4.2 Article

Research excellence in Africa: Policies, perceptions, and performance

期刊

SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 392-403

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scx074

关键词

research quality assessment; performance indicators; scientometrics; science granting councils; sub-Saharan Africa

资金

  1. International Development Research Centre in Canada
  2. Department for International Development of the United Kingdom
  3. National Research Foundation of South Africa (IDRC project) [108417]
  4. DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (South Africa)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our article discusses various features of research excellence (RE) in Africa, framed within the context of African science granting councils (SCGs) and pan-African RE initiatives. Our survey, collecting responses from 106 researchers and research coordinators across Africa, highlights the diversity of opinions and preferences with regards to Africa-relevant dimensions of RE and related performance indicators. The results of the survey confirm that RE is a highly multidimensional concept. Our analysis shows how some of those dimensions can be operationalised into quantifiable indicators that may suit evidence-based policy discourses on research quality in Africa, as well as research performance assessments by African SCGs. Our indicator case study, dealing with the top 1 per cent most highly cited research publications, identifies several niches of international-level RE in the African continent while highlighting the role of scientific cooperation as a driving force. To gain a deeper understanding of RE in Africa, it is important to take into account the practical challenges faced by researchers and research funding agencies to align and reconcile socioeconomic interests with international notions of excellence and associated research performance indicators. African RE should be customised and contextualised in order to be responsive to African needs and circumstances.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据