Nelius Boshoff

South–South research collaboration of countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC)

This study investigates South–South collaboration in research, and specifically collaboration among the 15 countries of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) as well as between the SADC and the rest of Africa. It was found that only 3% of SADC papers during 2005–2008 were jointly authored by researchers from two or more SADC countries (intra-regional collaboration), and only 5% of SADC papers were jointly authored with researchers from African countries outside the SADC (continental collaboration). In contrast, 47% of SADC papers were co-authored with scientists from high-income countries. The few instances of intra-regional and continental collaboration in the SADC are largely the product of North–South collaboration. Authors from high-income countries are included in 60% of intra-regional co-authored papers and in 59% of continental co-authored papers. Moreover, between 2005 and 2008, South Africa produced 81% of all SADC papers and 78% of all intra-regional co-authored papers. This implies that there is a highly unbalanced and unequal partnership that can best be described as a variant of North–South collaboration with the scientific giant in the South taking on the role of the ‘political North’. As a consequence, guidelines for successful North–South collaborations should be extended to include South–South collaborations that comprise highly unequal partners, as is the case between South Africa and the other SADC countries.

Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa

The study examines aspects of both neo-colonial ties and neo-colonial science in research papers produced by Central African countries. The primary focus is on the extent and pattern of neo-colonial ties and other foreign participation in the co-authorship of Central African research papers. The analysis revealed that 80% of Central Africa’s research papers are produced in collaboration with a partner from outside the region. Moreover, 46% of papers are produced in collaboration with European countries as the only partner, and 35% in collaboration with past colonial rulers. The top collaborating countries are France (32%), the USA (14%), and the UK and Germany (both 12%). Foreign powers also facilitate the production of regionally and continentally co-authored papers in Central Africa, where European countries participate in 77% of regionally co-authored papers.The practice of neo-colonial science, on the other hand, features in a survey of reprint authors of Cameroonian papers. The survey investigated specific contributions made by Cameroon coauthors to the research processes underlying a paper. Cameroonian researchers contribute intellectually and conceptually to the production of research papers, irrespective of whether the collaboration involves partners from past colonial or non-colonial countries. Their most frequent role in collaborative research with foreign researchers remains the conduct of fieldwork.

How relevant are local scholarly journals in global science? A case study of South Africa

We performed a critical analysis of the South African scientific serials literature, including ‘international’ journals indexed by international bibliographical databases, such as Thomson Scientifics Web of Science and other citation indices, as well as ‘local’ journals that are processed for these sources. A ‘composite extended journal impact factor’ was applied in order to compute robust measures of international citation impact that can cope with the small numbers of citations within the international research literature to local journals. Statistical analyses of publication output and citation impact of some 200+ South African journals indicate that the vast majority of local journals are indeed virtually invisible within the global science arena. The outcomes of this novel approach raise important issues about criteria for selecting the most appropriate sets of journals for journal-based research funding formulas, quality assurance systems, and evaluations of research performance. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Research collaboration in Ghana: patterns, motives and roles

This study had three objectives: to examine patterns of research collaboration in Ghana, to study reasons why Ghanaian-affiliated researchers collaborate with others (both inside and outside Ghana), and to determine the roles of Ghanaian-affiliated researchers in collaborations. The methodology comprised a bibliometric analysis of articles in the Web of Science for the years 1990 to 2013, and an online survey of 190 Ghanaian-affiliated corresponding authors of articles. Collaboration increased from 73% in 1990–1997 to 93% in 2006–2013, and international collaboration from 49 to 73% over the same time. The public university and government sectors, together with the three most research-productive organisations in each sector, were found to be highly dependent on collaboration for research production. The online survey revealed that collaboration with researchers in three regions (within Ghana, within the rest of Africa, and outside Africa) was to a large extent initiated by existing personal/working relationships. Access to expertise and enhanced productivity were the main reasons why Ghanaian-affiliated researchers collaborated with others in these three regions. Collaborators within Ghana were largely involved in the collection of data or fieldwork. Collaborators from outside Africa played instrumental roles in providing resources and securing research funds.

Normative versus Actual Methodologies in Planning Research: A Hybrid Picture

What methodologies do we write about, and what type of research do we actually conduct and build upon in planning? Since the 1980s, planners have argued for more qualitative research within an interpretative paradigm. A content analysis of articles in Journal of Planning Education and Research do show a majority of qualitative studies, but cast within a pragmatic rather than an interpretative paradigm. More recently, planners have reiterated the need for qualitative research, especially participatory and applied forms of research within a critical social science paradigm. Some recommendations for planning education and research are discussed.

Types of knowledge in science-based practices

CITATION: Boshoff, N. 2014. Types of knowledge in science-based practices. Journal of Science Communication, 13(3):A06.

Use of scientific research by South African winemakers

CITATION: Boshoff, N. 2014. Use of scientific research by South African winemakers. Journal of Science Communication, 13(1):A01.

Valorisation : the case of the Faculty of Applied Sciences at the National University of Science and Technology, Zimbabwe

Valorisation is a process that adds value to academic knowledge. It comprises all activities pertaining to the dissemination and exploitation of such knowledge for social and economic benefit. A 4D valorisation map was generated for the National University of Science and Technology (NUST) in Zimbabwe, and specifically for the Faculty of Applied Sciences. The first three dimensions of the map are constants: actor (university), level of aggregation (faculty) and discipline (applied sciences). Quantitative and qualitative indicators were presented in the fourth dimension (stage), using three data sources: semi-structured interviews, Scopus publications and university documents. Results were organised according to the six stages of the fourth dimension: formulation of mission and policy (stage 1), agenda setting (stage 2), execution of research (stage 3), dissemination of results (stage 4), uptake and use of research (stage 5) and other interaction throughout the entire process (stage 6). The resultant valorisation map for NUST incorporated more qualitative (and often anecdotal) evidence than quantitative evidence. The university should keep records of dissemination and engagement activities for future mapping exercises.

Academics at three African universities on the perceived utilisation of their research

This article contributes to emerging knowledge on the utilisation of university research in sub-Saharan Africa. A survey was conducted comprising 463 academics at three African universities: the University of Ibadan (Nigeria), the University of Nairobi (Kenya) and the University of Rwanda. The study investigated the agreement between two measures of research utilisation and highlighted the types of research interactions associated with instances of perceived research utilisation, whilst taking into account the different categories of intended beneficiaries. The first measure, a single question, required the respondents to indicate to what extent the stated intended beneficiaries had utilised the research as planned. The second measure operationalised a stage model of research utilisation. Responses at the ‘upper end’ of both measures were labelled ‘true’ research utilisation. A percentage reduction in utilisation was observed when cross-tabulating the two measures – from 48 per cent who believed that research utilisation occurred to some extent (upper end of first measure), to 35 per cent who held the same opinion and who obtained above-average scores on the stage model of utilisation (upper end of second measure). For the subgroup at the upper end of both measures, the larger share of cases (54%) exemplified the instrumental utilisation of research. This subgroup was found to be involved in traditional academic research practices and participated in a number of outreach activities targeting non-academic audiences.

Scopus or Web of Science for a bibliometric profile of pharmacy research at a Nigerian University

Previous comparisons between Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) paid little attention to universities in African countries. This study investigated the effect of using different data sources on the bibliometric profile of Obafemi Awolowo University in Nigeria, focusing on the Faculty of Pharmacy for the period 1990-2013. In addition to data from Scopus and WoS, the analysis included articles from the curriculum vitae (CVs) of the faculty staff. The combined dataset (Scopus, WoS and CV data) provided answers to the central question: What differences can be observed in the bibliometric profile of research when comparing the Scopus and WoS output to the total article output? Although Scopus and WoS differed in size, the results of each showed a similar pattern. Notable differences were found with regard to indicators of research collaboration. WoS in particular appeared to be biased towards international collaboration. Additional sources of articles (beyond WoS and Scopus) are required to assess adequately research performance at faculty level for a university in a developing country. The quality aspect of those additional sources cannot be ignored.