“Más Saber” Research findings Adriana Arellano Quito, April, 2015
Outline 1. About the study 2. Findings 3. Conclusions 4. Policy recommendations
Systemic approach
+ Saber AmĂŠrica Latina 11,120 tertiary education providers 3,518 recognized as universities
+ 638 think tanks
Methodology • Qualitative studies in nine countries: each addressing at least three case studies on the relationship between think tanks and universities • A regional qualitative and quantitative study (including webometric and bibliometric analyses) to quantify links between both entities
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
Map
30 16 68% 6 (37%) 8 (50%) 2 (13%) 201 159 106 100%
Results of the bibliometric study • Of 30 centers analyzed, 16 colaborate with universities, being these the ones that produce more articles in SCOPUS. • 68% of the institutions with which think tanks collaborate to publish articles in SCOPUS are universities. • There is a clear difficulty to find research produced by think tanks on this database. Most of the research generated by think tanks is disseminated through other channels and targets other audiences.
Case studies • Argentina: forums (dissemination of results), links based on people • Brazil: collaboration with public universities is difficult due to bureaucracy • Bolivia: vicious cycle of scarce demand for research (universities: formation, think tanks: consultancies) • Colombia: cooperation to understand local realities, complementarities
Case studies • 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
Conclusions • The link between think tanks and universities is weak and sporadic. • 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).
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 • Thinking 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 policyapplied research not only in the government but in the rest of society.
MUCHAS GRACIAS!