scientific activity was thought of then like a condition for our well-being and, in this sense, had greater relevance and social prestige, as a

25th IPSA World Congress of Political Science. Brisbane, Australia. 21st -25th July 2018 Panel: The Culture-Technology Nexus: Innovation, Policy, and the Successful Metropolis Paper title: Between Research and Public Policy: Crossroads or Roads that Rarely Cross? Author: Lucrecia D Agostino National University of Cuyo, Argentina Abstract It has been almost fifty years since Jorge Sábato synthesized in the figure of a triangle the necessary conditions for the organization and operation of a scientific-technological system capable of linking three key vertices: government, technological and productive sector. The simplicity of the model, given by the use of the figure of a triangle, does not remove the complexity that the articulation of these three poles has. In these work we are interested to research the complexity given in the relations between the government and the scientific-technological infrastructure. In order to approach the question we consider that these vertices are complex, heterogeneous, with internal logics not always convergent. We analyze the established links between an academic scientific institution and the public management in the subnational (University and government of Mendoza, Argentina, 2010-2015). Some questions that guided our reading are the following: what are the different types of links that exist between the academy and the public management? What views do they have about the University the actors involved in areas of management of the province? Has the university researcher on the provincial public management? What components propitiate / limit the inter-institutional linkage? The analysis of the case, far from exhausting a theoretical problem and fundamentally practical and political, accounts for the complexity of linking scientific practices with public policies. Introduction The link between scientific practices and politics (as a power dispute or as government management) has been a relationship marked by the tension between the participation of science in the development processes of a society, the public financial cost of research and autonomy as a necessary condition of scientific thought. Although this is not a new issue, it is relevant to study the characteristics of this tension from the institutionalization of scientific practices, especially since the mid-twentieth century when the "scientific policy" began to limit them. In this context, the research practice was promoted from the scientific communities and from a State in the process of expanding its economic and social functions. Some debates that defined the nascent scientific policy were the foundation of science councils, the setting-up of a research career, the public support to researcher with exclusive dedication, and the promotion of research in university institutions, among others. The 1

scientific activity was thought of then like a condition for our well-being and, in this sense, had greater relevance and social prestige, as a result, found good reasons to finance it. In line with above, Daniel Sarewitz (2004) points out that any scientific policy must be thought of in its social context. He refers explicitly to the legitimacy of science by mentioning three premises that justify support for this activity: first, scientific progress is necessary for the development of a community. Then, knowledge serves to solve specific social problems and, finally, knowledge provides the necessary information for decision making. From premises like the previous ones, the link between the scientific-academic and political activities has been an exalted relationship with discourse about institutional policies between both the scientific-academic spheres and the political field. In Argentina, the creation of most of the public universities was a response to the public need of having professionals and technicians to contribute, to different places of society including public management, and to give attention to old and new social problems. The creation in 1939 of the university that inspired the questions and tensions that are pointed out in this presentation (National University of Cuyo Mendoza, Argentina) found grounding in these type of reasons. At the same time, the career of political science of this institution was oriented historically to the study and performance in the public administration (in fact, the title is "Bachelor in Political Science and Public Administration). In its origins it was not a career in itself but a compulsory course that all students of the university had to take regardless of the chosen studies (future doctors, engineers, philosophers, economists, etc.). These were obligatory courses for future political and social leaders. This point reflects the ideas or supposition named in the first: it seems possible to link the science institutions to the public policies. Theoretical approach The discussions on the nexus between public policies and scientific evidence conform, in some sense, a contemporary version of a "symbiotic relationship" raised previously. Those who are more optimistic consider the possibility of establishing "evidencebased public policies" (and with that, perhaps "overcoming" eternal discussions of some policy areas); others prefer to frame the issue as "public policies informed by evidence" to account for other elements that appear as inputs in the public policy process. While the first case prioritizes the technical component of the issue, in the second, the inevitable presence of ethical and political criteria is recognized. Writings such as the classic article by Carol Weiss (1979) point to the tactical and political uses of scientific arguments. Beyond these variations, it is clear that it is not a direct, lineal or spontaneous relationship. Before that, it was common to find socially relevant research that had not influenced or integrated with government programs that address specific social problems. To paraphrase the axis of this academic meeting, the borders and margins between science and politics sometimes expresses high points of tension and conflict and at other times seem to wear out. Beyond the swings that mark each socio-political conjuncture, we would like to try to think about the issue beyond any particular conjunctures, although of course every idea is formed and enunciated in a particular context. 2

At this point, we recall the contribution of Jorge Sábato from the Latin American Thought in Science, Technology and Development. Jorge Sábato, was an Argentinian physics professor who went from metallurgy to technological policy (Berridy, Burlot et all, 2016). It has been fifty years since Jorge Sábato, along with Natalio Botana, synthesized, in the figure of a triangle, the necessary conditions for the organization of a scientific-technological system with the necessary capability to linking three key vertices: the government, the productive sector and the scientific academic system. However, the simplicity of the model, given by the use of the figure of a triangle, does not reduce the complexity that the articulation of these three poles have. In the triangle we can find different faces of the relationship between science, politics and society: relations that are established within each vertex (intra-relations), between the three vertices (inter-relations) and between the constituted triangle with the social context (extra-relations). In our case, we are interested in focusing on the relationship between the government and the scientific-academic system. In Argentina, for example, we have found studies emphasize some points included in our research problem, but that, nevertheless, don't fully address it. Among these studies, we find works that investigate the policies of university research (Vacarezza, 2013), the university-government link in the framework of science, technology and innovation policies (Stubrin and Kababe, 2013) and works that They inquire about the social utility of research and its impact on social policies (Estebanez, 2004). In the case of the National University of Cuyo, a few years ago, research was carried out on the social demands on the university. This study had two stages. The first was a consultation with the social council of the university, which is made up of different social, political, cultural and economic organizations (interviews with references). In the second stage, citizens were consulted (1200 surveys were conducted). In both stages, citizens and references recognized the prestige and trajectory of the public university, but at the same time, a greater involvement of the institution in the attention of social problems was demanded. As for the agenda of priority issues, differences arose between the referents and the citizens: while the former mentioned issues related to strategic development problems (energy resources, land management, water resources management), the latter referred to problems that require more immediate attention (public health, education, security). The results of this study were published the following year in the book Social Demand for the University (CAP, 2010). In this paper we are interested in exploring the complexity of the relationship between government and the scientific-technological infrastructure. In order to address this issue, we consider that these vertices are complex, heterogeneous, with internal logics that are not always convergent. The links established between an academic scientific institution and public management at the sub-national level were analyzed (National University of Cuyo and Government of the Province of Mendoza, Argentina, 2010-2015). Some of the questions that guided our reading were the following: What kind of links exist between academia and public 3

management?; what are the opinions of the participants involved in the areas of public management about the University?; what are the opinions of university researchers on public management; what elements favour inter-institutional links?, which limit it? The analysis of the case, far from exhausting a theoretical and fundamentally practical and political problem, helped us to reflect about the complexity of linking scientific practices with public policies. The strategy adopted to address the issue was to apply a qualitative methodology sustained in techniques of documentary analysis and in conducting interviews of public officials of the upper-middle level of provincial management, on the one hand, and directors of research projects of the university, on the other. Regarding the first group, the interviews focused on the Ministries of Production, Technology and Innovation (3) and Land, Environment and Natural Resources (4). The questions were oriented to the evaluation of experiences of connection with the National University of Cuyo and to the identification of critical points and of some initiatives that could be applied to generate institutional linking mechanisms. In total, 15 interviews were recorded: 7 to public officials; 8 to directors of research teams. The critical points most mentioned by the officials in the first round of consultation were incorporated into the design of the interview conducted with the University's researchers in order to know their degree of agreement with them. First readings of the evidence In general, the public officials' views of the researchers were critical, with some referring to the existence of a divorce between scientific-academic practices and public policy. While recognizing this distance, they reported the presence of personal and political interests in academic practices. In this sense, academia and government were not absolutely separate. Below we present in a very brief way some of the knots or tensions that were pointed out and emphasized by the public officials and researchers. a) Communication and knowledge transfer The analysis of the circulation of knowledge beyond scientific fields is a key issue for the social studies of science and technology. Scientists and politicians agree that it is not only a question of obtaining and publishing the results of research, but also of expanding the means of circulation or communication of knowledge. However, as soon as the former indicate that recognition of their work tends to strengthen an internal logic (publication in a specialized journal has a higher academic value than a local report submitted or presented to one or more officials), politicians point to social disinterest as a particular theme of the scientific ethos. The two explanations are not mutually exclusive. On the other hand, language points to another dimension to explain distances. Public officials criticized the use of English in science when politics understands the local language. From our perspective, this criticism is not centrally literal. Language is not the central point of the problem, but the uses of language in its rhetorical sense, in the exhaustive description of the arguments of scientific writing, in the search for a style of writing that hides a subjective position of the author (notion close to the academic style and quite alien to politics). From the political sphere, verbal communication and face-to-face communication 4

count for more than the delivery of a comprehensive investigative report (public officials ask, what do we do with the reports?). From the academic point of view, face-to-face encounters are experienced as an exhibition against the party's interest. On the other hand, the delivery of the report suggests that they complied without having to "have their picture taken". b) Routines and work periods Work at the university is interpreted in different ways. Although the researchers point to a routine marked by the delivery of reports and permanent evaluations that prevent the echo of the demands coming from society and politics, among public officials, the use of adjectives such as stable, silent, without exposure to describe the work at the university was reiterated. With regard to their work, the latter consider that, unlike researchers, they cannot spend one year, two years, five years, ten years just to deal with a problem. From their perspective, they have a changing public agenda that sets the priorities and urgencies of everyday life. Problems that usually cannot wait for the results of an investigation. On the other hand, political times make it difficult to build links in the political sphere. While under democratic and republican regimes, public officials occupy decisionmaking spaces for a limited time, researchers may remain in their institutions for long periods. This is experienced by both groups as an opportunity and a threat. As a threat implies the instability of the ties built there is a rotation of officials or changes of government. As an opportunity to build links, both groups consider that the work of academics could be a factor in building learning in the State beyond the governments of the day (it does not necessarily imply the continuity of public policies but the registration and interpretation of an institutional memory). c) Discernment of the role of science and technology organizations This is another tension that arose in the interviews conducted. The fact that the academy thinks of "government" issues is perceived as interference and even a power dispute by officials who also question the neutrality of researchers. For their part, researchers question the political use of research. They point out that when the research does not produce the results expected by politicians, their work is often shelved or cancelled. They perceive this issue as a condition of their autonomy. d) Scientific knowledge versus other knowledge At this point, the interviewees referred not only to the expertise of the officials, but also to the experience and knowledge of the stable corps of state workers. Officials said that working with the university sometimes brings more internal problems than solutions. In particular, in relation to technical personnel working in the State who question the fact that researchers often ignore other knowledge, including that of the State agent. At most, they are only consulted for certain data or records, but their interpretation of social phenomena is not of interest to researchers. Other nodes of tension refer to the questioning of the neutrality of the researchers (officials point out that, although it is intended to hide behind the objectivity of science, in the university it becomes political), the insufficient existence of institutional mechanisms that 5

condition the range of possibilities for linking up to pre-existing personal relationships, the presence of personal interests and the dispute over financial resources.. Finally, we list some actions that would allow to improve the relationship and on which officials and researchers agreed: Joint construction of an agenda of priority issues (common priorities). Translation of agenda topics in research lines (oriented research: from social problems to knowledge problems). Joint search for financing. Production of knowledge from and for public policies. Training of young researchers according to the previous lines. Identification of common languages and alternative spaces for communication (strengthen meetings between both institutions). Of course, taking these actions to operative lines of work perhaps implies the weakening of the coincidences because the previously marked tensions trend to reemerging. Conclusion The purpose of our work was to identify the present knots or tensions in the relationship between officials and researchers that condition or limit the link between knowledge and public policies. We have succinctly presented some of these knots for the case of the province of Mendoza that arise from an exploratory study on the matter. However the work has from our point of view at least two limitations: on the one hand, the number of cases consulted, we consider that it was not enough and we believe that it can vary between one area of knowledge and another; On the other hand, our analysis is based on perceptions and it is necessary to notice that what subjects think or say does not necessarily coincide with what they decide / can do or with the results of social interaction, with collective dynamics. Beyond these limitations, we believe that it was a first exercise that allowed us to delienate some characteristics of the issue. A clue to understand that the knots that seem to come at intermittent points, which integrate the border lines or margins between science and politics. References Consejo Asesor Permanente UNCUYO (2010): Demanda social a la Universidad: Percepciones, expectativas y propuestas sobre la pertinencia de la Educación Superior en Mendoza. Mendoza: EDIUNC. ESTEBANEZ, M. E. (2004), Conocimiento científico y políticas públicas: un análisis de la utilidad social de las investigaciones científicas en el campo social, Revista Espacio Abierto, vol. 13, núm. 1, enero-marzo 2004, Universidad del Zulia, Venezuela. SABATO, J., El triángulo nos enseña donde estamos, en Ensayos en campera, Juárez Editor, 1979. SABATO, J.; BOTANA, N; (1968) La ciencia y la tecnología en el desarrollo futuro de América Latina. Estudio prospectivo sobre América Latina y el orden mundial en 6

la década de 1990 ; The World Order Models Conference; Bellagio (Italia); 20 25 de noviembre de 1968. STUBRIN, L., KABABE, Y. (2013), La interacción entre investigación y política: aproximaciones conceptuales, ponencia presentada en X Jornadas de sociología de la UBA 20 años de pensar y repensar la sociología. Nuevos desafíos académicos, científicos y políticos para el siglo XXI, Universidad de Buenos Aires. VACAREZZA, L. (1994) Los problemas de la innovación en la gestión de la ciencia en la universidad: los programas especiales de investigación de la UBA, Revista REDES, n 2, diciembre 1994. WEISS, C. (1979) The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, Vol. 39, n 5 Septiembre Octubre 1979, American Society for Public Administration. Recuperado de Jstor: jstor.org/stable/3109916. 7