CHALLENGES FACING HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN MAINTAINING MENTORSHIP FOR SUSTAINABLE RESEARCH OUTPUT: A

CASE STUDY OF UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG

Abstract

Higher education institutions in South Africa are currently facing challenges eminating from the changing the focus from traditional teaching functions to both research and teaching. Increasing focus on research production, being integral to higher education transformation, has necessitated higher education institutions to institute capacity development strategies to enable novice researchers to be able to engage in research output.

Mentorship as a capacity development initiative to promote research output is generally considered a popular strategy. However, there is inadequate data to determine best practices higher education institutions are either still planning formal mentorship programmes or have only recently introduced such programmes, which are yet to be evaluated.

The article explores challenges facing the implementation of a formal research mentorship programm (REMP), using the University of Johannesburg as a case study. A quantitative and qualitative approach, obtained perceptions from academic staff members regarding mentorship as a research capacity building strategy.

While a commitment to developing research capacity prevailed among academic staff, the findings also revealed that despite a formal REMP being strongly favoured to guide novice researchers, key challenges need to be addressed to ensure the success of a formal REMP. The article explores the challenges facing mentors and mentees and suggests areas of focus for mentorship programmes to make sustainable contributions toward promoting research capacity.

Key words: Mentorship, higher education, research output, teaching, mentorship programme

1

Introduction

The growth in knowledge has impacted on human resource capacity within higher education (HE) institutions to maintain a competitive edge in teaching, learning and research. This has been acknowledged by the Higher Education Act 101 of 1997 (South Africa, 1997: Preamble) which states that higher education institutions and their programmes need to be transformed to respond adequately to development needs, both locally and internationally. This has necessitated new practices and procedures as an imperative for knowledge development, transfer and management within the context of dynamic learning environments.

The White Paper on Education and Training (Department of Education, 1995:7) emphasises that education and training are vital elements of human resource development. In a knowledge driven environment, multi-faceted approaches to education and training are needed to ensure appropriate responsiveness to a dynamic learning environment. Since research production has become a focal point in higher education transformation, strategies have been developed to drive knowledge production through research. This is dependent to a large extent on research capacity within higher education institutions.

It can be argued that mentoring can make a significant contribution to developing skills and competencies necessary for research output. Mentorship is often considered a viable vehicle, driving the research capacity of emerging researchers. However, the environment has to be conducive for any mentoring strategy to achieve its intended outcomes.

Therefore, mentoring as a capacity development initiative to promote research output has to take cognisance of potential challenges facing the mentor and the mentee. The article explores the challenges inherent in mentoring as a strategy and identifies areas of focus for mentorship programmes to make sustainable contributions toward developing research capacity.

Imperatives driving research output

The key functions of higher education institutions are teaching and research. While there is a significant focus on teaching, there is also an increasing shift toward promoting research at higher education institutions.

The imperative for research is largely the result of powerful learning environments underpinned by a knowledge driven society. It is therefore expected that every academic at higher education institutions should be engaged in research output. The Ministry of Education (2001:61) states that the importance of research lies in the creation of scholars who build collegiality and networks across geographic and disciplinary boundaries. This contributes to the global accumulation of knowledge and an innovative culture. O’Brien (2008:1) considers research as integral to a well-rounded academic culture in any higher

2

education institutions as it contributes extensively to the knowledge bases and career development of researchers.

Increasing globalization of higher education has made it inevitable for higher education institutions in South Africa to measure themselves against the best in the world. Academic publications are considered a benchmark for research quality (Gevers, 2006 in Lategan and Wessels, 2007:59). Waghid and le Grange (2003:6) point out that if higher education institutions in South Africa are expected to make any notable contribution to research, then they need to produce researchers who have published high quality academic articles in high impact journals, books and undertaken presentation of papers at international conferences.

Research outputs varies from publications in high impact journals to books and publications of doctoral theses. However, accredited journals have a higher value than research reports or publications in non-accredited journals. The funding allocation for research and development is now output driven. Academic publications are highly significant outputs of research activity, as it not only disseminates new knowledge, but also influences funding for higher education in South Africa. Publications in accredited journals attract funding in the form of a subsidy from the Department of Education (DoE). It is therefore important for higher education institutions to not only develop capacity to promote research output, but also to promote research output to attract funding. Further, academic publications are used as a criterion by the National Research Foundation (NRF) to evaluate and rate researchers. NRF evaluation and rating is a benchmarking system dependent on expert reviews who base their judgements on the quality and impact of each applicant’s research output and achievements (NRF, 2007c:16).

During the apartheid era, 80 percent of South Africa’s indexed research publications were concentrated in five institutions – the White universities of Cape Town, Natal, Pretoria, Stellenbosch and Witwatersrand (South Africa, 2007:1-2). In the post apartheid period, the transformation of all higher education institutions is articulated in the Education White Paper 3: A Programme for Transformation of Higher Education (South Africa, 1997b) as following:

“Production, acquisition of new knowledge: National growth and competitiveness is dependent on continuous technological improvement and innovation, driven by a well organised, vibrant research and development system which integrates the research and training capacity of higher education with the needs of industry and of social reconstruction.”

It therefore emphasises that research is a vital tool for creating new knowledge, which is disseminated through teaching, while developing academic and research staff through training and development.

Higher education institutions like the University of Johannesburg advocate that research remains a top priority of the university, as it is a source of new knowledge and promotes the development of distinguished scholarship, the collective outcome of which must be teaching excellence (Research Top Priority at UJ, 2007:1). Although the University of Johannesburg is rated among the top ten universities of South Africa, in 2005, total research output was 4.53

3

per cent, which is low in comparison to the top five universities whose output were between 10.57 – 15.29 per cent (Venter, 2007:1). It is the focal intention of the university to establish itself within the next four to six years as a research focused comprehensive institution. This is supported by the university’s strategic plan, which states ones of its goals as “to establish the UJ among the top research universities in the country in terms of nationally and internationally accepted research criteria” (Research Policy and Strategy, 2009:1).

While other higher education institutions have adopted a similar focus as the University of Johannesburg, research output at many institutions is relatively low. Geber (2005:1) highlighted the concern by the Commission on Higher Education (CHE) about the publication profiles of academics in South Africa. The CHE 2002/3 report reflects that there are 15000 academic and professional staff in HE institutions, but only 2000 (13.5%) are research active and produce publications. Geber (2005:1) further iterated that academics between the age of 35 to 40 are producing fewer publications, while there is an aging population of research active staff (45 per cent are over 50 years old and 50 per cent of A-rated scientists are over 60 years old). The need for younger academics to become more research active is of significance in view of the pressure for high performance in research from university management and funding agencies. Therefore, there is an imperative to employ sustainable mechanisms to enhance and support the research capacity of academics in an endeavour to promote research output.

A 2005/6 survey by the Human Science Research Council (HSRC) indicates that South Africa has 1.5 FTE (full-time equivalent) researchers per 1000 total employment, marginally down from 1.6 FTE in 2004. Compared to countries like Australia, Japan, Russian and Spain, this indicator of human resource potential for research is relatively low and needs to be monitored as the research capacity of South Africa significantly influences its research and development output potential. The National Commission on Higher Education (1998:11 Preamble) cites the need for South Africa’s higher education system to develop capacity in research to produce high research output to reach global standards. If higher education institutions are to be regarded as research-intensive, then at least 25 per cent of their academic staff need to be NRF rated (National Research Foundation, 2007c:5).

Therefore, research output needs to be accelerated if such institutions want to be the cutting edge in research output. This is not a goal that can be achieved overnight. Achievement of such a goal necessitates high volumes of research output in the form of accredited publications in journals, books, peer reviewed conference proceedings and the acquisition of patents. Hence, there is a need to develop strategies like mentorship to improve research output in order to help realise the goals of higher education institutions like the University of Johannesburg.

Research capacity development in higher education

Boyd and Fresen (undated:12) define capacity development as “enhancing skills to achieve specific results.” Developing countries face significantly higher challenges in the global

4

environment which impacts on the purpose of higher education. Higher education institutions are expected to provide a capacity development role in support of economic growth and poverty reduction (Salmi, 2006:4). This need is underpinned by the rapid rate of change in technology that increases the challenge of acquiring knowledge and skills that enhance ability and capacity in all sectors. In the absence of higher education producing knowledgeable and skilled graduates, generating research and knowledge and pursuing responsive knowledge-based community service, democracy and development will be hindered.

Development focuses on the construction and application of knowledge, the enhancement of human capacity and the provision of research opportunities that makes possible the actualisation of the potentiality of critical inquirers (Hanlyn, 1998:44 in Waghid and le Grange, 2003:5). This contributes to the production of “knowledge interests”, thereby advancing academic research and the construction of knowledge for social relevance (Waghid and le Grange, 2003:5).

The building of research capacity within higher education institutions is not only dependent on the availability of resources, but also on the development of an academic environment that promotes research (Ministry of Education, 2001:62). It is a means to improve efficiency of performance and production. According to Breen, Jaganyi, van Wilgen and van Wyk (2004:430) capacity building is not the sole responsibility of the researcher, but a shared responsibility with the institutions that promote research.

In South Africa, the transformation of the higher education landscape demands a professional cadre of academic staff and academic development and support staff who meet the demands for capacity building. Higher education institutions should provide resources and incentives for staff to meet their professional goals, thereby contributing to the realisation of institutional missions. Research capacity development should be an integral part of an institutions human resource development capacity.

Various initiatives for research capacity development are commonly used to promote research skills such as proposal writing, academic writing skills, publication writing skills, computer literacy, data analysis, referencing, supervision, writing a research report and mentorship programmes. The NRF has developed the South African Research Chair Initiative to retain and attract qualified research scientists, reverse the decline in the country’s research output, focus on capacity at publicly funded higher education institutions and to contribute to stimulating strategic research across the knowledge continuum. It is envisaged that the initiative will promote growth in high-level research capital and production capacity in the higher education arena (NRF, 2007b:12). The NRF has also implemented the TTK programme, which focuses specifically on accelerating the development of young, black and female researchers. The capacity development unit of the Human Sciences and Research Council (HSRC) focuses on research and human capital development to address the need to develop individual and institutional research capacity for social and human sciences (Kongolo, 2008:1).

5

According to Thulstrup, Hansen and Gaardhoje (2006:4), merely establishing capacity is inadequate, it must also be used to create development. Higher education research and development must be useful to society to lead to employment opportunities. With “ knowledge sharing” becoming a key demand, those with useful knowledge must be able to share it with those who are in need of it. The importance of higher education institutions in this regard is supported in a report by HESA (2007:2), which highlighted the following impact of research: Providing skilled workers to the economy, generating and supporting scientific communities that enable innovation.

In view of higher education institutions being bound to centrally determined policy and funding guidelines by a variety of accountable mechanisms, academics have been warned that they must “publish or perish” (Gawe and de Kock, 2002:39). Chetty (2003:13) contends that the demand for publication and the tension to publish for the sake of survival in academia has generated negative consequences, since there is a strong focus on the publication of research rather than its impact. This has created the belief that “the more publications produced the better, the more words written the better, the more times the paper is cited the better, single authorship is preferable to multiple scholarships and academic journals read by researchers are more valued than professional journals” (Bassey, 1995:128 in Chetty, 2003:13). Despite this contentious belief, higher education institutions continue to be challenged to develop research capacity. For the purpose of the article, mentorship is explored as a possible sustainable initiative to promote research output.

Mentoring and developing research capacity

According to Mentoring Works (2007:1), “mentoring is a synergetic relationship – two or more people engaged in a process that achieves more than each could alone.” Mentoring can be used as a capacity development initiative, focusing on improving research output of individual researchers. According to Cooney (2008:1), mentoring “ is a brain to pick, an ear to listen, and push in the right direction. ” Mentoring provides a framework for growth, development and succession planning, as skills and knowledge is passed down. The university of Leeds concur that mentoring should be a development process that can also be more informal and ongoing, occurring as part of day-to-day research activities and interactions between colleagues, while being available throughout a researcher’s career and adapted to the individual’s experience and expertise (University of Leeds, 2007:2).

Mentoring is commonly considered a key method to transfer skills and support continuous learning, especially when skills are scarce. Reviewed literature on mentorship indicates that although not a new concept, mentorship still has to gain momentum in South Africa, specially at higher education institutions. At the University of Johannesburg, strategic research development has gained pace and with regard to increasing research output, a draft incentive policy seeks to incentivise and support researchers toward greater productivity (Auf de Heyde, 2008:5). The University of Stellenbosch (2007:1) has motivated for the establishment of a mentor programme for new lecturers at the university, aiming to facilitate and enhance the teaching and research profile of inexperienced academics. The University of Witwatersrand has secured funding for three years for a Mellon Retiree Mentorship Scheme,

6

which engages those academics reaching the end of their careers as mentors, in an endeavour to pass their skills to the next generation of researchers (Burns, 2006:1). The University of Cape Town has established an Emerging Researcher Programme, offering support to those launching out on their research, thereby building new capacity and sustaining existing research excellence (Research 2003, 2008:1). The NRF piloted mentoring programme for it’s TTK programme grant-holders. The programme aimed to contribute to research capacity development by establishing a research culture wherein mentees can practice, stay focused and structure their research (NRF, 2006:12).

Internationally, some of the following mentoring programmes can be identified:

The University of Melbourne has established a strategic research initiative fund to support priority projects that encourage intensive cross-disciplinary research. The university recruited a group of Future Generation Professors and Fellows to lead collaborative research (University of Melbourne, 2007:1).

At the University of Leeds (2007:4), the School of English provides mentoring for new junior staff, which is part of a probation process, but with an emphasis on the continuity of research and the way in which it co-exists with the demands of teaching and administration.

The University of Oxford (University of Oxford Learning Institute, 2006-7:2) has a career accelerator programme for postgraduate research which links Oxford alumni working at other universities with postgraduate research students at Oxford.

The Cleveland State University (2006:1) has a statistical mentoring network, providing mentors and mentees with opportunities for possible research collaboration.

The Research and Training Centre at the Portland State University has a Underrepresented Researchers Mentoring Project, aimed at students of colour and disabilities. The programme is designed to encourage students to pursue an interest in research and to acquire a variety of research skills and experience (Jivanjee, 2006:1).

The mentoring programme at the American College of Nuclear Physicians (2006:1) aims to assist nuclear medicine trainees in fully developing their professional career through a support system that provides guidance by nuclear medicine residency programme directors.

The following mentoring trends emerge from the examples cited:

Resources may be applied by using outside experts, retirees or existing experienced staff.

Cross-border or cross disciplinary mentor-mentee relationships can be established linking alumni working at other universities with postgraduate research students.

7

Mentoring may be aimed at a specific component of research such as statistical analysis or it may be aimed at personal and professional development or achieving equity.

Mentoring may be used as a tool to develop leadership skills among students.

The mentoring programmes seem to have a common goal of equiping individuals with the necessary skills to meet their personal and professional goals, as well as addressing organisational needs. However, it is important that cognisance is taken of the following before implementing such programmes:

Clear definition of programme objectives.

Determine internal availability of skilled human resources.

Use of incentives to attract mentors.

Specific needs of the mentee must be identified.

Identification of a review process.

Availability of funding.

Mentoring should be voluntary and non-threatening.

Trust and open communication.

It is imperative that any mentoring programme considers the responsibilities and attributes required to sustain capacity development. Since the mentor is someone who takes a special interest in helping to develop another person, he or she should have the following responsibilities and attributes (TDL IRT 2005 Mentoring programme, 2005:7): Transfer skills to the mentee; counsel by providing advice and helpful problem solving hints; facilitate the mentees professional growth; support and encourage the mentee; monitor progress and provide feedback to the mentee and provide information, guidance and constructive comments. The mentor must be able to listen; be open and committed; be knowledgeable in his/her field; be honest and be able to give constructive advice; have the ability to motivate and demonstrate leadership; and be a good time manager and self-manager.

As an inexperienced person in a journey of self development, the mentee’s role is as follows (University of California, 2008:1): Take advantage of the opportunities offered by the mentor; develop good listening and communication skills; drive the mentoring relationship by developing discussion points; ask the rigid questions and seek relevant information and utilise networks given by the mentor and keep appointments. To fulfil his / her role in the relationship, the mentee should work hard and challenge himself / herself; be flexible and be willing to accept criticism; be resourceful and take initiatives; be honest and unafraid and be patient with the process (University of California, 2008:5).

8

If mentoring is to be considered a viable strategy to achieve personal, professional and organisational goals, then the requirements of various stakeholders must be clearly defined. Failing which, negative consequences can result.

Benefits of mentoring

Research in mentoring literature demonstrates that mentees, mentors and organisations benefit from mentoring relationships. When a mentor-mentee relationship succeeds, behaviours and attitudes change for the better. Mentees are often more articulate, skilled, focused, positive and sensitive. They are also more open to difference of opinions and better able to recognise opportunities (Nigro, 2003:240)

Mentee’s benefits were evident in the case of a meta-analysis undertaken in 2004, based on 43 studies, whereby individuals who had been mentored had better career outcomes from both career-related and psychosocial mentoring and were more satisfied and committed to their careers (Simmering, 2007:2).

If mentoring is an add-on job, mentors according to a study by Mckenna (2004 in Gray, 2005:2) felt a sense of pride in cascading the skills of the profession to the next generation, being rejuvenated, challenged and reinforced in their own professional identity, analysed their own skills and felt important when asked for advice.

The organisation benefits from mentoring in the following ways (Schalekamp, 2005:1): Promotes the positive image of the organisation and reflects employee-centred values; improves moral and greater career satisfaction for the mentee and mentor; enhances the competence of the mentee and mentor which directly impacts on organisational efficiency and increases employee commitment and loyalty.

According to Mentor (2006:1), the benefits derived from a mentoring programme are largely dependent on clearly defined programme objectives. In South Africa, it is imperative that programme objectives are aligned to the goals of government in producing knowledge and innovation through skilled labour, while also taking cognisance of the social needs of the country. According to Blunt and Connolly (2006:196), mentoring within South Africa higher education institutions is a powerful platform for retaining postgraduate students to become the new generation of university academics and researchers in view of competition from the public and private sectors for researchers. However, since it is an evolutionary process that requires time and effort to develop, it has to be well managed to generate research capacity development. This is important in view of limited evidence of mentorship programmes for researchers with the aim of improving research output, thereby making it difficult to bench mark the success of existing programmes.

However, the argument supporting the necessity for mentorship programmes as a research capacity development initiative within South African higher education institutions is reinforced by literature which confirm that research development and research output is

9

globally comparatively low, with a lack of strong funding and human resource bases for research programmes.

Research methodology

A case study was used for the study to depict a holistic account of experiences and results regarding a REMP programme. For the purpose of the study, the case study was conducted at the University of Johannesburg. The advantage of a case study approach is that it not only allows the use of a variety of research methods, but also fosters the use of multiple sources of data which in turn facilitates the validation of data. The quantitative and qualitative data approach was used.

Data collection

Data was collected through a survey, using a questionnaire and interviews. The survey method was used since it is a quick and easy means to reach a large group, at a relatively low cost and in a short space of time.

The questionnaire was designed to obtain information from academics on their perceptions, attitudes and preferences regarding a formal mentorship programme (REMP) at the University of Johannesburg. Interviews were conducted with executive and senior members staff, empowered with the task to promote research. Apart from primary data, an analysis of documents provided secondary data.

Sample size

The target population consisted of all academic staff (1544 individuals) in nine faculties. Questionnaires were e-mailed to permanent academic staff (788 individuals) in four faculties. Purpose sampling was used since the four faculties (Engineering and Built Environment, Humanities, Management and Sciences) are large in student and staff numbers.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data from questionnaires completed by 144 respondents was analysed. The survey instrument was analysed using the SPSS for Windows (Version 17). A basic descriptive analysis was undertaken, using frequencies and cross tabulation data.

Quantitative data

Findings

10

The success or failure of a mentoring programme is dependent on mentors’ and mentees’ responses toward such a programme. It is therefore important to gauge the perceptions, as a REMP can either be stifled or promoted by mentors and mentees. The analysis of the data revealed the following in terms of challenges inherent in mentorship programmes:

Increased workload

While the majority of mentors indicated that mentoring facilitated self-reflection on their research and professional development, they also indicated that it increased their current workload (52%) and was financially unrewarding (35 %) as indicated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Increased workload

Figure 7: Constraints as a mentor

52%

35% 

3%10%  0% 

Mentoring increases my currentwork load 

Mentoring is financially unrewarding

Mentoring makes the mentee totallydependent on the mentor

Mentoring hinders a mentor's careeradvancement 

Mentoring is a waste of time

According to Simmering (2007:4), some of the consequences of an increased workload could be delegation of too much work to the mentee, abuse of power over the mentee, intentional unavailability of the mentor and the mentor allowing personal career progress to supersede mentoring.

Research Capacity

The attributes of potential mentors is necessary to determine whether the institution has the capacity to implement a REMP. An analysis of mentors’ profiles in terms of age, qualification and experience as a mentor is shown in Figure 2.

11

12

13

Figure 2: Profile of mentors

6.3%2.9%

.0% .0% .0%

18.8%

2.9%

9.1%

18.8%16.7%

56.3%

34.3%

40.9%

12.5%

16.7%18.8%

60.0%

50.0%

68.8%66.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 or older

Age of mentors

B Tech Degree

Honours Degree

Masters degree

Doctorate

14

F but are 55 yrated researchers are due to reinstitution mreach in term“scientific population and thatr

M mmcould impercenrated m a

Figure 3: N

Figure 13: NRF rating

but are 55 yrated researchers are due to reinstitution mreach in term“scientific population and thatr

M mmcould impercenrated m a

Figure 3: N

Figure 13: NRF rating

igure 2 shows that the majority of mentors (over 60 per cent) have doctoral qualifications,ears and older. At the University of Johannesburg, the majority of current NRF

tire in the next five years (van der Walt, 2010b:1). While the ay have the current capacity to sustain REMP, the majority of the mentors are

ing retirement. This can impact on the university meeting national and global standardss of research, as highlighted by the Department of Science and Technology (2002:21):

One of the major concerns is that South Africa is experiencing an aging and shrinking the human resource is not being adequately developed and

eviewed, while the key research infrastructure is composed of people who will retire soon. ”

igure 2 shows that the majority of mentors (over 60 per cent) have doctoral qualifications,ears and older. At the University of Johannesburg, the majority of current NRF

tire in the next five years (van der Walt, 2010b:1). While the ay have the current capacity to sustain REMP, the majority of the mentors are

ing retirement. This can impact on the university meeting national and global standardss of research, as highlighted by the Department of Science and Technology (2002:21):

One of the major concerns is that South Africa is experiencing an aging and shrinking the human resource is not being adequately developed and

eviewed, while the key research infrastructure is composed of people who will retire soon. ”

Career advancement of mentors Career advancement of mentors

entors are generally expected to continue in their career advancement, while offeringentoring. Figure 3 indicates that only 9 per cent of mentors were NRF rated. With the ajority of mentors (52 per cent) indicating that mentoring increased their work load, this

pact on mentors advancing their careers and possibly one of the reasons for a low tage of rated researchers. It can be argued that the emergence of a demand for NRF

researchers can affect academics choosing to advance their career over engaging asentors, since an important point of concern is that mentors find it financially unrewarding

nd it makes the mentee totally dependent on the mentor.

entors are generally expected to continue in their career advancement, while offeringentoring. Figure 3 indicates that only 9 per cent of mentors were NRF rated. With the ajority of mentors (52 per cent) indicating that mentoring increased their work load, this

pact on mentors advancing their careers and possibly one of the reasons for a low tage of rated researchers. It can be argued that the emergence of a demand for NRF

researchers can affect academics choosing to advance their career over engaging asentors, since an important point of concern is that mentors find it financially unrewarding

nd it makes the mentee totally dependent on the mentor.

RF rating of mentors RF rating of mentors

of m ors of mentors ent

 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

10 

0 

5 9.0 

35.4

Yes 

NRF rating

No

Percent

Time Constraints

Although mentees benefit in terms of acquiring new knowledge, access to research networks and achievement of research goals, 16 per cent indicated that mentoring is a time consuming process.

Figure 4: Time constraints for mentees

Figure 17: Constraints as mentees

   

8.3 

3.5

16.0 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

It is a time consuming process 

Mentors have unrealisticexpectations

Mentors lack commitment

Constraints

Percent

 

Apart from time constraints, mentees also expressed constraints relating to balance with work life, inadequate funding, lack of available mentors and commitment. Findings from the NRF piloted TTK mentoring programme revealed that the lack of funding to have temporary staff to assist mentees affected the publication momentum of mentees. Mentees are expected to engage in research, while continuing with teaching, supervision and administration (NRF, 2006:13). Time constraints as a challenge is also evident in Schulze’s Study (2009:41), which stressed the need for time for efficient mentoring. By considering time during work allocation, the accessibility of mentors and mentees is improved.

Mentorship skills

Schulze’s study (2009:41) indicated that research knowledge and skills are important characteristics of a mentor, while experience, knowledge and successful research output is vital to function as a mentor. Although the findings revealed that mentors have the capacity to mentor in terms of age, qualification and experience, it seems that mentors may lack the mentorship skills (42.2 per cent indicated that mentors lack competency). van der Walt’s (2010b:2) suggestion that an important component of a structured REMP programme should

15

be the development of mentoring skills can be considered important to formally train mentors.

Figure 5: Mentorship skills

42.2

74.3

26.4

18.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Competencylevel of thementors

Insufficienttime to getinvolved inmentoring

Mentoringcreates falsexpectations

relating toachievementof the mentee

Mentoringcreates falseunderstandingin the role ofthe mentor

Disadvantages of REMP

Percent

Qualitative data

Institutional documentation

The University of Johannesburg endorses the national emphasis on research. In terms of it’s Research Policy and Strategy (2009:3), the following strategic goals have been identified: Maintaining and emphasising the quality of research undertaken; enhancing the institutional research profile; increasing, managing and structuring the external and internal funding for research; maximizing the impact and international recognition of research and supporting national, regional and industry-specific research and development policies and strategies.

Enforcing the strategic goals of the institutions has necessitated the following initiatives at the university:

Appointment of postdoctoral fellowships and research professors in selected programmes.

16

Staff development programmes to enhance staff qualifications and active research.

Next Generation of Scholars Programme to create a pool of appropriately qualified researchers in the long term.

Establishment of 13 new research centres with internal financial resources and 7 research niches which have received additional funding.

Research Incentive Scheme to encourage research output and rating among researchers by rewarding them with a greater share of their publication subsidies.

While the initiatives are acknowledged as contributors to improve research output, the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research, Innovation and Advancement) strongly affirmed the need to free researchers from the administrative burdens of technocrats in the higher education system (Research Report, 2008a:3). Studman (2005:9) is of the view that if staff are rewarded for research output by receiving a reduced teaching load or a research day free of teaching and administrative responsibilities, this can have a catalytic effect on research capability. Presently, there is no policy directing this concession at the university.

Interviews

Although the survey reflected a 63.20 per cent response from academics in favour of a formal mentorship programme, interviews with executive and senior members of staff indicated the following results:

A formal mentorship programme will not work as staff did not want to be managed and regulated any more than they are now.

When enforced, it is yet another aspect to be managed. It should happen naturally.

A mentorship programme should be initiated in an informal, unplanned and natural way.

Staff not operating at a research level becomes an impediment to the research agenda.

The prevalence of many staff in high positions who do not publish and do not really know how to do research.

Under-staffing in many departments is considered a real challenge.

Power relations, arrogance, elitism and language barriers can be disabling factors.

Lack of experience in the field and experience in mentorship.

Mentorship will have no place in faculties where there is no time for research because of large classes to teach.

17

The appointment of many contract and temporary staff is very high, making it futile to invest in mentorship programmes when these staff are not expected to contribute to research output.

The presence of large numbers of undergraduate students compared to postgraduate students which affects the level of research output.

Studman (2005:8) highlighted that most research directors and managers are expect to grow either quality or the quantity of research within their organisations. However, the issue of academics who have a non-existent research output because they do not know what to do becomes problematic. Many expressed the view that there has to be a change in attitude among staff and to stop using excuses.

The data from the quantitative and qualitative methods revealed that while 63.29 per cent of the respondents from the survey favoured a formal REMP, the interviewees preferred an informal, spontaneous and collegial type of mentoring. Both groups identified challenges to implementing a formal REMP.

Way forward

The imperative to restructure and transform programmes and institutions that are better able to respond to local and global knowledge transfer and knowledge management has necessitated a focus on research production (South Africa, 1997:Preamble). Within higher education institutions, the promotion of research output through capacity development initiatives is important to enable researchers to become rated researchers, attract DoHET subsidies and to be able to compete nationally and globally.

It is important to highlight that capacity building is not the single responsibility of the researcher, but an integrated responsibility with the institutions that promote research (Breen, Jaganyi, van Wilgen and van Wyk, 2004:430).

While the analysis revealed a commitment toward developing research capacity with a view to the University of Johannesburg becoming a research focused higher education institution, institutional management was of the view that “red tape” should be reviewed and more administrative support should be provided to researchers to engender an enabling research environment. Coldwell and Herbst (2004:442) adds that the responsibility and commitment of all role players, setting of clear goals and a sharing of the theoretical framework guiding the mentoring programme can significantly influence the outcome.

Overall evidence indicates that a formal REMP would promote staff morale, especially for novices who may suffer from low self-esteem because they do not know how to engage in research, recognition of established and senior researchers and establishing a focus on a research development career path. This is further supported by a report from the DoHET

18

(2010, 6) which stated that only seven higher education institutions in South Africa produced 74 per cent of all research publications, which reflected an output ratio of 0.76 units per staff member, while the other sixteen institutions provided 26 per cent of publications, with a ratio of 0.28 units per staff member. DoHET advocated the need for staff development, infrastructure, structural development and policy and institutionalising a research culture at the sixteen institutions.

While the implementation of a formal REMP is recommended to assist higher education institutions to achieve their research output goals, it is important that the challenges hindering its success be given consideration. Institutional support in the form of administration, finance, promotion of a research culture, avoidance of excessive red tape and diminished centralized decision making are important contributors to the success of a formal REMP. Findings from the NRF’s piloted TTK report (NRF, 2006:14-15) highlighted the lack of institutional buy-in as hampering progress in the programme.

The depletion of senior researchers in the long term in view of the majority being close to retirement can be addressed by the option of increasing the retirement age of scientists. According to Nyide (2005 in Wanzala, 2008:20), early retirement undermines science development in any country, since most scientists start publishing only in their mid-forties and fifties.

Interventions that incentivise and support researchers toward greater productivity, should incorporate lesser workloads, financial incentives and implementing a formal REMP within official working hours. According to Schulze (2009:44), mentorship needs to be part of the work allocation, so that mentors can support more than one group of mentees to form mentoring communities, and should be rewarded. These considerations can address the constraint of heavy workloads, complemented by the lack of financial rewards. This is important in view of the lack of capacity within some faculties to manage a formal REMP. In the absence of addressing the capacity issue, the pressure to address training and development in research can be compromised.

In terms of future research, the following aspects may be explored:

Pursue a process of informal mentoring of academics as researchers within departments.

Determine the effectiveness of informal mentoring in terms of research output

Determine how informal mentoring can be translated into a formal REMP.

Identify ways of retaining expertise for sustainable mentoring to promote research output.

Implement a pilot REMP.

19

Conclusion

In the view of the imperative for higher education institutions to increase their research output, staff need to be developed in terms of skills and competencies required of researchers. Mentorship can be considered as a possible strategy to promote research capacity among academics. While the findings supported a formal mentorship programme, it is important that the challenges hindering its possible success are addressed.

According to Shelton (undated:143), there is a paucity of evidence regarding the success of formal mentoring programmes in South Africa. Therefore, the outcome of the study can make a significant contribution to the literature data base on mentorship. Further, the findings are not only of value to the University of Johannesburg, but also to all higher education institutions.

20

Bibliography

Alt, H. 2002. Benchmarking in the globalised world and its impact on South African higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 16(1).

American College of Nuclear Physicians. [Online]. 2006. ACNP Mentorship Programme. Available from: http://acnp.snm.org/index.cfm?PageID=3639&RPID=60. (Accessed: 2006/12/12).

Auf der Heyde, T. 2007. Research Development Survey 2007: Executive Summary and Recommendations. Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg.

Auf der Heyde, T. 2008. Research & Innovation Division. Research administration, management and activities. Annual Report: 2007. Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg.

Blunt, R.J.S. & Conolly, J. 2006. Perceptions of mentoring: Expectation of a key resource for higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 20(2), 195-208.

Boyd, L.G. & Fresen, J.W. [Undated]. Quality promotion and capacity development – could they come to the aid of weary South African academics? Johannesburg: Independent QA Consultants & University of Pretoria.

Breen, C.M., Jaganyi, J.J., van Wilgen, B.W. & van Wyk, E. 2004. Research projects and capacity building. Water SA 30(4): 4 October.

Burns, I. 2006. Mellon retiree mentorship scheme. Circular (F 14/20) from I Burns for the Deputy Registrar (Academic and Research). 7 July. Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand.

21

Chetty, P. 2003. Research and Development in Technikons: lacunae and challenges. South African Journal of Higher Education, 17(1).

Christiansen, I.M. & Slammert, L. 2005. A multi-faceted approach to research development (I): Addressing the myths. South African Journal of Higher Education, 19(6), 1047-1061.

Cleveland State University. [Online]. 2006. Statistical Mentoring Programme. Available from: http://www.csuohio.edu/stamp. (Accessed: 2006/12/07).

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. 2000. Research Methods in Education. 5th Ed. London: Routledge Falmer.

Coldwell, D. & Herbst, F. 2004. Business Research. 1st Ed. Lansdowne: Juta & Co. Ltd.

Cooney, J. [Online]. 2008. Mentoring – Low Cost, Big Benefits. Available from: http://secure.conferenceboard.ca/humanresource/mentoring-inside.htm.

(Accessed: 2008/05/05).

Gawe, N. & de Kock, C. 2002. Higher education: spectators or players in globalisation. South African Journal of Higher Education, 16(1).

Geber, H. 2005. Can mentoring stave off the looming crisis in Higher Education research publications? (Paper read at the FOTIM mentorship conference, October 11-12, Johannesburg). Unpublished.

Gray, M.M. 2005. What’s in it for the mentor? A research study. Revise publication. 17 February. USA: Corporate Mentoring Solutions Inc.

Higher Education South Africa (HESA). 2006. Spirit of Inquiry. Knowledge creation in South African Higher Education. Pretoria: HESA.

Higher Education South Africa (HESA). 2007. Higher Education Impact. Universities in the South African economy. Pretoria: HESA.

22

ISI Highly Cited Researchers Version 1.1. 2007. Browse Results by Country – South Africa. Available from: http://hcr3.isiknowledge.com/browse_author.pl?page=0&Link1=Browse&value Catego. (Accessed: 2007/01/19).

Jivanjee, P. [Online]. 2006. Underrepresented Researchers Mentoring Programme. Available from: http://www.rtc.pdx.edu/pgProjMentoring.php. (Accessed: 2006/12/07).

Kongolo, M. [Online]. 2008. Cross-Cutting Research Unit. Capacity Development. Available from: http://www.hsrc.ac.za/CD.phtml. (Accessed: 2008/07/01).

Lategan, L.O.K. & Dessels, R. 2007. The Development of Publication Writing Skills and Publication Opportunities: A case study in the management of research development. Journal for New Generation Sciences, 5(1).

Maistry, N. (nmaistry@uj.ac.za). 2007. RE: research capacity development initiative/ programme at UJ. [Email to:] Nundulall, R (reethan@uj.ac.za). Dec. 04.

Mentor. [Online]. 2006. Keeping Matches Together. Available from: http://www.mentoring.org/program_staff/research_corner/keeping_matches_together. (Accessed: 2006/12/07).

Mentoring. [Online]. 2007. A definition of mentoring. Available from: http://www.linkroll.com/mentoring/a-definition-of-mentoring.php. (Accessed: 2008/10/13).

Mentoring Works. [Online]. 2007. Definitions of Mentoring. Available from: http://www/mentoring-works.com/topics/definitions_of_mentoring.html.

(Accessed: 2007/02/07).

23

Nigro, N. 2003. The Everything. Coaching and Mentoring Book. How to increase productivity, foster talent and encourage success. 1st Ed. Massachusetts: Adams Media Corporation.

NRF. 2005. The NRF evaluations and rating system. Facts - Figures. Pretoria: NRF.

NRF. 2006. Evaluation Report for the THUTHUKA Pilot Mentoring Programme. Pretoria: NRF. (Unpublished).

NRF (a). 2007. Draft: The Strategic Plan of the National Research Foundation. NRF Vision 2015. Pretoria: NRF.

NRF (b). [Online]. 2007. Education and the Challenges for Change. Available from: http://www.nrf.ac.za/focuSouth Africareas/educate/. (Accessed: 2007/02/04).

NRF (c). 2007. Evaluations and Rating. Facts and Figures. Pretoria: NRF.

NRF (d). 2007. [Online]. From brain drain to brain gain. Available from: http://www.nrf.ac.za/media/2007_09_20.stm. (Accessed: 2008/06/18).

NRF (e). [Online]. 2007. South African PhD Project. Creating strength and diversity in the South African public and private sector. Available from:

http://www.nrf.ac.za/doc/phd_project_2007.pdf. (Accessed: 2008/08/11).

NRF. 2008. SARChI Briefing – UJ. 26 September. Pretoria: NRF.

O’Brien, M.R. [Online]. 2008. Research matters: learning, teaching and the role of research. Available from: http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/directions/previous/issue7/obrien.html.

(Accessed: 2008/07/04).

24

Research 2003. [Online]. 2008. Framework of Research and Support. Available from: http://www.research2003.uct.ac.za/strat/frame.php. (Accessed: 2008/05/14).

Research Policy and Strategy. 2009. Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg.

Research Report (a). 2008. Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg: Johannesburg.

Research Report (b). 2008. Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg: Johannesburg.

Research Top Priority at UJ. 2007. Citizen, Supplement A. October 18:1.

Salmi, J. [Online]. 2006. II Perspectives of International Organizations and of Industry. Developing Countries and the global knowledge economy: new challenges for tertiary education. Available from: http://pub.uvm.dk/200/unescoworkshop/kpa02.html. (Accessed: 2008/05/22).

Schalekamp, M. [Online]. 2005. The benefits of mentoring. Available from: http://www.aim.org.za/articles/20050914. (Accessed: 2008/05/05).

Schulze, S. 2009. A model for research mentoring in higher education: a case study in the field of education. Journal of Educational Studies, Volume 8 (4) 2009.

Shelton, D.E. (Undated). An evaluation of formal mentoring programmes within two South African organizations. Masters in Commerce thesis. Rhodes University.

Simmering, M. [Online]. 2007. Mentoring - Positive outcomes of mentoring relationships, gender, diversity, and men. Available from: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Mar-No/Mentoring.html. (Accessed: 2008/10//13).

25

SOUTH AFRICA (b). Department of Education. 1995. White Paper on Education and Training. [Online]. Available from: mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\reethan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files. (Accessed: 3/4/2010).

SOUTH AFRICA. Department of Education (a). 1997. Education White Paper 3. A Programme for the transformation of higher education. General Notice 1196 of 1997, July 24. Pretoria: Government Printers.

SOUTH AFRICA. Department of Education (b). 1997. Policy and Procedures for Measurement of Research Output of Public Higher Education Institutions. Pretoria: Government Printers.

SOUTH AFRICA. Department of Higher Education and Training. 2010. Report on the evaluation of the 2008 institutional research publication outputs. Pretoria: Government Printers.

SOUTH AFRICA. Department of Science and Technology. 2002. South Africa’s national research and development strategy. Pretoria: Government Printers.

SOUTH AFRICA (d). 1997. Higher Education Act 101 of 1997. Pretoria: Government Printer.

SOUTH AFRICA. Ministry of Education. 2001. Draft National Plan for Higher Education in South Africa. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Studman, C. 2005. Motivating staff: Towards a research culture. Research Global. October 2005, Issue 11. London: Chandlers Printers Ltd.

Study South Africa. [Online]. 2007. Research and Development. Available from: http://www.studysa.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid. (Accessed: 2007/02/19).

26

27

TDL IRT 2005 Mentoring Program. 2005. Introduction to Mentoring. Available from: http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:Lu8ofiMMbS8J:www.supplychainvictoria.com.a. (Accessed: 2010/03/06).

Thulstrup, E.W., Hansen, J.A. & Gaardhoje, J.J. [Online]. 2006. I Recommendations. Capacity Building in Higher Education and Research: A key component of efficient global development. Available from: http://pub.uvm.dk/2006/unescoworkshop/kap01.html. (Accessed: 2008/05/22).

University of California. 2008. Graduate Research Mentorship Programme. Santa Barbara: University of University.

University of Leeds. [Online]. 2007. Good practice in research mentoring: Guidelines for Faculties and Schools. Available from:

http://www.leeds.ac.uk.sddu/research/mentoring.html. (Accessed: 2008/05/05).

University of Oxford. [Online]. 2006. USQ Beyond Education. Mentee Role. 14 February. Available from:http://www.usq.edu.au/beyondeducation/mentoring/mentees/menterol.htm.

(Accessed on: 2008/05/05).

van der Walt, F. (fvanderwalt@uj.ac.za). 2010. RE: chapter 2 – updated information on MCDM project. [Email to: Nundulall, R (reethan@uj.ac.za). February 24.

Venter, W. (wilna@hesa.org.za). 2007. Research Outputs. [E-mail to:] Nundulall, R (reethan@uj.ac.za) Feb. 5.Mar. 29.

Wanzala, J. 2008. No early rest for Africa’s greying scientists. Research Africa. 27 May. Cape Town: Bandwidth Barn.