Minutes of the Planning Conference on Universities in ... · Dr Lindile Ndabeni – IERI 4.1 Dr Ndabeni presented an overview of higher education in the SADC region, derived from

SOUTHERN AFRICAN REGIONAL UNIVERSITIES ASSOCIATION

PLANNING CONFERENCE – UINIVERSITIES IN DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHERN AFRICA 9-10 DECEMBER 2008

Minutes of the Planning Conference on Universities in Development in Southern Africa

Centurion Lake Hotel, Tshwane, South Africa, 9-10 December 2008 DAY ONE: TUESDAY 9TH DECEMBER 2008 1.

WELCOME & GENERAL INTRODUCTIONS Mr Enver Motala (Facilitator)

1.1 Mr Enver Motala, the facilitator of the conference, welcomed everyone present

on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Southern African Regional Universities Association (SARUA), Ms Piyushi Kotecha. He noted that the date of the conference had been changed, which resulted in Ms Kotecha being unable to attend. He conveyed the greetings of Ms Kotecha to delegates. Mr Motala also welcomed delegates on behalf of the partnership of SARUA, the Research Planning Institute (RPI) of Lund University, Sweden, and the Institute for Economic Research on Innovation (IERI) of Tshwane University of Technology. The partnership had been constituted earlier to develop a research proposal to be submitted to the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA). The partnership had approached SIDA because the agency had been involved in funding a similar 14-country research project, the UniDev project, conducted by the RPI and other bodies. The present partnership was apposite, as it aimed to allow the undertaking of a similar project in the Southern African Development Co-operation (SADC) region, the region served by SARUA. Mr Motala thanked the partner organisations for their commitment to the project, and introduced Prof Claes Brunenius and Prof Bo Göransson of RPI, as well as Mr Rasigan Maharajh, Prof Mammo Muchie and Dr Lindile Ndabeni of IERI. He extended a special welcome to Ms Jean Woo from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), who attended as an observer. He also welcomed colleagues from SARUA. The purpose of the conference was to discuss and finalise plans for the proposed three/four-year SIDA-funded project “Exploring the relationship between Innovation and Higher Education in the Context of Regional Integration and Development in the SADC Region”. Some of the envisaged outcomes would be:

• The development of an intra-regional research network • Clarifying the political economy of the region • Exploring conceptions of development prevailing in the region • Building capabilities for evidence-based frameworks • Development of advocacy strategies and mobilisation of resources for

higher education in the region (possibly through interaction with the SADC Council of Education Ministers)

• Building international networks for collaboration around the specific



issues relating to this research and extending these for future research activities

• Contributing to building and deepening an information/data base about the SADC region, systems of innovation and the higher education sector in particular. SARUA’s contribution to deepening the knowledge base about higher education would allow it to make representations to decision makers in the region over time.

Mr Motala outlined the structure of the conference. Participation in the conference offered delegates an opportunity to shape the dimensions of the research project, and to provide guidance on how research might be undertaken in their respective countries. SARUA had been unable to get colleagues from Angola and Madagascar to the conference, but it would identify project partners in those countries. A decision had not yet been made about the inclusion of Seychelles. Introductions were carried out.

1.2 Clarification questions

Prof Ogunrinade sought clarification on the role of SARUA, IERI, RPI and the Centre for Education Policy Development (CEPD). Mr Motala responded that SARUA, IERI and RPI were initiators of the research project. The CEPD had withdrawn from the project, as it did not have the capacity to participate effectively. Prof Makhurane questioned the role of South African universities in the project. Mr Motala said that local universities had been invited to the conference, and there could have been a danger of over-representation of South African universities. Representatives of the University of Johannesburg and TUT were present. The project proposal sought country-based research, with central co-ordination. Prof Maravanyika questioned whether Vice-Chancellors (VCs) present came as VCs or as heads of research at their institutions. Mr Motala responded that SARUA communicates directly with VCs. In the case of the current conference VCs decided whom to send; some sent heads of research. On other occasions SARUA held flagship events where VCs were invited to interact with Ministers of Education. Mr Motala said that VCs could help to ensure that the research was facilitated in each participating country. Prof Gakuru Semacumu said that in the DRC it is the VC’s role to co-ordinate research. The head of research in an institution is appointed by the Minister. Prof Dlamini sought further information on the research study’s aim of clarifying understandings of the political economy of the region. Mr Motala said that the study sought to build understanding of the countries in which the institutions are located, in order to better understand the role of institutions.

2.

INTRODUCTION TO THE WORKSHOP: METHODOLOGY & EXPECTED OUTCOMES



Mr Rasigan Maharajh - IERI 2.1 Mr Maharajh noted that IERI had participated in the original UniDev research

study funded by SIDA, and that its experience of that study had informed the conceptualisation of the proposed research study. A few elements of input had been scheduled in the current conference, in order to indicate how these aspects had informed the proposal. The outcomes of the current planning conference would contribute to the finalisation of the project proposal to go to SIDA in January 2009. The proposed research study would draw on the richness of data gathered in SARUA’s commissioned studies, but would seek to deepen understandings of the regional context. It was worrisome that countries were affected by ‘one size fits all’ policy proposals. Presentations would be given on what the project sought to achieve, the means, methods, and budget. Mr Maharajh said that the use of facilitated working groups was seen as a critical part of the planning conference. He outlined the questions to be discussed (as shown on the programme), and noted that each working group would answer one primary question, before turning its attention to other questions if desired. In response to a question about the methods of research, Mr Maharajh said that the research strategy being proposed was that researchers would use grounded research, rather than engaging in largely theoretical or desk studies. Generally, this would not be primary research: if there were data sources available researchers would draw on those, with appropriate verification, augmentation, synthesis and analysis of the data.

3.

THE UNIDEV EXPERIENCE Prof Bo Göransson – RPI

3.1 Prof Göransson presented an outline of experiences gained in the course of

running the UniDev project, involving research in 14 countries over a period of four years. It was believed that the experience gained in running this project would be valuable in informing the implementation of the proposed project, while not being prescriptive or serving as a blueprint. Prof Göransson gave a background to the UniDev project, and referred briefly to the results, lessons learned, and the proposed next phase of the research. The UniDev project examined the evolving role of academic institutions in innovation systems and development. Universities are playing an increasingly important role in economic and social development. The project was conceptualised to examine how universities were transforming in response to demands from industry, government the student body and society at large. Different models of universities were being



created, but there were no ‘best cases’ or role models that could be adopted uncritically across different contexts. It was decided that an international comparative exchange of experiences would prove valuable. The project sought to combine different expertise, drawing from the fields of innovation policy, science and technology (S&T) policy, organisational theory and development economics. It aimed for policy relevance, through ‘closing the loop’ - bringing research to policy-makers. The objectives of the study were:

• to contribute to better understandings of the changing role of academic institutions in national contexts;

• to contribute to initiating a process of policy learning and exchange between countries in different stages of economic development; and

• to start a public discussion and policy process on the issue and on the policy implications.

The research was co-ordinated by SAREC (the Department for Research Co-operation in Sweden). Research was carried out by country-based teams in 14 countries spanning five continents, including three African countries (South Africa, Tanzania and Mozambique). The countries selected showed a wide variation in factors such as GDP per capita, human development index (HDI) and national research and development (R&D) expenditure in relation to gross domestic product (GDP). The research study was based on an approach incorporating:

• country position papers (seeking to pinpoint the position of academic institutions in systems of innovation;

• national workshops (contributing to national debates); and • case studies to inform good practices for policy prescription.

The multi-year research project served to promote engagement between academics, civil society, policymakers, and industry within each country, and had led to the development of a research network encompassing the 14 countries. A reflection on the research study would be published in the March 2009 issue of Science and Public Policy. The organisation of the research study had provided lessons that could inform the proposed study. Horizontal collaboration had proved fruitful in building trust and promoting real partnerships. The approach of using international comparative exchange of experiences confirmed the uniqueness of each country’s context and experience, but fostered countries learning from each other. Prof Göransson noted that a large collaborative research study of this nature required that teams undertake an identified research task within a common framework. SAREC proposed to launch a new project on developmental universities in inclusive systems of innovation (UniDev II). Obstacles to the project were miscomprehensions about the national system of innovation (NSI) concept,



theoretical inadequacies in dealing with innovation in conditions of scarcity, and difficulties in translating social needs into research agendas. There were, however, reasons for hope in the willingness of researchers around the world to put their capabilities to work to help in achieving social inclusion, as well as in the new international awareness that legitimised the task. Information on the UniDev II project could be found at http://developinguniversities.blogsome.com

3.2 Questions

In response to a question on the relationship between SAREC and SIDA, Prof Göransson said that SAREC had been integrated with SIDA as its research department. A speaker asked how institutions were chosen to participate in the research study. Prof Göransson responded that the initiators of the project had sought to include a broad variety of countries in the study, but had also been pragmatic in drawing on established contacts or institutions that they had worked with previously. A speaker asked what definition of innovation had been used in the study. Prof Göransson acknowledged that innovation was a fluid concept, meaning different things to different people. It could be simply defined as new ideas that could be applied to the benefit of society. These might be based on technology or on new ways of organising or serving people. Mr Richard Henson, of SARUA, said that the proposed study of the SADC region would prove easier to organise in that the countries were in closer geographic proximity and were members of an existing community. This would make it easier to facilitate the network and keep it alive.

4.

BASELINE DATA PRESENTATION: REGIONAL OVERVIEW ON CONTEXT Dr Lindile Ndabeni – IERI

4.1 Dr Ndabeni presented an overview of higher education in the SADC region,

derived from a SARUA baseline study. He noted that the meeting of the SADC Education Ministers in Botswana in 2006 had emphasised the need for such a study to inform decision-making and promote integration. The objectives of the study were to:

• describe higher education in the SADC region using the collection and analysis of institutional data and analysis of national higher education contexts;

• understand the current status and potential regional integration in the higher education arena;

• collect baseline data as a starting point for collection of regional higher education data in future; and

• reflect on the process of gathering comparative regional higher



education data where national contexts differ widely. The study population comprised 14 ministries, and 64 public higher education institutions. Questionnaires were the primary means of gathering data. There were a number of challenges experienced in data gathering, including defining comparable units of analysis across diverse contexts, and verifying data. Dr Ndabeni gave an overview of some of the findings derived from institutional-level and national-level data, including findings relating to:

• regional higher education institutions and overall enrolments; • enrolment patterns; • qualifications awarded; • research publications; • student support services; • staff capacity and development; • higher education management development; • university-firm interactions; • institutional focus areas; and • role in national policy processes.

At a national level, the study investigated topics including funding, quality assurance, and statutory bodies in higher education. The study also examined regional co-operation and cross-border education within SADC. The study presented a perspective on the history of higher education in the region and an overview of the SADC region. Dr Ndabeni said that for higher education to function successfully it needs efficient, relevant and high quality national higher education systems. The need for reliable data within the SADC region had been acknowledged and set as a priority area within the SADC Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP). The plan aimed to have harmonised statistics and an integrated database of key statistics by 2015. The baseline data collected in the study would support future planning and lay a platform for ongoing systematic collection and maintenance of data about regional higher education systems. Mr Motala said that the presentation had provided key data as a basis for thinking about the region. The data had been presented in greater detail at a workshop hosted by SARUA in October 2008. The reports of the study would be published in January 2009 and distributed within the SARUA network and more broadly. Mr Motala noted that it would be important for researchers to have a full set of reports to serve as baseline data informing the proposed research study. Researchers could use the reports to build on data they saw as important, missing, or not adequately qualitatively developed. Researchers should seek to improve the data and deepen analysis within the focus areas of the proposed research study.

5. DISCUSSION



5.1 Dr Ndabeni responded to a number of questions of clarification arising from his presentation. Correctness of the data Prof Gakuru Semacumu gave an opinion that the statistics on enrolment in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) were incorrect. He suggested that SARUA give delegates a mission to go home and get correct figures. He pledged support in assisting the research team should members visit the DRC. Queries/missing information Prof Brundenius suggested that it would be important to collect data relating to the diaspora, including the number of graduations of students from the region abroad, and the return of graduates. Prof Muchie suggested that baseline research should seek to identify signs of excellence in different institutions and countries. This would create optimism, and provide foci of good things from which higher education could build. Prof Chileshe asked whether data from South Africa had been disaggregated to reflect historically advantaged and disadvantaged institutions. Mr Motala said that such aggregation was available in the South African data. Prof Ogunrinade suggested that data be weighted in various ways, for example in relation to the population of the country. He said that five PhDs in Lesotho had greater impact than the same number in South Africa. It was important for analysis to be provided to preclude crude comparisons between countries. Prof Ogunrinade noted that the data excluded statistics on private provision of higher education. Private provision was contributing greatly to the expansion of higher education. Mr Motala responded that data on private higher education institutions was considerably more complex to obtain than that that on public institutions. In some countries there was an absence of regulation, to the extent that private providers could not be easily traced. He suggested that the proposed research study seek to define private providers of higher education, and to examine their contribution. Comment on the findings Dr Leduka said that he was shocked at statistics shown on the gender composition of students in SADC. This merited soul searching within the higher education sector in countries showing disparities. He suggested that the gender composition of staff could be interrogated. He pointed out that the gender composition of the current conference was cause for concern. Limitations Mr Maharajh said that although the study had collected a lot of data, researchers’ capacity to interpret the data was limited. There were limitations and discrepancies in the data that impacted on the findings. Dr Ndabeni outlined gaps and inadequacies in the data that had affected the findings. Researchers had asked for the latest data, with the result that data



submitted did not necessarily relate to a common year. In some cases data supplied was not adequately differentiated. Requests for clarification or additional data often went unanswered. The questions to be raised were how researchers should go about data gathering, how to address inadequacies in the data, and how to interpret data. The meanings attached to data varied. Mr Motala acknowledged that there had been a number of difficulties in gathering and interpreting data. Different countries had different interpretations on what constituted higher education participation. It was known that data from some countries was incomplete. SARUA had completed the first analysis of its baseline studies based on questionnaires to the Ministries of Education, systematic analysis of data sets from selected national and international agencies, and institutional questionnaires. SARUA would not correct those studies at the present time, but recognised the need for more systematic long-term studies. Mr Motala noted that the proposed study aimed to build the information base in a number of areas. Prof Muchie said that peer review of the research studies was important prior to publication. Mr McGarry said that the experiences of the research team had shown that there was currently no reliable way gather comparable information on higher education in the region. Information on science and technology was more reliable. Researchers needed to develop strategies to get standardised reliable data to permit analysis. Themes of interest to the proposed research study Mr McGarry sought clarification on perceptions within institutions on their influence on policy-making. Dr Ndabeni responded that the research study found that relationships between academia and policy makers were not strong. Academics felt that they were not making an input, or not making an impact. Communication was limited. Prof Göransson expressed interest in the finding that more universities reported collaboration with institutions outside the region than within it. Researchers needed to probe why this might be the case - was it donor driven? It would be important to investigate linkages as an aspect of networking within SADC. Prof Makhurane suggested that higher education institutions examine the type of graduates they were producing. Institutions should not just emphasise skills and knowledge but also the values they embraced. African graduates were articulate, but in many cases intolerant of different views. Mr Motala said that such questions relating to the core social, cultural and political purposes of higher education would be a theme to be explored in the proposed research study. Prof Ndlovu questioned a finding that firms identified as an obstacle to university-firm interaction the geographic location of universities in relation to centres of economic activity He gave an observation that most universities are



urban based. Mr Maharajh said that institutions are products of history. An institution might have started close to economic activities but later those activities shifted. This concern related to the issue of the responsiveness of higher education institutions. Mr Motala said that the discussion raised key questions that needed to be included in the research project. Data Mr Henson advised delegates that all institutional profiles and country profiles would be posted on the SARUA website. While data would, in the first instance, be taken from the research study, the system might be developed to allow individual countries and institutions to send updates.

6.

OUTLINE OF DRAFT RESEARCH PLAN Prof Claes Brundenius – RPI, and Mr Rasigan Maharajh - IERI

6.1 Mr Maharajh gave a presentation on the Draft Research Plan.

He noted that the draft research plan drew from the UniDev research study. The draft would be presented with a view to seeking input from the current planning conference. The core architecture was already established, particularly with regard to timeframes and budgeting. The working title of the project was “Unidev2SA: Exploring the Relationship between Innovation and Higher Education in the context of Regional Integration and Development in the SADC Region”. The aims and objectives were to:

• Produce research about the relationship between the growth and development challenges of the countries of the SADC region and higher education

• Examine the potential role that research and innovation generally, and higher education institutions in particular, might play in supporting the development agenda of the region

• Examine what role they can play in relation to the issue of regional cooperation and integration to achieve higher levels of economic and social development.

The main research question was:

• What are the roles, purposes and contributions of higher education and innovation to the processes of economic growth, social development and democratic governance?

Activities to be undertaken included:

• Preparatory Work – setting up project governance and management structures, developing and finalizing network and contracts and giving detailed briefings

• Commissioned country position papers building on current SARUA work



• Developing a synthesis of regional co-operation and co-ordination initiatives

• Developing scenarios based on country-studies • Generating multiple policy choices.

The outputs were envisaged as:

• Symposia and workshops for participating institutions within the region • Regional and international conferences • Research outputs including publications, public engagements and

policy briefs • Development of an intra-regional research network • Co-ordinated engagements between the region and the wider

international environment. The outcomes were envisaged as:

• Clearer conceptions of development prevailing in the region • Economic and social baseline information about the 15 member-states

of the region • Clarifying the political economy of the region • Evidence-based planning frameworks • Utilisation of short-term studies commissioned by SARUA.

Impact was envisaged as being to:

• Contribute substantially to achieving some of the goals set out in SARUA’s Strategic Plan 2007-2012 including the development of its advocacy strategies and the mobilization of resources for higher education, regional policy and strategic research development and regional capacity development more generally.

• Build the capacity of the staff of SARUA by clarifying for the policy staff and the Chief Executive/Executive Committee, in particular, the key issues in the SADC region concerning the relationship between broader political economy of the region and its knowledge and innovation requirement

• Extend and deepen relationships with institutions in the region and by so doing build the goodwill of these institutions for future research and simultaneously enabling SARUA to draw on academics from the region for its work – thus augmenting its capacity to deliver strategic outputs

• Build international networks for collaboration around the specific issues relating to the research

• Assist SARUA to identify capacity for its own work through the regional and international networks for high level strategic planning and development in the higher education institutions

• Contribute to the building of information base about the SADC Region, systems of innovation and the higher education sector, in particular.

Implementation was proposed as follows:

• A consortium of RPI (Lund University) and IERI (Tshwane University of Technology) engaging the institutional capacities from the 15



member countries of SADC and under the oversight of SARUA. Proposed time frames:

• The project would be implemented over three years – 2009 till 2012 Milestones with envisaged dates were:

• January 2009: Submission of the research proposal to SIDA • 2009 June/ July: Inaugural meeting with country presentations • 2010: Conference on draft country study and regional integration

reports • 2011: Conference on scenario building and model generation • 2012 June/July: Final conference on alternatives for SADC higher

education reform and science, technology and innovation development. Project governance and management

• The project governance to be the overall responsibility of SARUA and details of this to be developed in the preparatory phase

• SARUA to draw on the consortium of implementing organizations referred to and other relevant regional bodies in developing the governance structures of the project

• SARUA to have overall responsibility for the management of the project and to develop the appropriate structures for this in the preparatory-implementation phase.

Budget

• Approximately SEK 12 million over three years. • The budget would be managed and administered by SARUA through

its financial and administrative systems. Mr Maharajh presented the proposed budget for the three-year project. He pointed out that the largest single item was the amount to be allocated partner research institutions (the 14 country teams). Clarification Questions: Prof Ogunrinabe asked whether the budget took into account potential institutional requests for overhead costs. Prof Göransson responded that the budget made provision for “overheads” at 10%. He suggested that the overhead costs charged would be different for different institutions. Following a question about terminology, Mr Motala referred delegates to a glossary that had been developed.

7.

FACILITATED WORKING GROUPS Introduced by Mr Enver Motala

7.1 Mr Motala divided delegates into four facilitated working groups. It was

proposed that each group would be given primary responsibility for one question, although it could also hold discussion on other questions. The questions for discussion were presented:



1) What are the underlying values and principles informing the undertaking of the research? (Facilitator: Mr Enver Motala)

2) Who should conduct the research and how should partners be selected? (Facilitators: Prof Claes Brundenius and Dr Lindile Ndabeni)

3) How are effective networks to be constructed and co-ordinated, locally & regionally? (Facilitators: Prof Mammo Muchie and Prof Bo Göransson)

4) What should the outputs and outcomes of the research be and what are the challenges to ensure impact? (Facilitator: Mr Rasigan Maharajh)

DAY TWO: WEDNESDAY 10 DECEMBER 2008 8. REPORT BACK: FACILITATED WORKING GROUPS 8.1 Mr Motala invited working groups to present the findings of their group. He

noted that the purpose of the discussion in the facilitated working groups was to elicit input to the Draft Research Plan. Working Group One: Underlying values, principles and assumptions The group proposed the following set of principles to inform the research:

• Equitable funding across 13 countries (with reduced funding to South Africa should the agencies involved be able to access other funding);

• The research study aims to be holistic in synthesizing the country reports into a regional profile;

• All partners are equal partners; • The project is constructed on the basis of mutual interest (mutuality); • Each partner is to be self managing, meeting deadlines and being

subject to accountability; • There be a commitment to inclusivity – biggest and smallest, strongest

and weakest; • Recognition of diversity in the countries in the region and within

countries; • The research teams subscribe to research ethics/standards; • There be transparency of project processes and data; • Research teams and project team produce research of integrity; • There be joint ownership of intellectual property among the partners; • The project strives towards gender representivity in its research teams

and other structures. The group noted that some principles would be in danger unless there was strong co-ordination, including:

• The establishment of a framework for the research project; • The development of a firm set of guidelines with regards to roles,

responsibilities and allocation of resources based on the principles above;

• Allocation of responsibility for implementation of the research project to country teams, working within a project framework;

• Appointment of a country co-ordinator for each country as part of the management structure;

• The establishment of open, transparent and accountable procedures for



conflict resolution. The working group referred to its assumptions and associated risks. Assumptions were that:

• All partners would offer commitment; • Partners had the capacity to do the research; • There would be adequate accountability within the structures

developed for the project across the 14 countries. Identified risks were:

• Political instability; • Inadequate funding (there might be a need to seek supplementary

funding particularly given the high costs of transport and communications in the region);

• Inadequate participation by some country teams; • Limited commitment to the principles adopted.

Discussion: A speaker stated that all researchers were aware that they needed to abide by ethical principles, and were in addition bound by ethics guidelines within their institutions. Mr Motala agreed with this, and said that the group had just re-stated the principle. Mr Motala questioned whether there was any disagreement on the principle of equitable funding (irrespective of the size of the country or the number of institutions). No objections were raised to this principle.

8.2 Working Group 2: Partner identification and recruitment strategy

The group examined questions of who should conduct the research, how partners should be selected, and the qualities and competencies of team leaders. The group drew on the UniDev experience to inform its recommendations. The group proposed that the country team leader should:

• Be a competent and reliable person; • Come from a higher education institution, rather than a Ministry; • Be a social scientist (while other researchers could be from different

disciplines); • Lead and be responsible for research output; • Be responsible for budget and networking; • Be able to co-opt researchers from other higher education institutions; • Encourage women to participate.

The group identified some guiding principles that should be taken into consideration in selecting partners:

• Competence to do the work; • Non-exclusive representativeness; • Multidisciplinary knowledge;



• Gender balance; • Transparency.

The group noted that important dates had to be decided upon:

• Date of submission of names of team leaders with brief CVs • Date by which team leaders receive draft proposals • Date by which team leaders send comments back.

The group recognised that the research project could be used to enhance south-south networks and south-north networks, and to make impact on society and in the policy environment. Discussion: Project teams Mr Motala suggested that universities that were members of SARUA should, where possible, provide the core members of the research teams. There was discussion on the appropriate size of a team. Prof Brundenius said that the UniDev project had had different sizes of team. He proposed that there should be at least three core members in a team. The team could co-opt other people from time to time. Competencies of the team leader Prof Chileshe referred to the working group’s proposal that the team leader be a social scientist, and said that the bias in higher education in some countries was to science and engineering. Prof Brundenius said that while the proposed research study had a social science basis, scientists also had a social science perspective. Mr Maharajh said that there were a large number of Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) people in management, who might be considered as potential team leaders. Should it be necessary, partner organisations might be able to offer a course to team members on salient topics such as economics of innovation, and policy and planning. Mr Motala suggested that the guidelines on the selection of team leaders say “preferably a social scientist”. Proposals on the identification of team leaders Prof Maravanyika reminded delegates that the principles of openness, transparency, and inclusivity should be observed in a country’s processes to identify a team leader. The nomination of a team leader was not something that should be decided amongst delegates. Mr Motala proposed a process for identifying a team leader for each country. He proposed that participants from each of the twelve countries in the room meet and strategise, then report back to the meeting on the mechanism for getting a team leader appointed by the due date. It might prove necessary for participants from countries to nominate an interim contact person from amongst those present from the country, pending further consultations within the country. The interim contact person would serve as the point of contact with SARUA and be responsible for co-ordinating the search for a team leader.



Management of the budget Prof Ogunrinade said that if the team leader worked at a university s/he would need a need co-signatory (for example the VC or Registrar) for the authorisation of payments. Prof Brundenius emphasised the need for full accountability. Dates Prof Dlamini acknowledged the urgency in getting project started, but expressed concern at the proposal to get the names of team leaders by the end of December, since universities were closed. A speaker said that communication via the internet was limited while universities were closed or university members on holiday. Mr McGarry said that SARUA’s experience of consultation and getting action across the region had proved that these processes were laborious. Electronic communication was efficient for some but not for others. He suggested that it was unrealistic to expect a team leader to circulate the document, get comments and return it within a week. He suggested that the timelines proposed be regarded as best-case scenarios. Following discussion it was agreed that nominations for team leader be submitted to SARUA by 15 January 2009. The revised draft proposal would be sent to team leaders by 15 January 2009. Team leaders would be required to respond to the draft proposal by 22 January 2009.

8.3 Group Three: Network and research co-ordination

The group discussed how effective networks are to be constructed and co-ordinated locally and regionally. Role of the country team leader The group saw the role of the team leader (or co-ordinator) as being to lead the local research team and to co-ordinate with SARUA and other networks. The team leader had to be accountable in terms of the budget and research output Selection of the country team leader The group identified two models for the selection of team leaders. The first was a ‘top down’ approach, where team leaders are selected by VCs of SARUA member universities. The second was a ‘bottom up’ approach, where team leaders selection is through calls, and peer review in a competitive process. After looking at the pros and cons of the two approaches, the group recommended the top-down approach, where the VCs selects and SARUA approves the selection of each team leader. The group suggested that the profile of the national team leader be interdisciplinary, preferably with social and human sciences qualifications and with STI research experience and high reputation. Research networks



The group discussed how to co-ordinate SARUA, the country research teams, IERI and RPI into an effective network. The also examined the value of networking the research teams of SARUA member universities. In looking at research outputs the group suggested that country research teams produce the research, guided by a shared terms of reference (ToR) for the SADC region and SARUA. The national research team could interact with other working groups in the country. Inter regional interaction and communication would continue using the internet and through face to face research exchanges. Research networking was seen as creating “networked brains” across the region. This should be fostered. Modes of communication should be built in to the project planning:

• Research communication through workshops and the internet should be part of the research processes.

• There should be exchange of challenges and results through the internet using the research team list serve, and other electronic communication.

• Support for bandwidth space is necessary to deepen regional and inter country research networking.

• There should be wider consultation through other national, regional and international networks.

While SARUA held primary responsibility for governance and co-ordination, RPI and IERI should play facilitatory roles. RPI could provide internet support and help in the exposure of the research. IERI could provide pan-African leverage to the research network. Governance structures should undertake periodic team evaluation. There should be creative fund-raising. Issues were identified for research:

• Developing the networks’ research agenda • Regionally shared issues: e.g. energy, water, environment, HIV/Aids • Higher education-related common issues such as a mapping exercise.

The group outlined features of the way forward in order to enhance the work of the regional research network:

• Provide incentives (not necessarily financial); • Promote publishing and co-publishing in reputable journals; • Enhance the visibility of the researchers (e.g. through researchers

participating in conferences); • Give attention to building the reputation of the network/s; • Examine the possibility of developing or using an international e-

journal; • Accept an invitation by a London publishing house via IERI to publish

research, e.g. on science, technology and innovation in Africa; • Seek means to enhance bandwidth connectivity, and acquire new

technology to enable e-research or e-science with distributed collaboration.



Important issues to be considered were: • Team composition • Networking senior with younger or emerging researchers • Making sure that the need for gender balance is fully recognised.

Working Group 4 contributed criteria on the selection of research teams:

• Legitimacy (both inside and outside its borders) • Capability (intellectual and technical) • Institutional support • Connectivity • Peer Review.

Discussion Communication and knowledge dissemination Mr McGarry alerted delegates to other SARUA initiatives that might be of value to the network. SARUA had helped in setting up the Ubuntu Alliance, linked to a technology alliance in Stockholm. The Ubuntu Alliance aimed to provide high-speed connectivity to higher education institutions and public research institutions within the SADC region in two years. This would facilitate each country setting up a national research network. Secondly, SARUA was promoting the creation of a regional platform for scholarly publishing through Open Access approaches. A SARUA review of the SADC region revealed that institutions lacked awareness of what was being researched by others in the region. There was a need for more publishing in the region. The plan was to set up an Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) with national academies of science and a network of academies of science. There would be a meeting January 2009, to promote the establishment of academies of science in each country, and to work towards academic publishing and Open Access approaches to the dissemination of knowledge. Mr McGarry referred delegates to the newly released SARUA publication Opening Access to Knowledge in Southern African Universities. Prof Ogunrinade endorsed the need for effective networks to facilitate communication within the region. A deterrent was that bandwidth was expensive in the region. Prof Muchie supported the idea of team leaders and country teams talking to each other, using local networks. Mr Motala suggested that SARUA might set up a community of practice site. Prof Göransson suggested that SARUA request team leaders, at their first meeting, to give input on bandwidth in their country. The current research project could link to existing initiatives or seek to raise money within another project to address issues around connectivity. Mr Motala proposed that SARUA implement regular monitoring of connectivity and the effectiveness of the project’s communication strategies. Selection of country team leaders Mr Motala referred to the group’s proposal of top-down approach to the appointment of team leaders, where team leaders were nominated by VCs, and approved by SARUA. He said that SARUA was a voluntary association of reputable institutions and people; approval was not necessary or desirable.



SARUA would provide contracts. Prof Makhurane agreed that a SARUA veto was not appropriate. Prof Muchie suggested that countries like Zimbabwe, with many universities, co-ordinate a process within the country to allow to VCs to nominate a country team leader. Where there was one university, the VC could nominate, and SARUA converse with him/her. Mr Motala reiterated the decision taken earlier in the conference that it be left to the countries to resolve the issue of the nomination of team leaders. The conference proposed that guidelines be developed on the strategy to find a team leader. This document would be circulated to interim country co-ordinators.

8.4 Working Group Four: Research outputs, outcomes and impact

The group discussed what the outputs and outcomes of the research should be, and examined ways of ensuring impact. The group referred to definitions of the terms provided in the glossary. Inputs included financial, human and material intervention. There was a progression from outputs to outcomes to impact. However, the highest level the project teams could guarantee quality was at the level of outcomes. Output: The group identified the following output:

• Country Papers. These would be preceded by discussion papers which would be aired at national colloquia and regional symposia. A suggested format for the country papers would be developed and circulated, from the UNIDEV study. There should be guidelines on key variables to be tracked.

• National Colloquia, would allow in-country and cross-country peer input and review. A peer-reviewed position paper would be produced by one institution.

• Regional Symposia. SARUA to organize an annual regional symposium at which all 14 participating institutions will present their discussion papers, discuss progress and brief each other on latest developments and plans.

• Synthesis of Integration. A collating information and fact gathering exercise. SARUA will sub-contract this and circulate the results to all participants early on in the programme. In parallel, there was a need to obtain missing SADC documents and make these available.

• Scenarios. Various possible scenarios/future planning horizons could be developed from a synthesis of the country position papers,

• Web based dissemination. The SARUA website would be enhanced and developed i) to allow a secure “project management” area where researchers could access project tools, plans, timetables etc. and freely discuss progress and challenges as they arise, ii) to allow more public discussion and input into the process through blogs, discussion lists and dissemination of outputs.

Outcomes Desired outcomes (to be added to the original list – of meeting SARUA strategic plan objectives) were seen as:

• Creation of an active network of researchers across the region;



• Increased availability and credibility of “locally produced” research; • Enhancing the visibility and profile of individual institutions involved

in the research. Impact The group noted that the project is anticipated to have social, economic and governance impacts at four distinct levels:

• Institutional • National • Regional • International.

Specific impacts might be:

• Human Resources in Science and Technology better utilisation and deployment of human capacity (brain drain not only overseas)

• Social cohesion – improved understanding and co-operation between different institutions, and different countries (working together on a common research agenda)

• Improved planning and decision-making at institutional and national level.

Discussion: Learning materials Prof Ogunrinade asked how teams were expected to factor in concepts like ‘innovation’ and ‘scenario’. Mr Motala responded that in the project proposal careful attention would be given to what was expected of teams in relation to those concepts. Mr Maharajh said that a section on systems of innovation should be included the draft proposal, since the research studies would be located within that context. He suggested that the initiators of the project offer training or learning materials around systems of innovation. Mr Motala said the country reports would provide more concrete baseline data to allow SARUA to undertake scenario planning in future. Support Prof Muchie said that to do good research researchers needed dedicated time. He suggested that universities would have to allow the researchers dedicated research time, and asked whether SARUA would contribute to overhead costs. Mr Motala said that an underlying principle was that there must be institutional support to enable the team leader to do the work. Mr Henson said that one of principles of SARUA’s founding document was that SARUA members bring resources and expertise when needed. Networking Prof Ogunrinade said that in Lesotho the Ministry of Science and Technology already committed to networking. Mr Maharajh said that where there were existing systems, these need not be replicated. Aide-memoire on selection of country team leader Prof Chileshe pointed out that some countries had VCs present while others



did not. He requested that SARUA produce a one-page aide-memoire on the recommendations and requirements for the selection of the country team leader to aid discussions with VCs in a country. Clarifying the research question Mr Motala suggested that the facilitating team give attention to clarifying the research question. He noted that the proposed research study would facilitate SARUA’s interaction with Ministers of Education in the region, and beyond that to the African Union. There was considerable pressure on SARUA to help ministers within the region develop a strategic plan for higher education linked to SADC goals. The meeting Ministers of Education in March 2009 would offer SARUA an opportunity for advocacy and dialoguing with ministers. The proposed research project was an important initiative whose effects could affect the relationship between higher education and policy makers. If ministers saw higher education as having an important role in addressing the developmental challenges of the region, this might influence decisions around the resourcing of higher education. Mr Motala said that the proposed research study needed integrating issues/questions related to key regional issues such as water, infrastructure, HIV/Aids and political stability. That would make an impact on SARUA’s ability to establish relationships with policy makers. Prof Muchie argued that the research should not be broad, but must be specified in a do-able way. He said that the best way to focus the research study was to concentrate on the higher education sector. Issues of development and issues of integration were driven by the higher education landscape locally, nationally and internationally. Specific questions on higher education – such as access, mobility, and the brain drain – were linked to the landscape. Mr Motala indicated that a workshop with team leaders would be the best mechanism to deepen the research study, examine its premises and develop research questions.

9. INPUT: FINANCING PLANNING, OPERATIONAL AND GOVERNANCE PLANNING, MONITORING EVALUATION AND LEARNING FRAMEWORK Prof Bo Göransson

9.1 Prof Göransson gave a presentation on how financial planning, operational and governance planning, and monitoring evaluation and learning frameworks had been implemented in the UniDev research study, to inform the conference deliberations. He also presented proposals on financial planning and operational planning for the proposed research study, as well as proposals on governance planning and monitoring, evaluation and learning frameworks. The UniDev experience RPI, as the co-ordinating agency, received funding from SAREC for the UniDev project. RPI developed contracts with its 14 partners. The contracts



made provision for key deliverables, including the development of a country position paper, the holding of national workshops and completion of the research task. The co-ordinating agency did not specify how the money should be used - there was a degree of flexibility in budgets, as each country had a different situation. There were requirements with regard to financial reporting. The agency had a first planning meeting of team leaders, at which leaders outlined the embryo of a country position paper. Participants discussed a road map of the project. First disbursements followed the planning meeting. Operationally, RPI was the co-ordinator of 14 partners, and held regular meetings. The budget made provision for three meeting – the planning meeting, as well as mid-term and final meetings. The project had been able to piggyback on other meetings in order to increase the times that teams could meet. Meetings served to build trust among partners and allow them to learn from each other. Regular communication among partners in the project was also achieved through electronic and other networks. The project used a list serve and a blog. RPI served as the co-ordinator in terms of governance. There was joint decision-making with transparency in all decisions made. Team leaders and co-ordinators decided on major issues, or in some cases delegated decisions to the co-ordinating team, which drafted documents and circulated the draft for discussion by teams. The process was very democratic. Monitoring and evaluation responsibilities were allocated. RPI was responsible for the publication of articles and books seen as key outcomes. Each partner was requested to evaluate the impact that the project had in the country (particularly with regard to influence on decision-making/policy-making and S&T). Ideas for new projects were generated. The list serve and blog served as part of monitoring framework, as did joint publications. All publications were compiled into a book. The learning experience was also evaluated. Proposals for the financial planning, operational planning, governance planning of the proposed research study Prof Göransson presented proposed financial planning for the proposed research study project. The proposals indicated that SARUA would act as co-ordinator of the project, and be responsible for the production of the final report. RPI and IERI would be facilitating organisations. The funder, SAREC, would send funds to SARUA, which SARUA would disburse to participants, based on contracts. While the budget would not be strictly demarcated – leaving flexibility for each country team to make decisions on allocations – it would be phased over the three-year period. The contracts would indicate deliverables over the three-year contract period. Should those deliverables not be met, the funding would not continue. There would be requirements relating to reporting, where country teams reported to SARUA and SARUA reported to SAREC. Proposed operational planning and governance planning would include



SARUA as co-ordinator of the project, and RPI and IERI as facilitating organisations. The 14 team leaders would participate in decision-making in respect of operations and governance. A list serve, work space and blog would be used to facilitate operations. The proposed monitoring, evaluation and learning framework identified SARUA as the co-ordinator, responsible for the production of the final report. Partners would be responsible for self-evaluation (in all stages discussing the impact of the project on its own organisation and at a national level). Regional and international conferences would be used for information dissemination, but also for learning and for evaluation. The list serve, website or blog and publications would be used to disseminate findings and learnings of the network. Discussion Outcomes and impact of the UniDev project Prof Ogunrinade asked what had been achieved by the UniDev project. Prof Göransson said that the project had had impacts on different levels (minor and major). The national workshops served as a springboard on the role of S&T and innovation in national development. Higher education should be an instrument of development. The national conferences brought together policymakers, industry members and academics to discuss the issues. Other impacts had been achieved through publications in the academic arena. Mr Motala stressed the importance of the development of a network, as a collegiate of researchers from different countries able to call on each other. Mr Maharajh said that UniDev had provided an opportunity for graduate students to be involved in the research. Many people had finished their degrees through the process. Prof Göransson added that the use of graduate students might be an opportunity to promote the involvement of women students. Mr Motala asked whether there would be place for the SARUA project in UniDev II. Prof Göransson said that this was likely, since when UniDev II launched there should be good contact between the two networks. Prof Muchie said that the idea of organising institutions to create knowledge, and create research systems was critical. In Africa there was so much to research. Rather than becoming victims, and asking donors to come in, Africans could fight this, using knowledge. It was important to maintain the integrity and rigour of the knowledge creating processes. This was separate to making research relevant to communities. Africa countries should be creating top research universities as well as other kinds of universities. Power and knowledge did not mix in Africa. The SARUA network could facilitate debate on what universities are, and on what they could do for others. Challenges in the UniDev project Mr Motala asked what challenges the UniDev project had faced, and how these might inform the SARUA research study. Prof Göransson there had been few problems with the content of the research. The biggest problems had been



experienced in despatching money to partners as the university had not been equipped to undertake international financial transactions. Another challenge had been that the blog was not used optimally. A further problem had been that of intellectual continuity: over the three-year project it had been necessary to get substitutes for some people originally involved. Lessons for the SARUA research project Prof Göransson said that in the UniDev project the co-ordinating group and some research partners knew each other, so it was easy to start building trust within the network. Since the co-ordinating group knew the research colleagues, there was not a selection process. He suggested that SARUA and its partners might need a longer planning meeting. Mr Motala agreed that the planning meeting would be crucial in clarifying aspects of the project, building collegiality, and getting commitment to the project. Prof Dlamini said that since the outcomes were linked to socio-economic development, the project had to emphasise dissemination, and strategise on how to get the message to people who needed it. Mr Motala said that this would be discussed fully with team leaders. Mr Henson asked how decisions on quality were to be made, e.g. in approving payments for tranches of work. Prof Göransson said that the UniDev project had used a system of peer review within the network. All outputs were screened and discussed by several members in the network. Some outputs were better than others, so decisions were made based on a specified minimum level. Funding Prof Kalua questioned whether the budget would be adequate to cover logistics such as airfares. Mr Motala said that the budget presented was what SIDA was likely to support. SARUA will look for additional funding if necessary. Country teams could also to seek additional funding. Language Prof Brundenius questioned whether the SARUA research study would be conducted and disseminated in one or more languages. He noted that translations were expensive and difficult to do. Mr McGarry responded that French, Portuguese and English were used as SADC languages. Prof Miguel said that most researchers in Mozambique were comfortable reading and writing in English. Prof Göransson suggested that all outputs - position papers and journal articles - could be in language of country, but meetings and conferences in English. Mr Motala said that SARUA must deal with translation as needed in the project, since it was an institution with regional competences and regional responsibilities. Prof Gakuru Semacumu said that SADC members would demand that documents be in their language. He agreed with proposals that reports be written in the language of the country and translation services provided at meetings and conferences. Prof Muchie advocated the use of English as an



international language of research as a pragmatic solution. However, Mr Motala said that the language issue was complex, since it had to do with history, and power. The matter would be dealt with in SARUA, and in the coordinating mechanisms.

10. SMALL TEAM REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT PROJECT PROPOSAL

10.1 Mr Motala briefed delegates on the process to be followed. He said that discussion in the day and half planning conference had provided a strong mandate for the facilitating group to finalise the draft project proposal, clarify structures of accountability, principles underlying the work and key questions to be focused on in doing the work. He invited any delegate who wished to do so to join the small team in revising the draft research plan, based on key agreements made in the conference. This draft would then be presented to the conference. Following the conference it would be finalised before being circulated to delegates, country team leaders and agencies involved. Mr Motala reminded delegates from each country to meet and nominate an interim contact person for the country and to submit these names.

10.2 The small team (including a number of delegates) met to capture revisions to the draft research plan.

11. PLENARY DISCUSSION: REVISED DRAFT RESEARCH PLAN

11.1 Mr Motala and Mr Maharajh presented the provisional revisions to the Draft Research Plan. They noted that the document would be finalised outside the conference. Issues still to be finalised included:

• the project title • the primary research questions and subsidiary questions.

Activities to be carried out in the short term included:

• drafting of a letter (aide-memoire) to VCs outlining the research process;

• finalisation of the Revised Research Plan and circulation of this document to interested parties;

• setting up structures; • finalising the network and contacts; • providing detailed briefings to team leaders; • promoting the network (based on connectivity);

RH EM RH



• Developing a synthesis of SADC protocols. Time frames were set as follows:

• January 15, 2009 – list of country team leaders list finalised • January 15, 2009 - revised Draft Proposal circulated • January 22, 2009 - responses to Revised Draft Proposal • April 2009 – provisional date for team leaders meeting and

constitution of the research project (subject to project funding approval by SIDA by March 2009).

Mr Motala noted that a special effort would have to be made to identify contact persons and country team leaders for Angola and Madagascar.

11. CLOSURE

11.1 Prof Claes Brundenius expressed thanks from himself, Prof Bo Göransson and RPI to SARUA for organising the planning conference and complimented the arrangements, the quality of participants and outcomes. He told delegates that he wished to send them away with greetings and good wishes for the project from the Director of SAREC. Mr Motala, speaking on behalf of IERI and SARUA, thanked delegates for their participation in the intensive discussion, the constructive way they had helped the revision of the proposal, and for their commitment to the work that SARUA undertook behalf of institutions and the higher education sector. On behalf of the CEO of SARUA he extended a farewell to all participants.

Documents

Minutes of the Planning Conference on Universities in ... · Dr Lindile Ndabeni – IERI 4.1 Dr Ndabeni presented an overview of higher education in the SADC region, derived from