1. Adriana Arellano & Orazio Bellettini Grupo FARO Nairobi, May, 2014

2. Outline 1.Knowledge production in Latin America 2.About the study – Objective – Team – Approach – Methodology – Outputs 3.Findings 4.Preliminary conclusions 5.Policy recommendations 6.Future research

3. 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. Knowledge production LA&C: weight in the world 2011 (%) Graduates in 5A programs Higher education enrolment Population GDP (PPP) Graduates in 5B Programs Graduates in 6 Programs Added value to manufacturing ICT Added value in services IC PhD graduates Scientific production Citing of scientific production Universities in Top 500 Patents Universities in Top 100 Added value in AT industry

4. R+D investment as a percentage of GDP Canada Spain United States Latin America and Caribbean Iberoamerica

5. + Saber América Latina 11,120 tertiary education providers 3,518 recognized as universities + 638 think tanks

6. 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

7. RESEARCH TEAM ADVISORY COMITTEE José Joaquín Brunner CPCE Norma Correa PUCP Adriana Arellano Grupo FARO Soledad González / Cristobal Villalobos CPCE Wendy Espín Grupo FARO Mario Albornoz RICYT Enrique Fernández U. Tarapacá Orazio Bellettini Grupo FARO The Team

8. Systemic approach

9. 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

10. – 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

11. Findings

12. 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)

13. COUNTRY# TT Average size Average openness Average impact University impact (%) University impact LA&C (%) Argentina38386.89104.3912,411.688.097.44 Bolivia171,619.76504.3544,750.590.690.42 Brazil232,013.17492.7088,181.480.931.33 Chile141,883.64906.50 29,842.641.141.03 Colombia19477.53145.5818,211.322.482.28 Costa Rica5137.8082.80628.001.840.38 Ecuador4173.2517.256,983.001.930.67 El Salvador3319.3319.3314,024.330.320.34 Guatemala16150.5644.755,053.751.800.83 Honduras372.0053.331,674.000.040.00 Mexico262,112.62 652.9219,586.544.093.85 Nicaragua247.5013.002,766.500.27 Paraguay18126.5637.786,547.782.572.43 Peru42 475.12185.36310,744.38 2.842.74 Dominican Republic3533.3342.005,047.330.560.33 Uruguay13228.9288.621,852.469.348.80 Venezuela5343.0050.808,349.800.880.65

14. 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

15. Sample of Think Tanks30 Number of Think Tanks16 Average of university collaboration68% 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)201 Highest number of institutions in collaboration159 Highest number of universities in collaboration106 Highest percentage of collaboration with universities100%

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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).

19. Knowledge production modes MODE 1MODE 2 Knowledge produced thinking on the scientific community’s interests Knowledge produced in the context of its application Knowledge produced by expertsKnowledge produced in networks (interaction of different research units) DisciplinaryTransdisciplinary HierarchicalHorizontal Relevance defined by the scientific community Relevance defined by society Universities?Think tanks? Source: adapted from Gibbons et al (1998)

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. Productive/ market triple helix Future research opportunities State Business Academia We know more the concept of the Triple Helix of university- industry-government Etzkowitz (1993) aimed at generating market-oriented knowledge and innovation.

25. Future research opportunities Social 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.

26. MUCHAS GRACIAS!