By Arne Worm, Georg August University of Göttingen

In this contribution, I reflect on the experiences and challenges of incorporating the central themes of this network into academic teaching—particularly the intersections between qualitative research on the one hand, and global and postcolonial sociologies on the other. While debates about the agenda and methodologies of Global Sociology are far from settled, it seems fair to identify reflexivity regarding the orders, legacies, and practices of knowledge production as one of its core concerns. This reflexivity extends well beyond research practices in the narrow sense of data collection and analysis. It encompasses a wide range of issues, such as rethinking the so-called “Western” canon of social theories and methodologies, or confronting language hierarchies—just to name two examples that resonate strongly with teaching.

I will begin with an (auto)sociological exercise in self-reflexivity about teaching within an academic field that may eventually become institutionalized as global qualitative research. I then share reflections and observations from a course titled Qualitative Research in the Context of Global Sociologies, which I taught during the 2022–2023 winter semester at the University of Göttingen. I hope these reflections will be useful to colleagues teaching within the German academic system as well as elsewhere—or to readers interested in the peculiarities (or provincialities) of a “venerable” German university in a mid-sized provincial city.

I must begin by asking for your indulgence regarding the somewhat cheesy—or even slightly sentimental—wordplay in the title. Readers familiar with debates on global sociologies will no doubt recognize the reference to Michael Burawoy’s (1947–2025) introductory chapter, “Reaching for the Global,” in the volume Global Ethnography (Burawoy, 2000). The British sociologist based in California, who passed away unexpectedly last year, played an important role in shaping discussions about practicing sociology as a global discipline, particularly within the International Sociological Association. He was also among the few scholars to make early and concrete contributions to the methodological realization of this agenda. Unsurprisingly, his work was included in our seminar readings.

If I’m honest, Burawoy’s intellectual accomplishments aren’t the only reason I thought it clever to begin with a playful nod to his work. Another—and probably more relevant—reason is biographical, and sociological. Born in the early 1980s and raised in a monolingual German family in a small provincial town in northern Germany, the “cultural capital” (to borrow Bourdieu’s term) that shaped my early socialization had little to do with cosmopolitan orientations or versatile academic discourses. It had, however, a great deal to do with U.S. pop culture. My parents belonged to the professional lower-middle class but had not attended university. Looking back, the impression Burawoy made on me when I saw his presidential address opening the ISA World Congress in Yokohama in 2014 (isasociotube, 2015)—during the early phase of my doctoral studies and at my first international conference—clearly reflects the symbolic and linguistic orders that structure academia. To be fair, I could have opened with memories of a similarly brilliant talk by Gurminder K. Bhambra on European Colonial Entanglements in Göttingen (Bhambra, 2019), but I couldn’t find a fitting wordplay (though we discussed her work in the seminar). Either way, when writing about global sociology and qualitative research, I would have begun with a reference to English-speaking academia.

German, U.S.-American, and British sociology have long been historically entangled, especially in the field of qualitative social research. During my own M.A. studies in Göttingen, I took it for granted that the literature we read was written by US-American, British, and German sociologists. Many of them—such as Adorno, Arendt, Elias, Mannheim, and Schütz—had fled from National Socialism in Germany to English-speaking countries. Only later in my career did I realize that the canonical—and critical—sociologists who had expanded my intellectual horizons during my time in Göttingen actually represented a rather narrow slice of what sociology could—and should—be. After the effort it took to grasp the Anglo-German qualitative research “canon”—which, in fact, was only a very specific and, in a sense, even marginalized canon within Western sociological “grand theories”—I began to learn more about the institutional inequalities and colonial legacies that continue to shape our (academic) world today. It is worth noting that colonialism in general—and Germany’s (post)colonial history in particular—have long been marginalized topics in the German educational system, in cultural institutions, and in public memory.

Auditorium Goettingen, 2020. Copyright: Klein und Neumann, CC-BY-SA 3.0.

This also applies to the local context of Göttingen and its university, where I have been researching and teaching for several years now. The University of Göttingen (“Georg-August-Universität”) is one of the oldest German universities, with a long history of Nobel Prize winners and an international reputation. As history tells it, the university was founded in 1732/1734 by the British King George II—although locally he is mostly remembered as the Elector (“Kurfürst”) of Hanover. In my view, few students—and probably few staff members—are aware of the imperial context and the entanglements with the British crown in the university’s history. I myself learned about this thanks to my colleague and network member Eva Bahl, who explored this connection as part of a research project on Individual and Collective Memories of Slavery and the Slave Trade. Today, the university is internationally well connected and makes great efforts to attract students and scholars from around the world. Nevertheless, Göttingen remains a mid-sized, historically Protestant provincial city in Lower Saxony. As in most German universities, the majority of students come from the immediate region, and BIPOC students are typically underrepresented in classrooms. Within the social sciences, concrete research on Global South societies—beyond ethnology or anthropology—remains scarce. In the methodology and methods courses I teach, M.A. students come from various social science disciplines, including sociology, political science, diversity studies, gender studies, and sports studies.

Let us now turn to the seminar “Qualitative Research in the Context of Global Sociologies,” which I taught during the 2022–2023 winter semester. Addressing the complexity of topics surrounding global qualitative social research—combined with the diversity of the student group—gave me quite a headache. In light of this diversity and complexity, I decided to approach discussions on global sociology and postcolonial perspectives from various “standpoints” within the German-speaking sociological field. This approach required largely dispensing with primary literature, but it allowed for a more systematic examination of the structures and discourses within the German-speaking academic landscape in which my students and I were primarily embedded. In the syllabus, I announced that students would engage with the methodological, epistemological, and social-theoretical foundations of qualitative research on the one hand, and reflect on—or (counter-)read—them in light of current discussions on global sociologies and de- and postcolonial approaches on the other. We asked questions such as: What challenges arise for qualitative social research in the context of complex transregional and global interdependencies and power inequalities? And what contributions have qualitative methodologies made to developing a globally informed and reflexive sociology (for example, through case studies or multi-sited research)? For the 20–25 students enrolled, the topic proved engaging enough to sustain thirteen highly interactive, discussion-based sessions (each lasting 120 minutes) that covered a wide range of readings.

Students’ groupwork on the Interpretive Paradigm: Social action (soziales Handeln) produces the social world (soziale Welt), which is at the same time dependent on and structuring the social order (soziale Ordnung). Photo: Arne Worm, 2022.

We began with an introduction to the so-called Interpretive Paradigm (Keller 2012; Rosenthal 2015), which emphasizes the need to delve into the depths and contradictions of everyday lived realities when developing social theories. The following session adopted a postcolonial perspective (Reuter & Villa, 2010; Castro Varela & Dhawan, 2020) in order to establish a basic understanding of what the term implies and what directions postcolonial theories urge us to consider when conducting research. Next, we examined the concerns and perspectives of global sociology by reading Burawoy’s introduction to Global Ethnography as an entry point into methodological principles. This resonated strongly with a text on the relationship between theory and empirical research in qualitative sociology (Kalthoff, 2008).

Under the heading “Turning South,” we then discussed Julian Go’s “Perspectival Realism and the Southern Standpoint” (2016). Go’s argument that “social positions matter” and are not in contradiction to objectivity struck a chord with many students and seemed to offer pathways out of their unease with the androcentric and Eurocentric traditions that continue to dominate the social sciences. Some students raised complex epistemological and ethical questions—such as “Do we still have any concept of truth?” or “What about universal human rights?” Interestingly, these “big questions” were less important to most participants than the practical challenge of transforming knowledge production and research practice. A (critical) pragmatic approach in the face of structural inequalities appeared more promising than waiting for philosophical absolution. Elísio Macamo’s essay “Before We Start: Science and Power in the Constitution of Africa” (2016) led to reflections on how knowledge systems shape the construction of epistemological and geographical territories—even before we begin doing research.

We then dedicated two sessions to a debate published in the journal Soziologie by the German Sociological Association (DGS). Between 2018 and 2020, various authors discussed the aims and implications of a postcolonial sociology, beginning with an email exchange on “Postcolonialism and Sociology” between Manuela Boatcă, Sina Farzin, and Julian Go (2018). A sharp response by Markus Holzinger (2019) questioned “what is new about the ‘new postcolonialism,’” given that research on colonialism has existed for quite some time. Subsequently, Meinhof (2020) reiterated that “(p)ostcolonial sociology is not a sociology of colonialism, but a programmatic project to explore a new type of sociology—one that includes non-Western social theory and theorizes modernity in a way that de-centers Europe and acknowledges the colonial origins of modern society.” In their response, Matthias Leanza and Axel T. Paul (2021) criticized oversimplifications on both sides of the debate while recognizing “the urgent need for further sociological investigation of the interconnections between colonial rule and global modernity.” Reconstructing this debate—where various authors directly responded to one another—proved extremely useful for gaining insight into the different arguments circulating within the German sociological discourse on what a post- and decolonial sociology might entail. We discussed the differing perspectives with great interest but ultimately concluded that many of the arguments were either too abstract or required more background knowledge. Several students expressed a desire to see how the arguments for or against a post- or decolonial sociology might play out in concrete empirical research.

We then turned our attention to the tradition of biographical research, focusing particularly on contributions that call for a less Eurocentric or more postcolonial approach (Rosenthal, 2012; Lutz, 2009). Because Max Weber’s writings remain a central point of reference for the German qualitative research paradigm—especially his concept of Verstehende Soziologie—we discussed his work through the lens of Manuela Boatcă’s “Postcolonial Critique of Weber’s Theory of Race and Ethnicity” (2018). Gurminder K. Bhambra’s online lecture “Segregated Sociologies of Weber and Du Bois” (Connected Sociologies, 2021) further inspired discussions about the neglect of W.E.B. Du Bois in the sociological canon and how this omission (mis)represents cross-continental and global intellectual legacies. In our final session, we explored Nina Baur’s reflections on “Decolonizing Social Science Methodology: Positionality in the German-Language Debate.”

Overall, there was strong interest in the topics and debates we examined. All of the students reported that they had rarely—if ever—encountered the authors and discussions we engaged with in any of their other courses. Many considered the topics and critiques, particularly the methodological questions, to be highly relevant. Still, it was a learning process with many ups and downs, detours, and perhaps even dead ends. I recall several moments when students remarked that such theoretical interventions might be “useful and important when dealing with postcolonial societies.” “And what—and where—is a postcolonial society?” I would often reply. This prompted them to recognize how easily we fall back into Eurocentric and modernist “common sense” assumptions. The “global,” it turned out, was even more difficult to grasp than the “postcolonial” (capitalism often served as the default explanatory framework). It took time to acknowledge that the global and the postcolonial are not elsewhere—they may, in fact, be right around the corner, entangled with what we do in research and teaching.

Cite this article as: Worm, A. (2025, December 4). Teaching (for) the global. Global Qualitative Sociology Network. https://global-qualitative-sociology.net/2025/12/04/teaching-for-the-global//

 

References

 

Baur, N. (2021). Dekolonisierung sozialwissenschaftlicher Methodologie: Positionalität in der deutschsprachigen Debatte [Decolonizing social science methodology: Positionality in the German-language debate]. Historical Social Research, 46, 205243. https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.46.2021.2.205-243

 

Bhambra, G. K. (2019, September 11). European colonial entanglements: Questions of historical sociology and progress. Komplexe Dynamiken globaler und lokaler Entwicklungen. Verhandlungen des 39. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Göttingen 2018, Göttingen. https://publikationen.soziologie.de/index.php/kongressband_2018/de/article/view/1194

 

Boatcă, M. (2013). “From the Standpoint of Germanism”: A Postcolonial Critique of Weber’s Theory of Race and Ethnicity. In J. Go (Ed.), Political Power and Social Theory (pp. 55–80). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0198-8719(2013)0000024009

 

Burawoy, M. (2000). Introduction: Reaching for the global. In Global ethnography: Forces, connections, and imaginations in a postmodern world (pp. 1–40). University of California Press.

 

 

Castro Varela, M., & Dhawan, N. (2015). Postkoloniale Theorie: Eine kritische Einführung. transcript Verlag.

 

Connected Sociologies (Director). (2021, March 8). Segregated Sociologies of Weber and Du Bois—Prof Gurminder K Bhambra [Video recording]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-XEXgJyJyc

 

Go, J. (2016). Globalizing sociology, turning south: Perspectival realism and the southern standpoint. Sociologica, 2, 0–0. https://doi.org/10.2383/85279

 

Holzinger, M. (2019). Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen oder was ist neu am »neuen Postkolonialismus«? Soziologie, 48(2), 174–184.

 

isasociotube (Director). (2015, January 20). Michael BURAWOY, Presidential Address, ISA World Congress of Sociology, Yokohama, Japan, 2014 [Video recording]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF6CpuP_gww

 

Kalthoff, H., Hirschauer, S., & Lindemann, G. (Eds.). (2023). Theoretische Empirie: Zur Relevanz qualitativer Forschung (4th ed.). Suhrkamp. (Original work published 2008)

 

Keller, R. (2012). Das Interpretative Paradigma: Eine Einführung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften Imprint.

 

Leanza, M., & Paul, A. T. (2021). Kolonialismus und globale Moderne: Jenseits der Vereinfachungen. Soziologie, 50(2). https://publikationen.soziologie.de/index.php/soziologie/de/article/view/1503

 

Lutz, H. (2009). Biographieforschung im Lichte postkolonialer Theorien. In J. Reuter & P.-I. Villa (Eds.), Postcolonial Studies (Vol. 2, pp. 115–136). transcript Verlag. https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839409060-005

 

Macamo, E. (2016). Before we start: Science and power in the constitution of Africa. In M. Ramutsindela, G. Miescher, & M. Boehi (Eds.), The Politics of Nature and Science in Southern Africa (pp. 323–334). Basler Afrika Bibliographien.

 

Meinhof, M. (2020). Postkoloniale Soziologie oder Soziologie des Kolonialismus? Irritationspotentiale postkolonialen Denkens für die Soziologie. Soziologie, 49(4). https://publikationen.soziologie.de/index.php/soziologie/de/article/view/1483

 

Reuter, J., & Villa, P.-I. (2015). Postkoloniale Soziologie: Empirische Befunde, theoretische Anschlüsse, politische Intervention. transcript Verlag.

 

Rosenthal, G. (2018). Interpretive social research: An introduction. Göttingen University Press. https://doi.org/10.17875/gup2018-1103

By Clara Ruvituso, Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut – Preußischer Kulturbesitz

Introduction

In the 2016 book Debates latinoamericanos, Argentinian sociologist Maristella Svampa pointed out that one of the central dilemmas of Latin American social sciences is not the lack of production or originality, but constant attempts to subalternise its production and its fundamental debates. A result of this has been a kind of “accumulation deficit”, the product not only of deficient infrastructures and funding, but also of censorship, exile, persecution and marginalisation of voices throughout history.

Cover of Maristella Svampa’s book on Latin American debates (2016).

In her studies on social science production, sociologist Fernanda Beigel (2014) has shown that Latin America as a “periphery” has its own centres or peripheral centers, with alternative circuits and logics of recognition, contested canons and infrastructures with local, but also regional and global impacts. More than a lack of production of knowledge, the problem of Latin America seems to lie elsewhere: namely the question of its circulation. Can we move towards a global sociology without attending to the production of knowledge in the so-called peripheries? How to advance in this necessary opening of Eurocentric canons?

My proposal is to contribute to this challenge from a historical perspective, with a focus on showing the ways in which Latin America intervened in global debates in the social sciences. Theories and perspectives with Latin American components that have had a greater global circulation and a more global scope are the so called “dependency theory” in the 1960s and 1970s and, a few decades later, the current “decolonial” critique. Both currents of thought had and still have an impact in Europe, although little is known about the practices and ideas they influence and the way they are interconnected. Along these lines, my contribution is to use these two paradigmatic cases of the circulation of Latin American knowledge in Europe in different periods to reflect about the challenges of a global sociology.

The dependency theory

From the Cuban Revolution in 1959, through to the experience of the Unidad Popular in Chile (1970–1973) and the Sandinista triumph of 1979, Latin America experienced a period of unprecedented prominence in international politics. One consequence was the greater recognition of its intellectual and cultural production in Europe (Ruvituso, 2020a). This was the period in which Latin American social theory was able to circulate with greater intensity in south-south and south-north directions. This historical context explains the boom of translations of Latin American social scientists into English, French and German. The fact that most of the Latin American authors translated into German were published in the prestigious collection edition by Suhrkamp, the epicentre of the post-war West German intellectual field, is fundamental to understanding the impact and scope of dependency theories in the Federal Republic of Germany. Publication in the edition Suhrkamp provided an unprecedented platform for the recognition of Latin American authors within Critical Theory. The mediation of the German sociologist Heinz-Rudolf Sonntag together with Elena Hochman from Venezuela explains why the first translations were books by the Venezuelan Armando Córdova and Héctor Silva Michelena. The political scientist Dieter Senghaas was in charge of mediating the translation of texts by Fernando H. Cardoso, Ruy Mauro Marini, Celso Furtado, Theotonio dos Santos (Brazil), Osvaldo Sunkel (Chile), Aníbal Quijano (Peru) and Rodolfo Stavenhagen (Mexico), among others.

Covers of the German translation of “Dependency and development in Latin America” (1976) and the French translation of “Dependency and development in Latin America” (1978).

It is also noteworthy that the sociological essay “Dependency and Development in Latin America” by Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto was first translated into German (1976, edition Suhrkamp) and only two years later into French (1978, PUF), despite Cardoso’s close relations with France.

Publications of Latin American dependency authors into French started earlier and lasted longer, between 1963 and 1989. France was the European epicentre of Latin American intellectual formation and a central place of exile. Most of the publications of Latin American authors in French have taken place in academic publishers such as Presses Universitaires de France (PUF) and Anthropos and their respective journals: Revue Tiers Monde and L’homme et la société.

Cover of the French journal “Tiers Monde” (1972).

During the 1970s and 1980s, the works of many Latin American authors who took part in dependency debates were used as a theoretical-conceptual framework for empirical research. Particularly paradigmatic was the case of the Freie Universität Berlin where the Institute for Latin American Studies (Lateinamerika-Institut, LAI) has been operating since 1970. The LAI produced numerous empirical studies from a dependency perspective, applying the concepts of centre-periphery, marginality, structural heterogeneity and internal colonialism to national or comparative case studies. In the section of Development Sociology of Bielefeld University the theory of “subsistence production” was developed in dialogue with the Latin American dependency theory (Evers, 1981). The relevance of the international dialogue and solidarity with Latin American social scientists, especially in the face of the Chilean dictatorship since 1973, was key for the circulation of dependency theories (Ruvituso, 2019). With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the German institutional landscape changed considerably. Simultaneously, the idea of the “Third World” and thus dependency theories came into a legitimation crisis (Menzel, 1992). Eastern European studies became more relevant, and the development agenda shifted to issues of market integration and globalisation (Werz, 2016).

Decolonial/Postcolonial Critique

A new discovery of “Southern Theories” in Germany and France takes place in the context of the ongoing reception of postcolonial/decolonial studies. In Germany, this reception started in the fields of history, cultural studies and sociology and more recently also reached political science. German-based academics have begun to express the need to put on ‘post-colonial glasses’, especially in Europe. In general, they share the following diagnosis: there is an analytical narrowness in the consideration of “modernity” as a Western achievement and European social sciences and humanities are still deeply marked by colonialism. A central point is the critique of the implicit teleology or universalism of theories in the social sciences and humanities in Europe. The results of postcolonial/decolonial research lead to the overcoming of a linear evolutionary history of modern societies. Under Dipesh Chakrabarty’s (2002) now famous premise of “provincialising Europe”, postcolonial/decolonial critique allowed for a reflection on one’s own point of view and different positions: “a self-reflection of the material-structural as well as symbolic-cultural and metaphorical localisation of one’s own practice” (Reuter & Villa, 2010: 24–25, own translation). Within this framework, it is stressed that all positions must be problematised in order to break away from static, binary and essentialist notions of subalternity, hegemony, identity and difference. The following characteristics can be observed in this reception: a) Decolonial approaches (more linked to authors from Latin America) and postcolonial approaches (more linked to authors from other peripheries, former colonies such as India) are not differentiated and included in the same perspective; b) the most visible authors are those based in centres of academic production in the global north: Walter Mignolo, Homi K. Bhabha, Dispesh Chakrabarty, Gayatri Spivak, with circulation and/or translation into English; c) the decolonial/postcolonial turn is not related to the critical lineage linking them to the dependency theories in the 1960s and 1970s.

Covers of the books “Decolonizing European sociology: Transdisciplinary approaches” (2010) and “Postcolonial sociology: Empirical findings, theoretical connections, political intervention” (2009).

Inequalities and power asymmetries are reflected within the European circulation of postcolonial/decolonial studies: The authors currently circulating in the German-speaking world are those who already belong to the Anglophone ‘postcolonial’ canon, while similar voices, especially those from Latin America, receive little attention. These inequalities in the circulation of postcolonial/decolonial voices are reproduced when looking at the so-called precursors of decolonial thought. Here we find Frantz Fanon and Aimé Césaire and Edward Said. However, Latin American precursors (such as Rodolfo Kusch, Lélia Gonzalez, Beatriz Nascimento, Darcy Ribeiro) continue to be invisible. In the 1970s, dependency focused on the structural south-north asymmetries in global capitalism and came directly to Europe from Latin America (especially Chile), accompanying the narrative of Third World and solidarity movements. Currently, the “decolonial/postcolonial” critique is received in Germany mainly through some voices institutionally grounded in the USA and England and puts the focus on an agenda that includes the question of subaltern voices, positionality, and intersectionality. While dependency argued for political-economic regime change, decolonialism promotes a more symbolic institutional policy, which support diversity and epistemic justice (e.g. through the return of objects from museums, renaming of public spaces, inclusion of different perspectives in academic curricula).

For the circulation of both currents, the existence of area studies and the role of mediators was fundamental. If dependency contributed to the European Third World sensibility and solidarity on the basis of economic asymmetries, decolonialism adds a new and necessary sensibility on symbolic asymmetries. In my view, both perspectives together are necessary to build South-North ties in accordance with the political, social and environmental crises of the present.

How to achieve a global sociology?

The different initiatives and projects that seek to “open up” (Wallerstein, 1996), “decolonize” (Gutiérrez-Rodríguez et al., 2010) or “decentralize” (Brisson, 2018) the social sciences, as well as to “provincialise Europe” (Chakravarty, 2002), have made progress in making visible different inequalities (geopolitical, ethno-racial, nationality and language, gender) in the construction of south-north canons and asymmetries. The proposal of a global sociology is related to the recognition of global inequalities in knowledge production and the need to include approaches and perspectives from the South. Within this debate, I would like to argue for the relevance of thinking about the circulation of Latin American knowledge in a historical perspective. With this approach, we can observe that despite the unequal and asymmetrical relations of North-South exchanges and Western hegemony in the production of social theory, Latin America is a heterogeneous space of theoretical knowledge production with the capacity to contribute to local and global debates, from a critical perspective and at the same time linked to difference and diversity.

Cite this article as: Ruvituso, C. (2024, September 10). Doing Global Sociology: Why the circulation of knowledge matters? Global Qualitative Sociology Network. https://global-qualitative-sociology.net/2024/09/10/doing-global-sociology/

References

 

Beigel, F. (2014). Introduction: Current tensions and trends in the World Scientific System. Current Sociology, 62(5), 617–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392114548640

 

Boatcă, M., Farzin, S., & Go, J. (2018). E-Mail-Debate: Postcolonialism and sociology. Soziologie, 47(4), 423-438. https://publikationen.soziologie.de/index.php/soziologie/article/view/1240/1447

 

Brisson, T. (2008). Les intellectuels arabes en France: migrations et échanges intellectuels. Paris: La Dispute.

 

Chakrabarty, D. (2002). Europa provinzialisieren: Postkolonialität und Kritik der Geschichte. In S. Conrad & S. Randeria (Eds.), Jenseits des Eurozentrismus (pp. 283–312). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

 

Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science. London: Routledge.

 

Evers, H.-D. (1981) “Einleitung”, in Bielefelder Entwicklungssoziologen (ed.), Subsistenzproduktion und Akkumulation. Saarbrücken: Verlag Breitenbach.

 

Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, E., Boatcă, M., & Costa, S. (Eds.) (2010). Decolonizing European sociology: Transdisciplinary approaches. Farnham: Ashgate Gower.

 

Menzel, U. (1992). Das Ende der Dritten Welt und das Scheitern der großen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

 

Reuter, J. & Villa, P.-I. (Eds.) (2009). Postcolonial sociology: Empirical findings, theoretical connections, political intervention. Bielefeld: Transcript.

 

Ruvituso, C. (2020a). From the South to the North: The circulation of Latin American dependency theories in the Federal Republic of Germany. Current Sociology, 68(1), 22-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392119885170

 

Ruvituso, C. (2020b). Southern theories in northern circulation: Analyzing the translation of Latin American dependency theories into German. Tapuya: Latin American sciences, technology and society, 3(1), 92-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2020.1781999

 

Svampa, M. (2016). Debates latinoamericanos: Indianismo, desarrollo, dependencia y populismo. Buenos Aires: Edhasa.

 

Wallerstein, I. et al. (Eds.) (1996). Ouvrir les Sciences Sociales: Rapport de la Commission Gulbenkian pour la Restructuration des Sciences sociales. Paris: Descartes et Cie.

 

Werz, N. (2016). Von der Modernisierung zur Globalisierung: Entwicklungsforschung und Regionalstudien, Area Studies. In A. Gallus (Ed.) Politikwissenschaftliche Passagen: Deutsche Streifzüge zur Erkundung eines Faches (pp. 151-174). Baden-Baden: Nomos.