Growing a research culture. (Shop Talk).

Introduction

In the majority of universities in America and other developed countries, the concept of research-led teaching is well understood. While it may not always be practised, the nature of research is appreciated, and leading researchers who contribute significantly to the overall quality of academic performance are valued, in turn increasing the stature of the entire institution in the mind of society (Geiger, 1993; Pratt, 1997; and Lipset, 1994). In such countries as the United States and the United Kingdom, the cultural environment is one in which the principles underpinning scientific study and advancement through questioning established norms, technological innovation, and scholarly study are sufficiently well established in the academic environment to be appreciated and understood by all. The long cultural history of academic scholarship is sufficiently well established that it is self-propagating--students grow up in an environment of logical enquiry and thus understand the philosophical principles involved, at least at a level sufficient to maintain the culture. Staff transfer between culturally similar universities also ensures a healthy cross-fertilization of ideas, all within institutions focused on research. To a large extent the culture is task oriented with an emphasis on delivery of outputs in the form of reports, papers, and other deliverables. The debate may be about the level and means of funding (Geuna, 1999; New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2002), the meaning of research (Boyer, 1990; Gibbons et al, 1994), or even about proving the research-teaching nexus (Hattie and Marsh, 1996; Robertson, 1999; Zubrick, 2000), but it is still based upon a research-led environment.

None of this is automatically true in less developed countries. Traditional cultural values and worldviews may conflict with the basic concept of scientific enquiry; and so the concept of research practice may be interpreted in different ways. In a culture which emphasises relational values over task achievement, and which may even have an animistic world view rather than a rationalistic approach, inculcating ideas about the value of the scientific method and the timely delivery of research outputs can be difficult.

At this point in history, when traditional "Third World" countries are still emerging from the "colonial" past, the situation is inevitably confused. Traditional world-views clash with the desire for the prosperity and development perceived to be possessed by the "developed" countries. Academics have been exposed to Western values and attitudes and have adopted those values to differing degrees. When this mixture of values is applied to the case of the university, the institutional mind-set can be a conflict between the desire to be like other universities and the traditional underlying behaviour and attitudes of the staff. Where the staff themselves are a mixture of locals, ex-patriots from similar cultures, and ex-patriots from other cultures, the situation can become even more confused.

With these thoughts in mind, consider the current situation at the University of Botswana. Since its formal establishment in 1982, it has operated with a main focus on teaching. Although in a developing country, the University has relatively strong financial support from government and is growing rapidly. In 2001 its enrolment reached 11,000 full-time students, and plans were being developed to raise this to 15,000 by 2007. It is the only university in what at independence was one of the poorest countries in the world. Botswana is still a very undeveloped country, consisting mainly of the Kalahari Desert, although the combination of a stable and peaceful society, the discovery of diamonds in 1970, the adoption of a democratic electoral system, and generally good, benevolent governance with low corruption has resulted in dramatic growth and healthy foreign exchange reserves. Increased health care and education services have meant that the number of students eligible for tertiary education has increased dramati cally.

The Research Situation at the University of Botswana

Research and development has been conducted throughout the University since its beginnings, and many examples exist of excellent research outputs and achievements. Sometimes local staff or ex-patriot teaching staff on relatively short-term contracts produced research outputs on top of their teaching responsibilities, but in general research support was largely focussed towards full-time researchers in research centres, who were physically and administratively separated from the teaching facilities. At the turn of the century, the University changed this approach and began to emphasise the need for all university teachers to produce research outputs.

In 2001 local staff formed 55 percent of the full time academics. Although all academic staff had at least a master's degree, the University itself still did not have a recognisable culture in which research activity was the norm. Young local staff were generally sent overseas to study for PhDs, sometimes without any involvement of their departments while they were away. On return they were thrust into teaching roles, such that the research drive could easily be lost, especially if their research activity was simply not of interest to their colleagues. In addition, staff often had a limited capability and appreciation of research management, resulting in limited project management, accountability, and time management, and hence reduced performance.

Part of the government appropriation for funding university operations was used for research internal funding (around 1 to 1.5%). Traditionally the University of Botswana allocated funds to faculties, based on the academic staffing levels in the faculties. Faculty Research and Publications Committees (FRPCs) had their own guidelines for distributing the funds to faculty members. Amounts in excess of faculty limits were sent to a central committee for approval.

Prior to 1997 research was conducted through the so-called National Institute for Development Research and Documentation. With the introduction of academic staff appraisals based on research outputs, this centralised activity was wound down and research staff were transferred to an appropriate teaching faculty. The university library accepted responsibility for documentation. At the same time a major environmental research centre was developed in the Okavango Delta in the North of Botswana, some 1000 km from the main campus. By 2003 it was operating as a near independent research centre with almost 20 academics, although it was still dependent on the University for the bulk of its funding. Demands that this too should be linked to the University teaching departments increased.

The vision of the University of Botswana, developed in 2000, called for it to be "a Leading Academic Centre of Excellence in Africa and the World" with the mission "to advance the intellectual and human resource capacity of the nation and the international community." (University of Botswana, 2003).

With this ideal, coupled with rapid growth, came the need for a clearer policy on the way in which the University organised and encouraged research. The University of Botswana adopted an approach emphasizing the importance of research-led teaching, so that its teaching staff should also be researchers. Following a trend common around the world (Hazelkorn, 2002), the University established the Office of Research and Development (ORD) to manage research.

Bringing about change

In order to begin making this change in approach a reality, ORD first undertook a study of the situation. The University of Botswana has a history of research activities. Following discussions with a range of staff members, ORD completed a SWOT analysis (Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats) that attempted to identify factors affecting the level of research activity at the University at the time (Appendix 1). Although there were clearly pockets of successful research activity, and the University had succeeded in obtaining funding from external sources in the past, the overall situation showed that a number of problems existed. From the SWOT analysis, these problems can be summarised as follows.

Strategic research activity.

The research support mechanisms in place prior to the formation of the Office of Research and Development in 2001 did not easily enable the University to ensure that its research activities were in line with the university vision, the university development plan, or the principles defined in the government's long term aim for the country as outlined in its long term vision statement for the country (Presidential Task Group, 1997). Neither was it clear to researchers what sorts of outputs the University should produce.

Limited Outputs.

While the previous research funding and support mechanisms operated for some years prior to 2001, the outputs have been generally small. Some departments reported no publications in the 12-month period ending in May 2002, while a compilation of research outputs indicated a rate of just under one output (of any kind what-so-ever, including press interviews, speeches at workshops, and departmental seminars) per academic staff member per year over the years 1998 - 2001 (Office of Research and Development, 2003).

Quality of outputs.

Quality of outputs across the campus varied. Some staff members felt unduly disadvantaged by the old support mechanisms. Accountability for producing outputs as a result of these mechanisms appeared to be limited. In some cases staff had failed to provide any reports after receiving research funding.

Utilisation of funds.

A further concern was that several faculties had not fully utilised their allocation of funds. Funds had therefore accumulated in various research accounts. In some cases funds had been allocated to researchers but have remained unspent.

Commercialisation of Research.

No structure existed for enabling researchers to develop and commercialise research discoveries. Nor did the University have an Intellectual Property policy.

Postgraduate research activity.

The University had few internal PhD students studying in Botswana. Virtually all local PhD candidates were going overseas for their studies. Most university staff development fellows (i.e., staff recruited from final year students and proceeding to obtain higher qualifications) had no supervisor in Botswana, so the linkage between the University and the student's research was negligible. Master's level student research was also not very strong, and there were hardly any post-doctoral fellows.

Motivation.

For some staff little motivation for research existed. This seemed to apply particularly when staff had security of employment through tenure and where they were not interested in further promotion. However, contract renewal has been made increasingly dependent on research outputs for expatriate staff, and a staff appraisal system was being introduced for internal staff. Some evidence suggested that a number of staff viewed research as a means of supplementing their income without the need for significant effort. Nevertheless, perceived rewards were felt to be insufficient to motivate some staff.

Administrative Complexity.

Up to 2001 all internal research grants were administered through the faculty committees (FRPCs). However, in 2000 they approved only 28 proposals across the whole University. It became evident that a staff member wishing to conduct research had to gather together a considerable amount of information to enable him or her to complete the research proposal (particularly the budgetary items), and this information was not easily accessible. Some staff lacked familiarity with research proposals and the processes involved. Some FRPCs required major proposals for relatively small grants, and comments were made that the committees were unnecessarily pedantic and critical. However staff may also have been reluctant to submit applications because they feared criticism. Often there were lengthy time delays between application and award of funds, and decisions were not always perceived to be transparent. The FRPCs handled applications for research funds, conference travel, conference fees, and funding for publications se parately, creating a great deal of paperwork for the researcher and severely reducing the time available and motivation for conducting the research.

Teaching Responsibilities.

Teaching responsibilities increased in most faculties as a result of increased student numbers. Recruitment problems developed, and most staff felt over-committed to teaching. Overall the University was aiming at a 16:1 student:staff ratio, which may be viewed as moderately high in a well established university with an effective infrastructure, but coupled with a change to semester course structure in 2002, teaching loads are even higher than this figure would suggest. This trend was unlikely to diminish.

Insufficient Training in Research Methodology and Communication.

While a PhD is generally regarded as the entry level for academic researchers, few PhD programmes world-wide prepare staff to pursue independent research immediately after the completion of their supervised research. For example, in New Zealand increasingly some universities are insisting on a compulsory research methods paper for all postgraduates. Also, post-doctoral research fellowships contribute to this type of training.

Private consultancy.

Some staff felt that private consultancy work was more rewarding, and easier to set up, than research. Some believed it was less stringently examined compared to research undertaken through the University. The tight time constraints enabled the staff member to be focussed, and the initial proposal would receive less criticism since it did not have to pass through the FRPC. Occasionally some staff apparently neglected teaching duties in order to complete consultancy business.

Information on research capabilities.

No central database of information on University research capabilities or outputs existed. This had implications for marketing the University's research capability and for demonstrating its achievements.

Lack of opportunity and funding for postgraduate students.

Little funding was available to support postgraduate students, especially at the PhD level. This was a particular problem for local students. Also the PhD programme was not developed in many disciplines. Some otherwise competent academic staff were disqualified as potential research student supervisors because their department had not been able to complete the appropriate paperwork to register their department as able to offer PhDs through the academic system.

A Proposed Policy

The Office of Research and Development was effectively established with the appointment of a director in January 2001, and has begun to introduce quality management procedures and more appropriate research funding methods. To address the problem, ORD developed a policy document to define the principles that will perform the following purposes:

1. Support the development of a research culture at the University.

2. Lead to the broadening and development of the research capacity of the institution across all disciplines and to extend that research-based knowledge to the nation and the international community.

3. Encourage and empower staff to manage, conduct, disseminate, and report high quality research and development.

4. Remove or reduce obstacles that hinder or discourage research and development.

5. Establish the University as a centre of research excellence.

6. Lead to procedures to manage and use research resources effectively, efficiently and fairly.

7. Increase postgraduate research activity at the University of Botswana.

8. Encourage the research-teaching nexus.

9. Improve the quality of outputs, including their impact, level of accountability, and timeliness of reporting.

10. Provide a structure for continual improvement of research and development activity.

11. Enable the commercialisation of Research and Development outputs, to the benefit of the researcher, the University, and the wider community.

The University of Botswana Council approved the policy in November 2002 and placed it on the university website (University of Botswana, 2002), setting a framework for the growth of research among staff. At the time of this writing, the policy was in the early stages of implementation. The ORD took the approach to establish for the University a research handbook containing the details of the procedures of implementation. The implementation detail was devolved to an advisory committee consisting of deans and research committee chairpersons whose task was to assist the director of Research to implement the policy.

Among the immediate changes introduced were the following:

1. Distributing the bulk of internal research funding through University-wide competitive funding rounds. Thus in 2002 two rounds attracted 56 applications, of which 38 were funded compared to the 28 total applications in 2000.

2. Establishing a procedure for obtaining six-month reports on all projects. Failure to provide a report meant that the funds were frozen.

3. Developing an award scheme for the best researchers, team leaders, and junior researchers.

4. Having the policy require that part of the overhead fee obtained from externally funded research projects would be returned to a recovery account in the name of the researcher involved. This implies that the researcher gains freedom for expenditure (e.g., to use the recovery accounts for conference travel, for example, without obtaining approval for the choice of expenditure). This change intended to increase dramatically the reward for obtaining external funding.

5. Establishing a database of research outputs.

Interestingly, the most common approaches to achieve outputs appear to be negative. Thus staff were punished by failure to produce outputs, for example through non-renewal of contract, or denial of salary increases. However, the policy intended to develop the positive rewards by providing freedom, accountability, and status.

Challenges to Implementation

Such a policy, involving a major change in institutional culture, required support from the entire university community. A number of challenges are briefly summarised in the following seven paragraphs:

Administration and staff promotions.

Various sections of the university administration failed to see the need for rewarding appropriate research productivity. It is important that promotion decisions should be in harmony with the objectives of the research policy (e.g., staff should be rewarded for organising and administering research teams, if that is the policy, and not just for publishing papers).

Financial rewards for specified out puts.

Some staff were highly motivated by financial reward. They pointed out that in South Africa a cash reward system was used for refereed publications in selected journals: the government awarded institutions 20,000 Rand (approximately US$2000) for the production of each refereed paper, and some universities forwarded a portion of this income to the staff member concerned.

Government attitudes.

As the major university funder, government must be aware of the university as a research provider as well as a teaching organisation. In some areas of government this point may not be readily apparent. Thus, for example, government fully funds undergraduate students (including meals, housing, and tuition fees) while it does not support post-graduate students particularly well unless they are seconded from their employer (i.e., the employer recommends to the government that a staff member who has been working for some time should receive further training for higher qualifications). Postgraduate qualifications are thus seen to be vocational rather than academic. Thus graduates find it difficult to proceed directly from undergraduate studies to postgraduate research until they have worked in a job for some years.

High teaching loads.

When new staff are difficult to recruit or teaching loads are high, then staff simply do not have enough time to conduct research. It is hoped that departments will turn increasingly towards using research students to perform some of the more routine teaching activities, using funds generated from externally funded research. One possible solution yet to be explored is the concept of research days, where a successful researcher is enabled to take one free day each week to conduct research. The teaching load would then fill on less effective staff members, or on graduate assistants.

Conflicting concepts of important outputs.

Differences of opinion arose concerning what outputs should be encouraged. For example, is a refereed paper in an international journal of more value than running a workshop that may change opinions and attitudes of the government? Thus, ranking research outputs for promotion purposes becomes a challenge.

Financial restrictions.

Both the government Ministry of Finance and the university administrative system can sometimes impose restrictions on financial expenditure. As a result staff must expend considerable effort in order to use funds awarded (e.g., three quotations for equipment where only one company in the country is able to supply it).

"Tall poppy" syndrome.

As in many cultures, a tendency may exist to disapprove of individuals who stand out from the crowd. Successful staff can find themselves in a hostile environment as a result of their success.

Conclusions

This paper has outlined a review of the issues related to developing a research culture. It has presented the case study of the situation at the University of Botswana, together with the objectives of a research policy aimed at bringing about institutional transformation, describing some immediate consequences of the new policy and outlining some remaining challenges. At the time of writing, the long term impacts of these new approaches were yet to be evaluated.

Appendix I

A SWOT Analysis of Research and Development at the University of Botswana

STRENGTHS

* UB Vision and Mission Statements set clear principles

* Recognition of need to conduct research by University management

* Acceptance of Research Teaching Nexus

* Previous efforts of NIR (NIR staff now in faculties bring significant research experience)

* Botswana Collection

* Office of Research and Development infrastructure established and new objectives defined

* Several examples of funding success

* School of Graduate Studies management of Masters and PhD programmes

* Structure for University wide PhD developed

* Strong research activity in some areas

* Good communications and computer systems

* Many strong national and international linkages of staff

WEAKNESSES

* No scope for strategic focus of research

* Moderately high student staff ratios in some faculties

* Motivation for research low for some staff

* Research not seen to be rewarding to some faculty staff

* Poor quality management and accountability procedures for research

* No incentives for timeliness or report generation

* Staff are easily discouraged if FRPC's are highly critical of research proposals, thus discouraging applications

* No commercialisation system for research discoveries

* Local staff returning with external PhDs sometimes have limited training in research management, self-directed research methodologies, research administration, and research reporting

* No funding for postgraduate researchers or post doctorate fellowships

* Low numbers of internal PhD students

* Nationals and staff going overseas for PhDs take away research opportunities, especially if there is no input to supervision from University of Botswana staff

* University is not always seen as the preferred consultant for government and industry research Interfaculty collaboration is limited, and there are few incentives

* Danger of poor interaction between geographically remote centres and teaching faculties (e.g., HOORC not well linked to main campus)

* Research capabilities not well marketed

* Information on research opportunities not well organised

* Overseas researchers in Botswana for a short term may not help to build capacity here

* "Technical Institute" mentality in some faculties

* No policy on ethical matters or intellectual property

OPPORTUNITIES

* Quality of many University staff

* Excellent facilities and equipment in some faculties and departments

* Vision 2016 provides a clear indication of Government priorities

* Research staff from Research and Development Unit now in faculties

* Stability of Botswanan Government, and freedom from corruption in the country, make the University well positioned as a centre for basing Research and Development activities for the region

* Some academics have good relationships with industry/government/practising professionals

* Unique position of University

* Increased financial pressures could drive staff to seek research contracts

* Government funding remains strong (but could be dwindling)

* HOORC is developing its facilities and is set to become a leading centre for wetlands and environmental research, which will attract international interest

THREATS

* Staff failing to complete research reports on time contributes to donor fatigue", and University of Botswana could become less competitive against other research providers.

* A few staff members negative towards research, especially if they have had unfortunate experiences overseas

* Emphasis on planning and accurate project proposals is strong but not matched by an equal emphasis on completing a project and reporting the results

* Autonomy of faculties could cause problems for effective operation of Research and Development Unit

* Current consultancy arrangements provide poor return to University (but good for individual)

* Consultancy work can compete for staff time

* Other providers for Government research contracts

* Botswana is no longer classified as a developing country by some organisations

* The HIV AIDS epidemic threatens to create severe shortages of trained University staff.

References

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Geiger, R. L. (1993). Research and relevant knowledge: American research universities since World War IL Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Geuna, A. (1999). The economics of knowledge production: Funding and the structure of university research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.

Hattie, J. & Marsh, H.W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 507-542.

Hazelkorn, E. (2003). Challenges of growing research at new and emerging HEIs. In G. Williams (Ed.), The enterprising university: Reform, excellence, and equity. (pp.69-82). London: Society for Research in Higher Education/Open University.

Lipset, S. M. (1994). In defense of the research university. In J. R. Cole, E. G. Barber, & S. R. Graubard (Eds.), The research university in a time of discontent (pp. 219-224). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2002). Investing in Excellence. Report of the Performance-Based Research Fund Working Group. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education and the Transition Tertiary Education Commission.

Office of Research and Development. (2002). Research outputs of the University of Botswana for 1995 - 2001. Retrieved September 9, 2002 from University of Botswana, Office of Research and Development Web site: http://168.167.15.120/research/intro.htm.

Pratt, J. (1997). The polytechnic experiment: 1965-1992. London: Society for Research in Higher Education/Open University Press.

Presidential Task Group. (1997). Vision 2016: A framework for a long-term vision for Botswana. Gaborone: Government Printer.

Robertson. J. (1999). What do academics value? Experiences of the relation between teaching and research. HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne. Reprinted in G. S. Fraser (Ed.), (2000). Vice-chancellor's Symposium: The Research-Teaching Nexus, Symposium Readings (pp. 5-17). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey University.

University of Botswana (2002). Policy for Research and Development at the University of Botswana. Retrieved September 9, 2002 from University of Botswana Office of Research and Development. Web site http://168.167.15.120/research/intro.htm.

University of Botswana (2003). Vision and Mission Statements. Retrieved September 9, 2002 from http://www.ub.bw

Zubrick, A. (2000). Strengthening the nexus between teaching and research. In G. S. Fraser (Ed.), Vice-chancellor's Symposium: The Research-Teaching Nexus, Symposium Readings (pp. 1-4). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey University.

Author's Note: This article was written in preparation for the SRA annual conference in 2002. Funding problems prevented its presentation. The author acknowledges the assistance of Ms. Julie Stackhouse, Association of Commonwealth Universities, London, UK, who provided some of the background information and references. Contact Clifford J. Studman, Ph.D., Director, Research and Development, Box 00708, University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana. Ph: [phone]. Email: [e-mail]

Cliff Studman, PhD, currently serves as Director, Office of Research and Development (since January 2001) at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. He previously served as Associate Professor in Technology and Engineering. Dr. Studman earned his PhD at the University of Cambridge, UK, Cavendish Laboratory (1974), in surface physics.

Dr. Studman has published in a wide range of publications on post-harvest technology, agricultural engineering, and physics, most recently publishing on quality of research and the relevance of research to higher education in less developed countries.