Transforming Science in South Africa

Development, Collaboration and Productivity

R. Sooryamoorthy

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781137493071
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Global Development Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

This book is essential for anyone interested in knowing how science works nationally and internationally in the contemporary world. It offers a comprehensive analysis of scientific collaboration and its relation to development and the productivity of scientists, with specific reference to South Africa in both the past and the present.

1

Introduction

Society is supporting this structure and paying for it more and more because the results of his [the scientist’s] work are vital for the strength, security, and public welfare of all. With everything said to be depending on him, from freedom from military attack to freedom from disease, the scientist now holds the purse-strings of the entire state.

Derek J. De Solla Price (1963)

Science is a productive force in contemporary society (Price, 1965), entwined inseparably with development. The role that science and technology now play in development is not a matter of contention. Price (1965) underlined the use of science and technology to achieve the social goals of society, while Weber discussed its relationship with the economy.1 Science, as Price (1963) observed nearly half a century ago, is a crucial but very expensive part of human activity and a major segment of a nation’s economy. Beginning from the training of an individual into a scientist to the building of the capacity to do science—laboratories, equipment, material, resources, organization, administration, communication and travel—science costs money. In short, it is an expensive investment.

Science gets a generous share of the budget of most countries. A log-linear relationship between the size of the national scientific effort and the gross national product (GNP) is reported (Price, 1969 cited in Frame, 1979). Similarly, a discernible tie between a country’s gross economic status and its ability to support indigenous scientific activity has also been observed (Frame, 1979). China and India are two contemporary examples. Remarkable progress has been achieved in science and technology in these countries, and consequently, their economies are on a fast track.2 Large economies in the world invest proportionately more in research and development (R&D), and by virtue of it, they become the largest players in the production of world science (May, 1997). The US, a world leader in scientific output with a 35 per cent share, spends 2.5 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on R&D (May, 1997).3 Production, as a rule, depends on investment. The same applies to science as well. The more you invest, the more you produce, and the greater the growth.

Science produces knowledge which in turn generates wealth. This is an unremitting process. Science is not limited to the production of knowledge and wealth alone. It is more than that. Science is a human activity that involves interaction between individuals, often from heterogeneous backgrounds, with characteristic traits. Understanding science, therefore, means understanding the people who are engrossed in it. In this research, several facets of science are taken into account and studied carefully. What matters here is how scientists work, associate with their peers and produce knowledge.

The emergence of a new mode of knowledge production, Mode 2, is bringing about fundamental changes in the ways in which scientific, social and cultural knowledge are created today. Expansion of research and education systems has brought into being a method of performing research that is different from the discipline-based activity which has dominated science for so long (Gibbons et al., 1994). This kind of knowledge production is carried out in non-hierarchical and heterogeneous organizational forms that entail a wider, more temporary and heterogeneous mix of players collaborating on a problem (Gibbons et al., 1994).4

It is the intention of the sociology of science to study the influence of myriad social processes that occur in the production of scientific knowledge (Cole and Phelan, 1999). One fundamental aspect is to learn how social processes affect the construction of the cognitive content of science (Cole, 1992; Merton, 1938). Working together in what is termed ‘collaboration’ is one such mode. Scientific collaboration is a process in the production of scientific knowledge that is capable of determining both the content and direction of science in society.

Scientific collaboration, as is evident from the literature, is indeed a rewarding undertaking. It is by no means unproblematic. Collaboration is enjoyable and at the same time frustrating. It bestows benefits as well as losses on the collaborators. It is a mixture of everything—knowledge, recognition, publication, visibility, fame, fulfilment, stress, disagreement, trust, conflict, rewards and challenges.

Towards the end of my interview with a scientist, I asked his considered view on collaboration. He was at the threshold of his retirement after 30 years of research, most of which was collaborative. After pausing for a while to reflect he replied candidly, ‘I would rather work alone than in a team of collaborators.’ Although this response of the scientist (that he would rather have worked alone) contradicted the enthusiasm with which he talked about his collaborations, those of us who have been involved in collaborative activity can sympathize with this response. However, many like Levine and Moreland have expressed pleasure in collaboration: ‘[O]ver the years, we have worked on many joint projects, and the process has been immensely rewarding on both professional and personal grounds’ (Levine and Moreland, 2004: 170). Collaboration is undeniably an intricate process, not amenable to easy and precise measurements of costs and benefits. However, how can one make sense of its significance in science and scientific advancement? Measuring the extent and type of collaboration is one way to understand its relevance. Assessing the outcomes of collaboration is yet another way to study its profundity. Generally, the outcomes are manifest in the expansion of networks with fellow scientists, the extensive use of communication technologies and, most importantly, the productivity of scientists. This book seeks to investigate these in the South African scientific system and how these are relevant for other societies.

Collaboration, networking and communication among the scientific community are expanding (Gibbons et al., 1994; Ziman, 1994). In science and technology studies, collaboration has its own niche and is favoured by many as a fascinating area of investigation. It has been examined from different angles and perspectives and certainly in varied contexts. Katz and Martin (1997) summarize the issues that are studied under four broad categories of measurement of collaboration: factors in the formation of alliances; sources of collaboration; role of communication—physical and social proximity; and the effects on productivity. It is therefore a beneficial exercise to delve into the relevance of these factors in a specific context such as South Africa. Collaboration might occur in close physical proximity or at a distance. What are the collaborative propensities of scientists in South Africa, in terms of associating with their peers in neighbouring or distant countries? Is there something that nurtures social proximity, drawing on the historical linkages a country had established and maintained with other countries in the past? South Africa has distinctive but peculiar phases in its history—colonial, apartheid and democratic. Science would have passed through these political straits, not necessarily in a linear and undeviating fashion. The following chapters explore these issues in detail.

Due to the complex nature of human interactions that can take place amongst collaborators during the course of the process, it is not easy to understand the precise nature of those interactions using conventional methods (Katz and Martin, 1997). Here one needs to consider the essential components of collaboration. The conceptual components may have varying levels of functioning in a country like South Africa. Some might be completely irrelevant and out of place, while others may not. The disentangling of the concept, however, takes us into the phenomenon of scientific collaboration, and its specific meaning in countries such as South Africa that has turned its attention seriously to science and technology. We will consider these in general for conceptual clarity and to set the backdrop for the examination of collaboration in South Africa.

Scholars focus on specific facets of collaboration in order to grasp definite aspects of the process. This is crucial to our understanding of the impacts collaboration has on science and scientific growth. When scientific efforts become more and more a team activity, one would expect a tangible change in the way science is conducted and knowledge is generated. It would be of interest to examine how collaboration facilitates scientific production as opposed to the way science is done without collaboration. In other words, the focus should be on collaboration and its effects on scientific productivity. Collaboration, at the same time, is influenced by certain other key factors. These include the professional networks scientists build up and maintain, especially if these are going to change their productivity. These professional contacts in the digital age rely on the access to and use of various means of information and communication technologies (ICTs) for their initiation and maintenance.

Scientific collaboration is studied from two planes: the institutional and the individual. The former looks at the institutional components in collaboration, namely, organizational structure, management, administration, resources, policies and preferences that facilitate or hinder partnerships between institutions. The institutional aspects of scientific collaboration can have historical origins. For instance, in societies like South Africa, science has a legacy and a historical past that could influence the current approach to scientific processes like collaboration. The individual level, on the other hand, is micro in approach and looks more closely at the individual researchers and at those factors that are found in the entire span of the initiation and the implementation of scientific alliances. Undoubtedly, this approach of putting the research activities of scientists under the microscope reveals many unknown dimensions of collaboration. This is precisely the approach in this book: to learn lessons directly from the scientists themselves.

A set of operationalized variables (Corley et al., 2006) concerning the discipline, location, size and productivity is employed in such individual, partner-centred analyses. Of these variables, productivity in particular can offer new insights into the effectiveness of collaboration and also into whether or not it is desirable from the point of advancing science. Studies with institutional foci generally consider the subject at two levels: the structural level (formal structural arrangements of interaction) and the coordination level (behavioural rules governing the interactions), both of which have potential shortcomings (Landry et al., 1996). Landry et al. (1996) predict three shortcomings in the industry–university collaboration context. One, it is easier to collect information about formal rather than informal structures, which might lead to underestimating the industry–university collaboration that is channelled through informal and quasi-informal structures. Two, the identification of the structural diversity of the formal arrangements provides little information about the intensity of the collaboration or the number of important joint decisions made by the partners. Three, paying attention exclusively to the diversity of the structures means collaboration takes place between structures rather than between individuals. The overlapping of factors between the institutional and individual determinants of collaboration cannot be ruled out as there are intertwining variables that are relevant in both modes of inquiry. In addition, the impact of contextual factors (geographical proximity, discipline, organizational structure and levels of coordination) in collaboration is ambiguous (Peters and Fusfeld, 1983 cited in Landry and Amara, 1998). While considering the collaborative enterprises of scientists, one cannot afford to lose sight of the institutional and national structures that play a decisive role in science and collaboration. This dimension is also examined in this study.

Melin (2000) inquires why researchers collaborate and co-produce, what motivates them to collaborate, and what affects investigating the interaction, feelings and conditions within the research team. Bozeman and Corley (2004) examine the individual facets of collaboration in their study of 451 scientists and engineers in academic research centres.5 Does collaboration lead to increased productivity, serving as a motivating force for South African scientists? This question is explored in the chapters which follow.

Scholars are conscious that there is really a dearth of theory to understand new collaboration modes (Corley et al., 2006; Wagner, 2005). Corley et al.’s (2006) theoretical framework explains the relationship among the epistemic norms of the disciplines represented in collaboration, the organizational structure of the collaboration and the level of collaboration success. This is an institutional level analysis of collaboration. This theory suggests that large-scale, multidiscipline, inter-institutional collaborations need a high level of development, either in the epistemic development of the disciplines in the collaboration in question or in the organizational structure of the collaboration. The epistemic domain refers to the internal workings of research communities, namely, the norms and practices of research, research agenda-setting, incentives and rewards, while the organizational domain pertains to how the workings of organizations are made to enhance the work of research communities such as inter-institutional collaborations. This theory assists in comprehending the intricacies of institutional alliances—why there are more (or less) research alliances between institutions within the country (domestic collaboration) than with institutions outside the country (international collaboration). This is a pertinent point in the context of South Africa and is examined in this book.

Transaction cost theory explains the costs of coordinating negotiations on collaborative research objectives, and on choices of resources and resource use in regard to the size of structural arrangements (Williamson, 1996 cited in Landry and Amara, 1998). This approach to the institutional structuration of collaboration takes into account various institutional structures and the reasons why researchers are persuaded to organize collaborative research in research institutes and others in research teams or outside the formal structures of institutions (Landry and Amara, 1998). This approach has two aspects, according to Landry and Amara (1998): ex ante and ex post cost. Ex ante costs are the costs of actions and tasks required to establish a research contract for collaboration. The costs involve the joint decision-making process of the researchers about the research objectives, preparation of proposals for funding, work plans, methodology, use of financial and human resources, equipment and data, and preparation of publications. Ex post costs include those incurred in coordinating, monitoring and enforcing the contractual promises of research outputs.

Transaction cost emphasizes that the contribution to an institutional arrangement depends on the benefits the researcher draws from collaboration. The prediction of this theory is that when costs incurred by participants in collaboration are higher, then they seek outside structures for collaboration. This is somewhat similar to the cost–benefit approach, according to which alliances materialize when benefits exceed costs (Harrigan, 1985, cited in Gulati, 1998)....

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication Page
• Contents
• List of Tables and Map
• Foreword by Arthur L. Stinchcombe
• Preface
• About the Author
• List of Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Science in Africa and in South Africa: A Historical Review
• 3 Scientific Collaboration: Towards Conceptual Clarity
• 4 Research Publications of South African Scientists, 1945–2010
• 5 Publications through Collaboration
• 6 Scientific Research in South Africa
• 7 Communication, Professional Networks and Productivity
• 8 Collaboration Experience: Portrait of an Eminent Scientist
• 9 Science and a Model for Scientific Collaboration
• Notes
• References
• Index