Understanding enabling and constraining causal powers for Research

Understanding enabling and constraining causal powers for Research and Innovation in the SADC region 2 nd Lesotho Council on Higher Education (CHE) Biennial Conference, 31 March 2016 ‘Mabokang Monnapula-Mapesela Central University of Technology

Outline of the presentation • Background and introduction • Methodological approach • Theoretical arguments • Culture, Structure and Agency • Concluding remarks

Background and Introduction Purpose of this paper: • Highlight the importance of R & I in HE • Analyse discourses enabling and constraining R & I (dominant cultures) • Investigate the interplay between structure (s), culture and agency for R & I • Analyse various structural aspects for supporting R & I in South Africa (at national & institutional levels) • Briefly discuss critical agents for R & I • Concluding remarks and recommendations

Methodology • Employ critical social theory of Margaret Archer • Rationale for this theory – used to understand the world and social dynamics (in this case R & I) • Understand underlying causal powers (for or against) R & I at various systemic levels • Archer’s conceptualisation of structure, culture and agency seemed suitable • This analysis will assist you to • Locate your agency locally and globally • Understand your context better (resources, culture) • Identify your agents, their power, properties and agency

Theoretical Arguments § Any social world comprises various parts stratified as structure, culture and agents § Structure comprises materiality – policy, funding models, research agencies, infrastructure, frameworks, strategies, programmes, systems, etc. § Culture comprises – ideas (discourses), knowledge, values, concepts, beliefs, ideologies and theories, attitudes, etc. § Agency – agents or people (researchers and academics)

Theoretical Arguments § In the absence of a theoretical framework it is difficult to determine why some universities succeed while others fail in R & I § Reflexive criticality with systemic and cultural contexts improves § the likelihood of complete explanations & § erases ‘taken-for-granted’ reasons about the status of R & I in different contexts

Culture - enabling and constraining discourses § These discourses are part of any cultural system and they shape or create conducive or constraining spaces – in this case, they influence knowledge production § Culture influences research environments and efforts at various systemic levels – national, institutional and individual § There is a need to understand emerging discourses with a potential to enable or constrain R & I efforts § This engagement provides a basis for creating conducive spaces for your agents

Culture - enabling and constraining discourses Government policy discourses: • • • Unequal funding allocations Pressures to raise 3 rd stream income Widened access Increased academic roles Need to respond to economic development Mission drift – teaching, learning research and engagement no longer the only role • Shift from collegiality to marketisation • to Re-modelled university and academic identities – university becoming commercial – drifting mission

Culture - enabling and constraining discourses Effects of globalisation and neo-liberal forces: • The knowledge paradox (kahn Maton 2014) • Social change and its effects on knowledge production – symbolises a state of flux • Many knowledge eras have resulted in knowledge being treated as a commodity • New terms and forces (Open market forces and trends, competitiveness, production, performativity, commercialisation, products and services • Shift from collegiality to marketisation • Re-modelled university and academic identities – university becoming commercial – drifting mission

Culture - enabling and constraining discourses • University research is done for other reasons and not to improve teaching and learning • • Status, university rankings, promotion, raise funds Shift from ‘public good’ to ‘private good’ Production and ‘performativity’ Competiveness § Universities are pushed to become entrepreneurial § ‘Brain drain’ due to globalisation – has crippled Africa’s higher education

Culture - enabling and constraining discourses • University research is done for other reasons and not to improve teaching and learning • • Status, university rankings, promotion, raise funds Shift from ‘public good’ to ‘private good’ Production and ‘performativity’ Competiveness § Universities are pushed to become entrepreneurial § Brain due to globalisation – has crippled Africa’s higher education

Culture - enabling and constraining discourses Changing university’s and academic identities: • Less engagement with epistemological access to own disciplines • Academics are incentivised to do their work (research) • Research outputs and innovation still minimal at most SA universities regardless • Except at the Big 5 universities (UCT, Wits, Stellenbosch, UKZN and UP (on Research World Rankings (highly privileged) • Have best researchers, 65% of R&D funding, 50% total sector researchers, 56% total doctoral students

Culture - enabling and constraining discourses Funding discourses: • SA has many funding structures for R&I • HE has experienced funding cutbacks • Introduction of disproportionate and conflicting short-term incentive structures • Decline in salaries of academics –must do more fundraising and work closely with funding agencies • Experience control and bureaucratic requirements – deterrents to many researchers

Structure • Structures at national and institutional levels • Only 4 critical ones will be discussed – – Key Government Departments Key policies Key funding agencies Partnerships and collaborations 1. Three Government Departments supporting R&I - Department of Science and Technology (DST) - Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) - Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)

Structure – government departments 1. Department of Science and Technology - The most significant structure for scientific research - Oversees management of the country’s science & Technology - Funds Research and development at public research institutes and universities - Development of research human resources is key - Implements the National Research & development Strategy (NRDS) (2002) - Partners with other government departments - Advocates an integrated approach

Structure – government departments 2. DHET - Key funder for HE in South Africa - Funds the entire system (public) - Uses input- output strategy - Research funded mostly through the latter - R&D grants, postgraduate bursaries, subsidy for research outputs (books, accredited articles and conference proceedings - An article earns an institution about R 120 000 - A completed doctoral study more than R 300 000 - Individual researchers get a share

Structure – government departments 3. DTI - Has a range of funding schemes - Available to new and existing businesses – micro, cooperatives and medium-sized - Funding – cost sharing, loans, grants or for mentorship - Uses entrepreneurship as a catalyst for innovation, economic growth and development - Works with DST, DHET and other departments - Do these structures result in desired outcomes?

Structure – key policies Key policies are: i) The National Development Plan 2030 - Focuses on using research for long-term development - Specific targets for Research development: - 100 doctoral graduates per million people per year by 2030 Staff with Ph. Ds to increase from 34% to 75% Enrolments for Science and Technology degrees to 450 000 - Will these produce the aspired research and innovation? What is the progress to date? - Do we have agents to carry out this mandate?

Structure – key policies Key policies are: ii) National Research & Development Strategy (2002) - Advocates an integrated approach which includes: HR development, knowledge generation, investment in infrastructure, improving strategic management of the S&T system iii) White Paper on Science and Technology (1996) - DST derives its mandate from this policy - Basic premise – S&T and innovation are key drivers of socioeconomic development in SA

Structure – key policies iii) Ten- year Innovation Strategy (2008 -2018) - Presented by DSTI - Focus on specific areas of research - Global pharmaceutical industry using IK & Biodiversity - Sustainable energy and Climate science - Production of knowledge for economic benefits and human emancipation iv) Technology Innovation Agency (TIA) - address failure by researchers to commercialise ideas and protect their research - Hopes to strengthen innovation

Structure – research councils & agencies • • • Africa Institute of South Africa (AISA): www. ai. org. za Agricultural Research Council (ARC): www. arc. agric. za Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR): www. csir. co. za Council for Geoscience (CGS): www. geoscience. org. za Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC): www. hsrc. ac. za Medical Research Council (MRC): www. mrc. ac. za Council for Mineral Technology (Mintek): www. mintek. co. za South African Bureau of Standards (SABS): www. sabs. co. za National Research Foundation (NRF): www. nrf. ac. za Water Research Commission (WRC): www. wrc. org. za (WRC’s mandate is basically to facilitate, coordinate, and fund water research as well as build capacity within the water sector). SARIMA: www. sarima. co. za

Structure – research councils & agencies SARIMA: www. sarima. co. za • Operates at institutional, national and international levels • Across the value chain – Research, innovation and commercialisation • Promotes research innovation management, capacity development, etc. for Southern Africa • Collaboration with DST • Promotes and facilitates best practice research and innovation management

Structure – research councils & agencies Horizon 2020 • Biggest EU R & I programmes • € 80 billion of funding available over 7 years (2014 to 2020) • Implementation of innovation (innovation union – Europe’s 2020 flagship initiative) • Means to drive economic growth & create jobs • Open to all countries

Structure – partnerships and collaborations Horizon 2020 • These are promoted by DST • Government departments, industry and business, institutions, international • Big five still lead in accessing and participating in this regard. • Shows a mismatch between espoused and enacted goals • Hampers growth of critical mass of researchers

Structure – Institutional structures a) Research and innovation Strategic plans and frameworks b) Research units with dedicated support staff c) Incentive models – lead to unintended consequences and compromise quality d) Rating of researchers: A, B, C, P & Y – access funding easily, acknowledged by peers • Institutions are well positioned to carry out the R & I mandate • Capacity and resources are skewed, however

Agency and agents There are different types of agents • Archer identifies 2 groups: primary and corporate • Primary – people with same life opportunities • Corporate – people who know what they want, articulate it and act • They have causal powers and properties to act and change the status quo (respond to enablers and constraints) • They understand their agential roles • What type of agents do we have to sustain the research and innovation mandate? Academics?

Concluding remarks • Structural modalities for supporting R&I abound. Too many may be? ? • But are they accessible to all universities, researchers, academics? No! • Can they produce the desired change in R&I? • Agents need to engage in critical agential reflexivity • SA does not have the required critical mass • So can we regard it as a best practice?

Concluding remarks • So What is Lesotho’s mandate? – How is your R&I world (Structures, Culture & Agency)? • What dominant discourses must you be mindful of? Cultural enablers and constraints? • Who are your corporate agent who can articulate what the country/research institutions need? • What can we borrow? How can we participate globally

Thank you www. cut. ac. za | Bloemfontein (051) 507 3911 | Welkom (057) 910 3500