Contactos/Contacts       Mapa del sitio/Web site map      
Collaborative Doctoral Programs
Types of Latin American Universities

According to Brunner ( J.J. Brunner, 2002), we can distinguish between three types of universities in Latin America: (1º) Complex Universities: these are similar to universities in developed countries, are based on key rankings, and have a good balance of teaching, research and service to society. They are located in four major clusters: Mexico City, Santiago, Buenos Aires, and a number of cities in Brazil such as Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and Campinas. This particular group comprises less than 3% of the total figure. (2º) Important universities situated in major Latin American cities; these universities are well-organized, equipped with an impressive faculty of staff, and have created a significant impact in their respective countries through academic achievement. Although these universities are mainly focused on teaching, they still have a limited number of individual research units. Notwithstanding, many of them have been able to establish a certain level of development, and have created international linkages with other universities. It is estimated that this group comprises no more than 7% of the Latin American university sphere. (3º) The remaining 90% are universities that focus on teaching and have achieved very little in the field of research development. Furthermore, their contribution to society is very limited.

In developing countries, there is 25% of the world’s scientists and 5% of research funds. However, the bulk of our contribution to science is roughly 1%. This seems to indicate that it is neither an economic issue nor a question of the availability of personnel. In Latin America, for example, there is an urgent need for science that benefits society. This problem was highlighted in the 1998 UNESCO World Conference of Higher Education held in Paris. The most important challenges of universities in the 21st century are therefore social relevance and quality.

2. Robert K. Merton’s Mathew Effect

Robert K. Merton, (R.K. Merton, 1973), the father of the Sociology of Science, stressed several decades ago in his basic thesis on the “Mathew Effect” the need for a critical mass of scientists and operational elements that should be put in place before an exponential increase in results can be expected. It is argued whether this factor alone has caused the lack of scientific progress in Latin America over the last few decades Typically, this is where a vast number of minimal groups and isolated scientists are pooled together and receive little state support. As a result, their work is often abandoned at a very early stage. This situation starkly contrasts with the global university reality. Ever since their creation, universities have been social accumulators of knowledge or “know how” and installed capacity. Universities are now becoming more team-focussed and structured, so that each area of science is more developed, which, interestingly, has very little correlation with the number of people who actually attend universities.

3. Training Problems and the “Brain Drain”
  It is claimed that scientific progress in Latin America also depends on the training of its main protagonists. That is why various national and international support policies have been developed for postgraduate training. The general requirement to become an MA or PhD student at universities in developed countries usually consists of 2-5 years of academic study. The lack of permanent operational structures with a specific installed capacity, however, is partially responsible for the burgeoning phenomenon of brain drain. As a result, foreign countries and other academic activities are not directly related to the accumulation of scientific training.  This is because they are either more lucrative, or have suffered the disillusionment experienced by those who return to an environment that strongly contrasts with their study period overseas. The majority of those who return to their universities of origin are thus rarely able to establish permanent research teams in which their training can be translated into a significant increase in capacity. The reasons for this are twofold: a) a lack of institutional support, and b) the stalling effects of formal academia. Consequently, they often end up becoming simple administrative personnel, who only use their academic titles to occupy normal positions. It is estimated that the accumulated effect of all these factors would produce an effective return of a figure not higher than 1% for Type III universities. What’s more, the figure for Type II universities would likewise be very low.

4. The Role of ICTs
Clearly, the ICTs offer a unique opportunity to close the gap with developed countries, as the 2003 World Bank Report states in: “Reducing the Gap in Education and Technology” (World Bank, 2003). The new technologies enable us to increase access to information and establish links with other countries. In addition, they provide innovative and creative forms of training, and flexible team work. With the right balance of support and collaborative foci, there would not be any obstacles in obtaining proper access to new technologies, thus producing powerful results in scientific development.  Both science and information technology should be part of our universities. Moreover, scientific development should be part of the complex make-up of society- with its “experts” and exclusive environments. In this way, we can all work together step by step  to ensure that there is exponential growth- as is already happening in Knowledge Management by means of Web 2.0 and Open Educational Resources (OERs).



5. Proposal


The only alternative that has been put forward to remedy this situation is the Collaborative Doctoral Program. To achieve this aim, universities in developing countries are required to make a fully-fledged agreement to train full time professors in this these types of programs. In addition, they should be supported by an internal policy, i.e. where research incubators exist as a realistic opportunity for professors. As a result, these professors would successfully return to their place of work. The procedures for doctoral degrees such as those previously mentioned include short stays, that is, at universities where PhDs are taught and where ongoing academic support is provided for projects at the home institution. This system is supported by new technology and visiting professors from doctoral programs, namely those that assist with the on-site development of research units. The final result is not only the graduation of PhD students, but also the effective linkage of research incubators with departments or advanced laboratories at developed universities, i.e. where professors from both universities work together, jointly publish material, and form successful networks. Therefore, an academic title is not the final objective of these PhD students. On the contrary, it is the development of permanent scientific capacity that is linked with international partners.

The ‘course providers’ that offer these doctoral programs are, however mainly concerned with the final stage, i.e. to create authentic international networks that fulfil the following criteria: that they be grouped according to specific themes; that they jointly publish material with universities which are ‘course seekers’, and that they are not newly formed networks, but are rather part of a natural growth process and the product of linkages that have been established.

In order to ensure that these programs are effective, there should be a cooperation plan that includes operative flexibility for course providers and effective action in terms of support for installed capacity. What’s more, there should be a policy for creating research incubators and institutional support for doctoral students during the training process for ‘course seekers’.

One can only envisage an effective development of Science in Latin America lest sandwich doctoral degrees and research incubators are implemented on a massive scale. Moreover, finance must be divided among the various actors or ‘providers’, with a reduced rate for joint collaboration initiatives, academic stays etc, and “course seekers”. This can be achieved by allocating a percentage of the university budget for the development of permanent installed capacity processes for scientific development and social relevancy and the participation of various “support agencies” that can facilitate this process and partially contribute to its financing.

6. PARTICIPANTS
Latin American  Universities  that are ‘course seekers’ that are interested in running “collaborative doctoral programs or ‘sandwich courses’ and creating research incubators – taking into account the successful experiences of other universities in the region.
Latin American, North American and European course providers, which are interested in developing collaborative doctoral programs (sandwich PhDs), and supporting the creation and consolidation of research incubators by client universities.

Collaborative Doctoral Programs and Research Incubators

FIRST MEETING ON COLLABORATIVE DOCTORAL PROGRAMS AND RESEARCH INCUBATORS

ENTER WEBSITE

JOIN BLOG

SECOND MEETING ON COLLABORATIVE DOCTORAL PROGRAMS AND RESEARCH INCUBATORS

ENTER FORUM