I wrote a partly whimsical, partly bitter essay with this title in 2001 for the SA Journal of Science, following a less-then-inspiring grant from the National Research Foundation (NRF), following their most recent reorganisation. They declined to publish it, incidentally, seeing as they were then run by the NRF....
I found it interesting to revisit it this week, given that they have just had another paroxysmic organisational reset which will probably result in much the same thing happening all over again. An edited version:
"Since 1984 I have been a loyal and dependent client of what was the Foundation for Research Development (FRD), and is now the National Research Foundation (NRF). This semi-autonomous body is South Africa's premier science funding organisation, especially when one considers "blue sky" or non-applied research. I have worked my way up in the scale of grants from merely promising, to relatively accomplished, to accomplished researcher: this has been quite a slog, involving as it has a great deal of research, reporting on research, applying for research monies, supervising students, writing research papers, and helping the FRD and then the NRF in peer review of projects and of people. Indeed, with the amount of paperwork the FRD/NRF has generated for us, my colleagues and I have sometimes jokingly wondered whether they worked for us, or we for them: certainly, we seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time, especially in recent years, in wrestling with recalcitrant Web-based forms which change yearly, with reporting requirements which do the same, and with deadlines which are suddenly imposed close to term, and without warning.
We have coped with all of this with (fairly) good grace, most of us, given that the body is often our main provider, and we are (mostly) committed to seeing what seemed to be a good vision, work for us and for the country.
Here, the newly-minted NRF - formed from the not-yet-old FRD and the Centre for Science Development of the Human Sciences Research Council - suddenly asked us to reapply for research monies in a one-off process, despite the fact that many of us were supposedly on funding programmes that extended beyond the end of 2000. This was to be done in order to bridge the transition to the new order, and - I suspect - to give a shakedown cruise to the new and rather contentious "Focus Areas" [see below] which had replaced the previous programmes/themes. And so we grumbled, but we obliged, and filled in yet another new Web-based form, which - surprisingly enough - was actually almost user-friendly. It also - surprise, surprise! - had enough space for even quite lengthy descriptions of projects (unlike previous versions, which arbitrarily cut one off in mid-justification). So we filled it all in, and sat back, expectantly.
In pleasurable anticipation, in my case: after all, I had been quite productive, in terms of producing students and papers, and enhancing both mine and South Africa's image in my discipline. Granted, I had not attracted any "black" South Africans to my projects, and this was a negative in terms of "corrective action": however, without actively going out and kidnapping people, I could see no other way of coercing folk with excellent employment prospects into what is a pretty dead-end field in terms of personal financial advancement. Granted, I did not have strong ties to an HDI - hitherto-disadvantaged institution, which is an interesting acronym for places created to further apartheid's grand schemes, and which on the whole, were rather well funded until recently. However, I did have excellent ties with SADC research folk, and in fact had postgraduate students from Kenya, Zimbabwe and Malawi, and had fostered exchanges with researchers from Kenya and students from the Netherlands. I had also, over the previous 8 years, done rather well in terms of FRD/NRF funding: never less than three PhD studentships, and fairly generous running monies. I had also been publishing very well, and was in fact peaking in terms of production of students and publications from my favourite research area: I had had 8 papers and 4 chapters in 3 years, had produced 3 MSc and 3 PhDs in 5 years, and had another 4 PhDs finishing in the period 2000 - 2001. So, complacency ruled….
It was with a severe jolt, therefore, that I read the "Total for 2001" line in my award letter a few weeks ago. "It's a misprint", I thought. "They've left a zero off", I prayed. "They'd never cut me by 80%, would they?" I said, tremblingly, into the hushed quiet of my office.
No, no, and yes, as it turned out. No, they had not given me the equipment I asked for. No, they had not given me enough bursary money to support even the one PhD I had on the project who was eligible for funding, let alone the one I wanted to attract. Yes, they had given only enough running money to support one student for a third of a year, instead of the minimum I needed, of enough for a year for two.
I left an incoherent message on someone's voicemail at the NRF. I leapt to my trusty friend, my Netscape Messenger, and raced off indignant letters into the ether. I phoned colleagues in Pretoria, in Stellenbosch, I talked to people down the corridor.
An interesting picture emerged, over several days, and from all over the country. People who I consider to be leaders in their fields have had their research awards slashed; people who I know to be good researchers have received no money at all. Other people, on the other hand, have had no complaints: however, the overall picture seems to be of bewildered researchers wondering what they had done wrong, and high-up people in University Faculties scrambling to demand explanations of the NRF."
Interesting times, back there in 2001.... I survived, incidentally, by switching fields and funding bodies: I shifted my focus to mainly medical-related applied research, and discovered - as many had before me - that you could get a lot more money by so doing. I even abandoned the NRF as a source of funding for a while, given that they seemed to not be very interested in Virology.
Now the observant among you will have noted the highlighted (OK, bolded then...B-) "Focus Areas" above: the NRF basically turned South African science funding on its head to institute a bold new system...which they have now abandoned. Yes, the all-things-to-all-researchers reinvented NRF has just now released a "NRF Vision 2015" statement, accompanied by the news that Focus Areas are being phased out. Just what they are planning to replace them with is outlined here - which apparently encompasses seven broad fields:
Broad Investment Areas % of budget
- Established researchers 18%
- Human Capital Development and unrated researchers 23%
- Strategic Knowledge Fields 23%
- Strategic Platforms (Including research at the National Research Facilities) 11%
- International Initiatives 11%
- Applied & Industrial Research & Innovation 14%
- Community Engagement Research 0.2%
TOTAL 100%
This all sounds quite reasonable...until one realises a few things. Which are, that the NRF is simultaneously trying to fund all of this AND phase out Focus Areas AND the SARChi Chairs.
All of which means they will run horribly short of money to fund ANYTHING new in the next couple of years, unless Cabinet approves more budget or they dump something.
Buckle up, comrades: if you depend on the NRF for funding, and if you are currently being re-rated or initiating a new project or two...there could be lean times ahead. Wither/whither indeed - my money's on (or in) the latter.
Ed Rybicki
MCB, UCT
