Styles of Academic Production in the Argentine Social Sciences

Heterogeneity and Heterodoxy


  • Juan Ignacio Piovani



Argentina, social sciences, styles of production


Argentina is an appealing case for analyzing the social science system. In recent years (until 2015) there has been a robust increase in public funding, giving way to the expansion of research, the recruitment of hundreds of new full-time researchers and the consolidation of scholarships for PhD students. All this, in turn, has resulted in a remarkable increase in publications. Although these processes have occurred in the midst of professionalization (which implies higher levels of adherence to international academic standards), recent studies have shown that two contesting models within the social sciences continue to prevail in Argentina: one that conforms to international standards and practices, and another of a more endogenous nature, with its own logic for knowledge production, evaluation and circulation. In order to examine the impact of international standards in the Argentine social sciences, in this paper I analyze the styles of academic production. This implies the study of three closely related dimensions: research processes and models (theoretical foundations, methods, techniques, etc.); writing formats (structure and organization of academic texts); and publication logics (types of publications, profiles of the journals where the articles are published, etc.). The analysis is based on a large sample of publications selected by other researchers in order to carry out a comprehensive review of Argentine literature with regard to six key themes of the social sciences. These publications were also used to produce a dataset with several variables related to the three above-mentioned dimensions. In particular, this paper focuses on the publications grounded in empirical research, and compares qualitative with quantitative research and the various types of publications (journal articles, book chapters and conference papers). The results show that regardless of the recent process of professionalization, “heterodox models” of academic production are still largely pervasive within the Argentine social sciences.


Alatas, Syed Farid (2003) Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences, Current Sociology 51(6): 599–613.

Baranger, Denis (2011) Antropología social y sociología argentinas: identidades disciplinares en cuatro congresos, Revista Latinoamericana de Metodología de las Ciencias Sociales 1(2): 23–59.

Baranger, Denis and Fernanda Niño (forthcoming) El espacio de las disciplinas sociales en el CONICET, in: Denis Baranger, Fernanda Beigel and Juan Ignacio Piovani (Eds.) Las ciencias sociales en la Argentina contemporánea, Buenos Aires: CLACSO.

Bazerman, Charles (1988) Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science, Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Beigel, Fernanda (2014) Introduction: Current tensions and trends in the World Scientific System, Current Sociology 62(5): 617–625.

Beigel, Fernanda (2017a) Científicos Periféricos, entre Ariel y Calibán. Saberes Institucionales y Circuitos de Consagración en Argentina: Las Publicaciones de los Investigadores del CONICET, Dados – Revista de Ciências Sociais 60(3): 825–865.

Beigel, Fernanda (2017b) Un mapeo de las ciencias sociales argentinas, Dialogo Global 7(4): 31–36.

Beigel, Fernanda and Maximiliano Salatino (2015) Circuitos segmentados de consagración académica: las revistas de Ciencias Sociales y Humanas en la Argentina, Información, cultura y sociedad 32: 11–35.

Brain, Lord (1965) Structure of the Scientific Paper, British Medical Journal 2: 868–869.

Burawoy, Michael (2005) For Public Sociology, American Sociological Review 70: 4–28.

Calvo, Ernesto, Sofía Elverdín, Gabriel Kessler and María Victoria Murillo (2019) Investigando las influencias internacionales en las ciencias sociales argentinas, Revista Latinoamericana de Metodología de las Ciencias Sociales 9(2),

Collyer, Fran (2018) Global Patterns in the Publishing of Academic Knowledge: Global North, Global South, Current Sociology 66 (1): 56–73.

Danell, Rickard (2013) Geographical diversity and changing communication regimes. A study of publication activity and international citation patterns, in: Rickard Danell, Anna Larsson and Per Wisselgren (Eds.) Social Science in Context: Historical, Sociological, and Global Perspectives, Lund: Nordic Academic Press, 177–190.

Day, Robert A. (1989) The Origins of the Scientific Paper: The IMRAD Format, American Medical Writers Association Journal 4(2): 16–25.

Gantman, Ernesto R. (2011) La productividad científica argentina en ciencias sociales: economía, psicología, sociología y ciencia política en el CONICET (2004-2008), Revista Española de Documentación Científica 34(3): 408–425.

Gibert Galassi, Jorge (2013) Autonomía y dependencia en las ciencias sociales latinoamericanas: un estudio de bibliometría, epistemología y política, Buenos Aires: CLACSO.

Guédon, Jean-Claude (2011) El acceso abierto y la división entre ciencia “principal” y “periférica,” Crítica y emancipació, 6: 135–180.

Hanafi, Sari (2011) University systems in the Arab East: Publish globally and perish locally vs. publish locally and perish globally, Current Sociology 59(3): 291–309.

Heilbron, Johan (2014) The social sciences as an emerging global field, Current Sociology 62(5): 685–703.

Martín, Eloísa (2013) (Re)producción de desigualdades y (re)producción de conocimiento: La presencia latinoamericana en la publicación académica internacional en Ciencias Sociales, Working Papers Series, 59, 1–29.

Mosbah-Natanson, Sébastien and Yves Gingras (2014) The globalization of social sciences? Evidence from a quantitative analysis of 30 years of production, collaboration and citations in the social sciences (1980–2009), Current Sociology 62(5): 626–646.

Ortiz, Renato (2009) La supremacía del inglés en las ciencias sociales, Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.

Peirano, Fernando, Nicolás Freibrun and Cecilia Sleiman (2015) “Las nuevas políticas públicas y el cambio en la representación social de los doctores,” Sociedad 34: 5–11.

Piovani, Juan Ignacio (2014) La formazione metodologica dei ricercatori sociali in America Latina, Sociologia e ricerca sociale 104: 147–156.

Piovani, Juan Ignacio (2015a) El Programa de Investigación sobre la Sociedad Argentina Contemporánea. Sociedad 34: 85–105.

Piovani, Juan Ignacio (2015b) Algunos desafíos para la evaluación académica en Ciencias Sociales, Controversias y Concurrencias Latinoamericanas 7(12): 25–40.

Piovani, Juan Ignacio (2017) Argentina under scrutiny, Global Dialogue 7(4): 30–31.

Piovani, Juan Ignacio (2018) Estilos de producción en el campo de las ciencias sociales en Argentina. CIC. Cuad. inf. com 23: 125–141.

Sollaci, Luciana B. and Mauricio G. Pereira (2004) The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey, Journal of the Medical Library Association 92(3): 364–371.

Unzué, Martín (2015) Nuevas políticas públicas de formación de doctores en Argentina, Sociedad 34: 12–34.

Vessuri, Hebe (1995) Recent strategies for adding value to scientific journals in Latin-America, Scientometrics 34(1): 139–161.

Vessuri, Hebe, Jean-Claude Guédon and Ana María Cetto (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.




How to Cite

Piovani, J. I. (2020) “Styles of Academic Production in the Argentine Social Sciences: Heterogeneity and Heterodoxy”, Serendipities. Journal for the Sociology and History of the Social Sciences, 4(1), pp. 27–48. doi: 10.7146/serendipities.v4i1.123022.