Changing paradigms and institutional models of science and technology policies in Argentina (1958-1983)

FELD, ADRIANA

Madrid

Workshop; Early Career Research Conference on Science Dynamics and Research Systems: the role of research for meeting societal challenges; 2013

European Forum for Studies of Policies for Research and Innovation

The aim of this paper is to analyze the changes in paradigms and institutional models of S&T policies between 1958 and 1983 in Argentina, focusing on two public agencies in charge of these policies: the CONICET (National Council for Scientific Research, created in 1958) and the SECyT (Secretary of S&T, created in 1968)1. Consequently, two periods will be compared: the first one, whose paradigm may be understood as "liberal" or "human resources centered", goes from 1958 to 1966; the second one, starting in 1966-67 and finishing in 1983, may be characterized as "technocratic" or "planned-orientated research". Even if special attention will be paid to the second paradigm, dominated by the creation of the SECyT, the first period will be briefly described in order to show the changes. The concept of "paradigm of S&T policy" used here involves three main aspects: a) the way in which various actors understand and appreciate the social function of science and the relationships between science, technology and society (or development); b) mechanisms for public intervention on research activities, that are considered as ?legitimate? by different actors; and c) the involvement of knowledge and conceptual innovations in the design of institutions and intervention instruments. Taking into account the conceptualization pointed out, this work will aim to assess the contradictions that emerged between the ideal dimensions that inspired new paradigms and institutional models, on one hand, and the correlation of forces among different local actors, on the other. The paper deals also with the question of what happens when new agencies of science policy are created, aiming at acting over a pre-existent and heterogeneous institutional scheme. Surely, some possible reconfiguration may occur: the coordination among institutions, the development of reinforcement strategies by the pre- existing institutions, or a hard struggle that can end up with the establishment of general and vague objectives in order to avoid conflict. All these alternatives are analyzed here to show how the implementation of paradigms of science policy is mediated by institutions and other collective actors.