global research seminar: sharing research agendas on

Global Research Seminar:

Sharing Research Agendas on

Knowledge Systems

FINAL PROCEEDINGS

UNESCO, Paris, 28-29 November 2008

The UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge

The UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge

Global Research Seminar:

Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge Systems

FINAL PROCEEDINGS

Research Summaries and Poster Presentations


The authors are responsible for the choice and the presentation of the facts contained in this document and for the opinions expressed therein, which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization. The designation employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, city or area of it authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 7, place de Fontenoy 75352 Paris 07 SP Editing: Pauline Harvey The Global Research Seminar was coordinated by the Members of the Steering Committee of the Interim Scientific Advisory Board: Rose Marie Salazar-Clemeña (the Philippines) Bengt-Åke Lundvall (Sweden) Philippe Kuhutama Mawoko (NEPAD) Albert Sasson (France/Morocco) Mala Singh (South Africa) Hebe Vessuri (Venezuela) Rapporteur General, Merle Jacob (Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago)

© UNESCO 2009

ED-2009/WS/20REV

a_boulos

Texte tapé à la machine

CONTENTS Pages Foreword Mary-Louise Kearney, Director UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge Key points and issues established from the Final Overview Merle Jacob, Director Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture University of Oslo Part I. Final Overview by the Rapporteur General 1-12 Merle Jacob, Director Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture University of Oslo Part II. Research Summaries Nos.1-43 13-126 Presented by: Ritu Sadana (Switzerland); Arie Rip (the Netherlands) Barbara Iasiello (France); Neo Molotja (South Africa) Bajrang Lal (India); Ellen Hazelkorn (Ireland) Michael Kuhn (Germany); Marcela Mollis (Argentina) Mammo Muchie (Denmark); Ngoyi K. Zacharie Bukonda (USA) Solomon Arulraj David (Belgium); Claes Brundenius (Sweden) David Charles (United Kingdom); Joseph Gahama (Rwanda) Ana Julia Bozo de Carmona (Venezuela); David Cooper (South Africa) Phuthi Nduduzo (Zimbabwe); Geeta Nair (India) Meeta Rajivlochan (India); Amanda Scoggins (United Kingdom) Nienke Beintema (Italy); Sylvie Didou-Aupetit (Mexico) Anant Kamath (the Netherlands); Niki Vermeulen (the Netherlands) Mohamed Morsy El-Faham (Egypt); Koen Jonkers(Spain) Jingjing Zhang (United Kingdom); Labib Arafeh (Israel) Tanveer Kauser Naim (Pakistan); Ali El Hawat (Libya) Siti Meiningsih (Indonesia); Eli Katunguka Rwakishaya (Uganda) Jacqueline de Bony (France); Winston Dookeran (Finland) Nga Phuong Nguyen (Viet Nam); Yogesh D. Jadhav (India) Mohir Ahmedov (Uzbekistan); John Arudo (Kenya) Irena Kuzmanoska (Macedonia); John Paolo R. Rivera (the Philippines) Krishna Praad Acharya (Nepal); Kazbek Toleubayev (the Netherlands) Josué Cortés Zárate (Mexico).

Part III. Poster Presentations Nos.1-4 127-138 Presented by: Graciela C. Riquelme (Argentina); Vishwas Saxena (India) Alis E. Oancea, (United Kingdom); Victorita Trif (Romania) Part IV. Agenda and List of Participants 139-166

FOREWORD The UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Knowledge and Research is pleased to present this publication, entitled “Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge Systems”. This volume constitutes the Proceedings of the Global Research Seminar of the UNESCO Forum on the subject held at UNESCO, Paris, from 28-29 November 2008. First and foremost, it is appropriate to situate this publication in relation to the aims of the UNESCO Forum and, thus, to contextualize the specific issues related to higher education and research across all regions of the world today. The UNESCO Forum focuses on the role and status of national research systems and on regional and international trends in this domain in relation to the challenges posed by the Knowledge Society of the twenty-first century. Located at UNESCO and supported by the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida) the UNESCO Forum provides a platform for researchers, policy-makers and relevant stakeholders to engage critically with the key elements underpinning research systems: (i) policy trends; (ii) infrastructure; (iii) human capacity and (iv) investment. This project has assured follow-up action for two major UNESCO world conferences, the 1998 World Conference on Higher Education, “Higher Education in the twenty-first century” and the 1999 World Conference on Science, “Science for the twenty-first century”.

Since 2001, the UNESCO Forum has consolidated its efforts to bridge research and policy in a number of ways through facilitating and broadening the space for critical debate and through revisiting the established and dominant views so as to reconceptualize future directions. To date, its various components for attaining these goals – mobilizing experts, stimulating global and regional debate, producing and disseminating research, promoting strategic partnerships, facilitating communication and strengthening the systemic approach – have yielded creditable results. The UNESCO Forum believes that it is central to reaffirm the importance of research at the current moment given the rapid developments since 2000 in knowledge production and management and their ramifications for social change and progress. Research on research has become, therefore, even more crucial and is now well recognized as a major field of enquiry for international organizations, charged with advising their Member States about the questions involved. In this regard, the World Bank, the OECD and other important stakeholders are key partners of the UNESCO Forum. The UNESCO Forum pursues a systemic approach to the analysis of research so as to address strengths and weaknesses, as well as specific issues and concerns, in a critical manner. This work will embrace research in both industrialized and emerging contexts, as well as researchers whether reputed or at the beginning of their careers. The central objective is to promote ongoing research and to place significant results in the public eye. Consequently, research may be more original, innovative and effective, thus leading towards more sustainable human development. Today, unprecedented emphasis is being placed on research as the key motor for advancing the knowledge society and its offspring, the knowledge economy. Consequently, research on the state of research has moved high on the priority agendas for governments, for their specialized agencies and bodies devoted to this area, and for higher education institutions. Thus, mapping and analyzing their systems has become essential in order to acquire an understanding of their functioning and, therefore, future requirements.

The Global Research Seminar, 2008 was structured around three main areas of interest: (i) methodologies for studying research systems; (ii) interesting applications of these approaches worldwide and (iii) analysis of specific dimensions of these systems (inter alia, research governance and policies, infrastructure, human resources, fundraising, measuring research output, and the special tensions dynamics and challenges of certain contexts and how these affect research activities). The seminar brought together over forty experts from more than sixty countries to share their rich and varied experiences. Thus, this became an opportunity both to benefit from the presence of recognized experts in this field, and also to hear from young researchers who are commencing their careers. In addition, certain long-standing partner organizations active in this area (such as the OECD, WHO and FAO) made detailed presentations describing their latest results in their particular areas. Their presence provided broader dimensions to the discussions while also serving to reiterate the common commitment amongst UN agencies and major IGOs to deepen understanding of research systems so as to advance sustainable social development. For these reasons, the Global Research Seminar fulfilled its mission to act as a huge arena for the research community worldwide, which facilitates the networking of experts and so helps to consolidate competence in specific areas of research systems. The UNESCO Forum expresses its profound gratitude to the Steering Committee Members of the Global Research Seminar, Professors Rose Marie Salazar-Clemeña (the Philippines), Bengt-Åke Lundvall (Sweden), Philippe Kuhutama Mawoko (NEPAD), Albert Sasson (France/Morocco), Mala Singh (South Africa), Hebe Vessuri (Venezuela), for their dedicated efforts to conceptualize and organize the seminar and to ensure a very rich and thoughtful Report. In this regard, special thanks are due to Professor Merle Jacob (Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago) who acted as Rapporteur General. The outcomes of this research seminar are intended to provide fresh insights both for policy-makers and the higher education community alike as they address the main challenges facing higher education and research systems in the Knowledge Society of the twenty-first century.

Mary-Louise Kearney, Director, Forum Secretariat, UNESCO Forum for Higher Education, Research and Knowledge

KEY POINTS AND ISSUES ESTABLISHED FROM THE FINAL OVERVIEW

A total of over 100 researchers from some 50 Member States of UNESCO attended this Global Research Seminar of the UNESCO Forum. This winning combination of experts – from high-, middle- and low-income countries – highlighted the main trends and issues involved in building and monitoring Higher Education, Research and Innovation (HERI) systems, concluding that HERI systems are proving vital both for national growth and competitiveness, as well as to enforce international collaboration and networking amongst the research communities. GENERAL POINTS 1. Knowledge Systems (i.e. systems of higher education, research and knowledge – known as HERI) have changed dramatically over the last two decades to meet the growing demands of knowledge-based societies and the new mandate that higher education and research contribute directly to economic growth and competitiveness. 2. ‘Knowledge Management’ (i.e. how HERI systems work in practice) was at the heart of the debates and as a consequence put the spotlight on the global versus local tensions in HERI systems. 3. High-Income Countries (HICs), i.e. OECD Member Countries, are already well-attuned to this reality. In contrast, the gap with Middle-Income Countries (MICs) and Low-Income Countries (LICs) has widened as a result of extant limitations in capacity for system analysis and reinforcement. This ‘gap issue’, for the quality and relevance of HERI systems, is a major concern. 4. Experts in HERI systems, from middle- and low-income countries, often come from a background of discipline-based research but have moved to meta-level of analysis. This base of expertise needs to be nurtured and expanded. SOME KEY TRENDS AND ISSUES 1. Is Higher Education (as a key component of HERI systems) a public good or globally-traded service? This is a current debate in HICs which has started to impact on MICs and LICs. 2. In OECD Member Countries, the teaching/research dichotomy inherent in the organization of the university has important implications, the: • University’s teaching mission is more focused on competences for the labour market. • Research mission is becoming more integrated with innovation and other policy objectives (this implies that reflection and investigation are more applied and socially engaged). • HERI systems have now been given a Third Mission which is community and/or industry linkages. 3. The quest for relevance has affected all areas of university research as this is now an integral element of economic strategy in OECD Member Countries. 4. As a result, top-quality Research Universities (RUs) are key players in national economies and in the international/globalized society. Ranking Tables are one example of this phenomenon. However, the “Super RUs” (the world’s best research institutions) are currently mainly concentred in the USA which thus shows an imbalance in the equitable distribution of knowledge. 5. The creation of critical mass (Big Science) is now a key policy objective for all areas of inquiry because ‘sizing up’ is seen to be an imperative if science, technology and

innovation policy goals are to be met. This must be balanced with local knowledge and research which promotes more practical applications. 6. Contribution to innovation (discovery and application with potential for economic growth and welfare) is now an important element of HERI systems. 7. The new managerial culture in higher education institutions is aimed at optimizing the knowledge capacity of each HEI but has serious limitations in balancing the missions of teaching, research and outreach. 8. Evaluating and measuring HERI systems (via bibliometics) is now a front line issue. Methodologies which take account of specific contexts and their conditions are common tools but must be adapted to local conditions. 9. The research profession has been deeply affected: globally recognized researchers have special recruitment value for the higher education sector. Collaborative research (e.g. international teams and their prestige is a growing reality). Top researchers are often mobile both inside national knowledge systems (where they move to management) and as part of the Diaspora of developing countries (when they choose to join more challenging research contexts). 10. The contribution of locally-focused researchers is important. It is true to say that the practices of local knowledge societies remain strongly linked to cultural traditions. The challenge in the face of increasing globalization is ‘how to create and maintain a HERI system which can exploit and create room for global and local elements’. CONCLUDING REMARKS Knowledge expertise in higher education, the research function or innovation is now a commodity with internationally recognized value, in the present era. Knowledge management is a key issue for HEIs since this relates to: (i) Mission of higher education and research. (ii) Increased mobility of academic labour. (iii) Rise of international research consortia in the “Big Science” domain. On-going weak HERI capacity in MICs and LICs poses a serious problem in terms of rebalancing access to knowledge and its benefits. Long-term and sustainable solutions to the problems of developing countries cannot advance without the sound ‘knowledge-base’ provided by HERI systems. Every effort should be made to help Middle-Income Countries (MICs) and Low-Income Countries (LICs) to build, reinforce and benchmark their capacities in this field. Merle Jacob Director Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture University of Oslo Oslo, Norway

UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge Global Research Seminar “Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge Systems”

1

PART I FINAL OVERVIEW BY THE RAPPORTEUR GENERAL

Merle Jacob, Director

Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture University of Oslo

Oslo, Norway Introduction One of the undisputed impacts of the adoption of the Knowledge Society as the leitmotif for economic development is that higher education and research have been reconceptualized as central to economic growth and national competitiveness. Although only a few OECD Member Countries can claim to have been first movers in developing a new regime of governance for the Higher Education, Research and Innovation (HERI) sector, the shift in governance imperatives and goals has had global impact. In recognition of this development, the UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge gathered together scholars from the world over for its Global Research Seminar “Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge Systems”, Paris, 28 to 29 November 2008, to share information on their respective national higher education research systems. This Final Overview aims to provide a summary of the Proceedings and an outline of the resultant Research Agenda which crystallized out of the two days of detailed discussion, and will be structured in three sections. Section I will provide a summary of the main trends and challenges facing national research systems worldwide. Next Section II gives a synthetic account of the Proceedings of the seminar and, finally, Section III examines an outline of a future Research Agenda. Section I. State-of-the-Art: National Research Systems in the Era of Globalization Globalizing Research Systems: The creation and maintenance of a robust higher education and research system is an important strategic priority for all nations, albeit this task is deceptively simple since higher education and research despite their national character are also globally-rooted activities. For instance, regardless of the nation-state’s position in the world system, it needs to ensure that its nationally awarded degrees maintain an internationally recognized level of quality. Similarly research is funded nationally but research agendas are often a compromise between global standards set by the international scientific community and national needs and competence profiles. Higher education and research scholars converge on the view that the sector is undergoing an unprecedented transition and that this process may be found to greater or lesser extent in all countries regardless of size or level of economic development (Gumport, 2005; Giroux, 2002; Shattock, 2008; Assefa, 2009). Although these trends have been mapped elsewhere (Vessuri and Teichler, 2008; Deem, et al., 2007) it is useful to introduce our discussion with the contours of the major trends which were outlined at the meeting in Paris.


2

By far, the most significant development for higher education and research is the deepening of the process of globalization, on all levels, and the phenomenon of global rankings for universities is to date the most concrete manifestation of this trend. Although, relatively new, the global ranking system has proliferated and embedded itself in the reporting system for universities with remarkable speed given that universities are notorious for being slow adopters of change. There are few University Chancellors/Presidents/Principals who can claim to be insensitive to the place of his/her organization in the various rankings. The system remains somewhat precarious at present and it is an open secret that one only cites the ranking that gives one’s university a high place. The Shangai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) ranking is currently treated informally as the most prestigious but there are some obvious limitations with that ranking including the fact that it contains a structural bias against the social science and the humanities. It does not give full coverage to social sciences and many of the most well cited journals in that area are yet to be covered. In addition it gives no coverage to the arts and humanities or to student learning experience. Despite the limitations of the currently available rankings and the gerrymandering practices of University Chancellors/Presidents/Principals when selecting which ranking to cite, there seems to be a growing consensus that rankings have a legitimate place in higher education and research. For this reason, we can expect that rather than disappear, they will continue to be a part of our landscape. A second and related feature of the deepening of globalization is the reclassification of higher education and research from the status of public good to that of a globally-traded service (World Bank, 2002). This presents both a risk and an opportunity to countries with weak national higher education and research systems. On the one hand, there is an opportunity presented by the fact that reputed universities are increasingly likely to want to create subsidiaries. One could piggyback on the social capital of these institutions by inviting them to set up shop in one’s nation and hope that this would contribute to building a more robust national higher education and research system in a shorter period of time than would otherwise be necessary. On the other hand, there is a real risk that such schemes increase the potential for dependence. Research has in some respects always been more globalized than education; however, here too one can see significant changes. One of which is the tendency for funding, even on the national level, to be awarded increasingly to ensembles, a trend that one can arguably contend that the European Framework Programmes contributed to deepening through its homogeneous application of the requirement of cross national teams in all European Union funded projects (Grande and Peschke, 1999). The Framework Programme approach has been imitated not only by Member States in the EU but outside of the EU as well. On the national level, this emphasis on collaboration has meant that researchers need to demonstrate that their project includes partners from other national institutions as well as demonstrate that they are connected to a relevant international network as part of their argument for funding. The implication of this new criterion of evaluation of scientific fitness is that researchers have to be very well networked in order to be able to secure funding for their research. On one level, the above contributes to globalization as international networks become more visible and function as currency in the national context. On the other, national and/or local conditions become more decisive as the ability to access and participate effectively in such networks is dependent on national and local prerequisites. These arrangements present a number of challenges for all national research systems but they are most acute for areas where resources


3

are hard to come by, infrastructure is non-existent or unreliable and teaching loads do not allow for extensive time for travel and network maintenance. Thus, the increasing focus by national research councils on international networking as a guarantee of scientific quality presents opportunities only in so far as the individual researcher and his/her university can afford the entry price. It is important to note here that the traditional divide between rich and poor nations is not a guide to understanding the differential impact of these measures. Instead, it is more useful to look at national- international centre-periphery linkages, thus some groups of scholars in developing countries may be benefiting from this approach while others in peripheral areas, in fairly wealthy countries, may be disadvantaged. An accompanying aspect of globalization has been the reclassification of HERI from public good to tradable service. Thus HERI systems are now regarded as comprised of suppliers of the fourth factor of production i.e. Knowledge. Ironically, this more instrumentalist vision of HERI’s role in the nation-state has had the unintended effect of harmonizing the world views of developed and developing countries on HERI in so far as developing countries have, for the most part, tended to see expenditure on higher education and research as a capacity-building exercise on the first hand and an investment in nation-building on the other. This is not to say that a focus on capacity-building could not be a cornerstone of nation-building but that from the point of view of what kinds of institutions and investments will be made in HERI, the two foci will give rise to some important practical differences. Redefinition of the HERI Mission: Boyer (1990) contended that the mission of institutions of higher education and research was in transition from the scholarship of discovery to the scholarship of application. Four years later, Gibbons et al., (1994) reported a similar development which they referred to as the move to Mode 2: Knowledge Production. The most immediate consequence of the scholarship of Application Mode 2 is the expansion of the tasks of universities to include not just the supply of higher education and research but also to take responsibility for contributing to economic development via the diffusion and commercialization of research results. Another is that the focus in education is incrementally shifting to training for the job market in collaboration with other actors in society. Taken together, the addition of the third mission or community service and the focus on training imply closer collaboration between universities and other actors in society, most importantly industry. The purpose of the focus on collaboration is not only to promote more efficient diffusion of knowledge but to introduce an element of steering of the higher education and research system towards relevance. The European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA) lead the way in this trend with the European Union being a late adopter. This focus on relevance is both intuitive and paradoxical – the World Bank (2002) captured this property well in its Report Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education which recommended that higher education institutions should be characterized by relevance and diversity as well as relations to international knowledge networks. In order for these recommendations to be consistent with one another, one would have to assume a higher degree of cross national homogeneity among higher education and research institutions than currently exists. Furthermore, many countries regardless of level of development do not possess higher education and research systems which are well integrated into the economies of their respective societies. The strong relevance criteria can potentially challenge the growing effort to regard HERI as


4

tradable services. For instance, in year 2000 UNESCO estimated that education was a global industry which generated about US$2 trillion. Merrill Lynch defines education as a service that presents a new opportunity for investors in terms of its potential for tradable returns (Moe, et al., 1999). Education is also part of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) arrangements for tradable services. Public universities the world over are facing a situation where, paradoxically, as their importance to the economy is being recognized, their budgets are dwindling. This is in part a result of the growing costs of doing science and smaller fixed funding allocations from state bodies. One of the few budgetary posts that is an exception to this rule is research. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that research has begun to take centre stage in the discussion of higher education and research. In the Humboldtian tradition, research was conceptualized as primarily an investment in competence development and quality assurance for excellence in teaching. Since the 1990s, research and research excellence have increasingly become the source of competitive advantage between higher education and research institutions. This focus has been coupled to a shift in national research and innovation policy from even distribution of competence on a national level to promoting critical mass and excellence across the board. This is not necessarily a new trend in that it has always been a part of research policy and applied in particular to areas which are seen to be of strategic importance to future competitiveness. What is different in the present era is that the big science trend is now seen as relevant to nearly all areas of science. Thus, the social sciences and the humanities are now being included in this ‘sizing up’ of science. There are several implications of these developments. Seen from the perspective of developing countries, the growing emphasis on research is a mixed blessing. On one hand, many of the poorer countries have long suspected that the previous focus on education to the exclusion of research has not been as constructive for long-term development as it was first believed. On the other hand, without a thriving local economy with a mix of national and international firms, the emphasis on research particularly in partnership with industry may lead to further distortion of national priorities. Research staff will focus on the problems around which funding and international networks coalesce, thus the ability to follow the international trend depends on having achieved a level of economic control and sovereignty that many countries have yet to possess. Policy-makers may want to perform a thoroughgoing analysis of national research systems and their relation to the economy and society as a whole to assess which aspects of the prescription that issues from this particular part of the dominant orthodoxy are relevant. Emergence of a Global Market for Academic Labour: The combination of national evaluation pressures and global ranking systems has created an incentive regime for the emergence of a global market for academic labour. Note that academics have traditionally been a mobile group perhaps more so than other professional groups with a similar level of education. This tendency has, however, increased as a result of two research policy related developments. One is that some universities, even publicly-funded universities, are becoming more aggressive with respect to personnel policy. This is a direct response to the pressure of evaluation and the need to improve one’s position in order to successfully compete and attract research income. Another is that evaluation pressure has expanded performance criteria to include not just the individual researcher but also environments. Put differently, it is as important to be in a group with other excellent researchers as it is to be excellent oneself. The United Kingdom’s Research Assessment


5

Exercise (RAE) has put the spotlight on this issue but the Framework Programmes and other large international programme evaluations have contributed to this development. A not unrelated source of increasing pressure in this regard is the demographic shift in most OECD Member Countries. One of the most popular policy measures for dealing with the potential problems this can create is to make it easier for highly-educated labour to migrate. This is normally seen as a measure which targets developing countries however the trend is more likely global. Section II. Global Knowledge Systems in Transition: An Overview of the Issues Tabled One of the common features of the contemporary debate about higher education and research is that as with all phenomena HERI systems, what one reports as important is, in part, a consequence of the level of analysis at which one begins. Put differently, where one stands will determine what one sees. In the foregoing paragraphs, this report has attempted to perform the God Trick or provide the ‘view from nowhere with a nod’, now and then to the dark corners of the system. This while interesting in itself is of necessity a partial view and the ‘devil always lies in the detail’. One of the benefits of the Global Research Seminar, November 2008, is that it provided both a view from nowhere and several more detailed close-ups of specific corners that are not always visible with the lens provided by the World Bank, OECD and other actors who have been instrumental in creating the dominant orthodoxy. It is, of course, no mean feat to recapture this discussion in a manner which could do justice to the exchanges that occurred during those two hectic days. More importantly, a great deal of knowledge exchange took place outside of the formal discussions etc. For this reason, this is an outline rather than an exhaustive account of the proceedings. The individual research summaries of the sessions, that follow this Final Overview, should therefore be treated as an important source for putting flesh on the skeleton account that will follow below. For the sake of brevity, emphasis has also been placed on the following aggregative themes, the: • Global-local dichotomy. • Discursive shift from education and research to knowledge production. • Evaluation pressures and the changing skills required of academic staff. • Implications of the expanding global market for academic labour. Bearing in mind the arguments outlined in the state-of-the-art, one thematic issue that crystallized from that overview is that there are some trends that are paradoxical. The state-of-the-art outlined the relevance versus globalization imperatives. These paradoxes carry over into the reports on national HERI systems. At this level of analysis, the framing that appears to be most suitable is global versus local rather than national relevance in contradistinction to globalized. As argued earlier, all systems regardless of their level of development display these types of tension. A quick summary of the types of global-local tensions that were being experienced include: 1. Highly-cited Researchers versus those who are primarily teachers or who publish ‘next to nothing’: Higher education and research administrators are concerned to create incentives to promote the first group because their merits are of a character that gives global recognition to the institution. Colleagues who are primarily engaged in teaching also make important contributions but these contributions create value locally rather than globally. The challenge for the administrator becomes how to design a system that can recognize the value of both activities and reward accordingly.


6

2. Local Relevance versus Global Networks: Contrary to the dominant arguments in most policy texts that encourage relevance, there is not always commensurability between the research frontline and the problems that occur in practice. In other words, interaction with practice does not always generate interesting research problems and even when it does, these problems are often not of the character that makes them scientifically interesting. This implies that relevance is not necessarily the safest route to getting internationally recognition for oneself or one’s research group. In addition, depending on where one is located, local relevance may have some unfortunate consequences. 3. Institutional Mission: What is the right mix of globally-oriented and local service higher education and research institutions needed to create a robust HERI system? The current examples from Europe and the USA provide no guides for developing countries since their approach has been to create as many as possible of both types and then let history decide. 4. Global versus Local Provision of Knowledge Needs: A certain degree of coverage must be maintained locally if only to maintain absorptive capacity. Thus, every country regardless of wealth and size needs to maintain some basic HERI capacity. This however still leaves open the question: What aspects of HERI can one rely on sourcing from the international community and what level of national capacity is mandatory? This question is further complicated by the fact that in order to maintain a hybrid strategy of mixing national and international competences, one requires considerable knowledge of the international market. Despite the market rhetoric that is now common in discussions about HERI, the ability to effectively source these markets depends on a wealth of systemic knowledge of both an explicit and tacit character. This type of knowledge is not usually at the finger tips of those who make the decisions about resources and strategy on a national level but globally networked researchers are an underutilized resource in the national context, on this issue, since they often develop this kind of knowledge as a spillover of their collaboration with others. Scholars of higher education and research concur that these global-local dilemmas are neither new nor unique to the present era (Kogan and Teichler, 2007). In fact, a central task for HERI policy is to articulate and balance these tensions in the national interest. Nevertheless, the HERI community would concede that these tensions have been exacerbated by the introduction of new public management techniques in the HERI sector. The introduction of this overview referred to the increasing focus being given to ranking of universities, this is not an isolated activity but is part of what many now refer to as ‘the evaluation pressures to which the entire higher education and research sector is being subjected’. A perusal of the literature would reveal that the academic community is divided on this issue. On the one hand, there is a general critique of this trend and quite rightly so because it increases the administrative burden and often takes time and focus away from improving the quality of teaching and research despite its pretensions to contributing to raising quality (Shore, 2008; Johnston, 2009) . On the other hand, the coupling of national higher education with innovation policy that is becoming de rigeur has meant that there are sectors of the scholarly community that benefit in no small way from the evaluation game. One such group is scholars of innovation policy. The increasing importance of bibliometrics has created a veritable growth industry for scholars of innovation policy. This group benefits from the focus on bibliometrics in two


7

significant respects: (i) As a community they tend to be focused on publishing and, therefore, do well on these indicators; and (ii) A large sector of this community uses bibliometrics as a research tool. Other things being equal, increased focus on bibliometrics implies more resources to improve indicators, etc. for this field. A third group of scholars argue that the focus on bibliometry as a performance measure is not problematic in itself but the types and quality of indicators that are being employed need to be refined (Butler and McAllister, 2009). It should be recognized that linked to the focus on innovation as an output of research and higher education is a policy interest in steering funding towards areas that are seen as strategically important for improving national competitiveness. Research policy has historically had a role in trying to prioritize specific areas of research for targeted investments on a national or regional level (Irvine and Martin, 1984). The new element that is introduced in the current period is that the coverage extends to all areas of research and that critical mass excellence and the already mentioned element of international and national collaboration are the key indicators. These developments have been embraced very enthusiastically by most of the research community because they resonate well with the traditional scientific ethos. However, as with all these developments, there are clear winners and losers. The move to big science creates the need for scholars and universities to develop skills which were previously not seen as important. Here we refer to the growing importance of large-scale project management skills and leadership as well as extensive support for research administration. Universities are now required to recruit administrative personnel who can work alongside research staff to develop applications and administer resulting projects. Further, personnel management skills are becoming imperative. A second outcome is that the export of the big science model to all areas of research has meant that social sciences and the humanities are able to keep up only in so far as they can translate their research practices into the existing templates for big science. Some areas of social science and the humanities have been remarkably fast on the uptake and have adapted very well while others are slowly slipping through the cracks. Section I of this overview referred to the emergence of a global market for academic labour. This issue was an important theme in the discussions over the two days. The focus in the discussion was not on the rationale for such a market or its dimensions but on its potential effect on national higher education and research systems. There was a general consensus that the higher education and research sector was experiencing and could expect that there would be increased mobility of personnel both inter- and intra-nationally. A typology emerged from these discussions which showed that scientific and technical personnel migrated in a number of different ways. One is intellectual migration which occurs because scientific and technical personnel migrate to other professions because of more attractive working conditions and in some, but not the majority of instances, better wages. This phenomenon exists in all countries but developing countries suffer from this problem more intensely because of the scarcity of scientifically-trained personnel, thus the effect of the migration from science and technology to decision-making and administrative positions is more keenly felt. A second type of intellectual migration occurs when the balance between global and local relevance in individual or research group research agendas becomes skewed towards the global agenda because of funding patterns. A second and more familiar category of migration occurs when science and technology personnel migrate internationally. The seminar participants expressed the view that the increased emphasis on international collaboration suggests that this pattern of migration will increase. Although developing


8

countries, which have traditionally been disadvantaged in this regard, will continue to suffer from this problem, if more effective measures are not taken all countries can expect to experience increased pressure in this regard as well. If one has been absent from the debate on HERI for the last decade, one would immediately notice that knowledge rather than education or research has become the dominant terminology. Although the seminar papers and presentations did not focus explicitly on the significance of this discursive shift, some of the consequences for the HERI mission were tabled in the discussions. The most significant of these have to do with the definition of knowledge implied in the discursive shift. For instance, knowledge is defined as connected to ‘action ability’ or ‘application’ and ‘engagement’ whereas research is immediately associated with ‘reflection’, ‘understanding’ and ‘distance’. Language is not accidental since how an issue is described and framed determines what phenomena are treated as connected. Likewise a summary perusal of higher education and research policy would reveal that the notions of ‘action ability’, ‘application’ and ‘engagement’ resonate with policies that promote collaboration between universities and other actors in society, the relevance shift and, last but not least, the move towards replacing the state with the market as the actor which exerts and decides on governance imperatives for the HERI sector. The shift to knowledge is in many respects insidious since it is usually seen as a more democratic alternative to the elitism embedded in research. Knowledge, without the prefix scientific, privileges higher education and research institutions and appears to open up for the possibility that there are epistemically equivalent alternatives to scientific knowledge. This is a double-edged sword – witness the case of the evolution versus creation struggle in USA discussions about curricula development in schools. Admittedly, the USA is a special case in this respect. A more representative example is the context of developing countries which are desirous of making a transition from traditional forms of social organization. One example will suffice to illustrate and explain. Consider a Country ‘A’ that possesses a community of traditional practitioners of herbal medicine who provide a cheap and easily accessible medical service in rural communities that complements the Western and urban-based medical system. A relativist view of knowledge may be useful in this context in building up arguments for combining the traditional and the modern. One could for instance increase regulatory overview of this service without driving practitioners out of the market. More importantly, such a view of knowledge may be an important negotiable resource for spanning the boundaries of both systems. In such a circumstance, un-prefixed knowledge is liberating. Within the same country, one may also want to introduce a policy making it mandatory for girls to attend school because providing education to women brings a number of public benefits. In this case, scientific knowledge is juxtaposed with tradition and perhaps even deeply-rooted social and cultural norms which are, in themselves, economically grounded. Those opponents of the ‘education for girls’ policy can easily call upon the un-prefixed knowledge view to argue for the status quo. To what higher authority can the be-devilled policy-maker turn for a ruling on this dilemma? Although the Humboldtian university is a quintessentially European ideal, it is nevertheless the vision that has achieved global acceptance within the HERI sector. The discussions in Paris confirmed this and reported developments which suggest that this vision is rapidly losing its hegemony in HERI. Phenomena such as the redefinition of the goal of teaching from one of


9

education to that of training or competence development are important contributions to the demise of the Humboldtian vision. Additionally, the increased importance attributed to research, the development of a powerful part of the university bureaucracy hired for the sole purpose of supporting research, and the evaluation of research using performance indicators that are increasingly disconnected from education, point to the breakdown of the relationship between teaching and research that is central to the Humboldtian vision. It may very well be that Humboldt’s vision is quite legitimately losing its relevance however there is a disturbing absence of any discussion about what kind of vision ought to be guiding future development of national HERI systems. Section III. Looking to the Future: An Agenda for Research on “Research Systems in Transition” One of the benefits of the Global Research Seminar, the Proceedings of which this Final Report is based on, is that it provided a wealth of detail on national research systems and it demonstrated a clear need across nations for more work in this area. However, the scholarly community in this field is fragmented across several different disciplinary and interdisciplinary spaces. Each space brings with it a specific set of cognitive tools and preferred methods which in term determine the available frame(s) for drawing conclusions. The study of national HERI systems has always been a labour intensive exercise because of the embedded-ness of these systems. Although international comparative studies are becoming more frequent, there is still a trade-off between detail and comparability. One of the conclusions of the discussions was that many of the potential drawbacks of the trade-off between detail and comparability could be attenuated if there was a common Forum for continued discussion and some basic agreement on what would be a fruitful Research Agenda. Taken together, the Forum and Research Agenda could serve as a navigational guide and rationale for future gatherings. The paragraphs that follow outline these issues and give some detail as to the types of problems that were suggested as focusing devices. 1. Expanding mission of higher education and research The above paragraphs focused on the factors which could be said to exist with varying degrees in all national research systems, however, there are important differences and these may be significant for determining future developments. For this reason, it may be useful to attempt to build on existing exercises such as the mapping exercise conducted by Mouton and Waast (2008) to develop thicker descriptions of individual national systems. Such an exercise has benefits for both research and policy. For the research community, it is of course useful to have a common set of indicators that can provide data on how national HERI systems are developing. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the expansion of the HERI mission has changed the nature of academic work. One of the outcomes of this is the increasing importance of management, a phenomenon which to this date is most intensive in the bastions of new public management, i.e. Australia and the United Kingdom (UK) but is gradually spreading to other parts of the world. For the policy community, it would be instructive to have a better insight into how these indicators and changes are playing out in different contexts. 2. Increased mobility of academic labour The researchers gathered in Paris agreed that there was need for increased attention to the issue of increased mobility of academic labour. There are important differences in how this issue is


10

conceptualized across developing and developed countries. A crude distinction would be to argue that developing countries, with a few notable exceptions, see themselves as losers in the competition to retain academic labour. Their respective national HERI systems suffer from typical problems of ‘brain drain’ such as the intellectual migration of science and technology (S&T) manpower from the S&T sector to other sectors of the economy. Still another portion of developing country academic labour migrates internationally for one or another reason or may choose to refrain from returning home after their training abroad is complete. These are all familiar problems and have been discussed particularly in United Nation (UN) hosted fora exhaustively. What is new however is that the problem of academic labour mobility will intensify, as: (i) Combination of increased competition in the HERI sector and the demographic shift in OECD Member Countries put pressure on all countries to recruit internationally. (ii) Competition intensifies so one can expect that recruitment will become more aggressive and will become more overtly linked to higher education itself. In the light of this, the treatment of HERI as a tradable service may be an important factor in determining how the market for academic labour will develop; and (iii) New Agreements that push for international research consortia exert pressure on national migration regulations to create a separate regime of migration for academic labour. There has been ample evidence of these trends for some time but, as yet, there is little systematic research on academic labour markets and on what factors determine success in repatriating academic labour or attracting it. In fact, the subject of migration of academic labour has been shadowed by the different attempts on the part of developing countries to introduce some equivalent of a poll tax for each migrant. This coupled with the tendency for developed countries to take the view that labour migrates from developing countries because they lack the capacity to absorb this labour and thus they can hardly claim to have lost income in this respect implies that more emotion, than reason, has been invested in the subject of academic mobility. Given that all countries are now vulnerable to this problem because of the critical importance of knowledge to economic growth it may be useful to drive this as a research issue on several levels. Some potential questions include: • How can current research policy trends be exploited to attract more academic labour to specific sites? • To what extent is the globalization of education, as a service, a trend that can be exploited to help to retain academic labour? 3. Organization and leadership issues The growing demand for better leadership within the HERI sector implies that the field of HERI research will have to incorporate some research on issues of organization that differ radically from the agenda that is traditionally part of research on HERI. This includes above issues connected to human resource management as well as issues of strategy, etc. that are normally part of the cognitive diet of researchers in organizational management. This is not surprising since one of the outcomes of the new focus on HERI is that universities are increasingly called upon to transform themselves from being arenas for scholars and students to meet up and become organizations (Krücken and Meier, 2006; Whitley, 2008 ). Given the ample evidence of the paucity of available models for the unique circumstance of the university and the track record of


11

the models borrowed from business, there is a growing need for research on new models of organization at all levels of the university. The above-mentioned characteristics of HERI systems are often critiqued and discussed among scholars in the tradition as well as by academics in general. This critique has to date had limited if any impact on praxis. Part of the reason for this is that the academy is a house divided in the face of these trends and the new order of things has got clear losers and winners. Research active scholars revel in the new prominence granted to research – and the applause and recognition that follows the arrival of yet another large grant. Likewise, the international nature of the research exercise brings with it a certain cachet for those who believe that it is a virtue in itself to spend as much time as possible away from the department at which one is employed. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier there are members of the academy who have a vested interest in bibliometry but the most compelling reason for the inability to create a united front is that much of what is currently at work is neither new nor alien to the academy. Constant evaluation is an integral part of academic life, we evaluate students and our colleagues and students evaluate us. Further what preceded the era of bibliometry was a combination of peer review and local practices, both of which were notorious for their susceptibility to manipulation and distortion in the face of local infighting, provincialism, etc. The limitations of bibliometry notwithstanding many owe their promotions to its ability to provide some type of transparency however superficial. Thus, there is a clear need to develop new forms of evaluation that will take into account not only the limitations of the current system but also the problems with its predecessor. Although there is a lively on-going debate about evaluative practices in academe, this debate seems at times to be a footnote to the vast energy and investment in the numbers game. It would be useful to integrate some of the findings about audit cultures and the role of performance measures in constructing our reality into the project of restructuring academe. In summary, the above is not an exhaustive account of the new developments in HERI, it is intended as an indicator of the general direction and some of the issues to which the HERI research community needs to devote research time and resources. In addition, there are several issues of a more national and local character to which scholars will need to also give attention. References Assefa, T.K. 2009. The Unfolding Trends and Consequences of Expanding Higher Education in Ethiopia: Massive Universities, Massive Challenges. In: Higher Education Quarterly 63(1). pp. 29-45. Boyer, E.L. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Butler, L. and McAllister, I. 2009. Metrics or Peer Review? Evaluating the 2001 UK Research Assessment Exercise in Political Science. In: Political Studies Review, 7. pp. 3-17. Deem, R. 1998. New Managerialism in Higher Education: the Management of Performances and Cultures in Universities. In: International Studies in the Sociology of Education, Vol. 8, No 1, pp. 47-70.


12

Deem, R.; Hillyard, S. and Reed, M. 2007. Higher Education, and the New Managerialism: The Changing Management of UK Universities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, UK. Gibbons, M. et al., 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. Giroux, H. 2002. Neoliberalism, Corporate Culture and the Promise of Higher Education: The University as a Democratic Public Sphere. In: Harvard Educational Review, 72 (4), pp. 1- 31. Grande, E. and Peschke, A. 1999. Transnational Cooperation and Policy Networks in European Science Policy-making. In: Research Policy 28(1), pp. 43-61. Gumport, P. 2005. The Organization of Knowledge: Imperatives for Continuity and Change in Higher Education. In: I. Bleiklie and M. Henkel (eds.,) Governing Knowledge: A Study of Continuity and Change in Higher Education, Springer, pp. 113-132. Irvine, J. and Martin, B. 1984. Foresight in Science: Picking the Winners. London: Pinter. Johnston, R. 2009. Where there are Data ... Quantifying the Unquantifiable. In: Political Studies Review, 7. pp .50-62. Kogan, M. and Teichler, U. 2007. Key Challenges to the Academic Profession. Kassel, Germany: Kassel International Centre for Higher Education Research Kassel at the University of Kassel. Krücken, G. and Meier, F. 2006. Turning the University into an Organizational Actor. In: G. Drori, J. Meyer, and H. Hwang (eds.,) Globalization and Organization: World Society and Organizational Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 241-257. Moe, M.T.; Bailey, K. and Lau, R. 1999. The Book of Knowledge: Investing in the Education and Training Industry. Delaware: Merrill Lynch. Mouton, J. and Waast, R. 2008. Draft Global Synthesis Report: A Study on National Research Systems: a Meta Review. UNESCO Forum for Higher Education, Research and Knowledge. Available at: http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/files/55636/12000449845Draft_Global_ Synthesis_Report.pdf/Draft%2BGlobal%2BSynthesis%2BReport.pdf Shattock, M. 2008. The Change from Private to Public Governance of British Higher Education: Its Consequences for Higher Education Policy-Making 1980-2006. In: Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 181-203. Shore, C. 2008. Audit Culture and Illiberal Governance: Universities and the Politics of Accountability. In: Anthropological Theory, 8 (3), pp. 278-98. Vessuri, H. and Teichler, U. 2008. Universities as Centres of Research and Knowledge Creation: an Endangered Species? Rotterdam, Netherlands, Sense Publishers, Publication with UNESCO collaboration/sponsorship. Whitley, R. 2008. Universities as Strategic Actors: State Delegation and Changing Patterns of Evaluation. In: R. Whitley and J. Gläser (eds.,). The Changing Governance of the Sciences, Springer Verlag, pp. 191-203. World Bank 2002. Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education. Washington D.C.

* * *

http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/files/55636/12000449845Draft_Global_


13

Part II Research Summaries

The aim of the UNESCO Forum Global Research Seminar is to provide an arena for researchers to present and discuss new and ongoing research, identify research gaps and suggest new research agenda on systems of higher education, research and knowledge with a view to forging closer links between the research communities and UNESCO in these fields. The following forty-three Research Summaries, which are selected key presentations by the Steering Committee Members, and the four Poster Presentations, were presented by the authors at the Global Research Seminar “Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge Systems”, Paris, 28 to 29 November 2008. Ritu Sadana Dr Coordinator, Equity Analysis and Research, Information, Evidence and Research Cluster, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Methodologies for the study of knowledge systems addressing health topics, mapping national health research in low- and middle-income countries

Research Summary N°1 WHO Health Research Systems Analysis (HRSA) Initiative

Summary I. Areas In its 1990 Report, the Commission on Health Research for Development (CHRD) identified a range of issues that were important for strengthening and evaluation particularly in low- and middle-income countries (CHRD, 1990). An international conference in Bangkok reviewing progress on the Commission’s Recommendations in 2000 crystallized the need to provide more in-depth understanding beyond expert opinions (Sitthi-amorn et al., 2000). Subsequently, and working with other development partners, by 2004 WHO proposed that a system’s view of research on health topics would be necessary to highlight the diverse range of inputs and mechanisms needed, with four basic functions of national health research systems identified irrespective of the complexity of a specific system: ‘stewardship – leadership and policies’, ‘financing’, ‘human and institutional capacities’ and ‘research outputs and their use’. It was proposed that a well-functioning national health research system would lead to the production and use of research that builds on and advances scientific knowledge and improves health and health equity. We defined that a national health research system (NHRS) refers to “the people, institutions and activities involved in the generation of knowledge to promote, restore or maintain the health status of populations. It also includes the mechanisms adopted to encourage the utilization of health research” (Pang et al., 2003).

mailto:[email protected]


14

What was unknown was the way to identify a well-functioning research system addressing health topics, or the ways to assess or map research systems that would cover all system functions and sub-components, and perhaps, more importantly, enable the identification and sharing of good practices in this area, particularly relevant to low- and middle-income countries. Although important (Paraje et al., 2005), an exclusive focus on research outputs hides pre-conditions necessary for knowledge systems to function (Sadana et al., 2005). For national research policies and practices, existing international classifications (e.g. OECD’s Frascati Manual 2002 [Frascati Manual 2002: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development] (OECD, 1994), indicators [e.g. EC Research Directorate General-Eurostat (European Communities, 2001) collective benchmarks] and comparative and easily accessible data [e.g. Ibero-American Network on Science and Technology Indicators (RICYT)] none included measures addressing each of the system functions or sub-components identified. Other limitations include that existing indicators either aggregate all research activities or focus on biomedical or clinical research only (and thus miss out on many other aspects of knowledge for health), and did not track indicators of policy relevance to low- and middle-income countries.

At the same time, assessment, evaluation and potential benchmarking of national health research systems was viewed as a useful approach to facilitating discussions across countries. Benchmarking efforts are based on the notion that information from a range of countries will provide a better understanding of shared problems; development of new solutions to those problems; or new mechanisms for developing and implementing policy that will improve performance as well as cooperation across countries. Consequently, mapping and assessment would be one input to improve more targeted policy-making and ultimately to strengthen the capacity of national health research systems.

With this backdrop, WHO’s Health Research Systems Analysis (HRSA) Initiative in collaboration with a range of countries from around the world, “sets out to develop and test a policy-oriented, bottom-up approach to describe, analyze, and benchmark national health research systems”. Aims include to: (i) strengthen national capacities to manage and improve health research system; (ii) develop a tool kit that other countries and institutions could draw on, and (iii) gather good quality comparative information as inputs to national and global research and development policies.

II. Methods First a review of existing case studies (D’Souza et al., 2006) was undertaken, which highlighted the need for quantitative indicators as well as existing qualitative descriptions. Second, explicitly linked to the conceptual framework, the HRSA network members proposed Fourteen (14) core indicators covering the important system components for development and testing to facilitate cross-country discussions, plus an additional Forty (40) descriptive variables that could support context-specific national discussions. These indicators were identified through a consultative, bottom up, policy-oriented process with partners in national governments, ministries of health and science and technology, institutions conducting research on health topics, those that provide training on research methods addressing health topics and international organizations.


15

Third, all national teams (i.e. in Brazil, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal, Tanzania, Thailand) conducted a desk review of what data existed already in their respective countries, the format of the data, time series, etc. Almost all core indicators were unavailable in each country. Fourth, HRSA network members, informed by technical advice from WHO and other scientific collaborators, examined each potential indicator and what approach could be used to obtain nationally representative data. (Sadana and Pang, 2004). Table 1 below outlines example indicators (core and descriptive) for each of the four system functions identified, and the proposed range of methods that could be used to study national health research systems.

Table 1. Four systems functions identified: core and descriptive indicators

Fifth, with WHO technical staff and expert consultants, the HRSA network collectively developed and tested a suite of tools that would collect data on all proposed core indicators and descriptive variables. The toolkit included: (1) an individual survey targeted to researchers,


16

policy-makers and others involved in health research production or use (to obtain individual experiences and views); (2) a survey of institutions conducting research on health topics (to document institutional governance, policies, strengths and challenges); (3) media review of newspaper content on health and health research topics (to document inputs to agenda-setting and accountability for public dialogue on health research); (4) key informant and focus group discussion guides modified to specific topics of interest to each participating national team (to gain insight on social discourses); (5) national case studies (combining qualitative and quantitative information as inputs to stakeholder dialogues); and (6) document and database review (a desk review and inventory prior to new data collection). Table 2 lists main headings and national sample sizes used in the development phase and all tools were updated based on the development process. Table 2. Headings, national sample sizes used in development phase


17

For example, for the media review, on average fifty-six editions each of thirty-nine newspapers (three newspapers in each of the thirteen countries) were reviewed over a two month period in 2003 or 2004. Characteristics of health and health research articles documented included placement, size (cm2); visual aids, main topics addressed, and source. Additional characteristics that were examined for health research articles: affected or targeted populations, key messages, and where research was conducted. Furthermore three potential nationally comparable indicators of the level of health research communication were estimated, the: (1) Number of articles citing health research activities in major newspapers. (2) Proportion of the number of articles citing research activities to the number of all articles in major newspapers; and (3) Proportion of articles citing research activities in column centimeters to all articles in column centimeters, in major newspapers during a two month period. As for all tools, where data collection relied on human judgment, inter-rater or test-retest reliability was established.

III. Research partners The conceptual framework and operational approach for the toolkit was developed with extensive consultation with experts and other interested organizations, a wide range of researchers and representatives from countries, and individuals working on strengthening health research systems. National teams from all regions of the world (i.e. Brazil, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal, Tanzania, and Thailand) worked with WHO technical staff to develop the various tools. Key partners included WHO research programmes, WHO Regional Offices and participating Country Offices, WHO’s Advisory Committee on Health Research (ACHR), the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research (AHSR), as well as external organizations and experts within Global Development Network, Global Forum for Health Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, World Bank (IBRD-IDA), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Mc Master University, Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED), and the Commission for Research Partnerships with Developing Countries (KFPE), Switzerland. IV. Outcomes to date Concepts and preliminary findings from the institutional survey and media analysis were published in a WHO report entitled “Knowledge for Better Health” (WHO, 2004) as well as in region-specific reviews (Sadana et al., 2004). Case studies for a range of countries have been used in policy-making discussions, such as Lao PDR and Pakistan; national teams have highlighted context specific concerns, such as the transparency of the management of research funds in Senegal. Furthermore, in Brazil, Costa Rica, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, among others, the process has enlarged stakeholder and professional discussions at local levels of decision-making and has encouraged greater public engagement within communities. Furthermore, the tools established for the first time a baseline for each core indicator and descriptive variable in a comparable fashion. For example, the media review identified that 84.7 per cent of all newspaper editions reviewed across participating countries contained at least one article on general health topics and 36.7 per cent contained at least one article on health research. On average, there were 4.6 health articles and 0.8 health research articles per newspaper edition across countries [Sadana et al., (forthcoming)]. Moreover, demand for drawing on and using the tools also indicates relevance. The WHO Regional Office for Africa in 2007 implemented the institutional survey in some 1,000


18

institutions in forty-three African countries, made up of public/government/state sector (74 per cent) private, not-for-profit sector (15 per cent), private-for-profit sector (4 per cent) and others. As a direct result of the findings recently presented in a ministerial conference in Algeria (June 2008), African ministers of health and heads of delegations have declared that by the end of 2009, they will have put in place measures to strengthen health systems, improve knowledge flows, and build research capacity. Additional outcomes and findings can be furnished on request, with several peer-reviewed publications either currently available or forthcoming on the methods and results. V. Future Perspectives HRSA is currently working to make the health research systems analysis toolkit available online. The Science and Development Network (SciDevNet) and the Tropical Disease Research (TDR) Programme’s new TropIKA.net sites will host the tools and case studies based on data collected from the original thirteen countries and national teams that were involved in the development of these tools by end 2008. The website will provide countries with access to the tools and allow users to adapt these tools accordingly to describe, monitor or evaluate their research systems. The website will have the following components: introduction and background; components of the toolkit (i.e. data collection tools, analysis and interpretation approaches, dissemination approaches); how to use the toolkit (i.e. collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data); list of others who are using the toolkit; reports using data collected from the toolkit; other tools and resources; and useful links. In addition, an African Health Research, Information and Knowledge Systems Observatory (AHRO) will be established to continue to monitor health research systems in the AFRO Region. References Commission on Health Research for Development. Oxford University Press (OUP), Oxford, 1990. D’Souza, C. and Sadana, R. 2006. Why do Case Studies on National Health Research Systems Matter? Identifying Common Challenges in low- and middle-income Countries. In: Social Science and Medicine. European Communities. 2001. Key Figures 2001. Special Edition: Indicators for Benchmark of National Research Policies. Research Directorate General, Brussels. OECD. 1994. Frascati Manual: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Experimental Development, Paris, 1994. Pang, T.; Sadana, R.; Hanney, S.; Bhutta, Z.A.; Hyder, A.A.; and Simon, J. 2003. Knowledge for Better Health: A conceptual Framework and Foundation for Health Research Systems. In: Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2003, 82(11). Paraje, G.; Sadana, R.; and Karam, G. 2005. Increasing International Gaps in Health-related Publications. In: Science, pp.308:959-910. RICYT. Network on Science and Technology Indicators: Ibero-American and Inter- American. http://www.ricyt.org/interior/interior.asp?Nive11=1&Nivel12=1&Idioma=ENG. Sadana, R and Paraje, G. 2005. International Gaps in Science Publications, Responses. In: Science, pp.309;1325-1326;

http://www.ricyt.org/interior/interior.asp?Nive11=1&Nivel12=1&Idioma=ENG


19

Sadana, R. and Pang, T. 2004. Current Approaches to National Health Research Systems Analysis: A Brief Overview of the WHO Health Research system analysis Initiative. In Ciência y Saúde Coletiva 2004; 92: pp.351-362. Sadana, R.; D’Souza, C.; Hyder, A.A. and Chowdhury, A.M.R. 2004. Importance of Health Research in South Asia. In: British Medical Journal, pp.328:826-30. Sadana, R.; Lee, J.H.; Lee-Martin, S.P. and the WHO Health Research Systems Analysis Network. Communication of Health Research to the Public: Analysis of Newspaper Content in thirteen low-and middle-income countries (forthcoming). Sitthi-amorn, C. and Somrongthong, R. 2000. Strengthening Health Research Capacity in Developing Countries: A Critical Element for Achieving Health Equity. In: British Medical Journal 2000, pp.321:813-817. WHO. 2004. Knowledge for Better Health, World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, 2004.

* * *

Arie Rip Professor Emeritus, Philosophy of Science and Technology University of Twente, Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Methodologies for the study of knowledge systems, particular attention to low- and middle-income countries

Research Summary N°2 Dynamics of Knowledge, Research and Innovation Systems (KRIS),

with particular attention to low- and middle-income countries

Summary This is an ongoing strand of research within a larger research interest in historical and contemporary transformations of science, its institutions and its relationship with society. This larger interest includes recognition that knowledge is produced in a variety of ways, and not exclusively by actors in the official institutions of science. Such recognition is particularly important to understand the situation of developing countries and the potential for growth that might be there. To flag this, I add ‘knowledge’ to the well-known concepts of ‘research system’ and ‘innovation system’. I have done conceptual and empirical work on the notion of (national) system of research and innovation since the mid-1990s (see Rip and Van der Meulen, 1996), and later also on the nature of knowledge and knowledge production, including analysis of informal and indigenous knowledge (Rip, 2000, 2002, 2005, forthcoming). Then, there is our empirical work on the evolution of scientific institutions in national research systems. I mention here only Rip and Van der Meulen 1996, because of their comparisons and overall diagnosis. It is the diagnosis of a ‘modern research system’ evolving and now dominant in Europe, North America and with some modifications in Japan, which has been the basis for further work on Knowledge, Research and Innovation Systems (KRIS) and developing countries.



20

In particular, I have made the point, and made it plausibly, that there are specific dynamics in the evolution of KRIS in non-OECD countries and that these specific dynamics should be understood and nurtured, rather than adopting a simplistic imitation of the OECD-model. A first analysis, with a focus on African countries, was discussed in an international workshop supported by the European PRIME Network of Excellence (Rip and Mouton, 2006). Currently: I am developing the general analysis (cf. Rip and Larédo, 2008), and will present it to broader audiences (as in an invited lecture in one of the plenary sessions of the 6th Globelics International Conference, Mexico City, 22 to 25 September 2008). One challenge is to identify indications/indicators for the dynamics of development. Mainly using secondary data and publications, I am collecting materials relevant to the understanding of developments in countries (case studies, particularly for African countries). We are seeking opportunities to turn this into collaborative projects with African researchers and practitioners. At the micro- and meso-level, I am collecting materials for case studies relevant for what I call ‘growth points’ for specific dynamics. One such ‘growth point’ is the ‘knowledge blending’ and ‘technoblending’, i.e. productive mixes of local and imported knowledge and technologies that occur in a number of sectors, but particularly in agriculture and health. Another ‘growth point’ is the recognition of the possibility of achieving excellence (and relevance) in new Mode 2 and ‘low science’ themes. There is a background issue as well, linked to the drive of many developing countries towards modernization. My analysis and diagnosis can be interpreted as saying that they should forget about modernization and ‘do their own thing’ instead. My point, however, is not about alternatives to modernization, but about varieties of modernization. Thus, in parallel, I offer critical diagnosis of the evolution of European research systems, in terms of the recontextualization of science in society. What I see there – and what I have suggested to be now occurring in developing countries and which should be nurtured – may actually converge. To coin a phrase, after the postmodern variety of research systems, there may emerge a ‘post-postmodern’ practice of articulation and modulation of KRIS dynamics. References Rip, A. 2000. Fashions, Lock-Ins, and the Heterogeneity of Knowledge Production. In: A. Kraak (ed.), Changing Modes. New Modes of Knowledge Production and its Implications for Higher Education in South Africa, Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council, 2000, pp. 56-69. Reprint of chapter in Jacob & Hellström, 2000. ______. 2000. Indigenous Knowledge and Western Science - In Practice. Paper presented at the Cardiff Conference Demarcation Socialized, 25 to 27 August 2000, updated translation in French. Forthcoming in Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances. ______. 2002. Science for the Twenty-first Century. In: P. Tindemans, ; A. Verrijn-Stuart and R. Visser, (eds.), The Future of the Sciences and Humanities. Four Analytical Essays and a Critical Debate on the Future of Scholastic Endeavour. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2002, pp. 99-148.


21

Rip, A.; Barend, J.R. and van der Meulen. 1996. The Post-Modern Research System Science & Public Policy 23 (5), December 1996, pp.343-52. Also published in R. Barré; M. Gibbons; Sir J. Maddox; B. Martin and P. Papon (eds.), Science in Tomorrow’s Europe. Paris: Economica International, 1997), pp. 51-67. Rip, A. and Larédo, Ph. 2008. Knowledge, Research and Innovation Systems (KRIS) and Developing Countries. Paper presented at the Globelics Conference, Mexico City, 22 to 25 September 2008. Rip, A. and Mouton, J. 2006. Africa Prime, A Demonstrator Project. Enschede: February 2006. Final Report of the Africa PRIME Project supported by the European Union Network of Excellence PRIME.

* * * Barbara Iasiello Researcher, Global Project Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), France e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Methodologies for the study of knowledge systems: Measuring the progress of societies

Research Summary N°3 Global Project on “Measuring the Progress of Societies”

Summary The Global Project on Measuring the Progress of Societies, hosted by the OECD, aims to foster the development of sets of key economic, social and environmental indicators to provide a comprehensive picture of how the well-being of a society is evolving and seeks to encourage each society to consider in an informed way the crucial question: Is life getting better? For sixty years Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has been the dominant way in which the world has measured and understood progress. This approach has failed to explain several of the factors that most impact on peoples lives and has distorted policy-making. Over the last decade a large amount of work has been carried out to understand and measure the world’s progress. The Global Project is the first systematic global effort to “go beyond GDP” by enabling and promoting new ways to measure societal progress. The Global Project is an international network of organizations, from all sectors of society. The main partners in the Global Project are the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), UNICEF, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the African Development Bank (ADB), the UN’s Economic Commission for West Asia and for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), the International Association of Auditor Generals (IAAG), the European Commission (EC) and the Council of Europe (COE). Research institutes, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and



22

statistical offices from both developing and developed countries are also associated to the Global Project. The Project has three main goals: • What to measure? In order to measure progress we must know what it looks like and so we

are encouraging debate about what progress means in different societies. The Project is developing methods and guidelines to carry out these debates effectively.

• How to measure progress? The Project is developing best practices in how to measure progress and its component parts, some of which are not yet measured well using existing statistical indicators. • Ensuring that those measures are used. New ICT tools offer huge potential to turn

information into knowledge among a broader swathe of citizens than those who currently access such information. The Project is developing new tools for public use.

The Global Project is important to the political economy of reform. If governments are to reform, they need the support of citizens. Reliable, transparent and resonant measures of progress can assist that process. They can inform democratic debate so that citizens can better understand where reform is needed and whether those reforms are working. Current streams of work include: • Formulation of guidelines to develop ‘measuring progress’ initiatives and the development of associated training courses and material. • Development of guidelines to measure specific aspects of progress not yet covered by existing international statistical standards. • Design of ICT data visualization tools for increasing the accessibility and attractiveness of progress indicators for a wider public. • Working with national governments, civil society and statistical offices towards the establishment of national roundtables on progress measurement. At the heart of the Global Project is the development of the “Wiki-Progress”, a global collaborative online platform that will serve as a hub and focal point of the many existing and nascent initiatives to measure societal progress at national and local level. Reference website: www.oecd.org/progress Is life getting better? Are our societies making progress? Indeed, what does progress mean to the world’s citizens? There can be few questions of greater importance in today’s rapidly changing world. And yet how many of us have the evidence to answer these questions? The Global Project on “Measuring the Progress of Societies”, hosted by the OECD and run in collaboration with other international and regional partners seeks to become the worldwide reference point for those who wish to measure, and assess the progress of their societies.

* * *

22

http://www.oecd.org/progress


23

Neo Molotja Researcher, Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators, Human Sciences Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Methodologies for the study of knowledge systems, with special emphasis on public sector measurement and indicators

Research Summary N°4 Measuring science and technology indicators in South Africa: the role of the

Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII) Summary I. Introduction Policy-makers in South Africa are well aware of the fact that adequate investments in R&D, skilled human resources, scientific and technical infrastructure and a good education system are essential to enhance economic growth. Through the Department of Science and Technology (DST) the South African Government has implemented policies and initiatives to promote science, engineering and technology as key drivers of innovation and development. Among these initiatives, the priority of measuring R&D and innovation activities within the country is an important central component. Indicators gleaned from measuring the scale of R&D and innovation activities are subsequently used for planning, monitoring, foresight and international benchmarking purposes. The Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII), a unit within the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) was established and tasked by DST to undertake these measurement activities since 2002. In this summary, the overall theme is approached broadly and the information provided is on selected parts of a larger research agenda II. Research Agenda CeSTII’s activities include designing R&D, innovation and related survey instruments and conducting national surveys to collect quantitative and qualitative data on the national system of innovation. However, CeSTII’s activities are not only confined to data collection. The unit’s activities include analysis of R&D and innovation data, dissemination of data and analyses to user communities, sectoral case studies, and collaboration with major organizations including OECD-NESTI (CSTP), UNESCO, Statistics South Africa (STATS SA), Statistical Office of European Committees (EUROSTAT) and the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD). CesTII’s work has not been without challenges and these include the following: (a) Providing government and policy-makers with specific S&T indicators and policy advice that they require (e.g. data collected by CeSTII is mostly aggregated at a higher level than users require).



24

(b) Outlining key research topics that could provide a focus for collaborative research without deviating from the mandate of CeSTII. (c) Shortcomings of the R&D surveys:

• Are questions related to policy issues that are specific to SA sufficiently covered by the work of CeSTII? If not, what kind of action is currently being taken to improve data collection without diverging from the prescribed mechanisms currently in place? • Balancing the implementation of surveys with asking questions that will provide relevant and useful information for the business sector issues (i.e. being able to answer the typical business sector question of what is in it for us?)

III. The outputs of the Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII) Some selected works performed by CeSTII and other colleagues are provided to illustrate the relevance and importance of measuring R&D, innovation and related science and technology activities in South Africa and other NEPAD countries so that national studies as well as international comparisons and benchmarking become possible. 1. “Western Cape OECD Territorial Review”, 2007: Kahn, M.; Rumbelow, J.; Molotja, N., and Gastrow, M. The study was conducted as part of a wider study, initiated by the OECD and provincial Western Cape (WC) department. The role of CeSTII was to provide data and analysis of the R&D activities and innovative capacity in the WC. The work included commenting on the collaboration among WC institutions, the R&D intensity, R&D infrastructure and researchers, firms operating in the province including their size, survival rate and the level of technology, as well as the policies in place for economic development. 2. “Measuring R&D in South Africa and in selected SADC countries: Issues in implementing

Frascati Manual-based Surveys”, 2007: Kahn, M.; Blankley, W. and Molotja, N. This paper outlines the national system of innovation in the South African context and how it is measured in terms of R&D surveys. The work further highlighted experiences and lessons learnt from surveys. Issues of methodology, limitations and benefits of the survey were also described in detail. The paper is part of a process of UNESCO’s provision of an Annex on measuring R&D in developing countries for the next revision of the OECD Frascati manual. 3. “How does it look? South African research and development (R&D) performance in relation to that of the European Union”, 2006: Kahn, M.; Molotja, N. and Vlotman, N. The Report formed a component of the ‘Tracking R&D Expenditure Study’ that the National Advisory Committee on Innovation (NACI) commissioned in response to a request from the South African Cabinet for more insight into the benefits of R&D for the country. The work outlined the strengths and weaknesses of South African research capacity across all sectors and mainly using the EU as a yardstick. Most of the data on R&D were based on the OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators (MSTI) and this work was possible because South Africa submits R&D data to the OECD for publication in the MSTI. 4. “Flight of the Flamingos”: A study on the mobility of R&D workers: Kahn, M.; Blankley, W.; Maharajh, R.; Pogue, T.E.; Reddy, V.; Cele, G. and du Toit, M. The study’s main objectives were to quantify the scale and nature of R&D personnel turnover, and flows of highly-skilled human resources at a cross section of higher education institutions, SETI’s and industry and promote a deeper understanding of the concepts of ‘brain drain’, ‘brain gain’ and ‘brain circulation’.


25

IV. Future perspectives Case studies and new or improved indicators should provide basis for future research focusing on the following aspects and possibly more:

1. Researchers in the workforce: Expanding and using existing R&D data to explore issues such as research as a career in South Africa and what informs the research agenda of R&D practitioners in South Africa and the policy context.

2. Location of R&D: benchmarking the South African provinces to try and understand how R&D investments in each province affect regional performance and the rate of economic development.

3. A close analysis of the strengths and limitations of the business and public R&D data that are currently being collected and to examine their uses.

V. Research impact and partners The outputs of CeSTII are a component of Official Statistics through a memorandum of understanding between STATS SA and the Department of Science and Technology (DST). They are gathered and processed according to international methodology as recommended by the OECD and EUROSTAT. As such they are essential data that inform policy and investment decisions regarding the economy and further development. CeSTII is in collaboration with neighbouring countries (Botswana, Mozambique and Namibia) and is able to provide training and share experiences with other NEPAD countries on how to implement R&D and innovation surveys and develop S&T indicators and statistics. These processes lead to a better understanding of the relative knowledge intensities of South Africa and neighbouring African economies, and the contribution their S&T systems can make to economic and social development. Note: Centre for Science and Technology Indicators (CeSTII)? Human Sciences Research Council? Private Bag X9182, Cape Town, 8000, South Africa, Tel: +27 21 466 7818, Fax +27 21 461 1255

* * *

Bajrang Lal Assistant Director, Research and Development, National Productivity Council, Chandigarh, India e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Conceptual and methodological concerns, mapping knowledge systems

Research summary N°5 Innovation and technology management

Summary Innovation and technology management is new as an interdisciplinary academic area but has assumed increasing importance due to the challenges being posed by globalization, liberalization and technological change. It has evolved over time from traditional disciplines such as



26

management, engineering, research, bio-science and economics. To a large extent, literature on innovation and technology management has also evolved and is now in the process of becoming a distinct research, education and management discipline. There are various limitations regarding existing technical and management education programmes such as emerging new demands in industrial R&D for product and process development, marketing innovation and an ongoing understating of the importance of innovation and technological change. Consequently, this situation requires new human resources, who need exposure to the functional areas in management including, innovation and technology management per se. The latter area spans a much wider set of activities, which includes idea generation, development, assessment, classification, selection, sourcing, acquisition, assimilation and deployment management, as well as the strategic management of innovation for future growth and development in different settings and with diverse impacts. These areas are typically not addressed in any detailed or systematic manner in the existing management, engineering and other similar programmes in most developing countries. At the global level, some international research and academic organizations such as Portland International Office for Management and Technology (PICMET), IMOAT, PRIME, along with top global academic institutions and industry are promoting innovation and knowledge management as core areas of research, training and education. These trends are also seen in developing countries like China, India, the Republic of Korea and others. Various market assessment reports on innovation by the EU, the USA and India stress the need for innovation and technology management for their national competitiveness.

A joint multinational project to develop a Master’s programme in Innovation Management and Technology Transfer (IMTT) under overall the Asia-link Project supported by the European Commission (EU) took place during the period from December 2006 to May 2008 The project’s partners includes IIFT (India) DMU (China), WHSE (Poland) and BCU (UK). The objective was to create awareness, to identify the emerging needs of R&D, academic and research institutions, to develop new programmes accordingly and to seek partners at home and abroad. The study’s methodology involved market surveys and desk research to assess the demand for IMTT education in the R&D sector, in industry and in other education institution in India. Both structured and semi-structured questionnaires were conducted among the target groups and key personnel interviewed included policy-makers, scientists and management experts in industry. Separate case studies were also developed in selected areas such as knowledge management, national innovation system and the high-tech sector.

The study concluded that developing countries, including China and India, need appropriate and specific approaches and mechanisms for positioning their innovation and technology management programmes in order to foster innovation management in their higher education systems. As well, proactive government policy and support are required to create synergy among all stakeholders. The research findings also suggested that region-specific innovation education studies are needed to promote a real innovation culture.

* * *


27

Ellen Hazelkorn Professor, Director Research and Enterprise, and Dean of the Graduate Research School Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Impact of rankings on higher education, role of research in the ‘non’ or ‘applied sciences’ university sector

Research Summary N°6 The impact of global rankings on higher education

research and the production of knowledge

Summary Less than a decade ago, few people outside of the United States of America (USA) had heard of university rankings. Today, all is changed utterly. The worldwide popularity of HE rankings has been credited with satisfying a “public demand for transparency and information that institutions and government have not been able to meet on their own” (Usher and Savino, 2006, p.38). Yet this explanation does not fully explain the almost instantaneous and universal endorsement and obsession with either the Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of World Universities (henceforth SJT, 2003) or the Times QS World University Ranking (2004). Within months of publication, a major EU meeting was told that Europe was ‘behind not just the USA but other economies’ (Dempsey, 2004). This assessment was based on the first SJT ranking which had shown only Ten European Universities among the top fifty compared with thirty-five for the USA. In subsequent years, supra-national, governmental and institutional pronouncements, reports and strategies have continually highlighted this alleged gap between ambition and reality – underpinned by exhortations, hand-wringing and pledges. The arrival of both the SJT and the Times QS was remarkably well-timed and auspicious, albeit arguably, global rankings were a product whose ‘time had come’. Knowledge has become the foundation of economic, social and political power. But as governments seek to extend their presence in the global knowledge marketplace, many countries face difficulties associated with sharp demographic shifts evidenced by the graying of the population and a concomitant decline in students, especially Ph.D. graduates. The ‘scramble for students’ (Matsumoto and Ono, 2008, p.1) or ‘battle for brainpower’ now complements traditional geo-political struggles for natural resources (Wooldrige, 2006, p.2). Global competition is reflected in the rising significance and popularity of rankings which attempts to measure the talent-catching and knowledge-producing capacity of higher education institutions (HEIs). As a manifestation or artifact of globalization, rankings appeared to order global knowledge and to give meaning or a ‘plausible’ (Marginson and van der Wende, 2007, p.55) framework or lens through which the global economy and national (and supra-national) positioning can be understood – and re-imagined. But rankings are arguably having a more profound impact on higher education and the construction of knowledge.



28

This paper seeks to look specifically at the way in which rankings are influencing our understanding of research, and how research performance is measured and evaluated. Drawing on the results of two international studies (see above for methodological information), several trends are evident: Both the SJT and the Times QS rankings rely heavily on bibliometric and citation data, either drawn from Thomson ISI or Scopus, to measure research productivity. No doubt this reliance is due to the fact this is the only internationally comparable publicly-available data. The growing international literature has critiqued this and other methodological issues, e.g. the over-emphasis on the bio-sciences and traditional research outputs and formats (See Higher Education in Europe, 2002, 2005). Higher education widely believes that rankings enable institutions to build, maintain or elevate their reputation and profile (nationally and internationally); that high-achieving students use rankings to shortlist institutional choices, especially at the postgraduate level; that stakeholders use rankings to influence their decisions about funding, sponsorship and employee recruitment; and that high rankings bring benefits and advantages. Hence 63 per cent of higher education (HE) leaders said they had taken strategic, organizational, managerial or academic action; only 8 per cent said they had taken no action (Hazelkorn, 2007). The biggest changes are apparent in rebalancing teaching/research and undergraduate/postgraduate activity, and re-focusing resource allocation towards those fields which are likely to be (controversially) more productive, better performers, and indicator sensitive/responsive. The arts, humanities and social sciences feel especially vulnerable, particularly in institutions with a strong presence in the bio-medical and other sciences – but this may also apply to other non-medical health professions. Professional disciplines, e.g. engineering, business and education, which do not have a strong tradition of peer-reviewed publications, and interdisciplinary work are also under pressure (Hazelkorn, 2008b). Rankings have become (controversially) an important measurement of international competitiveness and national economic strength. They are often used to underpin government exhortations about being more competitive and responsive to the marketplace and customers, defining a distinctive mission, being more efficient or productive, and becoming world-class. These developments have provoked a wide-ranging debate on (mass) higher education, and whether research and research training (Ph.D.) investment should be concentrated ‘through much more focussed funding of research infrastructure in [one or two] high performing institutions’ or ‘support for an unspecified number of high performing research intensive universities’ or ‘support for excellent performance, wherever its institutional setting’ (Review of HE, 2008). For example, China, France, Germany, Japan, Korea and Russia, desire a small number of world-class universities while Australia, Ireland, and Norway are promoting the idea of a world-class HE system. While different strategies are being pursued, changes at the system level aid the fetishisation of research as something particular to some categories of institutions only. This summary lists these trends and their implications for knowledge production and research.


29

There are four main areas: (1) The way global rankings measure research. (2) How HEIs are responding and the types of changes they are making to boost their research performance. (3) Policy initiatives and changes at the national system level drawing specifically on the experiences in Australia, Germany and Japan which were the subject of substantial interviews during 2008. (4) Implications of these changes. The research suggests that by focusing on a narrow set of indicators and metrics, global rankings not only value some research as more important than other research but fundamentally misunderstand and undermine the research/innovation process (Rothwell, 1994). And because many institutions and governments are using these metrics to restructure their priorities and systems, and evaluate and measure research, there are wider implications for knowledge production and society. The rising importance of cross-national comparisons and rankings should be studied against this background. References Dempsey, N. (T.D.) 2004. Ireland’s Minister for Education and Science (2004). Address to the Europe of Knowledge 2020 Conference, 25 to 28 April, 2004. Liège Convention Centre, Belgium. Hazelkorn, E. 2007. Impact and Influence of League Tables and Ranking Systems on Higher Education Decision-Making. In: Higher Education Management and Policy, Vol. 19, No. 2. Hazelkorn, E. 2008(b) Rankings and the Battle for World Class Excellence: Institutional Strategies and Policy Choices. Paper presented at the Quality, Relevance and Impact of Higher Education” Conference, Paris: OECD. Matsumoto, A. and Kumiko, O. 2008. The Scramble for Foreign Students. In: The Daily Yomiuri, 31 May. p. 1. Marginson, S. and van der Wende, M. 2007. Globalization and Higher Education. Education Working Paper No. 8, Paris: OECD. Rothwell, R.R. 1994. Towards the Fifth-Generation Innovation Process. In: International Marketing Review, 11(1), United Kingdom. pp. 7-31. UNESCO/CEPES. 2000. Higher Education in Europe 2002, 2005. UNESCO/European Centre for Higher Education, Quarterly Review. Usher, A. and Savino, M. 2006. A World of Difference: A Global Survey of University League Tables, Educational Policy Institute, and Canadian Education Report Series. Wooldridge, A. 2006. The Battle for Brainpower. In: The Economist. 5 October, p. 2.

* * *


30

Michael Kuhn Research Director, KNOWWHY Ltd, Germany e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Methodologies for the study of knowledge systems

Research Summary N°7 Internationalization of the social sciences and humanities

and the multiplicity of scientific universalism: How about the developing countries?

Summary The summary discusses the issue of how to create an international collaborative research community in the social sciences and humanities by allowing the social science research communities in developing countries to contribute to the design of an international research agenda as part of the international social science knowledge production that acknowledges a multiplicity of science and knowledge concepts overcoming the colonialism of western knowledge paradigms. The above issue will be reflected along the particular challenges arising from research communities in developing countries illustrated with examples from Argentine, China, Indonesia, Japan, Lebanon, South Africa, Turkey and Ukraine. The summary is based on findings from research in two FP 6 projects, the GLOBAL SSH (Social Sciences and Humanities) and the ESHHRA project, about the above-mentioned and other countries. More specifically, the following findings from the above two FP 6 projects will be presented and discussed: I. Some shared features of social sciences and science policies in developing countries General conditions for social sciences

• A comparably young history of the social sciences. • The emergence of social sciences through and for colonialism. • Their existence as a matter of political periodical opportunities. • A basically lack of interest in social sciences by the political elites. • If any, this interest relates to particular economic or political interests. • A strong influence, interventions and political control (involving until open censorship and even violence against social scientists). • Low, if any, influence on the design of policies.

The status of a national social science community

• A scattered coverage and uneven development of social science disciplines. • Imported theories and methods with strong colonial ties. • Marginalization of theory building contributing to a discipline or to a school of thought. • Research agendas rarely developed from and for the needs of the developing countries. • Limited scientific means to create local social science agendas.



31

• Little or very low resources, especially for research. • Low level of education for research and low quality of research. • Disruptive, if at all any, exchange amongst disciplines. • Brain drain inside and outside the countries.

International collaborations

• Extremely interested in and motivated for international collaborations. • Little experience except for some individual scholars. • Entirely dependent on foreign resources. • Hardly any other support for international activities from their countries. • International collaboration reproducing colonial dependencies. • Collaborations depend on contingent and often historical contacts. • Collaboration partnerships follow geographical opportunities in the neighbourhood rather than their own research priorities. • Research agendas and development of theories serve the mainstream and policy agendas of advanced countries rather than the needs of developing countries. • Delivering data for research about developing countries as the material for reflections carried out and published by the advanced science communities. • Increasingly divided science communities in international and local academic groups through international activities.

II. Internationalization of SSH in developing countries For the internationalization of the social sciences in developing countries, the main hypothesis is a true paradox: that is that social science research communities with highly developed and internationally acknowledged research traditions rooted in the context of their national societies are much more challenged by those paradigmatic changes than the internationally less influential research communities in countries which have always been widely influenced from the outside (if not historically established via colonialism which is the historical predecessor of the contemporary internationalization through globalization). In this respect, research communities in developing countries can be considered as a most interesting model of an internationalizing research community, which traditionally had both conceptual ties to the nation-based society, but which, at the same time, received its scientific ‘fuel’ from any international context. III. Challenges for the emergence of international knowledge productions in the social sciences and humanities • Concepts of applied research

The expectation that social scientists in developing countries – just like any other European social scientists – more or less share the assumption of a shared transnational policy agenda, aiming at a vision of “Europe in the world” or at becoming “the most competitive society in the world” lacks any economic, societal or political basis in the real life of these countries. • Concepts of policy relevant research applied to ‘split’ societies

Considering the given (political) reality as the sine qua non of scientific reflections implies a fundamental affirmative concept of social science knowledge production. Such a fundamentally affirmative concept of social science knowledge contrasts with the mission of the social sciences


32

in countries where opposing society and policy models are dominating the public, political and scientific discourses. • The discreet missions of national research communities in internationalizing social

sciences and humanities e.g. Case study of Turkey According to the discreet international social science community, different national social sciences communities have a mission to contribute to a discreet international research agenda. According to this discreet share of labour in a country like Turkey, social scientists are supposed to be experts in Islam in international research collaborations – whereas, in reality, this may not be the case. It contains a certain tragic irony that especially Western social scientists quite exclusively invite Turkish scholars to international collaborations if they accept to focus on Islamic issues – otherwise they have hardly any chance to collaborate. To complete this irony: by contributing what they are supposed to contribute, they confirm their discreet mission. • Serving international social science trends creating a new version of an international ivory tower in global dimensions The current topics of a mainstream international research agenda imposed by the research communities in advanced countries show the difficulties in setting up a truly international research agenda. Research communities in countries where these trends do not correspond with the social reality are totally isolated. For the researchers in countries where these trends are created, the global discrepancies between international social science trends and the global diversity of social realities is one of the major historical challenges for the social sciences in the present era of globalization. Addressing these trends results in the creation of an international research community which might successfully produce a discourse about some current topic. But this will be generated by the academic elite in a particular economic, political and cultural context and will be disconnected from local research needs. Therefore, there is a serious risk that an international research community can create a new version of an international academic ivory tower, but this time with a truly global dimension. • The international division of scientific labour in data providers and thinkers According to this discreet international division of labour, scholars in developing countries are given the role to provide data for thoughts carried out and fed into the discourse in the research communities in the advanced counties, creating an international division of labour in data providers and thinkers. By doing this, they confirm the ‘existence’ of an international division of academics in advanced and developing research communities. IV. Some science policy issues in the context of developing countries • The diversity of social science communities in developing countries and in advanced

countries seen as a challenge for the design of international science policies The fundamental precondition intervening into the social sciences via policy measures is the existence of a scientifically and institutionally established social science community, receiving and responding to any policy measures. However, such a scientifically and institutionally established social science community does not exist in some developing countries as a partner for any science or funding policies. Where this might be so, such a community is dependent on political support and much more than any research community in developed countries. • Split social science communities at home and beyond


33

The EU countries already have problems to incorporate international research in the process of knowledge accumulations leading to rather disrupted knowledge accumulation circles. In developing countries, this creates the risk of a new type of brain drain: academics, those who are carrying out research on the periphery but working for the research agenda of advanced countries and thus entirely alienated from the local environment and unable to contribute their local findings to international research. V. The universalism of social sciences: from old to new or old scientific colonialism? Conceptual challenges for emerging international knowledge production in the social sciences and for international science policies will be discussed.

* * *

Marcela Mollis Director, Comparative Higher Education Research Group, Instituto de Investigaciones Educativas (IICE) Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA), Argentina e-mail:[email protected] Research Interests: Higher education and universities: Case of Argentina

Research Summary N°8

Argentina: Innovative strategies for quality improvement of higher education

Summary As a result of our diagnostic investigation, carried out between 2005 and 2008, we have developed several improvement proposals concerning higher education in Argentina with an emphasis on the university level. These proposals are mentioned in this summary with short explanations. A set of ideas were derived from information gathered from previous research reports and they are organized around four major problems appertaining to higher education in Argentina. These problems can be solved through the application of policies aimed at overcoming the weaknesses, contradictions or tensions which exist.

• Articulation policies to better structure higher education and overcome the chaos in the education system (public and private sector provision, levels, institutions and careers paths) • Academic policies to guide the formation and training of the resources required to achieve cultural, technological, economic and social development. • Knowledge policies to strengthen the production, dissemination and the application of knowledge in under-researched areas, in order to satisfy the needs related to unsolved social priorities that demand ‘local and applied knowledge’. • Coordination and regulation policies to implement the strategic planning (working as a Team to achieve common goals among the following agents: Higher Education Regional Planning Councils (CPRES), NGOs, cooperatives, town councils, and



34

to continue with the education and training of civil servants and administrative bodies in the public sector).

For each type of these policies, mechanisms associated with improvement strategies are proposed as follows: I. Academic policies with higher-impact potential.

I.1. Promote, enhance and strengthen the articulation between the university and

the rest of the system In 2003, the Secretariat for University Policies created the Articulation Programme for intermediate education involving around 600 schools. In 2004-2005, the number of schools involved had risen to 2,000 and the financing of activities reached US$1,942,156. The support activities of teachers and pupils sought to improve the possibilities of disadvantaged young people.

Another initiative is the Support Programme to the last year of intermediate level (polimodal) so as to promote its articulation with the higher level. This programme seeks to strengthen pupils’ competencies through activities laid out in the secondary school curriculum. A pilot project was carried out in 2004. In 2005 about 40,000 students from different areas of the country took part in this project, which had support from twenty national universities.

However, we strongly believe that new articulation programmes with intermediate education should be promoted or set up through the creation of the school tutor role (educationalist). The school tutor’s key responsibility would consist in developing articulation programmes between higher education and the last two years of the secondary school, as well as programmes which articulate the different ways in which Teacher Training Institutions (TTIs) are organized so as to deal with different education levels.

I.2. At primary education level: To promote those professional careers which

represent a priority on economic growth and on social and educational development, and to create the University Teachers Improvement Programme (PROMEPU)

The Secretariat for University Policies set up two special programmes. The design of the academic programme which offers a specialization supposedly demanded by the labour market has certainly not succeeded. An example of this is the programme in “Forestry Engineering” in the Argentinean province of Santiago del Estero. This has not resulted, as was expected, in a significant improvement of the province’s forest sector.

In addition, we believe that more assistance should be given to existing programmes which aim to avoid the brain drain of the best professionals, scientists and technicians, which is calculated at around 100,000 people in Argentina.


35

I.3. At postgraduate level: Promoting doctorates in agricultural sciences, health sciences, technology, engineering and humanities

Today, there are 204 accredited doctoral programmes with around 8,300 students. 80 per cent is concentrated in the public sector. Over the last decade, the number of enrolments has been around 1,100 students. The growth projection for the coming years has reached 2,900 pupils, that is, more than triple the current figure. Around 425 Theses are successfully defended per year. Of the total accredited doctorates, 52 per cent are in basic sciences, less than 10 per cent in medical sciences and 20 per cent in the social sciences. The Secretariat for Science, Technology and Productive Innovation (SECyT) reports that, over a total of 3,609 Ph.D. graduates in the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), the disciplinary orientations were spread as follows:

• Natural Sciences: 54,8 per cent • Health Sciences: 13,2 per cent • Technology and Engineering: 3,2 per cent • Humanities: 12,2 per cent • Social Sciences: 3,9 per cent • Agricultural Sciences: 2,6 per cent

It is surprising to note the low proportion of ‘agricultural sciences’ in a country where the main income source is the agro-sector, as well as the low rate of social sciences, which were decimated during the military dictatorship in 1976-1983 and were unable to recover to adequate levels during the democratization process initiated in 1983. In spite of certain beliefs about the lack of natural sciences researchers and the abundance of studies in social sciences (which is commonly confused with the abundance of students in careers such as law, accountancy, business administration or journalism), this data points out that sociology, political sciences and education sciences fall significantly behind at the highest academic level.

II. Knowledge policies with higher-impact potential

II.1. Supporting human resources development in scientific systems According to the indicators given by the Secretariat for Science, Technology and Productive Innovation (SECyT), the total number of posts occupied by people working in research and development activities reached 67,856 towards 2006. From those posts, we can note 24,970 full-time and 17,759 part-time researchers. Likewise, we must consider 8,383 full-time and 2,425 part-time scholarship holders. There were 8,151 technical staff and the support personnel represented 6,168 employees.

III. Coordination and regulation policies

III.1. Improvement quality of the basis of strategic planning All the improvement proposals which have been mentioned above are neither feasible nor attainable without policies that coordinate the actions and promote the pursuit of results. Therefore, improvement is directly related to monitoring and results analysis.


36

IV. Conclusion: Innovative strategies to improve the quality and strategic planning of higher education in Argentina

Two policy directions are needed. (i) Quality improvement policies must be directly related to the creation of institutional inter-

dialogue and to monitoring and results analysis. (ii) Chaos created by the historical overlapping of educational reform policies which have

been strategically planned in the medium- and short-term only, can only be remedied by strategic planning policies which build consensus among the productive sector, institutional actors and governmental agencies.

This is the basis to promote the coordination among the Secretariat for University Policies (SPU), the Council of Public University Chancellors (CIN), the Council of Private University Chancellors (CRUP), the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), the Ministry of Science and Technology (MST), the Higher Education Regional Planning Councils (CPRES), the NGOs, the cooperatives, and any other entity in civil society seeking to articulate improvement programmes in at the higher education level. It is desirable that the SPU should be able to finance open bids for projects to coordinate the higher education system. This procedure should guarantee that institutional actors have the necessary financing for both implementation and for monitoring and results analysis.

* * *

Mammo Muchie Director, Research Centre on Development and International Political Economy, Aalborg Universitet, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Universities: their role in poverty eradication in Africa.

Research Summary N°9 Research universities as key parts of the research

system to eradicate poverty? Summary I. Introduction The role of research universities in creating new knowledge may be taken for granted, but their potential and real contribution to eradicate poverty is often suspect, made all the more so owing to the costly nature of running these institutions. Even in the advanced countries, doubts have been raised regarding the real value for money that accrues from research universities. As these universities keep raising fees despite being endowed with resources and public money, doubts have been raised if, at all, they give value in return for the huge public and private expenditure they absorb. Thus, it can appear presumptuous to advocate their establishment in poorer countries where the competition for resources demand allocation of scarce resources for activities that generate immediate and short-term returns and relieves. Whilst this doubt is understandable, it cannot be condoned, as it is not difficult to see how resources could be spent unwisely if not corruptively in many poor countries. There is a prima facie case to set up at least a minimum of one very strong, ideal or first rate research university.



37

The fact that research universities are expensive, which they are, can be addressed if the knowledge and the trainees are relevant for the countries sponsoring them. What the cost implication suggests is not to create research universities; on the contrary, what it enjoins is to organize research universities with the clear goals of carrying out both training and research by taking into full account the needs, problems and solutions for the poor countries that create them. Research universities should do ‘high church’ research by combining their work with ‘low-church’ problems and challenges confronted by poor developing economies. In this summary/proceedings presented at the UNESCO Forum’s Global Research Seminar, 28 to 29 November 2008, a conceptualization of how research universities can be part of the key actors in innovation systems for development and poverty reduction in developing and transition countries in general, and African countries in particular, will be made by combining ivory tower or ‘high-church’ research and training with ‘low church’ and developmental problems, needs and challenges confronted by developing countries in Africa. I submit a short motivation from an article I wrote for SciDev.Net (Science and Development Network) to generate a paper for discussion of how at least one research university in each developing country can be organized based on the needs of that particular country for development and poverty eradication. The absence of research universities hinders the development process as much as it increases dependency on high level and specialized skills held by foreign expensive experts who come and go without necessarily having the embeddable and sustainable skills and knowledge essential for poor countries. II. Creating a research system for removing the burdens of poverty Research universities play a pivotal role in organizing a research system as part of a country’s innovation system to generate capability for augmenting national productive power. Research universities, as a source of new knowledge, are one of the critical levers – along with government and industry – needed to shape a Knowledge-Based Economy in any part of the world. The key question for Africa is how universities can be aligned to support economic development, the eradication of poverty and sustainable use of natural resources. Here research and knowledge, far from being ivory-tower pursuits, becomes critical to making poverty history and preparing countries to cope with disasters. However, to achieve this, research should be understood not only as a source of new knowledge, but also as a process that trains people to create more knowledge. III. A strong research base Africa needs a strong pan-continental community of researchers to discover resourceful, timely ways to deal with poverty’s many causes. This requires the development of strong research universities – institutions with a strong emphasis on graduate research, as opposed to undergraduate teaching, and where graduates are taught by lecturers who, themselves, are expanding the frontiers of knowledge.

The neglect of science, technology and innovation when building universities in Africa must be addressed. For far too long this folly has been compounded by a failure to focus knowledge


38

creation on Africa’s research needs: (i) data about biological processes; (ii) minerals; (iii) public health and (iv) food and water. Indeed, it is only when the universities work together on research in these areas that they will provide relief from – rather than add to – the burden of Africa’s poverty.

There is still a place for more traditional subjects in post-colonial universities, such as studying European literary classics, but these should not be a priority. Reform must be concentrated on investment in research geared to solving the continent’s main problems. IV. Significant initiatives There have been two significant attempts to create research universities recently. The Addis Ababa University in Ethiopia has opened a campus to train 5,000 Ph.D. students over the next ten years, with some sixty foreign universities being invited to cooperate in the training. This vision of changing an existing university into a ‘pre-eminent research university’ is certainly ambitious. A limitation is that it is to be resourced mainly from donors and with the expected support from other universities in Canada, Europe and the USA. And a critical problem is that the existing university members of staff are expected to continue to do 70 per cent of undergraduate teaching, even though annual intake is expected to expand every year. Even if these constraints are overcome, it will not lead to the creation of a world-class university geared to solving Ethiopia’s problems unless policies, resources, talent, governance and incentives are coordinated to indigenize research and knowledge creation.

The second research initiative is the African University of Science and Technology (AUST) in Abuja, Nigeria. Set up by the Nelson Mandela Institution for Knowledge Building and the Advancement of Science and Technology in sub-Saharan Africa, it has been described as an accredited and independent university, the first of a Pan-African Network of Institutes of Science and Technology (AIST) and Centres of Excellence (CE).

Its comparative advantage over the Addis Ababa University is that it can evolve as a research university from inception, rather than undergoing a painful transition from a teaching-focused to a research-focused institution.

V. Pan-African knowledge infrastructure That most of the world’s research universities are based in one country – the USA – tells its own story about how difficult it is for poor countries to create research universities. Some governments, such as those of China and Nigeria, are trying to widen access to higher education and develop research capacity at the same time, but since the creation of world-class national universities is not easy, we should think in terms of building a Pan-African infrastructure for science and technology research. There is a need for a bold commitment to establish at least five regional science and technology universities with five major laboratories that can focus on specific specializations such as: (i)


39

nanotechnology; (ii) biotechnology; (iii) environmental technology; (iv) medical technology; (v) food technology; (vi) energy technology and (vii) information technology amongst them. I am not asking donors to build a research university for Africans. Africans have to learn to ‘think through’ their problems and find solutions without blaming others for anything that may go wrong. It is precisely to change the asymmetric relationship with donors that knowledge and research generated and owned by Africans to solve African problems must be promoted. This means mobilizing talent principally from within Africa, and employing African ingenuity, perspective, foresight and imagination to tackle Africa’s problems. A research university for every African country may not be possible. But a few world-class universities shared and built by Africans to develop researchers who think deeply, create knowledge, and are committed to serving Africa without elitism are absolutely necessary to make ‘poverty’, history. VI. Concluding remark The debate on research universities for poverty eradication in Africa has three parts: (a) conceptual framing bridging research universities and poverty eradication; (b) concrete ideas on how model research universities can be set up in Africa; (c) and policy learning to spread awareness of the need to combine research universities with developmental universities for strengthening research systems as part of a country’s national innovation system.

* * * Ngoyi K. Zacharie Bukonda Associate Professor of Public Health Sciences Wichita State University, United States of America e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Case studies on knowledge systems: African higher education and research

Research Summary N°10 Special challenges for research: mobilizing the African Academic

Diaspora in the domain of public health Summary I have a significant international public health experience, and played significant roles as a member of various research projects and of a number of civil organizations in the United States of America (USA) and in Africa through the academic and professional positions that I have held over the last twenty-five years. My efforts to help mobilize the African Academic Diaspora with expertise in the public health domain, is centered on the fight against HIV/AIDS.



40

From 1999 to 2003, I served as a Consultant for Joint Commission Worldwide Consulting and provided leadership for a research project aimed at studying the Zambian National Hospital Accreditation Programme. I was the lead author of a report of this study (Bukonda; Abdallah; Tembo and Jay, 2000) which was published for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) (2000) under the title of “Setting up a national hospital accreditation programme: the Zambian Experience”. Subsequent to this work, another article was published in December 2002 in the “International Journal for Quality in Health Care” (2002). I worked with colleagues at the Botswana-Harvard Partnership Institute for HIV Research and Education to develop and implement a research proposal aimed at understanding “Male involvement in the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS in Botswana” (2001). This work lead to the development and presentation of a scale aimed at measuring male involvement in the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS at the 12th Canadian Conference on International Health (Ottawa, 2001), two presentations made at the 14th International AIDS Conference (Barcelona, 2002) and another presentation at the 1st South African HIV/AIDS Conference (Durban, 2003). In the face of mounting evidence about the important role played by unsafe medical care in the transmission of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, I am involved in assessing the extent to which the two paradigms of HIV transmission affect the operation of health care delivery systems in Africa. Supportive of my role in this area is my paper entitled “Unsafe sex versus unsafe medical care paradigms of transmission of HIV infection: Assessing their competitive advantage and integration in the operation of primary health care structures in the Eastern Kasai Province (Democratic Republic of the Congo)” and published in the proceedings of the 5thEuropean Congress on Tropical Medicine and International Health (December, 2007). Moreover, I am concerned about involving members of the African Diaspora in the fight against HIV infection due to unsafe medical care in Africa. In this vein, one would advantageously find evidence in a paper entitled: “African Diaspora in North America: Involvement in global learning to control HIV infection coming through unsafe medical practices in Africa” and presented last month at the 5thInternational Conference on Intercultural Communication Competence: Educating the World Citizen, 21 to 23 May 2008, Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas, USA.

* * *


41

Solomon Arulraj David Doctoral Researcher Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Case studies on knowledge systems: Universities and higher education Danny Wildemeersch Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning and Participation, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Science Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium e-mail: [email protected]

Research Summary N°11 Globalization and curriculum restructuring in higher education:

comparing the impacts of globalization in higher education curriculum planning in the states of Kerala

and Tamil Nadu, India Summary I. Research background It is understood that globalization has steadily and severely influenced higher education (HE) in recent times. There have been tremendous changes taking place in the universities and in the higher educational institutions especially during the recent past. Globalization is one of the important forces that influence changes in higher education. Several researches have been carried out to understand the impacts of globalization in higher education; however changes (that are influenced by globalization) in curriculum have not received much attention in research and studies. This missing link inspired us to engage in this study. Knowledge is essential for globalization and therefore it has profound impact on education, especially on higher education. New demands and challenges are constantly posed to the universities as the world outside universities is incessantly undergoing severe changes and these changes do influence the curriculum planning in HE. Importance of disciplines seems to have been stratified according to the demands of globalization. “A perennial challenge for universities and colleges is to keep pace with knowledge change by reconsidering their structural and resource commitments to various knowledge areas” (Gumport, 2000). There are many internal as well as external factors and pressures influencing HE curriculum restructuring. These pressures bring new demands such as new contents, new programmes, new methods of delivering them, new providers and players. We believe that among them the crucial one at present is the force of globalization. “There is pressure on curriculum content from the expansion of knowledge, from technological developments and applications, from changes in the preparation of students for tertiary study as well as from concern about graduate employment. Such pressures may result in major course reviews” (Henkel and Kogan, 1999).




42

Our basic assumption is that the forces of globalization are influencing HE curriculum both directly and indirectly. Although reforms and restructuring are intended to produce outcomes that better serve major needs at lower cost, there is some worry about the possible adverse effects of restructuring traditional administrative and academic processes. We are convinced that all institutions while they need to be innovative, creative and effective especially in curriculum development should also pay enough attention to the basic traditional human academic values. II. Research methodology In order to establish our argument that globalization is restructuring curriculum in HE, we have as a first phase identified some essential indicators through a literature study and document analysis. We explored the literature in four stages: (1) the impacts of globalization in general terms; (2) the impacts of globalization on HE; (3) the impacts of globalization on curriculum restructuring in HE; and (4) how this is experienced in the HE curriculum planning in the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu in India. We used relevant literature and government documents that addressed our research problem. The second phase of our research is to outline a case study on two specific institutions (Madras and Kerala Universities) in order to understand these two universities, which are situated at the capitals of the two states studied. We will analyze five academic council reports of these chosen two universities, covering the past twenty years. Our literature study, policy document analysis and academic council report analysis will provide directions for our empirical research. The third phase of our research is interviewing academic council members of Madras and Kerala Universities and the policy-makers of the two states. The interviews will be both structured and open ended. The interviews will help us to reconfirm some of our findings and to explore further findings in our research area. III. Research partners This research is a personal interest of the doctoral student (Solomon Arulraj David) and his doctoral supervisor (Danny Wildemeersch). There have been attempts made to establish partnership with the Higher Education Councils (HECs) of the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu but no collaboration has, as yet, been formally established. However, both Councils are interested to know the results and the findings of this research. We have also discussed this research several times with comparative education networks and received feedback. IV. Outcome to date We have completed our literature study and document analysis and we are studying the academic council reports and preparing our empirical research (structuring and planning the interviews), which will be done shortly. We are looking forward to publishing two articles based on our findings from the literature study and document analysis. V. Future perspectives Following a successful completion of this research (in about a year’s time), we have plans to look into other unexplored areas related to globalization and its impact on higher education. And we also have plans to expand our current study to other states within India or to other countries. We


43

are also looking for potential collaborators and partners both from the academic and policy-making communities. References Gumport, P.J. 2000. Academic Restructuring: Organizational Change and Institutional Imperatives. In: Higher Education, 39, pp. 67-91. Henkel, M. and Kogan, M. 1999. Changes in Curriculum and Institutional Structures: Responses to Outside Influences in Higher Education Institutions. In: Gellert C. (ed.), Innovation and adaptation in higher education: The changing conditions of advanced teaching and learning in Europe. London and Philadelphia, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

* * *

Claes Brundenius Research Policy Institute Lund University, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Case studies on knowledge systems: Universities Judith Sutz Professor, Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica (CSIC) Universidad de la República, Montevideo, Uruguay e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Case studies on knowledge systems: Universities Bengt-Åke Lundvall Aalborg University Aalborg, Denmark e-mail: [email protected]

Research Summary N°12 Towards developmental university systems: normative, empirical and policy perspectives

Summary It has become almost trivial to assert that in the Information Society, the Knowledge Society or the Learning Economy, universities are very important institutions. This consensus notwithstanding questions like in what sense are those institutions important and for whom they are important? are far from receiving unanimous answers. Should the major function be to promote higher education in order to serve all sectors of society or should the emphasis be to engage in research and what are the relationships between the two types of activities? And what should a ‘third mission’ encompass: A broad interaction with society or just an interaction with





44

the business sector aiming at promoting technical innovation in high technology? Nobody argues in favour of ‘ivory towers’ but the relative autonomy of universities may be seen as contributing to validating knowledge in a knowledge-based society. The purpose of this paper is to help clarify the debate. On the basis of a combination of our different research experiences at our respective academic institutions at Lund University, Sweden, Aalborg University, Denmark and University of the Republic, Uruguay, (Brundenius et al., 2007, Brundenius-Göransson, 2008; Lundvall, 2002; Arocena and Sutz, 2005), this paper will present key elements of the current state of debates on university transformation or university reform, looking into their normative inspiration. It will also analyze the correspondence between empirical data and policy recommendations, paying special attention to the situation of developing countries. The main part of the paper will be devoted to present a framework, including normative, empirical, and policy aspects, to better integrate universities into development processes, stemming from recent research. It will address issues like ‘developmental university systems’; ‘developmental universities’ versus ‘entrepreneurial universities’, the ‘third mission’ of universities, the interplay between universities and systems of innovation at national level; the impact on universities of the work organization at firm level. We argue that, in order to understand the role of universities in Knowledge Systems, it is useful to combine elements of innovation research as pursued within different disciplines with economic development theory. The aim of the paper is to contribute to a new research agenda and the following issues will be addressed: 1. What are the major quantitative trends in higher education and research efforts worldwide? 2. Are developing countries closing the gap vis-à-vis the developed world in terms of the supply of higher education? 3. Which are the major issues in national debates on universities in respectively the developed and the developing countries? 4. How do the trends toward privatization and global markets for education and educated labour affect university systems in the developing countries? 5. Why is the demand for highly-trained scholars weak in some developing countries? 6. Through what mechanisms do universities contribute to economic and social development? What role do they play in the overall innovation system? The aim of the paper is to contribute to the establishment of a research agenda. We also see this paper as a modest contribution to the design of developmental university systems that combine dynamic efficiency with equality and social justice.


45

• Different normative frameworks are one of the sources of divergent positions regarding these types of questions. • Different ways of looking into facts, and even before that, of organizing the way of looking into facts, add to divergences. • Purposeful actions regarding universities are based on normative insights as well as on opinions built around factual-based inputs. • Debates are particularly entangled in developing countries, partly due to a strong presence of international advice alongside the positions held by local actors, partly due to the level of the challenges that such countries and their universities are facing. Under the heading ‘the learning economy’, we identify changes in the context of universities that follow from new dynamics in the economic sphere. Universities have become more directly involved in market-driven processes and more exposed to competition from other producers of knowledge. This occurs in a situation where knowledge production is characterized by increases in the degree of internationalization and networking. It is obvious that traditional modes of organization, characterized by sharp and rigid borders between disciplines and isolation from the society at large, are being challenged and alternatives have to be developed. Strategic of alliances and networking have become a key factor behind the success and survival of universities. Still, the universities’ most significant contribution to society and the economy remains well-educated graduates with critical minds and good learning skills. As universities open themselves up, there is a need for changes in the institutional framework to ensure that the long-term, creative and critical aspects of academic research can survive. It is important also to consider the ethical and social dimension of universities’ knowledge production in order to support the long-term viability of the learning economy. Merely to expose universities to market processes is not tenable, neither for these institutions nor for the sustainability of society. On the basis of these considerations, we point to the need for a strategy of diversification and differentiation of knowledge production, both internally, within the university, and between different kinds of organizations engaged in knowledge production. This strategy becomes complex because of the need to maintain an interaction between research and academic training. Still, this might be the only way to ensure simultaneously interaction with, and rapid adaptation to, the surrounding environment on the one hand, and the further development of the university’s classical responsibility as a respected ‘central bank of reliable knowledge’ on the other hand.

* * *


46

David Charles Professor, Newcastle University Business School and Director of the Centre for Knowledge, Innovation, Technology and Enterprise (KITE) Newcastle University, United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Case studies on knowledge systems: Universities and higher education Paul Benneworth Institute for Policy and Practice Newcastle University United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected]

Research Summary N°13 How the societal impact of universities can be improved

both conceptually and practically Summary I. Introduction There is an increasing recognition that there is a need to rebalance universities’ societal contributions. The rise of the so-called third mission for universities, external engagement, has evolved in the past quarter century. In 1982, a CERI report explored all dimensions of community engagement, with business, government, the third sector and society. However, the third mission has increasingly become equated with commercialization, patents and licensing, a trend enforced by the easy measurement associated with these variables. In this contribution, we seek to rebalance this by developing a typology for the way that universities engage with ‘harder-to-reach’ groups such as smaller, potentially non-innovative firms, voluntary organizations, smaller charities and disadvantaged communities. This provides a solid foundation to better understand how universities can be managed to maximize their contribution to their respective societies. II. Methodology This research note reports a typology based on findings from a study of thirty-three HEIs in the northern part of the UK. Case studies of each HEI have been developed involving interviews with academics, senior managers, and knowledge transfer professionals in each institution, as well as secondary data search. The research is jointly presented with Professors David Charles, Lynne Humphrey, Catherine Hodgson and Cheryl Conway, also of the KITE Centre at the University of Newcastle. Our typology is being developed drawing on a number of existing typologies of university/ community engagement. However, none of the typologies are complete for the needs of cataloguing activity across an institution: the extant typologies tend to suffer from one or more of the following weaknesses:




47

• A concern with the strategic behaviour of the university and its sub-units rather than activities undertaken autonomously by centres and individuals (cf. Kellogg, OUP). • A limiting focus on one particular form of engagement (either business or community cf. Benneworth et al.). • A focus on engagement with the university’s principal stakeholders (such as government, the health service and large R&D active firms) rather than hard-to-reach communities such as small firms or deprived communities (Charles and Benneworth). • A focus on what can be easily measured and converted into metrics rather than what really ‘matters’ and makes a difference to the communities involved (AWT; Charles and Conway). In this typology, we are primarily concerned with engagement with harder-to-reach groups by universities. Here we distinguish two main groups, although there may be others. Firstly, we have small businesses which traditionally have difficulty making themselves salient to university technology transfer offices and academics. Secondly, we have the third sector and community groups who do not necessarily structure their demands in ways that stimulate university responses. For this typology we divide up engagement along the lines of the kinds of tasks which a university undertakes (namely research, knowledge transfer, service, and teaching), and considered how each of these may involve active engagement with external partners. The four main areas with which we are concerned are: • Research which involves engagement with external stakeholders as a core element of the knowledge generation process, • Transferring existing knowledge within the university to external stakeholders • Delivering services to external groups which they find useful and/or demand • Involving external stakeholders (small business and community) in teaching activities which meet their needs and improves teaching quality III. Research involving external stakeholders This is where the university undertakes research activities – creating new knowledge – in ways that involve, and benefit, external stakeholders. This may involve the following kinds of activity: • The university and an organization sit down together to design, execute and exploit a piece of collaborative research. • The university involves an external organization in an existing piece of research and they work together in the research process co-creating knowledge which benefits both partners. • The organization commissions research directly from the university, and the university presents the results back as solutions to the organization’s problems. • The university undertakes research on a community at the behest of a third party fundraiser (e.g. government, Rowntree) and the results are fed back to the community.


48

IV. Transferring knowledge to external stakeholders Knowledge transfer is a process whereby the university’s existing knowledge base is transferred to other actors for their benefit. This may include the following kinds of activities: • Consultancy activity where an organization is the client and pays for university expertise (such as commercial consultancy or a Knowledge Transfer Project). • Publically-funded projects to provide knowledge direct to hard to reach groups (e.g. EU projects funded by ERDF or ESF). • Capacity-building projects (university facilitation) within firm networks and communities, such as cluster building or participatory planning activities. • Knowledge transfer through students, either as volunteering activities or through credit bearing activities where real-life problem solving is part of the degree. • Promoting public understanding of knowledge held by universities such as through TV appearances and newspaper articles V. Services delivered for external stakeholder benefit These are where the university’s assets are used to deliver services which benefit a community: • Opening the university infrastructure and activities to the community at a concessionary rate such as sports facilities, and cultural assets, or particular health, education, environmental services. • Encouraging particular communities to use assets which are publicly open but not necessarily known to those groups. • Discharging a university responsibility on external forums and bodies – often on an ad hominem basis as an ‘expert’ – to the benefit of particular organizations. • Contributing to the civic life of the region as an educated populace e.g. as councillors, school governors and on other governance structures. VI. Involving external partners in teaching activities. This is where organizations are involved in some way in teaching activities in ways that ensure that the educational experience helps to improve the situation faced by the group involved. This change may be a short-term one, by educating people in firms and communities directly, or may be a longer one, by creating professionals with the skills to work better with smaller firms and third sector organizations, or by contributing to a culture celebrating lifelong learning. This may include activities such as: • Exposing students through the course of their studies to the demands and needs of particular hard-to-reach groups. • Educating students in their studies to be better community citizens. • Supporting particular ‘marketplaces of ideas’ for all citizens through public lecture series. • Training courses and continuing professional development directly oriented towards the needs of hard-to reach groups. • Adult and lifelong learning which helps to support the development of a regional culture of lifelong learning VII. Future perspectives The aim of the research project is to better understand how the societal impact of universities can be improved, both conceptually and practically. A critical element is the complexity of


49

universities as organizations and the need to ensure that small-scale activities are supported by the larger structures, policies and missions of universities. The research seeks to use these findings to contribute to literature on the institutional management of higher education, as well as informing policy development on ‘third stream’ policies.

* * *

Joseph Gahama Professor, Kigali Institute of Education, Rwanda e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Human resources, funding, and higher education co-operation, especially in the Great Lakes Region of Africa

Research Summary N°14 Higher education, research and development

in the Great Lakes Region of Africa

Summary About ten years ago, a large-scale study was initiated in the Great Lakes Region of Africa (Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda) to explore the role that higher education institutions have to play in the field of research in order to accelerate development.

The present summary addresses four main research areas that have been the focus of the study since the mid-1990s: (i) human resources; (ii) funding and research output; (iii) inter-university cooperation; and (iv) scientific agreements. It also outlines the methodology used for the study, current findings and future prospects.

I. Main research areas • Human resources

This study will attempt to measure the impact of the dramatic growth of new students entering public or private higher education institutions with regard to the availability, status, career development and international mobility of teachers/researchers, and in particular, with regard to the ‘brain drain’. • Funding and research outputs

Although higher education institutions in this part of the African Continent generally continue to be publicly-funded only, in the last few years, the intervention of private actors (such as parents or independent investors) has been noticed. Our aim is to see how financial resources contribute to raising the numbers of graduates in these countries, to determine students’ areas of study and women’s participation in comparison to men’s. We will try to look into the causes of poor outcomes both in terms of higher degrees (Masters, Doctorates) and in terms of scientific production (publications, patents). • Interuniversity Cooperation and Scientific Agreements

It is deplorable that the current political context in higher education institutions consists of working in virtually closed communities and ignoring what is happening elsewhere in other



50

institutions in the country or region. Fortunately, numerous scientific agreements often signed with European and American universities contribute to alleviating the isolation of teachers/researchers. This study will try to make concrete proposals with regard to the setting up of joint research programmes and the establishment of practical research networks within the framework of strengthened university cooperation.

(i) Methodology

The research methodology mainly relies on written sources available in libraries and archives in higher education institutions and ministries of the various countries. When possible, interviews will also be conducted with various stakeholders: academic authorities, teachers/researchers, students. To that end, we will use a representative sample. Data analysis, final report writing and validation of the study will constitute the last steps of the research study, which will not exceed three years.

(ii) Findings

Due to the considerable lack of financial resources, our findings remain limited but promising. We have already worked on higher education institutions in Rwanda and Burundi. We also had the opportunity to present a paper at the UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge Global Colloquium held in Paris, from 29 November to 1 December 2006 and to show the necessity of undertaking combined and shared research in universities of the Great Lakes Region of Africa. Finally, as a third element of reference, we have just obtained a grant to conduct research at the University of Bergen within the Nile Basin Research Programme focused on the role of universities in knowledge development at national, regional and international levels.

(iii) Future prospects

We will of course pursue our research study throughout the six African countries of the Great Lakes Region, but we believe that there are three prerequisites that concern both researchers and public authorities.

• Setting up a research community Given the lack of collaboration between university members and researchers of the Great Lakes Region of Africa, it is urgent to multiply opportunities and Fora for discussions and exchange in order to eventually set up a community of researchers recognized by political institutions and sought for its various types of expertise.

• Networking and collaboration Higher education institutions definitely need to create networks on research themes or teaching programmes and to undertake these jointly or on a partnership basis. Important subject areas: good governance, biodiversity, new information and communication technology, poverty reduction, etc.

• Increased investment in research With funding resources coming for the most part from external sources, and as research priorities and allocation criteria reflecting donors’ interests, the Great Lakes Region of Africa should recognize that knowledge is a crucial variable for development.

* * *


51

Ana Julia Bozo de Carmona Coordinator of the Postdoctoral Programme on Higher Education Management Rafael Belloso Chacín University, Maracaibo, Venezuela e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Research Interests: Innovation, policy, science, higher education systems Amalia Bohórquez Health System Zulia State Government Venezuela e-mail: [email protected] Alicia Inciarte González Universidad Del Zulia Maracaibo, Venezuela e-mail: [email protected] María Cristina Parra-Sandoval Universidad del Zulia Maracaibo, Venezuela e-mail: [email protected]


Bolivarian University of Venezuela: An innovative public policy to link science with development?

Summary The main goal of the project is to analyze a new model of university in the South suitable to include research as key strategy for contributing to endogenous development through science, knowledge production and the social application of science. The case study included four Venezuelan universities: University of Zulia (LUZ), Central University of Venezuela, Simón Bolívar University (USB) and Bolivarian University of Venezuela (UBV). The last one constitutes the central focus of our research due to the fact that this is a new university (created in 2003) which is cited by the Government as an innovative/alternative model within the Higher Education System (HES) in Venezuela and Latin America. The approach of endogenous development or development ‘from within’ (Sunkel, 1995) is what guides public state policies in Venezuela and it is also the orientation that explains ‘endogenous development’ every time reference is made to that notion in this proposal. I. Methodology The execution of this project includes a shift from the dual ‘subject-object approach’ to the ‘subject-subject research approach’, which required applying and recreating learned







52

methodologies. Initially, we identified the UBV as our object of study. During our first meeting with the authorities of the UBV, they explained their critical position of what was for them the reproduction of a methodological model corresponding to a positivist vision of science and knowledge production. The project kept the original purpose of describing the UBV model as a new type of university in the South, but looked for a new ‘toolbox’ still under construction. To achieve this objective, we defined an alternative theoretical model which is part of the project outcomes. The main research strategies are: (i) documentary analysis (projects, norms, etc); (ii) focus groups (composed of students) and (iii) in-depth interviews (with authorities and professors). Validation will come from a variety of techniques and informants: socialization with academia (experts and counter team), saturation and theoretical sampling. II. Some outcomes to date • “The University going to the Villages” or “The Municipalization of Higher Education”. University villages are defined as “permanent education spaces linked to the population’s needs for training, research and advice in order to generate the socio-cultural pertinence of learning and the work shared among the communities, companies, governmental and non-governmental organisms” (D’Elia; Torres; Pérez; Giménez; Maingon; Lacruz and Torres, 2006). In fact, they are municipal centres where training programmes from different institutions merge together, sharing academic resources: professors, consultants, meeting and discussion spaces, laboratories, information and documentation centres, practice centres, cultural, sport and productive activities. • The community project is an innovative strategy to link training, contextualized research and the community. In the UBV, research activity is integrated into the training process through the curricular unit called ‘the project’. It links the training-research processes with the community, its problems and efforts to overcome these. It develops from the beginning of the training process until graduation, through direct action in the communities, completing work phases that include approach, diagnosis, exchange and integration between academic knowledge and popular knowing. Community actors intervene in a dialogue that constructs experience, learning and integration. Although scientific research indissolubly linked to humanistic, social or technological innovation is not a defining characteristic of the UBV’s community project, it is important to emphasize that the research performed at the UBV through this project has developed the capacity to incorporate daily life and its actors as co-authors in the processes of investigation [“The concept of discovery is too limited to accommodate the richness of experiences, relationships, attitudes and values that determine teaching and research in the university. For this reason, my idea of ‘investigation’ includes and goes beyond discovery and proposes that intellectual passion is an essential component of investigation…whether (its processes) are oriented to discovering new knowledge (research) or toward mastering those which are already known (what we call erudition) or transmitting that knowledge to students (teaching)”. (Rowland, 2008: pp. 130-131)] and transformation. • Universities in the South should recognize and accredit diverse types of knowledge and not only, or exclusively, knowledge sanctioned as scientific or true by academic, disciplinary and institutional traditions. Through the accreditation process, universities have established only one type of knowledge as true: the ‘scientific’. However, other types of knowledge exist that constitute more complex social practices, whose principal actors are extra-academic (participants in social movements, indigenous ethnic groups…) and which could involve ancestral or daily knowledge, rejected by universities as ‘impure’ or ‘hybrid’ practices.


53

• The present pattern for the universities knowledge production is centered on recognized disciplines instead of contextualized problems. This latter knowledge tends to be complex. • Conflict (or lack of suitability) in the science and technology indicators used for evaluating the higher education institutions of the South. The institutionalization of science in countries of the South, for economic and political reasons, has responded more to western science systems. Therefore, the reference for legitimating this activity emanates from a standardized evaluation belonging to the main scientific stream: e.g. publications in high impact journals, international science prizes bestowed on members of the teaching staff at each institution, etc. Nevertheless, such standards respond to the international scientific agenda that identifies, as a priority, problems belonging to the developed North but less familiar or unknown in the developing South. The indicators currently in use in the university scientific production area reflect the statute and logic belonging to universities conceived as centres of advanced knowledge production. These are incompatible with the new university models linked to contextual problems, the recognition of daily knowledge and the incorporation of non-university actors in the task of learning and of re-creating knowledge. The challenge for our countries is to find the way to guarantee the rigor and validity of knowledge produced in the South based on the construction of indicators that will withstand the same rigor and validity as the indicators of the North. At the same time, this should recognize the wealth of cultural diversity and ‘popular wisdom’. We will present a “Theoretical model to evaluate universities as knowledge production systems”. Our purpose is to introduce a cross-discussion between our concepts and concerns and the ones developed by Johann Mouton and Roland Waast in the UNESCO Forum Special Initiative Project. (Two approaches: North and South). III. Developmental Universities vs Trivialization of Higher Education There is a clear tendency to transform the so-called developmental universities into the main knowledge production sub-system for the countries in the South. It is not clear how this tendency helps the development process. We must first specify if, or to what extent, these development-oriented universities are committed to innovation and advanced scientific research and not only to improving the quality of life and levels of social inclusion. In either case, technological dependence is perpetuated by a dynamic that widens the gap between the developed North and the ‘developing’ South. The trivialization of Higher Education is the dangerous risk involved in this approach. By trivialization, we mean a process of diminishing university education that translates into two phenomena: firstly, the massive granting of degrees that do not entail sufficient preparation for performing a job with a high intellectual content and do not generate scientific-technological innovation; and secondly, the multiplication of insufficiently trained professionals as the consequence of an improvised proliferation of universities whose missions, purposes and functions do not privilege real knowledge production. IV. Perspectives Our intention is to disseminate the results of the project among national and regional officials and actors who hold high decision-making positions in formulating public policies for the “Higher Education and Science or Knowledge Production Areas”. Some of the strategies to accomplish this dissemination are part of the IDRC/ROKS project. This seminar will be an excellent opportunity to share our results with relevant actors and to present alternative research agendas


54

on systems of Higher Education, Research and Knowledge from the South. These agendas will be discussed in further depth at the Global Research Seminar. V. Research Partners • International Development Research Centre (IDRC/Canada).We received a research grant from ROKS 2006 (Research on Knowledge System Competition) The topic of ROKS competition was: “Development Universities: A Changing Role for Universities of the South”. • University of Zulia, Maracaibo, Venezuela. Team members and project adscription institution.

* * *

David Cooper Associate Professor, Sociology Department University of Cape Town, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Case studies on knowledge systems: Universities and higher education

Research Summary N°16 Universities in national development: the role of

Use-Inspired Basic Research (UIBR)

Case studies of research groups at universities of the Western Cape, South Africa

Summary South Africa post-1994 has moved from a closed to an open economy; from a state of siege to a constitutional democracy. These massive shifts occur in the context of what is termed (see below) a global ‘3rd Capitalist Industrial Revolution’. They take on a special character in South Africa given its legacy of racial division and deliberate class stratification and underdevelopment of sectors of society. Science, technology and innovation, rather than capital and labour, are increasingly becoming major drivers of global economic growth and well-being. In this context of global scaffolding of the South African research system, my research since 2000 has focused on understanding the role of what I term ‘use-inspired research’ (see below) by universities in enhancing the socio-economic-cultural development of our society i.e. mapping knowledge in relation to what might be termed the social responsiveness role of universities. My data collection methods have been based on rich case study data (from in-depth interviews and documents) of eleven research groupings, spread across the universities including universities of technology of the Western Cape, and collected over a period of eight years since 2000. The mode of data collection is fairly unique for qualitative case studies: the original interviews, with a director and some researchers of each research centre or unit, were undertaken



55

in 2000 with my research funded by the Trade and Industrial Policy Secretariat (TIPS) of South Africa in association with the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of Canada. Then as part of a follow-up project funded by the Knowledge Systems Group of the HSRC of South Africa, each of the eleven research centres/units were re-interviewed early in 2005, and then again revisited for interviews and documentary updates again early in 2007. This fascinating material, unlike most qualitative studies, thus provides a historical profile of the changing nature of these eleven research groupings over the period 2000-05-07 – showing how, usually quite unexpectedly, some research centres and units significantly enhanced their research activities while others experienced serious problems. Moreover, this study across time provides valuable insight into the factors which are blocking (or sometimes enhancing) the development of Use-Inspired Research at our South African universities. During this period of nearly a decade of research tracing the trajectories of these eleven research groupings, I have developed a number of theoretical perspectives – essentially ‘grounded theory’ linked to the analysis of the cases – in order to make sense of my data. One perspective is influenced by the work of Donald Stokes (Stokes, 1997) on Use-Inspired Basic Research (UIBR): I argue that especially since the 1980s at research intensive universities internationally (e.g. MIT, Stanford, Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge) and also more recently at some South African universities, there has been a significant shift to include Use-Inspired Basic Research (UIBR) and Pure Applied Research (PAR) alongside the historical dominance of Pure Basic Research (PBR). Research is inspired by: Considerations of Use?

No Yes

Pure

Basic Research [Bohr] PBR

Use-Inspired

Basic Research [Pasteur]

UIBR

Quest for Fundamental

Understanding?

Yes No

Pure

Applied Research [Edison]

PAR Source: Quadrant Model of Scientific Research (Stokes, 1997: 73, Figure 3-5). A second perspective derives from the work of Henry Etzkowitz and others (e.g. Etzkowitz, 2002). I argue that we are seeing internationally at universities including in South Africa, the emergence of a 3rd Mission of universities: a mission to contribute to socio-economic and cultural development of society, particularly via UIBR and PAR. Thus following Etzkowitz, I assert that we saw in the nineteenth and early twentieth century the emergence of a ‘1st Academic Revolution’ which linked the earlier 1st Mission of teaching to a 2nd Mission of research (focusing on PBR). And now since the last quarter of the twentieth century, we have been seeing


56

in universities globally the emergence of a ‘2nd Academic Revolution’ – the addition to the 1st/2nd Missions, of a new 3rd Mission, research contributing to societal development (in the form of both UIBR and PAR). My empirical material supports the hypothesis of such a 2nd Academic Revolution, albeit in complicated and diverse ways, as evident in the case studies of research centres and units of universities of the Western Cape. A third perspective derives from diverse sociological theories of ‘Globalization’. I argue that this emerging global ‘2nd Academic Revolution’ is itself linked after the 1970s, to what I term a ‘3rd Capitalist Industrial Revolution’: the latter, driven forward by Transnational Corporations (TNCs), involves new cutting-edge technologies like ICT and biotechnology (see the ‘new technological regime’ in Figure below), which are inconceivable without university-based research. The new ‘3rd Industrial Revolution’ is itself closely linked to ‘2nd Academic Revolution’ at universities: this new post-1970s industrial revolution is inconceivable without a ‘knowledge society’ in which university-based research plays a vital role (unlike the 1st and even 2nd Industrial Revolutions, whose technologies were not crucially rooted in university-based knowledge). Moreover, the evidence suggests (internationally and also for the research centres and units as case studies in the Western Cape), that TNCs and capitalist industry in general, seek out UIBR from research intensive universities (MIT, Oxford etc., also UCT and Stellenbosch in the Western Cape) more so than PAR (the latter is often more dominant in universities of technology, as evidenced by my case material).

Capitalist Industrial Revolution

Major Technologies

(‘Technological Regime’)

Capitalist Form of

Economic Organization 1st (1770s/1780s) (led by UK)

Initially textile machinery, iron working, water power, pottery. Later steam engines, railways etc. from 1830s.

Small Family Firm.

2nd (1870s/1880s) (led by Germany)

Initially electricity and chemicals, steel. Later automobiles, aircraft, synthetic materials etc. from 1920s.

National Share-holding Corporation.

3rd (1970s/1980s) (led by USA)

Initially ICT, Biotechnology, Optical Fibres, Nanotechnology etc. Later?

(Truly?) Transnational Corporation-cum-Networks.


57

A final perspective is based on the idea that there is a serious omission, ‘an absence’, in the international literature on Research Policy and Science & Technology studies; there is very little reference to what might be termed U-CS (University-Civil Society) research relations. I argue that the major discourse with respect to research policy, internationally and in South Africa, now revolves around the idea of ‘NSIs’ (National Systems of Innovation), and how the Triple Helix research relationships (relations between the triad of University-Industry-Government, U-I-G) need to be the central focus of national policy initiatives to enhance each country’s NSI. (Etzkowitz and Leyedesdorff, 1999). However, I suggest that this concept of the Triple Helix (U-I-G relations), treats as absent the idea of what might be called the Fourth Helix, of University-Civil Society (U-CS) relationships. The Triple Helix approach thus fails to address how our South African universities (and other universities in developing countries) might enhance their research work linked to the needs of CS structures, like community organizations, trade unions, local government bodies etc. Nonetheless, issues pertaining to a Fourth Helix (U-CS) research relations have recently begun to emerge more strongly in public debates about the role of university research in South Africa – about ‘our universities and the public good’- with respect to how university research centres/units might serve the needs of the mass of poor people within civil society? In conclusion therefore, I wish to argue that we need also to facilitate, by means of new and innovative research policies, ways in which our universities link up their research via this absent Fourth Helix – to enhance U-CS relationships so as to create synergies between our universities and community and local government bodies etc. An aim of the presentation of the research results of my study of eleven research centres/units will therefore be to illustrate the above theoretical perspectives, with case study material drawn from the Western Cape context. References Title of this research summary is also the ‘title and subtitle’ of the author’s forthcoming book, to be published by the Human Science Research Council Press (HSRC) Press, Cape Town, in 2009. Stokes, D. 1997. Pasteur’s Quadrant. Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington: Brookings Institute Press. Etzkowitz, H. 2002. MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science. New York: Routledge; For example, Etzkowitz, H and Leyedesdorff, L. 1999. Whose Triple Helix? Science and Public Policy 26(2): pp.138-139.

* * *


58

Phuthi, Nduduzo Lecturer, National University of Science and Technology, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Case studies on knowledge systems: Mapping knowledge systems, higher education in Zimbabwe Gundani, M.P.D. Department of Sport Science and Coaching, National University of Science and Technology, Ascot, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe e-mail: [email protected] Sibanda, I.M. Department of Technical Teacher Education, National University of Science and Technology, Ascot, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe e-mail: [email protected]

Research Summary N°17 Needs-based knowledge processing through university-community partnerships:

higher education inroads into rural community development in Zimbabwe Summary Of the development-oriented knowledge passed down through generations via formal and informal education and training in communities of practice in developing countries, a large proportion remains tacit in the brains of a few custodians where its transferability is limited by the requirement for personal contact rather than public mediated communication (Kothuri, 2002). The efficiency and effectiveness of such knowledge transfer, its processing and its application in the agenda for sustainable community development is often debated. People-centred and needs-based sustainable development addresses real needs of the very people seeking development who must be involved fully and genuinely using strategies such as ‘knowledge circles’ that start local and expand outwards, and ‘knowledge integration’, an act of reconciling past and present knowledge (the existing knowledge base) with emerging knowledge. Notably, failure to process and integrate new information would erode the grounding in one’s own knowledge system and deepen the dependence on an alien one (Ranganathan, 2008). Community engagement for academic purposes by higher education institutions (HEIs) entails those “initiatives and processes through which the expertise of the higher education institution in areas of teaching and research are applied to address issues relevant to its community” (University World News, 2008). Increased and sustained collaboration between universities and their communities could change the academic process and the profile of faculty. Outward-looking academic staff, with experience to ensure the sustenance of joint activities between communities and academic institutions (Martin, 2000) use these university-community linkages to improve the relevance of teaching and research in universities, and in addition, unravel a number of other unplanned but beneficial outcomes. Frazer (1994) contends that quality is





59

achieved when universities are accountable to society, employers, students and to each others, and that accountability is not merely financial. This paper reports on an ongoing research study that aims at mapping out the processing of knowledge pertaining to the role and impact of higher education and training in rural community development in developing Zimbabwe – using mutually beneficial university-community partnerships. Knowledge processing in this context implies the scientific acquisition, creation, comprehension, organization and utilization of socially relevant knowledge generated by, and within, a community seeking its own socio-economic development. Firestone and McElroy’s (2003) Knowledge Life Cycle (KLC) model, which describes how knowledge is produced and integrated in organizations, has been useful in conceptualizing knowledge processing in this study. Transforming tacit knowledge (experiential and intuitive knowledge residing in the brain) into explicit knowledge (documented and transferable information and skills) is important for competitive advantage and survival of organizations and communities in the global village. It is increasingly important for a greater amount of information to reside within the physical and selectively accessible domains of organizations rather than in the minds of people (Kothuri, 2002) so that it can be more useable, transferable and productive. This research is a case study concerned with mapping knowledge systems in a rural community in South-Western Zimbabwe. The study also touches on inter-organizational co-operation at the local level and the challenges of adoption of sound scientific approaches in solving development-oriented problems in impoverished rural communities specifically in the acquisition of relevant tertiary and higher education. Science, often described as an objective system that works the same for ‘everyone everywhere and every time’, must be a pluralistic enterprise which refers to different ways of knowing, not just modern western science, but the knowledge systems of diverse cultures as well. Individuals and groups with common goals and interests possess and acquire knowledge for the good of their welfare and survival. Sometimes the poorest communities require advanced and well-researched solutions to their problems, but these are seldom availed to them, or even if availed, are not systematically coordinated due to administrative red tape. Through a newly-established partnership between a university and a rural community in Zimbabwe, this qualitative study engages selected members of the partnership on their processing of knowledge relating to the short- and long-term value of higher education and training to their community development efforts. Participatory dialogue, reviews of documents and records on high school students’ preparation for higher education and training in the chosen district were made. Preliminary interviews were carried out with community leaders, parents, teachers, education officials and students in the chosen community. The following are the key partners in the research: • Department of Technical Teacher Education (TTE), National University of Science and Technology (NUST). • The Institute of Rural Technologies (IRT), National University of Science and Technology (NUST). • Masendu Ward, Bulilima and Mangwe District Councils, Zimbabwe. • W.K.Kellogg Foundation (WKKF).


60

Data collected so far shows that knowledge on developmental progress is approached with certain stereotypes such as short-term goals of getting quick employment in neighbouring countries in place of long-term goals such as career and lifelong learning. The scientific approach to knowledge processing is used in a limited sense by members in arguments such as that academic education beyond functional literacy is not beneficial in troubled economic environments such as presently prevailing in the country. Various members of the community lament the academic performance of high schools and their students in the district, compared to counterparts elsewhere, indicating that much still has to be done to realize self-determined community aspirations. External assistance from sympathizers and donors is identified as crucial in mobilizing initial mass support for developmental projects with highly-trained local personnel. It is anticipated to extend the concept of knowledge processing and creation beyond just higher and tertiary education to include the integration of western science and technology and local indigenous knowledge on issues relating to water and sanitation, health, food, livestock, crop production, etc. The whole project should involve more members in the community, from top to grass-roots level, shaping their world views, improving their lifestyles, and documenting more of their valuable ‘hidden’ knowledge through publication.

* * *

Geeta Nair Dr H.R. College, Mumbai, India e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Case studies on knowledge systems: Higher Education Marc Pilkington Dr, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Case studies on knowledge systems: Higher education

Research Summary N°18 Challenges of reforming higher education in developing nations:

some Indo-French perspectives Summary The research summary is based on the preliminary findings of the ongoing collaborative research since early 2008 funded by the University Grants Commission (UGC), Delhi and FMSH, Paris, on a topical area of ‘International Trade in Higher Education Services in a Post-GATS Scenario: Learning Experiences for India and France’. The two scholars were hosted by the research laboratory at CNRS-GREDEG (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique/Groupe de Recherche en Droit, Economie et Gestion), Valbonne under the guidance of Professor Dominique Torre.




61

I. Background The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) provides a multilateral legal framework covering international trade in services. The GATS Agreement includes twelve broad sectors among which education services play a central role in the internationalization process of many economies. We focus here on higher education services, which present some idiosyncratic features insofar as many Member States (such as France) have refused to define higher education as a mere commodity. In fact, it is widely acknowledged that higher education serves a broader goal that can be understood in terms of public interest. It is worthwhile mentioning that the power to regulate higher education systems remains largely a prerogative of nation-states thereby implying a strong degree of government involvement that nevertheless varies from one country to another. This situation should not lead us to overlook the existence of strong internationalization trends in the field of higher education, with the existence of a significant volume of trade in higher education services that might be included (or not) under the GATS regime. II. Formulation of the research problem We are investigating how the internationalization trends in higher education are influencing the organizational objectives of the French higher education system. We are also considering the role of public/private partnerships in order to identify potential synergies that might help achieve the previously mentioned organizational objectives of the higher education system in the high-pressure context of globalization in the twenty-first century. III. Usefulness of the study Little is known about the consequences of the exponential rise of international trade in higher education services on the socio-economic determinants of success of the French higher education system. Other assessment criteria might include: quality, equitable access, equity and authority to regulate the domestic higher education system. A reflection is also needed on the risks of including higher education services in the GATS on the idiosyncratic features of the French higher education system. IV. Survey of existing literature World Trade Organization (WTO), OECD, UNESCO, European University Association (EUA) and International Association of Universities (IAU) publications, along with Indian ones like the University Grants Commission (UGC), University News, and the like. V. Objectives of the study • To provide a comprehensive and multidisciplinary analysis of the internationalization trends influencing the organizational objectives of the French higher education system; • To understand the importance of the inclusion of higher education services in the GATS regime on those organizational objectives. • To evaluate how the internationalization trends in higher education may impact other macroeconomic variables in France in the light of the globalization process. • To look at best practices to be adopted by developing countries, in general and India in particular from European nations like France. • To study domestic challenges of reforming higher education in developing countries in order to ‘put the house in order’ before negotiating on the GATS front.


62

• To work out meaningful bilateral/multilateral partnerships between developing countries and developed ones in order to create a ‘win-win’ situation. VI. Results to date The preliminary results of the Indo-French collaborative research depicted certain peculiar trends. It showed a great degree of openness in terms of liberalizing higher education on both the sides, more on the Indian side due to a host of factors like rising domestic demand for foreign degrees and courses, the vision of developing a knowledge-based economy, initiating reforms in local structures and curriculum to meet international challenges and competition, and gaining from trade in educational services in accordance with the four specified modes of GATS. However, the road ahead is not easy, as all nations have missed the 2005 GATS deadline of signing and sealing deals due to the non-conclusion of the Doha Development Round that was largely favourable to developing nations. There are various contentious issues regarding the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status, delivery of different modes of GATS, etc. as well as the unfinished agenda of the inconclusive nature of agreements on agriculture and industry that must precede the agreements in the services segment. France, like most of its European neighbours largely views the globalization or internationalization of higher education as Europeanization as promoted by the Bologna Process; and seems to suggest retention of values and ethics in this special sector of education that cannot be treated like other tradable commodities. The Indian study clearly shows a willingness to negotiate with the international players on all the Four (4) Modes of GATS in order to facilitate cross-border movement of teachers, students, institutions, e-learning and distance education. Also, an additional fifth mode of adult education is stressed in order to give illiterate adults and others a second opportunity for learning. VII. Future perspectives The vision for the future seems to be bright as developing nations seem to have an insatiable demand for higher education with many learning lessons to be learnt from developed and pedagogically sound educational structures, policies, and practices of nations like France, UK, USA, etc. A multitude of bilateral and multi-lateral arrangements for co-operation need to be formulated, between various partners, in order to smooth the flow of services, and reduce barriers to this vital area of human development. This would help benefit talks on the pending issue of services, and also transform developing countries humanscapes to reach the avowed goals of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015. This would also help to harmonize ideologies in our global villages towards international co-operation and collaborative efforts. We wait the signing of official bilateral deals within the two nations in question that could extend to other nations at a later stage. The National Knowledge Commission’s Report to be released next month is keenly awaited in India as it suggests domestic reforms and Government policies in order to make the higher education system competitive and in sync with international trends.

* * *


63

Meeta, Rajivlochan Controller, Indian Administrative Service, Government of India, Semi Conductor Laboratory, Government of India, Panjab, India e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Case studies on knowledge system: Universities Rajivlochan Professor, Department of History, Panjab University, India e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Research governance and policies: Case studies on knowledge system, higher education

Research Summary N°19 Political interference in universities: implications for knowledge

management and research agendas Summary Political interference is a fact of life in most universities of the Third World. Much attention has been paid to the ill-effects of political interference on the autonomy of the university and the contribution this has made to compromising standards of higher education. In the course of our research in the history of universities, we discovered that political interference was structured into the very Charter of the university and hence it heavily influenced the management of the institution. There may have been a functional need for such interference in the early lives of these universities. For the past two decades, however, as the demands on universities from the rest of the society have changed, such management styles have become outdated. Furthermore, they have eliminated the informal knowledge management systems that had come into existence during the early years of the university, disrupting both internal knowledge-sharing links within the institution and its external connections to the rest of society. In the course of this research, we discovered that the costs of political interference go far beyond impinging on the autonomy of the Vice-Chancellor and compromising the recruitment of faculty. It elicits heavy real-time costs in the form of the large amounts of money spent in taking managerial decisions. The costs were not just borne by the university’s budget alone. An even larger amount of money was spent from outside the university system in influencing managerial decisions. Decision-making was cumbersome and the administration top-heavy. In addition, there were serious implications for knowledge management within universities. Pedagogic structures and content were heavily circumscribed by political interference, and more so in the subjects of arts, languages, humanities and the social sciences. There was also much duplication of effort across the disciplines. Research agendas were set with most people looking over their shoulders for signs of political trouble. We even noticed that one of the reasons for an absence of meaningful research in




64

universities could be political interference. Much of the research, even if competently done, ended up being ‘Ratifying Research’: i.e. fully focused on proving opinions held by the political controllers, the government and/or funding agencies. Researchers were constantly checking to justify opinions which they presumed were held by those in power. At a pinch, it could be argued that, for the last three decades and with some exceptions, university departments ceased to have real research agendas. Evidence for this was clearly found in our accompanying research on the subject of the current agrarian problems in India. Its most vicious manifestation (in the form of an epidemic of farmers’ suicide) did not attract much attention from university departments. Others tended to merely ratify pre-existing political presumptions about the causes for distress and suicide. There was little critical evaluation of the reality on the ground. Our tentative suggestion is that the Charters of universities need to be modified with a view to enabling them to have better management. That change could leverage other changes involving the creation of socially more meaningful research agendas and more effective pedagogic content and delivery systems. The possibilities for these changes already exist. For instance, in our studies of the universities in Punjab, India, we found that, despite structural difficulties, these institutions were able to demonstrate a reasonably good performance according to Indian standards. So, the possibilities for doing better are certainly there. The priority is to set up systems which produce better results, comparable with others elsewhere in the world.

* * * Amanda Scoggins Health and Healthcare Analyst, RAND Europe, Westbrook Centre, Cambridge, UK e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Mapping knowledge systems (health research systems), research governance and policies, human resources Tom Ling Director, Evaluation and Audit, RAND Europe, Westbrook Centre, Cambridge, UK e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Mapping knowledge systems (health research systems), research governance and policies, human resources

Research Summary N°20 Health Research Observatory: providing insights to support evidence-based

decision-making in the policy and practice of health research Summary In 2006 RAND Europe received seed funding from the Department of Health, United Kingdom (UK), to develop a Health Research Observatory. The mission of the Observatory is to provide insights to support evidence-based decision-making in the policy and practice of health research




65

through identifying and assessing international evidence. In a world where national health research systems are increasingly inter-locked, and where global drivers are ever more apparent, the opportunities for mutual learning appear to us to be increasingly important. The purpose of this paper is two-fold; first to present our initial interpretation of the potential benefits of the Observatory, and second the results of a review of health research systems in seven countries. I. Health Research Observatory In its first two years of operation the Observatory has produced a website and two series of products: health research system country reports and thematic reports. Health research system country reports describe: (1) Structure of health research systems comprising an overview of the public and private fundraisers in the system, the funding flows, and how research priorities are set; (2) Processes and performance of the health research system with the types of funding available to researchers and ways in which research is procured and managed, and how the health research system is performing; and (3) Outlook to identify current and emerging health research issues. Reports are based on document review and are peer reviewed by country experts. There are seven country-based reports: Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden and the USA. The Observatory is producing these reports for more countries and is also updating existing reports. Thematic reports provide an overview of a theme of pressing international importance. So far, the Observatory has produced four thematic reports: Guiding good research: biomedical research ethics and ethics review; participatory health research; health research evaluation frameworks; and comparing health research systems (discussed below). Each report is based on international evidence and key informant interviews. All reports can be found on the Observatory website: www.rand.org/randeurope/healthresearchobservatory In 2009 and beyond the Observatory will seek the support and membership of organizations to ensure its activities are self-financing and self-sustaining. II. Learning from international experience: comparing health research systems This report compares health research systems in eight countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, Japan, Spain, UK and USA). The international learning exercise was not intended to provide a comprehensive overview of all characteristics of the different R&D systems. It merely intends to describe the general specifications of the respective systems and highlight interesting examples of mechanisms used in research governance, such as types of grant allocation and knowledge transfer mechanisms, and various approaches to set research priorities. Key lessons identified from the comparative analysis include that most departments of health are responsible for health research systems; companies and governments are spending more on health R&D; there are different approaches to funding research priorities; health research funding systems are opaque and complex; there is considerable effort to facilitate the transfer of knowledge to clinical practice and there is no consensus regarding the ‘best’ way to conduct evaluation on research performance. This paper will be of interest to government officials dealing with health and medical research policy, medical research councils, health and medical research charities, public and private

http://www.rand.org/randeurope/healthresearchobservatory


66

institutions engaged in health research, and researchers. Over time RAND Europe intends to expand the products and activities of the Observatory to reflect the interest of its members.

* * * Nienke Beintema Programme Head, Agricultural Science & Technology Indicators (ASTI) initiative, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Rome, Italy e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Case studies on knowledge systems: Measuring agricultural R&D investments and capacity trends in low- and middle-income countries

Summary N°21 Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI) initiative:

Measuring agricultural R&D investment and capacity trends in low- and middle-income countries

Summary In recent years, there has been increased emphasis on the critical role of science and technology (S&T) in promoting economic growth, food security and poverty alleviation in low- and middle-income countries, particularly in the field of agriculture. Information is critical to understand the important contribution of agricultural S&T in promoting agricultural growth, and sound S&T policies require access to up-to-date and reliable data. One of the few sources of agricultural R&D statistics in low- and middle-income countries is the Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI) initiative, which is managed by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). [IFPRI is one of the fifteen international centres supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Its mandate is to identify and analyze alternative national and international strategies and policies for meeting world food needs in ways that conserve the natural resource bases, with emphasis on low-income and on the poorer groups in the countries]. The ASTI initiative compiles, processes, analyzes, and publicizes data on institutional developments, investments, and capacity in agricultural R&D at national, regional, and global levels. ASTI outputs describe trends (progress of agricultural R&D human and financial capacity over time at the national, regional, and global levels) and comparative information (performance of a country or region compared to others). The ASTI initiative entails a large amount of original and on-going survey work focused on low- and middle-income countries, but also maintains access to relevant data for developed countries. Over the past years, the work has mainly focused on developing and maintaining the ASTI website (www.asti.cgiar.org); building a network of collaborators at the national and regional levels; and initiating institutional survey rounds in Africa (2001-04), Asia (2002-07), the Middle East (2004-07) and Latin America (2007-08).


http://www.asti.cgiar.org


67

The ASTI initiative is generally recognized as the most authoritative source of information on the support for and structure of agricultural R&D worldwide. The initiative has published a wide set of country briefs and regional synthesis reports that have been widely and frequently cited in both national and international agricultural research policy documents. During the past years, the initiative has established successful collaborations with various regional and sub-regional organizations in facilitating the initiation of the national survey rounds by endorsing the project in their annual meetings and by identifying national partners. The willingness of national partners to collaborate on the survey rounds has been very high, which is also an indication of the interest in quantitative information on agricultural R&D at the national level. ASTI datasets are collected and processed using internationally accepted definitions and statistical procedures for compiling R&D statistics developed by OECD and UNESCO (e.g. Frascati Manual 2002: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development). This is to facilitate comparisons of the ASTI datasets with other relevant S&T datasets. For each country in which ASTI is active, the research team typically works with the main agricultural research institute or, in a few cases, with consultants. These national partners coordinate the implementation of the survey round, and coauthor and co-publish the resulting country briefs and fact sheets. Over the years, the ASTI initiative has developed and revised a set of survey tools, one for government and non-profit agencies, one for higher-education agencies, and one for the private sector. Each survey form has a different set of questions, with those for government agencies and non-profit institutions requesting the most detail. The more important indicators are collected for a number of subsequent years, while the remaining indicators cover one year only, mostly the year prior to the year in which the benchmark survey is conducted. The list of indicators has been amended and improved based on experiences and consultations with partners during the various national survey rounds (see the following Table 1 for list of current indicators). It has proven to be difficult to obtain survey returns from private companies; a new approach for data collection on the private sector will be developed and piloted in a number of countries over the next 1-2 years. Agricultural R&D spending for China and the Asia-Pacific Region has grown considerably since 2000. After a period of declining investments in public agricultural R&D during the second half of the 1990s, the Latin American Region also saw an increase and in 2006 regional spending returned to 1996 levels. Public spending in agricultural R&D has become increasingly concentrated in just a handful of countries. In 2000, China, India, and Brazil accounted for 43 per cent of all low- and middle-income countries’ total expenditures. The forty-four sub-Saharan African countries combined represented only 12 per cent of this total. Private-sector performed agricultural R&D remains small in low- and middle-income countries; in 2000 the private sector share of total (public and private) investments was only 6 per cent.


68

Table 1. Current ASTI Indicators Period coverage (a) Specific details Professional research staff

SSA: 1971 – 2000/01 APC: 1981/91 – 2002/03 LAC: 1971 – 1996; 2004 – 06 WANA: 1991/96 – 2001/03

By degree level (Ph.D., M.Sc. and B.Sc.). Collected for multiple years. Government, non-profit, higher-education, and private agencies.

Professional female research

SSA: 2000/01, 2008 (b) APC: 2002/03 LAC: 2006 WANA: 2001/03

By degree level (Ph.D., M.Sc., and B.Sc.). Numbers (not by degree level data available) for 14 SSA (1991) and 16 LAC (1996). Government, non-profit, and higher-education agencies.

Research focus by major sub-sectors

SSA: 2000/01 APC: 2002/03 LAC: 1996 & 2006 WANA: 2001/03

Include crops, livestock, forestry, fisheries, post-harvest, natural resources, socio-economics. Government, non-profit, higher-education, and private agencies.

Research focus by crop and livestock items

SSA: 2000/01 APC: 2002/03 LAC: 1996 & 2006 WANA: 2001/03

Include ± 20crops items, ± 6 livestock items, and ± 6 other items. Listed crops differ by region. Government, non-profit, higher-education, and private agencies.

Thematic research focus

SSA: 2000/01 APC: 2002/03 LAC: 1996 WANA: 2001/03

Include ± 4 crops themes, ± 5 livestock themes, and ± 7 other themes. Themes are currently being adjusted to include emerging themes (i.e., climate change, bioenergy, biotechnology). Government, non-profit, higher-education, and private agencies.

Expenditures by cost category

SSA: 1971 – 2000/01 APC: 1981/91 – 2002/03 LAC: 1971 – 1996; 2004 – 06 WANA: 1991/96 – 2001/03

By salaries, operational costs, capital costs. Government and non-profit agencies.

Funding sources

SSA: 1991; 2000/01 APC: 1996 – 2002/03 LAC: 1996; 2004 – 06 WANA: 2001/03

Government, (multilateral & bilateral) donors, producers/marketing boards, public/private enterprises, own income. Sources differ by region and by country. For some countries multiple years available. Government and non-profit, agencies.

Support staff by type

SSA: 1991 – 2000/01 APC: 1991/96 – 2002/03 LAC: 1991 – 96; 2004 – 06 WANA: 1996 – 2001/03

By technical, administrative, and other support. Government, non-profit, and higher-education agencies.

(a) SSA includes 27 sub-Saharan African countries; APC, 11 Asian-Pacific countries; LAC, 15 Latin America and Caribbean countries; and WANA, 6 Western Asia and North African countries. Periodic coverage applies for most, but not all, countries. (b) Together with the CGIAR’s Gender and Diversity’s (G&D) African Women in Agricultural Research and Development (AWARD) fellowship programme, the ASTI team is conducting a benchmarking study on gender-disaggregated data on the staffing and leadership of African agricultural R&D agencies. The study outcomes will provide valuable human resource information to leaders of African research institutions, regional networks, international organizations, policy-makers, and donors.


69

After two years of limited funding, the ASTI initiative received a substantial grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for a three-year phase to update and expand its data collection activities. These will entail the following main areas: • Conduct benchmarking survey rounds in thirty sub-Saharan African and five South Asian countries to update the set of public agricultural R&D indicators collected as part of the previous survey round. A separate survey round will be conducted in a number of sub-Saharan and Asian countries to capture the increasing role of the private sector in agricultural research. It is important to juxtapose agricultural R&D capacity and investments levels and trends in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia with those in other developing regions as well as globally. The ASTI project will, therefore, also conduct monitoring survey rounds on key indicators in a set of so-called “ASTI focus countries”. In order to prepare a new global update, the ASTI initiative will analyze available secondary S&T data from other sources to complete and update the global dataset on basic indicators. • To further increase the relevance of the ASTI database to the various stakeholders, the ASTI website (www.asti.cgiar.org) will be enhanced to improve downloads of datasets. Its visibility will be increased within the wider CGIAR community and links will be added to enable website visitors to access all other S&T databases related to agriculture and food. • Over the years, various stakeholders and users of the ASTI database have requested additional quantitative information that has not been covered by the ASTI initiative or similar projects. To better fulfill the needs of policy-makers, S&T managers, donors, and other stakeholders, one of the first activities will be a consultation round to identify relevant supplementary indicators and decide which ones can be taken on under the ASTI umbrella. Potential new areas are output indicators and information on emerging research areas such as climate change, bio-energy, and capacity gaps. For example, the ASTI initiative, as part of the African Women in Agricultural R&D (AWARD) fellowship programme is conducting a benchmarking study on gender-disaggregated capacity indicators. [The AWARD programme, funded through a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is coordinated by the CGIAR’s Gender and Diversity (G&D) programme. Competitive two-year fellowships focusing on building capacity in science, mentoring, and leadership will be offered to high-performing female African scientists at one of three critical career junctures: completion of a B.Sc. M.Sc. or Ph.D. degree]. This study will not only provide gender-disaggregated data of agricultural scientists by highest degree and institute type, but will also address many other important questions such as the discipline mix of female and male scientists, the exact share of female graduates that drop out after completing their degree or during their career as a scientist, how many female scientists reach leadership positions relative to their male colleagues, and so on. Participation of the ASTI initiative in the UNESCO Global Research Seminar (GSR) would be particularly valuable to discuss common perspectives and challenges on collecting and analyzing investment and capacity science and technology (S&T) indicators as well as institutional developments in non-agricultural sectors. The seminar will also provide an opportunity to learn more on measuring research output indicators and collaboration activities. In turn, the information on the methodology, data



70

collection procedures, and outputs of the ASTI initiative will be of relevance for the researchers, experts, and other participants attending the Global Research Seminar, specifically as agriculture is rightfully designated as one of the important elements of national research systems in low- and middle-income countries.

* * *

Sylvie Didou-Aupetit Researcher, Departamento de Investigaciones Educativas Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados Del Instituto Politécnico Nacional, CINVESTAV, Mexico e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Case studies on knowledge systems: Measuring research capacities and human resources

Research Summary N°22 The circulation of knowledge and human resources

between Mexico and Europe

Summary This paper is the result of ongoing research undertaken by the UNESCO-CINVESTAV Chair Team on Higher Education, in Mexico, and UR105 of the Research Institute for Development (Etienne Gérard) on the circulation of knowledge and human resources between Mexico and Europe. It is also inspired by similar work by outstanding scientific teams, produced in the framework of a comparative project on the relevant sciences, between Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico and co-ordinated by Simon Schwartzman (IETS, Rio de Janeiro). In order to situate within a regional context the problem of the movement of scientists and the knowledge of which they are the bearers, this work will aim to establish on the one hand the state of knowledge and information available on the migration of professionals within the region, and on the other hand, to analyze the policies to which it has been subject. This is with the ultimate goal of asking the leaders of outstanding research teams about the training and circulation of scientific elites, about their strategies for internationalization, and about their participations in teams and networks of scientific production that are non-place-specific. In this sense, it is interesting to look at the indicators and analyzes produced by researchers and experts on the public policies concerning the emigration and welcoming of Ph.D. graduates, whether this degree has been obtained in that country or not. It is particularly pertinent, in a reactive sense, to evaluate the national problems of repatriating qualifications and the organization of scientific Diasporas. It is also pertinent to conduct interviews to make clear how the mobility of elites and the strategic mobilization of capacities required and available in globalized fields of study have become such central characteristics of an acknowledged scientific activity, both in central and neighbouring countries. The concept of ‘brain drain’, so visible in the political and sociological discourse of the 1970s has been replaced, in the last decade, by the more neutral notion of the circulation of competences, above all in the discourse of international organizations. When the idea of brain drain does nonetheless make a residual appearance, it is linked to those of ‘brain circulation’ and



71

‘brain gain’, which are presented as its counterparts. From an academic and policy view, the recent texts on the subject, mainly those circulating among international experts, have therefore stopped focusing on consequences, in terms of the loss of national capacity or of individual uprooting involved in the process of international scientific mobility, to concentrate more on its measure, its impact on technological innovation, its reinforcement of key sectors for economic prosperity and its management. In parallel, the ‘sending’ countries, which have often adopted a similar rhetoric to more developed countries, have lowered their expectations. Since they are convinced that the salary gap, professional opportunities and the standard of living would probably discourage any massive return of their expatriates, they have replaced or combined their traditional repatriation policies – which have often been ineffectual – with network-building programmes, short- or medium-term stays, or the organization of scientific Diasporas. They are often doing this without a conscious understanding (whether intentional or not) of the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the ‘brain drain’. In Latin America, we know, more or less, how many Ph.Ds trained elsewhere use these programmes to return to their countries each year. We also know, in a less specific way, the number of researchers of Latin American origin who live in some other countries, principally the United States of America (USA). However, the strategies for internationalization that are being launched by developing countries and targeted towards zones either more or less developed than themselves are far less well documented within the context of friendly or hierarchically-defined partnerships. In order to put into perspective what we know about these phenomena and to establish some of the regional dimensions of scientific migration, we will analyze the state of knowledge currently available on the following questions: 1. What figures are available on the movement of scientists in the region and who is using them? 2. What are the instruments (programmes and policies) used in order to confront this reality? We will look at the factors explaining the intensification of the mobility of scientific workers (accreditation, good insurance, and student mobility, recognition of degrees in the field of higher education, visas and the immigration policies of host countries). We will also present a typology of the principal initiatives designed to stop the best educated from leaving the region : these are divided into: (a) programmes of return, whether temporary or definitive, of scientists; (b) invitations extended to foreign scientists on the same basis, and (c) strategies for the organization of Diasporas, whether specialized or associative, through financing schemes, the development of websites, and the putting in place of networks for the exchange of knowledge and training on a bi- or multi-national basis. Starting from the hypothesis that the movement of scientists represents not only a hemorrhage of ‘grey matter’, but also a strategy for the positioning and reinforcement of all scientific groups, whatever their geographical location or research interests, we will be using, as examples, interviews conducted in Mexico to demonstrate how the dimensions of mobility and


72

internationalization influence the recruitment and training of scientific teams, and their choice of financing, production and diffusion. We thus hope to recall what we already know and explore what we do not yet know about the ‘brain drain’ in the region and about programmes for returning experts, the exploitation of capacities and their substitution, which take place in Latin American countries. At the same time, we wish to show the impact of the movement of scientific competences on the way teams and individuals work in the regional scientific field. In a later phase of development, this project will focus on the phenomena of transfer and hybridization of knowledge and on new approaches to the organization of scientific research, resulting from the growing exposure of individuals and groups to intellectual traditions and strategies which are different from those of their own country. Thus, the main focus of the research on the movement of people and knowledge will move from the phenomenon of departure to that of return.

* * * Anant Kamath Ph.D. Researcher Maastricht Economic and Social Research and Training Centre on Innovation and Technology, United Nations University (UNU-Merit) the Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Research Interests: Cases studies on knowledge systems: Human resources


Analyzing the contribution of technical education to India’s Core-HRST A Case Study of IIT Madras

Summary India has been very keen in participating internationally in knowledge-intensive activity, aiming at becoming a ‘knowledge economy’ and a ‘knowledge superpower’ by strengthening its National System of Innovation (NSI). An NSI is a system of interconnected institutions (private firms, educational bodies, government, etc.) which engage in creating and diffusing knowledge and skills, and building the capacity to do so. Educational institutions within India’s NSI were created to undertake research and teaching, and to provide scientific manpower to the other actors in its NSI. Its large network of technical education institutions produces thousands of science and technology (S&T) qualified graduates every year. It should ideally follow that the manpower requirements of India’s NSI are sufficiently met. But this is contradicted by the low figures of Core-HRST [Core-HRST: Human Resources in Science and Technology who are both qualified in S&T as well as working in Science and Technology-related professions like scientific R&D] stock and disparagingly low ratio of only around 7.5 R&D manpower to 10,000 labour force (as of 2004). This dilemma can be studied better if viewed from an NSI framework. Clearly, there is discordance among actors in India’s NSI, i.e., between technical education institutions and the




73

other actors. This discordance – an adequate supply of well trained S&T graduates from high quality technical education institutions alongside a low R&D manpower and low Core-HRST stock – plagues India’s quest to become a knowledge economy. One significant reason can exist for this discordance: graduates from even the best technical education institutions increasingly choose placement offers or higher studies in areas that have very little to do with the S&T training they received. On account of this, over time and at an aggregate scale, India loses its best scientific manpower – a fact worrisome for its future science and technology capabilities. Given the fact that there has been very little research in this area in the Indian context, this study attempted to make an exploration of this discordance at the ground level. I. What our study set out to do The study set out to analyze the contribution of India’s technical education system in its role as an actor in Indian NSI, with specific focus on the problem of S&T trained manpower moving to non-S&T professions in the long term. The study first attempted to understand the technical education scenario in India, looking at trends in growth and development of institutes as well as science and technology manpower across regions and disciplines. With this as a backdrop, it went on to show how India’s standing in Core-HRST stock is disappointing, despite a voluminous supply of qualified engineering manpower from a vast and growing network of institutions. One of the reasons for this, as mentioned earlier, is the phenomenon of even the best quality manpower preferring to move out of NSI by choosing professions or higher studies that are unrelated to science and technology. It has been well accepted that many of the best trained graduates opt for professions that pay better, since non-R&D or non-S&T related professions such as business management and investment banking are far more rewarding and ‘attractive’ in terms of remuneration. But it was doubted whether remuneration could be the only, or the most important, reason for pushing potential scientific manpower out of NSI. A variety of economic, non-economic and institutional factors must be simultaneously in play. To unearth these factors, one institute – the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras – was chosen for a case study. The institution is a prominent actor in Indian NSI and its contribution to Indian science and technology progress is laudable. Using a primary survey, this study studied the problem firstly from the point of view of the faculty across engineering and technology departments. Based on the findings of this, a survey questionnaire was constructed and the survey was undertaken among a sample of fifty B.Tech and Dual Degree students drawn from the population of undergraduate students, who have been offered placements. II. What our study found It was found that there, as suspected, a large number of factors were simultaneously in play, both within and outside the institution, influencing the choice of profession and contributing to the discordance. The faculty-level survey discovered some broad trends among students over the years. It was acknowledged by all respondents that the issue at hand required immediate attention, lest it led to long-term repercussions for India’s innovative capability. The age-old phenomenon of ‘brain


74

drain’ in the country was reported to have fallen considerably (given the recently elevated standards of living in some pockets of the country), though it had not ceased altogether. Until the beginning of the current decade, a wave of preference for ITES-related jobs emerged as a result of the phenomenal growth of the Indian ITES sector from the mid-1990s onwards. This preference had waned by the early part of the present decade. As this wave was diminishing, another emerged – a preference for management, consultancy, or finance-related work. This wave, as indicated in the faculty-level survey, has also begun to slowly diminish but has not reached its lowest point yet. The next wave predicted is a preference for R&D or other such S&T-related professions – a wave that is said to have appeared on the horizon. This may improve India’s Core-HRST stock and might bring hope for India’s innovation system. But it was indicated that the coming of this wave would not be easy, given the intrinsic nature of the profession and given the number of factors in play in the minds of students. These factors were unearthed in the student-level survey. The student-level survey uncovered a whole host of economic, non-economic and institutional factors. These factors cannot be studied in isolation and have to be understood in terms of their combined interactive effect. Factors influencing choice of profession range from more familiar ones (like remuneration and industry conditions) to institutional factors (like coursework related de-motivation and intimidation by hierarchies and bureaucracies in most government-run R&D organizations). Other factors like the reputation of a particular firm, the quality of pre-placement presentations, the potential for creativity and the time period required for the recognition of achievements were also unearthed. Through the findings of the student-level survey, it was noted that the reluctance to enter R&D and similar professions begins right from the classroom and continues through the coursework. An impression is created that engineering in the syllabus does not prepare students for engineering in the workplace. The internship is the arena where students are directly exposed to industry conditions. Here, students learn about stifling work conditions and low-quality infrastructure, especially in government-run S&T research institutes in India. Many respondents mentioned that such an environment destroys one’s potential for scientific creativity. Students’ impressions about industry conditions in R&D are also based on what they see during their pre-placement presentations. In this area, government-run R&D firms appear unimpressive. The reputation of the firm or institute also plays a major role. As mentioned before, these factors are not to be analyzed in isolation but are to be treated as highly interconnected. The sum total of these interactions in students’ minds pushes them away from taking up science and technology related work and pulls them towards non science and technology careers like business management or banking. The interaction mechanism is really the incentive structure at the grass-roots level. This gives students the incentive to join, or in most cases to leave, the innovation system. This incentive structure has cumulatively led India’s Core-HRST to its present state.


75

III. What remains to be done? There has been no prominent study so far on India’s Core-HRST dilemma, with the exception of the seminal India Science Report 2005, published by the National Council of Applied Economic Research. Also, the literature on the NSI Framework calls for a need for embedding education systems within innovation systems, especially in developing countries. This study took a step in both directions. That is, through a grass-roots level case study of one institution, it listed some of the many reasons for India’s Core-HRST being low. At the same time, it interpreted the research problem as discordance within Indian NSI. This research is only an incremental step in understanding the full picture of India’s Core-HRST stock. Much remains to be done! Our research has uncovered some of the factors that lead the best S&T-trained manpower to move towards non-S&T professions. It has also pointed out the interactions between these factors. But there may be many more such factors in play, which can be unearthed only through studies on a broader scale. Once all the possible factors are identified, it might even be worthwhile to quantify them and, using econometric analysis, to find out which are more significant or influential than others, and, if possible, whether there is at all a ‘root cause’ for the entire problem. This would also take us a long way in our understanding of India’s S&T manpower problems if both the demand as well as the supply side of Core-HRST were analyzed on a parallel so as to fully understand the interplay between them. For policy purposes in particular, this would be fruitful.

This study is a step towards indicating the much more substantial amount of research required not only regarding the state of affairs of India’s Core-HRST, but also for understanding technical education institutions in India as actors within the Indian innovation system. It also shows that there is more to addressing India’s science manpower needs than just improving educational infrastructure (Kamath, 2009). Given India’s ambition to become a knowledge-based economy, the priority need is to pay attention to the issues raised throughout this study when formulating policy regarding technical education and innovation. Further research, based on the foundations provided by this study, can help assess the contribution actually made by the vast network of technical education institutions towards building India’s stock of human resources in science and technology. References Kamath, A. 2009. India’s Graduates Lack Inspiration, not Infrastructure. Opinions, Science and Development Network (SciDev.Net), 5 February, UK [accessible at <http://www.scidev.net/en/opinions/india-s-graduates-lack-inspiration-not-nfrastruct.html >] N.B.: This study was submitted in June 2007 as a Dissertation, under the same title, as a part of the M.Phil programme at the Centre for Development Studies (CDS), Trivandrum, under Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi. Supervision was provided by Professor Sunil Mani, Professorial Fellow, CDS, Trivandrum.

* * *

http://www.scidev.net/en/opinions/india-s-graduates-lack-inspiration-not-nfrastruct.html


76

Niki Vermeulen Policy Advisor, Department of Technology and Society Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht University, the Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Case studies on knowledge systems: Mapping knowledge systems

Research Summary N°24 Supersizing science: building large-scale

research projects in biology

Summary “Are we witnessing the emergence of a new style of collaborative research?”

This study focuses on the current shift towards collaborative research by studying the increase of scientific collaboration in the life sciences. While studies into ‘big science’ and scientific collaboration generally investigate scientific fields that are traditionally known to have a cooperative spirit – like astronomy, physics or space research – this research turns the attention to biology. More then fifty years ago, research into the structure of Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) took place in a traditional small-scale academic environment, but recently the Human Genome Project (HGP) presented a completely different world, which is frequently referred to as ‘big biology’. The large-scale scientific project involved huge amounts of money, expensive instruments, and numerous scientists in laboratories all over the world, asking for careful planning and coordination. Moreover, the academic environment was substituted by an international and political setting, figuring academia, governments, funding bodies, business, media and the public. Based on empirical investigations into scientific collaboration in biology, it is argued that changing socio-cognitive configurations around technological developments in biology exemplify a contemporary networked form of ‘big science’ in which new developments in information and communication technologies play a crucial role. To be more specific I have conducted about thirty-five interviews with scientists and policy-makers and performed multi-sited ethnography to investigate transformations in contemporary biology. The analysis of ‘big biology’ is exemplary for the broader trend towards scientific collaboration in contemporary science: the supersizing of science. The study focuses explicitly on the process of making science big, and the increase of collaboration in biology learns about the building of scientific collaboration in today’s society. The analysis of three large-scale scientific projects – that respectively make a cell in silico, catalogue life in the oceans, and develop a new therapy against influenza – not only show how collaboration in biology has a networked structure, but also illustrates how integration in biology takes place. What kind of work is involved in the construction of scientific collaboration? The research distinguishes different styles of collaboration: projects have various rationales for collaborating as well as different orientations, resulting in diverse deliverables. The analysis shows how



77

collaboration exists of different phases that require different types of work: the origin of collaboration; building connections; and keeping it big. In addition, the study explores how the project format plays an important role in the building of collaboration, what I have named “The Projectification of Science”. Finally, the process of supersizing science shows how in the building of collaboration scientists have to play new roles and become more close to managers, politicians or businessman, which also has consequences for training the next generation of scientists. The origin of this research lies in a study on innovation in the life sciences that I undertook for the Scientific Council of the Netherlands Embassy, Washington, DC. The research – that will be defended in order to obtain a Ph.D. at Maastricht University at the beginning of 2009 – has been performed over the past five years under supervision of Professor Dr ir. Wiebe E. Bijker, professor of Technology and Society and Professor Dr Rein de Wilde, professor of Philosophy and is embedded in the Science, Technology and Society research group of the faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. In addition, part of the research has been performed with a Marie-Curie Fellowship at the Science and Technology Studies Unit at the University of York, UK, working with Professor Dr Andrew Webster. The research is linked to several networks, amongst others the Netherlands Graduate Research School of Science, Technology and Modern Culture (WTMC) and the international Marie Curie network that entails fifteen young researchers working on the political and societal implications of recent developments in the life sciences. During the 2008 Joint Meeting of the Society for the Social Studies of Science (4S) and the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST), I brought together a wide range of international scholars working on scientific collaboration in biology. This group is currently preparing an edited volume on scientific collaboration in biology which is expected to be published in 2009. Currently, I am working as a Policy Advisor for Research for the Board of Maastricht University and I have been invited as a Visiting Scholar at the Vienna Interdisciplinary Research Unit for the Study of (Techno)Science and Society (VIRUSSS) at the Department of Social Studies of Science of the Universität Wien in 2009. In my future career I intend to combine the study of knowledge systems with the translation of academic findings into policy.

* * * Mohamed Morsy El-Faham Professor, Director, Centre for Special Studies and programmes Bibliotheca Alexandrina, Egypt e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Human resources, funding in the Arab States

Research Summary N°25 Networks of international collaboration:

keys to research advancement

Summary Enhancing science and technology in developing countries has become a true necessity rather than a luxury. Strong science and technology capacities are essential in addressing critical issues



78

facing the world today; such as poverty, hunger, disease, globalization and sustainable use of natural resources. A key element to improvement is research advancement. Unfortunately, research in the Arab States faces many challenges, among which is the difficulty of keeping locally-trained talents at home, or of attracting Arab nationals who have obtained their degrees at foreign institutions, chiefly in developed nations. These factors contribute to the so-called ‘brain drain’, which is a major obstacle to building and sustaining indigenous scientific talent. Another challenge faced is the deterioration of research quality within these countries once their scholars return from abroad, due to diminished collaboration with previous counterparts in the industrialized nations. Insufficient funding of research is also a difficulty that must be tackled. The need for partnerships and networks of collaboration is, therefore, manifest. Bibliotheca Alexandrina is committed to catalyzing the progress of science and technology in the region, and through its Centre for Special Studies and Programmes (CSSP), has launched a Research Grant Programme to fund outstanding young postdoctoral scientists in Egypt, who undertake collaborative projects across the science and technology spectrum. This programme tackles the need for researchers to acquire funds which are free of bureaucratic requirements so as to conduct basic research. It also bestows equal opportunities to all researchers, since selection is based on research excellence and not seniority. CSSP is a hub, creating and sustaining networks of international collaboration. It recognizes the pool of untapped potential available in young scientists and by supporting this talent, aims to empower the nation’s research and knowledge capacities. It is these points that the paper addresses. To date, a total of twenty-four researchers have been granted the B.A. Research Grants. The new BA/CSSP Research Grants 2007/08 applications, where candidates uploaded their personal profiles, counterpart information and proposals through the website, are being reviewed now. A blind review process is used to evaluate each proposal. Therefore, no reference is made to the person, institution, or specific location that would identify the researcher in the documents submitted for reviewing. Final selections are made by an international reviewers committee with the BA Director chairing the committee. Selection is based on the project’s objective, its clarity and originality, as well as the project design and budget. Winners are selected by an international reviewing committee comprised of eminent scientists from all over the world. The World Wide Web is utilized for the entire review process. Consequently, all proposals for review are viewed and downloaded via the Web, and review results are also submitted online.

* * *


79

Koen Jonkers Scientific Mobility and International Collaboration Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales (CSIC), Madrid e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Cases studies on knowledge systems: Human resources, mapping emerging research systems and fields of research

Research Summary N°26 Human resources in science and technology: mapping emerging

research systems and fields of research

Summary This paper discusses a book project about scientific mobility and the transformation of the Chinese research system. It starts with an analysis of the development of the Chinese research portfolio over time on the basis of scientific output relative to the global average. It continues by presenting a comparative analysis of the development of eight life science subfields in China. Analyzes of the development of bibliometric indicators over time show the increasing worldwide impact of the Chinese research system in most of these subfields and the way in which this stands out in plant molecular biology. In this subfield, mainland Chinese researchers nowadays publish over 10 per cent of the global number of SCI publications and the average number of citations which a Chinese paper in this subfield receives is at the global average (Jonkers and Tijssen, 2008). This summary provides explanations for the strong performance of this subfield in comparison to other subfields in which these indicators remain considerably lower. These explanations are based on analyzes of scientific and grey literature as well as expert interviews. Among the explanations which are internal to the Chinese system is the manpower situation in this field in comparison to the other subfields under study. Two alternative bibliometric approaches are used to measure the role of both the scientific Diaspora and returned scientists on the number of international co-publications with research systems in Europe and North America. The role of returnees in facilitating one aspect of institutional change in the Chinese research system is another aspect which has been studied. The summary discusses some of the main conclusions which can be drawn from this study. In one of the follow-up studies under consideration, one element of this project will be studied for a larger sample of returned researchers in China and other ‘sending countries’. Reference Jonkers, K.; Tijssen, R. 2008. Chinese Researchers Returning Home: Impacts of International Mobility on Research Vollaboration and Scientific Productivity. In: Scientometrics, Vol.77, No. 2.

* * *



80

Jingjing Zhang Ph.D. candidate, Department of Education, University of Oxford, UK e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Case studies on knowledge systems: Mapping knowledge systems

Research Summary N°27 International research collaboration between different universities

at a distance: Analyzing e-Research networks

Summary Recent technological advances are providing new and exciting opportunities for researchers to work together across the conventional boundaries of time, distance and discipline. As noted these technological developments are “enabling and promoting large-scale and interdisciplinary collaborations that, over time, will become accepted, essential components of research practice across all disciplines” (Voss et al., 2007, p.1). The new digital infrastructure, comprised of distributed and interoperable technology in support of research, has led to a new form of research, known as e-Research. e-Research refers to “the development of, and the support for, information and computing technologies to facilitate all phases of research processes” (JISC, 2008, p.1). Arguably, e-Research has shown its potential to provide greater interactivity among academics and consequently to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of research endeavours across all disciplines. Beyond this, it actually conceives new types of research in new fields with new methodologies (Burton, 2007). As a result, East Asia, Europe, North America and the UK, are investing heavily in a wide range of e-Research developments, such as the study of virtual research environments and collaborative research using grid computing as a basis for computation and data management (Sargent, 2006). While not all academic research can be described as e-Research in its strictest sense, it is fair to say that almost all research, particularly that of a collaborative and interdisciplinary nature, uses technology for communication and other research activities; and the extent to which technology is being used for research purposes is growing. This being the case, the term e-Research is used in this broader sense for the purposes of this study. Furthermore, evidence has also shown that the relationship between academia and technology takes many forms dependent on context (Zhang, Davies, Yokoyama and Miyadera, 2008). Brown argues that the resulting electronic interactions between humans should be investigated through suitable social and cultural lenses (Brown, 1986). Castells (2000, p.3) also asserts, “Our societies are increasingly structured around a bipolar opposition between the Net and the Self”. The complicated instances of interdisciplinary research, which have long existed in academia, will thus need to be explored and explained in real-world research environments. It becomes important to understand the structures and processes of these research situations that engender academic research activities. What are suitable social and cultural lenses through which to explore these issues? Many researchers have attempted to use group theory to understand such research complexity as mentioned in the previous paragraph. However, old-fashioned collaborative research



81

environments have moved from ‘hierarchically arranged’, ‘densely knit’, and ‘bounded groups’ to network settings (Wellman, 2001). They no longer fit the group model, which is small and clearly bounded. In networked societies, “boundaries are more permeable, interactions are with diverse others, linkages switch between multiple networks, and hierarchies are flatter and more recursive” (Wellman, 2001, p.33). Therefore, ‘interdisciplinary research’, which is dynamically embedded in interactions with manifold academics, is proposed to be described as a growing network in web-like relationships (shown in Figure 1) ‘Interdisciplinary research’ is suggested to be studied as a network as it is divided into many sectors, not only by subject but also by institutions, such as learned societies, professional bodies, research institutes, universities and their departments, research councils, etc. For the purpose of this study, ‘interdisciplinary research’ is then conceptualized in terms of “interactions of academics from different disciplines working together in a period of time” to produce collective intelligence in higher education settings. The study considers ‘interdisciplinary research’ as a connected evolving network, with an interest in the structures and processes of interactions among academics working together. It acts as an active place that conceives of all sorts of interactions of different academics working together. The working definition of a ‘network’ that is utilized for this study is: a system characterized by complex interconnections between its parts (Snow and Leach, 2004). The notion of an ‘emergent network’ is a term originally used to differentiate informal, naturally occurring networks from formal and imposed networks (Aldrich, 1976). Here, I use the term ‘emergent network’ to describe the network formed by an interdisciplinary research project, which involves the use of various technologies. Due to the advances in technology, such a network emerges both in an electronic medium and in a face-to-face environment; and is different from some traditional networks in terms of its changing nature and diversity. The study of emergent networks better contributes to the understanding of collective behaviour (Krackhardt and Hanson, 1993).

.

Figure 1. Research as a connected evolving network of academics


82

The investigation of such networks is viewed as the study of complex systems that include complicated relationships which bind elements together. It addresses the nature of the relationships within a system, not the nature of the elements. Beyond the statement of ‘interdisciplinary research’ proposed earlier, more important is what happens in such connected evolving networks, both in the terminology used and in what is chosen for emphasis. Here, I present a model showing some of the characteristics of such networks that will be used in the analysis of the qualitative data. A connected evolving network of research can be said to exist as more than a collection of academics when it possesses the following qualities: • Social unit: a recognized entity with norms, roles, and power relationships, that holds its identity no matter whether academics are geographically dispersed or together. • Aims: the outcome intended to achieve collectively what, to some extent, binds academics together. • Reciprocity: a modality (form) in which academics mutually help each other in the network. • Interaction: the dynamics of a relationship between academics working together. On the one hand, none of these characteristics define a network but each intertwines and together they reveal what a network of research is. On the other hand, not every research community necessarily needs to incorporate every element in order to be considered as a network model. If a research project is known as a connected evolving network, it must exist long enough for a rudimentary pattern of interaction. The dyad or pair is the basic unit in the network. With regard to this conceptual framework, the study looks into the nature and extent of e-Research development. It intends to form a knowledge base for developing a conceptual framework and theoretical assumptions about research interactions in research networks for a future research project. This case study attempts to illustrate how an e-Research project as a connected network formulates positive academic interactions and consequently facilitates learning immersed in research activities. In parallel, the study examines the benefits and problems arising from the sense of being together across time and space supported by advanced networked technologies in collaborative research, and further identifies the gap between the academic and the technical perspective in research. To achieve this aim the approach is to identify instances of academic interactions in complex and changeable research circumstances and to focus on the learning that occurs serendipitously in emergent networked research, drawing upon social constructivist theories of learning. More specifically, this study is approached by using specific cases of interdisciplinary research projects initiated at the University of Oxford. The research project is considered as a bounded system, lending itself to being studied by using multiple data collection methods (semi-structured individual interviews, observation, and a review of key documents) in order to provide a rounded and comprehensive account of academic interactions over a period of time. The semi-structured interviews consisted of a set of preparatory questions, including the development of the participants’ research career, the use of technology and the learning aspect of research.


83

References Aldrich, H. 1976. Resource Dependence and Inter-organizational Relations: Relations between Local Employment Service Offices and Social Service Sector Organizations. In: Administration and Society, 7: pp.419-454. Brown, J. 1986. From Cognitive to Social Ergonomics and Beyond. In: Draper, S.W. and Norman, D.A. (eds.), User Centred System Design: New Perspectives on Human- computer Interaction. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Burton, A. 2007. e-Research National Perspectives: EDUCAUSE Australasia. Castells, M. 2000. The Rise of the Network Society (2nd ed.) Oxford: Blackwell. JISC: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/themes/eresearch.aspx ; 20 May 2008. Krackhardt, D. and Hanson, J.R. 1993. Informal Networks: The Company behind the Chart. In: Harvard Business Review, 71. p.104. Sargent, M. 2006. An Australian e-Research Strategy and Implementation Framework: A joint Initiative of the Department of Education, Science and Training and the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Snow, R.M. and Leach, E.A. 2005. Social Network Analysis and Systems Change. International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management. University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania and West Chester University. Voss, A. et al., 2007. e-Infrastructure Development and Community Engagement. Paper presented at the e-Social Science Conference, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. Wellman, B. 2001. Computer Networks as Social Networks. Science, pp.293:2031. Zhang, J.; Davies, C.; Yokoyama, S. and Miyadera, Y. 2008. A Hybrid Online research Instruction beyond the Traditional Web Survey and its Application. The Fourth International Conference on Technology, Knowledge and Society. Northeastern University, Boston.

* * * Labib Arafeh Associate Professor, Computer Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty Al-Quds University, Jerusalem e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Case studies: Mapping and analyzing research capacities

Summary N°28 An analytical and comparative study on the

Palestinian Research Knowledge National System Summary The summary will briefly introduce the current status of the Palestinian National Research Knowledge System. This will include identifying the national research related institutions, including the National Council of Scientific Research (CNRS), the Palestinian Academy of Science and Technology (PALAST), the Palestine Economic Policy Research Institute (MAS),

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/themes/eresearch.aspx



84

Applied Research Institute of Jerusalem (ARIJ), and Scientific Research Deanships at local universities, other research-related non-government organizations (NGOs) and the private sector, as well as other potential initiatives. Several crucial basic research elements, issues and challenges will be addressed including structure and governance, management, planning, trends, funding, auditing, cooperation, priorities and new agendas. In addition, a comparative study of research-related issues at major Palestinian universities will be undertaken to identify and map the available collaborations, partnerships (bilateral, trilateral, and multilateral), and networking at various levels (local, regional, and international), number of publications per faculty member, the areas of research interests, university research priorities and agendas, funding, potential partners, governance, trends, promotion systems, research outputs, as well as their research stakeholders. Further more, the data gathered will be SWOT-analyzed concisely to identify Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. In turn, recommendations and possible interventions by government, potential funding agencies, and other research stakeholders regarding all addressed issues will follow. My own research covers three major areas. The first one includes applying e-learning in education as well as higher education. The various research issues addressed encompass: (1) The quality of e-learning and its various dimensions focusing on the pedagogical one. (2) Applying e-learning in practical and experimental laboratories. (3) Electronically grading essay-type questions, and (4) Applying Mobile Phone learning locally. To date, an Auto Grading Essay System has been developed and it is under testing by different university instructors. Furthermore, a preliminary SMART Input /Output card with its associated software has been developed. This real time-based system allows students to perform an electronic experiment at home or in the laboratory without using the basic instruments such as the oscilloscope and signal generators. An enhancement to the preliminary card is currently under development that will facilitate more experiments and their reporting. The partners include several local universities as well as Umeå University, Sweden, and CNAM (Conservatoire national des arts et métiers), France. The second research area focuses on applying the various mathematical modeling tools in predicting electric power load and water demands. Shortly, a demo version will be finished that will be submitted for testing by a local electric company. This is done in collaboration with the local private sector and Brunel University, UK. The third area of interest addresses the quality assurance and enhancement in higher education. The most important outputs were to develop and establish local benchmarks for all computer-related and Electrical Engineering academic programmes. This was funded by UNESCO Office Palestine.

* * *


85

S. Tanveer Naim and Atta-ur-Rahman COMSTECH Secretariat, Islamabad, Pakistan e:mail: [email protected]

Research Summary N°29 Mapping scientific research in the

Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) Countries

Summary The fifty-seven states of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) are located in different regions spread across different continents. They are endowed differently in terms of natural resources, environment and culture. There are also enormous differences among OIC countries in the historical, political, economic and social challenges that they face. Together OIC states possess about 70 per cent of the world’s energy and 40 per cent of the world’s mineral resources. They constitute about one quarter (1.5 billion) of the world’s population, almost half of which comprises young people. Some OIC countries have also had a glorious past of scientific achievements. Despite this rich natural endowment and scientific heritage almost 40 per cent of OIC Member States are classified by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) as low-income countries. The potential contribution of scientific and technological knowledge towards development has yet to be recognized in most OIC countries. This factor is particularly evident in the general under-investment in education and scientific research in these countries, a factor which results in the unequal distribution of resources and significant inequalities within their societies. In situations where knowledge does exist, it is seldom integrated into systems that can actually support development and decision making which may lead to the development of indigenous technology capability building. Technological expertise lies at the core of economic development. To acquire comparative advantage in this era of globalization, regular innovations in products, processes and services are essential which in turn are, to a large extent, dependent on the scientific and technological capabilities of nations. RAND Corporation has developed a composite index for measuring a country’s technological capacity covering input and output indicators. Countries are classified in four groups namely, (i) scientifically advanced; (ii) scientifically proficient; (iii) scientifically developing and (iv) scientifically lagging. (i) Scientifically Advanced countries, of which there are twenty-two, include: Australia, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Taiwan and countries of Western Europe and North America. (ii) Scientifically Proficient countries include some countries in Asia, Europe and Latin America. They perform slightly above the international average in some areas and in other areas fall below the mean international value.



86

(iii) Scientifically Developing countries include twenty-four countries which operate at lower scientific capability than the international average. Some of these countries have invested substantial amounts in science and technology but their scientific capacity still remains below the international average. Nine OIC countries placed in this group are: Benin, Egypt, Iran, Indonesia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. (iv) Scientifically Lagging countries, of which there are eighty, include the remaining forty- nine OIC countries. UNDP Technological Achievement Index (TAI) classifies countries as (a) technology leaders; (b) potential leaders; (c) dynamic adopters and (d) marginalized countries. Not a single OIC Member State is ranked among the eighteen countries termed as ‘technology leaders’. Just two OIC member countries, Malaysia and Turkey are included in the group of nineteen countries classified as ‘potential leaders’. A total of six OIC countries: Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Syrian Arab Republic and Tunisia are grouped among countries known as ‘dynamic adopters’.

The rest of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) countries are classified as either marginalized or others for which complete data was not available. Availability of reliable data is a severe constraint in measuring the scientific capability of most OIC countries.

Paradoxically, the higher income Oil-exporting OIC countries are also lagging behind in scientific and technological development due to their indifference and neglect of this sector for decades. Their under-investment in building human capital (HC) and quality institutions for scientific research has relegated them to a state of perpetual dependence on the developed countries for most of their technological needs. While international technology transfer is important for economic development, sustained social and economic development cannot be achieved without creating the requisite level of absorptive capacity by training and retaining a critical number of scientists and engineers within OIC countries. Misconceived priorities and traditional supply focused S&T policy approaches have not resulted in building systems or institutions which can transfer technical knowledge to economic advantage. Consequently even the low investments that these countries make to train their brightest human capital are often lost due to the migration of much needed talent to developed countries. However, there appears to be a growing realization in some OIC countries that scientific and technological capability is essential for national development. Following the economic and trade liberalization policies since the late-90s, some OIC countries including Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan and Turkey have invested substantially in higher education and building infrastructure for science and technology. These countries have developed a reasonable science base to attract international partners and are participating in international projects such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Project at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).


87

Some oil-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates (UAE) have also invested in attracting world class universities to establish their subsidiary campuses in their countries. Co-author, Dr Atta-ur-Rahman has observed that above initiatives by oil-rich Gulf countries may not lead to desired results due to faulty administrative planning, with funds being largely spent on building luxurious campuses and attracting foreign faculty with little investment in training and retaining high quality local scientist and engineers and investment directed at unleashing the creative potential of the younger populations. Sami Mahroum, Research Director, National Endownment for Science, Technology and the Arts (UK), has discussed the case of Dubai, ranked by Global Innovation Index (GII) – conceived at INSTEAD, as the fourteenth innovation city of the world, and argues that there are different routes to innovation-driven economic prosperity. Dubai’s innovation system has not emerged from its scientific or technological accomplishments or from world class universities but from its capacity to access foreign knowledge and through a mixture of financial, legal and infrastructure related incentives to attract the best brains from abroad. The Dubai Internet City and Knowledge Village which houses 550 national and international media companies has created employment opportunities for 7,000 knowledge workers due to this innovative initiative. A. This paper compares the relative “Scientific Proficiency” of OIC Member States and those located within a specific geographical region. Input indicators such as higher education enrolments, R&D expenditure and number of researchers per million populations are compared with output indicators such as research articles published in international journals and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patents granted to each country during a certain period. Research trends and collaboration of OIC countries is mapped in terms of co-authored papers published with scientists of developed countries, among scientists of OIC countries and between scientists of OIC countries located within a specific geographical region. B. OIC countries are benchmarked as “Scientifically Developing” to include countries which have developed infrastructure for scientific research in a few areas but in most others areas they still lag behind the international average. These countries have gradually increased their R&D expenditures over the past ten years – they have a minimum of 300 researchers involved in R&D per million population and show a positive trend in research publications and filing of resident and international patents. C. “Scientifically Advanced” countries are those that have in recent years increased their R&D expenditures and have attracted world class universities to establish their campuses. They have also attracted foreign talent including scientists, engineers and managers to work in their universities and research establishments. D. “Scientifically Lagging” countries are those that have not yet invested in building a scientific infrastructure for research. The analysis of research-related indicators of OIC countries presented in this paper highlights serious ‘knowledge’, ‘information’ and ‘research’ gaps between OIC countries and the developed countries. While these gaps are widening and while it appears difficult to bridge these gaps, there are examples of countries, such as Turkey, which have made tremendous progress in training


88

high-quality scientists and engineers and developing a sound scientific research infrastructure in the past decade. This is evidenced by a rapid increase in the number of international publications by Turkish Researchers. Since 1997 Turkey has risen from twenty-seventh to nineteenth in world-ranking based on the number of scientific publications as well as a substantial increase in filing of patents. A total of seventeen of its universities are listed among the most cited institutions in the world. Also in recent years Turkey has also increased its expenditure on research and development from 0.6 per cent to 1.0 per cent of GDP. There are large disparities in the scientific capacities of OIC countries located in different geographical regions of the world and between countries located within the same region. Firstly, West Asia can be termed as the most productive of the OIC regions as almost half of the total of 289,836 research articles from OIC countries published in international journals during the period 1988-2007 were from West Asia. Turkey with 70 per cent of the total publications from the region remains the most prolific country. Others include Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). These countries have in recent years increased their investment in developing a world-class infrastructure for higher education, science and technology. The Economist magazine has recently ranked Saudi Arabia in the seventh position worldwide with respect to developing a world-class infrastructure for higher education – although it lags far behind developed countries in the training of high quality indigenous research manpower or output of international publications and patents. The second productive region of OIC in terms of research publications is North Africa. With its glorious history of scientific achievements, it is not surprising that Egypt leads the region in contributing 50 per cent of the region’s total. The remaining contributions are by Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. With a small population of 10 million only, Tunisia has published more research papers than Indonesia which has the largest population of 220 million among the OIC countries. In South Asia a sharp rise in the number of research publications has been achieved by Iran which contributed 70 per cent of the total published from this region. Pakistan also increased its output substantially since 2003 due to a quantum jump in investment in higher education and R&D. Science Watch in its September 2008 issue has ranked Pakistan on top of the list of countries termed as Rising Stars based on achieving the highest percentage increase in total citations of research publications in multiple fields. [Other OIC countries listed as Rising Stars are Iran, Nigeria, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)]. In the East Asia region Malaysia leads not only in the number of research papers but also in the number of patents filed. Malaysia is relatively new to fostering scientific research. It began investing in higher education in the 1970s but this investment has demonstrably paid off as evidenced by its development achievements. Malaysia has been granted the highest number of USPTO patents, 579, during 1964-2007 and its share of high technology exports (58 per cent of the total exports) is also much higher than other OIC countries. On the other hand Indonesia is the most populated OIC country but its ten year research output is half that of Malaysia. Furthermore, Brunei Darussalam, despite its immense oil wealth, has not invested in any notable manner in science and technology.


89

In other OIC regions, countries such as Nigeria in West Africa, Cameroon in East Africa and Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in Central Asia have made investments in developing an infrastructure for science and technology. In the year 2006 President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua of Nigeria announced an allocation of US$5 billion to establish a national science foundation. Nigeria is also the largest contributor of research papers from the region of West Africa. The scientific output of Cameroon and Uzbekistan is relatively low. The remaining OIC countries, mostly located in Africa, show very limited scientific capabilities. Based on the assessment of the research-related indicators mentioned above, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) countries have been divided into three categories: Scientifically Developing: which includes Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Malaysia, Pakistan, Tunisia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco. Scientifically Proficient: which includes Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Uganda, Algeria, Cameroon, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Bangladesh and Indonesia. Scientifically Lagging: (35 countries) Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Benin, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Mali, Maldives, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Palestine, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Suriname, Somalia, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan and Yemen.

* * * Ali El Hawat Professor of Sociology, University of Al-Fateh Hay Al-Andulus Tripoli, Lybia e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Tensions, dynamics and challenge, especially in the Arab Region

Research Summary N°30 Research priorities in the social sciences: the Arab Region

Summary Historically speaking the Arab mind, culture and society are usually divided into two main worlds or divisions: (i) the material and (ii) the non-material. It follows that these two parts have neither the same value nor the same weight. It means also that research, in the past and present, is also divided in nature and importance into two types: (1) research in physical and material fields or phenomena; and (2) research in non-material non-physical fields or areas. Each one of these two worlds has its own nature, research concepts and researchers. From this separation between



90

research in the material and non-material world, there is a wide range of problems and obstacles involving the state and its bureaucracy at all levels. Consequently, in terms of priority importance, funds are given to research in the material world while very little funding is given to research in the non-material world (i.e. the social sciences and humanities). Research in the physical material world and research in the non-physical or social world differ greatly from one another. In particular, government policy and the decision-making bodies consider social research as being of no importance. This attitude is fairly general except for social science experts themselves who need self-defense mechanisms. As a result of all this, research in the social and human sciences always lags behind. Social, cultural and economic problems are multiplying and impact on all aspects of life, yet social research can do little or nothing towards resolving them. At the same time, the state and elites always criticize this research and accuse it of not really understanding current social problems, and of not helping to address them. In addition, there is little or no contact or exchange of ideas or thinking between researchers in the natural sciences and those in the social sciences and humanities. This summary argues that if the Arab Region and its societies are to modernize themselves, they have to re-think the whole concept of the role of scientific research without attempting any real separation between research in the material and non-material worlds. Thus the main points of this summary are: 1. First, to discuss the nature and status of research in social science in the Arab countries in a rather general manner. 2. Second, to discuss the challenges and obstacles faced by research and researchers in the social sciences in the Arab Region; and 3. Third, based on the previous analyzes, to outline the most important priorities that need to be researched and studied in the Arab Region whose populations have moved into the twenty-first century and are now confronted with a globalized society and culture.

* * *


91

Siti Meiningsih M.Sc., Senior Researcher, Centre for Science and Technology Development Studies, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Indonesia e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Nani Grace Centre for Science and Technology Development Studies, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Indonesia Research Interests: Case studies, measuring research capacities, the case of Indonesia

Research Summary N°31 Indonesia: Performance of international scientific publications

Summary The association between science development and the level and rate of publications in scientific journals has attracted more attention from decision-makers within the last few decades. This phenomenon is understandable because attempts to measure the level and rate of scientific publications in the international scientific periodicals are aimed to determine the situation and condition of scientific progress in various fields and also could be used to evaluate research and development (R&D) activities, particularly in allocating the R&D budget in a country (Gellert, 1993; Massy, 1996). Moreover, Dundar and Lewis (1993) in their research using data mining of scientific publications discovered several factors that correlated with the productivity of R&D institutions.

Based on the aforementioned evidence, the Indonesian Institute of Sciences has initiated a research activity to determine the progress of science in Indonesia using data mining of scientific publications. The activity aims to: (1) analyze the rate of scientific publications in international journals by the Indonesian Institutions, and (2) to analyze the relative rank of Indonesia among the other South-East Asian countries, such as Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. The research utilizes bibliometric concepts as a measurement tool and therefore the progress of science in general could be mapped, and scientific fields that show outstanding performance could be identified. Publications in the international scientific journals will be used as a parameter to evaluate the performance of each field in a country, by institution or by researcher. To ensure the quality of the journals cited, the data processed by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and excerpted in Essential Science Indicator (ESI) were used. The results revealed:

I. The progress of publication in international scientific journals by Indonesia Figure 1 shows a five-year profile (1998-2003) of scientific publications that include five research fields: (i) Plant and Animal Science; (ii) Clinical Medicine; (iii) Environment/Ecology; (iv) Geosciences and (v) Chemistry. The research fields are sub-group of the natural and life sciences, in which Indonesia was endowed, with a natural biodiversity that became a unique area of research – this fact differs from other countries. The average publication of each field per year




92

is shown in Figure 2. During the first ten years, Indonesia has not yet had any publication in the field of mathematics, although this field is urgently needed by the other fields of sciences.

Figure 1. The progress of scientific publications in ten major fields

Source: Data processed by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), 2008. Figure 2. The average of publications in five major fields

Source: Data processed by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), 2008.

II. The relative rank of Indonesia among three other South-East Asian countries (ASEAN) To obtain a better understanding of the progress of science in Indonesia, apart from the rate of scientific publications, the relative ranking of Indonesia among the three other South-East Asian countries was also analyzed.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1980-2002 1999-2002 2000-2004 2001-2005 2002-2006 2003-2007 2004-2008

Plant & animal science

Clinical Medicine

Environment/Ecology

Geoscienc

Chemistry

39,8

44,8

50,6

91,2

97

0 20 40 60 80 100

GEOSCIENCES

CHEMISTRY

ENVIRONMENT/ECOLOGY

CLINICAL MEDICINE

PLANT & ANIMALSCIENCE


93

The three countries were selected because they have a relatively similar starting point of national development. The position of Indonesia is far below the other three South-East Asian countries. The rate of scientific publications in the three South-East Asian countries showed a constant and significant increase during the five-year period of 1998-2003 while Indonesia tends to be static (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Progress of scientific publications in four South-East Asian countries (ASEAN)


Figure 4. Rate: scientific publications in plant/ animal sciences field in four ASEAN countries


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1989-2002 1999-2002 2000-2004 2001-2005 2002-2006 2003-2007 2004-2008

Indonesia Thailand Malaysia Singapura

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

1989-2002 1999-2002 2000-2004 2001-2005 2002-2006 2003-2007 2004-2008

Indonesia Thailand Malaysia Siangapura


94

Analysis of the progress of science in each field revealed that Indonesia has a significantly high publications rate in the field of plant and animal science but its position was still the lowest among the three ASEAN countries. Assuming that the number of citations indicate the quality of the publication, it was apparent that the quality of the scientific publicatons from Indonesia is relatively similar to other ASEAN countries.

Figure 5. Shows that scientific publications from Indonesia – particularly in the fields of physics, pharmacology and toxicology, chemistry, geosciences and engineering – are more frequently cited in comparison to Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand


III. Conclusion

In conclusion, the data mining study indicates that the scientific publications rate of Indonesia is significantly below the other three ASEAN countries. However, the quality of the publications in certain fields is comparable, or even above, the other ASEAN countries.

References Dundar, H. and Lewis, D.R. 1998. Determinants of Research Productivity in Higher Education. In: Research in Higher Education, Vol.39, No.6. Gellert, C. (ed.), 1993. Higher Education in Europe. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publisher. Massy, W.F. 1996. Resource Allocation in Higher Education. Michigan: the University of Michigan Press.

* * *

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

PHYSICS

GEOSCIENCES

CHEMISTRY

ENGINEERING

PHARMACOLOGY &TOXICOLOGY

Singapura Thailand Malaysia Indonesia


95

Eli Katunguka Rwakishaya Professor, Director, School of Graduate Studies and Research, Makerere University, Uganda e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Dimensions on knowledge systems: Research funding, research governance and policies, human resources in developing countries

Research Summary N°32 Makerere University: Initiatives taken to improve funding for research

and research support to African universities

Summary Research capacity-building in the developing countries has attracted a lot of attention in the recent past. This has come about as a result of a realization that tertiary education and knowledge creation contribute to national development. In Makerere University, efforts have been directed at sourcing for funds to support research. This has been through contributions by students to the research pool, and development partners e.g. Sida/Department for Research Cooperation (SAREC), Carnegie Corporation of New York, Norwegian Agency for Development Co-operation (NORAD), Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), Norwegian Council of Universities’ Committee for Development Research and Education (NUFU), Rockefeller Foundation (RF), World Bank. Research funds in excess of US$5 millions per year have gone into building the research culture of the academic staff, and improving the research infrastructure, improving the capacity of academic staff to supervise Ph.D. students and support for Ph.D. training by providing tuition, travel grants to conferences and publication avenues. It has been observed that the model adopted by Sida/SAREC in their efforts to support research in Uganda is the most appropriate for developing countries. To support these efforts, the University has approved a “Research and Innovations Policy and the Intellectual Property Management Policy” which clearly set the stage for promoting research through infrastructure development, incentives and providing time for research in addition to encouraging publications from the research activities of faculty. This summary highlights the initiatives taken by Makerere University to improve funding for research and demonstrates what is considered to be the best model for research support to African universities, as a model which development partners and other universities may emulate.

* * *



96

Jacqueline de Bony Chargée de Recherche, Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire pour la Sociologie Economique (LISE) Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Policies, cooperation and dynamics

Research Summary N°33 National culture and research cooperation:

Case study: France, the Netherlands Summary This case study sheds light on the role of national context in the implementation of managerial practices. It analyzes the absorption of project management during research cooperation between France and the Netherlands. Project evaluation and monitoring are easily implemented by the Dutch whereas they are avoided by the French partners. The study unravels the entanglement of the practice in two radically different working traditions. The paper triangulates the logic that governs project management and the professional logics expressed respectively in Dutch and French cultural contexts. Project management is based on equality between individuals and it is arbitrated by collective interest. Such combination of symbolic categories requires loose articulations between the individual and the collective and between thoughts and actions. The research underlines the congruency between project management and consensus. It disentangles the role played by Dutch consensual logic in the absorption of the practice. It sheds light on the difficulty to make project management a part of French professional logics. The paper pinpoints the role of weak and limited articulations between individual and group activities as key factors for the absorption of project management. The results from this case study are reinforced by complementary research on Dutch consensus, its transmission at elementary school and, more generally, a comparison of Dutch and French construction of agreements (i.e. decision processes). Altogether, this allows us to characterize two modes of insertion of the individual in the collective system in the Netherlands and the more central system in France. One can also unravel two types of articulations between a person and his/her activity, which may be loose and limited in the Netherlands, but stronger in France. In addition to these results, the summary systematically describes and reflects on the method and theoretical framework retained for this research. Bilateral cooperation is seen as a lens through which to discriminate the specificities of each culture. It is a means to grasp their symbolic categories and arbitrages. The summary restitutes the inductive pathway and causalities between the observed discrepancy and the singularities of two national contexts.



97

Finally, this summary describes and relies on a theoretical framework which takes into account the dual character of a specific culture. It defines culture as a system of categories and arbitrages that frames the meaning rather than culture considered as a ‘shared meaning’ per se. Such a perception does not limit culture to structural and permanent components. It also integrates dynamic elements which are expressed in cultural evolutions such as globalization.

* * *

Winston Dookeran Visiting Scholar, World Institute for Development Economics Research United Nations University, Finland e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Knowledge economy, comparative analysis and funding of higher education.

Research Summary 34 Issues on financing higher education through cost sharing

Summary The summary examines the role of higher education in building knowledge-based societies in today’s globally competitive environment. It explores the external benefits (externalities) of education in a macrosetting and the shift in the state’s role from central control to the provision of financial incentives. It argues for a reform programme for higher education, an enabling regulatory framework and the need for new models of financing of higher education. The paper looks at worldwide trends in the finance of higher education, and findings of an OECD/UNESCO study (2002) on developing countries. Various cost sharing proposals are identified in the search for more accessibility to tertiary education, and the paper discusses the challenges to academic values as the university competes in the marketplace. I. Introduction In an aggregate sense, education influences the macroeconomy through its impact on productivity and technical change on economic growth, the competitive structure of the economy, the innovative system in the country and the social well-being of the society. A recent World Bank publication states that “The proportion of goods in international trade with a medium-high or high-level of technology content raised from 33 per cent in 1976 to 54 per cent in 1996.” (see p.8); and argues that a country’s competitive advantage in the global economy is linked to the converging impacts of ‘globalization’, ‘knowledge as a main driver of growth’ and the ‘information revolution’. Opportunities are emerging from these challenges. Knowledge has become a primary factor of production. Building knowledge-based societies requires a sound incentive-based macroeconomic regime, a modern Information and Communication Technology (ICT) infrastructure, a competitive innovation system and a high quality of its human resources. The contribution of tertiary education is vital to the emergence of innovation systems and to the development of human resources.



98

One of the main messages of the World Bank report cited above is that “The state has a responsibility to put in place an enabling framework that encourages tertiary institutions to be more innovative and more responsive to the needs of a globally competitive knowledge-based economy and the changing labour market requirements for advanced human capital”. Three arguments that justify government’s support for funding universities are: (i) the existence of externalities from tertiary education; (ii) equity issues; and (iii) the connective role of tertiary education in the education system as a whole. There is a debate as to whether education is a public good or a quasi-public good. In the orthodox definition, education while having the attributes of a public good, does not meet the test of Say’s law, viz. “demand creates its own supply, and education does confer private gains to individuals”. But education is a significant generator of external benefits and individuals do not capture all the rewards of education. Indeed, there are significant externalities in the production of education as the overall contribution of tertiary education to economic growth goes beyond the income and employment gains accruing to individuals. These are crucial to knowledge-driven economic and social development, and permit workers to use new technology and boost productivity. Apart from its contribution to economic growth, higher education has broad economic, fiscal and labour market effects. There are linkages and spillover effects by the clustering of human capital alongside leading technology firms as exemplified by technology intensive poles in Silicon Valley in California, Bangalore in India, Shanghai in China, Campinas in São Paulo, Brazil and in similar poles in East Asia and Finland. There are various studies that have measured the positive correlation between increases in educational levels and consumption, tax base and the reduced dependence on medical and social welfare services. There are also non-economic externalities in promoting greater social cohesion, and appreciation of diversity in societies. The World Bank/UNESCO publication, “Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise” concluded that “tertiary education is important in building capacity and reducing poverty.” [See Global Joint Task Force, 2000, Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise]. Reference UNESCO/World Bank Report. 2000. Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise. Published by the World Bank, Washington: D.C., 2000.

* * *


99

Nga Phuong Nguyen Associate Professor, Director, Centre for Education Quality Assurance and Research Development, Viet Nam National University Hanoi, Viet Nam e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Dimensions on knowledge systems: Research governance and policies Matthew Piscioneri Dr Faculty of Arts, Monash University, Australia e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Dimensions on knowledge systems: Research governance and policies

Research Summary N°35 Impact of research governance and policies on higher education

institution administrators and academic staffs

Summary In the twenty-first century research-based knowledge is globally considered to be a powerful factor that enhances the development of social economic society. Therefore, there has been a lot of pressure from funding agencies (actors) including governments to push universities to focus more on research outputs. Additionally, the global trends of commercialization of higher education activities have driven not only university administrators but also academic staffs to re-think their roles and responsibilities to cope with demands from various sources. Consequently, research governance and policies have been reviewed or developed so as to enable research outputs/products. However, as complicated as life is, research governance and policies at different levels would not only positively support/facilitate university research but also cause harmful effects or damage to some specific strengths of a university. Therefore, this summary attempts to explore both positive and negative impacts that research governance and policies would induce on university administrators and academic staff. First, concepts about research governance are presented together with levels of governance and policies associated with research. It is assumed that university cannot exist on its own without funds from various sources. From ‘top down’ to ‘bottom up’, besides the ‘national research law’ (if there exists such a law or policy within a country), funding agencies/actors (including governments) are the first organizations to issue guidelines and policies to monitoring how the university uses its research funds. The second ‘governance layer’ is the university itself which has its own policies/regulations for allocating research funding and monitoring the research process and outcomes. Based on this assumption, the authors examine the impact that funding agencies can have firstly on the university as a whole and then on university administrators whose functions are either to identify or search for funding sources for university research or to manage the university ‘s research function. The aspects which will be explored include:

• University relationships with stakeholders: university partners, governments, industries, business, NGOs, etc.




100

• The university’s primary roles. • University incentives, mentoring policy and even recruitment policies which favour research work/products or outcomes but may demoralize teaching staff. • Research work prioritized so much that teaching loads were reduced. • Changing standards for research outputs.

Consequently, academic staff are the recipients of both positive and negative impacts which were brought about by the research governance and policies created by funding agencies as well as by the university. Possible impacts to be examined can be as follows:

• Competition for research work/funds. • More teaching work/loads given to tutors. • Concentration on applied research rather than basic research. • Less blue-skies research.

Given the differences in political contexts and national systems and cultures, research governance and policies vary greatly from country-to-country. Thus, in this summary, the authors also attempt to study outcomes and their impact in both developed and developing countries. In conclusion, the authors propose a number of recommendations that may help facilitate the positive impact of research governance and policies on university administrators and academic staff, while attempting to limit the eventual negative consequences of certain policies.

* * * Yogesh Jadhav Consultant, Forestry and Natural Resource Management, Valuation, Sustainability, India e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Knowledge systems and knowledge mapping processes (structure, policies and development)

Research Summary N°36 Knowledge systems: the importance of

international and local partnerships Summary I. Research areas In addition to my job profile as a faculty member at a professional education and research institution, (where I conduct coursework including knowledge systems, manpower development, technological innovation, change management, research methods, HRM), I am also associated with knowledge agencies and developmental NGOs as a consultant/researcher. The project’s tasks include the study and dissemination of knowledge management (techniques and methods),



101

empowerment of grassroots institutions for generation, documentation and dissemination of knowledge elements and using knowledge systems for monitoring and assessment of sustainability of natural resources. Additionally, through professional association and work experience in several knowledge management and research projects for the past eight years, I have been closely involved with the study of comparative analysis of knowledge systems by mapping them and evaluating their impacts on resource sustainability (mainly forestry and natural resources). My research areas include both traditional as well as contemporary knowledge systems (methodological frameworks and concerns) vis-à-vis the sustainability of natural resources, which includes research into assessing the impacts of institutional synergies, governance and policies on sustainable management of natural resources with stakeholder participation. I have worked as a project manager in an internationally-funded project (funded by the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) Japan) to develop and implement sustainability systems for management of forestry and natural resources in India. II. Research partners State forest departments, Indian Institute of Forest Management, research institutions, non-governmental agencies, International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Japan, community-level institutions i.e. the Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs) and civil society organizations (CSOs). III. Methodology Following the Earth Summit in 1992 [UN Major Conference on Environment and Development, Rio or Earth Summit, Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992], which spurred global action on sustainable forest management, the Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM), Bhopal, took up the national stewardship for initiating a project on sustainable forestry development and pioneered the Bhopal-India process for sustainable forest management (SFM). With project funding from ITTO, and using ITTO’s Criteria and Indicators (C&I) system as template, the project developed and evolved its own set of C&I with the participation of local and indigenous communities, institutions and other stakeholders. Blending the traditional knowledge systems with modern and innovative training methods, the people’s indicator systems (i.e. PIs) were developed. These systems helped in mapping and capturing of local knowledge systems for sustainable management of resources. The project (now in its eighth year) was successful in liaising with forest department officials, non-governmental partners and local communities and ensured that the knowledge system (C&I system) was effectively adapted to the Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMC) level, and widely communicated and suitably adopted by respective forest departments and other stakeholders.


102

IV. Outcomes to date The local communities who make up the JFMCs are the people whose lives revolve around forests and forest products, and so are best placed to participate in and contribute to mapping and development of local knowledge systems for forest management. With the eventual contribution of the international donor community, capacity was built at the JFMC level to enable people to use the knowledge systems (C&I approaches), and a participatory adaptation mechanism came into force to ensure that these knowledge systems (i.e. C&I approaches) were mapped and adapted to suit community needs and ensure long-term sustainability of the resources. The knowledge systems also helped in assessing research gaps and assisted in developing effective communication channels (MIS) between the state forest departments and community-level institutions at the grass-roots level. From this, grew the concept of People’s Indicators system (PIs), which was designed to translate people’s direct, hands-on knowledge of forest areas into meaningful information which feeds into the knowledge mapping process. Thus, the C&I knowledge system and People’s Indicators system (PIs) were successfully introduced in two states (Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh) in India and have now been eventually replicated in four more states. Thus People’s Indicators system is a marriage between ‘global and local knowledge systems’ where there is harmonization between internationally agreed upon knowledge about indicators and community knowledge on the ground. V. Future perspectives The C&I system and PIs have been successfully introduced in four more states in India (total six states) and the forest departments have expressed their commitment to ensuring their implementation on the ground. The project interventions are being reinforced through continuous training and policy intervention activities, in which the Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) and Criteria and Indicators (C&I) have been proposed to be included in the policy framework of the forest department, i.e. a Forestry Code in the country.

* * *


103

Mohir Ahmedov Senior Lecturer, Tashkent Medical Academy Tashkent, Uzbekistan e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Research governance and policies, National Health Research System (NHRS) Andrew Kennedy Senior Research Officer, Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED) Geneva, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Dimensions on knowledge systems: Health research policy, priorities and governance in low-income countries Carel IJsselmuiden Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED) Geneva, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]


Governance and policy frameworks for health research in thirty-eight countries

I. Areas The aims of this study were twofold, firstly to describe the governance and policy frameworks for health research in selected countries; and secondly to conduct an exploratory analysis examining the relationships between key components of these frameworks (a) governance structures; (b) health research policy and (c) health research priorities. II. Methodology This meta-analysis is based on six National Health Research System (NHRS) Mapping studies covering forty countries in which the Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED) has been involved. Five of these studies were conducted as multi-country initiatives in Africa (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Mozambique, Uganda, Zambia), (COHRED, 2008) Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan), (COHRED, 2007) East Asia (Cambodia, China (Shanghai), Laos, Mongolia, the Philippines, Viet Nam), (WHO, 2006) Middle East [Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Yemen], (Kennedy et al., 2008) Pacific Islands (Cook Islands, Fiji, Guinea, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, New Samoa, Niue, Palau, Papua, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu); (Prior et al., 2007) the other as a national effort (Trinidad and Tobago) (ENHR, 2007). Two countries involved in these studies (Cambodia and the Philippines) failed to complete data collection in time for inclusion in this analysis.





104

The COHRED National Health Research System Mapping Form was completed for thirty-seven countries; for China the form was adapted to focus on the research system of the municipality of Shanghai. The compilation of the information followed different processes in different countries. Study team members took responsibility for data collection based on document review, interviews with key stakeholders (ministry and research council officials and senior researchers), and their own knowledge of the NHRS in their country. Study team members were either Ministry of Health officials, members of the academic community in the country or COHRED staff members. The Pacific Island Initiative was undertaken as a regional study and data was compiled by the study team in collaboration with the Health Research Council of the Pacific country focal points. Following data compilation, the information collected was validated by ministry officials or in the case of Lebanon and Qatar study team members. The NHRS Mapping Form consists of more than twenty questions describing different aspects of a NHRS providing a structured template around which a common set of information describing the governance and policy framework for health research in a country and the key institutions involved in commissioning, producing and using health research can be compiled. Due to the broad range of possible responses on these issues, information is collected in the form of open-ended questions requiring narrative responses. These responses were subsequently coded by the authors. To ensure valid interpretation, coding was performed by one author and then independently reviewed by a second. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion, involving members of the national study team where necessary. To examine the relationship between the three components of national governance and policy frameworks for health research chi-squared tests were conducted using the Yates statistic and the Fischer Exact test where expected cell values were too small. In coding, two principles were observed. First, the focus of the analysis was on structures, policies or statements dealing with the national research and health research systems as opposed to specific parts of the system e.g. institutional policies or governance structures. Second, data abstraction dealt with formal systems and not ad hoc or occasional examples of good practice. The following definitions and distinctions were used to guide coding. NHRS governance structures are concerned with the relationships, systems, processes and rules for making decisions within the system. They provide the structure through which the objectives of the system are set, and performance and achievement of these objectives are planned, executed, monitored and evaluated. Countries differ in the models of research system governance that they employ, in this article these have been classified as councils, committees or commissions that deal all fields of research, termed general structures, those that deal with health or medical research specifically, health structures, and models in which a number of bodies play a role (i.e. multiple structures).


105

A policy framework for health research can be composed of a series of specific polices regulations or pieces of legislation. Formal plans or strategies providing national direction for the health research system were considered as constituting a health research policy. Such plans could be part of broader policy documents, for example focused on health, research, science and technology or national development. In such cases, these documents were classified as health research policies if they had significant health research content, as opposed to the simple identification of health research as a strategy or priority with no further elaboration. Health research priorities were defined as priorities for health research formally endorsed by the body responsible for general or health research in the country, or by the Ministry of Health. General research priorities were accepted as health research priorities if these included health related topics. III. Outcomes Half of the countries in the sample (n=19) had formal governance structures for health research. For the majority (n=11), these took the form of general structures covering all fields of research with lines of responsibility to Ministries of Science and Technology (S&T) or Offices of the Prime Minister. Four were health research specific structures reporting to Ministries of Health, and four had multiple structures with significant roles for different ministries, Health Education and S&T. Eight counties had developed a policy framework for health research and twenty had set national health research priorities. Statistically strong relationships were identified between the three NHRS components of governance structures, policy and priorities. All eight countries is this study that had developed a health research policy also had an established NHRS governance structure (p=0.003); however, eleven of the nineteen countries with governance structures had not developed a health research policy framework. A total of seventeen of the nineteen countries with governance structures had set health research priorities (p=0.001); three countries had set health research priorities but had not established formal governance structures for health research. No country with a health research policy had failed to identify priorities for health research (p=0.003). A total of twelve countries had identified health research priorities, but had not developed a wider policy to guide health research development. IV. Future perspectives Many low- and middle-income countries have major gaps in their governance and policy frameworks for health research. Only half of the sampled countries have established governance structures for health research, and less than half of these governance structures have put in place a policy framework to guide health research development, though they were more successful in identifying research priorities for their countries. The summary suggests a close relationship between governance structures and the development of policy and priorities for health research; a relationship which should be confirmed by further research. Whilst this finding may not be surprising, this is the first study to document such a


106

relationship, and the information can help national decision makers plan health research system development in their countries. The findings support the importance of establishing a governance and management structure to drive development and implementation of a policy framework, an important component of which will be a rigorous process health research priority setting. The paper demonstrates that NHRS Mapping Studies provide a useful first step on the road to NHRS development identifying gaps in system infrastructure that can in a short period of time inform system development needs and priorities. The scope of this study was to describe the existence of health research governance and policy frameworks in a sample of mostly low- and middle-income countries. It was not able to go further to examine whether these foundations of a national health research system increase the effectiveness, efficiency and quality of health research outputs, or their impact on health and socio-economic development. This question should be a future research priority for the field. V. Partners BAHRAIN: Dr Jamal Alsayyad. CAMBODIA: Dr Vonthanak Saphonn. CHINA: Prof Jie Chen, Ms Du Li. FIJI: Dr Jan Pryor, Dr Zac Morse, Dr Shirley Prasad, Dr Makeleta Koloi. JORDAN: Dr Mai Saob. KAZAKHSTAN: Dr Bakhyt Sarymsakova. KUWAIT: Dr Abdulaziz Khalaf Abdullah Karam. LAOS: Prof Bungong Boupha. LEBANON: Dr Salim Adib. MALAYSIA: Dr Maimunah abt Hamid, Dr Nordin Saleh, Dr Azman Abu Bakar, Dr Tahir Aris, Ms Low Lee Lan. MONGOLIA: Dr Badrakh Burmaa. OMAN: Dr Asya Al-Reyami. The PHILIPPINES: Dr Jaime Montoya, Ms Merlita Opena. QATAR: Dr Naser Ali Asad Al-Ansari. SAUDI ARABIA: Dr Tawfik A.M. Khoja, Dr Mohamed S. Hussein, Dr Abdullah M. Al-Bedah. TRINIDAD&TOBAGO: Dr Dan Ramdath, Ms Nicole Hunt, Dr Donald Simeon. TUNISIA: Dr Hassen Ghannem, Dr Noureddine Bouzouaia. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Dr Abdullah Al-Naimi. VIET NAM: Prof Le Vu Anh, Dr Tran Huu Bich, Dr Le Thi Kim Anh. YEMEN: Dr Tarek Salah Asaad. WHO: Dr Alaa Abou Zied, Dr Reijo Salmela, Dr Rebecca de los Rios.

* * *


107

John Arudo Lecturer, Aga Khan University, Nairobi, Kenya e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Health research governance and policies in low-income countries Desiré Kamanzi Independent Consultant Kigali, Rwanda e-mail: [email protected] Ronald Kamau Aga Khan University Nairobi, Kenya e-mail: [email protected] Andrew Kennedy Senior Research Officer, Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED) Geneva, Switzerland

e-mail: [email protected]

Research Interests: Dimensions on knowledge systems: Health research policy, priorities and governance in low-income countries

Research Summary N°38 Health research policies and priorities in nineteen

African low-income countries Institutions: 1: Aga Khan University (AKU) East Africa 2: Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED) Summary I. Background A Health Research Policy Framework (HRPF), which is a cornerstone of a functional National Health Research System (NHRS) and effective priority setting or needs assessment, has been identified as a key component of such frameworks. A Health Research Policy Framework (HRPF) is essential for the development of demand-driven research or innovation systems in health (Commission on Health Research for Development, 1990; Feachem, 1989; Henshall, 1997) and science and technology more generally (Efron, 2002; OECD, 2003; Rath, 2005; Watson, 2003). Given the limited resources available to fund research, a process of priority setting assesses where research funds can best be allocated for maximum benefit, and the need to set priorities applies equally to high-, middle- and low-income countries.






108

Without a defined health research agenda, researchers and research fundraisers are unable to align their work with the health and development needs of the country. In low- and middle- income countries, this can lead to donor rather than demand-driven research agendas, where the research effort of the country can produce little research to inform decision-making in the health sector. (Ali, 2004; COHRED, 2007). Few systematic assessments have been undertaken of health research priority setting in low- and middle-income countries. The COHRED Working Group on Priority Setting reviewed processes and methods employed in priority setting efforts from the Caribbean, Guinea, Nicaragua, the Philippines and Uganda, (COHRED, Working Group 2000) and emphasized the need for wide stakeholder involvement and transparent decision-making processes if priority setting was to produce a demand-driven agenda focused on equity in health and development. In a study on national health research system development, Kirigia and Wambebe (2006) looked at the African Region in more detail but found data collection from ministries of health difficult, with responses from just ten to forty-six countries. The objectives of this study were therefore to identify which low-income countries in Africa have developed policy and priorities to guide health research development. III. Methodology To collect information on policies and priorities for health research in African low-income countries, a survey of key country informants was undertaken through face-to-face or telephone interviews between April and August 2008. Mindful of the problems with data collection encountered by Kirigia and Wambebe (2006), a step-wise approach to data collection was undertaken. Ministries of health, or the ministry or agency (e.g. research council) responsible for health research were contacted by research team members at Aga Khan University (AKU) in the first instance, with the official responsible for research in the ministry targeted where possible. If the ministry was unresponsive, the following were contacted by the team in order: firstly, senior officials at a research council or equivalent; secondly, the WHO Representative in the country; thirdly contacts of the research team in the country; and finally, senior researchers in the country, identified as the first author of an abstract listed in PubMed Central (PMC) with an affiliation to a national institution. These sources either responded in person or facilitated response from a government or agency official. If the respondent from the ministry indicated the country had an officially adopted a set of health research priorities policies and governance structures a reference and a copy of the document was requested. For non-ministry sources, verification was sought from a third party. IV. Outcomes This paper reports work in progress from nineteen of the thirty target countries: Burundi, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, United Republic of Tanzania, Zimbabwe. Data collection has proved particularly difficult in western and Francophone Africa and is ongoing in: Benin, Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritania, São Tome and Principe and Togo.


109

Five countries of the nineteen countries Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Senegal, and Sudan have developed national health research policy frameworks. The overriding goal for each of these countries is health research capacity building. Apparently, in the 1990s there was a lot of health research priority setting activities but it was Ethiopia and Sudan that carried this further, and developed policy frameworks to guide health research. The remaining three countries formulated their policies after 2006 though for Gambia and Ghana, the policies are still in draft form. Ethiopia health research policy was formulated by Health Department of National Science and Technology agency which is under the Ministry of Science and Technology. Health Research Priority (HRP) setting was reported by eleven countries out of the nineteen (60 per cent). These are Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sudan, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. Tanzania and Kenya have priorities but no health research policy framework. The formal list of priorities of Tanzania was developed by the Tanzania National Health Research Forum which is a national consultative forum which gives advice on national HRP setting. The Tanzanian list of priorities is formally incorporated in National Health Policy. Kenya has also set its own HRP under the auspices of National Centre for Health Research and Development (NCHRD), again a consultative forum with a Secretariat at National Science and Technology Council but the priorities have not been incorporated in the National Health Policy. Countries that did provide the list of priorities were: Eritrea, Malawi, Niger, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe. Ghana is in the HRP setting process while Guinea Bissau, Sierra Leone and Somalia have not set national HRP. Ethiopia, Mali, and Tanzania have made their Health Research Priority (HRP) list available and accessible on the internet. Participatory approaches were used in setting the HRP in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mali, Senegal, Sudan and Tanzania. In Mali the HRP are derived from national health priorities and are covered in the PRODESS which is the equivalent of national health sector strategic plan. In all the countries mentioned, consultative meetings and workshops took place with different stakeholders such as government ministries, research councils, research institutions, universities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), donors, local professional associations and community representatives being involved. The Senegalese approach seems to be outstanding as the consultative approach was used for each priority area. Although the countries had planned for regular reviews such as Tanzania (3-yearly), Mali (5-yearly), no country reported having reviewed their Health Research Priority (HRP). All the countries with HRP had established Essential National Health Research (ENHR) systems assisted by COHRED. However, health governance differs from one country to the other. For example, whereas Sudan has a Directorate of Research in the Ministry of Health (MoH), Zimbabwe has a National Health Research Institute as the main research governance body while Tanzania has the National Institute of Medical Research. These are agencies of MoH. On the other hand, Ghana has the research unit under the Ghana Health Services in MoH. In contrast, Kenya and Malawi have liaison desks at MoH but overall governance of research is with the Ministry of Science and Technology agency. Ethiopia’s overall responsibility of health research is in the Health Department of the National Science and Technology Council – an agency of the Ministry of Science and Technology. Those with departments dealing with matters of health research as components of information management and planning within ministries of health are Eritrea, Gambia and Rwanda.


110

V. Future perspectives Few of the sampled countries have developed policy frameworks for health research. But more than half have set health research priorities. Where priorities have been identified these overlap with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) focus of the international health research community on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis (TB), Malaria and Maternal and Child Health, but extend far beyond this to include health systems research, non-communicable diseases, pharmaceutical research and traditional medicine (Gambia), among others. However, most of the countries which have set the priorities have not updated them which may be explained by the lack of a wider regulatory framework for health research. The data collection process used the Health Research Web website, which hosts basic information on health research systems for low- and middle-income countries to identify key contacts in ministries, universities and research councils. The current exercise of data collection provided an opportunity to validate and verify the information contained on the site as well as current problems facing information gathering on health research in Low-Income Countries (LICs) in Africa. Although the website provided the lead in identifying the institutional e-mail address or telephone contact addresses of potential respondents, e-mail requests for information were rarely acknowledged and landline contacts, for example for Ethiopia, Madagascar, Malawi and Nigeria, went unanswered. The use of secondary contacts to facilitate access to relevant contact persons was more successful in particular with the WHO Country Representatives of Gambia, Nigeria, Sudan and Somalia and from the research team’s contacts in Kenya, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Zimbabwe. Increased interest in countries’ participation was facilitated by the face-to-face contacts with ministry officials and senior researchers at regional meetings focused on health research capacity strengthening. As suggested in an earlier study (Kirigia and Wambebe, 2006), relevant ministries responsible for national health research should facilitate access to information on the policy framework for health research in their countries. Availability of such information will provide a cost-effective means of knowledge sharing among researchers and donors. Such information will encourage better coordination and increased effectiveness of donor programmes and the opportunity for better alignment of donor programmes with local health needs and national priorities. References Commission on Health Research for Development. 1990. Health Research: Essential Link to Equity for Development Commission on Health Research for Development. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press. Council on Health Research for Development. 2000. COHRED Working Group on Priority Setting. 2000. Priority Setting for Health Research: Lessons from Developing Countries. In: Health Policy and Planning, 15(2): pp.130-136. Feachem, R.G.; Graham, W.J.; Timaeus, I.M. 1989. Identifying Health Problems and Health Research Priorities in Developing Countries. In: Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 92: pp.133-191. Feron, E. and Crowley, J. 2002. Internationalization and Governance of Research. In: Innovation; 15: pp.279-305.


111

Health Research Web. 2007. Health Research Web: Information on National Health Research Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Geneva: COHRED. [updated 10 October, accessed 19 November 2007] Available from: http://www.cohred.org/HealthResearchWeb Henshall, C.; Oortwijn, W.; Stevens, A.; Granados, A.; Banta, D. 1997. Priority-Setting for Health Technology Assessment. Theoretical Considerations and Practical Approaches. Priority-Setting Subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS Project. In: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 13: pp.144-85. Kirigia, J.; Wambebe, C. 2006. Status of National Health Research Systems in Ten Countries of the WHO African Region. BMC Health Services Research 2006; 6: p.135. Nadia, Ali.; Casey, Hill. (2004). Key Factors Influencing Health Research Agendas in Cuba, Cameroon, Gambia, Lao PDR, Nicaragua, and the Philippines. http://www.cohred.org/publications/recordpapers/COHRED%20RP5%20FactorsInfluencingNationalHealthResearchAgendas.pdf. OECD. 2003. Governance of Public Research. Rath, A. and Barnett, A. 2005. Innovations Systems: Concepts, Approaches and Lessons from RNRRS. In: Synthesis Study No.10. The Policy Practice Limited, Brighton. Watson, R.; Crawford, M.; Farley, S. 2003. Strategic Approaches to Science and Technology Development. In: Policy Research Working Paper 3026. Washington: World Bank, 2003.

* * *

Irena Kuzmanoska Consultant Educational Specialist, Saggitarius Ltd, Skopje, Macedonia e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Research Interests: Dimensions on knowledge systems: Research governance and policies, investment in research Zoran Popovski Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Food, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, Macedonia e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected]

Research Summary N°39 Rethinking governance: trends, policies, policy options

Summary The discussions regarding the role of the state and the modes of governmental problem-solving in public sectors like higher education have come to the forefront of the Macedonian reform agenda. This shift in the national context can be analyzed through the lenses of the respective reforms in the higher education sector and research and their impact on the relationship between the government and higher education. The modification thus becomes viable from the new governance approaches and institutional arrangements in the form of governmental steering at a

http://www.cohred.org/HealthResearchWeb

http://www.cohred.org/publications/recordpapers/COHRED%20RP5%20FactorsInfluencingNati






112

distance and stakeholderism, extension of institutional autonomy and market-like steering in higher education; these come to feature prominently with the new style of governance and management frequently advocated as the ‘new public management’. However, the Macedonian world of governance of higher education and research is undergoing enormous reforms and this reform agenda can usefully be viewed in the context of the following methodological dimensions comprising the study:

(1) Corresponding mechanisms to Burton Clarks’ (1983) triangle – authority, oligarchy of academics and market forces i.e. competition for resources.

(2) Hierarchical self-guidance of universities by their leaders (Shimank et al., 1999; Leišytè, 2007).

(3) Stakeholders (Enders, 2002; Leišytè, 2007). The study comprises an analysis of the policy process based on a framework as analytical tool thus addressing a broad set of factors deemed important at different aspects of policy making in the higher education, science and research area. The analysis has been conducted while the authors were in the capacity of higher official in the leadership team of the Macedonian Ministry of Education and Technical Assistance/Consultancy respectively. The findings, suggestions and recommendations are reflected and referred to in the Government’s main policy documents.

1.1 From government to governance – the levels of interaction Changes in the co-ordination of the public sector, in particular the external and internal governance of higher education sector and research indicates the shift “from government to governance” (de Boer et al., 2007). The inheritance of one the most noted socialist experiments, the self-governance model and the degree of independence of faculties in former Yugoslavia and later in the Republic of Macedonia, posited the university as a whole lying somewhere between a voluntary association and a confederation (Clark, 1983; Clark, 2004). This lays the foundation for the analysis. The analysis of the higher education and research governance system and the changes utilizes Clark’s triangle as a point of departure. In relation to the triangle of co-ordination where “the extreme of one form and a minimum of the other two, and locations within the triangle represent combinations of the three elements in different degrees” (Clark, 1983:142), the model provides insights into the power balance of the state, the universities and the market. The changing role of the state and its actual involvement in higher education is further analyzed through the “facilitator state” and the “interventionary state” (Goedegebuure et al., 1993). The latest development of introduction of market mechanisms and competition is a novelty as a steering concept. By clearly formulating the objectives for support of establishment of private universities and highlighting the economic potential in attracting world-renown universities to open their branches in the country, the Macedonian Government started moving beyond this public service rhetoric by introducing quasi-market arrangements in higher education. Commercial notions like responsiveness to the market place, management, efficient and effective operation are frequently used in discussions between education policy and research policy. In brief, particular national answers in terms of specific domestic problems, whether these relate to the deliberate introduction of market mechanisms and competition, and the infusion of necessary corporate culture in terms of the new regime of ‘strategic science’ have found their way into the political agenda.


113

1.2 The changing scene of higher education institutions and the national innovation system

Blurring separate domains such as state, society, market, culture and science itself leads to the breaking down of boundaries and the differentiation between institutions such as universities, government and industrial or business organizations (Henkel, 2002). The following factors: (a) fiscal pressure – supplementation of governmental with non-governmental revenues and; (b) congenial pressure on universities from governments and the industry sector to develop applied research and make available education in forms of delivery congenial to companies and public sector organizations (Gibbons, 1998; Kuzmanoska and Piperkoski, 2008) are among the few that form the context for the main lines of science policy for the coming years. Given the trends towards fiscal austerity and need for revenue diversification, financial stringency seems to be both unavoidable and indispensable. Until recently, the politics in general, was not convinced of the social return of the public R&D expenditure and consequently the Macedonian scientific world and other interested groups had to invent more practical approaches than the usual statements about the scientific research and technological advancement. Accepted policy measures aim to:

(a) Increase of investments in R&D – different ministries will be encouraged to adopt the goal of investing 1 per cent of the GDP to be invested in R&D till 2010 (Ministry of education and science, 2006; Government of Macedonia, 2007).

(b) Budgetary funds for science, R&D of benefit for the private sector. (c) Encourage and support science through fiscal policy – the Ministry of Finance has to

facilitate the process of implementation of new taxation regime for SMEs that will foster the R&D investments (Ministry of Education and Science, 2006; Government of Macedonia, 2007).

The growing debate as to what extent Macedonian higher education and science are expected to change their modes of knowledge production thus emphasizing the importance of ‘problem solving’ approaches linked to the greater dissemination of knowledge capabilities throughout the economy and society, has brought into the spotlight the blurring borders between fundamental research, applied research and development, the supposedly established borders between public and private research as well as between public institutions but also with industry and other knowledge producers in society. The specific conditions under which knowledge is generated within public-sector research and transferred to other sectors of society are also being questioned. The convergence and crossing-over of three worlds which were once very separate, has brought into play the ‘triple helix’ model of interaction between industry, government and universities. The ‘triple helix’ interaction process has been represented by three factors or levels, the: (1) actors; (2) institutions and (iii) rules and regulations, the linkage which warrants closer scrutiny (Viale and Ghiglione, 1998). The analysis in the study further develops more focused approach for the characteristics of ‘actors’ – the ‘micro-level’ and the institutions and the ‘meso-level’ in terms of “academic entrepreneurship”. The concept of ‘academic entrepreneurship’ covers pursuing entrepreneurial activities including contract research, technical consultancy, knowledge transfer, external training and activities devoted to ‘wealth creation’ through university spin off companies, patenting and licensing to existing firms.


114

These liberal policies have led to a flurry of initiatives, such as science parks and centers of excellence as identified signs of setting up ‘hybrid agents of innovations’. The feasibility studies point towards the potential for starting up at least two science and business parks where production of software and other IT related parts and equipment will take place. Given the geographical location of the country, the starting point for the Centres of Excellence will be in the promotion and the support in the science technology and innovations in the areas of molecular biology, software etc. However, with those trends, a lock-in may occur, in which institutions and activities at different levels of the research system get aligned and a new regime emerges (Rip, 2002). The evolution of the ‘triple helix’ entails accomplishment of the connection between internal and external policy, promotion of the ‘triple helix’ interaction and appropriate internal governance and mediation mechanisms that need to be created at institutional level (Kitagawa, 2005). The focused analysis of the evolution of the ‘triple helix’ model further goes to the rules and regulations – the ‘macro-level’ that enables the balance between the incentives for commercial and academic activities conducted by academics through the normative framework and financial incentives already that are already in place. In this respect, the analysis of the new governmental policies gives a telling account of policy modification as a backdrop against which a number of policy issues were analyzed. The development and adoption of the new law on scientific and research activities, the law on encouraging and supporting technology development, the law on industrial and intellectual property protection, supporting regulations on award and distribution of funds for research projects, better promotion and use of the EC programmes available for Macedonia, all aim at contributing to changes that will reduce the bureaucracy by streamlining the regulations, cutting red tape, decreasing legislative barriers and easing the administrative procedures. The Government has adopted the Programme for Research and Science 2006-2010 in 2006 as a platform for action of all involved with science. Active measures for determining the financial, legal and institutional aspects, intensified cooperation of higher education with the industry, pro-active approach in international cooperation and increased participation of the country in the framework and other EU programmes are elaborated. The close examination of the specific regulations set in the Macedonian policy context emphasizes the spatial or organizational impact on the universities. The effective dissemination of knowledge between knowledge institutions such as universities and the private sector thus becomes heavily dependent on certain regulatory factors intellectual property rights (IPR) policy in the public sector, developing new sources of revenue, mediation of the flow of knowledge between the industry and universities by formal licensing agreements and industry-specific public goods (ISPG). It should be noted, however, that the expectations regarding the university patenting and exclusivity in the exploitation of research results may become complicated and controversial, especially regarding the principle of the free dissemination of publicly funded research.

1.3 Future considerations After the static period where the higher education was developing between sets of conflicting goals, the emerging signs at present are that higher education, science and research policy are gaining ground in the political circles. Science can no longer be mediated and regulated through a limited number of bureaucratic or professional institutions, notwithstanding that some of these will persist, but it is also engaged in collaborations, negotiations, debates and conflicts with a range of actors. Increasingly, policy makers sought after introducing non-academic evaluative


115

criteria, such as social relevance and social, economic and environmental impact upon science, whilst research users tend to be incorporated into ex ante and ex post evaluative systems of funding bodies, and in some cases, into the research process itself. References include commodification of scientific knowledge, converting pioneering technology into intellectual property and diversified external and competitive funding. Capacity for profit-making sitting alongside the intellectual reputation puts at stake the role of university leadership and management. The changing relationship of the Government to the higher education institutions formulated new kinds of expectations for institutional governance, leadership and management. The academic middle management is an area which counterbalances the relations between state and the public, between the academics and those they serve and the way clients understand and enact as group with their needs or demands. References Clark, B.R. 2004. Work. In: de Boer et al., (eds.) Higher Education and its Academic Organizations, Part 1, Reader, Twente University: Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS). Clark, B. 1983. The Higher Education System, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: California University Press. de Boer; Enders, J. and Schimank, U. 2007.On the Way Towards New Public Management? The Governance of University Systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany In: Jansen, D. (ed.), New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations – Disciplinary Approaches, Interfaces and Integration, Dordrecht: Springer. Enders, J. 2002. Governing the Academic Commons: About Blurring Boundaries Blistering Organizations, and Growing Demands. In: The CHEPS Inaugural Lectures 2002, Twente University: CHEPS. Gibbons, M. 1998. Higher Education Relevance in the twenty-first Century, Washington, DC: The World Bank. Goedegebuure, L.; Kaiser, F.; Maassen, P. and De Weert, E. 1994. Higher Education Policy in International Perspective: An Overview. In: Goedegebuure, L. et al., (eds.), Higher Education Policy in International Perspective: An International Comparative Perspective, Oxford, New York, Seoul and Tokio: Pergamon Press. Government of R. Macedonia. 2007. Programme for Development of Entrepreneurship, Competition, Innovations of small- and medium-term Enterprises 2007-2010. Session of the Government 21 March 2007, Skopje: Government of Macedonia. Government of Rep. Macedonia. 2006. Programme of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia (2006-2010). Skopje: Government of the Republic of Macedonia. Henkel, M. 2002. Current Science Policies and their Implications for the Concept of Academic Identity. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Science, Training and Career; Changing Modes of Knowledge Production and Labour Markets, CHEPS, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands, 21 and 22 October, 2002. Kitagawa, F. 2005. Entrepreneurial Universities and the Development of Regional Societies, a Spatial View of the Europe of Knowledge. In: Higher Education Management, Special Issue Entrepreneurship, Vol. 17. No. 3. Paris: OECD, pp.65-89.


116

Kuzmanoska, I.; Piperkoski, I. 2008. The Choice of Scenario for the University – Rethinking or Hollowing out Policy, Proceedings of the 11th Toulon-Verona Conference on Excellence in Services, Florence, Italy, 4 and 5 September 2008. Leišytè, L. 2007. University Governance and Academic Research, Case Studies of Research Units in Dutch and English Universities. Twente University: CHEPS. Ministry of Education and Science 2006. National Programme for Research and Development in the Republic of Macedonia for the Period 2006-2010. Skopje:Ministry of Education and Science. Rip, A. 2002. Strategic Research, Post-modern Universities and Research Training. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Science, Training and Career; Changing Modes of Knowledge Production and Labour Markets, CHEPS, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands, 21 and 22 October 2002. Schimank, U.; Kehm, B.; Enders, J. 1999. Institutional Mechanisms of Problem Processing of the German University System: Status Quo and New Developments. In: Braun, D., and Merrien, F.X. (ed.,). Towards a New Model of Governance for Universities? A Comparative View, London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Viale, R. and Ghiglione, B. 1998. The Triple Helix Model: A Tool of the Study of European Regional Socio Economic Systems. In: The IPTS Report 29, retrieved www.jrc.es/home/report/english/articles/vol29/REG1E296.htm.

* * * John Paolo R. Rivera Assistant Lecturer, Centre for Business and Economic Research and Development, De La Salle University, Philippines e-mail :[email protected]; [email protected] Research Interests: Dimensions on knowledge systems: Human resources Tereso S. Tullao Jr., Ph.D., Professor, Director of the Centre for Business and Economic Research and Development e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Research Interests: Dimensions on knowledge systems: Human resources

Research Summary N°40 The Philippines: Impact of temporary labour migration on the demand

for education: implications on human resource development

Summary Overseas employment has been part of Filipino households’ lives. Approximately 8 million Filipinos overseas are permanent residents, temporary workers, or irregular migrants. The majority are temporary workers known as Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW). Although, there are

http://www.jrc.es/home/report/english/articles/vol29/REG1E296.htm






117

some who leave the country for tourism and other purposes, they eventually overstay, seek employment, and become irregular workers overseas. The contributions of overseas employment cannot be underestimated. For over three decades, what started as a temporary alternative for growing unemployment domestically, overseas employment has become a part of the culture of Filipino families. The remittance income received by households has improved their standards of living and social status in the community. At the macro-level, the remittance inflows of over US$14.4 billion in 2007 represented more than 20 per cent of the country’s exports receipts and had contributed in the stability of the peso and more recently in the appreciation of the currency. An interesting impact of temporary labour migration is its effects on education demand. This is essential because the phenomenon of temporary external migration is pervasive; the private sector is prominent in providing educational services; enhanced educational expenditures have positive effects in improving human capital; and the effect of temporary migration on education have implications on the country’s human resource development Hence, it is interesting to study the extent of the effects of temporary migration on the demand for education and evaluate its impact on the country’s human resource development. To trace the magnitude and direction of Philippine temporary labour migration, the data on the annual flows of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) deployed from the seventies to the present day from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) will be needed. From the data, the growth of deployed workers overtime, the direction and changes in major geographical destinations can be traced. Furthermore, we can also identify the various changes in the occupational, educational, and other characteristics of OFWs. (a) Are OFWs moving towards more skilled or less skilled workers? (b) Are OFWs getting more educated or less educated?

To trace the impact of overseas employment on the family expenditures on education, the data on household educational expenditures from the most recent Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) from the National Statistics Office (NSO) will be used. To observe the family expenditures on education, the income source of households will be separated into domestic income source and external income source in the form of remittances. It is interesting to examine whether there is a significant difference in the educational expenditures of those receiving external remittance income and those without remittance income. It is also interesting to test if the elasticity of education expenditures increases with the amount of external remittance. This study assumes that families receiving external remittance are those with members working abroad. Aside from income, other variables were included to explain household educational expenditures such as family size, educational attainment of the household head, and age of the household head.

Initial empirical results derived thorough Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Regression revealed that families receiving external remittances have higher levels of education expenditures compared with households without external remittance income. As the income of families with remittances income increases, they will also increase their expenditures on normal and superior goods and services including education. This result can be attributed to the effect of the culture of migration. Because of the success of their family members in global employment, the other members of the


118

family particularly the young ones may also want to seek employment abroad. Since in the global labour market, the preferred and highly-paid workers are the more educated than the less-educated ones, there is a tendency for families to invest in education as a means of increasing the chances of their family members to seek overseas employment. The other variables included revealed intuitive and significant impacts of household educational expenditures.

The regional and income group coefficients of remittance income elasticity of education expenditure will also be estimated to determine whether it will be consistent with the positive remittance income elasticity of education expenditure estimated for all households nationwide

To trace the impact of overseas employment on the demand for higher education, a demand function for higher education programmes will be estimated using Panel Data Econometrics. The endogenous variable demand for higher education is represented by the level of enrolment for various college degree programmes, while the exogenous variables included were per capita real Gross Domestic Product (GDP), average real remittances, and consumer price index for educational services, together with the dummy variables that will represent the five major degree programmes in the Philippines namely Accountancy, Business, Education, Engineering, and Nursing. Initial results revealed that per capita real GDP, consumer price index for services, and the level of average real remittances have intuitive and significant effects on the enrolment level of the various college degree programmes. Indeed, the possibility of external migration, through the level of average real remittances, has a positive and statistically significant impact on the enrolment of the leading academic programmes.

The strong relationship between overseas employment and the demand for education has major implications on the human resource development of the country, globalization of trade in educational services, redirection of the thrust in higher education, threat to sectors with heavy migration of manpower, and long-term loss to the economy.

In terms of human resource development, the key issue is the readiness of HEIs and graduates, in the Philippines, to respond to global demand. Given the weaknesses of the system of higher education in the country, HEIs may not have the capacity to prepare an increasing number of students seeking enrolment dampening their chances of getting high paying jobs in the global labour market. Thus, the ability of the country to continue supplying manpower across the globe is at risk unless the major problems on the quality of academic programmes as well as academic inputs are addressed.

With the attractiveness of overseas employment, the redirection of the thrust of higher education can lead to the creation of training programmes that cater to the external market, giving less importance to socially relevant academic courses and activities, neglect of basic education, and a long run threat to the entire educational sector. The realignment in the thrusts of HEIs towards instruction for external employment rather than research and graduate education and socially relevant programmes can further weaken the future productivity of Filipino workers in the global market.

As more employment opportunities abroad open up, many local and highly educated professionals may opt to migrate, which is called the phenomenon of ‘brain drain’. It is harmful


119

to the Philippines because other countries will reap the benefits of the education and training provided by the country’s education system. Training their replacements will entail additional costs, with no assurance that these replacements will remain in the country. In line with the issues revealed regarding temporary labour migration, future perspectives will include the need to further improve the management of temporary migration. Although the Philippines has some of the best practices in the management of labour migration in terms of deployment and protection of workers, what is lacking is the mechanisms of addressing the potential impact of temporary labour migration on education and other sectors in the long run.

There is also a need to address the negative consequences of labour migration on the impact on human resource development. There is a need to study the feasibility, efficiency and equity of taxing migration flows particularly on individuals that are highly skilled and highly educated. This revenue can be redirected to fund the negative externalities and negative impacts of temporary labour migration. Specifically, it can be directed towards the improvement of education and the industries that were displaced as a result of temporary worker emigration A challenge to the management of temporary labour migration is the redirection of remittance income towards income and employment generation so it will not encourage external migration and arrest the negative consequence attached to it. Moreover, if the government cannot control migration flows and the propensity of people to seek external employment, there should be more investments in education and health and other human capital enhancing expenditures to increase the competitiveness of our workers in the global labour market.

* * *

Krishna Praad Acharya Research Office, Department of Forestry Research and Survey, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Research governance and policies, tensions, dynamics and challenges in natural resource management


Who benefits from research on collective action in natural resource management: Where is accountability?

Summary The importance of forestry research has increased with the growing awareness of the ecosystem services of trees and forests. Forestry research has the responsibility of providing useful and updated information for the management of declining forest resources, not only to local users or policy-makers but also to global knowledge systems. With the advancement of collective action in resource management, approaches such as community forestry, the scope and coverage of research in natural resources has been expanded significantly. A range of researchers from individuals to the institutions representing local to global communities are involved in the



120

research process as a means of exploring the dynamics of resource management. The nature of the research varies from individual case studies to metadata collected at the global scale – for example International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) and the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR_PEN). The first objective of research on collective action in natural resource management should be to help local people to manage this resource in a sustainable manner and so to improve their livelihoods. The enhancement of the knowledge system on a global scale should be a second priority. Traditionally, it has been claimed that research in developing countries has largely failed to meet its objective or to respond to the challenges of sustainable forestry development. This is due to insufficient understanding of the need for balance and links between the capacity in the national forestry research institutes and the scale of the broader development issues. However, the proposition in this summary is that the main reasons for the failure of the research on collective action in natural resource management are due to:

(1) Lack of community ownership in the research; and (2) Lack of sharing research findings with the local community.

The summary further proposes that these outcomes are due to:

(1) Lack of ethics in research; and (2) Lack of accountability of researchers and funding agencies.

The existing research process has raised various questions such as:

1. Do local people know the purpose of the research? 2. Is the research useful to the local community? 3. Do the local people know that their data will be published by the researcher, if so where and why? 4. Who owns the data? 5. Have the researchers ever returned to the village to share research information? 6. Can local people access the findings published in international journals? 7. Do local people have the ability to understand the published information?

All these questions lead towards the following two basic issues: I. Who owns the research? Who benefits from the research? These two questions can be answered by developing an appropriate governance structure for the research and by defining a clear benefits-sharing mechanism for the outputs from collective action research. Patents should be shared between the communities which provided information and the companies and journals which benefit from them. Ways of addressing the issues of research ownership and of obtaining benefits from collective action research require the radical reshaping of the whole institutional and political framework within which natural resources research is taking place. The emphasis should be more on collaboration and empowerment strategies. In specific contexts, the focus needs to be on the generation of research processes and programmes that are more closely related to the realities of the poor in the field and that are better able to accommodate the diverse knowledge and experiences of different stakeholders, including the poor and marginalized.


121

This research summary is based on case studies from Nepal. The field data were collected from five community forest user groups who are responsible for the collective management of common pool forest resources. In addition, the research reviews various sources of collective action research such as academic theses and international journal papers. The review was focused on investigating ethical issues, notably whether or not the research findings were shared with the local community and what benefits were gained by the latter group. Finally, a Key Informants Survey was conducted to obtain expert advice on the issue at community and national levels. The study found that, from the beginning of the research design, there is an absence of accountability with regard to the local people. The research issues are not based on local needs. There is a weak relation between collective action institutions and researchers. There is looting of the data and information for the career advancement of the researchers and for ultimate ownership by private companies. The summary provides evidence that collective action research is characterized by improper process and unethical behaviour. It was found that data sets are not shared with local communities, nor are they maintained by the institutions managing collective resources. The summary identifies the research stakeholders and critically examines their role. It presents the process by which local information is given to the global elite research community or to private companies. The unequal tripartite relationship among the three key groups of stakeholders is also analysed It is argued that the global theft of local people’s knowledge through copyright is similar to bio-piracy in registering bio-diversity. The summary argues for the development of a system called knowledge credit similar to bio-diversity credit where the data-providing community should benefit from their knowledge in cash. It was very interesting to note that the central concept of this research was to contribute to the enhancement of the local livelihoods of poor and marginalized communities. Local people cannot benefit from collective action when the information is not shared with their communities but rather published in inaccessible international journals in a language which is not understandable to them. Research, which aims to maximize social welfare is demonstrated to be a false principle in natural resources research. The dilemma is that local people, even their own elites, do not know anything about journals and the publications. It indicates that collective action research is being increasingly protected for its intellectual property rights and for commercialized research results by publishers and funding agencies. Public funding institutions appear similar to private firms in this respect. The summary proposes clear guidelines for collective action research, awareness raising at community level and advocacy for these objectives. Research design must incorporate a process which ensures its usefulness to those who provide data. II. In conclusion The summary concludes that research which aims to obtain desirable outcomes via collective action has failed both in the creation and application of new knowledge and also in new applications of existing knowledge in relation to improving the livelihoods of local people. Due to this failure in the delivery of research findings, development problems are not addressed. Appropriate mechanisms to develop basic ethical values and governance frameworks for the research process must be found. The role and funding policies of the donor community must be redesigned to generate research benefits at local level. This is a top priority. In this way,


122

collective action research will be more sensitive to emerging new global ecosystem services such as carbon trading. Above all, collective action research should always be accountable to the local community.

* * *

Kazbek Toleubayev Ph.D. Researcher, Wageningen University, the Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] Research Interests: Dimensions on knowledge systems: Research governance and policies, human resources, funding, investment in research.

Research Summary N°42 Kazakhstan: The impact of political and socio-economic

changes on scientific research Summary The author is a Research Fellow at the Research Institute for Plant Protection (RIPP) in Kazakhstan and currently, in collaboration with Technology and Agrarian Development Group of Wageningen University, the Netherlands, conducting Ph.D. research: “Plant protection perspectives in Kazakhstan in the context of the post-Soviet agrarian changes” with fieldwork in Kazakhstan. The Research Institute for Plant Protection (RIPP), Almaty, Kazakhstan RIPP is a main leading and co-ordinating scientific centre for all research in the field of plant protection in Kazakhstan. The main mission of the Institute is elaboration of integrated, ecological safe systems of crop protection against pests, agreeable to the principles of diversification, the new forms of governance and the modern technologies in crop production. Technology and Agrarian Development (TAD) Group, Wageningen University, the Netherlands The TAD research is located at the crossroads of Development Studies and Science and Technology Studies (STS). It explores the role of food- and agriculture-related science and technology, in and between societies, across the world. The overall aim is not simply to show that there is interaction between science, technology and social processes, but to explore differences in knowledge claims, conflicts over resources, diverging models of development, access to (and lack of access to) knowledge and technology. I. Relevance of the study The relevance of my study is the lack of a systematic, sociological understanding of the nature of the changes in agricultural research, plant protection, and farming systems after the break-down of the centrally planned Soviet economy in Kazakhstan. The focus on one particular field of agricultural research and practice as crop protection serves as an instructive case for exploring the



123

wider issue of the post-Soviet changes in agricultural sector closely intertwined with historical context. II. Future perspectives It is expected that output of this research will attract the attention of the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan, agricultural researchers and farmers in Kazakhstan. International donors such as the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), UNESCO, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and others, which are running or intend to run development programmes in the farming sector and agricultural research domain in former Soviet republics, including Kazakhstan, will also be interested in the results of this research. III. Research methodology I have employed an in-depth qualitative account to study microprocesses in the context of two different political and economic formations to generate data for comparative analysis. More specifically, I used a technographic approach to locate the technical facts within the social space and to find out how people develop ideas and strategies and give meaning to the practices they are involved in. Interpretation of data of the specific case study followed the type of reasoning of the extended case method, as well as the use of general agronomic knowledge on crops, pest organisms, and crop protection measures. I conducted in-depth interviews with farmers, agricultural researchers and ex-researchers, research managers, plant protection practitioners, university lecturers, local authorities, policy-makers, and service providers. Literature, archival documents, scientific reports, and press coverage were reviewed and the data from these different sources were cross-checked. IV. Summary of the relevant chapter of my dissertation for the seminar One of my dissertation chapters is on the “Agricultural Research System (ARS) in Kazakhstan” with a case study on plant protection research entitled ‘Agrarian science in transition in Kazakhstan: Plant protection research before and after the collapse of the Soviet Union’. For the last seventeen years, the research community in Kazakhstan has been experiencing severe crisis following the collapse of the Soviet scientific establishment. It is difficult to find a social status in Kazakhstan that dropped so low in social hierarchy as the status of the scientists.

In the Soviet past, science was a public good. However, it seems recent Science and Technology (S&T) policy measures in Kazakhstan are not able, or do not intend, to sustain science as a public good in the neoliberal market environment.

Before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the agricultural research institutes in Kazakhstan played an important role within the National and All-Union agricultural research and production systems. At present, there is no clear niche for these public institutes either in academia or farming sector because in the conditions of rapid post-Soviet changes there is a problem of institutional adjustment for the research enterprises in Kazakhstan. The Government is still considering where to place and how to sustain these research institutes.


124

Since the Kazakhstan economy has grown from 2000 onwards, the Government has tried to help to overcome this failure through various incentives and funding mechanisms. Science acquired strategic priority in the national policy. In the meantime, the Government has undertaken reforms to break up with paternalistic role of the state and has asked the scientific community to prove its efficiency in the market economy. Several questions have emerged. On the one hand:

(i) Has the scientific community perceived and acknowledged this new level and quality of the state support?

(ii) Could scientists overcome nostalgia about the past system? On the other hand: (a) Have reformers of science in Kazakhstan thrown out the baby with the bath water? (b) Do these reforms ignore positive elements of the past academic system? (c) Do these reforms impose new forms of research in the expense of content?

In this chapter, I argue that plant protection research must remain a public good as it was in the Soviet past. I have several reasons to support this argument. First of all, national food security is at stake and research on highly harmful pest organisms, including quarantine ones, is carried out exclusively by plant protection researchers. Secondly, the development of environmentally benign pest control measures resolves several problems such as reducing pesticide use polluting environment, pesticide poisoning at application, and pesticide residue in food affecting people’s health. Thirdly, commitment and considerable resources are necessary to finance these longstanding initiatives so that they benefit society and only the state can afford this. At the same time, the Government in Kazakhstan is really pushing the agricultural research enterprises, including the Research Institute for Plant Protection, to commercialize their research outputs, to market them to end-users, and in the future, to become self-sufficient.

A range of pest organisms is very broad, from highly destructive migratory pest-insects to crop diseases causing plagues and epiphytotics across vast cropping areas. Imagine these pest organisms recognizing no frontiers between farm fields and destroying crops. Here, the role of plant protection research is crucial to continuously study these pest organisms and develop ecologically benign and environmentally safe preventive and/or protective measures against them. Thus, benefits from plant protection research are not exclusive. If one farmer benefits from such a public good, this will not affect its cost, nor does this reduce the benefits to others. Can plant protection research continue to function, cope under pressure from neoliberal market forces and incentives provided by the pesticide industry, from requirements to commercialize research outputs, and from reforms towards privatization of the scientific domain in Kazakhstan?

The comparison of plant protection research in Kazakhstan under two different political and socio-economic systems reveals tremendous impact on science caused by transition from the state-centred Soviet to neoliberal market economy. After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, reforms and restructurings in the scientific domain in Kazakhstan followed one after another. The issue here is whether overall national S&T policy and more specific agricultural R&D policies in Kazakhstan could help the Agricultural Research System (ARS) to get out of the protracted crisis. Planned earlier and semi-implemented initiatives and reforms by the Government do not seem to improve the situation in science. Hardship of the transition period and incoherent reforms


125

in science made the research community pessimistic and sceptic about current initiatives undertaken by the Government. It seems that numerous proclamations of policy-makers do not make sense for the scientific community anymore, such as:

• Science will become again prestigious. • Scientists will become one of the highly-paid labour categories. • Budgetary expenditure for science will increase manifold. • Scientific domains will become attractive for young people.

There are claims by policy-makers that hundred of millions of US$ are allocated for R&D. However, so far, the reduced research community does not see this money either through substantial salary increase or in the improvement of their research facilities. Today, seventeen years after collapse of the Soviet Union, there are only theories and plans following one after another to increase the efficiency and welfare of scientific community. However, the problem is that researchers need to feed their families today and it is unlikely that they can wait another five years when these promises might become true.

* * *

Professor Josué Cortés Zárate Research Engineer, University of Veracruz, Mexico e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Research Interests: Innovation systems, higher education, engineering and innovation, international cooperation

Research Summary N°43 Innovation Microsystems: an alternative for developing countries

with weak knowledge and research systems Summary Innovation Microsystems is a strategy and also a new research field, inspired by the fact that we should have research policies in our countries regarding the new international context and the transition to an open market economy and into the knowledge society. In the past, one of the many mistakes made by politicians in developing countries, characterized by weak research and knowledge systems, has been to choose the implementation of foreign models based on different levels of integration and interaction among the components of these systems.




126

Why do developing countries not take advantage of globalization? In this new era of ‘openness’, more than ever before, knowledge is widely available. So, countries like Mexico should seek their own relevant approaches instead of following the paths of the most developed countries, meaning doing basic science, forming scientific and technological human resources and publishing. Developing countries should take advantage of the so-called ‘global pool of knowledge’ and the increasing ‘global brain circulation’ to do something useful for their citizens that is something economically and socially relevant which increases competitiveness and creates wealth that could be translated as better living standards. This is the first part of the strategy proposed that could be carried out with a combination of public, private and international funding. The second part has to do with creating a new platform to strengthen research and knowledge systems in developing countries by finding ways of increasing links and interactions among universities, SMEs (which constitute more than 90 per cent of the industrial sector), I&D centres and government, and by fostering new forms of organizations (e.g. Innovation Microsystems) which are both quick, flexible and temporary communities and learning and international systems at the same time. In the new international context, it is mandatory that local knowledge sources should be connected to the global system of knowledge. The research is part of a project of the Administration Sciences Doctoral Program at National Polytechnic Institute (IPN) in collaboration with the University of Veracruz and FESI (The International Higher Education Foundation, a ten-year old NGO based in Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico with a large national and international academic network) and the state Government of Veracruz. Areas of study and practice are: (i) internationalization; (ii) innovation and (iii) networks of innovation. Research methodologies selected were case studies and grounded theory. One of the main findings to date is that research and knowledge systems do not exist in Mexico. The components may exist but these are operating in an isolated manner. Thus, the big amounts of money invested by the government are to a great extent a waste of resources, with low economic and social impact on the population. Future projects are to have a map of innovative capabilities in the different Mexican regions and to study public higher education institutions’ research and knowledge systems.

* * *


127

PART II POSTER PRESENTATIONS

Dr Graciela C. Riquelme Facultad Filosofía y Letras, Institute of Research in Educational Sciences (IICE). Education, Economics and Labour Programme (PEET) Natalia Herger and Ariel Langer (PEET) Argentina e-mail: [email protected] / [email protected]

POSTER PRESENTATION N°1

Argentina: Capacity of teachers and researchers to produce and circulate knowledge: Case of three universities

Summary I. Concerning PICTR00013 and the interview method The Project ANPCYT PICT Redes 00013 (PICTR00013) [Inter-universitary Research Project PICT Redes 00013: “The Universities faced with social and productive demands: the promotive role and the capacity for intervention. The answers for reorientation and curriculum change” (ANPCyT/FONCyT). Terminated in 2007. Director: Dr Graciela C. Riquelme. Project integrated by the Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA), Universidad Nacional de Misiones (UNaM) y Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata (UNMdP). Head Office: Education, Economics and Labour Programme in the Institute for the Research in Educational Sciences, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Universidad de Buenos Aires] was carried out by the Universities of Buenos Aires, Misiones and Mar del Plata, and oriented towards assessing its ability of intervention, in local and provincial contexts, in order to meet the demands of society as a whole, as well as those of the Government, and the economic sector. To this end it was important to understand: (i) how knowledge is produced, generated and reproduced in the academic world; (ii) the linkages within the academic sphere and the connections with other national and international centers; (iii) relationships with the economic sector, the state and with governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as the new social movements that are now emerging; and (iv) the role of the network that links researchers, centres and academic institutes, domestic and international, in strengthening working groups in these universities. II. Comparing profiles of research, teaching and extension groups in the three universities Shown below are some results attained from the analysis of the interviews carried out in all three universities participating in the PICTR00013 Project. Special emphasize was put on the profile traits of the interviewed groups.




128

(a) Segmentation by type of activity of interviewed groups First, segmentation is presented of interviewed groups, which has been very useful to understanding much of their behaviour: the already mentioned “Groups’ Activity Typology”. First identification was made of the four basic functions that universities must fulfill, and for that reason, the constitution of their research groups: Research (R), Teaching (Te), Extension (E) and Transfer (Tr) One of the most important elements is the way the Teaching category (Te) was processed. All the interviewed groups fulfill their teaching tasks (which take up at least 20 per cent of total working hours). Notwithstanding this fact, many of them do not consider ‘Teaching’ as their main activity. Thus, in the UBA case, we find that there are groups that organize their activities mainly around Research (R), Extension (E) or Research and Extension(R+E). In UNMdP the same scenario is present, even if the totality of this node’s sample is explicitly aimed at groups which, though they carry out their teaching duties, do not organize their activities around this function. On the contrary, we have the example of the UNaM, where the majority of the groups gather around the teaching role. Another element that caught our attention is the absence of the Transfer (Tr) function, because a decision was made to join it to the extension role. This fact is notable because, in the interviews, both functions appear continuously intermingled, and the dividing line seems to have been arbitrary. Nevertheless, the groups fulfilling one or the other function will be noted in the analysis that we will make. Besides, it is necessary to note that this situation is due to the general confusion existing about the meaning of those two words (Riquelme, 2008, Chapter 12, and Working Paper No. 6). We presented a compared analysis crossing two of the categories defined: type of activity and faculty where the groups belong. This intersection allows discussing the existence of a pattern of operation of the groups, according to the field of science into which they work or, even, due to the institutional culture of each faculty and/or university. A very clear situation in the UBA is that, in the ‘Exact and Natural Sciences Faculty’, the great majority of the groups have research as the dominant function. However, this situation is not found in the UNaM and the UNMdP. In the latter one, the groups pertaining to segment R belong mostly to Agronomic Sciences, Architecture and Economic Sciences Schools. These segments, in turn, are more linked to activities of the type R + Te in the UBA. In the UNaM we find again the dominance of the teaching function, even in faculties with a long researching tradition, as the ‘School of Exact, Chemical and Natural Sciences’. On the contrary, we can observe the situation in the ‘Humanities Schools’. In the UBA, this has a high component of extension, which is not so important in the other nodes. (b) Segmentation by seniority of the interviewed groups Another of the segmentations takes into account the seniority or trajectory of groups, which permitted to bring together the researchers and the teachers according to their career length: long (‘senior’) or short (‘beginners’). The rest of them are gathered in the ‘intermediate’ category. Although in the UNaM the scarcity of data is quite high, we can assert that the proportion of beginner, intermediate and senior groups of all three nodes is similar.


129

This is due to the fact that one of the goals of the interview was, precisely, to acknowledge the variations existing among groups with a different degree of consolidation.

Source: Interviews PICTR00013. When crossing the variables ‘group seniority’ and ‘faculty’” it is found that, in the schools with longer tradition in research, there are groups with longer trajectories (i.e. ‘Exact Sciences and Medical Sciences’ in Buenos Aires as well as ‘Exact Sciences and Engineering in Mar del Plata’). This scenario of permanence is surely linked to the ability of the institutions and the groups for fund-raising in order to guarantee their stability. For the same reason, it is not surprising to see that newer groups are placed in faculties which, in the last years, seem to be strategic for each geographical area (Engineering in UBA, Forest Sciences in UNaM and Psychology in UNMdP). On the other hand, in all three nodes, it is observed that the greater proportion of young or developing groups focus their activities on teaching and extension, probably due to the impossibility to raise funds to do research. Thus, we conclude that, when groups manage to overcome the threshold of the five-year permanence, they begin complementing their normal tasks (teaching and extension) with research work. Finally, the already consolidated groups (having fifteen or more years of continuity) show a striking dispersion in types of activity. Apparently, the reason is that they are apt to choose, more easily or freely than younger people, the spheres of specialization. (c) Feminization degree Another of the sectors in which we have gathered the subjects of this research is their composition by gender. In this aspect, we have found that, more and more, science is a “girls’ thing”. In the analysis of the total universe of groups, we detected a fact that repeats itself in all three nodes: the groups with a majority of women are predominating. When we link this information with data about seniority of groups, we observe that the newest ones replicate this feature to a further extent. In other words, the process of ‘science feminization’ is under way.

-

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

Beginners Intermediate Senior n/a

Graph 1. Groups’ Seniority (UBA-UNaM-UNMdP)

Total UBA

Total UNaM

Total UNMdP


130

Source: Interviews PICTR00013.

Obviously, the process to which we refer does not predominate in all faculties. The Engineering degrees are mostly sought by males anywhere in the country, and exactly the opposite happens with the degrees in the sphere of Human Sciences and especially in Psychology. However, we also find that the ‘feminization phenomenon’ is growing, in general, in fields that were not traditional for women, such as the Exact and Natural Sciences and Economic Sciences. In the case of Agronomical and Veterinarian Sciences, Architecture and Medical Sciences, we observe a greater balance in all three nodes. It is important to note that the groups where we found a larger quantity of women are often directed by a woman. Project PICT Redes 00013 (FONCyT-ANPCyT) Researchers: Graciela C. Riquelme, Ph.D. (Node UBA). Emilce B. Cammarata, Ph.D. (Node UNaM). María Inés Pacenza, M.Sc. (Node UNMdP). Website: www.filo.uba.ar/contenidos/investigacion/institutos/Iice/Econoedu/proyredes/index.htm

* * *

-

0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40 0,45 0,50

More than 50% women

50% women

Less than 50% women

n/a

Graph 2. Feminization Degree (UBA-UNaM-UNMdP)

Total UBA

Total UNaM

Total UNMdP

http://www.filo.uba.ar/contenidos/investigacion/institutos/Iice/Econoedu/proyredes/index.htm


131

Vishwas Saxena Research Consultant, National Institute of Administrative Research, Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussmmoorie, India e-mail: [email protected]


India: Model to enrich knowledge systems for generating research aptitude in teacher education: A Standing Operation Procedure (SOP)

Summary Knowledge systems today are oriented towards providing concepts. These concepts are structured in such a way that they are not cohesively linked to address an abruptly emerging problem in the field of application. Conceptual abundance within the knowledge system prevents the user from innovating, experimenting and exploring by him-self/her-self. Consequently these systems fail to ‘inculcate research aptitudes’ among their users. As a result, enriched with conceptual details, the concerned stakeholders work well in theoretical situations but are lost with the slight departure from this area. In middle-income countries such as India this problem is recognized and many efforts have been made to counter it. This has led to making the role of R&D (research & development) a specialization in various domains. A considerable degree of success has been attained in the industrial and scientific fields. Nevertheless, to enable ongoing knowledge systems to generate explorative human resources capable of finding solutions in their areas of interest, still remains a challenge. In the present situation, an urgent need has arisen to refine knowledge systems so as to produce human resources who can do precisely this. This necessitates a Standing Operation Procedure (SOP) to induce research skills and explorative competences in the field of higher education (HE). Methodology Reviewing the enormous amount of work carried out in the field, it can be deduced that research aptitude is basically innate. However, it can also be inculcated to some extent by igniting the urge to ‘quest’ and ‘explore’ among learners at the higher education level and by following a series of operations known collectively as a standing operation procedure (SOP). This procedure is directed by the ‘indicators of investigative aptitude’ some of which are listed below:



132

Ability to view a problem through different dimensions: • Constantly high morale. • Research Insight. • Capacity to experiment. • Skill to collect problem-related information.

• Sharp observation. • Spirit of inquiry. • Dissatisfaction with the existing research system.

Using these indicators, an SOP was prepared which included the following activities to be incorporated in the knowledge system i.e.:

• Information Collection Task (ICT): an individual or group is given an assignment to collect all information connected with an issue or event. • Project the Problem Solution (PPS): here a set of problems are given to learners who are asked to brain storm for the possible solution. • System Appreciation Test (SAT): a mechanical processor scientific phenomenon is shown to the learners and they are asked to sketch its dynamics. • Record and Reporting (RART): a running experiment is shown to the learners and they are asked to record their observation and prepare their reports.

This SOP design was shared with various institutions of higher learning in the following manner:

1. Selection of Institutions of Higher learning (e.g. Education, Science, Engineering, Medical Science and Humanities).

2. Pre-Test to assess Research Aptitude. 3. Induction SOP for a pre-decided period. 4. Post-Test.

To carry out this SOP, various agencies like research institutions, NGOs and private research bodies became research partners. The SOP demonstrated an identified change in the skills of students and in their learning. Their attitude to conceptualized knowledge converted to applied applications and to noting the outcomes of learning were improved. As a next step, it would be very advisable if this procedure be adopted as from the school level so that the urge to explore converts into ‘experimentation and self-learning’.

* * *


133

Dr Alis E. Oancea Department of Education and Institute of Ageing University of Oxford, United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected]


United Kingdom: Current discourses and practices of research assessment and beyond:

assumptions and problems

Summary Over the past few decades, research evaluation (in a more generic sense) has become increasingly institutionalized at the national and international levels, more stratified (more than one evaluation layer for each individual unit of research), and specialized (evaluation requires specific expertise and is becoming more professionalized). As argued elsewhere on the basis of a six-country comparison (Oancea, 2007), these developments happened against the background of several problematic trends, including:

- Performance-based allocation of research funds (on the basis of externally-defined indicators).

- Pressure towards increased transparency and accountability. - Institutionalization of research evaluation (e.g. in the form of national research

assessment exercises and national research quality boards). - Mismatch between economic and strategic, and professional and academic, indicators in

the assessment of research. - Diversification and variation of modes, criteria, procedures, and agencies of research

evaluation. - De-sensitivisation of research evaluation to disciplinary and local differences. - Increasing reliance in research assessment and allocation of funding on technical,

bordering on instrumental, definitions of research quality and capacity, as well as of evaluation itself.

- Leaning towards peer review in micro evaluations (evaluations of research teams, individual researchers, projects, proposals, outputs, and outcomes) and towards metrics in evaluations at the meso (evaluations of organizations, research units, and of programmes of research) and macro (evaluations of national and international research systems, or of disciplinary and multi/interdisciplinary development) levels.

Despite hopes to the contrary among various circles, including much of the United Kingdom (UK) research policy arena, there is no ‘best’ assessment technique to support the variety of judgments and decisions about research across a range of public contexts, from funding, to publication, to recruitment and promotion of researchers, to use and development, etc. For example, peer review helps ensure the stability of a field and a healthy balance between tradition and innovation; enables independent professional judgment (from politics and public); and stimulates excellence by filtering out weak proposals. At the same time, (a) it may falsely presuppose agreement on what constitutes good research in a field or cluster of fields; (b) it may overemphasize theoretical and methodological



134

solidity, to the detriment of certain modes of research, such as developmental research; (c) it tends to be a conservative process (not as good for mediocre projects); (d) it may suffer from technical ‘faults’ (such as a network effect in choosing ‘peers’; potential bias – e.g. due to competition, halo effect/‘Matthew’ effect – blind review as illusory; breach of confidentiality; plagiarism/leaks; low predictive power for impact); and (e) is costly (time investment at high levels of seniority). Similarly, bibliometrics have their merits, such as their usefulness in mapping a field or in positioning an institution; their meaningfulness at higher levels of aggregation; the ease with which they can be managed and fed into decision-making; and the degree of sophistication that comes with the possibility of normalization by field and type of output. However, they also come with many problems, such as the fact that measurements of productivity and popularity do not necessarily approximate quality; their low disciplinary sensitivity, particularly for the social sciences; the fact that patterns of publications and citation vary among countries, disciplines and in time, as well as idiosyncratically; the potential for strategic use of the indicators by those evaluated, etc. A particularly well-documented set of problems comes with using these indicators out of the context of their original production, e.g. from field or journal to judgments about individual researchers; see, for example, criticisms of the ISI database and essential science indicators, such as those about the selection of publications; Anglo-centrism; incompleteness and disproportion between disciplines; exclusions – books, conferences, electronic publications etc.; calculation of indicators – e.g. of the impact factor using two-year windows; inconsistencies when details change, and so on. Furthermore, problems with citation behaviour further limit the use of these indicators; these problems may include abusive citations (e.g. mutual citations within networks); selective citation (not all sources are cited); erroneous citations (sometimes even up to half the references in a paper may be wrong or incomplete); self-citation; negative citation etc. Finally, economic and financial metrics are useful for monitoring investment in research for: backing funding decisions; supporting forecasts and feasibility studies; encouraging focus on research that is of public interest; facilitating stable and concentrated funding and transparency in reporting and allocation of funding; accurately gauging certain types of outcomes of research, in particular in relation to applied and technological research.

They do however have limited accuracy in relation to basic research and: (a) may leave out wider societal benefits of research; (b) are open to strategic use by those evaluated; (c) may draw on an incomplete understanding of research and of the relation between research quality, productivity, and added value; (d) may place undue emphasis on what is (economically) measurable and tangible; (e) may lead to volatile, rather than more stabile, funding; and (f) may affect the nature of research (e.g. leading to volume inflation), as well as that of teaching, administration, employment patterns, and university policies. Over-technicalization of discourses about research assessment is likely to exacerbate the tensions and problems inherent in any assessment technique. In this process, questions that really matter are neglected, such as:


135

• What are the likely consequences of focusing on the fine-tuning of techniques and criteria to objects (and the reverse), rather than on the limits of the discourse from which these techniques emerge? • How can socio-cultural, historical and philosophical aspects of research assessment be recognized and contribute to enhanced evaluative practice and research policy? • What discursive alternatives are available to the idea of getting the technologies ‘right’ (i.e. of making them effective, controllable, and in perfect fit with their object)?

Answers to such questions will not come from the currently popular search for the elusive technically ‘perfect’ fit between research outputs and environments and evaluation mechanisms and techniques. I argued elsewhere for a neo-Aristotelian interpretation of excellence in research and for a more nuanced understanding of ‘good research’ and of the tensions underpinning this concept and its use (Oancea, 2009). Instead of focusing exclusively on ‘quality assurance’ and assessment; on quantification, measurement and ranking of performance; and on hierarchical relationship between modes of research, it may be more appropriate to concentrate on nurturing excellence, or virtue (epistemic, technical, and phronetic, to use Aristotle’s terms) in research, to support practical deliberation and critical judgment, and to accept the complexity of the entanglement between research and practice/policy. In other words, the discourse of technologization of research evaluation may be disrupted by accepting that judgments about research need to remain plural, flexible, and democratic: that is, that they need to be more akin to a conversation than to a trial. References Oancea, A. 2007. From Procrustes to Proteus: Trends and Practices in the Assessment of Education Research. In: International Journal for Research Methods in Education, 30(3), pp. 243-269. Oancea, A. 2009. Key Issues in Research Quality. Report to the ESRC/BERA Strategic Forum for Research in Education.

* * *


136

Victorita Trif Lecturer at the University of Bucharest/Faculty of Psychology and Education Studies/ B-dul Iuliu Maniu no.1-3, Leu, Corp A, Etaj v, sect. 6, Bucharest, Romania e-mail: [email protected]


Romania: Sharing knowledge systems in higher education as a result of

psychological reglobalization, University of Bucharest

I. Introduction This paper explores several assumptions regarding the sharing of knowledge systems in higher education (HE) in the context of the worldwide capitalistic crisis – bearing in mind that at present it is the gap between the ‘globalized’ and ‘unglobalized’ of the most important geostrategic positions which is a main source of conflict. What is seen to be a problem of knowledge sharing could be, in fact, a possible result of the conflict between rival scientific research ideologies. However, to reconstruct the view on knowledge systems we shall now identify: (i) Lack of globalization worldwide. (ii) Develop a series of key studies concerning the psychological aspect of reglobalization, and (iii) Pilot a design of cultural reglobalization in which the university plays the most important role: constructing/recreating the curriculum around the English meaning of the term ‘culture’.

This philosophical approach might bring to an end the controversial debates concerning the the ‘role of universities in constructing welfare states’. Thought should be given to the unpredictability/predictability continuum keeping in mind that the process of ‘de-valued’ values cannot be anticipated and ‘re-valued’ values cannot be foreseen. We have on the one hand, the “McDonaldization of Society” (Ritzer, 2000), the re-construction of empowerment and accountability in a European fashion, the balance between norms and values in a globalization culture, the computer arts, the use and usage of quality terms for sharing both ‘what gets better’ and ‘what gets worse’, in higher education at national level, first of all proves and determines an uncertain, self-evident future. And on the other hand, critics suggest that the ‘educational market’ of higher education is lacking in substance and is active only through ‘economical and authoritarian management’. It is possible, is it not, that the verb ‘to manage’ has adopted a ‘marketization’ meaning as a result of insecurity and ambiguity generated by globalization (Whitty,1997). Globalization is changing the environment at all levels, local, national, regional and international. Education policy-makers are facing new requirements on education substance, its delivery, its funding structures (UN University, 2003).



137

II. Problem definition In our honest opinion the major problem in higher education, in the context of psychological reglobalization, is therefore: “What Kinds of Thinking Skills are Exercised due to what Kinds of Questions?” (Morgan and Saxton, 1991: p.11). III. Methodology Our major proposal is a reflexive, theoretical and practical survey harmonizing a theoretical preconception of ‘what might be true’ plus ‘inferential statistics’ [Data collected as a result of distribution of Questionnaires, Observation – and the Reading and Writing for Critical Thinking Project (RWCT) techniques]. Accordingly to the view of Postman (1979: p.140): “All our knowledge results from questions”. Which is another way of saying that:

“Question-asking is an extremely important intellectual tool”.

IV. Findings I should, therefore, very much like to elaborate on this theme by asking is it really necessary to “Promote in Higher Education Hybrid Forms of Knowledge”? or to “Appropriate a Reflective and Evaluative Critical Re-examination of Higher Education Curricular, worldwide, in the spirit of the English definition of the word culture”? According to Lawton and Gordon, 1993, the word ‘culture’, in the English language, is often used – in a misleading way – to describe the tastes of the upper classes (probably a minority of the upper classes); in every-day speech ‘culture’ tends to be used to denote ‘high culture’ rather than popular culture, and individuals might be described as ‘cultured’ if they enjoy literature, classical music, art and architecture”. Our hypothesis of redefining and repatterning higher education curricular following the English interpretation of the word culture could be, for this moment in time, the accepted response of cultural reglobalization:

“The Definition of Curriculum as a selection from the Culture of a Society is Uncontroversial – What else could a Curriculum be?”

(Lawton and Gordon, 1993). V. Conclusions To conclude and determine the limitations of these studies on sharing knowledge systems and giving suggestions to future researchers, we ask the following questions: Question 1. What are, in this twenty-first century, the main challenges facing higher education systems in confrontation with the crisis of global capitalism? Answer: Disorientation? Or adaptation to reglobalization? Question 2. How could we design a transformation of academic work? Answer: By hazard, refutation, comparison, reconciliation, valuation?


138

And open questions: Question 3. What kind of serious thinking is this re-designing generating? Question 4. And of utmost importance – what will the financial outcome be for re-thinking knowledge systems in the context of reglobalization? VI. Summing up The aforementioned being said: In this age of changes and challenges strengthening international exchanges and cooperation should be of utmost importance. One of the major errors when describing globalization is that its meaning is obscure with different people using it to denote different processes – sometimes with emotional connotations. Conflicts between cultural differences should be resolved through a process of mutual understanding and internalizing education. Focusing on education systems worldwide should be a major strategy to achieve common development. The following are some possible positive effects of globalization on education systems worldwide: • Globalization could give impetus to the improvement of certain education systems through easier access to information about approaches to education in other countries. • Reduction of knowledge gaps with the introduction of advanced resources: methodologies, information technologies, logistics; globalization could and should improved access to knowledge. • There could be a reduction in education cost by enabling a further expansion of distance-learning approaches. References Lawton, D.; Gordon, P. 1993. Dictionary of Education, London: Hodder & Stoughton. Morgan, N.; Saxton, J. 1991. Teaching, Questioning and Learning, London: Routledge. Ritzer, G. 2000. The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life. Published by Sage Publications Inc. USA: Pine Forge Press. UNESCO/United Nations University. 2003. International Conference on “Globalization with a Human Face: Benefiting All”, Tokyo, Japan, 30 to 31 July 2003. Belgium: J.Verhoeven. Whitty, G. 1997. Marketization, the State, and the Reformation of the Teaching Profession. In: A.H. Halsey et al., (eds.) Education, Culture, Economy and Society. pp. 299-310. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

* * *


139

PART IV AGENDA AND LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

AGENDA Friday, 28 November 2008 09:00 – 09:15 Session I: Welcome Remarks

• Hebe Vessuri, Vice-Chair of the UNESCO Forum Interim Global Advisory Board and Senior Researcher and Head of the Department of Science Studies, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, Caracas, Venezuela • Tomas Kjellqvist, Director for Research, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), Sweden • Mary-Louise Kearney, Director, UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge

Appointment of the Rapporteur General: Merle Jacob 09:15 – 10:30 Session II: Methodologies for the study of knowledge systems

• Moderator: Johann Mouton, Centre for Research on Science and Technology (CREST), University of Stellenbosch, South Africa • Rapporteur: Rose Marie Salazar-Clemeña, De La Salle University, Manilla, the Philippines

Researchers’ Panel: Presentations Ritu Sadana (Switzerland) World Health Organization (WHO) “The WHO Health Research Systems Analysis (HRSA) Initiative“ Arie Rip (the Netherlands) University of Twente “Dynamics of knowledge, research and innovation systems, with particular attention to low- and middle-income countries”

Barbara Iasiello (France) Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

“The global project on measuring the progress of societies” Discussants Philippe Kahutama Mawoko, New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) Ernesto Fernandez Polcuch, UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS)/ Windhoek Office, Namibia

10:30 -10:45 Coffee


140

10:45 -11:30 Researchers’ Presentations Neo Molotja (South Africa) “Measuring science and technology indicators in South Africa: the role of the Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators“ Bajrang Lal (India) “Mapping knowledge systems: emerging concept of innovation management education for global competitiveness” Ellen Hazelkorn (Ireland) “The impact of global rankings on higher education research and the production of knowledge” Michael Kuhn (Germany) “Internationalization of social sciences and humanities and the multiplicity of scientific universalism: How about the developing countries?”

11:30 -12:00 Discussion 12:00-13.00 Plenary Session III: Case studies on knowledge systems: Higher education and universities

• Moderator: Stamenka Uvalic-Trumbic, Division of Higher Education, UNESCO • Rapporteur: Saran Kaur Gill, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia

Researchers’ Panel

Marcela Mollis (Argentina) “Innovative strategies for improving quality of Argentine higher education” Mammo Muchie (Ethiopia) “Research universities as key parts of the research system to eradicate poverty?” Ngoyi K. Zacharie Bukonda (Congo/USA) “Partnerships in support of African higher education and research: challenges for the African Academic Diasposa” Solomon Arulraj David (India) “Globalization and curriculum restructuring in higher education“

Discussion 13:00-14:30 Lunch (Poster Session, Monaco Foyer) 14:30-16:00 Parallel sessions Group I: (Room VI) • Moderator: Jaana Puukka (France)

OECD/International Management in Higher Education (IMHE ) • Rapporteur: Hebe Vessuri (Venezuela) Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas (IVIC) Researchers’ Presentations Claes Brundenius (Sweden), Bengt-Åke Lundvall (Denmark), Judith Sutz (Uruguay) “Towards developmental university systems: normative, empirical and policy perspectives”


141

David Charles (United Kingdom) “How the societal impact of universities can be improved both conceptually and practically” Joseph Gahama (Rwanda) “Higher education research and development in the Great Lakes region of Africa” Ana Julia Bozo de Carmona et al., (Venezuela) “The Bolivarian University of Venezuela: an innovative public policy to link science with development”

Group II: (Room VIII) • Moderator: Tony Marjoram, Engineering Sciences and Technology Section, Natural Sciences Sector, UNESCO • Rapporteur: Philippe Kahutama Mawoko, Office of Science and Technology (ASTII) New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD)

Researchers’ Presentations David Cooper (South Africa) “The university in national development: the role of use-inspired research. Case studies of research groups at universities of the Western Cape, South Africa” N. Phuthi, M.P.D Gundani, I.M. Sibanda (Zimbabwe) “Needs-based knowledge processing through university-community partnerships: Higher education inroads into rural community development in Zimbabwe” Geeta Nair (India), Marc Pilkington (France) “Challenges of reforming higher education in developing nations: Some Indo-French perspectives” Meeta, Rajivlochan (India) “Political interferences in universities: An historical approach”

16:00 – 16:15 Coffee 16:15-18:30 Plenary Session IV: Case studies on knowledge systems: Mapping, analyzing and measuring research capacities and human resources

• Moderator: Carthage Smith, International Council for Science (ICSU) • Rapporteur: Miguel Nussbaum, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Researchers’ Panel Amanda Scoggins, Tom Ling (UK) “Health Research Observatory: providing insights to support evidence-based decision making in the policy and practice of health research” Nienke Beintema (Italy) “Measuring agricultural R&D investment and capacity trends in low- and middle-income countries” Sylvie Didou-Aupetit (Mexico) “La circulation des ressources humaines et des savoirs entre le Mexique et l’Europe”


142

Anant Kamath (the Netherlands) “Analysing the contribution of technical education to India’s Core-HRST: A case study of IIT Madras” Discussion

18:30 Cocktail Saturday, 29 November 2008 09:00 – 11:00 Parallel sessions

Group I: (Room VI) • Moderator: Keith Holmes, SPRU, Sussex University, U.K. • Rapporteur: Rohan Pathirage, UNESCO Institute for Statistics

(UNESCO/UIS)

Researchers’ Presentations Niki Vermeulen (the Netherlands) “Supersizing science: building large-scale research projects in biology” Mohamed El-Faham (Egypt) “International networks to support young researchers: an experience from Egypt” Koen Jonkers (Spain) “Human Resources in Science and Technology: mapping emerging research systems and fields of research” Jingjing Zhang (China/U.K.) “International research collaboration between different universities at a distance: analyzing E-research networks” Group II: (Room VIII) • Moderator: Dana Sheikh, International Association of Universities (IAU) • Rapporteur: Ulrich Teichler (INCHER), Kassel University, Germany Researchers’ Presentations Labib Arafeh (Palestine) “An analytical and comparative study on the Palestinian Research Knowledge National System” Tanveer Kausar Naim (Pakistan) “Mapping scientific research in OIC countries” Ali El Hawat (Libya) “Research priorities in social sciences: the Arab Region” Siti Meiningsih (Indonesia), Nani Grace (Indonesia) “Performance of international scientific publications in Indonesia”

11:00-11:15 Coffee 11:15-12:30 Plenary

Session V: Dimensions on Knowledge Systems (Policies, governance, infrastructure, human resources, research output, cooperation/agreements, and tensions/dynamics)

• Moderator: Berit Olsson (Sida)


143

Forum Interim Advisory Board • Rapporteur: Munir Bashshur, American University, Beirut, Lebanon

Researchers’ Panel

Eli Katunguka Rwakishaya (Uganda) “Building research capacity in developing countries: appropriate models for African universities” Jacqueline de Bony (France/Netherlands) “National culture and research cooperation: A Dutch-French case study” Winston Dookeran (Trinidad & Tobago) “Issues on financing higher education through cost-sharing” Nga Phuong Nguyen (Viet Nam), Matthew Piscioneri (Australia) “Impact of research governance and policies on higher education institution administrators and academic staffs” Discussion

12:30-14:00 Lunch (Poster Session, Monaco Foyer) 14:00-15:30 Parallel sessions: Dimensions on Knowledge Systems

Group I: (Room VI) Moderator: Christina Von Furstenberg, Policy and Cooperation in

Social Sciences Section Rapporteur: Mala Singh, Open University (OU), United Kingdom Researchers’ Presentations Yogesh D. Jadhav (India) “Knowledge systems: the importance of international and local partnerships” Mohir Ahmedov (Uzbekistan) “Governance and policy frameworks for health research in thirty-eight countries” John Arudo, Andrew Kennedy et al. (Kenya) “Health research policies and priorities in nineteen African low-income countries” Irena Kuzmanoska (Macedonia) Zoran Popovski (Macedonia): “Rethinking governance: trends, policies, policy options” Group II: (Room VIII)

• Moderator: Françoise Caillods, International Social Science Council (ISSC) • Rapporteur: Iulia Nechifor, UNESCO/BRESCE, Venice

Tereso S. Tullao, John Paolo R. Rivera (the Philippines) “The impact of temporary labour migration on the demand for education: Implications on the human resource development in the Philippines” Krishna Praad Acharya (Nepal) “Who benefits from research on collective action in natural resource management: Where is accountability?” Kazbek Toleubayev (Kazakhstan) “The impact of political and socio-economic changes on scientific research in Kazakhstan”


144

Josué Cortés Zárate (Mexico) “Innovation Microsystems: an alternative for developing countries with weak knowledge and research systems”

15:30 -16.00 Coffee 16:00-18:00 Session VI. Closing Plenary Moderator: Thandika Mkandawire, UN Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), Chair, Forum Interim Scientific Advisory Board Remarks of the Rapporteur General: Merle Jacob Recommendations for New Research Agendas Discussion and Final Comments Farewell and Departure POSTER SESSIONS (Monaco Foyer) (Friday (13:00-14:30) and Saturday (12:30-14:00) “Current discourses and practices of research assessment in the United Kingdom and beyond: assumptions and problems”, by Alis Oancea (United Kingdom). “Research in open and distance learning; trends and prospects”, by Nayantara Padhi (India). “Knowledge systems to generate research aptitude in higher education”, by Vishwas Saxena (India). “Universities faced with social and productive demands”, by Graciela C. Riquelme (Argentina). “Determination of the technical evaluation of the action autonomy of the third-age person”. By Willy-Cupidon Katosia Lusengi (Congo, R.D.)

* * *


145

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Speakers and authors of research summaries (*authors not present at the Seminar) ACHARYA Krishna Praad Research Officer Department of Forest Research and Survey Government of Nepal G.P.O. Box 9136 Kathmandu, Nepal e-mail: [email protected] AHMEDOV Mohir Senior Lecturer Tashkent Medical Academy Tashkent, Uzbekistan e-mail: [email protected] ARAFEH Labib Associate Professor Computer Engineering Department Engineering Faculty Al-Quds University P.O. Box 20002 Abu Dies, Jerusalem, Israel e-mail : [email protected] ARUDO John Aga Khan University P.O. Box 39340-00623 Nairobi, Kenya e-mail: [email protected] ARVANITIS Rigas Specialist for Innovation and Science policy Institut pour la Recherche sur le Développement (IRD) 213 Rue La Fayette 75010 Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] BEINTEMA Nienke Program Head Agricultural Science & Technology Indicators (ASTI) initiative International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) c/o ESA, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00153 Rome, Italy e-mail: [email protected]








146

BENNEWORTH Paul * Institute for Policy and Practise Newcastle University United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected] BOHÓRQUEZ Amalia * Health System Zulia State Government Venezuela e-mail: [email protected] BONY de Jacqueline Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire pour la Sociologie Economique (LISE) Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) e-mail: [email protected] BOZO de CARMONA Ana Julia Coordinator of Postdoctoral Program on Higher Education Management Rafael Belloso Chacín University Maracaibo, Venezuela e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] BRUNDENIUS Claes Research Policy Institute Lund University Box 117, 221 00 Lund, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] BUKONDA Ngoyi K. Zacharie Wichita State University 1845 Fairmount Street Wichita, KS 67260-0043, United States of America e-mail: [email protected] CHARLES David David Goldman Chair of Business Innovation, Newcastle University Business School Director of the Centre for Knowledge, Innovation, Technology and Enterprise (KITE), Newcastle University City Wall @ Citygate St James Boulevard Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4JH, United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected] COOPER David Michael Associate Professor Sociology Department University of Cape Town










147

Private Bag Rondebosch 7700, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] CORTÉS ZÁRATE Josué Researcher University of Veracruz Mexico e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] DAVID Solomon Arulraj Center for Research in Lifelong Learning and Participation Faculty of Psychology and Educational Science Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Vesaliusstraat 2 Leuven 3000, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] DIDOU-AUPETIT Sylvie Departamento de Investigaciones Educativas Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional (CINVESTAV) C/ de losTenorios 235 Col. Granjas Coapa Mexico D.F., CO04330 Mexico e-mail : [email protected] DOOKERAN Winston Visiting Scholar World Institute for Development Economics Research United Nations University, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] EL-FAHAM Mohamed M. Director Center for Special Studies & Programs (CSSP) Bibliotheca Alexandrina El-Shatby, Alexandria 21526, Egypt e-mail: [email protected] EL HAWAT Ali Professor of Sociology University of Al-Fateh Hay Al-Andulus P.O.Box 6516 Trípoli, Libya e-mail: [email protected]












148

FERNANDEZ-POLCUCH Ernesto Programme Specialist Natural Sciences UNESCO/Windhoek Office Oppenheimer House 5 Brahms Street Windhoek, Namibia e-mail: [email protected] GAHAMA Joseph Kigali Institute of Education B.P. 907 Kigali, Rwanda e-mail: [email protected] GRACE Nani * Centre for Science & Technology Development Studies Indonesian Institute of Sciences Gedung Widya Graha 8th floor Jl. Jend. Gatot Subroto No. 10, Jakarta 12720.Indonesia e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] GUNDANI Morgan Patrick Dube * Department of Sport Science & Coaching National University of Science and Technology P O Box AC 939 Ascot, Bulawayo. Zimbabwe e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] HAZELKORN Ellen Director, Research and Enterprise Dean, Graduate Research School Dublin Institute of Technology Dublin, Ireland e-mail: [email protected] IASIELLO Barbara Global Project Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] IJSSELMUIDEN Carel * Council on Health Reserach for Develoment (COHRED) Geneva, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]











149

INCIARTE GONZÁLEZ Alicia * Universidad Del Zulia Maracaibo, Venezuela e-mail: [email protected] JADHAV Yogesh D. Consultant (Natural Resources Management, Valuation, Sustainability) e-mail: [email protected] JONKERS Koen Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales C/ Albasanz 26-28 E-28037 Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] KAMANZI Desiré * Independent Consultant P.O. Box 1374, Kigali, Rwanda e-mail: [email protected] KAMATH Anant Maastricht Economic and Social Research and Training Centre on Innovation/Technology United Nations University (UNU-MERIT) Keizer Karelplein 19 6211 TC Maastricht, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] KAMAU Ronald * Aga Khan University P.O. Box 39340-00623 Nairobi, Kenya e-mail: [email protected] KENNEDY Andrew Council on Health Reserach for Develoment (COHRED) P.O. Box 2100-1211 Geneva, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] KJELLQVIST Tomas Department for Research Cooperation Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) 105 25 Stockholm, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] KUHN Michael, Director KNOWWHY Ltd Am Weserhang 4 28832 Achim, Germany e-mail: [email protected]












150

KUZMANOSKA Irena Consultant Educational Specialist Saggitarius Ltd. Ivo Lola Ribar 147–1/2 1000 Skopje, Macedonia e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] LAL Bajrang Assistant Director National Productivity Council Regional Directorate Chandigarh SCO-40 Madhya Marg, Sector-7C Chandigarh, India e-mail: [email protected] LING Tom * Director Evaluation and Audit RAND Europe Westbrook Centre Milton Road Cambridge CB4 1YG, United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected] MEETA Rajisvlochan Indian Administrative Service Government of India Semi-Conductor Laboratory Mohali, Panjab, India e-mail: [email protected] MEININGSIH Siti Senior Researcher Centre for Science & Technology Development Studies Indonesian Institute of Sciences Gedung Widya Graha 8th floor Jl. Jend. Gatot Subroto No. 10. Jakarta 12720.Indonesia e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] MOLLIS Marcela Director Comparative Higher Education research group Instituto de Investigaciones Educativas (IICE) Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA) Argentina e-mail: [email protected]










151

MOLOTJA Neo Research Specialist Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators Human Sciences Research Council Private BagX9182 Cape Town 8000, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] MUCHIE Mammo Director Research Centre on Development and International Political Economy Aalborg Universitet Fibigerstræde 2 - 8a DK-9220 Aalborg Ø, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] NAIM Tanveer Kausar Consultant 33 Constitution Avenue G5/2, Islamabad, Pakistan e-mail: [email protected] NAIR Geeta H.R.College Mumbai, India e-mail: [email protected] NGUYEN Phuong Nga Director Centre for Education Quality Assurance and Research Development (CEQARD) Vietnam National University, Hanoi (VNU) 144 Xuan Thuy Road Cau Giay District Hanoi, Viet Nam e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] PARRA-SANDOVAL María Cristina * Universidad de Zulia Maracaibo, Venezuela e-Mail: [email protected] POPOVSKI Zoran * Faculty of Agricultural Sciences & Food Ss. Cyril and Methodius University Skopje, Macedonia e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected]











152

PHUTHI Nduduzo Department of Technical Teacher Education National University of Science and Technology P O Box AC 939 Ascot, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] PISCIONERI Matthew * Room S514, Menzies Bld., Learning Support Unit Faculty of Arts Monash University VIC., Australia e-mail: [email protected] PILKINGTON Marc Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis Nice, France e-mail: [email protected] RAJIVLOCHAN M Department of History Panjab University Chandigarh - 160 014, India e-mail: [email protected] RIP Arie University of Twente Enschede, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] RIVERA John Paolo Center for Business and Economic Research and Development (CBERD) De La Salle University 2401 Taft Avenue Manila, Philippines e-mail: [email protected] [email protected] RWAKISHAYA Eli Katunguka Director School of Graduate Studies and Research Makerere University P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda e-mail: [email protected]











153

SADANA Ritu Coordinator Equity Analysis and Research Information, Evidence and Research Cluster World Health Organization 20 Avenue Appia 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] SCOGGINS Amanda Health and Healthcare Analyst RAND Europe Westbrook Centre Milton Road Cambridge CB4 1YG, United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected] SIBANDA Isaiah Mabutho * Department of Technical Teacher Education National University of Science and Technology P O Box AC 939 Ascot, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe e-mail: [email protected] SUTZ Judith Coordinadora Académica Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica (CSIC) Universidad de la República Jackson 1301-1301 esquina Guaná 11200 Montevideo, Uruguay e-mail: [email protected] TOLEUBAYEV Kazbek Wageningen University TAD 163 The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] TULLAO Tereso * Director Center for Business and Economic Research and Development (CBERD) De La Salle University 2401 Taft Avenue Manila, The Philippines e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected]









154

VERMEULEN Niki Policy Advisor Department of Technology & Society Studies Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Maastricht University, PO Box 616 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] WILDEMEERSCH Danny * Center for Research in Lifelong Learning and Participation Faculty of Psychology and Educational Science Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Vesaliusstraat 2 Leuven 3000, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] ZHANG Jingjing Department of Education University of Oxford 18 Norham Gardens Oxford OX2 6PY, United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected] 1. POSTER SESSIONS KATOSIA LUSENGI Willy-Cupidon Université de Kinshasa B.P. 834 Kinshasa XI, Republique Démocratique du Congo e-mail: [email protected] OANCEA Alis Department of Education and Institute of Ageing University of Oxford 15 Norham Gardens Oxford OX2 6PY, United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected] RIQUELME Graciela Education, Economics and Labor Program Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Educación Facultad de Filosofía y Letras Universidad de Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires, Argentina e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected]









155

TRIF Victorita University of Bucharest Bucharest, Romania e-mail: [email protected] VISHWAS SAXENA 189, Prakash Bhawan, Gulababri, Ajmer 305001, India e-mail: [email protected] 2. UNESCO FORUM INTERIM SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD BASHSHUR Munir Department of Education American University of Beirut Beirut, Lebanon e-mail: [email protected] GILL Saran Kaur Deputy Vice-Chancellor Industry and Community Relations 6th Floor, Chancellory Building Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia e-mail : [email protected] JACOB Merle Director Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture University of Oslo P.O. Box 1108 0317 Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] LUNDVALL Bengt-Åke Aalborg University Fredrik Bajers Vej 5 Postboks 159 9100 Aalborg, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] MAWOKO Kuhutama Philippe Coordinator African Science, Technology & Innovation Indicators (ASTII) initiative NEPAD Office of Science & Technology e-mail: [email protected]









156

MKANDAWIRE Thandika Director United Nations Research Institute for Social Development Palais des Nations 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]

NUSSBAUM Voehl Miguel Departamento de Ciencia de la Computación Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Escuela de Ingeniería - DCC(143) Casilla 306, Santiago 22, Chile e-mail: [email protected] OLSSON Berit Former Director Department for Research Co-operation (SAREC) Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) Sveavägen 20 105 25 Stockholm, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] SALAZAR-CLEMEÑA Rose Marie DLSU-College of Saint Benilde De La Salle University 2401 Taft Avenue 1004 Manila, Philippines e-mail: [email protected] SINGH Mala Center for Higher Education Research and Information The Open University (OU) Walton Hall Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected] TEICHLER Ulrich Wissenschaftliches Zentrum fur Berufs-und Hochschulforschung Moenchebergstr. 17, D- 34109 Kassel, Germany e-mail: [email protected] VESSURI Hebe Head, Department of Science Studies Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Cientificas Apartado 21827, Caracas 1020-A, Venezuela e-mail: [email protected]









157

3. MODERATORS AND RAPPORTEURS CAILLODS Françoise International Social Science Council (ISSC) 1, rue Miollis 75732 Paris, Cedex 15, France e-mail: [email protected] FURSTENBERG von Christina Chief Policy and Cooperation in Social Sciences Section Social and Human Science Sector UNESCO, Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] HOLMES Keith Centre for International Education Sussex Institute University of Sussex Brighton, East Sussex BN1 9QQ, United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected] MARJORAM Tony Engineering Sciences and Technology Section Natural Science Sector UNESCO, Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] MOUTON Johann Director Centre for Research on Science and Technology (CREST) University of Stellenbosch South Africa e-mail: [email protected] NECHIFOR Iulia Programme Specialist (Science Policy & Capacity Building) UNESCO Regional Bureau for Science and Culture in Europe Venice, Italy e-mail: [email protected] PATHIRAGE Rohan UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) C.P.6128, Succ. Centre-Ville Montreal (Quebec) Canada e-mail: [email protected]









158

PUUKKA Jaana Programme on International Management in Higher Education (IMHE) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] SHEIKH Dana Senior Research and Policy Analyst International Association of Universities (IAU) UNESCO House 1 rue Miollis FR-75732 Paris Cedex 15, France e-mail : [email protected] SMITH Carthage Deputy Executive Director International Council for Science (ICSU) 51 boulevard de Montmorency 75016 Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] UVALIC-TRUMBIC Stamenka Chief Section for Reform, Innovation and Quality Assurance Education Sector UNESCO, Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] VIEHOFF Ludger Policy Officer European Commission DG Research - International Cooperation Unit D 2 - SDME 05/54 Square de Meeûs 8 1050 Brussels, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] 4. PARTICIPANTS BACWAYO Kukunda Elizabeth Nile Basin Research Programme UNIFOB Global University of Bergen Nygårdsgaten 5 P.O. Box 7800 5020 Bergen, Norway e-mail: [email protected]








159

BAKER Wallace International Legal Advisor Baker and McKenzie 34 avenue Duquesne, 75007 Paris France e-mail: [email protected] BARAKAMFITIYE Léonidas Nile Basin Research Programme UNIFOB Global University of Bergen Nygårdsgaten 5 P.O. Box 7800 5020 Bergen, Norway BAT-ERDENE Regsuren Director for Higher and Vocational Education Ministry of Education, Culture and Science Mongolia e-mail: [email protected] BATULI-LOMINIKIA Kelly Advisor UNESCO Club of Rural Development P.O.Box 14687 Kinshasa-1, DR Congo e-mail: [email protected] BELLAKHDAR Abdelhak Responsable du Groupe de Recherche et d’Action pour la Formation et l’Enseignement (Grafe). Chef du Département Langue et Littérature Françaises Ecole Normale Supérieure de Meknès Maroc e-mail : [email protected] BERHANU KASSAHUN ALEMU Nile Basin Research Programme UNIFOB Global University of Bergen Nygårdsgaten 5 P.O. Box 7800 5020 Bergen, Norway CASSAIGNE HERNÁNDEZ Rocío Universidad Internacional San Jerónimo 304 Cuernavaca Morelos, Mexico e-mail: [email protected]







160

CIBUNDA-MUTOMBO Thérèse Secretary UNESCO Club of Rural Development P.O.Box 14687 Kinshasa-1, DR Congo e-mail: [email protected] DOH Pascal Samfoga Project Researcher Higher Education Group (HEG) Department of Management Studies University of Tampere Finland DRANZOA Christine Deputy Director School of Graduate Studies Makerere University P.O. Box 7062 Kampala, Uganda e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] ELEMAM Hosam Nile Basin Research Programme UNIFOB Global University of Bergen Nygårdsgaten 5 P.O. Box 7800 5020 Bergen, Norway ELHADARY Yasin Nile Basin Research Programme UNIFOB Global University of Bergen Nygårdsgaten 5 P.O. Box 7800 5020 Bergen, Norway EL RAYES Amani Nile Basin Research Programme UNIFOB Global University of Bergen Nygårdsgaten 5 P.O. Box 7800 5020 Bergen, Norway





161

EVERS Hans-Dieter Centre for Development Research (ZEF) University of Bonn Walter-Flex-Str.3 53113 Bonn, Germany e-mail: [email protected] GAILLARD Jacques Specialist of Science Policy in the Developing World Institut pour la Recherche pour le Développement (IRD) Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] GASKELL Jane Dean Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) University of Toronto 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, M5S 1V6, Canada e-mail: [email protected] HACHICHA Tarek Karlsruhe, Germany e-mail: [email protected] HURRY Sattiavattee Rose-Hill, Mauritius e-mail: [email protected] IBARRA MENDOZA Cecilia Veronica University of Sussex Brighton, BN1 9RP East Sussex, England e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] KAMGA Rachel Service de Coordination de l’Espace Francophone pour la Recherche et le Développement Université de Paris 8, Saint-Denis, France e-mail: [email protected] KOUKI Bessem Sidi Ismail, Beja, Tunisia e-mail: [email protected] LABRIE Normand Associate Dean Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) University of Toronto 252 Bloor Street West Toronto, M5S 1V6, Canada e-mail: [email protected]












162

LAND (van 't) Hilligje Senior Programme Manager International Association of Universities UNESCO House 1 rue Miollis F-75732 Paris Cedex 15, France E-mail: [email protected] LEE Jennifer Technical Officer Department of Ethics, Equity, Trade and Human Rights World Health Organization 20 Avenue Appia CH-1211 Geneva 27 Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] LEWIS Sian Commissioning Editor SciDev.Net 97-99 Dean Street W1D 3TE London, UK e-mail: [email protected] MBOUMBA NZAMBA Carmen Centre de Recherche et d’Etudes Anglophones Université de Paris 10-Nanterre Nanterre, France e-mail: [email protected] MURIISA Roberts Kabeba Nile Basin Research Programme UNIFOB Global University of Bergen Nygårdsgaten 5 P.O. Box 7800 5020 Bergen, Norway e-mail: [email protected] MWIANDI Mary Nile Basin Research Programme UNIFOB Global University of Bergen Nygårdsgaten 5 P.O. Box 7800 5020 Bergen, Norway NGIMBE N’KONDA Jean-Pierre







163

NYHAGEN Atle Nile Basin Research Programme UNIFOB Global University of Bergen Nygårdsgaten 5 P.O. Box 7800 5020 Bergen, Norway OENEN (van) Erik Project Manager ARCADIS Netherlands OLIVEIRA CADETE (de) Manuel Domingos Ministry of Science and Technology Angola e-mail: [email protected] ORDORIKA SACRISTÁN Imanol Director General of University Evaluation Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México México, Mexico e-mail: [email protected] PHILLIPS David Department of Education University of Oxford 15 Norham Gardens Oxford OX2 6PY, United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected] RAROG Yuriy Toronto, Canada e-mail: [email protected] RODRÍGUEZ-GÓMEZ Roberto Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México México, Mexico e-mail: [email protected] SAMIHA SAID SALIM A BAKER Faculty of Administrative Sciences University of Medical Sciences and Technology Khartoum, Sudan e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] SCARINZI Alfonsina Göttingen, Germany e-mail: [email protected]










164

SIMA Rebecca Nile Basin Research Programme UNIFOB Global University of Bergen Nygårdsgaten 5 P.O. Box 7800 5020 Bergen, Norway STRØM Tobias Adviser, Social Sciences NORFACE ERA-NET Division for Science The Research Council of Norway e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] TÉBAR BELMONTE Lorenzo Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] THI HOA Ngo College of Social Scienes and Humanities Vietnam National University Hanoi, Viet Nam e-mail: [email protected] [email protected] VELLADURAI Prema WAAST Roland Directeur de recherche émérite Institut pour la Recherche sur le Développement (IRD) 213 Rue La Fayette 75010 Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] WABO Justin WINKELMANN Hans-Peter Higher Education Expert ACP-EU Cooperation Programme in Higher Education (EDULINK) Management Unit Rue de Treves 45 B-1040 Brussels, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] ZOMPI Simona Technical Suppot Unit (STAO) Médecins du Monde Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected]

164











165

5. UNESCO SECRETARIAT, EDUCATION SECTOR, DIVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Sonia Bahri Chief, Section for International Cooperation in Higher Education ([email protected]) Akemi Yonemura Section for Research and Innovation ([email protected]) Liliana Simionescu Section for Research and Innovation ([email protected]) 6. THE UNESCO FORUM SECRETARIAT Mary-Louise Kearney, Director ([email protected]) Åsa Olsson ([email protected]) Harrison Beck ([email protected]) Annapaola Coppola ([email protected]) Eva Burkhart ([email protected]) Louison Dumaine ([email protected]) Caroline Ljungberg ([email protected]) 7. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL PLANNING (IIEP) N.V. Varghese e-mail: [email protected] Michaela Martin e-mail: [email protected]














166

8. NATURAL SCIENCE SECTOR Walter Erdelen Assistant Director-General for Natural Sciences ([email protected]) Mustafa El Tayeb Director, Division of Science Policy and Sustainable Development ([email protected]) Eduardo Martinez Section for Technology Planning and Evaluation ([email protected]) Julia Hasler Basic Sciences Division ([email protected]) Lucy Hoareau Basic Sciences Division ([email protected]) 9. SOCIAL AND HUMAN SCIENCE SECTOR Paul de Guchteneire Chief, Social Sciences Research and policy ([email protected]) Vincent Maugis Policy and Cooperation in Social Sciences Section ([email protected])

* * *








COHRED – Council on Health Research for Development

Governance and policy frameworks for health research in 38 countries

Dr Mohir Ahmedov, Dr Andrew Kennedy, Prof Carel IJsselmuidenUNESCO Global Research Seminar - Paris, 28-29 November 2008


Political support from government and the other influential decision makers within the NHRS

Conceptual framework: foundations of NHRS development

NHRS governance and management framework

Priority Setting Process

Policy Develop-mentProcess

National Health Research Priorities

Policy implementation driving NHRS development

Implement strategies to align research activity with agreed priorities

NHRS governance and management mechanisms

National Health Research Policy

Source: Kennedy & IJsselmuiden 2007


Objectives

• Primary: – Map the governance and policy frameworks for health

research in selected countries

• Secondary: – Conduct an exploratory analysis examining the

relationships between the components of these frameworks


Methods

• Secondary analysis of results from 6 studies– COHRED NHRS Mapping Form

• Over twenty questions• Aspects: governance structures, policies, priorities, key

institutions...• 38 countries (Africa -5, Central Asia -3, East Asia – 4,

Caribbean –1, Middle East –10, Pacific Island Countries -15)• Sources: MoH, Academia, NGO• Validation: data verified by government officials

• Available from www.cohred.org/NHRSsupport

http://www.cohred.org/NHRSsupport





Results

• National Governance Structures for Health Research - 19 countries (50%)– General S&T structures (11)– Health specific structures (4)– Mixed structures (4)


Governance & Management of Shanghai HRS

MOH MST MOE

SMHB SMSTC SMEC SMPFPC

Independent ResearchInstitutions

Hospitals MedicalUniversities

Institute ofBiological products

The State Council

CAS

Shanghai subsection

Shanghai Academy of Life Science

NPFPC

Source: Chen 2007


Results

• National Governance Structures for Health Research - 19 countries (50%)– General S&T structures (11)– Health specific structures (4)– Mixed structures (4)

• Health research policies – 11 countries (29%)

• Health research priorities – 20 countries (53%)


Relationships between governance structures, policy and priorities for health research (n=38)

Governance structures

PrioritiesPolicy

0

2

11

6

16 countries had no formal governance or policy framework for health research

0

3 (15%)0


Conclusions

• Major gaps in governance & policy frameworks in low and middle income countries

• Results suggest a close relationship between governance structures and health research policies/priorities

• Provides evidence to support COHRED’s model of NHRS development

• Confirmatory analysis with 44 additional countries planned for 2009

• NHRS mapping provides useful information enabling national decision makers to quickly start a process of system development

• The results provide a starting point for a range of further research questions on the effectiveness of governance and policy frameworks for health research


Countries covered

• Africa - Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Mozambique, Uganda, Zambia

• Caribbean - Trinidad and Tobago • Central Asia - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan• East Asia - China (Shanghai), Laos, Mongolia, Vietnam• Middle East - Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman,

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, UAE, Yemen• Pacific Islands - Cook Islands, Federated States of

Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu

Analysing the Contribution of Technical Education to India’s Core-HRSTA Case Study of IIT Madras

Anant KamathPhD Researcher, UNU MERIT

28th November 2008

What this Study is About

India keen on becoming a ‘knowledge economy’

The Indian HRST Paradox and Discordance in the Indian SI

Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IIT Madras) as the case study

An exploration of the mechanisms influencing preference formation of potential science manpower

What this Study Found (I) Findings from the Faculty Level Survey

Brain Drain – study first, eventually settle abroad

Waves:First Wave – IT, ITESSecond Wave – Management

Interests begin in S&T/R&D and drift away eventually, disappearing on placement day.

Many available ‘paths’ from one’s engineering discipline to almost every ‘attractive’ field

Faster recognition and the effect of peer influence

The sad tale of the Biotechnology Department

What this Study Found (II) Findings from the Student Level Survey

The IIT Experience so FarThe CourseThe Internship As long as there are the ‘paths’…..

Placement50% took up S&T/R&D; 34% took up management; 16% took up ITESChanging jobs after a yearOne’s own discretion?

Perceptions on S&T /R&D careers‘The course is the first de-motivator’‘All incentive for creativity is killed from beginning to end’‘No worthwhile opportunity for S&T or R&D in India’Too long waiting periodPre-placement presentations‘Come on, I can do more than this with my IIT training!’

Preference Formation as the Net Effect of Interacting Factors

John Arudo, Ronald Kamau, Desire Kamanzi, Andrew Kennedy

Aga Khan University East AfricaCouncil on Health Research for Development

Objective

To identify the low income countries in Africa that have developed health research policies and priorities to guide health research development

Methodology

Data collection tool – COHRED NHRS: http://www.cohred.org/NHRSsupport






Data collection methods and responsesFace‐t0‐Face Email

Eritrea Chad

Nigeria Cote D’Ivoire

Ethiopia Gambia

Ghana Sierra Leone

Guinea Bissau Somalia

Malawi Rwanda

Mali Togo

Senegal Madagascar

Sudan Liberia

Tanzania

Zimbabwe

Kenya *Not included: DRC & Burundi

Sources of data vs methods of data collectionSource of data Method of data collection

Face‐to‐face Emails BothMoH 4 4 4MoH Agencies 3 ‐ ‐Research Institutions ‐ 3 2Universities ‐ ‐ ‐WHO Country Representatives

‐ 1 ‐

Authors/Senior Researchers

*1 ‐ ‐

University contacts = 3 No data provided; WHO contacts = 4 Countries*Kenya Senior Research

Country Ministry Responsible

Aims

Eritrea MoH

Ethiopia Ministry of S & T To utilize health S&T help improve the health status of the population

Gambia MoH To establish an effective, credible and sustainable health research

Ghana MoH To help build an evidence based health system

Mali MoH

Nigeria MoH

Sudan MoH

Senegal MoH

Countries with health research policies

Country Responsible Ministry/Agency Some of the priority areas

Eritrea MoH Malaria, ARI, TB, STDs/HIV, Diarrhoea

Ethiopia Ministry of S&T Communicable, Nutritional, Maternal/Child Health

Gambia Depart of State for H&SW Quality of health services, Malaria, STIs/HIV/AIDS

Ghana MoH Capacity building, Conduct and dissemination

Kenya Ministry of S&T Health care delivery, FP/MCH, Communicable

Malawi Ministry of S&T Malaria, HIV/AIDS, Trauma, Socio‐cultural issues

Mali ‐ Health systems, Epidemic/Endemic diseases

Senegal MoH Operational research, Malaria, TB/HIV, Training of

researchers

Sudan MoH Health management & admin, MCH, Malaria, TB

Tanzania MoH District health services, Management /M&E,

HIV/AIDSZimbabwe MoH Not Available

Countries with health research priorities

ConclusionMany LICs in Africa have yet to establish national policy frameworks for health research thus widening the gap between the producers of knowledge and the policy makers who need it A number of countries have acknowledged the limitations and are in the process of developing the policies as evidenced by the Algiers Declaration and Bamako Call to Action Information on health research is hard to access and initiatives that facilitate access to such information like HRWeb (www.cohred.org/HRWeb) are useful

http://www.cohred.org/HRWeb




Bajrang Lal(Assistant Director) National Productivity Council, Ministry of Industry and

Promotion and Ph.D. Scholar, Centre for Studies in Science Policy, JNU, New Delhi

At Global Research Seminar: Sharing Research Agenda on

Knowledge Systems, UNESCO Headquarter 28-29 Nov, 2008

Knowledge Economy- Emerging New Business Order(McCarney, 2005, and Wendy Jenson, 2007).

Business & Institutions are under global pressures(APCTT, 1997).

Innovation and Technology Management (ITM) emerged as a key area for Global Competitiveness(WEF, 2007).

Competitiveness and National Innovation System

Emerging ITM Framework

Case Study

Changing Trend -Mapping Knowledge

INDICATORS

Institutions,

Infrastructure,

Health and Primary Education,

Higher Education and Training,

Technological Readiness,

Business Sophistication, and Innovation.

Country GCI Innovation Technological Readiness

Good market efficiency

Innovation sophistication factor

Institutions

Brazil 64 43 56 35 42 98

China 30 29 77 51 32 54

India 50 32 69 47 27 56

S.Africa 45 37 49 31 36 49

Russia 51 48 67 99 73 112

Global Competitiveness Ranking among 134 countries, 2008-9

Source: WEF, Global Competitiveness Report, 2008.

Technical and Non Technical Education Council(11)Universities (374)Management (500)and others

Manpower (7.25 per 1000)

11000 Ph.D. (5000 in S&T)

R&D Centre(1200 in-house &3960

and MNC (R&D 50)

Policy Education (1991)S&T Policy(2003)Industrial Policy EXIM policy, WTO, International S&T and Cultural Collaboration, etc

PromotionInnovation and technology support facilities, TBI, TDB, IPR Cell, SMEs,

training Centre, S&T Park, innovation Centre, funding agencies

joint venture, etc

IndustryPublic and Private SME, Medium(40

% GDP), Large

Socio-economic development

Economy

Feed back

NEW BUSINESS TREND-(APCTT, 1997) highlighted the need of ITM in a regular curriculum.

GLOBAL BUSINESS REQUIRES -Interdisciplinary Approach for ITM - (IAMOT), (ii) (TMEDA). (iii)(PICMET), USA. (iv) (ETMERC),USA. (v) (EITIM). (vi) MOT Consortium in Japan, and Globelics etc

HUMAN RESOURCE CAPACITY BUILDINGSurvey by- Khalil, T. and Garcia-Arreola J. 1997 about 270 academic

program- Technological processes are alone not sufficient to combat challenges effectively in the current polarized techno-economic world, rather the ability to manage these skills is equally important.

David W Birchall, and Malcolm S. Armstrong, 2008, study based on 240 businesses in 7 European countries study clarify systematic understanding is essential

Department of Scientific and Industrial Research(DSIR) promoted ITM through Chair Prof, ship, Course module, training, and research study

ICT ENABLING SERVICES

INNOVATION RANK AMONG PRIORITIES

2007 SURVEY FOR 120 TOP COMPANIES CEOS

BCG India Survey, 2007

30%

61%

9%

0%

top top 3 top 10 not on list

No. Institute name Total study field/units/centre or research groups and ()changing courses

Tile of available field of study in related innovation technology management in respective schools/units/centre

1. Harvard Business school 10(2) Entrepreneurial Management, technology and operation management

2. London Business School, London

9(3) Decision Sciences, Entrepreneurship, Operations & Technology Management, Strategy & International Management

3. Said 10(4) decision Science, operation management, Science technology, and strategic entrepreneurship and international business

4. Stanford 10(2) Operations Information and Technology, Strategic Management

5. Wharton 12(2) Operations & Information Management, Managing Electronic Commerce,

6. Kellogg 17(4) International Business, Real Estate Management, Social , Technology Industry, Management

8. LUMS 8(3) Entrepreneurship, Management Science Work & Technology,and Organisation, Technology & Learning

9. MIT 18(4) International Management, Communication, Corporate Strategy &Policy, History- Environment and Ethics, IT, Operations Research/Statistics, System Dynamics, Technology Innovation and Entrepreneurship,

10 Colombia University Full course program in technology management

11 Manchester Business School

PREST,

Changing Field of Study Top in Selected Global Business School in Universities Schools

Note:- this trend is also seen in science and engineering Schools Source: constructed from discussion, expert view and various websites

Changing Field of Study in top Selected Asian Universities Business Schools

Source: constructed from discussion, expert view and various websites

S.No. Asian school Total study field/units/centre or research groups and changing courses

Tile of available field of study in related innovation technology management in respective schools/units/centre

1. Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad and Calcutta

12(2) Personnel and Industrial relations innovation and entrepreneurship

2. Chinese University of Hong Kong

8(2) Decision Science, entrepreneurship, cyber

3. National Singapure University

5(2) Policy and decision science, management of technology

4. Asian Institute of Technology, Bankok

Master 6(2) Entrepreneurship and Management Development, Entrepreneurship Development

5. Korean Institute of Technology

Full Master and Ph.D Technology Innovation policy

6. United Nation University,

5 (Ph.D programme) Innovation and technological change

I&TM Education in India

• Emerging importance of ITM and its related discipline are well recognized by several studies (DSIR,2008) . • The trend has also been seen in industry, Academic and R&D.• Few Research institutions, companies and business organizations offering short term courses like IPR management, R&D management, product development and market strategies, innovation entrepreneurship, technology forecasting WTO and trade barriers programme.• These institution are also offering training programmes for their executive in innovation management related areas at firm level.

Name institute\

organization\companies

Training programme Name of programme/centre.

IBM Short term training/Research Innovation Management and Technology

Management

AMD R&D and Technology Management Innovation and R&D centre

TATA Groups (Tata management and

consultancy)

Skill up gradation, capacity building in ITM For market demands

Wipro Mumbai Short term training programme Education Innovation entrepureship

BHEL Training programme

GAIL Training programme Innovation and technology

Patni technologies Groups SPARK (Systematic Pooling, Analyzing and

Researching Knowledge)

For new idea generation. Marrketing

Nokia groups Advanced State-of Art Facilities R&D and Technology Management

Ranbaxy Advanced State-of Art Facilities R&D innovation, technology innovation

Division.

CII, (GITA) Small and Medium business enterprises training

programme, industrial competitiveness

Innovation Management and Technology,

Development and promotional programme.

FICCI, Short term training programme Technology Entrepreneurship and

Promotion

Industry/ Organization Facilitating Training Programme in IMTT.

Sources: various institute’s industrial association websites and annual reports

S.N. Name Institutes/University Organization Some Specialized Research/ Education/Consultancy

Centres in Innovation and Technology Management

1. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Centre for Studies in Science Policy

2. IIT Delhi Foundation for innovation and technology transfer

3 IIT SIDBI Innovation & Incubation Centre

4 IIM, Ahemadabad .J. Matthai Centre for Education Innovation

Centre for Innovation Incubation and Entrepreneurship

5 DSIR International Technology Transfer Programme

Technology Management Program

6 Administrative Staff College of India Centre for innovation and technology

7. PSG Institute of Management Tamil Nadu Centre for technology management

8 National Innovation Foundation Innovation traditional knowledge , IPR

9 IISc Bangalore Society Innovation and Entrepreneurship

10 IIFT Centre for International Trade in Technology (Innovation management and

Technology transfer

Some Specialized Research/Education/Consultancy Centre on Innovation and Technology Management in India.

Sources constructed from personnel discussion with expert policy makers various institute website and discussion

Asia-link Programme of European Commission at IIFT(2006-2008).126 /firms/RD/academic institutes contacted for market assessment of IMTT education India,

51 academic, 45 companies 30 R&D and policy institutions.

27% respondent found to engage in IMTT related research and development activities.

Among 27% responded 40 %from R&D organisation 22% industry, 20% policy60 % academic.

Needs to be develop and introduce such courses in regular programme in academic institution and also would provide training to industrial organisation.

National Education System(Monitoring and evaluation)

Specific Specialized centre focus on firm, national and regional level

S&T innovation , economic and social policy development and Industry requirement

Education requirement/demand

Resources allocation decision making and R&D

Basic research Applied Socioeconomic development Growing areas and Traditional area

Competent manpowerTypes of industry (technology)Business portfolio (products)Size (Multinationals,Domestic and Firm)

University/academic institution

Need assessment

Both meet by National education policy

National Education Innovation System

Global Education Competitiveness

External and internal

environment interaction

Traditional and

philosophical approaches

for knowledge development

ITM is new, interdisciplinary academic area that has assumed increasing importance due to the challenge being posed by globalization and rapid technological change and related property regime.The close association and interaction with industry, academic consultancy and governmentFairly strong innovation management systems are evolved or are being evolved. The same at regional, sub-regional levels needs to be strengthened. The local resources and needs should be addressed appropriately.Technical and management institutions should design and introduce ITM related courses, short term and long term to prepare human resources for the industry agriculture and other sectors. Further studies needed.

Measuring Agricultural R&D Investment and Capacity Trends in Low & Middle

Income Countries

Nienke BeintemaAgricultural Science & Technology Indicators

(ASTI) initiative

UNESCO Global Research Seminar: Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge Systems, Paris, 28‐29 November 2008

www.asti.cgiar.org

■ Important to measure and monitor inputs, outputs, and performance of agricultural S&T systems

■ Important tool to assess the contribution of agricultural S&T to agricultural and overall economic growth, especially in low and middle income countries where agriculture remains the main economic sector

■ Also important in light of current global developments in food prices and climate change

■ Agricultural S&T Indicators (ASTI) initiative: Provides internationally comparable information on the investment and institutional environment surrounding agricultural R&D in low and middle income countries

Relevance of agricultural S&T indicators





www.asti.cgiar.org

■ Country‐level survey rounds (with national partners) in about 60‐65 low & middle income countries

■ Covering agricultural R&D agencies at government, higher‐education, and private (non‐ & for‐profit) sectors

■ Time‐series on R&D spending and capacity starting from 1981 for most countries

■ Type of data collected• Researchers by degrees & gender, support staff

• Financial resources (cost categories, funding sources)

• Research focus (commodity, emerging/critical areas)

■ Methodology based on OECD’s Frascati Manual / FAO definition of agriculture

Agricultural S&T Indicators (ASTI) initiative





www.asti.cgiar.org

Public agricultural R&D investmenttrends globally, 1981 and 2000

Developing countries

(38%)

High-income countries

(62%)

1981: 15.8 billion 2005 international(PPP) dollars


(43%)


(57%)






www.asti.cgiar.org

Public agricultural R&D investment trendsin developing countries, 1981‐2000

0

1

2

3

4

5

1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999

billi

on 2

005

inte

rnat

iona

l (P

PP

) do

llars

Sub-Saharan Africa Asia-Pacif icLatin America & Caribbean West Asia & North Africa





Measuring Agricultural R&D Investment and Capacity Trends in Low & Middle

Income Countries

Nienke BeintemaAgricultural Science & Technology Indicators

(ASTI) initiative

UNESCO Global Research Seminar: Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge Systems, Paris, 28‐29 November 2008

www.asti.cgiar.org

■ Important to measure and monitor inputs, outputs, and performance of agricultural S&T systems

■ Important tool to assess the contribution of agricultural S&T to agricultural and overall economic growth, especially in low and middle income countries where agriculture remains the main economic sector

■ Also important in light of current global developments in food prices and climate change

■ Agricultural S&T Indicators (ASTI) initiative: Provides internationally comparable information on the investment and institutional environment surrounding agricultural R&D in low and middle income countries

Relevance of agricultural S&T indicators





www.asti.cgiar.org

■ Country‐level survey rounds (with national partners) in about 60‐65 low & middle income countries

■ Covering agricultural R&D agencies at government, higher‐education, and private (non‐ & for‐profit) sectors

■ Time‐series on R&D spending and capacity starting from 1981 for most countries

■ Type of data collected• Researchers by degrees & gender, support staff

• Financial resources (cost categories, funding sources)

• Research focus (commodity, emerging/critical areas)

■ Methodology based on OECD’s Frascati Manual / FAO definition of agriculture

Agricultural S&T Indicators (ASTI) initiative





www.asti.cgiar.org

Public agricultural R&D investmenttrends globally, 1981 and 2000


(38%)


(62%)



(43%)


(57%)






www.asti.cgiar.org

Public agricultural R&D investment trendsin developing countries, 1981‐2000

0

1

2

3

4

5

1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999

billi

on 2

005

inte

rnat

iona

l (P

PP

) do

llars

Sub-Saharan Africa Asia-Pacif icLatin America & Caribbean West Asia & North Africa





Universidad del ZuliaVenezuela

IDRC CRDI

ResearchResearch Team:Team:

Ana Julia Bozo de CarmonaMaría Cristina Parra-Sandoval

Alicia Inciarte GonzálezAmalia Bohórquez

InstitutionsInstitutions toto whichwhich thethe projectproject isis attachedattached::IDRC, Canada / Universidad del Zulia, Venezuela.

Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela:An innovative public policy to link science with development?

IDRC CRDI Bozo, Parra, Inciarte, Bohórquez

Goals:1. To Describe the UBV

as a new university model in Latin

America.

2. To analyze what the UBV does that is different from the other universities

3. To re-conceptualize the university model oriented toward endogenous and sustainable development


IDRC CRDI

So

urc

e: A

uth

ors

METHODOLOGY

Research Techniques:Research Techniques:

Quantitative: Qualitative:

S & T and HE indicatorsContent analysis of institutional documents,

10 focus groups with universities students

23 in-depth interviews to academic staff and National Government high functionaries of the HE and S&T systems

Bozo, Parra, Inciarte, Bohórquez


IDRC CRDI

Preliminary Outputs

1. Theoretical Model: Our Template to approach

universities

3. Community-project: Recovering knowledge and its meanings “in and from the community”. 4. Developmental Universities Concept:

Revisiting Judit Sutz

5. Municipalization of Higher Education: “University going to the villages”. 6. Trivialization of Higher Education:

A challenge faced for universities of the South


2. Lack of suitability of the Science and Technology indicators corresponding to the main stream of science for evaluating the Higher Education Institutions of the South


IDRC CRDI

UBV Community Projects examples

Zulia Capital District

Táchira


Email: [email protected]




Towards Developmental University Systems:

Normative, Empirical and Policy Perspectives

Claes Brundenius, Lund University, SwedenBengt-Åke Lundvall, Aalborg University, DenmarkJudith Sutz, Universidad de la República, Uruguay

Global Research Seminar: Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge Systems


The UniDev Experience

• The Project: ”Developing Universities – The Envolving Role of Universities in Innovation Systems and Development”

• Involving 12 Countries(Brazil, Cuba, Uruguay, South Africa, Tanzania, China, Vietnam, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Latvia and the Russian Federation)

• Results so far: Series of Country Reviews and Special Studies on Third Mission of Universities:

• http://developinguniversities.blogsome.com

• Great Advantage: Frequent Opportunties for Teams to Meet in Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia.

http://developinguniversiti

http://developinguniversiti

Share of University R&D in Research Systems

Vietnam (18%)Tanzania (62%)Low (less than 10 US$ per capita)

China (9%)Russia (6%)

South Africa (21%)

Cuba (36%)Uruguay (32%)

Medium Low(10-30 US$ per capita)

Latvia (40%)Brazil (38%)

Medium High (30-75 US$ per capita)

Denmark (26%)Sweden (20%)Germany (17%)

High (more than 75 US$ per capita)

Low(less than 15%)

Medium (15-30%)

Relatively High (more than 30%)

University R&D per capita (US$-PPP)

Share of University R&D in Total R&D Spending

A new role for knowledge in social inclusion

20 years ago in Latin America, a developmental, knowledge based program was proposed by ECLAC: “Production transformation with equality”Today: ECLAC acknowledges that inequality “has defeated us”Market driven policies for economic growth fuelled inequality; economic growth plus social policies have been ineffective to redress social exclusionWhy? One among many reasons: More knowledge in highly unequal societies engenders more inequality“Inclusive knowledge systems” are needed

Inclusive knowledge systems in the midst of “academic capitalism”?“Inclusive knowledge” refers to the outcome of research efforts directed to foster social inclusionThe concept is systemic, for knowledge inclusiveness cannot be achieved by an isolated single actorThe “third mission” of universities has evolved over time:

“CUDOS” (or academic science) and extensionFrom “CUDOS” to “PLACE” (or academic capitalism)

Production of knowledge for social inclusionA third mission for universities committed to sustainable

human development

UniDev II: Developmental Universities in Inclusive Systems of Innovation

Universities are central institutions of NSIWhat they can achieve is framed by the SI in which they are immersed“Inclusive innovation systems” are those in whichresearch and innovation aimed at social inclusion are fosteredThey can only flourish if social policies are not redistributive alone but also innovation oriented, and if knowledge and innovation policies are conceived partly as social policiesSpecific teaching, research and extension agendas are needed to serve this kind of policiesDevelopmental universities are those that adopt such agendas

ObstaclesMiscomprehensions about the NSI conceptTheoretical inadequacies to deal with innovation in scarcity conditionsNarrowly conceived academic evaluation criteriaDifficulties to translate social needs into research agendas

Reasons for hopeThe willingness of many researchers around the world, and of their students, to put their capabilities at work to help achieving social inclusionThe intellectual challenge involvedThe new international awareness that legitimizes the task

UniDev II will focus on these issueshttp://developinguniversities.blogsome.com

http://developinguniversities.blogsome.com




TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF UNIVERSITY/ COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENTPaul Benneworth, David Charles, Lynne Humphrey and Cheryl Conway

Better understanding engagement

Evolution in thinking about role of universities in society and forms of engagement

Third mission often presented as new but with antecedents

Capture by the economic agenda, business links and commercialisation

Issue of service and obligations to society

Renewing the covenant

Issues in promoting effective community engagement

Strategic university mission often disconnected from individual action

Invisibility of much engagement

Neglect of weaker stakeholders

Looking beyond formal mechanisms to focus on underlying processes of promoting learning and capacity building.

Co-production of knowledge and implications for our conceptualisation of the role of the academic

Research involving external stakeholders

The university and an organisation design, execute and exploit apiece of collaborative research.

The university involves an external organisation in research andthey work together co-creating knowledge which benefits both partners

The organisation commissions research directly from the university

The university undertakes research on a community at the behest of a third party funder and the results are fed back to the community.

Transferring knowledge to external stakeholders

Consultancy activity where an organisation is the client and pays for university expertise

Publically funded projects to provide knowledge direct to hard to reach groups

Capacity building projects (university facilitation) within firmnetworks and communities, such as cluster building or participatory planning activities.

Knowledge transfer through students, either as volunteering activities or through credit bearing activities where real-life problem solving is part of the degree.

Promoting public understanding of knowledge held by universitiessuch as through TV appearances and newspaper articles

Services delivered for external stakeholder benefit

Opening the university infrastructure and activities to the community at a concessionary rate such as sports facilities, andcultural assets, or particular health, education, environmental services.

Encouraging particular communities to use assets which are publicly open but not necessarily known to those groups

Discharging a university responsibility on external forums and bodies - often on an ad hominem basis as an ‘expert’ – to the benefit of particular organisations

Contributing to the civic life of the region as an educated populace e.g. as councillors, school governors and on other governance structures.

Involving external partners in teaching activities

Exposing students through the course of their studies to the demands and needs of particular hard-to-reach groups,

Educating students in their studies to be better community citizens.

Supporting particular ‘marketplaces of ideas’ for all citizens through public lecture series.

Training courses and continuing professional development directly oriented towards the needs of hard-to reach groups.

Adult and lifelong learning which helps to support the development of a regional culture of lifelong learning.

David Cooper

Associate Professor, HoD of Sociology

& Leader,Sociology of Higher Education Research Group (SOHERG),

University of Cape Town[refer to articles in

South African Review of Sociology 2006:37(2)and

Industry and Higher Education 2005:19(2);And forthcoming book, HSRC Press, Cape Town]

USE-INSPIRED RESEARCHfundamental for our development

case studies of application-oriented research

at universities of the western cape

Quadrant Model of Scientific Research(Donald E. Stokes1997: Pasteur’s Quadrant. Basic Science and Technological Innovation: p.73, Figure 3-5):

Research is inspired by:

Considerations of Use?

Pure Applied Research [Edison]

Use-InspiredBasic Research[Pasteur]

Pure Basic Research [Bohr]

Yes

No

Quest for FundamentalUnderstanding?

No Yes

Triple Helix of Research(Etzkowitz & Ledesdorff, 1999)

INDUSTRY (I)

GOVERNMENT (G) UNIVERSITY (U)

WHERE IS CIVIL SOCIETY (CS)? THE ABSENT 4TH HELIX (an ‘Orphan’ on the Periphery?)(including Local government ‘metropoles’, NGOs, Trade Union and Community organisations etc)

Conceptualisation of capitalist very long waves: technological forces and socio‐economic relations of production

Second academic revolution

(Truly?) Transnationalcorporation‐cum‐networks

Initially ICT, biotechnology, optical fibres, material science, nanotechnology etc.Later ?

Third (1970s/1980s)(led by USA)

National share‐holding corporation

Initially electricity, chemicals, steel, etc. Later (from 1920s) automobiles, aircraft, synthetic materials etc.

Second (1870s/1880s)(led by Germany)

First academic revolution

Small family firmInitially textile machinery, iron working, water power, pottery, etc.Later (from 1830s) steam engines, railways etc.

First (1770s/1780s)(led by Britain)

Capitalist form of economic organisation

Major technologies(‘technological regime’) Capitalist industrial revolution

application-orientedapplication-oriented

use-inspired basic

MODEL 2:

REAL UNIT

Case Z

MODEL 1:

REAL CENTRECase Y

use-inspire

d basic

TRADITIONAL VIRTUAL UNIT

Case X

2nd Academic Revolution

1st Academic Revolution

pure basic

research

resea

rchresearch

MODEL 3:VIRTUAL CENTRE

Case XZ

National culture and research cooperation:

A Dutch-French case study

Jacqueline de Bony, LISE (CNRS-CNAM)

UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Paris, 28-29 November 2008

The question

• Internationalization of research => Project management

• Project management Global or Local ?

• Impact of national contexts on

- management practices

- research activity

Case study

• Bilateral cooperation NL/F in R&D

• Cofinanced by the two institutes

• F did not evaluate and monitore the project

• Underlying cultural aspects ?

Project management and local contexts

Logic of project Professional logicResearch activityNL F

Project management and national contexts NL & F

Project management

• Time proces, steps, work plan, reports, evaluation and monitoring

• PM transcends traditional hierarchicaldivisions : equality

• PM contract for a collective action

=>Logic of project

equality between people & collective action

Analytical framework

Thoughts

Individual Collective

Action

The construction of consensus

• Time process• Steps formal and informal• Actions points• Afspraak is afspraak

=> consensusequality between people & collective action

Consultation & Decision : articulation

Respect Collectiveindividual interest

ActionThoughts

C D

Consensual partition of the reality

Individual Collective

Thoughts

Action

Project management and national contexts NL & F

French logique de métier

• Individual is individually responsible for

• his/her work

=> contradiction with monitoring

• Evaluation based on equality betweenpeople

=> contradiction with hierarchy

Consensus : Social devices

SYLVIE DIDOU [email protected]

CINVESTAV/UNESCO CHAIRMÉXICO

NOVEMBER 28TH TO 29TH 2008

Brain Drain and brain circulation in Latin America and the

Caribbean (LAC): between over-exposure and unawareness




Brain drainBrain drain Brain circulationBrain circulation

Common notion in the sixties Linguistically refers to a unevenly-matched relation between Third World/ capitalist countries: plundering national level-installed capabilities and lost of the individual rootsEmphasis in the negative repercussions of highly skilled human resources mobility

Neutral notion: “Knowledge nomads” is not exodus nor loss.Stresses the shared advantages between origin and receiving countries; staggered mobility schemes and departure dynamicsJustifies turning repatriation programs into scientific diasporas organizing programs

Change of words or analysis angles?

HSM in Latin America and Caribbean

Who produces the information? International and domestic-level sources: hard to compare information.What do these sources reveal ?Researches on highly skilled and scientific migration have notoriously increased in number in the current decade

Peak of HS Latin American and Caribbean migrants’ number

Intra-regional HSM in reduction, strengthening of United States and (more generally) OECD region countries and few atypical migrationsUncertainty on HSM volumes in relation with construction of “foreigner,” “resident,” “naturalized” and “citizen” definitions, from population censusesDiverse weight of HSM in comparison with total migration.

Scientific migration: the unknown factors

Uncertainties:

How many HSM abroad work in R&D (one third?)?

How many of them were trained abroad, and from (and up to) which level?

How many of them decided to stay at the host country after PHD graduation and for how long (adjourned returning or migration)?

How many of HSM were fully trained at their origin countries?

Lack of information on:

Repercussions of drain at origin countries’ scientific communities.

Results of repatriation programs, diasporas initiatives and brain gain strategies

“Loss of talent”: new intermediaries and interested actors (HEI graduate and professionals’ networks, associations gathering parents “of those abroad” and projects from the very scientific community and its representative or associated organizations).

Brain drain and scientific communities: research chiaroscuros

Many studies on:

Profiles and contents of re-linking, repatriation and diasporas programsGlobal statistic informationBrain drain at specific professionsExternal and internal factors of brain drainRepercussions of abroad-acquired training in academic productivity guidelines

Few studies on:

Knowledge transfer and circulation Creation of disciplinary research new axes or fieldsIntellectual migration to LACCreation and reach of scientific and professional networks abroadConditions for scientific returning and reinsertion

Suggestions for an research agenda on brain drain and scientific mobility in LAC

1. Relevance of mobility for the very scientific communities, in terms of knowledge transfer, network settling and elite definition and disciplinary training

2. Producing basic but fully comparable indicators amidst a common framework on brain drain and brain circulation

3. Acknowledging and analyzing emergent role players-driven initiatives

4. Multiplying the researches on internationalization, mobility andscientific groups in LAC (repercussions of abroad-acquired training in academic productivity guidelines, hybridization phenomenon and successful research groups, leadership and scientific prestige, productivity and diffusion of knowledge)

5. Elaborating a compared and concerted regional agenda including policy programs, systematically monitoring of costs and results and new research topics on the subject.

Building a Knowledge Economy

Financing higher education in small states

Knowledge System for whom!

Is it a development issue?

Is it a technology issue?

Is it an education issue?

Waves in EconomicRestructuring

The policy debate: from state control to market issue

The delivery debate: from old structures to building new institutions

The new development debate: from economic resilience to sustainability

Emergence of KnowledgeEconomy

Investment in knowledge infrastructure and human capital offers ‘higher value added products with closer customer linkages’ – Finland

Knowledge has become a primary factor of production requiring strategies for a policy incentive regime,a competitive innovative system and infrastructure

and a high quality of human resources- this requires a measurement of functions, goals and process

The engaging role of the state and institutions of higher learning- this requiresa dianostic mapping of institutions

The challenges for constructing knowledge

Changing perspective: are knowledge exogenous or endogenous in development

Mobilization of the forces of change in tertiary education

Anchoring knowledge system in Mammo Mudie theory of productive power!

The Funding issue in HigherEducation

The role of the state- the existence of externalities, the need for equity and connectivity within the educational system- makes direct funding and the

provision of an enabling environment a challenge

Non governmental ‘cost sharing’ thru the private sector,tuition fee, endownment and philantrophy is also a challenge

The governance of the educational and higher education is a third challenge

The Fast Forward Agenda

The case of Trinidad and TobagoDesigning a solution beyond the global market crisisMaking knowledge system an endogeneous factor in

building resilienceConfront the issues of political governance

Global Research Seminar: Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge SystemsUNESCO, Paris

29 November 2008

Networks of International Networks of International Collaboration: Collaboration:

Keys to Research Advancement Keys to Research Advancement

Mohamed ElMohamed El--FahamFaham

Director, Center for Special Studies and Programs, Bibliotheca ADirector, Center for Special Studies and Programs, Bibliotheca Alexandrina, lexandrina, and Professor of Engineering, Arab Academy for Science and Technand Professor of Engineering, Arab Academy for Science and Technology, Alexandria, Egyptology, Alexandria, Egypt

29 November 200829 November 2008

Global Research Seminar: Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge SGlobal Research Seminar: Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge SystemsystemsThe UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and KnowledgeThe UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge

UNESCO, Paris, UNESCO, Paris, 2828--2929 November 2008November 2008


29 November 2008

International Networks International Networks to Support Young to Support Young

Researchers: Researchers: an Experience from Egyptan Experience from Egypt

Global Research Seminar: Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge SGlobal Research Seminar: Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge SystemsystemsThe UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and KnowledgeThe UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge

UNESCO, Paris, 28UNESCO, Paris, 28--30 November 200830 November 2008


29 November 2008

OUTLINEOUTLINE

•• IntroductionIntroduction

•• BA/CSSP Research Grants ProgramBA/CSSP Research Grants Program


29 November 2008

**InterAcademyInterAcademy Council Report 2004Council Report 2004

Number of Scientists Number of Scientists and Patents Per Million and Patents Per Million

Inhabitants*Inhabitants*


29 November 2008

East Asian and PacificEast Asian and Pacific 586,545586,545

United States of AmericaUnited States of America 202,776202,776

Europe and Central AsiaEurope and Central Asia 151,311151,311

Latin America and CaribbeanLatin America and Caribbean 4,8634,863

Middle East and North AfricaMiddle East and North Africa 623623

SubSub--Saharan Africa Saharan Africa 1919

Patent Applications Filed by Residents 2005*Patent Applications Filed by Residents 2005*

*Source: World Intellectual Property Organization's Industrial Property Statistics


29 November 2008

Research in the Arab CountriesResearch in the Arab Countries


29 November 2008

R&D in the Arab StatesR&D in the Arab States

R&DR&D today is the today is the weakest link in weakest link in Arab innovation systemsArab innovation systems in order to in order to overcome current difficulties facingovercome current difficulties facingknowledge production in the region.knowledge production in the region.


29 November 2008

Researchers Per Million Inhabitants 2002, Researchers Per Million Inhabitants 2002, by Principal Region/Countriesby Principal Region/Countries

Source: UNESCO Science Report, 2005


29 November 2008

In EgyptIn Egyptover 34,000 researchers in R&D (493 per million people)*over 34,000 researchers in R&D (493 per million people)*

*Source: World Bank Indicators 2004*Source: World Bank Indicators 2004

PhD HoldersPhD Holders31.7%31.7%

Rest of ResearchersRest of Researchers68.3% 68.3%


29 November 2008

World Shares of Scientific Publications by Selected World Shares of Scientific Publications by Selected Countries 2001Countries 2001

Source: UNESCO Science Report, 2005


29 November 2008

United Nations Development Programme. 2003. Arab Human Development Report 2003: Building a Knowledge Society. New York, N.Y.: United Nations

The Rate of Increase in Published Scientific Papers Per The Rate of Increase in Published Scientific Papers Per Million InhabitantsMillion Inhabitants


29 November 2008

OUTLINE

•• IntroductionIntroduction

•• BA/CSSP Research Grants ProgramBA/CSSP Research Grants Program


29 November 2008

Group A

Group B

Group C

After having a Ph.D.After having a Ph.D.


29 November 2008


29 November 2008

Starting February Starting February 20042004, the Bibliotheca Alexandrina , the Bibliotheca Alexandrina has been offering annual research grants for young has been offering annual research grants for young

Egyptian postdoctoral researchers Egyptian postdoctoral researchers


29 November 2008

Application Criteria Application Criteria

•• Egyptian scholars who have Egyptian scholars who have completed their PhD within the past five completed their PhD within the past five yearsyears from the announced year of the grant or who from the announced year of the grant or who will complete their will complete their PhD before the end of DecemberPhD before the end of December of the announcement year of the of the announcement year of the grant.grant.

•• Applicants must have a Applicants must have a current position at a public/private academic current position at a public/private academic or research institution in Egypt. or research institution in Egypt.

•• Currently engaged or can arrange to work on Currently engaged or can arrange to work on a joint research projecta joint research projectwith foreign counterpart.with foreign counterpart.

•• Applicants must not have exceeded Applicants must not have exceeded 35 years of age35 years of age by January of the by January of the announcement year of the grant.announcement year of the grant.


29 November 2008

1.1. Agricultural SciencesAgricultural Sciences2.2. Biochemistry and BiophysicsBiochemistry and Biophysics3.3. BiologyBiology4.4. ChemistryChemistry5.5. Earth SciencesEarth Sciences6.6. Engineering Sciences and TechnologiesEngineering Sciences and Technologies7.7. Information TechnologyInformation Technology8.8. MathematicsMathematics9.9. Medical SciencesMedical Sciences10.10. Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy

Fields of ResearchFields of Research


29 November 2008

The AnnouncementThe Announcement


29 November 2008

Online ApplicationsOnline Applications

http://www.bibalex.org/csspform/index.htm









29 November 2008

ProposalProposal GuidelinesGuidelines


29 November 2008

Reviewers WebpageReviewers Webpage


29 November 2008


29 November 2008

Final SelectionFinal Selection

InterviewsInterviews

ReRe--ScoringScoring

Winners SelectionWinners Selection


29 November 2008

Signing of ContractsSigning of Contracts


29 November 2008

Each of the Each of the researchers has a researchers has a web web pagepage for submitting for submitting the progress reports the progress reports and providing and providing periodical information periodical information about his/her projectabout his/her project

How do we followHow do we follow-- up?up?


29 November 2008

BA/CSSP Research Grants Program StatisticsBA/CSSP Research Grants Program Statistics


29 November 2008

•• 1313 completed their completed their grantsgrants

•• 99 in different phases in different phases of their researchof their research

•• 22 in their final phasein their final phase

ResearchResearch GrantsGrants WinnersWinners


29 November 2008

RG Winners by Field (24) RG Winners by Field (24)


29 November 2008

RG Winners by Institutes(24)RG Winners by Institutes(24)


29 November 2008

RG Winners' Foreign Counterparts (24) RG Winners' Foreign Counterparts (24)


29 November 2008

RG Winners AchievementsRG Winners Achievements


29 November 2008

State Incentive State Incentive Award Award

in Engineering in Engineering Sciences ,2005Sciences ,2005


29 November 2008


29 November 2008

There are so many talents out there There are so many talents out there ……


29 November 2008

They only need a helping handThey only need a helping hand……


29 November 2008

To get the best out of themTo get the best out of them


29 November 2008

شكراً

UNESCO Higher Education Forum

Problematising Global Research Systems

◦ Global ‐Local

◦ Research – Training‐ Teaching

◦ System ‐ Enclaves (Coordination, variation, diversity, selection)

◦ Knowledge (Actionability: Application, Engagement)

• Articulation and balancing of tensions between the global and the local is a defining characteristic of all research systems regardless of location

– Glocal (highly cited researchers/ teaching or low publication output colleagues)

– Glocal research agendas (3rd stream obligations/science citation index)

• Glocal (world class,nationally, regionally relevant institutions)

• Glocal institutional mission (research universities, teaching colleges, applied research institutes)

• Glocal (output indicators)

• Glocal (homogenisation and local)

Evaluation Pressures• Tyranny of indicators

– Insufficiency of the existing indicator set to describe the diversity of research outputs that are necessary for robust research systems

• Logic of global university rankings and their impacts

• Increasing division of labour

Mobility of scientific labour (aka brain drain)

◦ Two part typology of mobility issuesIntellectual migration of scientific labour ◦ Balance between locally and globally relevant research agendas is skewed towards the global◦ Migration of scientific labour from S&T fields to other sites

Physical migration

◦Mobility as resourceMigrants as a source of networks and linkages

Future research agendas/ themes

Expanding mission of Higher education and research

Capacity, nation building and cultural articulation

Global industry

Matching organisation form to mission

Mobility of scientific manpower and national research policy

The Re‐ emergence of big science and its implications for the governance of research– Globalisation of big science to social and human sciences

– Scale as a challenge for research communities

• How to preserve diversity and achieve critical mass

• How to prioritise while retaining broad absorptive capacity particularly challenging for small countries

Governance of HER National policies for governing HER

• Funding models and matching funding to desired outcomes

• Partnerships in funding

Institutional governance Professionalisation of research administration and governance

Research unit and group management

11

HIGHER EDUCATION, HIGHER EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN

THE GREAT LAKES REGION OF THE GREAT LAKES REGION OF AFRICAAFRICA

By Joseph GAHAMA (Rwanda)By Joseph GAHAMA (Rwanda)

Global Global ResearchResearch SeminarSeminar: Sharing : Sharing ResearchResearchAgendas on Agendas on KnowledgeKnowledge Systems Systems

UNESCO, Paris, 28UNESCO, Paris, 28--29 29 NovemberNovember 20082008

IntroductionIntroduction

•• SinceSince about the last about the last tenten yearsyears, I , I startedstarted a a studystudyon the on the RoleRole of of HigherHigher Education in Education in ResearchResearch and and DevelopmentDevelopment of the Great of the Great LakesLakes RegionRegion of of AfricaAfrica

•• This This presentationpresentation indicatesindicates the 4 main the 4 main fieldsfields of of researchresearch thatthat I focus on I focus on sincesince the second the second halfhalf of of the 1990sthe 1990s

•• It deals It deals withwith HumanHuman ResourcesResources, , ResearchResearchfundingfunding//financingfinancing, , ResearchResearch out put and out put and HigherHigherEducation Education cooperationcooperation

•• It It willwill quicklyquickly presentpresent the the methodologymethodology, the , the findingsfindings and the future prospectsand the future prospects

1.The 1.The fieldfield of of ResearchResearch•• HumanHuman ResourcesResources

This This studystudy tries to tries to measuremeasure the impact of the the impact of the spectacularspectacular growthgrowth of of the the numbernumber of of studentsstudents enteringentering public and public and privateprivate HigherHigherEducation on the Education on the availabilityavailability of of lecturerslecturers//professorsprofessors//researchersresearchers, , theirtheir statusstatus, , theirtheir local, national, local, national, regionalregional and international and international mobilitiesmobilities and and particularyparticulary «« brainbrain draindrain »»phenomenonphenomenon

•• ResearchResearch FundingFunding and and ResearchResearch outputoutput-- If If generallygenerally the institutions of the institutions of HigherHigher Education in Education in thisthis part of the part of the AfricanAfrican continent continue to continent continue to receivereceive a lot of public a lot of public fundsfunds, , sincesincerecentlyrecently wewe observe a constant trend of observe a constant trend of privateprivate sectorsector, parents , parents associations and associations and independentindependent investorsinvestors interveningintervening in in theirtheir financingfinancing

-- I I wouldwould likelike to to seesee how the how the financialfinancial resourcesresources contributecontribute to to raiseraisethe the numbernumber of the of the graduatesgraduates in in thesethese countries, to countries, to determinedetermine the the fieldsfields of of studiesstudies chosenchosen by the by the studentsstudents and and womenwomen’’ss participationparticipation-- I I willwill trytry to examine the causes of the to examine the causes of the poorpoor performance in performance in highhighlevellevel training (training (mastermaster’’ss and and PhDsPhDs) and in ) and in scientificscientific production production (publications, patents)(publications, patents)

•• HigherHigher Education Education CoCo--operationoperation and and scientificscientific agreementsagreements-- It It isis regrettable regrettable thatthat the the currentcurrent politicalpolitical contextcontext in the in the HigherHigherEducation institutions Education institutions isis characterasedcharacterased by by workingworking in isolation, in isolation, whilewhileignoringignoring whatwhat isis occuringoccuring elsewhereelsewhere in the in the otherother places in the places in the country or the country or the regionregion-- FortunatelyFortunately, , manymany scientificscientific agreementsagreements withwith EuropeanEuropean and and American American universitiesuniversities contributecontribute to to breakingbreaking the isolation of the the isolation of the researchersresearchers-- This This studystudy willwill attemptattempt to to makemake specificspecific proposalsproposals of of commoncommonprogrammes of programmes of researchresearch, and , and functionalfunctional networks networks withinwithin a a frameworkframework of of reinforcedreinforced universityuniversity coco--operationoperation

2. 2. MethodologyMethodology

•• The The methodologymethodology of the of the researchresearch isis basedbased on on examinationexamination of of secondarysecondary sources sources (documentation (documentation availableavailable in the librairies, in the librairies, archives, etc.)archives, etc.)

•• If If itit isis possible, possible, variousvarious people people couldcould brbrinterviewedinterviewed soso thatthat the the samplingsampling shouldshould beberepresentativerepresentative : : academicacademic authoritiesauthorities, , lecturerslecturers/ / professorsprofessors, , researchersresearchers

•• The data The data analysisanalysis, the , the draftingdrafting of the final report of the final report and the validation of and the validation of thisthis studystudy are the last are the last stages of the stages of the researchresearch

3.3.ResultsResults obtainedobtained

•• BecauseBecause of the of the lacklack of of financialfinancial resourcesresources, the , the resultsresults are are stillstill modestmodest, but , but encouragingencouraging. I . I alreadyalready workedworked on the on the HigherHigher Education Education institutions in Rwanda and Burundi.institutions in Rwanda and Burundi.

•• I I contributedcontributed to to severalseveral publications on publications on thisthissubjectsubject

•• I I amam carryingcarrying out out researchresearch in the in the UniversityUniversity of of Bergen, Bergen, NorwayNorway, , withinwithin the the frameworkframework of the of the Nile Basin Nile Basin ResearchResearch Programme Programme centeredcentered on the on the rolerole of the of the universitiesuniversities in the in the developmentdevelopment of of knowledgeknowledge

4. Future prospects4. Future prospects

•• Building a Building a researchersresearchers communitycommunityConsideringConsidering the the lacklack of collaboration of collaboration betweenbetween the the researchersresearchers, , itit isis crucial to crucial to multiplymultiply the the opportunitiesopportunities and the and the spacespace of discussions and of discussions and experienceexperiencesharing to arrive in the long sharing to arrive in the long termterm atat the building of a the building of a researchersresearcherscommunitycommunity recognizedrecognized by the by the politicalpolitical institutionsinstitutions

•• To To workwork in in synergysynergyThe institutions of The institutions of HigherHigher Education Education stronglystrongly needneed to to createcreate networks on networks on researchresearch topicstopics to to bebe undrtakenundrtaken jointlyjointly or in or in partnershippartnership likelike governancegovernance, , biodiversitybiodiversity, information and communication technologies, , information and communication technologies, povertypovertyreductionreduction, etc., etc.

•• To To investinvest more in more in researchresearchAs As fundingfunding isis comingcoming fromfrom outsideoutside, the , the researchresearch prioritiespriorities and and criteriacriteria of of givinggiving money money reflectreflect the the interestsinterests of the of the donorsdonors. The Great . The Great LakesLakes RegionRegionshoudshoud investinvest more in more in researchresearch and and recognizerecognize thatthat the the knowledgeknowledge isis criticalcriticalfor for developmentdevelopment of of AfricaAfrica

ConclusionConclusion

•• BecauseBecause of of lacklack of of financialfinancial and and adequateadequate humanhuman resourcesresources, the , the institutions of institutions of HigherHigher Education in Education in thisthis part of part of AfricaAfrica have have poorpoorcapacitiescapacities and and lowlow levellevel of performance.of performance.

•• To face To face thesethese constraintsconstraints, , twotwo urgent actions must urgent actions must bebe quicklyquickly takentaken. . FirstlyFirstly, , researchresearch whichwhich leadsleads to to knowledgeknowledge acquisition acquisition isis, , herehere likelikeeverywhereeverywhere elseelse, the , the keykey to to developmentdevelopment. . ConsequentlyConsequently, , itit must must bebeof of concernconcern to to politicalpolitical decisiondecision makersmakers and international and international donorsdonors. . SecondlySecondly, , topicstopics for for concertedconcerted and and sharedshared researchresearch must must bebeidentifiedidentified and and studiesstudies must must bebe undertakenundertaken as as soonsoon as possible to as possible to bringbring about about appropriateappropriate responsesresponses dealingdealing withwith the the manymany dailydailyneedsneeds of the populations.of the populations.

•• WhithoutWhithout the the fulfilmentfulfilment of of thesethese conditions, the Great conditions, the Great LakesLakes RegionRegionwillwill continue to continue to bebe alwaysalways marginalizedmarginalized in a world in a world whichwhich isisincreasinglyincreasingly globalisingglobalising..

CHALLENGES OF REFORMING HIGHER EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING NATIONS:

SOME INDO-FRENCH PERSPECTIVES

GEETA NAIR, UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI &MARC PILKINGTON, UNIVERSITY OF NICE SOPHIA

ANTIPOLIS

Global Research Seminar Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge Systems

UNESCO, Headquarters 27-29 November 2008

Aims & Objectives

• To focus on the post-Uruguay scenario in the field of services in the sphere of education and provide a rationale for the commercialization and trading of education;

• To review the above development in a SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat) analysis;

• To create a structural and functional set up at the domestic level to smoothen the process of integration of education into the globalknowledge economy;

• To suggest/ recommend the means and modalities of meeting the challenges of integration of higher education of developing nations with their developed counterparts to narrow the gaps in knowledge, information, and technology

• To work out mutual exchanges, joint research programs; curriculum, training, and skill development between the co-partners for enabling a ‘win-win’ situation

Methodology

• Review of literature of multi-lateral institutional sources like the World Trade Organization, OECD, UNESCO, European University Association & International Association of Universities publications, along with Indian ones like UGC, University News, and the like.

• Field work of 2-3 select French Universities, and the University of Mumbai and Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research would be carried out for comparison and contrast

• Questionnaires to other foreign higher education institutions

Impact of Globalization on Higher Education Services-Any Challenges for Developing

Nations?• From the philosophical transition of Europe under the ‘Age of

Enlightenment’ to the Bologna Process and India from Dr. Radhakrishnan’s contention that, “India’s future will be shaped in her classrooms” towards the negotiating table of GATS internationally and the National Knowledge Commission Report, domestically indeed mark great milestones in this global Knowledge Century;

• Developing nations like India need to urgently revisit their higher education systems, institutions, processes, and resolve contentious issues of equity, access, affordability, relevance, and competitiveness by putting their ‘house-in-order’ and seek strategic partnerships with the developed world for imbibing ‘best practices’ in order to ‘glocalize’ higher education

Convergence Hypothesis?• The Indo-French Fellowship has been an eye-opener to both

the institutions at the micro level and probably for the 2 nations at the macro level over the long period

• The spill-over effects would definitely spread to other nations and regions at the global level in the near future

• We realized that the global process of GATS and its superimposition on national/continental higher education systems would indeed be a long drawn out process resulting in loss of valuable time, experiences, and best practices to be shared for commercial, as well as social gains

• After getting over the ‘mindset problems’, the two sides realized the existence of immense possibilities of partnerships (collaborative research, e-learning and distance education, student/faculty exchange, ‘terms abroad’ or longer durations, short diplomas, sandwich programs, dual degrees…)

THE FUTURE ROAD MAP FOR INDO-FRENCH COOPERATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Immense scope for partnerships due to endogenous growth factors in both the Universities, as well as exogenous ones of Europeanization and saturation in non-French/non-EU markets;

Diplomatic tie-ups, goodwill visits by President Sarkozy in Jan. 2008 aimed at trebling the number of Indian master’s students + Indo-French Consortium to facilitate student and faculty-exchanges, proposals to set up masters and PhD programs to also include modules of Indian/French cultures;

• French Embassy proposals of reserving 40 incentive grants for Indian students at Master’s level;

• Private effort by Alten for granting 16 fellowships to Indian IIT engineers to cultivate a global workforce;

Indian efforts to incorporate French students and incentivize them by way of ‘Earn-and-Learn’ Program

The Impact of Global Rankings on Higher Education Research and the

Production of Knowledge

Professor Ellen HazelkornDirector of Research and Enterprise & Dean of the Graduate

Research SchoolDublin Institute of Technology, Ireland

Global Research Seminar: Sharing Research Agendas November 2008

‘Research matters more now, not more than teaching necessarily but it matters more right now at this point in time’.

‘The easiest way to boost rankings is to kill the humanities.’

‘There’s certainly a perception in some areas of this university that teaching is used as a punishment for people who don’t get grants.’

‘It is obvious that the future structure of the university, over the next five or ten years will be different. There will be faculties weakening and others getting more important and getting more money and getting more visibility.’

‘We analyze these different elements (SSR, publishing papers in English, increase international students, improve peer reputation)…we talk to the Dean of each school and we also discuss among the Board members. Then we find a method to improve the ranking. So that’s the agenda.’

Themes

1. How Rankings Measure Research

2. Institutional Responses to Rankings

3. Policy Responses to Rankings

4. Some Implications for the Production of

Knowledge

1. How Rankings Measure Research

The Policy Context

Globalisation and Knowledge Society,

‘Battle for Brainpower’ (Economist, 2006), ‘Scramble for students’

(Matsumoto and Ono, 2008, p1) or ‘Skilled Migration’ (OECD, 2008),

‘New Public Management’,

Student is savvy participant/consumer/customer as link

between HE and career/salary grows.

Rankings and the K-economy

If HE is the engine of the economy, then productivity, quality and status of HE/HE research is vital indicator;

Global competition reflected in the rising significance and popularity of rankings

Provide a framework or lens through which the global economy and national (and supra-national) positioning can be understood by giving a ‘plausible’ explanation of world excellence;

Measure national competitiveness as expressed by number of HEIs in top 20, 50 or 100…

Attempt to measure knowledge-producing and talent-catching capacity of HEIs;

Appear to (re)order global knowledge by giving weight and prominence to particular disciplines/fields of investigation.

Comparing What Rankings Measure

SJT ARWU Quality of EducationQuality of Faculty

No. Nobel Prize/Field MedalNo. HiCi Researchers

Research OutputNo. Articles in Nature/ScienceNo. Articles in Citation Index

Size of Institution

10%

20%20%

20%20%10%

Times QS Peer AppraisalGraduate EmployabilityTeaching Quality/SSRInternational StudentsInternational FacultyResearch Quality/Citations per Faculty

40%10%20%5%5%20%

Taiwan Research ProductivityNo. Articles in last 11 yearsNo. Articles in current year

Research ImpactNo. Citations in last 11 yearsNo. Citations in last 2 yearsAvr. no Citations in last 11 years

Research ExcellenceHiCi index of last 2 yearsNo. HiCi Papers, last 10 yearsNo. Articles in High-Impact Journals in Current YearNo. of Subject Fields where University Demonstrates Excellence

10%10%

10%10%10%

20%10%10%10%

Indicators used for Research Ranking System (Country)Overall grants (money amount) Slovakia

Grants per faculty (money amount) Austria, Germany, Italy

Grants per faculty (absolute numbers) Italy

Research projects funded by EU Italy

Participation in int’l research programmes Poland

No. of publications Sweden

Publications per researcher Germany, Slovakia, Switzerland

Citations per faculty UK

Citations per publication Germany, Slovakia, Switzerland

No. of int’l publications Poland

% articles cited within 1st two years after publication Sweden

No. of publications with 5+ citations Slovakia

% articles belonging to top 5% most cited articles (HiCi) Sweden

No. of patents (absolute number) Germany

Patents per faculty Germany

Ratio of pg research students UK

Research quality Germany, UK

Reputation for research Austria, Germany

Hendel and Stolz, 2008

2. Institutional Responses to Rankings

Influence of Rankings

Despite methodological concerns, growing international evidence shows

that…

Rankings play critical role in enabling/facilitating HEIs to maintain and

build institutional visibility, position and reputation,

High achieving students use rankings to ‘shortlist’, especially at

postgraduate level,

Stakeholders use rankings to influence sponsorship and recruitment,

Rankings inform policy decisions, esp. about HE systems and resource

allocation.

Thus, HEIs taking the results of rankings very seriously.

How Institutions are Responding

63% HE leaders have taken strategic, organisational,

managerial or academic actions in response to the results

Of those,

Overwhelming majority took either strategic or academic

decisions and actions,

Only 8% respondents indicated they had taken no action.

Influence Decisions and Actions Taken

Set strategic goals, targets and KPIs,

Refine/clarify profile and mission.

Benchmarking,

Identify niche strengths and weaknesses.

Focus attention on quality and performance,

Act as QA mechanism.

Identify peers, partners and form networks,

Resource allocation/investment,

Re- organise the institution and professionalise services,

e.g. research management, marketing, admissions, public relations.

Identify educational and research priorities.

Translating Rankings into Action (1)

Identify indicators easiest to influence, and set targets for different units and levels of organisation.

Simplest, most cost-neutral actions affect brand, institutional data, and choice of publication or language:

Ensure ‘best’ data presentation,

Publish in English language highly cited/international journals,

Ensure common institutional brand used on all academic publications.

Because size matters, organisation of research important: Aggregate departments and abolish weak performing departments,

Focus on research institutes and graduate schools,

Separate undergraduate and postgraduate activity.

Direct resources (physical & human) to particular units, build new dedicated labs and other facilities, reward productive & successful departments.


EducationDevelop/expand English-language facilities and capacity through

specialist language centres, new programmes esp. at pg level, recruitment of international scholars and students,

Preference postgraduate over undergraduate activity.

Research Bio-sciences best represented in international data bases

Focus resource allocation towards fields which are more productive, better performers, and indicator sensitive/responsive,

Arts, humanities and social sciences feel vulnerable, but also professional disciplines without strong tradition of peer-reviewed publications.

Faculty and StudentsHead-hunt and reward Hi-Ci faculty,

Positively affect staff-student ratio,

Recruit more high-achieving student, preferably at PhD level.

Mapping Institutional Actions

Specific Actions Weightings

Research • Relatively develop/promote bio-sciences rather than arts, humanities & social sciences• Allocate additional faculty to internationally ranked departments• Reward publications in highly-cited journals• Publish in English-language journals• Set individual targets for faculty and departments

SJT = 40% Times = 20%

Organisation • Merge with another institution, or bring together discipline-complementary departments • Incorporate autonomous institutes into host HEI • Establish Centres-of-Excellence & Graduate Schools • Develop/expand English-language facilities, international student facilities, laboratories

SJT = 40% Times = 20%

Curriculum • Harmonise with EU/US models• Discontinue programmes/activities which negatively affect performance• Grow postgraduate activity in preference to undergraduate• Favour science disciplines• Positively affect student/staff ratio (SSR)

SJT = 10%Times = 20%

Students • Target high-achieving students, esp. PhD• Offer attractive merit scholarships and other benefits

Times = 15%

Faculty • Head-hunt international high-achieving/HiCi scholars• Create new contract/tenure arrangements• Set market-based or performance/merit based salaries• Reward high-achievers• Identify weak performers

SJT = 40%Times = 25%

Academic Services

• Professionalise Admissions, Marketing and Public Relations• Ensure common brand used on all publications• Advertise in high-focus journals, e.g. Science and Nature

Times = 40%

3. Policy Responses to Rankings

National Competitiveness

If rankings measure national competitiveness, then gap

between ambition and global positioning of national HEIs.

Only 10 European universities featured in top 50 compared

with 35 for the US in 2004 SJT,

Europe ‘behind not just the US but other economies’ (Dempsey,

2004).

Many OECD countries face sharp demographic shifts

evidenced by the greying of population and a decline in PhD

graduates.

Indicator of Global Competitiveness?

Top 100 Times QS SJT Ranking

2007 2008 2007 2008

US 37 37 53 54

Europe 35 36 35 34

Australia/New Zealand 9 8 2 3

Asia Pacific (incl. Israel) 13 14 6 5

Canada 6 5 4 4

Latin America/Africa 0 0 0 0

Switzerland 1 3 3 3

UK 19 17 11 11

France 2 2 4 3

Germany 3 3 5 6

Japan 4 4 5 4

China (incl. HK) 5 5 0 0

Ireland 1 1 0 0

Sweden 1 2 4 4

Russia 0 0 1 1


Using Rankings to restructure HE system;

Devising Appropriate Indicators to Influence/Incentivize

Behaviour Vs. Use Global Rankings;

Allocating Resources According to Mission, Performance or

Rankings;

Will intensify as economies/financial situation tightens

Concentrating Resources in Few ‘Centres of Excellence’ Vs.

Support Excellence Wherever it Exists;

Using Rankings to Foster Differentiation Vs. Mission Profiling.

How are governments responding?

2 main policy regimes

1.Create greater vertical (reputational) differentiation [neo-liberal model] (e.g. German, Japan, France):

‘excellence initiatives’ to concentrate research in 10/30 world-class universities;

‘to compete globally, the government will close down some regional and private universities and direct money to the major universities’

2. Create greater horizontal (mission) differentiation [social-democratic] (e.g. Australia, Norway):

‘Create diverse set of high performing, globally-focused HEIs’

‘Move towards self-declaration of mission, setting own metrics and a corresponding funding model’

Link ‘compacts’ to mission and performance


EU Classification Project.

EU Expert Group: Assessment of University-Based Research.

Declaration on Ranking of European Higher Education

Institutions.

EU Tender for a European Ranking of HE.

4. Some Implications for the Production of Knowledge

Redefining Knowledge? (1)

SJT rankings provide a ‘plausible’ measurement of research and knowledge creation (Marginson and van der Wende, 2007).

Trend of simple to complex knowledge reflected in Rise of new disciplines, methodologies and ways of thinking;

Shift from Mode 1 to Mode 2.

Focus on traditional indicators threatens these developments:

Over-reliance on research that is easily measured;

Over-emphasis on bio-sciences, with limited social science accuracy, and no humanities and arts;

Use of peer-publication & citations narrowly defines ‘impact’;

Difficulty measuring interdisciplinary research;

Values some disciplines and research as more valuable than other work.

Redefining Knowledge? (2)

Concentrating research in a few elite institutions or scientific disciplines will maximize involvement in world science (Chubb, 2008).

Emphasis on S&T as only form of innovation disregards social innovation and threatens return to Mode 1 (NESTA, http://www.nesta.org.uk/ ),

But equally, not obvious that this kind of investment will create breadth of patentable knowledge that can be exploited,

Concentration could reduce national research capacity with ‘knock-on consequences for regional economic performance and the capacity for technology innovation’ (Lambert, 2003, p6),

Misunderstands the research/innovation process (Rothwell, 1994).

http://www.nesta.org.uk





To summarise…

Rankings are a manifestation of globalization,

They have gained popularity because they (appear to) gauge world class status, provide accountability and measure national competitiveness,

Because of linear assumptions linking HE research and economic growth, rankings induce governments and HE to adopt simplistic solutions and skew research agendas/policies,

Rankings value some research more highly than other research, and influence how performance is measured and evaluated – especially in periods of economic crisis,

At the extreme, rankings provoke

Return to classical conceptions of knowledge conducted by elites in selected institutions and

Retreat from new ways of thinking, Mode 2 knowledge and interdisciplinary solutions to global problems.

[email protected]

http://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/rankings











The Global Project on Measuring the Progress of Societies

Barbara Iasiello

Statistics Directorate, OECD

• “Measuring the Progress of Societies is one of the most important roles the OECD can take on”.– Angel Gurria, OECD Secretary General

• "World GDP growth has been faster than it has been for a very long time. But people are not particularly happy".– Kemal Dervis, Head of UNDP

• “Progress indicators are a way for people to hold their government’s accountable”.– Francois Bourguignon, former Chief Economist of the

World Bank2

The Global Project on Measuring the Progress of Societies

….hosted by the OECD, aims to foster the development of sets of key economic, social and

environmental indicators to provide a comprehensive picture of how the well-being of a society is evolving and seeks to encourage

each society to consider in an informed way the crucial question:

“Is life getting better?”

Our Objectives

Promote the establishment of roundtables for measuring progress

Turn Statistics into Knowledge

Roundtable Approach Roundtable Approach It is up to a society to discuss what progress

means for them and what are the most important numbers to judge their progress?

This conversation should involve all sectors (civil society, academia, etc.)

The Project will foster the integration of the current top down approach to the development of international indicators with a bottom up effort, to take into account cultural, social and economic differences around the world.

Turn Statistics into knowledge Release and promotion of ICT tools to help

decision makers and citizens develop a better knowledge of their society using statistical information

Launch `Wiki-Progress`: global platform to help everyone around the world understand and debate if the world itself or a particular region is making progress by means of statistical indicators

What are we doing ?

Handbook on Measuring Progress.

Organisation of regional and thematic conferences with experts, policy makers, civil society, etc.

Provide assistance to those wanting to measure progress - Training materials and courses.

Statistical research on the measurement of societal progress in all its dimensions.

•Improving statistical capacity A better measurement of economic, social and

environmental outcomes, of their interrelation and shared data to advocate necessary reforms and evaluate their impact on societal welfare•Improvement of citizen's numeracy

Improve citizens knowledge giving them the opportunity to improve their decision making processes and to become more aware of the risks and challenges of today`s world•Improving policy making

Through greater accountability and more joined up government•Better assessment of societal progress

Not simply based on the economic point of view, but with the appropriate emphasis on social, cultural an environmental dimensions

Expected Impacts

3rd OECD World Forum on Statistics, Knowledge and Policy

‘Charting Progress, Building Visions, Improving Life’Busan, Korea 27-30 October 2009

The Forum will attract some 1 500 high level participants with a mixture of politicians and policy makers, opinion leaders, Nobel laureates, statisticians, academics, journalists and representatives of civil society, from over 130 countries.

Thank you!

www.oecd.org/progress

[email protected]








“Knowledge Systems: the importance of international and local partnerships”

Yogesh D. Jadhav

Global Research Seminar:Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge Systems

28-29 November 2008

Knowledge Life cycle

Stakeholders: Global and Local (involving: social actors, communities, institutions and material resources)

Partnerships : an mportant driver for achieving excellence in Knowledge Systems =

Dynamics

• Evolution

• Adaptation

• Synthesis

• Use

• Appreciation over time

Knowledge Life cycle contd…

Knowledge creation paradigm

From: Sharing Expertise: Beyond Knowledge Management. 2003. eds: Mark Ackerman, Volkmar Pipek, Volker Wulf

Background

• Sustainable forest management (SFM) ‐ recognised as an important element of sustainable development ‐ Rio, 1992.

• Many countries initiated processes for development of C & I for SFM.

• Several Asian countries were party to Year 2000 Objective of International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO), Japan.

• Launch of the regional initiative for Sustainable management of dry zone forest

• ITTO project on operationalisation of SFM in India (1999 –present)

Development of local knowledge

Peoples’ Indicators:8Development of Indicators at 8 forest management units

(FMUs) involving communities.

8Sensitization of communities, field foresters and other stakeholders at local level.

8Field Training workshops at 8 field sites.

8 Initial development of 55 Indicators under the framework of National level C & I

8Field Implementation of Peoples’ Indicators at FMU level

Global networking/partnerships perspectives

• Co‐ordination with other global processes for C&I for SFM and technical assistance

• Partnerships with different institutions/departments within the country

• Information exchange on progress toward implementation of C&I for SFM

• Financial Assistance from donor (ITTO, Japan)

Activities and outcomes(global and local partnerships)

• Capacity building ‐ training of forest officers and communities

• Establish SFM cell at State level (Madhya Pradesh, India)

• Operationalise a people‐managed knowledge generation, and monitoring system (community‐level MIS)

• C&I at FMU level (Peoples’ Indicators), and their incorporation in forest working plans (policy documents).

• Implementation of C&I for SFM in 4 more states

• Knowledge management and dissemination

• Periodic research and monitoring activities at field sites

• Going beyond the learning curve: development and Sharing of Expertise – local and global partnership

Conceptual framework

Global Indicators & Criteria(top down approach )

(Globally agreed and enforced)

Peoples’ Indicators (bottom-up approach)(Locally evolved and validated)

Minimum acceptable set of Indicators and Criteria (C&I)

Global‐Local Knowledge Partnership – Implementation paradigm

DEVELOPMENT OF PEOPLE’S indicators

Global set of C&I

Sensitisation towards need for assessing direction of change, concept of SFM and C&I

Evolve site-specific indicators based on local knowledge, capacities and experience; involve all actors

Mapping and field validation of evolved peoples’ indicators, adapting additional indicators whenever observed

Facilitated group discussions for knowledge sharing, with references from local analogies and cases, participatory games, narratives

Grassroots visits, transacts, knowledge sharing and discussions

Developed an understanding about SFM and C&I

Preliminary set of C&I

INDUCTION

FIELD VALIDATION

Peoples’Indicators

Evolved indicators are verified in the field

DYNAMICS AIMS METHODS RESULTS

Integrating Locally evolved knowledge with the Globally agreed criteria (i.e. matching Peoples’Indicators with the Global set)

Local indicators scaled up and homgenised with all 8 sites

Site specific new indicators based on local knowledge and experience

Focused Group Discussions, brainstorming sessions, presentations and community discussions

Thank you !

An important knowledge research agenda is ….

to go beyond the Knowledge Sharing paradigm..and that is..

We have a wake-up call !

Sharing Expertise

International research collaboration between different universities at a distance: analysing e-Research networks

Jingjing ZHANGDepartment of Education

University of Oxford

[email protected]






Collaboration

• Research as a “social enterprise” that includes complex relationships, which bind elements together (DiMaggio, Hargittai, Neuman, & Robinson, 2001).

• Especially with the advances of networked technology, academics are no longer working in isolation, but in a social domain (Bourdieu, 2004) .

E-Research networks

Networks of researchers working together across the conventional boundaries of time, distance and discipline.

technology?

Case Study

A set of preliminary research meetings was held via AccessGrid for one year

Time & Space

• The Concept of Space • The Concept of Time

timetime

change?change?

E-Research as a Connected Network

• Aims: the shared purposive research thinking that to some extent binds academics together

• Social Unit: a recognised entity with norms, roles, and power relationships, which holds its identity no matter whether academics are geographically dispersed or together

• Reciprocity: a modality (form) in which academics mutually learn from each other in the network

• Interaction: the dynamics of a relationship among academics working together

[email protected]






1 Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (CSIC-IPP) - Systems and Policies for Research and Innovation (SCImago)

www.iesam.csic.es

Dr. Ir. Koen JonkersConsejo Superior de Investigaciones CientíficasCSIC Institute of Public Goods and Policies (CCHS_IPP)

UNESCO Global Research Seminar:Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge Systems

“Human Resources in Science and Technology, Scientific mobility: mapping emerging research systems and fields of

research“

http://www.iesam.csic.es





Thesis / current book project

• The organisational cum institutional evolution of public sector research systems

• Differences in the development of the relative international visibility of scientific fields?

• Explanations for geographical distribution of international co-publications (JONKERS, 2009ª, 2009b)

• Mobility and international (co-) publication behaviour (JONKERS & TIJSSEN, 2008)

• What caused the changes in the degree of domestic and international interaction in the Chinese research system?

• Policies to promote scientific return migration (JONKERS, 2008)


Publication analyses

• Variations in life science subfields:– In 2005, China published > 10% of the world-s Plant

molecular life science publications– The average number of citations per publication in this

field was at the world average in 2002 and 2003– For other molecular life science subfields, such as Cell

biology and Development biology, these indicators wereconsiderably lower.

• Explanations: – Funding priorities, global developments in the various

scientific fields, remaining scientists and timing ofreturnees


International co-publications(Jonkers, 2009)

• Large increase in the contribution of Chinese surnameauthors in global publication output

• Increasing importance of transnational scientificcooperation (overseas Chinese) (Jonkers, 2009)

• Hypothesised importance of designated institutionalsupport in the form of joint labs could not be confirmed (Jonkers, 2009)

• Hypothesised influence of geographical distance wasrejected


Publication behaviour ofreturnees (Jonkers and Tijssen, 2008)

• Foreign work experience has a positive correlationwith:– Publication output after return– Number of international co-publications

• Scientific social capital plays a role:– returnees co-publish more with researchers in their former

host system– US > EU

• Follow up study with larger sample, more countries, more fields of science


Increase in extramural andinternational interaction

• Main explanations– foreign trained returnees have led to or facilitated a

change in research culture– The increased role of large scale funding programs

has led to greater degree of cooperation andcollaboration within China…..this appears to be “funding driven” rather than “science driven”.


Follow up projects

► Explain the differences in the development of the relative international visibility of different molecular life science fields? ▬ Bibliometrics, scholarly and grey literature, expert interviews

• Explanations for geographical distribution of international co-publications (JONKERS, 2009ª, 2009b)

► Mobility and international (co-) publication behaviour (JONKERS & TIJSSEN, 2008)▬ Mobility history and publication analyses

• What caused the changes in the degree of domestic and international interaction in the Chinese research system?

• Policies to promote scientific return migration (JONKERS, 2008)


Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas

www.csic.es

CSIC- SPANISH NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

Thank you for your attention!

http://www.csic.es

http://www.csic.es

http://www.csic.es

Who benefits from research on collective action in natural resource management:

Where is accountability?

K.P. Acharya

Department of Forest Research and Survey

Nepal

Structure of presentation

• Introduction

• Objectives

• Methodology

• Results and Discussion

• Conclusion and Recommendation

Introduction

• SFM is essential to sustain subsistence agriculture

• Collective action approach -community forestry- is emerged as a suitable option

• Avenues of natural resources researches expanded significantly

• A ranges of individuals and organizations are involved on collective action researches.

Introduction contd….• It is observed that forest user groups are

pessimistic of the research process and outcomes

• Research in developing countries is not able to meet it’s objectives due to insufficient understanding of researches and development issues.

• Research facing dilemma of knowledge and accountability

Objectives

• The study aims to investigate the explanation for displeasure situation in collective action researches

• The specific objectives include;– Investigation of nature and kinds of collective action

researches

– Explore the process and institutionalization mechanism of the research

– Investigate the knowledge sharing mechanism; and

– Investigate the contribution of researches to solve the collective action problems at local level

Research questions

• Who are involved in what kinds of research?• Who decide research agendas?• What is the role of different stakeholders in

research process?• How are data managed and owned?• How are findings communicated with the

community?• Where is the accountability of the key

stakeholders such as researchers and funding agencies?

• Who is benefiting the most from the collective action research?

Methodology

• Five community forest user groups representing different regions of Nepal– Mature group– Researched group – Consulted with district forest office

• Review of 30 journal papers– International journal papers– National journal papers

• Reports, publications, pers com

Results and Discussion• Total number of the research- 10 years

• Institutions/Individuals involved– Academic institutions/individuals: TU- Nepal, KU-

Denmark, University of Tsukuba, Japan, University of Twenty, The Netherlands etc.

– International research organizations: CIFOR, IFRI, GoN/DFRS, ICIMOD etc.

– NGO’s: Forest Action, NTNC, FECOFUN etc

• Nature of data: Academic thesis, Mega data, Project specific research etc.

Results and .. contd..• Journals reviewed:

– Banko Janakari, Journal of Forests and Livelihoods, Journal of Development Economics, Environment and Development economics, Biodiversity and Conservation, Ecological Economics, Mountain Research and Development, Forest Ecology and Management, Ecology and Society, Journal of Environmental management, Society and Natural Resources, Environmental Conservation, Human Ecology Review, World development,

• Methods: Household Survey, PRA, sample plot etc

• No of sites covered: 4 to 100 averaging 22 sites/paper

Focus of the researches• Diverse nature covering all dimensions:

– Forest management– Forestry governance– Livelihoods improvement– Payment for ecosystem services

• Poverty and forests, carbon estimation, adaptive collaborative management, biodiversity conservation and monitoring, biodiversity documentation, fire management, institutions and forest management, forestry governance, silvicultural management, equity,

• How forest can be managed to achieve ecological, economical and social sustainability?

Process

• Identification of research agendas• Global and local elites/agencies

– Donor agencies,

– Bilateral projects,

– Universities,

– Researcher and institutions,

– Network and collaboration

NON OF THE RESEARCHED AGENDAS WERE SELECTED BY THE COMMUNIY

Process• Research implementation• Site selection

– Accessibility, Data availability, Researcher interest, Known individuals, Local DFO recommendations

• Data collection- researcher or local facilitator• Data maintenance- researcher/institution• Data analysis- researcher• Publication/dissemination- researcher/publisher• Scaling up- ??

COMMUNITY WERE NOT INVOLVED IN DATA MANAGEMENT OR MAINTENANCE – INFORMATION IS NOT COMMUNITY

PROPOERTY

Communication mechanism

• Findings shared in workshop, seminar, working papers, discussion papers, books, reports, national and international journals

• Published in standard –language, format, words etc.

• Need to pay• Need permission for re-use

NON OF THE RESEARCHERS HAVE RETURNED TO THE COMMUNITY WITH THE RESEARCH

INFORMATION

Role of stakeholders

Profit and patent

???????Career incentives/enhance scientific quality

Meeting global obligation

Final output

Publishes in journals, Holds copyrights, earn cash benefits

-Present in conference, seminar, workshops, publish in journals, books Qualify for bigger project and higher portfolio

Provide fund/monitor

Publication

--Data store and use, Analysis, Holds data copyright, Receive cash benefits for the assignment

Provide fund/monitor

Data management and analysis

-Provide informationSupport research implementationLabor serviceRaise expectation

Facilitate data collection methodology etc. Receive cash benefits for the assignment

Provide fund/ monitorImplementation

---Identify research agenda, Define aims and objectivesSubmit applicationAgent of Commission

Define funding areas, no distinction between research types

Define Agenda

PublisherCommunityResearcher/institutionDonorSTAKEHOLDERSIssues

Accountability concerns

• The paper argues: – Lack of ownership in the research, and;

– Lack of sharing of research findings to solve local problems

– Should be an ethical issues

• Collective action research- absence/weak accountability towards community

Accountability concerns cont..

• Depth of accountability indicators– Feedback arrangements,

– Access to management,

– Knowledge on organization,

– Issues of researches,

• Level of accountability indicators– Rights to access and rectification,

– Level of ownership,

– Openness to the formal agenda,

Framework of analysis

Knowledge and information

Donor agencies(fund and resources)Researcher

(Strategic approaches and career structure)

Publisher (fund and legacy)

Data interpretation and research output

Royalty and patent

Local community

Global elite

Issues and problems

Knowledge and information, development of science

Without patent or royalty, loose data

and information

Conclusions and recommendations

• Identification of research agenda,

• Cost of community in research process,

• Issue of research/data ownership,

• Involvement in research management,

• Communication strategy,

• Linking poverty reduction and existing researches in collective action,

• Ethics and accountability,

• Contributing only to global elite knowledge system

• Benefit sharing mechanism -Knowledge credit; and

• Who will be “change agent”?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR KIND

ATTENTION

Presentation Paris November 2009

Global Research Seminar: Sharing Research Agendas

Challenging the existing SSH world order

Dr. Michael Kuhn Knowwhy Global Research [email protected]





Michael Kuhn: [email protected]


Knowwhy Global Research

1. The conflictual and violent internationalization of the political and economic standards of western societies ‐ called globalization ‐versus the internationalization of Western scientific paradigms ‐ a peaceful realm of a shared scientific universalism?

2. The practice of the ideal of scientific universalism: how about the internationalization of SSH in the research communities in developing countries?








3. What to research in international collaborations: discrete missions, an international divisions of labor and western social science fashions for developing countries

• The discrete missions of national research communities in internationalising social sciences and humanities

• The international division of scientific labour in data providers and thinkers: Go West for theories and East for data

• Serving international social science fashions

• A new version of a globalized academic ivory tower








4. How to research: Exporting utilitarian knowledge paradigms and providing methodological assistance

• Utilitarian concepts of knowledge applied to the real life of developing countries affirming the given beneficiaries in a society

• The affirmative concepts of policy relevant research applied to “split”societies

• Methodological and theoretical assistance for reflections provided by international donors








5. Towards a new SSH world order

Emerging international research communities in Asia, India, Arab countries andLatin America and elsewhere are challenging the established SSH world orderallowing for an international collaborative production of knowledge based onthe acknowledgement of the existence of

• multiple concepts of knowledge

• multiple notions of science and

• multiple scientific discourse cultures.

Join our new project:

Creating a platform to exchange the concepts of knowledge, science anddiscourse cultures facing the contradiction of a multiple scientificuniversalismContact: [email protected]







Rethinking governance – trends, policies, policy options

Irena KuzmanoskaIrena KuzmanoskaZoran PopovskiZoran Popovski

The UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, The UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and KnowledgeResearch and Knowledge

Global Research SeminarGlobal Research SeminarSharing Research Agendas on Knowledge Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge SystemsSystemsParis, 28Paris, 28--29 November 200829 November 2008

From government to governance

Corresponding mechanisms to Burton Corresponding mechanisms to Burton ClarksClarks’’ (1983) triangle (1983) triangle –– authority, oligarchy authority, oligarchy of academics and market forces i.e. of academics and market forces i.e. competition for resourcescompetition for resources

Hierarchical selfHierarchical self--guidance of universities by guidance of universities by their leaders (their leaders (ShimankShimank et al. 1999; et al. 1999; LeiLeiššytytèè, , 2007)2007)

Stakeholders (Enders, 2002; Stakeholders (Enders, 2002; LeiLeiššytytèè, 2007), 2007)

Enriched policy discourse?Provision of change influenced by:Provision of change influenced by:

Bologna DeclarationBologna DeclarationLisbon DeclarationLisbon Declaration Relaunch: Relaunch: ‘‘New Lisbon Partnership for New Lisbon Partnership for Growth and JobsGrowth and Jobs’’ (2005)(2005)

Policy documents contributing to the research agenda and knowledPolicy documents contributing to the research agenda and knowledge ge systems (enhancing effectiveness the competitiveness through firsystems (enhancing effectiveness the competitiveness through firm m level technology absorption, innovation and skills upgrade)level technology absorption, innovation and skills upgrade)

Program of the Government of Macedonia (2006Program of the Government of Macedonia (2006--2010)2010)National Strategy for the Development of Education 2005National Strategy for the Development of Education 2005––2015 (2006) 2015 (2006) The program for development of entrepreneurship, The program for development of entrepreneurship, competitiveness and innovation of SMEs (2007competitiveness and innovation of SMEs (2007--2010)2010)The program for scientific research for the period up to 2010The program for scientific research for the period up to 2010The Law on higher education; the Law on scientific and The Law on higher education; the Law on scientific and research activities; the Law on technological development; research activities; the Law on technological development; the Law on adult education. the Law on adult education.

Menu of enriched policy discourse?

advocacy, persuasion, information;

consultation, research centers;investment in research

infrastructure; financial incentives; legislative measures;

which policy work best in what situations;

what contextual and policy measures are the impact factors;

costs v.s benefits;

Policy/political instruments employed by the Government

Challenges and pressures in choosing the policy instruments

How to make better use of publicly funded R&D

Macedonian universities (do not) have the ability to Macedonian universities (do not) have the ability to transfer their knowledge effectively and efficiencytransfer their knowledge effectively and efficiency

Traditional models of university management and Traditional models of university management and governance are slow and not fully competent to governance are slow and not fully competent to respondrespond

Macedonian universities are hindered by range of Macedonian universities are hindered by range of external factorsexternal factors

The changing scene of higher education institutions and the national innovation system

Science parks and Science parks and centers of excellencecenters of excellence

“Triple helix” of interactioninteraction

The The Program for research and science 2006Program for research and science 2006--20102010, , highlights ahighlights active measures for determining the ctive measures for determining the financial, legal and institutional aspects, intensified financial, legal and institutional aspects, intensified cooperation of higher education with the industry, cooperation of higher education with the industry, propro--active approach in international cooperation and active approach in international cooperation and increased participation of the country in the increased participation of the country in the framework and other EU programsframework and other EU programs.

Regulatory factors in relation to intellectual property Regulatory factors in relation to intellectual property rights (IPR) policy in the public sector, development rights (IPR) policy in the public sector, development of new sources of revenue, mediation of flow of of new sources of revenue, mediation of flow of knowledge between the industry and universities by knowledge between the industry and universities by formal licensing agreementsformal licensing agreements

ccoonntteexxtt

oouuttppuutt

Increase of Increase of investments in R&D investments in R&D

Support of science Support of science through fiscal policythrough fiscal policy

Thank you for your attention

[email protected]

zpopovski@ zf.ukim.edu.mk





POLITICAL INTERFERENCE IN UNIVERSITIES

IMPLICATIONS FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH AGENDAS

M RajivlochanDepartment of History

Panjab UniversityChandigarh, India

Meeta RajivlochanController

Semi Conductor Laboratory Punjab, India

Added Member of SenatePanjab University, Chandigarh

Member of Academic CouncilPanjab University, Chandigarh

Member of Joint Research BoardPanjab University, Chandigarh

Member Board of StudiesGuru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar

Secretary,Panjab University Teachers’ Association, Chandigarh

Additional Director GeneralYashwantrao Chavan Academy of Development Administration, Pune, Maharashtra

DirectorState Institute of Rural Development, Pune, Maharashtra

Deputy Director Administration Post Graduate Institute for Medical Education and

Research, Chandigarh

2

Funding of the HE sector in India

• 99% of the universities funded by government

• 1% universities are privately funded

• 90% of all colleges are private colleges, i.e. not managed by the government but by some private body

• 10% of colleges are government colleges, i.e. managed by the government

• Funding not to be confused with government control over academic policies

3

A quick overview:• Small size of the HE sector in India (367

universities, 18064 colleges, 10 million students, only 10% of the 18 to 24 age group)

• Public expenditure on HE gone down from €137 in 1993 to €110 in 2006 decline of 21% on current value

• Major expansion proposed for 2008-2015: of 400% in student enrolment and in number of universities

• Weakest point is quality/relevance of research being done in HE sector: about 2.63% papers, with little impact, published internationally from Indian universities

• Even using local parameters, much of the research deemed to be unreliable research

4

Local efforts for determining and ensuring quality

• National Assessment and Accreditation Council set up by UGC in 1994

• 3420 colleges [18.9% of total] and 140[38.1% of total] universities subjected themselves to accreditation

5

• 10% colleges got A

• 66% colleges got B

• 24% colleges got C

• 32% universities got A

• 52% universities got B

• 16% universities got C

• 22% of the Central Universities got A

Assessment results out of three possible grades A, B and C

Anything less than C was to be recommended for shut down. None fell in this category

31 out of 3560 institutions that sought accreditation, i.e. 0.87%were given FIVE STARgrade by NAAC

(10% institutions if you count As)*

6

Society and government seized of the problem: many efforts to

identify shortcomings and solutions

• Efforts: Virtually every 15 years [since 1835] there has been an ‘education commission’ to review performance

• All of them have identified virtually the same set of problems

• All of them have identified virtually the same set of solutions

7

Main source of ills of HE as identified by these

commissions: regarding what holds back HE in India

• Political interference: even during colonial times this was identified as a cause

– the colonial government blamed nationalist Indians for political interference,

– the nationalists blamed the government for interference

– The present establishment sotto voce blames interference by elected representatives

• Following from this comes the subordinate bugaboo: Lack of autonomy

8

Why is political /government interference considered such

a big issue• Because universities in India came into existence

mostly at the initiative of the government

• Even when local popular initiative was involved it was substantially underpinned by government help

• Implying: politics and academia are deeply imbricated with each other in Indian universities

• However, little went into the creation of a learning or searching culture

• Popular belief held by academics and the general public: only acceptable role of universities is to prepare people for jobs

9

Formal Role of the university in society: often mentioned by state

agencies• To produce trained manpower for the economy

• Heavy emphasis on student performance in exams: to ensure that students pass university examinations

• In a subordinate role– to train minds into openness, creativity, curiosity etc. – the usual ‘vision document’: a statement of what sounds good

rather than a statement of intent

• As for Research and Knowledge generation:– few pioneering – few bold experimentations

10

Government oversight and/or political interference built into the Charter of the University

• Governing Bodies: 80% are either ex officio members or persons nominated by the government.

• Elected representatives from the local society: about 15%

• Faculty representation: less than 5% of the members in the governing body and none in the executive body.

• Student or non-academic workers’representation: none

11

Structure of governance, political and executive: little involvement of

academics

• The Chancellor, an important dignitary of the government

• The Vice Chancellor is the executive head who runs the university according to the directions of the Governing Body.

• The Governing Body chooses a smaller number of its members to be part of the Executive Body which oversees the day to day functioning of the university

12

Structure of governance, academic: in the hands of

academics• The courses of instruction are determined by a

Board of Study in that discipline constituted of the teachers from that discipline

• Decisions of the Board of Studies are subjected to review and approval of the [a] the Faculty/School to which that discipline belongs which

comprises of all the Heads of Departments of the disciplines belonging to that Faculty, all the Professors of that Faculty and those members of the Governing Body who choose to be part of the Faculty and

[b] the Academic Council of the university comprising of all theHeads of Departments, all the Professors and those of the members of the Governing Body who choose to be part of that body

13

Formal presence of politics &elections in universities

• Universities only bodies in country which allow their faculty tostand for elections to the federal and provincial parliaments

• Some of the provincial parliaments have seats reserved for university faculty

• Students, especially from the law and social science and humanity faculties form important component of political workers of political parties

• Student leaders, who get elected to student bodies frequently move up to elections to larger elected bodies.

• Universities effectively amount to nurturing political leaders in India

• More than half of the elected leaders to various bodies ranging from the federal parliament to the village parliament were active in student politics

14

The substance of political imperative within universities

• Brings in the spoils system associated with politics

• Spoils in faculty recruitment, staff recruitment, student intake

• Interference in examining students, compromises fairness of examination system

• Compromises fairness in promotions– Does it also compromise fairness in research? – Uncomfortable topics left untouched?– Uncomfortable results left un-stated or modified

suitably?

15

Political control over the Vice Chancellor

• Situation has come to such a pass that most decisions are taken while looking over the shoulder as it were

• VC’s subjugation: by faculty, students and staff having links with the politicos

• In turn VC does ditto to those faculty, student and staff who are not linked to politicos

16

Almost total lack of faith within the system

• Faculty / students kept out of decision making

• Faculty teach courses that they have not framed

• Faculty examine students they have not taught

• Anonymity breeds irresponsibility

• No mechanisms to check irresponsible teaching, evaluation or research

17

‘Does the intrusion of politics compromise functioning of the

university and its search for quality in significant ways?’

Answer is more complex than a simple yes or no.

18

Most important: Activism on campus among

faculty and students does not spawn creativity in academics

• Does not get translated into research output

• Or in teaching output

• Or in the creation of new ideas

• Universities are not even grounds for political / ideational contestations

19

The roots of Political Interference

• In a politically alive democracy to expect politicians to not interfere in any public body is very naive

• Empirical surveys say Political Interference is not deemed debilitating to the university body by most of the stakeholders

• Absence of quality research undermines university role as knowledge creator considerably

• It is the absence of quality research that reduces legitimacy of faculty and enables interference of a debilitating sort

20

The real issue: Knowledge creation and dissemination take a back-seat?Survey among faculty suggests that:

• 1% favour publications as a criteria for quality

• 24% favour student performance in exams as criteria

• 25% favouring accreditation by independent agency

• 50% favour other ways as criteria like student feedback, peer review, quality of teaching etc.

• Negligible number favour flexible and performance based increments to salary

21

Research agendas—what are they?

• Research not deemed important factor in determining quality

• Little research determined by local needs

• Determined by research being done in other parts of the world?

• Easy to confuse world class quality with world oriented research

• Absence of local relevance

• Little use of local skills or resources

• Absence of reliability

• Local research journals: the less said the better

22

Students take course that have little relevance to the market

• 45% students in Arts

• 20% students in Science

• 18% students in Commerce

• 7% Engineering

• 3% Medicine

• 3% Law

• 1% Education

• 1% in Agriculture and Veterinary sciences

Almost 83% students in non-professional courses that have no market value

Only about 15% in courses that serve immediate market needs

Even regarding them the market says: ‘unemployable’

23

A new substantive role created for the university in society

• Un-stated: as a source of extending patronage

• Un-stated: as a baby-sitting program for young adults– keep them out of the job market

• Un-stated: producer of political canon fodder

• Un-stated: Grooming for political leadership role in the future

[in India for many decades now formal politics is the most lucrative of professions yielding the maximum returns but with high risk of failure]

=>Producing more and more of unemployable graduates

24

The single crucial flaw: extremely regulated but without any

accountability• Syllabi and Examinations: external • Learning circumscribed by preparation for

exams• Exams have nothing to do with doing

research• Ergo: teaching is completely divorced

from research• Teachers cease to be researchers• Teacher of use to students only as a

means to get through exams

25

Examinations• Inevitably exams imply maximizing

marks• Focus on “cracking the exam”.• Easily done if the matter on which

the exam is based is relatively invariant

• Preparing for exams may result in acquisition of knowledge

• But a popular belief: having knowledge may not result in cracking the exam

26

The present system of exams

• Based on suspecting that a teacher is not capable of examining own students

• The suspicion has been so strong that despite repeated criticism it has only been tweaked mildly.

• No radical changes brought in despite recommendations

• In earlier times hesitation due to the overwhelming importance of the exams and scores therein – can’t be left to the whims and fancies of individual teachers

27

All that has changed

• Relevance of university exams today: None

• All who want to employ a graduate conduct their own tests and their own internal training Even Universities do not believe in their own graduate tests!!

• Knowledge and wisdom are now divorced from preparation for exams.

28

A more pernicious implication: redundancy of faculty

Strong focus on exams rather than research makes faculty relatively redundant

Low end research results in absence of any other relevance of faculty and in low self-esteem

Absence of academic relevance opens the university to political interference of an injurious kind

Chadha Committee 2008: “the most urgent prerequisite is to restore the place due to education

and more importantly to show respect to those who are and who choose to be in the vanguard in this sector

“More money for education would not make much of a difference unless competent people are urged to join the education sector”

29

How can the university assert itself in such circumstances?

By asserting that it is a body for the creation and dissemination

of knowledge

Today that role of the university has been substantially side-tracked

Performance of International Scientific Publications

Science in Indonesia

Centre for Science & Technology Development StudiesIndonesian Institute of Sciences

Siti Meiningsih and Nani Grace

Research Aims

1. To analyses the rate of scientific publications in international journals bythe Indonesian Institutions

2. To analyses the relative rank of Indonesia among the other Southeast Asian countries, such as Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore.

Methods of Study

This research used bibliometrics as a concept to analysis of publication years to show trends in how much a unit publishes compared to the rest of the world, or to similar units/fields and the number of citations to a publication to show the fact of that the citing author finds something useful in the paper or material he cites.

Fig.1. Number of Publication from Indonesia, 1998-August 2008

Figure 1. shows that there were five research field whose publication were more significant than other fields. Those five fields are Plant & Animal Science, Clinical Medicine, Environment/Ecology, Geosciences and Chemistry.

Fig 2. The average of 5 major fields publications and Citation in 1998-2008

Figure 2. desribes that the field of Geoscience relatively has more certainquality compare to other field. That is because the field of Geoscience has largest of the average of citation rate.

Figure 3. Progress of scientific publication in four Southeast Asian countries (ASEAN)

Figure 3 illustrates the rate of scientific publications in the three Southeast Asian countries showed a constant significant increase during the five year period of 1998-2003 while Indonesia tends to be constant.

Fig. 4. Comparison of Publication from Four ASEAN Countries in the Field of Plant & Animal Science, 1998-2008

Analysis of the progress of science in each field revealed that Indonesia has a significantly high publications rate in the field of Plant & Animal Science but its position was still the lowest among the three ASEAN countries.

Fig.8. Comparison of Number of Citation per Publication inthe Fields of Plant & Animal Science, 1998-2008

Fig. 9. Comparison of Number of Citation per Publication in the Fields of Clinical Medicine, 1998-2008

The previous illustration showed that the number of publication from Indonesia in all fields was relatively smaller than the three ASEAN countries. However, in terms of the number of Citations per publication, Indonesian publications had a comparable number of citations per publications, as can be seen in figure 8, 9 and 10. Assuming that the amount of citation indicate the quality of thepublication, it was apparent that the quality of the scientific publicatons from Indonesia is relatively similar with the other ASEAN countries.

ConclusionIn conclusion the data mining study indicates:

The largest International Scientific journal by Indonesia are from Plant & Animal Science, Clinical Medicine, Environment/Ecology, and Geosciences. All fields are nature and biological sciences, where Indonesia has more unique nature such as plants, animal compare to other countries. Meanwhile, the number of publication from Indonesia in other fields was relatively smaller. Moreover, Indonesia has not had any publication in the field of Mathematics and Neuroscience & behavior yet.Even though the five research field whose publication were more significant than other fields, the rate scientific publications of Indonesia is significantly far below then three other ASEAN countries.However, the number of citations per publication from Indonesian journal relatively not left behind compare to three other ASEAN countries. Moreover, Indonesia had more number of citations per publication rather then Malaysia. It means, the quality of the publication in certain fields is comparable or even above the other ASEAN countries.

Global Research Seminar: Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge SystemsUNESCO, Paris, 28 – 30 November 2008__________________________________________________________

The Comparative Higher Education research group of the Instituto de Investigaciones Educativas (IICE) de la Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA), is conducted by Dr. Marcela Mollis.

Since 2005, the research issue has been:

Innovative Strategies for Quality Improvement in Argentine Higher Education

Description of the structure of Higher Education in Argentina

Higher Education in Argentina is a typical but also specific case of a binary system.

Its specific nature lies in the fact that higher education structure at the so called non‐university

level (tertiary in general) is dominated by Teacher Training institutions and provision

Total enrolment is mostly concentrated in the public sector at university level.

Both levels (university and non university) are characterized by a great diversity

in institutional provision with significant overlapping among the diplomas

delivered by all types of institutions.

There is also, distinct fragmentation generated by the different types of institutions at the two

levels (university and non university), and within the non‐university level and the Teacher Training

Institutes and Technical Institutes are not all clearly in relation to each other

(Mollis et. al., 2001)

Quantitative diagnosis of Argentine Higher Education. Trends

Table 1: Public and private university institutions: waves of expansion

Table 2New enrolments in the public and in the private sector, 2005

Universtity and non‐university levels are not articulated in relation to each other, so the Argentine Higher Education does not function as a “system”

Therefore, the problem is not “massification”itself, but the lack of a suitable structure for the increasing social demand for higher education.

The problem is not the “diversity” of the educational structure, but the lack of governmental planning and articulated policies for secondary and higher education levels (university and non‐university).

• Problems arising from the overlapping and unarticulated educational structure

For these reasons as well as for others, to improve higher education quality in Argentina,

it is necessary to shape a higher education system more clearly articulated,

offering “training paths”, with links and interconnections amongst these paths.

To achieve this goal, I suggest:

To articulate national, regional and local governmental policies with the economic sector and with different agents in charge of higher education institutional coordination

To build consensus for the strategic planning in the higher education sector, both at national and regional level, to guide the transformation processes in the long, medium and short term, with ongoing monitoring of results

05-12-2008 1

Research University for Poverty Eradication

Mammo Muchie: NRF/DST Research Professor, IERI, TUT, Pretoria, South

Africa & Coordinator of DIIPER, Aalborg University, Denmark

05-12-2008 2

Overview

• Reality check!• Research is a critical factor for building the

productive power of nations• Productive power is central to the creation of

wealth• Research University as a key element of NSI• Research builds productive power and the wealth

of nations • Challenges in building research universities in

Africa• Some Examples of what some of us are doing to

support research University building in Africa• Concluding Remark

05-12-2008 3

Reality check!

• ” African universities.. Capacityto educate new Ph.d holders is eroding, rasing deep concernsabout the continent’s ability to produce new generations of academics, educators.” (The Chronicle of HigherEducation:25.11.08)

05-12-2008 4

Reality check!

• ”Africa produced only 68,945 publications over the 2000-2004 period or 1.8 5 of the world’spublications. In comparison India produced 2.4 % and Latin America 3.5 5 of the world’s research.”(Pouris& Pouris: The State of Science and Technology in Africa (2000-2004), Scientometrics 79, 2009

05-12-2008 5

Reality check!

• ”research in Africa is concentrated in just twocountries- South Africa and Egypt. These two countriesproduce just above 50 % of the continent’s publications and the top 8 countries produce above80% of the continent’sresearch.”(ibid)

05-12-2008 6

Reality check!

• ”As manifested in patents, (Africa’s inventive profile).. Indicates that Africa producesless than one thousand of the world’s inventions. Furthermore88% of the continent’s inventiveactivity is concentrated in South Africa”

05-12-2008 7

And from this reality check• What we can infer is something must be

done to change this unacceptable situation• Training, research, knowledge, invention

and innovation must be priorities for support by state, market and society

• Africa cannot afford to remain so far behind after 50 years of colonial freedom

• It is an outrage and a scandal it is in thisstate!

• It must catch up and it can catch up!

05-12-2008 8

The present vs the Long term• The 60s and early 70s universities in

Africa did try to build up and support for their effort externally was not also as bad as it turned in the 1980s

• But the cost became unbearable whenuniversities in Africa were seen as whiteelephants for over 20 years!

• The damage is still felt• ”Africa universities face a looming

shortage of Phd.’s” is the recent headline( see The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 25, 2008)

05-12-2008 9

HE seen as an economicburden!• Positive effect to the economy from investment in

HE denied• Infact negative impact stressed (see

Pritchett,2001)• Stress on graduates unemployability• Stress on the low quality of graduates and more

admission to the softer sciences than the hardsciences

• The present and the short term stressed• Narrow economic considerations over broader

social impacts of education, learning and knowledge stressed

• Circulation and exchange value allocativeeconomics prefered to productive power basedeconomics

05-12-2008 10

Use the theory of Productive power to Africa

• The causes of wealth are something totally different from wealth itself.

• A person may possess wealth, i.e., exchangeable value, if, however he does not possess the power of producingobjects of more value than he consumes, he will becomepoorer.

• A person may be poor; if he, however possesses the power of producing a larger amount of valuable articlesthan he consumes, he becomes rich.

• The power of producing wealth is threfore infinitely more important than wealth itself;

• it insures not only the posssession and the increase of what has been gained, but also the replacement of whathas been lost.

• This applies to nations which cannot live from eitherrentals or donor support, as indeed private individualswho cannot live by drawing loans and credits

• Wealth creation depends on knowledge, and knowledgedepends on research and training!

05-12-2008 11

Research is a key factor of productive power• The relationship between man’s powers of reason, acting on the physical

universe through the force of research and knowledge as productivepower, is not explainable from the standpoint of standard allocationeconomics

• exchangeable value economic perspective assume produced goods and services and not the power to produce them in the first place

• If Adam Smith had followed up the idea of productive power, withoutallowing his mind to be dominated by the idea of value, exchangeablevalue, he would have been led to perceive that an independent theory of the productive power must be considered side by side with a theory of exchange value in order to explain economic phenomena.

• The theory of productive power focus on the creation of mental capital, knowldge through research and innovation for building new wealth

• The theory of exchangeable value focuses on physical, financial and material circulations through goods and services passing monetaryconstraints as they circulate between those who produce to those whoconsume through the impersonal validation of market mechanisms.

05-12-2008 12

Responding to the damageof exchange valueeconomics?• The Theory of productive power must come first!• Though both theories can be used, one to create wealth

and the other to circulate and exchange created wealth. • Because created wealth after the application of

productive power has to be circulated and exchangedalso!

• Thus both theories have specific roles and are necessary: the domination of exchange value over productive power has been unhelpful especially to donor dependent and vulnerable Africa!

• The theory of productive power of wealth creation is driven by innovation, technical progress, continuousimprovement of the qualty of human capital or graduates.

05-12-2008 13

Responding to the damage of exchange value economics to Africa?• The possessor of mental capital through HE

training and research and knowledge is not just a consumer of what exists but a creator and innovator of new things from new ideas, visions of the future and imaginations!

• Such a theory of economics needs to contest the economics of standard static efficiency basedallocation based on the normative assumption of limited resources having alternative uses given unlimited wants

• Africa has suffered hugely from the application of such standard Smithian exchange value basedeconomics!

05-12-2008 14

An African Research University• The economics of exchange value can return• Critical to locate and protect Africa’s need to create research with the

theory of productive power• Research university as part of the goal and objective of the creation of

wealth• Positioning research university as an integral part of an African system

of innovation.• The conception of research as a factor of productive power, makes its

organisation, developmental and economically relevant• Research universities contribute by generating new trained innovators,

furnishing new and relevant scientific and technological information, developing new equipment and instruments, skills and human capital thatbring solution to varied problems,

• Research universities can create new networks that integrate science and technology with social needs

• Research universities and invent new products and solutions for anyforseen and unforseen challenges

05-12-2008 15

African research university• The African research university needs to

emerge as a key element of the Africannational system of innovation

• It must be built with an African unitedpolicy by appreciating fully research as productive power

• knowing full well alsoresearch’s key rolein building the African national system of innovation

• Research university constitutes part of the key institutions organisations and agents that interact to generate the S&T withinAfrica’s borders

05-12-2008 16

The African Research university• It enters as a key component to stregthen

the African NSI to function• Becomes part and parcel of the enabling or

capacitating set of element interactionsto build the African NSI

• Plays a critical part in meeting the goalsand objectives to forge a long-term future that eradcates poverty and ill- being.

• Contributes to create a policy environmentto build NSI that fosters research for productive power and wealth

05-12-2008 17

But Such a Research University is Expensive!• Africa has to develop a strategy to

build at least 5 world class or ideal research universities!

• If Africans unite policy, resourcesand talent, there is nothing that canprevent them from building the anchor that can stimulate productivepower to create wealth and eradicate poverty.

05-12-2008 18

The African Diaspora can do a fewthings to assist in buildingAfrica’sKnowledge Infrastructure

• 2003 we started a knowledgeinfrastructure building effort from Kwa Zulu Natal Universty

• In 2009 we hope to create an African Academy that can stimulateproiductive power

• By bringing those who createknowledge and those who can turn it into innovation can create qualitytraining both together and separately

05-12-2008 19

A concrete case to mobilise contributions• Knowledge remittance through

encouraging Diaspora bond• WWW.NESglobal.org to get Ethiopian

scattered knowledge to help buildresearch

• Senamoksh Clinic.. See the Lancent• South Africa also has Research

chairs and incentives to get skilledpeople to return

05-12-2008 20

Concluding remark• Research university cannot be imported• It can grow from the context of Africa• It needs to be theorised as pivotal to the creation of wealth through

productive power• Given the will to do it, research universities can be built at Africa level• To meet the goals of erdicating poverty through wealth creation• People are wealth, health is wealth, education is wealth, knowledge is

wealth• Thus research is wealth and a research university is necessary to create

wealth to erasdicate poverty• Africa must unite resources and other necessary efforts to realise the

research university to build the African national wealth.

THANK YOU• Mammo Muchie

Mapping Scientific Research in Mapping Scientific Research in OIC CountriesOIC Countries

Global Research ForumGlobal Research Forum

UNESCO UNESCO

Dr. S. T. K Dr. S. T. K NaimNaimConsultant COMSTECH Consultant COMSTECH

Islamabad Islamabad

2727--29 November 200829 November 2008

Human Development in OIC Countries Human Development in OIC Countries

1

Education expenditure: Average 4.0 percent of GDP Education expenditure: Average 4.0 percent of GDP average average

For Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh: 2.1 percent of For Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh: 2.1 percent of GDPGDP

Only 11 states (Central Asian and oil rich countries) Only 11 states (Central Asian and oil rich countries) achieved above 90 percent literacy achieved above 90 percent literacy

HDI Index shows sharp contrast, Kuwait and Brunei: 33 HDI Index shows sharp contrast, Kuwait and Brunei: 33 and 34 rank. Mali and Niger: 175 and 177 rankand 34 rank. Mali and Niger: 175 and 177 rank

Higher education: Libya, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Iran lead: Higher education: Libya, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Iran lead: 53, 56, 36 percent. For North African countries: 1553, 56, 36 percent. For North African countries: 15--25 25 percent. percent.

Gender disparities in educationGender disparities in education

African and Asian OIC: 3 percentAfrican and Asian OIC: 3 percent

R&D Expenditure and R&D ManpowerR&D Expenditure and R&D Manpower

2

Average R&D expenditure: 0.42 percent of GDP Average R&D expenditure: 0.42 percent of GDP

New InitiativesNew InitiativesDubai: Announced the creation of US$10.0 billion fund to Dubai: Announced the creation of US$10.0 billion fund to establish research centers.establish research centers.Saudi Arabia: Allocation of US$2.6 billion for a new Saudi Arabia: Allocation of US$2.6 billion for a new Science University.Science University.Nigeria: Allocation of US$ 5.0 billion for R&D.Nigeria: Allocation of US$ 5.0 billion for R&D.

Turkey, Iran, Qatar, Tunisia, Pakistan, Oman have doubled Turkey, Iran, Qatar, Tunisia, Pakistan, Oman have doubled their R&D expenditure in past 5 years. their R&D expenditure in past 5 years.

Average R&D ManpowerAverage R&D ManpowerAverage OIC R&D personnel: 525 per million. Average OIC R&D personnel: 525 per million. Average OECD R&D manpower: 2500Average OECD R&D manpower: 2500--3000 per million. 3000 per million.

Western AsiaWestern Asia(14 countries)(14 countries)

Trends in Research Publications: Trends in Research Publications: Science & Social Sciences (1998Science & Social Sciences (1998--2007)2007)

3Source: Thomson ISI Web of Knowledge

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Years

Pap

ers

Oman

Azerbaijan

Syria

Iraq

Qatar

Bahrain

Yemen

Palestine


Relative Impact of Research, Citations (1998Relative Impact of Research, Citations (1998--2007)2007)


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1998-2002

1999-2003

2000-2004

2001-2005

2002-2006

2003-2007

Years

Cit

atio

ns

Oman

Syria

Azerbaijan

Qatar

Iraq

Bahrain




0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

1998-2002

1999-2003

2000-2004

2001-2005

2002-2006

2003-2007

Years

Cit

atio

ns

Turkey

Saudi Arabia

Kuwait

Jordan

Lebanon

UAE




0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Years

Pap

ers

Turkey

Saudi Arabia

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

UAE

•Turkey: 70%

•Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon and UAE : 23%

Western AsiaWestern Asia(14 countries)(14 countries)Relative ImpactRelative Impact

Patent applications (resident & nonPatent applications (resident & non--resident) 1997resident) 1997--2006 2006 and USPTO (1963and USPTO (1963--2007)2007)

7Source: U.S. Patent and Trademark office(1963-07); World Intellectual Property Organization; 1997-06 (data refers to most recent year available during the period specified)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Turk

eySa

udi A

rabi

aAz

erba

ijan

Syria

Kuw

ait

Leba

non

Jord

anBa

hrai

n

Iraq

Pat

ents

Resident

Non-Resident

USPTO

South AsiaSouth Asia(5 countries)(5 countries)



-100

900

1900

2900

3900

4900

5900

6900

7900

8900

9900

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Years

Pap

ers

Iran

Pakistan

Bangladesh

Afghanistan

Maldives

•Iran: 70%

•Pakistan, Bangladesh: 30%




0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1998-

2002

1999-

2003

2000-

2004

2001-

2005

2002-

2006

2003-

2007

Years

Cit

atio

ns Pakistan

Bangladesh

Afghanistan

Maldives


Relative Impact Relative Impact Patent applications (resident & nonPatent applications (resident & non--resident) 1997resident) 1997--2006 2006

and USPTO (1963and USPTO (1963--2007)2007)

10Source: U.S. Patent and Trademark office(1963-07); World Intellectual Property Organization; 1997-06 (data refers to most recent year available during the period specified)

0

500

1000

1500

2000Ira

n

Pakist

an

Bangl

ades

h

Pat

ents

Resident

Non-Resident

USPTO

South East AsiaSouth East Asia(3 countries)(3 countries)



0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Years

Pap

ers

Malaysia

Indonesia

BruneiDarussalam

•Malaysia: 70%

•Indonesia: 28%

South East AsiaSouth East Asia(3 countries)(3 countries)



0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

1998-

2002

1999-

2003

2000-

2004

2001-

2005

2002-

2006

2003-

2007

Years

Cit

atio

ns Malaysia

Indonesia

BruneiDarussalam

South East AsiaSouth East Asia(3 countries)(3 countries)Relative ImpactRelative Impact

Patent applications (resident & nonPatent applications (resident & non--resident) 1997resident) 1997--2006 2006 and USPTO (1963and USPTO (1963--2007)2007)

13

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Mala

ysia

Indo

nesia

Pat

ents

Resident

Non-Resident

USPTO

Source: U.S. Patent and Trademark office(1963-07); World Intellectual Property Organization; 1997-06 (data refers to most recent year available during the period specified)

Central AsiaCentral Asia(5 countries)(5 countries)



-10

40

90

140

190

240

290

340

390

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Years

Pap

ers

Uzbekistan

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Tajikistan

Turkmenistan

•Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan: 86%




0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1998-20021999-20032000-20042001-20052002-20062003-2007

Years

Cit

atio

ns

Uzbekistan

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Turkmenistan

Tajikistan




16

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Uzbek

istan

Kyrgy

zsta

n

Kazak

hsta

n

Turk

men

istan

Tajik

istan

Pat

ents

Resident

Non-Resident

USPTO


Eastern AfricaEastern Africa(5 countries)(5 countries)



-10

40

90

140

190

240

290

340

390

440

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Years

Pap

ers

Uganda

Mozambique

Comoros

Somalia

Djibouti

•Uganda: 81%

Eastern AfricaEastern Africa(5 countries)(5 countries)



0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1998-

2002

1999-

2003

2000-

2004

2001-

2005

2002-

2006

2003-

2007

Years

Cit

atio

ns

Uganda

Mozambique

Comoros

Somalia

Djibouti

Northern AfricaNorthern Africa(6 countries)(6 countries)



0

300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

2100

2400

2700

3000

3300

3600

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Years

Pap

ers

Egypt

Morocco

Tunisia

Algeria

Sudan

Libya

•Egypt: 50%

•Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria: 47%




0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1998-2002 1999-2003 2000-2004 2001-2005 2002-2006 2003-2007

Years

Cit

atio

ns

Algeria

Egypt

Libya

Morocco

Sudan

Tunisia




21

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Egypt

Mor

occo

Tuni

sia

Alger

ia

Sudan

Liby

a

Pat

ents

Resident

Non-Resident

USPTO


Western AfricaWestern Africa(13 countries)(13 countries)



0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Years

Pap

ers

Nigeria

Senegal

Cote divoire

Benin

BurkinaFasoNiger

•Nigeria: 61%

•Senegal, Burkina Faso, Cote divoire: 30%




0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1998-2002 1999-2003 2000-2004 2001-2005 2002-2006 2003-2007

Years

Cit

atio

ns

Nigeria

Senegal

Gambia

Cote divoire

Burkina Faso

Mali

Benin

Niger

Guinea Bissau




0

20

40

60

80

100

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Years

Pap

ers

Mali

Gambia

Togo

Guinea Bissau

Mauritania

Guinea

Sierra Leone

•Average less than 10 papersper year

Western AfricaWestern Africa(13 countries)(13 countries)Relative Impact Relative Impact

USPTO (1963USPTO (1963--2007)2007)

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Gui

nea

Mau

ritan

ia

Mal

i

Seneg

al

Niger

ia

Benin

US

PT

O

USPTO

Source: U.S. Patent and Trademark office (1963-07)

Middle AfricaMiddle Africa(3 countries)(3 countries)



-10

40

90

140

190

240

290

340

390

440

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Years

Pap

ers Cameroon

Gabon

Chad

•Cameroon: 78%

Middle AfricaMiddle Africa(3 countries)(3 countries)



0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1998-2002 1999-2003 2000-2004 2001-2005 2002-2006 2003-2007

Years

Cit

atio

ns Cameroon

Gabon

Chad

South AmericaSouth America(2 countries)(2 countries)



0

5

10

15

20

25

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Years

Pap

ers

Guyana

Suriname

OIC Research Institutes OIC Research Institutes (Highly Cited)(Highly Cited)

29

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18T

urke

y

Iran

Egy

pt

Sau

di A

rabi

a

Mal

aysi

a

Pak

ista

n

Uga

nda

Kuw

ait

Leba

non

Om

an

UA

E

Highly Cited Institutions

Source: Essential Science Indicators (http://esi.isiknowledge.com/allmenus.cgi?option=I)

http://esi.isiknowledge.com/allmenus.cgi?option=I








Highly Cited ResearchersHighly Cited Researchers

978978Western Western EuropEurop

11TurkeyTurkey

11IranIran

11PakistanPakistan

11AlgeriaAlgeria

44OIC CountriesOIC Countries

40344034USAUSA

Highly Cited Highly Cited Researchers Researchers CountriesCountries

Source: http://isihighlycited.com

31

http://isihighlycited.com



OIC University Ranking by SESRICOIC University Ranking by SESRIC

30

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Tur

key

Iran

Egy

pt

Mal

aysi

a

Pak

ista

n

Kuw

ait

UA

E

Universities

Source: Esat Bakimli, Ranking of Universities in OIC Member Countries: Progress and Challenges, Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries (SESRIC)

Field strengths of some OIC countries based on citations Field strengths of some OIC countries based on citations of research papers,1998of research papers,1998--20082008

31

Clinical Medicine Oman13

Clinical Medicine Kuwait12

Clinical Medicine United Arab Emirates11

Clinical Medicine Jordan10

Clinical Medicine Saudi Arabia9

Clinical Medicine Tunisia 8

Clinical Medicine Pakistan7

Clinical Medicine Turkey6

ChemistryMalaysia5

ChemistryAlgeria4

ChemistryMorocco3

ChemistryIran2

ChemistryEgypt1

Field strengthsCountrySr.No.

Contd..

Field strengths of some OIC countries based on citations Field strengths of some OIC countries based on citations of research papers,1998of research papers,1998--20082008

32

Plant & Animal SciencesBenin22

Plant & Animal SciencesSyria21

PhysicsUzbekistan20

PhysicsKazakhstan19

EngineeringQatar18

Clinical MedicineBangldaesh17

Clinical MedicineIndonesia 16

Clinical MedicineLebanon15

Clinical MedicineNigeria 14

Field strengthsCountrySr.No.

Source: Essential Science Indicatorshttp://esi.isiknowledge.com/rankdatapage.cgi?thvalue=0&thvalue=0&thresholdon=1&sortby

=1&option=C&search=%28All%20Fields%29&searchby=F&displayalphabet=&x=46&y=8&currpage=4

http://esi.isiknowledge.com/rankdatapage.cgi?thvalue=0&thvalue=0&thresholdon=1&sortby













OIC Rising StarsOIC Rising Stars

33

Plant & Animal Sciences Pakistan13

Pharmacology & Toxicology U Arab Emirates12

Microbiology Tunisia11

Mathematics Pakistan10

Material Sciences Pakistan9

Immunology Nigeria8

Environment / Ecology Iran7

Engineering Pakistan6

Economic & Business U Arab Emirates5

Computer Sciences Pakistan 4

Clinical Medicine Iran3

Biology & Biochemistry Nigeria2

Agricultural Sciences Tunisia 1

FieldCountrySr. No.

Source: Science Watch.Comsciencewatch.com/dr/rs/08sep-rs

OIC Countries classified in three OIC Countries classified in three groups groups

34

1.1. Scientifically DevelopingScientifically Developing which include: which include: Turkey, Iran, Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Malaysia, Pakistan, Tunisia, Nigeria, Saudi Egypt, Malaysia, Pakistan, Tunisia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Morocco Arabia and Morocco

2.2. Scientifically AspiringScientifically Aspiring including: including: Jordan, Qatar, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Uganda, Algeria, Cameroon, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Uganda, Algeria, Cameroon, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Bangladesh and IndonesiaBangladesh and Indonesia

3.3. Scientifically Lagging:Scientifically Lagging: Sudan, Libya, Maldives, Cote Sudan, Libya, Maldives, Cote dd’’Ivoire, Benin, Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone, Mauritania, Ivoire, Benin, Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone, Mauritania, Mali, Gambia, Togo, Guinea Bissau, Guinea, Mali, Gambia, Togo, Guinea Bissau, Guinea, Azerbaijan, Syria, Bahrain, Iraq, Yemen, Palestine, Azerbaijan, Syria, Bahrain, Iraq, Yemen, Palestine, Afghanistan, Guyana, Suriname, Albania, Mozambique, Afghanistan, Guyana, Suriname, Albania, Mozambique, Comoros, Djibouti, Turkmenistan, Somalia, Tajikistan, Comoros, Djibouti, Turkmenistan, Somalia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Chad, Gabon, Niger, Brunei and Senegal.Kyrgyzstan, Chad, Gabon, Niger, Brunei and Senegal.

Providing Science and Technology Indicators in South Africa: The Role of the Centre For Science,

Technology And Innovation Indicators

Neo Molotja28-29 November 2008

Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII)

Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII)

• CeSTII was established in HSRC in 2001 (DACST/DST)

• Assist DST to monitor progress in achieving South African NSI/R&D Strategy goals

• Establish a baseline set of indicators • Commissioned to conduct annual R&D Surveys and

regular Innovation Surveys • Latest development: 10 year plan- Innovation Towards

a Knowledge- based Economy

R&D Surveys in South Africa: HistoryR&D Surveys in South Africa: History

• First South African R&D survey for 1966 based on first edition of the OECD Frascati Manual

• Since then 14 surveys have been conducted, mostly biennial

• CSIR and later in partnership with HSRC conducted the survey fieldwork

• Then a series of contractors, - institutional memory loss and no records of methodology were published

• After 1997/98 no surveys until DACST/DST commissioned CeSTII to undertake the surveys for 2001/02

Innovation Surveys in South AfricaInnovation Surveys in South Africa

Survey Covering Period

Financial/HR data

First Results Release

FRD/ISP 1992-1994 1994/95 October 1997

UP/Eindhoven 1998-2000 2000/01 Oct/Nov 2003

CeSTII 2005CeSTII 2008

2002-20042005-2007

2004/052007/08

April 2007Oct 2009

CeSTII (since 2001)CeSTII (since 2001)• The sixth in a new series of Research and Experimental

Development (R&D) Surveys covers 2007/08. The Survey is now conducted annually.

• South African Innovation Survey 2005 (compatible with CIS4 of EU and other countries) completed

• South African Innovation Survey 2008 (compatible with CIS5 of EU and other countries) in the field

• Knowledge Management Practices Survey

• Various large projects for National Advisory Council on Innovation (Mobility, tracking R&D expenditure etc)

R&D Survey R&D Survey

• Frascati manual guidelines• Survey instrument designed to include questions

relevant to South Africa issues• Surveys take about 12-14 months to complete • Business Enterprises : appr. 700 R&D performing

businesses• Government (incl. museums, public research institutes)

- 350 • Science Councils - 9• Higher Education – 24 incl. private institutions• Not-for-Profit – 25 organisations

Innovation SurveyInnovation Survey

• Innovation Survey 2005 based on Eurostat CIS4 methodology and core questionnaire – need for international comparisons. Innovation Survey 2008 basically the same.

• Random stratified sample from Statistics South Africa business register

• 4000 enterprises• Response rate for 2005 survey was 37.3% (very high for

South Africa)

Challenges• Undertaking a national R&D survey without much information from

previous surveys• Under-estimating resources• Small group: Doing R&D surveys & Innovation surveys in a large

country• Assuming the role of a national statistics office• Limited budget (training and executing surveys)• Training (with assistance from NEPAD) of other countries on

surveys (Malawi, Namibia)• Providing government and other users with specific S&T indicators• Business sector buy-in • Designing research agenda

Learning points: “Bigger picture”Learning points: “Bigger picture”

Support and buy-in• Need a strong champion in government • Government needs a long term view on R&D and S&T

surveys• Learning from international experiences and submission

processes (OECD/UNESCO)• Having the national statistical agency on your side is a big

plus• Understand the rights of respondents (e.g. private business)

and the limits of the surveying agent and respect the boundaries

Future work for Knowledge Economy Indicators


• Review of international approaches and methodology for providing indicators to measure and monitor the KE

• Consultation with key stakeholders for supply and use of KE indicators in South Africa

• Review of available and missing indicators• Strategic plan for providing suite of KE

indicators for South Africa• Provide portfolio of appropriate and desirable

KE indicators for South Africa



• Acquire appropriate and meaningful data and indicators to supplement existing indicators

• Produce new knowledge economy indicators and composite indicators for DST

• Databases are building up into a rich resource –need to use these but take care to preserve respondent confidentiality agreements in line with international best practice

• Build expertise in-house to use these data optimally and undertake micro data work for DST

websiteswebsites

• South African National Survey of Research and Experimental Development http://www.hsrc.ac.za/CCUP-RnD-7.phtml

• Innovation survey resultshttp://www.hsrc.ac.za/KS.phtml

• Department of Science and Technology, South African National Survey of Research and Experimental Development 2004/05: High-Level Key Results http://www.dst.gov.za/publications/reports.php

http://www.hsrc.ac.za/CCUP-RnD-7.phtml









http://www.hsrc.ac.za/KS.phtml







http://www.dst.gov.za/publications/reports.php








Global Research Seminar: Global Research Seminar:

Sharing Research AgendaSharing Research Agenda

IMPACT OF RESEARCH GOVERNANCE & POLCIES IMPACT OF RESEARCH GOVERNANCE & POLCIES ONON

UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS & ACADEMIC STAFFADMINISTRATORS & ACADEMIC STAFF

Assoc. Prof. Nguyen Phuong Nga,Vietnam National University, Hanoi

Dr. Matthew Piscioneri, Monash University, Australia

2

OUTLINEOUTLINE

1.1.What is research governance?What is research governance?

2.2.Levels of governance & policiesLevels of governance & policies

3. Impact on university 3. Impact on university

administrators & academic staffadministrators & academic staff

4. Suggestions and Conclusion4. Suggestions and Conclusion

3

1.1. What is research governance?What is research governance?Policies, management, Policies, management,

regulations, systems, procedures regulations, systems, procedures related to researchrelated to research

2. Levels of 2. Levels of

governance & policies governance & policies

GovernmentsGovernments

Funding agenciesFunding agencies

UniversityUniversity

3. Impact on:3. Impact on:

University University

administratorsadministrators

Academic Academic

staffstaff

4

Impacts on

Adm

inistrators an

d Academ

ic StaffIm

pacts on A

dmin

istrators and A

cademic Staff

RESEARCH GOVERNANCE & POLICIES FROM FUNDING AGENCIES

UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS

Relations with stakeholders

ACADEMIC STAFF

Mission changed: more research oriented

Policy-favoring research: incentives, recruitment

Teaching loads reduced, demoralizing teaching staff

Changes of standards for research outputs

Competition for research work

Teaching loads given to tutors

Concentration on applied research

Less deep & long-term research

5

4. SUGGESTIONS & CONCLUSION: 4. SUGGESTIONS & CONCLUSION: for governments and policy makersfor governments and policy makers

Governments & public should reGovernments & public should re--define demands for higher education define demands for higher education institutions;institutions;

Governments & public should invest Governments & public should invest more for basic research;more for basic research;

Research governance & policies Research governance & policies should focus on monitoring process & should focus on monitoring process & outcomes;outcomes;

6

4. SUGGESTIONS & CONCLUSION: 4. SUGGESTIONS & CONCLUSION: for governments and policy makersfor governments and policy makers

There should be policy or regulations There should be policy or regulations

to allocate a certain percentage of to allocate a certain percentage of

research funding for university research funding for university

resource recovery;resource recovery;

Governments should have policies on Governments should have policies on

sustainability for both basic & applied sustainability for both basic & applied

research developmentresearch development

7

SUGESTIONS & CONCLUSION: for UniversitySUGESTIONS & CONCLUSION: for University

Review mission & capacity: research Review mission & capacity: research

mission versus teaching;mission versus teaching;

Strategic management of research: Strategic management of research:

focusing on effectiveness & quality, focusing on effectiveness & quality,

utilization of infrastructure and recovery utilization of infrastructure and recovery

cost;cost;

Policy to protect and enhance university Policy to protect and enhance university

capacity for basic research;capacity for basic research;

8

SUGESTIONS & CONCLUSION: for UniversitySUGESTIONS & CONCLUSION: for University

Revise mentoring & recruitment Revise mentoring & recruitment

policies: balance between research & policies: balance between research &

teaching capacity; long term versus teaching capacity; long term versus

shortshort--term contractsterm contracts

Quality culture: healthy competitionQuality culture: healthy competition

Allocate research fund: institution Allocate research fund: institution

research sustainability & development research sustainability & development

9

THANK YOU THANK YOU

FOR YOUR KINDLY LISTENINGFOR YOUR KINDLY LISTENING

Arie Rip (University of Twente,

Netherlands)

Contribution to Global Research Seminar, UNESCO,

28‐29 November 2008

My topic

• Importance of analysis in terms of Knowledge, Research and Innovation Systems (KRIS)

• First level: Mapping and monitoring

• Second level: Functioning of the system (cf. WHO HRSA)

• Third level: Evolution of the system (dynamics, patterns)

• Indications? Ways of influencing evolution?

STI policy(mostly top down)

KRIS, and frame conditions:productive constellations, and evolution over time

outputs, further effects:contribution to economic growth, poverty alleviation, social coherence

simplistic view:

ongoing activ

ities,

patterns, dyn

amics

embedded in, &

modulating the

system

Approach (1)

• (National) systems of knowledge, research and innovation show paths of development (changes, but lots of continuity, cf. Nelson 1993)

• In principle, different paths are possible, and should be considered in their own right.

• In practice, dominance of so‐called ‘modern research system’ paths (TRIAD countries, with some internal variety),

•• ST policy studies reflect this dominance. Instead, ST policy studies reflect this dominance. Instead, consider alternative paths as topics of study, and not consider alternative paths as topics of study, and not just for developing countriesjust for developing countries

• Subsequent question: How to modulate ongoing development in direction of a desirable path?

Approach (2)

• Knowledge (rather than science), including informal and local knowledge

• Universities and public research institutes are not the only knowledge producers, and not automatically guardians of quality

• Cf. recognition of ‘third sector knowledge production’ and ‘distributed innovation’ (up to ‘collective experimentation’, cf. Joly, Rip & Callon) in developed economies – for developing countries even more important

• Competencies (and learning – key element, but overworked as a catchphrase)

Knowledge(products/competencies)

• Includes professional, informal and local/indigenous knowledge (e.g. increasingly recognized importance of traditional healers and their professionalization)

• Comparative advantage of developing countries:

• Knowledge about situations where new technology is to be taken up,

• Or where poverty alleviation has to take place

Knowledge (2)

• There is now recognition of a “third sector” of knowledge production (consultancies, NGOs, patient associations) in developed countries

• There are equivalents in developing countries?• Quality of the knowledge?• Local and interpretive knowledge – how to achieve broader validity than local?

• Systematic (eventually, ’evidence based’) knowledge is important – but lack of applicability in concrete locations

• So a trade‐off!

Emergence of the modern research (and innovation) system in Europe,

USA and Japan, since 1870

• Not uniform across countries, but there are overall similarities

• Is productive, also because of existing informal interactions, political culture

• Strong core, successive recontextualisations• Now opening up to other knowledges than professionalized scientific knowledge production

Knowledge production/ universitiesIncreasing interactions between

science and society 18701945

19701985

2000

By now, strongly institutionalized(outer ring is stillbeing articulated)

I’ve used this mapping of institutions as a diagnostic tool, e.g. for South Africa

Knowledge production/ universities

Patient associations influence research agendas and engage in research themselves, undermining the exclusive rights of scientists

Technology Assessment, Ethical, Legal & Social Aspects surround ongoing science and technology (Human Genome Project initiated this)

Outreach, public engagement –feedback into research agendas? (ex. interactive TA of GM vines)

Also consultancies (and NGOs) bridging science and the economy, science and the community

Authority over science (knowledge production) is also claimed by non‐scientists (from USA Congressmen to patients and indigenous people); counter‐authority is not the answer.

Re‐contextualization of science

Increasing interactions between science and society 1870

1945

19701985

2000

Other paths are possible

• Modern research system is opening up (one can specify indications!)

• Developing countries have a different history – so can “grow” their own path?

• Obviously, there are lots of constraints and dependencies. Including post‐colonial (incl. the Commonwealth pattern), and responses ranging from self‐pity to just asserting oneself (as in African Renaissance)

• Indications; now also about “own” growth!

Growth points

• ‘Knowledge blending’ and ‘technoblending’: productive mixes of local and imported (visible in agriculture and health, also elsewhere)

• Role of informal sector, also because role of intermediaries (is a general point, cf. Teubal on multi‐agent structures and horizontal policies – so nurture intermediaries!)

• Identification of such growth points based on a diagnosis of system dynamics: importance of heterogeneous/hybrid developments

Improving your system

• Centres of excellence and relevance are proposed, but too often focused on “high” ST

• Try “low” ST (analysis of uptake/embedding of technology; poverty reduction “on location”)

• Knowledge production and civil society (cf. also ‘people’s research’)

• Universities as a location for capacity building, but often constrain the broader capacities ( go for “porous” and “post‐modern” universities rather than “traditional” excellence)

In conclusion

• Adding evolution of KRIS to mapping and analysis of functioning of the system is necessary

• Indicators/indications can be specified, but require a diagnosis of:

• system dynamics (esp. heterogeneity), and

• a desirable path (political choices)

• Research on knowledge systems cannot be purely descriptive

Building Research Capacity in Developing Countries: Appropriate Model for African Universities

Eli Eli KatungukaKatunguka RwakishayaRwakishayaDirector, School of Graduate Director, School of Graduate

StudiesStudies

Makerere UniversityBrief

• Established in 1922 as Technical college• Oldest modern teaching and research

University in Sub Saharan Africa• 35 000 undergraduate students, 4500

graduate students, 3000 international students, 45 per cent Female

• 1300 academic staff, 2300 support staff

Challenges to RCB• Human resource capacity (Ph.D and postdoctoral

training)• Poor research culture and lack of motivation to do

research• Poor infrastructure (labs, equipment, ICT, Library

and e-resources)• Under funding (university, national, )• Donor driven research programmes (largely

applied and no basic research)• Epidemics and catastrophies, migration

Funding Initiatives • Improved funding

– Sida $45 million (2002-2009)– Carnegie Coorp $6.0 Million (6yrs)– NORAD $10 Million (5yrs)– World Bank $5 Million (5yrs)– Rockefeller $5 Million (5 yrs)– WHO, NIH, Wellcome Trust, Bill and Melinda

Makerere RCB supported by Sida (Appropriate Model)

• Philosophy: To support national efforts directed at the poor people to improve their livelihoods

• Sandwich programme to support research priorities identified by Makerere as key for national development

• Long term engagement/commitment (20-30yrs)

Capacity Objectives•• To produce qualified To produce qualified lecturers motivated to do lecturers motivated to do

more researchmore research and engaged in building and engaged in building research research teamsteams around themselvesaround themselves

•• To increase the number of To increase the number of potential PhDspotential PhDs at at supported facultiessupported faculties

•• To To enhance researchenhance research throughout the whole throughout the whole university university

•• To enhance the capacity for To enhance the capacity for research research coordination and programme administrationcoordination and programme administration at at School of Graduate Studies (SGS).School of Graduate Studies (SGS).

Forms of support•• PhD training (tuition and research costs)PhD training (tuition and research costs)•• Support to supervisors to link with their Support to supervisors to link with their

counterparts in Sweden for joint counterparts in Sweden for joint supervisionsupervision

•• Conference attendance by PhD students Conference attendance by PhD students and supervisorsand supervisors

•• Faculty and independent research fundsFaculty and independent research funds

Forms of support•• Field site (DSS), GIS and and Cross Field site (DSS), GIS and and Cross

Cutting Biomedical LaboratoryCutting Biomedical Laboratory•• Support for ICT Infrastructure and Support for ICT Infrastructure and

Library ServicesLibrary Services•• Administration and Coordination Administration and Coordination

of the programme (SGS)of the programme (SGS)

Achievements• Tremendous improvement in research environment

(ICT, Library, field site, labs)• Research culture enhanced (research teams, 250

joint publications, 160 Ph.Ds, Many proposals submitted for funding-Wellcome Trust, MSI)

• Research and Innovations, and IPM policy provide for research time and incentives

• Reduced brain drain/migration• International partnerships developed (UVRI,

IAPRCB,UC-LIFE, Bergen, USHEPIA,

Key elements of the SidaModel

• Sandwich arrangement• Support university/National priorities• Long term commitment• Involving both Ugandan and Swedish

researchers in a deep interactive partnership

• Commitment of large sums of funds

THANK YOU

The Impact of Temporary Labor The Impact of Temporary Labor Migration on the Demand for Education: Migration on the Demand for Education:

Implications on the Human Resource Implications on the Human Resource Development in the PhilippinesDevelopment in the Philippines

Tereso S. Tullao, Tereso S. Tullao, JrJr., Ph.D. and John Paolo R. Rivera., Ph.D. and John Paolo R. RiveraDe La Salle University De La Salle University –– Manila Manila

November 2008November 2008

IntroductionIntroduction

Migration and Overseas Employment (Migration and Overseas Employment (OFWsOFWs))Solution to growing domestic unemploymentSolution to growing domestic unemployment

Positive impact of remittancesPositive impact of remittances

Threat to various sectors of the countryThreat to various sectors of the country

Reshaped the Filipino family Reshaped the Filipino family

Effects on the demand for educationEffects on the demand for education

OBJECTIVETo inquire on the extent of the effects of temporary migration on the demand for education

To evaluate its impact on the country’s human resource development.

Overseas Employment of FilipinosOverseas Employment of Filipinos

Demand for EducationDemand for EducationInternal FactorsInternal FactorsExternal FactorsExternal Factors

Impact of overseas employment on the Impact of overseas employment on the family expenditures on educationfamily expenditures on education

Assumption: families receiving external income are Assumption: families receiving external income are households with members working overseashouseholds with members working overseasOrdinary Least Squares RegressionOrdinary Least Squares Regression

Impact of overseas employment on various Impact of overseas employment on various programs in Higher Educationprograms in Higher Education

Panel Data Econometrics Panel Data Econometrics

External Remittance and External Remittance and Education ExpendituresEducation Expenditures

Ordinary Least Squares Regression Results Ordinary Least Squares Regression Results

LSDV Fixed Effects Linear Panel Regression ResultsLSDV Fixed Effects Linear Panel Regression Results

ResultsResultsImpact of overseas employment on the Impact of overseas employment on the family expenditures on educationfamily expenditures on education

Families receiving external remittances have:Families receiving external remittances have:higher levels of incomehigher levels of income

have higher levels of education expenditures have higher levels of education expenditures

overseas employment has increased family overseas employment has increased family expenditures that enhanced human capital. expenditures that enhanced human capital.

Reasons for this trend:Reasons for this trend:Income effect Income effect

Effect of the culture of migrationEffect of the culture of migration

ResultsResults

Impact of overseas employment on the Impact of overseas employment on the demand for higher educationdemand for higher education

readiness of readiness of HEIsHEIs and graduates to respond and graduates to respond to global demandto global demandWeaknesses of Philippine Weaknesses of Philippine HEIsHEIsDo not have the capacity to prepare an Do not have the capacity to prepare an increasing number of students seeking increasing number of students seeking enrollment enrollment Liberalization of Educational ServicesLiberalization of Educational ServicesBrain Drain Brain Drain Loss of Comparative AdvantageLoss of Comparative Advantage

ConclusionConclusion

Improve further the management of Improve further the management of temporary migration. temporary migration. Address the negative consequences of Address the negative consequences of labor migration on the impact on human labor migration on the impact on human resource developmentresource developmentRedirection of remittance income towards Redirection of remittance income towards income and employment generation income and employment generation Increased investments in education, Increased investments in education, health, and other human capital enhancing health, and other human capital enhancing expendituresexpenditures