Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Categories
UFS News Media Release Research
Years
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Months
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Previous Archive
21 May 2020 | Story Prof Karin van Marle | Photo Anja Aucamp
Prof Karin van Marle
In the build-up to Africa Day, I noticed – among others – the slogan ‘I love Africa’ flashing in neon colours that reminded me of music videos seen on MTV in the 1980s. The idea of Africa being loved not only by those living on the continent, but also by the rest of the world, had some moments in the same decade – with pop stars coming together, for example in USA for Africa and the UK version, Band Aid. Although these attempts might have warmed some hearts, it exposed the failure of this kind of sentimentality to contribute much to the continent. Can we think of how to love and engage with the continent in a different way?

Hannah Arendt, in her Thinking journal, contemplated the question, ‘why is it so difficult to love the world.' In response to a letter from her friend and mentor, Karl Jaspers in 1955, in which he wrote to her, “You bring with you shared memories of a lost past. You bring the wide world as it is today,” she wrote “Yes, I would like to bring the wide world to you this time. I’ve begun so late, really only in recent years, to truly love the world that I shall be able to do that now. Out of gratitude I want to call my book on political theories Amor Mundi” (1985: 264). Linked to the idea of loving the world in Arendt’s work, is also that of sharing the world with each other. Arendt famously accused Nazi Adolf Eichmann of refusing to share the world with others. For the purpose of Africa Day on 25 May, I revisited these notions of loving and sharing as reflected by Arendt. I raised the question – what does it mean to love Africa and to share the continent with others?

 For Arendt, the love of the world, and linked to it – the idea of solidarity – is something quite different from equality, care, and sentiment. Love of the world, for her, entails a critical engagement with the world. What could such a love mean in relation to Africa? 

In the prologue to The human condition (1958: 5), she underscores the importance of thought and her concern about thoughtlessness, which she describes as “the heedless recklessness or hopeless confusion or complacent repetition of ‘truths’ that have become trivial and empty”. She sets out that the central theme of the book is to focus on ‘what we are doing’ and that ‘the activity of thinking’ is left out of this work. In other works, Arendt turns to the importance of thinking and, in fact, commentators have noted an ongoing tension in her work between the life of action and the life of the mind. To love the world seems to include both a thorough engagement with what we are doing and a deep contemplation of what it is that we are doing. What has always struck me in her work, is the insistence on thinking and thinking anew each time, instead of merely following what is regarded as ‘truths’. Part of what it could mean to love Africa, is not to accept or repeat trivialities and not to become complacent, but to continuously search for new ways to understand and to respond.

A tension that accompanies the tension between a life of action and a life of thinking, is that between being with others and being alone. Human plurality is for Arendt ‘the basic condition of both action and speech’ (1958:175). Becoming part of the world is like ‘a second birth’ which takes place neither by ‘necessity’ nor by ‘utility’, but by taking ‘initiative’ (177). This birth or new beginning brings forth an ‘unexpectedness’ and ‘happens against the overwhelming odds of statistical laws and their probability’. Where the latter always ‘amounts to a certainty’, new beginnings ‘always appear in the guise of a miracle’ (178). It is by way of action that we become part of the world, share the world with others, and become entangled in the ‘web of relationships’ (181). Of course, for Arendt we always begin again, and the possibility for new ways of doing and forging new relationships is always there. 

Antjie Krog (2015:219) remembers Thabo Mbeki’s speech on the day the Constitution was adopted. “On an occasion such as this, we should, perhaps, start from the beginning. So, let me begin. I am an African. I owe my being to the hills and the valleys, the mountains and the glades, the rivers, the deserts, the trees, the flowers, the seas and the ever-changing seasons that define the face of our native land.” She praises Mbeki for considering the idea of ‘being ruled’ rather than ‘being a ruler’. She finds in his speech a “kind of radical relational enfoldedness with the land” that is vastly different from most discussions from all sides of the spectrum on land. To what extent are those of us living in Africa thinking differently and innovatively, for example about land, and about how we share it with others. How can we think anew about current discourses on the African Renaissance and also decolonisation?

Arendt is clear on the importance of solitude. She underscores the importance of thinking, and slow thinking, and obtaining distance from others, and from the world of action in order to do that. In her way, she was very wary of a certain kind of solidarity based on sentimentality. Engaged citizenship, for her, is always accompanied by a critical self-reflection. Arendt (2003) warned against the urge to act in haste without thinking; she warned against withering ‘under the weight of immediacy’. In a world and a continent with so many dire needs demanding attention and action, this does not mean that we should not act with urgency, but it underscores the importance of well-thought-out responses, of not falling back on old answers.

In short, loving Africa demands of us to engage critically, not to fall back on recipes and formulas, and not to follow rules blindly; it asks us to always begin again; to seek not only for new answers, but also for new questions.

 

This article was written by Prof Karin van Marle, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law

News Archive

Institutional research culture a precondition for research capacity building and excellence
2004-11-16

A lecture presented by Dr. Andrew M. Kaniki at the University of the Free State Recognition Function for research excellence

16 November 2004
The Vice Chancellor, Prof. Frederick Fourie
Deputy Vice Chancellors, Deans
Awardees
Colleagues and ladies and gentlemen

It is a great pleasure to be here at the University of the Free State. I am particularly honoured to have been invited to present this lecture at the First Annual Recognition Function for Research Excellence to honour researchers who have excelled in their respective fields of expertise. I would like to sincerely thank the office of the Director of Research and Development (Professor Swanepol), and in particular Mr. Aldo Stroebel for facilitating the invitation to this celebration.

I would like to congratulate you (the UFS) for institutionalizing “celebration of research excellence”, which as I will argue in this lecture is one of the key characteristics of institutional research culture that supports research capacity building and sustains research excellence.

Allow me to also take this opportunity to congratulate the University of the Free State for clocking 100 years of existence.

Ahmed Bawa and Johan Mouton (2000) in their chapter entitled Research, in the book: Transformation in higher education: global pressures and local realities in South Africa (ed. N. Cloete et. al Pretoria: CHET. 296-333) have argued that “…the sources of productivity and competitiveness [in the knowledge society and global economy] are increasingly dependent on [quality] knowledge and information being applied to productivity”. The quality knowledge they refer to here is research output or research products and the research process, which (research) as defined by the [OECD] Frascati Manual (2002: 30) is:

“…creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications”

The South African Government has set itself the objective of transforming South Africa into a knowledge society that competes effectively in the global system. A knowledge society requires appropriate numbers of educated and skilled people to create quality new knowledge and to translate the knowledge in innovative ways. To this end a number of policies and strategies like the Human Resource Development [HRD] Strategy for South Africa, the National Plan for Higher Education (NPHE) and the South Africa’s Research and Development [R&D] Strategy, have highlighted human resource development and the concomitant scarce skills development as critical for wealth creation in the context of globalization. The key mission of the HRD Strategy for instance is:

To maximize the potential of the people of South Africa, through the acquisition of knowledge and skills, to work productively and competitively in order to achieve a rising quality of life for all, and to set in place an operational plan, together with the necessary institutional arrangements, to achieve this.

The R&D Strategy emphasizes that maximum effort must be exerted to train the necessary numbers of our people in all fields required for development, running and management of modern economies. Higher education institutions like the University of the Free State have a key role to play in this process, because whatever form or shape a university takes, it is expected to conduct research (quality research); teach (quality teaching – and good graduates); and contribute to the development of its community! Thus the NPHE states that the role of higher education in a knowledge-driven world is threefold:

Human resource development;

High-level skills training and

Production, acquisition and application of knowledge.

Quality research output or knowledge which as argued is critical in determining the degree of competitiveness of a country in the knowledge economy is dependent upon quality research (process). Both the process of producing quality research and its utilization cannot and does not happen in a vacuum. It requires an environment that facilitates the production of new knowledge, its utilization and renewal. It requires skilled persons that can produce new knowledge and facilitate the production of new skills for quality knowledge production. Such an environment or in essence a university must have the culture that supports research activity. Institution research culture (that is a conducive and enabling institutional research culture) is a precondition to research capacity building. Without an institutional research culture that facilitates the development and nurturing of new young researchers it is difficult, if not impossible for a university to effectively and efficiently generate new and more quality researchers. Institutional research culture is also necessary to sustain quality research and quality research output or research excellence. It facilitates the development and sustenance of the institutional and people capacities required to do research produce quality research and generally attain research excellence!

We do recognize that the patterns of information and knowledge seeking, and knowledge generation vary among field or disciplines. For example, we know that in the humanities knowledge workers often work individually, and not as collaboratively as do those of the sciences, they all however, require supportive environments – institutional research culture to achieve and sustain research excellence. An institution does not simply attain a supportive research culture, but as Patricia Clements (English Department, University of Alberta, Edmonton) in her presentation Growing a research culture argues, research culture has to be grown [and maintained]. It unifies all natural and engineering scientists; medical researchers, humanists, and social scientists.

I therefore am of the view that Institutional Research Culture is critical to research capacity building and research excellence. I therefore want to spend a few minutes looking at the characteristics of research culture. To be effective, institutional research culture has grown and sustained not only at the institutional level, but also at the faculty, school and departmental levels of any university.

What is Research Culture?

In the process of researching on institutional research culture I identified several characteristics. Many of these overlap in some way. I want to deal with some of these characteristics; some in a little more detail while others simply cursorily. In the process what we should be asking ourselves is the extent to which an institution, like the University of the Free State, and its faculties, individually and severally, is growing and or sustaining this culture.

Institutional Research Strategy: As a plan of action or guide for a course of action, the institutional research strategy must spell out research goals that a university wants to achieve. It must be a prescription of what the university needs to be done with respect to research. As a strategy it is neither an independent activity nor an end in itself, but a component part and operationalization of the university policy or mission. ( Related to this is the Establishment of Institutional research policies)

Includes and makes public the targets, e.g. achieve so many rated scientists and make sure that every year we have so many SAPSE publications. That way people keep an eye on research agendas of the university and nation.

The UFS is obviously on its way, having launched its own Research strategy (A Strategic framework for the development of research at the University of the Free Sate. August 2003). Note that this strategy refers specifically to the “Culture of research” Fig 1

A set of administrative practices to support and encourage research. Patricia Clements (English Department, University of Alberta, Edmonton) in her presentation Growing a research culture argues that that research activity and output within the her Faculty (Arts) were very low and, in spite of the numbers of staff, with no Associate Dean for Research in the Faculty as though they had accepted that research belonged to Medicine and Science and Engineering, and teaching, separated from inquiry, belonged to the Arts. With the change in the thinking about research and development of research culture, it became clear that there was a major role for research support in a faculty her size (now about 360 full time continuing academic staff). The faculty developed a support system for research and began to address the SSHRC issues.

Reduce the bureaucracy system and micromanagement of research! This however, also implies that there is capacity and policies and procedure to manage and guide research processes

Establishment of Intellectual Property regulations and assistance

Research ethics policy and safeguarding by research administration

Focused, applied and suitable nature of the delivery mode (an institution open to new methodologies for conducting research

Programmes suited both full and part-time study particularly at graduate level (Mainly at Faculty/school and department level, and depending on what’s manageable)

Hiring senior academics to engage in, teach on and supervise postgraduate students to facilitate exchange of and transfer ideas and most importantly mentorship especially in view of declining numbers of researchers in particular fields

Quality instruction and facilitation in learning about research processes

A high retention rate of students maintained by the supportive and challenging learning environment and the use of online facilities to support collaboration and in-class learning

Availability of research grants: and awareness of sourcing funds from external sources like the National Research Foundation; Water Research Commission; Medical Research Council, private philanthropies and others outside the country. For example an institution should be able to assess how much of the slice the available funds (NRF etc) its able acquire and possibly top slice from institutional budget.

Adequacy of the financial reward system to encourage university staff members to do research (General Celebration of achievement for research excellence and achievement. This ranges form Annual reports mention; celebratory dinner. At Alberta researchers were given lapels. I don’t know of any academic who do not feel a sense of achievement to get into print or recognised. Access to research facilities within and outside the institution

Provision of infrastructure to support university-based research (e.g. equipment, admin support, etc.) – but also awareness of publicly funded and available research facilities and equipment!

Internet connectivity and changes in the bandwidth of the internet to download articles

Subscription to related bodies by the library so that researcher can download articles

Facilities and resources to attend international conferences to keep one updated

Number of visiting professors/speakers targeting senior scholars and invite them to lunch to ask them to participate and to encourage their best graduate students to do so within the institution and across institutions

Research training seminars for research students including young academics

Participation of staff/students in delivering research papers to national and international conferences

Establishment of research groups to provide interaction frameworks to achieve critical mass of research-active staff

Facilitation for more research time: Targeting new scholars and giving them reduced teaching loads in their first year or two for the purpose of developing their research programs. For the purpose of helping new colleagues to see the shape of South African research support, personalizing it, and creating research community

Take research to the community and argue its necessity, and utility

And, finally celebrating excellence. We must recognize achievement - parties and public recognition for colleagues who achieve splendid things in their research.

In conclusion, I want to reemphasize that research culture has to be grown it does not simply exist in an institution. If it is grown it needs to be nourished, nurtured and sustained. An institution cannot simply leave on borrowed reputation and expect to remain research excellent. It is on this basis that instruments like the National Research Foundation rating system recognizes excellence within a given period of time and not necessarily for a life time! This it is believed encourages continued research excellence.

THANK YOU and best wishes

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept