Postgraduate funding in South African universities: National Research Foundation (NRF) briefing; Staffing SA Universities Framework (SSAUF): Department of Higher Education & Training briefing

Higher Education, Science and Innovation

25 August 2015
Chairperson: Ms Y Phosa (ANC); Mr C Mathale (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) and the National Research Foundation (NRF) briefed a joint meeting of the Committees on Higher Education and Training and Science and Technology, on their roles in funding postgraduate studies in South Africa.

The DHET said the problem in the higher education sector had in recent years been the ageing cohort of the overall professoriate in the country. The average age of an academic was between 59-68 years, thus the problem emerged that by 2021 there would be a large exodus of senior academics who did the majority of the research at higher level institutions. The factors that would lead to this situation were ageing, retirement, immigration and poaching by private industry.

The strategic objectives and planning of the country prioritised an increase in the enrolment of students at all levels. The number of students graduating and proceeding with their academic careers was not enough to feed the system. The Department hoped to improve the throughput of PhD graduates, and the target was to produce 7 000 graduates each year by 2019 in an attempt to address the impending deficit which would hit South Africa in the next decade.

The Department described how it intended to implement the Staffing SA Universities Framework (SSAUF) across the higher education sector, listing five reasons for its importance:

  • Inequality of representation among existing staff (demographic representation);

  • Unequal and/or unfavourable staff:student ratios;

  • Low throughput rates;

  • Qualifications and expertise of existing staff;

  • A growing but still inadequate postgraduate pipeline.

The issue of inequality of representation within the academic staff was problematic. There was a great deficit in the representation of black women over the period of 2003-2013. The Framework focused on growing the cohort of black and coloured academics, but with special consideration for black females.

The Department presented the Framework as an interim and long-term solution to this problem. The programmes that the framework sought to implement focused on training a new generation of academics who would eventually replace the ageing academics. The SSAUF aimed to ensure that there was a constant cycle which replaced academics in the system and improved the ratio of academic staff to students. The issue primarily was the low number of doctoral graduates per year and the alarming fact that young people were not taking up careers in academia. The Framework sought to create interest in an academic career and add value to the career path, even though resources were extremely constrained.

The NRF outlined its plans to fund the postgraduate pipeline, and how it intended to assist in supporting emerging academics. There were a number of programmes and funding initiatives which the NRF was undertaking to support postgraduate students through their academic careers. In addition, over the next five years, the NRF would be scaling up the research and development (R&D) funding framework, creating a National Research Institute (NRI) which would help increase publication rates, attracting young adults to the universities and getting them into the university systems, increasing networks continentally and globally, and improving infrastructure to allow for a greater intake of students into the university system.

Members were generally supportive of the plans presented, but were concerned the solutions might turn out to be short-term. The existing challenge of academics leaving the university structures might be addressed, but South Africa lacked the capacity to increase the numbers to the level required for future growth. They suggested attracting overseas academics to bolster the numbers, as was done in other developing countries. Other issues raised were the need to ensure students remained within the system, the increasing financial strain on postgraduate students, particularly blacks, as they continued their studies, the criteria for funding, and whether the Framework would ultimately result in benefits for the South African economy.

Meeting report

Department of Higher Education and Training

Dr Gwebinkundla Qonde, Director-General: Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), presented on the key issues which had resulted in the need to have the Staffing South African Universities Framework (SSAUF).

He began by outlining the main issues that surrounded the issue of the production of quality postgraduate students and the low number of PhD graduates every year. The journey of being an academic was an extensive one and the process was challenging. The problem in the higher education sector had in recent years been the aging cohort of the overall professoriate in the country. The average age of an academic was between 59-68 years, thus the problem emerged that by 2021 there would be a large exodus of senior academics who did the majority of the research at higher level institutions. The factors that would lead to this situation were ageing, retirement, immigration and poaching by private industry.

The strategic objectives and planning of the country prioritised an increase in the enrolment of students at all levels. The number of students graduating and proceeding with their academic careers was not enough to feed the system. The student ratios were worsening as the years went on because the enrolment by students was not matching the number of academic staff intake. The Department hoped to improve the throughput of PhD graduates, and the target was to produce 7 000 graduates each year by 2019 in an attempt to address the impending deficit which would hit South Africa in the next decade.

In 2012, a study had been conducted which showed that one third of the permanent staff at universities had doctoral degrees, and only six institutions had 60% and above had permanent staff with doctoral degrees, which was problematic. When compared with other countries which were economically in the same class, South Africa had been lagging behind in terms of the number of PhD graduates in society. The country currently sits with 23 doctoral graduates per million population, while Brazil sits with 43/million, South Korea with 157/million, and 200/million in Australia.

South African needed to have a contingency plan in place to address this shortfall in the system and to address transformation, which was what the Department had been working. It had used this information as a backdrop to the programmes which would be presented to the joint meeting. There had been two approaches adopted by the Department. Firstly, it was in support of programmes that were administered by the National Research Foundation (NRF), funding some of them through the Skills Development Fund. In the current financial year, the fund had allocated R153 million to support NRF programmes. Secondly, the Department, in collaboration with the NRF and universities, had created a programme called New Generation which was responsible for the development of the new generation of academics.

Dr Whitfield Green, Assistant Chief Director: DHET, described how the Department intended to implement the SSAUF framework across the higher education sector, listing five reasons why the framework was important to address the issues mentioned by the DG:

  • Inequality of representation amongst existing staff (demographic representation);

  • Unequal and/or unfavourable staff:student ratios;

  • Low throughput rates;

  • Qualifications and expertise of existing staff;

  • A growing but still inadequate postgraduate pipeline.

Data had been provided to the Committee about the rationale behind the framework, which could be used to understand why the framework had been structured in the manner it was. The emphasis had been on the universities in the higher education sector, which were very diverse and their contexts varied drastically. There thus needed to be a nuanced approach to addressing any problems within the sector.

There had been a continued need to address the problems that historically black universities faced, because it was important to the strategic objective of improving throughput rates. The issue of inequality of representation within the academic staff was problematic, and the data provided illustrated that there was also a great deficit in the representation of black women over the period of 2003-2013. The framework focused on growing the cohort of black and coloured academics, but with special consideration for black females.

The Department had the capacity to conduct research on the number of students who made it through the system. It had been concerned about the low throughput rate across the universities. The studies which the Department undertook looks specifically at the number of students who leave the university system, rather than looking at the dropout from specific programmes. The cohort studies, as they are called, show that the dropout rate across the system remains high and at levels which the country could not afford. There needed to be an improvement in the retention of students from the national diplomas up to doctoral studies, and an improvement in the graduation rates. The qualifications of existing staff continued to be a problem at universities. The data showed that there was a diverse pool in this area -- some institutions had a large number of staff with PhDs, such as the University of Cape Town, while others such as Mangosuthu University of Technology had the lowest number of staff with PhDs. There had to be targeted interventions for institutions like Mangosuthu University of Technology.

The pipeline of postgraduate students needed to be reviewed, because there were not enough people entering postgraduate studies to feed the deficit already present in South Africa. The other issue was that the postgraduate intake was not reflective of the demographics of the country. There was under-representation of black and coloured people, especially females. The work on the Framework had been through consultation with universities and it had been constructed as an extension to pre-existing work done by the universities, so it was not a brand new venture. The deliberate intention of the Department was to address not only the issue of ageing academics through the Framework, but the overall shortfall in the academic pipeline. To grow a sustainable pipeline of quality academics, the Framework had to emphasise support at all levels in the process of becoming an academic.

The Framework had five programmes which were intended to address all levels in the process. The first programme was the “nurturing emerging scholars programme,” which provided support for students in the beginning of this process and focussed on high achievers to convince them to consider taking up an academic career. Their needs would be catered for through a mentorship and tutorship programme, which would start the process of prompting them to pursue an academic career. The “New Generation of Academics Programme” was the most important of them all, because it was about the direct recruitment of students at the Masters and post-doctoral level, into the academic path. This sought to get students into permanent positions in universities to begin their academic career. There would be support provided to these students with regard to their research and other elements important to their success in the programme. The “Existing Academics Capacity Enhancement Programme” (EACEP) was a programme which aimed to assist existing staff in the system with teaching, research and community upliftment capacities. It was intended to ensure that the teaching, research and community outreach of researchers was on a par and that they were making a meaningful contribution within their context.

There were two additional programmes which supported these three initial programmes. The first programme,the “Staffing South Africa’s Universities’ Development Programme” (SSAU-DP) focused on the providing developing opportunities for emerging scholars and existing staff. There would be assistance in the form of workshops for research and the opportunity to complete a postgraduate diploma in teaching for both existing staff and emerging scholars. This programmes reaches deep into the other three programmes to provide support. The other programme, the “Supplementary Staff Employment Programme” (SSEP) draws on university academics who are not permanent at any particular university, or have already retired, to help develop emerging academics. In particular, there was a need to use the networks these non-permanent academics have, to expose the emerging academics to the global extent of research and to create links with industry or other local universities to enhance their research capacity.

This was a summary of the Framework, but the focus would fall heavily on the New Generation Programme. The funding for this programme would take the form of different grants. In the next financial year, there would be the introduction of the University Development Grant. This grant proposes a holistic approach to development at universities and funding the implementation of the Framework in South African universities. There were two critical elements to the funding of the Framework -- the funding of the programme, and the human resource capacity to implement it. The funding for the implementation of the framework would come from three sources:

  • Streamlining of pre-existing funds in the system that were already targeting the purposes that the Framework would address

  • Creating partnerships with organisations with similar goals, such as the NRF and the European Commission’s Erasmus Plus programme

  • New funding, which needed to be introduced into the system.

Professor Nan Yeld, Director: Department of Higher Education and Training, explained exactly what the Framework entailed and why it was important. The major components of the Framework focused on the three initial three programmes. The earmarked grants tended to be hard to distribute at some institutions, so the Framework also seeks to assist the administrative arms of universities to fall under it, because they are important the support students. There needs to be a capacity development programme for the process of creating academics, especially offices such as the financial aid office, research assistance office and wellness services, which were pivotal to the survival of the student through the process.

The New Generation of Academics Programme (nGAP) had been structured to allow universities to apply to the Department for new posts, but there were conditions attached to the creation of these posts -- the posts needed to be equitable and sustainable, and there had to be a genuine need for these posts at the institutions.

The fatal flaw in the pilot projects that had preceded the Framework was that positions created for the young academics which they held in universities were on contract, and they had not subsequently been absorbed into the system at the end of their contract. There has been a need to have performance management elements introduced at universities in order to encourage the permanence of new academics at universities. The nGAP ensured that the young academics were properly inducted by the universities and that they received adequate support. The universities would apply for these posts where they saw a need for new junior staff. The Department would convene a review committee which would decide on the merit of each application and accept applications into the programme. The applications were mainly for the sciences, health sciences and engineering. The review committee could not prescribe to universities what type of applications to send forward, and the Department would not be responsible for hiring the academic staff, but rather the universities.

The posts were permanent and worked on a six-year cycle for each intake. The students would have their work rationed in order for them to focus on their studies while gaining teaching and research experience. They would undergo a mentorship programme and short courses on teaching and research; they would receive financial support for their research, such as travel grants and infrastructure provision, such as laboratories. There had been collaboration with the NRF and universities about the cost division of this programme. There would be a division of cost, where the Department paid for research and studying, while the institutions dealt with salary components.

She provided an update on phase one of nGAP, and plans for the next phases:

  • 125 nGAP posts had been allocated by DHET to universities across the system by end of March 2015;

  • Universities were currently conducting interviews, with some of the processes/appointments completed;

  • It was anticipated that all posts would be filled by the end of 2015;

  • The nGAP-Development Programme would begin to roll-out in February 2016;

  • The next round of nGAP posts would begin in October 2015, for an intake in 2016;

  • Universities had asked to fund additional nGAP posts to swell numbers for the system – this added value and signaled a strong buy-in by the institutions.

There were systemic constraints to the nGAP:

  • Ensuring that an academic career was attractive enough to draw the brightest young people;

  • Ensuring that all universities could provide a robust and high quality academic environment in which young academics could thrive;

  • Ensuring that meaningful and comprehensive transformation was developed and took root in all institutions so that current apparent barriers to retention, progression and promotion were broken down.

The update on the Framework:

  • The new ‘University Capacity Programme’ was planned to begin in late 2015, targeting directors of financial aid offices, institutional planning, teaching and learning centres, student affairs, student housing, wellness, etc. This would be part of the EACEP.

  • As the nGAP-Development Programme was rolled out, the courses, seminars and international network opportunities would be modified and expanded to include all staff, including part-time, supplementary and industry-based staff.

  • Synergies were being developed with relevant National Research Foundation (NRF) capacity building programmes, with research support and costs contributing to the revitalisation and enhancement of the DHET’s academic workforce initiatives. These were planned to take immediate effect, with the first call going out to nGAP post holders at the end of 2015.

  • Components of the SSAUF, such as the NESP, EASEP and the SSEP, were being rolled out through activities supported in the current three-year Teaching Development Grant cycle, which ends in 2016/17.

The University Development Grant components:

  • Planned to be implemented from the 2017/18 financial year;

  • The SSAUF would become the major vehicle for research and teaching development with the aim of improving student success within the proposed new ‘University Development Grant (UDG)’

  • The UDG would most likely draw in the Foundation provision earmarked grants, as these aimed to bring about fundamental and sustainable curriculum reform and effectiveness, and were thus targeted also at improved student performance.

  • All other aspects of the SSAUF would also be implemented through the UDG.

  • This would bring much greater coherence, efficiency and effectiveness to state efforts to support teaching, learning and research development at universities.

National Research Foundation (NRF)

Dr. Beverley Damonse, Acting CEO: National Research Foundation, presented on the various programmes which the NRF undertakes to fund postgraduate students across all universities. The NRF was both an agency and a research and innovation performer for the Ministry of Science and Technology. It was very important to describe the dual function to understand that the NRF was not only a grant producing organization, but that it also provided research platforms for universities. The NRF had reached the end of its five-year strategic framework, vision 15, which aimed at increasing the number of postgraduate students on NRF funding. The strategic plan that it was coming up with was vision 2020, which would continue with an increase in the number of PhD graduates and the overall number of students being funded in the system. There were five programmes within the NRF but the focus would fall on Programme 3 -- Research and Innovation Support and Advancement (RISA) -- which dealt with the chief grant-making structures within the NRF.

Overall funding in the NRF was obtained through three main core avenues, the first of which was the designated funding. This funding was acquired through contractual agreements. The NRF had contractual agreements largely with the Department of Science and Technology (DST). The funding was allocated to the NRF by departments in order to serve a particular purpose, and this included Higher Education and Trade and Industry. The Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) parliamentary core grant was another avenue for funding. This was a grant given to the NRF straight from parliamentary allocations. The other grant was the ring-fenced parliamentary grant available for specific programmes. There was other income that the NRF received outside these grants, but they were the main source of income, which constituted a total of R3 billion. RISA sources of funding showed that the MTEF income had been the most significant, and the designated funds were also increasing. RISA accounted for 62% of the total budget of the NRF. Over the last five years, the NRF had invested R6.18 billion in the sciences.

The Human Capacity Development Pipeline was very similar to nGAP. In the NRF context, the pipeline represented the investment strategy undertaken by the Foundation. This was in terms of research, teaching and developing. It started with staffing, right through to researching. The main focus would be the development of the new generation of researchers. The next generation of academics were recruited from honours level, through bursary support right up to post-doctoral work. The honours and masters students were led into a PhD tract right through to their early career research. This opportunity was afforded for emerging academics in both universities and science councils. The next level was for established researchers, creating competitive funding for researching. The next strategic investment in centres of excellence was important because this was where the discipline of research becomes more focused. The NRF uses this framework to guide the synergies and investments into the development of academics.

The investment strategies were under the guidance of the NDP 2030 and the goal was to address the deficit in the post-secondary education sectors. The targets of the NRF were aligned to the following targets of the NDP:

  • Increase the percentage of academic staff with PhDs from 43% to 75%.

  • Produce more than 100 doctoral graduates per million by 2030 (current 36).

  • SA needs more than 5 000 doctoral graduates per annum (current 2 000).

  • Produce an additional 100 000 PhDs.

  • Most of these doctorates should be in science, engineering and technology (SET) – currently below 50%.

  • Over 25 % of university enrolments should be postgraduate (currently 16%).

There were also ministerial directives for transformation targets which the NRF used in the assignment of funding and to encourage the enrolment of previously disadvantaged cohorts into the postgraduate stream. The main objective was to ensure that the support NRF provided was to the 80% demographic of black people, with an emphasis on women. Also, the focus was on growing the engineering, technology and science enrolments and support for black women. Funding also included prioritisation of South African citizens and permanent residents, and those from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region.

The support the NRF provided for students started at the honours level, up until doctoral studies. There were three grants which funded students through the process of postgraduate studies. Firstly, there was the free standing competitive grant which funded honours full-time studies. Secondly, there was the grant-holder linked bursary, in which Masters students who would be funded through their supervisors. Finally, it was the block grant which was provided to universities and assigned for the funding of Masters and Doctoral students. Most of these grants and bursaries were for full-time students, and only about 6% were for part-time students.

Pipeline investment was channeled primarily into the New Researchers programme -- the budget of the programme accounted for 36% of the budget.The funding for research was allocated primarily to established researchers, but their primary role was that of supervisor, which was a point mentioned earlier. The key was to find a balance between all the programmes, especially with regard to the funding allocation. The postgraduate investment pipeline had increased over time, as both the Department of Science and Technology (DST) and the Department had made investments into the funding of postgraduate students at all levels. If there were any changes that needed to be made to the current investments, firstly it would be to restructure the investment in honours degrees. It would be important to increase expenditure in the support of honours students and address the high dropout rate throughout every level of postgraduate studies, and figure out methods of improving retention.

The Scarce Skills Development Fund had increased tremendously. It was a fund that it had been set up in collaboration with the Department and they had made large investments into the fund. There had been assistance from the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA) in terms of building the capacity to fund the stream of accounting, and improve the numbers within that discipline in postgraduate studies. Partnerships could add significantly to the NRF funding capacity. The organisation was scalable, thus it was able to take up investment at any point in time without huge structural adjustments. There was also collaboration with the Department to fund all levels from Honours/B. Tech to Post-Doctoral studies. The number of bursaries and fellowships had increased over time, but there were still fewer numbers as students progressed. This was the pattern that needed to be addressed. The demographic targets for the Fund had not been achieved, as black students sat at 65%, and not at the benchmarked 80%.

The portion of students registered to the NRF out of the total number of registered students was relatively low. NRF-funded students accounted for only 10% of the total number of students in postgraduate studies across the sector. The NRF funded 5% of honours, 7% of masters and 14% of doctoral students, but there would need to be more investment pumped into the funding of students if this number of students were to increase. The internal increase with each level had been significant, with honours moving from 1% in 2006 to 5% in 2013, and masters moving from 5% in 2006 to 7% in 2013. The demographic representation within RISA had not reached the targets, with exception of honours. Significant work was being done with universities to try and address the demographic issue in postgraduate student enrolment.

There had been a serious discrepancy regarding the capturing of the number of people who lived with disabilities. The organisation was unsure of the number of people with disabilities who were funded by the NRF, but it was something that would be addressed in the system.

The annual NRF-funded graduations data showed that there were significantly lower graduations as one progressed from honours, through masters to doctoral. The system needed to address this pattern, because the drop from honours to masters was very big and it continued to decrease from masters to doctoral. There had to be a way to track what happened to these graduates in conjunction with the SA Revenue Service (SARS). The percentage of DST-NRF supported masters and doctoral students graduating versus the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) percentage graduations showed that NRF-supported students were graduating at a higher rate than the HEMIS in both masters and doctoral. This could be attributed to the competitive nature of the university application process and the academic setting, but it also illustrated the problem of throughput in general and time taken to complete a degree.

The Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAF) study showed that NRF doctoral students took less time to complete their doctorate degree in comparison to the national average. NRF scholars were faring better at the completion of their doctoral studies than students without NRF support. The sabbatical grants for university academic staff was one programme to assist academics to enhance their research capacity and supervisory capacity, and to improve the overall quality of their qualifications. The other programme was the Thuthuka programme. Thuthuka was a partnership programme, implemented in collaboration with public universities and research institutions. This intervention was targeting redress, and increased access, to research funding opportunities and included a PhD track for university academic staff pursuing doctoral training.

The strategic investment was the focus for high end research and high outputs. This was where there was a mix of national and international researchers. The funding within the Centres of Excellence and the SA Research Chairs Initiative (SARChl) chairs prioritised South African citizens and permanent residents, but also included the SADC region, the continent and to a small extent the international community. There had been an increase in students doing post-doctoral work and an increased number of peer-reviewed publications being produced by the SARChl chairs.

Thumbnail statistics for the Square Kilometer Array (SKA) Project postgraduate training were:

  • R682m post graduate investment to date;

  • R444m for Doctoral bursaries and R238m for Masters bursaries;

  • 271 students supported from 2005 to 2015;

  • 106 (39%) Doctoral students and 165 (61%) Masters students;

  • 202 (74%) male and 69 (26% ) female;

  • 166 students graduated from 2005 to 2015

  • 53 (32%) Doctoral students and 113 (68%) Masters students;

  • 168 South African Students supported;

  • 53 (32%) Doctoral and 115 (68%) Masters;

  • 115 (68%) Male and 53 (32%) Female;

  • 119 (71%) White and 49 Black (29%) students;

  • 103 non-South African students supported;

  • SKA African partner country citizens – 28 (27%) Doctoral and 30 (29%) Masters

  • Other African country citizens - 22 (21%) Doctoral and 17 (17%) Masters

  • Other country citizens - 3 (3%) Doctoral and 3 (3%) Masters

The NRF was also involved in a lot of international projects and collaboration with other research institutions. The investment into these programmes was worth over R85 million, and also included bilateral arrangements between research institutions of which the NRF was part. This allowed students to go overseas and conduct research, or even undertake their studies with funding from abroad, such as the NRF Desmond Tutu scholarship or the Fulbright Scholarship.

The NRF internship programme provided work experience and research exposure. The programme offered the graduates a mentor, and was for a year with a basic stipend. At the end of the programme, a graduate may be hired by the NRF on a permanent basis, or graduates may elect to continue their studies. A study had been conducted on the postgraduate pipeline. This had been done in collaboration with institutions in order to understand the constraints in the system. It had been undertaken to provide evidence from which solutions could be created to address funding and enrolment problems at institutional level. This study took the form of a web survey across 15 universities. There had been a high number of students who were employed while studying at all levels, and this also impacted on the time taken to complete qualifications. Most students in their doctoral studies were employed at universities, along with masters students, but honours students were mainly in industry. With regards to the continuation of studies, the same percentage of students considered discontinuing their studies at every level, but their reasons collectively differed. The main problem at honours level was that students were unable to cope with the workload, but at the Masters and doctoral level the issue became financial constraints, time constraints and family commitments.

The DST had launched an initiative which aimed to track students who had dropped out of the system through the assistance of SARS, and find out where they are. It would also track where graduates found themselves within the system. This would be done to assess the socio-economic circumstances of the graduates and would be implemented by the NRF.

Finally, for the next five years, the NRF had the following planned:

  • Scaling up the R&D funding framework;

  • Creating a National Research Institute (NRI) which would help increase publication rates;

  • Attracting young adults to the universities and getting them into the university systems;

  • Increasing networks continentally and globally;

  • Improving infrastructure to allow for a greater intake of students into the university system.

Discussion

Dr B Bozzoli (DA) said that presentation by the Department did not present a solution, but rather a short term plan to a long term and eminent problem. She asked if the Department had considered importing academics as was done in other countries which faced the same problem with senior academics. She also asked about the staff-student ratio, which was worsening each year. What was the plan to address this problem, because the posts which had been spoken about would only replace the academics leaving, but would not create new posts in the system to ease staff ratios.

Prof N Khubisa (NFP) said the problem with attracting students into academia was the salary gaps that existed in universities. The system needed to be addressed in order to free up funds for junior academics. The other problem salaries presented was that it made it easier for junior academics to be poached by the private sector. Thirdly, there needed to be greater support at the undergraduate level, especially with non-academic support such as mental health, and adequate financial assistance. The Department must address the issue of lecturers and academic staff who did not have the proper qualifications across all levels.

Ms M Nkadimeng (ANC) asked if there was any contractual agreement to ensure that a scholar chosen for nGAP did not resign before the stipulated time.

Ms J Kilian (ANC) asked if the model being used by the Department had been used by any other country before as a test study, to assess whether it would work here by observing the constraints and success of the model in another context. She also asked about inequality of representation within the existing staff, and whether this included contract staff. What was the ratio of contract staff to permanent staff? What factors drove the poor retention rates of academics? Was it the working environment? Were there any figures about staff retention issues?

Ms S Mchunu (ANC) asked whether a postgraduate education diploma for lecturers existed already. She was against the notion of importing academics. She asked how the Department would ensure that all the candidates would be afforded an equal opportunity to develop their research capacity. Was the recruitment of nGAP favouring black women and persons with disabilities?

Mr E Siwela (ANC) asked how the Department would ensure that there was a high retention of the staff that underwent the nGAP programme. He also said that the problem of university dropouts could be due to the problem of support in institutions.

Mr C Kekana (ANC) asked whether the Department had critically analysed how developed countries had been able to deal with the threat the private sector posed on the retention of academics, because South Africa was not a unique case. He agreed that senior academics would need to be imported to meet the shortfall that was imminent.

Dr Qonde said that this type of intervention was created through collaboration with the entire sector. The country would not benefit from a blame game about whose fault this crisis was, but the solution began with having an adequate response to the immediate problem, and to also have a solution to the long-term staffing needs of universities. The blockage in the system needed to be addressed. First, there had to be rapid a improvement in representivity. The blockage had to be addressed primarily at the institutional level. By 2021, 3 500 academics would retire and institutions had to make up those numbers lost. Resources would have to be directed at addressing the doctoral shortage and the unblocking of the pathway to receiving doctoral studies for students. The exit of these senior academics would impact research and supervisor capacity, thus there must be greater emphasis on the training of the new generation of academics.

The issue was that institutions needed to be held accountable for their part in these programmes and they had to create performance review systems which would illustrate how the programmes were going to be implemented, especially the transformation targets. The issue of funding could be addressed through creating more partnerships with organisations with the same interests. This would create more resources for the nGAP.

Dr Green said the programme would need to be scaled up in order to replace existing positions and to create new ones. The recruitment process would increase to 400, and the increase of recruitment would be a gradual process. The issue of salaries could not be the solution to this problem because private sector salaries were way out range for public institutions. What was important was to create added value to the prospect of an academic career, by improving the prospects of promotion in academia and the travel opportunities made available. This model did have a comparative element, in that the Department had taken into account the experiences of other countries, but more specifically the sector itself, when designing this programme. The postgraduate diploma in higher education teaching was still coming along, but it would form part of the teaching and research support.

Prof Yeld said that contracts that the holder of a post signed made sure they understood that they were liable for costs if they dropped out of the programme, and this would assist with the problem of poaching. The programme hoped to create clear career paths so students understood what each level entailed and what each stage required. This made the development of a mentorship and tutorship programme important, because this would assist with the support structures students would need for success through the programme. The education diploma fitted here too, as a mechanism of support which could also be offered to existing staff.

Prof Yeld said the problem was not a complete solution to the problem but it was a step to trying to address an imminent problem in the higher education sector.

Prof Bozzoli said the programme was unclear about how many students would be coming into the programme and how many were expected to drop out? The issue was that nGAP was not an adequate answer to the question of replacing senior researchers who did most of the work. Young academics would not be able to produce that level of work.

Mr Siwela asked how many positions would be available for 2016? If someone from the initial intake dropped out, would their position be filled?

Prof Khubisa urged the Department to look at the problems students experienced at undergraduate level, because it would explain the postgraduate pipeline. Undergraduate students did not consider postgraduate studies or an academic career due to the problems of funding and accommodation experienced at undergraduate level.

Dr Green said that the recruitment process took about 250 students per year, but the intention was to scale it up to 400. The problem was that there had been a general underestimation about the staffing needs of universities. The nGAP was not a complete solution, but there needed to be a system in place to ensure retention of people in the system, even in the wake of mass retirement. Regarding the issue of those who dropped out, the next cycle would have to ensure that the position was filled to address any gaps which might arise. The intended retention rate was 80%, and this would be supported through monitoring and evaluation of the constraints and through intensive support to avoid dropping out.

Prof Bozzoli commended the NRF for their work, especially the New Generation programme, and suggested that the NRF and the Department must work together. The NRF could assist the Department by telling what worked and what did not work with their programme so that the Department could take that into consideration when developing nGAP.

Ms Mchunu asked about the arrangement between the NRF and other departments. She specifically asked whether the departments prescribed skills development programmes, and how this impacted on the programme. The information about disabled persons needed to be prioritised. She asked for clarity about the use of the term “black” -- did it refer to Africans only, or was it the broad categorisation of black. If so, how would Africans be prioritised, especially African women?

Ms Kilian asked whether other qualification authorities and institutes had tried to institute similar fellowships with the NRF that SAICA had created.

Dr Damonse said there was a trilateral network about nGAP. There was alignment across all levels of funding and support. Government departments did influence how funding took place, but they needed to be aligned with the mandate of the NRF.

Dr Gansen Pillay , Director: National Research Foundation, said the discussion on Thuthuka was aligned with the targets of the Department. There had been a study on the socio-economic impact of Thuthuka and its success. This information had been shared with the Department. There was a process of amalgamating resources to support Thuthuka and other programmes done through partnerships. The use of “black” as a category in the NRF was a broad definition, and was the inclusion of all non-white groups in South Africa, but it could be refined to specifically focus on Africans.

Dr Thomas Auf der Heyde, Deputy Director General: Department of Science and Technology, said three improvements had been made in the sector:

  1. South Africa had improved its postgraduate student intake, and research output had increased significantly in the last ten years. There had been high levels of production, but the size of the system must increase.

  2. There had been a drop off in student demographics from each level of study. The reasons for fewer postgraduate students were very complex, but there had been a collaborative effort between the DST, the NRF and the Department to address these complex issues by studying them empirically. There was a discrepancy with postgraduate funding because the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NFSAS) supported 23% of undergraduate studies, but the NRF supported 10% of the postgraduate cohort. The footprint of the NRF was small in the postgraduate funding. This was a big bottleneck in the system, which was major constraint.

  3. There had been significant progress in addressing the constraints. There was still a long way to go but there were prospects of success.

Ms Nkadimeng asked what challenges had been identified that had resulted in the constraints for doctoral students.

Prof Khubisa asked how the NRF intended to track value for money, especially with regard to funding doctoral studies. How would the research of the doctoral students contribute to the intended economic development of this country?

Ms J Kilian said the challenge for most black South Africans was the phenomenon of the “black tax,” in which elder siblings were responsible for their family’s financial stability and had obligations after the completion of their undergraduate degree or honours. Had the NRF been able to establish whether there was evidence to support this or not? She also said that funding seemed to be effective but below average in terms of its reach in the sector. What selection criteria were used for the funding?

Ms Mchunu asked how many research chairs were located at previously disadvantaged universities.

Dr Pillay said that the NRF had a strategic plan called the NRF Strategy 2020 aligned with the DST, and NDP targets were within the mandate. The model used was very scalable and focused on human faculty development, but resources were limited. Programmes were used to gather data in order to improve how the NRF invested. Investments needed to have a socio-economic impact and planning needed to be emphasised at the beginning. In terms of the tracking service, it would best be done through collaboration with SARS. The selection criteria were used through a scoring system and the adjudication was independent, and the rules governing the process were very clear and transparent. The problem with these programmes was retention, and the fact that young academics felt that this was not enough.

Mr Kekana asked how the research done by the doctoral students would be useful in achieving the economic goals of South Africa. He said the investment of the NRF must be very deliberate to ensure that innovation in industry could take place and push South Africa into the manufacturing space, instead of the consumer end of the global economy.

Dr Pillay said that he did not have the exact number of chairs available, but he would make sure that the relevant number was given to the Members of the Committee

Dr Damonse said that the research done to a large extent could not be directly linked to the immediate needs of the country’s economy. There had been many successes in the medical sciences and general sciences research, with many innovations, from the Stellenbosch penile transplant to the aluminium jaws created at the Central University of Technology in Bloemfontein, which benefit cancer patients whose jaws disintegrate as a result of the treatment. There had been progress made and the NRF would ensure that the Committee was aware of these progressions in research.

Mr Kekana said he was more interested in how all the research taking place would impact the country as a whole, and how research fitted into the broad scheme of trying to improve the quality of life of the majority of the population.

Dr Auf der Heyde said that there needed to be an evidence-based response to the issue Mr Kekana had raised, because it would illustrate how South Africa intended to become a knowledge-based economy which placed significant emphasis on deliberate skills development.

The Chair called for closing statements from the NRF, the Department and DST.

Dr Damonse gave a vote of thanks and thanked the Committees for allowing the NRF to present and receive constructive feedback.

Dr Auf der Heyde said he was delighted at the opportunity of the joint meeting, because it allowed for some perspective about how other departments were dealing with the same issue of postgraduate intake.

Dr Qonde said he was delighted at the response received from the Committee. The Department would be working with the advice received on improving nGAP.

The Co-chairperson said that there needed to be a more pro-active response to the problems within the sector, particularly of funding, not only at the postgraduate level. There also needs to be more coordination between the relevant stakeholders in order to deal effectively with this issue.

The Chairperson said the programmes being undertaken by the Department and the NRF were very important to achieving Outcome 5 of the NDP 2030. She urged the NRF and the Department to use the grants, because National Treasury had said that this had been a problem. She commended the presenters on their work.

Adoption of Minutes

The minutes of 19 August 2015, proposed and seconded by Prof Bozzoli and Mr Siwela, were adopted with amendments.

Announcements

The Bill would not be in the fourth term programme because it would not be tabled in the National Assembly on time. The Committee would be unable to hold public hearings in the fourth term.

The Committee also needed to have an urgent meeting with the management of the University of Stellenbosch, which would take place on a Tuesday morning. This would need to happen in light of the new transformation allegations at the University.

The meeting was adjourned.

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: