Doctoral Degrees (Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology (CREST))

Permanent URI for this collection

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/96224

Browse

Browsing Doctoral Degrees (Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology (CREST)) by Subject "Academy of Science of South Africa"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    African academies of science as science advisers: The case of South Africa and Uganda
    (2022-12) Ngila, Dorothy Mutheu; Boshoff, Nelius; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Centre for Research and Technology (CREST)
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In recent decades, science advising – the process that makes scientific evidence available to policy makers to aid decision making – has gained prominence. The prominence has been accompanied by a greater understanding of the types of advisers, the type of advice, the structuring of science advisory ecosystems in national and trans-boundary contexts, the principles of science advising, as well as the challenges and perspectives at the science-policy interface. Although there is growing scholarly contribution on the nature of science advising globally, the literature in the context of Africa is scant. Academies of science – defined as associations of scientists who come together to advance scientific excellence and serve their nations – can be largely categorised using three archetypes: the learned society, the adviser to society, and the manager of research. Increasingly, most academies have incorporated science advice as one of their mandates. They form an integral part of the science advisory ecosystem and provide formal science advice. Scholarly contributions on the nature and structure of science advising by academies of science do exist, primarily in Western nations. However, science advising by academies of science in Africa, where there are approximately 31 national academies, has not been widely documented. This study investigated the role of African academies as science advisers, with the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) and the Uganda National Academy of Sciences (UNAS) as institutional case studies. The study employed a qualitative embedded case study design with ASSAf and UNAS as the institutional case studies. Additionally, three embedded case studies that represented a type of science advisory mechanism by both academies, known as a consensus study, were selected to investigate the approaches of science advice and document pathways towards uptake. Documentary analysis and interviews were the main data collection methods. The study approached this investigation in four ways: (1) a discussion of the broader global context of academies of science, tracing the diverse types, roles, and structures of academies of science with a specific focus on what the study refers to as ‘parent academies’ (Royal Society of London, Academie des Sciences, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the Russian Academy of Sciences); (2) an analysis of ASSAf and UNAS as organisations and the external and internal factors that shape their institutional designs; (3) an analysis of two consensus studies that the academies had undertaken nationally and one consensus study where both had participated, all to understand the science advisory process and pathways towards uptake of science advice; and (4) a thematic interpretive discussion of the roles, institutional designs, and positioning of UNAS and ASSAf as science advisers within their national contexts. Six key themes emerged as findings from the study: (1) UNAS and ASSAf can be considered as ‘hidden’ organisations in the science advisory ecosystems of Uganda and South Africa; (2) both academies can be considered as agents to multiple principals; (3) both academies overstate the role of their Membership and Fellowship in their science advisory activities (in fact, there emerges other actors in executing these activities, together referred to as the ecosystem of human capabilities); (4) this ecosystem of human capabilities comes together to execute the process of science advising, which falls within the realm of formal science advising for academies of science, shaped by layered degrees of informality; (5) the consensus study process is a space for the ‘construction’ of various academy-stakeholder interactions that have the potential to be productive; and (6) a significant weakness in the internal organisation of dissemination, translation, and uptake activities at ASSAf and UNAS have impacted the potential for uptake of their consensus studies by decision makers. The study recommends the following for both ASSAf and UNAS: (1) guided by a deliberate stakeholder engagement strategy, they should invest in a concerted awareness raising, with a focus on target actors in the policy and scientific communities; (2) they should continue to harness the power and influence of the human capabilities’ ecosystem that enables science advising; (3) they should invest in review processes that further deepen the value of consensus studies; and (4) they should invest in deliberate dissemination, translation, and uptake activities to enhance the potential for uptake of advisory recommendations.