Scientific research areas in Mexico: Growth patterns in the late seventies

Scientometrics, Vol. 9, Nos 5 - 6 (1986) 209-223

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AREAS IN MEXICO: GROWTH PATTERNS IN THE LATE SEVENTIES

J. JIMI~NEZ,* M.,A. NAVARRe,* M. W. REES**

*Institute o f Applied Mathematics and Systems IIMA S- UNAM Apartado Postal 20-726 01000 Mdxico, D. F. (Mdxico)

**Department o f Anthropology, Universidad Aut6noma Metropolitana, lztapalapa, Mdxico, D. F. (M~xico)

(Received July 1, 1985)

A longitudinal study of ten Mexican research areas was carried out in the late 1970s. In the study, research institutions were classified by a group of experts as primary and secondary, depending on the quality and quantity of research output. New institutions created during this time period were also classified as primary or secondary. Examination of the data shows a greater growth in the number of research personnel in primary institutions, evidence of uneven distribution of resources. Furthermore, due to the high turnover of qualified personnel observed in secondary institutions, they are at a disadvantage in forming mature, stable research groups, and are often precluded from becoming first rate researeh centers. Sihce the national science and technology system does not facilitate the movement of institutions from secondary to primary positions, it is recommended that whenever a new institution is created, it should be provided with appropriate resources, both human and material, to make sure it will be considered as first rank from its inception. Also, in order to reduce the gap between primary and secondary institutions, long range strategies, including the provision of high quality researchers, should be developed to facilitate the upgrading of the secondary institutions.

Introduction

There is no doubt that scientific research in terms of number of researchers as

well as infrastructure, grew rapidly during the last two decades in Mexico. This is

illustrated by the following data:

- 60% of the 306 research institutions that existed in 1974 were founded

after 1959.1

- From 1969 to 1973, national science expenditures for research and development

increased by 80%, while the number of personnel in R&D increased by 50%. 2

- In the 1970s, the budget of the CONACYT (the federal government's national

science and technology council) grew at an annual rate of 53% in nominal terms.

Federal expenditures in science and technology grew at a real average annual rate

of 11.5%. 3

Scientometrics 9 (1986) Elsevier, A msterdam-Oxford-New York Akaddmiai Kiad6, Budapest

J. JIMI~NEZ et al.: RESEARCH AREAS IN MEXICO

However, it seems that the criteria that guided the allocation of funds for the development of the national scientific congnunity were principally that of educating a critical mass of researchers, by "massive training, especially abroad, of young scientist and technicians of both sexes". This should produce "side e f fec ts . . , like those of cor t i sone . . . " ~vhich, according to plan, "would rapidly wear down the foundations of traditional society, would transform the values and life style and thought of many". 4

However, not all of the "side effects" have been positive. Numerous studies analyze deficiencies in the career orientation of Mexican researchers trained under this plan. For example, Carva]al and Lomnitz s suggest that more and better- trained scientists could be produced with the same resources, if a different strategy were adopted. Furthermore, in spite of the large increase in funds allocated for training researchers, the proportion of researchers per 10 000 inhabitants has

actually decreased. 6 The current economic crisis has made it necessary to reassess the role of

Mexican science in national development in more realistic terms. Today it is recognized that quantitative growth in scientific activity does not necessarily bring about development. ~ Moreover, some types of growth can lead to greater vulnerability, dependence and even qualitative stagnation. The future envisioned by Edmundo Mores, ex-director of CONACYT, has arrived. As he once s a i d " , . . . in the future, national tendencies. . . ~ dictate areas that should be reinforced", s In fact, in 1984 the MeXican government published the new National Program for Science and Technology Development, 1984-1988, 9 featuring a

priorifization of research programs. This paper is an attempt to identify elements in the past experiences of Mexican

science that could be useful in forming criteria for making more appropriate

national scientific decisions.

The study

This investigation is based on data from a study of the research institutions in ten research areas in Mexico in 1979-1980, carried out by a team oflresearchers from the IIMAS.1 o These data are used to analyze some of the effects of growth in these ten scientific areas in the late 1970s.

The data presented here are the result of a questionnaire applied to 145 research units, covering approximately 4000 researchers in 89 institutions actively engaged in scientific research in the following areas: agronomy, astronomy, biology, physics, geophysics, geography, geology, mathematics, oceanography and chemistry. The questionnaires were

210 Scientometrics 9 (1986)

J. JIM/~NEZ et al.: RESEARCH AREAS IN MEXICO

designed to be comparable with data from a national science inventory carried out by CONACYT in 1974.11

The list of research institutions sampled was obtained by the Delphi method, 1 z in which experts in each field classified into two categories a set of scientific institutions.Z 3~ Experts were defined as individuals who combine the following

characteristics: - he/she is acknowledged as such by his/her colleagues, - he/she has shown specific abilities and expertise in a field of knowledge, - he/she possesses an advanced degree and has demonstrated capacity for problem-

solving in a specific field. 14 Through a series of iterations, experts were asked to classify a set of research

institutions as primary or secondary. Based on documental evidence, an initial list of research institutions was drawn up for each field. Then experts' opinion was consulted using the following procedure: First, each expert was asked which institutions carry out high-quality research in his/her field. Secondly, he/she was asked which other institutions also carry out research in the field. The initial list was then modified according to the experts' judgment, adding and/or deleting institutions. When discrepancies occurred, experts were consulted again and asked to support their judgments with appropriate arguments. These arguments were then shown blind to other experts. This process was repated until consensus was reached, commonly in less than three iterations. A list of 89 primary and secondary institutions was drawn up. It was assumed that an estimated 80% of total research activity takes place in the primary institutions. ~ s

The primary and secondary institutions were identified as follows: '% Primary institutions are those in which scientific and technological activity is

concentrated. In general, they are the largest and have a long tradition in the a rea . . . b. Secondary institutions are those in which a moderate level of scientific and

technological activity is Carried out. They are small or recent, or with a short tradition in science and technology.. :.,,1~

In this way, 145 research units belonging to the 89 institutions were grouped into 58 primary units and 87 secondary units.

Analysis

Recently created research units

Of the 145 units, 21 were created after 1974 (15%), in every area except geography. Eight of these recent units were classified by the experts as primary, a recognition of

$cientometrics 9 (1986) 211

2


the importance of their contribution to science and technology in spite of their recent foundation. In-depth study of these eight recent units could provide valuable

information on the creation of first rank scientific centers. (see Table 1).

Table 1 Number of research units in the study (1979-80)

Fields Primary units Secondary units

Agronomy 5 4 Astronomy 2 4 Biology 14 12 Physics 10 8 Geophysics 3 6 Geography 4 6 Geology 4 8 Mathematics 8 19 Oceanography 3 7 Chemistry 5 13

Total 58 87

Number o f researchers

Comparative analysis of the increase in the number of researchers in primary and secondary units points up the inequality between the two. In 1974, 77% (N=2136) of the total number of researchers in the ten areas were in the 50 primary units,

while the remaining 23% (N=633) were spread out among the 74 secondary units

(see Table 2). Between 1974 and 1979-80, changes in the number of researchers only

accentuated this inequality. Research personnel in primary units increased 54%, while in secondary units there was only a 9% increase, in spite of the fact that more secondary units were founded in this period (13 secondary and 8 primary).

Researchers with doctorates

This unequal growth in total number of researchers is reflected in the proportion of

researchers with masters' and Ph.D.S. In primary units, the number of researchers with doctorates increased from 530 to 823 (55%) between 1974 and 1979-80 in the ten areas sampled. The proportion of researchers with doctorates remained the same -in this period, one out of four (see Table 2 and Fig. 1). The figures are less in


I. JIMI~NEZ et al.: RESEARCH AREAS IN MEXICO

r

C

~0

O

o

8 "O

o

C

O

oO

o

szols~lAI

so~o~ooG

s z a q o x e a s o ~ l

szo,s~l~I

s~o~o~osa~

s~o,seH

so:~:~o13oG

sxoqoreoso'eI

sxa,S~l~I

so~ro~oo G

srotIo~osa}I

o~

7

~'~ .~ 0 0"~ ~

~ 6 ~.o o'~=~ o~

r oo

~D

r

r

r

o

e n "O

8

O

O

Scientometries 9 {1986)

2*

213


secondary units, where the number of Ph.D.s. rose from 75 in 1974 to 95 in 1979- 80. The proportion of doctorates rose slightly in the secondary units from one in eight to one in seven.

As it can be seen, the number of doctorates in the primary units grew at the same

rate as the total number of researchers. In secondary units, in spite of a slightly greater proportional increase, the absolute numbers were not sufficient to close the gap.

3296 I " . . . . .

I

I ,, ' 1974 i . . . . 1979-80 I I I I

2136

823 . . . . . . . "1- _ 799 _ _. r - 69..3_ __,

" ~ 466 i ~ 95 . . . . 13-7--- 2

Total re- Doctoral Master's Total re- Doctoral Master's searchers degree degree searchers degree degree

Primary units Secondary units

Fig. 1. Researchers and graduate degree holders in 1974 and 1979-80

Researchers with masters's degrees

The data on personnel with master's degrees continues to manifest the inequality between primary and secondary units. In primary units the number of masters grew from 466 in 1974 to 780 in 1979-80 (67%), an increase of 2% in terms of the total number of researchers, from 22% to 24% (see Table 2 and Fig. 1). In secondary units, 20% had a master's degree in 1979-80, the same proportion as in 1974. The absolute number of masters grew from 127 to 137 researchers, an increase of only 8%.

As it can be seen, the increase in total number of researchers, as well as the increase in researchers with graduate studies, was greater in primary units than in secondary ones. These findings lead to a number of observations about the growth of research units.

First, the increase in the number of researchers is not only related to the existence of a critical mass of trained researchers, but also to the financial capacity of research institutions to create new jobs for researchers.

214 Scientornetrics 9 (1986)


e~

oo

0

Scientometrics 9 (1986) 215


1

8

Second, while scientific productivity may affect the amount of resources allocated to a research institution, this may also negatively affect the availability of funds for secondary institutions. An in-depth analysis of the scientific potential of secondary units might suggest ways of closing the gap between primary and secondary units through more efficient allocation of available resources.

216 Scientome m'cs 9 (1986)


v

?,

0

O

0

..~

O

O

"r.~- ~ ~ . ~

Seientometries 9 (1986) 217


[-.,

e~

%

0

0

_=

o

J O

E

~ ~ O ' N

' ~ p~. 0 0o~ , -~ g~

218 $cientometrics 9 (1986)


Migration and promotion trends

In this section, the number of personnel entering, changing level and leaving

research units are analyzed. Primary and secondary units show remarkably different migration trends for

research personnel in the time period considered. Table 3 shows migration rates for the total research personnel in primary and secondary units. Whereas the net migration rate in the primary units is relatively high - 27% - (52% enter and 25% leave the unit), the secondary units have a much lower rate - 16% - (59% enter and 43% leave the units). Secondary units not only grow at a slower rate, but also show much more movement of personnel (59% entering and 43% leaving the institutions) which may impede the formation of stable research groups.

More researchers working in primary units get their doctorates, than in secondary units. Table 4 shows how many researchers got a doctoral degree between 1974 and 1979-80. Assuming that recent doctors held master's degrees preivously, Table 4 shows that more masters got doctorates in the primary units - 27% - than in secondary

u n i t s - 12%. More doctorates enter primary units (17%) than secondary units (4%) as it is

shown in Table 5. Secondary units not only have fewer immigrants with doctorates,

but also much more movement in and out (45% and 41%, respectively), than primary units (35% and 18%, respectively). The fact that researchers do not remain in secondary units for long, may preclude the formation of a solid research tradition.

A similar phenomenon is observed for the net migration rates of research personnel

with master's degrees. Table 6 shows a net growth of 29% in primary units, versus only 15% in secondary units. As with doctorates, masters also show more movement in and out of secondary units (49% and 34%, respectively), than primary units (46% and 17%, respectively).

Conclusions

Analysis shows that, despite official efforts to support more institutions, human resources are unequally distributed among research institutions in a way analogous to the distribution of resources between countries. Thus, institutions considered secondary producers of scientific results are caught in a vicious cycle. It seems that first or second rate institutions are born not made, and, unless very special

conditions, both internal and extemal, concur, it is practically impossible to move up from a secondary position. The high tumover in secondary units leads one to believe that they are being used by some researchers as intermediate steps in their

$cientometries 9 (1986) 219


careers. Lack o f cont inui ty in the allocation of resources may also be responsible

for the inabili ty o f secondary units to hold on to good research personnel.

There is a local as well as world-wide center-periphery phenomenon in science:

"scientific interchanges in the periphery are neither as intense, nor as frequent, nor

as productive as communicat ion in top rank centers. ' '17

It is now necessary to re-analyze the allocation of science resources both for

graduate studies abroad as well as for the support and creation of research institutions,

CONACYT, through the new National Program for Science and Technology

Development, has established priorities, taking into consideration the most urgent

national needs. Therefore, i t is expected that instead of indiscriminant support for

graduate studies, national needs will be given priori ty.

Furthermore, instead of creating new secondary institutions, a more effective use

o f l imited resources would be to up-grade existing secondary insti tutions to the level

of pr imary institutions. Finally, when new centers are founded, sufficient material

and human resources should be allocated as necessary conditions to ensure the

creation of first rate institutions.

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions to this paper ofA. Velasco, A. Escamilla, and M. A. Campos. An earlier version of this paper was presented to the International Seminar on Development and Scientific and Technological Research Effectiveness, organized jointly by ~e Instituto Universitario de Pesquisas do Rio de Janeiro - IUPERJ- and the Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos -FINEP, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, January 15-18, 1985.

Notes and references

1. M. SERVIN MASIEU, Aeerca del diagn6stico de la investigaci6n cientifica en las instituciones de edueaei6n superior, In: SEP-ANUIES (Eds), Politicas de Investigaci6n en la Educaci6n Superior, CONPES, M6xico, 1981, p. 139.

2. G., SOBERON, La investigaci6n cientffica y humanlstica en M6xico, en: SEP-ANUIES (Eds), Politicas de lnvestigaci6n en la Educaci6n Superior, CONPES, M6xieo, 1981, p . 12-13.

3. E. FLORES, E1 desarrollo de la eiencia y la technologia en la actualidad, Cieneia y Desarrollo, VIII, (1982} No. 43, 107.

4. E. FLORES, op cit, p. 111. J. FLORES, Estado actual de la educaci6n superior e investigaci6n eientifiea, ponencia en semi- nario conllnuo de Desarrollo Tecnol6gico, Cd. Universitaria, M6xico, Nov. 13 de 1984.

5. R. CARVAJAL, L. LOMNITZ, E1Desarrollo cientlfico en M6xico: i, es posible multiplicarlo con los mismos recursos?, Ciencia y Desarrollo, VII (1981) No. 37, 90, and R. CARVAJAL, L. LOMNITZ, Postgraduate science fellowships in M6xieo and the development of the scientific community,Interdenda, 9 (1984) No. 5,270.

6. R. PI~REZ TAMAYO, Los beearios: dos historias de horror, Nexos, 7 (1984) No. 83, 35.


J. JIMI~NEZ et aL: RESEARCH AREAS IN MEXICO

7. D. RESI~NDIZ, E1 papel de la ciencia en el desarrollo, Mesa Redonda aniversario det Instituto Weizmarm de Ciencias, M6xico, Nov. 7 de 1984; and D. RESiENDIZ, Una visi6n prospectiva del Sistema Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Ciencia y Desarrollo, X (1984) No. 58,103.

8. E. FLORES, op cit, p. 112. 9. M6xico, Programa Nacional de Desarrollo Tecnol6gico y Cientifico 1984-1988, M~xieo, 1984.

10. R. CARVAJAL, et al, Estudio de la estructura del Sistema Cientifico Mexicano, serie estudios, CONACYT, M~xieo, 1984.

11. CONACYT, Estadisticas b~isicas sobre el sistema cientifico y technol6gico naciofi-al (periodo de eaptaci6n 1973-1974), Serie Directorios y Cat~logos, 4, CONACYT, M6xico, 1977.

12. A. H. VAN DE VEN, A. L. DELBECO, Effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interactive groups in decision making processes, Academy o f Management Journal, 17 (1974) No. 4,605.

13., M. R., CARVAJAL, et al, op tit, p. 23. 14. Ibid p. 24. 15. Ibid p. 30. 16. Ibid p. 32 17. J. HODARA, La medici6n del avence cientlfico en Am6rica Latina, Ciencia y Desarrollo,

X (1984) No. 56, 80.

Scientometries 9 (1986) 221

Documents

Scientific research areas in Mexico: Growth patterns in the late seventies