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

2 Outline of the presentationBackground and introduction Methodological approach Theoretical arguments Culture, Structure and Agency Concluding remarks

3 Background and IntroductionPurpose 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

4 Methodology Employ critical social theory of Margaret ArcherRationale 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

5 Theoretical ArgumentsAny 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)

6 Theoretical ArgumentsIn 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

7 Culture - enabling and constraining discoursesThese 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

8 Culture - enabling and constraining discoursesGovernment policy discourses: Unequal funding allocations Pressures to raise 3rd 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

9 Culture - enabling and constraining discoursesEffects 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

10 Culture - enabling and constraining discoursesUniversity 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

11 Culture - enabling and constraining discoursesUniversity 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

12 Culture - enabling and constraining discoursesChanging 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

13 Culture - enabling and constraining discoursesFunding 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 fund-raising and work closely with funding agencies Experience control and bureaucratic requirements – deterrents to many researchers

14 Structure Structures at national and institutional levelsOnly 4 critical ones will be discussed Key Government Departments Key policies Key funding agencies Partnerships and collaborations 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)

15 Structure – government departmentsDepartment 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 ersees Department of Science and Technology Department of Higher Education and Training Department of Trade and Industry

16 Structure – government departments2. 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 A completed doctoral study more than R Individual researchers get a share

17 Structure – government departments3. 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?

18 Structure – key policiesKey policies are: 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 PhDs to increase from 34% to 75% Enrolments for Science and Technology degrees to Will these produce the aspired research and innovation? What is the progress to date? Do we have agents to carry out this mandate?

19 Structure – key policiesKey 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

20 Structure – key policiesiii) Ten- year Innovation Strategy ( ) 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

21 Structure – research councils & agenciesAfrica Institute of South Africa (AISA): Agricultural Research Council (ARC): Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR): Council for Geoscience (CGS): Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC): Medical Research Council (MRC): Council for Mineral Technology (Mintek): South African Bureau of Standards (SABS): National Research Foundation (NRF): Water Research Commission (WRC): (WRC’s mandate is basically to facilitate, coordinate, and fund water research as well as build capacity within the water sector). SARIMA:

22 Structure – research councils & agenciesSARIMA: 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

23 Structure – research councils & agenciesHorizon 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

24 Structure – partnerships and collaborationsHorizon 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

25 Structure – Institutional structuresResearch and innovation Strategic plans and frameworks Research units with dedicated support staff Incentive models – lead to unintended consequences and compromise quality 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

26 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?

27 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?

28 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

29 Thank you | Bloemfontein (051) | Welkom (057)