Report on Proceedings of the Second HESA Biennial Research and Innovation Conference3 and 4 April 2012, CSIR Conference Centre, Pretoria

Enabling Further Collaboration between Higher Education, Government and Industry for Research and Innovation

2

ACRONYMS

BLSA Business Leadership South AfricaBRICS Brazil, Russia, India, China, South AfricaBUSA Business Unity South AfricaCOHORT The Consortium of Health-Oriented Research in Transitioning SocietiesCPUT Cape Peninsula University of TechnologyCREST Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and TechnologyDIRCO Department of International Relations and CooperationDHET Department of Higher Education and TrainingDST Department of Science and TechnologyHDI Historically Disadvantaged InstitutionHE Higher EducationHEI Higher Education InstitutionHESA Higher Education South AfricaHRD Human Resource DevelopmentHWI Historically White InstitutionIKS Indigenous Knowledge SystemIP Intellectual PropertyMTEF Medium Term Expenditure FrameworkNDP National Development PlanNIPMO National Intellectual Property Management OfficeNMMU Nelson Mandela Metropolitan UniversityNRF National Research FoundationNSA National Skills AuthorityNSI National Science and Innovation systemNWU North-West UniversityPQM Programme Qualification MixPSET Post-School Education and TrainingRDG Research Development GrantsRISG Research and Innovation Strategy GroupSANREN South African National Network for Research and EducationSARCHi South African Research Chairs InitiativeSET Science, Engineering and TechnologySTI Science, Technology and InnovationTHRIP Technology and Human Resources for Industry ProgrammeTIA Technology and Innovation AgencyTTO Technology Transfer OfficeUKZN University of Kwazulu-NatalUNISA University of South AfricaUS Stellenbosch University

3

CONTENTS

ACRONYMS 21 INTRODUCTION1.1 Note from HESA 41.2 Purpose of the conference – Prof Loyiso Nongxa 5

2 STRENGTHENING COLLABORATION2.1 Keynote address – Dr Blade Nzimande 72.2 Questions and answers 9

3 POLICY REVIEW3.1 Review of the 2010 conference resolutions – Prof Loyiso Nongxa 103.2 DST’s emerging policy initiatives – Mr Imraan Patel 123.3 Discussion 14

4 ROLES4.1 DHET priorities and initiatives – Mr Chief Mabizela 164.2 The National Development Plan – Prof Michael Kahn 194.3 Discussion 204.4 Business priorities and initiatives – Mr Saki Macozoma 224.5 Summary Day 1 – Dr Steve Lennon 244.6 Discussion 26

5 COMPETITIVENESS AND DEVELOPMENT5.1 Two sides of the same coin – Dr David Strangway 285.2 Keynote address – Ms Naledi Pandor 335.3 Research infrastructure – Prof John Wood 355.4 Discussion 37

6 THEME DISCUSSIONS6.1 An enabling environment – Prof Johann Mouton 41

Report back – Prof Tinyiko Maluleke6.1.2 Discussion 436.2 Multi-sectoral collaboration – Dr Glenda Kruss 46

Report back – Prof Liesbeth Botha6.3 Internationalisation – Dr Nico Jooste and Prof Roseanne Diab 47

Report back – Prof Aldo Stroebel6.4 Innovation for development – Ms Jaci Barnett and Dr Tracy Bromfield 49

Report back – Dr David Phaho

7 SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS AND PROPOSED WAY FORWARD – Prof Thandwa Mthembu

52

8 WAY FORWARD 53

4

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Note from Higher Education South Africa

he global demand for greater social accountability, responsiveness and relevance on the part of higher education manifests as an emphasis on universities’ contribution to the

national economy. As knowledge becomes a force determining productivity and competitiveness, the rapid spread of open innovation and collaboration between industries in emerging and advanced economies around the globe demand special attention from universities and their potential to enhance the technological capabilities of business.

T

Knowledge-based institutions play a key role in preparing graduates with appropriate scarce and critical skills, and in contributing research to the development of new technology, new organisational forms and innovation. University education produces individuals with fundamental competencies able to absorb new technologies for business, thus building and increasing capabilities for commerce and industry in a national economy. University research can provide missing or complementary basic, applied or experimental research to inform industries’ innovation and research and development activities. In turn, industry has been identified as a key partner for higher education, as a potential source of much-needed third-stream income (Report to HESA’s Research and Innovation Strategy Group, 2012).

These trends are evident in South Africa, with attempts to promote university-industry linkages from the late 1990s, as part of new policy frameworks to bridge the innovation chasm between the science and technology system and the industrial system, and thus contribute to build a strong national system of innovation (DACST 1996, DST 2002).

Recent national policy shifts mean that higher education institutions are now required to align and co-ordinate their strategies with the state’s reprioritisation of socio-economic development goals that favour the poor and socially marginalised (HESA 2009). Knowledge and innovation are critical to socio-economic growth and development, but in a country of limited resources such as South Africa, interaction and partnerships between universities, science councils, and the private sector are even more essential to achieve these goals. The emphasis is shifting from promoting university interaction with business in the private sector in high-technology fields, to include interaction with a broader range of social partners – productive agents in the informal and rural sectors, and public-sector partners such as communities and civil society organisations (Kruss 2010, Goddard 2010).

Welcoming delegates to the Second HESA Biennial Research and Innovation Conference, chairperson of HESA’s board, Prof Ahmed Bawa, said the conference would focus on what was working and what was not, in the policy environment. Three issues have emerged in shaping the policy terrain around research. They are:

Prof Ahmed Bawa, Chairperson of the Higher Education South Africa (HESA) Board

5

• Fragmentation of the system, with various laboratories in the private and public domains that did not work together, resulting in a dearth of PhDs;

• Pervasive imbalances in terms of race and gender, where some progress had been made to bring about change;

• Disarticulation between the research system and the needs of a developing South Africa.

South Africa lagged behind on the human development index, despite having a higher GDP than some other countries against which it was benchmarked. Despite the challenges that the country continued to face, good progress had been made in establishing research chairs and other initiatives aimed at growing research and innovation.

The Second HESA Biennial Research and Innovation Conference therefore intends to identify good practice and build on current strengths, as well as point out actions for supporting research and innovation in the country.

1.2 Purpose of the conference – Prof Loyiso Nongxa, Co-Chairperson: HESA Research and Innovation Strategy Group

ESA came about through a merger of the Committee of Technikon Principals (CTP) and the South African University Vice-Chancellors Association (SAUVCA), with the aim of enabling

higher education institutions to respond to a range of themes arising within the country, the sector and externally, with a single voice.

H

Defining a common purpose around the areas of research and innovation is complicated by the fact that universities tend to compete for funding, capacity and resources. These issues were addressed in a Framework for Research and Innovation, aimed at both the public and private sectors, and a strategy group was established by HESA to look into research and innovation. A conference was hosted by HESA in 2010 with the theme “Strengthening Collaboration between Higher Education, Government and Industry for Research and Innovation”. Some of the key topics debated at that conference included:

• Government’s vision for research and innovation within a knowledge economy; • The legislative policy landscape governing research and innovation in South Africa, and

implications for the HE sector;• The contribution of industry, the science councils, the higher education sector,

government and other agencies to building and strengthening a research and innovation system for South Africa;

• Mechanisms, structures and partnerships necessary for effective facilitation, co-ordination, planning, implementation and monitoring of inter-sectoral plans for the achievement of research and innovation objectives; and

• Allocation of resources for research and innovation.

Prof Loyiso Nongxa, Co-Chairperson of the HESA Research and Innovation Strategy Group (RISG); Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Witwatersrand

6

Building on the previous conference, the key themes identified for discussion at this conference include:• Creating an enabling policy environment for the flourishing of research and innovation

in the sector;• Strengthening multi-sectoral collaborations;• Internationalisation of South African Higher Education Research and Innovation agenda;

and,• Innovation for development.

7

2 STRENGTHENING COLLABORATION BETWEEN BUSINESS, INDUSTRY AND HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Keynote address – Dr Blade Nzimande, Minister of Higher Education and Training

HE theme of strengthening collaboration between government, industry and higher education institutions to support and strengthen research and innovation is particularly

prescient. The key focus of the conference is government’s strengthening of research and innovation in a knowledge economy, and the allocation of resources to strengthen research and innovation. However, as much as it is important to focus on research and innovation, it is essential to ground the approach to these issues on the overall development objectives of the country.

T

Dr Nzimande said he was aware that his criticism of the notion of a knowledge economy might be viewed as controversial. He said the knowledge economy presupposed that all societies were growing in the same way and that some countries had to catch up with others.

The New Growth Path has identified key job drivers (among other things) to respond to unemployment, poverty and inequality. Other drivers are increased investment in infrastructure development and manufacturing. While meeting the goals of a knowledge economy is important, as a country we should guard against it becoming a fetish. South Africa should still focus on industrialisation and beneficiation of its mineral wealth, and should be committed to investing in infrastructure.

Apart from creating jobs, infrastructural development is aimed at creating integrated human settlements to reverse the effects of apartheid. Investment in research and innovation must seek to buttress these developments. Universities should therefore think about where they locate themselves within the overall national development plan, and should consider the implications for research and innovation. They should also be thinking where resources should be allocated to grow these areas. South Africa should not simply try to imitate other countries, but be aware of its own challenges, and as part of the SADC region and the continent.

The Education White Paper Three mentioned a number of aims and objectives, among them a higher education system contributing to the good of society through the production of knowledge, capacity building and lifelong learning, high-level research capacity and sustained research activities. Our creativity should be located in creating a better society. All societies developed in this manner, and not through chasing the objectives of their peers.

The triple-helix of government, higher education and industry leaves out the important component of community engagement and outreach. Alternative knowledge sources from society are overlooked by this exclusion, instead of forging mutually beneficial relationships.

The Honourable Minister of Higher Education and Training, Dr Blade Nzimande

8

Universities must learn from communities, and not only the other way around; this is a critical component of research and innovation. Indigenous knowledge is a critical component of research and innovation in South Africa, and interactions with communities should be used to full effect.

Government’s vision for research and innovation as envisioned by the Department of Higher Education and Training include:

• Partnerships and collaborations in defining post-school education and training – not only for purposes of research, but for the entire post-school education and training system. These partnerships should not be limited in scope, but should include structures outside of the system since knowledge is produced in society, and not only in universities.

• The post-school system should include institutions providing education and training to people who left school, but also to adults who never went to school. The current infrastructure for post-school provision includes universities, colleges, adult education centres, skills development centres and SETAs. It is necessary to understand what possibilities these hold for growing research and innovation.

Research development and innovation for a growing knowledge economy is a key principle of the department’s mandate. Increasing the number of graduates at this level will increase research output, while achieving societal transformation. One of the challenges facing the country is the revitalisation of the academic profession, since the average age of a South African academic is 59 years. Universities should think about using retired academics to strengthen the capacity of the system in the areas of research and innovation.

The Green Paper currently open for public comment highlights that the country has inadequate levels of research and innovation, impacting on its economic growth and development and ability to find solutions for societal problems. Not only do universities carry out research in various fields, but they also develop new researchers, making it a vital and important responsibility for both the Department of Higher Education and Training and Department of Science and Technology. It is important to ensure that research and innovation are mainstreamed into all programmes, and not limited to projects bringing income into the universities, despite its importance. The rest of the system should not be left unattended while the focus is only on third-stream income.

One of the aims of the current Ministerial Task Team on the Funding of Higher Education is to look at how research capacity and potential can be developed and expanded. Universities are encouraged and incentivised to focus on research, without forsaking teaching and learning at undergraduate levels. Unless the system has a good undergraduate foundation, we will not be able to realise our research and innovation goals. We should also get past the notion that intellectual work is superior to vocational work; there should rather be collaboration between these two areas. Although South Africa experienced significant growth in research and innovation, and there was an increase in research productivity, this growth was neither adequate nor sustainable. Academics should be given space to act as mentors and supervisors; research figures for 2010 showed that 57% of research emanated from only five institutions in the country. The research output of the majority of institutions remains lower than expected.

What should the ideal picture for research and innovation be? Should all institutions focus on research? What kind of differentiation do we need? The Department of Higher Education and Training is committed to resolving the differentiation debate, in terms of which a paper will be

9

released and debate facilitated. How best do we stimulate the research agenda in South Africa? Should Fort Hare University focus on agriculture, for example, both at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels? The reality is that all institutions cannot be research intensive in the same way, which is why differentiation should be encouraged without reproducing the apartheid landscape. Universities of technology continue to produce lower research outputs, but how do we achieve a proper linkage between vocational/technical education and research? Comprehensive universities may have an advantage in this regard, although there is a concern about mission drift. We need to think creatively of Universities of Technology as centres for collaborative partnerships to produce cutting-edge research, graduates and diplomates.

Furthermore, we should guard against research being dictated by commercial considerations only. We should work towards increased government input in research activities, because too strong a commercial focus reproduces inequalities. A lot of big companies in South Africa tend to support only particular universities, while former black universities are completely neglected. Even our own state-owned enterprises are guilty of not supporting all institutions in the country. The University of Zululand, for example, is uniquely positioned close to one of our biggest ports, yet there is no collaboration between government and industry to stimulate research programmes at that university. As we discuss the issue of partnerships the issue of unequal support to universities should be addressed.

The organisations funding research tend to set the research agenda. It is in the interest of the country to give our researchers a role in setting the research agenda, while not overlooking the country’s development goals. We are part of Southern African Development Conference (SADC) and the African continent, and of the Commonwealth, so we need to take our region into account when strengthening our research hubs.

The SA Regional Universities’ Association (SARUA) highlighted that the university participation rate in the SADC region is the lowest in the world, increasing the pressing need for access to South African higher education institutions. It will therefore be in our best interests to grow capacity throughout the region.

2.1 Questions & Answers

Question (Prof Sakkie van der Merwe): As a representative of the Association of Private Providers of Education, Training and Development (APPETD), private providers also employ academics and spend time and money to develop capacity; yet private providers have no access to developmental funding. There are no incentives for private providers to produce research and to publish.

Answer (Dr Nzimande): This is a complex question. Government experiences funding constraints in its support of public institutions. Despite frequent requests for the funding of private postgraduate initiatives, the Department of Higher Education and Training is firstly responsible for funding public institutions because of the access imperative. It was also noted that there are no private universities in South Africa; anyone calling themselves a private university is doing so illegally. In the context of this discussion, it may help private providers to forge innovative partnerships/networks/collaborations with other institutions or industry, since good things are happening in private higher-education institutions. The demands for funding in the public sector are just too large to leave funds over for the private higher-education sector.

10

3 POLICY REVIEW

3.1 HESA’s 2010 Research and Innovation Conference Prof Loyiso Nongxa, Co-Chairperson: HESA Research and Innovation Strategy Group

rof Nongxa summarised the 2010 HESA Research and Innovation Conference Recommendations, categorising them into short-term, medium-term and long-term

recommendations. The list had been circulated to all South African higher-education institutions. The 2010 conference also identified the need to interact with the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), the Department of Science and Technology (DST), the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the private sector on the recommendations.

P

Short-term recommendations included: • Engage DST to put HESA’s views across in terms of a blueprint for research, and doing a

mid-term review of the National Research Strategy. The Minister of Science and Technology directed an integrated research and development strategy, drawing on the 2002 strategy and the 2007 10-year innovation plan;

• Urge DST to review and scale up the SA Research Chairs Initiative (SARCHI) project, including the number of chairs and grant values;

• Increase the number of centres of excellence to foster regional and national collaboration, and ensure alignment between Historically White Institutions’ (HWI’s)? research and national priorities;

• Review the national funding framework to ensure adequate funding is provided for research, and accessing funding from the National Skills Fund for post-graduate training. The DHET set up a Ministerial Funding Framework Review Committee, to which the HESA Research and Innovation Strategy Group (RISG) presented its views;

• Increase funding for post-graduate students: DST investment has grown since 2004, however, inflation influenced the value of the grants adversely. DST allocated a further R52,7-million in 2010. HESA convened a meeting with the three directors-general to discuss the issue;

• Support fewer students, but make more funding available to each. Foster academic entrepreneurship to increase co-operation opportunities. The public and private sectors (other state departments and big business) should also be engaged on the funding of research;

• Increase the number of matriculants qualifying for university entrance, especially in Science Engineering and Technology (SET). HESA collaborated with the DST and DHET regarding the National Information Service for higher education institutions to ensure students enter SET;

Prof Loyiso Nongxa, Co-Chairperson of the HESA Research and Innovation Strategy Group (RISG); Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Witwatersrand

11

• Tap research resources in the science councils, and formalise engagement with these bodies and other national facilities. HESA developed a framework to foster collaboration between universities and the science councils with The Consortium of Health-Oriented Research in Transitioning Societies (COHORT). The DST’s investment in research is directed at ensuring that excellence in universities, science councils and industry is enhanced and expanded;

• Collaborate through research equipment and improving infrastructure: a report was commissioned and published by RISG looking at the sharing of equipment on a regional level and between universities and the private sector. The Minister of Science and Technology also called for a review committee to look at how the innovation system could be improved;

• Investigate the funding of equipment for collaborative units/teams across institutions. A position paper articulating HESA’s views on systems and infrastructure to support the national research agenda was developed. A ministerial committee was established to review the national innovation system and assess whether our systems and infrastructure are of sufficient quality to support the implementation of the national research agenda;

• Increase broadband connectivity: discussions with both the DHET and DST to secure outstanding funding for the South African National Research and Education Network’s (SANREN) rollout were instituted. R1,35-billion was secured for research and equipment infrastructure, while R538-million was secured for SANREN and other initiatives;

• Create and maintain a national database of research equipment. Information about equipment at higher education institutions and research councils and in the private sector indicates gaps that need to be filled. Lobby the DST and National Research Foundation (NRF) in this regard;

• Develop and maintain a database of post-doctoral students and fellows in the country;• HESA should establish a monitoring mechanism to assess the impact of policy

instruments on Higher Education Institutions (HEIs); and • Review Intellectual Property (IP) legislation and regulations.

Medium- and long-term recommendations (2012 – 2013, 2014 and beyond):

• The dual support system should be addressed, to tackle duplications and inefficiencies and optimise the support made available for research;

• Task team to develop a position on the Technology and Innovation Agency (TIA) with recommendations on how its funding could assist in improving the research and innovation outputs of the HEIs;

• Reaching out to organised business to ensure that the business and Higher Education (HE) sectors share research resources, including equipment and laboratories. HESA should activate discussions with Business Unity South Africa (BUSA) and other leading business formations to identify and formalise areas of partnership in research and development matters. Attracting graduates to do post-graduate research while ensuring enough investment through scholarships and other support programmes is central. Sasol and Eskom employ the largest numbers of PhDs in the country. Against this background, strengthening collaboration between HEIs and the business community remains critical;

• Share knowledge and new technologies and co-operate with counterparts in other parts of the world and implement a SA Higher Education Internationalisation Framework for the sector, informed by the National Research Strategy and Ten-Year Innovation Plan and current institutional initiatives;

• Strengthen partnerships between SA and other country groupings;• Conduct a study of the significance of the international mobility of talent from and to

South Africa, including students, academics and skilled workers;

12

• Engage with the National Treasury and the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) about funding;

• Self-differentiation within the sector: HESA set up a task team to engage the Ministry on an approach to differentiation informed by a set of agreed guiding principles;

• Establish a system for monitoring the impact of policy on higher education;• Consolidated the proposed regional National Intellectual Property Office (NIPMO).• Strengthen cross-departmental and cross-agency cooperation and coordination. HESA

should support the Minister in proposing and setting up such critical review committees; and

• An analysis of bilateral and multilateral agreements to secure international funding support for SA researchers.

3.2 DST’s emerging policy initiativesMr Imraan Patel, Deputy Director-General: Socio-Economic Partnerships, Department of Science and Technology

N THE evolution of the Research, Development and Innovation Policy Package, Mr Imraan Patel identified a number of critical issues, including the following policy priorities:I

• Human capital development and knowledge production;• Knowledge exploitation and innovation; and • Strengthening the national system of innovation.

The Policy Package includes the following documents/strategies (some of which are still in the process of finalisation):

• Science and Technology White Paper;• National Research and Development Strategy;• Ten-year Innovation Plan;• New Growth Path;• National Development Plan; and • Sectoral Policies.

The National System of Innovation is aligned to the current imperatives and outcomes of government, where knowledge and innovation play important roles. Since 1996, when the Science and Technology White Paper was developed, a lot of time was spent to put in place a directed policy framework. The DST was created in 2004, and since then has developed the 10-year Innovation Plan to identify grand challenges in terms of human capital development aimed at growing a knowledge-based economy, and 2009 saw the commencement of comprehensive policy implementation.

Mr Imraan Patel, Deputy Director-General: Socio-Economic Partnerships, Department of Science and Technology

13

The Science and Technology White Paper introduced the concept of a national system of innovation (NSI) as its underlying and main idea. The term was coined to ensure that the system’s activities focus beyond science and include technology development and innovation. A few decades ago, innovation meant something closer to invention, while today the focus is on how to exploit inventions for socio-economic benefits. The White Paper identified leadership, co-ordination and co-operation as critical factors for the development and effectiveness of NSI. The role of government was identified as having to see to it that different components are in place, interacted, and that there are agreed sets of goals and objectives. In terms of the R&D Strategy, a number of pillars were identified as crucial, namely:

• Innovation; • Human capital development, including transformation of frozen demographics; and• Creation of an effective government Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) system

and infrastructure;

Technology missions and science platforms, where public funding would play a big role in expanding and strengthening impact, were identified.

These included:

• Science Platforms (Astronomy, African Origins platform (palaeosciences), biodiversity, indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) and Antarctic research;

• Technology Missions (advanced manufacturing, information and communication technology, biotechnology, resource-based industries). All of the Technology Missions have well-developed plans in place, developed with universities and focusing on areas of strength and development areas. Industry was consulted in identifying key market drivers to help guide this process; and

• A proposed target of increasing research and development strategy expenditure to 1% of gross domestic product was also mooted.

Human Capital Development and Knowledge Production:

• In the area of human capital development and knowledge production, there are general and targeted initiatives under way to improve the effectiveness of the country. Centres of excellence would be enhanced, since these processes and systems were well established. Over the next few years, the number of centres of excellence will be increased. These centres have demonstrated that they enable universities to co-operate with the science councils, and it would therefore make sense to increase these centres;

• There is huge demand for SA Research Chairs Initiative (SARCHI) research chairs, which will also receive particular attention to ensure a balanced spread among disciplines and institutions;

• Infrastructure is essential for stimulating research activity, and a targeted approach to improve infrastructure standards will be necessary. The budget over the next Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) cycle has increased, and would be optimised. An important priority area is innovation infrastructure, which is a costly area; and

• International, regional and continental programmes are important in human capital development and knowledge production. South Africa is sought after in many areas, and form part of a number of international programmes. Regional and continental programmes should be expanded to increase South Africa’s exposure and optimise scarce resources.

14

Knowledge Exploitation and Innovation:

• This is an area that has been integrated into the Industrial Policy Action Plan through research and development-led industrial development;

• The important issue is to design projects that are closely linked to the private sector in order to spread the risk. A number of interesting prospects have been identified and will receive increased attention in terms of industrialisation and commercialisation going forward;

• Model development and experimentation occurs through centres of competencies, community university partnership programmes and risk and vulnerability science centres with rural universities;

• Well-defined national roadmaps are crucial for the success of all these projects. They are important to allow practical co-ordination to take place. It is important to identify outcomes and outputs, and the resources required to make them a reality;

• There are many areas where scientific knowledge can be effectively used to enhance planning and policy decisions. As part of the New Growth Path, existing sectors of the economy can be used as catalysts to build other parts of the economy. Agriculture and mining are areas where related inputs can be used to generate spin-offs. These initiatives need sustained support.

System development will depend on improved co-ordination, financing and resourcing, incentives for the private sector and international partners and partnership models where reflection on how the system can be improved will be crucial. There are investors keen on investing in South Africa, which would also have to be optimised.

3.3 Discussion

Question (Prof Aldo Stroebel, University of the Free State): The co-ordination and interaction between the DST and other departments that are doing the same activities need to be addressed. How will DST and DHET interact to ensure that the DST vision is supported and fulfilled?

Response (Dr Gansen Pillay, National Research Foundation): It was clarified that 270 SARCHi applications were identified as deserving of implementation, while only 60 could be funded. It would be necessary to find resources to fund these chairs. Some chairs are co-funded with the Swiss government. Information on an additional two chairs that have not yet been approved will soon be available on the NRF website. It was noted that a reserve list of chairs that qualified was also identified, should more resources become available. In terms of centres of excellence, additional funding had been made available by the DST to be rolled out in the coming years. The minister will make more information available on the call for centres of excellence in her budget speech.

It was asked whether the DHET and DST should not be investing money in centres of excellence in education, and HESA was asked to make the case on behalf of the sector. Treasury has been asked to provide funding to improve the number of PhDs, and it was noted that a document had been presented to the minister to take the process further. Another point that Minister Nzimande highlighted is community engagement, yet there is no national plan for it, nor dedicated funding from the DHET. R2-million had been invested in research on community engagement, but it would be necessary to grow the funding for this area. DHET has made available funding for laboratory equipment, where there is potential to improve the research output at institutions.

15

Question (student, Agricultural Research Council): We heard that funding for postgraduate students would be increased. Would this funding actually be used to fund postgraduate projects, or would students benefit from this funding in terms of their residential and living costs?

Response (Mr Imraan Patel): In terms of the interaction between DHET and DST, the relationship is improving, because we spend a lot of time on structured engagements. There is a particular focus on sorting out Human Resource Development (HRD) and co-investment in certain areas. We are working closely with them on both higher education as well as training. Changes in leadership do make it difficult to maintain the relationship. We are working closely on Outcome Five and also in terms of the recently published Green Paper.Response (Prof Loyiso Nongxa): The question relating to the level of postgraduate students is difficult to address, because there are different elements that are funded. The level of funding for postgraduate degrees remained the same over the past 10 years. The NRF investigated the level of funding and the needs of postgraduate students, as well as incentives for supervisors to take on postgraduate students.

Response (Dr Gansen Pillay): The funding mentioned was a specific capital injection made available by the Minister to make bursaries available and to make money available for needy students whose family income was lower than a certain threshold. The bursary value has increased, but still falls woefully short of an actual income.

Comment (Prof Michael Khan, CREST, US): Listening to the number of doctoral students that are supported, much has been made of comparing South Africa to a range of other countries, like Brazil. It must however be understood that good education in other countries is provided by the state, in South Africa we are still mired in a class-based model. Free tuition should be provided to all who qualify for PhD study if we are serious about making a change.

Comment (Prof Nelson Ijumba, UKZN): I support the notion that all students who qualify for PhD study should be fee exempt.

Comment (Prof Loyiso Nongxa, HESA): One can extend that provision to other government departments, but there are also private-sector role players to consider. We should involve all these parties in making investments in the research chairs. FirstRand has made an investment in a research chair in maths and science, for example.

16

4 ROLES

4.1 DHET priorities and initiativesMr Chief Mabizela, Chief Director: University Policy and Development, Department of Higher Education and Training

HE National Development Plan (NDP) states clearly that each university should have a clear mission setting out its unique contribution towards knowledge production and national

development. The higher education system should be diverse so that each institution can build on its strengths and expand areas of specialisation. No institution can serve all of society’s needs. There is a need for a new higher education framework in which the knowledge-production system operates and its relationship to innovation and industry needs to be reconfigured.

T

The NDP set the following targets for 2030:

• PhD graduates, either as staff or post-doctoral fellows, will be the dominant drivers of new knowledge production within higher education and science innovation system;

• 75% of university academic staff should hold PhDs;• The country should produce more than 100 PhD graduates per million of the

population;• Increase the number of African and women postgraduates, especially PhDs, to improve

research and innovation capacity and normalise staff demographics. Looking at the transformation that had been achieved between 1994 and the present, the number of African, female and disabled postgraduates still lag behind.

The NDP proposes some policy changes, i.e.:

• Build a properly qualified, professional, competent and committed teaching, academic, research and public-service cadre;

• Enhance innovative capacity of the nation;• Address the decline of the humanities;

Mr Chief Mabizela, Chief Director: University Policy and Development, Department of Higher Education and Training

17

• Build an enabling and high-quality differentiated system; and• Support institutions in chronic distress.

The DHET issued the Green Paper for Post-School Education and Training, which addressed the following issues:

• The problem of insufficient levels of research and innovation in the system;• The dependence of economic development on innovation; research and development

should occur in order to solve social problems;• DHET and DST need to work together to improve research capacity at institutions, and

increase the number of PhDs;• Ensure that the country commits and sustains long-term research that is

transformational, generates new knowledge and can work towards strengthening society and the economy;

• DST and DHET will work to ensure increases in support for postgraduate study and for senior researchers and that there is coherence in overall policy;

• Current policies and regulations assume that all institutions operate from the same basis;

• Emphasis is also put on the need for PhD graduates needed for academic positions, research, innovation and industry; and

• Universities with relatively weak research cultures and records should be assisted and funded to gradually develop their capacity in particular areas of specialisation and build their research culture over time.

The graph illustrates PhD enrolments over the period 2002 increasing from 7 766 to 11 590 in 2010, while the number of graduates in 2002 was only 985, increasing to 1 421 in 2010. The ratio of enrolments to graduates in 2010 was 46 699 to 8 633. This 1:6 ratio consistently applied over the period from 2002 to 2010. Only 33% of academics in the system hold PhD degrees.

Current policy improvements include:

• Research development grants;• Policy and procedures for the measurement of research output of PHEIs;

18

• Enrolment planning as a steering mechanism; and• Review of the funding framework.

In terms of Research Development Grants (RDGs), it was noted that these have always been calculated based on a shortfall by institutions to meet their research output norms. RDGs have not always been used to develop research as required or expected. All institutions should qualify for RDGs, and the DHET will cluster institutions according to their research development needs which could be viewed as a form of differentiation.

The graph illustrates research output measured against the number of staff with a PhD as the highest qualification was provided, indicating that the highest volume output occurs at only six of the institutions in the country. All the universities of technology and the historically disadvantaged institutions lag behind in terms of research output.

The following proposal was presented for the clustering of universities:

• Research intensive universities should collaborate with less research focused universities to develop capacity;

• Middle research strength universities should improve staff qualifications, collaborate, develop postgraduates and develop niche areas; and

• Low research strength universities should improve staff qualifications and develop niche areas.

It should be noted that the research targets of comprehensive universities differ from those of traditional universities, given the large number of diploma programmes contained in these institutions’ Programme Qualifications Mix (PQMs).

19

4.2 The National Development Plan and the national system for innovationProf Michael Kahn, Independent Consultant and Professor Extraordinaire, University of Stellenbosch

OUTH Africa is experiencing three crises, namely poverty, growth and the environment, all of which are further exacerbated by the presence of three distinct economies. We have done

better in some areas than others, being able to compete internationally in some areas of business.

S

Over the past 40 years, the two biggest employers in South Africa, agriculture and mining, have virtually collapsed. The New Development Plan targeted these areas as due for a turnaround. South Africa is mainly a services economy, having showed the strongest growth in this area over the past 40 years, followed by manufacturing, mining and agriculture. There are very few people in business, law and accounting with PhDs.

In terms of the Global Competitiveness Index, South Africa is 9th in the world in terms of financial market development. In accounting and auditing, South Africa is in the top three.

In the period 1963 to 1987, Korea has been awarded 343 USPTO patents, while South Africa was granted 1 744 patents. South Africa was on the edge of catching up with the advanced countries in the world. In the period 1987 to 2008, Korea registered 57 625 patents, while South Africa registered only 2 232. Until we change what we do, we should no longer use patents as a target. If a country exports high-tech products, it makes economic sense to focus on patents. In enhancing competitiveness in the platinum group mining cluster, for example, it would be necessary to grow manufacturing capacity.

Korea grew its manufacturing capacity through an inherited focus on education. Education is highly venerated in Korea, which is something we should emulate. It also had strong agreements between industry and the state, which we also do not have in South Africa. The National Planning Commission is advocating that this relationship should be fostered and enhanced. As a country, we should not fixate too much on how we interpret numbers, focusing too much on the ratio of gross domestic product to research and development spend. The number of active, fulltime researchers in SA has not grown since 2002, which is a concern. There has been good transformation in research capacity in the state sector, although this has not occurred in the university sector because institutions cannot compete in paying comparable salaries. The national target for the production of doctoral graduates by 2014 is 1 350 per annum.

Under apartheid there was a developmental state, focused on a minority grouping. In 1980, this situation changed, when a lean state model was developed and a number of state-owned enterprises were sold off. The New Growth Plan proposes a new developmental state, which is

Prof Michael Kahn, Independent Consultant and Professor Extraordinaire, University of Stellenbosch

20

classified as one that has the goals of industrialisation, economic growth and expansion of human capabilities in mind.

The New Growth Path is essentially a workers’ utopia, where the competition commission will level the playing field. Industrial strategy tries to be all things to all people, lacking focus, and having a weak understanding of innovation. The Green Paper on Post-School Education and Training (PSET) is supply driven, with a weak understanding of innovation where inclusion is the main object. The Ten-Year Innovation Plan has done extremely well.

• To revitalise postgraduate training, we must raise investment levels, hire and retain the best staff and hunt for this talent locally and globally.

• Enhancing higher education pivots on well-functioning schools that provide quality education in science, maths and technology in a well-rounded curriculum. To achieve this, we should re-establish the Dinaledi Schools.

• The overarching project must be the war on poverty in all its manifestations, being the major crisis of the day.

• We should focus on building the capital goods sector, which may mean that we could build and sell goods to other countries.

• We should focus on food and water security.• We should also establish a Presidential Council on Science and Innovation, which should

bring together business, labour and government to work out demand so that the thinking moves beyond the supply side.

Higher education should celebrate SARCHi, centres of excellence, and ESASTAP. It should also celebrate and insist on openness, and re-think the meaning of the majority classroom. Globally, South Africa is probably the country with the highest proportion of working class kids in higher education, but we have to investigate the impact of social class. Universities should focus on their core competences: “The most important impacts of higher education are of an indirect nature, such as through the supply of highly educated and skilled personnel.” (Fagerberg).

South Africa has to be careful in terms of its participation in the BRICS club. There have been changes in the geo-politics that have to be borne in mind. “Research cannot be dictated and organised from above, it must grow within the organisation.” (Meiring Naudé). Has this view of science and research and development changed, or is this ‘70s outlook still relevant?

4.3 Discussion

Question, (delegate): What are the functional boundaries of the research and development system? Could you also comment on IP?

Comment (Prof Nelson Ijumba): What is the strategy in terms of the 2030 goals with regard to PhDs? What will the DHET do in terms of funding to meet these objectives? There seems to be a notion about the decline of the humanities and the social sciences, yet if one looks at technology-based issues, they all have a social and human component. The time is gone when the classical conceptualisation of the humanities and social issues operated in a specific paradigm.

Reponse (Prof Michael Kahn): There are a number of issues around IP, such as the huge regulatory burden through the publicly funded R&D Act. It is unclear how this act will impact on IP. There are very few Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) that have been able to generate income. It is an unproven innovation. The department has introduced most of the policy

21

instruments that one would expect to find in an industrialised economy, but we’re not certain yet how they will work. The data on royalties displays a larger outflow and a smaller inflow, which would have to be carefully studied – it is not certain whether it is a problem in terms of declaration or actual income.

Innovation policy is a cross-cutter. If one part of government impedes innovation, the entire system will suffer, much like a convoy. There has to be consistency in government. If you are unable to generate enough people in your own education system, you can either do nothing or import people in a vigorous manner. The functional boundaries are therefore the whole of government, and it has to extend to provincial and local government levels.

Comment (Mr Chief Mabizela): Responding to the target of PhD targets for 2014, this was indeed an incorrect figure and the number was revised. In terms of the DHET’s funding strategy, the challenge is that government is juggling a whole lot of balls – the NDP, the Green Paper and the Funding Review – all of which aim to address funding. The Green Paper has stated that some corrective measures would have to be taken. In putting corrective measures in place, it would be necessary to think about differentiation since different imperatives would be funded differently. Institutional mission statements would differ, even though the funding would endeavour to address these differences in a consistent manner. Hopefully towards the end of 2012 a funding statement would be issued. It is foreseen that the Funding Review would be finalised by October.

Comment (Prof Stephanie Burton, UP): We are all waiting with bated breath for the Funding Framework. We had a dramatic change in the funding formula for this year, and very little comment was made on that. Is this going to be a continuing trend? We also hear a lot about internationalisation and we hear that we could gain some advantage from it – you mentioned some negative aspects. How can we use internationalisation to our advantage?

Comment (Prof Gansen Pillay, NRF): It appears that the way the system is designed favours numbers rather than quality. Are we favouring mediocrity where numbers rather than impact factors are important? We seem to be in denial about the time taken to complete a masters and a PhD degree, yet we won’t change the period allowed to complete and the funding provided.

Comment (Prof Mvuyo Tom, UFH): If one reduces everything that happens to politics, then we seek political solutions for all problems.

Question (Prof Peter Mbati, University of Venda): As mentioned, the ratio of staff with PhDs as well as infrastructure and equipment are all important in achieving good research results. One thing that we need to focus on is the issue of the lecturer-student ratios; we often have a woeful shortage of staff to do what is necessary in terms of teaching and learning, leaving little time for research. How does the DHET envisage addressing this issue to improve our postgraduate through-put rates?

Response (Mr Chief Mabizela): I can confirm that the funding formula underwent a drastic change. There is a limited portion of the funding formula that the minister can change in any one year; the remainder would rely on the funding formula to be changed through a policy change. In terms of whether this is a trend, I would say you could expect to see a similar occurrence when the next Ministerial Statement is issued.

The Deputy Vice-Chancellors (DVCs) Research have mentioned the issues you mentioned about quantity versus quality, and the matter will be revisited in greater detail at a later stage. There is a trend internationally to look at the impact of research publications, which has not been a consideration until about four to five years ago. The DHET has not started to investigate these issues, but we are feeling the pressure every time we have a meeting with the institutions.

22

It is also not an issue without controversy, and we have to be cautiously aware of what happened in other countries.

In respect of the time taken to graduate and funding for PhD students, the HSRC did a study looking at dropout rates across the system. There were many factors that featured in this discussion, but in SA poverty is the most pressing issue. Students do register or enrol for a degree and may take longer to complete, not only because of their level of preparedness, but also because of competing needs. At masters and PhD level most of our students are also studying part-time.

In terms of research output at Historically Disadvantaged Institutions (HDIs), I can only reiterate that the policy documents are still under review at the moment. We have to address the missions of institutions when we determine the funding that we provide. If we fund research, in which areas are we funding it? Should we give an institution a particular mandate and particular targets in terms of staff qualifications?

Comment (Prof Michael Kahn): I am all for internationalisation, but I caution that government should not impose onerous restrictions on our ability to recruit staff should we need them. Look at Brazil, with the Science without Borders programme. Mobility is everything, and is the lifeblood of a university. That is why I think the DST’s programme is such a great achievement. Politics is both everything and nothing; if technology does not reach people, it can be due to a variety of reasons.

Something more to think about – social sciences and humanities research is not under-funded in South Africa when you compare it to other countries.

4.4 Business priorities and initiatives – Mr Saki Macozoma, President, Business Leadership South Africa (BLSA)

HERE are as many views on research and innovation as there are businesses in the country. It is clear that there is a need for business to interact with the higher education sector in a

more organised manner, and for dialogue within the business community itself. T

Given the global financial and economic crisis, the cash flows of many businesses were affected negatively. There were also a number of government imperatives that affected business adversely, meaning that businesses were not able to sit out the crisis and wait for the next upswing. Many businesses had to adapt their operations drastically, which has meant that

Mr Saki Macozoma, President: Business Leadership South Africa (BLSA)

23

corporations have tended to be concerned with survival instead of issues of national importance. Human and financial resources were diverted to other areas to remain competitive.

It is interesting to look at the agenda of the World Economic Forum in Davos as a gauge of the business mood. Some emerging themes from that agenda have been carried over to other areas. The first issue is how innovation is defined, and where South Africa is placed in the typology for development. Innovation, as defined by the OECD, makes provision for societal challenges also to be addressed.

The point is relevant because the thrust and impact of innovation is challenged in South Africa, presenting a neo-liberal approach to life. The Higher Education Summit in 2010 addressed the commercialisation of knowledge which creates a value system based on the commodification of research. This view is completely opposite to the one viewed by the corporate world. Businesses have to demonstrate a commercial rationale for spending financial resources. Investment in research and development is an expression of belief in future benefits, which is a demonstration of future stewardship.

The economies of the world are divided into three different levels, among them the efficiency-driven model into which South Africa has been classified. It is necessary to move from this category to the developed category. If we are going to do this, we need greater innovation. We should understand where we are, and what we should do to develop. One of the post-global financial crisis insights is that the survival of humanity depends on collective action to reverse our actions that put the world at risk. This change is captured in the group Skills for Biodiversity’s document in which they identified four key knowledge challenges aimed at enhancing sustainability.

They identified the need to innovate, to think about science for sustainability and the human and social sciences, among others. These priorities coincide with those that are emerging internationally such as using less water; doing more with less; preparing for rapid change and extreme events; and minimising and mitigating risks. Another important issue is food security.

It is necessary to think about how these emerging issues should be researched and innovations generated so that they are also commercially viable. It would be necessary to find ways for venture capitalists and intellectuals to invest their money and time in these emerging issues. Direct government subsidies have not worked; financing green growth requires market-based incentives.

These emerging priorities are not less important than the building blocks of the so-called knowledge economy identified since 1994; the fact of the matter is that these issues are not mutually exclusive. They offer an opportunity to deal with a niggling sensitivity in higher education, i.e., the reach of the research Rand. Ways have to be found to distribute research funding differently.

Lastly, governance in higher education institutions has to be dealt with in a politically brave manner. If the towns of Alice, Mahikeng or Mthatha are not working properly, it is going to be difficult to attract the talent required at the universities housed in these towns. It is up to the citizens of the country to make these places conducive to academic endeavour.

24

4.5 Summary of key issues Dr Steven Lennon, Group Executive, Eskom

R Lennon provided both a summation of the key issues that emerged from the presentations and discussions on Day 1 and an identification of possible issues that may

need to be addressed on day 2 and beyond. These issues are discussed per theme.DStream 1: Creating an enabling policy environment for the flourishing of research and innovation in the sector:From the discussions it appears that -1) We still have a fragmented research and innovation system;2) This is compounded by the multiplicity of state funding – DHET, DST, DoE, DMR, DEA, etc;3) There is a little evidence of alignment across state departments;4) While some progress has been made in addressing race and gender imbalances, the skilled

workforce is ageing;5) There appears to be a dislocation between NSI and development needs of society and

economy;6) Some priorities for the research and innovation system include a focus on jobs,

infrastructure, manufacturing, and the green economy;7) Enabling and establishing a high quality differentiated system is taking too long to take

shape;8) We have many priorities in HE, including building a quality teaching, academic, research and

public cadre;9) Who should decide on the national research agenda? The universities should have the

freedom to focus on their own priorities. Should institutions try and be everything to everyone? What impact will the funding formula have?

10) The system seems to need effective advisory functions with strong links to implementation processes;

11) Innovation is constrained by a dysfunctional society. Society must function for innovation to thrive; and

12) Current policy research may be inadequate to serve our needs. We need a mechanism pulling together the national system of innovation strategy and alignment across the different state departments. Such a body could fulfil the same role as the National Planning Commission and report to Cabinet. There should also be alignment of implementation, which could be achieved through a dedicated delivery unit.

Dr Steve Lennon, Group Executive, ESKOM Holdings (SOC) Ltd

25

Stream 2: Strengthening multi-sectoral collaboration:In respect of multi-sectoral collaboration it is evident that -1) The rules of the game have changed for the private sector. A high-risk environment has

forced a survival and compliance approach;2) The triple-helix partnership model needs to change, incorporating universities, government,

industry and communities. The question is how to engage and reach out to communities;3) We need to seek win-win partnerships throughout the value chain and life cycle of the

development of people; 4) What role can the private higher education sector play in respect of research and

innovation? Is there a need for more partnerships?5) We should build on the successes - some great success stories were noted, such as SARCHi

and other flagship projects;6) We need industrial support for commercial research – but not too much;7) We also need mechanisms or incentives to increase industrial support for research chairs;8) Long-term programmes have to be conceptualised, coupled with having the courage to stay

the course; and 9) Is there a decline or domination of humanities? Neither, we need to get rid of the paradigms

and rather focus on collaboration across sectors and disciplines.

Stream 3: Internationalisation of SAHE Research and Innovation Agenda:Some forward-thinking strategies for research and innovation in South Africa include -1) We need innovation for competitiveness – converted into tangible value;2) What development model should apply to SA? We should not just copy historical

development models;3) Who should we copy, emulate or aspire to be?4) There is a need for strategic thinking for global positioning;5) The flagship projects and programmes, e.g., SKA, centres of excellence in South African

innovation and competitiveness could play an important role in the internationalisation of our research;

6) Regional networks, e.g., SADC should be strengthened;7) We should make the most of relationships – international agreements and programmes, e.g.,

BRICS, ICSU, IGBP, and IPCC (presenting massive opportunities for Green Innovation, most notably in water management and energy generation); and

8) We should establish opportunities to use foreign students to reinforce SA skills base.

Stream 4: Innovation for developmentSome thoughts on innovation for sustainable development include - 1) Innovation should focus on sustainable development;2) The question is how to engage society on innovation through open innovation models?3) Innovation promotion should take place in society as a whole, and in the formal and

informal sectors;4) The question is how to ensure the replication of social innovation models at scale;5) What is the role of innovation in achieving Vision 2030?6) The mainstreaming innovation into economy and society should be a key focus;7) We need effective and efficient incentive structures, such as research and development tax

incentives, venture capital, funding mechanisms, etc;8) There is a need for alignment of research and innovation with the economy – services,

manufacturing, mining, agriculture; 9) Research and innovation should be delivering what the economy, society and environment

need – skills, technologies, resources and processes.10) Efficiency in the economy is critical for sustainability and competitiveness.11) Key emerging themes for research and innovation:

a) Climate-resilient agriculture;b) Renewable and clean energy;

26

c) Smart grids and energy efficiency;d) Water management;e) Low carbon transport systems;f) ICT;g) Biotech;h) Advanced materials; and i) Automotive technologies.

Challenges and issues:• The key challenge is making it happen: we know what needs to be done, but progress

since 2010 is mixed. How do we implement effectively?• Do we have a National System of Innovation (NSI) or merely the sum of individual

entities and systems? Unless improved coordination and collaboration across entities become a reality, we cannot talk about a system.

• What is our vision for the NSI, and how do we establish a single view of the NSI today and into the future?

• How do we strengthen and deepen the system?• How do we align to produce what the economy and society needs – war on poverty –

policy consistency?• How do we mainstream quality research and innovation to become the domain of

society and the economy as a whole?• How do we differentiate the higher education sector to deliver for the economy and

society?• How do we increase research funding and support for postgraduates (inputs)?• How do we increase output throughout the research and innovation value chain – skills,

IP, economic, social and environmental added value? – and,• How do we fundamentally transform the system?

An innovation roadmap for South Africa requires us to close the gap between what we have, and what we need. We need to look at what is in place, what our current strengths are, and determining our competitive edge. Looking into the future, we have the National Development Plan and Vision for 2030, providing the goals and objectives that we want to attain. We need to put a number of key strategies and programmes in place, and we should review whether they are addressing the gaps.

These are:

• National R&D Strategy;• A 20-year Innovation Plan;• HES Strategy;• Innovation Infrastructure Plan;• Flagship programmes;• Internationalisation;• Innovation for development; and• Sectoral roadmaps.

4.6 Discussion

Question (delegate from UCT): The issue of funding has been discussed throughout the day. We also heard of a large number of students enrolling for postgraduate study and low throughput figures. Would business and industry be supportive of universities wanting to

27

enable their students to travel abroad and get international exposure, which may make them more employable?

Response (Mr Saki Macozoma): The answer would be yes and no. For that kind of interaction to have any kind of impact, there would have to be some kind of formal agreement between business, universities and the government. When you make an investment in a person, you have to think carefully about what specific skills you are developing. All of these require a kind of understanding and national consensus. If you take the typical South African enterprise, we are driven by industry charters and scorecards. The consequence is that many companies just do the minimum to comply, meaning that these interactions are pushed aside. If something has to happen, it will have to be driven by universities themselves.

Response (Dr Steve Lennon): I would emphasise that the impetus would have to come from the universities. For example, many business schools offer some kind of international exposure as part of their programmes. We know that there is the possibility of leveraging research money over and over, but institutions tend to be quite selfish once they get the money. International collaborative research programmes do have great value to add.

Comment (Ms Sekati, Unisa): Dr Lennon’s input made me realise that I have a concern in terms of the social and human sciences. I’m surprised that we are not talking about poverty alleviation or things that are contained in the Millennium Development Goals. There is also no conversation in our society; we are not problematising the issues. We are not talking about issues of service delivery, unemployment, poverty, Africanising the curriculum, etc. I am concerned whether we should be worried about the fact that we are not addressing issues holistically. We should be talking about the natural and social sciences and humanities holistically.

Response (Dr Steve Lennon): There is a divide between the natural and social sciences, but it should also be acknowledged that you cannot succeed in some areas like biotechnology without taking a holistic view of all the sciences. In some areas if you don’t take heed of the social sciences, you will never succeed. The whole area of innovation for sustainable development has society as its focus, so it has to be better integrated into our research activities.

Response (Mr Saki Macozoma): I think that it is the duty and responsibility of people working in the social sciences to ensure that all relevant dimensions of their disciplines are incorporated in other areas. Similarly, we have to ensure that economics are incorporated where relevant, in a cross-cutting manner. Unless we have a total view, we will not be able to operate in the world of work where we need thinking scientists.

Comment (Prof Ijumba, UKZN): We heard that because of the financial meltdown companies have gone into survival mode, which affected their corporate social responsibility spending. There may also be a feeling among businesses that they are not getting the value that they expect. I think we need to ensure that these parties engage often and in-depth in order to discuss what products the universities should deliver to meet businesses’ needs.

28

5 COMPETITIVENESS & DEVELOPMENT

5.1 Two sides of the same coin Dr David Strangway, Former President University of Toronto and of the University of British Columbia, Former President of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, Founder Quest University Canada

ET me first express my deep appreciation for the invitation to present my thoughts on research and innovation. I will make my presentation in four parts: first, my Africa

background; second, my experience as an academic and as an administrator; third, as a champion of innovation; and fourth, as a partner in a proposed surge in Africa’s research capacity.

L

In AfricaLET me now give you a little background so that you can understand my deep commitment to Africa.

I grew up in Angola. My parents were medical missionaries there for 40 years from 1927 to 1967. Theirs was a life in tropical medicine. They built a 150-bed hospital from scratch including all the construction that was needed. They ran a furniture-making factory supplying needs across the area. They developed a comprehensive health-care system, ranging from surgery to infectious diseases to mother and child issues to extensive outpatient work and to active public health measures. They did original research on many tropical diseases such as river blindness, tuberculosis, leprosy and many others. They created and managed a very successful farm that helped them to deal with the myriad of nutritional diseases. And they raised prize cattle for meat and milk. In order to facilitate local farmers they imported ploughs and sold these on very favourable credit terms to local farmers. They trained many African health-care workers as part of their legacy. Their life’s work was remarkably innovative and entrepreneurial. In 1927 the life expectancy was 8 years. By 1967 it had risen to 46 years. It is interesting by the way to note that rich diamond deposits have been discovered close to my old home. This was my boyhood. I went to school in Angola, Zambia and Zimbabwe. My first visit to South Africa was in 1940 when we drove from Cape Town to Angola. And in 1944 we were in Johannesburg when we saw snow.

I am now involved with a very successful NGO that operates in Angola. They have been finding that the normal sources of aid are both decreasing and becoming ever more bureaucratic. It is interesting to watch their approach to social entrepreneurship. They have started and operate a highly successful microcredit bank that in fact makes money to put back into their social

Dr David Strangway, Former President, University of Toronto and British Columbia, Former President of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, Founder, Quest University, Canada

29

endeavours. They have created a furniture manufacturing facility that is supplying furniture for the expanding schools of Angola. Many people are trained and the projects are truly innovative.

Academia and administrationMY own career in geophysics involved extensive work with mining companies. I was a researcher developing new and innovative tools for mineral exploration, some of which are still used today. This was followed by several years on the faculty at MIT doing research in magnetism and electromagnetism. From there I became the chief of Earth and Planetary Science for Nasa during the Apollo missions and man’s landing on the moon. This experience was all about innovation and I learned about contracting out the needs of the project to meet the public requirement of demonstrating the superiority of US technology. Here, I interacted with the best of the scientific community from around the globe, as we worked to rewrite the book on the origin and evolution of the solar system. It is interesting to reflect that the United States’ landing of a man on the moon was not for the purpose of science. Yet it was the driver of this scientific revolution. This reversed the usual pattern as application led to basic science. The outcomes of the Apollo missions could be summarised as, one, a vibrant space technology private sector and, two, a vibrant scientific community of planetary scientists. Some would say this was the establishment of a functioning innovation ecosystem. During my career in science, I authored over 160 scientific papers. But fate then took me to a new place. I became the president of the University of Toronto and then of the University of British Columbia over a period of many years. I experienced the frustrations of trying to create an environment where students and faculty could thrive and contribute back to their country. If we were to maintain the autonomy and freedom of expression so vital to the modern university, it was my view that students and faculty alike owed a commitment to develop and use their expertise on behalf of the taxpayers who provided the major part of their support. Of course I worked hard to provide the support needed to ensure that we could attract and retain the best academics. This became increasingly more difficult as time went on as the government provided per student resources decreased steadily. It was during this time that we extensively developed the incubators and spinoff companies that led to the strengthening of the research and development cluster around the University of British Columbia as key to driving innovation. We created and built several facilities that housed and supported several hundred innovative spin-off companies. By charging rent, we were able to do this at no net cost to the university. At UBC we kept the right of first refusal for the university for patenting and licensing. We took shares or royalties on those we chose to pursue. This added to our revenue stream and permitted us to reinvest in promising research projects that had a prospect of spinoff. But it must be said that the major objective was not to make money, but to help build the innovative capacity of our city and province. Many would say that this is likely the most successful research park in Canada. We also provided a location for a number of research labs run by private sector groups of companies, especially in the forest products sector.

Like all university presidents of course we were always searching for what you call third stream funding. In the late 1980s and early 1990s we launched a major fund raising campaign. This fund raising campaign raised nearly $300-million. At that time, this was by far the largest fundraising campaign in Canadian history. It needs to be understood that the concept of private sector fundraising was in its earliest stages of development in Canada. At that time, Canada had not yet adopted the much more aggressive US approach. But since that time, there have been significant breakthroughs by Canadian universities and over the years the culture has developed. But it must be remembered that fund raising is a long, slow process requiring building real teams to support the president, the chief fund raiser. A couple of things were critical to this early success. We always kept our case statements in draft and sought advice from potential donors. We never asked donors to make up for government funding shortfalls

30

and always presented ideas that allowed us to do new and better things. We never put the money into day to day operations, only into capital and endowment. In the earliest days the provincial government matched our donations and provided immense leverage as we approached donors. Today, more than 20 years later, the culture of third stream funding has matured in Canada. UBC just announced a campaign for $1,5-billion and is more than half way there. It is my experience that donors are typically much easier to deal with than governments, as they respect and understand the need for independence and autonomy.

UBC was also fortunate in its land asset close to the City of Vancouver. Some of this was used to develop a very successful market housing project selling 99 year leases to developers. These have done extremely well and the UBC endowment now stands at well over $1 billion dollars.

Canada for a period developed a successful Corporate Higher Education Forum that brought together CEOs of universities and CEOs of the business world. The common dialogue was helpful in bridging the divide. It later lost momentum when the university CEOs pushed the corporate CEOs to start lobbying government on their behalf, rather than focusing on the common interests. There are very successful similar organisations in Japan, in the US and in Australia that continue the important dialogue. There is little doubt that such a forum can strengthen relationships between the university and the corporate sectors. I still remember a meeting with a number of CEOs of pharmaceutical companies that were seeking to help the university build an important research facility at the university. After listening, I finally asked them why with their own substantial resources and research labs they wanted to work with the university. Simple they said. If we do it, no one will accept the results. If you do it, the results will be accepted. In other words they valued our total independence and autonomy and supported us as these were critical to the future of their industry.

Champion of innovation You can imagine then how privileged I was to be invited to be the first president of the Canada Foundation for Innovation. This foundation has now distributed on a competitive basis over $5 billion and with matching funds over $12-billion to provide the latest research facilities to help retain and attract the best from around the world. In fact in the recent budget, the programme has been refunded and extended for another five years. Projects were proposed by universities and teaching hospitals. Funds were made available for newly recruited faculty to provide them with start-up labs and computing facilities. On a large scale, the Foundation funded Canada’s first synchrotron. It funded a light pipe cable under the ocean to develop the world’s first underwater observatory now in operation. It funded a number of very significant genomic and proteomics facilities. It was during this time that the program of Canada Research Chairs was set up. The federal government funded 2000 faculty positions to be held at universities across Canada. Half were for early career researchers and half for senior career researchers. The number of chairs was awarded in proportion to the success of each university in competing for funds from the three granting councils. This reinforced research excellence in research universities but was open to all. Universities like Toronto were awarded well over 300 such positions. But smaller universities could also profit from this competition. Applications from the president of each university in these two categories were dependent on the university itself establishing a formal research plan. Then they had to show how these applications reinforced their own plan. It was common to hear that the requirement to set institutional research priorities was one of the major benefits. These plans typically focused on the important developments of the time. Many new clusters of excellence were either created or were helped to move into the category of excellence. Centers of Genomics, Centers of Nanotechnology, Centers of Environmental Research, Centers of Social Science dependent on access to massive federal data bases and many others were created or enhanced. These two programs have recently had their ten year reviews and have been judged to be among the best of their kind in the world. Several countries have emulated the model including South Africa. Brain drain in

31

Canada has been changed to brain churn, as they say. Canada’s capacity to compete has been strongly enhanced. In many cases this support reinforced the important private-public partnerships that are so important to innovation. The wise universities exploited this opportunity.

All of these steps were designed as the economists would say to build the supply side of innovation by building the research capacity to very high levels. But the economists would say that to build an innovation society, there must also be a demand side. I think we can all agree in general, that an innovative society needs both supply and demand. In recent times my country has been examining the question of why Canada’s private sector is not more innovative. A number of studies, including my own recent report, have examined this question carefully. Generally, it is assumed that it is the private sector that is not as innovative as it should be and that they should be pressured into adopting a more innovative culture.

But let us look at this more carefully. Many would agree that the United States has been one of the most innovative countries in the world. What becomes clear is that government itself is in fact the largest driver on the demand side. By focusing on smart procurement, they drive demand by contracting to meet public needs from the private sector and from the university sector. I saw this directly during my own years in the space programme. And the government procurement process drives much of the demand side of innovation by being the first purchaser. Whether the procurement is to meet defence needs or new energy needs or communication needs or health care needs, governments have a very important role to play in building the private sector capacity to meet demand, just as they do in driving the supply side of innovation. This demand is driven to a large extent by the public need as well as by the needs of the private sector. It is instructive to note that in the US many of the large national laboratories are funded by government, but operated by universities or the private sector. The National Energy labs are operated outside government and of course this leads to exploitation of the capacity this has created to drive further innovation. The European Union is moving strongly to capture the benefits of contracting out public research and development needs. It has been estimated that the US contracts out 20 times more of its research and development than the whole of the EU combined. The EU is planning to provide major financial support when two or more countries agree to contract out their needs. I have recently reported to my government on how to stimulate private sector innovation.

I understand that South Africa’s commitment to the Square Kilometer Array is doing just this. Let us hope that southern Africa wins the competition.

What is different about the world of innovation is that as the World Bank says Innovation is nonlinear because the demand side and the supply side are inextricably linked”. Or as a recent book title says, “Demand - Creating What People Want Before They Know They Want It”.

Proposed surge in Africa’s research capacityNOW let us turn back to Africa. I think everyone here would agree that Africa must build its research and development capacity and that it must focus on building the capacity in both the supply side and the demand side. In fact there are many activities on this front taking root all across the continent, as jurisdiction after jurisdiction moves to educate its people at the advanced level and to carry out demand-driven research.

Africa certainly has demands that could be tackled in the form of grand challenges and that will in turn lead to breakthroughs in basic science. It is important to note that academies of science have been developed across the continent. Africa knows perfectly well what the needs are whether it be health care, food security, mother and child, environment or developing and using its natural resources for the betterment of its people. For example Angola has just opened six new universities and is running a series of national STI conferences in support of the new

32

national policy. The challenges are many, but it seems to me that building the capacity to train, attract and retain the best researchers is absolutely necessary.

Today I would venture to say that Africa needs thousands of Dr Strangways (my father). But this time, they must be trained and educated in Africa to deal with the many demand issues that face so many African countries. Of course South Africa with its incredible national plan fully recognises this and is fast strengthening its capacity. Many developed countries have a GERD/GDP of 2.0 or more. The EU is planning to reach 3.0 and China has committed to reach 3.0. Most African countries are well below 1.0 so there is a long way to go. South Africa is close to 1.0 with a target of 1.5. It seems to me that South Africa should be setting its sights higher to reach at least 2.0.

It is for this reason that I have proposed the concept of a One Thousand Africa Research Chairs programme modelled on the Canadian programme. The concept involves creating a surge in African capacity in research. From this base of strength at home, African institutions can then carefully select their own most appropriate international partners. The concept of 1 000 nodes of excellence across the continent linked together in a mutually reinforcing pan-African research network is attractive. South Africa is clearly already leading the way.

I am pleased to inform you that we have developed a concept paper with the African Union Commission. A task force has been created that reports to Commissioner Ezin and this task force will develop a strategic implementation plan and a business plan exploiting the synergy between the Pan-African University project and the 1 000 African Research Chairs project. We are working with the European Union and Commissioner Ezin is aiming to be able to present this African project to the G8/G20 and others in 2013 for their consideration. I have just come from a meeting in Nairobi organized by the African Development Bank, the African Union and UNESCO on Science, Technology and Innovation across Africa.

And just to conclude, I have recently had the privilege of founding a new, independent, not-for-profit university designed to be different. This university is very small, highly successful and focuses entirely on undergraduate students from 36 countries. Canada like many other jurisdictions, including South Africa, is struggling with the question of differentiating universities to meet the parallel and sometimes conflicting needs of providing education to meet the large and increasing demand on the one hand and to build the graduate and research capacity on the other. In my province of British Columbia, a few years ago there was a need for an expansion of the system. This expansion allowed the province to use the expansion to drive the differentiation process.

New institutions and expanded mandates showed how the system could use the growth as the tool of differentiation. Ontario is facing the need to expand the number of student places. One proposal is to expand by creating three undergraduate universities as a tool of differentiation. The reason for creating the new not-for-profit private university was to explicitly show that differentiation by creating an undergraduate university could lead to excellence without a research mandate.. We have recently been recognised by the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) as being in the top ranks across all of North America. NSSE surveys 280 000 students at 750 universities. Although only five years old, Quest University Canada is at the top of the rankings. Recently our national newspaper recognised Quest as helping Canada to close the creativity gap.

33

5.2 Government support of innovationMs Naledi Pandor, Minister of Science and Technology

HAVE just returned from a conference in Kenya for science and technology and finance ministers to look at ways to expand research, development and innovation activity on the

African continent. I think if one has an opportunity to meet with colleagues on the African continent, it would be wise to talk about a diversity of initiatives, some blue-sky research and building of real partnerships to enhance productivity in research.

I

I think we need a re-investment in higher education if we want to achieve our ambitions. There are many partner organisations keen to invest in the revival of higher education and universities in Africa.

The OECD reviewed South Africa’s Innovation Policy in 2007. The OECD concluded that there was limited horizontal coherence and integration between agencies focused on innovation, and no Cabinet-level co-ordination. Business was insufficiently involved at the levels of large, medium and small-sized firms. The concept of a National System of Innovation had gained little currency beyond the sum of traditional research activities. Key actors like government departments and higher-education institutions were also not fully involved. We therefore need to re-order or re-orient our systems to make up a National System of Innovation. Technical, economic and social systems were poorly understood, particularly on the demand side. High-order skills in design, engineering, entrepreneurship and management were also highlighted as particularly lacking. Although entrepreneurship in particular is often cited in connection with innovation, the National System of Innovation was making little inroads in terms of poverty reduction. The OECD further concluded that South Africa would need to compete for high-end skills in the global talent pool, where other countries used a number of initiatives to attract suitable talent.

After the review, the Ten-Year Innovation Plan was developed. This plan did not absorb all of the recommendations and comments of the OECD, particularly in terms of the partnership between business and the public sector. We also did not give full attention to issues of governance and how we should create more effective institutions. We did take on some other measures they recommended, for example, an agreement to establish the Technology Innovation Agency, and the IPR Act and the IP Management Office (all of these issues were already recommended in a review conducted in 2002).

Our country struggles with the notional possibilities of a knowledge economy; many people do not understand what this refers to. If one talks of a system of innovation, there is even more

The Honourable Minister of Science and Technology, Ms Naledi Pandor

34

bewilderment. A few weeks ago the Speaker of Parliament was persuaded to include the knowledge economy on the agenda of Parliament. Imagine how difficult it is to get funding for this area. We live in an age of knowledge in which society has become increasingly knowledge-intensive and dependent on social institutions to create knowledge and educate people.

South Africa experiences a serious unemployment problem, where most jobs are becoming increasingly professional and knowledge-based as the world is going through a period of immense technological innovation. If one were to look at how technological we have become, one statistic will suffice: 5-billion people world-wide have mobile phones. Yet there are still people who doubt whether the cell phone industry and the internet create more jobs. The problem is that the jobs created and the jobs destroyed are of different kinds; as the internet makes it easier to book travel online, travel agents are becoming obsolete, but programmers are finding a great many new opportunities opening up to them.

Universities seem to have seen their mission as producing talent, and not technology. Our universities are not keen on interacting with business, and do not have an adequately entrepreneurial outlook. Many academics complain about having more managerial functions than academic functions; this is a debate we need to have. Just look at MIT and the number of enterprises it has spawned – Boston now features as a huge business entity in the US, mainly because of MIT’s influence. How involved should universities be in business? Would collaboration with business compromise higher education? Should universities focus on pure research rather than applied research? Where will the resources come from?

With the latest round of research chairs in Canada, it was found that some academics felt that business (particularly in the IT sector) had too much influence on the academic agenda. We would like to see institutions encouraging young people to think about new technology, products and services. Young people should be encouraged to take risks. We should infuse a new spirit of entrepreneurship into our youth.

All of us would agree that innovation is impossible without research, meaning that our universities will decide how innovative South Africa becomes. Apple is known as one of the most research-active companies in the world. Yet, what they did was to take existing ideas and shake them up, designing better products. They’ve done it with computers, music, cell phones, and I-pads. They take something and re-invent it to make it more exciting and effective.

The Commissioners of the NDP was joined by the Ministerial Committee on the Science and Technology Landscape in expressing the view that business research should be encouraged through a tax incentive, but this initiative has been under-subscribed because of what business claims is the over-bureaucratisation of the scheme. We have simplified it, and are keen to see what benefits it holds. We have failed to capitalise on local knowledge generation, despite considerable expertise in areas like mining, viticulture, water, etc. Our surveys show that too little business-focused research and development is conducted in our universities. It would be well worth exploring whether there are any local businesses that commissioned research overseas, and if so, how we can change this. At last count, we concluded that about $18-billion was spent by local businesses outside of the country on research. We should be asking how we can be more responsive to private sector needs, getting some of that money to benefit our own institutions.

The outcomes of support programmes like the Technology for Human Resources for Industry Programme (THRIP) and others have been noted, but we need to do much more to improve government, business and university partnerships. Research and innovation is not mentioned in terms of industrial development, which we aim to address. We should encourage the mobility of scientists and scholars by interacting with the Department of Home Affairs. The issue of work permits of up to 7 years for foreign academics reflects new thinking that is

35

essential if we want to attract innovative thinkers and academics to South Africa. We should build international linkages as components of healthy knowledge transfer and exchange. I am pleased with our achievement of making SA a beneficiary in the EU Framework Programme and have attracted significant funding for our scientists.

Social innovation business is an area which needs particular attention. It has grown enormously worldwide over the past 10 years, and is a means to advance development and business goals. If we were to look for examples in South Africa, the Royal Bafokeng is probably the best example where social innovation is used to good effect. The activities around social innovation and the implications for society and at a personal level should be clearly understood. Socio-economic work has to be conducted in a much more innovative way, extending to local and provincial levels.

We intend to pull universities and business together into the realm of social innovation. Collaborative agreements and policy harmonisation will be necessary. We will also focus on post-school education and training, working closely with the Department of Higher Education and Training. We intend to work with the Department of Trade and Industry, and the Departments of Economic Development, Public Works, Social Development and others concerned with social and rural development to address social development, health and basic education issues. We are looking at what role we should play in enhancing innovation in both the economic and social domains.

As we concretise these plans, I hope the university sector will play an important role in advising us. We think that if we involve all of government, we will not get anywhere because it will be too cumbersome a group to manage, which is why we aim to focus strategically on a few areas. We may well have to shift when we read the Ministerial Committee’s report, but I think innovation in the social and economic spheres is crucial.

5.3 Research Infrastructure: Lessons from the EU Prof John Wood, Secretary General of the Association of Commonwealth Universities

NE thing that worried me on the first day of the conference was the very traditional views of research that people expressed. The minister has opened up the discussion about how research should change. We need to empower researchers to own the future. Research is increasingly global, and we can all be more effective if we work together. We need bright people with brilliant ideas, but in addition we need people who can integrate things and bring them together with other disciplines. We should not leave the economy to economists only, or science

Prof John Wood, Secretary General of the Association of Commonwealth Universities

36

to the scientists – we need integration between the different disciplines. Perhaps we also need to reconsider the conventional idea of the PhD.

Upcoming issues include the need to train academics to operate in the global environment. However, how would one deal with promotions, and the huge data deluge. There is the issue of publicly funded research being available to everyone. We also have to train and support people to run and manage this environment, and we need to think of the impact of mobile telephony and its democratising reach.

There are four types of infrastructure in the world of research, namely:

• Single physical;• Dispersed physical;• Virtual; and• Massive data sets

All domains of research are included, from humanities to big physics. People are increasingly accessing research sites remotely, no longer having to actually visit specific sites; anybody can access research sites from anywhere in the world. Research infrastructures have links to industry, institutes and universities, education, people, research and innovation. There are huge economic impacts because of the dispersion of intellectual and entrepreneurial activity to smaller businesses. Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (NMMU) launched a microscopy centre in 2011, which will advance the country’s social and economic development. The Square Kilometre Array is another initiative that will dramatically affect the way science and social structures are managed in South Africa. The European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures was created in 2002 by 15 EU member states and the Commission, originally just as a discussion forum. In 2004, it was decided to create a high-level roadmap to make Europe competitive. In 2005, 12 new member states joined. In October 2006 the Roadmap was published and endorsed by all delegates. In 2008, the Roadmap was updated. The Roadmap looks at issues like legal entities, taxation, employment rights, mobility of staff, in-kind contributions, data management, etc.

The Roadmap looks at research in the following areas (among others):

• A distributed social science data archive, generated from the bottom up, and accessible to anybody in Europe;

• Digital research infrastructure for the arts and humanities;• European social survey – looking at demographics and health, ageing and retirement in

Europe;• Common Language Resources and Technology Initiative, to look at what words meant

historically and today, using semantic web technology. This has a major impact on international relations and legal and economic agreements, so it has a particularly important practical application.

There are many challenges in running these data sets, including technical challenges as well as linguistic challenges. Take-up by the target audience and training for people with no technical background are important issues to address. There were also legal challenges around IP and copyright and different countries’ legal systems.

In the area of biodiversity, a range of different activities take place and have to be consolidated, after which it is analysed and shared in the common exploratory environment. Current technology is democratising research infrastructure.

37

New developments in data generation and management will result in major developments worldwide. Data is the new oil. It is necessary to think about how data bookkeeping should be done, because of the huge amounts of data generated and storage requirements for it. Researchers should think about whether data is true and what to do with it. Academics and young researchers have to be trained to deal with the huge amounts of new data generated.

Thirty percent of all scientists are trained to do research, but e-science as part of the global research system is a new area. Global collaborations enable engagement on the grand challenges, where data forms part of the infrastructure, a valuable asset. The public should have access to data, and it should inform policy and evidence-based decision making. Politicians should also make decisions based on solid evidence. International trust and interoperability will be essential. A forum should be established to discuss these issues, and to avoid fragmentation of data and resources. Since there are parts of the world where publication of academic papers is well-incentivised, plagiarism is rife throughout the world, which makes data verification a particularly important issue.

5.4 Discussion

Comment (Prof Burton): We should record the intention to establish a national programme to manage our national data. It is something at the forefront of the minds of DVCs: Research, but progress in this area has been slow.

Another question that I want to ask the Minister relates to the Green Paper, where one aspect highlighted is the minister’s attention to differentiation between different types of universities. This will affect the way we manage research and innovation. What is the minister’s view on this?

Comment (Prof Rawlings): I accept the fact that people can work remotely, but could you expand on your statement that the PhD may be past its sell-by date. How do you see a PhD, as an area where people have to make a contribution to knowledge on an individual basis?

Comment (Prof Strangway): I was at MIT for a number of years. I’d like to point out that only part of the activity in the US emanates from universities, but they also have smart procurement and government investment through the space agency and other government departments. Both supply and demand has to be grown to build capacity. It is now established that the US spends 20 times as much on purchasing smart procurement as other governments. You should think about government stimulating supply and demand in order to stimulate new research and innovation.

Comment (Prof Nhlapo): In discussing innovation we should look at both sectoral and regional efforts and collaborations.

Comment (Prof Wood): I am a firm believer in individual endeavour pushing the frontiers of research. One thing we are doing is looking at a European PhD, over and above a national one, probably through a summer school model. We are looking at running a pilot at the University of Botswana for students from Africa on the issue of climate change. There has to be something that shows that somebody has pushed the frontiers.

One of the key recommendations is in terms of public procurement in research, where there are some risks. I had some projects that were complete disasters, but there were also some lessons learnt in those projects. This forms part of the European 2020 Directives, but I know that some countries are reticent to put more money into research.

38

Response (Minister Pandor): The matter of differentiation was raised by both Minister Asmal and myself, and we were lampooned at the time. I’m glad to see that people are showing more appetite for it now. I don’t think it needs to signal neglect of institutions; we need to ensure that our institutions are capacitated based on their actual needs. I’m thrilled to see that HESA is discussing this issue in a far more disciplined manner.

I think our Science Councils are more active in terms of procurement, as you mentioned. Our policies have identified sectors as challenging areas, and it may be necessary to recast our innovation strategy to identify grand challenges like food security, access to energy, etc. Our policy perspectives may detract from our ability to identify and support research in certain areas, and we are revisiting these issues.

In terms of the National System of Innovation, we identified the need to develop institutionally and also to look at seamless integration rather than pockets of activity all over. We have a difficulty in that we all want to do everything – very few people want to specialise in a specific niche area, which means that our energies are too widely dispersed. I’m hoping that with respect to innovation we can get people to specialise and do in-depth research. We have a tendency where everyone wants to do everything.

I agree that we have to think about regional and sectoral ways of working. I know that some provinces and municipalities and metros want to set up innovation offices. I cautiously look at these issues, and when I see something like that I propose that we should rather co-operate.

After Prof. Wood’s input I thought I would be asked what the Department of Science and Technology was doing in terms of infrastructure in South Africa. The DST is putting a team together to assess what the character of research infrastructure in South Africa is, and what our plan should look like for the next few years. We have had a grant from the NRF which has helped upgrade infrastructure, but we need additional resources.

Comment (Prof Nongxa): The slides presented by Prof Wood mentions huge figures. How do you make the case for that kind of investment in the current financial environment? How will you persuade ordinary people that there is actual value to be gained from that level of investment? Who should make the case for increased expenditure?

Prof Wood mentioned the democratisation of research. Yesterday, we were told of the need to start at the schooling level – how do we start stimulating passion and interest from this level?

Question (Prof Stroebel): It feels like there is a sense of inconsistency in terms of funding, and conflicting priorities for research. At a micro-level we need consistent direct investment in higher education, perhaps through the National Research Fund. We need some consistent signal from bodies like the NRF that research and innovation is guided by a single vision. Could you comment on this?

Question (delegate from National Skills Authority (NSA)): Minister Pandor mentioned the knowledge economy. I wonder to what extent language is used to enhance our understanding of the issues and how we guard against certain concepts becoming elitist. Innovation should also guide and direct how work is distributed in the economy. To what extent have we traced the impact of innovation in the world of work; has there been a reduction of labour in some areas, or have we retained or changed work in other areas as a consequence of innovation?

Question (delegate from North West University): The minister mentioned local knowledge and its role in innovation. As far as I’m aware, the DST has invested in this area. Have we responded appropriately to this investment as the higher education sector? Have we got value for money and responded appropriately? Why does it look as if DST is the only department

39

focusing on this issue? My experience is that other departments have not addressed this aspect to leverage the importance of the issue.

Question (Prof Ijumba, UKZN): How many government departments use local universities for their research and development needs? I think our system is geared towards incentivising and rewarding individual institutional effort, which should be addressed at a system-wide level.

Response (Minister Pandor): I have tried to argue that the rewards system should be looked at, and I get the same reaction I did when I mentioned differentiation. At awards ceremonies, when very few young or black people are rewarded, you ask yourself what it would take to change the landscape. I think we need an appropriate link to national priorities in our research efforts otherwise we will not achieve the change we want.

I don’t know how many Departments use the universities for their research needs, but I know that they do make extensive use of the science councils, because I did a study of that issue. I think the area of Indigenous Knowledge System (IKS) is a difficult area, both in terms of innovation and knowledge production. It is a new area for us, and to some degree it is associated with cultural attributes rather than an area of science. People tend to believe that if you have a department on IKS it must have a hut and bones for divination. I’ve been talking to colleagues in that area to determine how the benefits can be optimised all round. There are some successes, and we will continue to support the sector, but I’m not seeing enough productivity and intellectual activity and scrutiny. I am seeing a reductionist approach to IKS. I think that incredible things can be done in this area. DST linked technology and local community activity, and we met people working in a project that created jobs and products that are used in various guises, creating many jobs. These people were trained by Sasol chemists, and the project is showing real value. I think it is important to generate understanding and build a common set of skills that can be widely used. I hope that other departments will also support IKS.

I was so excited by what was said about language by Prof Wood, that I want to institute a similar programme in South Africa. However, not everything can be done by government. The ANC led the struggle against oppression and apartheid, but you, the people, also have a role to play. People have a misguided notion that the government should do everything, which is a bad approach to have. You will ruin the ANC by enforcing this notion that they are all powerful. You and I have to take some responsibility now that we are free. You have thousands of students that you can tell about the importance of innovation. Get the message out there, and show people what they can do.

In terms of the question about long-term investment and support, I think we tend to look at short-term crises. We need to develop a culture of looking over the medium- to long-term so that our institutions know where they stand in terms of support. In 2010 we made money available for students, and we determined the need to continue the funding. We must think systemically for the long-term. From time to time you should drop an e-mail to the relevant ministers to highlight issues of concern. It is always good to hear from the sector.

We do have programmes at school level, and we want to expand them to reach as many young people as possible. It is a positive area that could develop even more. I think each municipality could have one. I’d like to see young people trained as science communicators. We are thinking of growing our capacity in this regard.

I was told that if we were to successfully build the Meerkat and the SKA, the potential of establishing 1 500 small- and medium-sized firms would be possible. But to do that, we learnt that we would have to spend a few billion Rand. We have to look beyond the short-term and convince our people that the initial investment is worth it. People tend to be short sighted. Even

40

on the SKA I have become a lone ranger, because our scientists are so quiet. We need to be confident and articulate about the importance of infrastructure investment as a prerequisite for economic and social growth. I need that support to convince the finance minister to give funding for these projects.

Comment (Prof Wood): Two years ago I was asked to give a talk on the economic impact of the SKA, which I can share with you. The first thing to realise is that research infrastructure does not have a one-to-one correspondence with economic investment; the impact is clear in a much wider sense. However, the real impact can be measured in terms of the number of children taking up science, and how it affects society. I realise that these issues are not important to somebody who is starving. People do not realise that the initial research into protons now has a major impact in cancer treatment. The most important impact of research is probably in the area of diplomacy, because scientists are often the first point of contact between different countries.

How do you actually take research forward? I think you need to look carefully at the postdoctoral area, which is where people learn to be academics. Scientists have to be able to communicate excitedly in a short space of time. We need to embrace a space where ideas can be discussed and knowledge can be shared.

41

6 THEME DISCUSSIONS

6.1 Theme 1: An enabling environmentDiscussion led by Prof Johan Mouton, Director: Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology, University of Stellenbosch

Report back by session moderator, Prof Tinyiko Maluleke

ROF Mouton highlighted that for those working on research and science policy, the debate around differentiation has been ideologically laden, given the country’s apartheid-era

legacy. The subsequent mergers of institutions were similarly ideologically laden. It is therefore refreshing to note that people are moving beyond these issues, instead of focusing on how knowledge production can be improved in a differentiated sector. It will be helpful, therefore, to try and understand differentiation.

P

Given the different institutional histories, missions and capacities, a high degree of differentiation in terms of key research production dimensions is to be expected in the South African higher education sector. The differentiation constructs and associated indicators presented and discussed are not independent of each other (in statistical terms there are multiple interaction effects). We still need a proper conceptualisation of the notion of research differentiation. As a first attempt, one should distinguish between the following six types or categories:

• Volume of research production: absolute number of papers in peer-reviewed journals, or normalised output;

• Shape of research production – differences in distribution of output by scientific field;• Site of publication;• Research collaboration;• Research impact; and• Demographics – differences in output distribution by gender/race, qualification/age.

Proposition 1:

• Following the introduction of a national research subsidy scheme in 1987, research production remained stable until the early 2000s.

Prof Johann Mouton, Director: Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology, University of Stellenbosch

42

• Thereafter production escalated, when the system produced an average of 5 500 article equivalents until 2005, when the new funding system was introduced.

• Over the past six years, output has increased exponentially, despite the fact that the number of academics remained static.

Proposition 2:

• Increases in absolute output over recent years have not affected institutional distribution. Huge differences between the most productive and least productive universities evident 25 years ago have remained mostly unchanged;

• A few universities have managed to improve their positions in the rankings (University of the Western Cape is a good example), but the vast inequalities in knowledge production between the top and bottom have remained.

• Five of the country’s institutions produce 63,9% of the total research output. The next group of seven universities produces 30% of research output, while the remaining 11 institutions produce the remaining 6,1%;

• Figures indicate that stimulating research is a difficult and lengthy process. The top five institutions continue to dominate research production because of their historic background and the benefits of a long period of sustained investment. Third-stream income from research could not be ascertained, and might indicate even greater differences.

The statistics presented on institutional output only referred to absolute output and have not been normalised for the size of institutions. Rankings were presented in terms of research output (normalised for number of permanent staff) and rankings in terms of knowledge output (masters and doctoral graduates) also normalised for size of academic staff. A comparison of the two rankings revealed some interesting shifts in rankings (most notably for NMMU, UNISA and some universities of technology), but the overall difference in normalised output between the top and bottom universities remain huge. In 2009 the highest per capita output was determined as 1,28, despite there being no formal agreement on the norms for knowledge production. In the period 2007 – 2009, a ranking of universities according to average normed knowledge production (including masters and doctorates produced) shows that some institutions move up and down in the rankings. This ranking makes it clear that institutions could adapt their practice in terms of research to change their rankings.

Proposition 3:

• SA universities vary hugely in terms of the shape of their knowledge production. The big differences in scientific field profiles of the different universities is clearly a function of institutional histories (e.g., having a medical school or faculty of theology) and institutional missions (research intensive universities versus teaching-focused universities and former technikons). The disciplines of theology and law are the most prolific producers of research papers. In both fields there are more than 20 journals respectively. These differences mean that the same benchmarks cannot be realistically set for all faculties.

Looking at the shape of knowledge production, it is clear that institutions have different focus areas. UNISA is predominantly focused on the humanities and social sciences, while institutions like Fort Hare University is predominantly focused on the natural sciences.

Proposition 4:

• Distribution of research output by journal index (IS, IBSS and SA) varies hugely. The differences between the universities in terms of this dimension distinguish between

43

South African journals, ISI journals and South African ISI journals. Cape Town University is highest in the rankings at about 70% because it has the best track record for publishing in ISI journals, while other institutions tend to publish in local journals.

• University research output has become significantly more international and collaborative over the past years. Analysis of co-authored ISI papers shows that institutions like UWC, UCT, NWU, UP and Unisa are quite active in this area. Collaborating with top authors in the field multiplies the chances of getting cited exponentially, which is not possible when publishing locally.

Proposition 5:

• The impact of SA’s research production has increased significantly over the past 15 years, mostly because of collaborative publishing in ISI journals. Over the years 2000 to 2010, the number of ISI outputs increased from below 4 000 to close to 8 000. As a country the 8 000 papers produced in the past three years and published in ISI journals have generated exceptional results. South Africa has also featured in the top 1% of highly cited papers. It would be more realistic to look at the impact of publications in particular areas rather than overall research output.

Explaining differences in research production:

• International trends show that demand is stimulated by international rankings;• National steering instruments include revised funding schemes and an expanded SA

presence in ISI and NRF rating systems, which have led to increased research output and increased ISI-production;

• Institutional capacities (Merton and cumulative advantage theory (Matthew effect);• Institutional histories and structures; and • Institutional strategies.

Institutional enablers:

• A study for the HEQC done in 2007 showed that a university like Wits has not expanded its number of authors. At UKZN, the number of authors has not increased greatly, but the output has expanded significantly over the years.

• An analysis of the number of staff with PhDs shows that UCT and Stellenbosch University lead the pack. These institutions also lead in terms of the average number of publications in accredited journals per academic staff member. Figures indicate that staff still engaged in completing their PhDs may not have adequate time to generate papers for publication.

We undoubtedly have a highly differentiated university sector in terms of key indicators. Some causes of differences reflect the path dependency of historical factors, missions and structures. Other differences are the results of more recent institutional responses to international and local incentives.

6.1.2 Discussion

Question (Prof Amanda Lourens, NWU): In terms of broadening the base, could you give insights on the outputs at masters, doctoral and postdoctorate fellow level?

44

Question (delegate from Rhodes University): We always talk about differentiation in terms of research output. I found it refreshing that you also looked at the number of staff members with PhDs, but what about professional and vocational skills and teaching and learning?

Question (Prof Robin Drennan, Wits): I’d like to pick up the point about how difficult it is to change productivity given the long-term missions of institutions. Are there any insights that you can share about institutions that have made good progress?

Question (Prof Nelson Ijumba, UKZN): Given international norms, do you think that the DHET will look at different ways of rewarding research output from universities?

CommentB (Prof Chris Nhlapo, CPUT): I wonder what the picture would look like if one looked at artefacts, patents and spin-off companies coming out of institutions. That is one aspect that could also address the issue of differentiation.

Question (delegate from University of Limpopo): Collaboration internationally has grown, but has there been an increase in local collaboration between institutions?

Comment (Prof Peter Mbati, University of Venda): I have a comment on the historical effects on particularly HDIs, and I think as a sector we have to delve deeper into this issue. Over the past 15 - 20 years I think we have adopted a frozen picture of what institutions can do. I think we should look at what we as a sector can do to shift the focus from the top five and thaw up those institutions that are not making progress. Our PhDs at Venda is steadily growing, but the production of peer-reviewed publications is still low. We looked at the workload of our academic staff, and we found that large student-lecturer ratios impact negatively on the ability of staff to do research. We should also think about how much investment had been made in some of these institutions over the years, so that we can learn lessons from that.

Response (Prof Johann Mouton): The graphs that I showed looked at data of specific universities, which we have gradually updated over time. When we analyse the data more closely, one sees that the broadening of the base is not only at the high end, but that staff at all levels are encouraged to publish. It is uncertain what incentives are offered. I know that GIBS (Gordon Institute of Business Science) says that every PhD student should produce two articles out of their dissertation, for example. A combination of strict guidelines and rules will help to increase output. It should not be too difficult for research directors to think of ways to stimulate research output.

I’m not always sure whether all these initiatives are acceptable within a research funding framework. We know of institutions that have had visiting professors who published under the auspices of their own and local institutions, which may be technically correct but could be ethically questionable.

If I were a research director, I would do anything in my power to encourage my staff to complete their PhDs. The question is what one would do if the majority of your staff members are in the professions, where they are not interested in completing a PhD. I think universities have to be smart; a blanket arrangement cannot work. Vice-chancellors have to take field differences into account when determining research-output requirements. Differentiation should start within the institution.

I think I understand the historical issues affecting our institutions. If a HDI were to focus on increasing the number of PhDs, I’m positive that the research output will also grow. I think that if one can stimulate collaboration between institutions, growth will take place in areas where there is activity and where the impact will be high.

45

Prof. Ijumba asked a question about the funding framework, and whether it should include more impact measures. I think the funding framework is a very blunt instrument, but it has done a lot of good in incentivising the research track record that we have in this country. Some institutions have shown good growth over the past years, making it clear that the funding framework has been successful in stimulating research. There is a danger that people end up chasing money, however. The subsidy system is currently also subsidising a number of journals read only by a small number of readers, which is not incentivising people to publish in ISI journals. I think that the DHET should find other ways to incentivise publication in ISI journals. The problem is that the DHET does not have the capacity to administer the system properly. There has been a decline in national collaborative papers over the last 10 years; people don’t want to share the subsidy, so the system ends up penalising local collaborations. Our system should take account of all these issues.

Lastly, I must say that the production of doctorates in this country generally still occurs at the top eight institutions. People are voting with their feet, which could be because HDIs and rural institutions are not offering doctoral programmes. We are also enrolling more and more SADC postgraduate students at local institutions.

Comment (Delegate): The responsiveness index to national policies should be investigated. The lower tier of universities has undergone some interesting changes, and it may be interesting to compare figures over the past five years.

Response (Prof Johann Mouton): You are right – the funding formula and SARCHI chairs and other initiatives are improving the situation, but we have to get the data from the institutions themselves. UFH is a case in point, where they have been doing well over the past three years, but most of the work is done on contract for the Department of Agriculture. If you get down to institutional level we are reaching an exciting stage where research directors have an opportunity to do much more.

The funding formula has to balance all the areas of knowledge production for which we need vibrant journals. We need differentiated rewards for a differentiated system, taking account of a range of collaborations, etc. As far as I know, some universities are already doing this. If members in our faculty publish in an ISI journal, they get more funding than somebody publishing in a local journal. We don’t have to wait for government to institute a differentiated rewards system; universities can manage their money to suit their own needs.

When we talk about the impact of science, I think one should distinguish between scientific impact and social impact. This is where citations and impact measurement is important. There are many papers that are published but never cited. Over a period of 20 years, there were 60 journals that were never cited, for example. As for social impact, that is the field of knowledge use where case studies and surveys are used to determine the social impact. There are no quantitative indicators to link and measure social and scientific impact.

Question (Prof Stephanie Burton): What do you think the impact of open-access journals will be over the next five years? I think we have to think about payment for journals and subscriptions when we balance the books and the use of subsidy.

Response (Prof Johann Mouton): There is no evidence to show that people publishing in open-access journals are cited more. I think the top journals in the field will remain well-established and well respected. I always remind people that it is the paper that gets cited, and not the journal. In few cases will the journal generate citations; scholars who work in a field will follow the work of other scholars. Unless scholars in a particular field move en masse to an open-access journal, the impact will remain negligible.

46

6.2 Theme 2: Multi-sectoral collaborationDiscussion led by Dr Glenda Kruss, Research Director: Education and Skills Development, HSRC

Report back by session moderator Prof L Botha

COLLABORATION was viewed from four different perspectives:

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

• Financial and intellectual dimensions, including commercialisation and sponsorships, services, consultancy;

• Networks and intellectual collaboration, to inform research topics which could benefit both parties;

• Industry primarily needs to employ skilled people. When industry does interact, they want to leverage their own research and development capability by multiplying the reach of research.

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

Incentives for universities should be clear to stimulate collaboration. From a policy perspective, misaligned policies should be identified and addressed at the level of government and within institutions.

A further issue raised was a lack of integration. The capabilities of collaboration should be identified, and people should be incentivised to collaborate. There should be collaboration between universities, universities of technology, professional bodies, incubators, science parks and also alignment – from the bottom up – of various government departmental policies.

It is still necessary to clarify what definition of innovation should apply. For purposes of the discussion a broad definition was accepted, but in future it would be necessary to clearly define and articulate what is meant by the word.

Different tiers of collaboration should be accommodated at various levels within institutions. Incentives for an enabling environment and barriers to progress should also be identified and addressed.

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

47

6.3 Theme 3: Internationalisation Discussion led by Dr Nico Jooste, Director: Office for International Education, andProf Roseanne Diab, Chief Executive Officer, ASSAf

Report back by session moderator, Prof Aldo Stroebel

HE issue of internationalisation is a standing item on the HESA RISG agenda. It should, however, be clarified what is meant by internationalisation of research and innovation. Is

one component the usual student conceptualisation which includes travel, transformation, research, academic excellence and benchmarking, increased capacity, public awareness, and partnerships? Or, are we speaking of globalising South Africa, growing interconnectivity and the role of business in the outward thrust of knowledge production? Finally, do we want to be a developed country, or are we trying to manage our status as a developing country to the best of our ability?

T

Are we clear about what is meant by the term knowledge economy, and is it a continuation from the labour force to higher education? What realities do we face as a country?

For the first time there is a realisation of the interconnectedness of different factors, and the role that internationalisation can play. There has been some buy-in on internationalisation, and good progress in communication and acceptance of its importance. There has been agreement that SADC and the African continent would be our area of focus for the foreseeable future, where we can do much more for our own development and international exposure.

Co-ordination is not optimal. We are starting to talk to each other and seeing aspects in context, despite a fragmented approach and poor communication.

For the future, the following recommendations were made:

• In some form or another create an inter-governmental task team, including all role players, to look at internationalisation;

• Government departments, universities and other role players should look at the various policy documents currently being considered to understand the issues clearly;

• There is a miscommunication of the strategic areas of investment. We need a problem-based focus on internationalisation to arrive at an integrated solution;

• In principle there has been agreement to conduct a study on South Africa’s impact in Africa, which could help to identify solutions to the challenges;

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

Prof Roseanne Diab, Chief Executive Officer, ASSAf

48

• The Department of Home Affairs currently presents the biggest challenge to internationalisation, which would have to be addressed as a matter of urgency;

• Publishing is another challenge, where ASSAF is taking the lead to find a solution; • We should find ways to optimise collaborative agreements and opportunities, because in

many cases the opportunities exist, but the capacity is not there to make the most of them; and

• Slowly, an internationalisation strategy for South Africa must become a reality, but it would require immediate action, co-ordination and communication.

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

49

6.4 Theme 4: Innovation for development Discussion led by Ms J Barnett, Vice-president: SARIMA and Dr T Bromfield, Manager: Applied Research, Sasol

Report back by Dr D Phaho

HE group discussing this theme felt that it would be better to expand the focus of their discussion to innovation for social and economic development. Some other issues raised

included:T• Basic education is one of South Africa’s biggest challenges, although universities are doing

much to improve the situation, e.g., programmes and interventions at Grade 10 - 12;• Higher Education Institutions need to be more flexible and add multidisciplinary

programmes to traditional university education offerings to meet industry needs and address innovation for development;

• What more can be done to ensure local procurement of goods and services to drive innovation in South Africa?

• In what way does industry perceive the IPR Act as a deterrent? There are varying interpretations of the act among universities, which impacts on industry-university collaborations. The notion of full cost is not commonly understood or implemented with respect to IP risk. There is no common understanding of the cost profile of a high-risk project, but this should be refined as industry and universities become more familiar with the act;

• The issue of reward for serendipitous discovery by universities on industry-funded research has to be managed in a way that is conducive to creating an environment that promotes the capability of a university to do research, beyond the issue of short-term gains.

Ms Jaci Barnett, Vice-President: SARIMA

Dr Tracy Bromfield, Manager: Applied Research, SASOL

50

• Are the the investments of large companies were biased against previously disadvantaged institutions?

• Consideration should be given to Investment where there is capacity at a global level to harvest knowledge; and

• Investment in bursaries and infrastructure to grow the knowledge base.

The group identified a dichotomy between social and natural sciences in innovation: • Innovation tends to have an economic impact on knowledge production, while development

aspects are taken into account in some fields of university research and have been a factor in awarding research chairs;

• Innovation is viewed as the provision of goods and services to grow the economy;• Government support for innovation is insufficient, although the

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

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

51

Delegates reconvened for the feedback plenary session.

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

52

7 SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE PROPOSED WAY FORWARD

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

HEdiscussions over the two-day conference identified three challenges around research and innovation, namely:T

• Big policy challenges;• Challenges around people that are involved in the research and innovation process; and• Challenges around infrastructure.

Challenges around policy and infrastructure are important, but without making sure that people are empowered, good policy and infrastructure will remain ineffective. In terms of policy, the biggest challenge lies in terms of the National System of Innovation. Other issues defining the roles of different players in policy development and actual innovation work facilitated by government or the departments have to be addressed in a coherent manner. The matter of differentiation should also be driven to fruition; HESA has set up a task team and the Minister of Higher Education and Training also initiated a project looking at this issue.

There is a lack of policy co-ordination. The OECD report was issued in 2007, yet some recommendations were only implemented five years later. There is also a lack of co-ordination of the research activities undertaken by science councils and institutions.

Lastly, looking at enablers or inhibitors in the system, ways have to be found to stimulate activities in terms of research and innovation. Procurement patterns were mentioned by various speakers, and must be investigated and understood to optimise how government and the private sector can support research and innovation outcomes.

There are serious questions around the support provided to students, and the time it takes to finish a masters or PhD programme. We have to think about models like the Brazilian one to create efficiencies in our system, or think about alternative systems that allow bright young people to finish in record time. There are challenges around researchers themselves and the environments in which they are expected to do their work, i.e., increased managerialism. There is recognition that the SARCHi programme encourages people to do research, so this could be used as a valuable benchmark. Various partners have to be identified at the international level, and the nature of collaboration and the benefits to be extracted should be considered.

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

53

Partnerships with business and industry, and incentives to make these relationships viable, must be given thought. Work is under way to look at improving physical infrastructure.

HESA has to endeavour to assist the various departments that it is interacting with to address these issues. The Minister of Science and Technology stated that institutions and business have to take responsibility for these issues. HESA’s RISG will consider various strategies and proposals going forward, and will present these to the minister.

8 WAY FORWARD: POLICY, PEOPLE, INFRASTRUCTURE

Policy, people, and infrastructure, and the interactions between these, represent the pillars

for the way forward:

Policy

We seem to need: …a coherent research and innovation system underpinned by policy consistency, including

a sensible funding system aligned with, and amongst, different State departments (DHET, DST, DMR DEA, etc.), and not merely the sum of individual entities and systems;

…a vision for the NSI, including a national research agenda focusing inter alia on areas such as jobs, poverty, infrastructure, manufacturing and the green economy;

…in addition to other focus areas, we need the NSI system to be located within the development needs of society and the economy;

Research and Innovation

Policy People Infrastructure

National System for Innovation;

Roles;

Coordination;

Enablers

Students;

Researchers;

Innovation Partners;

Society

Physical;

Dispersed;

Virtual;

Datasets

54

…policy research and an advisory structure that will pull together the national system of innovation and ensure alignment across different State departments, as well as ensure implementation.

People

We seem to need: …long-term collaborative programmes to be conceptualised; …the triple-helix partnership model to incorporate universities, government, industry and

business, and communities; …win-win partnerships with private higher education in respect of research and

innovation; …business and industrial support for commercial research – but not too much; …business and industrial support for research chairs; …strategic thinking for global positioning in respect of flagship projects and programmes,

e.g. the SKA, centres of excellence, and other success stories, such as the SARCHi initiative; …strengthened regional networks, e.g. SADC and strengthened country to country research

relationships, e.g. IBSA, BRICS, etc.; …increase or lobby to increase research funding and support for postgraduates; …increase output throughout the research and innovation value chain – skills, IP, economic,

social and environmental value adds; …enablers to retain foreign students and staff to strengthen our skills base.

Infrastructure

We seem to need: …the implementation, or lobbying for the implementation of the HESA FSG infrastructure

study findings; …the implementation, or lobbying for the implementation of the HESA RISG research

equipment study findings.

Finally, some thoughts on Innovation

We seem to need: …the focus of innovation to be on sustainable development to benefit society as a whole in

the formal and informal sectors; …the mainstreaming of innovation in relation to the economy and society; …effective and efficient incentive structures, such as research and development tax

incentives, venture capital, funding mechanisms for innovation, etc.