adriana arellano & orazio bellettini grupo faro nairobi, may, 2014
TRANSCRIPT
Research findings from Latin America
Adriana Arellano & Orazio BellettiniGrupo FARO
Nairobi, May, 2014
Outline1. Knowledge production in Latin America2. About the study– Objective– Team– Approach– Methodology– Outputs
3. Findings4. Preliminary conclusions5. Policy recommendations6. Future research
Source: UIS; NSF, Science and Engineering Indicators 2013; Population ReferenceBureau; Shanghai Jiao Tong University,Academic Ranking of WorldUniversities (ARWU) 2013; Scimago Country Rankings; Quandl for Academics.
Knowledge productionLA&C: weight in the world 2011 (%)
Gra
duat
es in
5A
prog
ram
sH
ighe
r edu
catio
n en
rolm
ent
Popu
latio
n
GD
P (P
PP)
Gra
duat
es i
n 5B
Pr
ogra
ms
Gra
duat
es in
6 P
rogr
ams
Adde
d va
lue
to
man
ufac
turin
g IC
T
Adde
d va
lue
in s
ervi
ces
IC
PhD
gra
duat
es
Scie
ntific
pro
ducti
on
Citin
g of
sci
entifi
c pr
oduc
tion
Uni
vers
ities
in T
op 5
00
Pate
nts
Uni
vers
ities
in T
op 1
00
Adde
d va
lue
in A
T in
dust
ry
R+D investment as a percentage of GDP
Canada
Spain
United States
Latin America and Caribbean
Iberoamerica
+ Saber América Latina
11,120 tertiary education providers
3,518 recognized as universities
+ 638 think tanks
Objectives
• Improve understanding of the relationship between think tanks and universities in Latin America
• Produce evidence to build capacities for public policy research
• Provide lessons for effective collaboration between think tanks and universities in the region
RESEARCH TEAMADVISORY COMITTEEJosé Joaquín Brunner
CPCE Norma CorreaPUCP
Adriana Arellano
Grupo FARO
Soledad González / Cristobal Villalobos
CPCE
Wendy Espín Grupo FARO
Mario Albornoz
RICYT
Enrique Fernández
U. TarapacáOrazio
BellettiniGrupo FARO
The Team
Systemic approach
Methodology• Qualitative studies in nine countries: each
addressing at least three case studies on the relationship between think tanks and universities (including failed relationships)
• A regional qualitative and quantitative study (including webometric and bibliometric analyses) to quantify links between both entities
– Argentina– Bolivia– Brazil– Colombia– Chile– Guatemala– Paraguay– Peru– Uruguay
• Discussion on the relevance of the study
• Nine country studies• Regional study• Webometric and
bibliometric analyses• Synthesis of findings,
policy recommendations and future research opportunities
Project outputs
Findings
Webometric study
Analized the visibility of web pages of 325 think tanks and 3,745 universities (indicators: size, openness, impact, university impact, university impact LAC)
COUNTRY # TT Average size
Average openness
Average impact
University impact (%)
University impact
LA&C (%)Argentina 38 386.89 104.39 12,411.68 8.09 7.44Bolivia 17 1,619.76 504.35 44,750.59 0.69 0.42Brazil 23 2,013.17 492.70 88,181.48 0.93 1.33Chile 14 1,883.64 906.50 29,842.64 1.14 1.03Colombia 19 477.53 145.58 18,211.32 2.48 2.28Costa Rica 5 137.80 82.80 628.00 1.84 0.38Ecuador 4 173.25 17.25 6,983.00 1.93 0.67El Salvador 3 319.33 19.33 14,024.33 0.32 0.34Guatemala 16 150.56 44.75 5,053.75 1.80 0.83Honduras 3 72.00 53.33 1,674.00 0.04 0.00Mexico 26 2,112.62 652.92 19,586.54 4.09 3.85Nicaragua 2 47.50 13.00 2,766.50 0.27 0.27Paraguay 18 126.56 37.78 6,547.78 2.57 2.43Peru 42 475.12 185.36 310,744.38 2.84 2.74Dominican Republic 3 533.33 42.00 5,047.33 0.56 0.33Uruguay 13 228.92 88.62 1,852.46 9.34 8.80Venezuela 5 343.00 50.80 8,349.80 0.88 0.65
Bibliometric
Quantified in SCOPUS collaboration of think tanks included in the case studies and universities, in terms of joint publications, and maped contents forming thematic clusters
Sample of Think Tanks 30Number of Think Tanks 16Average of university collaboration 68%Think Tanks with higher collaboration with universities over 75% 6 (37%)Think Tanks with collaboration with univesrities between 50% and 75% 8 (50%)Think Tanks with collaboration with universities under 50% 2 (13%)Highest amount of articles published (2000-2012) 201Highest number of institutions in collaboration 159Highest number of universities in collaboration 106Highest percentage of collaboration with universities 100%
Map
Case studies• Argentina: forums (dissemination of results),
links based on people• Bolivia: vicious cycle of scarce demand for
research (universities: formation, think tanks: consultancies)
• Colombia: cooperation to understand local realities, complementarities
• Chile: universities focused on teaching, think tanks focused on public policy dialogue
• Guatemala: universities focused on teaching, collaboration and complementarity in academic training and projects.
• Perú: SEPIA, functionality, specificity of collaboration
• Paraguay: context has influenced in relevance of think tanks
• Uruguay: informality, scarce resources, collaboration for internationalization
Case studies
Preliminary conclusions• The link between think tanks and universities
is weak.• Relationships between these actors are de-
institutionalized, informal, disjointed and personalized.
• Different approaches: universities focus on theoretical research papers published in indexed journals, think tanks aim to generate applied research published in short papers (policy briefs).
Knowledge production modes MODE 1 MODE 2
Knowledge produced thinking on the scientific community’s interests
Knowledge produced in the context of its application
Knowledge produced by experts Knowledge produced in networks (interaction of different research units)
Disciplinary TransdisciplinaryHierarchical HorizontalRelevance defined by the scientific community
Relevance defined by society
Universities? Think tanks?
Source: adapted from Gibbons et al (1998)
Preliminary conclusions
• There are factors that contribute to collaboration:– Researchers in common– Joint efforts to communicate research outputs
and disseminate information– Networks– Complementary capabilities– Spaces and events for dialogue
• There are factors that affect collaboration:– Scarce economic and human resources – Different focus: universities think themselves as
educational entities – Bureaucratic systems– Scarce demand of research from policy makers,
citizens and society– Different markers for success: papers published in
indexed journals vs. public policy influence
Preliminary conclusions
Recommendations• Establish maps and data bases of the
ecosystem of knowledge production• Develop public policy networks • Training programs for public policy
specialists and recapture talent• Incentives for financial support towards
projects focused on public policy research
• Think of new ways to disseminate research results
• Programs to promote the exchange of researchers among different countries and organizations.
• It is crucial to stimulate the demand for good policy-apply research not only in the government but in the rest of society.
Recommendations
Productive/ market triple helix
Future research opportunities
StateBusiness
Academia
We know more the concept of the Triple Helix of university-industry-government Etzkowitz (1993) aimed at generating market-oriented knowledge and innovation.
Future research opportunitiesSocial triple helix
Think
tanks State
Academia
It is crucial to improve our understanding of another triple helix oriented to generate knowledge to promote better democracies, more social inclusion and more sustainable as well as resilient societies.
MUCHAS GRACIAS!