>>THEMES CONFERENCE REPORT
THEMES CONFERENCE REPORT
Download the final version of the Themes Conference Report, available in PDF format

DURBAN SOUTH AFRICA
13 MAY 2003

SANPAD - PHASE TWO

PREFACE

The launch of the second phase of SANPAD comes at a time when several changes are taking place in the Higher Education Sector in South Africa and when South Africa has set itself a trajectory for social development. These developments have a number of implications for the development of human resources and Research and Development in South Africa and SANPAD in its second phase of operation in South Africa attempts to respond to these developments by settings itself the following objectives:
· To subsidize, stimulate and promote quality research,
· To produce research outputs for development purposes,
· To promote co-operation between Netherlands and South African researchers, and between institutions within South Africa, thereby responding in part to the notion of internationalization of Higher Education, and
· To develop research capacity and a culture conducive to research, aimed particularly at researchers from the historically disadvantaged communities.

An external review of SANPAD Phase 1(1997-2002), commissioned by the Netherlands Government, revealed that SANPAD had established a respected position among development-oriented researchers and policy makers in South Africa. In its second phase of operation in South Africa (2003 - 2008), SANPAD plans to pursue its objectives in line with the goals set out in the National Plan for Higher Education (2001) and the White Paper: 1.27). To this end, SANPAD will finance research and research capacity initiatives that will contribute toward:
· Increasing the outputs of postgraduates, particularly at masters and doctoral level,
· Increasing research outputs and influencing implementation of research results,
· Sustaining existing research capacity through various non-project initiatives, and
· Encouraging and facilitating collaboration and partnerships in research and postgraduate training at the local, national and international level,

SANPAD recognizes the value and importance of research in all its forms and functions, the role of research and researchers as vehicles that will assist to deepen South Africa's democracy and the role of research in improving the quality of life for all South Africans. It is against this background, that the themes conference was planned and initiated.

SANPAD is especially thankful to all those scholars, thinkers, researchers and research administrators who participated and gave off their time so generously for deliberations at this conference.

DR. ANSHU PADAYACHEE (Director)
DR. PAUL HOEBINK ( Chairperson - Joint Committee of SANPAD)
13-14 MAY 2003.

DAY 1 - 13 MAY 2003
1 INTRODUCTION
Faze one
The conference began with a Showcasing of some of the funded projects and delegates were provided with a CD detailing all projects funded by SANPAD in Phase1. The showcase was officially launched by the Deputy Mayor of Ethekwini/Durban, and in welcoming the delegates to the city of Durban, commended SANPAD on its initiative in contributing towards the Social Development Strategy of South Africa. He added that this Programme responded directly to the NEPAD proposals and the principles of the African Renaissance as articulated by President Thabo Mbeki. In planning for the Themes Conference, cognizance was taken of the South African policy changes and transformation plans for Higher Education in South Africa. Recommendations emanating from the evaluation reports on SANPAD commissioned by the Netherlands Government and the Joint Committee of SANPAD, also influenced the agenda for conference.

Phase two of SANPAD was officially launched by the Provincial (MEC) Minister of Education in Kwa-Zulu Natal (KZN), Mr. Narend Singh, at a Gala Banquet held on the 13 May 2003 and the MEC reiterated comments made by the Deputy Mayor of the City Of Durban. He also focused his address on the important role SANPAD was playing in meeting the developmental challenges facing South Africa. The entertainment for the "launch" and Banquet was provided by artists in the field of Music and Dance from the various Higher Education Institutions in KZN. The theme of the evening highlighted the collaboration between South African and Dutch Artists and set the tone for the themes conference that was to follow.

The decision to host a Project Leader's workshop concurrently with the showcasing event, prior to the themes conference, was taken in an attempt to broaden the consultative process in the determination of the Themes for phase two.. The Project Leaders' workshop served an important role in identifying the successes and problem areas experienced in phase 1 and indicated areas that needed review and revision for phase two operations.

2 PROJECT LEADER'S WORKSHOP

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The rationale and purpose of this meeting lay in the issues raised in the RCI Steering Committee meeting held in the Netherlands on the April 2003:
1. in the review documents of the SANPAD Programme Phase 1- by Mohamed and Mouton
2. during the development of the Programme document for Phase 2 and
3. by policy changes taking place in SA Higher Education.

As a result, the workshop focused specifically on the following areas within the programme that need to be reviewed:
· Links between projects and RCI
· Assessment of RCI candidates
· Liaison between Project leaders and RCI presenters and,
· The RCI curriculum.
The attendees at the workshop included:
· Project leaders from phase one projects
· Presenters on the RCI programme
· Project reviewers,
· Members of the Ceres partnership
· Members of the SA and the NL Committees, and
· Members of the SA and Netherlands secretariats

Dr. Paul Hoebink opened the workshop by providing a brief historical context of SANPAD and its future, followed by Prof. Johann Mouton who placed SANPAD's work in the framework of South Africa's Research and Development (R&D) strategy... He pointed out that the existing Curriculum for the RCI had been developed jointly by himself and Prof. Dr. Ton Dietz, the Ceres partner in the SANPAD RCI Programme. Having had the experience of teaching on the RCI programme he suggested several issues that need to be discussed during the course of our deliberations. They are as follows:
1. The selection of candidates, which has sometimes been problematic. A critical issue is how best to involve project leaders in the screening process.
2. How do project leaders perceive the link between projects and the RCI?
3. What lies behind the relatively high drop-out rate in the programme?

Dr. Anshu Padayachee, co-chair of this session, also raised the issue of assessment of RCI candidates and included the accreditation of the RCI programme. She explained that these two issues had implications for:
1. the instructions in the call for proposals,
2. the review process and continuous assessment of annual reports and final reports, and
3. the quality of outputs

The recommendations flowing out of the discussions were:

2.2 Recommendations for the RCI programme:

· SANPAD should involve the project leaders, presenters and research supervisors in the assessment of the RCI candidates. This will provide additional information in assessing the candidates and avoid the bias in self evaluation alone,

· A meeting between project leaders and RCI presenters must be organised annually, as a non project activity, to avoid the conflict that could arise if Presenters give advice on research methodology, or on a specific project or dissertation, that differs from the advice of Supervisors or project leaders

· The RCI programme was not marketed well in the past and the selection process will be made easier if there is effective marketing and if project leaders are involved in the selection process.

· It will be necessary to review the extent to which the SANPAD RCI programme overlaps with similar programmes offered by the universities and other funding agencies (eg. NRF and Ford Foundation).

· A review of the RCI curriculum must urgently be considered in the light of SANPAD's move to obtain accreditation for the programme. In addition, the RCI curriculum must be aligned to the requirements of SAQA, the New Academic Policy and the level of proficiency of the candidates it plans to target.

· In designing the RCI curriculum, it is important to recognise the differences between research at Technikons and research at Universities when constructing this curriculum and a workshop to review these differences and their consequences is a priority.
· The length of the RCI Residential Programme and time of year during which the programme is offered must urgently be reviewed, given that SANPAD does not have a leave replacement funding component within its policy. The Programme must therefore be aligned to the academic calendars of SA institutions so as to create acceptance of the programme, and lower the drop out and absenteeism rates.

· The time allocated for the Statistics module needs to be reviewed.

· Institutions, from which the RCI candidates come, must enter into contracts with SANPAD so as to prevent any unnecessary waste of funds if candidates do not present themselves for the RCI programme. This will also assist in ensuring that the programme is managed more effectively.

· A presenter panel must be selected ensuring that the presenters are both good researchers and supervisors on the one hand and particularly good teachers on the other. In this regard, the selection of the Dutch presenters must focus on their ability to teach second language learners, their understanding of the SA Higher Education landscape and the cultural context in which they are working. A workshop to consider these issues is critical prior to the commencement of the next RCI programme (2004).

· The method of assessment of the RCI candidates must comply with the SAQA assessment criteria and ideally should be continuous. The use of the SANPAD Web page and e-learning methods to maintain candidate-presenter contact and monitor and assess candidate progress must be considered when designing the new programme. One of the specific outcomes of the programme should be either a final proposal for a PhD or a research project.

2.3 Project related recommendations:

· Training in Project Management for project leaders would enhance the evaluation process as well as the outcomes of the project.

· Building Supervisor capacity must be considered as an urgent non-project activity undertaken by SANPAD.

· Encouraging supervisor participation in the projects either as a team member or non- team observer is encouraged.

· Ensuring that RCI candidates are included in the project must become a criterion for project approval and funding. This is also enshrined in the objectives listed in the Programme document.

· SANPAD must be marketed more widely and deeply, and visits to institutions are necessary in order to clarify the application process and to explain non-project activities and RCI programme funding...

· SANPAD should consider funding conference participation by young researchers as part of its project funding and as a built-in RC initiative. The funding of this aspect could possibly be accommodated within the project as an essential activity.

· The roles and functions of the NL partners/collaborators in the projects need to be reviewed and the choice of collaborators should not be vested solely in the SANPAD NL secretariat. It is recommended that the names and CV's of 3 possible collaborators be presented to the SA secretariat and that Project Teams select collaborators on the basis of their needs - e.g. data analysis skills, methodology skills etc. It was also suggested that Collaborators should not be involved in more than two SANPAD projects at a time.

· A carefully selected Project Review panel must be initiated. The review panel must comprise respected researchers from South Africa and the Netherlands Reviewers must be used to add value to the review process.

· The value of the project for South Africa must be given priority when decisions are required around project potential, contributions to the existing knowledge base, and the extent to which the research is ground breaking.

· As a result of the above recommendation, a reviewer panel including Netherlands and South African researchers, providing independent reviews of projects, would be a satisfying solution to the debate about who should review project proposals located in a South African setting. Both sets of critical comments must be taken into account when funding is considered.

2.4 Presentation by Prof. Ton Dietz- The CERES programme and its link with SANPAD:

Prof. Dr. Ton Dietz (CERES) was invited to discuss CERES and its philosophy and involvement in the RCI. He went on to make several recommendations that he thought the workshop should take into consideration as we proceed to develop the RCI curriculum for students from disadvantaged communities in South Africa. He proposed:

· A focus on practical methodology;
· RCI training below Ph.D. level, even without Dutch partners involvement;
· A possible change of focus to programmes tailor made for different groups and even regions.

Finally the session concluded with a presentation by Drs. Nelke van der Lans on the new project review form to be used by SANPAD. The new form is aligned to the requirements in the application form, the annual report, and the final reports (see Annexure 3).

She pointed out that:
· Phase two has a clear focus on outcome and the dissemination of research results. Further, it was brought to the attention of the workshop that the NL Ministry has requested copies of research reports, publications, and videos, etc. of the funded projects.
· Hence provision is made in the budget for a special workshop on dissemination strategies in the initial stages of phase two, to accommodate this objective and the request of the Ministry.

· The financial management of projects will be more structured and stringent than in the past, and the influence and impact of the research on development and/or policy will feature prominently in the evaluation of projects.

The workshop closed with a firm commitment from the SA Secretariat to provide the participants in the workshop with an opportunity to make further inputs to the recommendations made at this workshop. The Programme Director indicated that the Conference Report would be made available to all participants of this workshop and the Themes Conference by the end of June 2003 for any further input. The document would be put onto the SANPAD web page once complete.

DAY 2- THEMES CONFERENCE -14 MAY 2003

SESSION 1: CHAIRPERSON: Dr Anshu Padayachee
The chair welcomed the delegates to the themes conference and expressed SANPAD'S delight and honour to have the Mayor of Ethekweni / Durban Municipality to welcome the delegates to the city and to open the Themes Conference officially... Critical comments made by The Mayor in his opening address are captured in parenthesis below:

MAYOR'S ADDRESS

The Mayor welcomed the delegates to the City and gave a brief overview of some of the challenges he thought SANPAD should consider in its second Phase. He challenged SANPAD to address the all important areas of Capacity Building of Black researchers and the impact of research on policy and social development in South Africa. The Mayor wished the delegates well in their deliberations and indicated his interest in seeing the outcomes of the conference and the second phase.

RESPONSE TO MAYOR'SMAYOR'S ADDRESS- Prof. Paul Hoebink- Chairperson of the Joint Committee of SANPAD:

In responding to the Mayor' challenge for SANPAD, Professor Paul Hoebinck assured the Mayor that in the coming 5 years SANPAD intends accelerating its capacity building objective and specifically its focus on dissemination and policy-related research. Prof Hoebinck thanked the Mayor for his welcome address.

ADDRESS OF THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF ARTS, CULTURE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLGY- SOUTH AFRICA- MS BUYELWA SONJICA.

Due to unexpected circumstances the Minister was unable to deliver her Opening address and requested that her message be communicated to all the delegates.


PRESENTATION OF AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF CONFERENCE, AND OUTLINE OF PROCEDURES TO ATTAIN CONFERENCE OBJECTIVES - CHAIRPERSON

Dr. Padayachee introduced Prof Mouton and explained that SANPAD had commissioned Prof Mouton to conduct a study on the relevance of the current themes for its second phase of funding (Annexure 4- full report of themes review). She reiterated that this conference was an attempt to broaden the consultation process in finalising the proposed new themes that SANPAD would adopt in its second phase of funding. Hence the conference would proceed as follows:

1. Prof. Mouton would present the findings of his study
2. The delegates would then be given the opportunity to pose questions to Prof Mouton in respect of his findings
3. The delegates would break away into groups to discuss the following specific issues:
· The continuation of the thematic approach to funding research in South Africa,
· The relevance of the existing themes for research in South Africa,
· The appropriateness of the new themes for Phase 2 funding for research and,
· The solutions to specific questions raised in Prof. Mouton's presentation,

4. The rapporteur of the session (Prof de la Rey) would provide a summary of the
discussions
5. Recommendations for the themes for Phase 2 would be made

After the conference:

1. A conference report will be compiled,
2. The report will be forwarded to the conference delegates for any further inputs,
3. The themes will then be presented to the South African Board of SANPAD and the Joint Committee of SANPAD for approval in October 2003, and
4. A summary of the final Programme Document for Phase 2 (2003-2007) will be circulated to all the Stakeholders as a guideline document for project research and the RCI.

This conference would therefore afford SANPAD the benefit of engaging with the report by Prof. Mouton, hearing the debate on the above issues, and obtaining the opinions of South Africa's leading Social and Human Scientists present at the conference, on the issue of the themes to be adopted in the second phase of its operation in South Africa. Prof. Mouton was invited to present his report on the Review of the SANPAD THEMES.

1.6 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS OF A STUDY AND REVIEW OF SANPAD THEMES - Prof Johan Mouton
As an introduction to the presentation, Prof Mouton explained that presentation was a summary of his report... He explained that SANPAD, in requesting a study of a review of its themes, provided him with an earlier report compiled by a consultant, Ms Nazeema Mohamed. The Mohamed Report outlined the higher education context in which SANPAD had been operating and continues to operate, and it was against this background that he was asked to:

1. look at the current and future relevance of national needs for applied social research in South Africa as far as SANPAD is concerned;
2. address the question of whether the current five themes, are duplicated in other research resource and funding programs in South Africa; and
3. determine the extent to which a theme based approach, which is the present philosophy of SANPAD, promotes capacity development among less experienced researchers, particularly black and women researchers in this country, and
4. make recommendations in respect of the above.

A PowerPoint presentation of the summary of Prof Mouton's report followed.
(Appendix 5)

Some central questions and comments raised by delegates in respect of the presentation are captured in below:

· Why was the take up rate for the SANPAD call for proposals so low amongst black researchers in particular?
· Why was the issue of social and national identity afforded the lowest position in the order of research themes?"
· Understanding and defini9ng capacity building is critical to developing such a programme for the previously disadvantaged.
· The following themes, namely, Health and Natural Resources, appeared to receive little support and appear to be ignored in the analysis. Are these the result of representative constituency?

· "Does SANPAD have a capacity for building research capacity at the Technikon?

· Many people hardly know anything about the RCI program, how does SANPAD propose to deal with this?

· We sense a high- jacking of the SANPAD program from the social scientists. Is this true?

Prof. Mouton's Responses to questions and comments:

I need to make two statements.
Firstly, SANPAD will reconsider its themes and take into consideration the recommendations of this conference in finalizing the themes for SANPAD Phase 2.
Secondly, A recurring issue has been that of capacity building, and the dedicated discussion for on the RCI at the pre-conference workshop will also be taken into account. Research capacity is already high up on SANPAD's agenda, and the integration of funded projects with the RCI is a critical matter.

The joint committee will take the conference report and other recommendations into account in deciding on the themes for Phase 2.

There was a specific question as to whether or not the RCI has the capacity to build research capacity in the Technikons, and I think that this, again, is a question that the joint committee has to respond to.

There is no question that the views that I have tried to represent in this report are predominantly the views of academics. In turn, it could be argued that they are predominantly the views of a specific group of academics. I would not go so far as to claim that they represent the views of all the academics in the country.

There are other issues, of a racial and policy nature, that I would urge you to raise in the discussions because some of our recommendations are about things that you would wish to research. Regarding 'take up' and success rates in research projects, we are actually undertaking a project regarding these matters.

ROUND- TABLE DISCUSSIONS:
The three issue that the delegates were asked to consider in the round table discussions were as follows:
· Refinement/articulation/additions within the themes. The Round-tables were also requested to comment on the usefulness of the levels of analysis within the domain cluster,
· Comments on the recommendations about the nature of research to be funded( strategic/knowledge-generating M&E/longitudinal surveys/explanatory/utilization-focused
· Any other domain cluster to be considered.

In addition, and after some discussion on the number of themes that SANPAD should consider for research funding, the delegates agreed on nine themes that were considered to be important for the discussions.

The round table themes and the Chairpersons who facilitated the discussions are listed below:

THEME CHAIRPERSON
1.Economic Development Prof E Webster
2. Social Development/Social Fabric Dr S Cooper
3. Governance for Democracy Prof. P Vale
4. Culture, Identity and a New Society Prof. N Baijnath
5. Health: social issues Prof. N Jinabhai
6. Education and Development Dr Jairam Reddy
7. Knowledge Society Mr R Maharaj
8. Poverty Alleviation Prof. B Khoapa
9. Natural Resource Management Prof. F Reickenburg

A summary of the outcomes of discussion in each of the round table groups follows.

1. Economic Development:

This discussion group started by identifying eight new issues for the research cluster:

1. The mismatch between labour market needs and skills development practices; and a need to articulate skills development with the research cluster in education and social development because they have considerable areas of overlap.
2. The impact of trading relations on innovation.
3. Prioritizing the concept of globalization rather than simply treating it as something to do with competitiveness, which is the way it was presented in the review document.
4. Inclusion of issues around privatization and inflation
5. Focus on the legal framework required in the labor law market.
6. The question of employment equity and the gap in management training, particularly at the senior and middle level.
7. SANPAD should also focus on alternative notions of entrepreneurship, the gendered nation, and on entrepreneurship in the small informal sector and on implications for alternatives such as co-operatives.
8. The need to look at e-commerce and to articulate that with the knowledge society.

The second question focused on the nature of the research. The group emphasized the accountability of research findings and the need to make sure that there was an ongoing monitoring of the impact of research.

The group also raised the question about the long term commitment of the Netherlands government to the programme.

The final point made by the group was that they did not feel that poverty should be included under the theme of economic development. The issues of poverty are much broader than is often perceived and the question of the importance of SANPAD as a forum to explore alternatives to development needed to be spelt out and dealt with quite distinctly

2. Governance for Democracy

This group considered three issues.
Firstly they proposed that the suggested list of themes seemed to be acceptable, given the needs of South Africa. The group also considered what else could be included but finally focused on democracy and government and tried to highlight some of the issues which they thought were important.

They agreed that economic development should remain a separate theme. The question of the social fabric brought into the discussion the question of morality. They were also of the opinion that an issue deserving urgent consideration was the social impact of health. There was a minor discussion as to whether or not the health issue should be focused only on Aids and the feeling in the meeting was that that would be too narrow.

They felt strongly about the change of the theme to "Governance and Democracy" and maintained that this theme should focus on "Governance, Delivery and Democracy" as this would include services, delivery and government accountability. The group perceived government as being poor on delivering on its promises and objectives and felt that this was a research area that needed attention so as to establish why this was the case. They saw it fit to leave education and development as a theme area although a good deal of research is currently focusing on this area. There was some suggestion that this should also include capacity building in the area of life long learning. There was support for retaining the "Culture and Identity in Society theme for phase 2.

They added two new overall themes, namely, "Natural Resources" and "Livelihood", which they thought was something that should be inserted in the discussion. They raised the pertinent issue of children, and accepted that children should be a 'catch all' theme that cut across all the other themes.

In their view, a number of cross cutting questions exist, such as Poverty, which could not be considered as an individual theme. There was lively discussion on the impact of research on policy and the need to deliver on policy.

Their discussion on democracy, delivery and governance focused on the descriptors. They were of the opinion that questions of transformation in the public service were not enough. The real feeling was that one of the factors that had not yet changed sufficiently (and that needs to be changed if society is to progress) was the whole question of public service.

On the issue of how to look at the research over the long and short terms, the group had a specific suggestion for SANPAD, namely that funds should be set aside to allow each project to undertake an evaluation of its work two or three years after completion so as to assess levels of impact.

3. Culture, Identity and Society

The discussion began with huge crisis particularly in the theme of development should permeate all themes and then focused on the critical issues at hand.

The second point they made was about applied research. They argued that it is important to engage in socially relevant research. Therefore applied research should be retained and funded as it responds directly to the problems within society and offers practical solutions to societal problems. They recommended that SANPAD should firstly establish what kind of knowledge production the Universities and Technikons are involved in.

Thirdly, the group felt that in determining criteria for goal-evaluation, representivity should be given attention.

A further point made was that SANPAD should give special attention to visiting the Technikons and helping researchers develop good quality proposals.

The group members were of the opinion that SANPAD might have- a negative bias in respect of the arts. Whilst the group felt that there should be greater emphasis placed on the social sciences rather than arts, they felt strongly that focus on both the social sciences and the arts should continue.

The group had difficulty defining the concept of culture. An extensive discussion ensued and what emerged was that SANPAD should maintain a multidisciplinary understanding of the concept but give special attention to difference and diversity in culture.

The group looked into the issue of the nature of research and recommended that SANPAD focus on new approaches and new methodologies in research. The group emphasized that SANPAD should guard against being restrictive and rigid in how they categorize and place projects. We should expand our understanding of the macro.

Strong recommendations from this group included:
· the importance of funding social science, arts, and natural science research
· the importance of multidisciplinary, multi-leveled, and integrated approaches to research
· giving attention to issues around the African Renaissance, heritage and public history as well as multi-lingualism, multi-culturalism, cultural rights, media representation and African identity in a global context.

4. Health and Social issues

First and foremost, as health has now been identified as a potential theme in itself, we would like to support SANPAD in ensuring that this remains an independent theme. It came out very clearly in the discussions that health affects every theme and in order to justify the need for the health theme to retain its status a number of issues were considered, including emerging trends such as demographic technology transitions, chronic diseases, and environmental considerations, as many factors have an impact on the environment which ultimately has serious consequences for health. The group focused on government's planned health spending. The group took an optimistic approach to health since it cuts across a whole spectrum of disciplines including health economics, management services, education and development, traditional and alternative medicine, and behavioral and cultural issues. also Issues around food security that affect health and social conditions were also considered and this gave rise to a debate around natural resources. It is quite clear that the natural resource theme is, in fact, important. When it comes to research perspective, the group felt that a "life-cycle" approach is important. So while a focus on children is seen to be essential, the group wishes to make the point that it is just as important that we focus on the aged and the disabled so that health needs in all phases of the human life cycle are given the attention they deserve.

Also debated was the fact that health research projects are, by nature, often long-term. They also tend to require maintenance after the completion of the research, so that question as to where research starts and where implementation (or something else) begins was also considered, as were the needs of communities that have participated in research programmes.

Considering research and development from the SANPAD perspective, it would seem that a focus on development needs to be given priority. Broadly speaking the issues that these groups feels are most challenging are:

the kind of centres of excellence that exist and
long-term funding and the kind of exit strategies that can be developed to ensure that communities are treated fairly in view of the challenges they face.

5. Education & Development

The group started the discussion with a brief assessment of the gender distribution within the room, of those who have been allocated the task of chairing the round table discussions, and of those who were allocated the inscribing of the discussion.

The group began its substantive discussion by setting out of the kinds of principles that might guide theme selection. Certain themes in themselves send out messages that have a political impact about what is going to be valued in research. The group thought that it is important for SANPAD to support the things that need to be researched and that are not necessarily being supported.

This group came up with a number of sub-themes. Important amongst these was the role of the further education and training -- or Technical College -- sector in development since it seems to have become the 'Cinderella' of the educational system but is obviously vitally important in improving people's skills in ways that might lead to direct employment.

However, the question of how to resuscitate and develop teacher education in the face of a huge crisis, particularly in the face of HIV/Aids, became the central discussion topic of this group. The group also gave attention to the impact of HIV/Aids on the education system at all levels.

A policy and strategy for implementation, particularly in the restructuring of the higher education system, contributes to meeting the development goals. The leadership crisis that exists in regard to this restructuring process and in taking the education agenda forward appeared to be a priority in the Higher Education Sector.

The question of Education and Poverty was also discussed. Leadership and management, organizational changes in the schooling system, and particularly what might be used to correct what appears to be a dysfunctional system in many areas, were the critical areas in this regard. Concerning children and education, the ideas of poverty and the impact of HIV/Aids on children, with parents and teachers dying, were considered as were ways in which the curriculum might be used in preparing children to deal with some of the tremendous demands they will face.

Finally, the relationship between private providers of education and development was discussed. The criteria for collaboration across institutions should be built into proposals particularly with regard to involving Technikons in SAJPAD sponsored research projects.

A suggestion was made that Sanpad should provide sufficient funding for post graduate students to engage in studying full time and that this was one way that the demographics of institutions could be significantly changed along with demographics of research. Finally, the point was made that research findings should be followed up with consideration being given to means for their implementation

6. Knowledge Society

This group started its discussion with Social and Cultural issues and went on to suggest that the way the themes have been formulated must be reviewed, given that society cuts across all the themes. This, they believed, would accommodate the changes taking place in society. Other issues that they focused on included:

The recent (February 2003) report by Francesco Sagati, who made a valuable input in articulation of this theme, was referred to in the discussion. The three main issues discussed by the group focused on Sagati's input.

1. Rapid change, and documentation of the causes of change, is important for the purpose of diagnosis and articulation of responses. There was a dearth of such data, and when available the data can be described as "soft data" e.g. Research and Development indicators.
2. The dual nature of the knowledge society, linked with global developments (frontiers of research and innovation, competitiveness) and orientation towards developments in South Africa and communities. The potential of Technikons to play a key role in bridging the gap with communities and the world of work should not be underestimated. They are now creating pockets of research of international standard.
3. The heterogeneity of knowledge. Rather than think of knowledge transfer (from full to empty vessels) see knowledge as a carrier, albeit of varying nature and credentials. The same can be said for a knowledge society. It allows us to look at contrast between traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge with fresh eyes. There are two streams in a heterogeneous knowledge society. Knowledge management includes interaction between such streams in addition to their articulation and improvement. Heterogeneity of knowledge also occurs within science -- e.g. laboratory science and field science. During the course of the discussion, the view was expressed that field science was again becoming important. A promising combination that could be highlighted under this theme was that of natural resources and their management.

In discussing the Education and development theme, the group maintained that the shift to outcomes based education was welcomed even though it could lead to a new bureaucracy. It was argued that Higher Education institutions were becoming more "porous" and less exclusive.

This group felt strongly that it is necessary for the theme to be studied as a separate issue. A central issue picked up during the discussions was the ongoing need to focus on explanatory research.

Poverty Alleviation activities should focus on:

· the training of post-graduate students,
· the use of technology adapted for use in Poverty alleviation for e.g. media and other technology that can be used in a relevant way.

The group looked specifically at the cost of success, especially for women. The question raised was "Does SANPAD has a strategy for legitimizing small and simple research proposals? SANPAD should make more visits to HDI's and Technikons in order to encourage their participation in research activities.
The discussion in this group also focused on the paucity of black researchers in South Africa and on the development of a strategy to find effective ways of speeding up an increase in the number of black researchers in SA.

The final recommendation of the group members was that they felt strongly about the themes as they stand at the moment, and felt that they should remain as they are, including their starting point that Poverty alleviation should remain as a separate theme.

8. Social Development

The group members agreed that this area is important and ought to remain as a theme. It was felt that it should be expanded to include the psycho-social dimension of development and there was a very strong feeling that the issues under discussion actually went to the heart of the South African condition. Without this phenomenon being dealt with in our society we are likely to experience, once again, such problems as the "lost generation."

The group discussed the issue of access and resolved that research should not be limited to researchers coming from the higher education sector, but opened up to other institutions and NGOs to increase research competition and to encourage diversity in the kinds of research undertaken. Linked to this was the question of the application of research findings. NGO's had the necessary applied knowledge and could add value to development research of all kinds. This was very much the global trend and SA needs to use expertise found within the NGOs especially for participant research. SANPAD should encourage partnerships between NGOs and Higher Education institutions by funding projects in HE that form partnerships with relevant NGOs.

A lively discussion on surveys and longitudinal versus"time slice" research approaches ensued. There was also a feeling that the nature and form of support for masters and doctoral students should be re-considered.

At the heart of the discussions was agreement about the need to emphasise the inter-disciplinary nature of research that in this theme, with the cross cutting of various disciplines helping to provide answers to common research questions

9. Natural Resources Management

If natural resources are excluded from SANPAD's portfolio of themes, this will significantly detract from SANPAD's contribution to alternative development in South Africa. Several reasons were put forward in support of this viewpoint. The most important of these was the essential link that ties together natural resources on the one hand and food security, tourism, commerce, social integration, health, water resources, and the sustainability of quality of life.

This group supported the notion of a multi-disciplinary approach to research, placing emphasis on the need for open research approaches, and the need to distinguish between natural resources on the one hand and the natural sciences on the other. Also emphasised was the interdependence of South Africa and its neighbours when it comes to the use of natural resources.

Social and economic conditions are inalienably linked to natural resources and so it is essential to have a funding source for projects that deal with natural resources but that adopt multi-disciplinary research principles and methods that embrace social and economic factors.

The group noted that the observation that the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) funds research is incorrect. The ARC is, itself, looking for funding and has major problems in raising the research funds that it needs.

The group also considered the nature of research relevant to this theme, and a very strong point was made that research, teaching, and extension must be combined. Very few people focus on the extension (or application) aspect of dealing with research findings, and this has considerable social implications. Appropriate training, that takes account of the links between research, teaching and application, could result in a new school of specialist scientists capable of making and strengthening this approach. This would play an essential role in ensuring that social development takes place at a faster pace. The last point made by the group was that funding is needed to provide continuity and sustainability in the community and to provide for longer research periods so as to ensure the sustainability of programmes.

SUMMING UP / FINAL RESPONSE BY PROF DE LA REY:

Professor de le Ray started her review of the group outcomes by posing this question: "What should SANPAD and its Joint Committee focus on, when deliberating on the themes it will fund in the next five years? In answering the question, she pointed to some of the major issues that emerged from the various discussions.

First, is the issue regarding the duration of the SANPAD project. Clarity is needed as to whether SANPAD represents a short-term intervention or a long-terms sustained attempt to ensure the implementation of alternative approaches to development.

A second a related issue is that regarding what would happen to projects requiring on-going support if SANPAD is not funded beyond its second phase. Prof6essor de la Ray indicated that this is a really important matter since SANPAD encourages relationships with and practical outcomes for, stakeholders such as communities. So the consequences of researches abruptly ending their work, without considering the implications for those with whom they are working, is a critical question to be addressed by the Joint Committee.

A third issue, mentioned several times, is that of strategies for the dissemination of research findings. Among present strategies is the project show-casing that formed part of the two day conference. But defining criteria for effective dissemination during phase two is essential, since SANPAD will almost certainly be looking for dissemination strategies that vary from the conventional, if the goal of social development is to be addressed.

A fourth important issue is that of the need for an evaluation of the impact that SANPAD projects have in South African society. The possibility of having post-project reviews and evaluations was raised, and this could be very valuable, especially if, once again, appropriate criteria are defined as the basis for undertaking the assessment.

The fifth issue, the development of research capacity, or "empowerment", is equally critical. The idea of supporting research internships was mentioned and this is something that SANPAD must begin to consider.

Sixthly, the possibility that SANPAD might consider a more explicit approach to institutional level capacity development is worth mentioning, along with the possibility that the programme might identify two funding tracks along sectoral lines - one for Technikons and the other for Universities.

A seventh point is that there seemed to be consensus that SANPAD should adopt a multi-disciplinary focus as opposed to a focus contained within individual disciplines within the humanities and social sciences. The focus on social development in the broadest sense is the correct one, and requires that no particular discipline should be favoured. Instead, multi-disciplinary projects should be encouraged, and project appraisal criteria developed that facilitate the acceptance of good proposals of this nature.

Finally, consensus was also evident on the need to retain a focus on alternatives, whether those alternatives are in terms of intervention strategy, of theory or of method and methodology.

Professor de le Ray then went on to look at some of the broader questions that had remerged form the group discussions.

The first of these was "Where does research begin and where does it end?" Prof de le Ray indicated that this is an important question if an initiative such as SANPAD expects to have an impact on communities or policy development. It is also a question that has implications for the ambit of responsibility faced by project leaders, and for the manner in which SANPAD projects will be supported financially.

The second question revolved around SANPAD's continued support for team research, including a team or project leader, as opposed to funding research entities such as centres of excellence or research units. This latter has not been an option in the past, but should, perhaps, be considered for phase two.

The third broad issue was that of the criteria set for the appraisal of project applications. There was a line of reasoning suggesting that, in evaluating project proposals, (and possibly project performance) there is a need for a balance between focus on knowledge generation and application or use of that knowledge. A related point was made about the role of teaching, and of extension activities in projects funded by SANPAD... Finally, raising these issue suggests that SANPAD might wish to review what it expects from research project collaboration between institutions.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THEMES FOR PHASE 2

The recommendations that finally emerged from the conference, to be placed before the national committees and the Joint Committee, were as follows:
· SANPAD should maintain its thematic approach to funding research in SA.
· SANPAD should keep its emphasis on the social sciences and humanities, but fund some natural science and engineering proposals provided they are fully integrated with social science research ventures.
The following themes should be considered as those to be funded individually, with the themes of "Social Development" and "The Knowledge Society" cutting across the others. (It was argued that although "Poverty Alleviation" and "Education and Development" could also be considered cross cutting themes, these two deserved to be given individual focus as they are priorities on South Africa's development agenda.):

1. Poverty alleviation
2. Natural resources
3. Health
4. Culture, identity and society
5. Governance for Democracy
6. Economic empowerment
7. Education and development

· Collaboration between Universities, Technikons and NGO's should be given urgent consideration if Capacity Building is an important objective.
· The impacts of research outcomes should be an urgent priority when considering the funding of research proposals...
· Assistance should be provided to previously disadvantaged researchers in proposal writing and project management.
· Special emphasis should be placed on leadership training in view of the changing landscape of higher education.
· SANPAD should explore the nature, extent and type of funding provided by other research grant-makers, so as to prevent unnecessary duplication, and should plan to help fill gaps in the funding of research in South Africa.
· The evaluation of research proposals should give consideration to the above points and to the issue of the designated groups in South Africa.
· Special attention should be given to research capacity building in the Technician sector since Universities and Technikons are both considered to be Higher Education institutions with different foci and different capacities.
· Inter-disciplinary research should be given priority as various government policies focus on multi-disciplinary solutions to the development issues in South Africa.
· Research directed at ensuring the implementation of findings, and exploratory and knowledge-production research that will benefit social development and the quality of life of South Africans, should be given priority.
· The issue of collaboration should be clearly spelled out in the programme document so as to promote real collaboration.
· An impact assessment tool should be developed, in order to measure both the impact and the sustainability of programme outcomes.

CONCLUSION:

The deliberations and recommendations at the themes conference have provided the basis from which the South African National Board and the SANPAD Joint Committee will be able to make a final determination on themes and priorities for Phase 2 of the Programme.

It became clear from the discussions that higher education institutions could no longer exist in isolation in their attempt to achieve national goals and priorities of social development. The discussions highlighted the fact that the institutions, individually and collectively, and in partnerships with their international peers, with NGOs and with business and commerce, had to respond to the needs of the wider public for the dissemination of knowledge and skills.

The intention of the new objectives for higher education include not only the provision of skills and the re-skilling of future leaders in South Africa, along with the critical element of knowledge production, but also of finding solutions to problems at the individual, local and national levels.. The conference discussion also drew attention to the fact that even though South Africa is passing through a "knowledge revolution," it must remain focused on the four key principles of quality, access, equity and accountability for its research and development programmes, in its quest for establishing alternatives in development. These are essential elements of an effective participatory democracy and for South Africa as an emerging democracy.