The São Paulo Excellence Chair program InSysPo (Innovation Systems, Strategies, and Policy), part of the Department of Science and Technology Policy, University of Campinas (Unicamp), Brazil, is one of the co-organizers of the online workshop series “Technology Upgrading and Economic Catch-Up”. The first workshop will take place on November 4th, from 9am to 11am (Brasilia, Brazil local time – BRT), transmitted live by Zoom. Interested attendees should complete the registration process on the event’s website. The registration is free of charge.
The theme of the first edition of the workshop series is: “Technology capabilities and their impact on growth and catching up”. The workshop explores the role of technological capabilities and their impact on growth and economic catching up, with a focus on emerging economies. The complex relationship between technological capabilities and economic catch-up offers the background to the presentation topics, which will address concepts such as technological leapfrogging, as well as proposals of new metrics for the understanding of technological improvement in emerging countries. You can see the whole list of topics and speakers by clicking here.
Besides InSysPo, the series is co-organized by the Institute for International Science and Technology Policy (George Washington University), the UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies – University College London, the Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge (National Research University/Higher School of Economics), and Seoul National University.
ABOUT THE SERIES:
This series of workshops explores the major issues related to the technology upgrading of emerging and catching up economies. It discusses the state-of-the-art understanding of the issues around technology upgrading and economic catch-up, exploring country, sector and firm-level issues based on a variety of country experiences.
“Science communication is more important than ever”, says one of the participants of an international series of webinars on doing science during the pandemic
Rodrigo Costas researches science information and bibliometrics at CWTS/Leiden University since 2009 (Personal Archive)
In times of social distancing, curfews, and quarantines, scientists are busier than ever. Be it in collaborative efforts to provide a vaccine in a record-breaking speed or with attempts to understand the many different impacts (mental, social, economic, political) of Covid-19 in our society, there is little doubt that science is at the centre stage when it comes to the subject of our daily (mostly virtual) interactions and hopes for a post-pandemic future. But still, little has been written or told about the effects of Covid-19 on scientific research per se. What if science and scientists are the topics of our research during the crazy times we are living in?
In the following interview, Costas shares a few insights on the topic, coming from his research and personal knowledge from the field, as well as revealing details from the webinars and what we can expect from future editions:
InSysPo: First of all, what do you research at CWTS? What is your research background?
My area of expertise is mostly scientometrics, so I work in quantitative studies of science. I investigate mostly two main topics, although you can say that they are maybe pretty broad themselves. On one hand, I’m studying scientometrically research questions about individual researchers, analysing teams of researchers or collaboration groups. Recently we have developed some work on mobility studies, tracking how researchers change their affiliations as we capture them in scientific publications. That is a very interesting new research line.
And the other type of research is the altmetrics research, that I call more and more social media metrics or social media studies of science, because essentially what we want to research are the interactions that can be captured and traced in social media platforms between science and scientists, and the general public.
“what we want to research are the interactions that can be captured and traced in social media platforms between science and scientists, and the general public”
InSysPo: Is there a particular social media in view such as, for example, Twitter or Facebook, or social media in general?
From a conceptual point of view, what we mean as social media is as an environment where academic and non-academic can interact in multiple ways, something that didn’t happen before. The more traditional bibliometric research didn’t have such a strong interaction component, so now with altmetrics we have an opportunity to study this new space of science-society interaction. Of course, although we analyse social media in general, in the end you can only study the sources that allow some data analytical tools, like APIs (Application Programming Interfaces), this is why Twitter is one of our main sources.
I don’t know if you are familiar with the platform altmetric.com. It is probably the most famous company tracking social media mentions. They track Twitter, Facebook – not all the Facebook interactions but the public posts – newsmedia, blog posts, Wikipedia citations, policy documents and so on. The other, Plum analytics, that belongs to Elsevier, is also quite good. Finally, there is the open-source version, Crossref Event Data, which is still good but has more restrictions in their data collection. So, this is basically what we can do in terms of data, so then we look at how many tweets a publication has received. We have already studied the correlation [of those tweets] with citations, we know that they are very low, and we are actually moving right now towards conceptualizing social media metrics to study science communication.
So, considering that space of interaction [social media], one can study the moment where a scientist sends a message to the world, saying: “Okay, there’s this paper”. How can that paper be successful? How is that message supposed to reach people and inform the communities in the best way? So, this is the type of indicators that we are starting to conceptualize.
InSysPo: By the way, you just mentioned science communication, that is a topic that moved to the forefront during the pandemic, especially with the huge amount of information, some not reliable at all, circulating in social media. What do you think are the impacts of the pandemic in Science Communication? Do you feel that it offered a chance for bridging the gap between scientists and society, or that gap got larger?
That is a complex question, it does not have a simple answer. There has been some research showing an increase in the number of experts interacting in social media, something showcased by my colleague Giovanni Colavizza. In our work we have seen, as I presented in the webinar, a huge increase in the attention received by scientific publications related to the pandemic, I mean really impressive data compared to what we typically see in our altmetric research. Just for you to picture the numbers, usually when you look at a scientific topic you will see something around 30%-40% of the papers in that subject receiving some attention or mentions on Twitter. This year we saw up to 60% of attention. That is very high. So more than half of all the papers about Covid-19 receive some mention on Twitter, at least with the data we have from the end of June.
“more than half of all the papers about Covid-19 receive some mention on Twitter”
From what I saw, what I can answer is: there has been an increase in the attention given to scientific research in social media, at least on Twitter.
InSysPo: Moving to the webinar, how did you and your colleagues at CWTS come up with the idea of organizing such events? What was your goal at the beginning? Do you feel they were achieved?
When the pandemic started some of us started to reflect: “Okay, we have a chance to do some research on the social media reception of scientific research”. That was one of the most immediate reactions we had. New research themes flourished during Covid-19 and doing scientometric research on those topics is something that takes some time. The social media reaction, on the other hand, was something more immediate. Then we started to think about how to collect data, how to start the first analysis, the first dashboard and so on. In that context, we brought that discussion to other colleagues here at CWTS and then we set up this program. We tried to coordinate it so that people who were researching funders, peer-review, and other topics could have a space to interact and share their impressions. From there, everything started to have some sort of cohesion.
Initially, we had those discussions every 15 days to follow up on the research we were doing about the pandemic, until this thought came in one of those meetings: “well, why not have a webinar?”
In the first webinar, there were no CWTS contributions, since we tried to reach out to other groups to check what they were doing and how they were seeing the situation from a scientometric research policy perspective. The first edition was pretty successful. I think we had more than 170 participants. The second one, from what I’ve heard, was also quite successful, reaching a larger audience. I feel that there is a strong interest in this type of webinar, in these discussions, and that leaves us with a sense of success concerning what we proposed back then. We got attention and also wonderful contributions. I really enjoyed the last webinar. I think we had a great mix of topics.
InSysPo: Well, it’s such a recent topic and it’s moving a lot of people, they identify themselves with this kind of research to a very personal level as well, and I guess you and your colleagues built the perfect environment to connect all these different people.
True. One of the presentations in the webinar was about this expansion of the epistemic understanding of what is Covid-19 research. And I guess this is a great example. We are social scientists, data scientists, and basically, we are wondering: “what can we do? How can we contribute from our side?” Of course, we are not developing the vaccine, but at least we can create tools, monitors, that can help us make sense of the situation: what are the researches? What are the topics being discussed?
““what can we do? How can we contribute from our side?” Of course, we are not developing the vaccine, but at least we can create tools, monitors, that can help us make sense of the situation”
Take for instance the dashboard that I’ve presented in the webinar. When we developed it we were thinking of reaching journalists and content producers. “What are topics that are being tweeted and no journalist is talking about?” or “What are the topics that are highly tweeted but not cited, pointing to a distortion between social media reception and academic reception?”. That is something that can help people. You may not answer all the questions but can help to answer specific questions or at least take the first step in that direction.
InSysPo: Another question is regarding international collaborations. We heard presentations about changes made by publishers and journals to accelerate the publication process of Covid-19 related research. We also saw seminars showcasing mixed-methods research on the impact of Covid-19 on scientific productivity. But there were no talks on the effects of Covid-19 on international research partnerships and international multidisciplinary research groups, such as InSysPo. So, from a scientometric point of view, how do you see the impact of Covid-19 on the outcome from international research cohorts?
Well, there is the general question, that I can answer with my opinion, and the research question. On the second one, as I said before, we may have more data in perhaps a few months to see how research teams have collaborated. A research question is: “do international research groups keep producing at the same pace during the pandemic? Has there been a drop? Or maybe an increase because we travel less so we can work more?” It is something that seems interesting to explore in the future, to see how global crisis have different effects on the scientific system since collaboration and interdisciplinarity are key topics.
If I answer more like a researcher, from my personal experience, I would say that the lack of physical contact is going to affect me, because although you keep doing work, at least in my case I work a little bit more on my own, setbacks are coming from the lack of physical interaction. I had contacts like this [this interview happened virtually] in the past, I have collaborated with people from South Africa, Brazil, China etc. When you travel and you have the physical space, you enter into dynamics where you focus more on the topics of your collaboration. Even if the production keeps flowing, I believe that if we don’t take something from that, it may have some effect to the point where teams may keep collaborating but work more in an individual setting. So, the collaboration may be diluted a bit. I believe that the physical space, the in-person relation with your colleagues, has some positive effect on scientific work.
InSysPo: Something you think online events or online workshops can’t actually fulfil, right?
I mean, from a different point of view, I could say: “well, these things can really work online”. There is a huge amount of work that we can channel online, perhaps not with that many conferences, but there is still something missing. I miss the people I know! Typically, this time of the year you have a conference where you meet with your colleagues and over the years, they become sort of your friends, so that part is irreplaceable. Same thing with family. I talk a lot to my family now, maybe even more than before since I’m in the Netherlands and they’re from Galicia [Spain], but there is nothing that could replace staying with or visiting them. I feel that the same happens in scientific work. Putting it in a future research question: would that [the lack of physical interaction] also reflect in the outcome of publications?
InSysPo: And what about the new dynamics of research in times of Covid-19? What is it like doing “online research”?
Well, we were already doing online research. It is not that we have moved to something completely new. What we don’t do now is in-person research. So, I would say it is much more of doing more of something that we have already been doing and doing less of something that we have already done. In a way, we keep doing the same things we have been doing online, maybe with more online meetings, which I remember to also have a lot in the past. I think we are just realizing that many of the physical meetings can be done online, which saves time. We are finally recognizing that we can work from anywhere. That has an implication for example to our mobility research. Using myself as an example again, I was in Spain and then I came to the Netherlands, so there was a physical movement. I live here, I had to adapt. But now you see that it is perfectly possible for me to work from Spain, while still affiliated to the department here, and keep 80% of my activities basically at the same pace.
That is a powerful thought. Science really became global; you can work for anyone from everywhere. But as I said, I feel that the physical part is an important component that we should not overlook. We keep doing what we already did online, perhaps we do more, using more interactive platforms where we share files, documents, have calls, chats. But, from a personal side, what I miss is the other part, the physical contact.
InSysPo: We are talking about doing science in the times of Covid-19, but these times will hopefully come to an end, at least that is our hope. What changes do you think came to stay? What impacts from Covid-19 on research activity do you see staying for longer?
I can tell you what I’d really like to stay and that is that notion of decentralization, the good things of decentralization, being able to travel more and have physical interactions but still doing your activities, your original work, remotely. So, let’s say I head to Brazil for a month, I would also keep finishing my activities here from my department. So, the delocalization is a great consequence that I hope will stay.
I would also like to see more consciousness in our meetings, the ones where we move physically to a location. There are so many things we can still do online, so we can keep the physical meetings but save them for more important research. I’m not saying that we didn’t do it before, but I believe we’ll have more consciousness about it, maybe thinking: “okay, this is important, so let’s extract more value from it”. So, either we go back to normal or we learn how to handle them better, to also create other spaces to work or think. That is basically what we are supposed to do.
InSysPo: And we finally understood that many of our meetings are actually pointless and (re)discovered the art of getting to the point.
Well, as a person who used to have a lot of meetings, either online or physical, the only thing I can say is: if you are having pointless physical meetings, for which you have to pay transportation or whatever, at least now you’ll save that money.
InSysPo: A much-needed money now.
Of course. What brings me to acknowledge a specific impact of Covid-19 that I hope is temporary, which is all the cuts that are happening. Something I noticed is an increase in the competition for funding. So, it seems like there are more calls for funding, but the competition got even higher and funders were not even aware of this.
InSysPo: Regarding your research field, research metrics, what was the impact of the pandemic on the fields’ praxis? Were there any changes in the metrics per se?
I don’t believe there was a change in the metrics per se, but more in the items that we want to measure. In that sense, one of the points in my webinar was that if our metrics until now were very interesting because we wanted to see different types of impact, they are moving now to capture interactions, which is something more important. We are doing research to solve a problem that is immediate, and people are anxious about it, that is why there is so much traffic around the publications. Having new metrics to monitor if the interactions are happening in the best way is, in my opinion, much more important than before. Science communication has always played a crucial role, but now you feel its increased relevance because you want people to understand why they have to wear/ masks or wash their hands. So, this type of research metric became more relevant.
“We are doing research to solve a problem that is immediate, and people are anxious about it, that is why there is so much traffic around the publications. Having new metrics to monitor if the interactions are happening in the best way is, in my opinion, much more important than before. Science communication has always played a crucial role, but now you feel its increased relevance”
On the more traditional type of metrics, I think some of the recent studies, for example, the gender analysis showing how fewer women are participating in scientific efforts, something that indicates another type of problems, are also important. Policymakers must be aware of such situations after all. All the metrics on the time of publication, how we can ease that process and achieve better results in a shorter time, will also gain importance compared to before. That includes numbers on the roles of preprints because the question was: “okay, can we trust this research? It has not been peer-reviewed”. So, there are other ways now to accelerate that peer-review process.
Another topic is how we delineate the theme: “what is Covid-19?”. The way Covid-19 relates to research is not only circumscribed to the virus, but also to the social, economic, and political consequences. Even the questions you are asking me [in this interview] are Covid-19 related without being strictly about the virus. So, numbers about these questions became more relevant than ever.
InSysPo: Finally, I know you and your colleagues haven’t stopped at the second edition, so what can we expect from future webinars?
Well, I still haven’t talked to my colleagues about the last webinar and the next edition. In essence, we wanted to have more people from the community interested in keeping these webinars. At first, we had only CWTS, now we have other institutions related to CWTS, but ideally, we would have more people engaged in developing them. We also want to expand the topics.
So, we plan to continue the meetings. I still have to talk to my colleagues, but the idea is to keep them, expand the topics, and also have more people running the webinars. We still don’t have a fixed schedule for the next events.
With the assistance of two InSysPo collaborators, Prof. Rodrigo Costas and Prof. Robert Tijssen, both from CWTS Leiden University, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS/Leiden University) and the TIB Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology are organizing the second edition of the webinar “Doing science in times of crisis: Science studies perspectives on COVID-19”
The purpose of the webinar is to showcase, discuss and connect science studies research on the COVID-19 pandemic. Topics include mapping COVID-19-related research, social media and altmetrics, scholarly communication, and research infrastructures.
If you are interested, please apply using this link. Registration is required and absolutely free of charge. You will receive a Zoom link shortly before the webinar. For more information, please refer to CTWS website.
InSysPo is offering several FAPESP Direct Doctoral fellowships linked to the program’s Research Projects. The deadline for application is November 30, 2020. InSySPo and UNICAMP Science and Technology Policy Graduation Program have established a partnership to receive candidates interested in applying for InSySPo fellowship. Prospective applicants should check the Open Call for more information on the requirements, including the application form, English proficiency levels, and required documentation.
Applicants for SPEC grants must have a background in economics, sociology, business management, public administration or other relevant area (also including natural sciences), with a strong interest in science, technology and innovation policies, in addition to a predisposition to interdisciplinary work. Previous knowledge about socioeconomic aspects of technological advancement and R&I policy is desirable. Candidates should be inclined to take individual initiative in research and possess strong analytical skills. Scholarship values are defined according to FAPESP standards.
With Reema Patel, Head of Public Engagement at the Ada Lovelace Institute. The Ada Lovelace Institute (UK) is an independent research and deliberative body with a mission to ensure data and AI work for people and society; Dr. Melissa Flagg, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) and an Adjunct professor in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University; & Niraj Bhargava, CEO NuEnergy AI, A Canadian ethical AI company. Thursday, May 21 at 11AM EDT
More information: https://blogs.gwu.edu/elliott-iistp/events-at-the-institute/
The Department of Science and Technology Policy (DPCT) of the University of Campinas (UNICAMP) (https://portal.ige.unicamp.br/en/node/553) hereby announces the opening of five post-doctoral fellowships in: (1) System Innovation;(2) Technology Upgrading, Catching-up; (3) Research and Innovation Policy Design, Implementation, Evaluation; (4) Ecosystems for Innovation and Entrepreneurship; (5) Big Data for Assessing Innovation Processes and Research and Innovation Policy. These post-doctoral fellowships are attached to the São Paulo Excellence Chair (SPEC) “System Innovation: Organizational Strategy, Research & Innovation Policy Governance” (http://www.ige.unicamp.br/spec) established at DPCT by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP). This SPEC program has just been initiated and will run at UNICAMP for the next five years. The post-doctoral fellowships announced herein are full-time positions for up to two years each.
The new SPEC program will investigate important
aspects of the socio-technical regime that attracts, nurtures, and promotes
technological advancements and innovative applications with important
implications for growth, development and sustainability. We will study the
processes used by individual organizations and by societies to become more
productive and more competitive through innovation, but also investigate how
innovation can be more environmentally friendly and more socially inclusive.
This research appointment will concentrate on the
study of “global industry governance” as it relates to technological
advancement and innovation. A topic of special interest is the international
fragmentation of production and the positioning of firms and countries across
the activities of global value chains (GVCs) and the ensuing networks.
Strategic business partnerships, of which GVCs are a specific manifestation,
will also be an area of concentration.
The successful applicant will be expected to work on
quantitative and qualitative methods using information from interviews,
university and industry surveys, and commercially available databases. Prior
training in the field of economics of technological change and innovation will
be a plus. Training in other fields such as sociology, public policy, and business
management as they relate to science, technology and innovation is also welcome.
Ability to start and carry out projects independently, engage in theoretical
modelling and/or econometric/statistical analysis, manipulate data, write for
publication in well ranked international refereed journals, and participation
in research proposals for extramural funding will be highly valued. The
successful applicant will also expect to engage in the organization of one or
two major international events of this SPEC program during a 2-year tenure at
UNICAMP.
This position will be directed by Professor Bruno
Fischer (UNICAMP, Brazil) and Professor Nicholas Vonortas (The George
Washington University, USA; and UNICAMP, Brazil).
(2)
Technology Upgrading, Catching-up (TR1):
This research line discusses the modern approaches to
conceptualize the struggle of emerging economies to narrow/close the gap with
the economies at the technology frontier and avoid “middle-income traps”. Such
traps are often associated with “middle-technology” or “middle-innovation”
traps. Work will concentrate on the “policy mix”, including both supply-side
and demand-side policies, that countries may deploy for achieving such an
objective. The modern literature on Industry 4.0 (Advanced Manufacturing)
(I4.0) and Internet of Things (IoT), will be highly relevant. Familiarity with
the literature on middle-income traps, technology upgrading and catching-up
will be a major plus. The work will extend to manufacturing as well as to knowledge-intensive
service sectors such as financial technologies (fintech) and creative
industries.
The successful applicant will be expected to work on
quantitative and qualitative methods using information from interviews,
university and industry surveys, and commercially available databases. Prior
training in the field of economics of technological change and innovation will
be a plus. Training in other fields such as sociology, public policy, and
business management as they relate to science, technology and innovation is also
welcome. Ability to start and carry out projects independently, engage in
theoretical modelling and/or econometric/statistical analysis, manipulate data,
write for publication in well ranked international refereed journals, and
participate in research proposals for extramural funding will be highly valued.
The successful applicant will also expect to engage in the organization of one
or two major international events of this SPEC program during a 2-year tenure
at UNICAMP.
This position will be directed by Professor André
Furtado (UNICAMP, Brazil) and Professor Nicholas Vonortas (The George
Washington University, USA; and UNICAMP, Brazil).
(3)
Research and Innovation Policy Design, Implementation, Evaluation (TR2):
This research line deals with the design and implementation
of effective evidence-based R&I policies. The design (strategic planning)
and implementation (resource allocation) of R&I policy critically depend on
the lessons from ex-post impact assessment and the blending of those results
with forward-looking prioritization exercises. Here we work on three
sub-fields:
R&I investment prioritization: Processes that systematically look at the long-term future
of science and technology with the purpose of identifying areas of strategic
research and emergence of new technologies; Investment strategy for complicated
R&I portfolios in environments of intense market and technological
uncertainty.
Complete evaluation cycle for R&I: The implementation of a complete evaluation cycle for
R&I policies and programs, that is, the seamless use of complementary
processes linking ex ante evaluation with monitoring and with impact (ex post)
evaluation processes.
“Wicked” application: mission-oriented R&I policies: The application of all of the above (evaluation methods) in
what can be described as a “wicked” evaluation problem, namely broad
mission-oriented R&I policies with strong system innovation
characteristics.
The successful applicant will conduct research on the
development and application of concepts and methods of impact evaluation of
programs and policies related to science, technology and innovation. Methodologies
may focus both on ex-post and on ex-ante approaches with a perspective of
building complete cycle evaluations linking ex-ante and ex-post under
systematic evaluation processes. The researcher is expected to work on
qualitative and quantitative methods applying counterfactuals of different
natures. Three axes can be developed individually or in combinations: a)
evaluations based on secondary data, both on structured and non-structured
database, including Big Data and text analytics; b) evaluations based on
primary data directly and indirectly collected from stakeholders, either
through web questionnaires or direct interviews; and c) evaluations based on
the combination of previous axes. Basic skills in statistics will be highly
desirable.
This position will be directed by Professor Sergio
Salles-Filho (UNICAMP, Brazil) and Professor Nicholas Vonortas (The George
Washington University, USA; and UNICAMP, Brazil).
(4)
Ecosystems for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (TR3):
This research line deals with the fact that
knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship (KIE) is unevenly distributed in
geographical space, largely attributed to heterogeneous local endowments in
terms of knowledge, institutions, resources and demand. Here we work on several
sub-fields:
Determinants of KIE success:
the factors responsible for KIE success which are closely related to the
systemic components of the local entrepreneurial ecosystems in which young
small companies are embedded.
Ecosystems of innovation and entrepreneurship: this sub-field will deal with the modern literature of
innovation ecosystems, clusters, smart specialization, and regional
development.
Academic entrepreneurship: the
“third mission” of the universities specifically as it relates to the
generation of new knowledge-intensive ventures which often takes place within
ecosystems where universities are core players. Emerging economies are starting
to zero in on the possibilities.
Corporate entrepreneurship:
the development of new business by established firms in the effort to renew
themselves through new combinations of resources. Such activity includes both
corporate venturing and strategic entrepreneurship.
The successful applicant will be expected to work on
quantitative and qualitative methods using information from interviews,
university and industry surveys, and commercially available databases. Prior
training in the fields of economics of technological change and innovation and
economic geography will be a plus. Training in other fields such as sociology, public
policy, and business management as they relate to science, technology and
innovation is also welcome. Ability to start and carry out projects
independently, engage in theoretical modelling and/or econometric/statistical
analysis, manipulate data, write for publication in well ranked international
refereed journals, and participate in research proposals for extramural funding
will be highly valued. The successful applicant will also expect to engage in
the organization of one or two major international events of this SPEC program
during a 2-year tenure at UNICAMP.
This position will be directed by Professor Sergio
Queiroz (UNICAMP, Brazil), Professor Ron Boschma (Utrecht University, NL) and
Professor Nicholas Vonortas (The George Washington University, USA; and
UNICAMP, Brazil).
(5)
Big Data for Assessing Innovation Processes and Research and Innovation Policy
(TR4):
In this research line we try to address a most
pertinent issue nowadays: whether and how the availability of large, diverse
datasets and of new advanced ways of analyzing them affect research and
innovation policy and strategy decision-making and, in turn, the organization
and development of “Systems Innovation”. Here we work on two axes:
Infrastructural support to the four research lines: This, for instance, can translate into supporting applications
of Technology Upgrading and Catching-up such as the analysis of evolution of
production, international trade, economic specialization and growth (TR1);
supporting Research and Innovation Policy Design, Implementation, Evaluation
such as the analysis of large scientific publication and patent application
data and provide advanced visualization techniques (TR2); and supporting Ecosystems
for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, such as the analysis of regional industrial
configurations and innovation ecosystems (TR3).
Analytical tools for large databases: New analytical methods suitable to research and innovation
policy and strategy analysis by social scientists; investigation of the overlap
between traditional large data such as bibliometrics with alternative
indicators (altmetrics).
The successful applicant will be well versed in the
manipulation of large datasets and be willing to work side by side with social
scientists like those described above on specific questions of interest in the
broad field of science, technology, innovation policy and strategy. Prior
training in computer science, mathematics, statistics, will be a plus. Training
in other fields such as natural sciences and engineering is also welcome.
Ability to start and carry out projects independently, engage in extensive data
modelling and/or econometric/statistical analysis, write for publication in
well ranked international refereed journals, and participate in research
proposals for extramural funding will be highly valued. The successful
applicant will also expect to engage in the organization of one or two major
international events of this SPEC program during a 2-year tenure at UNICAMP.
This position will be directed by Professor Rodrigo
Costas (University of Leiden, NL), Luciano Digiampietri (USP, Brazil) and
Professor Nicholas Vonortas (The George Washington University, USA; and
UNICAMP, Brazil).
Duties:
Duties include carrying out research on
grants/contracts, theory development, data collection and analysis around the
world, authoring papers and reports, publishing in the highly ranked peer-reviewed
international academic journals, participating in seminars and work groups, and
collaborating on research grant/contract applications. They also include
assistance in organizing international events (workshops, conferences).
Importantly, the post-doctoral researcher will serve
as one of the in-house administrators of the SPEC program at DPCT. This program
deals with various aspects of technology and innovation policy and includes at
its core the faculty members mentioned above.
Desirable
Requirements:
Successful applicants will have completed a doctoral
degree during the past five years. Candidates must have less than five years’
experience post-doctorate, a demonstrated record of individual initiative in
research, and strong analytical skills. Preference will be given to applicants
whose training, skills and research interest’s best align with those of mentioned
faculty members.
Remuneration:
The remuneration package is set in accordance with FAPESP’s standards (http://www.fapesp.br/en/5427) and includes benefits and relocation expenditures.
The fellowship includes the following components (R$ is the Brazilian Real):
Stipend: R$ 88,476.00 per year
Additional funds for research-related expenditures such as travel for conferences (Reserva Tecnica): R$ 13,271.00 per year (15% of the stipend)
Relocation to the State of São Paulo: R$ 7,173.00 plus the cost of air travel.
The exchange rates are variable. Using the purchasing power parity rate of the World Bank (most recent year 2018) the annual value of the fellowship in Brazil would be PPP USD 53,814.00.
Contact:
Interested parties are encouraged to communicate with
the project and participating faculty and scientists for more information. They
can reach Professor Vonortas by email (vonortas@gwu.edu) or telephone at
+1-202-378-6230. Apply electronically through the project’s website.
Application:
Applications must include a cover letter, annotated
curriculum vitae, statement of research interests, three academic reference
letters, and a concise description of proposed research under the fellowship.
Location:
It is expected that post-doctoral researchers are
located in the Department of Science and Technology Policy of UNICAMP (main
campus). They can – are encouraged to – participate in international
conferences and workshops. For short time periods they could request to
relocate to other locations in Brazil or abroad due to particular research
needs. The requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Additional
Information:
DPCT is located on the main campus of UNICAMP in the
city of Campinas, State of São Paulo, Brazil. Campinas is about 100 kilometres
northwest of the city of São Paulo. The working language of the postdoctoral
position is English. Knowledge of at least basic Portuguese is desirable but
not required.
Due to the extraordinary global situation, we have decided to extend the application deadline of the five (5) pre-announced post-doctoral fellowships by two more months. The new deadline for complete applications will be May 31, 2020.
Maria Fernanda Ziegler | Agência FAPESP – O termo armadilha da renda média foi cunhado na literatura econômica nos anos 2000 para designar aqueles países que, após superarem a renda baixa, apresentavam um crescimento econômico insuficiente para dar o próximo salto. Entre os dilemas para cair nessa armadilha estariam questões relacionadas à elevação do nível de educação e o seu consequente aumento de produtividade.
De acordo com o Banco Mundial, entre os países que superaram a renda baixa nas últimas décadas, apenas Japão, Coreia do Sul, Cingapura, Israel, Ilhas Maurício, Taiwan e Hong Kong (região administrativa da China) contornaram a armadilha, mas, atualmente, a continuidade desse crescimento econômico está relacionada com a inovação.
“Prefiro usar o termo midle inovation trap [‘armadilha da inovação média’] no lugar de middle income trap [‘armadilha da renda média’]. A segunda é apenas o resultado da primeira”, disse Jeong-Dong Lee, diretor do Programa de Gestão da Tecnologia, Economia e Política na Universidade Nacional de Seul, na Coreia do Sul, durante a conferência internacional Innovation Systems, Strategies and Policy (InSySPo), realizada na Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp) nos dias 6 e 7 de junho.
O evento reuniu pesquisadores do Brasil, Américas, Europa e Ásia e foi coordenado por Nicholas Vonortas, professor de Economia e Assuntos Internacionais da George Washington University, no âmbito do projeto “Sistemas de inovação, estratégias e políticas”, conduzido na Unicamp com apoio da FAPESP por meio da modalidade São Paulo Excellence Chair (SPEC).
Jeong-Dong defendeu em sua apresentação a teoria dos saltos e armadilhas, em que até mesmo países que contornaram a armadilha da renda média correm o risco de estagnar e sofrer limitações se não desenvolverem capacidade de inovação que vá além do bom desempenho e da boa performance operacional.
Para outro participante do evento, Otaviano Canuto, diretor executivo do Banco Mundial, o problema agora é outro.
“Esses países têm apresentado uma capacidade fantástica de adaptar processos produtivos e de serem criativos com produtividade e altíssimo nível de incorporação de conhecimento na produção. Porém, a capacidade de criar o novo produto, de criar novas indústrias, eles não têm”, disse o autor do livro Brasil e Coreia do Sul: os (des)caminhos da industrialização tardia.
Para Vonortas, é difícil comparar os dois países – por estarem em estágios econômicos distintos e serem de tamanhos muito diferentes –, mas o Brasil pode tirar lições importantes do que está ocorrendo com a Coreia do Sul.
“Tendemos a imaginar que eles resolveram o problema, pois superaram etapas importantes. Porém, eles olham para o outro lado do mar e ficam assustados em ver que correm o risco de ficar mais parecidos com o Japão, que está no mesmo patamar há 20 anos e parece não sair do lugar”, disse.
Para Vonortas, no Brasil a inovação está concentrada em algumas regiões. “Existem poucos lugares que subiram degraus, como o Estado de São Paulo. Mas ainda assim o Brasil está em um período interessante. Há uma economia dupla com boas empresas e boas universidades trabalhando juntas. E uma nova onda de pequenas empresas nascendo a partir das universidades”, disse. Segundo ele, é preciso ampliar a conexão entre as regiões onde a inovação está concentrada com o resto do país.
Fluxos transnacionais
Um estudo realizado por Fernando Albuquerque, pesquisador do Centro de Desenvolvimento e Planejamento Regional da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), mapeou o crescimento das colaborações em patentes e artigos científicos.
O trabalho mostrou que o Brasil manteve colaboração científica com 171 nações no ano de 2015. A produção de artigos escritos em colaboração com autores de outros países mais do que dobrou, passando de 10% do total em 2000 para 21% em 2015.
“Isso configura um ativo para o Brasil. Existem evidências de um sistema internacional inovador em rede, que supera os limites de um país. Este novo contexto global significa desafios e oportunidades para economias emergentes. Para superar a armadilha da renda média, a entrada em novos setores pode ser o processo-chave, o que depende de novas empresas e da diversificação de empresas existentes”, disse Albuquerque.
Franco Malerba, professor de Economia Aplicada na Universidade Bocconi, em Milão (Itália), destacou que não existe uma única receita para se criar um ecossistema de alto impacto em inovação.
“Catch up [‘alavancagem econômica’] é um deles, e não significa clonagem. É um processo dinâmico e que invariavelmente diverge daqueles usados por países que serviram como benchmarks. Cada economia emergente fez de modo diferente porque os países seguem diferentes trajetórias de avanços tecnológicos e de processos” disse.
Outra variável importante para a diversificação é identificar os pontos fortes de cada região e, em vez fortalecê-los ainda mais, buscar trabalhar outras áreas.
Para Ron Boschma, professor de Economia Regional nas universidades de Utrecht (Países Baixos) e Stavanger (Noruega), antes de desenhar qualquer modelo é preciso identificar os pontos fortes de cada economia para diversificá-la espacialmente por meio de parcerias.
Em um estudo recente realizado na Suécia, Boschma identificou que a ascensão e a queda de indústrias estão fortemente ligadas à relação da indústria no nível regional.
“Uma boa forma de entender os movimentos das regiões está nas conexões dos movimentos de capacidades que a região tem e como as possibilidades de diversificação dependem muito do aprendizado anterior”, disse.
The InSySPo team would like to use the words of Orsenigo’s great friend, Franco Malerba, as a tribute for him:
“It is with infinite and deep sorrow that we have to announce that our friend, colleague and brother Gigi Orsenigo passed away. We will miss him incredibly. He will always be irreplaceable.” – Franco Malerba, May 4, 2018
THE ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY OF ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEMS IN THE STATE OF SÃO PAULO
Principal Investigator (PI)
Bruno Brandão Fischer, Assistant Professor I, School of Applied Sciences/University of Campinas (FCA/UNICAMP) – bruno.fischer@fca.unicamp.br
Associate Investigators
Cristiano Morini, Assistant Professor II, School of Applied Sciences/University of Campinas (FCA/UNICAMP)
Edmundo Inácio Júnior, Assistant Professor I, School of Applied Sciences/University of Campinas (FCA/UNICAMP)
Paola Rücker Schaeffer, PhD Candidate, Department of Science and Technology Policy/University of Campinas (DPCT/UNICAMP)
Undergraduate Research Assistant
Fernanda Rinaldi – School of Applied Sciences/Unicamp
This research project will be hosted in the School of Applied Sciences (Faculdade de Ciências Aplicadas), University of Campinas (Universidade Estadual de Campinas – UNICAMP).
Abstract
This is a proposal to undertake world-class research in the field of geography of knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship with particular focus on the assessment of entrepreneurial ecosystems’ evolutionary dynamics in the State of São Paulo. The main goal of this research is oriented towards identifying multi-dimensional determinants of entrepreneurial ecosystems and their respective socioeconomic impacts within local economic systems. The key research question behind these propositions concerns the knowledge gap in terms of innovation-based entrepreneurship in developing countries. Identifying the influential vectors that intervene in agglomeration/dispersion dynamics in São Paulo seems to pose substantial contributions for academia and public policy decision makers alike. In order to do so, we foresee the formulation and application of econometric models, structural equations and qualitative case studies (of particular locations of interest). Besides its scientific goals, this project aims at fostering the research environment on entrepreneurship and innovation at the School of Applied Sciences (Unicamp) from the perspective of business economics. The formation of international research networks is included as a byproduct of this proposal.
The INCOBRA consortium is inviting members of the scientific research and applied sciences community as well as industry representatives to take part in our Open Consultation. Valued contributions will help to shape the agenda of the project as we continue to foster cooperative Research and Innovation between Brazil and the European Union. INCOBRA would like the community to tell them how together we can advance R & I efforts across important fields and topics.
The Open Consultation hopes to focus our efforts, as well as provide the scientific community with the opportunity to suggest specific fields, topics, or research that could benefit both Brazil and the EU.
Please take a moment to fill out the short online form.
About INCOBRA
INCOBRA is a three-year Horizon 2020-funded project seeking to increase Research and Innovation (R&I) cooperation activities between Brazil and the European Union by facilitating collaboration and tackling challenges through key activities that will support policy dialogue, promote coherence and coordination on funding schemes, raise awareness and assist bilateral cooperation networks.
Insyspo is also partner of the project. Futher information here.