Human Sciences Research Council pot

HSRC Institutional Review, 2003Published by Human Sciences Research Council Publishers Private Bag X9182, Cape Town, South Africa © Human Sciences Research Council 2003 First published 2

HSRC Institutional Review, 2003

Published by Human Sciences Research Council Publishers

Private Bag X9182, Cape Town, South Africa

© Human Sciences Research Council 2003

First published 2003 ISBN 0 7969 2057 5

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form

or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers

Foreword by the Council of the HSRC vii

Report of the Review Panel 1

Preface by the Chairperson of the Review Panel 3

Executive Summary of the Report of the Review Panel 6

2 An overview of the current context 32

Political and social context 32Constitutional stability 32Social phenomena 32Regional and international affairs 34Public administration 35

Policy context 36The Human Sciences Research Act, 1968 (Act 23 of 1968) 36Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), 1999 (Act 1 of 1999) 37White Paper on Science and Technology, 1996 37

Report of the 1997 HSRC Review Panel 37South Africa’s National Research and Development (R&D)Strategy, August 2002 38

Three phases of HSRC transformation 39Early implementation (1997–2000) 40Transition towards the COUPE strategy (2000–2002) 40Implementation of the COUPE strategy (2002–present) 41The HSRC’s peer group 42

3 Stakeholder views of the HSRC 45

Definition of stakeholder 45External stakeholders 46The HSRC and the higher education community 48Some criticisms of research quality 50

The HSRC’s public role 51Internal stakeholders 52Conclusion 55

Setting research priorities 60

A note on gender as a cross-cutting theme in programme design 61

The quality of research outputs 63Improving research impact 65Transformation in funding 67The 1997 Review 67The funding model and the positioning of the HSRC 71Parliamentary funding in the longer term 72

Transformation of researchers and research organisation 73Transformation of institutional culture 76

Executive leadership and strategic management 77Bridging the researcher-administration divide 77Internal capacity development 79

Transformation of the organisation 80Equity: race and gender 80Gender updated 82Post-2002 corporate services reconstruction process 83The staff union 85

Conclusion 86

5 Collaboration, linkages and networking 87

Science councils and higher education institutions 87The practice of collaboration, linkages and networking 90Key factors for successful linkages and pitfalls to avoid 94

6 The HSRC’s public purposes 96

Why the HSRC needs to formulate its public purposes 96Five public purposes for the HSRC 97

Implications of the proposed public purposes 98The policy-relevant research purpose 99The policy information purpose 101The research stimulator purpose 101The support to disadvantaged people purpose 101The data set management purpose 102

The self-image of the HSRC 104The HSRC’s engagement with Africa 107

A new name and legislation for the HSRC 110The HSRC’s access to public funding 113

7 Conclusions and major recommendations 115

Conclusions 115Major recommendations 118

Annexures

A Terms of reference for the Review 120

B Final programme for the Review 126

C Review Panel support staff 130

D List of persons consulted 131

E National social science research institutions in other countries 135

Notes 141

Acronyms 143

Figures

1 Research Programmes and national priorities 59

2 Research autonomy related to funding sources 71

by the Council of the HSRC

The Council of the HSRC expresses its appreciation to the members of thePanel whom it engaged to conduct the 2003 Review of the HSRC In alimited time the Panel considered a wealth of material and presentations,and produced a substantial and thought-provoking final Report Itprovides much food for thought regarding the HSRC's functioning, theextent of our transformation and future directions and challenges

We are gratified by the Reports’s overall recognition that "the HSRC of

2003 is a different and much better organisation in important respectsthan the HSRC of 1997 It has earned the respect given to it by the bulk

of its collaborators and stakeholders by the breadth, quality andrelevance of its contributions to the study and practice of socialdevelopment in South Africa."

The Report identifies important challenges and makes far-reachingrecommendations The Council readily accepts many of them: forexample initiating networks with counterpart agencies, especially in therest of Africa; enhancing stakeholder involvement in formulating ourresearch agenda and designs; extending peer review of our outputs andmonitoring their impact; improving the management of our relationswith our research users; better co-ordinating our decentralisedcapacity-development efforts; heightening our attention to gender(and other discriminatory differentia); clarifying the disposition of ourParliamentary grant; providing upgraded corporate services and

systems to support research across our multiple centres; and ing and implementing a systematic communications strategy.

develop-In some instances, however, the Council differs on the emphasis or thesubstance of the conclusions drawn or proposals made by the Panel Inothers, further research or consultation will be required However, even inthese instances the Review process has generated constructive debate.Our considered views in these respects are as follows

HSRC functions, relationships and programmes

An important issue during the Review was the balance between two keyfunctions in the HSRC's mandate, namely undertaking policy-relevantsocial-scientific research of public benefit, and managing collaborativenetworks among research institutions to undertake such research TheCouncil appreciates the Panel’s endorsement of the numerous powerfulcollaborative research networks that the HSRC already has underway.While we agree that this mode of operation can be extended, andreplicated in other areas, we affirm that this networking is not separablefrom, nor should it outweigh, the HSRC's continuing responsibly toundertake policy-relevant social science in the public interest

A related issue is the interaction between the HSRC and highereducation institutions (HEIs) The Panel usefully stresses the importance

of maximising collaboration rather than competition, in both thepursuit of research opportunities and the deployment of the country'sscarce supply of skilled researchers.The successful transformation of theHSRC into a respected and responsive participant in the research arenahas understandably caused tension in some of these relationships,which was referred to by some of the Panel's interviewees However, theCouncil feels that positive engagements that have been achieved withHEIs in many respects should not be underestimated

Thus, a majority of HSRC research projects are now undertaken jointlywith other institutions, mainly HEIs, both in South Africa and abroad,with sharing of the research income generated; senior HSRC staffmembers are encouraged to set up part-time academic appointments,especially involving graduate teaching and supervision; some HSRCstaff members and all the research interns are registered for

postgraduate degrees at universities; and there are a significant number

of joint publications

At the same time, we look forward to extending and institutionalisingthese areas of engagement with the HEIs, and considering innovativeways of co-operating The same applies to HSRC collaborations with theresearch functions of non-governmental and community-basedorganisations, government departments, and other science councils,and in particular the Africa Institute

In responding to user needs, a related balance to be struck is betweensmaller, discrete projects, which are often undertaken to tight deadlines

by the HSRC itself; and larger projects, linked into coherent, multi-yearresearch programmes concerned with national developmentchallenges, which are usually undertaken in collaboration with otherinstitutions The Council notes that much of the HSRC's work is alreadyfocussed on the latter, and welcomes the recommendation that thisemphasis should be even further increased But it does not share thePanel's anxiety about the HSRC also undertaking smaller projects, andnotes that most of these are responses to the urgent requests ortenders of public-sector users, for which the HSRC's flexible anddedicated research-capacity and national coverage are well suited

Legislation and policy

One of the important challenges facing the new Council of the HSRCduring its term of office will be the drafting of a new HSRC Act ThePanel proposes five "public purposes" for the HSRC, as the basis forjustifying partial funding by Parliamentary grant, to be considered forinclusion in the legislation The Council accepts the substance of thefirst four of these: in essence, to conduct and foster development-oriented policy-relevant social science; to advance the policy relevance

of its research through dissemination; to foster capacity-building andcollaborations in the science system; and to meet the social-scientificresearch needs of disadvantaged communities

But the Council would be reluctant to accept the fifth dation without considerable further investigation This proposes for theHSRC the role of making data sets public, with due regard for

intellectual property, and the maintaining of archives Our belief is thatthis function is already served by the SA Data Archive (SADA) of the NRF,which is funded and equipped to deal with intensive support to users,issues of anonymity, agencies that need to pursue cost-recovery, etc.Apart from the technicalities of making data public, the management

of the HSRC's intellectual property is proving to be a complex matter,both within the organisation and regarding its present and possiblecollaborations There are diverging viewpoints, only some of which weretaken into account in the Report The HSRC supports the principle ofopenness in regard to information and would welcome a policyapplicable across all research-producing entities for optimising access todata that have been produced with public funds This general commit-ment would need to be balanced with relevant considerations such as theneed to protect the intellectual property of a research institutionengaged in cost recovery, or in work funded for specific purposes byprivate users; and the importance of avoiding the misuse of data out ofcontext or protecting identifiable respondents The Council accordinglyagrees with the Panel that the matter requires the careful research ofoptions and precedents, in concert with the Department of Science andTechnology, other science councils and HEIs, followed by detailed policy

Sustainable organisational development

The Report expresses concern about the sustainability of the presentmodel of the HSRC, notably the need extensively to supplement theParliamentary grant with research earnings The Panel expressedconcern about the pressures this places on HSRC staff, withconsequences including researcher stress and turnover Whilst theCouncil does take seriously the recommendation to hear and attend tosuch staff issues, and has recently undertaken a special investigation inthis regard, we believe that the phenomena reported by the Panel need

to be set in the current South African context, namely a powerfulexpectation of public sector transformation despite the constraint oflimited extra resources for the science system The Council welcomeswhat the Panel describes as "a vibrant environment for creativity andproduction" under the strong leadership of the CEO and Executive

Directors We believe that, with care, the energetic and oriented culture we have installed can be sustained.

performance-Some of the recommendations of the Report will involve very carefulbalancing, if not difficult trade-offs For example, at the same time thatthe Panel proposes a period of consolidation of the rapid transfor-mation, it urges that the already impressive rate of improvingrepresentivity in the HSRC be accelerated Yet this would create the risk

of depleting the tertiary institutions, contradicting a further concern ofthe Panel Thus, while entirely supporting the urgency of improving theHSRC representivity whenever opportunity arises or can be created,especially at top researcher levels, the Council has recognised the needfor improving the supply of researchers, as with the HSRC's expandinginternship scheme and programme for professional development andcapacity building

Other recommendations will be costly to implement withoutgenerating more income For example, strengthening administrativesupport services and systems will incur expense, whether provided bybetter technology or more staff This in turn will place a pressure onresearch components to earn more, itself a matter of considerableconcern to the Panel

The Council thus welcomes the Panel’s strong support for the HSRC'sapplication for enhanced funding, and for annual increases comparable

to those accorded to other science councils

The Council has mandated the CEO and his research and strative teams to produce plans in phases for its consideration, forappropriately implementing or further investigating the recommen-dations and the matters covered in this Foreword Thereafter theseplans will be passed on to the incoming Council when it takes office in

admini-2004, for it to take up, implement and monitor Progress will be reported

to the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology In themeantime, comments for the present Council to take into considerationwhen it receives the plans may be addressed by 30 January 2004 to theCouncil Secretary (at council@hsrc.ac.za or by fax to 012 302 2828)

Report of the Review Panel

by the Chairperson of the Review Panel

The members of the 2003 HSRC Review Panel have pleasure inpresenting this report to the Chairperson and Members of the HSRCCouncil

We have concluded a period of intense and vigorous engagementwith the HSRC and its stakeholders We feel privileged to have beeninvolved in this process We had unfettered access to a cross-section

of managers, researchers, support staff and administrators, from themost senior to the most junior We met a significant sample of theHSRC’s stakeholders Several independent members of the researchcommunity shared their views with us We were provided with asmall library of documents printed and electronic, public andrestricted Our requests for additional access to people or informationwere met without hesitation

My colleagues and I draw attention to the openness of the reviewprocess The HSRC showed itself to be a robust and forward-lookingorganisation, eager to use the Review as a vehicle for serious self-examination and, where necessary, repositioning The HSRC’sengagement with the Panel has been anything but defensive On thecontrary, we have been equally impressed by the confidence withwhich leaders of all departments embrace their transformationagenda and the freedom with which less senior members expressedthemselves to us

We have tried to do justice to the importance of our task, theconfidence placed in us by the Council and the excellent support wehave received

We conclude that the HSRC of 2003 is a different and much betterorganisation in important respects than the HSRC of 1997 It hasearned the respect given to it by the bulk of its stakeholders andcollaborators by the breadth, quality and relevance of its contri-butions to the study and practice of social development in SouthAfrica Many governments, research organisations and NGOs hereand elsewhere in Africa now regard it as a valued partner TheHSRC’s peer institutions in the academic community admire it even

as some envy its ability to attract senior researchers and resources.Given the depth and the pace of the transformation of theorganisation, it is appropriate that our report flashes warning signals

We caution against the many-sided costs of the breakneck pace atwhich transformation is being prosecuted We propose a period ofconsolidation, refocusing and repair

In particular, we make suggestions on how the public purposes ofthe HSRC might be redefined Large, longer-term, cross-disciplinaryprogrammes and networks that address the fundamental problems ofpoverty, dispossession, disempowerment, disease and social patho-logy here and elsewhere in Africa should form the primary focus ofthe HSRC’s work, along with fundamental contributions toknowledge management and methodology The HSRC’s collabora-tion with the other science councils and researchers in highereducation needs to be more systematic and tuned in to the social,economic, cultural, governance and technological needs of grass-roots communities Great care must be taken to ensure that the HSRC

is a net contributor to the community of research scholars, especiallyfrom disadvantaged groups The HSRC should become an acknow-ledged research partner of communities and social groups who atpresent are disempowered because they have no access to infor-mation and analysis that could help them improve their quality oflife Within the organisation redress, equity, capacity-building,communication and improved partnership with the workers’ uniondeserve the highest priority

As a statutory social science research organisation dedicated to thepublic good the HSRC is unique in Africa and one of only a handful

in the entire world If wise choices are made now, it will have abrilliant future in the service of social justice here and throughout thecontinent of Africa

Our report acknowledges the help we received from many kindand committed people We express our special thanks to theChairperson of the HSRC Council, Professor Jakes Gerwel, and hiscolleagues for inviting us to participate in this fascinating task and forhelping us to understand it better No praise is too high for thequality of the information, passionately reasoned advocacy andmeticulous practical assistance we received from the Chief ExecutiveOfficer, Dr Mark Orkin

The 2003 HSRC Review covers all aspects of transformation duringthe period 1997–2003, taking particular note of what has happenedsince the appointment of the new Council in 1999 and the new ChiefExecutive Officer (CEO) in 2000 Its general aim is twofold: to assessthe institution’s relevance by examining the appropriateness of itsobjectives and its impact; and to assess how well it is performing byinvestigating its use of resources and production of outputsthroughout its national and international sphere of operations.

In the planning and execution of the 2003 Review the HSRCshowed itself to be a robust and forward-looking organisation, eager

to use the Review as a vehicle for serious self-examination and,where necessary, re-positioning

2 An overview of the current context

The Report presents a brief outline of some of the main features ofthe South African political and social context since 1997 Theyemphasise the magnitude of the challenge to the HSRC as it seeks to

do social science that makes a difference to the lives of the people

of South Africa and their continental neighbours

The HSRC is governed by its Council under the Human SciencesResearch Act, 1968 It is a national public entity in terms of the PublicFinance Management Act, 1999, and one of the science councilsresponsible to the Ministry of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology

The main policy texts under which it operates are the White Paper

on Science and Technology (1996) and South Africa’s National Research and Development Strategy (2001) Both emphasise the role

of applied social science research in the national system ofinnovation, especially in connection with the eradication of poverty.The System-wide Review of science councils in 1998 recommendedthat the HSRC’s mandate be more sharply defined in terms ofresearch excellence and leadership in the human sciences, researchco-ordination and capacity-building

Since 1997 the HSRC has undergone three phases of transformationmarked by three main trends: (1) the downsizing of the organisation;(2) the decline of the Parliamentary grant; and (3) systematic re-building, improved representivity and orientation towards itsdominant research function Since 2000 the changes have beendriven by the new Council and CEO’s COUPE strategy: Contracts,Outreach, User needs, Performance and Equity Ten multi-disciplinary Research Programmes have been created, each led by anExecutive Director (ED) with substantial delegated authority Therevenue structure of the HSRC has been fundamentally altered.External research revenue more than doubled between 1999/00 and2001/02 and more than doubled again to R58.7 million in 2002/03,slightly in excess of the Parliamentary grant of R58.5 million

Similar state-run or state-funded institutions with comparablemandates exist elsewhere in the world The HSRC has a specialaffinity with the situation of sister institutes in countries of the Southwith less developed or emergent economies and massive problems

of social dislocation, poverty and inequality The Review Panelencourages the HSRC to help build a network of such bodies forsolidarity and professional support.

3 Stakeholder views of the HSRC

The Review Panel consulted with a cross-section of external andinternal stakeholders to find out how the transformation of theorganisation and its performance was viewed by its funders,collaborators and critics The Panel also had access to the findings ofstakeholder surveys undertaken for the HSRC by externalcompanies

Stakeholders generally had a positive view of the organisation andrecognised that a significant transformation in its character, orienta-tion, funding sources and personnel had been transacted over thepreceding three years The HSRC’s Research Programmes wereconsidered to be tackling serious developmental issues, usingappropriate methods and achieving outputs of substantial quality Agroup of external funding agencies interviewed by the Review Panelwere extremely satisfied with their partnership with the HSRC butcautioned that bilateral funding to South Africa would be switching

to regional projects

External stakeholders also expressed some important reservationsand misgivings about the HSRC The absence of representivity in thetop echelon of the organisation was considered to be damaging andneeding urgent correction Representatives of the higher educationcommunity, while generally complimentary about the new HSRC, feltthat the organisation had competed aggressively with higher educa-tion institutions (HEIs) for the scarce pool of top level researchers buthad not formed strategic partnerships with HEIs in the interest ofnational development They argued that the organisation needed tocollaborate more systematically with HEIs and do more to help buildtheir capacity to produce young, especially black, social scienceresearchers The importance of collaborative work across disciplines

on national development needs was also emphasised by tatives of other science councils and government departments

Internal stakeholders generally have a very favourable view of theresearch focus, organisation and output of the HSRC They appre-ciate the fact that the Research Programmes under strong EDs hadunleashed new energy and achieved a vibrant environment forcreativity and production.

Nevertheless serious strains are evident Many researchers,especially younger members of staff, feel under acute pressure to meetperformance targets for raising research revenue Some referred to thesilo effect created by the strong vertical and hierarchical organisationwhich made it difficult to deal holistically with cross-cutting issues ofpublic concern, like gender Research interns feel isolated from oneanother in the absence of an organisation-wide induction and supportprogramme Young black and women researchers spoke disparagingly

of an organisational culture they considered inhospitable andinadequately transformed While Corporate Services (CS) staffmembers fully accept that their role is to support the researchfunction, there is some frustration that the cuts in administration havegone too deep to enable them to provide efficient service

The HSRC’s research model places it in a strategic relationshipwith four major partners, namely, universities, government depart-ments, the NGO sector and private or other users including fundingand development agencies Whether the dynamic equilibrium of theorganisation is sustainable under such pressures is an importantquestion deserving serious thought Whether the signs of unease ifnot alienation that appear among members of staff of the organi-sation can be treated as understandable symptoms of an organisationundergoing profound change or worrying indications of systemicproblems is another important question that the HSRC may wish toventilate and ponder

In its Business Plan 2003/04 the HSRC claims that it now has the

capacity to respond to development problems with appropriateapplied research methodologies linked to collaborative nationalResearch Programmes It claims that it is able greatly to extend itsresearch capacity through grant funding and other external donorsupport and that it can interact with and inform key governmentstrategies The Review Panel finds such claims optimistic but notextravagant Nevertheless the design and implementation of theHSRC’s model needs careful scrutiny

• Taking into account the stakeholders’ views, there is scope foradopting a more representative mechanism for involvingknowledgeable outsiders in setting research priorities for eachResearch Programme, particularly where these are financedthrough the Parliamentary grant

• In respect of the HSRC’s collaborative work the Review Panelbelieves there is considerable merit in involving partner researchcouncils and HEIs at the earliest stages of programme design

• Although the Panel encountered projects in several ResearchProgrammes that reflect best practice in integrating a genderanalysis the lack of uniform understanding and applicationappears to be a serious problem

• Fostering gender equity in the teeth of compound discriminationand socio-economic injustices poses an important researchchallenge to the HSRC, especially in connection with its policy-related work Using gender analysis HSRC researchers coulduncover hidden assumptions about roles, relationships andpower It is a tool that should influence the ways in which theHSRC identifies its research areas, conducts research anddisseminates its findings

• In addition to other peer review processes the entire corpus ofpublications of a Research Programme should be subjected topeer review from time to time

• With the above reservations the Review Panel finds the HSRC’sresearch quality management measures highly appropriate

• The HSRC is highly conscious of the need for close client tions and excellent dissemination and communication facilities,

and has made striking progress on these fronts However, clientrelations can never be taken for granted and adverse criticismneeds to be examined seriously The Review Panel could notfault the vigour and professionalism of the HSRC’s publicationsand communications activities but there is still a large untappedopportunity for research findings to be conveyed to grassrootssocial groups and organisations in ways that will help empowerthem.

• Impact analysis is such an important tool for monitoring theorganisation’s effectiveness that it deserves a researchinvestigation in its own right

Partly to make up for the decline in the Parliamentary grant there hasbeen a spectacularly successful effort to generate extra resourcesthrough research contracts and foundation grants In 2003 thecombined income from these extra-Parliamentary sources exceededthe Parliamentary grant for the first time The HSRC has taken thestrategic decision that external research earnings should not greatlyexceed the Parliamentary baseline grant The HSRC now sees itself in

a unique position among performers of social science research byvirtue of the particular mix of funding sources that currently supportsits work

However, the Review Panel finds it highly anomalous that theHSRC’s Parliamentary grant funding for the forthcoming three-yearMedium Term Expenditure Framework is expected to increase at alower rate than the average of the other science councils The panelstrongly supports the HSRC’s bid to increase its Parliamentary grantand maintain a growth rate in that grant commensurate with theaverage of the other science councils The funding of the nationalR&D strategy should enable the HSRC to access additional funding for

a national mission on “Science and Technology for Poverty tion”, to be led by the HSRC, University of Fort Hare and the CSIR.Exceptional demands are placed on EDs by virtue of theirsimultaneous roles as Research Programme managers, businessdevelopment managers, researchers and productive scholars Theirsuccess thus far does not relieve the Review Panel’s anxiety about thesustainability of this model of organisation, both in terms of the

personal and professional toll the current pressures exert on theresearch leadership and in terms of the prospects for the successiongiven the small size of the recruitment pool and the premium rightlyplaced on representivity.

The HSRC must be able to manoeuvre successfully within themany public policy terrains in which it operates Thus far the newHSRC has the confidence of most of its government and other clientsand the qualified respect of the higher education community, as far

as the Review Panel was able to judge Given the condition andreputation of the organisation in past years this represents asubstantial advance for which all concerned deserve great credit.The principle of setting charge-out rates at cost-covering levels iscorrect but there is a likelihood that the HSRC’s price levels arecausing distortions within the organisation Moreover, the HSRC’spublic purposes oblige it to ensure that poorly resourced consti-tuencies can access the organisation’s research capacity

The responsibility of individual researchers to contribute toearnings appears to be a vexed question Whatever the formalposition, young researchers in good faith believe that they must meetindividual targets and this is a problem for them We believe the risks

of overload and attrition are real and need to be seriously examined.The Panel is concerned about the potential impact of entrepreneurialpressure on the more traditional research skills The HSRC needs toaddress this issue

The HSRC has a coherent network of governance and reportingsystems and processes The Council plays a leading role in strategydevelopment in keeping with the recommendation of the System-wide Review The organisation is increasingly well run according toits mandate The Executive Management (CEO + EDs) has displayed

a ruthless focus and prioritisation, particularly in the recent period The leadership role of the HSRC in the social science communityhas not yet been sharply enough defined, whereas the organisation

is recognised to play an increasingly important role in the policyarena Both roles need to be nurtured and preserved as centralaspects of the organisation’s culture

The System-wide Review’s recommendation that science councilsbenchmark their performance internationally against comparable

institutions is problematic for the HSRC given the small number ofgovernment-financed and broadly mandated social science researchcentres in other countries, but closer acquaintance with them isdesirable as we suggested earlier.

Now that the HSRC is starting to emerge from the most convulsiveaspects of its transformation processes it should consider how best

to apply the System-wide Review’s recommendation that sciencecouncils “should perform regular internal/external audits onthemselves, and involve clients and co-operative partners”

The research component of the HSRC has been significantlystrengthened and focused especially in the last three years and thescale and scope of its work has expanded considerably The recentrecruitment drive has added a cadre of highly qualified researchleaders Together with the professional development programme thishas resulted in a critical mass of high-calibre research professionals,giving the HSRC the capacity appropriate to “an intellectuallyproductive research institution”

The HSRC has begun to address the challenge of skills ment by means of a professional development programme andinternship programmes in most research areas These are importantinitiatives but they are recent and may not have been co-ordinated

develop-as effectively develop-as they could have been Both have been earmarked develop-aspriorities for 2003/04

We record two concerns on internal capacity development ingeneral It will be a challenge to the HSRC management to resist thepressure that income-generation Key Performance Areas (KPAs)impose on capacity development, and the degree of autonomyenjoyed by the EDs will make it difficult to sustain an HSRC-widecapacity-development programme

The Panel notes and supports a review of the internship process

We also support proposals for the development of a well-structureddevelopmental programme that would be assessed in the perfor-mance appraisal for the HSRC as a whole, the Research Programmes,the researchers and the CS personnel

Positive trends are noted in race and gender representivity ThePanel noted the HSRC’s achievements in applying clear policies onparental leave and sexual harassment (including planned associated

training) The organisation has met the Employment Equity Act, 1998requirements although the staff union considers that consultation onthis matter has been inadequate.

Despite all these advances, it appears that the approach to equityhas not been entirely successful This has prompted additionalexecutive actions, including representivity quotas introduced by theCEO in 2002/03 and a new policy adopted in August 2003 toaccelerate representivity at ED level These actions may be related tosome disconcerting tendencies There has been a high turnover ofblack and female staff Anecdotal evidence collected by the ReviewPanel suggests that part of the high turnover has been due toorganisational environment issues rather than the officially citedreasons (for black staff departures) of “better career prospects”.Responsibility for staff equity and gender transformation within theirprogrammes had been devolved to EDs, but central support andguidance from CS may have been insufficient The panel wasinformed that mechanisms for timely detection of poor performanceare lacking and that performance management is uneven across theorganisation

The CEO decided that a gender champion was needed and duringthe period of this review a senior member of staff was recruited tohelp prompt and focus the organisation’s responsibilities in gendermatters In the panel’s view a more systemic approach is requiredthat should include gender as a key priority cross-cutting issue in theHSRC dealing with:

• The organisational changes required to ensure that the HSRC isable to attract and retain black women

• A systematic institutional change management process aroundrace and gender

• A gender perspective on the ways in which the HSRC identifiesits research areas, conducts research and disseminates itsfindings

• A method for determining from a gender perspective how theHSRC raises and utilises its funding Here the panel recommendsthat the HSRC undertakes to apply the tool of gender-responsivebudgeting as a way of measuring the gender allocation ofresearch funding to give effect to gender equity

Since 2002, CS management appears to have been driven by a clearsense of purpose, namely to support overall organisational transforma-tion and in particular the primacy of the research function CS haveadopted a well planned and prioritised programme of action (Insight),but the research function’s highly devolved powers of decision-making place a strain on the essentially centralised role of CS Suchinherent contradictions in the current phase of HSRC restructuringappear to have led to considerable frustration among CS memberswhich Executive Management needs to address CS staff membersseem broadly to welcome the reconstruction process, although manywere concerned about their present inability to deliver top-classservice with inadequate staff capacity and ageing infrastructure.

In any organisation operating in multiple areas it is a significantchallenge to achieve coherence in objectives, performance andmanagement Different component parts should have the opportu-nity to learn from one another’s experience This is probably an areathat needs strengthening in the current institutional model

The staff union, the Public Servants’ Association (PSA), appears tohave adopted a mature, principled and supportive approach to thecurrent transformation process, which has no doubt been aided by thefact that the downsizing process has come and gone Nevertheless thePSA is sharply critical of several aspects of the HSRC’s organisationalculture The Review Panel believes it would be unwise for the HSRCCouncil and Executive Management to underestimate the strength andimportance of such grievances, which were also reflected in thePanel’s other discussions with groups of staff members

The Panel recommends that priority be accorded to implementinglabour relations procedures where these might not be in place.Consideration should be given to ensuring that HSRC managers areprovided with skills and support in addressing labour relations issues.The 1998 System-wide Review offered two main recommendationsdirected specifically at the HSRC The first proposed the restructuring

of the mandate, management and staff in order to enable them toaddress the needs of South Africa The Review Panel has concludedthat the HSRC has fully grasped this challenge, has made significantprogress towards the objectives set out and is clearly engaged in thecontinuing process of addressing what remains to be done

The second recommendation proposed that “the future HSRCshould primarily operate as a manager, supporter and organiser ofresearch” (through collaborations and networks) and secondarily as a

performer of research This is not the typical HSRC modus operandi

thus far but – leaving aside the word “primarily” – the Panel believes

it to be a desirable and exacting objective towards which the HSRCshould begin to evolve

5 Collaboration, linkages and networking

Several strong collaborations with science councils have beendeveloped but all parties agree that there is scope for much more.The onus rests as much on the other science councils as on theHSRC The Review Panel envisages the development of a protocol toguide programme and project planning in this area

The HSRC needs to respond to institutional anxieties that itsaggressive recruitment of research talent is depleting already slendersocial science research capacity in the universities; to indications thatthe pipeline of new researchers vital to the institution’s long-termsustainability is under threat; to concerns that the HSRC is contribut-ing little to the institutional health of the social science researchsystem at large; and to the possibility that its own research qualitycould be enhanced through improved utilisation of researchexpertise located in the tertiary education institutions Theseconcerns point to a need for the HSRC to develop new, moresystematic and long-term relations with the universities andtechnikons

Shifts in the higher education environment suggest that there islikely to be a growing overlap between the content of researchconducted by the HEIs and by the HSRC The overlap creates anopportunity for collaborative work in knowledge production as well

as in training

The CEO conveyed several suggestions from EDs in the spirit ofconsidering “new and innovative ways of working” with the HEIs.The Review Panel is glad to endorse them The EDs suggested thatthe HSRC should:

• Have a very senior level interaction, e.g at CEO and Councillevels, and institutional level, rather than just linked to projectsand programmes.

• Place people with, and receive people from, units or groups attertiary institutions with which the HSRC shares researchinterests

• Try and measure our collaborations to correct misperceptionsabout market share

• Ensure that more HSRC senior staff members participate in thearrangement of having academic status with HEIs, especially asgraduate supervisors

The creation, guidance and support of research networks is a rolefully compatible with the HSRC’s status as a national research organi-sation (not an HEI) capable of managing multi-year, interdisciplinary,large database projects They fit the criteria for the deployment of theParliamentary grant (not that the Parliamentary grant should goexclusively towards networking) Moreover, networks providemultiple opportunities for collaboration at different levels acrossresearch councils, HEIs, NGOs and community groups, and they arecapable of becoming a dynamic instrument for building enthusiasm,collegiality, skills and output among young researchers

In making this suggestion we are not proposing a radical swing ofthe pendulum from one mode of working to another As has rightlybeen observed, it is a question of finding the proper balance, andevolving steadily towards it

Our proposal is that the HSRC accept the challenge to continuecreating and managing large, multi-participant national programmes

of social science research on key development issues, in whichHSRC researchers would also play their part

Because this question is so important and involves so manyplayers, the Review Panel proposes that the HSRC create a forumwhere the implications could be examined and debated dispas-sionately within the social science and policy communities

As the HSRC promotes closer relationships with science councilsand HEIs, and plans the creation of additional important nationalresearch networks, it would be helpful to bear in mind a number of

well-attested lessons about institutional partnerships These are listed

in the report

6 The HSRC’s public purposes

It is no longer possible for public institutions, including SouthAfrica’s science councils, to assume that they will continue to receivefunding from the state simply because they were originally created

by the state They are required to demonstrate that they use theirallocations from the state budget in pursuit of one or more agreed-upon public purposes

The Review Panel proposes that the HSRC formally adopt a set offive public purposes to orient and give scope to its activities infuture We suggest the following formulation:

1 To foster and undertake applied social science – from datagathering through information provision to analysis – relevant tothe development challenges of the new South Africa, especially

by means of projects linked into large-scale, public

sector-orient-ed, collaborative programmes (the policy-relevant researchpurpose)

2 To contribute to the effective making, implementing andmonitoring of policy and to informing public debate through theeffective dissemination of the results of research (the policyinformation purpose)

3 To help build the capacity of the social science system and itsmembers, as well as fostering their activity in collaborations,networks and institutional linkages (the research stimulatorpurpose)

4 To respond to the needs for research and analysis ondevelopment problems identified by such groups in societywhose organisations on their own do not have the capacity toundertake or access such enquiries (the support to disadvan-taged people purpose)

5 To develop and make publicly available new data sets tounderpin research, policy development and public discussion ofthe key issues of development and to develop new and

improved methodologies for use in their production (the dataset management purpose)

The HSRC should seek to foster productive relationships with socialscience research elsewhere in Africa through networks and jointprogramming This is without prejudice to the established practice ofinternational collaboration in social science research

We propose that the five purposes and the obligation to fosterlinkages with the rest of Africa be enshrined in the proposed newHSRC Act

The Review Panel regards policy-relevant research as valid,

intellectually defensible and important in an open and democraticsociety When research is designed to contribute to policy it must beundertaken in full awareness of the factors that will come into playwhen policy is formulated In that sense the research must bemeaningful and useful to the policy maker and to do it effectively theHSRC needs to internalise the implications for its domestic policiesand practices

Concerning the policy information purpose, success in reaching a

wide audience depends on the organisation cultivating its ownaccess to the mass media The likelihood that EDs will become thevoice and public face of the HSRC underlines once more the urgency

of achieving a good demographic balance in that important group

The principal implication of the research stimulator purpose is

that the HSRC will adjust its practices so as to create opportunities formany more collaborative ventures with social science researchgroups around the country

An implication of the support to disadvantaged people purpose is

that research design would commence with the recognition that suchgroups can be simultaneously sources of knowledge and insight, andable to be empowered through access to further knowledge throughresearch to bring about beneficial change in their lives

Concerning the data set management purpose, the HSRC will

need to develop, implement and publish a data management policythat contains firm undertakings about the acceptable time delaybetween data collection and data release to public use Whether theclient or funding body is a government department or otherwise, the

Review Panel believes that the presumption ought to be that speedyaccess by the public (including other researchers) to the products ofsocial science research undertaken by the HSRC, especially withpublic money (or money provided by way of support for socialdevelopment), is manifestly desirable and necessary The onus ought

to rest on the funder or contractor to show cause why this principleshould not be observed, and the bar ought to be set high

The Review Panel recommends as a matter of urgency that theHSRC prepares itself to engage from a well-researched basis in theformulation of the national Intellectual Property (IP) policy, if it isnot already so engaged, and formulates its own policy on data setmanagement and the publication of research results within thatframework in consultation with the research councils and HEIs inCommittee of Heads of Organisations of Research and Technology(COHORT)

The public purposes have implications for the HSRC’s self-image.Formal adoption of its public purposes by the HSRC would reinforceits identity as a source of “social science that makes a difference” andcounter the notion that it is primarily a traditional research centre.The maintenance of a research staff of the highest competence is anecessary condition for the HSRC’s performance but it is not asufficient condition for the HSRC to have impact The balance infuture should tilt away from a multitude of small projects in favour

of an increased number of larger ones If the HSRC becomes evenmore discriminating about what small projects to ignore, otherresearch providers could take up the slack

The question arises, what means are used to bring the fruits of HSRCresearch home to the broader society? Several individual programmesuse a variety of effective techniques for communicating withstakeholders and affected groups, which the Panel warmly supports

In summary, while the HSRC is indeed more than just a researchagency, its human resource policies, its programme structure and itscommunications strategies, in combination, tend to reinforce theimage of a conventional research centre These matters deserve theHSRC’s attention in relation to its consideration of public purposes

As a public body the HSRC has a special obligation to make itspowerful research and communication resources available to the

New Plan for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) project, and the ReviewPanel understands that there has been significant engagement withthe NEPAD Secretariat It is not clear to the Panel whether the HSRChas yet made the opportunity for a formal institution-wide analysis ofpossibilities and the development of a strategy for engaging in socialscience research collaboration in Africa If not, this would be afruitful by-product of the review process.

Meanwhile the extent and variety of the HSRC’s project rations across Africa is praiseworthy, given the short time in whichthey have been achieved The EDs readily agree that the organisation

collabo-is only at the beginning of a long journey into African collaboration

A strategic approach by the HSRC would seem to be necessary and

so far not yet achieved It is important for the HSRC to adopt acorrect posture in relation to the continent, and to consider whatpolitical and ethical issues must become touchstones of its conti-nental engagement

Exploring the scope for building networks among African publicinterest, social science research organisations in a variety of areasshould be an important goal, building on the experience alreadyachieved The intention should be to ensure that the broader socialscience community in South Africa is linked into such networks inthe most appropriate way

It is impossible to close this discussion without reference to theAfrica Institute of South Africa (AISA) which since 2001 has become

a statutory science council reporting to the Minister of Arts, Culture,Science and Technology To put it no stronger, at the formal level themutual interests of the HSRC and AISA self-evidently overlap Fromwhat we have learnt there has been minimal formal contact hithertobetween the HSRC and the Africa Institute, and very little jointprofessional activity For obvious reasons this needs to be remedied.The HSRC appears to have been ready for such contact for sometime The Review Panel recommends formal consultations betweenthe two bodies at the highest governance and executive levels as

a matter of urgency At a time when DST and the HSRC arecontemplating a new HSRC Act it is particularly important to ensurethat the research and outreach jurisdictions of these two

publicly-funded bodies are clear and non-competitive, and that their

modus vivendi is collegial and co-operative

The question of a new name was not a matter of importance to theReview Panel and we prefer to say nothing about it We confine ourdiscussion of a new HSRC Act to three points concerning a preamble,

a statement of purposes and the composition of the Council Firstly,there is good reason for a new Act to have a preamble A preamblecan make clear in the most emphatic way what public good the HSRC

is to serve, and may distinguish how the new HSRC differs from theold Secondly, in the body of the new Act, the section describing thepurposes of the HSRC should incorporate the statement of publicpurposes proposed by the Review Panel (or a statement embodyingsimilar sentiments) Thirdly, the provision in the new Act forappointing the Council of the HSRC might take four observations intoaccount:

• The present HSRC Council has provided an outstandingexample of intellectual engagement with the executive andgood corporate governance The new Act should permit if notencourage the appointment of successor Councils of equivalentrange and calibre

• In formulating the criterion of representivity, it would beappropriate to require an equal number of women and men

• The employees of the HSRC should be represented by theirunion’s nominee

• The Council should include a distinguished representative of thesocial science research community in the rest of Africa

The Review Panel believes that organisations closely aligned to a set

of explicit public purposes are at an advantage in making the casefor public financial support The Review Panel considers that theHSRC has merited its claim for an increase in its Parliamentary grantand for subsequent increases to at least match the rate of the average

of the other science councils In the case of the data set managementpurpose, we believe that the case has already been accepted inSouth Africa that programmes serving such purposes should befunded, in the main, by the public purse, either through budgetaryallocations or via performance contracts The HSRC is well

positioned to participate strongly with other science councils in theDST’s “Technology and Innovation for Poverty Reduction Mission”,for which the Department intends to allocate R150 million Indeedthe HSRC is the lead agency for this mission, working with theUniversity of Fort Hare and the CSIR

7 Conclusions and major recommendations

The HSRC is a different and better organisation than it was in 1997.Transformation is not too strong a word to describe what hasoccurred in this institution, especially in the past four years TheReview Panel reports at a critical moment The present Council is atthe end of its term The main major structural changes have beentransacted and are being digested The new model HSRC, led by anextraordinarily strong team of executive managers and powered bythe COUPE strategy, is brimming with energy and purpose but hasnot yet settled down into a deep-set routine

Our Report disguises neither our admiration for what has beenachieved nor our concern for some of the costs of transformation

We are concerned about the sustainability of the model in itspresent design, especially in relation to the public purposes of theHSRC We detected signs that the organisation is under stress Thedanger is less that the HSRC will cease to function well, but that itmight begin to function sub-optimally and to some extent losecohesion

The COUPE model has been designed to fit the circumstances of

a public organisation that is in receipt of a declining Parliamentarygrant and must diversify and expand its revenue sources or stagnate

or be closed down We have two main concerns about the model.One is the extent to which individual researchers are made respon-sible for raising funds for their own research The other is the extent

to which the model commits the HSRC to become the premiernational institution for large-scale, multi-year, interdisciplinary,networked or collaborative research on the major social challenges

of South Africa and the African region

The Report argues that the HSRC’s role in relation to the otherscience councils, the HEIs and research practitioners in NGOs andthe community needs to be carefully thought through We see theHSRC becoming the authoritative hub of the national social sciencecommunity, not in the sense of a command organisation but onecapable of providing collegial services, a platform for networking injointly conceived programmes and a base for research development

of both young and mature researchers from outside the organisation

It is essential to achieve a relationship of trust on which such term institutional collaboration can be built In the case of thecommunity the HSRC has a particular obligation, using the Parlia-mentary grant, to make its research resources available to those whowould otherwise have no access to research and informationservices

long-The Report concludes with a statement of the public purposes ofthe HSRC These are the purposes that justify the HSRC’s existence

as a statutory body in receipt of a Parliamentary grant Although thesection on public purposes comes at the end, we consider that itexhibits the gist and kernel of our Report

A few of our proposals seem to us to be strategic In the Reportthey are embedded in an argument, but here we summarise in a fewwords:

1 The administrative support services and systems need urgentstrengthening in order to attend better to the requirements ofthe Research Programmes and the regional offices

2 The transformation of the organisation needs to be deepened,especially in respect of the central question of gender, staffrepresentivity especially at senior levels, responsiveness to theresearch needs of poor communities and groups and multi-media communication of research findings to the public at large

3 The HSRC should evolve toward becoming a platform forinstitutional collaboration and networking in the applied socialsciences in South Africa and across the continent, though not tothe exclusion of other forms of research production The HSRC’slong-term relationship with the higher education communityshould increasingly take this form, both for collegial and

research programme purposes and to support the professionaldevelopment of new social science researchers.

4 The HSRC should engage urgently with the questions of datapreservation and of IP as subjects of research, both to establishprinciples and guide practice within the organisation and inorder to contribute the public social science perspective to thenational policy process on these vital issues

5 The HSRC should consider the formulation of its public

purposes as a statement of its raison d’etre for inclusion in a

new HSRC Act The statement of public purposes would also be

a conceptual framework to guide the setting of its programmepriorities and would help clarify its orientation towards thepublic constituencies it serves and its role in Africandevelopment

the White Paper on Science and Technology (S&T) The findings and

recommendations of the reviews were noted by Cabinet, and wereexpected to guide the science council system, individually andcollectively, in orienting to national policy Recently the Department

of Science and Technology (DST) requested all South African sciencecouncils to initiate and manage institutional reviews to assess whatprogress had been made in implementing the recommendedchanges over the intervening six years Such reviews were to beoverseen by the council or board, and managed by the respectiveChief Executive Officer (CEO) The present report fulfils DST’sdirective in respect of the HSRC

The 2003 HSRC Review covers all aspects of transformation duringthe period 1997–2003, taking particular note of what has happenedsince the appointment of the new Council in 1999 and the new CEO

in 2000 Its general aim is twofold: to assess the institution’srelevance by examining the appropriateness of its objectives and itsimpact; and to assess how well it is performing by investigating itsuse of resources and production of outputs throughout its nationaland international sphere of operations

The Review has four specific objectives, to:

• Examine the response of the HSRC to the recommendations ofthe 1997 reviews

• Assess how the HSRC is contributing and can better contribute

to meeting South African and African development priorities

• Review organisational issues

• Consider the implications of the Panel’s recommendationsregarding the above for a new name and Act for the organi-sation

The first three points are sub-divided into 21 specific topics ofinvestigation The complete terms of reference are in Annexure A

12 days, from 29 September to 10 October 2003 Thereafter the Paneldispersed and worked at a distance The Panel worked as a teamthroughout

The HSRC head office and most of its staff are in Pretoria, wherethe institution was first established These days there are also HSRCoffices in Bloemfontein, Cape Town, Durban and Port Elizabeth Totake account of the institution’s dispersed operations the Panel spent

a day in Cape Town and were visited in Pretoria by senior staff fromthe other centres In addition, Executive Directors (EDs) basedoutside Pretoria took part in a video conference for an initial briefing

by the Panel

Of the 12 days during which the Panel was in joint session, sixwere devoted to briefings and consultations with a wide range ofHSRC, role-player and stakeholder representatives A list of those weconsulted is in Annexure D To ensure maximum coverage in thelimited time available the Panel divided for some sessions so thatparallel presentations and discussions could take place A senior

HSRC research staff member, backed up by an HSRC research intern,provided the Panel with full notes of each consultation.

The Chairperson and members of the Panel met the CEO andsome EDs informally on the afternoon of 8 October to discuss thePanel’s major findings On the morning of 10 October theChairperson gave an extensive presentation on the Panel’s draftreport to members of the HSRC Council, the CEO and the ExecutiveManagement and staff Thereafter the Panel met for the last time toarrange for the next phases of its work and then dispersed

By arrangement with the CEO in consultation with theChairperson of Council, the draft report was delivered to the CEOafter initial editing on 13 October 2003 The HSRC’s stimulating andhelpful formal comments on the draft report and an invaluable list ofcorrections were conveyed electronically to the Chairperson andmembers on 26 October The Panel’s revised and final report wasdelivered to the CEO on 9 November, thus bringing the Review to aclose

Members of the Review Panel

The project plan called for a representative panel including membersfrom South Africa, the rest of Africa and abroad, with expertise inapplied policy-relevant research, the use of such research andinstitutional research management The chairperson or deputychairperson was to be based in South Africa These specificationswere complied with The Panel comprised:

Professor Akilagpa Sawyerr (Ghana), Chairperson

Specialist in international trade law, political economy and highereducation; Secretary-General, Association of African Universities;former Director of Research, AAU; former President, Council for theDevelopment of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA);former Vice-Chancellor, University of Ghana; former Director,African Society for International and Comparative Law; member ofthe 1997 HSRC Review Panel