Adriana Arellano & Orazio Bellettini
Grupo FARO
Nairobi, May, 2014
Outline
1. Knowledge production in Latin America
2. About the study
–
–
–
–
–
3.
4.
5.
6.
Objective
Team
Approach
Methodology
Outputs
Findings
Preliminary conclusions
Policy recommendations
Future research
Universities in Top 100
Patents
Universities in Top 500
Citing of scientific
production
Added value in AT industry
Scientific production
PhD graduates
Added value in services IC
Added value to
manufacturing ICT
Graduates in 6 Programs
Graduates in 5B Programs
GDP (PPP)
Population
Higher education enrolment
Graduates in 5A programs
Knowledge production
LA&C: weight in the world 2011 (%)
Source: UIS; NSF, Science
and Engineering
Indicators 2013;
Population Reference
Bureau; Shanghai Jiao
Tong University,
Academic Ranking of
World
Universities (ARWU)
2013; Scimago
Country Rankings; Quandl
for Academics.
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
The Team
RESEARCH TEAM
José Joaquín Brunner
CPCE
Orazio
Bellettini
Grupo FARO
Soledad González
/ Cristobal
Villalobos
CPCE
Adriana
Arellano
Grupo FARO
Wendy Espín
Grupo FARO
ADVISORY COMITTEE
Norma
Correa
PUCP
Mario
Albornoz
RICYT
Enrique
Fernández
U.
Tarapacá
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
Project outputs
• 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
– Argentina
– Bolivia
– Brazil
– Colombia
– Chile
– Guatemala
– Paraguay
– Peru
– Uruguay
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
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Nicaragua
Paraguay
Peru
Dominican
Republic
Uruguay
Venezuela
# TT
38
17
23
14
19
5
4
3
16
3
26
2
18
Average
size
386.89
1,619.76
2,013.17
1,883.64
477.53
137.80
173.25
319.33
150.56
72.00
2,112.62
42
47.50
126.56
475.12
3
13
5
533.33
228.92
343.00
Average
openness
104.39
504.35
492.70
906.50
Average
impact
University
impact
LA&C (%)
12,411.68
44,750.59
88,181.48
29,842.64
18,211.32
628.00
6,983.00
14,024.33
5,053.75
1,674.00
19,586.54
2,766.50
6,547.78
8.09
7.44
0.69
0.93
1.14
2.48
1.84
1.93
0.32
1.80
0.04
4.09
0.27
2.57
2.84
0.42
1.33
1.03
2.28
0.38
0.67
0.34
0.83
0.00
3.85
0.27
2.43
2.74
5,047.33
1,852.46
8,349.80
0.56
0.33
9.34
8.80
0.88
0.65
145.58
82.80
17.25
19.33
44.75
53.33
652.92
13.00
37.78
185.36 310,744.38
42.00
88.62
50.80
University
impact (%)
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
Number of Think Tanks
Average of university collaboration
Think Tanks with higher collaboration with
universities over 75%
Think Tanks with collaboration with univesrities
between 50% and 75%
Think Tanks with collaboration with universities
under 50%
Highest amount of articles published (2000-2012)
Highest number of institutions in collaboration
Highest number of universities in collaboration
Highest percentage of collaboration with
universities
30
16
68%
6 (37%)
8 (50%)
2 (13%)
201
159
106
100%
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
Case studies
• 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
Preliminary conclusions
• The link between think tanks and universities
is weak.
• Relationships between these actors are deinstitutionalized, 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
Knowledge produced in the
the scientific community’s interests context of its application
Knowledge produced by experts
Knowledge produced in
networks (interaction of
different research units)
Disciplinary
Transdisciplinary
Hierarchical
Horizontal
Relevance defined by the scientific Relevance defined by society
community
Universities?
Source: adapted from Gibbons et al (1998)
Think tanks?
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
Preliminary conclusions
• 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
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
Recommendations
• 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.
Future research opportunities
Productive/ market
triple helix
Academia
We know more the
concept of the Triple
Helix of universityindustry-government
Etzkowitz (1993)
aimed at generating
market-oriented
knowledge and
innovation.
Future research opportunities
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.
Social triple helix
Academia
MUCHAS GRACIAS!