Abstract
This article examines the implications of how academics respond to the debate on the production of knowledge and its transfer to the productive sector, for the transformation of Latin American universities. The empirical analysis is based on a survey of 349 lecturers from Bolivian public universities, which inquired into aspects of university–industry relations (UIR). Although the results indicate that lecturers are in favour of relations with firms, there are several barriers to such relationships, such as lack of institutional support, generally unfavourable atmosphere in universities, and an industrial structure comprising few firms in knowledge-intensive sectors and firms with low absorptive capacity. In the context of Bolivia, unlike what occurs in developed countries, UIR have been configured around scientifically unimportant activities—technological support and internship schemes to place students in firms—which has had a negative effect on the consolidation of research, an academic activity, to which lecturers devote little of their time. The results of our study show the tensions that exist in efforts to change the university model; there is a reluctance to intensify the commercialisation of research results, and a lack of enthusiasm for introducing complex relationship mechanisms, such as the creation of hybrid structures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In this sense, Thomas et al. (1997) have pointed out that (unlike what happened in the 1960s) during the 1990s a Latin American thought on science, technology and society hasn’t emerged, but only an uncritical adoption of theories based on experiences of developed countries.
This indicator is calculated based on only the proportion of each person’s time that is dedicated to R&D per year.
According to data from the Ibero-American Network of Science and Technology Indicators (RICYT), for the period 1999–2002, Bolivian universities financed more than 30% of R&D expenditure and conducted more than 40% of it; in Latin America as a whole these percentages were 20% and 38% respectively.
These universities are grouped into the so-called Bolivian University System (BUS).
The model of access to higher education is considered to be elitist when enrolment is lower than 15%, and massive when enrolment is between 15 and 35%.
Note the normative character of the proposal, which does not stop at energising or articulating the System, but creates it. This characteristic has been present in many of Latin America’s S&T policies. In Colombia, for example, the 585 Decree of 1991 created the National Science and Technology System and four years later the National Innovation System. These attempts to create “Innovation Systems” reveal the ignorance of what this really means, being also an evidence of the above mentioned uncritical adoption of foreign models.
Lecturers were asked whether 5 years ago they would have believed that the universities should carry out R&D activities for firms. 82% of respondents answered affirmatively. This percentage is 11 points lower than the current perception.
The above percentages are lower than those found by Azagra (2003) for the Spanish case, where 89% of lecturers carried out R&D activities and devoted 30% of their time to them.
Several authors have highlighted that collaboration is a key element to research units’ performance. Osca et al. (2002) and Guimerá et al. (2005) found that the researchers that establish collaboration links with researchers within their units or with those from other research groups, use resources more efficiently and tend to publish in higher impact factor journals.
References
Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2005). Latin American universities: From an original revolution to an uncertain transition. Higher Education, 50, 573–592.
Arocena, R. & Sutz, J. (2002). Sistemas de innovación y países en desarrollo [Electronic version]. SUDESCA Research Papers 30.
Azagra, J., Archontakis, F., Gutierrez, A., & Fernández, I. (2006). Faculty support for the objectives of university–industry relations versus degree of R&D cooperation: The importance of regional absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 35, 37–55.
Azagra, J., Archontakis, F., Gutierrez, A., & Fernández, I. (2003, october). University–industry interaction: support to cooperation versus actual cooperation in peripheral regions. Paper presented at the 10th seminario Latino-Iberoamericano de Gestión Tecnológica—Altec, México.
Etzkowitz, H. (1990). The second academic revolution: The role of the research university in economic development. In: S. Cozzens, P. Healey, A. Rip, & J. Ziman (Eds.), The research system in transition (pp. 109–124). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (Eds.). (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy. A Triple Helix of University–Industry-Government Relations. London: Pinter.
Geuna, A. (1999). The economics of knowledge production. Funding and the structure of university research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Guimerá, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro J., & Nunez, L. (2005). Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science, 308, 697–702.
Lee, Y. S. (1996). Technology transfer and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25, 843–863.
Lundvall, B. A. (Ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation. Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.
Mendoza, R. (2002). Construyendo una visión de futuro a partir de la pequeña empresa (In FES-ILDES (Eds.)), (pp. 363–389). La Paz, Bolivia: visiones de futuro.
Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., & Duran, X. (2002). Measuring third stream activities. Final report to the Russell Group of Universities. SPRU, University of Sussex.
Nelson R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems. London: Oxford University Press.
Osca, J., Castro, E., Fernández, I., & Serra, P. (2002). La producción científico-técnica de la Comunidad Valenciana. Revista Valenciana d’Estudis Autonomics, 38, 179–280.
Peterson, B., & Harrell, F.E. (1990). Partial proportional odds models for ordinal response variables. Applied Statistics, 39, 205–217.
RICYT. (2001). El Estado de la Ciencia: Principales Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología. Buenos Aires.
Sábato, J., & Botana, N. (1968). La ciencia y la tecnología en el desarrollo futuro de América Latina. Revista de Integración, 3.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L.L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tellería, J. L. (2001). Manual y glosario razonado sobre ciencia, tecnología e innovación en Latinoamérica. La Paz: CEUB.
Thomas, H., Davyt, A., & Dagnino, R. (1997). Racionalidades de la interacción Universidad-empresa en América Latina (1955–1995).[Electronic version]. Revista Espacios, 18.
Tuunainen, J. (2005). Hybrid practices? Contributions to the debate on the mutation of science and university. Higher Education, 50, 275–298.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vega-Jurado, J., Fernández-de-Lucio, I. & Huanca, R. University–industry relations in Bolivia: implications for university transformations in Latin America. High Educ 56, 205–220 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9098-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9098-9