Call for Applications

Collaborating Researchers

This is a call for applications to the SAAIR members and other interested researchers to be appointed as Collaborating Researchers in the joint SciSTIP and SAAIR research project on the theme, The scope, synergy and uptake of research into Higher Education in Southern Africa. The PI and lead researchers seek to appoint six collaborating researchers. See the attached document for details on the project. The selected collaborating researchers will be expected to participate as members of the research team in all the activities related to this project, including

1. A Conceptualisation Seminar / Lead Seminar on 10-11 May 2017 in Stellenbosch. 2. Two case studies at universities in South Africa and other SADC countries (to be

conducted during 2017 and 2018). 3. An authors’ workshop in July 2018 in Stellenbosch. 4. Presentation of a paper at the SAAIR Annual Conference in October 2018.

The travel and accommodation costs for the Conceptualisation Seminar in 2017, the case studies and the Authors’ Workshop (in 2017) will be covered by SciSTIP and SAAIR. The costs related to the attendance of the SAAIR Annual Conference in 2018 will be for the Collaborating Researcher’s own account / own institution. No remuneration will be paid to the researchers. The six Collaborating Researchers will be selected on the basis of the following criteria, approved by the Executive Committee of the SAAIR:

1) Member of SAAIR (if not already a member at the time of application, selected collaborating researchers will be expected to become members of the SAAIR).

2) Preference will be given to people from the designated groups (as defined in South African legislation).

2

3) Career-age appropriate research performance (Note, this refers to the years involved in a career relevant to this research project, not physical age.)

4) Commitment to this project, commitment to higher education in general, and commitment to SAAIR and the achievement of its goals.

5) A background in one of the areas of IR (including planning, data management and reporting, HE environmental scanning, Quality Assurance, learning analytics, etc.) or in higher education research in general.

6) Capacity development (in accordance with one of the key goals of the SAAIR) 7) Collaborating researchers can be from any institution, including the institutions

where lead members are based. Each collaborating researcher will be allocated to work with a specific lead researcher.

8) Leadership qualities. Letters of application are to be send to either of the project leaders (Prof Jan Botha, jb3@sun.ac.za or Ms Nicole Muller muller@dut.ac.za), including the following supporting documents

a) A comprehensive curriculum vitae, including information that would speak to the selection criteria outlined above.

b) A motivation (approximately 300 words) why the applicant wants to be considered for this project and considers himself/herself to be a good candidate.

c) A letter from the applicant’s supervisor/line manner at work, stating that the applicant will be allowed to participant in the events listed above and to work on the project.

CLOSING DATE: 24 March 2017 We believe that this is an important project and an exciting opportunity for emerging as well as established researchers and we look forward to your application.

Jan Botha Nicole J Muller Professor, SciSTIP and CREST Vice-President, SAAIR Stellenbosch University and Director Institutional Planning Durban University of Technology 24 February 2017

1

SAAIR / SciSTIP Research Project 2017-2019

Project leaders: Jan Botha and Nicole Muller1 20 February 2017

1. Project title The scope, synergy and uptake of research into higher education in southern Africa

2. Background and research problem

2.1 The need for higher education research and its utilization Higher Education (HE) in Southern African countries faces many challenges. The student protests in 2015 and 2016 in South Africa are a manifestation of many deep-seated challenges that need to be addressed, such as2 a revisiting of the nature and purpose(s) of HE in this part of the world, the relationship between HE and (African) society, the expectations related to the contribution of HE to the achievement of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals through knowledge production, engagement, and education and training (including many deep-seated issues related to the curriculum), the pressures related to the governance, management and funding of HE given the rapid increase in

1 We acknowledge the valuable contributions of Dr Heidi Prozesky (Research Manager of SciSTIP) to the development and finalisation of this project proposal. 2 See, for example, Council on Higher Education (CHE), 2016. South African higher education reviewed: Two decades of democracy. Pretoria; Cloete, N. 2016. Free higher education? Another destructive South African policy? CHET; Nyamnjoh, F & Jua B. 2002. “African Universities in Crisis and the Promotion of a Democratic Culture: The Political Economy of Violence in African Educational Systems.” African Studies Review 45(2): 1-26; Halvorsen, T. & Vale, P, 2012. One world, many knowledges. Regional experiences and cross-regional links in higher education. Southern African–Nordic Centre; World Bank. 2000. Higher Education in Developing Countries. Peril and Promise. Washington, D.C.; Butcher et at. 2012. A profile of higher education in the region. SARUA.

2

enrollments in universities all over Africa and also in Southern Africa. As is the case in other parts in the world, HE in Southern Africa is a contested and changing terrain. To arrive at well-considered and sustainable decisions on the way forward, HE in the region depends, inter alia, on reliable and relevant research. Many institutions and centres in the region conduct research into HE. What is unclear, however, is how and by whom their research agendas are set. In particular, to what extent is the research conducted with the intention of addressing the challenges facing HE? Furthermore, are the results of this research actually taken up and used by decision makers and policy makers at institutional and/or system levels? The importance of these research questions is well illustrated by Paul Prinsloo in a thought-provoking paper that he presented at the 2016 SAAIR Annual Conference, titled “A social cartography of student data: Moving beyond #StudentsAsDataObjects”. Based on data available to the institutional researchers and leaders in the system and in HE institutions (HEIs), trends in the ratios of state funding and student fees could be identified, and these clearly indicated an increasing gross imbalance in the proportion of student-fee income against the state-subsidy income, with the former outweighing the latter, and therefore clearly signposting a looming crisis. This prompted Prinsloo to ask why institutional researchers, who had these data, did not raise the alarm in time? Are data such as these actually used? The first step in addressing questions such as these would be to describe the scope and characteristics of research into HE in southern Africa. In their analysis of articles published in the Journal for Higher Education in South Africa, Du Preez, Simmonds and Verhoef (2016) aimed to do so, but focused on only one journal. In recognition of the fact that much more research conducted, resulting in outputs in both other scholarly journals and in the grey literature, we intend to broaden our sources of data considerably.

2.2 Cooperation and communication between different types of HE experts Research into HE may be best defined as an interdisciplinary field of scholarship, rather than as a traditional academic discipline (see Brennan, 2008, Bitzer & Wilkenson, 2009, Teichler, 2016, Tight, 2012, ). As an intellectual field, it is broader and more general than an academic or university-based discipline (Whitley, 1984), and similar to what Weingart (2010) identifies as areas of priority, primarily for political and/or economic players such as funders of research (e.g. research councils and foundations, government departments and industry), that “extend across disciplinary boundaries”. The field therefore consists of a variety of types of scholars, and we argue that the extent of synergy and communication that exists amongst them is an important consideration when investigating the uptake and utilisation of HER. Kehm (2015:63-64), building on earlier work of Teichler (2000:19-21), distinguishes between five types of HE experts: 1) discipline-based occasional researchers (for example, economists or political scientists,

who would, on occasion, devote part of their work to themes in the field of HE);

3

2) researchers in a discipline devoted to HE (e.g. educationalists) based in a university, who focus their research on a continuous basis on HE;

3) researchers (often externally funded) based in a research unit or institute; 4) applied HE researchers whose work is determined by its utility for (institutional)

decision-making and who are often also responsible for data collection, management and interpretation; and

5) reflective practitioners (for example, executive and senior academic managers of universities, or politicians or civil servants with a specific interest in HE).

A second relevant classification of research into HE is that between institutional research (IR) and HE research (HER). Although IR and HER share common origins and some other similarities, these two subfields have developed divergent practices over time (Borden & Webber, 2015). Some overlap exists between these two categorisation systems, as IR tends to be conducted mostly by HE experts in category 4 above, while HER is produced primarily by researchers in categories 1‒3. It is therefore not surprising that there is not much cooperation and communication between the different categories of HE experts in Southern Africa. This is clear, for example, in the book edited by Botha and Muller (2016), Institutional Research in South African HE – Intersecting Contexts and Practices. Hardly any of the IR-related contributions to the book were the publications of other types of South African HE experts (as defined in categories 1–3 above) cited (e.g. the publications in the South African Journal of HE). Pertinent to our particular research focus on uptake, is the observation that the work of the category-4, or IR experts, seldom moves beyond “grey literature” (e.g. reports to HE managers and governing bodies, or minutes of institutional committees, or references to national policy documents) into peer-reviewed, public, scholarly outputs. Yet these “grey literature” outputs are, arguably, much more directly taken up in institutional (and national) policy-making and other forms of decision making. Moosa and Murray (2016:137) write:

[P]rofessional/ support staff and academic staff do not always consider each other’s work with as much thoroughness as perhaps they should. On the one hand, a university reported that documents produced by institutional researchers and academic planners “are rarely interrogated and tend to be accepted uncritically” by academic structures. On the other hand, only a few institutional researchers mentioned that they consult academic publications as sources of information for IR.

To provide another example of this problem: a former official of the DHET remarked recently in an informal discussion how difficult it often was to develop policy decisions based on research publications by researchers in categories 1‒3, and even on excellent research reports produced by the Council on Higher Education. This again relates closely to the broader issue of research uptake and of evidence-based (research-based) decision- and policy-making. Given the challenges facing HE, this evident lack of synergy, cooperation and communication between different types of HE researchers in South Africa is not the optimal situation in a context desperately in need of research-informed solutions. Arguably both IR

4

and HER stand to benefit greatly by improved cooperation and communication between Her and IR experts.

2.3 Research uptake The past three decades have seen increased interest worldwide in the uptake, use and impact of scientific research. This interest is fueled by the new accountability regimes of public funders of science, as well as growing calls from civil society and the general public for science that makes a difference. This has led to the development of new approaches and theories about research uptake, and a resurgence of interest in previous theories. Morton (2015:406) defines research uptake as

research users have engaged with research: they have read a briefing, attended a conference or seminar, were research partners were involved in advising and shaping the research project in some way, or engaged in some other kind of activity which means they know the research exists.

Our focus, research uptake, does not refer simply to a one-way process of communicating research findings to potential end-users. It involves effective communication across different phases of research, beginning from understanding the needs of end-users in the initial stages of project design. In some cases it may even mean involving end-users in the research design, project implementation and adoption of research results (Lalljee & Facknath, 2015). Various strategies and models for the study of research uptake are proposed in the literature and used in different contexts. To decide on a strategy and/or model for research uptake most appropriate for this study will be one of the issues to be attended to at the Conceptualisation Workshop (see par 6.1 of this proposal). Among the models that could be considered are the three-step valorisation model by Hussler et al (2008), the societal valorisation value chain (SVVC) by Claasen and Commadeur (2013) and the 4D valorisation model by Van Drooge et al. (2013)

3. Research questions Against this background, the key research questions for this project are formulated as follows: RQ1: What is the scope and characteristics of HER and IR as two distinct categories of

research into HE in South Africa and other Southern African countries? RQ2: Can a lack of cooperation and communication between HER and IR be discerned, and

if so, which generative mechanisms underlie this phenomenon? RQ 3: What is the uptake of HER and IR as two distinct categories of research into HE in

South Africa and in other Southern African countries, as undertaken by the different types of researchers focusing on higher education (see par. 2.1) at institutional and system levels?

5

Addressing these research questions will ultimately allow us to make recommendations to improve HER/IR uptake and, by implication, use, as well as HER/IR synergy, cooperation and communication, in the service of the future sustainable development of HE in South Africa and a selection of southern African countries beyond South Africa.

4. Research design and methodology

4.1 Bibliometric study In order to address Research Question 1 a bibliometric study will be undertaken. The scope and characteristics of HER research, and published IR research, will be mapped by undertaking a secondary analysis of bibliometric data on peer-reviewed, scholarly output, as captured in SA Knowledgebase (SAK), a database developed and owned by CREST. The SAK includes a comprehensive list and full bibliographic details of all articles in scholarly journals produced by South Africans (including the journals in the Web of Science, Scopus, and the additional databases and journals recognised by the DHET). The parameters and sub-categories of research into higher education (and the key words) to be used to conduct the bibliometric study will be developed in an iterative manner. One possible starting point is the categories of HER distinguished in the journal Higher Education Abstracts3.

4.2 A Multiple Case Study In order to address Research Questions 2 and 3, a multiple case study (Bryman, 2012) will be undertaken, to identify the literature not captured in SA Knowledgebase (e.g. contained in institutional repositories of IR units), in particular the books and “grey literature” that tend to be associated with IR research, to solicit the views of HER scholars and IR practitioners on the perceived lack of cooperation and communication between these different types of HE experts, and to gather data on the uptake of research into higher education (HER as well as IR). The multiple-case study will involve the collection of documents (and conducting semi-structured interviews with both IR practitioners (in particular directors of IR units) and HER scholars at a number of HEIs in South Africa and a selection of other SADC countries. HEIs with fairly mature IR departments will be selected, and, at as far as possible, HEIs where formal qualifications in HE studies are offered and where HER is conducted in a faculty or an academic centre. It is envisioned that researchers participating in this project will conduct site visits to collect the case study data. Therefore, logistical considerations would also play a role in the selection of cases, i.e. it would be more feasible (and more cost-effective) if (at least some of) the institutions selected as cases are HEIs to which core team members of this project are affiliated (e.g. UNISA, UP, UFS, SU, DUT). The final selection of institutions for cases will be made at the Conceptualisation Workshop (see par 6.1).

3 http://eu.wiley.com.ez.sun.ac.za/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-HEA.html

6

5. Research Team The research team consists of the Principal Investigator (PI), six lead researchers and seven collaborating researchers.

5.1 Principal Investigator (PI) – Jan Botha Jan Botha is Professor in the Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology (CREST) at the University of Stellenbosch. He is a past president of the Southern African Association for Institutional Research (SAAIR). Until July 2014 he was Senior Director for Institutional Research and Planning at the University of Stellenbosch. He (co)-authored more than 40 institutional policies. He has served on national HE policy-making task teams (e.g. the development of a national policy framework for the Internationalisation of South African HE, including the policy on joint PhD and Masters degrees with international universities). He is the author of three scholarly books (most recently, with N.J. Muller, Institutional Research in South African HE. Intersecting Contexts and Practices 2016), 30 articles in academic journals and 24 chapters in scholarly books and has supervised five PhD and sixteen Masters students.

5.2 Lead Researchers The lead researchers were selected by the PI based on the following criteria:

• To include the thee core leaders of the SAAIR Executive Committee (the president, vice-president and treasurer),

• To include two established and NRF-rated scholars in HE Research (HER), who are also active members of SAAIR,

• To include a senior researcher from SciSTIP (given that this is proposed as a joint project of SAAIR and SciSTIP),

• To insure a reasonable representation from different HEIs (although this is not an absolute requirement),

• To ensure continuity with the previous initiative of SAAIR which resulted in the SAAIR/SciSTIP book in 2016,

• To keep the core team small, in order to ensure effective functioning (and to save on expenses such as travel costs).

In addition to the PI the team has six lead researchers. a) Jean-Claude Lemmens

Juan-Claude Lemmens, PhD, is the Head of the unit for Research and Innovation (HE) at the Department for Education Innovation, University of Pretoria. He is co-author of the Student Academic Readiness Survey, First Year Experience Survey and the Career App.tizer. His professional interests include psychometrics, analytics, data visualisation and statistical analysis. His research foci are in the areas of academic readiness, learning experience, retention and success. He served on the Executive Committee of the Southern African

7

Association for Institutional Research (SAAIR) since 2016. In October 2016 he was elected as President of the SAAIR for the 2017-2018 term b) Nicole Muller

Nicky Muller is the Director of Institutional Planning at Durban University of Technology. She has a long career in public and HE librarianship, research management and administration, and institutional planning. She is the project driver at Durban University of Technology for the Kresge Foundation funded Siyaphumelela Project (We Succeed), which aims to improve student success through evidence-based interventions informed through the lens of data. She is a co-author and co-editor (with J Botha) of the book, Institutional Research in South African HE. Intersecting Contexts and Practices (2016). She serves on the Executive Committee of SAAIR since 2015, and is the Vice-President and Secretary of the Association for the 2017-2018 term. c) Paul Prinsloo

Paul Prinsloo is Research Professor in Open and Distance Learning (ODL) in the College of Economic and Management Sciences, University of South Africa (Unisa). Paul has published numerous articles in the fields of teaching and learning, student success in distance education contexts, learning analytics, and curriculum development. His current research focuses on the collection, analysis and use of student data in learning analytics, graduate supervision and digital identities. d) Heidi Prozesky

Heidi Prozesky is the Research Manager of the DST/NRF Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (SciSTIP), while still actively undertaking research and supervision in the field of science and technology studies. She holds a PhD in Sociology, on gender differences in the publication productivity of South African scientists, and has developed social research methods and environmental sociology as additional fields of specialisation. e) Herman Visser

Herman Visser is a Senior Specialist: Institutional Statistics and Analysis in the Directorate Information and Analysis at the University of South Africa. He has 30 years institutional research experience, 16 of which as Director. He is a founding member of SAAIR and was awarded distinguished membership in 2006. Herman contributes to the professional development activities of SAAIR as coordinator and presenter. He has authored and co-authored several articles and contributed papers to national and internal conferences. f) Merridy Wilson-Strydom

Merridy Wilson-Strydom is Associate Professor in the Centre for Research on HE and Development at the University of the Free State (UFS). She is a C2 NRF-rated researcher. Earlier in her career she was Director: Monitoring and Institutional Research in the Directorate for Institutional Research and Academic Planning (DIRAP) at the UFS. She has led two profiling studies of HE in the SADC region and has published her work in national and international journals. Her current research focuses on HE and social justice, with a particular emphasis on inequalities during access and transitions into and through undergraduate education.

8

5.3 Collaborating researchers

a) SAAIR issues an open invitation to all its members to apply to be a collaborative researcher.

b) Selection is based on criteria approved by the SAAIR Exco. c) One collaborating researcher is allocated to each lead researcher. d) The seven collaborating researchers are appointed by the Executive Committee of

the SAAIR on recommendation of the PI and the lead researchers. Criteria

1) Member of SAAIR (if not already a member at the time of application, selected collaborating researchers will be expected to become members of SAAIR).

2) Preference will be given to people from the designated groups (as defined in South African legislation).

3) Career-age appropriate research performance. 4) A background in one of the areas of IR (including planning, data management and

reporting, HE environmental scanning, Quality Assurance, learner analytics, etc.) or in HE research in general.

5) Capacity development (in accordance with one of the key goals of SAAIR) 6) Collaborating researchers can be from any institution, including the institutions

where lead members are based. Each collaborating researcher will be allocated to work with a specific lead researcher.

7) Leadership qualities.

6. Activities

6.1 Conceptualisation Seminar / Lead Seminar (15 participants) 1) Purpose: to conceptualise and plan the project in depth (theoretical orientation,

research design, data gathering, scheduling, outputs), including the finalisation of the sub-themes allocated to the team members related to interests and expertise, provisional themes (to be discussed and finalised during the Conceptualisation Seminar): o Jan Botha: historical and theoretical perspectives on HER, IR and research uptake o Heidi Prozesky and Jan Botha: a bibliometric study of HER in Southern Africa, and SU

case study o Nicky Muller: the uptake of IR in UoTs, the uptake of Siyaphumelela, and the DUT

case study o Jean-Claude: the uptake of research (HER and IR) on student success (including

learning analytics), the uptake of Siyaphumelela, and UP case study o Herman Visser: the uptake of research (HER and IR) on external reporting, and the

UNISA case study o Paul Prinsloo: pragmatic and moral perspectives on the use of data in HER/IR, and

9

UNISA case study o Merridy Wilson-Strydom: the uptake of research on access (HER and IR), and UFS

case study o Other themes to be identified and allocated to team members (e.g. the uptake of QA

review reports, the uptake of institutional planning documents, etc.) 2) Conceptual and academic guidance provided by an international scholar, Dr Victor

Borden of the University of Indiana in Bloomington Victor (Vic) Mark Haifleigh Borden, Ph.D. is Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Indiana University Bloomington. He also directs the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education as well as the Project on Academic Success, both within the IU Center for Postsecondary Research. As if that isn't enough, he serves as a senior advisor to the Executive Vice President for University Academic Affairs. Dr. Borden's general area of scholarship is on the assessment of organizational performance within higher education institutions. Within this general area, he has pursued four themes: student progress and performance; organizational performance assessment and accountability; diversity and equity within higher education; and organizational learning and development as a framework for institutional research. Dr. Borden has published over 100 articles and book chapters. His professional activities include consulting and teaching workshops on accountability and improvement, program assessment, statistics, survey research, and the use of technology for assessment, decision support, and institutional analysis. He has delivered more than 190 presentations and workshops throughout the U.S. and in Europe, Africa, and Asia. Dr. Borden is an active contributor to several professional associations, most notably, the Association for Institutional Research, of which he is a Past President.

3) Inputs by experts to orientate the team (e.g. Nelius Boshoff on research uptake, Heidi Prozesky on methodology: case studies, interviews, etc.)

4) Attended by the full team (7 Lead Researchers and 7 Collaborating Researchers) and Vic Borden, the invited International Scholar (total attendance 15),

5) Hosted by SciSTIP in Stellenbosch (Seminar Facilities in Wilcocks Building, Stellenbosch University).

6) SciSTIP covers the transport and accommodation cost of all 15 participants, as well as the conference costs.

7) Date: 10-11 May 2017

6.2 Multiple Case Study 1) Studies to be conducted during June 2017-June 2018 2) Institutions in South Africa

a) UP (mature IR unit as well as a mature learning analytics unit, a reputable HER programme offered by the Faculty of Education with well-published scholars, C. Sihoole, C Herman, and others)

b) UFS (mature IR unit as well as a mature learning analytics unit, a reputable HER programme offered by the Faculty of Education with well-published scholars, M. Walker, M. Wilson-Strydom, L. Lange and others)

c) SU (mature IR unit, an reputable HER programme offered by the Faculty of Education and well-published scholars, M. Fourie-Malherbe, L. Frick, E. Bitzer and others)

d) UNISA (a mature IR and planning unit) e) Rhodes University (a mature IR unit and a reputable HE academic programme with

well published scholars, including C. Boughie, S. McKenna and others)

10

f) UCT (a mature IR unit and a reputable and well-published scholars, S. Shay, K. Luckett, J. Muller and others)

g) UWC (an established IR and QA unit, and a reputable HE academic programme with well-published scholars, P. Langa, B. Gaventa, N. Cloete, and others)

h) DUT (a mature QA and Planning department) 3) Institutions in Southern African countries outside South Africa (selection criteria to be

worked out and final selection to be made later) a) University of Botswana b) University of Namibia c) University of Zimbabwe d) Eduardo Modlane University, Mozambique e) University of Malawi

4) An institution is allocated to a team consisting of lead and collaborating researchers 5) SAAIR covers the transport and accommodation costs of the lead and collaborating

researchers.

6.3 Bibliometric study of HER in Southern Africa 1) Conducted by Heidi Prozesky and Jan Botha, with support of CREST Team 2) Preliminary study during February – May 2017 (draft report presented at

Conceptualisation Seminar on 10-11 May 2017) 3) Final report July 2017 (available when case studies at institutions commence)

6.4 Researchers’ Round Table and Authors’ Workshop 1) All team members participate 2) July 2018 3) Hosted by SciSTIP in Conference facilities of Wilcocks Building, Stellenbosch University 4) Team members present draft chapters of book (see par 6.6)

6.5 Second Drafts of Book Chapters presented as conference papers 1) Papers presented at the SAAIR Annual Conference in October 2018

6.6 Publication of a scholarly book 1) Editors: Jan Botha and Nicole Muller 2) Approach an international publisher to publish the book (e.g. Routledge or Springer) 3) Final drafts submitted to editors in November 2018 4) Editing: December 2018-March 2019 5) Submission to publisher (April 2019) 6) Launch (May 2019) 7) Pre-conference Workshop on the book and/or panel discussion at SAAIR Conference in

October 2019. 8) Other forms of dissemination

11

7. Outputs 1) Lead Seminar (May 2017) 2) Case Study Reports/Working Papers (June 2018) 3) Papers presented at national conference (SAAIR Annual Conference October 2018) 4) Book: edited volume of scholarly essays (publication during 1st semester 2019)

12

Literature

Bitzer, E. & Wilkenson, A. 2009. “HE as a field of study and research”, in E. Bitzer (ed.) HE in South Africa: A Scholarly Look Behind the Scenes. SunMedia. pp. 369-399

Borden, V.M.H. & Webber, K.L. 2015, “Institutional and educational research in HE. Common origins and diverging practices”, in K.L. Webber & A. Calderon (eds.) 2015. Institutional Research and Planning in HE. New York: Routledge. pp. 16-27.

Botha, J. & Muller, N.J. (eds.) 2016. Institutional Research in South African HE – Intersecting Contexts and Practices. Stellenbosch: SunMedia.

Brennan, J., Enders, J, Valimaa, J, Musselin, C. & Teichler, U. 2008. Higher Education Looking Forward: an agenda for future research. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation.

Bryman, A. 2012. Social Research Methods. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press.

Claasen, E and Commadeur, H. (2013). From Knowledge to Impact. Erasmus Centre for valorisation. [Online] available: https://www.eur.nl/fileadmin/ASSETS/ECV/documenten/Summary_policy_report__Making_the_Most_of_Capital_.pdf.

DFID (2016). “Research Uptake. A Guide for DFID Funded Research Programmes.” London, United Kingdom: Department for International Development. [Online] available: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/514977/Research_uptake_guidance.pdf.

Hussler, C., Fabienne, P. and MingFeng, T. (2008). In Search of Accurate Models to Valorise Academic Research: Qualitative Evidence from Three Regional Experiences Paper presented at the VI Globelics Conference. Mexico City, 22–24 September 2008. [Online] available: https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/35153/Caroline_Hussler_In_search.pdf?sequence=1

Kehm, B.M. 2015. HE as a field of study and research in Europe. European Journal of Education 50(1):60-74.

Lalljee, B. and Facknath, S. (2015). Transforming Research into Policy. Faculty of Agriculture, Mauritius. [Online] available: http://www.slideshare.net/intasave-caribsavegroup/transforming-research-into-policy.

Morton, S. (2015). Progressing research impact assessment: A ‘contributions’ approach. Research Evaluation 24(4), 405–419.

Teichler, U. 2000. “HE research and its institutional basis”, in S. Swartz & U. Teichler (eds.) The institutional basis of HE. Experiences and Perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp13-24.

13

Teichler, U. 2016. “HE Research: A consolidated field?” in N. Cloete, L. Goedegebuure, Å. Gornitzka, J. Jungblut, & B. Stensaker (eds.) 2016. Pathways through HE research. A Festschrift in honour of Peter Maassen. Oslo: Department of Education University of Oslo. pp 143-146.

Tight, M. 2012. Researching HE. Berkshire: SRHE and Open University Press.

Van Drooge, L. and De Jong, S. (2015). Valorisation: Researchers do more that they realize: E-publication with examples and guidelines for knowledge transfer. The Hague, Netherlands: Rathenau Institute.

Weingart, P. 2010. A short history of knowledge formations, in Frodemann, R., Thomson Klein, J. & Mitcham, C. (eds.). The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 3–14.

Whitley, R. 2000. The modern sciences as reputational work organizations, in R. Whitley. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Claredon Press. 1–41.

Bibliometric studies on HE Research in South Africa

Uys J. W. & Frick B. L. 2009. SAJHE reviewed. An analysis of publication trends in the South African Journal of HE (1987 - 2007). Unpublished Report. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University. [The results of this study are published in Bitzer, E. & Wilkenson, A. 2009. “HE as a field of study and research”, in E. Bitzer (ed.) HE in South Africa: A Scholarly Look Behind the Scenes. SunMedia. pp. 369-399].

Du Preez, Petro; Simmonds, Shan & Verhoef, Anné H. 2016. Rethinking and

researching transformation in HE: A meta-study of South African trends. Transformation in HE 1(1), a2. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/the.v1i1.2.

Literature on research uptake, research utilization and research evaluation

Introduction Elzinga, Aant 2012. Features of the current science policy regime: Viewed in

historical perspective. Science and Public Policy 39:416-428 Estabrooks, Carole A; Derksen, Linda; Winther, Connie; Lavis, John N; Scott,

Shannon D; Wallin, Lars; & Profetto-McGrath, Joanne. 2008. The intellectual structure and substance of the knowledge utilization field: A longitudinal author co-citation analysis, 1945 to 2004. Implementation Science 3:49. [http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/49]

Jacobson, Nora; Butterill, Dale & Goering, Paula. 2004. Organizational Factors that

Influence University-Based Researchers' Engagement in Knowledge Transfer Avtivities. Science Communication 25: 246.

14

Gunn, A & Mintrom, M. 2017 Evaluating the non-academic impact of academic research: design considerations, Journal of HE Policy and Management 39(1):20-30

Models and conceptions of research utilisation Ashley, S. R. (2009). Innovation diffusion: Implications for evaluation. In J. M.

Ottoson & P. Hawe (Eds.), Knowledge utilization, diffusion, implementation, transfer, and translation: Implications for evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation 124, 35–45.

Caplan, Nathan. 1979. The Two-Communities Theory and Knowledge Utilization.

American Behavioral Scientist. 22 (3) 459-470 Cherney, Adrian and McGee, Tara Renae. 2011. Utilization of social science

research: Results of a pilot study among Australian sociologists and criminologists. Journal of Sociology 47(2): 144–162.

Cherney, Adrian; Head, Brian: Boreham, Paul; Povey, Jenny& Ferfuson, Michele.

2013. Research Utilization in the Social Sciences: A Comparison of Five Academic Disciplines in Australia. Science Communication 35(6) 780– 809.

Landry, Re´jean; Amara, Nabil & Lamari, Moktar. 1999. Utilization of social science

research knowledge in Canada. Research Policy 30: 333–349 Van de Ven, Andrew & Johnson, Paul E. 2006. Knowledge for theory and practice.

Academy of Management Review 31(4): 802–821. Weiss, Carol. 1979. The many meanings of research utilization. Public

Administration Review 5: 426-431. Knowledge for practice Boshoff, Nelius. 2014a. Use of scientific research by South African winemakers.

Journal of Science Communication 01(2014)A01. Boshoff, Nelius. 2014b. Types of knowledge in science-based practices. Journal of

Science Communication 13(03)(2014)A06. Gabbay, John & le May, Andrée. 2014. GroupEvidence Based Guidelines Or

Collectively Constructed "Mindlines?" Ethnographic Study OfKnowledge Management In Primary Care. British Medical Journal 329 (7473) : 1013-1016.

Gagliardi, Anna R: Brouwers, Melissa C; Palda, Valerie A; Lemieux-Charles, Louise

& Grimshaw, Jeremy M. How can we improve guideline use? A conceptual framework of implementability. Implementation Science 2011, 6:26.

15

Graham, Ian D.; Logan, Jo; Harrison, Margaret B.; Straus, Sharon E; Tetroe, Jacqueline; Caswell, Wenda & Robinson, Nicole. 2006. Lost in Knowledge Translation: Time for a Map? The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 26: 13–24.

Grimshaw, Jeremy M; Eccles, Martin P; Lavis, John N; Hill, Sophie J & Squires,

Janet E. 2012. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implementation Science 2012, 7:50.

Sitas, Nadia; Reyers, Belinda; Cundill, Georgina; Prozesky, Heidi, E; Nel, Jeanne L & Esler,

Karen. 2016. Fostering collaboration for knowledge and action in disaster management in South Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19:94–102

Tetroe, Jacqueline. 2007. Knowledge Translation at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: A Primer. SEDL | National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research. F o c u s : Technical Brief no. 18|2007.

Knowledge to policy Ainuson, Kweku 2009. An advocacy coalition approach to water policy change in

Ghana: A look at belief systems and policy oriented learning. Journal of African Studies and Development 1(2): 16-27.

Bowen, Shelley & Zwi, Anthony B. 2005. Pathways to “Evidence-Informed” Policy

and Practice: A Framework for Action. PLoS Medicine July 2005 | Volume 2 | Issue 7 | e166.

Lindquist, Evert A. 2001. Discerning Policy Influence: Framework for a Strategic

Evaluation of IDRC-Supported Research. Unpublished Paper. DDRC, Ottawa. Stachowiak, Sarah. 2013. Pathways for change. Six Theories about How Policy

Change Happens. Organizational Research Services