Occasional Paper No. 11

The way research institutions interact with their environment affects the capacity for involvement in research. This section presents results relating to interactions between institutions in individual countries, as well as how individual institutions compare to others sampled. Annex 3 presents detailed results for individual institutions.

External research environment

Interactions between research institutions

Table 4 summarises the amount/level of research-related interaction and the benefits resulting from such interaction as perceived by the institutions.

(a)

Interactions between individual and related national research institutions

From the survey, it appears that contact between individual institutions surveyed and other national forestry-related institutions is frequent and satisfactory in many countries. The exceptions are IRA, University of Zambia (U. ZAMBIA), UEM, USUTU, FAB and VELD which reported occasional interactions with forestry research establishments in their own countries. Contact between the Department of Forestry at UEM in Mozambique and the government forestry research establishment (CEF) was surprisingly infrequent. The same is true of the Institute of Resource Assessment (IRA) of the University of Dar es Salaam and TAFORI. There is also little interaction between the Biological Sciences Department of the University of Zambia (U. ZAMBIA) and the two research divisions at the government forestry department. The absence of other forestry research establishments in Swaziland and Botswana explains the occasional interactions reported by USUTU and FAB in these countries.

Of the institutions surveyed, 77.8% reported that they derive moderate benefits from interacting with national forestry and related institutions. The Faculty of Forestry at Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA), the National Tree Seed Programme (NTSP) in Tanzania, the Biological Sciences Department at the University of Zambia, and ICFR of South Africa reported that such interactions have been very beneficial.

About 67% of the institutions had frequent interactions with other centres; this is a very positive result. Only 33% had occasional interactions, largely the result of the absence of similar national institutions with which to relate.

(b)

Interactions between the institutions and national non-forestry research institutions

The interaction between the surveyed institutions and non-forestry ones within their own countries could be an important measure of the extent to which forestry research is accommodating other relevant aspects which may not be found in mainstream forestry research institutions; that is opportunities for research to 'spillover into other research areas'. Like the preceding kind of interaction, this type of interaction may, in part, be reflected by the level of sharing research resources. TAFORI, SUA, IRA, the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Zimbabwe (U. ZIM), the two research divisions in the department of forestry in Zambia and USUTU have occasional interactions with other research establishments in their own countries; representing 33.3% of all institutions surveyed. The rest (66.7%) reported frequent interactions with other national research organisations. Only 27.8% reported very beneficial results from these interactions while the majority (55.6%) derived moderate benefits and 16.7% saw no real benefits from such contacts.

On the whole, there is considerable interaction between research institutions in each of the countries considered in this study. Very few institutions saw such interactions as being very beneficial and fewer still perceived no real benefits from them. The level of interaction between the institutions is indicative of the potential and extent of collaborative forestry research work in each of these countries.

(c)

Interactions between the research institutions and foreign research institutions

Again Table 4 shows the frequency of interaction with foreign research institutions and the ranking of the perceived benefits. The frequency of interaction between the research institutions and their local counterparts on one hand, and between the institutions and foreign research institutions on the other, is more or less the same. However a majority of the institutions (63.2%) reported very beneficial interactions with foreign research institutions. In contrast, only 22.2% and 27.8% reported very beneficial interactions with local forestry research institutions and local non-forestry research institutions respectively.

Most interactions with local institutions have been moderately beneficial to the research institutions. This follows from Table 3 from which it can be seen that about half of the institutions have laboratory, library and computer facilities which are inadequate and in an unsatisfactory condition, and that some institutions lack these facilities altogether. Sharing of resources is mostly limited to those enjoying better facilities. Foreign research institutions are better placed in such exchanges. For example, they can donate literature, computer packages, give research advice, assist in arranging funding for research and to scientific meetings, as well as collaboration in research. Also foreign institutions often have improved access to donor research funds. This makes interactions with them very beneficial to the local institutions.

(d)

Relative standing for each of the research interactions

The analysis was extended to how interactions reported by individual institutions (as discussed above) relate to the sample as a whole. For each institution the value for research interaction is calculated as shown in Annex 1, and its relative standing in the data set identified. This information was then graphed for each institution and is presented in Annex 3. The charts give an impression of how each institution relates to similar institutions in the region with respect to the chosen indicators.

From this second level of analysis, it would appear that with the exception of the Faculty of Forestry at Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) and IRA, all research-related establishments based at the Universities of Zambia, Zimbabwe, Stellenbosch and Eduardo Mondlane in Mozambique, have relatively weak contacts with related research institutions. Forestry research institutions like FRIM, CEF, TAFORI, FORESTEK, ZIMFC and ICFR show much stronger contacts with their counterparts. In general all forestry research institutions, with the exception of the two research divisions in the Department of Forestry of Zambia, report better contacts with other research institutions than the universities. This could be due to the importance of research in the teaching-research-extension mission of the universities. SUA has a relatively strong post-graduate programme which is almost twenty years old. Research for students' dissertations/theses would tend to make SUA place more emphasis on research than other institutions without a similar demand. Also the criteria for promotions at SUA and IRA is very strongly related to research results (number and quality of publications), rather than to teaching tasks; placing a further stress on research.

With the exception of FORESTEK and ICFR, both of South Africa, it would appear that the potential for forestry research capacity, as measured by the percentage of researchers with M.Sc. and Ph.D. qualifications and with over four years of experience (Figure 3), lies in the universities. This is another strong reason to enhance their role in national and regional research initiatives. As post-graduate training advances in the universities and academic career advancement puts more emphasis on research output, interactions with similar institutions is also bound to increase.

Interactions with educational institutions.

Again this evaluation is made at two levels; the individual institution and relative to other institutions in the sample. The first four columns of Table 5 present results for interactions between educational institutions, while the last two show the level of commitment of resources to contact with users of research results.

(a)

Interactions with national educational institutions

Almost one-half of the institutions has occasional interactions with educational institutions in their own countries; while the other half has more frequent contacts. All forestry research centres in Tanzania, Zambia, Mozambique and Lesotho have occasional contacts with educational institutions in their own countries and perceive such interactions as of moderate benefit to them. Only the forestry research divisions in the department of forestry of Zambia regard those contacts as being of no real benefit.

Just 33.3% of the institutions surveyed (FORESTEK, ICFR, FRIM and FAB) regard such interactions as being very beneficial, while 44.4% perceive them as moderately beneficial and 22.2% as of no real benefit. On the whole, many research institutions consider contacts with educational establishments in their own countries as being moderately beneficial.

(b)

Interactions with foreign educational institutions

With respect to contacts with foreign educational institutions, 36.8% of the national research institutions have had occasional contacts while 57.9% reported frequent interactions. Some 36.8% of these felt that they derive moderate benefits from such relationships while 52.6% considered them as being very beneficial. Only FRIM of Malawi and FAB of Botswana consider contacts with local educational institutions as being more beneficial than those outside the country. SUA and NSTP of Tanzania, FORESTEK and ICFR of South Africa, Lesotho and Namibia reported the same value of benefits derived from national and foreign educational institutions.

On the whole, the level of contacts between national and foreign educational institutions was slightly higher (94.7%) than that between national research and educational institutions (88.8%). In addition interactions with foreign educational centres were perceived to be more beneficial (89.4%) than those derived from interacting with national institutions (77.7%). Most of the foreign contacts are related to post-graduate training of researchers in the absence of such training possibilities in national institutions.

(c)

Relative standing for interactions with educational institutions

In the second level of the analysis, the quality of interaction between educational institutions is examined for each institution relative to others in the region. The procedure for determining the value of educational interactions is explained in Annex 1. As in the analysis of research interactions the same approach was followed in constructing charts for each of them as shown in Annex 3.

Almost the same scenario, as in (b) above, emerges. All the three institutions from South Africa (FORESTEK, ICFR and the Faculty of Forestry at the University of Stellenbosch) show relatively strong interactions with educational institutions. Those from Zambia, Botswana, and Lesotho in addition to NTSP and USUTU, have much weaker interactions. The remainder lies between these two extremes. This corresponds with the pattern described earlier with respect to research support facilities. The forestry research divisions in the Department of Forestry of Zambia, the Forestry Research Centre (CEF) of Mozambique, TAFORI, VELD and the forestry research unit of Lesotho were also observed to have satisfactory to poor library and laboratory facilities and with very limited level of sharing of research resources with other institutions. The poorly resourced units appear to be interacting less with educational institutions, which could be indicative of very little sharing of resources and low levels of research manpower for training and development.

Overall, the region has a number of universities with fairly strong capacity for forestry and related research (Figure 3). Some also offer postgraduate training and can organise other courses for researchers. There is therefore a significant potential for increased collaboration between universities and forestry research institutions which could help improve forestry research in individual countries and the region as a whole.

Interactions with users of research results

The last two columns of Table 5 present results on the interactions of these institutions with users of their research results. Two proxies have been used to gauge this interaction. These are the proportion of annual budget associated with technical transfer and extension (column 5) and the proportion of staff time associated with technical transfer of results and with user groups (column 6).

(a)

Level of commitment of resources to user groups

From Table 5, only one centre, VELD of Botswana, devotes more that 50% of its budget to technical transfer and extension activities. This is followed by FAB of Botswana (30%) and the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Zimbabwe (30%). Nine institutions (about 47%) use up to 10% of their budgets in these activities. The remaining seven institutions (about 37%) allocate between 10% and 50% of the budgets to user related activities.

Nine institutions (50%) allocate up to 10% of staff time to these activities, while another nine (50%) use more than 10% of their staff time. Only FAB reaches 50%, followed by VELD with 40%. Both VELD and FAB are NGOs. Such high levels of commitment, in terms of funds and staff time to user groups, are characteristic of grassroots organisations of this type. However, it is apparent that very few institutions commit significant resources, in terms of funds and staff time, to the transfer of research results. Only about 17% of those surveyed used more than 20% of their budgets in these activities, while about 28% allocated more than 20% of their staff time to extension and related activities. This is sometimes because the mandates given to these organisations are very specific about research and/or training. It could also be due to the presence of other institutions within the national systems which have been created specifically for extension purposes. Another cause may be the lag in evolution of extension work in forestry. For example, extension activities and networks are more advanced in the field of agriculture as opposed to forestry.

(b)

Relative standings of individual institutions

Each of these institutions was evaluated relative to the others in the sample as explained in Annex 1, leading to the charts presented in Annex 3. The results give a scenario similar to the one described above.

With the exception of the Universities of Zimbabwe and Eduardo Mondlane, and IRA of the University of Dar es Salaam, all forestry and related establishments at universities interact weakly with users of their research results. An explanation could be related to the type of research undertaken by these institutions. Many would probably put more emphasis on basic research for their academic programmes. Also the breakdown of resources between research, extension and consultancy work may be another factor. The University of Zimbabwe is involved in a considerable amount of local community-related research which inevitably brings it into contact with its clients. The IRA at the University of Dar es Salaam spends much of its resources on consultancies and contractual research, tasks which are also client-oriented.

Institutions with a strong user contact are VELD of Botswana, ICFR and FORESTEK of South Africa, FRIM of Malawi and IRA. ICFR and FORESTEK are client-oriented research centres, whilst FRIM has significant local community-related research undertakings which bring it closer to its clients.

Generally, low interaction with users of research results would put into doubt the relevance of research undertaken by many of these institutions, as already noted in Burley et al. (1989). This will also raise questions on how research priorities and programmes are formulated in these countries. As research becomes more demand-driven, increased contacts with users of results will become mandatory for the survival of the forestry research establishments.

Internal research environment

Salary and related incentives

Ideally, all disposable income of researchers in the region would come from their salaries. However, scientists from many of the institutions surveyed would find it difficult to depend solely on their salaries for survival. This is mainly due to the difficult economic climate prevailing in practically all these countries. Various measures have been designed by the institutions and individual national governments to lessen these economic hardships on their employees. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that in some institutions the remuneration of scientists from various forms of allowances and net savings on per diem allowances during travels are several times the annual salary. Table 6 summarises the results of salary and non-salary incentives available at these institutions.

From the data university staff at the institutions surveyed in Tanzania (SUA, IRA), Zambia (U. ZAMBIA) and Mozambique (UEM), have disposable incomes which are about twice the level relative to earnings of other professionals with similar qualifications in the government service outside the universities within the respective countries. Scientists at the University of Zimbabwe and ICFR of South Africa have take-home incomes which are about 50% more than that of their colleagues with equivalent qualifications, for example, in the government service. Researchers at FRIM of Malawi, CEF of Mozambique and in the two research divisions in the forestry department of Zambia appear to be earning almost half what their colleagues with similar qualifications are earning in other local organisations.

The results presented in Annex 3 should be interpreted carefully. For example, the fact that SUA, IRA, U. ZAMBIA and UEM appear in the first quartile does not mean that these institutions have the highest remuneration in comparison with the others in the sample. The researchers in these institutions have much higher disposable incomes in comparison with colleagues of similar qualifications employed in other sectors in their own countries. The researchers in the institutions in the other quartiles have smaller remuneration differentials relative to colleagues of similar qualifications employed elsewhere in their own countries. In this respect Annex 3 does not provide a comparison of relative values of remuneration with respect to the sample; rather it shows how the remuneration of researchers in one country compare with those of scientists of equivalent qualifications employed in other sectors in the same country.

With the exception of institutions in South Africa, the discrepancy in salaries and related incentives between universities and forestry research institutions could be one of the factors behind better development of research capacity at the universities (see Figure 3).

The universities are in a better position to retain highly trained and experienced staff. One wonders why governments should entertain such income discrepancies, whilst cognisant that the qualifications required for the tasks at universities and research institutions are similar and that the tasks are equally challenging.

If governments are willing to give such allowances to employees, they could also legalise the total disposable incomes as being the net salaries of their employees. This would eliminate the allowances which give an impression that they are a favour from the government/institutions because, unlike salaries which are contractual by nature, several types of allowances can be reduced or eliminated even without consulting the employees. These allowances are not favours, they are earned incomes. In constant money values these salaries have been declining over time in many of these countries, reducing the purchasing power of employees. This has forced governments to make up for this loss in the form of allowances.

Non-salary incentives

All institutions differ in their capacity to reward their employees with benefits other than salaries. A variety of non-salary incentives were examined in terms of their frequency of use and effectiveness in stimulating research efficiency. The maximum value for each of the incentive types, as calculated following the formulas in Annex 1, is nine. In Table 6, the value for frequency and effectiveness on each incentive were added together to give a score. For example, at TAFORI, 4 incentives were used, so the maximum level of efficiency/frequency is 36. In this case the effectiveness and use was assessed at 19 for all four. These non-salary incentives included the use of non-financial awards like merit certificates, provision of housing and transport, possibilities of travel to other countries, additional research funding, professional responsibility, consultancies, sabbatical/internships/training, and career development opportunities. Not all institutions have the ability to offer all of them, so the maximum score for each institution is calculated on the basis of the type of incentives it is currently using. Table 6 presents the results.

Twelve of the nineteen institutions surveyed (about 63%) are employing 4-6 different non-salary incentives which are relatively efficient in attracting, retaining, motivating and increasing the productivity of research staff. Many of these institutions have considerable autonomy over their activities and finances. Only one organisation is using seven types of incentives and five (26%) are using 1-3 different non-salary incentives. In the majority of the institutions (74%) the incentives are moderately to greatly effective.

As research becomes more client-driven or market-oriented, the institutions will have to increase their level of autonomy without compromising national or regional research priorities. This will tend to increase their capacity to reward their staff, retain and make better use of them. In addition, it will increase the speed with which decisions are made and this can lead to overall improvement in research efficiency and reduce dependency on government funding.

Gilbert et al. (1994), noted that creativity is one of the ingredients of research which distinguishes it from many other occupations, particularly those in the public sector. Creativity in institutions is a product of skill levels, opportunities, low staff turnover and motivation. All these attributes are present in relatively low levels in many of the institutions surveyed. An increase in the level of institutional autonomy would most probably contribute to raising its level of creativity. The region desperately needs the creativity of its scientists in order to overcome the seemingly insurmountable problems in the shortest period possible.

Use of formal and informal evaluations in decision making

Evaluations of research activities could be used for justification of past expenditures, support for new funding or budget requests, guiding choice among competing research projects, and monitoring on-going research activities. Each institution was assessed in relation to these four function, all of which present possible decision-making situations relevant to management of research activities. Few institutions listed more uses. The capacity to handle such situations influences the conduct of research. The means of calculation and the limitations of the indicator are described in Annex 1. Table 7 summarises the results where a 'score' is the sum of informal and formal evaluation usage. The maximum score is based on the total types of evaluation employed.

All but three institutions evaluate their research activities to formally satisfy some or all of the four uses listed earlier. This is due to the fact that many research projects are donor funded and therefore an account of how funds are used is a requirement. The same is true for institutions which receive government funding. Justification of budgets and funding for new projects is also a donor as well as a government requirement. Many organisations have internal regulations which demand accountability as well justification for funding new projects.

Unfortunately, only four institutions have a moderately extensive use of informal evaluations, either for the four uses identified earlier or for any other purposes. A considerable amount of the information/data exists within the institutions, some of which is used for formal evaluations. Such information could be re-processed or even be of direct internal use to improve the management of research and administration of resources. Example uses could include assessment of the degree of attainment of research objectives, efficiency (productivity) with which resources are being used, directing priority setting and reallocation of resources.

The overall impression from Table 7 is that the use of information assembled, stored and/or processed by these institutions is mainly geared towards the satisfaction of external requirements, rather than for their own internal consumption and ultimately self-improvement. Bengston et al. (1988) argues that the use of formal and informal evaluations is likely to be related to effective research capacity or, more specifically, to the capacity to manage research resources and administer the research process. Increased use of such evaluations may therefore be associated with the level of sophistication an institution has attained in managing research; which is also indicative of the efficiency with which research resources are being allocated and used. The broad scope of forestry research adopted by many institutions in the region is hardly commensurate with resources to carry through many of the identified research undertakings. Effective allocation management and administration of scarce resources must be a priority in practically all these institutions. The use of information already available for internal purposes will also contribute to improvements in research management and overall administration of research resources. Since effective allocation of resources is the key issue in improving the effectiveness of research, future research capacity assessments must focus on how resource allocation and research prioritisation decisions are made.

Technical support

The ratio of number of technicians to number of researchers within an institution was used to gauge the level of technical support available. No attempt was made at determining the ideal ratio as this will vary by institute and research focus. However, of the eighteen institutions which responded to this nine (50 %) have less than one technician to every researcher. The indicator should be viewed with caution. For example, the two forestry research institutes in Zambia have the greatest ratio of technicians to research staff, a situation which has resulted from recent reductions in research staff numbers.

Also, almost all forestry and related establishments at universities, with the exception of that at the university of Stellenbosch, have relatively weak technical support as compared to the research institutions. This may due to the possibility of sharing technical services with other departments/faculties at the universities; something this ratio failed to capture. Research institutions tend to have all technicians, laboratories and equipment they need, while university departments and faculties are more inclined to share some of these resources because they are centrally managed.

In comparison with LDCs in the Asia-Pacific region, Bengston et al. (1988) observed that technical support for research was also higher in government research institutions. Institutions with better technical support could be used for training technicians from weaker institutions.