Advanced Diploma in Scientific and Academic Evaluation

The first module introduces the topic from a “ contextual perspective ” to analyze and describe the development of scientific and technological activities in Latin America and the Caribbean. The notion of scientific-technological and academic complexes is proposed as a key interpretive framework, which will be fundamental for structuring the rest of the course.

The notion of science and technology complexes was originally introduced by Enrique Oteiza in 1992. He emphasized that science and technology activities (STA), in the case of Argentina, are often poorly integrated with each other and with other sectors of society. He described the Argentine STA as a historical process of accumulation and de-accumulation, characterized by non-linear stages with fluctuations in the number of researchers, activities, and institutions, as well as in the capacities and resources allocated to the production of scientific knowledge. These stages also include conflicting traditions and internal dissonances. This critical approach by Oteiza allows for a more complex and contextualized understanding of the so-called National Science and Technology Systems in Latin America and the Caribbean.

We propose extending this analysis to what we will call national scientific-technological and academic complexes, understood as the conjunction of the scientific field and the university field. Based on Bourdieu's theory of social fields, we assert that both fields exhibit a high degree of autonomy, which generates tensions and critical problems. These complexes are characterized by an internal division that is reflected or materialized in unequal policies, regulations, institutional structures, practices, trajectories, representations, and identities/subjectivities, and in the consequent lack of synchronization between the two fields. It should be noted that this disconnection is not recent, but rather has roots that go back several decades in the history of the structuring of both fields in each country.

CLASS 1: Scientific and technological complexes: an interpretation based on statistical information

Conceptual summary of the class
In this first class, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of science and technology in Latin America and the Caribbean. We will begin by analyzing national science and technology statistics from different countries, allowing us to identify both commonalities and significant disparities in the development of these fields. This comparative exercise will reveal not only the degree of progress in key areas such as knowledge production and technological innovation, but also persistent gaps in investment, infrastructure, and human resources. Recognizing these variations is crucial for understanding how the region's science and technology complexes are structured and the inequalities that permeate them, whether between countries, sectors, or specific disciplines.

The analysis will be based on historical data series that include key indicators such as the number of active researchers, levels of public and private funding, the production of indexed scientific publications, and patent registrations. This approach will allow us to identify trends over time, such as periods of expansion, stagnation, or decline in scientific and technological capabilities. In addition, we will explore less visible but equally relevant dynamics, such as the tensions arising from technological dependence and the influence of market-oriented development models. Through these statistics, we will be able to situate the region's scientific and technological activities within a global context, highlighting the specific challenges faced by Latin American and Caribbean countries in a highly competitive and unequal international science and technology system.

Finally, we will reflect on the implications of this scenario for the region's scientific, technological, and academic complexes, understood as socio-technical configurations deeply marked by histories of accumulation and de-accumulation, according to Enrique Oteiza's conceptual framework. This analysis will highlight the tensions between the scientific and academic fields, as well as the challenges posed by the lack of synchronization between them. In doing so, we will lay the groundwork for a more critical and situated understanding of knowledge production processes in the region, addressing not only structural inequalities but also the opportunities that arise from the diversity of local experiences and knowledge. This initial integrative approach will provide essential analytical tools for the subsequent debates and analyses in the module.

CLASS 2: The academic field: the university in Latin America

Conceptual summary of the class
In this second class, we will focus our analysis on the academic field, exploring its general characteristics and particularities in Latin America and the Caribbean. Using quantitative and qualitative data, we will develop a diagnosis that allows us to understand the diversity of trajectories, structures, and practices that define the region's universities. This analysis will seek to highlight both the similarities and persistent inequalities in terms of access, resources, infrastructure, and educational quality. Statistics on enrollment, graduate programs, university research, and public funding will be essential to outlining a comprehensive overview of universities as key actors in national scientific, technological, and academic systems.

A central aspect will be examining the historical relationship between the academic and scientific fields in the region. Similar to other global contexts, in Latin America and the Caribbean, the scientific field emerged from the academic field. However, this foundational relationship has not guaranteed a solid articulation between the two fields, marking a significant structural difference in their development. Rather, their connection is often characterized by tensions, disconnections, and inequalities, which are reflected in aspects such as limited knowledge transfer, restricted interaction between universities and productive sectors, and the precariousness of research activities in many institutions. Understanding these dynamics will allow us to address the specific challenges of strengthening the integration between the academic and scientific fields.

Finally, we will reflect on how these particular characteristics of the academic field in the region influence the development of science and technology complexes. Universities are not only spaces for training and knowledge production, but also for the struggle and negotiation of power, resources, and legitimacy. In this sense, we will analyze how the lack of articulation between these two fields impacts public policies, university governance models, and internationalization strategies. This approach will allow us to contextualize the structural challenges that universities face, but also to identify opportunities to foster greater integration that strengthens their role in building more inclusive and robust national science and technology systems.

CLASS 3: The global academic system and national systems for categorizing researchers and classifying scientific journals

Conceptual summary of the class
In this final class of the module, we will focus on two key subsystems that shape the complex scientific, technological, and academic landscapes of Latin America and the Caribbean: national systems for categorizing researchers and for classifying scientific and academic journals. These structures not only regulate the internal dynamics of scientific and academic fields but also act as mechanisms for legitimizing and hierarchizing within the region. We will analyze how these subsystems impact researchers' careers, journal editorial strategies, and the distribution of resources, exploring their limitations and potential. Furthermore, we will reflect on how these dynamics respond to the tensions between the local and the global, particularly in the face of indexing requirements in international databases that often privilege certain languages, disciplines, and epistemological paradigms.

This analysis will be enriched by the notion of the Global Academic System, proposed by Fernanda Beigel, which will allow us to situate these subsystems within a broader framework. This concept reveals an unequal structure in the production and circulation of knowledge, dominated by a historically consolidated “mainstream” circuit. According to Beigel, this configuration rests on a threefold principle of hierarchy: the language of publication, institutional affiliation, and discipline. We will delve into how these hierarchies affect peripheral academic regions, limiting their visibility and their capacity to influence global debates. At the same time, we will discuss how national systems attempt to mediate these inequalities, with varying degrees of success, depending on local and regional policies.

Finally, we will reflect on the social and political implications of these subsystems for scientific, technological, and academic complexes. While systems for categorizing researchers and classifying journals aim to promote quality and competitiveness, they also reproduce structural inequalities by prioritizing certain global standards over local needs and contexts. In this regard, we will discuss alternatives that seek greater inclusion and equity, such as the recognition of local knowledge, the promotion of multilingual publications, and the creation of regional networks that foster collaboration and autonomy. This class not only concludes the module with a critical analysis but also opens the discussion on the transformations necessary to build fairer and more contextualized science and technology systems in the region.

The second module reflects on the topic from an “axiological perspective” to propose a new horizon in the structuring of the scientific-technological and academic complexes of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Having analyzed the characteristics of the region's scientific, technological, and academic complexes in their current state, we now propose to work on the interpretive framework from which we will evaluate the science and the university we aspire to for our countries. Our normative framework is open science, understood in a dual sense: on the one hand, as an alternative paradigm to the hegemonic one, and on the other, as a political horizon that structures and guides the processes of change or transformation in the social sphere of science and the university.

We define paradigm in the sense given to it by Thomas Kuhn ^[1] , who describes it as a set of beliefs, values, and techniques shared by a scientific community that guides research and data interpretation. Open science is thus presented as an emerging paradigm that challenges the hegemonic approach based on the accumulation of restricted knowledge and proposes a collaborative and accessible structure for knowledge generation.

On the other hand, we understand a political horizon as a vision that, beyond immediate and concrete objectives, acts as an inspiring guide, mobilizing and directing actions toward a desired future. This horizon is, in essence, unattainable in its entirety, but its potential lies in its capacity to foster transformative and critical practices, connecting representations and practices with a will for change situated in specific contexts. In this sense, open science acts as a political horizon that charts a roadmap toward greater democratization of knowledge and the active participation of diverse social sectors in the production and distribution of scientific results.

In this module, we will focus on three key aspects: i) The background that has created a favorable environment for the expansion of open science; ii) Open science in its regional expression, considering knowledge as a common good and science as a public good; iii) Non-commercial open access as a proposal originating in Latin America for the world. These three points allow us to glimpse how open science can redefine the purposes and mechanisms of knowledge production in our region, aligning itself with principles of inclusion, social justice, and cognitive sovereignty.

CLASS 1: “We either invent or we fail”, the Latin American tradition: Reform of 18, university extension and PLACTED

Conceptual summary of the class
We will begin this module by exploring and highlighting some of the experiences that have emerged across the continent seeking to rethink and transform our universities, as well as reconsider the role and function of science in the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. In this context, the open science paradigm is closely linked to the long history and tradition of thought and action in the social spheres of higher education and science in Our America.

Simón Rodríguez's phrase, "We must invent or we will fail," resonates as an urgent call to action in our exploration. In a context of profound inequalities and structural challenges, the invention of new ways of thinking about and doing science is essential to transforming the region's reality. Open science embodies this need for innovation by proposing a model that challenges traditional approaches and promotes greater inclusion and equity in the production and distribution of knowledge. Without creativity and a commitment to new strategies, the risk of perpetuating dependency and inequality remains ever-present.

The class will focus on two key precedents that we consider fundamental to understanding the current open science movement in the region: the translation of university extension and Latin American Thought on Science, Technology, Development, and Dependency (PLACTED). The former provides a perspective, practice, and orientation that have been pioneering in defining the social function of our universities and have shaped their identity over time. The latter offers an original, situated, and critical view of the role of science in our countries, which face conditions of dependency and peripherality, marked by profound inequalities that must be addressed. Furthermore, it invites us to rethink the role of science in the processes of development and social transformation in the region, underscoring the importance of a committed and contextualized approach to overcome these challenges.

CLASS 2: “There is no change without a dream”: open science in Latin America and the Caribbean: scientific knowledge as a public and common good

Conceptual summary of the class
In this second class, we will address the topic of open science in Latin America and the Caribbean, highlighting the conception of scientific knowledge as a public and common good. Paulo Freire's phrase, "There is no change without a dream, just as there is no dream without hope," inspires us and reminds us that transforming the structures of knowledge production and distribution requires a shared vision, a collective dream that challenges the logics of exclusion and privatization that have characterized the hegemonic system of science.

During this session, we will analyze the foundations of open science as a movement and its development in Latin America and the Caribbean. We will discuss how the region has adopted and adapted this paradigm, connecting it to a history of struggle for the democratization of access to knowledge and social justice. We will examine how open science not only represents an alternative model for managing and disseminating knowledge, but also embodies a political vision that seeks to strengthen the cognitive sovereignty of our countries.

The class will focus on three main questions for reflection: How can we understand scientific knowledge as a public and common good, and what are its ethical and political implications? What experiences and strategies developed in the region exemplify the implementation of open science? What are the challenges and opportunities for expanding this approach in the context of structural inequalities in Latin America and the Caribbean?

Finally, we will reflect on the importance of dreaming and collectively building a future where knowledge serves everyone, reaffirming that without this shared dream, profound change is unattainable. This class will be a space to imagine, discuss, and plan practices and strategies that can make open science a pillar for equity and regional development.

CLASS 3: "Neither a carbon copy nor a mere imitation": Opening strategies in the case of Non-Commercial Open Access

Conceptual summary of the class
The third and final class of this module will explore the openness strategies developed by Latin America and the Caribbean, highlighting how the Non-Commercial Open Access model has emerged as an original response adapted to the needs and realities of our region. Inspired by José Carlos Mariátegui's call for the creation of local and contextualized solutions, we will analyze how the region has implemented innovative approaches to open knowledge.

During the class, we will review the concept of Non-Commercial Open Access, exploring how it differs from other access models and how it promotes a knowledge ecosystem that prioritizes the common good over commercial interests. We will discuss the motivations that led to its development and how it has been integrated into science and education policies in the region.

We will focus on three fundamental questions: What specific strategies have institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean adopted to implement Non-Commercial Open Access? What impact has this model had on the democratization of knowledge and equitable access? What challenges and opportunities does this approach face in a global context where commercial access models predominate?

Finally, we will reflect on the importance of creating situated strategies that are not merely reflections of foreign models, but rather responses that stem from our own realities and needs. This class will seek to consolidate the understanding of how a Non-Commercial Open Access approach can serve as a pillar for the development of a more inclusive and equitable science in the region.

^[1] Kuhn, T. (2013). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . Fondo de Cultura Económica.

The third module addresses the topic from a critical perspective, allowing us to problematize those elements that are often unquestioned and taken for granted within scientific and academic evaluation processes. Throughout this module, we will analyze how evaluation mechanisms influence the production and dissemination of knowledge, and how these processes affect academic and institutional trajectories in our region.

According to Alfred Schutz, naturalization implies that everyday practices and concepts acquire a "given" or unquestionable character within the social world. In other words, what is assumed to be natural is actually the product of historical, social, and cultural constructions that become ingrained and integrated into common sense. In the world of scientific evaluation, this naturalization obscures power structures, underlying interests, and the implications that certain systems have on the dynamics of knowledge production. Expanding on this idea, Pierre Bourdieu proposes that critical work should consist of "questioning the unquestioned," unraveling the mechanisms by which social structures perpetuate inequalities and hierarchies under the guise of neutrality or inevitability.

This module is structured around critical questions that allow us to deconstruct widely accepted concepts rarely questioned by evaluators: What do we understand by scientific evaluation and what are the implications of its performativity? What is “scientific excellence” and how is it socially constructed? And what do we understand by academic trajectory and what elements influence its development? These structuring questions allow us to unravel how evaluation processes influence not only the measurement of science, but also how it is defined and practiced. By questioning the assumptions underlying evaluation, excellence, and trajectories, this module seeks to open a space for reflection and debate that contributes to imagining fairer and more equitable models for the future.

CLASS 1: What is scientific evaluation?: performativity, uses and criticisms

Conceptual summary of the class
The third class will focus on the idea of ​​academic trajectory, understanding it as a complex and multidimensional concept that encompasses not only measurable achievements, but also the contexts, opportunities, and barriers that shape the development of each researcher. Like the notion of “scientific excellence,” academic trajectory has been shaped by hegemonic evaluation systems, which prioritize certain ideal paths that reflect unique and exclusionary criteria.

In this sense, we will revisit the performative power of assessment to reflect on how metrics and quality standards not only describe but also prescribe specific academic trajectories. These systems favor those who fit into homogeneous models, neglecting divergent or nonlinear trajectories, such as those marked by disciplinary shifts, interruptions, or the prioritization of activities linked to local contexts.

The key question that will guide our discussion is: What do we mean by academic trajectory and how can we design assessments that recognize its diversity and complexity? From this question, we will examine the factors that influence the development of trajectories, such as geographical and academic mobility, integration into international networks, and the dynamics of exclusion that can restrict certain experiences while privileging others.

We will address how current narratives about academic "excellence" and "success" tend to be one-dimensional, ignoring the richness that diverse trajectories bring. To counter this perspective, we propose considering evaluation models that value the plurality of contributions and recognize the different ways in which scientific knowledge can have an impact, from the global to the local.

Furthermore, we will reflect on how these dynamics not only shape individual careers but also guide knowledge production. If assessment establishes ideals of excellence, then it also influences which topics, problems, and contexts are prioritized in research. Within this framework, we will ask: How can we envision and build assessment systems that foster fairer, more equitable, and more representative career paths that reflect academic diversity?

Finally, this class will serve as the module's conclusion, connecting the reflections from the three sessions. Scientific evaluation, excellence, and academic trajectories are intrinsically linked and form a system that defines not only what is considered valuable knowledge, but also who has access to producing it and under what conditions. Recognizing these interactions will allow us to propose alternatives that promote a more inclusive, pluralistic science committed to cognitive and social justice.
 

CLASS 2: What is scientific excellence?: quality, circulation of knowledge and systems of prestige

Conceptual summary of the class
In the second class, we will focus on the notion of “scientific excellence” and its central role in current evaluation systems. This concept, often considered objective and neutral, is deeply influenced by values, hierarchies, and criteria that reflect power dynamics and inequality. We will reflect on how scientific excellence is defined and validated, analyzing its relationship to research quality and the dominant parameters that govern the circulation of knowledge. In this process, we will also explore the symbolic economy involved: what resources and actors are mobilized to confer prestige, and how do these reinforce pre-existing inequalities?

The key question guiding our reflection will be: What do we understand by “scientific excellence,” and what are the implications of its definition in local and global contexts? Through this question, we will examine the mechanisms that confer prestige in academia, reviewing how these mechanisms contribute to perpetuating inequalities between hegemonic and peripheral centers of knowledge production. We will also address the risks of uncritically adopting international models that, although widely legitimized, often disregard the specificities and needs of local contexts, thus limiting epistemological and cultural diversity.

This class will open a space to recognize how the notion of scientific excellence not only organizes the processes of academic recognition but also influences research priorities and orientations. These priorities often translate into idealizations of what it means to be a “successful scientist”—frequently associated with international recognition and career trajectory—which poses fundamental challenges for imagining and building a more equitable, contextualized, and diverse scientific system.

CLASS 3: What is the academic trajectory?: mobility, integration and diversity

Conceptual summary of the class
The third class will focus on the idea of ​​academic trajectory, understanding it as a complex and multidimensional concept that encompasses not only measurable achievements, but also the contexts, opportunities, and barriers that shape the development of each researcher. Like the notion of “scientific excellence,” academic trajectory has been shaped by hegemonic evaluation systems, which prioritize certain ideal paths that reflect unique and exclusionary criteria.

In this sense, we will revisit the performative power of assessment to reflect on how metrics and quality standards not only describe but also prescribe specific academic trajectories. These systems favor those who fit into homogeneous models, neglecting divergent or nonlinear trajectories, such as those marked by disciplinary shifts, interruptions, or the prioritization of activities linked to local contexts.

The key question that will guide our discussion is: What do we mean by academic trajectory and how can we design assessments that recognize its diversity and complexity? From this question, we will examine the factors that influence the development of trajectories, such as geographical and academic mobility, integration into international networks, and the dynamics of exclusion that can restrict certain experiences while privileging others.

We will address how current narratives about academic "excellence" and "success" tend to be one-dimensional, ignoring the richness that diverse trajectories bring. To counter this perspective, we propose considering evaluation models that value the plurality of contributions and recognize the different ways in which scientific knowledge can have an impact, from the global to the local.

Furthermore, we will reflect on how these dynamics not only shape individual careers but also guide knowledge production. If assessment establishes ideals of excellence, then it also influences which topics, problems, and contexts are prioritized in research. Within this framework, we will ask: How can we envision and build assessment systems that foster fairer, more equitable, and more representative career paths that reflect academic diversity?

Finally, this class will serve as the module's conclusion, connecting the reflections from the three sessions. Scientific evaluation, excellence, and academic trajectories are intrinsically linked and form a system that defines not only what is considered valuable knowledge, but also who has access to producing it and under what conditions. Recognizing these interactions will allow us to propose alternatives that promote a more inclusive, pluralistic science committed to cognitive and social justice.

The fourth module invites us to approach the topic from a " methodological perspective ," with the aim of understanding the design and operational level of the evaluation process. This involves examining the set of decisions and tools that are involved in scientific and academic evaluation processes.

Evaluation is neither a neutral nor a purely objective process; it is imbued with assumptions, values, and priorities that influence both knowledge production and its social impact. Therefore, this module aims to critically analyze the dynamics underlying the metrics used in scientific evaluation, conceived as sociotechnical artifacts. Through this approach, it seeks to open a space for critical and constructive debate on the uses, abuses, and opportunities that these metrics represent.

In the social sciences, methodological debate has occupied a central place, especially regarding the relationship between quantitative and qualitative approaches. For decades, a false dichotomy between the two generated tensions about which was the "correct" method for investigating social phenomena. However, this polarization has been overcome through the recognition of their complementarity. Rather than being mutually exclusive, both approaches offer unique perspectives thanks to their specific purposes, emphases, and scopes. This methodological integration not only enriches the analysis but also allows for a more complex and nuanced approach to social phenomena. Recovering these lessons is fundamental to overcoming the unproductive antinomies that persist in the field of current scientific and academic evaluation.

From the findings of the sociology of technology, the concept of interpretive flexibility is key to problematizing and analyzing bibliometric and scientometric metrics. Although these tools are often presented as objective, they are human constructs that reflect specific values ​​and interests. Both in their design and in their implementation and adoption, these metrics incorporate value judgments that can bias evaluative processes. Recognizing that they are not neutral implies questioning how they are configured and what power dynamics underpin them, enabling a critical analysis of their impact on the production and evaluation of scientific knowledge.

In this context, it is crucial to reflect on the ethical and responsible use of any evaluative methodology or tool. Trust in these tools should not lead to their fetishization or to reductionisms that negate human agency. Scientific and academic evaluation, as a practice mediated by human decisions, must be grounded in an ethic that guarantees its legitimacy and validity. Without this ethical commitment, evaluative tools cannot fulfill their purpose of fostering a fairer, more inclusive, and socially relevant science. Thus, the need to rethink the relationship between evaluation and social responsibility is underscored.

CLASS 1: The eternal return of the same: quantitative-qualitative debate

Conceptual summary of the class
In this initial session, we will address the historical debate between quantitative and qualitative methods in scientific evaluation, paying particular attention to the epistemological assumptions that underpin each. While quantitative approaches tend to prioritize the objective and standardized measurement of phenomena, qualitative approaches focus on understanding meanings, contexts, and experiences. This contrast has generated tensions and hierarchies within the scientific field of social sciences in general and in the field of evaluation in particular. Specifically in the latter, quantitative metrics, such as the number of citations or impact factors, often enjoy greater institutional legitimacy due to their apparent neutrality. However, this supposed objectivity is not without its problems, as quantitative metrics can simplify complex phenomena and marginalize relevant dynamics that do not fit their parameters. This initial analysis will allow us to reflect on how these methodological preferences reflect specific values ​​and priorities in the construction of scientific knowledge.

Furthermore, it is essential to examine the limitations and biases faced by qualitative methods in evaluation processes. Often considered subjective, anecdotal, or less rigorous, qualitative approaches have been relegated to a secondary role compared to the predominance of quantitative metrics. However, these methods possess unique value in capturing idiosyncratic, narrative, and contextual dimensions of the phenomena being evaluated, dimensions that frequently go unnoticed in quantitative analyses. The perceived weakness of qualitative methods not only limits their integration into evaluation processes but also perpetuates an incomplete view of scientific knowledge in the social sciences. Recognizing this dynamic is a crucial step in questioning implicit hierarchies and exploring how greater methodological equity can enrich evaluation processes.

Finally, this course aims to demystify the dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative approaches, promoting a methodological integration that transcends the false polarization between the two. Far from being mutually exclusive, these methods can complement each other to offer a richer, more inclusive, and nuanced view of the phenomena being evaluated. For example, combining quantitative metrics with qualitative analysis allows us not only to measure the impact of scientific work but also to understand the context and social dynamics surrounding it. This integrated approach not only responds to the needs of a more complex and situated science but also challenges the power structures that have sustained the hegemony of certain evaluative practices. In this sense, the objective of this course is to lay the groundwork for a critical analysis of evaluative processes, posing questions that will guide the reflections throughout the module.

CLASS 2: What are metrics really for?: criticisms and opportunities

Conceptual summary of the class
Metrics are fundamental tools in evaluation processes, but their design and use have generated significant tensions and controversies. In this class, we will analyze what these tools actually measure and, crucially, which dimensions of academic work are rendered invisible or excluded. Metrics, such as citations, impact factors, and rankings, are often valued for their ability to provide quantifiable and comparable data. However, this quantification is not without bias. Often, what is measured is not necessarily the most relevant, but rather what is easiest to record and categorize. This can lead to a partial view of academic value, where aspects such as innovation, social relevance, and interdisciplinary collaboration are dismissed in favor of more traditional indicators.

Examining the criticisms of these tools reveals the dangers of reductionism and fetishism in their use. Reductionism manifests itself when metrics simplify the complexity of academic work, translating it into figures that do not reflect its depth or real impact. Fetishism, on the other hand, occurs when metrics cease to be seen as instrumental means and become ends in themselves, dictating behaviors and priorities within the complex scientific, technological, and academic world. This phenomenon can perpetuate dynamics of exclusion, such as the marginalization of local knowledge or the undervaluation of research conducted in languages ​​other than English. At the same time, these tools can reinforce structural inequalities, privileging institutions and actors with greater resources or international visibility, while relegating contributions that challenge dominant norms.

However, metrics also offer opportunities if they are designed and implemented according to ethical and equitable criteria. Instead of perpetuating homogeneous and exclusionary models, they can be adapted to capture the diversity of academic practices and recognize dimensions that have traditionally been undervalued, such as social impact, Indigenous knowledge, and transdisciplinary collaborations. This approach requires a conceptual shift: moving away from understanding metrics as purely technical tools and recognizing them as sociotechnical artifacts that reflect values, priorities, and power dynamics. In this class, we will reflect on how to redesign metrics to promote more inclusive and contextualized evaluation, paving the way for a scientific field that values ​​not only individual excellence but also collaborative work committed to contemporary social challenges and needs.

CLASS 3: The fetishism of measurement: responsible, fair and relevant uses

Conceptual summary of the class
The final class of this module addresses a crucial question: how can we ensure the ethical and responsible use of metrics in scientific evaluation? To answer this question, it is essential to analyze the phenomenon of measurement “fetishism,” which occurs when metrics cease to be seen as instrumental tools and become ends in themselves. This phenomenon not only distorts the original purpose of these tools but also undermines academic practices, fostering behaviors that prioritize the accumulation of indicators over the quality, social relevance, or social impact of knowledge. We will reflect on how this fetishism can lead to counterproductive dynamics, such as the pressure to publish in high-impact journals without considering the pertinence or relevance of the content, or the adoption of standardized metrics that do not reflect the diversity of academic and scientific contexts.

Within this framework, we will discuss how evaluation processes can be designed to avoid perpetuating structural inequalities and prioritizing easily quantifiable dimensions over other equally valuable ones. Traditional metrics, by focusing on indicators such as citations or impact factors, often obscure relevant contributions, such as impact on local communities, the generation of transdisciplinary knowledge, or the promotion of ethical values ​​in scientific and academic practice. Furthermore, these metrics frequently reinforce inequalities based on gender, language, and geography, benefiting researchers and institutions from privileged backgrounds. To counteract these dynamics, we will discuss the importance of incorporating criteria of equity, diversity, and social relevance into evaluation systems, ensuring that they are sensitive to the needs and realities of the various actors involved in the production of scientific knowledge.

In this context, it is crucial to reflect on the ethical and responsible use of any evaluative methodology or tool. Trust in these tools should not lead to their fetishization or to reductionisms that negate human agency. Scientific evaluation, as a practice mediated by human decisions, must be grounded in an ethic that guarantees its legitimacy and validity. Without this ethical commitment, evaluative tools cannot fulfill their purpose of fostering a fairer, more inclusive, and socially relevant science. Thus, the need to rethink the relationship between evaluation and social responsibility is underscored.

The fifth and final module aims to address the topic from a “ political perspective ” in order to analyze the “why” and “for whom” of scientific knowledge production. This involves questioning current and hegemonic mechanisms of knowledge production and exploring other possible products and recipients, integrating concrete examples and potential solutions. We begin with the conviction that scientific and academic evaluation must align with the objectives and needs of our universities and scientific institutions, acting as a committed tool for resolving the problems and needs of our Latin American and Caribbean societies.

Currently, scientific, technological, and academic institutions have become "paper-centric" spaces, where the motto "publish or perish " has become the central tenet of their scientific ethos. The consequences of scientific productivism include the normalization of exploitation and precarious working conditions, driven by the constant pressure to publish, which leads researchers to accept unstable working conditions for low wages. Furthermore, the increase in administrative tasks and bureaucratization generates a non-research workload, and this overload affects both the physical and mental health of academics. These demands, which rarely align with scientific interests or the common good, also foster the commodification of scientific knowledge, prioritizing the quantity of publications over their quality or social relevance.

The impact of "paper-centrism" extends beyond these direct consequences. It is also linked to the fetishism of quantitative measurement, which imposes simplistic views of academic impact and leads to the invisibility of practices and products derived from scientific work that do not fit the dominant criteria. This reductionism limits the types of agents involved in the production and reception of knowledge, preventing more diverse and meaningful collaboration.

This module aims to explore and critically reflect on these challenges, considering alternatives that promote a more inclusive, fair, and service-oriented approach for communities, territories, and society at large.

CLASS 1: Entailment as an equivocal term: dispute around a polysemic and disputed category

Conceptual summary of the class
In the final module, we will begin by reviewing the category of linkage. We start from the diagnosis, based on the evaluated experience, the design of science policy instruments, and both local and international academic discussions, that it is an equivocal, ambiguous, polysemous concept that lends itself to controversy. Therefore, it is, above all, a category contested by diverse social groups with opposing interests and desires.

To historicize its development, deconstruct the meanings it has held, and identify the individuals and groups who claim it as their own are some of the purposes of this class. The importance of this term lies in the fact that it allows us to identify answers to the questions that structure this module: what for and for whom? Analyzing the meanings attributed to it offers a privileged perspective for understanding the directions that are being sought for science and universities.

Therefore, the category of linkage is fundamental in science policy, since it acts as a window to observe the uses and meanings that are intended to be given to science.

CLASS 2: Social impact, mobilization of scientific knowledge and extra-academic agents: outputs, outcomes and invisible agencies 

Conceptual summary of the class

Following on from the previous lesson, we will continue to delve deeper into the political components and concepts involved in the debates surrounding the transformation of scientific and academic evaluation. While the previous lesson focused on the modalities or formats of knowledge transmission and transfer channels, this lesson will focus on the products and effects derived from the processes of scientific knowledge production.

The classic and typical product of “scientific output” is the paper, but the issue doesn't stop there. The hegemony of the tandem formed by the paper, bibliometric indicators, and quantitative scientific evaluation processes has been established at the expense of making other products, artifacts, formats, relationships, and agents invisible, marginalized, or discouraged. The objective of this class is precisely to rescue these relegated objects and subjects in order to highlight the multiplicity of “externalities” generated by the processes of scientific knowledge production.

Identifying other formats and objects also leads us to explore the social links and actors to whom they are addressed, and with whom they are sometimes co-produced, shedding light on the diverse and complex processes of knowledge mobilization. This mobilization generates multiple effects that are frequently forgotten, ignored, or denied. Revisiting the discussion on knowledge mobilization and its relationship with non-academic agents also allows us to delve deeper into the contemporary concept of impact, which today is reduced to scientific impact, if not simply to bibliographic impact.

Exploring the diversity of activities and objects generated by the social sciences will allow us to describe, analyze, systematize, measure and evaluate the effects they produce in different areas of impact.

CLASS 3: What is the social utility of science and university in the periphery? 

Conceptual summary of the class
The final class of the Diploma program proposes a conversation between two leading figures in the social studies of science and technology, as well as in higher education studies. This dialogue seeks to answer a fundamental question: what is the purpose of science and the university? This "purpose" is situated within our region, considering its characteristics, history, challenges, and needs.

A key dimension of this discussion is the internationalization of science, particularly in peripheral contexts such as Latin America. While science and universities have the potential to be powerful tools for development, it is necessary to critically reflect on how they are integrated into global circuits. In many cases, international dynamics reproduce historical asymmetries, where countries of the Global South are relegated to secondary roles in knowledge generation, or face difficulties in having their local priorities recognized on the global agenda.

The discussion should not remain abstract or merely normative, but rather be grounded in the concrete and applied to specific institutions: universities and scientific development. In this context, when we inquire into the "purpose" of these entities, another question inevitably arises: for whom? This is the second major question that will guide the discussion: who do universities and science serve?

Answering this question involves analyzing not only who participates in scientific production, but also how its results are distributed and used. Here, it becomes relevant to debate whether internationalization promotes the democratization of knowledge or, on the contrary, reinforces its appropriation by privileged sectors, both locally and globally. Do scientific products benefit local communities or do they primarily serve external interests?

In peripheral contexts, this issue is critical: locally generated knowledge should address regional needs and contribute to the development of situated solutions. However, current scientific evaluation practices tend to prioritize international indicators and metrics that do not necessarily reflect the social or regional impact of knowledge.

This type of reflection is essential to move towards an evaluation model that not only measures performance in quantitative terms, but also considers the impact, relevance, and capacity of science to transform local realities within a global framework. Only in this way can we guarantee that universities and research fulfill their role as agents of change and contribute to collective well-being, not only as cogs in an international machine, but as central actors in the development of more just and equitable societies.

You must be registered in the CLACSO Single Registration System (SUIC) and enter your username and password. If you are not registered, click here . To access the registration form, click the "Register" button on the webpage of the Diploma program you are interested in.

Upon completion of the registration process, you will receive a confirmation in your email.

Classes will begin in May and will conclude in August 2025.

From June 9 to 13, 2025, our 10th Latin American and Caribbean Conference of Social Sciences will take place in Bogotá, Colombia. #CLACSO2025 (more information here ). To ensure everyone's participation, we have planned a break from training activities during that week.

All registered participants will receive on the first day of activities the necessary instructions to access the classes, bibliography and discussion forums through the CLACSO Virtual Training Space.

Accessing and navigating the Virtual Learning Environment is very simple and user-friendly. In any case, a technical and academic support team will always be available. For inquiries, you can write to [email protected]

You must send an email with the request to [email protected] and we will send you the requested certificate as soon as possible.

Exceptional Criteria: In exceptional cases, and within the first 20 days of the start of the Advanced Diploma program, students may write to [email protected] requesting to withdraw and stating the reasons. After evaluation of the case, a response will be sent to the request. If approved, the student may resume the Advanced Diploma program if a new cohort is offered the following year. After this period has elapsed since the start of the course, no requests will be accepted.

Money paid will only be refunded in cases where the organizing institutions decide to cancel the activity. 

Yes, the advanced diploma is certified by CLACSO. The diploma will be sent digitally and is completely free of charge.

Payment can be made in one installment, by credit card or bank transfer. We also offer the option of paying in 3 installments.

Yes. There will be discounts for students belonging to CLACSO Member Centers and CLACSO Associated Centers, for CLACSO Associate Researchers, and for all those who pay within the discount period.

You can check if you belong to a member center here: 

https://www.clacso.org/institucional/centros-asociados/

The Advanced Diploma program integrates a dynamic of asynchronous and synchronous classes. Classes are primarily asynchronous. The schedule for synchronous sessions will be communicated by the Diploma coordinator at the beginning of the program, and participation in these sessions is not a prerequisite for passing the program.