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!