Technical Report to IDRC Building African Capacity in Science
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Technical Report to IDRC Building African Capacity in Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators IDRC Grant Number: 104753 Period Covered: July 6, 2009 – December 31, 2011 Submitted: March 30, 2012 Submitted by: Fred Gault Managing Institution United Nations University – Maastricht Economic and Social Research and Training Centre on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT), the Netherlands Research Team Project Manager Prof. Fred Gault, UNU-MERIT and Tshwane University of Technology, Institute for Research on Innovation (TUT-IERI), Pretoria, South Africa Adjudicators/Trainers Prof. Martin Bell, Science and Technology Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex, UK. Prof. Michael Kahn, TUT-IERI, Pretoria, South Africa Prof. Mammo Muchie, holder of the Department of Science and Technology (DST) -National Research Foundation (NRF) South African Research Chairs Initiative (SARChI) Chair at TUT- IERI, Pretoria, South Africa Dr. Watu Wamae, RAND Europe, Cambridge, and the Open University, Milton Keynes, UK . Synthesis This Project exemplified learning by doing, using and interacting. It was about case study teams responding to a Call for Proposals, issued by UNU-MERIT, doing research on the topics of their choice and producing reports accepted at international conferences and published on the UNU- MERIT website. At every stage an expert team of trainers and mentors supported the members of the case study teams. The knowledge gained from the Project contributed to the thinking that led to the new Inclusive Innovation for Development (IID) Programme of IDRC and the case study team members are participating in an emerging network of scholars in Africa that is considering the creation of Africalics, an African part of Globelics. Both case study team members, and members of the training team, are expected to contribute to IID projects in the future. The IDRC supported UNU-MERIT Project, Building African Capacity in Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators. It started in July 2009 and was scheduled to end in July 2010 but was extended to December 31, 2011. During the two and a half years of the Project, the Project team of adjudicators and trainers issued a Call for Proposals to invite support for case study research into innovation activities in Mozambique, Rwanda and South Africa. Low response to the Call led to adjustments in the work plan of the project. These included the replacement of Rwanda by Senegal and a proactive search for teams that could satisfy the eligibility criteria of the Call. In the end, four case study teams were supported, one in Mozambique, one in Senegal and two in South Africa. Training planned originally for Mozambique and South Africa was consolidated into one event in South Africa in September 2010 and training for Senegal was integrated with a Design and Evaluation of Innovation Policy in a Developing Countries (DEIP) and an Economics of Knowledge and Innovation (EKI) workshop being offered by UNU-MERIT in Dakar, also in September 2010. Training included members of the four case study teams and eight graduate students supported by another IDRC grant. With four case study teams, rather than the originally planned nine, resources were available to support a workshop in March 2011 to review the reports of the teams and to make recommendations for improvement and for dissemination of the reports. The team of trainers was re-engaged to support this improvement and to facilitate the submission of papers to appropriate conferences, especially the 2011 Globelics, and to work towards the reports appearing as UNU- MERIT Working Papers. The fundamental purpose of the Project was capacity building in the teams of researchers and the raising awareness of the place of innovation indicators in public policy discussion. As the Project progressed, the sustainability of the capacity building became a priority and this has resulted in the strengthening of the networks of the researchers through conferences and access to further education. The reports, on innovation in the informal economy, in agriculture, in firms that are user innovators, and in the diffusion of telephone banking and related financial services in the Townships of South Africa have common elements of knowledge creation and different approaches to knowledge sharing that connect to global discussions. What makes the papers particularly relevant is their description of innovation activities at the grass roots level in a development context. The Project built sustainable capacity and achieved its objective. Contents _________________________________________________ Research Problem 1 Research Findings 1 Fulfilment of Objectives 4 Project Design and Implementation 6 Project Outputs and Dissemination 8 Capacity Building 10 Project management 12 Impact 12 Overall assessment 13 Recommendations 14 Appendices 17 Appendix 1: Call for Proposals 19 Appendix 2: Case Study Projects, Report Guideline, and Generic Contract 22 Appendix 3: Rwanda 26 Appendix 4: Training Workshop, September 2010 28 Appendix 5: Review Workshop, March 2011 33 Appendix 6: Additional Documents Related to this Technical Report 35 RESEARCH AND TRAINING SUPPORT TO BUILD AFRICAN CAPACITY IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION INDICATORS Research Problem The objective, stated in the Project proposal, was capacity building, the training of approximately 35 researchers, practitioners and junior- to mid-level policy makers in the use and application of science, technology and innovation (STI) indicators. The question was whether this could be accomplished through a small grants competition and a related capacity building program. The small grants competition was for support to research teams wishing to do case studies related to innovation and to comment on the potential for developing and using indicators of innovation activities coming out of their findings. The question was whether the case study teams could design a project, conduct interviews, and make a connection to possible indicators of innovation activity which could, were they produced, inform policy in developing countries. The financial support for each case study was US$ 20,000, and, in the Call, three where allocated to each of the three target countries: Mozambique; Rwanda; and South Africa. In addition training workshops of three days duration were to take place in each of the three countries. The training was expected to provide particiapants with the tools necessary to answer the following questions: what are STI indicators; why are STI indicators important to development; what kinds of indicators are relevant to developing countries; what are the strengths and weaknesses of indicators; and, how should STI indicators be used? The combination of case studies and training was expected to promote understanding of indicator development and use in the target countries, to lead to teaching materials that were accessible in developing countries, and, to provide a record of the learning by all of the participants in the Project, the researchers, trainers and administrators. Each of the case studies addressed a specific research problem. In generic form it was whether it was possible to identify and measure innovation activities in the domain of interest and to identify potential indicators which could be developed to inform public policy. Research Findings There are three levels of research findings in the Project: understanding the capacity of respondents to the Call (Appendix 1) to submit a proposal that met the eligibility criteria; understanding how to conduct a case study that had its own research objective but which had also to address the potential for the development of statistical indicators in the domain of study; and, the findings from the case studies themselves. All three levels of research findings relate to the principal objective of the Project, the building of (sustainable) capacity. PROJECT 104753 - IDRC TECHNICAL REPORT – MARCH 2012 Page 1 RESEARCH AND TRAINING SUPPORT TO BUILD AFRICAN CAPACITY IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION INDICATORS Responding to the Call The running of the small grants competition, while not intended for the purpose, became research into the capacity of potential respondents to submit a credible proposal. The research was conducted by the team of adjudicators/trainers. The adjudication process was a collective act in determining what could work and what could not work. The first finding was that there was reluctance on the part of researchers in the target countries to undertake empirical research. This was evident from the response to the Call for this Project and for the related Project (104655) which offered support to graduate students to do empirical work related to innovation as part of their doctoral studies. This may be due to a lack of capacity to formulate questions and gather information from firms or individuals, or it may reflect a view that ‘real’ research involves econometrics. These are anecdotal observations as the sample is small. The second finding, not peculiar to this Project or to developing countries, was that few of the applicants read the Call and even fewer took the time to understand the eligibility criteria. Indicators related to innovation An objective of this Project was an increase of the number of researchers who were both able and willing to do empirical research in support of indicator development and who could seek support for such activities. The finding, based on the adjudication of the responses to the Call, was that this was possible but it required mentoring as well as training. As the Project was a learning activity, the response to the finding was to shift emphasis from training to mentoring as the Project moved to completion. Three of the four responses to the Call were revised as a result of comments from the team of adjudicators to ensure that basic standards were met. Case study findings There were four case studies in three countries and they were conducted in three languages, English, French and Portuguese. The case study descriptions and the full set of findings are in the reports which are submitted separately in the document: Building African Capacity in Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators: Reports of Four Case Studies.