School for Science and Technology

Permanent URI for this community

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/4411

Browse

Browsing School for Science and Technology by browse.metadata.advisor "Botha, Jan"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A comparative multi-level investigation into research productivity of South African academics in different university contexts: An interpretivist approach
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2024-03) Holmes-Watts, Tania Natasha; Botha, Jan; Walters, Cyrill; Jansen, Jonathan; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Military Sciences. School of Science and Technology.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The research mandate as a statutory requirement for public higher education institutions (HEIs) in South Africa (SA) are held in high regard and universities generally aspire to excel in this function. However, the disparities in research productivity and research performance in and among different institutional settings are not only frequently reported, but are also well documented in contemporary literature. The rationale for many of the disparities reflecting in the research performance specifically, among what is commonly labelled historically disadvantaged universities (HDUs) and historically advantaged universities (HAUs) are by and large, albeit not exclusively, attributed to the legacy of the apartheid era. Many apartheid remnants are understood to contribute to the vast social inequalities that exist within society which manifests in varied public groupings; commonly described as ‘the haves’ and ‘the have nots’. Understandably, since the dawn of a democratic regime, huge investments and countless interventions have been designed and implemented to pursue redress and equality within the South African national higher education sector. Nevertheless, 28 years after South Africa’s democratic liberation, a persistent narrative of ‘black failure’ and ‘white excellence’ exists; penetrating and reflecting in and through the research performance of different, public universities. This study investigated the mandated research function at two public universities within different institutional contexts, one, classified as an HDU and the other, classified as a HAU. The study was conducted from the perspective that university research is affected by a wide range of social forces and influences from various societal domains and interest groups, at multiple levels. The study aimed to gain insight into the conditions necessary to improve research performance despite university differences with respect to institutional historical backgrounds and present-day contextual realities. An interpretivist, comparative, case study design was used in this qualitative research enquiry. Multiple data collection and analysis techniques were employed together with the use of both primary and secondary data to determine the factors that influence research and research performance at South African public universities. Based on the research results, an intervention model was developed that depicts how a university’s research performance can be improved within any university setting as the necessary conditions to improve research can be cultivated by gaining a common understanding around the strategic diversion towards a research identity. Through decisive institutional action, a research-focus can be pursued and research interests can be navigated, aligned and protected to obtain mutual benefit, at various levels. Specific features, however serve as necessary requirements to enact the most effective and efficient advancement of a research mandate and agenda in any university context; which comprise willpower, person power, and the cultivation of an empowering, university context. The influencing factors on research and research performance at individual-, institutional- and systemic levels, as confirmed through this research are not mutually exclusive, but interrelated, multifaceted and very complex. University research requires earnest facilitation and firm oversight to bring forth an optimally, positive research progression in adherence to the research mandate bestowed upon public universities within the SA context.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The use of institutional research outputs by university managers: an embedded case study of a university in South Africa
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2024-03) Lekena, Liile Lerato; Botha, Jan; Prozesky, Heidi; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Military Sciences. School of Science and Technology.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This study explores the utilisation of institutional research (IR) outputs at a South African university, with a particular focus on the key factors influencing their application in decision-making processes. The research provides fresh insights into Caplan’s Two-Communities theory, expanding our understanding of its relevance and adaptability in the distinctive context of higher education. The study was prompted by acknowledged challenges in the higher education sector, including inconsistent application of research in decision-making, an excessive emphasis on compliance reporting at the expense of continuous enhancement of institutional effectiveness, and a lack of attention to demand-side perspectives in studies on IR uptake and application. The literature review identified numerous individual and institutional factors influencing the integration and use of research in decision-making. It revealed that research findings can indirectly shape policy processes and practitioners’ actions, even without direct integration into policy or practice. The study’s theoretical framework, grounded in Caplan’s Two-Communities theory, identifies cultural aspects as potential obstacles to the application of social science research in decision-making. The theory emphasises the need for collaboration between policymakers and researchers while acknowledging a lack of consensus on strategies to overcome barriers. Hence, this study aimed to examine the circumstances and purposes of IR output use, investigate reasons for its occasional disregard, and explore potential ways to enhance its usage from decision-makers’ perspectives. The findings of this study offer valuable insights into the adaptation of the Two-Communities theory, as represented by Caplan’s Two-Communities theory, adapted to what I call the “Two-Communities theory Version 2” (2CV2) framework. The 2CV2-framework highlights the importance of context and fluid roles within academic institutions. It suggests that the barriers between researchers and decision-makers may not be as fixed as previously assumed, thereby promoting a conducive environment for collaborative and effective research use. Moreover, this study supports Dunn’s critique of the Two-Communities theory, emphasising the need for more refined theoretical models to understand research use. By employing Dunn’s models, I gained a nuanced understanding of research use amongst different university groups, extending the applicability of Dunn’s models beyond policymaking and government organisations to academic institutions. The study not only reveals a pattern of research utilisation across various institutional roles but also validates and enhances Caplan’s notion of micro- and meta-level utilisation. Within the research context, participant groups engage in both instrumental and conceptual utilisation of IR outputs, underlining the complex interplay between these two utilisation levels. This dynamic necessitates a balanced approach that upholds the fundamental principles of each community: methodological rigour and scholarly independence for researchers and pragmatic problem-solving efficiency for policymakers. Preserving these norms is crucial for nurturing an environment conducive to generating and effectively using research for decision-making. By examining the intricate relationships between researchers and policymakers within higher education, my study adds a new layer to the theoretical understanding of research utilisation in a university setting. It enhances the Two-Communities theory and provides useful insights into overcoming obstacles to effective research utilisation in decision-making.