Browsing by Author "Boshoff, N."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Academics at three African universities on the perceived utilisation of their research
    (HESA, 2018) Boshoff, N.; Esterhuyse, H.; Wachira-Mbui, D. N.; Owoaje, E. T.; Nyandwi, T.; Mutarindwa, S.
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    South African corresponding authors on perceived beneficiaries and the nature of university research
    (HESA, 2017) Boshoff, N.
    About 2 000 corresponding authors of articles in the Web of Science (who had a South African university address) selected from a list of 22 categories the perceived beneficiaries of their research. A beneficiary was defined as an entity that is either directly affected by the research results or that has a direct interest in the outcome of the research. The objective was to classify the corresponding authors into meaningful clusters based on similarities in their responses about the perceived beneficiaries, and to construct a profile for each cluster in terms of eight measures of basic research. Eleven beneficiary clusters were identified and appropriately labelled. Three of the clusters with a combined share of 42 per cent had an almost exclusive focus on the research and academic community. Respectively 33 per cent and 59 per cent of ‘pure basic research’ and ‘oriented basic research’ projects appeared in clusters that contained beneficiaries from outside the public research and academic communities.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Valorisation : the case of the Faculty of Applied Sciences at the National University of Science and Technology, Zimbabwe
    (HESA, 2018) Ngwenya, S.; Boshoff, N.
    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.