Suchergebnisse

En la Constitución Argentina de 1994 se reconoce explícitamente por primera vez la autonomía de las universidades nacionales. Sin embargo, se deja abierta la discusión sobre sus determinaciones y alcance, particularmente en cuanto a su capacidad de autogobierno y su relación con el Estado. En este artículo, nos proponemos contribuir a esta discusión a partir de analizar el alcance e impacto de la autonomía universitaria en la Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA) en esa doble dimensión. Para ello, y en tanto qué se entiende por autonomía es parte del mencionado debate, recuperamos de la historia de la Universidad el concepto de autonomía universitaria en su dimensión de autogobierno y de vínculo con autoridades xternas. En la Universidad Medieval esta dimensión aparece como autonomía corporativa, e identificamos su vigencia en la Universidad Ilustrada. La recapitulación histórica se completa con una referencia local: la Reforma Universitaria de 1918. Ésta inaugura el cogobierno universitario, estructura de gobierno que se propone garantizar la autonomía como autogobierno. A partir de allí repasamos cómo la historia de la Universidad en Argentina contribuye a moldear las determinaciones y alcance de su autonomía en la doble dimensión propuesta. La reconstrucción histórica es utilizada para evaluar la estructura de gobierno de la UBA en la actualidad y su vínculo con el Estado. El artículo concluye con una reflexión sobre la crisis de representatividad de los órganos de cogobierno de esta universidad y sobre la tensión en su vínculo con el Estado, reflexión que pone en cuestión el alcance de su autonomía. The Argentinean Constitution of 1994 recognizes the autonomy of national universities. Nevertheless, it leaves an open discussion concerning its determinants and scope, especially regarding its self-government capacity and its relationship with the State. In this article, we expect to contribute to this discussion by analyzing the scope and impact of university's autonomy in the Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA) concerning that double dimension. In order to do so, and considering that how autonomy is defined is part of the ongoing debate, we start by stu dying the meaning of university's autonomy through University's history focusing on its self-government capacity and its relationship with external political authorities. In the Medieval University this double dimension of university's autonomy was developed as its corporative autonomy and it remained valid in the Enlightenment University. This historical recapitulation is completed by referring to a local experience: the 1918 University's Reform which inaugurates university's co-government, a governance structure that aims to assure university's autonomy as its selfgovernance. We then revisit who the recent history of Argentina's university contributes to define the characteristics and scope of its autonomy in this double dimension. All these historical references are used to evaluate the UBA's current governance structure and its relationship with the National State. The article ends with some considerations about the crisis of representativeness that the UBA is facing and about the tension concerning its relationship with the State which allows us to challenge the scope of its autonomy.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the validity of the university autonomy concept at the University of Buenos Aires (uba) facing the opening of new links between research and capital companies. To do so, three dimensions of this autonomy can be observed (corporative autonomy, autonomy of reason and financial autonomy). The authors suggest that the financial autonomy is currently the most valuable one and that the attempts to reach it has oriented the uba to produce for the market, routing the research to meet private demands that put at risk the autonomy of reason. The authors also maintain that the crisis of representation experienced by its government bodies has transformed the corporative autonomy into a necessity shield for reduced groups. Based on in-depth interviews carried out to teachers-researchers in one of its research faculties, the Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, the authors study the way in which those dimensions of the university autonomy are perceived and try to find out whether those risks show up in their perceptions or not.

This paper examines the innovation strategy of Siemens, a key player in Europe's digital economy, by performing network and lexical analyses using data derived from Siemens's patents and scientific publications since 1998. We observe that the company's innovation efforts evolved from a broader attempt to develop internal information and communication technology (ICT) capabilities – alongside its historical industrial priorities – to a strategy focused on developing artificial intelligence (AI) for sector-specific and niche applications (such as life and medical sciences). As a result, it became dependent on tech giants' clouds for accessing more general AI services and digital infrastructure. We build on the intellectual monopoly literature focusing on the effects of tech giants on other leading corporations, to analyse Siemens's experience. By abandoning the development of general ICT and given the emergence of tech giants as digital economy intellectual monopolies, we show that Siemens is risking its technological autonomy towards these big tech companies. Our results provide clues to understand the challenges faced by Europe and its firms in relation to US and Chinese tech giants.