Epistemic choices, struggles and inequalities in scientific publishing: A mixed-methods study focusing on African forest governance researchers

Abstract In recent years, scientific communities across disciplines have called for addressing the inequalities that structure their respective fields. Their calls are supported by a growing body of studies concerned with geographical and gender-related inequalities in scientific publishing. However, a persistent disconnect remains between quantitative and qualitative analyses, preventing an understanding of how authorship patterns relate to researchers’ experiences of publishing. Moreover, there is a paucity of studies theorising the results obtained for a more comprehensive understanding of macro-micro-linkages. We address this gap with a mixed-methods study on publishing in forest governance research that draws on and advances Bourdieusian theory by shifting the spotlight on epistemic choices and struggles in relation to researchers’ capital and field positions. Using a bricolage approach, we triangulate quantitative bibliometric and qualitative interview analysis in an integrative mixed-methods design. We empirically show how geographical and gender inequalities emerging at the publication level (authors and articles) relate to the epistemic choices and struggles experienced by African forest governance researchers. The study highlights the potential of applying a coherent theoretical frame in mixed-methods research on inequalities in scientific publishing across local and international spaces. Peer Review https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/QSS.a.484