Research Agendas and Science and Technology Funding
The Case of an Internal Funding Instrument at an INTA Institute
Keywords:
agendas, R&D financing, scientific research, science and technology policy, agricultural sectorAbstract
Funding is one of the main instruments available to national governments to guide research agendas towards the production of innovative scientific and technical knowledge. This article analyzes the role of funding in the shaping of the scientific and technological research agendas of the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA) in Argentina. It studies the case of the introduction of an internal funding program, its conditions and effects on the agendas of the groups of a biotechnology research institute, which is part of INTA. It shows, in particular, that the introduction of the program marked a milestone in the governance of the institute and in its institutional capacity to guide, even partially, the agendas of its research groups. It analyses, from the researchers' point of view, the uncertainties and tensions generated by the introduction of this funding instrument, differentiating between two types of research models: one based on scientific autonomy, and the other based partially on the establishment of institutional priorities.
Downloads
References
Alemany, C. E. (2003). Apuntes para la construcción de los períodos históricos de la Extensión Rural del INTA. En G. Cimadevilla y R. Thornton (Eds.), La Extensión Rural en debate: concepciones, retrospectivas, cambios y estrategias para el Mercosur (137-171). Buenos Aires: Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria.
Barrier, J. (2011). La science en projets. Financements sur projet, autonomie professionnelle et transformations du travail des chercheurs académiques. Sociologie du Travail, 53(4), 515-536.
Bochetto, R. (2007). Requerimientos de la transformación Institucional: Formación e Investigación para la Innovación y el desarrollo. Lineamientos Básicos.
Boon, W. & Edler, J. (2018). Demand, challenges, and innovation. Making sense of new trends in innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 435–447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy014.
Calvert, J. (2006). What’s Special about Basic Research? Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31(2), 199–220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243905283642.
Chicot, J. & Matt, M. (2018). Public procurement of innovation: a review of rationales, designs, and contributions to grand challenges. Science and Public Policy, 2017, 1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy012.
Dagnino, R., Thomas, H. & Davyt, A. (1996). El pensamiento en ciencia, tecnología y sociedad en Latinoamérica: una interpretación política de su trayectoria. Redes, 3(7), 13-51.
De Jong, S., Smit, J. & van Drooge, L. (2016). Scientists’ response to societal impact policies. A policy paradox. Science and Public Policy, 43(1), 2016, 102–114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv023.
Edler, J. & Boon, W. (2018). The next generation of innovation policy: Directionality and the role of demand-oriented instruments – Introduction to the special section. Science and Public Policy, 2018, 1–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy026.
Fowler, N., Lindahl, M. & Skold, D. (2015). The Projectification of University Research: A Study of Resistance and Accommodation of Project Management Tools & Techniques. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 8(1), 9-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-10-2013-0059.
Fujimura, J. H. (1987). Constructing ‘Do-able’ Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating Alignment. Social Studies of Science, 17(2), 257–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/030631287017002003.
Gaglio, G. & Richebé, N. (2022). Un IDex pour quoi faire ? Cadrage et appropriations d’un dispositif de financement local. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 16(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/rac.29174.
Gibbons, M., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. A. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2016). Governing Science. European Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 117–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975616000047.
Hackett, E. J. (2005). Essential Tensions: Identity, Control, and Risk in Research. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 787-82.
Herrera, A. (1973). Los determinantes sociales de la política científica en América Latina: política científica explícita y política científica implícita. Desarrollo Económico, 113-134.
Hessels, L. K., Van Lente, H. & Smits, R. (2009). In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society. Science and Public Policy, 36(5), 387-401.
Hubert, M. & Louvel, S. (2012). Project-Based Funding: What Are the Effects on the Work of Researchers? Mouvements, 71, 13-24. Recuperado de: https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_MOUV_071_0013--project-funding-what-impact-on-the.htm.
Hubert, M., Chateauraynaud, F. & Fourniau, J.-M. (2012). Les chercheurs et la programmation de la recherche: du discours stratégique à la construction de sens, Quaderni, 77, 85-96. Recuperado de: https://journals.openedition.org/quaderni/556.
Hubert, M. (2015). Entre mutualisation des infrastructures et diversité des usages. Le travail de mise en plateforme dans les micro- et nanotechnologies, Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 9(4), 467-486. Recuperado de: https://www.cairn.info/revue-anthropologie-des-connaissances-2015-4-page-467.htm.
Hurtado, D. (2011). Surgimiento, alienación y retorno: el pensamiento latinoamericano en ciencia, tecnología y desarrollo. Voces en el Fénix, 8.
INTA (2019). La Gobernanza de la cartera 2019. Documento para la consideración del Consejo Directivo Actualización: 31 de mayo 2019.
Jaguaribe, H. (1975). Por qué no se ha desarrollado la ciencia en América Latina. J. Sábato (Ed.). El pensamiento latinoamericano en la problemática ciencia-tecnología-desarrollo-dependencia, (95-115). Biblioteca Nacional, Argentina.
Jaime, A., Pérez-Martelo, C., Herrera, B., Ordóñez-Matamoros, G. & Vinck, D. (2022). Functioning strategies of the research groups' leaders in the context of funding and policy instabilities. Review of policy research, 40(2), 282-306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12512.
Jouvenet, M. (2011). Profession scientifique et instruments politiques. L’impact du financement ‘sur projet’ dans des laboratoires de nanosciences. Sociologie du Travail, 53(2), 234-252.
Kreimer, P. & Zabala, J. P. (2008). Quelle connaissance et pour qui ? Problèmes sociaux, production et usage social de connaissances scientifiques sur la maladie de Chagas en Argentine. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances, 2(3), 413-439.
Kuhlmann, S. & Rip, A. (2018). Next-Generation Innovation Policy and Grand Challenges. Science and Public Policy, 2018, 1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy011.
Lepori, B., van den Besselaar, P., Dinges, M., Potì, B., Reale, E., Slipersæter, S., Thèves, J. & van der Meulen, B. (2007). Comparing the evolution of national research policy: what patterns of change. Science and Public Policy, 34(6), 372-388. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/030234207X234578.
Louvel, S. (2007). Le nerf de la guerre. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 1, 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.002.0297.
Sábato, J. & Botana, N. (1970). La ciencia y la tecnología en el desarrollo futuro de América Latina. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria.
Schuff, P. (2023). La conformación de las agendas de investigación de un instituto público de I+D agropecuario [Tesis de maestría]. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Smith, R. D., Schäfer, S. & Bernstein, M. J. (2024). Governing beyond the project: Refocusing innovation governance in emerging science and technology funding. Social Studies of Science, 54(3), 377-404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231205043.
Te Kulve, H., Boon, W., Konrad, K. & Jan Schuitmaker, T. (2018). Influencing the direction of innovation processes: the shadow of authorities in demand articulation. Science and Public Policy, 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy015.
Van der Meulen, B. & Rip, A. (1998). Mediation in the Dutch science system. Research Policy, 27, 757–769.
Varsavsky, O. (1969). Ciencia, política y cientificismo. Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de América Latina.
Vasen, F. (2011). Los sentidos de la relevancia en la política científica. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia Tecnología Y sociedad, 7(19), 11-46. Recuperado de: https://www.revistacts.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/vol7-nro19-vasen.pdf.
Wesseling, J. & Edquist, C. (2018). Public procurement for innovation to help meet societal challenges: a review and case study. Science and Public Policy, 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy013.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 CC Attribution 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
