Skip to main content

Producing Knowledge to Raise Rural Living Standards: How Universities Connect with Resource-Poor Municipalities in South Africa

The European Journal of Development Research volume 31, pages 881–901 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

This article explores the extent to which South African universities partake in science and innovations designed to raise the living standards of poor rural residents. It concentrates on how well universities have fulfilled their knowledge-production for societal benefit missions in practice, through a comparison of the performance of universities across three relevant initiatives. It contributes to the existing research by showcasing how user-oriented innovation value chains operate and the crucial roles of stakeholders along such chains to optimise benefits for people in resource-poor rural municipalities. Our findings suggest that the science-for-society value chain is non-linear, rather than a straight line as presumed by much of the existing research. As the government department leading South Africa’s innovation policy, the Department of Science and Technology has been instrumental in fostering a user-oriented mission among knowledge producers.

Résumé

Cet article examine dans quelle mesure les universités sud-africaines participent à la science et aux innovations conçues pour améliorer le niveau de vie des résidents ruraux pauvres. Il se focalise sur la manière dont les universités ont concrètement rempli leur mission de production de connaissances pour le bénéfice de la société, en comparant les performances des universités sur trois initiatives pertinentes. Nous contribuons aux recherches existantes en mettant en lumière le mode de fonctionnement des chaînes de valeur des innovation orientées vers les utilisateurs ainsi que le rôle crucial des parties prenantes tout au long de ces chaînes pour optimiser les avantages de ces innovations pour les habitants des municipalités rurales disposant de peu de ressources. Nos résultats suggèrent que la chaîne de valeur de la science pour la société est non linéaire, contrairement aux affirmations d’une grande partie de la recherche existante qui la présume linéaire. En tant que ministère responsable de la politique d’innovation de l’Afrique du Sud, le Département de la Science et de la Technologie a joué un rôle déterminant dans la promotion d’une mission axée sur les utilisateurs parmi les producteurs de connaissances.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    As a key stakeholder in RIAT, the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs advised on the selection of district and local municipalities for piloting RIAT. Universities compiled socio-economic profiles to obtain an objective picture for comparison of municipalities in terms of rurality, main economic sectors and living standards indicators. The country has 27 resource-poor district municipalities according to the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform.

References

  1. Albert, M., and W. McGuire. 2014. Understanding change in knowledge production in a neoliberal era. Political Power and Social Theory 27: 33–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ankrah, S.N., T.F. Burgess, P. Grimshaw, and N.E. Shaw. 2013. Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: What single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation 33 (2–3): 50–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Almirall, S. 2008. Living Labs and open innovation: roles and applicability. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks 10: 21–44.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Benneworth, P. (ed.). 2013. University engagement with socially excluded communities. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bloch, C., and M.P. Sørensen. 2015. The size of research funding: Trends and implications. Science and Public Policy 42: 30–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bornmann, L. 2013. What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64: 217–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ca, T.N. 2009. Reaching out to society: Vietnamese universities in transition. Science and Public Policy 36: 91–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Charles, D. 2016. The rural university campus and support for rural innovation. Science and Public Policy 43: 763–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Coetzee, H., I.-M. du Toit, and M. Herselman. 2012. Living labs in South Africa: An analysis based on five case studies. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks 14: 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dagnino, R. 2012. Why science and technology capacity building for social development? Science and Public Policy 39: 548–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. de Jong, S., K. Barker, D. Cox, T. Sveinsdottir, and P. Van den Besselaar. 2014. Understanding societal impact through productive interactions: ICT research as a case. Research Evaluation 23: 89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Etzkowitz, H., A. Webster, C. Gebhardt, and B.R.C. Terra. 2000. The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29: 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Etzkowitz, H., J.M.C. de Mello, and M. Almeida. 2005. Towards “meta-innovation” in Brazil: The evolution of the incubator and the emergence of a triple helix. Research Policy 34: 411–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gillespie, A., and M.R. Michelson. 2011. Participant observation and the political scientist: Possibilities, priorities, and practicalities. PS Political Science and Politics 44: 261–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Godin, B., and J.P. Lane. 2013. Pushes and pulls: Hi(S)tory of the demand pull model of innovation. Science, Technology and Human Values 38: 621–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Humphrey, L. 2013. University–community engagement: Dislocation of theory and practice. In University engagement with socially excluded communities, ed. P. Benneworth, 103–124. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson, J.C., C. Avenarius, and J. Weatherford. 2006. The active participant-observer: Applying social role analysis to participant observation. Field Methods 18: 111–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Khazragui, H., and J. Hudson. 2015. Measuring the benefits of university research: Impact and the REF in the UK. Research Evaluation 24: 51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. King, G., J. Pan, and M.E. Roberts. 2014. Reverse-engineering censorship in China: Randomized experimentation and participant observation. Science 345: 891–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kruss, G., C. Diwu, B. Nyoka, R. Ranchod, and A. Manamela. 2013. A review of the community-university partnership programme (CUPP). Pretoria: HSRC.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kruss, G. 2012. Reconceptualising engagement: A conceptual framework for analysing university interaction with external social partners. South African Review Of Sociology 43 (2): 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kruss, G., and M. Visser. 2017. Putting university–industry interaction into perspective: A differentiated view from inside South African universities. Journal of Technology Transfer 42: 884–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lacy, W., and L. Glenna. 2006. Democratizing science in an era of expert and private knowledge. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society 1: 37–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lahsen, M. 2016. Toward a sustainable future earth: Challenges for a research agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values 41 (5): 876–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Leydesdorff, L., and I. Ivanova. 2016. “Open innovation” and “triple helix” models of innovation: can synergy in innovation systems be measured? Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 2 (1): 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Leydesdorff, L. 2012. The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix…, and an N-tuple of Helices: explanatory models for analysing the knowledge-based economy. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3 (1): 25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Leydesdorff, L., and H. Etzkowitz. 1998. The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy 25 (3): 195–203.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lundvall, B. Å. 2008. Innovation and competence building in the learning economy: Implications for innovation policy. Unpublished paper.

  29. Martin, B. 2006. Strategies for alternative science. In The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power, ed. Scott Frickel and Kelly Moore, 272–298. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Moore, K. 2006. Powered by the people: Scientific authority in participatory science. In The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power, ed. Scott Frickel and Kelly Moore, 299–323. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mtawa, N.N., S.N. Fongwa, and G. Wangenge-Ouma. 2016. The scholarship of university-community engagement: Interrogating Boyer’s model. International Journal of Educational Development 49: 126–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Musante (DeWalt), K. 2015. Participatory Observation. In Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, 2nd ed, ed. H.R. Bernard and C.C. Gravlee, 251–292. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Nakwa, K., and G. Zawdie. 2016. The ‘third mission’ and ‘triple helix mission’ of universities as evolutionary processes in the development of the network of knowledge production: Reflections on SME experiences in Thailand. Science & Public Policy 43 (5): 622–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Perez Vico, E., H. Hellsmark, and M. Jacob. 2015. Enacting knowledge exchange: a context dependent and ‘role-based’ typology for capturing utility from university research. Prometheus 33: 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Petersen, I.H., G. Kruss, M. Gastrow, and P.C. Nalivata. 2016. Innovation capacity-building and inclusive development in informal settings: A comparative analysis of two interactive learning spaces in South Africa and Malawi. Journal of International Development 28: 1099–1328.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Roberts, M.R. 2009. Realizing societal benefit from academic research: Analysis of the National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Criterion. Social Epistemology 23 (3–4): 199–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sandy, M., and B.A. Holland. 2006. Different worlds and common ground: Community partner perspectives on campus-community partnerships. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 13 (1): 30–43.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Shapira, P., and J. Youtie. 2010. The innovation system and innovation policy in the United States. In Competing for global innovation leadership: Innovation systems and policies in the USA, EU and Asia, ed. Rainer Frietsch and Margot Schüller, 5–29. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Shinn, T. 2002. The triple helix and new production of knowledge: pre-packaged thinking on science and technology. Social Studies of Science 32 (4): 599–614.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Smirnova, Y.V. 2016. University–industry knowledge transfer in an emerging economy: Evidence from Kazakhstan. Science and Public Policy 43: 702–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Smith, S., V. Warda, and A. House. 2011. ‘Impact’ in the proposals for the UK’s Research Excellence Framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy. Research Policy 40: 1369–1379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Trencher, G., M. Yarime, K.B. McCormick, C.H. Doll, and S.B. Kraines. 2014. Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Science & Public Policy 41 (2): 151–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Theodorakopoulos, N., D.J. Sánchez Preciado, and D. Bennett. 2012. Transferring technology from university to rural industry within a developing economy context: The case for nurturing communities of practice. Technovation 32 (9–10): 550–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Turnhout, E.M., J. Stuiver, B.Harms Klostermann, and C. Leeuwis. 2013. New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Science and Public Policy 40: 354–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Uyarra, E. 2010. Conceptualizing the regional roles of universities, implications and contradictions. European Planning Studies 18 (8): 1227–1246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Vorley, T., and J. Nelles. 2008. (Re)Conceptualising the academy: Institutional development of and beyond the third mission. Higher Education Management & Policy 20 (3): 119–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wolf, S. 2006. Commercial restructuring of collective resources in agrofood systems of innovation. In The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power, ed. Scott Frickel and Kelly Moore, 91–121. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Zavale, N.C., and E. Macamo. 2016. How and what knowledge do universities and academics transfer to industry in African low-income countries? Evidence from the stage of university-industry linkages in Mozambique. International Journal of Educational Development 49: 247–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Economic Performance and Development, Human Sciences Research Council, Merchant House, 116-118 Buitengracht Street, Cape Town, South Africa

    Peter T. Jacobs & Alexis Habiyaremye

  2. Economic Performance and Development, Human Sciences Research Council, 134 Pretorius Street, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa

    Bhekiwe Fakudze, Kgabo Ramoroka & Siyanda Jonas

Authors
  1. Peter T. Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexis Habiyaremye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bhekiwe Fakudze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kgabo Ramoroka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Siyanda Jonas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter T. Jacobs.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jacobs, P.T., Habiyaremye, A., Fakudze, B. et al. Producing Knowledge to Raise Rural Living Standards: How Universities Connect with Resource-Poor Municipalities in South Africa. Eur J Dev Res 31, 881–901 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-019-0192-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Innovation
  • Universities
  • Co-learning
  • Communities
  • Participatory
  • Developmental