Report on Proceedings of the Second hesa biennial Research and Innovation Conference

6.1.2 Discussion
Question (Prof Amanda Lourens, NWU): In terms of broadening the base, could you give insights on the outputs at masters, doctoral and postdoctorate fellow level?
Question (delegate from Rhodes University): We always talk about differentiation in terms of research output. I found it refreshing that you also looked at the number of staff members with PhDs, but what about professional and vocational skills and teaching and learning?
Question (Prof Robin Drennan, Wits): I’d like to pick up the point about how difficult it is to change productivity given the long-term missions of institutions. Are there any insights that you can share about institutions that have made good progress?
Question (Prof Nelson Ijumba, UKZN): Given international norms, do you think that the DHET will look at different ways of rewarding research output from universities?
CommentB (Prof Chris Nhlapo, CPUT): I wonder what the picture would look like if one looked at artefacts, patents and spin-off companies coming out of institutions. That is one aspect that could also address the issue of differentiation.
Question (delegate from University of Limpopo): Collaboration internationally has grown, but has there been an increase in local collaboration between institutions?
Comment (Prof Peter Mbati, University of Venda): I have a comment on the historical effects on particularly HDIs, and I think as a sector we have to delve deeper into this issue. Over the past 15 - 20 years I think we have adopted a frozen picture of what institutions can do. I think we should look at what we as a sector can do to shift the focus from the top five and thaw up those institutions that are not making progress. Our PhDs at Venda is steadily growing, but the production of peer-reviewed publications is still low. We looked at the workload of our academic staff, and we found that large student-lecturer ratios impact negatively on the ability of staff to do research. We should also think about how much investment had been made in some of these institutions over the years, so that we can learn lessons from that.
Response (Prof Johann Mouton): The graphs that I showed looked at data of specific universities, which we have gradually updated over time. When we analyse the data more closely, one sees that the broadening of the base is not only at the high end, but that staff at all levels are encouraged to publish. It is uncertain what incentives are offered. I know that GIBS (Gordon Institute of Business Science) says that every PhD student should produce two articles out of their dissertation, for example. A combination of strict guidelines and rules will help to increase output. It should not be too difficult for research directors to think of ways to stimulate research output.
I’m not always sure whether all these initiatives are acceptable within a research funding framework. We know of institutions that have had visiting professors who published under the auspices of their own and local institutions, which may be technically correct but could be ethically questionable.
If I were a research director, I would do anything in my power to encourage my staff to complete their PhDs. The question is what one would do if the majority of your staff members are in the professions, where they are not interested in completing a PhD. I think universities have to be smart; a blanket arrangement cannot work. Vice-chancellors have to take field differences into account when determining research-output requirements. Differentiation should start within the institution.
I think I understand the historical issues affecting our institutions. If a HDI were to focus on increasing the number of PhDs, I’m positive that the research output will also grow. I think that if one can stimulate collaboration between institutions, growth will take place in areas where there is activity and where the impact will be high.
Prof. Ijumba asked a question about the funding framework, and whether it should include more impact measures. I think the funding framework is a very blunt instrument, but it has done a lot of good in incentivising the research track record that we have in this country. Some institutions have shown good growth over the past years, making it clear that the funding framework has been successful in stimulating research. There is a danger that people end up chasing money, however. The subsidy system is currently also subsidising a number of journals read only by a small number of readers, which is not incentivising people to publish in ISI journals. I think that the DHET should find other ways to incentivise publication in ISI journals. The problem is that the DHET does not have the capacity to administer the system properly. There has been a decline in national collaborative papers over the last 10 years; people don’t want to share the subsidy, so the system ends up penalising local collaborations. Our system should take account of all these issues.
Lastly, I must say that the production of doctorates in this country generally still occurs at the top eight institutions. People are voting with their feet, which could be because HDIs and rural institutions are not offering doctoral programmes. We are also enrolling more and more SADC postgraduate students at local institutions.
Comment (Delegate): The responsiveness index to national policies should be investigated. The lower tier of universities has undergone some interesting changes, and it may be interesting to compare figures over the past five years.
Response (Prof Johann Mouton): You are right – the funding formula and SARCHI chairs and other initiatives are improving the situation, but we have to get the data from the institutions themselves. UFH is a case in point, where they have been doing well over the past three years, but most of the work is done on contract for the Department of Agriculture. If you get down to institutional level we are reaching an exciting stage where research directors have an opportunity to do much more.
The funding formula has to balance all the areas of knowledge production for which we need vibrant journals. We need differentiated rewards for a differentiated system, taking account of a range of collaborations, etc. As far as I know, some universities are already doing this. If members in our faculty publish in an ISI journal, they get more funding than somebody publishing in a local journal. We don’t have to wait for government to institute a differentiated rewards system; universities can manage their money to suit their own needs.
When we talk about the impact of science, I think one should distinguish between scientific impact and social impact. This is where citations and impact measurement is important. There are many papers that are published but never cited. Over a period of 20 years, there were 60 journals that were never cited, for example. As for social impact, that is the field of knowledge use where case studies and surveys are used to determine the social impact. There are no quantitative indicators to link and measure social and scientific impact.
Question (Prof Stephanie Burton): What do you think the impact of open-access journals will be over the next five years? I think we have to think about payment for journals and subscriptions when we balance the books and the use of subsidy.
Response (Prof Johann Mouton): There is no evidence to show that people publishing in open-access journals are cited more. I think the top journals in the field will remain well-established and well respected. I always remind people that it is the paper that gets cited, and not the journal. In few cases will the journal generate citations; scholars who work in a field will follow the work of other scholars. Unless scholars in a particular field move en masse to an open-access journal, the impact will remain negligible.
6.2 Theme 2: Multi-sectoral collaboration

Discussion led by Dr Glenda Kruss, Research Director: Education and Skills Development, HSRC

Dr Glenda Kruss, Research Director: Education and Skills Development, HSRC

Report back by session moderator Prof L Botha
COLLABORATION was viewed from four different perspectives:

• 
  University or institutional perspective – what should universities do to advance collaboration?
  

• 
  Financial and intellectual dimensions, including commercialisation and sponsorships, services, consultancy;
  
• 
  Networks and intellectual collaboration, to inform research topics which could benefit both parties;
  
• 
  Industry primarily needs to employ skilled people. When industry does interact, they want to leverage their own research and development capability by multiplying the reach of research.
  

On the negative side, basic research could be diminished or constrained by too strong a focus on industry’s needs. What industry needs should be addressed by the collaboration?

Incentives for universities should be clear to stimulate collaboration. From a policy perspective, misaligned policies should be identified and addressed at the level of government and within institutions.
A further issue raised was a lack of integration. The capabilities of collaboration should be identified, and people should be incentivised to collaborate. There should be collaboration between universities, universities of technology, professional bodies, incubators, science parks and also alignment – from the bottom up – of various government departmental policies.
It is still necessary to clarify what definition of innovation should apply. For purposes of the discussion a broad definition was accepted, but in future it would be necessary to clearly define and articulate what is meant by the word.
Different tiers of collaboration should be accommodated at various levels within institutions. Incentives for an enabling environment and barriers to progress should also be identified and addressed.

3. 
   Theme 3: Internationalisation
   

Discussion led by Dr Nico Jooste, Director: Office for International Education, and

Prof Roseanne Diab, Chief Executive Officer, ASSAf

Prof Roseanne Diab, Chief Executive Officer, ASSAf

Dr Nico Jooste, Director: Office for International Education, NMMU

Report back by session moderator, Prof Aldo Stroebel
THE issue of internationalisation is a standing item on the HESA RISG agenda. It should, however, be clarified what is meant by internationalisation of research and innovation. Is one component the usual student conceptualisation which includes travel, transformation, research, academic excellence and benchmarking, increased capacity, public awareness, and partnerships? Or, are we speaking of globalising South Africa, growing interconnectivity and the role of business in the outward thrust of knowledge production? Finally, do we want to be a developed country, or are we trying to manage our status as a developing country to the best of our ability?
Are we clear about what is meant by the term knowledge economy, and is it a continuation from the labour force to higher education? What realities do we face as a country?
For the first time there is a realisation of the interconnectedness of different factors, and the role that internationalisation can play. There has been some buy-in on internationalisation, and good progress in communication and acceptance of its importance. There has been agreement that SADC and the African continent would be our area of focus for the foreseeable future, where we can do much more for our own development and international exposure.
Co-ordination is not optimal. We are starting to talk to each other and seeing aspects in context, despite a fragmented approach and poor communication.
For the future, the following recommendations were made:

• 
  In some form or another create an inter-governmental task team, including all role players, to look at internationalisation;
  
• 
  Government departments, universities and other role players should look at the various policy documents currently being considered to understand the issues clearly;
  
• 
  There is a miscommunication of the strategic areas of investment. We need a problem-based focus on internationalisation to arrive at an integrated solution;
  
• 
  In principle there has been agreement to conduct a study on South Africa’s impact in Africa, which could help to identify solutions to the challenges;
  
• 
  The Department of Home Affairs currently presents the biggest challenge to internationalisation, which would have to be addressed as a matter of urgency;
  
• 
  Publishing is another challenge, where ASSAF is taking the lead to find a solution;
  
• 
  We should find ways to optimise collaborative agreements and opportunities, because in many cases the opportunities exist, but the capacity is not there to make the most of them; and
  
• 
  Slowly, an internationalisation strategy for South Africa must become a reality, but it would require immediate action, co-ordination and communication.
  

We are aware of the challenges and our desired outcomes, but there should be agreement that we should look forward to the eventual outcomes so we can devote our time and energies to getting there. Who should take the lead to make the most of the impetus and drive? Vice-chancellors are ideally placed to take the lead in this regard. For the higher-education sector to have an enabling environment where innovation can be used to benefit all stakeholders, decisive action is necessary.

3. 
   Theme 4: Innovation for development
   

Discussion led by Ms J Barnett, Vice-president: SARIMA and Dr T Bromfield, Manager: Applied Research, Sasol

Ms Jaci Barnett, Vice-President: SARIMA



Dr Tracy Bromfield, Manager: Applied Research, SASOL

Report back by Dr D Phaho
THE group discussing this theme felt that it would be better to expand the focus of their discussion to innovation for social and economic development. Some other issues raised included:

• 
  Basic education is one of South Africa’s biggest challenges, although universities are doing much to improve the situation, e.g., programmes and interventions at Grade 10 - 12;
  
• 
  Higher Education Institutions need to be more flexible and add multidisciplinary programmes to traditional university education offerings to meet industry needs and address innovation for development;
  
• 
  What more can be done to ensure local procurement of goods and services to drive innovation in South Africa?
  
• 
  In what way does industry perceive the IPR Act as a deterrent? There are varying interpretations of the act among universities, which impacts on industry-university collaborations. The notion of full cost is not commonly understood or implemented with respect to IP risk. There is no common understanding of the cost profile of a high-risk project, but this should be refined as industry and universities become more familiar with the act;
  
• 
  The issue of reward for serendipitous discovery by universities on industry-funded research has to be managed in a way that is conducive to creating an environment that promotes the capability of a university to do research, beyond the issue of short-term gains.
  
• 
  Are the the investments of large companies were biased against previously disadvantaged institutions?
  
• 
  Consideration should be given to Investment where there is capacity at a global level to harvest knowledge; and
  
• 
  Investment in bursaries and infrastructure to grow the knowledge base.
  

The group identified a dichotomy between social and natural sciences in innovation:

• 
  Innovation tends to have an economic impact on knowledge production, while development aspects are taken into account in some fields of university research and have been a factor in awarding research chairs;
  
• 
  Innovation is viewed as the provision of goods and services to grow the economy;
  

• 
  Government support for innovation is insufficient, although the
  

Technology Stations programme has been successful. More of this type of support was needed;

• 
  Systems of innovation have to be established at national, provincial and local levels; and
  
• 
  Are we learning from other countries’ NSIs and from experience?
  

Delegates reconvened for the feedback plenary session.

Feedback was led by Prof L Botha (CSIR), Prof T Maluleke (UNISA), Prof A Stroebel (UFS) and Dr David Phaho (SASOL)

7 SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE PROPOSED WAY FORWARD

Prof T Mthembu, Co-Chairperson of the HESA Research and Innovation Strategy Group and Vice-Chancellor or the Central University of Technology


Prof Thandwa Mthembu, Co-Chairperson of the HESA Research and Innovation Strategy Group; and, Vice-Chancellor: Central University of Technology

THEdiscussions over the two-day conference identified three challenges around research and innovation, namely:
• Big policy challenges;

• Challenges around people that are involved in the research and innovation process; and

• Challenges around infrastructure.
Challenges around policy and infrastructure are important, but without making sure that people are empowered, good policy and infrastructure will remain ineffective. In terms of policy, the biggest challenge lies in terms of the National System of Innovation. Other issues defining the roles of different players in policy development and actual innovation work facilitated by government or the departments have to be addressed in a coherent manner. The matter of differentiation should also be driven to fruition; HESA has set up a task team and the Minister of Higher Education and Training also initiated a project looking at this issue.
There is a lack of policy co-ordination. The OECD report was issued in 2007, yet some recommendations were only implemented five years later. There is also a lack of co-ordination of the research activities undertaken by science councils and institutions.
Lastly, looking at enablers or inhibitors in the system, ways have to be found to stimulate activities in terms of research and innovation. Procurement patterns were mentioned by various speakers, and must be investigated and understood to optimise how government and the private sector can support research and innovation outcomes.
There are serious questions around the support provided to students, and the time it takes to finish a masters or PhD programme. We have to think about models like the Brazilian one to create efficiencies in our system, or think about alternative systems that allow bright young people to finish in record time. There are challenges around researchers themselves and the environments in which they are expected to do their work, i.e., increased managerialism. There is recognition that the SARCHi programme encourages people to do research, so this could be used as a valuable benchmark. Various partners have to be identified at the international level, and the nature of collaboration and the benefits to be extracted should be considered. Partnerships with business and industry, and incentives to make these relationships viable, must be given thought. Work is under way to look at improving physical infrastructure.
HESA has to endeavour to assist the various departments that it is interacting with to address these issues. The Minister of Science and Technology stated that institutions and business have to take responsibility for these issues. HESA’s RISG will consider various strategies and proposals going forward, and will present these to the minister.

8 WAY FORWARD: POLICY, PEOPLE, INFRASTRUCTURE

_Policy, people, and infrastructure, and the interactions between these, represent the pillars for the way forward:

Research and Innovation




People__Policy___Students;'>Infrastructure

People

Policy


Students;

Researchers;

Innovation Partners;

Society

National System for Innovation;

Roles;

Coordination;

Enablers



Physical;

Dispersed;

Virtual;

Datasets


Policy
We seem to need:

• 
  …a coherent research and innovation system underpinned by policy consistency, including a sensible funding system aligned with, and amongst, different State departments (DHET, DST, DMR DEA, etc.), and not merely the sum of individual entities and systems;
  
• 
  …a vision for the NSI, including a national research agenda focusing inter alia on areas such as jobs, poverty, infrastructure, manufacturing and the green economy;
  
• 
  …in addition to other focus areas, we need the NSI system to be located within the development needs of society and the economy;
  
• 
  …policy research and an advisory structure that will pull together the national system of innovation and ensure alignment across different State departments, as well as ensure implementation.
  

People
We seem to need:

• 
  …long-term collaborative programmes to be conceptualised;
  
• 
  …the triple-helix partnership model to incorporate universities, government, industry and business, and communities;
  
• 
  …win-win partnerships with private higher education in respect of research and innovation;
  
• 
  …business and industrial support for commercial research – but not too much;
  
• 
  …business and industrial support for research chairs;
  
• 
  …strategic thinking for global positioning in respect of flagship projects and programmes, e.g. the SKA, centres of excellence, and other success stories, such as the SARCHi initiative;
  
• 
  …strengthened regional networks, e.g. SADC and strengthened country to country research relationships, e.g. IBSA, BRICS, etc.;
  
• 
  …increase or lobby to increase research funding and support for postgraduates;
  
• 
  …increase output throughout the research and innovation value chain – skills, IP, economic, social and environmental value adds;
  
• 
  …enablers to retain foreign students and staff to strengthen our skills base.
  

Infrastructure
We seem to need:

• 
  …the implementation, or lobbying for the implementation of the HESA FSG infrastructure study findings;
  
• 
  …the implementation, or lobbying for the implementation of the HESA RISG research equipment study findings.
  

Finally, some thoughts on Innovation

We seem to need:

• 
  …the focus of innovation to be on sustainable development to benefit society as a whole in the formal and informal sectors;
  
• 
  …the mainstreaming of innovation in relation to the economy and society;
  
• 
  …effective and efficient incentive structures, such as research and development tax incentives, venture capital, funding mechanisms for innovation, etc.