Cooperation in the latin american behavioral sciences

International cooperation in all areas of science has increased over the years Gama & Velho, 2005; Kliegl & Bates,2011;Leydesdorff&Wagner,2009;Wagner,2006.The data available for Latin Am

Agnaldo Garciaa, Wilson López-Lópezb,∗, César A Acevedo-Trianab,

aUniversidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Vitoria, Brazil

bPontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia

cUniversidade Católica de Brasília, Brasilia, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received30June2016

Accepted26August2016

Availableonline26September2016

Keywords:

Scientificcooperation

Latin-America

Psychology

Academiccommunities

Motivation

a b s t r a c t This study investigated the motivation for establishing partnerships, how these part-nerships are evaluated, and the difficulties encountered in the partnerships among Latin-Americanresearchersinbehavioralsciences.AhundredLatin-Americanresearchers whohadpublishedscientificworkindexedinPsycinfoinwhichanotherauthorfromthe continentparticipated.Theparticipantsansweredaquestionnaireontheabove-mentioned topics.Theresultsindicatedthatthemainreasonsforestablishingpartnershipswithother Latin-Americansweretoseekbroaderandmoresignificantresultsandincreased produc-tivityorthevisibilityandrecognitionofproduction.Asregardstheevaluationoftheresults

ofthepartnership,mostparticipantsindicated thatthepartnershiphasresultedinan increaseinpublicationsandpublicationsofhigherscientificlevelandgreatervisibility Severaldifficultieswererecognized,whichingeneral,wereaccessandcommunicationin ordertomaintainthepartnership.Themaindifficultiesinconductingresearchwererelated

tothefinalwritingofthepaper,asanarticle,chapterorother,aswellasdatacollection

Intermsofworkinfrastructure,themainbarrierswerefinancialconstraintsandlackof timetodevotetothepartnership.Itcanbeconcludedthatthemainreasonstocooperate arequalitativeandquantitativeadvances,andthatthedifficultiesinthepartnershipsare secondary

©2016Fundaci ´onUniversitariaKonradLorenz.PublishedbyElsevierEspa ˜na,S.L.U.This

isanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/

licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

∗ Corresponding author.

E-mailaddress:lopezw@javeriana.edu.co(W.López-López)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sumpsi.2016.08.002

0121-4381/©2016Fundaci ´onUniversitariaKonradLorenz.PublishedbyElsevierEspa ˜na,S.L.U.Thisisanopenaccessarticleunderthe

CCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Cooperación en las ciencias del comportamiento latinoamericanas: Motivación, evaluación y dificultades

Palabras clave:

Cooperacióncientífica

AméricaLatina

Psicología

Comunidadesacadémicas

Motivación

r e s u m e n Esteestudioinvestigóla motivaciónparaelestablecimientodeasociacionespara coo-peración, cómo se evalúan estas asociacionesy lasdificultades encontradas entrelos investigadoreslatinoamericanosencienciasdelaconducta.Participaronuncentenarde investigadoreslatinoamericanosquehabíanpublicadotrabajoscientíficosindexadosen Psycinfoconotroautordelcontinente.Losparticipantesrespondieronauncuestionario sobrelostemasantesmencionados.Losresultadosindicaronquelasprincipalesrazones paraelestablecimientodeasociacionesparacooperarconotroslatinoamericanosfueron: buscarresultadosmásampliosysignificativosyaumentodelaproductividadodela visi-bilidadyelreconocimientodelaproducción.Encuantoalaevaluacióndelosresultados

delaasociación,lamayoríaindicóquelaasociaciónsehatraducidoenaumentodelas publicaciones,enpublicacionesdemayornivelcientíficoyenunamayorvisibilidad.Se reconocieronvariasdificultades.Engeneral,lasprincipalesdificultadesfueronelacceso

ylacomunicaciónparamantenerlaasociación.Lasprincipalesdificultadesparallevara cabolainvestigaciónserelacionanconlaredacciónfinaldeldocumento,comounartículo, capítulouotro,ylarecopilacióndedatos.Encuantoalainfraestructuradetrabajo,las principalesbarrerasfueronlaslimitacionesfinancierasylafaltadetiempoparadedicara

laasociación.Sepuedeconcluirquelasprincipalesrazonesparacooperarsonlosavances cualitativosycuantitativos,yquelasdificultadesenlasasociacionessonsecundarias

©2016Fundaci ´onUniversitariaKonradLorenz.PublicadoporElsevierEspa ˜na,S.L.U Esteesunart´ıculoOpenAccessbajolalicenciaCCBY-NC-ND(http://creativecommons

org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

International cooperation in all areas of science has

increased over the years (Gama & Velho, 2005; Kliegl &

Bates,2011;Leydesdorff&Wagner,2009;Wagner,2006).The

data available for Latin America also point to the growth

of international cooperation in various fields of science

(Fernández,Gómez, &Sebastián,1998; Fernández,Frank,&

Pittaluga, 2005; Paz López & María Taborga, 2013; Russell

& Ainsworth, 2013; Russell, Ainsworth, Del Río,

Narváez-Berthelemot,&Cortés,2007;Vanz,2009)includingbysocial

networks(Pinto,Efrain-García,RodríguezBarquín,&Moreira

González, 2007) The growth of international cooperation

also affects psychology, as found in a study of the

pro-duction which occurred resulting from cooperation in the

1975–2007 period,in12 ofthe leading journals of

Psychol-ogy(García-Pereira & Quevedo-Blasco, 2015;Kliegl &Bates,

2011;Quevedo-Blasco&López-López,2011).However,

scien-tificcooperationseemstobelesssignificantwhenitcomes

toIberoorLatinAmericanproductioninPsychology

(García-Martínez,Guerrero-Bote, Hassan-Montero, & Moya-Anegón,

2009;García-Martínez,Guerrero-Bote,&Moya-Anegón,2012)

López-López et al (2010) found low levels of cooperation

in the Ibero American Psychology, pointing to the

diffi-cultyofestablishingand maintaining networksofnational

and international cooperation López, Silva,García-Cepero,

Bustamante,andLópez(2011)alsoobservedlackof

coopera-tioninLatinAmericanPsychology,basedonjournalarticles

in LatinAmerica included in the Redalyc system between

2005and2007,suggestingthatresearchcommunitiesinLatin

Americahaveyettobearticulatedconcerningresearchand

publications,highlightingtheneedtostrengthencooperation

networks Thesefindings provide thebasis ofwhatcanbe the firstattemptsinourcommunitytoconsolidatean aca-demiccommunity,whichwebelievecouldbedecisiveinthe scientificandtechnologicaldevelopmentofourregion

In a documentary related to investigation on scientific cooperation between countries in Latin America based on Psycinfo data for the period 2001–2010, Garcia, Acevedo-Triana,andLópez-López(2014)foundlowlevelsofscientific cooperation between Latin American countries in Psychol-ogy and related sciences, with a total of 528 publications for the decade.Countries that published morecooperative investigation inthe periodwere Brazil,Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, Chile and Peru These resultsare coherent with other researches on cooperation (López-López, de Moya Anegón,Acevedo-Triana,Garcia,&Silva,2015).Thetentative explanationforthatrevolvesaroundlackofcommunication between researchersand the standards ofcompetitiveness thathindercooperation

Theliteratureoninternationalscientificcooperation gen-erally indicates more advantages than disadvantages in cooperationprogramsbetweencountries.Furthermore, scien-tificcooperationis–inlocalcontexts –amainvariablefor productionwithinresearchgroups (Ramírez,MihiRamírez,

& Noguera Hidalgo, 2014) Similarly, this literature points more reasons tocooperate internationally than difficulties and problemstoovercomeinthesepartnerships.Vanzand Stumpf(2009,2010)proposedalistofreasonsfornationalor internationalscientificcooperationbasedonthe systemati-zationofnationalandinternationalliteratureonthesubject, including–interalia–thefollowing:

“1 Desireto increasescientificpopularity, visibility and

personalrecognition;2.Increaseinproductivity;3

Ratio-naluseofscientificlabor,workandtimespentonresearch;

4.Reducing the possibility oferror; 5 Obtainingand/or

expandingfunding, resources,specialequipment,

mate-rials;6.Increasingspecializationinscience;7.Abilityto

“attack”themajorresearchproblems; 8.Increasing

pro-fessionalization of science; 9 Desire to increase their

experience through the experience of other scientists;

10.Desiretoperformmultidisciplinaryresearch“(Vanz&

Stumpf,2010,pp.50–51)

According to Luukkonen, Persson, and Sivertsen (1992),

internationalcooperationismotivatedbyindirectanddirect

reasons.Themainindirectmotivationsincludestrategic

moti-vations directed by governments or agencies of a social,

political, economic, military or cultural nature The direct

motivations include: (a) access to knowledge, skills and

expertsinscienceandtechnology;(b)accesstouniqueplaces

andpopulationgroupsandtheirdata;(c)divisionofcostsand

risks;(d)aidinglobalenvironmentalissuesandpublichealth;

(e)theestablishmentofnormativestandardsofscienceand

technologydevelopment.Inthissense,theconditionsinthe

regionofLatinAmericadonotallowtoeasilyovercomethese

drawbacks,whichsuggestsadistancetogeneratecooperation

processes

Silva(2007)presentsthepossibilityofachievingcommon

goalsinaglobalizedworldasanadvantageofinternational

cooperation,openingupopportunitiesfordeveloping

coun-tries.Theauthorsuggeststhatthebenefitsincludesharing

costs,accesstoexpertise,technologyandfacilities,political

reinforcementtotheproject/programandthecreationofgood

relations.Asforrisks,theauthorincludeslossoffreedomof

actionandthecreationofdependency,inadditiontoincreased

managementcomplexity,amongothers

Wagner(2006)identifiesfivemainreasonswhyresearchers

areengagedininternationalcooperativeactivities:(a)theycan

increasetheirvisibilityamongpeersandexplore

complemen-tarycapabilities;(b)theycansharethecostsofprojectsthat

arelargeinscaleorscope;(c)theycanaccessorshare

expen-sivephysicalresources;(d)theycanachievegreaterleverageto

sharetheirdata;and(e)theyneedtoexchangeideasinorder

toencouragegreatercreativity.Furthermore,Narin,Stevens,

andWhitlow(1991)showedthatcooperationincreasesthe

vis-ibilityandtheimpactofscientificinvestigation,especiallyin

documentssignedbyvariouscountries

According to Wagner and Leydesdorff, (2006), the

net-works establishedbyinternational collaboration inscience

andtechnologyprovideopportunitiesfordevelopingcountries

toacquireknowledgeforlocaldevelopment,butthereis

lit-tleindicationofhowtomanagethesenetworkedsystems.The

potentialformisunderstandingsandobstaclestoorganizethe

networksaresignificant.ForOkubo andZitt(2004)modern

meansofcommunicationfacilitatescientificexchange,and

internationalprogramshaveprovidedeconomicincentivesfor

cooperation.However,collaborationbetweenscientistsfrom

different countries is not straightforward Specific barriers

relatedtolanguage,culturalorgeographicaldistancemustbe

overcome.VílchezdeSalazarandFloresUrbáez(2004)indicate

financialfactorsasobstaclesandlimitationstointernational

scientificcooperation,aswellasphysicalandtechnological infrastructure,institutionalstandards,availabilityofhuman resources, little formality of the process of international cooperationin theuniversity, the universityadministrative bureaucracyandthelowcultureofinnovationand coopera-tion.Besidesadvantagesanddisadvantages,theauthorshave investigatedfactorsassociatedwiththeexistenceor develop-ment ofinternationalscientificcooperationordeterminant factorsofcooperation.Inthiscase,geographicalproximityis

animportantfactor,enhancedbythecultural/linguistic prox-imityorgeopoliticalproximity(Bassecoulard,Okubo,&Zitt, 2001;Okubo&Zitt,2004)

These findings suggest difficulty to cooperate.However, thesehurdlescouldbeovercomeifthereisastrengthening

oftheacademiccommunityoftheregion.Inaddition,todate theseconditionscouldbeafirststepinthecreationof mech-anismstoovercomethem.Giventheimportanceofscientific cooperationfortheadvancementofPsychologyandrelated sciencesinLatinAmericaandtheindicationsintheliterature

oflackofwidercooperationonthecontinent,thisstudy inves-tigatedthemotivation toestablish partnerships,howthese partnershipswereevaluatedandthedifficultiesencountered

inthesameamongLatinAmericanresearchersinthe behav-ioralsciences

Method

Participants

Theparticipantswere 100LatinAmerican researcherswho hadpublishedanarticleinajournalindexedbyPsycinfoin collaborationwithanotherLatinAmericanauthor(s).Potential participantswereidentifiedandlocatedbasedoninformation frompublicationsidentifiedinthefirststage.Theinclusion criteriaforparticipationintheresearchwere:(a)tobelinked

toaresearchinstitutionoruniversitybasedinLatinAmerica; (b)tohavepublisheddocumentsincollaborationwithLatin Americanauthorsofanothercountryintheperiodbetween

2001and2010

Data collection procedure

Once identified, potential participants were invited to par-ticipate and answer the questionnaire on their research partnershipswithotherLatinAmericanauthors

Instruments

Aquestionnairewasdevelopedtobeusedspecificallyinthis investigation,whichaimedtoidentifythefactorsthat moti-vatedthepartnershipfromalistofpossibilitiesbasedonthe literatureon scientificcooperation.Other questions sought

toinvestigatehowthe participantsevaluatedthe resultsof thepartnership.Finally,wesoughttoidentifythedifficulties

inestablishingand maintaininginternational partnerships This question was divided into three sub-items The first itemsoughttoobtaininformationonthegeneraldifficulties Theseconditemexploredinformationondifficultiesin con-ductingtheinvestigationitself.Finally,thethirditemaimed

atobtaining informationon difficulties related to research

infrastructure

Data analysis procedure

Datafromthequestionnairesweretabulatedandpresented

withthehelpofdescriptivestatistics.Openquestionswere

analyzedwiththeuseofcontentanalysis

Results

Ascientificpartnershipwitharesearcherfromanother

coun-try brings along a number of difficulties and costs that

exceedthosefacedinlocalornationalpartnerships,despite

the advantagesassociatedthereto Thus,this investigation

undertook tounderstand the reasons whyLatin American

researchers sought alliances with researchers from other

LatinAmericancountries.Thistypeofinformationaimedat

understandingthefactorsinvolvedinfindingLatinAmerican

partnersbeforeconductingaspecificinvestigation.However,

itwasalsoconsideredimportanttounderstandhowa

part-nershipwouldbeevaluatedbysomeonewhohadparticipated

intheprocessonceestablished,andafterbringingaproduct

(scientificpaperorchapter)tofruition.Inthissense,the

objec-tivewastounderstandtheperceptionofresearchersbefore

andafterachievingascientificpartnershipwithotherLatin

Americanresearchers.Finally,wesoughttounderstandthe

difficultiesperceivedinthecourseofthesepartnershipsto

bringtogetherelementsthatwouldallowtoreflectonwaysto

optimizethesepartnerships,includingitslimitingfactors

Thisarticlepresentstheresultsaboutthesethreepoints

investigated: (a) the motivating factors to establish

scien-tificpartnershipswithresearchersfromotherLatinAmerican

countries;(b)howresearchersevaluatesuchcooperationor

scientificpartnership;and(c)thedifficultiesencounteredin

thispartnership.Thisarticleisbasedondatacollectedusing

aquestionnaireansweredby100LatinAmericanresearchers

workinginthefieldofbehavioralsciencesandreferto

part-nershipsthatgeneratedatleastonepublicationindexedin

Psycinfo–adatabaseorganizedbytheAmericanPsychological

Associationfrom2001to2010

Motivation for cooperation

The establishment of partnerships and scientific

coopera-tion is based on different reasons or motivating factors

Basedontheliteratureonscientificcooperation,four

differ-entalternativeswerepresentedtoparticipantsasmotivation

toparticipateinascientificalliancewithotherLatinAmerican

researcher.Participantscouldalsoindicateandspecifyother

factors,iftheydeemednecessary.The100participantscould

indicateoneormorefactorstocooperate.Table1indicatesthe

motivationfactortoestablishpartnerships

Mostparticipantsweremotivatedtoparticipatein

inter-nationalcooperationwithotherLatinAmericanresearchers

in order to search for broader or more significant results,

followed by the expected increase in productivity or the

visibilityandrecognitionofproductionandthepossibilityof

accesstonewmethodsorresearchresources.Theexpansion

Table1–Motivationtoestablishpartnerships

43

Note:Frequencybyeachmotivationfactor

ofthepossibilityofobtainingfundingwaslessindicatedas

amotivatingfactorforthepartnership.Twenty-two partici-pantsindicatedother factorsbeyondthoseproposedbythe research instrument These factors were grouped into the groupsbelow.Somehavereferredtoahistoricalfactor,which wouldenableorfacilitatesuchpartnerships,referringtothe existence of an agreement with Latin American countries (participants13,57,89,92)ortheexistenceofprevious coop-erationhistory(24,93).TheexchangewithcolleaguesinLatin Americahasalsobeenmentioned,sothatthesepartnerships have been motivatedby the possibility of exchanging and rapprochement withLatinAmerican colleagues (27, 31,34,

56, 82) Another motivation was to develop, integrate or disseminateknowledgeaboutaspecificarea(7,33,97).These partnerships have also been motivated by complementary possibilities,allowingcomparativestudiesbetweencountries (63)andtechnicalcomplementationoraccesstoparticipants (59,94,100).Cooperationwasalsomotivatedbythepossibility

oftraininghumanresourcesondrugs(86).Finally, coopera-tionwasseenassomethingworthwhileinitself,creatingthe possibilityofdevelopingstudies,simplecollaborationor com-moninterest(34,60,81)anditislinkedtofriendshipandtrust (34,67)

Thethreemostfrequentlycitedfactorsindicatethat moti-vationisascientificbreakthroughastheintrinsicresultsof researchintermsofquality,productivityandimpact (visibil-ityandrecognition)areaffected.Inshort,partnershipswere motivated by more specific factors (linkedto the achieve-mentofaparticularinvestigation)andbroaderfactors(such

asstrengtheningresearchfieldsandLatinAmericanscience) Themainmotivationforestablishingpartnershipsrefersto increasingthequalityandquantityofscientificinvestigation

Evaluation of partnership results

All investigated partnerships resulted in at least one arti-cleor chapterpublishedsotheycan beseenassuccessful from a scientificproductionpointofview.However,it was investigated how researchers evaluated these partnerships regardingthe productsobtained.Theauthors couldchoose betweentwoalternatives,indicatinganincreaseinthe num-berofpublications(quantitativeincrease)orindicatingasa resulthigher-levelscientificpublicationsandgreatervisibility (qualitativegain).Otherresponsescouldbegivenifthe partic-ipantdidnotagreewiththoseanswers.Theresultsareshown

inTable2

Asaresultofthepartnership,mostresearchersrecognized notonlyanincreaseinthenumberofpublications,butalsoa

publications

59

61

qualitativegainintermsofgeneratinghigherscientificlevel

ofpublications and higher visibility Other responses

indi-catedotherpossibleresultsforthesepartnerships.Amongthe

17participantswhospecifiedotherresults,someindicatedas

aresultofthepartnership“apublication”(participants33,58,

65,82,89,90).Insomecases,participantsrestatedthevalue

ofcooperationconsidered - forexample,an excellent

aca-demiccollaboration(56).Othersrecognizetheresultsforthe

researcher,promotingtheiracademicandintellectualgrowth

(77).Sometimes,theresultseemstobemorelimited,asinthe

caseinwhichthepartnershipcontinuedonlywithoneofthe

researchers(doctoralstudent),albeitdurationwasshort(7)

Inothercases,onecanseeamultipliereffectinthesense

that the partnership ended up affecting other researchers

andothergroups,allowingfurtherscientificdevelopment.An

exampleisthecaseofoneoftheparticipantswhoindicated

that,asaresultofthepartnership,Mexicannurseswere

cre-atingresearchcentersingraduatecoursesinthecountry(13)

Theresultsalsoaffectedareasandlinesofresearch,aswell

asencouragedthestudentsinvolved.Oneoftheparticipants

acknowledgedthatthepartnershipfavoredtheconsolidation

ofaresearchfield(8).Anotherreferredtothecreationofnew

linesofresearch,trainingstudentsanddoctoraltrainingofa

studentinanothercountry(34)andalsothestudentscould

havecontactwithnewresearchapproaches(35,96)

Partner-ships alsocontributed to the relationship betweengroups,

strengtheningcollaborationwithaco-authorand his

work-inggroup(15).Morebroadly,someresearchersrecognizedthe

opportunitytomakeLatinAmericanresearchknown

inter-nationally as a resultof the partnership (27, 41) In short,

partnershipswereconsideredpositivewithmoreorless

far-reaching consequences, ranging from the publication of a

papertothe perceptionofabreakthroughforLatin

Ameri-canscience.Theevaluationofpartnerships,aswell asthe

motivationtocooperate,focusedonthescientificresults

Difficulties and limiting factors

Inadditiontoinvestigatingthemotivatingfactorstoestablish

ascientificallianceandtheevaluationofresults,wesoughtto

investigatethedifficultiesencounteredinthecourseofthis

cooperation Ofthe 100participants, 35 reported that they

foundnodifficultyinthecourseofthepartnership.The

dif-ficultiesmentionedbytheotherparticipantswereclassified

intothreegroups,asindicatedinTables3–5

Generaldifficultiesincludedifficultiesinestablishing

con-tactorstartingapartnership,aswellasmaintainingitdespite

thegeographicaldistanceandthethreeclassesofpossible

dif-ferences:language,culturalandpersonaldifferences.Onlythe

“difficultyofaccessandcommunicationtomaintainthe

part-nership(distance)”stoodoutinthisgroup(13%).Inaway,the

Table3–Generaldifficultiesperceived

13

Table4–Difficultiesintheconductionofresearch

object

4

Table5–Difficultiesregardingresearchinfrastructure

difficultiesseemtobehigherduringthepartnershipthanin theirestablishmentorearlystage.Itcanbeassumedthatonly

afewparticipantsmentioneddifferencesinlanguageand cul-turaldifferences,probablyasaresultofthe factthatmost Latin American countriesspeak the same language, which wouldbeafacilitatingfactorforcooperation.Similarly, cul-turaldifferencesprobablyarenotofmajorimportancetobe recognizedas adifficulty.Likewise,personalor personality differenceswererarelymentioned

The difficulties seem to grow when it comes to con-ductingresearch Asnotedpreviously, theinitialphasesof researchappeartobethestagesthatgeneratefewer difficul-ties-namelythe definitionofthetopicordefinitionofthe researchobjectandthedefinitionofthemethodology.Itcan

beassumedthattheapproachbetweenpartnersimpliessome similarityinrelationtotheresearchtopicandeven method-ologicalapproaches,whichwouldbeaninitialconditionfor theestablishmentofthepartnership.Thedifficultiesincrease

inthefollowingstages,i.e.datacollection,dataanalysisand discussionofresults.However,thegreatestdifficulty recog-nizedduringtheinvestigationconcernsthefinalwordingof thework(article,chapterorother).Follow-uptothe publish-ingprocessalsocreatesdifficulties.However,nodifficultywas citedbymorethan20%ofparticipants

Thedifficultiesregardingresearchinfrastructurewerethe mostfrequentlymentionedbytheparticipants.Amongthe researchinfrastructuredifficulties,thosewhichweremost fre-quentlymentionedwerefinancialconstraints(n=34)andlack

oftimetodevotetothepartnership(n=23).Lackofhuman resources (support)orthe lackofequipment were less fre-quentlymentioned.Thus,infrastructurewouldbethesource

ofmajordifficulties

duetothedistanceanddifficultyofaccessand

communica-tion,anddifficultieswithlanguageorculture.Difficultiesin

conductingresearchincludeinternaldifficultiesinthe

rela-tionship, especially data collection and analysis and final

editingand follow-up ofthe publishingprocess,which are

phaseswhentherelationshiphasalreadybegun

Infrastruc-turedifficulties,includingfunding,lackoftime,resourcesand

equipmentaremoreassociatedwiththeinstitutionsandlack

ofcooperationpolicies

Discussion

Regardingmotivation anddifficulties associatedwith

inter-national scientific cooperation, the literature has shown

moreadvantagesthandisadvantagesincooperationprograms

betweencountries.Similarly, theliteraturehaspointedout

morereasons to cooperateinternationally than difficulties

andproblemsinthesepartnerships

The reasons for cooperating recognized by participants

in this investigation are similar to those related by Vanz

andStumpf(2009,2010)forscientificcollaboration(national

or international), suchas increasing the visibility,

produc-tivity, rationalization of scientific labor, acquisition and/or

expansionoffunding,resources,specialequipment,

materi-als;trainingofresearchersandstudents;widerdissemination

ofresearch;andfriendship

Among the reasons found, it is possible to recognize

directandindirect motivations,asproposed byLuukkonen

etal.(1992).Theauthorsrecognizethestrategicmotivations

directedbygovernmentsoragenciesofthesociety,ofa

politi-cal,economic,militaryorculturalnatureasthemainindirect

motivations.Inthiscase,theexistenceofagreementsbetween

countriesandtrainingofhumanresourcescanbeconsidered

asindirectfactors.Accordingtotheproposedclassification,

thereisamoresignificantpresenceofdirectmotivation,such

as:(a)accesstoknowledge,skillsandexpertsinScienceand

Technology;(b)accesstouniqueplacesandpopulationgroups

andtheirdata;(c)divisionofcostsandrisks;(d)aidinglobal

environmentalissuesandpublichealth;(e)theestablishment

ofnormativestandardsofscientificandtechnological

devel-opment

Ingeneral,theadvantagesrecognizedbySilva(2007)for

internationalcooperationare presentonthedataobtained,

such as the sharing of costs, access to expertise,

tech-nology and facilities, the political reinforcement to the

project/programand the creationofgoodrelations Onthe

otherhand,therisksmentionedbytheauthorssuchasthe

lossoffreedom ofaction,creatingdependency inaddition

totheincreaseinmanagement complexity,werenot

high-lighted

The results are similar to those indicated by Wagner

(2006)inrelationtothetopfivereasonstocollaborate

inter-nationally: (a) increasing the visibility among peers and

exploringcomplementarycapabilities;(b)sharing the costs

ofmajorprojects;(c)accessingorsharingexpensivephysical

resources;(d)achievinggreaterleveragetosharetheirdata;

and(e)exchangingideasinordertoencouragegreater

cre-ativity.Moreover,Narinetal.(1991)showedthatcollaboration

increasesthevisibilityand theimpactofthework.Glänzel andSchubert(2004)alsorecognizethatcollaborationcan pro-moteresearchactivity,productivityandimpact.Therefore,it should beencouraged and supportedbyscientificresearch administrationandpolicies

Besidestheadvantages,theliteraturealsomentions sev-eraldifficulties.AccordingtoWagnerandLeydesdorff(2006), thereislittleindicationofhowtomanagesuchsystemsin internationalcollaborationnetworksinscienceand technol-ogy The potentialfor misunderstandings and obstacles to coordinatenetworksissignificant.Thiswasnotaprominent point,possiblybyresearchersparticipatinginmorerestricted networks

AccordingtoOkuboandZitt(2004),collaborationbetween scientistsfromdifferentcountriesisnotstraightforward,so that specific barriers related to language, cultural or geo-graphicaldistancemustbeovercome.Accordingtothedata obtained,LatinAmericatendstoberecognizedforitscultural andlinguisticproximity,whichdoesnotpreventthe difficul-tiescausedbygeographicaldistance.Thedatasuggestthat physicalproximityshouldbetakenintoaccountforthe imple-mentation of successful partnerships Bassecoulard et al (2001)identifygeographicalproximityasanimportantfactor associatedwiththeexistenceordevelopmentofinternational scientific cooperation, enhanced by the cultural/linguistic proximityorgeopoliticalproximity.Themotivationfor inter-national collaboration seems to follow historical reasons, linguistic andgeographicproximity(Pontecorvo,2007;Vanz

&Stumpf,2009)

The factors indicated by Vílchez de Salazar and Flores Urbáez (2004) as obstacles and limitations to international scientific cooperationwere cited, suchas financialfactors, physicalandtechnologicalinfrastructure,institutional stan-dards, availability of human resources, little formality of internationalcooperationinuniversitiesandadministrative bureaucracyatuniversity-level Therewas noemphasison the low culture of innovation and cooperation As a spe-cificconditionoftheLatinAmericancontinent,thelanguage andculturalproximitystandsoutasapositivefactorforthe developmentofcooperation;however,thereremainstheneed

toovercomegeographicaldistance(Ávila-Toscano, Marenco-Escuderos, & Orozco, 2014; Fernández et al., 2005; Garcia, Acevedo-Triana,&López-López,2015).Similarstudiescanbe foundinothercountries(Quayle&Greer,2014)

Thepositiveevaluationbytheparticipantsoftheseaspects

ofcooperationsuggeststhattheyachievedtheirgoals.Inthis case,theseresearcherscanbeexpectedtoremainmotivated

tocontinuethesepartnershipsor toestablishnew partner-shipswithotherLatinAmericanresearchers.Thisexpansion

ofpartnershipnetworksreallyoccursinmostcases investi-gated,astheyare notlimitedtoasinglepartner,but other scientific partnerships with Latin America have also been reported

As aconclusion,all partnershipsinvestigatedwere suc-cessful in generating a scientific publication,an article or

a chapter The participants showed different reasons to cooperateandevaluatedpositivelytherelationship,in scien-tificterms.Thedifficultiesmentionedhavenotpreventeda positiveoutlookofthesealliances.Inordertoovercome dif-ficulties,someactionshavebeen proposed,suchasgreater

thatinternational scientificcooperation shouldbefostered

amongLatinAmericanresearchesinthebehavioralsciences,

despitehavingseveraldifficulties

r e f e r e n c e s

Ávila-Toscano,J.H.,Marenco-Escuderos,A.,&Orozco,C.M

(2014).Indicadoresbibliométricos,redesdecoautoríasy

colaboracióninstitucionalenrevistascolombianasde

psicología.Avances en Psicologia Latinoamericana, 32,167–182

http://dx.doi.org/10.12804/apl32.1.2014.12

BarbosaRamírez,D.H.,MihiRamírez,A.,&NogueraHidalgo,Á

(2014).Knowledgemanagementandleadership:Relationship

prospects.Diversitas: Perspectivas en Psicología, 10(1),57–70

Bassecoulard,E.,Okubo,Y.,&Zitt,M.(2001).Insightsin

determinantsofinternationalscientificcooperation.InF

Havemann,R.Wagner-Döbler,&H.Kretschmer(Eds.),

Collaboration in science and in technology: Proceedings of the second

Berlin workshop on scientometrics and informetrics(pp.13–28)

Berlin,Germany:GesellschaftfürWissenschaftsforschung

Fernández,M.,Frank,C.,&Pittaluga,L.(2005).El conocimiento

científico uruguayo publicado en revistas internacionales

1981–2002.Montevideo,Uruguay:InstitutodeEconomía

Fernández,M.T.,Gómez,I.,&Sebastián,S.(1998).Lacooperación

científicadelospaísesdeAméricaLatinaatravésde

indicadoresbibliométricos.Interciência, 23(6),328–337

Gama,W.,&Velho,L.(2005).Acooperac¸ãocientíficainternacional

naAmazônia.Estudos Avanc¸ados, 19(54),205–224

Garcia,A.,Acevedo-Triana,C.A.,&López-López,W.(2014)

Cooperaciónenlascienciasdelcomportamiento

latinoamericanas:unainvestigacióndocumental.Terapia

Psicológica, 32(2),165–174

Garcia,A.,Acevedo-Triana,C.A.,&López-López,W.(2015).The

meaningofandproposalsforLatin-Americancooperationin

psychology.Psykhe, 24(2),1–12

http://dx.doi.org/10.7764/psykhe.24.2.765

García-Martínez,A.T.,Guerrero-Bote,V.P.,Hassan-Montero,Y.,&

Moya-Anegón,F.de.(2009).LaPsicologíaeneldominio

científicoespa ˜nolatravésdelanálisisdecocitaciónde

revistas.Universitas Psychologica, 8(1),13–26

García-Martínez,A.T.,Guerrero-Bote,V.P.,&Moya-Anegón,F.de

(2012).Worldscientificproductioninpsychology.Universitas

Psychologica, 11(3),699–717

García-Pereira,S.,&Quevedo-Blasco,R.(2015).Análisisdelas

revistasiberoamericanasdepsicologíaydeeducación

indexadasenelJournalCitationReportsdel2013.European

Journal of Education and Psychology, 08(02),85–96

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejeps.2015.09.003

Glänzel,W.,&Schubert,A.(2004).Analysingscientificnetworks

throughco-authorship.InHandbook of quantitative science and

technology research.pp.257–276.Dordrecht,Netherlands:

KluwerAcademicPublishers

Kliegl,R.,&Bates,D.(2011).Internationalcooperationin

psychologyisontherise.Scientometrics, 87,149–158

Leydesdorff,L.,&Wagner,C.(2009).IstheUnitedStateslosing

groundinscience?Aglobalperspectiveontheworldscience

system.Scientometrics, 78(1),23–36

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-1830-4

López,W.L.,Silva,L.M.,García-Cepero,M.C.,Bustamante,M.C

A.,&López,E.A.(2011).Retosparalacolaboraciónnacionale

internacionalenlapsicologíalatinoamericana:Unanálisis

delsistemaRedalyc,2005–2007.Estudos de Psicologia (Natal),

16(1),17–22

López-López,W.,deMoyaAnegón,F.,Acevedo-Triana,C.,Garcia,

A.,&Silva,L.M.(2015).Visibilityandcooperationin

Iberoamericanpsychology.Psicologia: Reflexão E Crítica, 28(S),

72–81

López-López,W.,García-Cepero,M.C.,Aguilar-Bustamante,M.C., Silva,L.M.,AguadoLópez,E.,Iberoamericana,L.A.P., .,& Aguado,E.(2010).Panoramageneraldelaproducción académicaenlapsicologíaiberoamericana,2005–2007.Papeles del Psicólogo, 31(3),296–309

Luukkonen,T.,Persson,O.,&Sivertsen,G.(1992).Understanding patternsofinternationalscientificcollaboration.Science, Technology & Human Values, 17(1),101–126

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016224399201700106 Narin,F.,Stevens,K.,&Whitlow,E.(1991).Scientificco-operation

inEuropeandthecitationofmultinationallyauthoredpapers

Scientometrics, 21(3),313–323

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02093973 Okubo,Y.,&Zitt,M.(2004).Searchingforresearchintegration acrossEurope:Acloserlookatinternationaland

inter-regionalcollaborationinFrance.Science and Public Policy, 31(3),213–226.http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154304781780019 PazLópez,M.,&MaríaTaborga,A.(2013).Dimensiones internacionalesdelacienciaylatecnologíaenAmérica Latina.Latinoamérica Revista de Estudios Latinoamericanos, 56,

27–48.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1665-8574(13)71696-X Pinto,A.L.,Efrain-García,P.,RodríguezBarquín,B.A.,&Moreira González,J.A.(2007).Scientificindicatorsonliteraturein bibliometryandscientometrythroughsocialnetworks

Brazilian Journal of Information Science, 1(1),55–73

Pontecorvo,C.(2007).Ontheconditionsforgenerative collaboration:Learningthroughcollaborativeresearch

Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 41(2),178–186 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12124-007-9017-8

Quayle,M.,&Greer,M.(2014).Mappingthestateofthefieldof socialpsychologyinAfricaandpatternsofcollaboration betweenAfricanandinternationalsocialpsychologists

International Journal of Psychology, 49(6),498–502

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12059 Quevedo-Blasco,R.,&López-López,W.(2011).Situacióndelas revistasiberoamericanasdepsicologíaenelJournalCitation Reportsde2010.Universitas Psychologica, 10(3),937–943 Russell,J.M.,Ainsworth,S.,DelRío,J.A.,Narváez-Berthelemot, N.,&Cortés,H.D.(2007).Collaborationinscienceamong LatinAmericancountries.Revista Espa ˜nola de Documentación Científica, 30(2),180–198

http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.2007.v30.i2.378 Russell,J.M.,&Ainsworth,S.(2013).MappingS&Tcollaboration betweenLatinAmericaandEurope:Bibliometricanalysisof co-authorships(1984-2007).InGaillardJacques,&Arvanitis Rigas(Eds.),Research collaboration between Europe and Latin America: Mapping and understanding partnershi(pp.49–77).Paris, France:Éditionsdesarchivescontemporaines

Silva,D.H.da.(2007).Cooperac¸ãointernacionalemciênciae tecnologia:oportunidadeseriscos.Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 50(1),5–28

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-73292007000100001 Vanz,S.A.deS.,&Stumpf,I.R.C.(2010).Colaborac¸ãocientífica: revisãoteórico-conceitual.Perspectivas Em Ciência Da Informac¸ão, 15(2),42–55

Vanz,S.A.S.(2009).As redes de colaborac¸ão científica no Brasil: (2004–2006).UniversidadeFederaldoRioGrandedoSul Vanz,S.A.S.,&Stumpf,I.R.C.(2009).A Colaborac¸ão internacional

no ISI: panorama dos artigos brasileiros nos anos 2004–2006.João Pessoa,PB:PaperpresentedattheNationalMeetingof ResearchinInformationScience

VílchezdeSalazar,D.,&FloresUrbáez,M.(2004).Indicadoresde impactodelacooperacióninternacional

científico-tecnológica.Experienciasenuncentrouniversitario

deinvestigación.Revista Venezolana de Gerencia, 9(25),1–21 Wagner,C.S.(2006).Internationalcollaborationinscienceand technology:promisesandpitfalls.InL.Box,&R.Engelhard

(Eds.),Science and technology policy for development, dialogues at

the interface(pp.165–176).London,England:AnthemPress

Wagner,C.S.,&Leydesdorff,L.(2006).Measuringthe

globalizationofknowledgenetworks.InProceedings of the ‘Blue

Sky II 2006 Forum’: What indicators for science, technology and

innovation policies in the 21st century?(pp.1–12).Paris,France: OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment (OECD).Availableathttp://www.leydesdorff.net,accessed 06.03.15