Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
17 June 2025 | Story Tshepo Tsotetsi | Photo Supplied
Dr Herkulaas Combrink
Dr Herkulaas Combrink is representing UFS in a new international research project that aims to improve how evidence is used in public health policymaking.

Dr Herkulaas Combrink, a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences (EMS) at the University of the Free State (UFS), is representing the university in a new international research project that aims to improve how evidence is used in public health policymaking.

Dr Combrink, who is also a co-director of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Digital Futures (ICDF), has been selected as one of the principal investigators in a newly funded project supported by the UK’s International Science Partnerships Fund under the Evidence-Informed Policymaking Programme. Running from April 2025 to March 2026, the project – titled Integrating Evidence for Contextualised Public Health Policy: Lessons from South Africa – explores how different types of evidence can be used more effectively in shaping public health policy. The international collaboration includes researchers from the Centre for Philosophy of Epidemiology, Medicine and Public Health, which is a collaboration between Durham University and the University of Johannesburg; as well as Durham’s Centre for Humanities Engaging Science and Society.

 

From the Free State to global impact

For Dr Combrink, being part of this collaboration highlights the important work being done in the faculty and ICDF that is reaching beyond borders. 

“It’s important to showcase the impact we are making from the Free State that leads to global outcomes,” he said.

The project aims to evaluate an evidence mapping framework to determine how model-based projections and social listening reports can be more effectively integrated and contextualised for policymaking.

“These are two very different data types,” he explained. “The value lies in demonstrating how to apply the framework to different contexts for evidence-based mapping.”

Dr Combrink brings extensive expertise to the team, having worked on both disease modelling and risk communication during South Africa’s COVID-19 response. He was involved in national and provincial social listening initiatives, and used high-frequency social media data to track the spread of misinformation, often referred to as the ‘infodemic.’ 

“We’ve built up enough data within ICDF and EMS to support this study,” he noted.

The goal is not just theoretical. A key outcome of the project is engaging directly with policymakers to refine modelling and risk communication strategies for future pandemics. 

“This will help us to engage with the various departments of health to assist with improving modelling and risk communication work for better social behavioural change,” he explained.

According to Prof Brownhilder Neneh, Vice-Dean for Research and Internationalisation in the EMS faculty, the project reflects the faculty’s growing global presence. 

“Dr Combrink’s participation is a testament to the calibre of scholarship within the faculty,” she said. “It positions EMS as a key contributor to shaping policy and practice with societal impact.”

She added that the collaboration aligns well with the faculty’s vision for global partnerships that are rooted in local relevance.

“By focusing on contextualised evidence for policymaking, this project reflects our commitment to relevance, engagement and global partnership,” she said.

 

What comes next

Over the project’s 12-month timeline, the team will deliver:

• a case study analysis of modelling and social listening during South Africa’s COVID-19 response;
• an extended evidence mapping framework tailored to diverse evidence types;
• policy briefs and practical tools for public health practitioners; and
• a hybrid international workshop in late 2025 bringing together researchers, policymakers and health professionals to test and refine these outputs.

News Archive

Protection of Information bill- opinions from our experts
2011-11-28

Prof. Hussein Solomon
Senior Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of the Free State. 

In recent years, given their failure to effectively govern, the ANC has become increasingly defensive. These defensive traits have become particularly acute in light of the various corruption scandals that members of the ruling party involve themselves in.
 
Given the fact that for now they are assured of an electoral majority (largely on account of their anti-apartheid credentials), coupled with the fact that they have managed to make parliament a rubber stamp of the executive as opposed to holding the executive accountable, it is the media which has increasingly held the ruling party to account by exposing such corruption and incompetence in government.
 
The passing of the information bill, therefore, is not merely an attack on the media, but an attack on the pivotal issue of accountability. Without accountability, there can be no democracy.
 
By defining national interest broadly, by refusing to accept a public interest clause in the bill, the ANC increasingly shows its disdain to South Africa's constitution and its citizens.
 
More importantly, as former Minister of Intelligence and ANC stalwart Ronnie Kasrils pointedly makes clear, the ANC is also betraying its own noble struggle against the odious apartheid regime. It was the media which played a key role in exposing apartheid's excesses, it is the same media which is coming under attack by the heirs of PW Botha's State Security Council - Minister of State Security Siyabong Cwele and his security apparatchiks whose mindsets reflect more Stalin's Gulag's than the values of the Freedom Charter.
 
The passing of this bill is also taking place at a time when journalists have had their phones attacked, where the judiciary has been deliberately undermined and parliament silenced.
 
Democrats beware!

 
Prof. Johann de Wet
Chairperson: Department of Communication Science 
 
The ANC’s insistence on passing the Protection of State Information Bill in its current form and enforcing it by law, means that the essence of our democratic state and the quality of life of every citizen is at stake.
 
Yes, our freedom as academics, researchers, mass media practitioners and citizens comes into play. Freedom implies the right to choose and is, along with equality, an underlying principle which helps make democracy happen. While the South African state needs to protect (classify) information which could threaten its security and/or survival, the omission of a public interest clause in the Bill at this stage effectively denies a citizen the right to freedom of information.
 
 Freedom of information, along with press freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and religious freedom, are essential to democracy. These freedoms are granted because they conform to basic liberal ideas associated with (Western) democracy and which resonate with South Africa’s liberal constitution, such as (1) belief in the supreme value of the individual (and thus not of the state); (2) belief that the individual has natural rights (rights which belong to all human beings by nature – such as the right to life and to control government)) which exist independently of government, and which ought to be protected by and against government; and (3) recognition of the supreme value of the individual. 
 
One wonders how many cases of South African government corruption and mismanagement would have been uncovered by investigative journalists over the past number of years if this Bill in its current form was on the statute books. This Bill represents a backward step from the promise of democracy of having an informed public. The former National Party government had similar laws in place and one does not want to go there again. The infamous Information Scandal in South Africa of some thirty years ago, or Muldergate as it has come to be known, reminds one of what governments can do when it works clandestinely.
 
What South Africans need, is more information on what government structures are doing and how they are doing it with taxpayers’ money, not less information. While information in itself does not equal communication or dialogue, it is an indispensable part thereof, and the need for dialogue based on verifiable information is urgent for meeting vexed challenges facing South African communities. Academics in all fields of specialisation are constantly in need of untainted information to pursue answers and/or offer solutions to where South Africa should be moving in all spheres of life.

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