1 high level knowledge production: analyses of inputs and outputs uct strategy forum 23 march 2012

1

HIGH LEVEL KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION:

ANALYSES OF INPUTS AND OUTPUTS

UCT Strategy Forum

23 March 2012

2

INTRODUCTION

1 In its annual surveys of research and experimental development in SA, the HSRC follows the OECD in identifying these as higher education’s key inputs and outputs:

Inputs: doctoral enrolments and academic staffOutputs: research publications and doctoral graduates

2 This presentation falls into three parts:

• a discussion of these inputs and outputs at a national level;

• a discussion of the research incentives built into the current government funding framework;

• a brief account of institutional differentiation, using UCT as an example.

3

PART I: OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL INPUTS & OUTPUTS

SUMMARY OF HIGH LEVEL INPUTS & OUTPUTSGraph 1: National totals of high level knowledge inputs & outputs: 1996-2010Graph 2: Average annual increases in high level knowledge inputs & outputs

DOCTORAL ENROLMENTSGraph 3: % of doctoral enrolments in each broad field of studies Graph 4: Doctoral enrolments by genderGraph 5: Doctoral enrolments by race group

DOCTORAL GRADUATE EFFICIENCYGraph 6: Doctoral graduation rates & cohort output equivalentsGraph 7: Progress of the HE system's 2001 cohort of new doctoral studentsGraph 8: Graduates and dropouts from combined 2001, 2002, 2003 intakes of new

doctoral studentsGraph 9: Comparisons of actual totals of doctoral graduates and normative totals on

National Plan target ratio: 2000-2010

ACADEMIC STAFFGraph 10: Total permanent academic staff: 1996-2010 Graph 11: % of academic staff with doctorates by institutional categoryGraph 12: Research publications per permanent academic by institutional category

4

SUMMARY OF HIGH LEVEL INPUTS & OUTPUTS

3 Graph 1 offers summaries for the 15-year period 1996-2010. Doctoral enrolments were 1.3% of national total of 893 000 students in 2010.

Graph 1: National totals of high level knowledge inputs & outputs: 1996-2010

77638790

9800 9939

11468

685 761 961 969 1104 1100 1182 1421

6483 66608003 8353

9748

13449 1309814184 14673

15423 15809 1593616684

63945528

51645936

5456

5622

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Doctoral enrolments Doctoral graduates Research publications Permanent academics

5

Graph 2: average annual increases in high level knowledge inputs & outputs

7.0%

4.5%

5.9%6.0%

4.3%

5.4%

2.4%

6.6%

4.0%

1.5% 1.3% 1.6%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

1996-2002 2004-2010 1996-2010

Doctoral enrolments Doctoral graduates Research publications Permanent academics

4 Graph 2 divides growth rates between (a) 1996 and 2002, which covered the period of the 1997 HE White Paper and the 2001 National Plans, and (b) 2004-2010 which covered the implementation of the new 2003 funding framework.

6

DOCTORAL ENROLMENTS

5 Next three graphs offer further information on national doctoral enrolments

Graph 3: % of doctoral enrolments in each broad field of studies

45% 45%50%

44% 43%45%

47% 49%

3% 3% 3%6% 7% 6% 7%

11% 10% 10% 10% 11% 11% 10%

41% 42%37%

40% 40% 38% 36%33%

8%

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Science and technology Business & management Education Humanities

7

Graph 4: doctoral enrolments by gender

34% 36% 38% 36%40% 42% 43% 42%

66% 64% 62% 64%60% 58% 57% 58%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Female Male

6 Graph 5 on the next slide shows how the race group composition of doctoral enrolments has changed over 1996-2012. Some of the change results from the recruitment of international students.

8

Graph 5: doctoral enrolments by race group

1053

1610

2239

2933

35834022

197 256 327 419 529 585

4020 3875 3993

44864861 4819

683

5066

575 681264 344 464 619 768 813 774 868

45684853

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

African Coloured Indian White

7 In 2010 2840 (or 56%) of the African total consisted of African students from other African countries.

9

DOCTORAL GRADUATE EFFICIENCY

8 Graph 6 offers a first picture of the doctoral output efficiency of SA’s universities, based on the output ratios of the 2001 National Plan. The National Plan set this as an output norm:

The ratio between doctoral graduates in any given year and doctoral enrolments in that same year should = 20%. So if 10 000 doctoral students were enrolled in the HE system in year X, then at least 200 of these students should graduate in year X.

9 This norm was based on a further target norm that at least 75% of any cohort of students entering doctoral studies for the first time in (say) year Y, should eventually graduate. If the cohort output norm is to be achieved, then the 20% ratio of total graduates to total enrolments would have to be met over a period of time.

10 Graph 6 shows that, as far as doctoral outputs are concerned, the public HE system has failed to meet the National Plan’s efficiency targets. The graph suggests that less than 50% of students who entered doctoral programmes in SA between 2000 and 2010 will eventually graduate.

10

11 The tracking over time of cohorts of new doctoral students confirms that a 50% graduation rate is what can be expected in SA. Graph 7 summarises the progress of the 2001 intake of 1722 new doctoral students: 925 have graduated and 797 dropped out.

Graph 6: doctoral graduation rates & cohort output equivalents

14% 12% 12%

20%

52%

45% 45%

75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1998-2002 2002-2006 2006-2010 National target

Ratio of graduates to enrolments Cohort graduation equivalent

11

Graph 7: progress of the HE system's 2001 cohort of new doctoral students

29%

10%7%

46%

54%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Dropped out:years 1 or 2

Dropped out:years 3 to 5

Dropped out:years 6 or 7

Total drop-outs % of originalcohort

graduating

12

Graph 8: graduates and dropouts from combined 2001, 2002, 2003 intakes of new doctoral students

2117

274

555

3040

5986

1257

144

301

1517

32192767 (46%)

1523 (50%)

254 (46%)

130 (47%)

860 (41%)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

African

Coloured

Indian

White

TOTAL

New intake total Dropped out Graduated

12 Graph 8 summarises the final status of the new doctoral students enrolling in either 2001 or 2002 or 2003.

13

13 Graph 8 offers estimates of the effects of output inefficiencies in SA’s doctoral programmes.

Graph 9: comparisons of actual totals of doctoral graduates and normative totals on National Plan target ratio: 2000-2010

12522

19995

-7473-10000

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Actual graduatesproduced

National Plan target Shortfall

14

ACADEMIC STAFF

14 Academic staff with doctoral degrees are a key input for high level knowledge production. Permanent academic staff in this category should be the major producers of research outputs, and the main supervisors of doctoral students. Graph 10 shows how the totals of permanent academic staff with doctoral degrees changed over the period 1996 - 2010.

Graph 10: total permanent academic staff: 1996-2010

4647 4658 4561 4572 44855146 5403 5957

13449 1309814184 14673

15423 15809 1593616684

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Doctorate as highest qualification Total permanent

15

15 Graph 11 divides public HE institutions into the 3 categories used for national planning purposes, and sub-divides the 11 universities into a group of 6 which produces 60% of the HE system’s total high level knowledge products and the remaining 5 [The differentiation analysis in Part III splits these groups into three clusters based on a wider range of indicators]:

High productive universities: UCT, UKZN, Pretoria, Rhodes, Stellenbosch, Wits;

Oher universities: Fort Hare, Free State, Limpopo, North West, UWC

Comprehensive universities: Johannesburg, NMMU, Unisa, Venda, WSU, Zululand

Universities of technology: Cape Peninsula, Central, Durban, Mangosuthu, Tshwane, Vaal, DUT

16 Graph 12 relates research publications to total academic staff and to academic staff with doctorates. It shows what the ratios were between total research publications (see Graph 1) and (a) total permanent academics and (b) academics with doctorates. The years selected are 2004 (1st year of the new funding framework), and (b) 2010 (latest available data).

16

Graph 11: % of academic staff with doctorates by institutional category

45%41%

40%

44% 44%

48%

36% 36% 35%38%

40%

29% 29% 28% 29%28%

5%7% 8%

10%13%

15%

37%

28%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

High productive universities Other universities

Comprehenives Universities of technology

17

Additional graph A: distribution of permanent academic staff by rank: 2010

38%

16%

23%

30%

17%

34% 32%

28%25%

18%

25%

28%

25% 26% 27%

34%

59% 59%

50%

41%

58%

40% 41%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

UCT FORT HARE UKZN NMMU NWU TUT UWC WITS

Professors + assoc professors Senior lecturers Lecturers + junior lecturers

18

Additional graph B: proportions of academic staff with doctorates by rank: 2010

81% 83% 82%77%

92%

62%

91%84%

14%9%

3%

62%

33%40% 38%

49%

19%

49%53%

28%

58%49%

61%

49%59%

44%

66%

27%

13%13%17%

36%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

UCT FORT HARE UKZN NMMU NWU TUT UWC WITS

Professors + assoc professors Senior lecturers Lecturers + junior lecturers Total permanent academics

19

Graph 12: research publications per permanent academic by institutional category

1.83

0.73

1.95

0.93

1.21

0.33

1.15

0.46

1.06

0.30

1.61

0.44

0.80

0.07

1.10

0.17

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

With doct

All acads

With doct

All acads

2004

2010


Comprehensives Universities of technology

20

PART II: GOVERNMENT RESEARCH FUNDING

RESEARCH FUNDING INCENTIVESGraph 13: Subsidised research outputs of the public higher education system: 2000 -

2010Graph 14: Government research funding allocations by output category and financial

year: Rands millionsGraph 15: Estimates of Rand values of research output units: Rands thousands

INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND RESEARCH OUTPUTS Graph 16: Government research output funding by institutional category: Rands millionsGraph 17: Total government research output funding per permanent academic: Rands

thousands

INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES TO DOCTORAL INCENTIVESGraph 18: Doctoral graduate funding by institutional category: Rands millionsGraph 19: Doctoral & publication output funding per permanent academic in 2011/12:

Rands thousands

21

RESEARCH FUNDING INCENTIVES

17 Government’s funding incentives for research outputs are complex because of the two-year time lag between the completing of an output and the receipt of a funding allocation, the weightings applied to research outputs, and the way in which the research output budget is determined:

(a) The output funding for the 2004/5 financial year was based on the outputs for 2002, and the 2004 outputs (the first actually generated under the new framework) would have received research funding only in the 2006/7.

(b) Doctoral graduates are given a weighting of 3, research publications a weighting of 1, and research masters graduates (which included in the calculations) also a weighting of 1.

(c) The annual government budget for research outputs is determined as a % of the total government budget for public higher education, and is not generated by actual research outputs. So the starting point for the division of output funds for 2004/5 was a provision of R845 million, for 2006/7 a provision of R1 237 million, and for 2011/12 a provision of R2 225 million.

22

18 The totals in Graph 13 below and the budget allocations can be used to calculate (a) what research funding was generated by each research output category, and (b) a Rand value for each output unit for a given financial year. These data can be seen in Graph 14 and Graph 15 which follow on the next two slides.

Graph 13: subsidised research outputs of the public higher education system: 2000 - 2010

9748

4647

80748086

6660

5602 5476

372338573421

31812728

1421118211001104969961

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Publication units Research masters graduates Doctoral graduates

23

Graph 14: government research funding allocations by output category and financial year: Rands millions

1225

845 9191024

1237 1245

1540

1837

2225

1048

796

652596474 505489

461414379

310343265228192

539

3753652822982532021790

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

Publications units Research masters grads Doctoral graduates TOTAL

24

Graph 15: estimates of Rand values of research output units (Rands thousands)

191

251286

393

134

10282

87 110110

91

660

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2005/06 2007/08 2009/10 2011/12

Per publication unit Per research masters graduate Per doctoral graduate

25

19 The high Rand value of each doctoral graduate is a consequence of the weighting of 3. The growth data in Graph 2 suggest however that this financial incentive has not yet affected doctoral graduate growth, which was 3.5% pa between 2000 & 2004, and 3.6% pa between 2005 and 2010.

20 There are likely to be a number of reasons why doctoral graduate totals have not yet responded to the output funding incentives introduced for the first time in the 2004/5 financial year. One explanation is that doctoral processes in SA have been characterised by the high levels of inefficiency of the kind highlighted in Graphs 6 to 9.

21 A further explanation that only a few universities have had the capacity to benefit from the introduction of government research output incentives. This will be discussed in the slides and paragraphs which follow.

26

INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND RESEARCH OUTPUTS

22 This subsection uses government research funding allocations as proxies for an institutional capacity to undertake high level knowledge production activities. The groups will be the government planning categories used earlier in this presentation:

High productive universities: UCT, UKZN, Pretoria, Rhodes, Stellenbosch, Wits;

Oher universities : Fort Hare, Free State, Limpopo, North West, UWC

Comprehensive universities : Johannesburg, NMMU, Unisa, Venda, WSU, Zululand

Universities of technology : Cape Peninsula, Central, Durban, Mangosuthu, Tshwane, Vaal, DUT

23 Graph 16 shows that the research outputs of the six high productive universities generated R1 365 million in government funding in 2011/12. This amount was 63% of the research output total available in 2011/12.

27

Graph 16: government research output funding by institutional category: Rands millions

561

785

955

36 51

1365 (63%)

419 (19%)288

203162

300 (14%)249

188

16069 (3%)20

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2005/06 2007/08 2009/10 2011/12



28

24 The different research output funding levels reflected in Graph 16 can be related directly to the capacity of the academic staff in these groupings. For example, the group of 6 high productive universities has 38% of the total academic staff in the HE system, and generates over 60% of research output funding, and the remaining 5 universities have 20% of academic staff and 19% of research output grants. Comprehensive universities have a 24% share of academic staff and a 14% share of research output grants. Universities of technology have a 17% share of academic staff and a 3% share of research output funding.

25 Graph 17 shows in a slightly different way how government output funding can be related to staff capacity. The graph shows that in 2011/12 the high productive universities generated R290 000 in government research funds per permanent academic, compared to R130 000 for other universities, R66 000 for comprehensives, and R25 000 per permanent academic for universities of technology.

29

Graph 17: total government research output funding per permanent academic (Rands thousands)

135

192215

290

58 6894

130

39 4660 66

8 13 19 250

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2005/06 2007/08 2009/10 2011/12



30

INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES TO DOCTORAL INCENTIVES

26 A pattern similar to that in Graph 17 emerges when the research output funds generated by doctoral graduates are related to institutional categories. These amounts appear in Graph 18 below.

Graph 18: doctoral graduate funding by institutional category: Rands millions

113

183216

4143

2 8 9

322 (60%)

7750

117 (22%)

6653

84 (16%)

15 (3%)0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2005/06 2007/08 2009/10 2011/12

High productive universities Other universities Comprehensives Universities of technology

31

27 Graph 19 relates doctoral graduate funding to permanent academic staff, but also compares this doctoral funding to research publication funding per permanent academic. The research output funds generated by research masters graduates have not been included. 28 The graph shows that in 2011/12 universities in the high productive group generated R82 000 in doctoral funding per permanent academic, and R126 000 in research publications. Similar wide differences can be seen in the other three institutional categories.

29 These lower amounts generated by doctoral graduates could be related to both institutional inefficiencies, but also to the incentives employed by institutions. Some institutions distribute publication output funds to authors, but few (if any) distribute doctoral graduate funds to supervisors. Academic staff members are therefore likely to gain more direct personal benefits from research publications than from doctoral graduates.

32

Graph 19 doctoral & publication output funding per permanent academic in 2011/12: Rands thousands

82

42

5 5

126

61

40

11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

High productiveuniversities

Other universities Comprehensives Universities oftechnology

Doctorates Publications

33

PART III: UCT & INSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENTIATION

ACADEMIC CORE AS BASIS FOR DIFFERENTIATIONGraph 20: Clustering universities on high level knowledge inputs and outputsTable 1: High level knowledge clustersTable 2: Elements defining the high level academic core of universitiesTable 3: High level knowledge inputs and outputs in the academic core

DOCTORAL ENTRANTS OF 2002 AND 2003: SUMMARY OF PROGRESSGraph 21 UCT: graduates & drop outs from 2002 + 2003 intakes of new doctoral

studentsGraph 22 UCT: summary of drop outs from 2002 & 2003 cohorts of new doctoral

studentsGraph 23 UCT: summary of graduates from 2002 & 2003 cohorts of new doctoral

students

34

ACADEMIC CORES AS BASIS FOR DIFFERENTIATION

30 CHET has used sets of high level knowledge indicators, which form their academic cores, to place SA’s 23 universities into three distinct clusters. The universities which appear in these clusters are listed on the next slide.

Graph 20: clustering universities on high level knowledge inputs and outputs

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Mastersenrol %

Doctorsenrol %

Staff PhD % Ratio PhDenrol to

Staff

M grad rate PhD gradrate

Ratio Phdgrad to staff

Publicationoutput

CLUSTER 1

CLUSTER 3

CLUSTER 2

35

Table 1: high level knowledge clusters

Cluster 1: top level

producers

Cluster 2: medium level producers

Cluster 3: low level producers

Cape TownRhodes StellenboschWitwatersrand

Fort HareFree StateJohannesburgKwaZulu-NatalNelson Mandela North West PretoriaUnisaUWCZululand

Cape Peninsula UoTCentral UoTDurban UoTLimpopoMangosuthu UoTVenda Vaal UoTWalter Sisulu

31 The universities in the three high level knowledge clusters are set out in the table below. The clusters differ from the groupings used earlier in the presentation:

• UKZN and Pretoria are not included in Cluster 1 the top producer category

• Cluster 2 consists of a mix of 6 universities and 4 comprehensives

• Cluster 3 contains 1 university, 1 comprehensive and 6 universities of technology

36

32 CHET has defined the academic core of a university as (a) the set of inputs which it requires to support its teaching and research activities, and (b) as the set of outputs which it produces on the basis of these inputs. Table 2 on the next slide deals with a specific aspect of the academic core of universities: the inputs and outputs required for high level knowledge production.

33 The indicators in Table 2 differ slightly from those used for the cluster analysis in Graph 20. Table 2 combines masters and doctoral enrolments into a single indicator, and adds an additional input indicator. This is research funding available per permanent academic staff member.

34 Table 3 (on the slide following Table 2) sets out the academic core indicator values for all 23 universities.

35 Table 3 shows that UCT falls below one of the academic core input targets and one of the output targets. These relate to doctoral enrolment and graduation rates.

39

DOCTORAL ENTRANTS OF 2002 AND 2003: SUMMARY OF PROGRESS

Graph 21 UCT: graduates & drop outs from 2002 + 2003 intakes of new doctoral students

191

5 7

84

287

66

4 2

35

107

180(63%)

49 (58%)

5(71%)

125 (65%)

1(20%)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

SET BUS ED HUM TOTAL

Total new intake Drop outs Graduates

36 Graphs 21 – 23 use UCT’s doctoral entering cohorts of 2002 and 2003 to illustrate some aspects of its doctoral throughput rates.

40

Graph 22 UCT: summary of drop outs from 2002 & 2003 cohorts of new doctoral students

9%6%

8%

2%

10%

35%

26%

5%7%

0%

4%

42%

14%

6%9%

1%

8%

37%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Dropped year 1 Dropped year 2 Dropped years 3 - 4

Dropped year 5 Dropped afteryear 5

Total drop outs

SET HUM AVERAGE

41

Graph 23 UCT: summary of graduates from 2002 & 2003 cohorts of new doctoral students

10%

26%

15% 14%

1%

65%

11%

18%15%

13%

1%

58%

10%

23%

15% 14%

1%

63%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Graduated years1-3

Graduated year4

Graduated year5

Graduated years6-7

Graduated afteryear 7

Total graduates

SET HUM AVERAGE

42

CONCLUDING NOTES TO PARTS I & II & III

43

37 The higher education system’s high level knowledge outputs are doctoral graduates, research masters graduates, and research publication. These increased over the period 2000 to 2010, but differences appeared after the introduction of a new government funding framework in 2004. Doctoral graduates grew at a lower rate than the other two categories between 2005 and 2010, probably because of the incentives in the government funding framework and the limited academic staff capacity in many universities.

38 SA’s problems with academic staff capacity are particularly evident in the low number and % of academics with doctoral degrees. In 2010 only 6 000 of the total of 16 700 permanent academics had doctoral degrees, and this group must have carried primary responsibility for the 12 000 doctoral students enrolled in the higher education system in 2010. The ratio of 2 doctoral enrolments per permanent academic with a doctoral degree is probably an appropriate norm.

44

39 Institutional reactions to government funding of research outputs tends to favour publications rather than doctoral graduates. There do not appear to be strong incentives for academic staff to focus on doctoral supervision rather than the production of research articles.

40 The academic core analyses have shown that UCT is in the top cluster of 4 high level knowledge producers. UCT fell short of the core targets only in respect of the doctoral student to academic staff ratio, and the graduation rate of doctoral students. The other three universities were well below target in these areas:

• Stellenbosch: masters graduate throughputs, doctoral graduate throughputs;

• Wits: masters graduate throughputs, doctoral graduate throughputs; ratio of doctoral graduates to academic staff ;

• Rhodes: ratio of doctoral enrolments to academic staff, doctoral graduate throughputs; ratio of doctoral graduates to academic staff.

1 high level knowledge production: analyses of inputs and outputs uct strategy forum 23 march 2012

Documents