On 15–19 October 1990, the International Conference convened at the Unesco Annex in Paris. The event was sponsored by the Institut Francais de Recherche Scientifique pour le Développement en Cooperation (ORSTOM), and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS). Approximately 65 scientists and policy makers from Asia Latin America, Africa, and the United States gathered to present their findings on the use of bibliographic databases to assess scientific activity in their regions. They sought to identify measures of scientific development, to determine how scientific communication takes place in various disciplines and parts of the world, and to identify techniques for monitoring research. Selected papers will appear in Scientometrics. What follows here is one attendee’s reflection on some key ideas discussed at the conference, with all of the cultural and intellectual biases inherent in such a personal report.
I write this now in America’s cultural equivalent of a Paris sidewalk café: a bar off the lobby in the Palmer House hotel in Chicago. The similarities are striking: small groups gathered to exchange the news of the day, to make political deals, to see and be seen. Every now and again, someone glances up to see who is walking by in the main lobby, as the Parisian might look to see who is passing on the street. The needs of people to gather, to talk, to tell stories, are universal. But there the similarities end. We are encased in a structure of steel and marble, and cannot see the winds and snow outside. Just in front of me a television screen mumbles about the weather, and about upcoming events in the city. To my left, two computer screens display drink orders.
One of the great advantages of international travel is the opportunity it presents to observe the challenges faced by other cultures. We Americans, for example take our research libraries for granted, and we expect librarians to find any information we want. We depend on a telephone system that does work, and a postal system that also works. We also take for granted a certain kind of science, not necessarily the kind that is found in other cultures. I would like to share my impressions of some differences — made evident at the conference — between American or First World science (and scientists) and their counterparts in the Third World.
At the meeting Third World science was characterized as problem oriented — science with a specific objective, aiming to resolve a national or regional problem. Practical solutions are sought for problems that are affecting the health, welfare, or safety of the people. The agenda of Third World Science is set at the national level and “frivolous” topics are not encouraged. In science education the focus is on immediate problems.
First World science, on the other hand, seeks answers to questions that have no immediate application. It is free to explore the nature of the universe, from the properties of a star to those of some suboceanic structure. Scientists freely pursue any topic. Science education encourages curiosity, experimentation, and rigorous methodology.
These are gross generalizations, but they illuminate a struggle by Third World scientists to define their own approaches to an understanding of the world. The conference was infused with their need to develop a unique Third World science. It was troubling for them to cope culturally with a core element of Western science, peer review. We in America take criticism for granted, as much as libraries and functional telephones. We may dread the appearance in the mailbox of an article returned to us covered with red ink, but we know that usually our work is improved by the critiques of others. We share our manuscripts with colleagues, expecting some suggestions for improvement. I gather from comments at the conference that this sort of critical exchange is not operative in the Third World. In that context, a scholar’s work is inviolate, left to stand on its own merits.
The hope for a new model to define Third World science must include a means of insuring rigorous methodology. Possibly a different mechanism from ours may be needed to bring about critical review, but the result in any case must be able to withstand peer criticism.
What librarians can do in the interest of advancing the work of scientists in the Third World is to communicate to library users the fact that librarians understand scholarly communication and the sources of information, and that they know how to present information from all formats in useful ways. At the conference it was clear that this is a pressing need. Librarians also understand bibliographic control, although they are not always able to achieve it. Despite the promise of high technology and visions of massive numbers of journals on CD–ROMs, the task of identifying a nation’s scientific literature remains fundamental. In the Third World it is a need as basic as the requirement for functional postal and telephonic systems. Progress is being made, and technology is helping. But organizations need to make their documents available, and libraries need to seek them out, even when — because of insufficient power supply — the fax will just not go through.
Gretchen Whitney is an Assistant Professor in the Graduate Library School, University of Arizona.
© 1991 Gretchen Whitney.