V. (1980). Two dogmas of empiricism. In From a logical point of view: Nine logico-philosophical essays (pp. 20–46). Harvard University Press. (Original work published in 1953).
Quine, W. V. (2013). Word and object. MIT Press. (Original work published in 1960).
Quine, W. V., & Ullian, J. S. (1978). The web of belief. Random House.
Raj, K. (2007). Relocating Modern Science: Circulation and the Construction of Knowledge in South Asia and Europe, 1650-1900. Palgrave Macmillan.
Ramírez, V., & Rodriguez-Medina, L. (2023). Well-being and the internationalisation of academic life: An exploration from the periphery. Higher Education.
Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice (Rev. ed). Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Rodríguez-Medina, L. (2014). Centers and Peripheries in Knowledge Production. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Rodriguez-Medina, L., Ferpozzi, H., Layna, J., Martin Valdez, E., & Kreimer, P. (2019). International Ties at Peripheral Sites: Co-producing Social Processes and Scientific Knowledge in Latin America. Science as Culture, 28(4), 562–588.
Rodriguez-Medina, L., & Vessuri, H. (2021). Personal bonds in the internationalization of the social sciences: A view from the periphery. International Sociology, 36(3), 398–418.
Rolin, K. (2011). Diversity and Dissent in the Social Sciences: The Case of Organization Studies. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 41(4), 470–494.
Rolin, K. (2017). Scientific Community: A Moral Dimension. Social Epistemology, 31(5), 468–483.
Rolin, K. (2020). The Epistemic Significance of Diversity. In M. Fricker, P. J. Graham, D. K. Henderson, & N. J. L. L. Pedersen (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Social Epistemology (pp. 158–166). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Rolin, K., Koskinen, I., Kuorikoski, J., & Reijula, S. (2023). Social and cognitive diversity in science: Introduction. Synthese, 202(2), 1–10.
Roohi, S. (2023). Unbelonging as a Post-Colonial Predicament: My Tryst With European Academia. In O. Burlyuk & L. Rahbari (Eds.), Migrant Academics’ Narratives of Precarity and Resilience in Europe (1st ed., pp. 9–20). Open Book Publishers.
Rooney, P. (1992). On Values in Science: Is the Epistemic/Non-Epistemic Distinction Useful? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1992, v. 1, 13–22.
Rooney, P. (2017). The Borderlands Between Epistemic and Non-Epistemic Values. In K. C. Elliott & D. P. Steel (Eds.), Current Controversies in Values and Science (pp. 31–45). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Rosser, S. (1994). Androcentric bias in clinical research. In J. Kourany (Ed.), The Gender of Science (pp. 228–237). Prentice Hall.
Rudner, R. (1953). The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgements. Philosophy of Science, 20(1), 1–6.
Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism (1st ed). Pantheon Books.
Sample, M. (2017). Silent performances: Are “repertoires” really post-Kuhnian? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 61, 51–56.
Sample, M. (2022). Science, responsibility, and the philosophical imagination. Synthese, 200(2), 79.
Schiebinger, L. (2007). Plants and empire: Colonial bioprospecting in the Atlantic world (First Harvard University Press paperback edition). Harvard University Press.
Schmidt, L., & Pröpper, M. (2017). Transdisciplinarity as a real-world challenge: A case study on a North–South collaboration. Sustainability Science, 12(3), 365–379.
Schroeder, S. A. (2022a). Diversifying science: Comparing the benefits of citizen science with the benefits of bringing more women into science. Synthese, 200(4), 306.
Schroeder, S. A. (2022b). Thinking about Values in Science: Ethical versus Political Approaches. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 52(3), 246–255.
Šešelja, D. (2022). Agent‐based models of scientific interaction. Philosophy Compass, 17(7).
Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton University Press.
Shaw, J. (2023). Peer Review, Innovation, and Predicting the Future of Science: The Scope of Lotteries in Science Funding Policy. Philosophy of Science, 90(5), 1297–1306.
Siar, S. V. (2023). Highly skilled migration and knowledge circulation. In W. Keim & L. Rodriguez-Medina (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Academic Knowledge Circulation (pp. 134–147). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Sismondo, S. (2008). Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: A qualitative systematic review. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 29(2), 109–113.
Sober, E. (2007). Evidence and Value Freedom. In H. Kincaid, J. Dupré, & A. Wylie (Eds.), Value-free Science? Ideals and Illusions (pp. 109–119). Oxford University Press.
Solomon, M. (1992). Scientific Rationality and Human Reasoning. Philosophy of Science, 59(3), 439–455. JSTOR Journals.
Solomon, M. (2001). Social empiricism. MIT Press.
Solomon, M. (2008). STS and Social Epistemology of Science. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (3rd ed, pp. 241–258). The MIT Press.
Steel, D., & Bolduc, N. (2020). A Closer Look at the Business Case for Diversity: The Tangled Web of Equity and Epistemic Benefits. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 50(5), 418–443.
Steel, D., Fazelpour, S., Crewe, B., & Gillette, K. (2021). Information elaboration and epistemic effects of diversity. Synthese, 198(2), 1287–1307.
Steel, D., Fazelpour, S., Gillette, K., Crewe, B., & Burgess, M. (2018). Multiple diversity concepts and their ethical-epistemic implications. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 8(3), 761–780.
Steel, D., & Paier, K. (2022). Pro-Diversity Beliefs and the Diverse Person’s Burden. Synthese, 200(5), 357.
Stewart, A. J., Copeland, A., Chester, N. L., Malley, J., & Barenbaum, N. (1997). Separating Together: How Divorce Transforms Families. Guilford Press.
Sulik, J., Bahrami, B., & Deroy, O. (2022). The Diversity Gap: When Diversity Matters for Knowledge. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(3), 752–767.
Táíwò, O. (2019). African Intellectuals: Occident Anxiety. Africa in Fact, 49, 23–27.
Táíwò, O. (2022). Against Decolonisation: Taking African Agency Seriously. Hurst & Company.
Táíwò, O. O. (2021). Being-in-the-Room Privilege: Elite Capture and Epistemic Deference. The Philosopher 1923, 108(4), 61–70.
Tanesini, A. (2021). The Mismeasure of the Self: A Study in Vice Epistemology. Oxford University Press.
Tanesini, A. (2022). Intellectual Vices in Conditions of Oppression: The Turn to the Political in Virtue Epistemology. In D. Bordonaba Plou, V. Fernández Castro, & J. R. Torices (Eds.), The Political Turn in Analytic Philosophy: Reflections on Social Injustice and Oppression (pp. 77–104). De Gruyter.
Tuana, N. (2006). The speculum of ignorance: The women’s health movement and epistemologies of ignorance. Hypatia, 21(3), 198–213.
Vasen, F., & Lujano Vilchis, I. (2017). Sistemas nacionales de clasificación de revistas científicas en América Latina: Tendencias recientes e implicaciones para la evaluación académica en ciencias sociales. 231, 199–228.
Vessuri, H. (2006). Academic Science in Twentieth-century Latin America. In J. J. Saldaña (Ed.), Science in Latin America: A History (pp. 197–231). University of Texas Press.
Vessuri, H. (2017). From science as “development assistance” to “global philanthropy.” In D. Tyfield, R. Lave, S. Randalls, & C. Thorpe (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of Science (pp. 405–415). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Vessuri, H., & Cancino, R. (2018). Science and Technology in Development. In H. Callan (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology (1st ed., pp. 1–9). Wiley.
Vessuri, H., Guédon, J.-C., & Cetto, A. M. (2014). Excellence or quality? Impact of the current competition regime on science and scientific publishing in Latin America and its implications for development. Current Sociology, 62(5), 647–665.
Voges, J. (2023). The Role of Bibliographic Indices for Knowledge Circulation. In W. Keim & L. Rodriguez-Medina (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Academic Knowledge Circulation (pp. 214–222). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Waisbich, L. T., Roychoudhury, S., & Haug, S. (2021). Beyond the single story: ‘Global South’ polyphonies. Third World Quarterly, 42(9), 2086–2095.
Wallerstein, I. M. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Duke University Press.
Ward, Z. B. (2021). On Value-laden Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 85, 54–62.
Weber, M. (2012). Science as a Profession and Vocation. In H. H. Bruun & S. Whimster (Eds.), Collected Methodological Writings. Taylor & Francis Group. (Original work published 1919).
Weisberg, M., & Muldoon, R. (2009). Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor. Philosophy of Science, 76(2), 225–252.
Whyte, K. P. (2013). On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: A philosophical study. Ecological Processes, 2, 7.
Wilholt, T. (2009). Bias and values in scientific research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 40(1), 92–101.
Wolf, A. B. (2020). Just Immigration in the Americas: A Feminist Account. Rowman & Littlefield.
Wolff, J. (2024). Structural Harm, Structural Injustice, Structural Repair. In J. Browne & M. McKeown (Eds.), What Is Structural Injustice? (pp. 12–30). Oxford University Press.
Wu, J. (2023). Epistemic advantage on the margin: A network standpoint epistemology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 106(3), 755–777.
Wu, J., & O’Connor, C. (2023). How should we promote transient diversity in science? Synthese, 201(2), 37.
Wylie, A. (2003). Why Standpoint Matters. In R. Figueroa & S. G. Harding (Eds.), Science and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology (pp. 26–48). Routledge.
Wylie, A. (2006). When Difference Makes a Difference. Episteme, 3(1–2), 1–7.
Wylie, A. (2015). A Plurality of Pluralisms: Collaborative Practice in Archaeology. In F. Padovani, A. Richardson, & J. Y. Tsou (Eds.), Objectivity in Science: New Perspectives from Science and Technology Studies (pp. 189–210). Springer.
Yegros-Yegros, A., Van De Klippe, W., Abad-Garcia, M. F., & Rafols, I. (2020). Exploring why global health needs are unmet by research efforts: The potential influences of geography, industry and publication incentives. Health Research Policy and Systems, 18(1), 47.
Yen, C.-P. (2021). Linguistic diversity in philosophy. In D. Ludwig, I. Koskinen, Z. Mncube, L. Poliseli, & L. Reyes-Galindo (Eds.), Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science (pp. 26–38). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.
Young, I. M. (2004). Responsibility and Global Labor Justice. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(4), 365–388.
Young, I. M. (2007). Structural Injustice and the Politics of Difference. In K. A. Appiah, G. H. Lenz, S. Benhabib, I. M. Young, N. Fraser, & A. Dallmann (Eds.), Justice, Governance, Cosmopolitanism, and the Politics of Difference: Reconfigurations in a Transnational World (Distinguished W.E.B. Du Bois Lectures 2004/2005) (pp. 79–116). Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
Young, I. M. (2011). Responsibility for Justice. Oxford University Press.
Zack, N. (2003). Geography and Ideas of Race. In R. Figueroa & S. G. Harding (Eds.), Science and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology (pp. 201–221). Routledge.
Zollman, K. J. S. (2010). The Epistemic Benefit of Transient Diversity. Erkenntnis, 72(1), 17–35.
Zukerfeld, M., Liaudat, S., Terlizzi, M. S., Monti, C., & Unzurrunzaga, C. (2023). El fantasma de la piratería: Las vías ilegales de acceso a la literatura científica en el CONICET (Argentina). Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, 18(52), 221–252.
dc.rights.en.fl_str_mv Attribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.uri.none.fl_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.rights.accessrights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.coar.none.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
rights_invalid_str_mv Attribution 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.extent.none.fl_str_mv 177 páginas
dc.format.mimetype.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidad de los Andes
dc.publisher.program.none.fl_str_mv Doctorado en Filosofía
dc.publisher.faculty.none.fl_str_mv Facultad de Ciencias Sociales
dc.publisher.department.none.fl_str_mv Departamento de Filosofía
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidad de los Andes
institution Universidad de los Andes
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstreams/014a592c-d954-4a0d-bfc4-92f6b29c6bbf/download
https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstreams/de6f2040-9e66-4a6f-943e-8f74e5b7324b/download
https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstreams/4bfb19ba-c83e-4c2c-903e-e8d94ce90b3e/download
https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstreams/1b329951-8884-4a33-a8eb-9357bf8bb2b0/download
https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstreams/2e1d874f-c9ab-4832-ac67-074d12b71bb0/download
https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstreams/0992890f-1214-49af-940a-c0537a209b22/download
https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstreams/7b16794f-b051-4250-b027-ff49bb8ed3bd/download
https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstreams/8614c476-871f-4e49-bddd-a06933a45c07/download
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv 52a604bdce039763fe551bc3e9d65fb3
3d9b1686771182489b3aa00079d6001e
ae9e573a68e7f92501b6913cc846c39f
0175ea4a2d4caec4bbcc37e300941108
b82942467f806304d8a91199413ad303
8eaabb51237a8611c6396d82ca0c6a04
1e2666a53df04e2d6dca9701208f66fe
1ee5563fc315979a47b6a9a1d519c8b6
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositorio institucional Séneca
repository.mail.fl_str_mv adminrepositorio@uniandes.edu.co
_version_ 1831927724252332032
spelling Fernández Pinto, Manuelavirtual::22099-1Gutiérrez Valderrama, JulianaWolf, Allison Brookevirtual::22100-1Nieto Olarte, Mauriciovirtual::22101-1Leonelli, SabinaRolin, Kristina2025-01-15T15:32:28Z2025-01-15T15:32:28Z2025-01-10https://hdl.handle.net/1992/75428instname:Universidad de los Andesreponame:Repositorio Institucional Sénecarepourl:https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/According to current philosophical proposals concerning the role of values in science, diversity is a necessary and desirable feature of our epistemic communities for managing and justifying the values that shape the production of knowledge. However, the discussion up until now has lacked a global perspective. It has primarily focused on abstract, national, or local contexts and mainly on scientific communities located in resource-rich environments. Accordingly, the normative tools at hand remain insufficient when we move on to explore matters of values and diversity on a global scale. In the dissertation, I explore how we can address the value-laden nature of global science, given the existing inequalities among scientific communities in different geographic locations. If indeed diversity is a promising avenue for managing the values that shape global scientific knowledge and encouraging a socially and epistemically just science, what sort of diversity is the one we should foster at this global level, and how? Here, I argue in favor of fostering geographic diversity. My main claim is that promoting non-oppressive collaborations among scientific communities in diverse locations and, consequently, in different material and social circumstances is a fruitful strategy to address the challenges posed by value-laden global science. With this in mind, first, I review the literature on values and diversity in science and argue that current philosophical frameworks omit this geographic dimension of diversity. Consequently, they do not offer normative recommendations for building a geographically diverse and non-oppressive global science. Furthermore, these proposals run the risk of being epistemically unjust towards scientific communities in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Second, I explain why remedying this gap is epistemically and socially relevant. I claim that scientific communities in LMICs suffer different forms of epistemic oppression within the structure of global science, and I point out the social and epistemic detrimental effects of this oppression. Finally, I attempt to outline a set of normative and ameliorative recommendations to counteract this epistemic oppression and foster geographic diversity in order to manage and address the values and social structures that shape global scientific knowledge.Doctorado177 páginasapplication/pdfengUniversidad de los AndesDoctorado en FilosofíaFacultad de Ciencias SocialesDepartamento de FilosofíaAttribution 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Values and global science: the epistemic and social relevance of geographic diversityTrabajo de grado - Doctoradoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesisinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_db06Texthttps://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/TDValues in scienceGeographic diversityEpistemic oppressionFilosofíaAgnew, J. (2007). Know-Where: Geographies of Knowledge of World Politics. International Political Sociology, 1(2), 138–148.Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the Divide Between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge. Development and Change, 26, 413–439.Albuquerque, U. P. D., & Alves, A. G. C. (2010). “Ethno what?” Terminological problems in ethnoscience with a special emphasis on the Brazilian context.Albuquerque, U. P. D., Ludwig, D., Feitosa, I. S., De Moura, J. M. B., Gonçalves, P. H. S., Da Silva, R. H., Da Silva, T. C., Gonçalves-Souza, T., & Ferreira Júnior, W. S. (2021). Integrating traditional ecological knowledge into academic research at local and global scales. Regional Environmental Change, 21(2), 45.Alcoff, L. M. (2022). Extractivist epistemologies. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 5(1), 2127231.Alexander, J. M., Himmelreich, J., & Thompson, C. (2015). Epistemic Landscapes, Optimal Search, and the Division of Cognitive Labor. Philosophy of Science, 82(3), 424–453.Alperin, J. P., & Rozemblum, C. (2017). La reinterpretación de visibilidad y calidad en las nuevas políticas de evaluación de revistas científicas. Revista Interamericana de Bibliotecología, 40(3), 231–241.Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations and Realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305.Ambrosj, J., Dierickx, K., & Desmond, H. (2023). The Value-Free Ideal of Science: A Useful Fiction? A Review of Non-epistemic Reasons for the Research Integrity Community. Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(1), 1.Andersen, H. (2016). Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 56, 1–10.Anderson, E. (2004). Uses of Value Judgments in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce. Hypatia, 19(1), 1–24.Anderson, E. (2006). The Epistemology of Democracy. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 3(1–2), 8–22.Anderson, E. (2012). Epistemic Justice as a Virtue of Social Institutions. Social Epistemology, 26(2), 163–173.Angus, S. D., Atalay, K., Newton, J., & Ubilava, D. (2021). Geographic diversity in economic publishing. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 190, 255–262.Ankeny, R., Chang, H., Boumans, M., & Boon, M. (2011). Introduction: Philosophy of science in practice. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1(3), 303–307.Ankeny, R., & Leonelli, S. (2016). Repertoires: A post-Kuhnian perspective on scientific change and collaborative research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 60, 18–28.Apfelbaum, E. P., Phillips, K. W., & Richeson, J. A. (2014). Rethinking the Baseline in Diversity Research: Should We Be Explaining the Effects of Homogeneity? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 235–244.Asgarilaleh, T. (2023). On Being a ‘Migrant Academic’: Precarious Passports and Invisible Struggles. In O. Burlyuk & L. Rahbari (Eds.), Migrant Academics’ Narratives of Precarity and Resilience in Europe (1st ed., pp. 95–101). Open Book Publishers.Bacon, F. (2000). The New Organon (L. Jardine & M. Silverthorne, Eds.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published in 1620)Baedke, J., & Nieves Delgado, A. (2019). Race and nutrition in the New World: Colonial shadows in the age of epigenetics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 76, 101175.Bailey, A. (2014). The Unlevel Knowing Field: An Engagement with Dotson’s Third-Order Epistemic Oppression. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 3(10), 62–68.Bartrolí, M. A., Huang, X., & Arvanitis, R. (2023). Knowledge Circulation and Unequal Partnerships. In W. Keim & L. Rodriguez-Medina (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Academic Knowledge Circulation (pp. 307–318). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Basalla, G. (1967). The Spread of Western Science. Science, 156(3775), 611–622.Beigel, F. (2014). Publishing from the periphery: Structural heterogeneity and segmented circuits. The evaluation of scientific publications for tenure in Argentina’s CONICET. Current Sociology, 62(5), 743–765.Beigel, F. (2016). El nuevo carácter de la dependencia intelectual. Cuestiones de Sociología, 14, e004.Beigel, F. (2023). Circulation of Academic Knowledge and Recognition. In W. Keim & L. Rodriguez-Medina (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Academic Knowledge Circulation (pp. 75–87). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Beigel, F., Packer, A. L., Gallardo, O., & Salatino, M. (2024). OLIVA: La Producción Científica Indexada en América Latina. Diversidad Disciplinar, Colaboración Institucional y Multilingüismo en SciELO y Redalyc (1995-2018). Dados, 67(1), e20210174.Bell, K. (2017). ‘Predatory’ Open Access Journals as Parody: Exposing the Limitations of ‘Legitimate’ Academic Publishing. TripleC, 15(2), 651–662.Benezra, A. (2020). Race in the Microbiome. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 45(5), 877–902.Bennett, K. (2007). Epistemicide!: The Tale of a Predatory Discourse. The Translator, 13(2), 151–169.Berenstain, N. (2016). Epistemic Exploitation. Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 3(22), 569–590.Betz, G. (2013). In Defence of the Value Free Ideal. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 3(2), 207–220.Bhabha, H. (1984). Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse. October, 28, 125–133.Biddle, J. B. (2013). State of the field: Transient underdetermination and values in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 44(1), 124–133.Biddle, J. B., & Kukla, Q. (2017). The Geography of Epistemic Risk. In K. C. Elliott & T. Richards (Eds.), Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science (pp. 215–238). Oxford University Press.Biddle, J. B., & Leuschner, A. (2015). Climate skepticism and the manufacture of doubt: Can dissent in science be epistemically detrimental? European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5(3), 261–278.Boncourt, T., Koch, S., & Matviichuk, E. (2023). International scientific associations and conferences as agents in the unequal circulation of knowledge. In W. Keim & L. Rodriguez-Medina (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Academic Knowledge Circulation (pp. 169–181). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Boncourt, T., & Mills, D. (2023). The Changing Economics of Academic Publishing And The Discourse of “Predatory” Science. In W. Keim & L. Rodriguez-Medina (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Academic Knowledge Circulation (pp. 307–318). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Bright, L. K. (2018). Du Bois’ democratic defence of the value free ideal. Synthese, 195(5), 2227–2245.Brown, M. J. (2013a). The source and status of values for socially responsible science. Philosophical Studies, 163, 67–76.Brown, M. J. (2013b). Values in Science Beyond Underdetermination and Inductive Risk. Philosophy of Science, 80(5), 829–839.Brown, M. J. (2017). Values in Science: Against Epistemic Priority. In K. C. Elliott & D. P. Steel (Eds.), Current Controversies in Values and Science (pp. 64–77). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Brown, M. J. (2020). Science and Moral Imagination: A New Ideal for Values in Science. University of Pittsburgh Press.Burlyuk, O., & Rahbari, L. (Eds.). (2023). Migrant Academics’ Narratives of Precarity and Resilience in Europe. Open Book Publishers.Butler, L.-A., Matthias, L., Simard, M.-A., Mongeon, P., & Haustein, S. (2023). The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(4), 778–799.Carrier, M. (2011). Underdetermination as an epistemological test tube: Expounding hidden values of the scientific community. Synthese, 180(2), 189–204.Carrier, M. (2013). Values and Objectivity in Science: Value-Ladenness, Pluralism and the Epistemic Attitude. Science & Education, 22(10), 2547–2568.Castro-Gómez, S. (2005). La hybris del punto cero: Ciencia, raza e ilustración en la Nueva Granada (1750-1816) (1. ed). Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.Castro-Gómez, S. (2007). Decolonizar la universidad: La hybris del punto cero y el diálogo de saberes. In S. Castro-Gómez & R. Grosfoguel (Eds.), El giro decolonial: Reflexiones para una diversidad epistémica más allá del capitalismo global (pp. 79–91). Siglo del Hombre Editores : Universidad Central, Instituto de Estudios Sociales Contemporáneos, IESCO-UC : Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Instituto de Estudios Sociales y Culturales, Pensar.Chugh, M., & Joseph, T. (2024). Citizenship privilege harms science. Nature, 628(8008), 499–501.Collyer, F., Connell, R., Maia, J. L. de A., & Morrell, R. (2019). Knowledge and Global Power: Making New Sciences in the South. Monash University Publishing.Conkey, M. W. (2003). Has Feminism Changed Archaeology? Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 867–880.Crombie, A. C. (1994). Styles of Scientific Thinking in the European Tradition: The History of Argument and Explanation especially in the Mathematical and Biomedical Sciences and Arts. Gerald Duckworth & Company.Dasgupta, D. (2021). Creativity from the Periphery: Trading Zones of Scientific Exchange in Colonial India. University of Pittsburgh Press.Davis, E. (2016). Typecasts, Tokens, and Spokespersons: A Case for Credibility Excess as Testimonial Injustice. Hypatia, 31(3), 485–501.De Albuquerque, A., De Oliveira, T. M., Dos Santos Junior, M. A., & De Albuquerque, S. O. F. (2020). Structural Limits to the De-Westernization of the Communication Field: The Editorial Board in Clarivate’s JCR System. Communication, Culture and Critique, 13(2), 185–203.De La Bellacasa, M. P. (2011). Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things. Social Studies of Science, 41(1), 85–106.De Melo-Martín, I., & Intemann, K. (2023). Socially responsible science: Exploring the complexities. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 13(3), 33.Dickison, M. (2009). The asymmetry between science and traditional knowledge. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 39(4), 171–172.Dirlik, A. (1999). Is There History after Eurocentrism?: Globalism, Postcolonialism, and the Disavowal of History. Cultural Critique, 42, 1.Dotson, K. (2011). Tracking Epistemic Violence, Tracking Practices of Silencing. Hypatia, 26(2), 236–257.Dotson, K. (2012). How is this paper philosophy? Comparative Philosophy, 3(1), 3–29.Dotson, K. (2014). Conceptualizing Epistemic Oppression. Social Epistemology, 28(2), 115–138.Douglas, H. E. (2000). Inductive Risk and Values in Science. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 559–579.Douglas, H. E. (2003). The Moral Responsibilities of Scientists (Tensions between Autonomy and Responsibility). American Philosophical Quarterly, 40(1), 59–68.Douglas, H. E. (2004). The Irreducible Complexity of Objectivity. Synthese, 138(3), 453–473.Douglas, H. E. (2009). Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press.Douglas, H. (2013). Review: Philip Kitcher, Science in a Democratic Society. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64(4), 901–905.Duhem, P. (1984). Teoría física y experimento. Teorema, 14(3–4), 547–582. (Original work published in 1906)Dupré, J. (2007). Fact and Value. In H. Kincaid, J. Dupré, & A. Wylie (Eds.), Value-free Science? Ideals and Illusions (pp. 27–41). Oxford University Press.Duster, T. (2015). A post-genomic surprise. The molecular reinscription of race in science, law and medicine. The British Journal of Sociology, 66(1), 1–27.El-Hani, C. N., Poliseli, L., & Ludwig, D. (2022). Beyond the divide between indigenous and academic knowledge: Causal and mechanistic explanations in a Brazilian fishing community. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 91, 296–306.Elliott, K. C. (2011). Is a Little Pollution Good for You? Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research. Oxford University Press.Elliott, K. C. (2017). Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. Oxford University Press.Escobar, A. (1998). La invención del Tercer Mundo: Construcción y deconstrucción del Desarrollo. Grupo Editorial Norma.Escobar, A. (2004). Beyond the Third World: Imperial globality, global coloniality and anti-globalisation social movements. Third World Quarterly, 25(1), 207–230.Escobar, A. (2005). Más allá del tercer mundo: Globalización y diferencia. Instituto Colombiano de Antropología e Historia, Universidad del Cauca.Escobar, A. (2008). Territories of difference: Place, Movement, Life, Redes. Duke University Press.Escobar, A. (2020). Thinking-Feeling with the Earth: Territorial Struggles and the Ontological Dimension of the Epistemologies of the South. In B. de S. Santos & M. P. Meneses (Eds.), Knowledges Born in the Struggle: Constructing the Epistemologies of the Global South (pp. 41–57). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Eurostat. (2022). R&D expenditure. Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=R%26D_expenditure#R.26D_expenditure_by_source_of_fundsFausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality (1st ed). Basic Books.Fazelpour, S., & Steel, D. (2022). Diversity, Trust, and Conformity: A Simulation Study. Philosophy of Science, 89(2), 209–231.Fehr, C. (2011). What Is in It for Me? The Benefits of Diversity in Scientific Communities. In H. E. Grasswick (Ed.), Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science (pp. 133–155). Springer Netherlands.Fehr, C., & Jones, J. M. (2022). Culture, exploitation, and epistemic approaches to diversity. Synthese, 200, 465.Fehr, C., & Plaisance, K. S. (2010). Socially relevant philosophy of science: An introduction. Synthese, 177(3), 301–316.Feld, A., & Kreimer, P. (2020). Latinoamericanos en proyectos europeos: Asimetrías en la cooperación científica internacional. Ciencia, Tecnología y Política, 3(4), 035.Fernández Pinto, M. (2015). Commercialization and the Limits of Well-Ordered Science. Perspectives on Science, 23(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_a_00166Fernández Pinto, M. (2017). To Know or Better Not to: Agnotology and the Social Construction of Ignorance in Commercially Driven Research. Science & Technology Studies, 53. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.61030Fernández Pinto, M. (2019). Doubly disadvantaged: On the recruitment of diverse subjects for clinical trials in Latin America. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 2(1), 391–407.Fernández Pinto, M. (2021). Science and industry funding. In D. Ludwig, I. Koskinen, Z. Mncube, L. Poliseli, & L. Reyes-Galindo (Eds.), Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science (pp. 164–173). Routledge, Taylor & Francis.Fernández Pinto, M. (2022). Ciencia comercial en América Latina: Análisis de los retos de la financiación privada de la investigación. In H. Vessuri (Ed.), Conocimientos, sociedades y tecnologías en América Latina (pp. 180–192). Universidad de los Andes, Fondo de Cultura Económica.Fernández Pinto, M., & Fernández Pinto, D. (2018). Epistemic Landscapes Reloaded: An Examination of Agent-Based Models in Social Epistemology. Historical Social Research, 43(1), 48–71.Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (R. K. Merton & T. J. Trenn, Eds.; T. J. Trenn & F. Bradley, Trans.; Repr. 11. Aufl). University of Chicago Press.Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.Frye, M. (1983a). In and Out of Harm’s Way: Arrogance and Love. In The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (pp. 52–83). Crossing Press.Frye, M. (1983b). Oppression. In The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (pp. 1–17). Crossing Press.Frye, M. (1983c). To Be and Be Seen: The Politics of Reality. In The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (pp. 152–174). Crossing Press.Galison, P. L. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. University of Chicago Press.García Carrillo, M., Testoni, F., Gagnon, M.-A., Rikap, C., & Blaustein, M. (2022). Academic dependency: The influence of the prevailing international biomedical research agenda on Argentina’s CONICET. Heliyon, 8(11), e11481.Garfield, E. (2006). Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas†. International Journal of Epidemiology, 35(5), 1123–1127.Gingras, Y. (2016). Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation: Uses and Abuses. The MIT Press.Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2016). Governing Science: How Science Policy Shapes Research Content. European Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 117–168.Gómez Lee, M. I., & Roth Deubel, A.-N. (2023). Traditional knowledge policy co-production in Colombia and Ecuador. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 6(1), 2188107.González-Santos, S. P., & Saldaña-Tejeda, A. (2023). “Hecho en México”: A media analysis of the first MRT baby. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 6(1), 2245990.Goodman, N. (1979). Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Harvard University Press.Grasswick, H. E. (2017). Epistemic Injustice in Science. In I. J. Kidd, J. Medina, & G. Pohlhaus (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice (pp. 313–323). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Grim, P., Singer, D. J., Bramson, A., Holman, B., McGeehan, S., & Berger, W. J. (2019). Diversity, Ability, and Expertise in Epistemic Communities. Philosophy of Science, 86(1), 98–123.Grosfoguel, R. (2013). The Structure of Knowledge in Westernized Universities: Epistemic Racism/Sexism and the Four Genocides/Epistemicides of the Long 16th Century. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 11(1), 73–90.Grosfoguel, R. (2020). Epistemic Extractivism: A Dialogue with Alberto Acosta, Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, and Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui. In B. de S. Santos & M. P. Meneses (Eds.), Knowledges born in the struggle: Constructing the epistemologies of the Global South (pp. 203–218). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Hacking, I. (1992). Style for historians and philosophers. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23(1), 1–20.Hall, B. L., & Tandon, R. (2017). Decolonization of knowledge, epistemicide, participatory research and higher education. Research for All, 1(1), 6–19.Hall, S. (2018). The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power. In D. Morley (Ed.), Essential Essays (pp. 141–184). Duke University Press. (Original work published 1992).Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.Harding, S. (1992). After Eurocentrism: Challenges for the Philosophy of Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1992, v. 2, 311–319.Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What Is “Strong Objectivity”? In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist Epistemologies (pp. 49–82). Routledge.Harding, S. (1995). “Strong Objectivity”: A Response to the New Objectivity Question. Synthese, 104(3), 331–349.Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and Diversity: Another Logic of Scientific Research. The University of Chicago Press.Harding, S. (2018). One Planet, Many Sciences. In B. Reiter (Ed.), Constructing the Pluriverse: The Geopolitics of Knowledge (pp. 39–62). Duke University Press.Harding, S. (2019). State of the field: Latin American decolonial philosophies of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 78, 48–63.Harding, S. (2021). Anti-colonial feminisms and their philosophies of science: Latin American issues. In D. Ludwig, I. Koskinen, Z. Mncube, L. Poliseli, & L. Reyes-Galindo (Eds.), Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science (pp. 39–50). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Haslanger, S. (2024). Agency under Structural Constraints in Social Systems. In J. Browne & M. McKeown (Eds.), What Is Structural Injustice? (pp. 48–64). Oxford University Press.Heesen, R., & Bright, L. K. (2021). Is Peer Review a Good Idea? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72(3), 635–663.Hempel, C. G. (1965). Science and Human Values. In Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science (pp. 81–96). The Free Press.Henke, C. R., & Gieryn, T. F. (2008). Sites of Scientific Practice: The Enduring Importance of Place. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (3rd ed, pp. 353–376). The MIT Press.Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.Hess, D. J. (1995). Science and Technology in a Multicultural World: The Cultural Politics of Facts and Artifacts. Columbia University Press.Hicks, D. (2011). Is Longino’s Conception of Objectivity Feminist? Hypatia, 26(2), 333–351.Hofstra, B., Kulkarni, V. V., Munoz-Najar Galvez, S., He, B., Jurafsky, D., & McFarland, D. A. (2020). The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(17), 9284–9291.Holman, B., & Wilholt, T. (2022). The new demarcation problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 91, 211–220.Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), 16385–16389.Hrdy, S. B. (1986). Empathy, Polyandry, and the Myth of the Coy Female. In R. Bleier (Ed.), Feminist approaches to science (pp. 119–146). Pergamon Press.Hubbard, R. (1983). Have only men evolved? In S. Harding & M. B. Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science (pp. 45–69). Kluwer Academic Publishers.Hudson, R. (2021). Should We Strive to Make Science Bias-Free? A Philosophical Assessment of the Reproducibility Crisis. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 52(3), 389–405.Hume, D. (1888). A Treatise of Human Nature (L. A. Selby-Bigge, Ed.). Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1739).Intemann, K. (2009). Why Diversity Matters: Understanding and Applying the Diversity Component of the National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Criterion. Social Epistemology, 23(3–4), 249–266.Intemann, K. (2010). 25 Years of Feminist Empiricism and Standpoint Theory: Where Are We Now? Hypatia, 25(4), 778–796.Intemann, K. (2011). Diversity and Dissent in Science: Does Democracy Always Serve Feminist Aims? In H. E. Grasswick (Ed.), Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science (pp. 111–132). Springer Netherlands.Ito, K. (2021). Modeling the apparent spread of science: Some insights from the history of science in Japan. In D. Ludwig, I. Koskinen, Z. Mncube, L. Poliseli, & L. Reyes-Galindo (Eds.), Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science (pp. 265–273). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Jaggar, A. M., & Tobin, T. W. (2024). Moral Justification and Structural Epistemic Injustice. In J. Browne & M. McKeown (Eds.), What Is Structural Injustice? (pp. 168–186). Oxford University Press.Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244.Jasanoff, S. (2004). Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order (pp. 13–45). Routledge.Jasanoff, S. (2015). Future Imperfect: Science, Technology, and the Imaginations of Modernity. In S. Jasanoff & S.-H. Kim (Eds.), Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power (pp. 1–33). The University of Chicago Press.Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (Eds.). (2015). Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. The University of Chicago Press.Jeffrey, R. C. (1956). Valuation and Acceptance of Scientific Hypotheses. Philosophy of Science, 23(3), 237–246.Keet, A. (2014). Epistemic “Othering” and the Decolonisation of Knowledge. Africa Insight, 44(1), 23–37.Keevak, M. (2011). Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking. Princeton University Press.Kincaid, H., Dupré, J., & Wylie, A. (2007). Introduction. In H. Kincaid, J. Dupré, & A. Wylie (Eds.), Value-free Science? Ideals and Illusions (pp. 3–23). Oxford University Press.Kitcher, P. (1990). The Division of Cognitive Labor. The Journal of Philosophy, 87(1), 5–22.Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. Oxford University Press.Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford University Press.Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in A Democratic Society. Prometheus Books.Kloß, S. T. (2017). The Global South as Subversive Practice: Challenges and Potentials of a Heuristic Concept. The Global South, 11(2), 1.Koskinen, I. (2020). Defending a Risk Account of Scientific Objectivity. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 71(4), 1187–1207.Koskinen, I. (2021). Objectivity in contexts: Withholding epistemic judgement as a strategy for mitigating collective bias. Synthese, 199(1–2), 211–225.Koskinen, I. (2022). How institutional solutions meant to increase diversity in science fail. Synthese, 200(6), 483.Koskinen, I., & Rolin, K. (2019). Scientific/Intellectual Movements Remedying Epistemic Injustice: The Case of Indigenous Studies. Philosophy of Science, 86(5), 1052–1063.Koskinen, I., & Rolin, K. (2021). Structural epistemic (in)justice in global contexts. In D. Ludwig, I. Koskinen, Z. Mncube, L. Poliseli, & L. Reyes-Galindo (Eds.), Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science (pp. 115–125). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Kourany, J. (2010). Philosophy of Science after Feminism. Oxford University Press.Kourany, J. (2016). Should Some Knowledge Be Forbidden? The Case of Cognitive Differences Research. Philosophy of Science, 83(5), 779–790.Koyré, A. (1957). From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. The Johns Hopkins Press.Krawczyk, F., & Kulczycki, E. (2021). On the geopolitics of academic publishing: The mislocated centers of scholarly communication. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 4(1), 1984641.Kreimer, P. (2006). ¿Dependientes o integrados? La ciencia latinoamericana y la nueva división internacional del trabajo. Nómadas, 24, 199–212.Kreimer, P. (2019). Science and society in Latin America: Peripheral modernities. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.Kuhn, T. (1977). The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. The Chicago University Press.Kulczycki, E. (2023). The evaluation Game: How Publication Metrics Shape Scholarly Communication. Cambridge University Press.Lacey, H. (1999). Is Science Value Free? Values and Scientific Understanding. Routledge.Lacey, H. (2005). Values and Objectivity in Science: The Current Controversy about Transgenic Crops. Lexington Books.Lacey, H. (2017). Distinguishing Between Cognitive and Social Values. In K. C. Elliott & D. P. Steel (Eds.), Current Controversies in Values and Science (pp. 15–30). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Lacey, H. (2021). Multi-strategic research and traditional saberes. In D. Ludwig, I. Koskinen, Z. Mncube, L. Poliseli, & L. Reyes-Galindo (Eds.), Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science (pp. 155–163). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Laudan, L. (1984). Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate. University of California Press.Lenharo, M. (2023a). Scientists who don’t speak fluent English get little help from journals, study finds. Nature, 620(7976), 931–931.Lenharo, M. (2023b). The true cost of science’s language barrier for non-native English speakers. Nature, 619(7971), 678–679.Leonelli, S. (2017). Global Data Quality Assessment and the Situated Nature of “Best” Research Practices in Biology. Data Science Journal, 16(32), 1–11.Leonelli, S. (2023). Philosophy of Open Science (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.Leonelli, S., & Ankeny, R. A. (2015). Repertoires: How to Transform a Project into a Research Community. BioScience, 65(7), 701–708.Leuschner, A. (2018). Is it appropriate to ‘target’ inappropriate dissent? On the normative consequences of climate skepticism. Synthese, 195(3), 1255–1271.Leuschner, A., & Fernández Pinto, M. (2022). Exploring the limits of dissent: The case of shooting bias. Synthese, 200(4), 326.Livingstone, D. N. (2003). Putting Science in its Place: Geographies of Scientific Knowledge. University of Chicago Press.Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton University Press.Longino, H. E. (1995). Gender, Politics, and the Theoretical Virtues. Synthese, 104(3), 383–397.Longino, H. E. (1996). Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy. In L. H. Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science (pp. 39–58). Kluwer Academic Publishers.Longino, H. E. (2002). The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton University Press.Ludwig, D. (2016). Ontological Choices and the Value-Free Ideal. Erkenntnis, 81(6), 1253–1272.Ludwig, D., & El-Hani, C. N. (2020). Philosophy of Ethnobiology: Understanding Knowledge Integration and Its Limitations. Journal of Ethnobiology, 40(1), 3–20.Ludwig, D., Koskinen, I., Mncube, Z., Poliseli, L., & Reyes-Galindo, L. (Eds.). (2021). Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Lugones, M. (1987). Playfulness, “World”-Travelling, and Loving Perception. Hypatia, 2(2), 3–19.Lugones, M. (1990). Structure/Antistructure and Agency Under Oppression. The Journal of Philosophy, 87(10), 500–507.Lugones, M. (2003). Boomerang Perception and the Colonizing Gaze: Ginger Reflections on Horizontal Hostility. In Pilgrimages/Peregrinajes: Theorizing Coalition Against Multiple Oppressions (pp. 151–164). Rowman & Littlefield.Lundh, A., Lexchin, J., Mintzes, B., Schroll, J. B., & Bero, L. (2017). Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017(2).Lusk, G. (2021). Does democracy require value-neutral science? Analyzing the legitimacy of scientific information in the political sphere. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 90, 102–110.Machamer, P. K., & Wolters, G. (2004). Introduction. In P. K. Machamer & G. Wolters (Eds.), Science, Values, and Objectivity (pp. 1–12). University of Pittsburgh Press.Maniglio, F. (2023). Knowledge dependency and circulation. In W. Keim & L. Rodriguez-Medina (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Academic Knowledge Circulation (pp. 265–277). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Martin, E. (2013). El óvulo y el espermatozoide. Cómo ha construido la ciencia una novela rosa basada en estereotipos de lo masculino y lo femenino. In M. Cabré i Pairet & F. Salmón Muñiz (Eds.), Sexo y género en medicina: Una introducción a los estudios de las mujeres y de género en ciencias de la salud. Editorial de la Universidad de Cantabria.McGoey, L. (2015). No Such Thing as A Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and The Price of Philanthropy. Verso.McKeown, M. (2024). Pure, Avoidable, and Deliberate Structural Injustice. In J. Browne & M. McKeown (Eds.), What Is Structural Injustice? (pp. 65–84). Oxford University Press.McMullin, E. (1982). Values in Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1982, 3–28.Medina, J. (2013). The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and Resistant Imaginations. Oxford University Press.Medina, J. (2017). Varieties of hermeneutical injustice. In I. J. Kidd, J. Medina, & G. Pohlhaus (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice (pp. 41–52). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science. Science, 159, 56–63.Mignolo, W. (2007a). Delinking: The rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of de-coloniality. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 449–514.Mignolo, W. (2007b). El pensamiento decolonial: Desprendimiento y apertura. In S. Castro-Gómez & R. Grosfoguel (Eds.), El giro decolonial: Reflexiones para una diversidad epistémica más allá del capitalismo global (pp. 25–46). Siglo del Hombre Editores : Universidad Central, Instituto de Estudios Sociales Contemporáneos, IESCO-UC : Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Instituto de Estudios Sociales y Culturales, Pensar.Mignolo, W. (2009). Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and Decolonial Freedom. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(7–8), 159–181.Mignolo, W. (2012). Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton University Press.Mill, J. S. (1998). On Liberty and Other Essays (J. Gray, Ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1859).Mills, C. W. (1997). The Racial Contract. Cornell University Press.Mills, C. W. (2005). “Ideal Theory” as Ideology. Hypatia, 20(3), 165–184.Mills, C. W. (2007). White Ignorance. In S. Sullivan & N. Tuana (Eds.), Race and epistemologies of ignorance (pp. 13–38). State University of New York Press.Mills, D., & Inouye, K. (2021). Problematizing ‘predatory publishing’: A systematic review of factors shaping publishing motives, decisions, and experiences. Learned Publishing, 34(2), 89–104.Muldoon, R. (2013). Diversity and the Division of Cognitive Labor: Diversity and the Division of Cognitive Labor. Philosophy Compass, 8(2), 117–125.Muldoon, R. (2018). The paradox of diversity. Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, 16(Special Issue), 807–820.Müller, S. M. (2017). Academics as rent seekers: Distorted incentives in higher education, with reference to the South African case. International Journal of Educational Development, 52, 58–67.Muthukrishna, M., Bell, A. V., Henrich, J., Curtin, C. M., Gedranovich, A., McInerney, J., & Thue, B. (2020). Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) Psychology: Measuring and Mapping Scales of Cultural and Psychological Distance. Psychological Science, 31(6), 678–701.Nagel, T. (1986). The View from Nowhere. Oxford University Press.Namatende-Sakwa, L. (2023). Wiping the Smudge off the Window: The Darkest Time as a Student in Europe. In O. Burlyuk & L. Rahbari (Eds.), Migrant Academics’ Narratives of Precarity and Resilience in Europe (1st ed., pp. 183–189). Open Book Publishers.Navarrete, R. (2008). Cucharas y picos: Contribuciones de la arquelogía feminista al estudio de género. Revista Venezolana de Estudios de La Mujer, 13(30), 133–154.Nelson, L. H. (1990). Who knows: From Quine to a Feminist Empiricism. Temple University Press.Nieto Olarte, M. (2009). Orden natural y orden social: Ciencia y política en el Semanario del Nuevo Reyno de Granada. Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales-CESO, Departamento de Historia.Nieto Olarte, M. (2010). Americanismo y eurocentrismo: Alexander von Humboldt y su paso por el Nuevo Reino de Granada. Universidad de los Andes, Vicerrectoría de Investigaciones, Ediciones Uniandes.Nieto Olarte, M. (2019). Remedios para el Imperio: Historia natural y la apropiación del Nuevo Mundo (Tercera edición). Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Departamento de Historia.Nieves Delgado, A., & Baedke, J. (2021). Does the human microbiome tell us something about race? Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 97.National Science Foundation (NSF). (2022). Science and Engineering Indicators: The State of US Science & Engineering 2022. National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20221Nuti, A. (2024). Towards a Pluralistic Account of Structural Injustice. In J. Browne & M. McKeown (Eds.), What Is Structural Injustice? (pp. 221–240). Oxford University Press.Odeny, B., & Bosurgi, R. (2022). Time to end parachute science. PLOS Medicine, 19(9), e1004099.Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos (OEI). (2023). El Estado de la Ciencia: Principales Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología Iberoamericanos/Interamericanos 2023. Altuna Impresores.Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2011). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press.Page, S. E. (2014). Where diversity comes from and why it matters?: Where diversity comes from and why it matters? European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 267–279.Page, S. E. (2017). The Diversity Bonus: How Great Teams Pay off in the Knowledge Economy. Princeton University Press.Pesonen, R. (2022). Argumentation, cognition, and the epistemic benefits of cognitive diversity. Synthese, 200(4), 295.Peters, U. (2021). Hidden figures: Epistemic costs and benefits of detecting (invisible) diversity in science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11(1), 33.Phillips, K. W. (2017). What Is the Real Value of Diversity in Organizations? Questioning Our Assumptions. In The Diversity Bonus: How Great Teams Pay off in the Knowledge Economy (pp. 223–245). Princeton University Press.Phillips, K. W., Liljenquist, K. A., & Neale, M. A. (2009). Is the Pain Worth the Gain? The Advantages and Liabilities of Agreeing with Socially Distinct Newcomers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(3), 336–350.Pinheiro, D. L. (2023). The Construction of Academic Prestige and Its Role in Knowledge Circulation. In W. Keim & L. Rodriguez-Medina (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Academic Knowledge Circulation (pp. 369–379). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Plaisance, K. S., & Elliott, K. C. (2021). A Framework for Analyzing Broadly Engaged Philosophy of Science. Philosophy of Science, 88(4), 594–615.Pohlhaus, G. (2012). Relational Knowing and Epistemic Injustice: Toward a Theory of “Willful Hermeneutical Ignorance.” Hypatia, 27(4), 715–735.Pohlhaus, G. (2014). Discerning the Primary Epistemic Harm in Cases of Testimonial Injustice. Social Epistemology, 28(2), 99–114.Pöyhönen, S. (2017). Value of cognitive diversity in science. Synthese, 194(11), 4519–4540.Proctor, R. (1991). Value-free Science?: Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. Harvard University Press.Proctor, R. (2011). Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition. University of California Press.Putnam, H. (2004). The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Harvard University Press.Quijano, A. (2000). Colonialidad del poder, eurocentrismo y América Latina. In E. Lander (Ed.), La colonialidad del saber. Eurocentrismo y ciencias sociales: Perspectivas latinoamericanas (pp. 193–234). CLACSO.Quine, W. V. (1980). Two dogmas of empiricism. In From a logical point of view: Nine logico-philosophical essays (pp. 20–46). Harvard University Press. (Original work published in 1953).Quine, W. V. (2013). Word and object. MIT Press. (Original work published in 1960).Quine, W. V., & Ullian, J. S. (1978). The web of belief. Random House.Raj, K. (2007). Relocating Modern Science: Circulation and the Construction of Knowledge in South Asia and Europe, 1650-1900. Palgrave Macmillan.Ramírez, V., & Rodriguez-Medina, L. (2023). Well-being and the internationalisation of academic life: An exploration from the periphery. Higher Education.Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice (Rev. ed). Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Rodríguez-Medina, L. (2014). Centers and Peripheries in Knowledge Production. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Rodriguez-Medina, L., Ferpozzi, H., Layna, J., Martin Valdez, E., & Kreimer, P. (2019). International Ties at Peripheral Sites: Co-producing Social Processes and Scientific Knowledge in Latin America. Science as Culture, 28(4), 562–588.Rodriguez-Medina, L., & Vessuri, H. (2021). Personal bonds in the internationalization of the social sciences: A view from the periphery. International Sociology, 36(3), 398–418.Rolin, K. (2011). Diversity and Dissent in the Social Sciences: The Case of Organization Studies. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 41(4), 470–494.Rolin, K. (2017). Scientific Community: A Moral Dimension. Social Epistemology, 31(5), 468–483.Rolin, K. (2020). The Epistemic Significance of Diversity. In M. Fricker, P. J. Graham, D. K. Henderson, & N. J. L. L. Pedersen (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Social Epistemology (pp. 158–166). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Rolin, K., Koskinen, I., Kuorikoski, J., & Reijula, S. (2023). Social and cognitive diversity in science: Introduction. Synthese, 202(2), 1–10.Roohi, S. (2023). Unbelonging as a Post-Colonial Predicament: My Tryst With European Academia. In O. Burlyuk & L. Rahbari (Eds.), Migrant Academics’ Narratives of Precarity and Resilience in Europe (1st ed., pp. 9–20). Open Book Publishers.Rooney, P. (1992). On Values in Science: Is the Epistemic/Non-Epistemic Distinction Useful? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1992, v. 1, 13–22.Rooney, P. (2017). The Borderlands Between Epistemic and Non-Epistemic Values. In K. C. Elliott & D. P. Steel (Eds.), Current Controversies in Values and Science (pp. 31–45). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Rosser, S. (1994). Androcentric bias in clinical research. In J. Kourany (Ed.), The Gender of Science (pp. 228–237). Prentice Hall.Rudner, R. (1953). The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgements. Philosophy of Science, 20(1), 1–6.Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism (1st ed). Pantheon Books.Sample, M. (2017). Silent performances: Are “repertoires” really post-Kuhnian? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 61, 51–56.Sample, M. (2022). Science, responsibility, and the philosophical imagination. Synthese, 200(2), 79.Schiebinger, L. (2007). Plants and empire: Colonial bioprospecting in the Atlantic world (First Harvard University Press paperback edition). Harvard University Press.Schmidt, L., & Pröpper, M. (2017). Transdisciplinarity as a real-world challenge: A case study on a North–South collaboration. Sustainability Science, 12(3), 365–379.Schroeder, S. A. (2022a). Diversifying science: Comparing the benefits of citizen science with the benefits of bringing more women into science. Synthese, 200(4), 306.Schroeder, S. A. (2022b). Thinking about Values in Science: Ethical versus Political Approaches. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 52(3), 246–255.Šešelja, D. (2022). Agent‐based models of scientific interaction. Philosophy Compass, 17(7).Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton University Press.Shaw, J. (2023). Peer Review, Innovation, and Predicting the Future of Science: The Scope of Lotteries in Science Funding Policy. Philosophy of Science, 90(5), 1297–1306.Siar, S. V. (2023). Highly skilled migration and knowledge circulation. In W. Keim & L. Rodriguez-Medina (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Academic Knowledge Circulation (pp. 134–147). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Sismondo, S. (2008). Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: A qualitative systematic review. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 29(2), 109–113.Sober, E. (2007). Evidence and Value Freedom. In H. Kincaid, J. Dupré, & A. Wylie (Eds.), Value-free Science? Ideals and Illusions (pp. 109–119). Oxford University Press.Solomon, M. (1992). Scientific Rationality and Human Reasoning. Philosophy of Science, 59(3), 439–455. JSTOR Journals.Solomon, M. (2001). Social empiricism. MIT Press.Solomon, M. (2008). STS and Social Epistemology of Science. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (3rd ed, pp. 241–258). The MIT Press.Steel, D., & Bolduc, N. (2020). A Closer Look at the Business Case for Diversity: The Tangled Web of Equity and Epistemic Benefits. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 50(5), 418–443.Steel, D., Fazelpour, S., Crewe, B., & Gillette, K. (2021). Information elaboration and epistemic effects of diversity. Synthese, 198(2), 1287–1307.Steel, D., Fazelpour, S., Gillette, K., Crewe, B., & Burgess, M. (2018). Multiple diversity concepts and their ethical-epistemic implications. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 8(3), 761–780.Steel, D., & Paier, K. (2022). Pro-Diversity Beliefs and the Diverse Person’s Burden. Synthese, 200(5), 357.Stewart, A. J., Copeland, A., Chester, N. L., Malley, J., & Barenbaum, N. (1997). Separating Together: How Divorce Transforms Families. Guilford Press.Sulik, J., Bahrami, B., & Deroy, O. (2022). The Diversity Gap: When Diversity Matters for Knowledge. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(3), 752–767.Táíwò, O. (2019). African Intellectuals: Occident Anxiety. Africa in Fact, 49, 23–27.Táíwò, O. (2022). Against Decolonisation: Taking African Agency Seriously. Hurst & Company.Táíwò, O. O. (2021). Being-in-the-Room Privilege: Elite Capture and Epistemic Deference. The Philosopher 1923, 108(4), 61–70.Tanesini, A. (2021). The Mismeasure of the Self: A Study in Vice Epistemology. Oxford University Press.Tanesini, A. (2022). Intellectual Vices in Conditions of Oppression: The Turn to the Political in Virtue Epistemology. In D. Bordonaba Plou, V. Fernández Castro, & J. R. Torices (Eds.), The Political Turn in Analytic Philosophy: Reflections on Social Injustice and Oppression (pp. 77–104). De Gruyter.Tuana, N. (2006). The speculum of ignorance: The women’s health movement and epistemologies of ignorance. Hypatia, 21(3), 198–213.Vasen, F., & Lujano Vilchis, I. (2017). Sistemas nacionales de clasificación de revistas científicas en América Latina: Tendencias recientes e implicaciones para la evaluación académica en ciencias sociales. 231, 199–228.Vessuri, H. (2006). Academic Science in Twentieth-century Latin America. In J. J. Saldaña (Ed.), Science in Latin America: A History (pp. 197–231). University of Texas Press.Vessuri, H. (2017). From science as “development assistance” to “global philanthropy.” In D. Tyfield, R. Lave, S. Randalls, & C. Thorpe (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of Science (pp. 405–415). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Vessuri, H., & Cancino, R. (2018). Science and Technology in Development. In H. Callan (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology (1st ed., pp. 1–9). Wiley.Vessuri, H., Guédon, J.-C., & Cetto, A. M. (2014). Excellence or quality? Impact of the current competition regime on science and scientific publishing in Latin America and its implications for development. Current Sociology, 62(5), 647–665.Voges, J. (2023). The Role of Bibliographic Indices for Knowledge Circulation. In W. Keim & L. Rodriguez-Medina (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Academic Knowledge Circulation (pp. 214–222). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Waisbich, L. T., Roychoudhury, S., & Haug, S. (2021). Beyond the single story: ‘Global South’ polyphonies. Third World Quarterly, 42(9), 2086–2095.Wallerstein, I. M. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Duke University Press.Ward, Z. B. (2021). On Value-laden Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 85, 54–62.Weber, M. (2012). Science as a Profession and Vocation. In H. H. Bruun & S. Whimster (Eds.), Collected Methodological Writings. Taylor & Francis Group. (Original work published 1919).Weisberg, M., & Muldoon, R. (2009). Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor. Philosophy of Science, 76(2), 225–252.Whyte, K. P. (2013). On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: A philosophical study. Ecological Processes, 2, 7.Wilholt, T. (2009). Bias and values in scientific research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 40(1), 92–101.Wolf, A. B. (2020). Just Immigration in the Americas: A Feminist Account. Rowman & Littlefield.Wolff, J. (2024). Structural Harm, Structural Injustice, Structural Repair. In J. Browne & M. McKeown (Eds.), What Is Structural Injustice? (pp. 12–30). Oxford University Press.Wu, J. (2023). Epistemic advantage on the margin: A network standpoint epistemology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 106(3), 755–777.Wu, J., & O’Connor, C. (2023). How should we promote transient diversity in science? Synthese, 201(2), 37.Wylie, A. (2003). Why Standpoint Matters. In R. Figueroa & S. G. Harding (Eds.), Science and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology (pp. 26–48). Routledge.Wylie, A. (2006). When Difference Makes a Difference. Episteme, 3(1–2), 1–7.Wylie, A. (2015). A Plurality of Pluralisms: Collaborative Practice in Archaeology. In F. Padovani, A. Richardson, & J. Y. Tsou (Eds.), Objectivity in Science: New Perspectives from Science and Technology Studies (pp. 189–210). Springer.Yegros-Yegros, A., Van De Klippe, W., Abad-Garcia, M. F., & Rafols, I. (2020). Exploring why global health needs are unmet by research efforts: The potential influences of geography, industry and publication incentives. Health Research Policy and Systems, 18(1), 47.Yen, C.-P. (2021). Linguistic diversity in philosophy. In D. Ludwig, I. Koskinen, Z. Mncube, L. Poliseli, & L. Reyes-Galindo (Eds.), Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science (pp. 26–38). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.Young, I. M. (2004). Responsibility and Global Labor Justice. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(4), 365–388.Young, I. M. (2007). Structural Injustice and the Politics of Difference. In K. A. Appiah, G. H. Lenz, S. Benhabib, I. M. Young, N. Fraser, & A. Dallmann (Eds.), Justice, Governance, Cosmopolitanism, and the Politics of Difference: Reconfigurations in a Transnational World (Distinguished W.E.B. Du Bois Lectures 2004/2005) (pp. 79–116). Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Young, I. M. (2011). Responsibility for Justice. Oxford University Press.Zack, N. (2003). Geography and Ideas of Race. In R. Figueroa & S. G. Harding (Eds.), Science and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology (pp. 201–221). Routledge.Zollman, K. J. S. (2010). The Epistemic Benefit of Transient Diversity. Erkenntnis, 72(1), 17–35.Zukerfeld, M., Liaudat, S., Terlizzi, M. S., Monti, C., & Unzurrunzaga, C. (2023). El fantasma de la piratería: Las vías ilegales de acceso a la literatura científica en el CONICET (Argentina). Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, 18(52), 221–252.202022970Publicationhttps://scholar.google.es/citations?user=LVILvX8AAAAJvirtual::22099-10000-0003-2134-8068virtual::22101-1https://scienti.minciencias.gov.co/cvlac/visualizador/generarCurriculoCv.do?cod_rh=0001640390virtual::22099-1https://scienti.minciencias.gov.co/cvlac/visualizador/generarCurriculoCv.do?cod_rh=0000191272virtual::22101-1c970c56b-6f73-4a66-987c-4f8eb3db7f59virtual::22099-1c970c56b-6f73-4a66-987c-4f8eb3db7f59virtual::22099-122d18f9f-667c-4fb1-b035-4e8d728899b8virtual::22100-119a9f337-78d5-4488-9a0f-a73c497534c6virtual::22101-122d18f9f-667c-4fb1-b035-4e8d728899b8virtual::22100-119a9f337-78d5-4488-9a0f-a73c497534c6virtual::22101-1ORIGINALFormato entrega tesis repositorio uniandes.pdfFormato entrega tesis repositorio uniandes.pdfHIDEapplication/pdf185974https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstreams/014a592c-d954-4a0d-bfc4-92f6b29c6bbf/download52a604bdce039763fe551bc3e9d65fb3MD51Values and Global Science.pdfValues and Global Science.pdfapplication/pdf1598904https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstreams/de6f2040-9e66-4a6f-943e-8f74e5b7324b/download3d9b1686771182489b3aa00079d6001eMD52LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-82535https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstreams/4bfb19ba-c83e-4c2c-903e-e8d94ce90b3e/downloadae9e573a68e7f92501b6913cc846c39fMD53CC-LICENSElicense_rdflicense_rdfapplication/rdf+xml; charset=utf-8908https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstreams/1b329951-8884-4a33-a8eb-9357bf8bb2b0/download0175ea4a2d4caec4bbcc37e300941108MD54TEXTFormato entrega tesis repositorio uniandes.pdf.txtFormato entrega tesis repositorio uniandes.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain2081https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstreams/2e1d874f-c9ab-4832-ac67-074d12b71bb0/downloadb82942467f806304d8a91199413ad303MD55Values and Global Science.pdf.txtValues and Global Science.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain100940https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstreams/0992890f-1214-49af-940a-c0537a209b22/download8eaabb51237a8611c6396d82ca0c6a04MD57THUMBNAILFormato entrega tesis repositorio uniandes.pdf.jpgFormato entrega tesis repositorio uniandes.pdf.jpgGenerated Thumbnailimage/jpeg11170https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstreams/7b16794f-b051-4250-b027-ff49bb8ed3bd/download1e2666a53df04e2d6dca9701208f66feMD56Values and Global Science.pdf.jpgValues and Global Science.pdf.jpgGenerated Thumbnailimage/jpeg5461https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstreams/8614c476-871f-4e49-bddd-a06933a45c07/download1ee5563fc315979a47b6a9a1d519c8b6MD581992/75428oai:repositorio.uniandes.edu.co:1992/754282025-03-05 09:44:44.185http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Attribution 4.0 Internationalopen.accesshttps://repositorio.uniandes.edu.coRepositorio institucional Sénecaadminrepositorio@uniandes.edu.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

Publicaciones similares