can higher education institutions are (i) financial constraints; (ii) the quality of incoming students and blockages in the graduate and postgraduate pipeline; (iii) limited supervisory capacity; and (iv) certain government rules and procedures.
Many of the constraints and barriers which hinder in- creased productivity of PhD programmes have been discussed in previous sections (in particular refer to sec- tion 1.6, 1.7 and 1.9); however they are consolidated and discussed in more detail in this section, which draws significantly from the following reports: (i) Systemic blockages in postgraduate education and training (Prof Johann Mouton, Stellenbosch University, and Ms Lise Kriel, University of the Free State, September 2009); and (ii) Exemplary PhD programmes (Dr Chaya Herman, University of Pretoria, July 2009) (refer to Appendix 1).
From these reports, four main systemic barriers are identified:
i. financial constraints;
ii. pipeline constraints related to the quality of in- coming students and blockages in the graduate and postgraduate pipeline;
iii. institutional constraints related to limited supervisory capacity;
iv. administrative constraints related to government rules and procedures.
• Inadequate funding for PhD programmes and doc- toral studies
The salient feature across all the successful PhD pro- grammes is their high level of funding. Funding comes from various sources. In addition to university funds, most funding, particularly within the natural sciences comes from the government (including DST) and statu- tory bodies (such as the NRF). The rest of the funds are raised from international foundations, industry, local or- ganisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), projects and miscellaneous sources. Funds are often de- pendent on the supervisors’ initiative, collaboration and personal connections.
Some programme leaders, especially in the natural sci- ences, rely almost entirely on NRF and DST funds, which could be quite adequate if the programme is run by or includes a number of rated researchers, has a Research Chair, or is able to access a specific grant to secure funds for a number of years. Some programmes use funds from multiple sources.
Funding is often perceived as the main threat to the continuation of the programmes and as an obstacle for their expansion. The main argument is that the funding is just not enough: “Nothing is funded properly; every- thing is funded partially”.
Other concerns are the availability of funds, the bureau- cratic process of accessing and managing funds and the continuous change in the strategic thinking of the fund- ing agents.
Some PhD programmes in the humanities and social sciences have been established with external funds (usually from philanthropic and other foundations abroad) or reserve funds of the faculty. The continuation of these programmes supported by external sources is in constant threat. In some cases they ceased to ex- ist when funds became unavailable. This also applies to programmes which are funded by the NRF, where the threat of NRF programmes being phased out, is a concern.
While the NRF has been the main funding source of most of the programmes, it is not able to support PhD production adequately. The NRF, as the official national funding agency of the state, has the primary respon- sibility for postgraduate and research support in the country. But recent developments in the Treasury’s al- locations to the NRF points to increasing resource con- straint. “Trajectories of NRF Research Support” outlines
“the new facts and realities that confront the NRF and the research community”94 in terms of the current fund- ing climate in South Africa. According to the NRF docu- ment entitled “Trajectories of NRF Research Support”, despite increased funding received, the freedom of the NRF to invest these funds at its own discretion has been significantly restricted. However, there is a renewed strategic focus on doctoral education that proposes three specific areas for intervention:
• Increasing direct funding for students: The NRF proposes to change this ratio to 1:1 by 2013, by decreasing grantholder-linked student support in favour of freestanding bursaries and fellowships, which it predicts will encourage more students to complete their PhDs. It also states that this strategy will empower students to seek out the most suitable supervisors instead of requiring researchers to find appropriate students.
• Increasing the value of bursaries and fellowships:
Current NRF postgraduate bursary and fellowship values are widely acknowledged as being too low and insufficient for students to complete their PhDs. Even though the NRF is committed to raising bursary values whenever possible, it is concerned that such changes will significantly reduce the number of students who can be supported within the budget.
• Increasing throughput rates via a ‘4 by 4 graduate experience’: Under the current HEQF structure stu- dents regularly exit the route towards the doctoral degree (i.e. the PhD pipeline) at three points,
“It is more straightforward to apply for grants from statu- tory organisations because there is a system, there is a website, there are calls for funding – it’s tedious to put the grant proposal together but you know what to do. Getting money form industry is often about cold calling, phoning somebody that you don’t know, and getting together with them and selling them on the idea of a student training for a PhD … so I think I am more comfortable currently, and also because what the grant money is there for is academic research and I am an academic, so I think that’s a plus.”
(Interviewee: Exemplary PhD programmes)
94 National Research Foundation. (2009)
namely post-undergraduate (exit level 7), post-hon- ours (exit level 8) and post-masters (exit level 9). The
‘4 by 4 graduate experience’ encourages universi- ties to avoid these losses by advocating only one exit point after the first four years of study (i.e. exit level 8) and offering an integrated masters-doctoral experience, effectively circumnavigating exit level 9.
In addition to the freestanding and grantholder-linked funding of doctoral students, three other programmes of the NRF allow for PhD support. These are Technology and Human Resources for Industry Programme (THRiP), the South African Research Chairs Initiative (SARChI) and Centres of Excellence (CoE).
Despite the availability of funding support for doctoral students in all of these categories, and despite the NRF’s best efforts to secure more state funding in order to in- crease scholarship values, the reality is still that current scholarship values do not allow prospective doctoral students to study full time. This means – as we have discussed elsewhere – that the majority of doctoral stu- dents in South Africa undertake their doctoral studies whilst they work, and full-time residential doctoral stu- dies are the exception rather than the rule. This impacts on completion rates as well as age at completion and has a knock-on effect on the potential contribution that such graduates can make to the scientific and higher education systems.
In a related survey of PhD students, respondents tended to concur with these sentiments, indicating that there is an insufficient level of funding, the funding criteria are unfair, the administrative procedures for accessing funding are not always friendly, and the hidden costs of doing a PhD are not covered.
It is evident that unless the financial needs of PhD pro- grammes are met, expanding PhD numbers will not be achieved.
• Pipeline constraints relating to the quality of students exiting a dysfunctional school system and blockages in the graduate and postgraduate pipe- line
The South African higher education system witnessed its highest growth rates towards the end of the 1990s and early 2000s. Undergraduate enrolments grew by about 5% a year during this period and redress targets were increasingly being met with black students com- prising 63% of enrolment. However, various studies over the past few years (including one by the Department of Education in 2004) expressed concern about the high drop-out rates (between 40% and 50%) for first-year
students and subsequent low graduation rates, espe- cially among black students. Only a third of students obtain their degrees within five years.
According to a study recently commissioned by HESA, most first-year students could not adequately read, write or comprehend, and universities that conduct regular competency tests have reported a decline in standards. From this benchmark project it is clear that South Africa’s school system is “continuing to fail its pupils and the country, and that universities will need to do a lot more to tackle what appear to be growing proficiency gaps”. Some extracts from the main findings of the report are:
• In terms of academic literacy, the tests showed that 47% of the students were proficient in English, the dominant language of higher education. But almost the same proportion - 46% - fell into the 'inter- mediate' category, while 7% had only 'basic' academic literacy.
• The challenges facing students were even greater in quantitative literacy and mathematics. Only a quarter of students were proficient in quantitative literacy, while half attained intermediate and 25%
basic levels. This low achievement suggested that the new school curriculum "has a long way to go".
• Most frightening of all were the mathematics results. Only 7% of students were found to be proficient in the tests, which measured the skills needed to study first-year mathematics. Some 73%
had intermediate skills and would need assistance to pass, while 20% had basic skills and would need long-term support.
The implications of results such as these are significant as they clearly show the undergraduate pipeline chal- lenges faced by the university sector. As studies such as these and overwhelming feedback from academics in the system suggest, unless the schooling system in the country produces better quality matriculants, universi- ties will struggle to reverse current trends of low and even declining throughput and completion rates.
Interrelated problems are the low conversion rates at postgraduate level, a possible decline in first-enrolments at masters and doctoral levels and an interaction effect with age, resulting in increasing pile-up effects. The latter refers to the fact that increasing numbers of doc- toral students remain in the system without completing their studies. The results show that the proportions of ongoing (or ‘recurring’) students have increased, while the number of doctoral graduates as proportion of to- tal enrolment has decreased. This is strongly correlated
with the mean age of the student, and so is even more pronounced with ‘late’ entrants into the doctoral system (see Tables 17 and 18).
It is evident that in order to escalate the number of PhDs it is essential to increase the pool of suitable candidates and this calls for a system-wide effort that starts at school level.
• Limited supervisory capacity at South African public higher education institutions
One of the ‘golden rules’ of doctoral education is that doctoral students may only be supervised by someone who has a doctoral degree. In fact, most guidelines for doctoral supervision would add to this ‘rule’ that the doctoral supervisor has some experience in supervi- sion and is also himself/herself a relatively experienced scholar and scientist. The practical implication of these rules is that the pool of potential doctoral supervisors is determined by the number of academic staff who have PhDs. Currently only 40% of staff at the Universi- ties (which produce most of the doctoral students) have doctorates. The situation is worse for the Comprehen- sive Universities (only 27% with doctorates) and the Universities of Technology (12% in 2007) (see Figure 12, above). Due to the shortage of suitably qualified su- pervisors, their workloads are an area of great concern.
The number of students per supervisor varies from only one to ten or more, though the average doctoral super- visory load of permanent academic staff (calculated by dividing the total number of doctoral enrolments by the number of permanent academic staff with doctoral degrees) is 2.1 (see Figure 15, above).
A major concern is the quality of supervision and the perception that not enough is being done to ensure that inexperienced supervisors, such as recent PhD graduates or unsuitable supervisors, should not super- vise doctoral students, nor are they being assisted to become better supervisors.
If one adds to this picture the general ageing of the academic workforce (or at least of the most active com- ponents thereof), as well as the ‘pile-up effect’ currently evident in the system (discussed above), this situation points to a significant structural constraint to growth in the number of doctoral graduates. Anecdotal evidence is increasingly showing that many academics who retire are immediately re-appointed on contract appoint- ments to assist specifically with doctoral supervision.
• Government rules and procedures that have an im- pact on doctoral education
While the government has put in place very enabling plans and frameworks to encourage and reward doc-
toral production, there are certain elements that can have a constraining effect on the increased production of PhD graduates.
Although enrolments at the postgraduate level were not at any stage capped by the Department of Edu- cation, its policy of capping enrolments at the under- graduate level, as well as decisions regarding limiting growth in distance education programmes, would of necessity impact on the size and growth of the pipeline.
The enrolment planning decisions by the Department, and subsequent responses from the higher education sector, also illustrate that institutional capacities are limited and were cited as major obstacles in any attempt to increase enrolments as part of the overall goal of increasing participation rates in higher education.
The final constraint in this category is one which affects foreign students. Under current immigration regulations the Department of Home Affairs does not restrict admis- sion of foreign students to South African educational in- stitutions, allowing foreign doctoral students to study in the country (or to participate in learning programmes) for a period exceeding three months through temporary residence status acquired with a study or exchange per- mit. Permit holders are, however, restricted in terms of the paid work that they are allowed to engage in while in the country and must provide proof that they will be self-sufficient in terms of all costs associated with their stay prior to entry into the country. Application costs are minimal and African students are exempt from paying a deposit covering their return travel to their country of origin, given that their government submits a written undertaking to cover costs relating to the deportation of the student, should this become necessary. This does not necessarily point to any major blockages, but rather constitutes bureaucratic hindrances with some irrita- tion value.
In conclusion therefore, the findings of these studies point to a number of systemic constraints that will im- pede any escalation in doctoral production in the near future. However, it is contended that the two main constraints are the pipeline constraints and the limited supervisory capacity at South African higher education institutions. Unless these two constraints are urgently addressed, it is unlikely that other initiatives (such as new funding opportunities and other reward incentives offered by the DHET) will lead to any significant improvement in doctoral output.
1.14 What can we learn from other countries with respect to escalating the production of PhDs?
Finding 23: Other countries have attained suc-