Doctoral Enrolments and Graduation in South Africa

Ian Bunting and Charles Sheppard23February 2012

Graph 1: Doctoral enrolments, doctoral graduates and research publicationsGraph 2: Average annual changes: enrolments, graduates and publicationsGraph 3: Doctoral enrolments by race groupGraph 4: Percentage of doctoral enrolments in race groupingsGraph 5: Graduation rates and cohort output equivalentsGraph 6: Actual doctoral graduates vs normative totals on National Plan

target ratioGraph 7: Permanent academic staffGraph 8: Percentage of academic staff with doctorates by institutional

categoryGraph 9: Ratios of doctoral enrolments to academic staff with doctoratesGraph 10: Government research funding allocations by output category & financial

yearGraph 11: Estimates of Rand values of research outputsGraph 12: Average annual increases in outputsGraph 13: Total government research output funding per permanent academicGraph 14: Doctoral and publication output funding per permanent academic

(2011/12)

Contents

2

Graph 1 sets out data on key elements of SA’s high-level knowledgeproduction for the period 1996-2010 expressed as doctoral enrolments, doctoral graduates and research publication units. Average annual changes in these totals are reflected in Graph 2.

Doctoral enrolments, doctoral graduates and research publications

3

5164

55286394

77638790

9800 9939

11468

685 761 961 969 1104 1100 1182 1421

5622

5456 59366483 6660

80038353

9748

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Doctoral enrolments Doctoral graduates Research publications

PhD enrolments

Research pubs

PhD graduates

Graph 2 divides Graph 1 growth rates into the period between (a) 1996 and 2002, which covered the period of the 1997 HE White Paper and the 2001 National Plans, and (b) 2004-2010 which covered the introduction and implementation of the new 2003 government funding framework.

Average annual changes: enrolments, graduates and publications

4

7.0%

4.5%

5.9%6.0%

4.3%

5.4%

2.4%

6.6%

4.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

1996- 2002 2004- 2010 1996- 2010

Doctoral enrolments Doctoral graduates Research publications

Graph 3 divides the doctoral enrolment totals for 1996-2010 into race groupings. The main change has been in African doctoral enrolments, which increased from 663 in 1996 to 5066 in 2010, when African doctoral enrolments exceeded that of White enrolments for the first time.

Doctoral enrolments by race group

5

6831053

1610

2239

2933

35834022

5066

197 256 327 419 529 585 575 681264 344 464 619 768 813 774 868

4020 3875 39934486

4861 48194568

4853

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

African Coloured Indian White

AfricanWhite

Indian Coloured

Graph 4 shows how the % of doctoral enrolments by race group changed between 1996 to 2010. African doctoral students rose from 13% in 1996 to 33% in 2004, and 44% in 2010.

Percentage of doctoral enrolments in race groupings

6

13%

25%33%

41%44%

78%

62%55%

49%

42%

9%

13% 12% 10%14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1996 2000 2004 2008 2010

African White Coloured +Indian

AfricanWhite

Coloured+Indian

Graph 5 offers a first picture of the doctoral output efficiency ofSA’s public HE system, based on output ratios which appear in the 2001 National Plan. The National Plan set this as an output norm:

• The ratio between doctoral graduates in a given year and doctoral enrolments should = 20%. So, if 10 000 doctoral students were enrolled in the HE system in year X, then at least 200 of these students should graduate in year X.

• This norm was based on a further target norm that at least 75% of any cohort of students entering doctoral studies for the first time in (say) year Y, should eventually graduate. Calculations had shown that if the cohort output norm was to be achieved, then the 20% ratio of total graduates to total enrolments would have to be met over a period of time.

Graduation rates and cohort output equivalents

7

Graph 5 shows that, as far as doctoral outputs are concerned, the Public HE system has failed to meet the National Plan’s efficiency targets. Calculations show that over the period 1996–2002, less than 50% of students entering doctoral programmes in SA will eventually graduate.

Graduation rates and cohort output equivalents

8

14% 12% 12%

20%

52%45% 45%

75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1998- 2002 2002- 2006 2006- 2008 National target

Ratio of graduates to enrolments Cohort graduation equivalent

Graph 6 offers estimates of the effects of inefficiencies in SA’s doctoral programmes. For example, over the period 2005-2010, SA should, on the National Plan’s norms, have produced a total of 12 285 doctoral graduates but in fact produced only 7 711, leaving a “shortfall” of 4 739 graduates (who would have been drop outs from the system).

Actual doctoral graduates vs normative totals on National Plan target ratio

9

4976

7711

- 2735

7546

12285

- 4739

- 6000 - 4000 - 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Actual graduates produced

National Plan target

Total 2005-2010 Total 2000-2004

2000 - 2004

2000 - 2004

2005 - 2010

Shortfall

2000 - 2004

2005 - 2010

2005 - 2010

Academic staff with doctoral degrees are a key input for high-level knowledge production is. Permanent academic staff in this category should be the major producers of research outputs, and at an input level the main supervisors of doctoral students. Graph 7 shows how the totals of permanent academic staff with doctoral degrees changed between 1996 and 2010.

Permanent academic staff

10

4647 4658 4561 4572 44855146 5403 5957

13449 1309814184 14673

15423 15809 1593616684

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Doctorate as highest qualification Total permanent

Total permanent

Highest qualification PhD

Graph 8 divides public HE institutions into the 3 categories used for national planning purposes, and sub-divides the 11 universities into a group of 6 which produces 60% of the HE system’s total high-level knowledge products and the remaining 5. The groups are:

Percentage of academic staff with doctorates by institutional category

High productive universities UCT, UKZN, Pretoria, Rhodes, Stellenbosch, Wits

Other universities Fort Hare, Free State, Limpopo, North West, UWC

Comprehensive universities UJ, NMMU, Unisa, Venda, WSU, Zululand

Universities of technology Cape Peninsula, Central, Durban, Mangosuthu, Tshwane, Vaal DUT

11

Percentage of academic staff with doctorates by institutional category

12

Graph 8

45%41% 40%

44% 44%48%

36% 36%

27%

35%38% 40%

29% 29%

28%

28% 29% 28%

5% 7% 8% 10%13% 15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

High productive universities Other universities Comprehenives Universities of technology

High productive

Other

Comprehensive

UoT

The low proportions permanent academic staff with doctoral degreesmust have an impact on the numbers of doctoral students which can be enrolled and supervised. Graph 9 shows what the ratios have been between doctoral enrolments and permanent academic staff with doctorates.

A ratio of two doctoral enrolments per permanent academic with a doctorate could be used as an indicator of institutional capacity. Graph 9 shows that the high productive group of universities and the comprehensives had ratios above 2 in 2010, which could be taken to imply that they have reached capacity as far as doctoral enrolments are concerned. Increases in their doctoral enrolments should depend on more academic staff obtain their own doctoral degrees.

The 2:1 norm suggests that the other group of 5 universities and the universities of technology may have spare supervisory capacity, but their ability to deal with this depends on their current financial and efficiency levels.

Ratios of doctoral enrolments to academic staff with doctorates

13

Ratios of doctoral enrolments to academic staff with doctorates

14

Graph 9

1.7

2.2 2.1 2.1

1.1

2.1

1.7 1.7

1.2

1.81.7

2.1

0.8

1.21.1 1.2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 2004 2008 2010

High productive universities Other universities Comprehenives Universities of technology

High productive Other

Comprehensive

UoT

Government’s funding incentives for research outputs are complex because of the 2-year time lag between the completing of an output and the receipt of a funding allocation, and the weightings applied to research outputs.

Graph 10 shows what research funding totals were generated by each output category.

Graph 11 shows what the Rand values can be assigned to research output units.

Government research funding allocations by output category and financial year

15

Government research funding allocations by output category and financial year

16

Graph 10

474 489 505 596 652796

10481225

192 228 265343 310 379 414

461

179 202 253 298 282 365 375

539

845 9191024

1237 1245

1540

1837

2225

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

Publications units Research masters grads Doctoral graduates Total

Total

Pub. units

PhD graduatesResearchM grads

R'millions

Estimates of Rand values of research outputs

17

Graph 11

87

82 102 134

66

91110

110

191

251286

393

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2005/06 2007/08 2009/10 2011/12

Per publication unit Per research masters graduate Per doctoral graduate

Per PhD graduate

Per publication unitPer research Mgrads

R'000

It could be argued that the high Rand values for doctoral graduates should have functioned as strong incentives to institutions to expand these outputs. The data in Graph 12 suggest these financial incentives have not yet affected doctoral graduate growth, which was 3.5% pa between 2000 & 2004, and 3.6% pa between 2005 and 2010.

There are likely to be a number of reasons why doctoral graduate totals have not yet responded to the output funding incentives introduced for the first time in the 2004/5 financial year. One explanation is that only a few universities have been able to benefit from the introduction of government research output incentives. A second explanation is that doctoral processes in SA have been characterised by high levels of inefficiency, as has been seen in Graphs 5 and 6.

18

Average annual increases in outputs

Average annual increases in outputs

19

Graph 12

4.4%

6.7%

5.8%

3.5%

6.2%

1.5%

4.4%

3.6%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

Publication units Masters graduates: coursework + research

Research masters graduates

Doctoral graduates

2000-2004 2005-2010

Graph 13 shows that government output funding can be related to staff capacity. In 2011/12 the high productive university group generated R290 000 in government research funds per permanent academic, which was considerably higher than the averages for the other groupings.

Total government research output funding per permanent academic

20

135

192215

290

58 6894

130

3946

60 66

8 13 19 25

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2005/06 2007/08 2009/10 2011/12

High productive universities Other universities Comprehenives Universities of technology

High productive

Other

Comprehensive

UoT

R'000

Graph 14 relates doctoral graduate funding to permanent academic staff, but also compares this doctoral funding to research publication funding per permanent academic. The graph shows that in 2011/12 the high productive universities group generated R82 000 in doctoral funding per permanent academic, and R126 000 in research publications. The amounts are lower, but similar wide differences can be seen in the other institutional categories.

These lower amounts generated by doctoral graduates could be related to institutional inefficiencies, but also to institutional incentives. Some institutions distribute publication output funds to authors, but few (if any) distribute doctoral graduate funds to supervisors. Academic staff members are therefore likely to gain more direct personal benefits from research publications than from doctoral graduates.

Doctoral and publication output funding per permanent academic in 2011/12

21

Doctoral and publication output funding per permanent academic in 2011/12

22

Graph 14

82

42

5 5

126

61

40

11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

High productive universities

Other universities Comprehenives Universities of technology

Doctorates Publications

R'000