The following is an address by the CEO of the Walter & Albertina Sisulu Foundation for Social Justice, Mphumzi Mdekazi, at Vaal University of Technology (VUT), October 23, 2025.

Honourable colleagues,
Distinguished guests,
Fellow researchers,
Community partners,
University students and Members of civil society.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about a subject of vital importance for our country. I am requested to speak about the “research that matters”. What do we mean by “research that matters”?

Simply put: I suppose this is research that is not just conducted in isolation, but research that addresses the pressing social, economic, health and development challenges of our nation; research that engages the communities it seeks to serve; research that influences policy and practice; and a research that makes a visible and meaningful difference.

In South Africa, as elsewhere, research has traditionally been the domain of universities, scholars, research institutions and laboratories. But increasingly, we recognise that unless it is embedded in society — unless the people whose lives are affected participate in it, shape it, trust it — then its potential to bring about real change is limited. The theme of engaged research — research done with rather than on communities — is becoming central to the idea of “research that matters”, in my view.

Today I wish to speak on several inter‐linked dimensions: 

1. the rationale for research that matters; 
2. the evolving paradigm of engaged research; 
3. how this is being enacted in the South African context; 
4. key areas of priority and impact; 
5. the state of our national research system and the challenges it must overcome; 
6. university ranking system; and
7. a way forward on principles, practices and recommendations for ensuring that research in South Africa truly matters.

1. Why research that matters?

Research is not just an academic exercise. As one recent commentary puts it; research is being conducted on almost any topic you can imagine. The findings from these pivotal studies often shape the policies that govern our societies, strengthen initiatives aimed at bringing about meaningful change, drive advancements in technology and healthcare, and influence the education of future generations.”Indeed, the value of research lies both in knowledge creation and in translation to action.

When research outcomes inform policy, underpin implementation, strengthen institutions, empower communities, then the investment of time, money and human resources pays into tangible social benefit.

In South Africa, this is particularly important: we live in a society marked by profound inequalities, legacies of exclusion, high burdens of disease, socio-economic vulnerability, and the imperative of development. Research that does not speak to these realities’ risks being disconnected, academically elegant but socially irrelevant.

Research must reach into the heart of developmental challenges if it is to matter.

According to the NRF review “Research Productivity: Comparing South Africa with Africa and Globally, 2025”, South Africa performs around the middle of comparable countries for output and impact, but its investment in research and development (R&D) is relatively low. This means, its potential remains under-exploited.

Hence the research that matters is not optional. It is integral to national development, social justice, innovation and the creation of a research system that is sustainable, inclusive and impactful. It is a “political will”.

Researchers can play their part, however if politicians are not willing to implement research findings particularly around issues of the socio-economic balance, such as land rights, land restitution, land restoration and access to minerals underneath that land to the benefit of all South Africans, then the work of researchers gets weakened and become irrelevant, and for me this where it all matters.

2. The paradigm of engaged research

A key shift in research thinking is the move from traditional, sometimes extractive research (where researchers come into a community, gather data, depart, publish) toward what is often called Engaged Research (ER).

The HSRC, in collaboration with the NRF and the Department of Science, Technology & Innovation (DSTI), defines engaged research as “an approach that actively involves the perspectives of community members and stakeholders throughout the entire research lifecycle — from agenda setting, funding, research design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.”

There are certain guiding principles that have emerged in this context. As Professor Paul James from Western Sydney University define principles, these include:

• Relations of reciprocity with a negotiated distance between local communities and intellectually autonomous researchers;
• Sensitivity to the past while being future-oriented;
• Sensitivity to spatiality and lived places — both local and global;
• The bridging of social, cultural and natural realms to understand the human condition;
• Working through differences by holding them in tension and allowing them to inform the research process rather than resolving them; Recognising the entanglement of knowledge and power; and
• Remaining ethically and practically attentive to research methods.

What does this mean in practice? It means research is done with communities, not only on them. It means agenda-setting includes community voices; methodologies are sensitive to context; data collection and interpretation consider local meaning; findings are returned and operationalised for real-world change. It means power dynamics are recognised, ethical dimensions attended, and the knowledge produced is co-owned.

3. How this is playing out in South Africa

Let us then consider how engaged research and research that matters are manifesting in the South African context. The HSRC provides meaningful examples of how this shift is taking root. For instance, the HSRC’s Centre for Community-Based Research (CCBR) in Sweet-waters (a rural valley outside Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal) works directly with community stakeholders, trains residents as fieldworkers, and partners with community organisations to ensure research into HIV, maternal health and other critical issues is culturally sensitive and aligned with community needs.

This embedment of research within the community is core to ensuring that the questions asked and the answers produced matter. (this is a consistent culture of participatory research through its Centre for Community-Based Research (CCBR)” in Sweet-waters).

This example shows how research that matters is not an abstract — it responds to specific populations, addresses marginalised groups, and seeks to generate data that translate into interventions and policies.

In the broader institutional space, the National Research Foundation’s “Research Productivity: Comparing South Africa with Africa and Globally in 2025” shows that while South Africa publishes a solid volume of research and has a respectable Category Normalised Citation Impact, it invests relatively little in R&D as a proportion of GDP, which constrains performance, extension and impact.Thus, South Africa is actively engaging with the question of how to conduct research that matters — through participatory methods, priority-setting, community engagement, institutional reforms, and measurement of impact.

4. Key areas of priority and impact

What are some of the domains in which research that matters is most needed in South Africa? While many could be named, I highlight several inter-related ones:

a) Health and epidemiology

Given the burden of disease (HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, non-communicable diseases), and the challenges in health systems delivery, research that helps adapt, innovate and scale health solutions is vital. The NDoH’s priority-setting framework emphasises social research, systems research and policy research, not just basic science.

b) Inequality, poverty, social justice and inclusion

South Africa’s history of apartheid and its ongoing legacies mean that research on inequality, social exclusion, tenure security, land rights, social mobility and rural development remains urgent. For example, the presentation by Dr Munya Saruchera at Stellenbosch University on “Securing Land and Resource Rights for Sustainable Development in Africa” drew on the Pan-African Programme on Land and Resource Rights and emphasised how tenure security and resource rights are foundational to rural poor communities.

Rich policy outputs emerged (14 workshop papers, six policy briefs, book) and they were translated into multiple languages and platforms. This is research that matters because it tackles root systemic drivers of poverty and dispossession.

c) Innovation, technology & the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). To lift South Africa’s developmental trajectory, research that supports the adoption of new technologies, digitalisation, automation, data science, and the integration of innovation into local industry is critical. But innovation must not simply replicate global models — it must be relevant to local contexts, appropriate to local communities, and inclusive. The NRF notes the low spending on R&D (0.61% of GDP) in South Africa as implying that more investment and coordination is needed in this regard.

d) Environment, sustainability, climate change As the global pressures of climate change mount, so too in South Africa. Research that helps local communities adapt, that links environmental science with social science, that works through differences (a principle of engaged research) and that addresses spatiality (urban/rural, global/local) becomes central.

e) Education, capacity building & transformation

Research that matters also addresses the pipeline: the development of researchers from previously disadvantaged groups; the inclusion of women; building institutions in historically under-resourced universities; strengthening research infrastructure; bridging the gap between universities and communities; and ensuring that research capacity is spread and sustainable. The NRF reports that from 2018 to 2022 the percentage of Black South Africans funded by the NRF increased from 73% to 84%, women from 53% to 59%.

f) Governance and the interface of evidence and policy Finally, research that matters is so because it addresses not just the “what” but the “how” — how evidence is translated into policy, how stakeholders engage, how power dynamics play out, how systems change. We need research that will combat crime and corruption when it comes to governance.

5. University ranking systems

There is a school of thought which seeks to suggest that chasing the ranking can harm Africa’s higher education system.

1. This echoes wider concerns about the lack of scientific rigour of ranking systems that claim to measure complex institutional performances through simplified metrics. The problem is that the public believe that the rankings offer an indication of quality. As a result, rankings have enormous influence over the market. This includes the choice of where to study and where to invest funding. The universities decision aligns with its commitment to the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment, an agreement signed by over 700 research organisations, funders and professional societies, and the Barcelona Declaration, signed by about 200 universities and research institutions. They both advocate for open science practices to make scientific research, data, methods, and educational resources transparent, accessible and re-useable by everyone without barriers. And both recommend “avoiding the use of ranking of research assessment”.
2. The ranking industry has increasingly targeted African countries. It sees the continent as a new market at a time when it is losing traction among high profile institutions in the global north. There has been a rapid increase in snazzy events run by rankings organisations on the continent.These events are very expensive and often luxurious attended by vice chancellors, academics consultants and others. As an academic involved higher education teaching, I believe that chasing the rankings can harm Africa’s fragile higher education system. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, the rankings metrics largely focus on research to address local problems. Secondly, the rankings fail to consider higher education’s role in nurturing critical citizens or contributing to the public good.
3. Universities submit detailed institutional data to ranking companies without charge. That information is then repackaged and sold back to institutions, governments and corporations. This data includes institutional income. It often also includes contact details of staff and students. These are used for “reputation surveys” . In the case of QS University Rankings “reputation” makes up more than 40% of the rankings. This business model has created what can be described as a sophisticated data harvesting operation disguised as academic assessment. Academic research has extensively documented the problems with ranking methodologies. These include: The use of proxy metrics that poorly represent institutional quality. For example, while many university rankings do not include a measurement of teaching quality at all, those that do, use measures such as income staff to student ratio, and international academic reputation.
4. Most ranking systems emphasise English-language publications. This reinforces existing academic hierarchies rather than providing meaningful assessment of quality. Where new rankings are being introduced, such as the Sub-Saharan Africa rankings, or even the Impact rankings, they sadly still have the problem of proxy measures, and composite and subjective weightings. In addition, many of the ranking companies refuse to reveal precise methodological detail. This makes it impossible to verify their claims or understand on what basis institutions are assessed.
5. Researchers argue that rankings have thrived because they align with the idea of higher education as a marketplace where institutions compete for market share. This led universities to prioritise metrics that improve their ranking positions rather than activities that serve their students and communities. The emphasis on quantifiable outputs has created what scholars call “coercive isomorphism”- pressure for all universities to adopt similar structures and priorities regardless of their specific missions or local contexts.

6. The national research system — strengths and challenges

In reflecting on research that matters, it is important to appraise the national research system: what are the enablers, what are the constraints?

Strengths:

South Africa has a vibrant research output: the NRF review shows South Africa produces a significant number of Web of Science-indexed papers, with a respectable citation impact (Category Normalised Citation Impact p1.22) compared to peers on the continent. Dr Arikana Chihombori favours this model on the basis that South should surrender its research output to the North for peer review; East should do as such to West for African Peer Review Scholarship.

• Institutions like the HSRC, NRF and leading universities are explicitly embracing engaged research, capacity building, ethical frameworks, community partnerships, and science communication.
• Transformation metrics are improving for example, the increase in Black and female researchers acknowledged by the NRF.
• There are concrete initiatives to embed engaged research into the national systems.

Challenges:

• Research spending as a proportion of GDP remains low: according to the NRF and the STI Indicators Report, current spending is only ~0.61 % of GDP, far short of the target of 1.5%.
• Underrepresentation of certain fields in engaged research: for example, the HSRC notes that STEM areas such as chemistry and mathematics are under-represented in engaged research practice.
• Issues of coordination across the National System of Innovation (NSI) remains limited and weak on technology transfer, weak measures of policy impact hinder system effectiveness.
• Persistent inequalities in research capacity: many historically disadvantaged institutions still face infrastructure, funding and human resource constraints.
• The gap between research and policy/practice: even when quality research is produced, translation into policy and community impact remains uneven.
• Ethical leadership, power, and methodological challenges in community-engaged research: engaging stakeholders meaningfully is complex, often resource-intensive, and demands reflexivity from researchers.

Taken together, these challenges underscore the fact that making research matter is not simply a technical adjustment but requires systemic change — of funding, governance, capacity, culture, and practice. This is because poverty is still painfully glaring out there in our communities.

7. Principles, practices and recommendations for research that matters

In synthesising the above, I propose a set of principles and practices for ensuring research in South Africa truly matters — and some recommendations to guide stakeholders (researchers, universities, funders, communities and government).

Principles:

1. Co-creation and participation: From agenda-setting to dissemination, communities, stakeholders and end-users should be engaged.
2. Relevance: Research questions must align with real‐world challenges, national priorities.
3. Inclusivity and equity: Inclusion of marginalised voices (women, Black researchers, rural communities, historically disadvantaged institutions), recognition of power dynamics, capacity building.
4. Translation to action: Findings must be usable, disseminated not only in academic journals but policy briefs, community reports, media, and linked to implementation.
5. Sustainability and capacity: Research systems should build enduring capacity, infrastructure, and networks; not just once-off projects.
6. Context sensitivity: Research must be cognisant of South Africa’s specific socio-cultural, historical, economic and spatial contexts. The priority-setting should emphasize the need for the process to reflect local realities.
7. Interdisciplinarity and systems thinking: Many challenges are complex (health, inequality, environment) so bridging natural, social and cultural realms as per the engaged research principles is important.
8. Accountability and impact measurement: Researchers and funders should include mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the societal impact of research, beyond academic metrics.

Practices:

• Establish partnerships early with communities, NGOs, government, industry.
• Train and include community researchers, as the HSRC and CCBR does with resident fieldworkers.
• Use mixed methods, participatory action research, co-design of interventions rather than purely observational research.
• Disseminate to multiple audiences: policymakers, practitioners, community stakeholders, and media.
• Prioritise funding for under-represented fields and institutions; strengthen public-private collaborations to increase R&D investment.
• Develop research capacity in historically disadvantaged universities and technical institutions.
• Align research with national strategic frameworks (e.g., NRF Vision 2030 “Research for a Better Society”) and with global frameworks (e.g., UN Sustainable Development Goals, Africa Agenda 2063).

Recommendations

1. Increase investment in R&D – The data show that South Africa’s GERD (Gross Expenditure on R&D) is low relative to countries of similar GDP, and that increased investment could enhance productivity and impact.
2. Expand engaged research across all disciplines – While social sciences are well represented, fields such as chemistry, mathematics, engineering require more engaged research practices so that technological innovation is responsive to society.
3. Promote multi-sectoral collaboration – Between academia, government, civil society, industry, and communities. This enhances relevance, uptake and sustainability. On the other hand, government must be compelled to combat corruption.

Let us therefore commit on doing research that matters to uplift the socio-economic condition of our people together. Somewhere, something incredibly new is waiting to be known.

I thank you.

Source link