Advertisement

Producing Knowledge to Raise Rural Living Standards: How Universities Connect with Resource-Poor Municipalities in South Africa

  • Peter T. JacobsEmail author
  • Alexis Habiyaremye
  • Bhekiwe Fakudze
  • Kgabo Ramoroka
  • Siyanda Jonas
Original Article

Abstract

This article explores the extent to which South African universities partake in science and innovations designed to raise the living standards of poor rural residents. It concentrates on how well universities have fulfilled their knowledge-production for societal benefit missions in practice, through a comparison of the performance of universities across three relevant initiatives. It contributes to the existing research by showcasing how user-oriented innovation value chains operate and the crucial roles of stakeholders along such chains to optimise benefits for people in resource-poor rural municipalities. Our findings suggest that the science-for-society value chain is non-linear, rather than a straight line as presumed by much of the existing research. As the government department leading South Africa’s innovation policy, the Department of Science and Technology has been instrumental in fostering a user-oriented mission among knowledge producers.

Keywords

Innovation Universities Co-learning Communities Participatory Developmental 

Résumé

Cet article examine dans quelle mesure les universités sud-africaines participent à la science et aux innovations conçues pour améliorer le niveau de vie des résidents ruraux pauvres. Il se focalise sur la manière dont les universités ont concrètement rempli leur mission de production de connaissances pour le bénéfice de la société, en comparant les performances des universités sur trois initiatives pertinentes. Nous contribuons aux recherches existantes en mettant en lumière le mode de fonctionnement des chaînes de valeur des innovation orientées vers les utilisateurs ainsi que le rôle crucial des parties prenantes tout au long de ces chaînes pour optimiser les avantages de ces innovations pour les habitants des municipalités rurales disposant de peu de ressources. Nos résultats suggèrent que la chaîne de valeur de la science pour la société est non linéaire, contrairement aux affirmations d’une grande partie de la recherche existante qui la présume linéaire. En tant que ministère responsable de la politique d’innovation de l’Afrique du Sud, le Département de la Science et de la Technologie a joué un rôle déterminant dans la promotion d’une mission axée sur les utilisateurs parmi les producteurs de connaissances.

Notes

References

  1. Albert, M., and W. McGuire. 2014. Understanding change in knowledge production in a neoliberal era. Political Power and Social Theory 27: 33–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ankrah, S.N., T.F. Burgess, P. Grimshaw, and N.E. Shaw. 2013. Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: What single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation 33 (2–3): 50–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almirall, S. 2008. Living Labs and open innovation: roles and applicability. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks 10: 21–44.Google Scholar
  4. Benneworth, P. (ed.). 2013. University engagement with socially excluded communities. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Bloch, C., and M.P. Sørensen. 2015. The size of research funding: Trends and implications. Science and Public Policy 42: 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornmann, L. 2013. What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64: 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ca, T.N. 2009. Reaching out to society: Vietnamese universities in transition. Science and Public Policy 36: 91–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charles, D. 2016. The rural university campus and support for rural innovation. Science and Public Policy 43: 763–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coetzee, H., I.-M. du Toit, and M. Herselman. 2012. Living labs in South Africa: An analysis based on five case studies. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks 14: 1–29.Google Scholar
  10. Dagnino, R. 2012. Why science and technology capacity building for social development? Science and Public Policy 39: 548–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Jong, S., K. Barker, D. Cox, T. Sveinsdottir, and P. Van den Besselaar. 2014. Understanding societal impact through productive interactions: ICT research as a case. Research Evaluation 23: 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Etzkowitz, H., A. Webster, C. Gebhardt, and B.R.C. Terra. 2000. The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29: 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Etzkowitz, H., J.M.C. de Mello, and M. Almeida. 2005. Towards “meta-innovation” in Brazil: The evolution of the incubator and the emergence of a triple helix. Research Policy 34: 411–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gillespie, A., and M.R. Michelson. 2011. Participant observation and the political scientist: Possibilities, priorities, and practicalities. PS Political Science and Politics 44: 261–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Godin, B., and J.P. Lane. 2013. Pushes and pulls: Hi(S)tory of the demand pull model of innovation. Science, Technology and Human Values 38: 621–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Humphrey, L. 2013. University–community engagement: Dislocation of theory and practice. In University engagement with socially excluded communities, ed. P. Benneworth, 103–124. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, J.C., C. Avenarius, and J. Weatherford. 2006. The active participant-observer: Applying social role analysis to participant observation. Field Methods 18: 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Khazragui, H., and J. Hudson. 2015. Measuring the benefits of university research: Impact and the REF in the UK. Research Evaluation 24: 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. King, G., J. Pan, and M.E. Roberts. 2014. Reverse-engineering censorship in China: Randomized experimentation and participant observation. Science 345: 891–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kruss, G., C. Diwu, B. Nyoka, R. Ranchod, and A. Manamela. 2013. A review of the community-university partnership programme (CUPP). Pretoria: HSRC.Google Scholar
  21. Kruss, G. 2012. Reconceptualising engagement: A conceptual framework for analysing university interaction with external social partners. South African Review Of Sociology 43 (2): 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kruss, G., and M. Visser. 2017. Putting university–industry interaction into perspective: A differentiated view from inside South African universities. Journal of Technology Transfer 42: 884–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lacy, W., and L. Glenna. 2006. Democratizing science in an era of expert and private knowledge. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society 1: 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lahsen, M. 2016. Toward a sustainable future earth: Challenges for a research agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values 41 (5): 876–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leydesdorff, L., and I. Ivanova. 2016. “Open innovation” and “triple helix” models of innovation: can synergy in innovation systems be measured? Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 2 (1): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leydesdorff, L. 2012. The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix…, and an N-tuple of Helices: explanatory models for analysing the knowledge-based economy. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3 (1): 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leydesdorff, L., and H. Etzkowitz. 1998. The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy 25 (3): 195–203.Google Scholar
  28. Lundvall, B. Å. 2008. Innovation and competence building in the learning economy: Implications for innovation policy. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
  29. Martin, B. 2006. Strategies for alternative science. In The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power, ed. Scott Frickel and Kelly Moore, 272–298. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  30. Moore, K. 2006. Powered by the people: Scientific authority in participatory science. In The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power, ed. Scott Frickel and Kelly Moore, 299–323. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mtawa, N.N., S.N. Fongwa, and G. Wangenge-Ouma. 2016. The scholarship of university-community engagement: Interrogating Boyer’s model. International Journal of Educational Development 49: 126–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Musante (DeWalt), K. 2015. Participatory Observation. In Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, 2nd ed, ed. H.R. Bernard and C.C. Gravlee, 251–292. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nakwa, K., and G. Zawdie. 2016. The ‘third mission’ and ‘triple helix mission’ of universities as evolutionary processes in the development of the network of knowledge production: Reflections on SME experiences in Thailand. Science & Public Policy 43 (5): 622–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perez Vico, E., H. Hellsmark, and M. Jacob. 2015. Enacting knowledge exchange: a context dependent and ‘role-based’ typology for capturing utility from university research. Prometheus 33: 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Petersen, I.H., G. Kruss, M. Gastrow, and P.C. Nalivata. 2016. Innovation capacity-building and inclusive development in informal settings: A comparative analysis of two interactive learning spaces in South Africa and Malawi. Journal of International Development 28: 1099–1328.Google Scholar
  36. Roberts, M.R. 2009. Realizing societal benefit from academic research: Analysis of the National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Criterion. Social Epistemology 23 (3–4): 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sandy, M., and B.A. Holland. 2006. Different worlds and common ground: Community partner perspectives on campus-community partnerships. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 13 (1): 30–43.Google Scholar
  38. Shapira, P., and J. Youtie. 2010. The innovation system and innovation policy in the United States. In Competing for global innovation leadership: Innovation systems and policies in the USA, EU and Asia, ed. Rainer Frietsch and Margot Schüller, 5–29. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.Google Scholar
  39. Shinn, T. 2002. The triple helix and new production of knowledge: pre-packaged thinking on science and technology. Social Studies of Science 32 (4): 599–614.Google Scholar
  40. Smirnova, Y.V. 2016. University–industry knowledge transfer in an emerging economy: Evidence from Kazakhstan. Science and Public Policy 43: 702–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith, S., V. Warda, and A. House. 2011. ‘Impact’ in the proposals for the UK’s Research Excellence Framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy. Research Policy 40: 1369–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Trencher, G., M. Yarime, K.B. McCormick, C.H. Doll, and S.B. Kraines. 2014. Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Science & Public Policy 41 (2): 151–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Theodorakopoulos, N., D.J. Sánchez Preciado, and D. Bennett. 2012. Transferring technology from university to rural industry within a developing economy context: The case for nurturing communities of practice. Technovation 32 (9–10): 550–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Turnhout, E.M., J. Stuiver, B.Harms Klostermann, and C. Leeuwis. 2013. New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Science and Public Policy 40: 354–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Uyarra, E. 2010. Conceptualizing the regional roles of universities, implications and contradictions. European Planning Studies 18 (8): 1227–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vorley, T., and J. Nelles. 2008. (Re)Conceptualising the academy: Institutional development of and beyond the third mission. Higher Education Management & Policy 20 (3): 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wolf, S. 2006. Commercial restructuring of collective resources in agrofood systems of innovation. In The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power, ed. Scott Frickel and Kelly Moore, 91–121. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  48. Zavale, N.C., and E. Macamo. 2016. How and what knowledge do universities and academics transfer to industry in African low-income countries? Evidence from the stage of university-industry linkages in Mozambique. International Journal of Educational Development 49: 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter T. Jacobs
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alexis Habiyaremye
    • 1
  • Bhekiwe Fakudze
    • 2
  • Kgabo Ramoroka
    • 2
  • Siyanda Jonas
    • 2
  1. 1.Economic Performance and Development, Human Sciences Research CouncilCape TownSouth Africa
  2. 2.Economic Performance and Development, Human Sciences Research CouncilPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations