Ms Phumelele Nzimande, Chairperson of the HSRC Board;
Dr Olive Shisana, CEO of the HSRC;
Members of the Board;
Distinguished guests;
Ladies and gentlemen:
I would like to congratulate the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) on the work it has executed in the 2010/11 financial year.
The HSRC has admirably demonstrated the value of ‘social science in action’.
The work of the HSRC has deepened and expanded our collective understanding of South African society.
At this point in time, where all public funding is under pressure, there is an understandable demand from the public to see the social impact of research you undertake.
The HSRC has succeeded in contributing to public debate in ways that are grounded in a scientific, evidence-based methodology.
The HSRC provides the evidence-based research that is the essential precondition for effective policy design and implementation.
The HSRC must continue to add a robust, informed and critical voice to policy processes.
Major research themes covered by the HSRC over the period of review are important research on economic growth; employment creation and poverty reduction; education and skills development; the social aspects of HIV/AIDS; models for affordable health care provision; democratic development and service delivery; urban and rural development; housing provision and food security; youth development and social infrastructure; and the interplay between science, technology and society.
Recent developments in the ongoing debate on the status of the humanities in South Africa have occasioned much public comment and academic analysis.
The Assaf consensus study, The Future of the Humanities, and the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) sponsored report, Charter on Humanities and Social Sciences, provide a welcome opportunity to reflect on this sector of science and to devise responses that will assure colleagues that the humanities and social sciences have not been deserted by government and our science councils.
The HSRC and the National Research Foundation (NRF) will have to engage in substantive discussion to develop grant and project-funding responses that address the consensus in both reports that the humanities are neglected in terms of grant funding and reward for research outcomes.
We are still in the early reading and comment phases for both reports and thus do not have definitive conclusions to table here this morning.
There are several aspects that should be accepted without dispute.
First, the status of the humanities and social sciences would benefit greatly from more visible advocacy by senior academics, science councils and political leaders. Many of us are strong advocates of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines but this should not be to the detriment of the humanities.
Second, much of the revival sought by the two reports will probably occur in our universities, NGOs, civil society organs and in political and public service institutions.
Colleagues in the humanities and social sciences will need to think afresh about how their work might enhance accountability, transparency, efficiency responsiveness and development.
None of these concepts suggest ideological posture, rather they are attributes that millions want to see as part and parcel of vibrant democracy.
Third, colleagues will also need to help us think about these disciplines in new and fresh ways – several analysts have rejected the notion of the humanities as “service” disciplines providing short courses to other intellectual fields – I think many of us would support this rejection of a reductionist approach to the humanities. But what is the content of the new post-2011, post-reports status that we are being offered or will be offered.
Fourth, I will continue to believe that the oft-avoided discussion of a four-year degree still needs consideration.
This connects with matters like: strengthening our professional qualifications, ensuring that all graduates are literate and have knowledge beyond their specialisation, and creating the possibility for a budding Mane Curie to decide to be a Yvonne Mokgoro or an Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, a Wendy Orr, or a Maya Angelou.
Of course, it is far too easy to suggest that we have finalised consideration of the reports at this time, as we need to study both thoroughly.
Some early actions that I think are implementable are suggested in the reports. The NRF can certainly consider introducing awards that recognise excellence in the humanities and can attend to concerns about skewed grant and contract funding.
The HSRC could advise the DST on what it believes can and should be done to strengthen its support for the humanities.
Clearly, an urgent engagement with the higher-education section should be undertaken by responsible councils.
As we consider our definitive responses I believe Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAF) can create a representative humanities committee to advise the DST and Ministry on short to medium-term interventions that will signal our commitment to acting in support of the humanities.
In closing, it may be worthwhile to ask ASSAF to reflect on the possibility of building on the experience of its State of Science report that looked at specific subjects.
We would then have a deeper understanding of what is happening with History, English, Philosophy, African Languages, in our university departments and in our school curriculum.
This more detailed ‘subject’ probing will assist us in developing strategies that fully respond to the practical experiences of colleagues in the field.
The humanities are poised to enter a phase of concentrated policy attention. I believe HSRC has the experience and skills to assist all to respond effectively.
Remarks by the Minister Naledi Pandor MP, at the launch of the Human Sciences Research Council’s annual report 2010/11
