Introduction

The history of science focused outside of Europe and the United States has contributed to our understanding of the construction of knowledge in two ways – through the theories of diffusion and dependency. The first centres on the spread of metropolitan knowledge through nations on the periphery. The second is centred on the asymmetrical relationship between centre and periphery, characterized by the latter's inability to build an autonomous system of scientific and technological innovation, and the importation of foreign knowledge by local elites. Despite their obvious differences, both types of theories have produced national accounts of science and technology in peripheral countries which are restricted to local events, and which ignore the international context. In neither case is there an emphasis on global or reciprocal connections, or a focus on circuits of practices that may help explain the construction of knowledge at both the regional and global level.

The rise of postcolonial studies in the history of science has emphasized the need for interconnected histories. As Sanjay Subrahmanyam has suggested, we need ‘connected histories as opposed to comparative histories’. These would need to be written from a symmetrical point of view. While interconnected histories require a focus on the circulation of people, technologies and materials, symmetrical accounts demand the acknowledgement of local resistances and the recognition that the practices of more marginal partners help shape the knowledge and practices at the hegemonic centres.