Independent Africa, Dependent Science: Scientific Research in Africa (Sustainable Development Goals Series) 9819955769, 9789819955763

Citation preview

Sustainable Development Goals Series

Independent Africa, Dependent Science Scientific Research in Africa R. Sooryamoorthy

SDG: 17 Partnerships for the Goals

Sustainable Development Goals Series

The Sustainable Development Goals Series is Springer Nature’s inaugural cross-imprint book series that addresses and supports the United Nations’ seventeen Sustainable Development Goals. The series fosters comprehensive research focused on these global targets and endeavours to address some of society’s greatest grand challenges. The SDGs are inherently multidisciplinary, and they bring people working across different fields together and working towards a common goal. In this spirit, the Sustainable Development Goals series is the first at Springer Nature to publish books under both the Springer and Palgrave Macmillan imprints, bringing the strengths of our imprints together. The Sustainable Development Goals Series is organized into eighteen subseries: one subseries based around each of the seventeen respective Sustainable Development Goals, and an eighteenth subseries, “Connecting the Goals,” which serves as a home for volumes addressing multiple goals or studying the SDGs as a whole. Each subseries is guided by an expert Subseries Advisor with years or decades of experience studying and addressing core components of their respective Goal. The SDG Series has a remit as broad as the SDGs themselves, and contributions are welcome from scientists, academics, policymakers, and researchers working in fields related to any of the seventeen goals. If you are interested in contributing a monograph or curated volume to the series, please contact the Publishers: Zachary Romano [Springer; zachary. [email protected]] and Rachael Ballard [Palgrave Macmillan; [email protected]].

R. Sooryamoorthy

Independent Africa, Dependent Science Scientific Research in Africa

R. Sooryamoorthy School of Social Sciences University of KwaZulu-Natal Durban, South Africa

ISSN 2523-3084     ISSN 2523-3092 (electronic) Sustainable Development Goals Series ISBN 978-981-99-5576-3    ISBN 978-981-99-5577-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5577-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore Paper in this product is recyclable.

To Dr Sandy Pillay

Preface

This book is the culmination of my enduring interest in Africa, particularly in the realm of science and development. It builds upon my previous research published under the title Science, Development and Policy in Africa. The intricate issue of dependence on Africa despite its abundant resources is captivating. Through extensive reading on the subject, I embarked on an exploration of uncharted territories. The journey has been enlightening, revealing the profound interplay between science and dependence in Africa. The wealth of quantitative facts and information available in the literature astonished me, shedding light on the realities at hand. Navigating through vast amounts of data using advanced software programs has been both challenging and gratifying. During my work on this project over the past few years, I have received support from many. I am grateful to my institution, the University of KwaZulu-Natal, which has consistently provided me with the necessary resources. This includes access to valuable datasets, the latest literature relevant to the topic, and powerful computers that enabled me to process and analyse quantitative data effectively. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Professor Nhlanhla Mkhize, deputy vice-chancellor of the College of Humanities, whose support and encouragement have been invaluable throughout my research endeavours. I am also grateful to Professor Ojong, my dean, for her generous support. I am indebted to the dedicated library staff, including Nomusa Faith Magwaza, Claudette vii

viii Preface

Kercival, Omesh Jagarnath and Seema Maharaj, who went above and beyond to ensure that I had access to the articles and books necessary for my research. Their assistance was instrumental, and I truly appreciate their efforts in sourcing invaluable materials from external sources. I would like to extend my gratitude to Sandra Waters for her valuable assistance with copy-editing. I am grateful to Marion Duval at Palgrave, who displayed a special interest in this project and expertly managed its production process. Last, but not least, I am deeply thankful to my family for creating a supportive and conducive environment for my work. I met Dr Sandy Pillay in 2002 when I arrived in South Africa to join my university. He became our family doctor, introduced to me by my colleague, Kibbie Naidoo. Dr Pillay’s remarkable qualities include his commitment to research and staying updated in his field, as well as his dedication to serving an underprivileged community. Despite his impressive credentials, he chose to prioritise helping those in need over lucrative positions. I dedicate this book to him with deep gratitude. Durban, South Africa

R. Sooryamoorthy

About the Book

This book illuminates the unique characteristics of science in Africa, a region that has received insufficient documentation. Focusing on the present state of science in African countries, it explores the interplay between self-reliance and dependence on scientific enterprise. Extensive and meticulous analysis of empirical data from all African countries reveals the evolution and development of science in areas such as research, partnerships, funding, capacity and policies. Through this examination, this monograph assesses the level of self-reliance or dependence on African science and provides a comparative perspective by juxtaposing it with global scientific trends. The study identifies obstacles and presents strategies to foster greater self-reliance. Select countries from around the world are included for comparative analysis. The book also put in perspective the UN SDG-17 which emphasises partnership.

Praise for Independent Africa, Dependent Science “This book is essential reading for research managers and policy makers that are in Africa or seeking to collaborate effectively with African science. It presents a bibliometric overview of recent research in Africa, focusing on international collaboration and national differences, as well as analysing obstacles and opportunities for continuing to improve research capacity in Africa. Professor Sooryamoorthy’s extensive bibliometric data and analysis of relevant initiatives for collaboration and funding are expertly combined in this book, which must become a starting point for all future discussions of the topic.” —Mike Thelwall, University of Sheffield, UK “As someone who reads a lot about African science, what I liked most about Independent Africa, Dependent Science was the analysis of African science as a whole and from different perspectives (scientific spectrum, collaboration, funding, research capacity, policy). There is a lot of literature on the subject, but most of it deals with science in a particular country, region or scientific domain. I consider the book a step forward in terms of African science, as Sooryamoorthy compiles a handful of statistics and relates those statistics to the degree of selfreliance of African science. Easy to read and articulate, Independent African, Dependent Science can become an important source of knowledge in defining and designing policies to make Africa independent and successful in science.” —Elizabeth S. Vieira, Universidade do Porto, Portugal “Independent Africa, Dependent Science, by Dr Sooryamoorthy, based on solid evidence and profound knowledge of research systems, takes a strong stand in defence of the necessity to revitalise scientific and higher education in Africa. The author identifies areas of interest for scientific research as well as barriers to stronger autonomy of African researchers. He convincingly advocates for more equilibrated partnerships, strengthening funding and policies favouring research to promote African-led research on the continent. His book will certainly become necessary for all who work for scientific research on the continent.” —Rigas Arvanitis, Ceped, Université Paris Cité and IRD, France “Sooryamoorthy’s serious and engaged study of science in Africa is carefully balanced at the intersection of dependence and interdependence. This thoughtful work is based on extensive research and also looks forward.” —Jan Nederveen Pieterse, University of California, Santa Barbara

Contents

1 Science, Dependency and Africa  1 2 Researching Science in Africa 31 3 Science  Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 63 4 Partnerships in African Science105 5 M  ajor Research Areas159 6 B  arriers to Self-Reliance237 7 African Science: Realities, Possibilities275 I ndex299

xiii

About the Author

R.  Sooryamoorthy is Professor of Sociology at the University of KwaZulu-­Natal in South Africa. He was the Acting Dean and Head of the School of Social Sciences at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (2017–2019) and is a research fellow at the DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence in STI Policy, Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Previously, he taught at institutions in India, Canada and Sweden. He is the author or editor of more than a dozen titles, including Transforming Science in South Africa (author), Science, Policy and Development in Africa (author), Doctoral Training and Higher Education in Africa (co-editor) and The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Africa (co-editor).

xv

Abbreviations

ANAS ANR ASSAf AU BMBF CERN CNPQ CNRS CPI CSIC CSIR DAAD DAE DFG DOE DRC ENIT EPFL ERC EU FAPESP FCT FNRS

Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences French National Research Agency Academy of Science of South Africa African Union Federal Ministry of Education Research European Organisation for Nuclear Research National Council for Scientific and Technological Development Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique Corruption Perceptions Index Consejo Superior De Investigaciones Cientificas Council of Scientific Industrial Research Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst Department of Atomic Energy Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft United States Department of Energy Democratic Republic of the Congo Ecole Nationale D Ingenieurs De Tunis Ecole Polytechnique F.d.rale de Lausanne European Research Council European Union Fundacao De Amparo A Pesquisa Do Estado De Sao Paulo Fundacao Para A Ciencia E A Tecnologia Fonds De La Recherche Scientifique xvii

xviii Abbreviations

FST FTE FWF GDP GERD GSRT IHEP MINECO INGV INP INSIS IWT MICINN MIT MRC NEPAD NERC NIH NOW NRC NRF NSF PPP R&D RFBR SADC SaRCHI SDG S&T SNA SNSF STDF STFC STI STISA UAE UCA UGA WoS

Faculte Des Sciences De Tunis Full-Time Equivalent Austrian Science Fund Gross Domestic Product Gross Expenditure on Research and Development Greek Ministry of Development Institute of High Energy Physics Ministerio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformación Digital Istituto Nazionale Geofisica E Vulcanologia Institute of Physics Institute for Engineering Systems Sciences Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders Ministry of Science and Innovation Spain Massachusetts Institute of Technology Medical Research Council New Partnership for Africa’s Development Natural Environment Research Council National Institute of Health Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research National Research Council National Research Foundation National Science Foundation Purchasing Power Parity Research and Development Russian Foundation for Basic Research Southern African Development Community South African Research Chairs Initiative Sustainable Development Goal Science and Technology Social Network Analysis Swiss National Science Foundation Science and Technology Development Fund Science and Technology Facilities Council Science, Technology and Innovation Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy for Africa United Arab Emirates Universite Clermont Auvergne Universite Grenoble Alpes Web of Science

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 GDP per capita (US$) trends 16 Fig. 3.1 Publication trends in Africa, 2001–2018 67 Fig. 3.2 Prominent research areas and their respective percentage share to total publications, Africa and world, 2001–2018 79 Fig. 5.1 Publication trends in chemistry, Africa, 2001–2018 161 Fig. 5.2 Publication trends in engineering, Africa, 2001–2018 175 Fig. 5.3 Publication trends in physics, Africa, 2001–2018 188 Fig. 5.4 Publication trends in environmental sciences/ecology, Africa, 2001–2018212 Fig. 5.5 Publication trends in materials science, Africa, 2001–2018 224

xix

List of Maps

Map 1.1 Map 3.1 Map 4.1 Map. 4.2

Map of Africa Production of science in Africa, 2001–2018 Northern partners of Africa, 2001–2018 Southern partners of Africa, 2001–2018

2 67 115 130

xxi

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 1.3 Table 1.4 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 5.1

GDP per capita, current prices (US$) 13 Percentage of GDP to GERD, select countries/regions, 2013–201820 GERD per capita (in current PPP$), select countries/ regions, 2013–2018 21 Researchers per million inhabitants, select countries/ regions, 2013–2018 22 Publications in science in Africa, 2001–2018 65 Major research areas of publications in Africa, 2001–2018 71 Major research areas of publications, world, 2001–2018 75 Major institutions and publications, 2001–2018 84 Funding agencies for research and publications in Africa, 2001–201888 International partners of Africa, 2001–2018 106 Northern partners of Africa, 2001–2018 112 The African share of publications of the selected Northern partners of Africa, 2001–2018 118 Southern partners of Africa and publications, 2001–2018 128 The share of publications of Southern partners of Africa, 2001–2018133 Partnerships of major African countries with other African countries, 2001–2018 140 Publications in chemistry by African countries, 2001–2018 162 xxiii

xxiv 

Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 5.8 Table 5.9 Table 5.10 Table 5.11 Table 5.12 Table 5.13 Table 5.14 Table 5.15 Table 5.16 Table 5.17 Table 5.18 Table 5.19 Table 5.20 Table 5.21

List of Tables

International partners of Africa in chemistry, 2001–2018 164 Major African institutions producing publications in chemistry, 2001–2018 166 Institutions of international partners of Africa producing publications in chemistry, 2001–2018 168 Funding agencies for chemistry publications in Africa, 2001–2018170 Publications in engineering by African countries, 2001–2018176 International partners of Africa in engineering, 2001–2018178 Major African institutions producing publications in engineering, 2001–2018 180 Institutions of international partners of Africa producing publications in engineering, 2001–2018 182 Funding agencies for engineering publications in Africa, 2001–2018184 Publications in physics by African countries, 2001–2018 188 International partners of Africa in physics, 2001–2018 190 Major African institutions producing publications in physics, 2001–2018 193 Institutions of international partners of Africa producing publications in physics, 2001–2018 194 Funding agencies for physics publications in Africa, 2001–2018202 Publications in environmental sciences/ecology by African countries, 2001–2018 212 International partners of Africa in environmental sciences/ ecology, 2001–2018 214 Major African institutions producing publications in environmental sciences/ecology, 2001–2018 216 Institutions of international partners of Africa producing publications in environmental sciences/ecology, 2001–2018218 Funding agencies for environmental and ecology publications in Africa, 2001–2018 220 Publications in materials science by African countries, 2001–2018225

  List of Tables 

Table 5.22 Table 5.23 Table 5.24 Table 5.25 Table 6.1

xxv

International partners of Africa in materials science, 2001–2018226 Major African institutions producing publications in materials science, 2001–2018 227 Institutions of international partners of Africa producing publications in materials science, 2001–2018 230 Funding agencies for materials science publications in Africa, 2001–2018 231 Funding in science, select countries, 2001–2018 247

1 Science, Dependency and Africa

Introduction Science is an inseparable part of human lives. It takes the world to new levels of knowledge that serves as a prelude to the improvement of the existing living conditions. Science serves as a powerful tool capable of both constructive and destructive outcomes, depending on its application. It can be harnessed for the betterment and progress of humanity, as well as for actions that may cause harm. The value of science to countries is manifest in the policies that have been formulated and the magnitude of resources allocated to it from time to time. The advancements in science are evident through various outputs such as scientific publications, patents and many other related products. These outputs are indicators of disparity or gap that exists between developed, underdeveloped and developing countries. The fundamental difference between the developed and the underdeveloped countries is not the technology gap but the science gap, as science is the intellectual infrastructure upon which new technologies are created (Tindimubona, 1991). Africa (Map 1.1) appears to be falling behind several other regions and countries in terms of this measure. To illustrate this with a recent case, Africa has 14 per cent of the world © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 R. Sooryamoorthy, Independent Africa, Dependent Science, Sustainable Development Goals Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5577-0_1

1

2 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Map 1.1  Map of Africa

population but produced only 0.1 per cent of the world’s COVID-19 vaccines, and it is dependent on the globally funded COVAX initiative (Midega et al., 2021). In addition to this is the contribution of Africans to the global share of the indexed publications on SARS-CoV-2/ COVID-19 which is only 3 per cent (Kana et al., 2020).

1  Science, Dependency and Africa 

3

Africa and Science In the world ranking of science, based on the count of publications for 1996–2020, the position of most African countries remains at the bottom.1 A few nevertheless appear among the top 100 countries in the world.2 In this ranking, only 16 African countries are among the top 100 ranks, and 25 among the top 50 per cent of the 240 countries. This makes Africa under-represented in world science and falls behind several other countries in its share of research outputs. The poor representation of Africa in scientific enterprise diminishes the richness of its intellectual offerings to resolve many worldwide problems (Okeke, 2010). Despite this, there is a ray of hope for Africa. Irikefe et al. (2011) find that science in Africa has been brightened over the past decade when several countries on the continent achieved rapid growth. Research conducted by Arvanitis et  al. (2022), Adams et  al. (2010), Blom et  al. (2016), CREST (2020) and Schemm (2013) provides support for the notion that scientific publications, as a major indicator of scientific output, originating from Africa are displaying encouraging trends. The rise in the number of scientific publications has a positive impact on Africa’s contribution to world science. Science in Africa is both a topic of interest and concern for scholars and policymakers (Sooryamoorthy, 2018) since its colonial history during which scientific development was delayed (Gaillard et  al., 1997). Worthington (1938) observed long time ago that there has been a great awakening of interest in science and the role science can play in African affairs. The colonial period did not provide Africa with a solid foundation to thrive during the subsequent post-independent period. The interests of colonial Africa were far from encouraging for the application of science for its own development. The colonial administration showed little regard for establishing a scientific system that would ultimately benefit the people of Africa.  This is according to the Scimago Journal and Country Rank in all subject areas, 1996–2020, based on the journals contained in the Scopus database (https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php). 2  The leading African countries with their ranking among the 240 countries are South Africa (35th rank), Egypt (37), Nigeria (51), Algeria (57), Morocco (58), Kenya (68), Ethiopia (75), Ghana (79), Uganda (88) and Tanzania (87). At the bottom are Western Sahara (233), São Tomé and Principe (220), South Sudan (215), Djibouti (197), Chad (180), Eritrea (179), Guinea-Bissau (178), Liberia (177) and Seychelles (175). 1

4 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Unevenly distributed across the continent (Gaillard & Mouton, 2022; Gruhn, 1984), science suffered greatly under colonialism (Waast & Krishna, 2003). The presence of science across the continent, partly because of the indifference to its development in the past, is persistently asymmetrical. This has had an adverse impact on the development of science and its applications to development-oriented objectives in the post-­ independence years. When countries attained political independence, the same level independence was not attained in other aspects of their societies. To give an example, many African universities recruited professionals for teaching and research from countries such as Britain, France, Belgium and Portugal, their past colonial countries (Bujra & Mkandawire, 1980), for a while even after achieving political sovereignty. African science has been hampered by factors such as weak scientific institutions, reliance on international funding, and a focus on individualism in research than institution building (Hanlin et al., 2021).

Developmental Dimension Approaches to science and applications of science for development-­ oriented objectives became apparent soon after the independence of African countries which began in the 1950s. Science is to stay as a regular item on the political agenda of several African countries. Along with technology and innovation, science earned a prominent place in their policies (Chataway et  al., 2019). The ten-year science, technology and innovation strategy for Africa (STISA) of the African Union (AU) is a landmark that demonstrated Africa’s interest in scientific research for social and economic development (AU, 2014). This interest is reiterated in Africa’s Agenda 2063 which envisions the continent as a knowledge society driven by science, technology and innovation. The agenda emphasises the need for sustained investments in these areas and the necessary infrastructure for accelerated growth and technological transformation (African Union Commission, 2015). Developments in African science can be better explained by assessing the allocation of resources to scientific research and the policies that have been formulated to facilitate scientific advancement. Research and

1  Science, Dependency and Africa 

5

development (R&D) which drives scientific progress is influenced by the formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies. Science, the Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD) and policies have a correlational co-existence in the advancement of science that can be examined. For this reason alone, Africa is a case worthy of examination. Several countries across the continent have demonstrated their commitment to boosting their gross domestic product (GDP) for R&D (Mouton, 2018).

Partnership Science is practised through systematic and scientific procedures. It is commonly a collaborative enterprise in which a team of scientists work together to find solutions to identified scientific problems. No longer an independent activity, science is becoming more and more a joint effort dependent on a team of scientists, technicians, resources and countries. Science therefore requires the participation of people, institutions and countries. Countries rely on others to conduct scientific experiments, draw on the skills of scientists and technicians and utilise the materials that are available for a shared objective. But this is not the situation in highly developed and advanced countries that possess abundance of personnel and material resources. They do not really ‘depend’ on other less developed or periphery countries, except for samples and data. Countries lacking sufficient resources have no choice but depend on other countries for products of science. Not all countries have the resources to be independent and be the leaders in science. Some may excel as leaders in certain fields of science while exhibiting weaknesses in other areas. A certain level of dependency in scientific research is nevertheless unavoidable, even in the case of advanced countries. Independency in science is measured in terms of infrastructure, research capacity (both personnel and equipment) and funding. Countries that are not advanced and not able to conduct scientific research on their own seek the help of other countries for research skills, equipment, material and funding.

6 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Scientific dependency, as Lutomiah et al. (2022) viewed, occurs when organisational features of peripheral countries do not compare with core countries, which creates inequities in infrastructure, networking, training and research opportunities. The extent of dependency in science is not amenable to accurate measurement as science is inherently a complex process with unanticipated sets of practices and procedures. Nevertheless, certain indicators can be deployed to assess the extent of dependency. These indicators encompass research partnerships, the presence of skilled and trained scientists, funding sources and research capacity. Literature on scientific practices demonstrates the dependency of African countries on their Western and Northern counterparts. Partnerships, recognised as a United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG), hold great significance for growth and development. SDG-17 specifically promotes countries to strengthen the means to revitalising global partnerships for sustainable development. SDG-17 also intends to promote equality within and among countries through multi-­ stakeholder collaboration (Gupta & Vegelin, 2016; Stibbe et al., 2020). The continued dependency of Africa on international cooperation is obvious in the scientific output published in scientific journals (Tijssen & Winnink, 2022). The most productive research institutions in Central Africa, for example, produce research outputs in partnerships mostly with researchers and institutions in Europe (Boshoff, 2009). Heavily contingent on partnerships with Western countries in science are the West African countries (Mêgnigbêto, 2013a). In Benin, 80 per cent of its research is dependent on foreign collaboration (Mêgnigbêto, 2013b). Likewise, foreign collaboration plays a significant role in 58 per cent of Ghana’s research and 63 per cent of Senegal’s research (Mêgnigbêto, 2013b). The Nature Index Global in 2014 reported that patchy funding causes many African scientists to collaborate with colleagues in richer countries, and as a consequence Africa has become the most collaborative region. Worldwide collaboration, as reflected in international co-authorship of publications, has increased between 2015 and 2019. The percentages of international co-authored publications in the world were 21.7 and 23.5, respectively, for these two years. For sub-Saharan Africa, the percentage was tripled to 60.5 in 2019 (UNESCO, 2021). Compared to one-fifth of the publications generated in partnerships in the world, sub-Saharan

1  Science, Dependency and Africa 

7

Africa produced about three-fifths of its publications in research partnerships. The dimension of dependency embedded in partnerships can be explored by focusing on the partners from South, North or both to learn who is initiating partnerships, who need research alliances, who depends more on others, and who benefits the most. The necessity for collaboration among African scientists surpasses that of their Western counterparts. This sentiment is echoed by a South African geologist who acknowledged that: We are forced financially and economically and … simply to collaborate overseas, otherwise we really can’t produce cutting-edge research. That is in geology. So, yeah, our samples are, get sent over there and then if they are analysing, then normally you’ve got a collaboration going on. (Schubert & Sooryamoorthy, 2010, p. 196)

In a qualitative study conducted by Mouton (2018), which focused on young African scientists, various dimensions of partnerships were uncovered, shedding light on the complexities involved. The study yielded significant excerpts that provide valuable insights into the challenges faced by African scientists in finding suitable partners and the difficulties they encountered within their partnerships. These findings illuminate the particular challenges encountered by African scientists in their collaborative pursuits. Some excerpts are given here: So there is one we’ve been trying to apply, but currently we haven’t been able to get a collaborator. Sometimes, it’s also not easy. You write to someone, someone tells you that he’s not available or he doesn’t have an interest in that area or at the moment, he’s a bit busy. It’s also not very easy. You can’t say that it’s very easy. (33-year-old male from Kenya) [158]

Another young scientist from West Africa had this to say: If I take North–South cooperation, for example, the money does not come from the South partner. He is in a weak position to negotiate anything. He needs the remainder of the budget that will be given to him to implement his work. It also needs that, and the data, often when it’s high-level studies, early writers … negotiating ranks of writers, given that you who are in

8 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Canada you have more access to high-level literature, you have more access to scientific news. In terms of writing and everything, these people are ahead of those in the South. And if the order of the authors in a scientific publication must be done according to the contribution of each author, you see very well that those of the North are well in advance compared to those of the South. What makes those in the South will occupy, what I call additional staff. (p. 166)

African scientists who seek collaborations with their Northern counterparts conveniently neglect the mostly unequal composition in the research team for the advantage of benefits, both personal and professional, that such joint research brings to them. They are called buyouts as the immediate rewards are their primary concern rather than the long-­ term effects on their national research system by subjecting them to unequal or even exploitative research practices. The short-term benefits attract African researchers to approach funders and collaborators. The following expression of an African researcher points to the deep-rooted beliefs in research relationships with their Western and Northern counterparts: Collaborations do not necessarily imply 50/50% stake in everything, even an 80/20% is acceptable—for example, when we have 10 scholarships on a project, we know eight will go to candidates from our collaborator’s country while we shall get two, that is normal. … In terms of contributions, they give me the money and I get them the samples. That is how it works. (quoted in Okwaro & Geissler, 2015, p. 500)

Scientists who participated in the study cited above know the limitations of their capacity to analyse samples that are collected and flown to laboratories abroad. This also raises questions about the ownership of the sample (Okwaro & Geissler, 2015). Are the funders prepared to supply the necessary equipment and resources to facilitate the development of local research capacity? Frequently it is not the situation. Most of the collaborative projects are case-specific and time-bound. Funders or collaborators do not guarantee support for sustainable local capacity. Once the objectives of the project are accomplished the project is closed. Support

1  Science, Dependency and Africa 

9

for local researchers will only be granted if the project has plans for continuation in the future. Partnerships in Africa causes under-representation of African scientists in research enterprises. The overdominance of foreign scientists in scientific projects has persisted for a long time (Okeke, 2010) which limits the power of African scientists to negotiate the terms of partnerships. A strong articulation of the mentality of the researchers on the continent is more vivid than in the words of Paulun Hountondji (1990): The fact bears repeating in the fields of science and technology, Third World countries, especially those in Black Africa, are tied hand and foot to the apron strings of the West. Of the degree of this dependence, we are sometimes only hazily aware. African researchers, as long as they narrow their vision to take in only individual performance and careers, see little wrong with the present situation … The most critical may deplore shortages of funds, equipment and other material resources. But they might not see this lack of resources, taken in isolation, as necessarily catastrophic. [1]

Funding Dependency Funding is a prerequisite for scientific research. According to reports, a significant number of scientists in Africa rely, either partly or entirely, on foreign funding for their research (Nature Index Global, 2014). Funding that comes to Africa is voluminous (Moss et al., 2006). Between 1990 and 1999, the Ford Foundation provided $52.7 million in grants to 15 African countries. The Rockefeller Foundation funded African research to the amount of $53.1 million in the same period (Court 1990, cited in Zeleza, 2002, pp. 13–14). A mixed methods study conducted by Muriithi et al. (2018), involving scientists from Kenyan universities, exposes the significant challenge of funding research in Kenya. The study highlights that apart from various other obstacles in conducting research and establishing partnerships, such as inadequate policies, burdensome bureaucracy and intense competition, the primary concern remains the insufficient funding. The study

10 

R. Sooryamoorthy

elucidates the clear impact of the national government’s minimal investment in research on collaborative efforts, as expressed by one of the participants. One of the most serious problem [sic] is funding. Collaboration is not just the science of what you want to do, those will become just dreams if you have nobody to support your work … the biggest problem so far is that investment within the country for research has been minimal. For years and years we have had to depend on donors to support our research. I think that’s a challenge, a very big challenge. [93]

Foreign donors exert influence on research and their role has experienced rapid expansion since the 1980s, coinciding with diminished support in Africa (Zeleza, 2002). Gaillard (2003b) explains how scientists are facing multiple professional dependencies such as foreign aid dependency to go on training, finance their research work and supplement their incomes. They need colleagues in other continents in various stages of research, namely accessing literature, using equipment and analysing samples. Gaillard believes that dependence on foreign aid affects both the research activities and the profession of a researcher. The drawbacks of relying heavily on international funding are evident. African countries are compelled to align their research priorities with those of their funders, which compromises their ability to pursue their own interests autonomously. Moreover, dependency will reduce the autonomy in defining their own developmental agenda (Masolo, 2017) which is connected to scientific research. One of the participants of Mouton (2018), a 35-year-old male African scientist from Tanzania, said: Well, I’ll just be blunt, most of the time we have to tweak our research concepts or proposals to fit with their agenda. … The focus, the objectives, because we have to work in collaboration and in more cases than the opposite, we find that we have to redesign our objective to fit with the more advanced environment and sometimes we lose focus, we lose our objective. Most times we present the research we’ve got in our home country, so our own research, the impact or the value of that research is lost because of the way the research is conducted. [166]

1  Science, Dependency and Africa 

11

Dependency can give rise to unforeseen consequences for countries in their path to development. Midega et  al. (2021) argue that African research cannot continue to receive international funding that can be stopped at any time and put the dependent country in jeopardy. Several studies have elaborated on this aspect in African research. Ethnographic research on biomedical researchers in an East African university conducted by Okwaro and Geissler (2015) presents how dependency affects their research and profession. Scientists who were interviewed concur that biomedical research is impossible without Northern collaborators as government support in their own countries is limited to basic salaries and elementary research facilities, which require them to seek external funds. Okwaro and Geissler (2015) find that those collaborations with outsiders are unequal and dependent. A well-trained and motivated scientist lamented that “without donor funding, I would come to the lab, read the newspapers, and go back home in the evening” (cited in Okwaro & Geissler, 2015, p. 498). This candid and sincere acknowledgement encapsulates the current state of research in an African university and articulates how trained researchers navigate their professional lives which are reliant on external funding. Given the funding history of research in Africa, African leaders have repeatedly been urged to take greater responsibility for streamlining research programmes and funding (Midega et al., 2021). This call is made when African governments only marginally fund research and development. Agenda 2063 also emphasises African countries to establish an enabling environment for development, encompassing the mobilisation of resources to implement Africa’s priorities. The agenda envisions a prosperous continent equipped with the means to propel its own development (African Union Commission, 2015). It is connected to SDG-17 to assume full responsibility for financing its development goals (AU, n.d.). A long time ago, science-led development was a recommendation for African scholars who believed in the power of science for the benefit of the people. Has this been achieved in the allocation of funds and formulation of policies? An exploration in this direction can provide insights into the extent of Africa’s progress on the journey from dependency to self-reliance, which will be examined in the following chapters.

12 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Indicators of Science: GDP, GERD and Researchers Several indicators can offer valuable insights into the state of science in Africa, with notable ones being the GDP, the GERD and figures related to researchers. The economic outlook of the International Monetary Fund (2020) illustrates that over the past 20 years, the GDP of at least 28 countries among the 44 countries in sub-Saharan Africa has more than doubled. This positive trajectory has been facilitated by fewer conflicts, greater political stability, declining poverty rates, increasing life expectancy and remarkable development gains in the region. Based on the analysis of data, the International Monetary Fund forecasts a promising future for the region, stating: The potential of the region and the resourcefulness of its people remain intact. With the help of the international community, the region will eventually find its way back to a path of sustainable and inclusive development, to the benefit of all. (International Monetary Fund, 2020, p. 13)

The GDP in real terms in Africa was expected to grow by 3.4 per cent in 2021 after it had contracted to 2.1 per cent in 2020 due to COVID-19 (ADB, 2021). The GDP per capita for Africa suggests some encouraging trends which have made an impact on the funds available for science and technology. Table 1.1 presents the data for every 5 years from 1980 to 2020. While there has been an increase in the GDP per capita during the full period, it illustrates the differences between 2020 and 2015. In Africa, the difference between 2015 and 2020 was US$211, which is a decrease of 10 per cent from the figures for 2015. For North Africa, the decrease in 2020 was US$224 of the previous year, registering a decrease of 6 per cent. Sub-Saharan Africa in comparison to North Africa reported a lower figure of GDP per capita in both 2015 and 2020. The decrease for subSaharan Africa was about 10 per cent. These figures are comparable with the similar figures representing the world. Between 2015 and 2020, the GDP per capita in the world has increased by US$765 which is an increase of 7.5 per cent. The trend is also summarised in Fig. 1.1.

Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cabo Verde Cameroon Central African Republic Chad Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep. of the Congo, Republic of Côte d’Ivoire Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia

Countries/ regions

2753.70 758.53 370.34 998.50 225.95 247.64 476.33 981.18 340.23

192.96 482.70 1080.90

717.26

993.89 – 1049.33 205.66

– 246.51

163.55 684.57 2730.70

1362.75

1736.22 – 580.04 123.40

– 215.18

1985

2268.61 745.12 633.15 1235.79 349.67 232.38 541.44 930.18 313.37

1980

– 269.08

1327.01 1075.36 1870.85 312.10

1310.37

306.22 868.95 1192.38

2473.51 986.64 580.42 2834.69 395.88 207.11 957.37 1161.86 539.66

1990

Table 1.1  GDP per capita, current prices (US$)

219.09 152.66

1073.95 1108.22 1098.09 333.85

973.01

233.42 806.81 601.80

1499.14 419.53 506.86 3075.19 265.24 167.18 1378.16 690.15 340.99

1995

238.51 129.68

920.47 1087.36 1636.75 1885.99

1268.42

188.14 628.07 404.97

1794.70 652.11 512.90 3401.88 255.08 130.23 1399.09 631.79 238.51

2000

3597.96

895.35 1322.64 333.64

4480.72 3641.44 1037.38 6202.47 648.37 231.55 3312.04 1287.57 492.08

2010

2873.72

776.11 1231.14 497.28

4153.32 4354.92 1076.91 6413.79 653.39 304.24 2996.36 1327.64 377.48

2015

300.70 165.22

501.42 360.83

603.19 702.77

1287.97 1650.96 1932.22 1270.21 1835.75 2675.58 1331.36 2922.80 3731.18 10810.45 17153.17 11217.99

2058.30

661.20 1085.66 220.29

3141.03 1862.42 823.24 5361.37 458.19 148.71 2298.40 1013.55 356.69

2005

587.68 994.20

2271.38 3481.57 3600.84 7136.81

2206.17

659.67 1355.30 543.83

3337.32 1881.20 1290.50 6420.23 831.01 255.98 3065.48 1504.50 494.19

2020

(continued)

−2.57 41.47

−23.23

−667.55

−15.51 291.43

−15.00 10.09 9.36

−116.43 124.16 46.56

17.55 30.12 −3.49 −36.38

−19.65 −56.80 19.83 0.10 27.18 −15.86 2.31 13.32 30.92

−816.01 −2473.73 213.59 6.44 177.62 −48.26 69.12 176.86 116.71

339.16 806.00 −130.34 −4081.18

% change

Diff −2015 and 2020

1980

6093.62 1007.79 3489.41 – 370.19 1305.25 340.85 – 13031.83 594.73 460.39 – 1268.11 1132.09 396.82 – 609.43 – 292.78 767.97 2329.35 479.60 – –

Countries/ regions

Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-­Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Libya Madagascar Malawi Mauritania Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa

Table 1.1 (continued)

4478.47 645.90 1213.37 – 559.37 950.25 208.69 – 8319.67 380.98 358.71 – 1085.14 685.33 353.79 – 295.81 – 364.61 563.25 2588.55 450.54 – –

1985 6815.63 790.83 1045.58 616.32 571.82 1124.82 382.33 – 7193.54 338.95 420.59 898.74 2555.86 1248.81 271.73 2109.53 435.34 652.92 417.72 936.15 5302.84 219.46 – –

1990 4956.84 815.29 918.73 655.75 725.82 951.64 514.12 – 6882.21 284.82 319.89 912.59 3902.22 1479.28 187.30 2197.59 241.95 1224.94 245.28 693.42 6748.83 295.71 – 4145.21

1995 4477.32 766.20 606.49 461.78 327.94 897.62 453.28 325.46 7388.14 293.61 352.65 673.36 4102.59 1373.92 319.36 2139.71 197.28 554.64 266.06 614.00 7578.83 205.25 – 3382.07

2000

2010

2015

2020

6942.70 8933.31 7453.11 7277.37 665.72 860.64 649.51 769.66 1151.29 1757.03 1784.25 2225.51 470.57 630.55 712.05 1101.71 482.18 644.34 707.90 789.86 1056.47 1176.31 1625.16 2103.55 791.27 1222.20 1106.83 969.71 314.89 541.58 747.18 647.10 8467.72 11417.42 2723.37 2891.46 319.54 471.96 467.24 461.80 377.04 623.41 497.74 567.59 963.50 1715.92 1668.07 1955.50 5516.20 8000.38 9258.56 8618.60 2063.31 2896.56 2964.96 3187.63 416.81 471.90 589.86 448.84 3708.79 5410.98 5020.47 4276.28 320.92 476.06 484.17 568.49 1221.65 2328.43 2718.59 2083.16 334.41 612.05 755.95 815.82 993.24 1272.62 1219.37 1474.02 11093.31 10805.10 14786.12 11701.89 285.11 401.84 592.90 526.72 – – 310.46 331.64 6033.22 8130.19 6256.67 5624.50

2005

−175.75 120.15 441.26 389.66 81.96 478.39 −137.12 −100.08 168.10 −5.44 69.85 287.44 −639.96 222.67 −141.02 −744.20 84.32 −635.42 59.87 254.65 −3084.23 −66.18 21.18 −632.17

−2.36 18.50 24.73 54.72 11.58 29.44 −12.39 −13.39 6.17 −1.16 14.03 17.23 −6.91 7.51 −23.91 −14.82 17.41 −23.37 7.92 20.88 −20.86 −11.16 6.82 −10.10

Diff −2015 and % 2020 change

–

253.18 837.60

596.87 1271.85 514.18 412.85 – – 1612.77 –

2919.03

–

486.91 775.71

602.92 1482.82 664.57 718.80 – – 1548.11 –

2865.99

4764.05

211.03 1636.64 472.19 509.75 1036.53 1085.45 2054.79 905.43

87.20 1050.25

–

5625.29

221.37 2156.45 401.89 410.54 717.09 1020.37 1562.17 934.26

239.51 820.59

–

5669.62

380.08 2213.95 355.47 340.16 969.82 899.13 1874.83 704.90

422.32 550.52

–

7427.19

459.76 3194.48 483.03 691.55 764.63 1329.21 2269.97 1146.80

996.68 809.41

–

9708.67

732.32 4140.47 808.71 1456.05 975.85 2031.71 3653.37 1720.84

1637.42 1128.31

–

764.99

10342.77 11107.77

−53.81 34.85

−903.44 565.87

7.40

17.14 −13.96 19.66 −21.92 1.29 −10.23 −6.15 −9.79

−74.13

−923.48

162.48 −534.62 151.99 −287.30 18.40 −210.54 −224.54 −172.44

775.64 2189.68

322.20

1110.37 3294.88 925.26 1023.16 1443.42 1847.24 3426.17 1589.32

947.90 3829.50 773.28 1310.46 1425.01 2057.78 3650.71 1761.77

1679.07 1623.81

1245.68

Source: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/DZA/ZAF Note: – means no data; difference and change is calculated from the original data

South Sudan, Republic of Sudan São Tomé and Príncipe Tanzania Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Africa (Region) North Africa Sub-Saharan Africa World

16 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Fig. 1.1  GDP per capita (US$) trends

A few countries in Africa gained notable growth in GDP per capita in 2020 while others declined. The highest increase of 55 per cent was reported in Guinea. Angola registered the highest decrease of 57 per cent.3 The other end of the spectrum has countries that reported a decrease in their per capita GDP.4 Research activities constitute a key element for economic development (Jack et al., 2021). To find the relation between science and development in any given country, it is imperative to examine the budget that is allocated to research. The percentage of the GDP to GERD provides a measure of the development in science and technology. As GERD is a reliable  In the order of increase are Ethiopia (42%), São Tomé and Príncipe (35%), the Central African Republic (31%), Djibouti (30%), Kenya (29%), Burkina Faso (27%), Ghana (24%), Senegal (21%), Benin (20%), Uganda (20%), the Gambia (19%), Côte d’Ivoire (18%), Niger (17%), Mauritania (17%), Tanzania (17%), Malawi (14%), Cameroon (13%), Guinea-Bissau (12%), Comoros (10%), Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) (9%), Rwanda (8%), Morocco (8%), Belarus (7%), Somalia (7%), Libya (6%), Cabo Verde (2%), Zimbabwe (1%) and Botswana (0.1%). 4  They are Sudan (−54%), Equatorial Guinea (−36%), Mozambique (−24%), Nigeria (−23%), the Republic of Congo (−23%), Zambia (−22%), Seychelles (−21%), Algeria (−20%), Burundi (−16%), Chad (−15%), Namibia (−15%), Tunisia (−14%), Liberia (−13%), Lesotho (−12%), Sierra Leone (−11%), South Africa (−10%), Mauritius (−7%), Egypt (−3%), Eritrea (−3%), Gabon (−2%) and Madagascar (−1%). This means 21 out of 54 countries (39%) had a decrease in their GDP in 2020. 3

1  Science, Dependency and Africa 

17

indicator of scientific production, countries showcase their GERD figures to publicise their scientific performance (Godin, 2005). As mentioned earlier, the indicator of science rests with the scientific outputs such as the quantity of scientific publications that a country has produced. A positive correlation between scientific knowledge production and economic development is revealed in studies (for instance, Jack et al., 2021). Similarly, the number of scientific publications produced in a country is linked to its GERD (Barré, 1998). Blom et al. (2016) observed an association between GERD and the number of publications. Jonathan et al. (2010) reported on the relationship between the GDP and publications in African countries such as South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, Tunisia, Algeria and Kenya. Pan et al. (2012) drew a linear relationship between the GERD and research output. The difficulty however is that GERD data for many African countries is unavailable, which is a limitation to the development of science and technology systems. Africa is well aware of this challenge in many of its countries. Goal 19 of Agenda 2063, which aims to position Africa as a significant global partner, recognises the need to strengthen statistical capacities. This includes ensuring the timely and improved quality of data collection, analysis and reporting (African Union Commission and African Union Development Agency-NEPAD, 2022). The review of the implementation of this goal has revealed that 94 per cent of African Union member states have legal instruments on statistics in place that adhere to the fundamental principles of official statistics. However, only 39 per cent progress has been made towards the objective of 100 per cent achievement by 2021. Furthermore, the average proportion of the national budget allocated for implementing functional statistical systems reached only 0.07 per cent, falling short of the target of 0.13 per cent by 2021 (African Union Commission and African Union Development Agency-NEPAD, 2022). One of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030 aims to address the enhancement of data quality in developing countries, which holds the potential for significant benefits. SDG-17.18 (UN, 2015) set a target to substantially increase the availability of high-­ quality and reliable data, disaggregated by variables that are relevant to the specific national contexts of countries, by 2020. SDG-17.19 supports

18 

R. Sooryamoorthy

SDG-17.18 for building statistical capacity by 2030. However, SDG-17.18 has not yet been achieved, as numerous African countries continue to face challenges in terms of data collection and quality. According to the UN progress report on SDGs (UN, 2022), coordination within the data ecosystem in low and lower-middle-income countries was found to be unsatisfactory. Also, as the UN emphasised, building statistical capacity is crucial for effectively and promptly responding to national priorities, enabling the mobilisation of both national and international funds. Currently, no country in Africa is spending 1 per cent of its GDP on R&D and its share remains at the same level as in 2014–2018. This is when the share was increased by 19 per cent worldwide (the increase in GDP during the period was 14.8%) (UNESCO, 2021). But 80 per cent of the countries worldwide are spending only less than 1 per cent of their GDP on research (UNESCO, 2021). R&D funding in Africa for 2019 stood at only 0.42 per cent as against the world average of 1.7 per cent (Midega et al., 2021). With less than 1 per cent of the global expenditure on research, African countries are not able to allocate a significant percentage of their GDP to research (Fonn et al., 2018). This is despite the commitment made by Africa. In the first New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) ministerial conference on S&T held in November 2003  in Johannesburg, South Africa, ministers agreed to increase funding for R&D to 1 per cent of the GDP. Reiterated in 2007, Africa urged its countries to set the target of 1 per cent of the GDP for R&D. In addition, the Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy for Africa 2024 (STISA–24) called for the member countries of the AU to allocate at least 1 per cent of their GDP to R&D. This is yet to be uniformly realised across Africa (Sooryamoorthy, 2020). The figures can be evaluated within the context of historical patterns. In the 1990s, the GERD for sub-Saharan Africa was 0.3 per cent of its GDP. This is comparable to 0.8 per cent for India and China, 1.4 per cent for Canada, 2.8 per cent for the USA, and 3.1 per cent for Japan (Barré & Papon, 1993). During 2013–2018, sub-Saharan Africa spent 0.35 per cent of its GDP on GERD, whereas the percentage was in the region of 0.56–0.63 for Northern Africa. For sub-Saharan Africa, the percentage of GDP that was earmarked for GERD during the same

1  Science, Dependency and Africa 

19

period did not record any substantial increase. The percentages were 0.35 (2013), 0.36 (2014), 0.36 (2015), 0.37 (2016) and 0.37 (2017). Sub-­ Saharan Africa currently spends an average of 0.4 per cent of its GDP on research (Olufadewa et al., 2020), not a notable increase over the years. For Northern Africa, the figures were 0.56 (2013), 0.57 (2014), 0.61 (2015), 0.61 (2016), 0.61 (2017) and 0.63 (2018).5 Some of the most scientifically productive countries in Africa have set aside a higher percentage of their GDP for GERD. Egypt for instance spent 0.63 per cent in 2013 and in 2018 it increased to 0.72. South Africa spent 0.72 per cent in 2013 and 0.83 in 2017. Tunisia utilised 0.6 per cent in 2018 for its GERD.6 The figures given above may be contrasted with those of other developed countries. In 2018, Canada spent 1.6 per cent of its GDP on GERD, China 2.1 per cent, Denmark 3 per cent, France 2.2 per cent, Germany 3.1 per cent, India 0.67 per cent, Israel 4.9 per cent, Russia 0.98 per cent, the UK 1.7 per cent and the USA 2.8 per cent. Evidently Africa spent far less on GERD (Table 1.2). The GERD per capita in purchasing power parity (PPP) is another informative measure. The figures for sub-Saharan Africa on this count did not show much difference between 2013 and 2018.7 Significantly, higher amounts were reported for Northern Africa.8 As in the case of

 UNESCO statistics. Science, Technology and Innovation. http://data.uis.unesco.org/OECDStat_ Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=SCN_DS&ShowOnWeb=true&Lang=en 6  On the other hand, countries such as the Gambia (0.07% in 2018), Madagascar (0.01% in 2017), Mauritius (0.35% in 2018), Chad (0.3% in 2016), the DRC (0.4% in 2015), Namibia (0.4% in 2014), Seychelles (0.22% in 2016) and Uganda (0.14% in 2014) spent a lower percentage on GERD.  Comparable figures for the same years are not available. UNESCO statistics. Science, Technology and Innovation. http://data.uis.unesco.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata. ashx?Dataset=SCN_DS&ShowOnWeb=true&Lang=en 7  They were US$12.5 (2013), US$13 (2014), US$13.3 (2015), US$13.6 (2016), US$13.9 (2017), and US$14.2 (2018). UNESCO statistics. Science, Technology and Innovation. http://data.uis.unesco. org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=SCN_DS&ShowOnWeb=true&Lang=en 8  The figures were US$56 (2013), US$54.7 (2014), US$60.2 (2015), US$58.5 (2016), US$57.8 (2017) and US$62.6 (2018). This is about 4–5 times higher than that of sub-Saharan Africa. In relation to the developed countries, the figures for sub-Saharan Africa were far lower. For instance, in 2018 Canada had US$782.3; China US$325.8; France US$1053.1; Germany US$1701.5; and the USA US$1777.9. UNESCO statistics. Science, Technology and Innovation. http://data.uis.unesco.org/ OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=SCN_DS&ShowOnWeb=true&Lang=en 5

20 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 1.2  Percentage of GDP to GERD, select countries/regions, 2013–2018 Year Countries/regions Sub-Saharan Africa Northern Africa Egypt South Africa Tunisia Gambia Madagascar Mauritius Chad DRC Namibia Seychelles Uganda Canada China Denmark France Germany India Israel Russia UK USA

2013 0.35 0.56 0.64 0.72 0.67 – – – – – – – – 1.71 2.0 3.0 2.24 2.83 0.71 4.1 1.03 1.62 2.71

2014 0.36 0.57 0.65 0.77 0.65 – 0.01 – – – 0.35 – 0.14 1.71 2.02 2.91 2.28 2.88 0.71 4.17 1.07 1.64 2.72

2015 0.36 0.61 0.72 0.80 0.63 – – – – 0.41 – – – 1.69 2.06 3.05 2.27 2.93 0.69 4.27 1.1 1.65 2.72

2016 0.37 0.61 0.71 0.82 0.60 – 0.01 – 0.30 – – 0.22 – 1.73 2.1 3.09 2.22 2.94 0.67 4.51 1.1 1.66 2.76

2017 0.37 0.61 0.68 0.83 – – 0.01 0.37 – – – – – 1.67 2.12 3.05 2.2 3.07 0.67 4.82 1.1 1.68 2.81

2018 – 0.63 0.72 – – 0.07 – 0.35 – – – – – 1.56 2.14 3.03 2.19 3.13 0.65 4.94 1.0 1.7 2.83

Source: UNESCO statistics. Science, Technology and Innovation. Retrieved from http://data.uis.unesco.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata. ashx?Dataset=SCN_DS&ShowOnWeb=true&Lang=en Note: – means no data

GERD, some productive countries in Africa have better GERD per capita figures (Table 1.3) than others. Along with GERD, scientific personnel available to a country represents the scientific standing and research capacity. The GERD per researcher (full-time equivalent (FTE) in 2000 current purchasing power parity (PPP) also varies among countries.9 In 1990, sub-Saharan Africa  For Egypt it varied from 133.1  in 2013 to 122.6  in 2018; for South Africa it was in the region of 207.6 (in 2013)–204.2 (in 2017). Tunisia’s figures were 31.5  in 2016 and 37.4  in 2018. For Chad it was 86.4 (2016) while 173.5 for Ethiopia (2013), 65.1 for Lesotho (2015), 30.4 for Senegal (2015) and 107 for Uganda (2014). UNESCO statistics. Science, Technology and Innovation. http://data.uis.unesco.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata. ashx?Dataset=SCN_DS&ShowOnWeb=true&Lang=en 9

1  Science, Dependency and Africa 

21

Table 1.3  GERD per capita (in current PPP$), select countries/regions, 2013–2018 Year Countries/regions

2013

2014

Sub-Saharan Africa Northern Africa Egypt South Africa Tunisia Madagascar Mauritius Chad DRC Namibia Seychelles Uganda Canada China Denmark France Germany India Israel Russia UK USA

12.5 56.0 71.6 90.3 68.6 – – – – – – – 750.9 232.3 1382.3 913.3 1267.7 35.7 1457.3 266.3 639.1 1437.5

13.0 54.7 69.4 96.6 68.3 0.2 – – – 36.6 – 3.0 779.3 247.4 1390.8 943.8 1345.1 36.7 1493.8 279.0 659.7 1495.1

2015

2016

2017

2018

13.3 60.2 82.7 100.2 64.2 – – – 3.7 – –

13.6 58.5 79.3 103.1 62.5 0.2 – 5.0 – – 56.3

13.9 57.8 74.8 105.7 – 0.2 –

749.6 260.2 1497.3 956.4 1395.4 37.9 1587.6 267.7 693.6 1542.9

797.5 278.0 1612.1 984.2 1489.9 39.1 1799.5 268.5 725.6 1599.3

807.5 296.1 1689.1 1018.5 1626.3 41.2 1983.6 291.2 764.7 1688.7

– –

14.2 62.6 84.2 – 66.3 – 78.5 – –

782.3 325.8 1747.9 1053.1 1701.5 43.4 2108.2 284.8 791.4 1777.9

Source: UNESCO statistics. Science, Technology and Innovation. Retrieved from http://data.uis.unesco.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata. ashx?Dataset=SCN_DS&ShowOnWeb=true&Lang=en Note: – means no data

had 0.1 researchers for every 1000 population while North Africa had 0.3 researchers. These numbers are comparable to 0.4 for China, 2.3 for Canada, 3.8 for the USA and 4.7 for Japan (Barré & Papon, 1993). In 2013, sub-Saharan Africa had 88 researchers per million inhabitants which grew to 99 in 2018 (Table 1.4). The respective figures for Northern Africa were 602 and 716. Table 1.4 also includes several other countries. For a comparative account and to indicate the position of Africa, the world averages were helpful (1106.8 in 2013 and 1235.4 in 2018). During 2014–2018, full-time equivalent (FTE) researchers per million population in the world grew from 1245 to 1368 while the figures

22 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 1.4  Researchers per million inhabitants, select countries/regions, 2013–2018 Year Countries/regions

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Sub-Saharan Africa Northern Africa Egypt South Africa Tunisia Madagascar Mauritius Chad DRC Namibia Seychelles Uganda Canada China Denmark France Germany India Israel Russia UK USA

87.8 602.2 539.0 434.9 1801.2 – – – – – – – 4623.1 1066.2 7071.1 4154.8 4366.7 – – 3052.7 4119.5 4090.9

89.4 681.1 675.2 432.2 1814.1 – – – – 149.5 – 27.8 4541.8 1089.2 7310.7 4233.6 4320.7 – – 3075.1 4227.6 4205.3

93.8 691.8 672.9 472.3 1799.0 – – – 10.6 – – – 4523.1 1150.8 7528.3 4307.5 4743.8 216.0 – 3098.1 4319.5 4267.8

95.9 720.0 689.2 423.0 1982.2 24.7 – 57.9 – – – – 4369.6 1196.7 7846.6 4414.7 4861.7 – – 2952.2 4357.9 4247.7

98.9 718.3 677.1 517.7 – 30.6 – – – – – – 4325.6 1224.8 7925.0 4561.1 5076.5 – – 2821.5 4341.2 4412.4

99.1 715.9 686.7 – 1771.6 34.0 473.9 – – – – – – 1307.1 8065.9 4715.3 5211.9 – – 2784.3 4603.3 –

Source: UNESCO statistics. Science, Technology and Innovation. Retrieved from http://data.uis.unesco.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata. ashx?Dataset=SCN_DS&ShowOnWeb=true&Lang=en Note: – means no data

for sub-Saharan Africa were 102 and 124, respectively (UNESCO, 2021). The growth in the global number of researchers during the period was 13.7 per cent. South Africa (432 and 518) and Egypt (675 and 687) performed well on this count (UNESCO, 2021). As an indicator of science, scientific output exhibits the dynamics of science which is documented in several studies. In an overarching study of science in Africa, Confraria and Godinho (2015) presented an analysis of the scientific output of 53 African countries in 2007–2011. Sooryamoorthy (2020) used a substantial amount of scientometric data on science to examine its correlation with policy and development in the

1  Science, Dependency and Africa 

23

region. Another study (Sooryamoorthy, 2021) has conducted an analysis of Africa’s publications from 2001 to 2018. Updated information on science in Africa is crucial to find the status of science and scientific production of knowledge. Why is a study on the state of science in Africa that examines its characteristic tendencies of dependency timely? The answer lies in the importance of science in deciding the future of Africa. Marincola and Kariuki (2020) in their assessment put forward the reasons for scientific research in Africa: • Africa has the youngest and fastest growing population in the world which provides an opportunity to harness and grow talent. • It carries about 20 per cent of the global burden of diseases but has less than 1 per cent of the world’s scientific output. • Investing in African science to address African diseases means an investment in preventing and treating the same diseases elsewhere in the world. • Scientific and public health research is mandatory, not just to protect the health of Africans but also to protect the health of the world population. • Since Africans represent the oldest and most diverse genome in the world, studies of African disease and public health are important to improve the mortality and morbidity of Africans and others. • It is critical for Africa to cultivate and nourish the potential of the intelligentsia in Africa. It needs to produce a critical mass of individuals interested in the well-being of Africans. • In the emerging context of the decolonisation of science and for equitable partnerships between the North and South, scientific research in Africa benefits people, scientists, communities and economies of African countries. The sporadic outbreaks of infectious diseases such as Ebola, SARS and now the mutated variants of COVID-19 necessitate an informed knowledge of science in Africa. Like wars, ethnic conflicts and terrorism, infectious diseases are costing the continent its valuable resources. A study of science as it prevails in the region becomes relevant to gather the current scientific strengths of the countries on the continent, their preparedness

24 

R. Sooryamoorthy

to deal with such medical situations, and to further strengthen their scientific systems for future generations. What could emerge from such an analysis is how self-reliant or dependent Africa is in its scientific enterprise. This study is also important from the perspective of the UN 2030 agenda for SDGs. Royo et al. (2022) in their study explored the interconnections between Agenda 2063 and the SDGs, focusing on shared objectives, connections and targets. Their findings revealed noteworthy linkages between the two frameworks across multiple goals of Agenda 2030 and Agenda 2063. The African Union has recognised the correlation between the African Agenda 2063 and the 2030 SDGs. Agenda 2063, aimed at achieving transformed economies, is closely linked to SDG-9, which promotes sustainable industrialisation and fosters innovation. Additionally, Agenda 2063 aspires for Africa to become a significant global partner, contributing to peaceful coexistence, aligning with SDG-17. The next chapter shows how a study of this nature can be undertaken. Chapter 3 examines the production of science in Africa. Chapter 4 deliberates on different kinds of scientific partnerships that African countries have forged with other countries. Based on the results of the analysis of the empirical data on science production in Africa in major areas of research are discussed elaboratively in Chap. 5. Chapter 6 is devoted to the examination of relevant topics such as the forms of partnerships, funding, research capacity and science policies. Chapter 7 provides a critical discussion on the issue of dependency in African science and the ways to strengthen its science.

References Adams, J., King, C., & Hook, D. (2010). Global research report: Africa. Thomson Reuters. https://hedbib.iau-­aiu.net/pdf/ThompsonReuters_ globalresearchreport-­africa.pdf ADB. (2021). African economic outlook 2021: From debt resolution to growth: The road ahead for Africa. African Development Bank. https://www.afdb.org/en/ knowledge/publications/african-­economic-­outlook

1  Science, Dependency and Africa 

25

African Union Commission. (2015). Agenda 2063: The Africa we want. African Union Commission. https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/ 36204-­doc-­agenda2063_popular_version_en.pdf African Union Commission & African Union Development Agency-­ NEPAD. (2022). AUC & AUDA-NEPAD second continental report on the implementation of Agenda 2063. AUC & AUDA-NEPAD. https://au.int/en/ documents/20220210/second-continental-­report-­implementation-­agenda-­ 2063 Arvanitis, R., Mouton, J., & Néron, A. (2022). Funding research in Africa: Landscapes of re-institutionalisation. Science, Technology & Society, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218221078235 AU. (n.d.). Linking Agenda 2063 and the SDGs. https://au.int/en/ agenda2063/sdgs AU (African Union). (2014). Science, technology and innovation strategy for Africa 2024. African Union Commission. https://au.int/sites/default/files/newsevents/workingdocuments/33178-­wd-­stisa-­english-­final.pdf Barré, R. (1998). Indications of world science today. In UNESCO, World science report 1998 (pp. 22–30). UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000112616 Barré, R., & Papon, P. (1993). Global overview. In UNESCO, World science report, 1993 (pp.  139–150). UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ ark:/48223/pf0000095612 Blom, A., Lan, G., & Adil, M. (2016). Sub-Saharan African science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research: A decade of development. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. Boshoff, N. (2009). Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa. Scientometrics, 81, 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­ 008-­2211-­8 Bujra, A. S., & Mkandawire, T. (1980). The evolution of social science in Africa problems and prospects. Africa Development, 5, 21–40. Chataway, J., Dobson, C., Daniels, C., Byrne, R., Hanlin, R., & Tigabu, A. (2019). Science granting councils in Sub-Saharan Africa: Trends and tensions. Science and Public Policy, 46, 620–631. https://doi.org/10.1093/ scipol/scz007 Confraria, H., & Godinho, M. M. (2015). The impact of African science: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 102, 1241–1268. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­014-­1463-­8

26 

R. Sooryamoorthy

CREST. (2020). Bibliometric analyses of African bibliometric indicators (Internal report). CREST. Fonn, S., Ayiro, L.  P., Cotton, P., Habib, A., Mbithi, P.  M. F., Mtenje, A., Nawangwe, B., Ogunbodede, E.  O., Olayinka, I., Golooba-Mutebi, F., & Ezeh, A. (2018). Repositioning Africa in global knowledge production. The Lancet, 392, 1163–1166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-­6736(18)31068-­7 Gaillard, J. (2003b). Tanzania: A case of ‘dependent science’. Science, Technology & Society, 8, 317–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/097172180300800208 Gaillard, J., & Mouton, J. (2022). The state of science, technology and innovation in Africa: Trends, progress and limitations. Science, Technology & Society, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218221078548 Gaillard, J., Krishna, V. V., & Waast, R. (1997). Introduction: Scientific communities in the developing world. In J. Gaillard, V. V. Krishna, & R. Waast (Eds.), Scientific communities in the developing world (pp.  11–49). Sage Publications. Godin, B. (2005). Measurement and statistics on science and technology: 1930s to the present. Routledge. Gruhn, I.  V. (1984). Towards scientific and technological independence? The Journal of Modern African Studies, 22, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0022278X00056743 Gupta, J., & Vegelin, C. (2016). Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16, 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-­016-­9323-­z Hanlin, R., Sheikheldin, G., & Tigabu, A. (2021). Introduction: The role of Science Councils in building African science systems. In R.  Hanlin, A.  D. Tigabu, & G.  Sheikheldin (Eds.), Building science systems in Africa: Conceptual foundations and empirical considerations (pp.  1–22). Mkuki na Nyota Publishers and African Centre for Technology Studies. Hountondji, P. (1990). Scientific dependence in Africa today. Research in African Literatures, 21, 5–15. International Monetary Fund. (2020). Regional economic outlook. Sub-Saharan Africa: A difficult road to recovery. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/ REO/Issues/2020/10/20/Regional-­Economic-­Outlook-­October-­2020-­Sub-­ Saharan-­Africa-­A-­Difficult-­Road-­to-­Recovery-­49787 Irikefe, V., Vaidyanathan, G., Nordling, L., Twahirwa, A., Nakkazi, E., & Monastersky, R. (2011). Science in Africa: View from the front line. Nature, 474, 556–559. https://doi.org/10.1038/474556a Jack, P., Lachman, J., & López, A. (2021). Scientific knowledge production and economic catching-up: An empirical analysis. Scientometrics, 126, 4565–4587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­021-­03973-­4

1  Science, Dependency and Africa 

27

Jonathan, A., Christopher, K., & Daniel, H. (2010). Global research report Africa. Thomson Reuters. Kana, M. A., LaPorte, R., & Jaye, A. (2020). Africa’s contribution to the science of the COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. BMJ Global Health, 6, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004059 Lutomiah, A., Blanckenberg, J. P., & Skupien, S. (2022). In between centre and periphery: Kenya as a key scientific nation in East Africa? Science, Technology & Society, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218221078229 Marincola, E., & Kariuki, T. (2020). Quality research in Africa and why it is important. ACS Omega, 5, 24155–24157. https://doi.org/10.1021/ acsomega.0c04327 Masolo, D. A. (2017). The place of science and technology in our lives: Making sense of possibilities. In C. C. Mavhunga (Ed.), What do science, technology, and innovation mean from Africa? (pp. 29–44). The MIT Press. Mêgnigbêto, E. (2013a). International collaboration in scientific publishing: The case of West Africa (2001–2010). Scientometrics, 96, 761–783. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­013-­0963-­2 Mêgnigbêto, E. (2013b). Scientific publishing in West Africa: Comparing Benin with Ghana and Senegal. Scientometrics, 95, 1113–1139. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­012-­0948-­6 Midega, J., Kyobutungi, C., Okiro, E., Okumu, F., Aniebo, I., & Erondu, N. (2021, May 18). African countries must muscle up their support and fill massive R&D gap. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/african-­countries-­ must-­muscle-­up-­their-­support-­and-­fill-­massive-­randd-­gap-­161024 Moss, T., Pettersson, G., & Walle, N. V. D. (2006). An aid-institutions paradox? A review essay on aid dependency and state building in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Center for Global Development. https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/ files/5646fileWP74.pdf Mouton, J. (2018). African science: A diagnosis. In C. Beaudry, J. Mouton, & H.  Prozesky (Eds.), The next generation of scientists in Africa (pp.  1–12). African Minds. Muriithi, P., Horner, D., Pemberton, L., & Wao, H. (2018). Factors influencing research collaborations in Kenyan universities. Research Policy, 47, 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.002 Nature Index Global. (2014). Africa. Nature Index Global, 592–593. Okeke, I. N. (2010). African researchers underrepresented. Science, New Series, 328, 1103. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.328.5982.1103-­b

28 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Okwaro, F.  M., & Geissler, P.  W. (2015). In/dependent collaborations: Perceptions and experiences of African scientists in transnational HIV research. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 29, 492–511. https://doi. org/10.1111/maq.12206 Olufadewa, I. I., Adesina, M. A., & Ayorinde, T. (2020). From Africa to the world: Reimagining Africa’s research capacity and culture in the global knowledge economy. Journal of Global Health, 10. https://doi.org/10.7189/ jogh.10.010321 Pan, R. K., Kaski, K., & Fortunato, S. (2012). World citation and collaboration networks: Uncovering the role of geography in science. Scientific Reports, 2, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00902 Royo, M. G., Diep, L., Mulligan, J., Mukanga, P., & Parikh, P. (2022). Linking the UN Sustainable Development Goals and African Agenda 2063: Understanding overlaps and gaps between the global goals and continental priorities for Africa. World Development Sustainability, 1, 1–9. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.wds.2022.100010 Schemm, Y. (2013). Africa doubles research output over past decade, moves towards a knowledge-based economy. Research Trends, 35. https:// www.3blmedia.com/news/africa-­doubles-­research-­output-­over-­past-­decade-­ moves-­towards-­knowledge-­based-­economy Schubert, T., & Sooryamoorthy, R. (2010). Can the centre–periphery model explain patterns of international scientific collaboration among threshold and industrialised countries? The case of South Africa and Germany. Scientometrics, 83, 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­009-­0074-­2 Sooryamoorthy, R. (2018). The production of science in Africa: An analysis of publications in the science disciplines, 2000–2015. Scientometrics, 115, 317–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­018-­2675-­0 Sooryamoorthy, R. (2020). Science, policy and development in Africa: Challenges and prospects. Cambridge University Press. Sooryamoorthy, R. (2021). Science in Africa: Contemporary trends in research. Journal of Scientometric Research, 10, 366–372. https://doi.org/10.5530/ jscires.10.3.54 Stibbe, D., Prescott, D., Initiative, T. P., & UNDESA. (2020). The SDG partnership guidebook: Practical guide to building high impact multi-stakeholder partnerships for the Sustainable Development Goals. UN and The Partnering Initiative. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26627SDG_ Partnership_Guidebook_0.95_web.pdf

1  Science, Dependency and Africa 

29

Tijssen, R., & Winnink, J. (2022). Global and local research excellence in Africa: New perspectives on performance assessment and funding. Science, Technology & Society, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218221078236 Tindimubona, A. R. (1991). Science culture in Africa. South African Journal of Science, 87, 542–544. UN. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development A/RES/70/1. United Nations. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20 Development%20web.pdf UN. (2022). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022. United Nations. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/ UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO science report: The race against time for smarter development—Executive Summary. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000377250 Waast, R., & Krishna, V.  V. (2003). The status of science in Africa. Science, Technology & Society, 8, 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 09717218221078540 Worthington, E. B. (1938). Science in Africa: A review of scientific research relating to tropical and southern Africa. Oxford University Press. Zeleza, P.  T. (2002). The politics of historical and social science research in Africa. Journal of South African Studies, 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03057070120116953

2 Researching Science in Africa

Introduction Evidence of the relationship between science, development, growth and wealth is elaborated quite vividly in the literature (e.g. Onyancha, 2020a; Sooryamoorthy, 2020). Economic growth is a causal factor for research outputs which are integral to economic development (Onyancha, 2020a). Africa has not been hesitant to take steps to advance its science which has produced tangible results in several domains of life. Science, being the focus of this study, is therefore vital to see where Africa currently stands in science, how science is produced, the type of partnerships Africa has established with other countries, the sources of funding for its research, institutions engaged in the production of science, and the capacity to conduct scientific research. All these aspects add to the knowledge of the dependent or self-reliant character of African science. This chapter approaches the topic of development and presents the methodology that encompasses study’s objectives, research questions, relevant theories and the data used.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 R. Sooryamoorthy, Independent Africa, Dependent Science, Sustainable Development Goals Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5577-0_2

31

32 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Science for Development The role of science, technology and innovation (STI) in development is widely recognised. African countries, like many other countries, need science in addressing their developmental issues. Political leaders, administrators and scientists concede that accelerated science development in Africa can be best addressed by the application of scientific knowledge (Odhiambo, 1967). As a prelude to this, several ministers of African governments made a joint call in 2014 to adopt S&T to advance development in Africa. The potential benefits of a strong scientific system are to enable countries to follow the path of scientific advancement that has direct effects on socio-economic development. Due to possible advantages, STI has been integrated into the regional and continental policy agenda of Africa (Chataway et al., 2019). Despite this, STI in Africa is viewed as a luxury unworthy of investment and it is reflected in the meagre sums spent on research and development (R&D) (Hassan & Schaffer, 2006). As a result, Africa still suffers from its shortcomings in STI (Gaillard Gaillard, 2003). If Africa wants to break its well-entrenched logjam of problems, as Gaillard (2003) pointed out, it must revitalise and strengthen its own capacities in science. More than ever this awareness is quite ubiquitous across the continent. Although the percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) spent on R&D (GERD) is not modest for Africa, it has marginally increased from 0.45 per cent in 2011 to 0.51 per cent in 2016 (Skupien & Rüffin, 2020).

Studying Science in Africa In a study of the status of science in Africa, it is imperative to focus on the features and characteristics that can be deciphered from reliable indicators. A close examination of science production will reveal the typical characteristics of science in Africa in general and African countries in particular. The knowledge of the characteristics of science can open the

2  Researching Science in Africa 

33

window to the understanding of the dependent or independent nature of African science. The production of science is not uniform across the world. Africa as a continent and African countries individually are not different from this generality. In the production process, the influence of several factors that are country-specific and historical, and dependent on the evolutionary development of scientific systems is common. As scholars like Tijssen (2007) and Gaillard and Mouton (2022) confirmed, African science has a broad collection of African countries with heterogeneous sets of research systems of varying sizes, human and financial resources, scientific specialisations and governance. This heterogenous character of African science is to be kept in perspective while analysing the data to find the typical features of science produced in Africa. Scientific publications serve as a barometer displaying the movement of science. Publications are the outcomes of serious scientific research, done either solely by the researchers in any given country or in association with others in other countries. They point to the direction of R&D in any given country and is a standard measure for the study of the standing of science. The study of scientific publications therefore assists in tracking the course and development of science. Science does not survive in a solitary environment. It is largely a product of team efforts. Scientists, institutions and countries work collectively to achieve scientific breakthroughs and seek opportunities to advance their skills and capacity through scientific cooperation. The collaborative scientific behaviour is manifest in the ever-increasing number of research publications that have more than one author. Studying 200 countries, Ribeiro et al. (2018) found that international co-authorship, which is a result of partnerships in science, has increased by more than three times during 2000–2015. In scientific endeavours, collaboration is therefore vital. No country is an exception to this. International partnerships in science are therefore a requirement for the advancement of science, and its visibility and impact. Scientists have varying scientific backgrounds and skills, and access to equipment, data and resources. Attracted by mutual interests, they join from many different countries in conducting research. From the production point of view, research partnerships have a beneficial effect.

34 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Partnership is often touted as a means to enhance productivity. The contrast in the productivity of scientists who are participating in collaborative research and who are not participating is evident (Ordóñez-Matamoros et al., 2011). Africa does not lag behind other countries in this essential element of partnership. The initiative, need and direction of international partnerships can be explained by theories like core–periphery (Schubert & Sooryamoorthy, 2010). But hidden in partnerships is the dependency between countries from the Global South and Global North. How far is Africa dependent on the world for its science and scientific progress? A query in this direction may lead to an investigation of Africa’s partnerships with other countries. With whom does Africa enter into partnerships for its scientific advancement? Literature suggests that Africa has a high intensity of scientific cooperation with non-African countries which plays a role in Africa’s science (Guns & Wang, 2017). In contrast, most African countries appear poorly in within-Africa collaboration, with the exception of some scientifically weak countries on the continent, which collaborate more actively with other better positioned African countries. An inquiry is crucial to determine the scope of partnerships in African science as well as their distinct characteristics in focussed research areas, funding sources and institutions responsible for scientific production. Studies demonstrate how funding and international collaboration, which are often interconnected, influence developed and developing countries (Zhou et al., 2020). The literature discusses the interplay among the key components of the scientific enterprise, including international collaboration, funding and citation impact. Power imbalances and inequity are also manifest in partnerships, particularly in Africa (Chu et al., 2014). Okwaro and Geissler (2015) in their ethnographic study exploring the perceptions and experiences of African scientists involved in research partnerships in the field of health, it was revealed that such collaborations often take place amidst significant economic and ethical disparities. These inequalities pose challenges to knowledge generation and give rise to tension and conflicts. Remarkably, the study highlights that African scientists tend to navigate these inequalities without directly confronting them. As aptly expressed by one of the study participants:

2  Researching Science in Africa 

35

I see it is that our collaborators control everything and when our definitions and theirs differ, their opinions carry the day. Recently they terminated a study because they said we did not recruit the right type of volunteers. We recruited high risk volunteers as required by the study protocol and our collaborators expected a number of them to become infected within the first six months of the study. When they did not, they concluded that we had not recruited the correct group and terminated the study after only six months. [499]

Information regarding partnerships can offer useful insights into the operations and functioning of international collaboration in Africa. It sheds light on how these partnerships are being conducted on the continent. Much of the research carried out in Africa is led, funded and published by researchers from high income countries without equitable collaboration from scholars belonging to lower- and middle-income countries (Chu et al., 2014). Most of the research done in Africa is financed by global agencies which are managed from Western capitals making a limited impact on Africa (Nordling, 2015). As for the ratio of funding, according to the data compiled by Nordling (2015), foreign funding of some of the African countries in R&D constituted as high as 78 per cent, as in the case of Mozambique. Countries such as Burkina Faso (60%), Uganda (57%), Kenya (47%), Senegal (41%) and Ghana (31%) received substantial overseas funding for research partnerships. At the same time South Africa, a leader in science on the continent, received only 12 per cent of external funding. It is among the few countries in Africa that successfully mobilised its own resources for scientific research. The effects of funding may not be entirely advantageous. Funding that comes to Africa is undermining the efforts to convince African governments to spend adequately on research (Nordling, 2010). In the opinion of Tom Egwang, a Ugandan immunologist and the founding director of the Medical Biotech Laboratories in Kampala, any of the researchers who carry out any significant research in Africa, 99.9 per cent of the funding comes from outside and this is killing African science (quoted in Nordling, 2010, p. 994). Conversing with researchers in Africa, Nordling (2010) discovers that dependence on international aid causes problems for

36 

R. Sooryamoorthy

African scientists as funded projects are interrupted when funds run out, and when the research agenda is set by donors who have their own priorities. Such aid from outside the borders of the continent does not always serve well. The Monrovia Declaration of the African heads in 1979 emphasised the development concerns of Africa and the need to be self-reliant. The declaration urged the member states to put S&T in the service of development by reinforcing autonomous capacity.1 The recurring question pertains not to absolute independence, but rather to what extent Africa’s dependence on the world is acceptable and beneficial for the continent. No country can be totally self-reliant or dependent on others for ever. For Africa, dependency is more conspicuous not just in research partnerships but also in seeking funding from external sources. The influence of funding as part of internationalisation in science can be studied by examining science production including international partnerships and institutions involved in the production of science. Not many studies analysing science in Africa have appeared in scientific literature and most of the studies focus on countries or regions with higher scientific output (Confraria & Godinho, 2015). Due to the heavy focus on the USA and Western Europe, as Crane (2013) noted, one is ill-­ equipped to know the scientific production and practices in other parts of the world. Some have turned their attention on specific fields of science in Africa, for instance, Abd-Allah et al.’s (Abd-Allah et al., 2016) scientometric analysis on neurosciences in African countries. An examination of science in Africa which seeks to find its exclusive features has special significance in the post-COVID-19 scenarios. This is when countries, regardless of their economic standing, are struggling to cope with the medical and health demands. The health system in Africa is under tremendous pressure due to communicable and non-­ communicable diseases (Oladipo et al., 2020). While African countries are leveraging investments and scaling their capacity to deal with  Monrovia Declaration of Commitment of the Heads of State and Government, of the Organisation of African Unity on Guidelines and Measures for National and Collective Self-Reliance in Social and Economic Development for the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, Organisation of African Unity. https://archives.au.int/bitstream/handle/123456789/835/ AHG%20St%203%20%28XVI%29%20_E.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 1

2  Researching Science in Africa 

37

COVID-19 (Ihekweazu & Agogo, 2020), it is not encouraging for the continent to develop its capacity to undertake research. As indicated in a recent study by Naidoo et al. (2021), African representation in African COVID-19 literature is insufficient in providing advice on system response. Only 3.9 per cent of the articles related to COVID-19 have been published in the top ten medical journals, one in five African COVID-19 papers has no African authors, 66 per cent of authors on African papers are not from Africa, and Africans remain underrepresented in the absolute number of papers compared with the population in Africa (Naidoo et al., 2021). While COVID-19 was causing havoc across the world and the global research into the pandemic was growing, the African scientific community was silent (Gwenzi & Rzymski, 2020). This subdued response was due to its weak research systems, severe lack of research expertise, funding and infrastructure, along with poor working conditions for researchers (Gwenzi & Rzymski, 2020). North et al. (2020) reported that only 30 per cent of the articles on Africa have an African author. In 25 of the most highly cited publications written by 2744 authors, only 13 were Africans. The study revealed a noticeable disparity in authorship. More than 80 per cent of the authorship came from only six countries, namely, South Africa, Egypt, Morocco, Ethiopia, Algeria and Cameroon. This imbalance can be attributed to factors including research preparedness, capacity, challenges related to international partnerships, and performances in African science.

Objectives of the Study The objective of this study is to examine the trajectory of science in Africa with a particular emphasis on specific indicators, by analysing science publications. Publications contain information about the key research areas of Africa, the partnerships in science mirrored in the participation of scholars from outside Africa, institutions involved in the production of research publications, funding sources, research capacity, and related science policies in science. The analysis will assist in answering questions about self-reliance and dependency of African science. A comparison of

38 

R. Sooryamoorthy

African science in key research areas with that of world science is also undertaken to see the position of science in Africa on the world map. Conceptually, African science in this study is examined through research publications produced by scholars who at the time of publications were affiliated to higher learning, research or other institutions in Africa. In the same way, African scholars are those affiliated to any institutions in Africa and ethnicity is not part of this definition. To emphasise this, the aspects of science that are examined in this study are partnerships, institutions, funding, research capacity and science policies.

Research Questions The study seeks to find answers to questions that will lead to a better knowledge of science on the continent and its specific characteristics pertaining to production, partnerships, outcomes, publications, funding, institutions and self-reliance/dependency. The questions are: • What general features of science in Africa are evident in the analysis of publications that originated in Africa? • Which research areas are central to the production of science in Africa? • How does Africa compare with the world in the production of science and in terms of specific research areas in science? • What is the contribution of Africa to world science as evident in the publication output and research areas? • Who are the major supporters of scientific research in Africa and what are the implications for African science? • In research, what are the types of partnerships that dominate—South– South, South–North and or South–South–North—and their consequences for African science? • How dependent or self-reliant is science in Africa? What research areas have these characteristics features? • How does research capacity affect the development of science in Africa? • In what ways are the sustainable development goals of the United Nations and the African Agenda 2063 interconnected with scientific aspects in Africa?

2  Researching Science in Africa 

39

• What is evident from the review of science policy in African countries in the development of a self-reliant science? • What are the obstacles for Africa to becoming more self-reliant in science and how can they be overcome?

Theoretical Background Theories play a crucial role in understanding and interpreting data. In a study of this nature, numerous theories are pertinent and applicable, thus warranting a comprehensive review of some relevant theoretical constructs.

Sustainability in Development With the current emphasis on sustainability in development, the discourse on sustainable development has gained significant importance, especially in developed countries. The UN Agenda 2030, along with its SDGs, reflects this renewed focus. Sustainable development entails meeting the needs of the present generation without jeopardising the opportunities for future generations (Tetzla, 2018). Within this theoretical orientation, two distinct ecological approaches emerge: ecological modernisation and ecological structural change. Ecological modernisation primarily emphasises innovative technical solutions, while ecological structural change calls for the dismantling of global production and consumption networks in favour of decentralised and democratic centres of power. As Harborth (1993, cited in Tetzla, 2018, p. 36) proposed, ecodevelopment has several programme points including satisfaction of basic needs, no copying of the consumption style of the industrialised countries, development of satisfying social ecosystem, anticipatory solidarity with future generations and conservation of resources and environment.

40 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Social Capital Social capital, as Bourdieu (1986) conceived, refers to the collective resources, both actual and potential, that are associated with possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships characterised by mutual acquaintance and recognition. Social capital has three key dimensions of structural, relational and cognitive capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009). Structural capital refers to the arrangement and network of connections among individuals, including the frequency at which information is shared among them. The relational dimension of social capital involves the social relationships that individuals have developed over time, encompassing trust, reciprocity, obligations, and the identification of common interests. The cognitive dimension of social capital is composed of shared resources such as representations, interpretations, visions and systems of meaning among parties (Deng & Yuan, 2020). Social capital theory aligns closely with studies on partnership and collaboration. Social capital is generated through the relationships between individuals, offering them the opportunity to pursue and accomplish their interests (Deng & Yuan, 2020). The central postulate of social capital theory is that networks constitute valuable resources as resourced can be accessed through social networks leading to valuable assets including intellectual capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Social capital is made up of obligations or connections and depends upon the size of the network, which under certain conditions can be converted into economic capital (Bourdieu, 1986). According to van den Hooff and Huysman (2009), social capital encompasses networks and assets that can be utilised to cultivate intellectual capital. It involves combining existing knowledge with incremental changes, developing and exchanging knowledge through social interactions, ultimately contributing to the creation of intellectual capital. In the realm of knowledge, social capital proves to be a valuable framework. Akhavan and Hosseini (2016) provided dealt with the significance of resources present within networks that involve resource exchange and knowledge management. Their model highlights the influence of social

2  Researching Science in Africa 

41

capital on an individual’s inclination to share knowledge within research teams, consequently affecting the accumulation and dissemination of knowledge, ultimately contributing to the capacity for innovation. If partnerships are not established at the institutional, national or regional levels, they often occur between individual scientists. Initially, these partnerships may develop as professional acquaintances but can gradually extend into personal relationships, leading to more frequent interactions on both professional and personal levels. As a result, the structural and relational dimensions of social capital are strengthened among individual scientists. Over time, the relational dimension of social capital deepens through growing trust, increased mutual collaboration in professional pursuits such as joint research, and the development of reciprocal professional obligations within their current research endeavours. As these two dimensions of social capital thrive, the third dimension of cognitive capital is realised through the mutual sharing of resources. Scientific partnerships not only foster the development of social capital but also contribute to increased efficiency by facilitating the sharing of knowledge and skills among the involved parties. Through social capital there is possibility to build economic capital. By considering these three dimensions of social capital, one can assess the degree, extent and nature (mutual or exploitative) of partnerships in scientific enterprises.

Social Network Analysis Social network analysis (SNA) is a pertinent theoretical framework for studying scientific partnerships. By applying network analysis, it becomes possible to uncover diverse relationship patterns and understand the circumstances that give rise to and foster such patterns. SNA encompasses a range of methods and techniques designed to explore interaction patterns among individuals, with a specific emphasis on the relationships forged between social entities. Through SNA, researchers can examine both the content and structure of these relationships (Tabassum et al., 2018). The features of network analysis as Freeman (2004) summarised include: it is motivated by a structural intuition

42 

R. Sooryamoorthy

based on ties that link social actors; grounded in systematic empirical data; and relies on mathematical models. Network analysis operates on the fundamental assumption that individuals’ actions are not isolated from the influence of their social interactions and the broader environment. This approach encompasses various elements beyond social ties, such as knowledge, resources, tasks and roles (Armstrong et al., 2013). SNA can be applied for a number of applications. Friemel (2008) elaborates on two, namely, descriptive and explanation purposes. Descriptive applications of network analysis involve evaluating and describing the contextual aspects of networks, with a particular emphasis on their structural characteristics. This includes measuring reciprocity, triadic structures, degree distribution and multiplexity. On the other hand, explanatory applications aim to examine the relationships between relevant dependent and independent variables, seeking to understand how individual units are influenced by these variables. An important application of SNA is the identification of influential central actors within networks, using statistical measures as a means to determine their prominence (Tabassum et al., 2018).

Self-Determination Theory The self-determination theory (SDT) is a prominent theory in the study of human motivation, comprising of various fundamental aspects such as personality development, self-regulation, psychological needs, life goals and aspirations, cultural influences on motivation and the effects of social environments on motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2008). By focusing on the fulfilment or frustration of psychological needs, SDT enlightens an understanding of human motivation, behaviour and well-being. This theory recognises the importance of creating environments that support individuals’ need for competence and autonomy, thereby fostering intrinsic motivation and overall psychological health (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Initially developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, SDT has undergone further elaboration and expansion through the contributions of various researchers (Gagné & Deci, 2014). While Deci and Ryan laid the

2  Researching Science in Africa 

43

foundation for SDT, subsequent work by other scholars has enriched and refined the theory, deepening our understanding of human motivation and psychological well-being. The theory has found applications across diverse domains of life (Deci & Ryan, 2008). SDT is based on several key assumptions that shed light on human behaviour and motivation. One of the central assumptions in SDT is that individuals possess inherent psychological needs for competence and autonomy in relation to others. When these needs are fulfilled, individuals tend to exhibit higher levels of volitional motivation and experience greater well-being. In other words, when people feel competent in what they do and have a sense of autonomy or control over their actions, they are more likely to engage in activities willingly and experience positive outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 2014). Conversely, when these psychological needs are thwarted or not adequately satisfied, individuals tend to display diminished motivation. If people feel incompetent or lack a sense of autonomy, their motivation may decrease, and they may become less engaged and less satisfied with their actions or experiences (Deci & Ryan, 2014). The application of SDT in scientific research partnerships can yield significant benefits. It enables researchers to gain insights into the motivational factors that drive successful collaboration, identify potential barriers or challenges that may hinder motivation and well-being, and develop interventions or strategies to foster a positive and productive collaborative research environment. Within this context, the autonomy element of motivation is particularly relevant. Autonomy, as emphasised by SDT, pertains to individuals’ sense of control and choice over their actions. In research partnerships, promoting autonomy support involves creating an environment that nurtures participants’ autonomy by offering them opportunities for decision-­ making, involvement in goal setting, and a sense of ownership over their contributions. Research has consistently shown that when individuals feel supported in their autonomy within a collaborative setting, they exhibit higher levels of motivation, engagement and satisfaction with their work. By prioritising autonomy support, researchers can empower their partners and cultivate a sense of agency, ownership and personal investment

44 

R. Sooryamoorthy

in the research process. This, in turn, enhances intrinsic motivation, encourages proactive involvement and fosters a collaborative culture where diverse perspectives and ideas can thrive. Recognising and respecting individuals’ autonomy within research partnerships helps create an environment that values their unique contributions, promotes self-­ directed learning and encourages innovative thinking.

Dependency Theory The concept of dependency is widely applied to the study of development problems in Africa (Kaufman et  al., 1975). Hountondji (1990, p.  1) asserts that ‘ultimately the third world is scientifically dependent in the same way as it is economically dependent’. To make sense of the data gathered for the study, a broad theoretical framework which is grounded in the dependency theory is relevant. As an early theory developed in the 1950s under the leadership of Raúl Prebisch, dependency is based on the premise that economic growth in developed countries does not necessarily lead to growth for their poor counterparts but the economic activities in the former can cause serious economic problems in the latter (Ferraro, 2008). The basis of the dependency theory is found in the works of Baran (1957), Prebisch (1971), Frank (1971), Wallerstein (1979 [1997]) and several others. Dependency theory became popular through the writings of Walter Rodney (1973)) and Samir Amin (1976) which revolutionised the African thinking of development (Nhema & Zinyama, 2016). The theory has been applied to Africa to explain the problems of African political economy (McGowan & Smith, 1978). It has turned out to be an important tool for the study of both development and underdevelopment. It provides an explanation of economic development due to external influences on developmental policies of countries (Ferraro, 2008). The theory relies on the assumption that economic and political power are heavily concentrated in advanced countries (Ferraro, 2008). Dependency theory is adapted to this study of development in science. Some of the propositions of the dependency theory, as articulated by Ferraro (2008) are: the alternative uses of resources to be preferred to

2  Researching Science in Africa 

45

those patterns of use imposed by dominant countries; there is an economic interest for each country that should be articulated; the model of success of advanced economies does not serve the developing economies; and the dependent states should attempt to pursue self-reliant policies. Dependent countries are unable to exert considerable influence on the decisions affecting the countries’ economies but are shaped directly or indirectly by international structures and processes (Kaufman et  al., 1975). More so, dependent countries experience lagging growth rates, draining of resources and burdensome foreign debts (Kaufman et  al., 1975). Dependency is promoted by international trade and multi-­ country operations and African leaders have little latitude in their attempts to devise policies for the development of their respective countries (McGowan & Smith, 1978). The theory suggests that it is impossible to understand the problems of Africa without considering the context of Western European expansion and colonisation (Frank, 1969). Africa continues to be dominated economically and politically by external powers and its economic, political and cultural dependence is noticeable (Matunhu, 2011). The core and periphery are the basic notions of the dependency theory, in which the former is characterised by a developed economy and developed infrastructure, modern science and technology and resources. On the other end are the periphery countries with an underdeveloped economy, poor infrastructure and slow development, and are dependent on the core which exploits them. To Wallerstein (1979 [1997]), the core– periphery distinction differentiates zones which are concentrated in high-­ profit, high-technology, high-wage and diversified production from those which are low-profit, low-technology, low-wage and low diversified production. The core assumes the new role in the new division of labour, with less provision of the manufacturers and more provision of machines (Wallerstein, 1974). According to the dependency theory, exploitation of the periphery’s resources occurs through a process of unequal exchange (Emmanuel 1972, cited in Nhema & Zinyama, 2016, p. 154) which results in the underdevelopment of the periphery countries (Agbebi & Virtanen, 2017). The core accumulates resources by exploiting the periphery (Nhema & Zinyama, 2016). The periphery, as Connell (2018)

46 

R. Sooryamoorthy

maintained, is a vital source of raw materials for both knowledge economy and material economy, for developments in biology, pharmaceuticals, astronomy and climate science, among others. Employing the centre–periphery model in sociology, Keim (2011) differentiates three distinguishable dimensions, namely development/ underdevelopment, autonomy/dependency and marginality/centrality. To him, these dimensions allow for diverse manifestations of the centre– periphery divide in research output, asymmetries in the reception of scholarly publications, or global inequalities in prestige ascribed to academic production. These are pertinent to the production of science in a peripheral region like Africa. However, dependency theory blames external factors for Africa’s problems (Nhema & Zinyama, 2016). Despite different views and criticisms of the theory, it provides a new perspective to the understanding of underdevelopment in the Global South (Agbebi & Virtanen, 2017). Scholars still consider it applicable to the study of developing economies and new forms of dependency which is evident in bilateral relations between economies.

Methodology and Data In the study of science and the production of scientific knowledge, scientometrics has been successfully employed. The effectiveness of the method has prompted a series of science studies across countries. Some examples of scientometrics studies and the usefulness of the methods may be cited as a note for reference.2 Not only in science but also in the humanities and social sciences, the application of scientometrics is gaining  Some of these are Bornmann and Leydesdorff (2014), Braam et  al. (1988), Brookes (1988), Cantú-Ortiz (2018), Garfield (2007), Godin (2005), Ivancheva (2008), Lamers et  al. (2019), Lancho-Barrantes and Cantu-Ortiz (2019), Larivière et  al. (2013), Leydesdorff and Milojević (2015), Lovakov and Agadullina (2017), Ma and Cleere (2019), Maddi et al. (2019), McKeown et al. (2016), Mingers and Leydesdorff (2015), Moed (1988), Morris and Martens (2008), Murray et  al. (2019), Perron et  al. (2017), Pölönen and Hammarfelt (2019), Sivertsen (2009), Sooryamoorthy (2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020), Thelwal (2019), van Raan (1997), Vinkler (2010), Zavaraqi and Fadaie (2012), and Zuccala et al. (2019).

2

2  Researching Science in Africa 

47

acceptance.3 Specific to Africa, scientometric data and application of methods have been effectively employed4 and been recognised in Africa (Confraria & Godinho, 2015). This study examines the production of science in Africa for the period between 2001 and 2018, and the production trends in two periods of 2001–2009 and 2010–2018. In this analysis, the focus is on the partners that Africa associates with to produce scientific publications, institutions (both African and foreign) that are involved in the production of science, and the agencies that financially support research in Africa. The institutions and funding agencies are further examined to identify their prominence in production and their countries of origin. For the analysis of funding in research scientometric data is of immense use as the information is captured in Web of Science data (Kozma et al., 2018). The evaluation of funding sources is important in mapping the direction, potential and impact that are influenced by the quality and quantity of funding in research (Kozma et al., 2018). Based on the analysis of the empirical data, this study discusses the future of science on the continent. The dependency and self-reliance of African science are discussed in the backdrop of the findings derived from empirical data. The issues of research capacity and the role of science policies in scientific advancement are part of the discussion. The analysis of data is augmented by tables, figures and maps. The empirical data for the study was collected from a suitable dataset of the Web of Science (WoS). The WoS is a widely used data source for mapping science in countries and institutions. It stores huge quantities of information pertaining to publications that have appeared in journals, books, reports and many other publication formats. The Web of Science Core Collection of Clarivate Analytics holds ten databases: the Science Citation Index (SCI), the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), the Arts & 3  For example, Garfield (1980), Kahn (2011), Lindholm-Romantschuk (1998), Riecken (1980), Small and Crane (1979), Sooryamoorthy (2021a, 2021b), Thiedig (2019), Uzun (1998), and Yitzhaki (1988). 4  Some studies of this genre are those done by Blom et  al. (2016), Boshoff (2009a, 2009b), Confraria and Wang (2020), Jeenah and Pouris (2008), Mouton (2018), Mouton et al. (2019), Mouton and Waast (2009), Onyancha (2011, 2020b), Onyancha and Maluleka (2011), Pouris (2006, 2010, 2012a, 2012b), Pouris and Ho (2014), Pouris and Pouris (2009), Ruggunan and Sooryamoorthy (2016, 2019), and Sooryamoorthy (2009a, 2009b, 2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021a).

48 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), the Conference Proceedings Citation Index, the Book Citation Index and the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). This core collection covers publication records of over 252 disciplines from as far back as 1900. As of 31 December 2021, the Web of Science Core Collection indexed 21,894 journals, over 126,000 books and more than 226,000 conference titles that included 85.9 million records.5 Due to its reliability and coverage in relation to other databases, the WoS is attractive for scholars undertaking studies on publications. The chosen dataset of the WoS for this study is the Science Citation Index Expanded–1945 to present. This contains publications in science grouped under several research areas of science. Documents in this database are of different kinds, varying from articles to reviews in several languages. All articles published in any language by a scholar who is affiliated to an African institution during 2001–2018 were searched. The period of 2001–2018, roughly covering the last two decades, was chosen as an extensive period for a comprehensive analysis. Publications in each of the 54 African countries were searched and collected using the online search option of the WoS.6 The search returned 458,034 articles in all languages that were published by African scholars during the period.7 The collected publication records were then checked. Since the study is about science in Africa, only science publications were considered in the analysis. Many records falling under non-science research areas were

 https://clarivate.libguides.com/woscc/coverage  CU=(Algeria OR Angola OR Benin OR Botswana OR Burkina Faso OR Burundi OR Cameroon OR Cape Verde OR Cabo Verde OR Chad OR Comoros OR Congo OR Democratic Republic of the Congo OR Djibouti OR Egypt OR Equatorial Guinea OR Eritrea OR Ethiopia OR Gabon OR Gambia OR Ghana OR Guinea OR Guinea-Bissau OR Côte d’Ivoire OR Ivory Coast OR Kenya OR Lesotho OR Liberia OR Libya OR Madagascar OR Malawi OR Mali OR Mauritius OR Mauritania OR Morocco OR Mozambique OR Namibia OR Niger OR Nigeria OR Rwanda OR Reunion OR São Tomé and Príncipe OR Senegal OR Seychelles OR Sierra Leone OR Somalia OR South Africa OR Sudan OR South Sudan OR Swaziland OR Tanzania OR Togo OR Tunisia OR Uganda OR Zambia OR Zimbabwe). 7  The data was searched and gathered on 7 and 8 January 2020. Depending on the day of access and search the number of records retrieved might vary. Even if all the variables (year, dataset, period of publication, type of document, and languages) of the search options are controlled, the count of returns will change every time the search is conducted. This is due to the regular updating of the database done by the WoS editorial team. 5 6

2  Researching Science in Africa 

49

removed.8 After the removal, 446,893 records were obtained. Four records of the publications in 2020 were found in the dataset which were omitted, leaving the final figure at 446,889 publications. Further examination of the type of documents showed that the collected records included some retracted publications (119 records), book chapters (118) and early access (1) that were also excluded from the final dataset prepared for the analysis. After cleaning, 446,653 records were left. These were sorted using the online option provided on the WoS platform. The records were then classified according to the variables necessary for the analysis. Both Excel and SPSS were used for further processing and analysis. The same criteria were used to compare Africa with world. The figures of publications for relevant countries in the world were useful in finding the relative position of Africa in science and in specific research areas. From the same dataset of the WoS, data was sourced for the reference period for the required countries in the world. The cleaning process was the same procedure that was adopted for the data on Africa. The developed dataset for the period of 2001–2018 was broadly segregated into two time periods of equal intervals (2001–2009 and 2010–2018). This segregation is to map the changes over the period of study. In line with the objectives of the study, the data was analysed in multiple stages. In the first stage the focus was to look at the general trends that are evident in the science publications of Africa. This analysis was done separately for all countries in Africa. Following this, research areas were examined. Since partnership is part of science, this aspect needed to be investigated in the data. For this purpose, the analysis was made of the countries of the scholars who participated in the production of publications. This resulted in the identification of all partners from countries both inside and outside the continent of Africa. It was also  The removed research areas include psychiatry (2652 records), operations research-management (1764), business-economics (1527), behavioural sciences (1232), psychology (1107), anthropology (1013), education-educational research (910), social sciences-other topics (688), substance abuse (391), medical ethics (380), geriatrics-gerontology (329), information science-library science (317), history-philosophy of science (173), geography (161), urban studies (106), social issues (78), linguistics (74), sociology (68), public administration (60), government-law (54), philosophy (49), art (48), women’s studies (48), family studies (36), communication (31), ethnic studies (21), architecture (13), arts, humanities-other topics (13), demography (9), social work (9), history (4), criminology-penology (3), religion (3) and music (2). 8

50 

R. Sooryamoorthy

relevant to know the centres of the production of science publications in Africa. This was done by collecting the data on institutions to which the authors were affiliated. Considering the possibility of collaborations involving multiple authors, it is common for publications to involve multiple institutions in their production. These institutions were categorised according to countries and the frequency of publications they produced. Funding is another key variable in the study. The relationship between funding inputs and research outputs has implications for the design and management of research (Grassano et al., 2017). Gathering information on funding from publications was not easy. Sometimes this information is given in the acknowledgement section which is not standardised in the structure and content of publications (Grassano et al., 2017). A glance at the publications that were generated from such research showed the details of funding in terms of the agencies that supported research. Both the contributions of the funding agencies to specific research areas in Africa and the countries of the location of the funding agencies were analysed. Trends in funding can also be extracted from the data. Given the substantial amount of data comprising of 446,653 publications, it is impractical to thoroughly examine all the research areas across Africa. This will also cause challenges in terms of the length of the book. To deal with this situation an appropriate sampling strategy was adopted. The research areas that were representative and had a higher number of publications were chosen. Considering the publications count the major research areas were identified for further exploration. The preliminary analysis showed that research areas such as chemistry, engineering, physics, environmental sciences/ecology and materials sciences were the highly productive fields in Africa. Together they accounted for about 42 per cent of all publications that Africa produced during 2001–2018. In the next stage, each of these research areas were investigated. These highly published research areas were examined according to the periods (2001–2009 and 2010–2018), countries (African and others), institutions (African and others) and funding agencies (internal and external). This strategy was to gather knowledge on the participation of both African and non-African countries, institutions and funding agencies for the selected research areas. The analysis resulted in identifying the key

2  Researching Science in Africa 

51

African countries that significantly contributed to science production on the continent. Different forms of partnerships are relevant in science production in Africa. Partnerships direct to the level of dependency or self-reliance of Africa on other countries. In order to study the various forms of partnerships, namely South–South, South–North or South–South–North, additional data was required. Not only the partners of Africa but also the partners of the partners of Africa are central to the study of this dimension. To do this, pertinent data concerning the partners of Africa was sourced from the same WoS database. To begin with, the first five key Northern partners of Africa were identified, and the data was then collected. The selected Northern partners were the USA, France, England, Germany and Canada. This data provided information about the key Northern partners of Africa and shed light on how much Africa became part of the science projects of its Northern partners. The data was also useful in examining the share of African publications of the Northern partners of Africa. In the second stage, data regarding the major Southern partners of Africa was collected. The Southern partners were Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, India and Brazil. The partnerships of each of these five countries were assessed for their partnerships with African and other countries. In the third stage particular attention was given to Africa’s typical partnership patterns by analysing the most prolific countries in Africa (South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and Nigeria). This showed the extent of South–North, South–South, South–South-North and Africa– Africa partnerships. In the next chapter an analysis of the publications that Africa produced during the reference period is presented.

References Abd-Allah, F., Kissani, N., William, A., Oraby, M. I., Moustafa, R. R., Shaker, E., El-Tamawy, M. S., & Shakir, R. (2016). Neuroscience research in Africa: Current status. eNeurologicalSci, 3, 7–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ensci.2015.10.005

52 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Agbebi, M., & Virtanen, P. (2017). Dependency theory: A conceptual lens to understand China’s presence in Africa? Forum for Development Studies, 44, 429–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039410.2017.1281161 Akhavan, P., & Hosseini, S. M. (2016). Social capital, knowledge sharing, and innovation capability: An empirical study of R&D teams in Iran. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28, 96–113. https://doi.org/10.108 0/09537325.2015.1072622 Amin, S. (1976). Unequal development. Harvest Press. Armstrong, H., McCulloh, I., & Johnson, A. (2013). Social network analysis with applications. John Wiley. Baran, P. A. (1957). The political economy of growth. Monthly Review Press. Blom, A., Lan, G., & Adil, M. (2016). Sub-Saharan African science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research: A decade of development. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank. Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Scientometrics in a changing research landscape: Bibliometrics has become an integral part of research quality evaluation and has been changing the practice of research. EMBO Reports, 15, 1228–1232. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201439608 Boshoff, N. (2009a). Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa. Scientometrics, 81, 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­008-­ 2211-­8 Boshoff, N. (2009b). South–South research collaboration of countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Scientometrics, 84, 481–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­009-­0120-­0 Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood. Braam, B. R., Moed, H. F., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1988). Mapping of science: Critical elaboration and new approaches, a case study in agricultural biochemistry. In L. Egghe & R. Rousseau (Eds.), Informetrics 87/88: Select proceedings of the first international conference on bibliometrics and theoretical aspects of information retrieval, 25–28 August (pp. 15–28). Elsevier Science Publishers. Brookes, B. C. (1988). Comments on the scope of bibliometrics. In L. Egghe & R. Rousseau (Eds.), Informetrics 87/88: Select proceedings of the first international conference on bibliometrics and theoretical aspects of information retrieval, 25–28 August (pp. 29–63). Elsevier Science Publishers. Cantú-Ortiz, F. J. (2018). Data analytics and scientometrics: The emergence of research analytics. In F. J. Cantú-Ortiz (Ed.), Research analytics: Boosting university productivity and competitiveness through scientometrics (pp.  1–11). CRC Press.

2  Researching Science in Africa 

53

Chataway, J., Dobson, C., Daniels, C., Byrne, R., Hanlin, R., & Tigabu, A. (2019). Science granting councils in Sub-Saharan Africa: Trends and tensions. Science and Public Policy, 46, 620–631. https://doi.org/10.1093/ scipol/scz007 Chu, K. M., Jayaraman, S., Kyamanywa, P., & Ntakiyiruta, G. (2014). Building research capacity in Africa: Equity and global health collaborations. PLoS Medicine, 11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001612 Confraria, H., & Godinho, M. M. (2015). The impact of African science: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 102, 1241–1268. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­014-­1463-­8 Confraria, H., & Wang, L. (2020). Medical research versus disease burden in Africa. Research Policy, 49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103916 Connell, R. (2018). Decolonizing sociology. Contemporary Sociology, 47, 399–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306118779811 Crane, J. T. (2013). Scrambling for Africa: AIDS, expertise, and the rise of American global health science. Cornell University. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49, 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Conceptual issues. In M. Gagne (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory (pp. 13–32). Oxford University Press. Deng, X., & Yuan, L. (2020). Integrating technology acceptance model with social capital theory to promote passive users' continuance intention toward virtual brand communities. IEEE Access, 8, 73061–73070. https://doi. org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2987803 Ferraro, V. (2008). Dependency theory: An introduction. In G. Secondi (Ed.), The development economics reader (pp. 58–64). Routledge. Frank, A. G. (1969). Crisis in the third world. Holmes and Meier. Frank, A. G. (1971). Capitalism and underdevelopment in Latin America. Penguin. Freeman, L. (2004). The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of science. Empirical Press. Friemel, T. N. (2008). Why context matters. In T. N. Friemel (Ed.), Why context matters: Applications of social network analysis (pp.  9–14). VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften GmbH. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2014). The history of self-determination theory in psychology and management. In M. Gagne (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory (pp. 1–10). Oxford University Press.

54 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Gaillard, J. (2003). Overcoming the scientific generation gap in Africa: An urgent priority. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 28, 15–25. https://doi. org/10.1179/030801803225010359 Gaillard, J., & Mouton, J. (2022). The state of science, technology and innovation in Africa: Trends, progress and limitations. Science, Technology & Society, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218221078548 Garfield, E. (1980). Is information retrieval in the arts and humanities inherently different from that in science? The effect that ISI’s citation index for the arts and humanities is expected to have on future scholarship. Library Quarterly, 50, 40–57. https://doi.org/10.1086/629874 Garfield, E. (2007). From the science of science to scientometrics: Visualizing the history of science with Histcite software. In D. Torres-Salinas & H. F. Moed (Eds.), 11th International conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (vol. 1, pp.  21–26). Centre for Scientific Information and Documentation (CINDOC) of the Spanish Research. Godin, B. (2005). Measurement and statistics on science and technology: 1930s to the present. Routledge. Grassano, N., Rotolo, D., Hutton, J., Lang, F., & Hopkins, M.  M. (2017). Funding data from publication acknowledgments: Coverage, uses, and limitations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68, 999–1017. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2767348 Guns, R., & Wang, L. (2017). Detecting the emergence of new scientific collaboration links in Africa: A comparison of expected and realized collaboration intensities. Journal of Informetrics, 11, 892–903. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.07.004 Gwenzi, W., & Rzymski, P. (2020). When silence goes viral, Africa sneezes! A perspective on Africa’s subdued research response to COVID-19 and a call for local scientific evidence. Environmental Research, 194. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110637 Hassan, M. H. A., & Schaffer, D. (2006). Building scientific capacity in Sub-­ Saharan Africa: From despair to hope. Discovery and Innovation, 18, 279–287. https://doi.org/10.4314/dai.v18i4.15755 Hountondji, P. (1990). Scientific dependence in Africa today. Research in African Literatures, 21, 5–15. Ihekweazu, C., & Agogo, E. (2020). Africa’s response to COVID-19. BMC Medicine, 18, 151. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-­020-­01622-­w Ivancheva, L. (2008). Scientometrics today: A methodological overview. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 2, 47–56. https://doi. org/10.1080/09737766.2008.10700853

2  Researching Science in Africa 

55

Jeenah, M., & Pouris, A. (2008). South African research in the context of Africa and globally. South African Journal of Science, 104, 351–354. Kahn, M. (2011). A bibliometric analysis of South Africa’s scientific outputs: Some trends and implications. South African Journal of Science, 107. https:// doi.org/10.4102/sajs.v107i1/2.406 Kaufman, R. R., Chernotsky, H. I., & Geller, D. S. (1975). A preliminary test of the theory of dependency. Comparative Politics, 7, 303–330. https://doi. org/10.2307/421222 Keim, W. (2011). Counterhegemonic currents and internationalization of sociology: Theoretical reflections and an empirical example. International Sociology, 26, 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580909351324 Kozma, C., Medina, C. C., & Costas, R. (2018). Research funding landscapes in Africa. In C. Beaudry, J. Mouton, & H. Prozesky (Eds.), The next generation of scientists in Africa (pp. 26–42). African Minds. Lamers, W. S., Eck, N. J. V., & Waltman, L. (2019). Variations in citation practices across the scientific landscape: Analysis based on a large full-text corpus. In G. Catalano, C. Daraio, M. Gregori, Henk F. Moed, & G. Ruocco (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (vol. II, pp. 2121–2132). Edizioni Efesto. Lancho-Barrantes, B. S., & Cantu-Ortiz, F. J. (2019). Quantifying the research preferences of top research universities: Why they make a difference? In G. Catalano, C. Daraio, M. Gregori, Henk F. Moed, & G. Ruocco (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (vol. II, pp. 1488–1499). Edizioni Efesto. Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C.  R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504, 211–213. https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a Leydesdorff, L., & Milojević, S. (2015). Scientometrics. In M.  Lynch (Ed.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences (pp.  322–327). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-­08-­043076-­7/03200-­9 Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y. (1998). Scholarly book reviewing in the social sciences and humanities: The flow of ideas within and among disciplines. Greenwood Press. Lovakov, A., & Agadullina, E. (2017, October 16–20). Bibliometric analysis of publications from post-Soviet countries in psychological journals in 1992–2016 [Paper presentation]. The 16th International Conference on Scientometrics & Informetrics (ISSI2017), Wuhan, China. Ma, L., & Cleere, L. (2019). Comparing coverage of Scopus, WoS, and OBRSS list: A case for institutional and national databases of research output? In

56 

R. Sooryamoorthy

G. Catalano, C. Daraio, M. Gregori, Henk F. Moed, & G. Ruocco (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (vol. I, pp. 214–222). Edizioni Efesto. Maddi, A., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2019). Man-woman collaboration practices and scientific visibility: How gender affect scientific impact in economics and management. In G. Catalano, C. Daraio, M. Gregori, Henk F. Moed, & G.  Ruocco (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (vol. II, pp.  1687–1697). Edizioni Efesto. Matunhu, J. (2011). A critique of modernization and dependency theories in Africa: Critical assessment. African Journal of History and Culture, 3, 65–72. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJHC.9000001 McGowan, P. J., & Smith, D. L. (1978). Economic dependency in Black Africa: An analysis of competing theories. International Organization, 32, 179–235. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300003908 McKeown, K., III, Daume, H., Chaturvedi, S., Paparrizos, J., Thadani, K., Barrio, P., Biran, O., Bothe, S., Collins, M., Fleischmann, K. R., Gravano, L., Jha, R., McInerney, K., Moon, T., & Neelakantan, A. (2016). Predicting the impact of scientific concepts using full-text features. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 67, 2684–2696. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23612 Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research, 246, 1–19. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002 Moed, H. F. (1988). The use of on-line databases for bibliometric analysis. In L. Egghe & R. Rousseau (Eds.), Informetrics 87/88: Select proceedings of the first international conference on bibliometrics and theoretical aspects of information retrieval, 25–28 August (pp. 133–155). Elsevier Science Publishers. Morris, S. A., & Martens, B. V. (2008). Mapping research specialties. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 42, 213–295. https://doi. org/10.1002/aris.2008.1440420113 Mouton, J. (2018). African science: A diagnosis. In C. Beaudry, J. Mouton, & H. Prozesky (Eds.), The next generation of scientists in Africa (pp. 1–12). African Minds. Mouton, J., & Waast, R. (2009). Mapping research systems in developing countries: Synthesis report. UNESCO. Mouton, J., with, Basson, I., Blanckenber, J., Boshoff, N., Prozesky, H., Redelinghuys, H., Treptow, R., Lill, M. v., & Niekerk, M. v (2019). The state

2  Researching Science in Africa 

57

of the South African research enterprise. DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, Stellenbosch University. Murray, D., Lamers, W., Boyack, K., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C.  R., Eck, N.  J. van, & Waltman, L. (2019). Measuring disagreement in science. In G. Catalano, C. Daraio, M. Gregori, Henk F. Moed, & G. Ruocco (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (vol. II, pp. 2370–2376). Edizioni Efesto. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266. https://doi.org/10.2307/259373 Naidoo, A.  V., Hodkinson, P., King, L.  L., & Wallis, L.  A. (2021). African authorship on African papers during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Global Health, 6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-­2020-­004612 Nhema, A. G., & Zinyama, T. (2016). Modernization, dependency and structural adjustment development theories and Africa: A critical appraisal. International Journal of Social Science Research, 4, 151–166. https://doi. org/10.5296/ijssr.v4i1.9040 Nordling, L. (2010). African nations vow to support science. Nature, 465, 994–995. https://doi.org/10.1038/465994a Nordling, L. (2015). Africa aims for research autonomy. Nature, 520, 142–143. https://doi.org/10.1038/520142a North, M. A., Hastie, W. W., & Hoyer, L. (2020). Out of Africa: The underrepresentation of African authors in high-impact geoscience literature. Earth-­ Science Reviews, 208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103262 Odhiambo, T. R. (1967). East Africa: Science for development. Science (New Series), 158, 876–881. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.158.3803.876 Okwaro, F.  M., & Geissler, P.  W. (2015). In/dependent collaborations: Perceptions and experiences of African scientists in transnational HIV research. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 29, 492–511. https://doi. org/10.1111/maq.12206 Oladipo, E. K., Ajay, A. F., Odeyemi, A. N., Akindiya, O. E., Adebayo, E. T., Oguntomi, A.  S., Oyewole, M.  P., Jimah, E.  M., Oladipo, A.  A., Ariyo, O.  E., Oladipo, B.  B., & Oloke, J.  K. (2020). Laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19  in Africa: Availability, challenges and implications. Drug Discoveries & Therapeutics, 14, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.5582/ ddt.2020.03067

58 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Onyancha, O.  B. (2011). Research collaborations between South Africa and other countries, 1986–2005: An informetric analysis. African Journal of Library & Information Science, 21, 99–112. Onyancha, O.  B. (2020a). A meta-analysis study of the relationship between research and economic development in selected countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Scientometrics, 123, 655–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­020-­ 03390-­z Onyancha, O.  B. (2020b). Regional and international research collaboration and citation impact in selected sub-Saharan African countries in the period 2000 to 2019. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication. https://doi. org/10.1108/GKMC-­04-­2020-­0039 Onyancha, O. B., & Maluleka, J. R. (2011). Knowledge production through collaborative research in sub-Saharan Africa: How much do countries contribute to each other’s knowledge output and citation impact? Scientometrics, 87, 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­010-­0330-­5 Ordóñez-Matamoros, G., Cozzens, S. E., & García-Luque, M. (2011, September 15–17). North–South and South–South research collaboration: What differences does it make for developing countries? The case of Colombia [Paper presentation]. Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy: Building Capacity for Scientific Innovation and Outcomes: ACSIP Proceedings. Perron, B. E., Victor, B. G., Hodge, D. R., Salas-Wright, C. P., Vaughn, M. G., & Taylor, R. J. (2017). Laying the foundations for scientometric research: A data science approach. Research on Social Work Practice, 27, 802–812. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1049731515624966 Pölönen, J., & Hammarfelt, B. (2019). Historical bibliometrics using Google scholar: The case of Roman law, 1500–2016. In G.  Catalano, C.  Daraio, M. Gregori, Henk F. Moed, & G. Ruocco (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (vol. II, pp. 2491–2492). Edizioni Efesto. Pouris, A. (2006). A bibliometric assessment of South African research publications included in the internationally indexed database of Thomson ISI. In ASSAf, Report on a strategic approach to research publishing in South Africa (pp. 9–29). Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf ). Pouris, A. (2010). A scientometric assessment of the southern Africa development community: Science in the tip of Africa. Scientometrics, 85, 145–154.10.1007/s11192-010-0260-2. Pouris, A. (2012a). Scientometric research in South Africa and successful policy instruments. Scientometrics, 91, 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-­011-­0581-­9

2  Researching Science in Africa 

59

Pouris, A. (2012b). Science in South Africa: The dawn of a renaissance? South African Journal of Science, 108, 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi. org/10.4102/sajs.v108i7/8.1018 Pouris, A., & Ho, Y.-S. (2014). Research emphasis and collaboration in Africa. Scientometrics, 98, 2169–2184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­013-­1156-­8 Pouris, A., & Pouris, A. (2009). The state of science and technology in Africa (2000–2004): A scientometric assessment. Scientometrics, 79, 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­009-­0419-­x Prebisch, R. (1971). Change and development: Latin America’s great task. Praeger. Ribeiro, L. C., Rapini, M. r. S., Silva, L. A., & Albuquerque, E. M. (2018). Growth patterns of the network of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 114, 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2573-x Riecken, H. W. (1980). Vital signs for basic research in the behavioral and social sciences. Scientometrics, 2, 435–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02095087 Rodney, W. (1973). How Europe underdeveloped Africa (J.  Arriola, Trans.). Bogle-L’Ouverture Publications and Tanzanian Publishing House. Ruggunan, S., & Sooryamoorthy, R. (2016). Human resource management research in South Africa: A bibliometric study of authors and their collaboration patterns. Journal of Contemporary Management, 13, 1394–1427. Ruggunan, S., & Sooryamoorthy, R. (2019). Management studies in South Africa: Exploring the trajectory in the apartheid era and beyond. Springer. Schubert, T., & Sooryamoorthy, R. (2010). Can the Centre–periphery model explain patterns of international scientific collaboration among threshold and industrialised countries? The case of South Africa and Germany. Scientometrics, 83, 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­009-­0074-­2 Sivertsen, G. (2009). Publication patterns in all fields. In F. Aström, R. Danell, B.  Larsen, & J.  W. Schneider (Eds.), Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th birthday (pp.  55–60). International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Skupien, S., & Rüffin, N. (2020). The geography of research funding: Semantics and beyond. Journal of Studies in International Education, 24, 24–38. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1028315319889896 Small, H. G., & Crane, D. (1979). Specialties and disciplines in science and social science: An examination of their structure using citation indexes. Scientometrics, 1, 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016661 Sooryamoorthy, R. (2009a). Collaboration and publication: How collaborative are scientists in South Africa? Scientometrics, 80, 419–439. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­008-­2074-­z

60 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Sooryamoorthy, R. (2009b). Do types of collaboration change citation? Collaboration and citation patterns of South African science publications. Scientometrics, 81, 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­009-­2126-­z Sooryamoorthy, R. (2010a). The visibility of engineering research in South Africa. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 21, 1–12. https://doi. org/10.7166/21-­2-­45 Sooryamoorthy, R. (2010b). The internationalization of South African medical research, 1975–2005. South African Journal of Science, 10, 19–25. https:// sajs.co.za/article/view/10126 Sooryamoorthy, R. (2010c). Medical research in South Africa: A scientometric analysis of trends, patterns, productivity and partnership. Scientometrics, 84, 863–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­010-­0169-­9 Sooryamoorthy, R. (2010d). Scientific publications of engineers in South Africa, 1975–2005. Scientometrics, 86, 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-­010-­0288-­3 Sooryamoorthy, R. (2011). Collaboration in South African engineering research. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 22, 18–36. https://doi. org/10.7166/22-­2-­12 Sooryamoorthy, R. (2013). Scientific research in the natural sciences in South Africa: A scientometric study. South African Journal of Science, 109, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1590/sajs.2013/20120001 Sooryamoorthy, R. (2015). Transforming science in South Africa: Development, collaboration and productivity. Palgrave Macmillan. Sooryamoorthy, R. (2016). Sociology in South Africa: Colonial, apartheid and democratic forms. Palgrave Macmillan. Sooryamoorthy, R. (2017a). Sociological research and collaboration in South Africa: Past and present. International Sociology, 32, 567–586. https://doi. org/10.1177/0268580917725235 Sooryamoorthy, R. (2017b). Do types of collaboration change citation? A scientometric analysis of social science publications in South Africa. Scientometrics, 111, 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­017-­2265-­6 Sooryamoorthy, R. (2018). The production of science in Africa: An analysis of publications in the science disciplines, 2000–2015. Scientometrics, 115, 317–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­018-­2675-­0 Sooryamoorthy, R. (2019). International collaboration in Africa: A scientometric analysis. In G.  Catalano, C.  Daraio, M.  Gregori, Henk F.  Moed, & G. Ruocco (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (vol. I, pp. 151–159). Edizioni Efesto.

2  Researching Science in Africa 

61

Sooryamoorthy, R. (2020). Science, policy and development in Africa: Challenges and prospects. Cambridge University Press. Sooryamoorthy, R. (2021a). Scientometrics for the humanities and social sciences. Routledge. Sooryamoorthy, R. (2021b). Scientometrics for the study of sociology. International Sociology, 35, 461–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0268580920957911 Tabassum, S., Pereira, F. S. F., Fernandes, S., & Gama, J. (2018). Social network analysis: An overview. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 8, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1256 Tetzla, R. (2018). Africa: An introduction to history, politics and society. Springer. Thelwal, M. (2019). New developments in scientometric and informetric research. Keynote lecture. In G.  Catalano, C.  Daraio, M.  Gregori, Henk F.  Moed, & G.  Ruocco (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (vol. I, pp. xxxvii–xxxviii). Edizioni Efesto. Thiedig, C. (2019). The social sciences and their publishers: Publication, reception and changing meaning of German monographs. In G.  Catalano, C. Daraio, M. Gregori, Henk F. Moed, & G. Ruocco (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (vol. II, pp. 2014–2019). Edizioni Efesto. Tijssen, R. J. W. (2007). Africa’s contribution to the worldwide research literature: New analytical perspectives, trends, and performance indicators. Scientometrics, 71, 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­007-­1658-­3 Uzun, A. (1998). A scientometric profile of social sciences research in Turkey. The International Information & Library Review, 30, 169–184. https://doi. org/10.1006/iilr.1998.0093 van den Hooff, B., & Huysman, M. (2009). Managing knowledge sharing: Emergent and engineering approaches. Information & Management, 46, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.09.002 van Raan, A.  F. J. (1997). Scientometrics: State-of-the-art. Scientometrics, 38, 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461131 Vinkler, P. (2010). The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators. Chandos Publishing. Wallerstein, I. (1974). The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system: Concepts for comparative analysis. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16, 387–415. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500007520

62 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Wallerstein, I. (1979 [1997]). The capitalist world-economy. Cambridge University Press. Yitzhaki, M. (1988). The language barrier in the humanities: Measures of language self-citation and self-derivation—The case of biblical studies. In L. Egghe & R. Rousseau (Eds.), Informetrics 87/88: Select proceedings of the first international conference on bibliometrics and theoretical aspects of information retrieval, 25–28 August 1987 (pp. 301–314). Elsevier Science Publishers. Zavaraqi, R., & Fadaie, G.-R. (2012). Scientometrics or science of science: Quantitative, qualitative or mixed one. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 6, 273–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766. 2012.10700939 Zhou, P., Cai, X., & Lyu, X. (2020). An in-depth analysis of government funding and international collaboration in scientific research. Scientometrics, 125, 1331–1347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­020-­03595-­2 Zuccala, A., Zhang, H. H., & Ye, F. Y. (2019). Mapping disciplinary knowledge flows using book reviews. In G.  Catalano, C.  Daraio, M.  Gregori, Henk F.  Moed, & G.  Ruocco (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (vol. I, pp. 643–654). Edizioni Efesto.

3 Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications

Introduction This chapter sets the backdrop for an in-depth analysis of scientific research that is being undertaken in Africa. This is based on the analysis of publications that Africa produced during 2001–2018. The analysis will form the basis for subsequent chapters that examine in detail the research areas that have taken precedence over others in the scientific realm of the continent. Institutional analysis of publications lends to an understanding of the institutions that are actively involved in the production of science. Some major institutions are responsible for most of the science production in Africa. At the same time, it is necessary to look at the institutions of their partners. This is done under the section of institutions of publications. Given the cost involved in scientific research, the institutions to which researchers are affiliated are not usually able to support research. Numerous agencies support scientific research for varying reasons. The contribution of funding agencies in supporting research in Africa is examined. Both African and foreign agencies are included in this analysis.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 R. Sooryamoorthy, Independent Africa, Dependent Science, Sustainable Development Goals Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5577-0_3

63

64 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Science Publications from Africa The publications that Africa produced during 2001–2018 were collected and cleaned as detailed in the methodology section of Chap. 2. During this period, Africa published 446,653 papers in various branches of science and research areas. Table 3.1 shows publications across Africa for the period. The trends are illustrated in Fig. 3.1 as well. Although there were 446,653 publications in science, the total count was different. This is because of some publications were collaborated publications that have authors from more than one country. The total count was now 484,463 publications for all 54 countries on the continent. The countries in Table 3.1 are arranged in order of the quantity of publications (the largest to the smallest). Between the two time periods, 29 per cent of the publications appeared in print during the first half (2001–2009) and the remaining 71 per cent in the second half (2010–2018). The average number of publications for an African country was 2612 for the first half and 6340 for the second half. This is against the average figure of 8971 publications for the entire period. The difference in number between the two halves is 3728 publications which is about 2.5 times. On average, there was an increase of 785 per cent in the second half. Put differently, publications in Africa have grown by about seven times within a nine-year span in the recent years. The increase or decrease in the production of publications in Africa can be viewed further by viewing both the absolute number and the percentage of publications. Some countries such as South Africa and Egypt have a higher rate of publications than Somalia and South Sudan. The analysis should take into account both the number and percentage of publications for the measurement of change and growth. For instance, the reported growth in the number of publications in Reunion was negligible in terms of the absolute number of publications (257 in 2010–2018 from a single publication in 2001–2009). In terms of percentage, the increase was several-fold. For a holistic picture of science in Africa, it is therefore appropriate to check the individual contributions of countries to the overall publication output of Africa.

65

3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications  Table 3.1  Publications in science in Africa, 2001–2018 % to total publications

Publications

Countries

2001– 2009

2001– 2010–2018 2018

South Africa Egypt Tunisia Algeria Nigeria Morocco Kenya Ethiopia Cameroon Tanzania Uganda Ghana Senegal Zimbabwe Malawi Sudan Burkina Faso Benin Zambia Botswana Madagascar Libya Mozambique Congo Rep Congo Mali Namibia Gabon Gambia Rwanda Niger Mauritius Côte d’Ivoire Togo Guinea Sierra Leone Swaziland Angola Guinea-­Bissau

37,208 28,782 11,881 8012 10,210 9434 5554 2685 2010 2885 2409 1927 1746 1660 1173 1084 1211 933 856 1063 875 704 488 380 380 670 542 594 641 193 414 377 257 294 156 66 142 127 171

81,037 80,624 30,373 22,862 19,823 15,614 12,200 9056 6547 6590 7006 6390 3300 2757 3182 3039 2742 2384 2366 1918 1850 1590 1719 1765 1764 1441 1249 1071 1014 1330 936 884 755 604 511 552 434 447 320

118,245 109,406 42,254 30,874 30,033 25,048 17,754 11,741 9557 9475 9415 8317 5046 4417 4355 4123 3953 3317 3222 2981 2725 2294 2207 2145 2144 2111 1791 1665 1655 1523 1350 1261 1012 898 667 618 576 574 491

Ave % 2001– 2010– 2001– publn/ change 2009 2018 2018 year 217 280 255 285 194 165 219 337 325 228 290 331 189 166 271 280 226 255 276 180 211 225 352 464 464 215 230 180 158 689 226 234 293 205 327 836 305 352 187

26.4 20.4 8.4 5.7 7.2 6.7 3.9 1.9 1.4 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

23.7 23.5 8.9 6.7 5.8 4.6 3.6 2.6 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

24.4 22.6 8.7 6.4 6.2 5.2 3.7 2.4 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

6569 6078 2347 1715 1669 1392 986 652 531 526 523 462 280 245 242 229 220 184 179 166 151 127 123 119 119 117 100 93 92 85 75 70 56 50 37 34 32 32 27

(continued)

66 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 3.1 (continued) % to total publications

Publications

Countries

2001– 2009

2001– 2010–2018 2018

Seychelles 125 318 Mauritania 158 228 Eritrea 186 149 Chad 125 206 Burundi 68 243 Liberia 27 246 Lesotho 77 191 Reunion 1 257 Cape Verde 26 177 Djibouti 21 102 Comoros 23 58 Equatorial 25 47 Guinea Somalia 8 60 South Sudan 0 56 4 11 São Tomé and Príncipe Total 141,068 342,395 Average 2612.4 6340.6

Ave % 2001– 2010– 2001– publn/ change 2009 2018 2018 year

443 254 386 144 335 80 331 164 311 357 273 911 268 248 258 25,700 203 680 123 485 81 252 72 188

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

25 21 19 18 17 15 15 14 11 7 5 4 4 3 1

68 56 15

750 0 275

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

484,463 8971.5

242 785

100 1.9

100 1.9

100 1.9

26,915

Note: Totals are higher than the publication records due to the participation of more than one country in some publications

As shown in Table 3.1, countries can be grouped according to their respective contributions of publications to Africa. Among the highest producing countries were South Africa and Egypt with 24 and 23 per cent, respectively, of the total output of Africa. Together they produced about half (47%) of all the publications that Africa was credited with. There were eight countries in the middle group that contributed 2–9 per cent each of the total publications of Africa. These were Tunisia, Algeria, Nigeria, Morocco, Kenya, Ethiopia, Cameroon and Tanzania which together made the remaining 37 per cent of Africa’s output. The lowest producing countries formed the largest group in the data. This group included 44 countries that individually made less than 2 per cent each of Africa’s publications. These 44 countries have a collective contribution of

3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

67

Fig. 3.1  Publication trends in Africa, 2001–2018

17 per cent. Some of the poor performers, with less than 100 publications for the entire 18-year period, were Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Somalia, South Sudan, and São Tomé and Príncipe (Map 3.1). When the data is viewed from another angle, it is obvious that two countries (1.7% of all 54 countries in Africa) produced 47 per cent of all publications, 8 countries (14.8%) produced 37 per cent, and 44 countries (82%) together produced 17 per cent of the total science production on the continent. The data reveals the uneven nature of science in Africa as has been documented in previous research. Between the two periods of 2001–2009 and 2010–2018, minor variations in the percentages of contributions were apparent. The two highly producing countries (South Africa and Egypt) have 47 per cent of the total in the first half (2001–2009), 8 countries produced 37 per cent and the remaining 44 countries made 16 per cent. In the second half (2010–2018), the percentages to the total production were 47, 36 and 17, respectively, for these groups of countries, not showing any significant differences. Two leading countries have however increased the quantity of publications in the second half. The countries from the bottom group recorded an increase of 0.8 per cent while the middle group decreased its share of the total by 1.4 per cent.

68 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Map 3.1  Production of science in Africa, 2001–2018

The average number of publications for each country was calculated by dividing the number of publications by the total number of years referring to the period (18 years). Here again the number of the total (484,463) rather than the actual number of publications (446,653) was taken due to the reasons stated earlier. Africa on average produced 26,915 papers a year during 2001–2018. In the first half, the figure was 7837 as against 19,022 for the second half. The highest averages were in favour of South Africa (6569 publications) and Egypt (6078 publications). The countries that followed South Africa and Egypt produced an average of less than 4000 publications. Notably, the average number of publications for the reference period was much higher for the first six countries, indicating a gap among the countries.

3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

69

These findings resonate with what other studies have found in African publications. Apart from South Africa and Egypt, other countries on the continent produced only an insignificant number of publications (AU, cited in Abegaz, 2016). The analysis of publications for the period between 1991 and 1997 by Narváez-Berthelemot et al. (2002) showed that South Africa and Egypt were the two highly producing countries in Africa. Mouton and Blanckenberg (2018) who ranked countries based on the count of publications, confirmed that South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Nigeria, Morocco, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Ghana were the top producers on the continent. As seen in the data, some countries have improved their publication records. Cameroon is one which inherited a decent research infrastructure at the time of independence and became one of the first few African countries to invest in research (Urama et al., 2010). With the objective of strengthening research and the research output of universities, the government created a special fund in Cameroon (Urama et al., 2010). Significant differences exist between the countries in Africa in scientific infrastructure, budgeting, training, scientific collaboration and publication output (Gaillard, 2003). These cause disparities in the production of publications within Africa, as shown in the data.

Research Areas Scientific publications stored in the WoS database are classified according to research areas varying from agriculture to zoology. Some publications in the database might appear under more than a single research area. For instance, there is a possibility that a publication in physics might be grouped under both physics and astrophysics, depending on the content of the publication. What it means for the analysis is that when calculating percentages, the total can be either the actual number of publications or the total of all research areas, which will be more than the actual figures. Both these totals are considered here in the analysis for a full picture of research areas in which African science is centred. As given before, there were 135,202 publications for 2001–2009, 311,449 for 2010–2018 and 446,651 for the combined period of 2001–2018.

70 

R. Sooryamoorthy

The major research areas of the publications in Africa are shown in Table 3.2. All research areas that have at least 1 per cent of the total number of publications were included in the analysis. There were 40 research areas grouped according to the periods and the type of publications (actual count of publications and publications on account of research areas). Most of the publications (7.3% of all research areas and 11.3% of all publications) were published in the research area of chemistry. Chemistry was closely followed by a few other research areas like engineering (6.1% and 9.5%), physics (5.3% and 8.2%), environmental sciences/ecology (4.1% and 6.4%) and materials science (4% and 6.2%). These were the five core research areas for Africa, accounting for 42 per cent of all publications (27% of all research areas) during 2001–2018. Following the aforementioned five core areas were agriculture, mathematics, infectious diseases, pharmacology/pharmacy, public, environmental and occupational health, plant sciences and biochemistry/ molecular biology. Individually, these research areas constituted 3–5 per cent each of the actual publications of Africa. When combined, these seven research areas have 29 per cent of the total publications and 45 per cent of all research areas. In another sense, the five core research areas and the following seven research areas constituted 70 per cent of all Africa’s publications for the entire period. This was about 45 per cent of all the research areas. The average number of publications for each of the research areas was also calculated. Publications in chemistry, engineering and physics produced over 2000 publications a year while the research areas of environmental sciences/ecology, materials science, agriculture, mathematics, infectious diseases and pharmacology/pharmacy have an average of 1000–1600 publications. Those areas with average publications in the region of 500–1000 were public, environmental and occupational health, plant sciences, biochemistry/molecular biology, immunology, geology, tropical medicine, food science technology, microbiology, biotechnology/applied microbiology, water resources, parasitology, general internal medicine and computer science. As seen in Table 3.2, the rest of the research areas from veterinary sciences to neurosciences/neurology produced an average of 260–500 publications.

7.8 5.3 5.6 4.0 3.8 1.7 3.7 3.5 2.7 2.5 2.5

2.7 2.1 2.1 1.7 2.0

Publns

16,290 11,006 11,777 8295

8023 3541

7630 7294 5627 5252

5148

5566 4355

4445 3625 4177

Research areas

Chemistry Engineering Physics Environmental sciences/ecology Materials science Science, technology and other topics Agriculture Mathematics Infectious diseases Pharmacology/ pharmacy Public, environmental and occupational health Plant sciences Biochemistry/ molecular biology Immunology Geology Tropical medicine

% of all res areas

2001–2009

3.3 2.7 3.1

4.1 3.2

3.8

5.6 5.4 4.2 3.9

5.9 2.6

12.0 8.1 8.7 6.1

% of actual publns

8636 8970 8022

9768 10,429

12,058

13,654 13,384 14,721 13,728

19,523 18,814

34,106 31,518 25,032 20,367

Publns

1.8 1.9 1.7

2.0 2.2

2.5

2.8 2.8 3.0 2.8

4.0 3.9

7.0 6.5 5.2 4.2

% of all res areas

2010–2018

Table 3.2  Major research areas of publications in Africa, 2001–2018

2.8 2.9 2.6

3.1 3.3

3.9

4.4 4.3 4.7 4.4

6.3 6.0

11.0 10.1 8.0 6.5

% of actual publns

13,081 12,595 12,199

15,334 14,784

17,206

21,284 20,678 20,348 18,980

27,546 22,355

50,396 42,524 36,809 28,662

Publns

1.9 1.8 1.8

2.2 2.1

2.5

3.1 3.0 2.9 2.7

4.0 3.2

7.3 6.1 5.3 4.1

% of all res areas

2001–2018

2.9 2.8 2.7

3.4 3.3

3.9

4.8 4.6 4.6 4.2

6.2 5.0

11.3 9.5 8.2 6.4

% of actual publns

194 247 192

175 239

234

179 183 262 261

243 531

209 286 213 246

% of change

(continued)

727 700 678

852 821

956

1182 1149 1130 1054

1530 531

2800 2362 2045 1592

Ave/ year

3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

71

Food science technology Microbiology Biotechnology/ applied microbiology Water resources Parasitology General internal medicine Computer science Veterinary sciences Energy/fuels Zoology Mechanics Astronomy/ astrophysics Polymer science Marine freshwater biology Surgery Paediatrics Entomology Optics

Research areas

Table 3.2 (continued)

1.8 1.7 2.0

1.5 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.4 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.6

3843

3532 4211

3134 2549 3101

2394 3292 1824 3007 2050 1690

2351 2213

2147 1806 2095 1300

Publns

% of all res areas

2001–2009

1.6 1.3 1.5 1.0

1.7 1.6

1.8 2.4 1.3 2.2 1.5 1.2

2.3 1.9 2.3

2.6 3.1

2.8

% of actual publns

4155 4018 3655 4384

4161 4144

6678 5621 6295 4976 5181 5527

6901 7343 6631

7698 6381

8086

Publns

0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9

0.9 0.9

1.4 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.1

1.4 1.5 1.4

1.6 1.3

1.7

% of all res areas

2010–2018

1.3 1.3 1.2 1.4

1.3 1.3

2.1 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.7 1.8

2.2 2.4 2.1

2.5 2.0

2.6

% of actual publns

6280 5824 5750 5684

6512 6357

9072 8913 8119 7983 7231 7217

10,035 9892 9732

11,230 10,592

11,929

Publns

0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8

0.9 0.9

1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0

1.4 1.4 1.4

1.6 1.5

1.7

% of all res areas

2001–2018

1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3

1.5 1.4

2.0 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6

2.2 2.2 2.2

2.5 2.4

2.7

% of actual publns

349 324 319 316

362 353

504 495 451 444 402 401

558 550 541

624 588

663

Ave/ year

194 222 174 337

177 187

279 171 345 165 253 327

220 288 214

218 152

210

% of change

72  R. Sooryamoorthy

0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 100

1571 1823 1527

1350

208,733

135,202

0.7 0.9

1515 1895

100

1.0

1.2 1.3 1.1

1.1 1.4

311,449

484,038

3371

3719 3440 3605

4083 3515

Note: A minimum 1 per cent of all publications is included

Thermodynamics Metallurgy/ metallurgical engineering Genetics/heredity Virology Obstetrics/ gynaecology Neurosciences/ neurology Total of all research areas Total of all publications 100

0.7

0.8 0.7 0.7

0.8 0.7

100

1.1

1.2 1.1 1.2

1.3 1.1

446,651

692,811

4721

5290 5263 5132

5598 5410

100

0.7

0.8 0.8 0.7

0.8 0.8

100

1.1

1.2 1.2 1.1

1.3 1.2

24,814

262

294 292 285

311 301

230

232

250

237 189 236

270 185

3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

73

74 

R. Sooryamoorthy

The patterns of publications were examined by counting the percentage of change (negative/positive) between the split periods of 2001–2009 and 2010–2018, as shown in the last column of Table 3.2. All research areas demonstrated a growing trend between the given periods with an average of 232 per cent for all research areas. The highest growth rate was visible in the research area of science, technology and other topics (531%) and the lowest was seen for biotechnology/applied microbiology (152%). Astronomy/astrophysics and optics were the other two research areas whose publication counts have doubled during 2010–2018.

Africa Versus World A comparison with world science was attempted. The relevant figures relating to world science, as shown in the case of African science, were computed for Table 3.3. For this purpose, the same 40 research areas were taken into consideration. In world science, the highest percentage (both in the actual number and in all research areas) was found in chemistry (13% and 12%). This is higher than what Africa has produced in the same period (about 2 percentage points for actual publications and about 4 percentage points when all research areas were considered). Engineering and physics followed as the second- and third-largest areas, respectively. This agrees with the production trends seen in Africa. But the percentages of all the actual number of publications and all research areas were slightly different for the world and Africa. The former gained higher percentages on both counts than the latter. In the fourth-largest area of publication, the world has materials science while Africa stayed with environmental sciences/ecology. About 4 per cent of the total publications (3.6% of all research areas) in the world was in the field of environmental sciences/ ecology as against 6.4 per cent (4% for all research areas) for Africa. In materials science, Africa’s publication figures were lower than that of the world. More comparable trends can be discerned from the data for both the world and Africa. In the first three research areas of chemistry, engineering and physics, in which the highest number of publications were obtained, the world and Africa displayed some dissimilar features in the

Chemistry Engineering Physics Environmental sciences/ecology Materials science Science, technology and other topics Agriculture Mathematics Infectious diseases Pharmacology/ pharmacy Public, environmental and occupational health Plant sciences Biochemistry/ molecular biology Immunology

Research areas

2010–2018

11.6 9.5 11.5 3.2 7.0 2.4

2.1 3.9 0.9 2.7 1.1

1.6 5.7

1.9

582,494 196,581

177,549 321,468 74,700 227,545

93,059

130,246 476,413

154,191

2.1

1.8 6.4

1.3

2.4 4.3 1.0 3.1

7.9 2.7

13.0 10.6 12.9 3.6

170,377

186,583 536,905

168,998

269,984 478,895 114,602 340,138

1,010,042 759,803

1,491,076 1,378,260 1,180,180 500,209

% of % of all res actual areas publns Publns

965,780 787,646 957,450 268,456

Publns

2001–2009

2001–2018

1.3

1.4 4.2

1.3

2.1 3.7 0.9 2.6

7.8 5.9

11.6 10.7 9.2 3.9

1.5

1.7 4.9

1.5

2.4 4.3 1.0 3.1

9.1 6.9

13.5 12.5 10.7 4.5

324,568

316,829 1,013,318

262,057

447,533 800,363 189,302 567,683

1,592,536 956,384

2,456,856 2,165,906 2,137,630 768,665

% of % of all res actual areas publns Publns

Table 3.3  Major research areas of publications, world, 2001–2018

1.5

1.5 4.8

1.2

2.1 3.8 0.9 2.7

7.5 4.5

11.6 10.2 10.1 3.6

1.8

1.7 5.5

1.4

2.4 4.3 1.0 3.1

8.6 5.2

13.3 11.7 11.6 4.2

18,031

17,601 56,295

14,558

24,862 44,464 10,516 31,537

88,474 53,132

136,492 120,328 118,757 42,703

% of % of all res actual areas publns Ave/year

(continued)

110

143 113

182

152 149 153 149

173 387

154 175 123 186

% of increase

3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

75

Geology Tropical medicine Food science technology Microbiology Biotechnology/ applied microbiology Water resources Parasitology General internal medicine Computer science Veterinary sciences Energy/fuels Zoology Mechanics Astronomy/ astrophysics Polymer science Marine freshwater biology

Research areas

2010–2018

1.5 0.2 1.3 1.5 1.8

0.7 0.3 1.8 3.5 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.7 1.4 1.0

125,587 148,033

60,911 25,512 149,893

294,026 100,570 72,576 73,745 102,068 138,836

119,748 80,194

1.6 1.1

4.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.9

0.8 0.3 2.0

1.7 2.0

1.7 0.2 1.5

163,144 108,200

385,960 121,069 229,742 103,266 174,839 173,950

122,279 50,478 220,588

169,204 222,540

204,276 33,159 188,993

% of % of all res actual areas publns Publns

124,036 15,332 107,939

Publns

2001–2009

Table 3.3 (continued) 2001–2018

1.3 0.8

3.0 0.9 1.8 0.8 1.4 1.4

0.9 0.4 1.7

1.3 1.7

1.6 0.3 1.5

1.5 1.0

3.5 1.1 2.1 0.9 1.6 1.6

1.1 0.5 2.0

1.5 2.0

1.8 0.3 1.7

282,892 188,394

679,986 221,639 302,318 177,011 276,907 312,786

183,190 75,990 370,481

294,791 370,573

328,312 48,491 296,932

% of % of all res actual areas publns Publns

1.3 0.9

3.2 1.0 1.4 0.8 1.3 1.5

0.9 0.4 1.7

1.4 1.7

1.5 0.2 1.4

1.5 1.0

3.7 1.2 1.6 1.0 1.5 1.7

1.0 0.4 2.0

1.6 2.0

1.8 0.3 1.6

15,716 10,466

37,777 12,313 16,795 9833 15,383 17,377

10,177 4221 20,582

16,377 20,587

18,239 2693 16,496

% of % of all res actual areas publns Ave/year

136 135

131 120 317 140 171 125

201 198 147

135 150

165 216 175

% of increase

76  R. Sooryamoorthy

Surgery 213,131 Paediatrics 86,564 Entomology 42,248 Optics 144,668 Thermodynamics 52,246 Metallurgy/ 115,554 metallurgical Engineering Genetics/heredity 123,673 Virology 42,903 Obstetrics/ 67,999 gynaecology Neurosciences/ 276,479 neurology Total of all 8,318,049 research areas Total of all 7,412,529 publications 100

2.7

11,063,704 85.9

100

353,085

1.3 0.4 0.7

89.1

3.7

3.3

165,021 55,114 91,330

2.2 0.9 0.4 1.8 0.8 1.1

12,874,622

1.7 0.6 0.9

1.5 0.5 0.8

284,945 122,030 55,261 235,055 107,052 147,990

100.

2.9 1.2 0.6 2.0 0.7 1.6

2.6 1.0 0.5 1.7 0.6 1.4

21,192,671

629,564

288,694 98,017 159,329

498,076 208,594 97,509 379,723 159,298 263,544

100 18,476,233

3.2

1.5 0.5 0.8

2.6 1.1 0.5 2.1 1.0 1.3

87.2

100

3.0

1.4 0.5 0.8

2.4 1.0 0.5 1.8 0.8 1.2

1,177,370

34,975

16,038 5445 8851

27,670 11,588 5417 21,095 8849 14,641

100 1,026,457

3.4

1.6 0.5 0.9

2.7 1.1 0.5 2.1 0.9 1.4

149

155

128

133 128 134

134 141 131 162 205 128

3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

77

78 

R. Sooryamoorthy

recent years of 2010–2018. In the two periods of 2001–2009 and 2010–2018, the production of publications in chemistry, when the percentage to the total publications was considered, remained at the same level for the world but decreased by 1 per cent for Africa in the second period. In engineering, Africa increased its production by 2 per cent while the corresponding increase for the world was 3 per cent. There was a decrease in the percentage of the actual publications in physics for both the world and Africa in the recent period. The decline was more pronounced for the world than for Africa. In environmental sciences/ecology the production percentage of the total has increased from 3.6 to 4.5 for the world and 6.1 to 6.5 for Africa. Materials science, which was in the fifth position for Africa and fourth for the world, has not changed much. A closer look at some research areas in both Africa and the world revealed the characteristic features of the state of science. Research publications in agriculture formed 4.8 per cent for Africa which was just half the percentage for the world production in the same area (2.4%). In a way, the importance of this area was gaining more attention in Africa than in the world. Research in infectious diseases was seemingly more serious for Africa than for the rest of the world. For the world, the area of infectious diseases was relatively less significant. It has only 1 per cent of the total and reporting no increase between 2001–2009 and 2010–2018. Moreover, Africa contributed 11 per cent of all publications produced by the world in this area (20,348 against 189,302). Immunology, a key area for Africa, has about 3 per cent of all its publications which was 4 per cent of the total world publications (13,081 against 324,568). For the world, it was only 1.8 per cent of its total. Tropical medicine made 2.7 per cent of the total publications in Africa and 0.3 per cent in the world. A quarter of the world publications in tropical medicine was originated in Africa (12,199 of 48,491). A similar area was parasitology which has 0.4 per cent of the total for the world as against 2.2 per cent for Africa. Africa produced 9892 publications in this field when the world figure was 75,990. Africa accounted for 13 per cent of all publications in parasitology in the world. Veterinary science research was credited with 1.2 per cent of the total publications in the world. For Africa, it was 2 per cent of its total. Africa contributed 4 per cent of all publications that the world produced in this area.

3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

79

Prominent Research Areas in Africa Apart from the five core research areas identified earlier, the broad research area of science, technology and other topics has become the focus of Africa during the period of analysis. This area was ranked sixth in both the total number of publications and percentage of the total production in Africa. The percentage share of this research area has increased from 2.6 to 6 which was about 12 times in number. These production percentages were on par with the world. The area constituted about the same percentage for both Africa and the world. Computer science was another advanced area of research which is currently gaining great interest in Africa. It has 1.8 per cent of the actual publications during 2001–2009 which grew to 2.1 per cent in the second period of 2010–2018. Africa made a substantial share of about a quarter of the world’s publications in computer science publications (9072 and 37,777). A comparative diagrammatic representation is given in Fig. 3.2. As seen in the data, the average growth in the production of publications in all research areas in science was higher for Africa than for the

Fig. 3.2  Prominent research areas and their respective percentage share to total publications, Africa and world, 2001–2018

80 

R. Sooryamoorthy

world. In Africa the production figures have increased by 2.3 times as against 1.5 times for the world. Evidently the areas of agriculture, infectious diseases, immunology, tropical medicine, parasitology and veterinary sciences were showing renewed interest in Africa. The research focus of a country is largely determined by the demand for immediate applications and to find solutions to the pressing problems the country experiences at a particular point in time. The growing interest in these areas also points to the problems that affect Africa. If the research in these areas had brought about solutions to the problems, the focus of Africa would have shifted to other areas of interest. Findings drawn from other studies are in support of the data analysed here. Country-wise analysis indicates that Egypt outranked South Africa in chemistry, engineering and materials science (Jeenah & Pouris, 2008). South Africa performed particularly well in clinical medicine, plant and animal sciences, chemistry and environmental sciences/ecology (Jeenah & Pouris, 2008). The strengths of South Africa, apart from chemistry and environmental sciences/ecology, have been observed in clinical medicine, and plant and animal sciences (Boshoff, 2009). Similar findings are given by Mouton and Blanckenberg (2018) in their bibliometric studies for the period 2005–2015. South Africa, as has been confirmed by other scholars, is the biggest producer with a consolidated scientific infrastructure, fundamental and technological strands of science and well experienced collaboration systems (Waast, 2002; Waast & Krishna, 2003). The science sector in South Africa, with a focus on strengthening research and development, has been evolving since democracy (Pandor, 2010). The analysis of Narváez-Berthelemot et al. (2002) pertaining to 1991–1997 identified 15 highly productive African countries. Inferring from other studies, Mêgnigbêto (2013) reported the regional dominance of countries across Africa. Accordingly, the biggest science producers in Africa were Egypt (North), South Africa (Southern Africa), Kenya and Tanzania (East Africa), Nigeria (West Africa) and Cameroon (Central Africa). Gaillard and Mouton (2022) confirm that South Africa, closely followed by Egypt, remains the main producer of science in Africa today. Infectious diseases constitute a main health problem and a public health threat in sub-Saharan Africa (Alicke et al., 2017). Diseases continue to emerge and re-emerge in Africa more than elsewhere as it has

3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

81

most of the factors that are responsible for the occurrence of infectious diseases (Fenolla & Mediannikov, 2018). According to the world health statistics of WHO (2021), communicable diseases in 2019 accounted for more than half of all deaths in Africa. Most of the new infectious diseases are first originated in Africa (Fenolla & Mediannikov, 2018). African countries face enormous challenges in infectious and non-communicable diseases that warrant solutions of scientific nature (The Lancet, 2019). Insufficient investment in infectious diseases research (Midega et al., 2021) makes Africa more vulnerable. Many African countries tend to prioritise their research in agriculture. Agricultural science is an important research area for some of the African countries (Narváez-Berthelemot et al., 2002). Small countries in science production, like Zimbabwe, are to be included in this group (Boshoff & Ngwenya, 2022). Maghreb countries like Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia have developed their capacity in agriculture (Zebakh et al., 2022). As shown in the data, research specialisation varies in different African countries. This finding is supported by Confraria and Godinho (2015). They find that Africa is more specialised in agricultural sciences, environment and ecology, plant and animal sciences and in health sciences. These specialisations, however, are not seen at the same level in South Africa or Egypt. In the contribution of Africa to world science, some fields as identified by Mouton and Blanckenberg (2018) are prominent: tropical medicine, parasitology, infectious diseases, public, environmental and occupational health, water resources, ecology, immunology, zoology and plant sciences. Africa is also strong in the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, particle physics and nuclear physics (Mouton & Blanckenberg, 2018). Kahn (2022) listed engineering and public environmental and occupational health as the top categories of science in Africa. Worldwide trends in publications demonstrate that publications in health research continued to dominate and the percentage of publications in the field stood at 33.9 in 2019 (UNESCO, 2021). The fastest growth was observed in the environmental sciences (45.7% increase between 2015 and 2019) (UNESCO, 2021). Similar trends can be seen on the international scene. The study of publications in Scopus by Schneegans et al. (2021) for 2015 and 2019 presented the features of the production of research in specific areas. At the world level, health research areas dominated with 33.9 per

82 

R. Sooryamoorthy

cent of publications in 2019. Publications in environmental sciences had the fastest growth of 45.7 per cent between 2015 and 2019.

Institutions of Scientific Research In the production of science, a few institutions in Africa are more prominent than others. To make sense of this feature of science, the analysis was centred on the major institutions that produced a minimum of 1 per cent of Africa’s publications during 2001–2018. Details of the major institutions, countries of origin and publications are given in Table 3.4. Not all institutions were based in Africa. The participation of institutions refers to the partnerships Africa maintained, and it is indicative of the extent of South–North and South–South collaboration in Africa. The Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) based in France was involved in the publication of 5.5 per cent of the actual number of publications that originated in Africa during 2001–2018. As seen earlier, a good proportion of the papers by African scholars were jointly written with scholars from outside Africa. France is a key international partner of Africa. Following CNRS were the University of Cape Town in South Africa (4.7%), Cairo University in Egypt (4.5%), the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa (3.8%), the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa (3.7%), the University of Pretoria in South Africa (3.4%) and Stellenbosch University in South Africa (3.3%). Institutions such as the Universite De Tunis El Manar (Tunisia), Ain Shams University (Egypt), the University of London (UK), the National Research Centre (NRC) (Egypt), Mansoura University (Egypt), Alexandria University (Egypt) and the University of California (USA) were seen in 2–3 per cent each of Africa’s publications. The remaining institutions made only less than 2 per cent each of the total publications. The countries of origin of the institutions, as tabulated in Table 3.4, were obtained and verified from sources other than the WoS. The countries were Algeria (one institution), Cameroon (1), Egypt (10), England (3), France (5), Morocco (2), Nigeria (1), Saudi Arabia (2), South Africa (10), Spain (1), Tunisia (4), Uganda (1) and the USA (2). The majority

3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

83

of the institutions were located in Egypt, South Africa and Tunisia, which is also a reflection of the quantity of papers published by these countries and their shares in Africa’s publications. When these institutions were considered, France, Saudi Arabia, the USA and Spain were seen as the key international partners of Africa. Of the 43 institutions (72%) 31 were from Africa and those remaining represent countries outside Africa. Only 8 countries from Africa appeared on this list of major institutions, which is 15 per cent of all countries in Africa. The trends of the participation of the institutions in the production of science suggest that some of the key institutions have increased their participation in the recent period of 2010–2018 than before. For instance, the CNRS’s share of publications has increased from 5 per cent of the total during 2001–2009 to 5.7 per cent during 2010–2018. When this increase was translated into the number of publications, it was equivalent to 266 per cent. Cairo University, the University of London, Alexandria University, the University of California and the Universite De Sfax were among the leading institutions that increased both their shares and the number of publications. Although the University of Cape Town lost its share in the second half of the period, its real number of publications has grown by 211 per cent. When the number of publications was viewed, some other institutions have to be included. While their shares of publications were not very significant, there has been a significant increase in the production of papers in the recent period. The King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia increased its science production with Africa by 20 times. The King Saud University in Saudi Arabia was another institution which grew its publications with Africa by 15 times. The Consejo Superior De Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC) in Spain reported an increase of 88 per cent while the University of Johannesburg made an increase of 257 per cent. Like several other institutions, Alexandra University in Egypt increased its count by 290 per cent. The institutions that were located in the Global North included France, England, USA and Spain, whereas the Global South was represented only by Saudi Arabia. This is a reminder that the list of the institutions in Table 3.4 covered only those that were involved in producing at least 1 per cent of Africa’s publications for the reference period.

4708 5244 4653 4092 3320 2616 3256 2859 2348 1423 1453 2086 443

South Africa

South Africa South Africa Tunisia

Egypt England Egypt

Egypt Egypt USA Tunisia Egypt Saudi Arabia Tunisia 1974

6803 5049 5043

South Africa Egypt South Africa

Universite De Monastir

6707

France

Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) University of Cape Town Cairo University University of Witwatersrand University of KwaZulu-Natal University of Pretoria Stellenbosch University Universite De Tunis El Manar Ain Shams University University of London National Research Centre (NRC) Mansoura University Alexandria University University of California Universite De Sfax Assiut University King Saud University

Publns

Country

Institution of authors

1.5

2.1 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.5 0.3

2.5 1.9 2.4

3.9 3.4 3.0

3.5

5.0 3.7 3.7

5.0

% of actual publns

2001–2009

Table 3.4  Major institutions and publications, 2001–2018

4915

7197 6808 7320 6218 5265 6877

8753 8933 7933

10,081 10,229 8990

11,596

14,337 14,873 11,855

17,845

Publns

1.6

2.3 2.2 2.4 2.0 1.7 2.2

2.8 2.9 2.5

3.2 3.3 2.9

3.7

4.6 4.8 3.8

5.7

% of actual publns

2010–2018

6889

10,056 9156 8743 7671 7351 7320

12,073 11,549 11,189

15,325 14,882 13,082

16,304

21,140 19,922 16,898

24,552

Publns

1.5

2.3 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.6

2.7 2.6 2.5

3.4 3.3 2.9

3.7

4.7 4.5 3.8

5.5

% of actual publns

2001–2018

249

252 290 514 428 252 1552

264 341 244

192 220 220

246

211 295 235

266

% of increase

383

559 509 486 426 408 407

671 642 622

851 827 727

906

1174 1107 939

1364

Ave/ Year

84  R. Sooryamoorthy

0.2 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.4

1.1

1085 1610 1275 1269 1395 270 793 1106 1149 1390 1296 1175 1451 1618 1225 504

1478

South Africa England

Egypt France South Africa

Saudi Arabia Harvard University USA North West University South Africa University of Oxford England Al Azhar University Egypt Makerere University Uganda Sorbonne Universite France University of the Free State South Africa Cadi Ayyad University of Morocco Marrakech Tanta University Egypt Spain Consejo Superior De Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC) Rhodes University South Africa

0.9 0.9 1.0

0.8 1.2

1.4

1957

France

1.5

2022

Tunisia

Faculte Des Sciences De Tunis (FST) Institut De Recherche Pour Le Developpement (IRD) University of Johannesburg London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Zagazig University Universite Paris-Saclay National Research Foundation South Africa King Abdulaziz University

3144

3548 4118

4894 4444 4316 3989 3924 3885 3440 3266

5592

4951 4866 4534

5279 4654

4688

4681

1.0

1.1 1.3

1.6 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0

1.8

1.6 1.6 1.5

1.7 1.5

1.5

1.5

4622

4773 4622

5687 5550 5465 5379 5220 5060 4891 4884

5862

6226 6135 5929

6364 6264

6645

6703

1.0

1.1 1.0

1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1

1.3

1.4 1.4 1.3

1.4 1.4

1.5

1.5

213

290 817

617 402 376 287 303 331 237 202

2071

388 383 325

487 289

240

232

(continued)

257

265 257

316 308 304 299 290 281 272 271

326

346 341 329

354 348

369

372 3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

85

100.0

135,202

Note: Only up to 1% of all publications are included

1.2 0.8 0.9 0.0

1664 1069 1179 96,013

Nigeria Morocco France

1.0 0.9 1.0

1365 1249 1342

Cameroon Egypt Algeria

University of Yaounde I Suez Canal University University Science Technology Houari Boumediene University of Ibadan Mohammed V University Universite De Montpellier Total of the publications of the institutions Total of the publications

Publns

Country

% of actual publns

2001–2009

Institution of authors

Table 3.4 (continued)

0.9 1.1 1.0 87.2

1.0 1.1 1.0

311,449 100.0

2857 3427 3263 271,539

3224 3335 3195

Publns

% of actual publns

2010–2018

1.0 1.0 1.0 82.3

1.0 1.0 1.0

446,651 100.0

4521 4496 4442 367,552

4589 4584 4537

Publns

% of actual publns

2001–2018

172 321 277

236 267 238

% of increase

24,814

251 250 247 20,420

255 255 252

Ave/ Year

86  R. Sooryamoorthy

3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

87

Funding Agencies In view of the numerous agencies that funded research in Africa, agencies that funded 1000 publications or more during 2001–2018 were analysed. However, all funding agencies listed in the database for the period have been considered to find out the proportion to the total. Similarly, funded publications to the actual number of publications were compared. The country of funding agencies where they were headquartered was searched and included in the data. The amount of funding is not specified in the publication records stored in the WoS and therefore the significance of funding can only be assessed on the basis of the number of publications that have resulted from funding. In funding studies, the funding ratio is used as a typical and specific indicator of research funding and as a measure of the scope of funding for academic institutions (Zhao et al., 2018). In the entire period of analysis (2001–2018), there were 345,866 publications that showed funding assistance for the research that culminated in publications. This is against the actual number of 446,653 publications that Africa produced. More than three-fourths (77%) of the publications were the outcomes of research funding, either from internal or from external sources. The funders, varying from universities to research organisations, were located in the USA, South Africa, the UK, China, Germany, Japan, Egypt, France, India, Brazil, Canada, Australia, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Greece, the Czech Republic, Colombia, Austria, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Russia, Mexico, Chile and Tunisia. Some countries, namely, the USA, South Africa, the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Japan, Belgium, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, the Netherlands, Spain and Turkey, were represented by more than one funder (Table 3.5). They were from North America, Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, Asia and Oceania. The US and UK agencies channelled research funding through several institutions and agencies. The USA research support for Africa was distributed through 13 agencies while the UK was through 7 agencies. Germany funded through six of its organisations. Four European organisations,

460 173 129 378 371 1326 114

South Africa

South Africa

South Africa Europe

USA

UK China

3447

USA

988

3524

USA

United States Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health (NIH), USA National Research Foundation South Africa National Research Foundation National Research Foundation (NRF) NRF European Union (EU) National Science Foundation (NSF) Wellcome Trust National Natural Science Foundation of China

South Africa

Headquarters Publns

Funding agencies

5.0 0.4

1.4

0.5 1.4

0.7

1.7

3.7

13.0

13.3

1.0 0.1

0.3

0.1 0.3

0.1

0.3

0.7

2.5

2.6

4279 5403

6207

1791 6376

2408

4221

11,983

11,132

12,111

1.3 1.7

1.9

0.6 2.0

0.8

1.3

3.8

3.5

3.8

1.4 1.7

2.0

0.6 2.0

0.8

1.4

3.8

3.6

3.9

5605 5517

6578

1920 6754

2581

4681

12,971

14,579

15,653

1.6 1.6

1.9

0.6 2.0

0.7

1.4

3.8

4.2

4.5

1.3 1.2

1.5

0.4 1.5

0.6

1.0

2.9

3.3

3.5

323 4739

1673

1388 1687

1392

918

1213

323

344

% of % of fundg actual agns publns %increase

2001–2018

% of % of fundg actual agns publns Publns

2010–2018

% of % of fundg actual agns publns Publns

2001–2009

Table 3.5  Funding agencies for research and publications in Africa, 2001–2018

88  R. Sooryamoorthy

Medical Research Council UK, (MRC) United States Agency for International Development (USAID) German Research Foundation (DFG) NIH National Institute of Allergy Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Gates Foundation Ministry of Education Culture Sports Science and Technology Japan (MEXT) Science and Technology Development Fund (STDF) Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) 175 193

61

193

USA Japan

Egypt

France

202

Germany 1584

290

USA

USA

790

UK

0.7

0.2

0.7 0.7

6.0

0.8

1.1

3.0

0.1

0.0

0.1 0.1

1.2

0.1

0.2

0.6

3408

3646

3658 3540

2906

4333

4306

4051

1.1

1.1

1.1 1.1

0.9

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.1

1.2

1.2 1.1

0.9

1.4

1.4

1.3

3601

3707

3833 3733

4490

4535

4596

4841

1.0

1.1

1.1 1.1

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.4

0.8

0.8

0.9 0.8

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.1

(continued)

1766

5977

2090 1834

183

2145

1485

513 3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

89

184

UK

54

48

121

92

Brazil

Canada

Japan

118

USA

France

95

150

Germany

Headquarters Publns

India

Funding agencies

0.3

0.5

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.4

0.7

0.6

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

2462

2537

2692

2779

2773

2863

3071

3114

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.9

0.9

0.9

1.0

1.0

0.8

0.8

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.9

1.0

1.0

2554

2658

2740

2833

2891

2958

3255

3264

0.7

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.7

0.7

2676

2097

5608

5146

2350

3014

1669

2076

% of % of fundg actual agns publns %increase

2001–2018

% of % of fundg actual agns publns Publns

2010–2018

% of % of fundg actual agns publns Publns

2001–2009

Department of Science Technology India Science Technology Facilities Council (STFC) Federal Ministry of Education Research (BMBF) French National Research Agency (ANR) United States Department of Energy (DOE) National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPQ) Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Japan Society for the Promotion of Science

Table 3.5 (continued)

90  R. Sooryamoorthy

Alexander Von Humboldt Foundation European Research Council (ERC) NIH Fogarty International Center (FIC) Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (DAAD) Australian Research Council Chinese Academy of Sciences Fundacao De Amparo A Pesquisa Do Estado De Sao Paulo (FAPESP) Fundacao Para A Ciencia E A Tecnologia (FCT) NRF Council of Scientific Industrial Research (CSIR) India 59 38 14

15

Australia

China

Brazil

Portugal

129 82

202

Germany

South Africa India

802

5

119

USA

Europe

Germany

0.5 0.3

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.8

3.0

0.0

0.4

0.1 0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.6

0.0

0.1

1791 1742

1929

2012

1999

1993

1943

1406

2413

2426

0.6 0.5

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.8

0.8

0.6 0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.8

0.8

1920 1824

1944

2026

2037

2052

2145

2208

2418

2545

0.6 0.5

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.7

0.4 0.4

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.6

(continued)

1388 2124

12,860

14,371

5261

3378

962

175

48,260

2039 3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

91

72

92

Egypt

Switzerland

Czech Rep

USA

15

388

4

5

Greece

Headquarters Publns

Italy

Funding agencies

0.1

1.5

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.0

1541

1194

1630

1618

1653

1791

0.5

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.6

1556

1582

1634

1710

1725

1796

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

10,273

308

40,750

1759

2296

35,820

% of % of fundg actual agns publns %increase

2001–2018

% of % of fundg actual agns publns Publns

2010–2018

% of % of fundg actual agns publns Publns

2001–2009

Istituto Nazionale Di Fisica Nucleare Ministry of Higher Education Scientific Research (MHESR) Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) Greek Ministry of Development (GSRT) NIH Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health Human Development (NICHD) Ministry of Education Youth Sports Czech Republic

Table 3.5 (continued)

92  R. Sooryamoorthy

Departamento Administrativo De Ciencia Tecnologia E Innovacion Colciencias Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Ministry of Science and Innovation Spain (MICINN) Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) World Health Organization FWO King Saud University Ministry of Energy Natural Resources Turkey Ministry of Education and Science Spain NERC Natural Environment Research Council 49

Netherlands

132

263

UK

0

73 32

Spain

Turkey

Belgium Saudi Arabia

150

69

Spain

UN

39

2

Austria

Colombia

1.0

0.5

0.0

0.3 0.1

0.6

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.1 0.0

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

1175

1306

1448

1388 1428

1333

1434

1429

1471

1512

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.4 0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.4 0.5

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

1438

1438

1448

1461 1460

1483

1483

1498

1510

1514

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4 0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3 0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

(continued)

447

989

1901 4463

889

2927

2071

3772

75,600 3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

93

9

0 81

33

51 22 56 99

59 32

China

Europe USA

Poland

Germany Finland UK

USA

Sweden

not known

156

Headquarters Publns

Europe

European Commission’s Joint Research Centre Ministry of Science and Technology China CERN National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) Ministry of Science and Higher Education Poland Max Planck Society Academy of Finland Royal Society of London Centers for Disease Control Prevention USA Swedish Research Council CAPES 0.1

0.2

0.4

0.2 0.1 0.2

0.1

0.0 0.3

0.0

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0 0.1

0.0

0.1

1237

1222

1183

1275 1292 1253

1294

1384 1259

1420

1275

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.4

0.4 0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.4

0.4 0.4

0.5

0.4

1269

1281

1282

1326 1314 1309

1327

1384 1340

1429

1431

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.4

0.4 0.4

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3 0.3 0.3

0.3

0.3 0.3

0.3

0.3

3866

2071

1195

2500 5873 2238

3921

1554

15,778

817

% of % of fundg actual agns publns %increase

2001–2018

% of % of fundg actual agns publns Publns

2010–2018

% of % of fundg actual agns publns Publns

2001–2009

Funding agencies

Table 3.5 (continued)

94  R. Sooryamoorthy

Netherlands Government Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) NIH National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) NIH National Cancer Institute (NCI) University of KwaZulu-Natal Consejo Nacional De Ciencia Y Tecnologia Conacyt Fonds De La Recherche Scientifique (FNRS) Comision Nacional De Investigacion Cientifica Y Tecnologica Conicyt 12

Chile

117

South Africa

38

337

USA

Belgium

174

USA

12

22

Russia

Mexico

49

Netherlands

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.4

1.3

0.7

0.1

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.0

1157

1135

1163

1062

867

1045

1231

1215

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.4

1169

1173

1175

1179

1204

1219

1253

1264

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

(continued)

9642

2987

9692

908

257

601

5595

2480 3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

95

South Africa

Tunisia

67

4

36 104

UK UK

32

Turkey

122

0 12

South Africa

Headquarters Publns

Germany South Africa

Funding agencies

0.3

0.0

0.1 0.4

0.5

0.1

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.1

0.1

0.0

0.0 0.0

993

1085

1057 986

993

1086

1153 1113

0.3

0.3

0.3 0.3

0.3

0.3

0.4 0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3 0.3

0.3

0.3

0.4 0.4

1060

1089

1093 1090

1115

1118

1153 1125

0.3

0.3

0.3 0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3 0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2 0.2

0.2

0.3

0.3 0.3

1482

27,125

2936 948

814

3394

-9275

% of % of fundg actual agns publns %increase

2001–2018

% of % of fundg actual agns publns Publns

2010–2018

% of % of fundg actual agns publns Publns

2001–2009

HGF Germany South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology Turkiye Bilimsel Ve Teknolojik Arastirma Kurumu Tubitak University of Cape Town Leverhulme Trust Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) Tunisian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research University of Pretoria

Table 3.5 (continued)

96  R. Sooryamoorthy

French Atomic France Energy Commission Canadian Institutes Canada of Health Research (CIHR) Total of actual publications Total of all funding agencies 26,550

100

0.2

62

135,202

0.0

8

19.6

100

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.3

319,316 100

311,449

983

1041

103

100

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

345,866 100

446,651

1045

1049

100

0.2

0.2

1585

13,013 3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

97

98 

R. Sooryamoorthy

European Union (EU), the European Research Council (ERC), the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), were supporting African science. France and China funded research in Africa through three organisations each. The institutions and agencies that provided funding for at least 10 per cent of all publications are in the first 14 rows of Table 3.5. They are in the USA, South Africa, Europe, the UK, China and Germany. The National Research Foundation (NRF) in South Africa appeared in four different names in the database which had to be combined to a single agency. These 11 agencies together supported 20 per cent of all publications and 26 per cent of publications of all funding agencies. The data suggests that Africa received funding largely from these 11 international agencies for its research in science. While most of the institutions that supported Africa for its scientific research were from outside Africa, a few internal institutions were significant in funding research on the continent. These belonged to only three African countries, namely South Africa, Egypt and Tunisia and constituted barely 10 per cent of all the countries that funded African science. On the international scene, the USA emerged as the leading funder for research in Africa. During 2001–2018, the country supported 18 per cent of publications of all funding agencies and 14 per cent of all publications produced by Africa. Maintaining the lead, in the recent period of 2010–2018 the USA had a share of 16 per cent and 16 per cent publications (in number). The UK was credited with 5 per cent of all funding publications and 4 per cent of all publications (5% each for 2010–2018). Europe, through 4 different Europe-wide agencies, funded 4 per cent of all institutions and 3 per cent of publications during 2001–2018. These proportions improved to 4 per cent each (for both institutions and publications) for 2010–2018. Brazil, China, India, Russia and Spain were responsible for a joint share of 6 per cent of all funded publications and 5 per cent of all publications during 2001–2018. The percentage was 7 each for the recent periods. African funding agencies based in Africa provided funding of about 10 per cent of all funded publications and 7 per cent of all publications. Compared to other countries or regions, this proportion does not appear

3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

99

to be sufficient for Africa to support its own research. Foreign funding agencies for 2001–2018 accounted for 51 per cent of all funded publications and 40 per cent of all publications that Africa produced. The indication of the presence and extent of funding from foreign agencies was seen from the accumulated figure for 2010–2018. They supported more than half of all the funded and actual publications (51% and 52%). This can be compared with 12 per cent funded publications (of the actual number of publications) for the initial period of 2001–2009. The institutions and agencies that supported research, by and large, were research organisations, government departments, ministries, research councils and universities. Some of those that funded many research projects were in the field of health, mostly by the National Institutes of Health in the USA, the Department of Health Services and the Medical Research Council of the UK, for example. Corresponding findings have been released in other studies. They confirm that some of these agencies as we found in the data are the key funding agencies in Africa. International institutions and foreign countries remain the most important sources of funding for research (Gaillard, 2003). In most African countries the available national research funding is rather limited but dependent on international funding (Confraria & Wang, 2020). Confraria and Wang (2020) reported that the World Health Organization, the National Institute of Health (NIH), the EU, the Medical Research Council in the UK, the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation are among those that funded research in Africa. Some of these are on the lists of Arvanitis et al. (2022) and Beaudry et al. (2018) as well. Chataway et al.’s (2019) study in sub-Saharan countries noted that the NIH, the Medical Research Council, UK, the Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are the main funders that supported donor country research councils. Studying funding in ten select countries, Wang et al. (2012) collected the names of some top funding agencies that included the NIH, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), the European Commission, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), and the Wellcome Trust. The study also reported that China produced the highest number of funded publications (70%) among other countries such as the USA,

100 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Germany, the UK, Japan, France, Italy, Canada, Spain and Australia. For the average grants per paper, three countries, namely Spain, France and China, were the major countries. Some of the funding agencies reported in our analysis are also important for Africa, as Tijssen and Kraemer-­ Mbula (2018) assessed. Using publications for 2009–2014 gathered from the WoS, Kozma et al. (2018) examined the landscape of funding and funders in Africa which revealed the distinctive features of funding in Africa. They found that about half of the publications for all African publications have funding, whereas only about one-third of publications reported funding when they have only African authors.

Conclusion As shown in the data, more than two-thirds of the publications have appeared in the second half of the period of analysis, suggesting a growing importance ascribed to the production of science in Africa. Compared to the first half, the increase in the count of publications was phenomenal. There has been a substantial increase in the average number of publications on the continent since 2009. Prior to this, also echoed in other studies, there were only a few countries that are highly productive in science in Africa. Among all the countries, only a few can be taken as major ones in the production of science in Africa. For the majority, that is, 44 of 54 countries which is 81 per cent, the production of scientific knowledge in the form of publications has not been an activity that attracted the attention and focus it deserved. The analysis points to a wide disparity in the production capacities of African countries. To produce scientific publications, Africa relied on a few countries while most of the remaining countries have not been able to make their mark on their own. The leading ten countries in Africa were South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Nigeria, Morocco, Kenya, Ethiopia, Cameroon and Tanzania. The variation was salient in the average number of publications. Certain countries have emerged as frontrunners, demonstrating their prowess in generating a significant number of publications.

3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

101

Africa focused its research on areas in which it produced more publications than other research areas. Chemistry, engineering, physics, environmental sciences/ecology and materials science were the key areas of research. Certain research areas in which Africa published were on a par with the world standards. In the production of science in Africa, foreign institutions were as contributory as African institutions. Not all African countries can be credited with having at least one major institution representing them. Here again, two countries dominated with a relatively large number of institutions. Many more African countries are yet to have at least one key science producing institution. Funding assistance received from agencies showed that African scientific research was largely supported not by Africa or African agencies but by outside agencies. While funding support in the recent years has increased and more publications have emerged due to funding, it was notably from outside the continent. Clearly, and in agreement with the findings from other studies, Africa relied a great deal on funding from external sources. This has helped Africa to produce a good share of its publications in science. Without the support of such external funding, Africa’s publication count would have been lower than it is today. It also reflects the dependency of Africa on others. The aforementioned analysis of publications and their collaborative, institutional and funding features represents the characteristics of scientific research and scientific publications for the past few years. A more detailed analysis of some of the high performing areas of research can lead to additional knowledge about African science. This is undertaken in the following chapters. As the data shows, the institutional origins of African publications remained in Africa for about three quarters of all publications. However, the remaining one-fourth of Africa’s publications have origins elsewhere but not in Africa. While this is an indication of the international partnerships of Africa it also shows the level of Africa’s dependence on other non-African countries for its science. In the following chapter, the focus is on the partnerships that Africa established that led to the production of scientific publications. A comprehensive examination of science partnerships in Africa can unveil various underlying dimensions of science production. The type of partnerships

102 

R. Sooryamoorthy

such as South–South, South–North and South–South–North can be elucidated from the data and can throw light on the dependent or self-reliant nature of science in Africa.

References Abegaz, B. (2016). Challenges and opportunities for chemistry in Africa. Nature Chemistry, 8, 518–522. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.2533 Alicke, M., Boakye-Appiah, J. K., & Anusha Abdul-Jalil, A. H., Giet, M. v. d., Schulze, M., Schweigert, F. J., Mockenhaupt, F. P., Bedu-Addo, G., & Danquah, I. (2017). Adolescent health in rural Ghana: A cross-sectional study on the co-occurrence of infectious diseases, malnutrition and cardiometabolic risk factors. PLoS One, 12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0180436 Arvanitis, R., Mouton, J., & Néron, A. (2022). Funding research in Africa: Landscapes of re-institutionalisation. Science, Technology & Society, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218221078235 Beaudry, C., Mouton, J., & Prozesky, H. (2018). Lack of funding. In C. Beaudry, J. Mouton, & H. Prozesky (Eds.), The next generation of scientists in Africa (pp. 71–88). African Minds. Boshoff, N. (2009). South–South research collaboration of countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Scientometrics, 84, 481–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0120-0 Boshoff, N., & Ngwenya, S. (2022). Agricultural research in Zimbabwe: An author level bibliometric analysis of publication outlets and research collaboration. Science, Technology & Society, 1–24. https://doi. org/10.1177/09717218221078186 Chataway, J., Dobson, C., Daniels, C., Byrne, R., Hanlin, R., & Tigabu, A. (2019). Science granting councils in Sub-Saharan Africa: Trends and tensions. Science and Public Policy, 46, 620–631. https://doi.org/10.1093/ scipol/scz007 Confraria, H., & Godinho, M. M. (2015). The impact of African science: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 102, 1241–1268. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­014-­1463-­8 Confraria, H., & Wang, L. (2020). Medical research versus disease burden in Africa. Research Policy, 49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103916

3  Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications 

103

Fenolla, F., & Mediannikov, O. (2018). Emerging infectious diseases in Africa in the 21st century. New Microbes and New Infections, 26, 510–518. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.nmni.2018.09.004 Gaillard, J. (2003). Overcoming the scientific generation gap in Africa: An urgent priority. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 28, 15–25. https://doi. org/10.1179/030801803225010359 Gaillard, J., & Mouton, J. (2022). The state of science, technology and innovation in Africa: Trends, progress and limitations. Science, Technology & Society, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218221078548 Jeenah, M., & Pouris, A. (2008). South African research in the context of Africa and globally. South African Journal of Science, 104, 351–354. Kahn, M. J. (2022). The status of science, technology and innovation in Africa. Science, Technology & Society, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 09717218221078540 Kozma, C., Medina, C. C., & Costas, R. (2018). Research funding landscapes in Africa. In C. Beaudry, J. Mouton, & H. Prozesky (Eds.), The next generation of scientists in Africa (pp. 26–42). African Minds. Mêgnigbêto, E. (2013). International collaboration in scientific publishing: The case of West Africa (2001–2010). Scientometrics, 96, 761–783. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­013-­0963-­2 Midega, J., Kyobutungi, C., Okiro, E., Okumu, F., Aniebo, I., & Erondu, N. (2021, May 18). African countries must muscle up their support and fill massive R&D gap. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/ african-­c ountries-­m ust-­m uscle-­u p-­t heir-­s upport-­a nd-­f ill-­m assive-­ randd-­gap-­161024 Mouton, J., & Blanckenberg, J. (2018). African science: A bibliometric analysis. In C. Beaudry, J. Mouton, & H. Prozesky (Eds.), The next generation of scientists in Africa (pp. 13–25). African Minds. Narváez-Berthelemot, N., Russel, J. M., Arvanitis, R., Waast, R., & Gadaillard, J. (2002). Science in Africa: An overview of mainstream scientific output. Scientometrics, 54, 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016033528117 Pandor, N. (2010). Foreword. In R. Diab & W. Gevers (Eds.), The state of science in South Africa (pp. 5–6). The Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf ). Schneegans, S., Lewis, J., & Straza, T. (2021). UNESCO science report: The race against time for smarter development. Executive Summary. UNESCO. https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377250.

104 

R. Sooryamoorthy

The Lancet. (2019). Editorial: Building capacity in Africa’s national science academies. The Lancet, 394, 360. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-­6736(19)31725-­8 Tijssen, R., & Kraemer-Mbula, E. (2018). Research excellence in Africa: Policies, perceptions, and performance. Science and Public Policy, 45, 392–403. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx074 UNESCO. (2021). Draft recommendation on open science. General Conference, 41st Session, Paris. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000379949.locale=en Urama, K. C., Ozor, N., Kane, O., & Hassan, M. (2010). Sub-Saharan Africa. In UNESCO (Ed.), UNESCO science report 2010 (pp. 279–321). UNESCO. Waast, R. (2002). The state of science in Africa: An overview. L’Institut de Recherches pour le Développement. Waast, R., & Krishna, V. V. (2003). The status of science in Africa. Science, Technology & Society, 8, 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721822107 8540 Wang, X., Liu, D., Ding, K., & Wang, X. (2012). Science funding and research output: A study on 10 countries. Scientometrics, 91, 591–599. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-011-0576-6 WHO. (2021). World health statistics 2021: Monitoring health for SDGs, sustainable development goals. World Health Organization. Zebakh, S., Rhouma, A., Arvanitis, R., & Sadiki, M. (2022). Mapping the agricultural research systems in the Maghreb (Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia). Science, Technology & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218221078231 Zhao, S. X., Tan, A. M., Yu, S., & Xu, X. (2018). Analyzing the research funding in physics: The perspective of production and collaboration at institution level. Physica A, 508, 662–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.04.072

4 Partnerships in African Science

Introduction The need for partnership in science is heavily emphasised in the literature on the productivity and visibility of science. In this chapter, different forms of partnerships of Africa are examined. Data on partnerships, as detailed in the methodology section of Chap. 2, was analysed to find the partners of Africa and their participation in the production of publications in science. The changing trends in the participation of these partners in African science are also undertaken here. While examining the continental and international partners of Africa, it will be insightful to identify the key partners of the partners of Africa too. This will throw light onto the significance of Africa for their partners around the world.

International Partners of Africa Science is produced largely in collaboration. Africa is no exception to this practice. What is more important is to know who the partners of Africa are and what research interests encourage the partners to establish partnerships with Africa. Table 4.1 shows the international partners of Africa © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 R. Sooryamoorthy, Independent Africa, Dependent Science, Sustainable Development Goals Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5577-0_4

105

106 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 4.1  International partners of Africa, 2001–2018 2001–2009 International partners USA France England Germany Saudi Arabia Canada Italy Spain Australia Netherlands China Belgium Switzerland Japan India Sweden Brazil Scotland Denmark Norway Portugal Austria Turkey Poland Russia Malaysia South Korea Czech Republic Finland Pakistan Greece Iran Mexico New Zealand Hungary Taiwan Israel Thailand Colombia Romania Chile Ireland

Publns 15,871 16,886 9843 6917 2026 3194 2894 2417 2798 3171 1264 3031 2276 2677 1268 2054 827 1526 1409 1145 679 957 412 734 566 285 538 474 444 335 377 156 407 511 384 248 513 349 171 223 226 387

2010–2018

% of % of partd actual publns publns Publns 16.1 17.1 10.0 7.0 2.1 3.2 2.9 2.5 2.8 3.2 1.3 3.1 2.3 2.7 1.3 2.1 0.8 1.5 1.4 1.2 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4

11.7 12.5 7.3 5.1 1.5 2.4 2.1 1.8 2.1 2.3 0.9 2.2 1.7 2.0 0.9 1.5 0.6 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3

48,284 37,815 26,986 19,932 23,868 11,679 11,402 11,705 10,850 9542 11,441 9311 9064 8363 9346 6939 5807 4888 4583 4447 4693 4346 4794 4332 4310 4375 3913 3707 3210 3256 3190 3121 2851 2661 2740 2863 2166 2328 2393 2328 2324 2019

2001–2018

% of % of partd actual publns publns Publns 12.1 9.4 6.7 5.0 6.0 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.9 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.3 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5

15.5 12.1 8.7 6.4 7.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.5 3.1 3.7 3.0 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6

64,155 54,701 36,829 26,849 25,894 14,873 14,296 14,122 13,648 12,713 12,705 12,342 11,340 11,040 10,614 8993 6634 6414 5992 5592 5372 5303 5206 5066 4876 4660 4451 4181 3654 3591 3567 3277 3258 3172 3124 3111 2679 2677 2564 2551 2550 2406

% of % of partd actual publns publns 12.9 11.0 7.4 5.4 5.2 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

14.4 12.2 8.2 6.0 5.8 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.0 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5

(continued)

107

4  Partnerships in African Science  Table 4.1 (continued) 2001–2009 International partners Argentina Serbia UAE Armenia Qatar Georgia Belarus Bulgaria Wales Slovakia Croatia Papua New Guinea Ukraine Slovenia Estonia Kuwait Cyprus Vietnam Lebanon Lithuania Singapore Indonesia Peru Sri Lanka Oman Jordan Azerbaijan Bangladesh Northern Ireland Philippines Yemen Ecuador Bahrain Iraq Latvia Luxembourg Cuba Syria Nepal Cambodia

Publns

2010–2018

% of % of partd actual publns publns Publns

2001–2018

% of % of partd actual publns publns Publns

% of % of partd actual publns publns

304 73 429 100 117 23 26 136 372 119 84 558

0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.6

0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4

2023 2172 1666 1942 1897 1691 1662 1501 1253 1447 1451 971

0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2

0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3

2327 2245 2095 2042 2014 1714 1688 1637 1625 1566 1535 1529

0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3

83 92 36 294 36 133 171 35 149 189 122 93 201 131 13 120 141

0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1

1415 1161 1099 758 993 884 839 975 838 789 840 839 729 793 903 755 605

0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2

1498 1253 1135 1052 1029 1017 1010 1010 987 978 962 932 930 924 916 875 746

0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

130 83 40 112 42 30 92 40 112 41 56

0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1

0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

573 574 548 396 436 415 347 330 253 304 260

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

703 657 588 508 478 445 439 370 365 345 316

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

(continued)

108 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 4.1 (continued) 2001–2009 International partners

Publns

2010–2018

% of % of partd actual publns publns Publns

Venezuela 81 0.1 Costa Rica 54 0.1 Palestine 3 0.0 Iceland 28 0.0 Uruguay 38 0.0 Panama 39 0.0 Jamaica 42 0.0 Kazakhstan 19 0.0 Guatemala 20 0.0 Laos 28 0.0 Uzbekistan 32 0.0 Bolivia 34 0.0 New Caledonia 26 0.0 Malta 15 0.0 Trinidad and 35 0.0 Tobago Mongolia 11 0.0 Haiti 14 0.0 Total of the 98,547 100.0 publications of the international partners Total 135,202 publications

0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

235 243 287 256 211 191 144 161 133 121 112 108 105 111 89

2001–2018

% of % of partd actual publns publns Publns 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

104 0.0 98 0.0 400,208 100.0

0.0 0.0

311,449

316 297 290 284 249 230 186 180 153 149 144 142 131 126 124

% of % of partd actual publns publns 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

115 0.0 112 0.0 498,755 100.0

0.0 0.0

446,651

Note: Up to a minimum of 100 publications analysed

who were involved in science publications during 2001–2018. The data was split for 2001–2009 and 2010–2018. Africa partnered with 170 non-African countries for publications in science. When the involvement of international partners was considered, the count of publications has increased to 498,755 partnered publications which was obviously due to the participation of more than one partner in some of the jointly authored papers. In the calculation of proportion, both actual and partnered publications were taken into account. They are given in Table 4.1. The table presents only the international

4  Partnerships in African Science 

109

partners that joined with African scholars to produce at least 100 papers in various research areas during the period of analysis. There were 98 countries that produced at least 100 publications with their counterparts in Africa. Five countries, namely the USA, France, England, Germany and Saudi Arabia, have partnered with African countries to produce at least 5 per cent each of all the partnered and actual publications of Africa (last two columns, Table 4.1). The USA partnered with Africa for 13 per cent of all the partnered and 14 per cent of all the actual publications. France had 11 per cent and 12 per cent, respectively, England 7 per cent and 8 per cent, Germany 5 per cent and 6 per cent, and Saudi Arabia 5 per cent and 6 per cent. Those who made 2–3 per cent each of the total in partnered or actual publications were Canada, Italy, Spain, Australia, the Netherlands, China, Belgium, Switzerland, Japan, India and Sweden. The rest of the countries made only less than 2 per cent each of either partnered or actual publications of Africa. The partners listed in Table 4.1 also showed the recent collaborators of Africa. In the group of up to 2 per cent each of the total output of Africa were the USA, France, England, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Italy, Spain, Australia, the Netherlands, China, Belgium, Switzerland, Japan, India and Sweden. In the group of 1–2 per cent each of the total publications in the recent period were Brazil, Scotland, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Austria, Turkey, Poland, Russia, Malaysia, South Korea, the Czech Republic, Finland, Pakistan, Greece and Iran. They were the key international partners of Africa. Countries that participated in more than 1000 publications were Mexico, New Zealand, Hungary, Taiwan, Israel, Thailand, Colombia, Romania, Chile, Ireland, Argentina, Serbia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Armenia, Qatar, Georgia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Wales, Slovakia, Croatia, Papua New Guinea, Ukraine, Slovenia, Estonia, Kuwait, Cyprus, Vietnam, Lebanon and Lithuania. They constituted 62 countries contributing to the major chunk of the publications, that is, more than 90 per cent of either partnered or actual publications that Africa produced in science.

110 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Recently (2010–2018), Africa worked with more countries if the minimum number of the jointly authored papers were set at 500 publications. In addition to the aforementioned 62 countries, there were 12 countries, namely Singapore, Indonesia, Peru, Sri Lanka, Oman, Jordan, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Northern Ireland, the Philippines, Yemen and Ecuador. This added up to a total of 74 countries that published 500 or more papers in science with scholars based in Africa. This was more than 90 per cent of the partnered and actual publications made by Africa. Compared to 2001–2009, changes were evident in the proportion of partnered and actual publications during 2010–2018. The percentages of the partnered publications for the USA, France, England and Germany have declined while they increased for Saudi Arabia from 2.1 per cent to 5 per cent. In the actual number of publications, the USA, England, Germany and Saudi Arabia bettered their participation while France lessened its participation by losing its share slightly from 12.5 per cent to 12.1 per cent. India grew its share in the recent period. The increase was from 1.3 per cent (partnered) and 0.9 per cent (actual) to 2.3 per cent and 3 per cent, respectively. Several other countries also witnessed an increase in their share of publications. More significant increase was seen in Brazil, Sweden, Scotland, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Austria, Turkey, Poland, Russia, Malaysia, South Korea, the Czech Republic, Finland, Pakistan, Greece, Iran, Mexico, New Zealand, Hungary, Taiwan, Thailand, Romania, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Serbia, Armenia and Qatar. The first 15 international partners have enlarged their combined average share of actual publications from 4 per cent (2001–2009) to 6 per cent (2010–2018), while for the remaining countries that published a minimum of 1000 papers the increase was from 0.4 per cent to 0.7 per cent (partnered) and from 0.3 per cent to 0.9 per cent (actual). Apart from North America and Europe, a few Asian and Latin American countries have joined up with African countries. China, Japan, India, Brazil, Malaysia, South Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, Chile and Vietnam were among those which published 1000 or more papers with African countries.

4  Partnerships in African Science 

111

South–North Partnership After observing the presence of international partners in Africa, the data was categorised into two groups: partners from the North and partners from developed countries (Table 4.2). To make the distinction clearer, all Northern partners and European (both Western and Eastern) partners were included as they were more developed than the countries in Africa. Although some of the East European partners were not ‘developed’, they appear here as their science is comparably more advanced than in many African countries. Following the aforementioned analysis pattern for the international partners, the data in the table was organised into three groups of publications, namely, 2001–2009, 2010–2018 and 2001–2018, and each group was subdivided into the number of publications for each country, the percentage of partnered publications and the percentage of actual publications. The analysis pertains to all publications that Africa produced but is limited to a minimum of 100 publications. The list contained 53 Northern partners with whom Africa published. The percentage of publications co-produced with Africa in this way was 80 as against the actual publication percentage of 84. The third group of publications for the entire period of 2001–2018 suggests that Africa’s partnership with partners in the North and Europe ranged from 0.1 per cent to 14 per cent of the number of actual publications. In partnered publications in which specific countries were involved it was in the region of 0.1–13 per cent. To explicate it further according to the partnering countries, individual country contributions to African collaboration were tabulated. The last group of publications for the whole period showed country-wise details. In 14 per cent of Africa’s actual number of publications, researchers were from the USA. Following the USA were France (12%), England (8%), Germany (6%), Canada, Italy, Spain, Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland (3% each). Other Northern partners engaged in the production of publications were 2 per cent each or less. These 11 countries were in 62 per cent of Africa’s publications. The rest of the 28 per cent of publications showed the presence of the remaining 42 countries. Further, a quarter of the publications involved just two countries, the USA and France. The aforementioned 11

Publns

15,871 16,886 9843 6917 3194 2894 2417 2798 3171 3031 2276 2054 1526 1409 1145 679 957 734 566 474 444 377 511

Northern partners

USA France England Germany Canada Italy Spain Australia Netherlands Belgium Switzerland Sweden Scotland Denmark Norway Portugal Austria Poland Russia Czech Republic Finland Greece New Zealand

2001–2009

16.1 17.1 10.0 7.0 3.2 2.9 2.5 2.8 3.2 3.1 2.3 2.1 1.5 1.4 1.2 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5

% of partd publns 11.7 12.5 7.3 5.1 2.4 2.1 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.2 1.7 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4

% of actual publns

Table 4.2  Northern partners of Africa, 2001–2018

48,284 37,815 26,986 19,932 11,679 11,402 11,705 10,850 9542 9311 9064 6939 4888 4583 4447 4693 4346 4332 4310 3707 3210 3190 2661

Publns

2010–2018

12.1 9.4 6.7 5.0 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.3 1.7 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7

% of partd publns 15.5 12.1 8.7 6.4 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.5 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.9

% of actual publns 64,155 54,701 36,829 26,849 14,873 14,296 14,122 13,648 12,713 12,342 11,340 8993 6414 5992 5592 5372 5303 5066 4876 4181 3654 3567 3172

Publns

2001–2018

12.9 11.0 7.4 5.4 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.3 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6

% of partd publns

14.4 12.2 8.2 6.0 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7

% of actual publns

112  R. Sooryamoorthy

Hungary Israel Romania Ireland Serbia Armenia Georgia Belarus Bulgaria Wales Slovakia Croatia Papua New Guinea Ukraine Slovenia Estonia Cyprus Lithuania Jordan Azerbaijan N Ireland Latvia Luxembourg Iceland Kazakhstan Laos Uzbekistan

384 513 223 387 73 100 23 26 136 372 119 84 558 83 92 36 36 35 131 13 141 30 92 28 19 28 32

0.4 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2740 2166 2328 2019 2172 1942 1691 1662 1501 1253 1447 1451 971 1415 1161 1099 993 975 793 903 605 415 347 256 161 121 112

0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

3124 2679 2551 2406 2245 2042 1714 1688 1637 1625 1566 1535 1529 1498 1253 1135 1029 1010 924 916 746 445 439 284 180 149 144

0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 (continued)

0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

4  Partnerships in African Science 

113

100.0

98,547

0.0 0.0 0.0 62.0

% of actual publns

Note: Up to a minimum of 100 publications analysed

0.0 0.0 0.0 85.0

34 26 15 84,043

Bolivia New Caledonia Malta Total of Northern partners Total of all publications

% of partd publns

Publns

2001–2009

Northern partners

Table 4.2 (continued)

400,208

108 105 111 290,899

Publns

2010–2018

100.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 73.5

% of partd publns 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.4

% of actual publns

498,755

142 131 126 374,942

Publns

2001–2018

100.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 75.9

% of partd publns

0.0 0.0 0.0 83.7

% of actual publns

114  R. Sooryamoorthy

4  Partnerships in African Science 

115

Map 4.1  Northern partners of Africa, 2001–2018

countries were the key Northern partners of Africa, responsible for South–North collaboration (Map 4.1). The figures for the two periods can be compared. In the actual number of publications, the share of the USA in African partnerships increased from 12 per cent (2001–2009) to 16 per cent (2010–2018). The share decreased slightly for France in the second period, from 12.5 to 12.1 per cent. England strengthened its position from 7 to 9 per cent. The other countries among the top 11 countries also strengthened their partnerships with Africa by producing more publications in the recent period.

African Partners and Their Partners Like the African partners in the Global North, the partners of the partners of Africa are of use in the analysis. When the first five countries were considered, Africa exhibited partnerships with Northern countries such as the USA, France, England, Germany and Canada. Data on these five countries were separately downloaded from the same dataset for 2001–2018.

116 

R. Sooryamoorthy

The first international partner of Africa was the USA. For the USA, the first and foremost partner was China. Researchers in the USA produced 6 per cent of its publications (312,553 of the total 5,117,524) with China. The second key partner of the USA was Germany (4.4%; 223,498 publications), which was followed by England (4.1%, 208,737), Canada (3.9%; 197,751 publications) and France (2.9%; 145,796 publications). The first African partner of the USA was South Africa producing 0.5 per cent of the USA publications (23,516). Following South Africa were other countries like Egypt (0.2%; 11,948), Kenya (0.14; 6907), Uganda (0.08%; 4104), Nigeria (0.07%; 3495), Tanzania (0.06%; 3080), Ghana (0.4%; 2253), Ethiopia (0.04%; 2154), Malawi (0.04%; 1904) and Zambia (0.03%; 1633). France, being the second international partner of Africa, has the USA as its first major science partner. It produced 14 per cent of the publications (146,314 of the total 1,040,531) with USA researchers. The remaining partners of France in order were Germany (9%), England (8%), Italy (7%) and Spain (6%). The preferred African partners of France were Tunisia (1.3% publications), Algeria (1.1%), Morocco (0.9%), South Africa (0.8%), Egypt (0.3%), Cameroon (0.3%), Senegal (0.3%), Burkina Faso (0.1%), Côte d’Ivoire (0.1%), Benin (0.1%), Madagascar (0.1%), Kenya (0.1%) and Gabon (0.1%). England was Africa’s third international partner. The USA was the first partner of England in scientific research by producing 18 per cent (220,165 of 1,195,334 publications) together. England preferred Germany as its second most important partner, jointly producing 9 per cent of its publications. The other partner countries of England in declining order of the shared number of publications were France (7%), Italy (6%), Australia, China, Scotland, the Netherlands, Spain (5% each), and Canada and Switzerland (4% each). England’s first African partner was 26th on the list. Among England’s African partners were South Africa (1.2%), Egypt, Kenya (0.3% each), and Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda (0.2% each). Germany, the fourth partner of Africa, chose to publish mainly with the USA (15%), England (8%), France (7%), Switzerland (5%), Italy, the Netherlands (5% each), Spain, China (4% each), and Austria, Russia and Canada (3% each). The first African partner of Germany, South

4  Partnerships in African Science 

117

Africa, was only the 29th partner. The next African partner for Germany was Egypt (0.5%), followed by Morocco (0.13%) and Kenya (0.11%). For Germany, the first African partner only came after Asian and Latin American countries such as China, Brazil and India which is an indication of the preference of core countries like Germany in scientific partnerships. Canada, the fifth major partner of Africa, opted for its neighbour the USA as its first partner and together they published 24 per cent of its scientific papers. Following the USA were China, England (6% each), Germany, France (5% each), Australia, Italy and the Netherlands (3% each). The foremost African partner of Canada was South Africa (0.7%), occupying 26th rank followed by Egypt (0.4%), Morocco (0.2%) and Kenya (0.1%). A detailed examination of the South–North partnership can be conducted by analysing the proportion of the African publications attributed to the Northern partners of Africa. This will reveal the extent of partnerships that the Northern partners established with their African counterparts in relation to the other partners of Africa’s Northern partners. To find this, the major (up to the first five partners) Northern partners of Africa were collected. Table 4.3 contains the details. The first five major Northern partners of Africa were the USA, France, England, Germany and Canada. In line with the analysis pursued earlier, the data was split into 2001–2009 and 2010–2018. The USA’s research collaboration with Africa was limited to a fraction of its total publications. It produced only 1.6 per cent of all its publications with Africa. Compared to this, apart from Germany, England, Canada, France and Japan, the USA worked more in partnership with other countries such as China, Brazil, India, Taiwan, South Korea and Mexico. China was the first partner, and the USA produced 6.1 per cent of all its publications. This was more than the USA’s publications with Germany, England, Canada, France or Japan. Amongst the African countries, the USA partnered mostly with Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The key partner of the USA in Africa was South Africa, making 0.5 per cent of the total of the USA’s publications. After South Africa

118 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 4.3 The African share of publications of the selected Northern partners of Africa, 2001–2018 Share of publications of USA

France

2001–2009 African partners Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Rep Chad Comoros Côte d’Ivoire Dem Rep of Congo Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea ­ Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Libya Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria

No.

% 208 21 83 211 125 7 375 4 30

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

%

2001–2009 %

No.

%

0.009 0.00 0.004 0.009 0.006 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.001

744 84 368 754 535 50 1037 23 63

0.03 0.003 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.002 0.04 0.001 0.002

952 105 451 965 660 52 1412 27 93

0.02 0.002 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.001 0.03 0.001 0.002

3442 21 277 26 468 12 961 3 93

0.75 0.005 0.06 0.006 0.102 0.003 0.21 0.001 0.02

23 0.00 5 0.00 163 0.007 81 0.004

38 9 372 605

0.001 0.00 0.01 0.02

61 14 535 686

0.001 0.000 0.01 0.01

80 9 590 76

0.017 0.002 0.13 0.017

2 0.00 2594 0.12 3 0.00

13 9354 25

0.00 0.32 0.001

15 11,948 28

0.000 0.23 0.001

15 0.003 380 0.083 3 0.001

41 338 135 140 423 24 14 1773 15 17 21 306 362 213 13 37 441 101 82 72 801

35 1816 245 361 1830 142 55 5134 65 182 177 676 1542 626 25 143 1674 568 375 273 2694

0.001 0.06 0.008 0.013 0.063 0.005 0.002 0.18 0.002 0.006 0.006 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.001 0.005 0.06 0.02 0.013 0.009 0.093

76 2154 380 501 2253 166 69 6907 80 199 198 982 1904 839 38 180 2115 669 457 345 3495

0.001 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.003 0.001 0.14 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.001 0.004 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07

0.002 0.02 0.006 0.006 0.02 0.001 0.001 0.08 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.014 0.02 0.01 0.001 0.002 0.02 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.04

16 122 279 38 70 64 9 222 3 8 55 338 47 208 54 31 3472 24 86 172 116

0.003 0.027 0.061 0.008 0.015 0.014 0.002 0.049 0.001 0.001 0.012 0.074 0.01 0.045 0.012 0.007 0.76 0.005 0.02 0.038 0.025

119

4  Partnerships in African Science 

England 2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

%

%

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

%

%

%

7933 46 854 89 1037 36 1701 14 166

0.135 0.008 0.146 0.015 0.177 0.006 0.29 0.002 0.028

11,375 67 1131 115 1505 48 2662 17 259

1.09 0.0 0.11 0.01 0.14 0.0 0.26 0.002 0.03

144 17 86 84 116 1 255 8 14

0.028 0.003 0.017 0.016 0.023 0 0.05 0.002 0.003

507 59 250 267 452 39 622 25 45

0.073 0.008 0.037 0.038 0.065 0.006 0.09 0.004 0.006

651 76 345 351 568 40 877 33 59

0.05 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.003 0.07 0.003 0.005

100 29 887 306

0.017 0.005 0.151 0.052

180 38 1477 382

0.02 0.004 0.14 0.04

8 1 56 25

0.002 0 0.011 0.005

42 9 249 252

0.006 0.001 0.036 0.036

50 10 305 277

0.004 0.001 0.03 0.02

1 0.00 856 0.167 7 0.001

10 3661 15

V1 0.524 0.002

11 0.001 4517 0.37 22 0.002

16 1096 161 728 1229 120 86 2962 19 58 309 302 1183 280 18 160 1300 281 264 126 1797

0.002 0.157 0.023 0.104 0.176 0.017 0.012 0.424 0.003 0.008 0.044 0.043 0.17 0.04 0.003 0.023 0.186 0.04 0.038 0.018 0.257

34 1331 256 1191 165 148 113 4116 25 62 374 405 1647 325 23 256 1469 336 382 152 2386

67 0.011 2480 0.423 7 0.001

82 0.01 2860 0.27 10 0.001

17 350 479 114 304 193 11 810 7 33 141 787 166 411 116 126 5472 171 162 325 478

33 472 757 152 374 257 20 1032 10 41 196 1125 213 619 170 157 8944 195 248 497 594

0.003 0.06 0.082 0.019 0.052 0.033 0.003 0.138 0.001 0.006 0.024 0.134 0.028 0.07 0.02 0.021 0.932 0.029 0.028 0.055 0.081

0.003 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.002 0.1 0.001 0.004 0.02 0.011 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.86 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.06

18 235 95 469 376 28 27 1154 6 4 65 104 464 45 5 96 169 55 118 26 589

0.004 0.046 0.02 0.09 0.073 0.005 0.005 0.225 0.001 0.001 0.013 0.02 0.091 0.009 0.001 0.019 0.083 0.011 0.023 0.005 0.115

0.003 0.11 0.02 0.1 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.34 0.002 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.14 0.03 0.002 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.2

(continued)

120 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 4.3 (continued) Share of publications of USA

France

2001–2009 African partners Rep Congo Reunion Rwanda São Tomé and Príncipe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa South Sudan Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Total of African publications Total of all publications

No.

% 52 0.002 – – 70 0.003 2 0.00

234 32 15 2 5900 – 85 22 668 23 336 841 336 337 18,259 2,232,665

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

%

2001–2009 %

No.

%

290 1 660 5

0.01 0.00 0.023 0.00

342 1 730 7

0.01 0.000 0.01 0.000

128 – 16 –

0.028 – 0.003 –

0.01 722 0.001 121 0.001 267 0.00 20 0.26 17,616 – 23 0.004 369 0.001 123 0.03 2412 0.001 106 0.02 999 0.04 3263 0.02 1297 0.02 760 0.851 61,766

0.03 0.004 0.009 0.001 0.61 0.001 0.013 0.004 0.084 0.004 0.04 0.11 0.05 0.03 2.15

956 153 282 22 23,516 23 454 145 3080 129 1335 4104 1633 1097 80,020

0.02 0.003 0.01 0.000 0.46 0.000 0.01 0.003 0.06 0.003 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.02 1.587

871 25 3 – 1668 – 56 – 70 113 4138 108 19 82 19,187

0.2 0.005 0.001 – 0.365 – 0.012 – 0.015 0.025 0.904 0.024 0.004 0.018 4.203

5,117,524

457,585

121

4  Partnerships in African Science 

England 2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

%

%

229 1 97 2

0.04 0.00 0.017 0.00

357 1 113 2

1581 98 26 7 6503 9 142 18 308 246 9782 363 123 208 46,168

0.27 0.017 0.004 0.001 1.11 0.002 0.024 0.003 0.052 0.042 1.667 0.062 0.021 0.035 6.653

2452 123 29 7 8171 9 198 18 378 359 13,920 471 142 290 65,354

586,926

1,044,510

0.03 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.24 0.01 0.003 0.001 0.78 0.001 0.02 0.002 0.04 0.03 1.33 0.05 0.01 0.03 6.195

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

% 28 – 28 5

0.005 – 0.005 0.001

102 27 13 1 3720 – 103 13 676 13 185 519 178 250 11,688

0.02 0.005 0.003 0.00 0.726 – 0.02 0.003 0.132 0.003 0.036 0.101 0.035 0.049 2.332

512,649

% 121 0.017 – – 221 0.032 10 0.001

351 101 187 21 11,416 8 309 51 1705 43 506 1766 649 604 37,068 699,153

0.05 0.014 0.027 0.003 1.633 0.001 0.044 0.007 0.244 0.006 0.072 0.253 0.093 0.086 5.303

% 149 – 249 15

0.01 – 0.02 0.001

453 128 200 22 15,136 8 412 64 2381 56 691 2285 827 854 47,318

0.04 0.01 0.02 0.002 1.25 0.001 0.03 0.005 0.2 0.005 0.06 0.2 0.07 0.07 4.05

1,211,801 1.984

Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Rep Chad Comoros Côte d’Ivoire Dem Rep of Congo Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya

African partners

Table 4.3 (continued)

5373 4 11 716 354 94 641 68 21 1251

573 39 233 122 317 22 759 21 29 15 5 229 215

0.07 0.005 0.028 0.15 0.038 0.003 0.092 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.028 0.026 4 0.648 0.00 0.001 0.086 0.043 0.011 0.077 0.008 0.003 0.151

%

No. 802 48 303 158 426 23 1056 21 37 21 5 299 248 0.00 6822 5 10 934 570 127 844 79 21 1684

% 0.06 0.003 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.002 0.07 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.0 0.02 0.02 0.0 0.47 0.0 0.001 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.005 0.001 0.12

No. 102 2 38 34 42 – 68 1 13 3 2 22 15 3 544 – 8 41 8 14 80 10 7 239

0.03 0.001 0.011 0.01 0.013 – 0.02 0.00 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.007 0.004 0.001 0.162 – 0.002 0.012 0.002 0.004 0.024 0.003 0.002 0.071

%

No.

0.037 0.001 0.011 0.006 0.018 0.00 0.048 – 0.001 0.001 – 0.011 0.005 – 0.233 0.00 0.001 0.035 0.035 0.005 0.033 0.002 – 0.07

%

No.

229 9 70 36 109 1 297 – 8 6 – 70 33 – 1449 1 8 218 216 33 203 11 – 433

Canada 2001–2009

2001–2009

2001–2018

2010–2018

Germany

Share of publications of

557 15 155 135 168 12 304 4 21 11 3 149 118 11 2619 – 1 331 52 58 338 35 17 901

No. 0.113 0.003 0.032 0.027 0.034 0.002 0.062 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.03 0.024 0.002 0.533 – 0.00 0.067 0.011 0.012 0.069 0.007 0.003 0.183

%

2010–2018

659 17 193 169 210 12 372 5 34 14 5 171 133 14 3163 – 9 372 60 72 418 45 24 1140

No.

0.08 0.002 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.001 0.05 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.02 0.02 0.002 0.38 – 0.0 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.003 0.14

%

2001–2018

122  R. Sooryamoorthy

Lesotho Liberia Libya Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rep Congo Reunion Rwanda São Tomé and Príncipe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa South Sudan Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo

0.00 – 0.004 0.013 0.005 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.057 0.002 0.02 0.003 0.058 0.004 – 0.002 – 0.008 0.00 0.001 – 0.387 – 0.019 – 0.027 0.003

2 – 25 83 33 36 9 4 357 15 122 16 360 23 – 11 –

49 1 7 – 2408 – 116 – 165 21

195 36 51 2 7580 4 293 12 699 75

3 40 83 299 167 114 9 56 1523 131 298 70 848 108 – 128 3 0.024 0.004 0.006 0.00 0.914 0.00 0.035 0.001 0.084 0.009

0.00 0.005 0.01 0.036 0.02 0.014 0.001 0.007 0.184 0.016 0.036 0.008 0.102 0.013 – 0.015 0.00 244 37 58 2 9988 4 409 12 864 96

5 40 108 382 200 150 18 60 1880 146 420 86 1208 131 – 139 3 0.02 0.003 0.004 0.0 0.69 0.0 0.03 0.001 0.06 0.007

0.0 0.003 0.01 0.03 0.014 0.01 0.001 0.004 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.006 0.08 0.009 – 0.01 0.0 38 4 1 – 1149 – 14 4 112 9

– 2 26 24 29 23 5 13 286 3 12 8 72 11 – 3 1 0.011 0.001 0.00 – 0.342 – 0.004 0.001 0.033 0.003

– 0.001 0.008 0.007 0.009 0.007 0.001 0.004 0.085 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.021 0.003 – 0.001 0.00 143 25 48 4 4879 1 73 11 319 30

7 35 89 81 180 92 14 41 1327 93 86 35 516 27 1 1911 1 0.029 0.005 0.01 0.001 0.994 0.00 0.015 0.002 0.065 0.006

0.001 0.007 0.018 0.016 0.037 0.019 0.003 0.008 0.27 0.019 0.018 0.007 0.105 0.005 0.00 0.389 0.00 0.02 0.004 0.01 0.0 0.73 0.0 0.01 0.002 0.05 0.01

0.001 0.004 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.002 0.01 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.0 0.02 0.0

(continued)

181 29 49 4 6028 1 87 15 431 39

7 37 115 105 209 115 19 54 1613 96 98 43 588 38 1 122 2

4  Partnerships in African Science 

123

Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Total of African publications Total of all publications

African partners

Table 4.3 (continued)

622,341

183 119 15 53 7673

No. 0.03 0.019 0.002 0.009 1.234

%

829,402

646 434 141 106 25,266

No. 0.078 0.052 0.017 0.013 7.181

%

1,451,742

829 553 156 159 32,930

No.

% 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.01 2.289 335,844

235 124 19 55 3578

No. 0.07 0.037 0.006 0.016 1.063

%

Canada 2001–2009

2001–2018

2001–2009

2010–2018

Germany

Share of publications of

491,025

788 619 116 124 17,731

0.16 0.126 0.024 0.025 3.606

%

2010–2018 No.

0.12 0.09 0.02 0.02 2.399 826,869 1.766

1023 743 135 179 19,517

%

2001–2018 No.

124  R. Sooryamoorthy

4  Partnerships in African Science 

125

were Egypt (0.23%), Kenya (0.14%), Nigeria (0.07%), Tanzania (0.06%), Ghana (0.04%) and Ethiopia (0.04%). Between the two time periods, the USA’s partnership with Africa increased from 0.85 per cent to 2.15 per cent. Among the African partners that the USA strengthened its ties were South Africa (from 0.26% in 2001–2009 to 0.61% in 2010–2018), Egypt (0.12% to 0.32%), Kenya (0.08% to 0.18%), Nigeria (0.04% to 0.09%), Tanzania (0.03% to 0.08%), Ghana (0.02% to 0.06%) and Ethiopia (0.02% to 0.06%). The second key partner of Africa was France. As shown in Table 4.3, France had a higher proportion of publications with Africa than the USA. During 2001–2018, it made 6.2 per cent of its total publications with African countries. To understand this, the share of France’s publications with its other major international partners may be examined. France’s top research collaborator was the USA with whom it shared 14 per cent of its publications. France then had 9 per cent with Germany, 8 per cent with England, 7 per cent with Italy, 6 per cent with Spain, 5 per cent with Switzerland and 4 per cent with Canada. The Chinese portion of publications with France was only 3 per cent, much lower than the portion of China with the USA. As for the African partners of France, the major countries were Tunisia (1.3%), Algeria (1.1%), Morocco (0.86%), South Africa (0.78%) and Egypt (0.27%). France’s collaboration with some of these countries increased between 2001–2009 and 2010–2018. Senegal was another important African partner for France (0.24%), which doubled its share. The partnerships of England, the third Northern partner of Africa, have resulted in 4.1 per cent of joint publications with all African countries. This is in comparison to the joint publications of England’s other major partners like the USA (18%), Germany (9%), France (7%), Italy (6%), Australia (5.4%), China (5%) and Canada (4%). England chose South Africa (1.25%), Egypt (0.37%), Kenya (0.34%), Nigeria (0.2%), Tanzania (0.2%) and Uganda (0.2%) as its key African partners in science. Within the two time periods, England enhanced its science collaboration significantly with South Africa by about three times more than any other African partners. England has not shown much improvement with other prominent African partners.

126 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Germany is Africa’s fourth international partner. Germany’s partnership with Africa produced 2.3 per cent of its publications. At the same time Germany had 15 per cent of its publications with the USA, its foremost partner, followed by England (8%), France (7%), Switzerland (5%), Italy (5%), the Netherlands (5%), Spain (4%) and China (3%). Germany’s involvement in African science increased significantly from 1.2 per cent to 7.2 per cent in the second period of 2010–2018. This increase in percentile terms was much more than for any other major Northern partners of Africa. Germany’s preferred African partners were South Africa (0.7%), Egypt (0.47%), Kenya (0.12%) and Morocco (0.13%). Its scientific alliance, unlike any other African countries, developed substantially during the recent period. This is in both the number and percentage of publications. Its share with Egypt and Morocco has also shown remarkable increases. One more country that was selected for analysis in this context was Canada, Africa’s fifth top Northern partner. Canada’s contribution to its partnership with Africa was evident in 2.4 per cent of its publications. As against Canada’s share with the major partners, this percentage was low. For instance, Canada’s collaborative production in science with its first partner, the USA, was about one-fourth of its publications. The second major partner of Canada was China (6.3%), which was followed by England (6.2%), Germany (5%), France (5%), Australia (4%) and Italy (3%). Canada’s scientific engagement with Africa has not grown in the second period of 2010–2018. Canada’s active partnership with Africa was not great either, if the number of publications is any indication. This was evident in countries such as South Arica (0.73%), Egypt (0.38%), Morocco (0.2%), Kenya (0.14%) and Tunisia (0.12%). The aforementioned analysis of Africa’s key partners indicated how important other countries are rather than Africa for them. Despite the political and economic rivalry and tensions with China, both the USA and Canada maintained robust cooperation with China. The trend is similarly observed with other core countries examined in this context.

4  Partnerships in African Science 

127

South–South Partnership Table 4.4 presents Africa’s partnerships with the Global South. Included in the analysis are the countries from Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. Forty-seven countries were counted as the Southern partners of Africa. In percentages, the Southern partners of Africa were in 28 per cent of the actual publications that Africa produced. Only six countries took part in African partnerships with a higher percentage of publications. However, these percentages were in the region of 1–5 publications each for the respective countries. Saudi Arabia emerged the leader among the Southern partners of Africa, working in 5 per cent of all publications that Africa produced. Apart from Saudi Arabia the major partners of Africa from the South were China, Japan, India, Brazil and Turkey. Changes were visible between the two periods. During 2001–2009, the Southern partners of Africa in science produced only 11 per cent of the actual publications. This tripled to 35 per cent in the next 10 years. The countries on the list have corresponded to this change as well. Saudi Arabia increased its participation with Africa from 1.5 per cent to 7.7 per cent, China from 0.9 to 3.7, Japan 2 to 2.7, India 0.9 to 3, Brazil 0.6 to 1.9 and Turkey 0.3 to 1.5 (Map 4.2). Compared to the Northern partners, Africa worked less with Southern and developing countries. This was clear when the partnership patterns of Africa’s Southern partners were explored. As seen in the data, the major Southern partners of Africa were Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, India and Brazil. The data referring to these five countries was collected and tabulated for 2001–2018 and split into two time periods of 2001–2009 and 2010–2018. The tabulated data sourced from the same dataset of the WoS is presented in Table 4.5. Saudi Arabia was the first major Southern partner of Africa. With African countries Saudi Arabia produced 27 per cent of all its publications. This is to be seen in comparison to the percentage of publications with its other major partners such as the USA (14.5%), China (8.5%), India (7.1%), Pakistan (6.5%), England (5.8%), Germany (4.7%), Canada (4.6%), France (3.6%), Malaysia (3.6%), Australia (3.3%), Turkey (3.1%) and Italy (3%). The highest share of publications of Saudi

Saudi Arabia China Japan India Brazil Turkey Malaysia South Korea Pakistan Iran Mexico Taiwan Thailand Colombia Chile Argentina UAE Qatar Kuwait Vietnam Lebanon Singapore Indonesia Peru Sri Lanka Oman Bangladesh

Southern partners

2026 1264 2677 1268 827 412 285 538 335 156 407 248 349 171 226 304 429 117 294 133 171 149 189 122 93 201 120

Publns

2001–2009

0.0 1.3 2.7 1.3 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1

% of partd publns 1.5 0.9 2.0 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

% of actual publns 23,868 11,441 8363 9346 5807 4794 4375 3913 3256 3121 2851 2863 2328 2393 2324 2023 1666 1897 758 884 839 838 789 840 839 729 755

Publns

2010–2018

Table 4.4  Southern partners of Africa and publications, 2001–2018

6.0 2.9 2.1 2.3 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

% of partd publns 7.7 3.7 2.7 3.0 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2

% of actual publns 25,894 12,705 11,040 10,614 6634 5206 4660 4451 3591 3277 3258 3111 2677 2564 2550 2327 2095 2014 1052 1017 1010 987 978 962 932 930 875

Publns

2001–2018

5.2 2.5 2.2 2.1 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

% of partd publns

5.8 2.8 2.5 2.4 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

% of actual publns

128  R. Sooryamoorthy

0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7

Note: Up to a minimum of 100 publications analysed

Philippines 130 Yemen 83 Ecuador 40 Bahrain 112 Iraq 42 Cuba 40 Syria 112 Nepal 41 Cambodia 56 Venezuela 81 Costa Rica 54 Palestine 3 Uruguay 38 Panama 39 Jamaica 42 Guatemala 20 Laos 28 Trinidad and Tobago 35 Mongolia 11 Haiti 14 Total of Southern partners 14,532 Total publications 98,547

0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7

573 574 548 396 436 330 253 304 260 235 243 287 211 191 144 133 121 89 104 98 109,430 400,208

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.3 100.0

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.1

703 657 588 508 478 370 365 345 316 316 297 290 249 230 186 153 149 124 115 112 123,962 498,755

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.9 100.0

0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.8

4  Partnerships in African Science 

129

130 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Map. 4.2  Southern partners of Africa, 2001–2018

Arabia among African countries was with Egypt. It produced about one– fifth of the publications with Egypt, which was the highest number of publications that Saudi Arabia produced with any of its scientific partners. The second largest African partner of Saudi Arabia was Tunisia (2.2% of publications), followed by Algeria (1.28%) and South Africa (1.25%). The partnership of Saudi Arabia with Egypt has been growing from 12 per cent in 2001–2009 to 19 per cent in 2010–2018. China, Africa’s second Southern partner, contributed to only 0.5 per cent of its total publications with African countries. The huge number of publications China produced is to be kept in mind.1 Meanwhile during the period of analysis, China shared 11 per cent of its publications with the USA, its top collaborator. The other major partners of China were Japan (2.2%), Australia (2.2%), England (2.2%), Germany (1.9%), Canada (1.8%), Taiwan (1.4%), France (1.1%) and Singapore (1%). For China, Africa came after these countries in scientific partnerships. Between the two time periods, China’s involvement with Africa has  One reason for this is the incentivised system of publication that prevails in universities. Chinese universities offer cash rewards from US$30 to 165,000 for papers published in journals indexed by Web of Science (Quan et al., 2017). 1

4  Partnerships in African Science 

131

improved from 0.2 per cent to 0.65 per cent of its share of publications. China’s important partners in Africa were South Africa (0.16%), Egypt (0.13%), Morocco (0.04%) and Nigeria (0.04%) which are the strong countries in science. Japan was Africa’s third Southern partner producing 1.1 per cent of its publications with African counterparts. At the same time, Japan had 9.5 per cent of its publications with the USA, its top partner in science. The other prominent partners of Japan included China (5.1%), Germany (3%), England (2.4%), South Korea (2.2%), France (2.1%), Canada (1.5%) and Australia (1.4%). In Africa, Japan chose to publish mostly with Egypt (0.34%), South Africa (0.25%) and Morocco (0.08%). Japan’s presence in African science showed a three-fold increase between 2001–2009 and 2010–2018. India was Africa’s fourth Southern partner, producing about 2 per cent of its publications with African countries. This may be compared with India’s other partners. India has its highest number of publications (7%) with the USA. The second partnership was with Germany (2.8%), followed by England (2.4%), South Korea (2.1%), France (1.9%), Japan (1.8%), China (1.7%) and Italy (1.3%). Among the African countries, India made most of its publications with only two countries, South Africa (0.7%) and Egypt (0.3%). The participation of India in scientific research in Africa recorded a four-fold increase in the second half of the period. One more Southern country with whom Africa collaborated significantly was Brazil. Like India, Brazil produced 2 per cent of its total publications in 2001–2018 with Africa. At the same time, 12 per cent of Brazil’s publications were with its top partner, the USA. The other major partners of Brazil were France (4.2%), Germany (4%), England (4%), Spain (3.6%), Italy (3%), Canada (2.5%) and Portugal (2.3%). Brazil’s preferred African partners were South Africa (0.6%), Egypt (0.27%) and Morocco (0.2%). Nevertheless, Brazil significantly enhanced its scientific collaboration with African countries, demonstrated by its increased publication share from 0.7 per cent to 2.6 per cent.

132 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 4.5  The share of publications of Southern partners of Africa, 2001–2018 Share of publications of Saudi Arabia African partners Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Rep Chad Comoros Côte d’Ivoire Dem Rep of Congo Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-­Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Libya Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia

China

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

2001–2009

No.

No.

No.

No.

%

%

%

%

119 1 – – – – – – –

0.86 0.007 – – – – – – –

1242 7 53 61 – 6 84 1 –

1.339 0.008 0.057 0.066 – 0.006 0.091 0.001 –

1361 8 53 61 16 6 84 1 –

1.28 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.12 0.006 0.08 0.001 –

28 – 5 7 3 8 42 – 1

0.004 – 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.006 – 0.00

– – 2 2

– – 0.015 0.015

3 – 21 31

0.003 – 0.023 0.033

3 2 23 33

0.003 0.002 0.022 0.03

– 2 8 14

– 0.00 0.001 0.002

0.007 1 11.9 18,593 – –

0.001 20.05 –

1 0.001 20,235 19.0 – –

– 271 1

– 0.041 0.00

0.007 0.131 – – 0.044 – – 0.065 – – 0.058 0.015 0.015 0.015 – – 0.152 – 0.015

0.004 0.175 0.005 0.024 0.101 0.001 0.003 0.128 – 0.015 0.165 0.016 0.029 0.011 0.004 0.081 0.691 0.05 0.025

1 12 1 3 24 2 1 90 3 – 14 8 3 3 – 4 41 2 10

0.00 0.002 0.00 0.00 0.004 0.00 0.00 0.014 0.00 – 0.002 0.001 0.00 0.00 – 0.001 0.006 0.00 0.002

1 1642 – 1 18 – – 6 – – 9 – – 8 2 2 2 – – 21 – 2

4 166 5 22 94 1 3 119 – 14 153 15 27 10 4 75 641 46 23

5 184 5 22 100 1 3 128 – 14 161 17 29 12 4 75 662 46 25

0.01 0.17 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.001 0.003 0.12 – 0.01 0.15 0.02 0.03 0.001 0.004 0.07 0.62 0.04 0.02

133

4  Partnerships in African Science 

Japan 2010–2018 No.

2001–2018 %

No.

%

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

%

%

%

457 9 82 45 34 40 261 9 14

0.02 0.00 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.012 0.00 0.001

485 9 87 52 37 48 303 9 15

0.02 0.0 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.0 0.001

53 1 19 16 5 – 53 – 1

0.008 0.00 0.003 0.002 0.001 – 0.008 – 0.00

168 5 94 45 52 11 212 4 13

0.025 0.001 0.014 0.007 0.008 0.002 0.031 0.001 0.002

221 6 113 61 57 11 265 4 14

0.016 0.00 0.008 0.005 0.004 0.001 0.02 0.00 0.001

3 9 79 81

0.00 0.00 0.004 0.004

3 11 87 95

0.0 0.0 0.003 0.003

1 – 10 17

0.00 – 0.002 0.003

4 3 60 92

0.001 0.00 0.009 0.014

5 3 70 109

0.00 0.00 0.005 0.008

1 0.00 3372 0.151 4 0.00

1 3643 5

0.0 0.13 0.0

– 1041 –

– 0.157 –

1 0.00 3519 0.518 – –

1 0.00 4560 0.339 – –

23 339 23 31 550 55 10 754 7 20 35 74 95 43 1 110 1091 56 54

24 351 24 34 574 57 11 844 10 20 49 82 98 46 1 114 1132 58 64

0.001 0.01 0.001 0.001 0.02 0.002 0.0 0.03 0.0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.0 0.004 0.04 0.002 0.002

2 59 6 6 89 3 3 200 2 1 7 26 15 8 1 1 71 2 9

0.00 0.009 0.001 0.001 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.011 0.00 0.001

1 258 47 42 267 25 12 470 – 18 29 52 59 22 12 34 1018 57 69

3 317 53 48 356 28 15 670 2 19 36 78 74 30 13 41 1089 59 78

0.001 0.015 0.001 0.001 0.025 0.002 0.00 0.034 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.00 0.005 0.049 0.003 0.002

0.00 0.038 0.007 0.005 0.039 0.004 0.002 0.069 – 0.003 0.004 0.008 0.009 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.15 0.008 0.01

0.00 0.024 0.004 0.004 0.026 0.002 0.001 0.05 0.00 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.081 0.004 0.006

(continued)

134 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 4.5 (continued) Share of publications of Saudi Arabia African partners

China

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

Niger 1 Nigeria 21 Rep Congo – Reunion – Rwanda – São Tomé and – Príncipe Senegal 1 Seychelles – Sierra Leone – Somalia – South Africa 86 South Sudan – Sudan 81 Swaziland – Tanzania 4 Togo – Tunisia 63 Uganda 5 Zambia 1 Zimbabwe 3 Total of 2104 African publications Total of all 13,791 publications

% 0.007 0.152 – – – –

%

%

10 325 6 – 38 –

0.011 0.351 0.006 – 0.041 –

11 346 6 – 38 –

0.007 23 – 15 – 3 – 1 0.624 1248 – 1 0.587 578 – 3 0.029 68 – 13 0.457 2282 0.036 56 0.007 46 0.022 17 15.249 26,258

0.025 0.016 0.003 0.001 1.346 0.001 0.623 0.003 0.073 0.014 2.461 0.06 0.05 0.018 28.309

24 15 3 1 1334 1 659 3 72 13 2345 61 47 20 28,379

92,724

2001–2009

106,515

No.

%

0.01 0.33 0.01 – 0.04 –

3 119 3 – 1 –

0.00 0.018 0.00 – 0.00 –

0.02 0.01 0.003 0.001 1.25 0.001 0.62 0.003 0.07 0.01 2.20 0.06 0.04 0.02 26.752

1 – 7 – 545 – 38 1 20 2 34 14 8 17 1425

0.00 – 0.001 – 0.083 – 0.006 0.00 0.003 0.00 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.21

655,134

135

4  Partnerships in African Science 

Japan 2010–2018 No.

2001–2018 %

No.

%

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

%

%

%

31 909 16 – 112 1

0.001 0.041 0.001 – 0.005 0.00

34 1028 19 – 113 1

0.001 0.04 0.001 – 0.004 0.0

3 151 8 – 4 –

0.00 0.023 0.001 – 0.001 –

25 512 17 – 46 3

0.004 0.075 0.003 – 0.007 0.00

28 663 25 – 50 3

0.002 0.049 0.002 – 0.004 0.00

63 15 87 3 4200 4 452 2 229 44 4 186 111 98 14,438

0.003 0.001 0.004 0.00 0.188 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.002 0.00 0.008 0.005 0.004 0.645

64 15 94 3 4745 4 490 3 249 46 390 200 119 115 16,215

0.002 0.001 0.003 0.0 0.16 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.01 0.002 0.01 0.01 0.004 0.004 0.571

11 – 31 – 576 – 57 – 129 – 92 35 48 4 2877

0.002 – 0.005 – 0.087 – 0.09 – 0.019 – 0.014 0.005 0.007 0.001 0.513

38 14 10 3 2858 2 138 4 210 12 327 143 197 40 11,374

0.006 0.002 0.001 0.00 0.421 0.00 0.02 0.001 0.031 0.002 0.048 0.021 0.029 0.006 1.676

49 14 13 3 3434 2 195 – 339 12 419 178 245 44 14,225

0.004 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.256 0.00 0.015 – 0.025 0.001 0.031 0.013 0.018 0.003 1.056

2,229,989

2,885,123

664,686

679,197

1,343,882

Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Rep Chad Comoros Côte d’Ivoire Dem Rep of Congo Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya

African partners

Table 4.5 (continued)

34 1 10 20 7 2 18 – – – – 10 6 – 155 – 32 127 3 1 28 2 2 90

0.014 0.00 0.004 0.009 0.003 0.001 0.008 – – – – 0.004 0.003 – 0.066 – 0.014 0.054 0.001 0.00 0.012 0.001 0.001 0.038

% 325 10 91 104 62 15 291 2 5 5 2 81 91 1 2121 – 24 720 18 61 232 10 2 560

No. 0.065 0.002 0.018 0.021 0.012 0.003 0.059 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.016 0.018 0.00 0.427 – 0.005 0.145 0.004 0.012 0.047 0.002 0.00 0.111

% 359 11 101 124 69 17 309 2 5 5 2 91 97 1 2276 – 56 847 21 62 260 12 4 650

No. 0.049 0.002 0.014 0.017 0.009 0.002 0.042 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.012 0.013 0.00 0.311 – 0.008 0.116 0.003 0.008 0.036 0.002 0.001 0.089

%

No. 21 10 28 4 11 – 31 1 3 – – 6 4 – 71 – – 12 6 3 17 4 3 67

0.013 0.006 0.017 0.002 0.097 – 0.019 0.001 0.002 – – 0.004 0.002 – 0.043 – – 0.007 0.004 0.002 0.01 0.002 0.002 0.04

%

2001–2009

No.

Brazil 2001–2018

2001–2009

2010–2018

India

Share of publications of

147 67 134 48 63 8 247 24 5 4 3 67 59 – 1306 1 1 161 33 30 142 15 8 351

No. 0.042 0.019 0.039 0.014 0.018 0.002 0.071 0.007 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.019 0.017 – 0.376 0.00 0.00 0.046 0.009 0.009 0.041 0.004 0.002 0.101

%

2010–2018

168 77 162 52 74 8 278 25 8 4 3 73 63 – 1377 1 1 173 39 33 159 19 11 418

No.

0.033 0.015 0.032 0.01 0.014 0.002 0.054 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.014 0.012 – 0.268 0.00 0.00 0.034 0.008 0.006 0.031 0.004 0.002 0.081

%

2001–2018

136  R. Sooryamoorthy

Lesotho Liberia Libya Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rep Congo Reunion Rwanda São Tomé and Príncipe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa South Sudan Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo

2 – – 13 10 23 4 20 36 8 4 17 108 4 – 4 – 6 2 – – 490 – 24 – 27 –

0.001 – – 0.006 0.004 0.01 0.002 0.009 0.015 0.003 0.002 0.007 0.046 0.002 – 0.002 – 0.003 0.001 – – 0.208 – 0.01 – 0.011 –

7 16 109 46 152 73 5 118 461 117 49 72 797 52 – 77 1 83 13 14 6 4399 – 118 7 245 30

0.001 0.003 0.022 0.009 0.031 0.015 0.001 0.024 0.093 0.024 0.01 0.14 0.16 0.01 – 0.015 0.0 0.017 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.885 – 0.024 0.001 0.049 0.006

9 16 148 59 162 96 9 138 497 125 53 89 905 56 – 81 1 89 15 14 6 4889 – 142 7 272 30

0.001 0.002 0.02 0.008 0.022 0.013 0.001 0.019 0.068 0.017 0.007 0.012 0.124 0.008 – 0.011 0.00 0.012 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.668 – 0.019 0.001 0.037 0.004

– – 2 15 10 10 2 12 50 15 1 3 70 10 – 5 – 22 – – – 377 – 5 – 30 1

– – 0.001 0.009 0.006 0.006 0.001 0.007 0.03 0.009 0.001 0.002 0.042 0.06 – 0.003 – 0.013 – – – 0.227 – 0.003 – 0.018 0.001

3 14 38 75 92 37 5 34 980 253 53 26 541 36 – 47 6 71 13 7 3 2932 – 71 4 163 22

0.001 0.004 0.011 0.022 0.026 0.011 0.001 0.01 0.282 0.073 0.015 0.007 0.156 0.01 – 0.014 0.002 0.02 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.844 – 0.02 0.001 0.047 0.006

0.001 0.003 0.008 0.018 0.02 0.009 0.001 0.009 0.2 0.052 0.011 0.006 0.119 0.009 – 0.01 0.001 0.018 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.644 – 0.015 0.001 0.038 0.004 (continued)

3 14 40 90 102 47 7 46 1030 268 54 29 611 46 – 52 6 93 13 7 3 3309 – 76 4 193 23

4  Partnerships in African Science 

137

0.008 0.009 0.006 0.011 0.609 496,876

304 202 158 148 12,712

No. 0.061 0.041 0.032 0.03 2.554

%

2010–2018

2001–2018

732,006

322 224 172 174 14,181

No. 0.044 0.031 0.023 0.024 1.937

%

166,356

38 29 8 7 1024

No. 0.023 0.017 0.005 0.004 0.761

%

2001–2009

%

2001–2009

No.

Brazil

India

Share of publications of

Tunisia 18 Uganda 22 Zambia 14 Zimbabwe 26 Total of African 1430 publications Total of all publications 235,131

African partners

Table 4.5 (continued)

347,587

234 174 66 106 9030

No. 0.067 0.05 0.019 0.03 2.595

%

2010–2018

513,943

272 203 74 113 10,054

No.

0.053 0.039 0.014 0.022 1.959

%

2001–2018

138  R. Sooryamoorthy

4  Partnerships in African Science 

139

Partnerships Within Africa Africa’s partnerships within the continent were explored in the data. In this analysis, a few highly productive countries were selected. As seen earlier, the top five countries in Africa were South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and Nigeria. The production of science in these countries was examined to find their partnerships with other African countries. The data on this is tabulated in Table 4.6. South Africa, the highest producer of science publications in Africa, worked with other African countries to publish 15 per cent of all its publications. The share of joint publications with African partners of South Africa varied from country to country. The strong African partners of South Africa in these continental collaborations were Nigeria (2%), Kenya (1.5%), Zimbabwe (1.1%), Morocco (0.8%), Uganda (0.8%) and Malawi (0.6%). The rest of the African countries did not have many publications with South Africa. In 2001–2009, only 7 per cent of South Africa’s publications were produced in partnerships with other countries on the continent. By 2010–2018, this percentage had increased to 19. On the other hand, South Africa published more papers with countries in the Global North. It shared 19 per cent of its publications with the USA, the highest share with any country and with Africa as a whole. With England it had 12 per cent of its total publications in science. Germany (8%), Australia (7%), France (7%), the Netherlands (5%) and Canada (5%) formed other important partners of South Africa. The share of South Africa’s publications with these Northern countries was much higher than with its African neighbours. South Africa also has more publications with India, China, Brazil or Russia than any other African countries. The second key producer of science in Africa was Egypt, which had fewer publications with other African countries. It is credited with only 3.8 per cent of its publications that had the participation of any African country. During 2001–2009, Egypt had a share of 1.7 per cent of its publications which doubled to 4.4 per cent during 2010–2018. It published mostly with South Africa (0.59%), Tunisia (0.42%), Algeria (0.3%), Libya (0.3%), Morocco (0.29%), Kenya (0.18%) and Nigeria

140 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 4.6  Partnerships of major African countries with other African countries, 2001–2018 Share of publications of South Africa 2001–2009

Egypt 2010–2018

2001–2018

2001–2009

No.

No.

No.

African partners No.

%

Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Rep Chad Comoros Côte d’Ivoire Dem Rep of Congo Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-­Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Libya Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Morocco

26 10 49 161 19 2 95 1 2

0.067 0.026 0.127 0.416 0.049 0.005 0.245 0.003 0.005

270 46 164 515 184 19 697 3 7

0.318 0.054 0.193 0.607 0.217 0.022 0.822 0.004 0.008

296 56 213 676 203 21 792 4 9

0.024 0.045 0.172 0.547 0.164 0.017 0.641 0.003 0.007

2 1 30 14

0.005 0.003 0.077 0.036

11 3 143 191

0.013 0.004 0.169 0.225

13 4 173 205

0.011 0.003 0.014 0.165

– – – – 6 0.021 – –

– – 81 0.209 1 0.003

2 571 6

0.002 0.673 0.007

2 652 7

0.002 0.528 0.006

– – –

12 640 58 117 759 37 15 1537 79 25 23 138 605 86 10 146 956

0.014 0.755 0.068 0.138 0.895 0.044 0.018 1.813 0.093 0.029 0.027 0.163 0.714 0.101 0.012 0.172 1.127

17 782 89 142 815 45 18 1821 123 25 25 181 718 106 10 155 985

0.014 0.633 0.072 0.115 0.66 0.036 0.015 1.474 0.1 0.02 0.02 0.147 0.581 0.086 0.008 0.125 0.797

2 12 1 2 18 4 – 24 – 1 59 – – – – – 49

5 142 31 25 56 8 3 284 44 – 2 43 113 20 – 9 29

0.013 0.367 0.08 0.065 0.145 0.021 0.008 0.733 0.114 – 0.005 0.111 0.292 0.052 – 0.023 0.075

%

%

% 38 – 2 – 5 – 6 1 –

0.131 – 0.007 – 0.017 – 0.21 0.003 –

– – – 0.007 0.041 0.003 0.007 0.062 0.014 – 0.00 – 0.003 0.203 – – – – – 0.169

141

4  Partnerships in African Science 

Tunisia 2010–2018

2001–2018

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

%

%

%

%

%

286 6 65 18 25 10 106 – –

0.349 0.007 0.079 0.022 0.031 0.012 0.129 – –

324 6 67 18 30 10 112 1 –

0.292 0.005 0.06 0.016 0.027 0.009 0.101 0.001 –

98 – 3 – 2 – 22 – 1

0.81 – 0.025 – 0.017 – 0.182 – 0.008

590 4 43 11 27 3 77 3 1

1.897 0.013 0.138 0.035 0.087 0.01 0.248 0.01 0.003

688 4 46 11 29 3 99 3 2

1.593 0.009 0.016 0.025 0.067 0.007 0.229 0.007 0.005

7 3 42 38

0.009 0.004 0.051 0.046

7 3 48 38

0.006 0.003 0.043 0.034

– – 7 1

– – 0.058 0.008

9 – 45 21

0.029 – 0.145 0.068

2 9 52 22

0.005 0.021 0.012 0.051

3 – 1

0.004 – 0.001

3 – 1

0.003 – 0.001

– 58 –

– 0.478 –

7 411 –

0.023 1.321 –

7 0.016 469 1.086 – –

1 153 5 14 124 3 – 178 – 29 301 13 27 5 5 16 269

0.001 0.187 0.006 0.017 0.151 0.004 – 0.217 – 0.035 0.368 0.016 0.033 0.006 0.006 0.02 0.329

3 165 6 16 142 7 – 202 – 30 360 13 27 5 5 16 318

0.003 0.149 0.005 0.014 0.128 0.006 – 0.182 – 0.027 0.325 0.012 0.024 0.005 0.005 0.014 0.287

– 2 3 – 6 1 – 8 – 1 7 3 – – 38 – 162

– 0.017 0.025 – 0.05 0.008 – 0.066 – 0.008 0.058 0.025 – – 0.314 – 1.339

2 48 5 7 50 4 – 61 – 7 58 12 8 14 34 12 526

0.006 0.154 0.016 0.023 0.161 0.013 – 0.196 – 0.023 0.186 0.039 0.026 0.045 0.109 0.039 1.691

2 50 8 7 56 5 – 69 – 8 65 15 8 14 72 12 688

0.005 0.116 0.019 0.016 0.013 0.012 – 0.16 – 0.019 0.15 0.035 0.019 0.032 0.167 0.028 1.593

(continued)

142 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 4.6 (continued) Share of publications of South Africa 2001–2009 African partners No.

%

Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rep Congo Reunion Rwanda São Tomé and Príncipe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa South Sudan Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Total of African publications Total of all publications

0.194 0.591 0.008 0.86 0.026 – 0.046 –

75 229 3 333 10 – 18 – 34 6 2 – – – 30 29 149 2 24 143 93 307 2795 38,723

Egypt 2010–2018

2001–2018

2001–2009

No.

No.

No.

358 593 67 2256 66 1 210 3

% 0.422 0.699 0.079 2.661 0.078 0.001 0.248 0.004

0.088 186 0.219 0.015 60 0.071 0.005 41 0.048 – – – – – – – 1 0.001 0.077 243 0.287 0.075 137 0.162 0.385 755 0.89 0.005 39 0.046 0.062 151 0.178 0.369 880 1.038 0.24 545 0.643 0.793 1041 1.228 7.219 15,708 18.524 84,792

433 822 70 2589 76 1 228 3

%

%

0.351 0.666 0.057 2.096 0.062 0.001 0.185 0.002

2 1 1 23 5 – – –

0.007 0.003 0.003 0.079 0.017 – – –

220 0.178 66 0.053 43 0.053 – – – – 1 0.001 273 0.221 166 0.134 904 0.732 41 0.033 175 0.142 1023 0.828 638 0.517 1348 1.091 18,503 14.655

4 – – 3 81 – 28 – 12 1 58 22 2 4 477

0.014 – – 0.001 0.279 – 0.096 – 0.041 0.003 0.2 0.076 0.007 0.014 1.738

123,515

29,039

143

4  Partnerships in African Science 

Tunisia 2010–2018

2001–2018

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

%

%

%

%

%

46 22 9 238 25 – 39 1

0.056 0.027 0.011 0.293 0.031 – 0.048 0.001

48 23 10 261 30 – 39 1

0.043 0.021 0.009 0.235 0.035 – 0.035 0.001

1 1 4 8 1 – – –

0.008 0.008 0.033 0.066 0.008 – – –

22 11 30 81 8 – 22 –

0.071 0.035 0.096 0.26 0.026 – 0.071 –

23 12 34 89 9 – 22 –

0.053 0.028 0.079 0.206 0.021 – 0.051 –

21 11 6 12 570 2 236 1 78 12 411 75 52 19 3639

0.026 0.013 0.007 0.015 0.696 0.002 0.288 0.001 0.095 0.015 0.502 0.092 0.064 0.023 4.446

25 11 6 15 651 2 264 1 90 13 469 97 54 23 4116

0.023 0.01 0.005 0.014 0.587 0.002 0.238 0.001 0.081 0.012 0.423 0.087 0.049 0.021 3.719

24 – – – 24 – 8 – 1 2 – 1 – – 498

0.198 – – – 0.198 – 0.066 – 0.008 0.017 – 0.008 – – 4.114

54 8 1 1 151 – 42 – 36 12 – 38 18 8 2643

0.174 0.026 0.003 0.003 0.485 – 0.135 – 0.116 0.039 – 0.122 0.058 0.026 8.5

78 8 1 1 175 – 50 – 37 14 – 39 18 8 3143

0.181 0.019 0.002 0.002 0.405 – 0.116 – 0.086 0.032 – 0.09

81,869

110,908

12,097

31,104

43,201

0.019 6.965

Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Rep Chad Comoros Côte d’Ivoire Dem Rep of Congo Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guin1ea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau

African partners

Table 4.6 (continued)

– 1 5 – 2 – 11 – 1 – – 7 4 – 38 – – 4 2 1 2 4 1

– 0.012 0.062 – 0.025 – 0.136 – 0.012 – – 0.086 0.049 – 0.469 – – 0.048 0.025 0.012 0.025 0.049 0.012

– 6 41 6 11 5 44 – – 6 1 33 28 5 286 – – 45 1 4 38 4 –

No. – 0.26 0.176 0.026 0.047 0.021 0.189 – – 0.026 0.004 0.142 0.012 0.021 1.229 – – 0.193 0.004 0.017 0.163 0.017 –

%

2010–2018

2001–2018 – 7 46 6 13 5 55 – 1 6 1 40 32 5 324 – – 49 3 5 40 8 1

No. – 0.022 0.147 0.019 0.041 0.016 0.175 – 0.003 0.019 0.003 0.127 0.102 0.016 1.032 – – 0.156 0.01 0.016 0.127 0.025 0.003

% 8 3 66 33 31 – 115 – 5 2 1 34 7 – 23 – – 34 9 18 88 3 –

No. 0.076 0.029 0.628 0.314 0.295 – 1.095 – 0.048 0.019 0.01 0.324 0.067 – 0.219 – – 0.324 0.086 0.171 0.838 0.029 –

%

2001–2009

%

2001–2009

No.

Nigeria

Algeria

Share of publications of

63 15 175 75 134 16 311 3 7 18 2 95 89 – 238 1 1 248 24 77 446 28 7

0.303 0.072 0.842 0.361 0.645 0.077 1.497 0.014 0.034 0.087 0.01 0.457 0.428 – 1.145 0.005 0.005 1.193 0.115 0.371 2.146 0.135 0.034

%

2010–2018 No.

71 18 241 108 165 16 426 3 12 20 3 129 96 – 261 1 1 282 33 95 534 31 7

0.227 0.058 0.77 0.345 0.527 0.051 1.362 0.01 0.038 0.064 0.01 0.412 0.307 – 0.834 0.003 0.003 0.901 0.105 0.304 1.707 0.099 0.022

%

2001–2018 No.

144  R. Sooryamoorthy

Kenya Lesotho Liberia Libya Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rep Congo Reunion Rwanda São Tomé and Príncipe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa South Sudan Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo

9 – – 3 5 1 7 1 – 104 – 1 4 7 2 – – – 13 – – – 26 – 7 – 2 6

0.111 – – 0.037 0.062 0.012 0.086 0.012 – 1.283 – 0.012 0.049 0.086 0.025 – – – 0.16 – – – 0.321 – 0.086 – 0.025 0.074

46 – 9 30 6 11 7 7 6 458 30 11 7 63 1 – 24 – 35 8 – – 270 – 12 – 34 10

0.198 – 0.039 0.129 0.026 0.047 0.03 0.03 0.026 1.967 0.129 0.047 0.03 0.271 0.004 – 0.103 – 0.15 0.034 – – 1.16 – 0.052 – 0.146 0.043

55 – 9 33 11 12 14 8 6 562 30 12 11 70 3 – 24 – 48 8 – – 296 – 19 – 36 16

0.175 – 0.029 0.105 0.035 0.038 0.045 0.025 0.019 1.791 0.096 0.038 0.035 0.223 0.01 – 0.076 – 0.153 0.025 – – 0.943 – 0.061 – 0.115 0.051

63 8 1 – 4 12 20 – – 7 6 3 52 – 8 – 2 – 24 6 5 – 333 – 24 1 48 14

0.6 0.076 0.01 – 0.038 0.114 0.19 – – 0.067 0.057 0.029 0.495 – 0.076 – 0.019 – 0.229 0.057 0.048 – 3.171 – 0.229 0.01 0.457 0.133 139 20 52 3 2589 – 101 12 263 74

115 0.553 14 0.067 47 0.226 3 0.014 2256 10.857 – – 77 0.371 11 0.053 215 1.035 60 0.289

0.444 0.064 0.166 0.01 8.276 – 0.323 0.038 0.841 0.237

1.499 0.032 0.115 0.077 0.083 0.339 0.31 0.022 0.08 0.23 0.387 0.176 0.633 – 0.24 – 0.272

(continued)

469 10 36 24 26 106 97 7 25 72 121 55 198 – 75 – 85

1.954 0.01 0.168 0.115 0.106 0.452 0.371 0.034 0.12 0.313 0.553 0.25 0.073 – 0.322 – 0.393

406 2 35 24 22 94 77 7 25 65 115 52 146 – 67 – 83

4  Partnerships in African Science 

145

1.209 0.037 – 0.025 4.734

% 591 26 23 6 2295 23,279

No. 2.539 0.112 0.099 0.026 9.984

% 689 29 23 8 2679 31,384

No. 2.195 0.092 0.073 0.025 8.532

%

%

%

2010–2018 No.

%

2001–2018 No.

8 0.076 81 0.39 89 0.285 42 0.4 312 1.501 354 1.132 6 0.057 104 0.5 110 0.352 19 0.181 64 0.308 83 0.265 1196 11.391 6652 31.374 7848 25.087 10,502 20,780 31,282

No.

2001–2009

No.

Nigeria 2001–2018

2001–2009

2010–2018

Algeria

Share of publications of

Tunisia 98 Uganda 3 Zambia – Zimbabwe 2 Total of African publications 384 Total of all publications 8105

African partners

Table 4.6 (continued)

146  R. Sooryamoorthy

4  Partnerships in African Science 

147

(0.23%). These were not even 1 per cent each of Egypt’s publications. Egypt’s great partner, Saudi Arabia, had four times (18%) more publications than those it produced with Africa. The other partners of Egypt were the USA (11%), Germany (6%), England (4%), Japan (4%), China (3.2%) and Canada (2.8%). Tunisia worked with other African partners to produce 7 per cent of its publications. In the first period it made 4 per cent which increased to 8.5 per cent in the second period. This is higher than that of its neighbour, Egypt. Tunisia worked mostly with Algeria (1.6%), Morocco (1.6%) and Egypt (1.1%). Interestingly, Tunisia shared about one-third of its publications with its first partner France. With Saudi Arabia, it contributed to 5 per cent, Spain 5 per cent, Italy 4 per cent, the USA 3 per cent and Canada 2.4 per cent. The two other countries that have a high ranking in science in Africa were Algeria and Nigeria. Algeria cooperated with other African countries to produce 8.5 per cent of its publications. It doubled its African publications over the first period of 2001–2009. Algeria’s key African partners were Tunisia (2.5%), Morocco (1.8%), Egypt (1%) and South Africa (1%). Like Tunisia, Algeria also found France as its major scientific partner producing 36 per cent of the publications. Following France were Saudi Arabia (4%), Spain (4%), Italy (3%), the USA (3%) and Germany (2.6%). Nigeria, the fifth top producer of science in Africa, is a true leader in African partnerships. During the reference period, one-fourth of its publications were produced in partnerships with other African countries. The partnerships of Nigeria within Africa also resulted in an increase from 11 per cent in 2001–2009 to 31 per cent in 2010–2018. None of the other major countries in Africa have reached this level of continental collaboration. Nigeria had the highest number of publications with South Africa (8%), followed by Ghana (1.7%), Kenya (1.5%), Cameroon (1.4%), Uganda (1.1%), Ethiopia (0.9%), Benin (0.8%) and Egypt (0.8%). The international partners of Nigeria included the USA (11%), England (8%), Germany (3.9%), Malaysia (3.5%), China (3%), India (3%), Italy (2.4%), Australia (2.2%), Japan (2.1%) and Brazil (1.9%).

148 

R. Sooryamoorthy

South–South–North Partnership South–South–North partnership is recommended as beneficial in developing research capacity of the Global South (UNDP, 2017). The data can be examined to determine the extent of such partnership in Africa. For this purpose, the partners of the major science producing countries in Africa were examined closely. Five high performing countries on the continent, specifically South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and Nigeria, were chosen to investigate the establishment of South–South–North partnerships that led to scientific publications in these countries. In this analysis, the focus was on the patterns of South–South–North partnerships as shown in their partnerships with both Southern and Northern countries. A selection had to be made considering the number of partners of these countries and not to complicate the analysis but to make sense of the extent of South–South–North partnerships. One criterion that can provide useful information is to select at least 1 per cent of the total publications of these countries and to see which partners were involved in the production of the publications of this 1 per cent. If the number of partners of these countries were selected based on a number, say the first 5 or 10, it may not be as revealing as at least 1 per cent of the publications. Therefore, the better option for a clearer picture is to go for the minimum 1 per cent of the publications and to study their partners. When the minimum 1 per cent of the total publications that South Africa produced were taken there were 42 partners, which included countries from both the Global North and Global South. The Northern partners, including those in Eastern Europe as included in the previous analysis, were the USA, England, Germany, Australia, France, the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden, Belgium, Scotland, Norway, Denmark, Poland, Russia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Portugal, Israel, Hungary, Greece, New Zealand, Romania, Finland and Slovakia (27 countries). The Southern partners were India, China, Japan, Brazil, Nigeria, Chile, Turkey, Kenya, Argentina, Taiwan, Zimbabwe, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Colombia and Iran (15 countries). This means that 64 per cent of the partners of South Africa came from the North and the developed parts of the world while the remaining 26

4  Partnerships in African Science 

149

per cent came from the South. Only 3 African countries were found in this group. A total of 166,388 papers were produced by South Africa in partnerships with these 42 countries. Of these, 79 per cent were with a Northern partner while the remaining 21 per cent have a partner from the South. What this does indicate is that partnerships in South African science are skewed in favour of Northern partners rather than Southern partners. The dominance of Northern partners was clear, both in the number of partners and the publications. Further, if the involvement of African partners with other partners in the South was looked at, the Africa–South partnership was not robust since there were only 3 African partners. This was not proportionate to the number of the partners from the South (3 as against 12 countries in the South). This may not be treated as a true picture of partnerships but gives an indication to the prevailing patterns of partnerships that exist in the country. Egypt has 18 partners from the Global North as against 14 partners from the South when up to 1 per cent of its publications were examined. Its Northern partners included the USA, Germany, England, Canada, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Poland, Russia, Greece, the Czech Republic, Finland, Australia, Portugal and Hungary. The partners in the South were Saudi Arabia, Japan, China, South Korea, India, Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Malaysia, Brazil, Qatar, Taiwan, Mexico and the UAE. The proportion of the partners in the North and the South was 56:44. There were no African countries involved in partnerships with Egypt when the major partners were considered. Egypt has 95,503 publications in partnerships with the aforementioned 32 countries, of which 52 per cent were in the Global North and 48 per cent in the Global South. Note that Egypt’s major partner Saudi Arabia belongs to the South which significantly influenced its overall percentage. While Egypt can boast of having South–North partnerships in science, without a single African partner it cannot claim to have a strong South–South–North partnership. Tunisia, the third biggest producer of science publications in Africa has 13 partners when the 1 per cent cut-off was taken. Of the 13 partners, 9 were from the North (France, Spain, Italy, USA, Canada, Germany, Belgium, England and Portugal), and 4 from the South (Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Morocco and Egypt). Among its Southern partners, the majority

150 

R. Sooryamoorthy

(3 out of 4) were in Africa. The partnerships with 13 countries have assisted Tunisia in producing 27,324 publications but 85 per cent of them came from its alliance with Northern partners as against 15 per cent with Southern partners. Tunisia has a stronger South–North partnership than South–South or South–South–North partnership. Although it has the most African partners among its Southern partners, the African partners were all from North Africa and none from sub-Saharan Africa. Algeria collaborated with 9 Northern and 8 Southern partners to produce at least 1 per cent of its publications with other countries. These partnerships resulted in 17,767 publications, 79 per cent of which were with Northern partners and 21 per cent with its Southern partners. The Northern counterparts in this partnership were France, Spain, Italy, the USA, Germany, Belgium, England and Canada. Its Southern partners were Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Turkey, Morocco, China, India, Malaysia and Egypt. Like Tunisia, Algeria identified more strongly with the North than the countries in the South. Among its partners in the South, as with Tunisia, none of them represented sub-Saharan Africa. Nigeria partnered with 13 countries in the Global North and 12 countries in the Global South to produce a minimum of 1 per cent of its publications. In the North, Nigeria has partners in the USA, England, Germany, Italy, Australia, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Scotland, Spain, Sweden and Belgium. On the other side, Nigeria has South Africa, Malaysia, China, India, Japan, Brazil, Ghana, Kenya, Cameroon, Uganda, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to maintain its ties with the Global South. Compared to other top publishing countries in Africa, it is to Nigeria’s credit to have a higher proportion of Southern partners. Together with both Northern and Southern partners, Nigeria published 21,811 papers during 2001–2018. Fifty-seven per cent of these publications emerged from partnerships with Northern countries and the remaining 43 per cent with Southern partners. Remarkably, all Nigeria’s African partners were from sub-Saharan Africa. Given the count of publications with Southern countries, Nigeria has equally strong South– South partnerships and North–South partnerships. At the same time, it maintained good Africa–South partnerships as well. In scientific partnerships, colonial legacies of many of the African countries come into play. This has been reported in studies

4  Partnerships in African Science 

151

(Narváez-Berthelemot et al., 2002, for instance). Confraria and Godinho’s (2015) study of African countries found distinctive distributions in international partnerships according to the British and French colonial ties of Africa. Also noticed is that the universities in Africa have more traditional linkages with countries in Europe than in the USA (Chiware & Becker, 2018). The colonial connection of Africa influences partnership patterns of African countries (Boshoff, 2009). Mêgnigbêto (2013) confirmed that the common partners of African countries were France and the UK which were the former colonisers. The USA is also a dominant partner of Africa. More active collaboration with countries such as France and the UK has also been reported in previous studies (Confraria & Godinho, 2015; Narváez-Berthelemot et al., 2002; Schubert & Sooryamoorthy, 2010; Sooryamoorthy, 2009, 2020). Exploring collaboration networks in Africa, Guns and Wang (2017) have been led to the fact that the intensity of collaboration with non-­ African countries was higher than expected, particularly for countries that are scientifically active such as South Africa, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia. The results of the study show that researchers from South Africa and Egypt have a higher propensity to work with partners from non-­ African countries. At the same time but to a lesser extent, an increase in collaboration within Africa was evident, which was due to scientifically less developed countries (Guns & Wang, 2017). This points to the prevailing patterns in partnerships in Africa. Scientifically stronger countries in Africa tend to connect to international partners and build their own networks. On the other hand, scientifically weaker countries in Africa seek to establish connections with their neighbours on the continent. The analysis by Jacobs and Pichappan (2006) at selected institutions marks South Africa’s higher ratio of international collaboration against national collaboration. The international partners, as shown in other studies, are the USA, the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Belgium. In a recent study of intercontinental partnerships in Africa, Kozma and Calero-Medina (2019) examined the role of the South African research community as a channel for intercontinental collaboration. The change in the publication trends and international partnerships is indicative and corroborates the findings reported above.

152 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Partnerships established by Africa over the years are influenced by factors beyond scientific reasons alone. As Vieira (2022) noted, these partnerships are encouraged by a range of factors including political, economic, and cultural contexts. According to Vieira (2022) and other researchers, motivations for collaborative research should consider non-­ scientific elements such as geography, culture and language. Research conducted by Adams et al. (2014; Adams, 2012) on collaboration in Africa revealed significant interaction among countries in North Africa, characterised by shared language and culture. Additionally, in West Africa, collaboration is driven by the common use of French as a cross-­ national business language, in conjunction with Anglophone influences observed in Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, and the Gambia. The influence of history, culture, and language on collaboration patterns has been emphasised by Adams (2012). Notably, Adams et al. (2014) argue that collaboration in Africa is driven, in part, by geography and strongly influenced by shared culture and language. Mêgnigbêto (2013) highlighted the significance of language and culture in fostering collaboration in West Africa. As evident from our data, many partnerships in Africa can be attributed to these underlying reasons. For example, Egypt’s collaborations with Saudi Arabia, Tunisia’s partnerships with France and other Arab countries, and Algeria’s alliances with nations sharing similar culture and language.

Discussion The analysis of partnerships and the forms of partnerships with Africa by other countries, and the partnerships of other countries with their partners in the world points to an intriguing feature of scientific partnerships among the core countries. Core countries align with other core countries to strengthen their science. Partnerships with periphery countries remain minimal in the joint publications they produce. As opposed to this, core countries participate actively and intensely with their counterparts in the core. For instance, the USA’s preferred partners in science are Germany, England, Canada and France. Already in a better position, core countries can grow from strength to strength by establishing scientific alliances

4  Partnerships in African Science 

153

with other core countries or with countries that have growing scientific systems. For the core countries, periphery countries serve certain purposes to advance their scientific interests using original data for new discoveries and breakthroughs. This has been explained in the dependency theory. Notably, China has become the largest research partner of the USA. Although China is not part of the ‘core’ it has overtaken several other countries in the core in scientific advancement. China’s scientific publications at the current level are on par with most other highly published countries in the world. As the Royal Society (2011) commented a decade ago, the rise of China in science has been striking, overtaking Japan and Europe in its publication output (The Royal Society, 2011). To augment this view, some hard facts are to be checked. During 2011–2020, the world produced 13,978,575 publications in science.2 Of this, 24 per cent of the publications (3,361,997) were from the USA and 22 per cent (3,063,870) from China. These two countries were followed by Germany (7%; 973,138 publications), England (6%; 827,773), Japan (5.5%; 774,242), France (4.8%; 674,798), India (4.5%: 626,846), Italy (4.3%; 603,939), Canada (4.1%; 579,320) and others. China was second in world science with about one-fifth of the world scientific productions. The countries that followed China (such as Germany, England, Japan and France) made a huge difference in the share of publications in world science. For countries like France, England, Germany and Canada, as shown in the aforementioned data, mutual collaboration among them was stronger than with their collaborations with periphery countries. Schneegans et al. (2021) have come up with similar findings based on scientific publications in Scopus. They found that in 2019, China had the highest share of any country with 24.5 per cent of scientific publications while the USA contributed 20.5 per cent. The analysis also points out that the key partners of Africa that are in the core group of countries do not regard African countries as equal as countries in Asia or Latin America. As seen in the data, the core countries tend to produce only a fraction of their scientific publications with  This figure refers to the publications stored in the Web of Science database (document type articles, dataset the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded). 2

154 

R. Sooryamoorthy

African countries. On the other hand, South–South partnerships in Africa suggest a positive trend. Africa’s partnerships with its Southern partners demonstrate considerable growth in the recent period, by tripling the production figures during 2010–2018. Countries in the South have more interest in Africa in scientific partnerships than the countries in the North. This should not be confused with the findings that Africa works more with Northern partners than with Southern partners. Despite the positive trends, South–South partnerships cannot be considered universally strong. Even the prominent Southern partners of Africa are not the prominent partners of the Southern countries that are seemingly more inclined to work with Northern and other developed countries. The Southern partners, when it comes to collaborating with Africa, choose only a few select countries on the continent that are scientifically strong and that have established scientific systems. In South– South partnerships the Southern partners are not very keen to publish with African countries except for a few. This is evident with some major players in Africa, namely Egypt, South Africa, Morocco or Tunisia. This is likely to be a hindrance to South–South partnerships in Africa. South– South partnerships that marginalise most of the countries on the continent cannot be a panacea to improve the conditions of Africa. An important reading from the data is that the Global South is more inclined to look for partnerships with the Global North than the countries in the Global South. They publish more with the developed world than with their own counterparts in the Global South. If this is the case, the question is how much the South–South partnership as it exists in Africa can contribute to the advancement of scientifically weak countries on the continent. In the same way it is revealing to find how the countries with a strong scientific foundation partner with countries on the continent. Although the rate of partnership according to the number or percentage of publications has signalled a growing trend in recent years, there are not many countries in partnerships with leading African countries. Countries on the continent that need a helping hand from their big brothers in Africa are still waiting for that gesture of collaboration and cooperation. The leading producers in Africa are more likely to look towards partners in the Global North, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America than to their

4  Partnerships in African Science 

155

own counterparts on the same continent. Nigeria plays a better role than any other country on the continent. Among the leading countries in Africa, partnerships with other African countries paint a divergent picture. South Africa is being touted as the centre of collaboration in Africa. If this is the case, the intensity of continental collaboration led by a prominent country like South Africa as seen from the data does not augur well for the much-needed South–South partnerships within Africa. Nigeria is a strong African partner, producing one-fourth of its publications in partnerships with its African neighbours. More vividly, Nigeria’s collaboration in Africa is not limited to one or two key players in Africa. It has diversified its collaboration with even scientifically weak countries such as Benin and Cameroon. It has an interest in working with Ghana, Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia along with South Africa and Egypt. These kinds of partnerships will go a long way in developing research capacity in Africa. Leadership can be provided by countries like South Africa or Egypt that already have established scientific systems and research capacity. Egypt does not make enough effort to reach out to its African neighbours, particularly those in sub-­ Saharan Africa. Is there any North–South divide in partnerships within Africa? The data points in this direction. For instance, Egypt prefers to work more intensely with Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Libya rather than the countries in sub-Saharan Africa. In the same way, Tunisia has chosen to cooperate more with its Northern neighbours such as Algeria, Morocco and Egypt. Algeria followed suit, working mostly with Tunisia, Morocco and Egypt. For South Africa, most of the favoured countries of Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Uganda and Malawi are in the sub-Saharan region. Similarly, most of the major African partners of Nigeria are in sub-­ Saharan Africa. Whether this kind of divide is in the best interests of Africa is an issue. It must be examined in view of the benefits derived from South–South or Africa–Africa collaboration. The following chapter explores with the key research areas of Africa, as has been identified in the data, along with their corresponding characteristics.

156 

R. Sooryamoorthy

References Adams, J. (2012). Collaboration: The rise of research networks. Nature, 490, 335–336. https://doi.org/10.1038/490335a Adams, J., Gurney, K., Hook, D., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). International collaboration clusters in Africa. Scientometrics, 98, 547–556. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­013-­1060-­2 Boshoff, N. (2009). Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa. Scientometrics, 81, 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-­008-­2211-­8 Chiware, E. R. T., & Becker, D. A. (2018). Research trends and collaborations by applied science researchers in South African universities of technology: 2007–2017. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44, 468–476. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.05.003 Confraria, H., & Godinho, M. M. (2015). The impact of African science: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 102, 1241–1268. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­014-­1463-­8 Guns, R., & Wang, L. (2017). Detecting the emergence of new scientific collaboration links in Africa: A comparison of expected and realized collaboration intensities. Journal of Informetrics, 11, 892–903. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.07.004 Jacobs, D., & Pichappan, P. (2006, May 10–12). Research collaborations and scientific productivity among the research universities in South Africa [Paper presentation]. The International Workshop on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Seventh COLLNET Meeting, Nancy, France. Kozma, C., & Calero-Medina, C. (2019). The role of South African researchers in intercontinental collaboration. Scientometrics, 121, 1293–1321. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­019-­03230-­9 Mêgnigbêto, E. (2013). International collaboration in scientific publishing: The case of West Africa (2001–2010). Scientometrics, 96, 761–783. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­013-­0963-­2 Narváez-Berthelemot, N., Russel, J. M., Arvanitis, R., Waast, R., & Gadaillard, J. (2002). Science in Africa: An overview of mainstream scientific output. Scientometrics, 54, 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016033528117 Quan, W., Chen, B., & Shu, F. (2017). Publish or impoverish. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69, 486–502. https://doi.org/10.1108/ AJIM-01-2017-0014

4  Partnerships in African Science 

157

Schneegans, S., Lewis, J., & Straza, T. (2021). UNESCO science report: The race against time for smarter development. Executive Summary. UNESCO. https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377250. Schubert, T., & Sooryamoorthy, R. (2010). Can the centre–periphery model explain patterns of international scientific collaboration among threshold and industrialised countries? The case of South Africa and Germany. Scientometrics, 83, 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­009-­0074-­2 Sooryamoorthy, R. (2009). Collaboration and publication: How collaborative are scientists in South Africa? Scientometrics, 80, 419–439. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­008-­2074-­z Sooryamoorthy, R. (2020). Science, policy and development in Africa: Challenges and prospects. Cambridge University Press. The Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. The Royal Society. https://royalsociety.org/~/ media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2011/4294976134.pdf. UNDP. (2017). South–south cooperation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strategies for UNDP engagement. UNDP. https://www.africa.undp.org/content/rba/en/ home/library/reports/south-­south-­cooperation-­in-­sub-­saharan-­africa0.html Vieira, E. S. (2022). International research collaboration in Africa: A bibliometric and thematic analysis. Scientometrics, 127, 2747–2772. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­022-­04349-­y

5 Major Research Areas

Introduction The analysis of data sourced from the Web of Science database for the period of 2001–2018, as presented in Chap. 3, sheds light on the distinctive characteristics of scientific publications produced by scholars affiliated with African institutions. By examining the data across different research areas, the study identified the primary research domains of Africa. Notably, the top five research areas—chemistry, engineering, physics, environmental sciences/ecology and materials science—emerged as the most prolific fields in terms of published research. To gain a deeper understanding of these research areas, the data was subjected to a detailed analysis based on several pertinent variables expected to influence publication output in these five domains. These influential variables encompassed the year of publications, collaboration through international partnerships, institutions and their countries of origin, as well as the funding received from both African and international agencies for research leading to publications. By examining these factors, the chapter aims to uncover the reasons behind the remarkable productivity of these specific research areas in Africa. The analysis © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 R. Sooryamoorthy, Independent Africa, Dependent Science, Sustainable Development Goals Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5577-0_5

159

160 

R. Sooryamoorthy

presented in the chapter highlights the distinctive aspects associated with the production of scientific publications in these areas, thereby providing valuable insights into Africa’s performance in the selected domains.

Chemistry Chemistry has an exceptional place in science. It is mainly due to its applications to scientific discoveries in many areas which is not limited to medicine or pharmaceuticals. Research in chemistry has a decisive influence on human lives, often in unimaginable ways. It is one of the most highly focused areas of scientific research in the world. Chemistry is regarded as the keystone of science and is the substance of our lives (Griffith, 1924). Its invaluable significance in several fields including medicine made Ivor Griffith, the then editor of the American Journal of Pharmacy, to think of chemistry as a source of new wealth. The importance Africa gives to chemistry is not insignificant. In 1971, Africa held its first conference on chemistry at the University of Nairobi, Kenya, which was attended by delegates from outside Africa (Jevons, 1972). In several parts of Africa, chemistry has been a university subject (Crawford, 1965) and has been playing a positive role in the developmental challenges of Africa (Pemberton, 2012). International chemical scientists report that chemistry, particularly its variant form of analytical chemistry, is vibrant and flourishing in Africa with dedicated and motivated professionals in the field (Pemberton, 2012). Publications in chemical research in Africa show outstanding results in areas ranging from infectious diseases to non-communicable diseases such as cancer and hypertension (Wicht & Woodland, 2021). Some branches of chemistry are more prevalent than others in Africa. Electrochemistry for instance has a strong presence in central African countries, namely Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Gabon, Chad, Congo Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, São Tomé and Principe and Burundi (Njine-Bememba & Tchekwagep, 2022). Egyptians have a long history of experimenting with chemical technologies, applying them to making wine, beer, honey, pottery, glass and dyes (Loyson, 2011). Historical records on chemical

5  Major Research Areas 

161

manuscripts indicate that they are familiar with various chemical processes such as in making alloys, colouring metals, writing in gold and dying (Loyson, 2011). Egyptians were the first to extract copper from its ores and are known for making the first synthetic pigment called Egyptian blue (Loyson, 2011).

Publications in Chemistry The Web of Science (WoS) definition of chemistry covers several branches of chemistry: analytical, applied, inorganic and nuclear, medicinal, multidisciplinary, organic and physical. Of all the 446,653 publications that Africa published in science during 2001–2018, 50,396 were on topics related to the research area of chemistry. This was 11 per cent of Africa’s publications. The production trends of publications in chemistry across the years are illustrated in Fig. 5.1. Except for 2005, publications have been steadily increasing in number. Over a period of 18 years, the number of publications has increased from 1379 to 5240, with an annual growth rate of 11 per cent. A high positive correlation (r = 0.95) between

Fig. 5.1  Publication trends in chemistry, Africa, 2001–2018

162 

R. Sooryamoorthy

the year and number of publications was evident in the data. The highest average for all research areas in Africa was recorded in chemistry publications (2800 a year). Between the two periods of 2001–2009 and 2010–2018, the increase was two-fold.

Major Countries in Chemistry Research As shown in Table 5.1, the countries in Africa that were involved in the production of chemistry publications in a major way were Egypt (39% of Africa’s publications in chemistry), South Africa (21%), Tunisia (12%) and Algeria (10%). If a threshold of a minimum of 1 per cent of the total chemistry publications in Africa is taken into consideration, four more countries—Morocco (7%), Nigeria (4%), Cameroon (2%) and Ethiopia (1%)—can be added to these top producers. These eight countries were responsible for 96 per cent of all chemistry publications in Africa for the referenced period. Put differently, research in chemistry is concentrated in these 8 countries out of all 54 countries on the continent. Only 14 per cent of the countries in Africa were currently active in chemistry research. Note that these countries were involved in publications either as a single country or as a partner. As such, the total was likely to be more than the actual number of publications. There were noticeable shifts in the contributions of the aforementioned eight countries to research in the field of chemistry. These shifts Table 5.1  Publications in chemistry by African countries, 2001–2018 African countries

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

Egypt 6374 South Africa 3150 Tunisia 1626 Algeria 1483 Morocco 1619 Nigeria 727 Cameroon 268 Ethiopia 120 All publications in chemistry 16,290

%

%

39.1 13,496 39.6 19,870 19.3 7376 21.6 10,526 10.0 4512 13.2 6138 9.1 3591 10.5 5074 9.9 1882 5.5 3501 4.5 1318 3.9 2045 1.6 514 1.5 782 0.7 435 1.3 555 100 34,106 100 50,396

Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications is included

%

Increase %

39.4 20.9 12.2 10.1 6.9 4.1 1.6 1.1 100

211 234 277 242 116 181 191 362 209

5  Major Research Areas 

163

can be examined and explained in several ways. One basic method is to examine the absolute number of publications. A change from 100 publications to 150 publications in two different years or periods is an increase. In another way, this change can be measured by the extent of the increase. In this case, the increase from 100 to 150 is an increase of 1.5 times. Even for a country that published 50 and 75 publications in two periods, the increase is the same 1.5 times. At another level, in a more collective sense, it can be viewed in the percentage share of the total of Africa. When a country contributes 10  per cent of the total chemistry publications in Africa in the first period of assessment and makes 13 per cent in the next period, it is an increase. The first and third ways of measurement are more appropriate in assessing the real increase while the second one is more relevant for the measurement of change. All these are of importance to the study of the contribution of countries to Africa and the change within each country. In the second recent period of 2010–2018, the first four countries, namely Egypt, South Africa, Tunisia and Algeria, increased their respective shares of the total publications in Africa. Ethiopia also improved its portion during this period. For Morocco, Nigeria and Cameroon, a decrease in the share of publications was obvious. In the number of publications, all these countries have an increased figure to report, ranging from two to four times. In the absolute number of publications, the increase between the two periods was more obvious for both South Africa (234%) and Egypt (211%) than any other country. In percentile terms the increase was more prominent for Ethiopia (363%) and Tunisia (278%).

International Partners of Africa in Chemistry Research Other non-African countries also take part in research and publications in chemistry with Africa. The data suggests that the presence of international partners in the production of publications in chemistry in Africa has not been insignificant. France was the biggest international partner of Africa in chemistry with 15 per cent of all publications in chemistry that Africa produced (Table 5.2). Saudi Arabia was second with about 10 per cent of all publications. The USA, Germany, Spain, India, England,

164 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.2  International partners of Africa in chemistry, 2001–2018 International partners

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

%

%

%

Increase %

France 2697 16.6 4825 14.1 7522 14.9 178 Saudi Arabia 389 2.4 4522 13.3 4911 9.7 1162 USA 671 4.1 1801 5.3 2472 4.9 268 Germany 795 4.9 1576 4.6 2371 4.7 198 Spain 398 2.4 1255 3.7 1653 3.3 315 India 155 1.0 1271 3.7 1426 2.8 820 England 376 2.3 862 2.5 1238 2.5 229 China 114 0.7 1074 3.1 1188 2.4 942 Italy 273 1.7 788 2.3 1061 2.1 288 Japan 297 1.8 703 2.1 1000 2.0 236 Belgium 207 1.3 523 1.5 730 1.4 252 Canada 153 0.9 558 1.6 711 1.4 364 South Korea 83 0.5 541 1.6 624 1.2 651 Sweden 137 0.8 408 1.2 545 1.1 297 All publications in chemistry 16,290 100 34,106 100 50,396 100 209 Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was analysed

China, Italy and Japan have 2–5 per cent each of the total publications of Africa. The remaining countries such as Belgium, Canada, South Korea and Sweden contributed around 1 per cent each. Between 2001–2009 and 2010–2018, the percentages of total publications differed significantly for France, Saudi Arabia, the USA, Spain, India and China. Except for France, changes were positive for all other countries. France’s share decreased from 17  per cent to 14  per cent between the two periods. In absolute numbers, the highest increases occurred in Saudi Arabia (1162%). France (178%), the USA (268%) and Germany (198%) also recorded an increasing number of publications in the second period. A few countries that had less publications in the first period improved their respective positions later in the second period. China, India, Spain and South Korea were among them. In sum, the key international partners (at least 1000 publications or 2% of the total during the period) of Africa in chemistry were France, Saudi Arabia, the USA, Germany, Spain, India, England, China, Italy and Japan.

5  Major Research Areas 

165

Institutions Involved in Chemistry Research The details of the institutions in Africa that were mainly responsible for publications in chemistry are given in Table 5.3. The table contains publications produced by institutions along with their respective country of location which were searched and added to the data. A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications produced by any institution in the research area of chemistry was included in this analysis. Most of the institutions in chemistry research were based in three countries of Africa: Egypt, South Africa and Tunisia. A few other institutions were located in Morocco and Algeria. The institutions that produced the highest number of publications were mostly universities. Some research institutes and agencies such as the Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority have also conducted research in chemistry. Cairo University, the National Research Centre in Egypt, and Ain Shams University in Egypt accounted for 17.5 per cent (6.8%, 6.7% and 4%, respectively) of Africa’s chemistry publications during 2001–2018. The University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa was in the fourth position with its share of 3.5 per cent. While many of the prominent institutions continued to maintain their respective contributions to chemistry in both time periods (2001–2009 and 2010–2018), some increased their contributions in the second period. Among the top publishing institutions, the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa had 1.9 per cent in the first half of the period which it increased to 4.3 per cent in the second half. This growth was four-fold for the institution. The Universite De Sfax in Tunisia was another institution that increased its publications by 5 times and its share from 1.4  per cent to 3.4  per cent. The University of Johannesburg in South Africa improved its share of the total publications by three times from 0.9 per cent to 2.7 per cent in the second half. Generally, the trend between the two periods was positive for the institutions listed in the table. As seen earlier, research in chemistry on the continent was carried out mostly in Egypt, South Africa, Tunisia and Algeria. The data also showed that chemistry publications that originated from Africa have collaborations with other countries. Prominent among them were France, Saudi Arabia, the USA and Germany.

166 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.3 Major African institutions producing publications in chemistry, 2001–2018 2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

Institutions

Country

No.

%

No.

No.

Cairo University National Research Centre (NRC) Ain Shams University University of KwaZulu-Natal Universite De Tunis El Manar Mansoura University Assiut University Alexandria University Universite De Sfax Faculte Des Sciences De Tunis (FST) Universite De Monastir Al Azhar University University of Johannesburg Stellenbosch University University of Witwatersrand University of Cape Town Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority (EAEA) Zagazig University University Science Technology Houari Boumediene

Egypt Egypt

1085 1019

6.7 2360 6.3 2339

Egypt

783

South Africa Tunisia

%

Increase %

6.9 3445 6.9 3358

6.8 6.7

218 230

4.8 1371

4.0 2154

4.3

175

317

1.9 1470

4.3 1787

3.5

464

461

2.8 1191

3.5 1652

3.3

258

Egypt

540

3.3 1085

3.2 1625

3.2

201

Egypt Egypt

535 447

3.3 2.7

904 962

2.7 1439 2.8 1409

2.9 2.8

169 215

Tunisia Tunisia

227 425

1.4 1146 2.6 931

3.4 1373 2.7 1356

2.7 2.7

505 219

Tunisia

333

2.0

982

2.9 1315

2.6

295

Egypt

340

2.1

824

2.4 1164

2.3

242

South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa Egypt

143

0.9

920

2.7 1063

2.1

643

325

2.0

717

2.1 1042

2.1

221

446

2.7

580

1.7 1026

2.0

130

432

2.7

588

1.7 1020

2.0

136

349

2.1

619

1.8

968

1.9

177

Egypt Algeria

279 336

1.7 2.1

671 551

2.0 1.6

950 887

1.9 1.8

241 164

%

(continued)

167

5  Major Research Areas  Table 5.3 (continued) 2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

%

%

%

Increase %

Institutions

Country

University of Pretoria Tanta University Rhodes University

South Africa Egypt South Africa Tunisia

339 2.1

517 1.5

856

1.7 153

304 1.9 243 1.5

510 1.5 549 1.6

814 792

1.6 168 1.6 226

160 1.0

623 1.8

783

1.6 389

Egypt Egypt

296 1.8 273 1.7

434 1.3 445 1.3

730 718

1.4 147 1.4 163

Egypt

150 0.9

546 1.6

696

1.4 364

South Africa South Africa Egypt Morocco

198 1.2

484 1.4

682

1.4 244

121 0.7

511 1.5

632

1.3 422

147 0.9 246 1.5

438 1.3 311 0.9

585 557

1.2 298 1.1 126

Egypt Morocco

224 1.4 269 1.7

330 1.0 285 0.8

554 554

1.1 147 1.1 106

Morocco

284 1.7

269 0.8

553

1.1

Egypt

189 1.2

344 1.0

533

1.1 182

South Africa

88 0.5

417 1.2

505

1.0 474

Egypt

56 0.3

448 1.3

504

1.0 800

Universite De Carthage Minia University Suez Canal University Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute (EPRI) University of the Free State North West University Helwan University Mohammed V University Benha University Cadi Ayyad University of Marrakech Hassan II University of Casablanca Menofia University Council for Scientific Industrial Research (CSIR), South Africa Beni Suef University All publications in chemistry

95

16,290 100 34,106 100 50,396 100.0 209

Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was included in the data

168 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.4  Institutions of international partners of Africa producing publications in chemistry, 2001–2018 2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

Country

Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) CNRS Institute of Chemistry Inc King Saud University King Abdulaziz University Universite Paris-Saclay All publications in chemistry

France

1551 9.5

2878 8.4

4429

8.8

186

France

490 3.0

1484 4.4

1974

3.9

303

71 0.4

1367 4.0

1438

2.9 1925

75 0.5

901 2.6

976

1.9 1201

213 1.3

385 1.1

598

1.2

181

16,290 100 34,106 100 50,396 100.0

209

Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia France

%

%

%

Increase %

Institutions

Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was analysed

Table 5.4 lists the main institutions in these countries that participated in the publications of chemistry with African scholars. Four universities and one research institute each produced 1 per cent or more of all the publications in the research area. Three of them were based in France and two were in Saudi Arabia. The Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) in France was the leading partner of Africa for research in chemistry. A notable increase in both the number and share of publications was visible in two institutions in Saudi Arabia. The King Saud University and the King Abdulaziz University produced 71 and 75 publications, respectively, during 2001–2009. Later, during 2010–2018, they both bettered their publication counts to produce 1367 and 901 publications, respectively. This renewed interest in chemical research at these institutions was more apparent than in other institutions that were located outside Africa. As in the case of African institutions, these foreign institutions continued to maintain an increased level of production of publications in chemistry. However, the share of CNRS in the second period dropped from 9.5 per cent to 8.4 per cent. The Universite ParisSaclay also declined in chemistry research. This data suggests that the

5  Major Research Areas 

169

reliance of Africa in chemistry was on institutions and countries beyond the borders of the continent. The participation of these institutions in chemical research within Africa is also connected to the financial support mobilised for the purpose which can be examined in the next section. It is also of significance to note the level of dependency of Africa on these institutions for research in chemistry.

Funding for Research in Chemistry The funding aspect of research in chemistry that led to publications was explored by identifying the key funding agencies. The data is presented in Table 5.5. The location of the country of the funding agencies was sourced for the analysis. A total of 23,730 publications in chemistry included information on funding used in the research that resulted in these publications. This figure is to be compared with the total number of publications of 50,396. Of all the publications in chemistry that Africa produced, 47 per cent were funded. In the second period of 2010–2018, there was a surge in the funded publications by agencies located in different parts of the world. In the first period, there were 1801 funded publications which grew to 21,929 publications in the second period. The demand for funding in conducting research in this area is becoming increasingly apparent in the data and it can be a decisive factor for the advancement of chemistry in Africa. The main funders of research in chemistry in Africa were South Africa (21% of all funded publications for 2001–2018), Egypt (5.5%), India (5.2%), the USA (4.2%), Germany (3.7%), France (3.2%), Spain (1.8%), Saudi Arabia and Tunisia (1.6% each), and the UK (1.3%). Sweden, Japan and Canada also provided funding for research in chemistry that engaged countries from Africa. Only three countries in Africa were found in this group of major funders. Within Africa, the agencies in Egypt increased their shares of funded publications from 1.9 per cent in the first half to 5.8 per cent in the second half. For South Africa, the increase for the same period was close to 1 per cent. India strengthened its funding to chemical research in Africa

170 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.5  Funding agencies for chemistry publications in Africa, 2001–2018 Funding agencies National Research Foundation South Africaa National Research Foundationa NRFa National Research Foundation (NRF)a THRIP Science and Technology Development Fund (STDF) Department of Science Technology, India National Natural Science Foundation of China Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) European Union Alexander Von Humboldt Foundation National Science Foundation (NSF) German Research Foundation (DFG) Ministry of Higher Education Scientific Research (MHESR) Council of Scientific Industrial Research (CSIR) India United States Department of Health and Human Services

Country

2001–2009 2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

South Africa

137

7.6

1747

8.0 1884

7.9

1275

South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa Egypt

46

2.6

464

2.1

510

2.1

1009

30

1.7

355

1.6

385

1.6

1183

20

1.1

360

1.6

380

1.6

1800

13

0.7

90

0.4

103

0.4

692

7

0.4

719

3.3

726

3.1 10,271

India

43

2.4

556

2.5

599

2.5

1293

China

12

0.7

529

2.4

541

2.3

4408

France

54

3.0

454

2.1

508

2.1

841

Europe Germany

23 36

1.3 2.0

456 299

2.1 1.4

479 335

2.0 1.4

1983 831

USA

19

1.1

305

1.4

324

1.4

1605

Germany

23

1.3

284

1.3

307

1.3

1235

Egypt

11

0.6

291

1.3

302

1.3

2645

India

14

0.8

268

1.2

282

1.2

1914

USA

49

2.7

224

1.0

273

1.2

457

%

Incre. %.

(continued)

5  Major Research Areas 

171

Table 5.5 (continued) Funding agencies Tunisian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research University of KwaZulu-Natal National Institutes of Health (NIH), USA French National Research Agency (ANR) Rhodes University King Saud University Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (DAAD) Ministry of Education Culture Sports Science and Technology Japan (MEXT) South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology University of Cape Town Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Engineering Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) University of Johannesburg

Country

2001–2009 2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

Tunisia

%

No.

%

%

0.0

269

1.2 269

1.1

Incre. %.

South Africa USA

22

1.2

243

1.1 265

1.1

1105

48

2.7

215

1.0 263

1.1

448

France

12

0.7

247

1.1 259

1.1

2058

South 14 Africa Saudi 2 Arabia Germany 32

0.8

245

1.1 259

1.1

1750

0.1

254

1.2 256

1.1 12,700

1.8

216

1.0 248

1.0

675

Japan

8

0.4

240

1.1 248

1.0

3000

South Africa

2

0.1

221

1.0 223

0.9 11,050

South Africa Canada

26

1.4

186

0.8 212

0.9

715

10

0.6

197

0.9 207

0.9

1970

UK

26

1.4

170

0.8 196

0.8

654

9

0.5

174

0.8 183

0.8

1933

South Africa

(continued)

172 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.5 (continued) Funding agencies Ministry of Science and Innovation Spain (MICINN) National Research Centre (NRC) Swedish Research Council SASOL Japan Society for the Promotion of Science US Department of Energy (DOE) Medical Research Council UK (MRC) University of Witwatersrand University of Pretoria Ministry of Education and Science Spain Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University Generalitat De Catalunya University Grants Commission India Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research of Tunisia Egyptian Government University of the Free State Total publications for all funding agencies in chemistry

Country

2001–2009 2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

%

No.

%

Incre. %.

Spain

14

0.8

167 0.8

181 0.8 1193

Egypt

4

0.2

166 0.8

170 0.7 4150

Sweden

11

0.6

147 0.7

158 0.7 1336

South Africa Japan

6

0.3

147 0.7

153 0.6 2450

4

0.2

148 0.7

152 0.6 3700

USA

5

0.3

127 0.6

132 0.6 2540

UK

6

0.3

124 0.6

130 0.5 2067

South Africa South Africa Spain

18

1.0

110 0.5

128 0.5

7

0.4

120 0.5

127 0.5 1714

29

1.6

97 0.4

126 0.5

Saudi Arabia

0

0.0

123 0.6

123 0.5

Spain

4

0.2

117 0.5

121 0.5 2925

India

2

0.1

116 0.5

118 0.5 5800

0.0

109 0.5

109 0.5

0.7 0.3

92 0.4 97 0.4

Tunisia

Egypt South Africa

13 5

611

334

105 0.4 708 102 0.4 1940

1801 100 21,929 100 23,730 100 1218

Note: Agencies with a minimum of 100 publications included All are the same institution

a

%

5  Major Research Areas 

173

by adding 1 more per cent to the second period. China’s funding contribution increased from 0.7 per cent to 2.4 per cent. Saudi Arabia’s funded publications in Africa grew from 0.1 per cent to 1.8 per cent. The agencies in the USA reported a reduced share of funded publications, from 6.7 per cent to 4 per cent in the recent period of 2010–2018. Spain also shrunk its funding for chemistry in Africa from 2.6 per cent to 1.7 per cent. France lost 0.5 per cent of its share between the periods. Germany reduced its contribution significantly from 5.1  per cent to 3.7 per cent. Some government departments have also appeared on the list of funders. The analysis of the research area of chemistry presents the features in relation to publications over an 18-year period, the countries participating in chemistry research, institutions and their country locations, and funding agencies that supported research in chemistry. The findings suggest that research in chemistry is predominantly centred in Egypt, South Africa, Tunisia and Algeria. Abegaz’s (2016) observations agree with these findings. According to Abegaz, there is much disparity in the state of chemistry in Africa, there is chemical research in many countries in Africa to a certain level, the universities and research institutions that produce publications in chemistry are restricted, and there are only a few active chemical societies on the continent. Historically, chemistry has been in an advantageous position in South Africa, the key player in chemistry research. Chemistry is a flourishing discipline in South Africa which historically benefitted through huge investments for strategic reasons (Diab, 2010). Teaching in chemistry at the university level in South Africa has a history of over 150 years and one of the first departments of chemistry was started as early as 1854 (Stephen, 2005). Chemistry in South Africa is perceived to be a subject worthy of pursuing for employment (Haines, 2010). Since most of the tertiary institutions in the country have a teaching and research programme in chemistry it is easier for students to take the subject. The opportunities for employment with a qualification in chemistry are better in South Africa that attract students to this field. Partnership is an inevitable feature in chemistry. Durbach et al. (2008) found that those working in the field tend to co-author with a greater number of colleagues than those in fields like mathematics. Despite

174 

R. Sooryamoorthy

difficult conditions of the lack of funding, equipment, trained researchers and technicians, some excellent research in chemistry has been conducted on the continent (Nameroff, 2004). This was possible, as Nameroff noted, through regional networks and collaboration with developed countries. Additionally, chemistry in Africa benefits from international programmes such as the International Science Programme, the Academy of the Developed World and the International Science Foundation (Darkwa, 2014). The findings related to partnership in science have been corroborated in several other studies. The scientometric analysis of Onyancha (2011), for instance, revealed that the industrialised countries contributed to most of the externally collaborated publications in South Africa. Pouris (2010) arrived at similar findings. South Africa continues to sign partnership agreements with industrialised countries and the emerging economies such as Brazil, China, India and Russia (Jumbam, 2015). On the other hand, intra-African research collaboration is negligibly small and no prospect for improvement of the situation is envisaged (Jumbam, 2015). Chemistry in Ethiopia has also been growing and has benefitted from international partnerships (Asfaw et al., 2005, 2007). Green chemistry, which includes the design of chemical products and processes that reduces or eliminates the use and generation of hazardous substances (Jumbam, 2015), is advancing in Ethiopia. An increasingly important role for chemistry in Africa is envisaged with the emergence of initiatives and organisations to promote chemistry in education and industry (Carmichael, 2006). The African initiative is evident in the formation of the Association of Pure and Applied Chemistry to promote research in chemical sciences. Most of the research in chemistry is undertaken at universities. Chemistry research in Africa is reliant on partnerships and funding received from overseas. The findings also suggest that there were key institutions outside Africa that contributed to chemical research on the continent.

5  Major Research Areas 

175

Engineering As seen in the analysis presented in Chap. 3, engineering formed the second-highest researched and published area in Africa. About 10  per cent (45,524 publications) of all African publications for 2001–2018 fell under the area of engineering with an increase in the second of this period. The detailed analysis of this branch of science is given below.

Publications in Engineering The WoS definition of engineering as a core research area includes branches such as aerospace, biomedical, chemical, civil, electrical and electronic, environmental, geological, industrial, manufacturing, marine, mechanical, multidisciplinary, ocean and petroleum. As demonstrated in Fig. 5.2, engineering, like chemistry, was a research area in Africa that continued to produce an increasing number of publications over the last 18 years. It grew from less than 1000 publications in

Fig. 5.2  Publication trends in engineering, Africa, 2001–2018

176 

R. Sooryamoorthy

2001 to over 5000 publications in 2018. Africa produced an average of 2362 papers per year in engineering. This represents a stable average annual growth of 11 per cent. A positive significant correlation (r = 0.95) between the year of publications and the number of publications in engineering was found in the data. The increase between the first and second half of the period was 286 per cent, which was higher than that which occurred in chemistry in the same reference period.

Major Countries in Engineering Research Seven African countries produced at least 1 per cent of Africa’s publications in engineering. In declining order were Egypt, South Africa, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Nigeria and Cameroon, collectively accounting for 93  per cent of all engineering publications in Africa for 2001–2018 (Table 5.6). As noted earlier, these countries appeared in these publications either as a single contributor or as a partner. Among them, the first four countries—Egypt, South Africa, Algeria and Tunisia—together had 81 per cent of the total publications in engineering. As the data indicates, engineering research in Africa remained in the hands of Egypt, South Africa, Algeria and Tunisia. While the average increase in engineering publications during 2001–2018 and for all countries in Africa was 286 per cent, the increase for the four top countries was an average of 307 per cent. Separately, the increase was 3.2 times for Table 5.6  Publications in engineering by African countries, 2001–2018 African countries Egypt South Africa Algeria Tunisia Morocco Nigeria Cameroon All publications in engineering

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

No.

3357 2650 1531 1328 668 569 134 11,006

30.5 10,591 33.6 13,948 24.1 6335 20.1 8985 13.9 5418 17.2 6949 12.1 4252 13.5 5580 6.1 1621 5.1 2289 5.2 1519 4.8 2088 1.2 337 1.1 471 100 31,518 100 42,524

%

Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was analysed

%

Increase %

32.8 21.1 16.3 13.1 5.4 4.9 1.1 100

315 239 353 320 242 267 251 286

5  Major Research Areas 

177

Egypt, 2.4 times for South Africa, 3.5 times for Algeria and 3.2 times for Tunisia. Individually and in absolute numbers of publications, the growth stood out more for Egypt than any other major country involved in engineering research. It produced 10,591 publications during 2010–2018 as against 3357 publications during 2001–2009 with over 4000 publications more than what the second highest producer, South Africa produced. Again, between the two periods of 2001–2009 and 2010–2018, the growth rate in the percentage to the total was positive for Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia. The respective shares of publications in percentile terms but not in real numbers declined in the second period for South Africa (by 4% from 2001–2009), Morocco (1%), Nigeria (0.4%) and Cameroon (0.1%). In the number of publications, Cameroon was at the bottom of the major countries in engineering research with a total count of 471 publications in 18 years. As in the case of chemistry, very few African countries had a role in engineering research. This demonstrates not just a disparity across the continent in scientific areas such as engineering, but also the limitations that Africa has in the production of publications in engineering by centring around fewer countries, mostly in North Africa. Except for South Africa, the dominance of North African countries is seemingly repeated in engineering research. The limited number of countries that are active in science in Africa also relates to their strengths in scientific systems and science and technology policies that guide their scientific systems, in relation to other scientifically weak countries in Africa.

International Partners of Africa in Engineering Research The major international partners of Africa in engineering research are given in Table 5.7. Partners that contributed to the production of a minimum of 1 per cent of all publications in engineering with African countries were analysed. France had the highest percentage with 14 per cent, followed by Saudi Arabia (6.8%), the USA (6.2%) and Canada (4%). The other partners that produced 1000 papers or more in engineering with their African counterparts were England and China. Germany,

178 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.7  International partners of Africa in engineering, 2001–2018 International partners France Saudi Arabia USA Canada England China Germany India Japan Spain Malaysia Australia Italy Belgium All publications in engineering

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

%

%

%

Increase %

1531 13.9 4530 14.4 6061 14.3 295 173 1.6 2726 8.6 2899 6.8 1575 774 7.0 1865 5.9 2639 6.2 241 382 3.5 1325 4.2 1707 4.0 346 386 3.5 1083 3.4 1469 3.5 280 90 0.8 1187 3.8 1277 3.0 1318 259 2.4 739 2.3 998 2.3 285.3 72 0.7 735 2.3 807 1.9 1020.8 158 1.4 575 1.8 733 1.7 363.9 113 1.0 593 1.9 706 1.7 524.8 38 0.3 606 1.9 644 1.5 1594.7 23 0.2 480 1.5 595 1.4 2087.0 94 0.9 400 1.3 494 1.2 425.5 94 0.9 385 1.2 479 1.1 409.6 11,006 100 31,518 100 42,524 100 286.4

Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was analysed

India, Japan, Spain, Malaysia and Australia became partners in engineering research in Africa by producing over 500 but less than 1000 papers. Italy and Belgium remain at the bottom with less than 500 papers each. Among the international partners, Saudi Arabia was the only country that had a solid increase from 1.6 per cent to 8.6 per cent in the share of its publications between the two periods. France and Canada, the other leading partners of Africa in engineering research, also increased their number of publications with African countries. Asian countries such as China, India, Japan and Malaysia have exhibited a new interest in collaborating with African partners in engineering research. This is manifested more in the second half than in the first half. China’s increase from 0.8 per cent to 3.8 per cent in collaborated publications with African countries is close to five times. Spain also had an increasing share of publications in the second period. On the other hand, the participation in terms of the share of the publications of the USA, England and Germany in engineering research with African countries has declined recently. The USA registered the highest decrease of 1.1  per

5  Major Research Areas 

179

cent. In the number of publications, on the other hand, France increased its number by 2.9 times in the second period. Saudi Arabia substantially improved its count by 16 times, the highest among those partners that made 1000 publications or more to their credit, the USA by 2.4 times, Canada by 3.5 times, England by 2.8 times and China by 13 times. In the same measure of the number of publications, Malaysia, Australia, Italy and Belgium were recent entrants as partners of Africa in engineering research. They had less than 100 publications each during 2001–2009. The partnership features of engineering research as observed in the data suggest that Africa has two prominent international players, namely France and Saudi Arabia, to rely on for advancing research in this discipline. Both of these countries have been expanding their collaboration with Africa, while some of the traditional partners have been losing interest lately. At the same time, new partnership formations have been forged by countries mostly in the South. This will alter the balance in partnerships as more new players are coming to the fore to collaborate with African countries.

Institutions Involved in Engineering Research Following the international partners that were involved in engineering research in Africa, the key institutions that were productive in engineering research and publications were examined. This analysis was done separately for Africa-based institutions and the institutions outside Africa. In Table 5.8, any institution that produced a minimum of 1 per cent of all publications in engineering was given in descending order of the number of total publications. There were 28 institutions in Africa that engaged in engineering research. These institutions represented four countries, namely Egypt, South Africa, Tunisia and Algeria. Most of the organisations (12) were in Egypt, South Africa (7) and Tunisia (6). Three institutions were based in Algeria. On the top of the list of Table 5.8 was Cairo University in Egypt that produced more than 2000 publications (4.8%) during the whole period of 2001–2018. The University of Pretoria (South Africa) came second with 1539 publications. Seven other institutions produced publications

180 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.8 Major African institutions producing publications in engineering, 2001–2018 Institutions Cairo University University of Pretoria Ain Shams University Universite De Tunis El Manar Alexandria University Stellenbosch University University of KwaZulu-Natal University of Cape Town National Research Centre (NRC) University of Witwatersrand Universite De Sfax Mansoura University Universite De Monastir University Science Technology Houari Boumediene Menofia University Zagazig University Assiut University Ecole Nationale D Ingenieurs De Tunis (ENIT) Helwan University University Djillali Liabes Sidi Bel Abbes University of Johannesburg Tanta University

Country 2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

%

%

Increase %

No.

%

Egypt South Africa Egypt Tunisia

616 494

5.6 1436 4.5 1045

4.6 2052 3.3 1539

4.8 233 3.6 211

346 278

3.1 1004 2.5 1066

3.2 1350 3.4 1344

3.2 290 3.2 383

Egypt

248

2.3

996

3.2 1244

2.9 401

South Africa South Africa South Africa Egypt

388

3.5

855

2.7 1243

2.9 220

275

2.5

916

2.9 1191

2.8 333

371

3.4

748

2.4 1119

2.6 201

333

3.0

737

2.3 1070

2.5 221

South Africa Tunisia Egypt Tunisia

297

2.7

663

2.1

960

2.3 223

99 237 245

0.9 2.2 2.2

850 681 666

2.7 2.2 2.1

949 918 911

2.2 858 2.2 287 2.1 271

Algeria

276

2.5

630

2.0

906

2.1 228

Egypt Egypt Egypt Tunisia

145 155 135 72

1.3 1.4 1.2 0.7

607 595 559 552

1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8

752 750 728 705

1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7

Egypt Algeria

123 94

1.1 0.9

510 539

1.6 1.7

630 633

1.5 414 1.5 573

South Africa Egypt

134

1.2

465

1.5

599

1.4 347

108

1.0

487

1.5

595

1.4 450

418 383 414 766

(continued)

181

5  Major Research Areas  Table 5.8 (continued) Institutions

Country 2001–2009 No.

142 Egyptian Petroleum Egypt Research Institute (EPRI) 145 Faculte Des Sciences Tunisia De Tunis (FST) Universite De Tunisia 41 Carthage 19 Council for Scientific South Africa Industrial Research (CSIR) Benha University Egypt 90 Universite Algeria 140 Constantine All publications in engineering 10,006

%

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

%

%

Increase %

1.3

431 1.4

573 1.3

303

1.3

417 1.3

562 1.3

287

0.4

514 1.6

555 1.3 1253

0.2

375 1.2

513 1.2 1973

0.8 1.3

396 1.3 295 0.9

486 1.1 435 1.0

440 210

100 31,518 100 42,524 100

332

Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was analysed

in the region of 1000–1350 each. The top 9 institutions accounted for about one-third of all publications in engineering. The trends for the two periods are important. In terms of the percentage to total publications, or the contributions of institutions to engineering research in Africa, the top producer (Cairo University) decreased its share from 5.6 per cent during 2001–2008 to 4.6 per cent during 2010–2018. The University of Pretoria also lost part of its share from 4.5 per cent to 3.3 per cent. However, the Universite De Tunis El Manar (Tunisia) and the Alexandra University (Egypt) improved their contributions. Other notable increases between the two periods were reported by the Universite De Sfax in Tunisia (from 0.9% to 2.7%), Ecole Nationale D Ingenieurs De Tunis in Tunisia (from 0.7% to 1.8%) and the Universite De Carthage in Tunisia (from 0.4% to 1.6%). An average threefold increase in the number of publications for all the institutions listed in the table was observed. The highest increases were from the Council for Scientific Industrial Research in South Africa and the Universite De Carthage and the Universite De Sfax, both in Tunisia. The Universite De Sfax (Tunisia), Alexandria University (Egypt), Menofia University (Egypt), Helwan University (Egypt), Tanta University (Egypt)

182 

R. Sooryamoorthy

and Benha University (Egypt) increased their publication count by four-­ fold in the recent period. In line with the previous finding regarding the most productive countries in engineering, these institutions were also located in Egypt, South Africa, Tunisia and Algeria. As for the institutions outside Africa and representing international partners, five institutions from two countries produced at least 1 per cent of all publications of Africa in engineering (Table  5.9). The Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique in France had the highest number and highest share of publications in engineering with their counterparts in Africa. The 2427 publications the institution produced with Africa during 2001–2018 form 5.7 per cent of all publications in engineering. The CNRS Institute for Engineering Systems Sciences in France was another major institution that produced 1.6  per cent of publications. Saudi Arabia through the King Abdulaziz University and King Saud University made 1.6 per cent and 1.5 per cent respectively. Both these institutions considerably increased their publications several times during 2010–2018. The institutions in France were involved in the production Table 5.9  Institutions of international partners of Africa producing publications in engineering, 2001–2018 Institutions Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) King Abdulaziz University CNRS Institute for Engineering Systems Sciences (INSIS) King Saud University Universite De Lorraine Total publications in engineering

Country France

Saudi Arabia France

Saudi Arabia France

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

%

%

%

2427 5.7

Increase %

635 5.8

1792 5.7

28 0.3

639 2.0

667 1.6 2282

101 0.9

522 1.7

623 1.5

43 0.4

559 1.8

602 1.4 1300

115 1.0

311 1.0

426 1.0

270

10,006 100 31,518 100 42,524 100

332

Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was analysed

282

516

5  Major Research Areas 

183

of 8.2 per cent of all of Africa’s publications in engineering while those in Saudi Arabia produced 3 per cent of publications. These institutions contributed to 11  per cent of all publications that Africa produced in engineering.

Funding for Research in Engineering Twenty-six per cent of all publications in engineering (11,177 publications) received funding. More than 500 agencies were on the list of the funding agencies for engineering. All funding agencies that supported a minimum of 100 publications were included in the analysis. South Africa led other countries in Africa with the highest percentage of publications that were funded by its own national agencies (Table 5.10). The country has 13  per cent of the total of all funded publications in engineering. Its principal funding agency is the National Research Foundation (NRF) which is a government institution established to support research in both science and the social sciences. Egypt pursued South Africa with half of the latter’s funded publications (6.1%). China supported 5.1 per cent of publications through the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Other prominent countries where a minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was taken into account were Canada (3.1%), India (2.6%), the USA (1.9%), the UK (1.6%), Saudi Arabia (1.4%), France (1.2%), Japan (1.1%) and Germany (0.9%). The European Union contributed to the funding of 2.3 per cent of publications in engineering in Africa. Countries by and large support engineering research in Africa mainly through one core funding body. During the first half of the period barely 10 per cent of the publications were supported by any funding agencies. By the second half of the period, the percentage of funded publications has increased to 34  per cent. The total count of funding agencies for the two periods does not necessarily tally as the number of minimum funding agencies is taken into account. The funding patterns of these agencies and their respective countries are evident in the data. There has been a growth in the number of publications that received funding in the second period. This is shown in the

184 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.10  Funding agencies for engineering publications in Africa, 2001–2018 Funding agencies National Research Foundation South Africaa National Research Foundationa National Research Foundation NRFa NRFa National Natural Science Foundation of China Science and Technology Development Fund (STDF) Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Ministry of Higher Education Scientific Research (MHESR) European Union National Science Foundation (NSF) Engineering Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Council of Scientific Industrial Research (CSIR) India French National Research Agency (ANR) Department of Science Technology, India

Country

2001–2009 2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

South Africa

59

6.2

731

South Africa South Africa South Africa China

10

1.1

10

%

Increase %

6.9 790

7.1

1239

221

2.1 231

2.1

2210

1.1

209

2.0 219

2.0

2090

8

0.8

108

1.0 116

1.0

1350

5

0.5

562

5.3 567

5.1 11,240

7

0.7

416

3.9 423

3.8

5943

Canada

19

2.0

323

3.0 342

3.1

1700

Egypt

14

1.5

250

2.4 264

2.4

1786

Europe USA

24 22

2.5 2.3

229 195

2.2 253 1.8 217

2.3 1.9

954 886

UK

24

2.5

151

1.4 175

1.6

629

India

4

0.4

155

1.5 159

1.4

3875

France

4

0.4

134

1.3 138

1.2

3350

India

6

0.6

127

1.2 133

1.2

2117

Egypt

(continued)

5  Major Research Areas 

185

Table 5.10 (continued) Funding agencies

Country

2001–2009 2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

Japan 12 Ministry of Education Culture Sports Science and Technology Japan (MEXT) South 0 South African Africa Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology King Saud University Saudi 1 Arabia Germany 15 Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (DAAD) 948 Total publications for all funding agencies in engineering

%

No.

%

%

Increase %

1.3

112 1.1

124 1.1

0.0

123 1.2

123 1.1

0.1

160 1.5

161 1.4 16,000

1.6

89 0.8

100

104 0.9

933

593

10,598 100 11,177 100

Note: Agencies with a minimum of 100 publications included All are the same institution

a

last column of Table 5.10. China and Saudi Arabia made a substantial rise in their funding for engineering research in Africa. India also pursued the same path. Canada supported publications from 2 to 3 per cent (in the two periods), Egypt from 2.2 to 6.3 per cent, India from 1 to 2.7 per cent, Saudi Arabia from 0.1 to 1.5  per cent and France from 0.4 to 1.3 per cent. Japan declined its share from 1.3 to 1.1 per cent, the UK from 2.5 to 1.4 per cent and the USA from 2.3 to 1.8 per cent. The data analysed above presents the trends and features of engineering research in Africa. Engineering is a major area of research in Africa with about 10 per cent of all publications. A broad range of branches was included in this research area. In the production of publications in engineering, a steady growth was reported in the 18-year period of analysis. Between the two periods, there was an increase of about three times in the number of publications. Most of the publications in this research area

186 

R. Sooryamoorthy

originated from a few countries, namely Egypt, South Africa, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Nigeria. In engineering research, Africa sought partners mainly from France, Saudi Arabia, the USA, Canada, England and China. A few other partners, including Asian countries, have also co-produced engineering publications with African countries. As far as the highly producing institutions in engineering research were concerned, three countries in Africa were represented: Egypt, South Africa and Tunisia. About a quarter of publications were financially supported. Both national and international agencies provided support to conduct research. The analysis showed the countries in Africa that have produced publications in engineering. South Africa was among the top publishers in engineering publications. It also indicated the increasing trends in the number of publications in the field. The findings resonate with those reported by others. Patra and Muchie (2017) in their study of publications in Scopus found that engineering publications in Africa increased exponentially after 2000 and were receiving numerous citations. These publications in the view of Patra and Muchie have a significant impact on continental and global collaborations. As seen in the analysis, a number of countries in Africa do not appear to have the capacity for engineering research, if the features of publications are taken into consideration. Africa has challenges with the shortage of engineering skills. At the same time, graduates find it difficult to find employment in engineering fields (Sheikheldin & Nyichomba, 2019). Matthews et al. (2012) reported capacity issues in the engineering sector in sub-Saharan Africa. According to them, a wide range of causes are responsible, ranging from the poor quality of engineering education to the failure of foreign companies to ensure knowledge transfer to the local workforce in the region. Sheikheldin and Nyichomba (2019) pointed out other causes such as gaps in policies, a shortage of funding for higher education, an increased reliance on foreign funding and the lack of sufficient understanding of engineering problems by policy makers. These all contribute to Africa’s standing in the knowledge production of engineering fields. For other countries weak in engineering, and engineering research in particular, these factors are of significance and need to be addressed.

5  Major Research Areas 

187

Physics Physics is the third important scientific area for Africa as reflected in the number of publications in the field. The following section looks at the features of research in various fields within physics.

Publications in Physics The branches of physics, as covered in the WoS, are applied, atomic, molecular and chemical, condensed matter, fluids and plasma, mathematical, multidisciplinary, nuclear and particles and fields. With 8.2 per cent of all of Africa’s publications, this research area had 36,809 publications during 2001–2018. Of these, 11,777 publications were produced in the first half of the period (2001–2009) and the remaining 25,032 publications in the second half (2010–2018). While this is an increase in terms of the number of publications the actual percentage of the total declined by 0.7 per cent in the second half. Except for the year 2010, there was a steady increase in the production of publications in the research area from 2001–2018 (Fig.  5.3). From 1049 publications in 2001 to 3864 publications in 2018, the research area recorded an average growth rate of 11 per cent per annum. Physics publications appeared on an average of 2362 papers a year during the 18-year period. Over this period, the percentage of increase was more than three times. As in the case of chemistry and engineering, a similar level of correlation (r = 0.95) existed for physics in Africa between the number of publications and the year of publications.

Major Countries in Physics Research In Africa, a few countries were ahead of others in physics publications (Table 5.11). During 2001–2018, Egypt produced 31 per cent of all of Africa’s publications in physics, South Africa 24 per cent, Algeria 16 per cent and Tunisia and Morocco 12 per cent each. Two other countries, Cameroon and Nigeria had about 3 per cent each. The presence of the

188 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Fig. 5.3  Publication trends in physics, Africa, 2001–2018 Table 5.11  Publications in physics by African countries, 2001–2018 African countries

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

%

%

%

Egypt 3834 32.6 7575 30.3 11,409 31.0 South Africa 2394 20.3 6285 25.1 8679 23.6 Algeria 1957 16.6 4046 16.2 6003 16.3 Tunisia 1293 11.0 3227 12.9 4520 12.3 Morocco 1438 12.2 2890 11.5 4328 11.8 Cameroon 342 2.9 645 2.6 987 2.7 Nigeria 189 1.6 767 3.1 956 2.6 All publications in physics 11,777 100.0 25,032 100.0 36,809 100.0

Increase % 198 263 207 250 201 189 406 213

Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was analysed

first four countries was found in about 95 per cent of all publications in physics. Each publication might have more than one author representing more than one country or institution. In the analysis, only the total publications in physics were considered. The average increase in publications between the two periods of 2001–2009 and 2010–2018 was more than double. Most of the countries given in the table achieved a growth of

5  Major Research Areas 

189

more than two times. Nigeria was an exception with an increase of four times. Only a few countries have been able to contribute to most of the publications in physics, showing the concentration of research in physics in these countries. As in the case of chemistry and engineering, the leaders in physics research are countries like Egypt, South Africa, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco. Scientific research and publications in the field of physics remain in these countries that continue to produce knowledge at an increasing level. Other countries on the continent have a poor record of research and publications in this area, which is a cause of concern for the advancement of physics in Africa. This will only widen the gap between African countries in scientific growth and development and prevent the continent from taking advantage of the developments in scientific fields like physics. This has great significance for the development of Africa.

International Partners of Africa in Physics Research Research in physics has attracted significant interest from international partners in Africa. About 113 countries from outside the continent took part in physics research with Africa. International partners in physics up to a minimum of 500 publications are shown in Table 5.12. There were 43 countries that took part in the publication of at least 1000 papers in physics. As a research area, physics seems to be different from chemistry and engineering. Research in physics recruited more authors and therefore more countries than any other subject area. This was due to the nature of research that was undertaken in the discipline which requires skills, equipment and data from many resources, locations and countries. A single publication in physics might engage hundreds of researchers. France was leading other non-African countries in collaborating with Africa to produce publications in physics (Table 5.12). Along with other countries in Africa it produced 22 per cent of all physics publications in Africa during 2001–2018. Germany, Saudi Arabia and the USA came after France engaging in 11 per cent each. Other countries that were participants in physics publications in Africa and produced 5 per cent each

190 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.12  International partners of Africa in physics, 2001–2018 2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

International partners

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

France Germany Saudi Arabia USA Italy England China Spain India Russia Turkey Poland Switzerland Brazil Czech Republic Greece Hungary Austria Japan Portugal Armenia Taiwan Serbia Colombia Belarus Georgia Canada Sweden South Korea Belgium Romania Pakistan Malaysia Mexico Australia Netherlands Iran Denmark Finland Bulgaria

2331 904 392 601 485 457 189 249 156 133 34 184 117 61 76 55 46 64 255 100 27 35 10 5 9 1 182 158 58 240 59 68 19 42 65 73 18 59 31 26

19.8 7.7 3.3 5.1 4.1 3.9 1.6 2.1 1.3 1.1 0.3 1.6 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 2.2 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.5 1.3 0.5 2.0 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2

5575 3094 3574 3335 2614 2591 2594 2323 2203 2201 2220 2043 1949 1959 1894 1847 1793 1767 1559 1696 1768 1669 1631 1538 1531 1520 1313 1259 1328 1124 1294 1235 1229 1199 1166 1156 1152 1042 1055 1050

22.3 12.4 14.3 13.3 10.4 10.4 10.4 9.3 8.8 8.8 8.9 8.2 7.8 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.1 6.2 6.8 7.1 6.7 6.5 6.1 6.1 6.1 5.2 5.0 5.3 4.5 5.2 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.2

7906 3998 3966 3936 3099 3048 2783 2572 2359 2334 2254 2227 2066 2020 1970 1902 1839 1831 1814 1796 1795 1704 1641 1543 1540 1521 1495 1417 1386 1364 1353 1303 1248 1241 1231 1229 1170 1101 1086 1076

21.5 239 10.9 342 10.8 912 10.7 555 8.4 539 8.3 567 7.6 1372 7.0 933 6.4 1412 6.3 1655 6.1 6529 6.1 1110 5.6 1666 5.5 3211 5.4 2492 5.2 3358 5.0 3898 5.0 2761 4.9 611 4.9 1696 4.9 6548 4.6 4769 4.5 16,310 4.2 30,760 4.2 17,011 4.1 152,000 4.1 721 3.8 797 3.8 2290 3.7 468 3.7 2193 3.5 1816 3.4 6468 3.4 2855 3.3 1794 3.3 1584 3.2 6400 3.0 1766 3.0 3403 2.9 4038

Increase %

(continued)

5  Major Research Areas 

191

Table 5.12 (continued) International partners

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

%

Norway 17 0.1 Ukraine 15 0.1 Croatia 16 0.1 Slovakia 12 0.1 Scotland 70 0.6 Chile 16 0.1 Israel 32 0.3 Argentina 47 0.4 Slovenia 10 0.1 Azerbaijan 2 0.0 New Zealand 8 0.1 Cyprus 1 0.0 Estonia 1 0.0 Thailand 4 0.0 Lithuania 1 0.0 Qatar 15 0.1 Ireland 22 0.2 Sri Lanka 6 0.1 All publications in physics 11,777 100

%

1052 4.2 1038 4.1 1022 4.1 1013 4.0 919 3.7 921 3.7 880 3.5 804 3.2 823 3.3 819 3.3 775 3.1 778 3.1 763 3.0 760 3.0 758 3.0 623 2.5 589 2.4 504 2.0 25,032 100

%

1069 2.9 1053 2.9 1038 2.8 1025 2.8 989 2.7 937 2.5 912 2.5 851 2.3 833 2.3 821 2.2 783 2.1 779 2.1 764 2.1 764 2.1 759 2.1 638 1.7 611 1.7 510 1.4 36,809 100

Increase % 6188 6920 6388 8442 1313 5756 2750 1711 8230 40,950 9688 77,800 76,300 19,000 75,800 4153 2677 8400 213

Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was analysed

or more were Italy, England and China (8% each), Spain (7%), India, Russia, Turkey, Poland, Switzerland, Brazil (6% each), the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary and Austria (5% each). Table 5.12 also shows all international partners of Africa that participated in at least 1 per cent of all the publications in physics. Included were countries from Asia, Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, North America and Oceania. In the absolute number of publications, a few countries recorded marked increases in publications in the second half. Among the top collaborators with Africa in physics, Saudi Arabia increased the number of publications by 9-fold, China 14 times, India 14 times, Russia 17 times, Turkey 65 times, Poland 11 times, Switzerland 17 times, Brazil 32 times, Czech Republic 25 times, Greece 34 times, Hungary 39 times and Austria 28 times. There has also been an increase in the percentages of contributions to the total. France improved its share of Africa’s publications in the

192 

R. Sooryamoorthy

second period by about 2 per cent, China 9 per cent, England 6 per cent, Germany about 5  per cent, Italy 6  per cent, Russia 7  per cent, Saudi Arabia 11  per cent, Spain 7  per cent, Turkey 8  per cent and the USA 8 per cent. The average increase between the two periods for all international partners in Table  5.12 was about two-fold. In physics research, some countries are new in Africa although they increased their publications from a single or two digits to three digits in the second half. Although some of the international partners of Africa in chemistry and engineering are found to be present in the case of research in physics, more countries from the Global South and Eastern Europe have shown an interest in collaborating with Africa. Most of these countries have recorded an increased level of collaboration with their African partners by engaging in research in the field in the second half of the period. As in the cases of chemistry and engineering, Saudi Arabia has a significant place in its association with Africa, particularly with North Africa.

Institutions Involved in Physics Research Given the nature of collaborative research in physics, a relatively large number of institutions were at the forefront. The data presented in Tables 5.13 and 5.14 refers to the institutions that produced a minimum of 1000 publications in physics during 2001–2018. There were more foreign institutions than those located in Africa. In Africa, only 13 institutions took part in the production of at least 1000 publications in physics for the entire period of 18 years. These 13 institutions were responsible for the production of 53 per cent of Africa’s publications in physics during 2001–2018. Between the periods of 2001–2009 and 2010–2018, there was an increase in this percentage from 139 to 160 for these institutions. All of them had an increase of more than the average for all institutions (212%). The highest increases in percentage occurred at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa (seven times) followed by the Universite Mohammed Premier (six times), CADI Ayyad University of Marrakech (five times) and Mohammed V University (five times), all of which were in Morocco. More than one institution may be found in a single publication due to the association of authors from different

193

5  Major Research Areas 

Table 5.13  Major African institutions producing publications in physics, 2001–2018 Institutions

Country

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

Ain Shams Egypt 680 University University of South 441 Witwatersrand Africa University of Cape South 386 Town Africa Mohammed V Morocco 291 University Cairo University Egypt 502 University of South 443 KwaZulu-Natal Africa University of South 166 Johannesburg Africa Universite De Tunis Tunisia 456 El Manar CADI Ayyad Morocco 207 University of Marrakech Hassan II University Morocco 219 of Casablanca Faculte Des Sciences Tunisia 367 De Tunis (FST) Universite De Tunisia 294 Monastir Universite Morocco 132 Mohammed Premier All publications in physics 11,777

%

%

%

% Increase

5.8

1426 5.7

2106 5.7 209

3.7

1663 6.6

2104 5.7 377

3.3

1469 5.9

1855 5.0 380

2.5

1488 5.9

1779 4.8 511

4.3 3.8

1252 5.0 1055 4.2

1754 4.8 249 1498 4.1 238

1.4

1301 5.2

1467 4.0 783

3.9

980 3.9

1436 3.9 214

1.8

1096 4.4

1303 3.5 529

1.9

1051 4.2

1270 3.5 479

3.1

671 2.7

1038 2.8 182

2.5

738 2.9

1032 2.8 251

1.1

874 3.5

1006 2.7 662

100 25,032 100 36,809 100 212

Note: A minimum of 1% of all publications was analysed

institutions. These 13 institutions came from four countries: Egypt, South Africa, Morocco and Tunisia. The two highest-producing institutions in Africa, Ain Shams University and the University of Witwatersrand, are in Egypt and South Africa respectively. They contributed to about 2100 publications each to Africa’s total publications in physics. Egypt has two highly productive institutions in physics, South Africa has four, Morocco has four and Tunisia has two. All of these institutions are universities.

194 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.14  Institutions of international partners of Africa producing publications in physics, 2001–2018 Institutions Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) Universite Paris-Saclay US Department of Energy (DOE) French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) Helmholtz Association CNRS National Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (IN2P3) Istituto Nazionale Di Fisica Nucleare Joint Institute for Nuclear Research Russia Russian Academy of Science Lebedev Physical Institute University of California System Russian Academy of Sciences Consejo Superior De Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC)

Country

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

France

1304

11.1

4193

16.8 5497

14.9

321

France

344

2.9

2231

8.9 2575

7.0

648

97

0.8

2031

8.1 2128

5.8

2093

France

127

1.1

1992

8.0 2119

5.8

1568

Germany

155

1.3

1942

7.8 2097

5.7

1252

France

100

0.8

1984

7.9 2084

5.7

1984

Italy

113

1.0

1959

7.8 2072

5.6

1733

Russia

37

0.3

1911

7.6 1948

5.3

5164

Russia

46

0.4

1881

7.5 1927

5.2

4089

USA

37

0.3

1863

7.4 1900

5.2

5035

Russia

46

0.4

1835

7.3 1881

5.1

3989

Spain

107

0.9

1761

7.0 1868

5.1

1645

USA

Increase %

%

(continued)

5  Major Research Areas 

195

Table 5.14 (continued) Institutions National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) Sapienza University Rome Hungarian Academy of Sciences Ohio State University Alikhanov Institute for Theoretical Experimental Physics Lomonosov Moscow State University Yerevan Physics Institute Chinese Academy of Sciences University of Bologna University of Athens Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute University of Chicago Communaute Universite Grenoble Alpes

Country

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

%

%

%

Increase %

Russia

21

0.2 1825

7.3 1846

5.0

8690

Switzerland

61

0.5 1778

7.1 1839

5.0

2914

Italy

22

0.2 1795

7.2 1817

4.9

8159

Hungary

41

0.3 1774

7.1 1815

4.9

4326

USA

10

0.1 1790

7.2 1800

4.9

17,900

0.0 1792

7.2 1792

4.9

Russia

Russia

20

0.2 1770

7.1 1790

4.9

8850

Armenia

24

0.2 1762

7.0 1786

4.9

7341

China

75

0.6 1708

6.8 1783

4.8

2277

Italy

27

0.2 1744

7.0 1771

4.8

6459

Greece

0.0 1740

7.0 1740

4.7

Russia

0.0 1709

6.8 1709

4.6

32

0.3 1667

6.7 1699

4.6

5209

170

1.4 1502

6.0 1672

4.5

883

USA France

(continued)

196 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.14 (continued) Institutions Science Technology Facilities Council (STFC) STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory University of Belgrade Universite Grenoble Alpes (UGA) University of Illinois System State University of New York Suny System Autonomous University of Madrid University of Naples Federico II University of Pavia University of Pisa Charles University Prague University of Wisconsin System Universite Paris Sud Paris 11 Institute of High Energy Physics (CAS) University of Wisconsin Madison Boston University University of Iowa Belarusian State University

Country

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Increase %

UK

40

0.3

1624

6.5

1664

4.5

4060

UK

39

0.3

1620

6.5

1659

4.5

4153

Serbia

10

0.1

1618

6.5

1628

4.4

16,180

France

140

1.2

1483

5.9

1623

4.4

1059

USA

11

0.1

1594

6.4

1605

4.4

14,490

USA

20

0.2

1584

6.3

1604

4.4

7920

Spain

44

0.4

1551

6.2

1595

4.3

3525

Italy

28

0.2

1546

6.2

1574

4.3

5521

21 24

0.0 0.2 0.2

1564 1543 1524

6.2 6.2 6.1

1564 1564 1548

4.2 4.2 4.2

7347 6350

0.0

1546

6.2

1546

4.2

2.3

1269

5.1

1536

4.2

China

0.0

1533

6.1

1533

4.2

USA

0.0

1531

6.1

1531

4.2

USA USA Belarus

0.0 0.0 0.0

1530 1517 1516

6.1 6.1 6.1

1530 1517 1516

4.2 4.1 4.1

Italy Italy Czech Republic USA

France

267

475

(continued)

5  Major Research Areas 

197

Table 5.14 (continued) Institutions Bogazici University Laboratorio De Instrumentacao E Fisica Experimental De Particulas Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP) Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University National Research Nuclear University Mephi Moscow Engineering Physics Institute University of Genoa Argonne National Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Max Planck Society University of Rome Tor Vergata Universites De Strasbourg Etablissements Associes Istituto Nazionale Geofisica E Vulcanologia (INGV) Universite Claude Bernard Lyon 1

Country

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Turkey

0.0

1512

6.0

1512

4.1

Portugal

0.0

1503

6.0

1503

4.1

China

0.0

1471

5.9

1471

4.0

Georgia

0.0

1471

5.9

1471

4.0

Russia

0.0

1423

5.7

1423

3.9

Increase %

Italy

10

0.1

1391

5.6

1401

3.8

13,910

USA

29

0.2

1353

5.4

1382

3.8

4665

USA

27

0.2

1311

5.2

1338

3.6

4855

226

1.9

1094

4.4

1320

3.6

484

11

0.1

1278

5.1

1289

3.5

11,618

115

1.0

1151

4.6

1266

3.4

1000

0.0

1259

5.0

1259

3.4

1.0

1124

4.5

1247

3.4

Germany Italy

France

Italy

France

123

913

(continued)

198 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.14 (continued) Institutions Universite De Strasbourg University of Hamburg Sorbonne Universite Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics Institut National Polytechnique De Grenoble National Center of Particles High Energy Physics Belarus Polish Academy of Sciences Czech Academy of Sciences Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Czech Technical University Prague Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences University of Tokyo University of Texas System Aix Marseille Universite

Country France Germany France

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Increase %

112

1.0

1110

4.4

1222

3.3

991

10

0.1

1203

4.8

1213

3.3

12,030

152

1.3

1054

4.2

1206

3.3

693

0.0

1204

4.8

1204

3.3

199

1.7

1000

4.0

1199

3.3

502

81

0.7

1112

4.4

1193

3.2

1372

0.0

1174

4.7

1174

3.2

Russia

Italy

France

Belarus

Poland

71

0.6

1100

4.4

1171

3.2

1549

Czech Republic USA

43

0.4

1068

4.3

1111

3.0

2483

17

0.1

1086

4.3

1103

3.0

6388

Czech Republic

43

0.4

1037

4.1

1080

2.9

2411

Poland

26

0.2

1047

4.2

1073

2.9

4026

Japan

17

0.1

1054

4.2

1071

2.9

6200

0.0

1064

4.3

1064

2.9

0.7

975

3.9

1059

2.9

USA France

84

1160

(continued)

5  Major Research Areas 

199

Table 5.14 (continued) Institutions California Institute of Technology Universite Clermont Auvergne Associes Universite Clermont Auvergne (UCA) Ruprecht Karls University Heidelberg Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics Nuclear Engineering University of California Berkeley University of Padua University of Oslo Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Yale University Universidade De Sao Paulo University of Birmingham Panjab University Lund University University of Tsukuba Wayne State University University of Copenhagen Purdue University

Country

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Increase %

USA

24

0.2

1032

4.1

1056

2.9

4300

France

22

0.2

1032

4.1

1054

2.9

4690

France

21

0.2

1032

4.1

1053

2.9

4914

Germany

11

0.1

1031

4.1

1042

2.8

9372

Romania

13

0.1

1025

4.1

1038

2.8

7884

USA

10

0.1

1027

4.1

1037

2.8

10,270

Italy

34

0.3

1002

4.0

1036

2.8

2947

Norway Bulgaria

11 18

0.1 0.2

1024 1016

4.1 4.1

1035 1034

2.8 2.8

9309 5644

USA Brazil

12

0.0 0.1

1029 1011

4.1 4.0

1029 1023

2.8 2.8

8425

UK

10

0.1

1011

4.0

1021

2.8

10,110

India Sweden Japan

12 13

0.0 0.1 0.1

1020 1008 1005

4.1 4.0 4.0

1020 1020 1018

2.8 2.8 2.8

8400 7730

0.0

1012

4.0

1012

2.7

0.1

992

4.0

1009

2.7

0.0

1006

4.0

1006

2.7

USA Denmark USA

17

5835

(continued)

200 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.14 (continued) Institutions

Country

National Technical Greece University of Athens Deutsches Germany Elektronen Synchrotron Desy University of Bern Switzerland All publications in physics

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

%

%

%

0.0

1002

4.0

1002

2.7

0.0

1545

6.2

1545

4.2

1188

4.7

1188

3.2

0.0 11,777 100

25,032 100

36,809 100

Increase %

212

Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was analysed

From outside the boundaries of Africa, there were scholars from l67 foreign institutions representing 27 countries who worked with African institutions in producing at least 1000 publications in physics (Table  5.14). Two leading institutions, the Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and the Universite Paris-Saclay, both in France, jointly participated in 22 per cent of the publications in physics. Five institutions followed these two by producing publications of about 6 per cent each. They are the US Department of Energy (DOE) in the USA, French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) in France, Helmholtz Association in Germany, CNRS National Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (IN2P3) in France, and Istituto Nazionale Di Fisica Nucleare in Italy. The highest number of institutions emerged from the USA (19), France (15), Italy (11), Russia (9) and Germany (5). Apart from these, Armenia, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, India, Japan, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK conducted and published research in physics with African countries. As shown in the last column of Table 5.14, most of the foreign institutions and their countries increased their contributions in the second half, some of them by many times in recent years. In agreement with the findings on the international partners of Africa in physics, the leading institutions that made a contribution to the development of physics through publications were in Egypt, South Africa,

5  Major Research Areas 

201

Morocco and Tunisia. The prominent finding from this data is the dominance of foreign institutions over local institutions on the continent, both in the number of institutions and publications, which reaffirms the reliance of Africa on countries outside the continent for its scientific endeavours in physics. All of the foreign institutions substantially improved their publication contributions in the second half of the period, suggesting their continued role in the production of African physics and physicists.

Funding for Research in Physics Similar to international partners, numerous international funding agencies have provided support for research in physics in Africa. Agencies that provided funding for at least 1 per cent of the publications in physics are listed in Table 5.15. The agencies represent countries from all the continents, from North America to Oceania to Asia. Russia is at the top of the list with eight agencies. Spain provided support through six agencies, while France and Germany through five agencies each. Countries that extended funding through three to five agencies each were Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, India, Israel, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, the UK and the USA. The agencies that extended research funding for up to 5 per cent each of the publications in physics during the whole period were the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the USA, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Science and Technology Facilities Council of the UK, and the US Department of Energy. Agencies from Brazil, Germany, Italy, France, Greece and China supported 4–5 per cent each of the publications. The European Union was also in this category. Some agencies and therefore some countries had a more significant presence in the recent period (2010–2018) than in the previous nine years. Agencies from Austria, Brazil, China, the Czech Republic, Finland and Japan, to cite a few, were in this league. In the past 18 years, some agencies that funded research in physics on the continent were continuing their support at an increasing level. The NSF in the USA funded more publications in the second period and its

202 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.15  Funding agencies for physics publications in Africa, 2001–2018 Funding agencies Country National Science Foundation (NSF) National Natural Science Foundation of China Science Technology Facilities Council (STFC) US Department of Energy (DOE) European Union (EU) National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPQ) German Research Foundation (DFG) Federal Ministry of Education Research (BMBF) Istituto Nazionale Di Fisica Nucleare Fundacao De Amparo A Pesquisa Do Estado De Sao Paulo (FAPESP) Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Increase %

USA

36

0.3

2054

8.2

2090

5.7

5706

China

37

0.3

2041

8.2

2078

5.6

5516

UK

25

0.2

1930

7.7

1955

5.3

7720

USA

19

0.2

1890

7.6

1909

5.2

9947

Europe

26

0.2

1739

6.9

1765

4.8

6688

5

0.0

1748

7.0

1753

4.8 34,960

Germany

33

0.3

1698

6.8

1731

4.7

Germany

8

0.1

1715

6.9

1723

4.7 21,438

Italy

4

0.0

1675

6.7

1679

4.6 41,875

0.0

1650

6.6

1650

4.5

–

0.2

1560

6.2

1579

4.3

8211

Brazil

Brazil

France

19

5145

(continued)

5  Major Research Areas 

203

Table 5.15 (continued) Funding agencies Country Greek Ministry of Development (GSRT) Chinese Academy of Sciences Fundacao Para A Ciencia E A Tecnologia (FCT) Departamento Administrativo De Ciencia Tecnologia E Innovacion Colciencias Ministry of Energy Natural Resources Turkey Alexander Von Humboldt Foundation CERN National Research Foundation South Africaa DST NRF South Africa National Research Foundationa Ministry of Education Youth Sports Czech Republic Ministry of Science and Technology China

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

0.0

1572

6.3

1572

4.3

Greece

Increase % –

China

3

0.0

1461

5.8

1464

4.0 48,700

Portugal

4

0.0

1438

5.7

1442

3.9 35,950

Colombia

0.0

1437

5.7

1437

3.9

–

Turkey

0.0

1409

5.6

1409

3.8

–

13

0.1

1355

5.4

1368

3.7 10,423

Switzerland South 86 Africa

0.0 0.7

1341 1238

5.4 4.9

1341 1324

3.6 3.6

– 1440

South Africa South Africa

0.0

728

2.9

728

2.0

–

23

0.2

419

1.7

442

1.2

1822

3

0.0

1284

5.1

1287

3.5 42,800

0.0

1258

5.0

1258

3.4

Germany

Czech Rep

China

–

(continued)

204 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.15 (continued) Funding agencies Country European Research Council (ERC) HGF Germany Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Department of Science Technology India Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Ministry of Science and Higher Education Poland Netherlands Organization For Scientific Research (NOW) Netherlands Government Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada French Atomic Energy Commission Consejo Nacional De Ciencia Y Tecnologia Conacyt Academy of Finland

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Europe

4

0.0

1229

4.9

1233

3.3 30,725

Germany Austria

2

0.0 0.0

1136 1101

4.5 4.4

1136 1103

3.1 – 3.0 55,050

India

8

0.1

1089

4.4

1097

3.0 13,613

Japan

3

0.0

1046

4.2

1049

2.8 34,867

Poland

6

0.1

1036

4.1

1042

2.8 17,267

Netherlands

2

0.0

938

3.7

940

2.6 46,900

0.0

927

3.7

927

2.5

–

0.1

905

3.6

917

2.5

7542

0.0

910

3.6

910

2.5

–

Netherlands Canada

12

France

Increase %

Mexico

4

0.0

899

3.6

903

2.5 22,475

Finland

2

0.0

873

3.5

875

2.4 43,650

(continued)

205

5  Major Research Areas  Table 5.15 (continued) Funding agencies Country Comision Nacional De Investigacion Cientifica Y Tecnologica Conicyt Danish Natural Science Research Council Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) Australian Research Council Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) Fonds De La Recherche Scientifique (FNRS) Turkiye Bilimsel Ve Teknolojik Arastirma Kurumu Tubitak CAPES CNRST Morocco Canada Foundation for Innovation Max Planck Society Israel Science Foundation ANPCYT

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Chile

5

0.0

859

3.4

864

2.3 17,180

Denmark

2

0.0

862

3.4

864

2.3 43,100

0.0

855

3.4

855

2.3 –

India

Increase %

Australia

2

0.0

821

3.3

823

2.2 41,050

Russia

4

0.0

816

3.3

820

2.2 20,400

Belgium

4

0.0

777

3.1

781

2.1 19,425

Turkey

7

0.1

762

3.0

769

2.1 10,886

NK Morocco Canada

1 1

0.0 0.0 0.0

766 764 757

3.1 3.1 3.0

767 765 757

2.1 76,600 2.1 76,400 2.1 –

Germany

3

0.0

752

3.0

755

2.1 25,067

Israel

0.0

753

3.0

753

2.0 –

Argentina

0.0

751

3.0

751

2.0 – (continued)

206 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.15 (continued) Funding agencies Country Council of Scientific Industrial Research (CSIR) India Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences (ANAS) SSTC Belarus Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) Czech Republic Government Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation for Research Support of the State of Rio De Janeiro (FAPERJ) Russian Academy of Sciences Slovenian Research Agency Slovenia RCN Norway MSSR Slovakia Science Foundation Ireland Benoziyo Center Israel JINR

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Increase %

13

0.1

738

2.9

751

2.0

5677

Azerbaijan

0.0

743

3.0

743

2.0

–

Belarus Switzerland

0.0 0.0

731 731

2.9 2.9

731 731

2.0 2.0

– –

1

0.0

729

2.9

730

2.0

72,900

10

0.1

719

2.9

729

2.0

7190

1

0.0

726

2.9

727

2.0

72,600

Russia

0.0

727

2.9

727

2.0

–

Slovenia

0.0

723

2.9

723

2.0

–

Norway Slovakia Ireland

0.0 0.0 0.0

721 720 717

2.9 721 2.9 720 2.9 717

2.0 2.0 1.9

– – –

Israel

0.0

706

2.8

706

1.9

–

Russia

0.0

706

2.8

706

1.9

_

India

Czech Rep Belgium

Brazil

(continued)

5  Major Research Areas 

207

Table 5.15 (continued) Funding agencies Country FOM The Netherlands Royal Society of London Wallenberg Foundation Sweden Yerphi Armenia BMWFW Austria Leverhulme Trust NRC Canada MESTD Serbia DNRF Denmark Russian Federation Minerva Israel SRC SWEDEN Orszagos Tudomanyos Kutatasi Alapprogramok Otka Ministry of Education and Science Spain MSTD Serbia ICREA Belgian Federal Science Policy Office French National Research Agency (ANR) CEA DSM IRFU France National Science Council of Taiwan Alfred P Sloan Foundation

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Netherlands

1

0.0

699

2.8

700

1.9 69,900

UK

7

0.1

692

2.8

699

1.9

9886

Sweden

0.0

697

2.8

697

1.9

–

Armenia Austria UK Canada Serbia Denmark Russia

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

696 687 681 642 641 630 630

2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5

696 687 682 642 641 630 630

1.9 – 1.9 – 1.9 68,100 1.7 – 1.7 – 1.7 – 1.7 –

3

0.0 0.0 0.0

625 617 611

2.5 2.5 2.4

625 617 614

1.7 – 1.7 – 1.7 20,367

24

0.2

578

2.3

602

1.6

2 7

0.0 0.0 0.1

589 575 547

2.4 2.3 2.2

589 577 554

1.6 – 1.6 28,750 1.5 7814

10

0.1

535

2.1

545

1.5

0.0

540

2.2

540

1.5

0.1

530

2.1

536

1.5

8833

0.0

533

2.1

533

1.4

–

Israel Sweden Hungary

Spain

Serbia Spain Belgium

France

1

France Taiwan

USA

6

Increase %

2408

5350

(continued)

208 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.15 (continued) Funding agencies Country IPM Iran LAS Lithuania RPF Cyprus PAEC Pakistan Leventis Foundation Institute for the Promotion of Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT) Ministry of Science and Innovation Spain (MICINN) HIP Finland MSES Croatia Uaslp Fai Mexico CPAN Spain MINECO Spain BRF Norway MES Bulgaria Swiss Funding Agencies Switzerland MNE IFA Romania MIZS Slovenia Lundbeckfonden NCN Poland JINR Dubna SEP Mexico NSC Poland Cinvestav Mexico Region Auvergne Rhone Alpes State Fund for Fundamental Research (SFFR)

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

527 527 526 525 521

2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1

527 527 526 525 521

1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Iran Lithuania Cyprus Pakistan Cyprus

Increase % – – – – –

Finland

1

0.0

518

2.1

519

1.4 51,800

Spain

7

0.1

510

2.0

517

1.4

7286

Finland Croatia Mexico Spain Spain Norway Bulgaria Switzerland

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

515 514 513 508 507 502 490 489

2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

515 514 513 508 507 502 490 489

1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3

– – – – – – – –

Romania

0.0

470

1.9

470

1.3

–

Slovenia Denmark Poland Russia Mexico Poland Mexico France

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

467 465 462 451 446 442 435 431

1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7

467 465 462 451 446 442 435 433

1.3 – 1.3 – 1.3 – 1.2 – 1.2 – 1.2 – 1.2 – 1.2 21,550

0.0

416

1.7

416

1.1

Ukraine

2

–

(continued)

5  Major Research Areas 

209

Table 5.15 (continued) Funding agencies Country I CORE Israel Israel MON Russia Russia MSHE Poland Poland Rosatom Russia Russia Russia Ministry of Education and Science Russian Federation GNSF Georgia Georgia NASU Ukraine Ukraine SEIDI Spain Spain MOER Estonia Estonia BMWF Austria Austria Germany/ German Israeli Israel Foundation for Scientific Research and Development All publications in physics

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

%

%

%

Increase %

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0

409 404 404 403 398

1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

409 404 404 403 399

1.1 – 1.1 – 1.1 – 1.1 – 1.1 39,800

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

379 377 373 371 368 706

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.8

379 377 373 371 368 706

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.9

– – – – – –

11,777 100 25,032 100 36,809 100

213

Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was analysed a All are the same institution

share of publications increased from 0.3 per cent in the first period to 8.2 per cent in the second period. A similar increase, both in the number and in the share of publications, was experienced in the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The Science Technology Facilities Council in the UK improved its share from 0.2 per cent to 7.7 per cent. The US Department of Energy, the European Union, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development in Brazil, the German Research Foundation, the Federal Ministry of Education Research (Germany) and the Istituto Nazionale Di Fisica Nucleare (Italy) were also among those agencies that appreciably increased their funding to publications in the second period. More details of the institutions and their publications are in Table 5.15. As evident in the data, research in physics is a major area for Africa, not only in the number of publications but also in international partnerships and funding it has received over the years. Publications in physics

210 

R. Sooryamoorthy

exhibited a significant annual growth. Many countries from outside Africa participated in conducting research with Africa in various branches of physics. Similarly, an extensive number of funding agencies, both national and international, have come forward to support research in physics. In funding research in physics, some international agencies contributed significantly, as shown in the increasing number of publications that they supported. In funding in which Africa-affiliated scholars took part, there were countries and agencies that represented all continents. The increasing levels of funding for physics research from countries such as Saudi Arabia, China, Spain, Brazil, Russia and Turkey are noteworthy. Local funding as against international funding is not great in physics, emphasising the dependence of funding on foreign countries and their agencies. The findings can be related to those in other studies. In an analysis of over 1 million publications, Zhao et al. (2018) found that 78 per cent of the papers in physics were funded. On a wider scale of analysis, funding research in physics is associated with publication impact and the production of high-impact papers (Zhao et  al., 2018). Some exceptions to building physics at the local level are found on the continent. In advancing physics, South Africa focusses on building the infrastructure and sustained investment in the form of new equipment, research chairs, centres of excellence, and national institutes and interdisciplinary facilities (Moraal, 2010). This made a positive impact on increasing the number of physicists in the country (Moraal, 2010). The publication productivity of South African scientists in physics, as showed in the analysis by Matthews (2013), indicated that it is strong when 60 per cent publish in a typical year which is similar to the situation in the USA. Africa will have to address the issues of funding if physics is to become a growing area of research on the continent. In this at least some major countries will have to engage actively in research. Physics is a basic subject which involves many scientific human resources and investment (Zhao et al., 2018). However, physics in Africa has its own challenges to overcome. Sa’id et al. (2020) reported a few. Firstly, there are few physicists engaged in research in academia. Secondly, many African research institutions, universities included, do not have the requisite facilities to conduct advanced research in physics. Thirdly, there is a shortage of research institutes and industry to employ graduates in

5  Major Research Areas 

211

physics. There are also issues of physicists who are more engaged in teaching than in research (Sa’id et al., 2020). Africa will have to address these challenges for the development of physics on the continent.

Environmental Sciences/Ecology The fourth major area of research for Africa is environmental sciences/ ecology as revealed in the analysis of publications for 2001–2018. This research area constituted 42 per cent of all publications that Africa produced during this period.

Publications in Environmental Sciences/Ecology Environmental sciences/ecology had a total of 28,662 publications produced by African scholars during 2001–2018. Of these, 29 per cent were published in the first half and the remaining 61 per cent in the second half. The production in this research area started with 602 publications in 2001 and gained 3561 publications in 2018 (Fig. 5.4). The increase is over six times more than the first period. The average number of publications a year was 1592 and the number grew at an annual rate of 11 per cent during this period. As in the case of previous research areas that have been analysed, environmental sciences/ecology showed a positive correlation between the number and the year of publications (r = 0.95). A substantial growth in the number of publications was witnessed in recent years which reflects the renewed interest in this area due to environmental and ecological concerns of Africa.

 ajor Countries in Environmental Sciences/ M Ecology Research Out of all 54 countries in Africa, 18 have published at least 1 per cent of the total publications in this research area (Table 5.16). Over onethird of the publications reported the presence of an author affiliated to an institution in South Africa. Egypt produced 13 per cent, which

Fig. 5.4  Publication trends in environmental sciences/ecology, Africa, 2001–2018

Table 5.16  Publications in environmental sciences/ecology by African countries, 2001–2018 African countries South Africa Egypt Nigeria Tunisia Kenya Algeria Morocco Ethiopia Tanzania Ghana Uganda Cameroon Zimbabwe Botswana Senegal Madagascar Namibia Burkina Faso All publications in env/eco

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

% increase

2992 936 630 373 683 247 367 198 339 166 299 170 163 137 121 129 120 86 8295

36.1 11.3 7.6 4.5 8.2 3.0 4.4 2.4 4.1 2.0 3.6 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.0 100

6780 2745 1612 1753 1421 862 699 863 664 727 431 472 369 236 253 224 216 216 20,367

33.3 13.5 7.9 8.6 7.0 4.2 3.4 4.2 3.3 3.6 2.1 2.3 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 100

9772 3681 2242 2126 2104 1109 1066 1061 1003 893 730 642 532 373 374 353 336 302 28,662

34.1 12.8 7.8 7.4 7.3 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.1 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 100

227 293 256 470 208 349 190 436 196 438 144 278 226 172 209 174 180 251 246

Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was analysed

5  Major Research Areas 

213

is 21 per cent less than that produced by South Africa. Nigeria, Tunisia and Kenya were in the region of 7–8 per cent each. Algeria, Morocco, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Ghana had 3–4 per cent each. Following these were Uganda, Cameroon, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Senegal, Madagascar, Namibia and Burkina Faso with 1–3  per cent each. Comparing the publications for the two split periods, there was an overall increase of 2.5 times in the second period. While the number of publications increased for South Africa in the second period, the percentage of share declined by 2  percentage points. Egypt increased both in the number and percentage share of the total publications in Africa in this research area. Nigeria moderately increased its production. Ghana also increased to 1.6 per cent over the previous period. Tunisia recorded an increased share of 4 per cent in the second half which was about five times higher than its publication count in the first half. Ghana and Ethiopia were the other two countries that quadrupled their production in the second half. On the other hand, countries such as Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Senegal, Botswana, Senegal, Madagascar and Namibia declined in their share of the total publications in the research area. The participation of countries in Africa that engaged in research in this area displays a differing pattern in relation to the previously discussed areas of chemistry, engineering and physics. Apart from the prominent science-producing countries, more countries, particularly from sub-­Saharan Africa, have come into the picture. Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Ghana have joined the major countries and are among the top 10 countries in research in environmental sciences/ ecology. By and large, sub-Saharan countries, excluding South Africa, do not have a strong scientific research infrastructure or the personnel to conduct research in resource-driven areas like chemistry, engineering and physics, but can do so in less scientifically demanding fields such as environmental sciences/ecology. It is also an indication that scientifically poor countries on the continent are becoming increasingly aware of the environmental and ecological importance of their developmental issues.

214 

R. Sooryamoorthy

International Partners of Africa in Environmental Sciences/Ecology Research The international partners of Africa in conducting research in environmental sciences/ecology are given in Table 5.17. Those partners who took part in the publications of at least 1 per cent of all the publications in the research area were from 24 countries. The leading partner was the USA, publishing 15  per cent of the publications in environmental sciences/ ecology with one or more African partners. France and England followed the USA with 11  per cent and 9  per cent of publications respectively. Table 5.17  International partners of Africa in environmental sciences/ecology, 2001–2018 2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

International partners

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

% Increase

USA France England Germany Australia Netherlands Belgium Canada Spain Italy China Saudi Arabia Sweden Switzerland Japan Scotland India Norway Portugal Denmark Brazil Malaysia Austria All publications in env/eco

1185 838 681 443 255 325 221 238 147 155 70 36 177 116 110 142 75 119 48 77 63 24 53 8295

14.3 10.1 8.2 5.3 3.1 3.9 2.7 2.9 1.8 1.9 0.8 0.4 2.1 1.4 1.3 1.7 0.9 1.4 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.6 100

3213 2422 2024 1601 1095 865 822 770 819 733 783 751 563 601 522 433 461 412 348 312 324 291 258 20,367

15.8 11.9 9.9 7.9 5.4 4.2 4.0 3.8 4.0 3.6 3.8 3.7 2.8 3.0 2.6 2.1 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.3 100

4398 3260 2705 2044 1350 1190 1043 1008 966 888 853 787 740 717 632 575 536 531 396 389 387 315 311 28,662

15.3 11.4 9.4 7.1 4.7 4.2 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.1 100

271 289 297 361 429 266 372 324 557 473 1119 2086 318 518 475 305 615 346 725 405 514 1213 487 246

Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was analysed

5  Major Research Areas 

215

Germany produced 7  per cent. Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Italy and China participated in the region of 3–5 per cent each. The remainder as shown in Table 5.17 produced less than 2 per cent each of the total publications in this research area. All the top partners that produced 1000 or more publications (the USA, France, England, Germany, Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada) showed an increase in both their numbers and shares of publications in the second half which varied between 1.3 per cent and 2.6  per cent. In the number of publications, three countries were the most prominent ones. Saudi Arabia, China and Malaysia increased their number of publications by 11–20 times. No countries on the list displayed a decreasing trend either in the number of publications or in their share to the total production. The usual international partners, namely, the USA, France, Germany and England, were present in this field of partnership as well.

Institutions Involved in Environmental Sciences/ Ecology Research The African institutions that were responsible for the production of a minimum of 1 per cent of the publications in environmental sciences/ ecology are shown in Table  5.18. Most of these 23 institutions were located in a few countries such as South Africa, Egypt, Uganda, Tunisia Ethiopia, Nigeria and Morocco. South Africa reported the highest number of both institutions and the share of publications. All 12 institutions in South Africa accounted for 36 per cent of the publications in this area for the entire period. This does not mean that South African institutions were solely responsible for all 36 per cent of publications but they were involved either as a sole or joint institution in the production of publications. Four institutions were from Tunisia and three from Egypt. The rest have only one institution each to represent them. The institutional analysis of research in environmental sciences/ecology shows the involvement of countries in sub-Saharan Africa along with other prominent countries. Upon comparing the publication shares between the two periods, it became apparent that a significant number of South African institutions

216 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.18  Major African institutions producing publications in environmental sciences/ecology, 2001–2018 Institutions University of Cape Town Stellenbosch University University of KwaZulu-Natal University of Pretoria University of Witwatersrand National Research Foundation South Africa Rhodes University Council for Scientific Industrial Research (CSIR) South Africa Nelson Mandela University North West University Alexandria University Makerere University Universite De Tunis El Manar Cairo University University of Johannesburg National Research Centre (NRC) Universite De Sfax Addis Ababa University South African National Biodiversity Institute Universite De Carthage University of Ibadan

Country South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa Egypt Uganda Tunisia

2001–2009 2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

603

7.3

1111

5.5 1714

6.0

184

432

5.2

1005

4.9 1437

5.0

233

456

5.5

980

4.8 1436

5.0

215

504

6.1

892

4.4 1396

4.9

177

249

3.0

605

3.0

854

3.0

243

130

1.6

577

2.8

707

2.5

444

168

2.0

441

2.2

609

2.1

263

138

1.7

384

1.9

522

1.8

278

116

1.4

386

1.9

502

1.8

333

80

1.0

419

2.1

499

1.7

524

129 207 70

1.6 2.5 0.8

330 244 380

1.6 1.2 1.9

459 451 450

1.6 1.6 1.6

256 118 543

%

% Increase

Egypt South Africa Egypt

106 50

1.3 0.6

331 357

1.6 1.8

437 407

1.5 1.4

312 714

116

1.4

263

1.3

379

1.3

227

Tunisia Ethiopia

32 73

0.4 0.9

341 277

1.7 1.4

373 350

1.3 1066 1.2 379

South Africa

82

1.0

255

1.3

337

1.2

Tunisia

24

0.3

321

1.6

345

1.2 1338

Nigeria

106

1.3

233

1.1

339

1.2

311

220

(continued)

217

5  Major Research Areas  Table 5.18 (continued) Institutions Cadi Ayyad University of Marrakech Faculte Des Sciences De Tunis (FST) All publications in env/eco

Country Morocco

Tunisia

2001–2009 2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

%

No.

%

%

% Increase

119

1.4

182 0.9

301 1.1 153

55

0.7

269 1.3

324 1.1 489

8295 100 20,367 100 28,662 100 246

Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was analysed

experienced a decline in the number of publications during the latter half of the period. Egyptian institutions either maintained or increased their share over the years. One institution from Egypt, the National Research Centre, had a slight decrease of 0.1 per cent. All the Tunisian organisations were able to increase their contributions in the second period. Ethiopia increased by half a point, while Morocco and Uganda declined in their respective shares by 0.5–1.3 per cent. Some of the institutions made significant increases in the number of publications in the second half. Seven improved their count of publications by 4–13 times. These were from only two countries, South Africa and Tunisia. The overall increase between the two periods was about 2.5 times for this research area. Generally, continued interest in institutions that are interested in research in environmental sciences/ecology is obvious. The institutions in scientifically stronger countries such as South Africa and Egypt appeared to have relatively less engagement or interest in this particular area. As for the participating institutions located outside the continent as presented in Table 5.19, only a few were party to at least 1 per cent of the total publications in this research area. These 14 institutions were from 7 countries such as China (1 institution), France (7 institutions), Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK (1 each) and the USA (2 institutions). By involvement in 19 per cent of publications in the research area, institutions in France led other countries in collaborating with African countries. The contributions of other countries through their institutions were in the region of 1–2 per cent each of the total.

218 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.19  Institutions of international partners of Africa producing publications in environmental sciences/ecology, 2001–2018 Institutions Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) Institut De Recherche Pour Le Developpement (IRD) Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le (CIRAD) University of California Universite De Montpellier Wageningen University CNRS Institute of Ecology Environment (INEE) Institut national de la recherche agronomique (INRAE) Helmholtz Association University of Oxford Consejo Superior De Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC)

Country

2001–2009 2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

France

384

4.6

1322

6.5 1706

6.0 344

France

224

2.7

768

3.8

992

3.5 343

France

152

1.8

443

2.2

595

2.1 291

USA

168

2.0

445

2.2

613

2.1 265

France

122

1.5

441

2.2

563

2.0 361

Netherlands 144

1.7

344

1.7

488

1.7 239

France

76

0.9

396

1.9

472

1.6 521

France

97

1.2

373

1.8

470

1.6 385

Germany

76

0.9

283

1.4

359

1.3 372

UK

80

1.0

289

1.4

369

1.3 361

Spain

43

0.5

285

1.4

328

1.1 663

%

% Increase

(continued)

5  Major Research Areas 

219

Table 5.19 (continued) Institutions

Country

USA State University System of Florida Chinese Academy China of Sciences Montpellier France Supagro All publications in env/eco

2001–2009 2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

%

No.

%

%

% Increase

58 0.7

259 1.3

317 1.1

447

17 0.2

283 1.4

300 1.0 1665

61 0.7

225 1.1

286 1.0

369

8295 100 20,367 100 28,662 100

246

Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was analysed

France through its institutions grew its production from 13.4 per cent during 2001–2009 to 19.5 per cent during 2010–2018. Other countries that made reasonable increases were China (0.2% to 1.4%), Spain (0.5% to 1.4%) and the USA (0.7% to 1.3%). These countries were successful in improving their production numbers by 4–16 times each. A large majority of the institutions in Africa were universities while there were more foreign research institutions. Institutions in France, like those for chemistry, engineering and physics, led other institutions from elsewhere in collaborating with Africa in this research area.

F unding for Research in Environmental Sciences/Ecology Funding for research in environmental sciences/ecology in Africa is provided by 31 institutions from 13 countries, both African and foreign. South Africa and Egypt were the only African countries that funded research in environmental sciences/ecology when a minimum of 100 publications was considered. On the other hand, 11 foreign countries funded African research in the area (Table 5.20). The agencies from the USA funded 5.6 per cent of the publications, Germany 2.2 per cent, India 1.7  per cent, the UK 1.5  per cent, France 1.4  per cent, China 1.1 per cent and Japan 1 per cent. The European Union and the

220 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.20  Funding agencies for environmental and ecology publications in Africa, 2001–2018 Funding agencies National Research Foundation South Africaa National Research Foundation (NRF)a NRFa National Research Foundationa National Science Foundation (NSF) European Union (EU) Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Department of Science & Technology, India National Natural Science Foundation of China French National Research Agency (ANR) National Institutes of Health (NIH), USA United States Agency for International Development (USAID) United States Department of Health and Human Services

Country

2001–2009 2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

South Africa

77

0.9

1006

4.9 1083

3.8 1306

South Africa

14

0.2

266

1.3

280

1.0 1900

South Africa South Africa USA

9

0.1

130

0.6

139

0.5 1444

44

0.5

445

2.2

489

1.7 1011

60

0.7

613

3.0

673

2.3 1022

Europe

45

0.5

523

2.6

568

2.0 1162

UK

58

0.7

379

1.9

437

1.5

India

19

0.2

325

1.6

344

1.2 1711

China

4

0.0

324

1.6

328

1.1 8100

France

10

0.1

252

1.2

262

0.9 2520

USA

48

0.6

206

1.0

254

0.9

USA

22

0.3

230

1.1

252

0.9 1045

USA

48

0.6

218

1.1

266

0.9

%

% Increase

653

429

454

(continued)

5  Major Research Areas 

221

Table 5.20 (continued) Funding agencies Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (DAAD) German Research Foundation (DFG) International Foundation For Science Australian Research Council Federal Ministry of Education Research (BMBF) Ministry of Education Culture Sports Science and Technology Japan (MEXT) National Geographic Society Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Science and Technology Development Fund (STDF) Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) Council of Scientific Industrial Research (CSIR) India

Country

2001–2009 2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

Germany

27

0.3

198

1.0 225

0.8

Germany

13

0.2

205

1.0 218

0.8 1577

Sweden

30

0.4

182

0.9 212

0.7

Australia

7

0.1

157

0.8 164

0.6 2243

Germany

12

0.1

153

0.8 165

0.6 1275

Japan

12

0.1

159

0.8 171

0.6 1325

USA

15

0.2

162

0.8 177

0.6 1080

Canada

8

0.1

177

0.9 185

0.6 2213

Egypt

7

0.1

171

0.8 178

0.6 2443

France

12

0.1

127

0.6 139

0.5 1058

India

14

0.2

126

0.6 140

0.5

%

% Increase 733

607

900

(continued)

222 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.20 (continued) Funding agencies European Commission Joint Research Centre Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Ministry of Higher Education Scientific Research (MHESR) University of Cape Town University of KwaZulu-Natal University of Pretoria All publications in env/eco

Country

2001–2009 2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

%

No.

%

%

% Increase

Europe

15

0.2

122 0.6

137 0.5

Switzerland

12

0.1

122 0.6

134 0.5 1017

Japan

8

0.1

101 0.5

109 0.4 1263

Egypt

6

0.1

95 0.5

101 0.4 1583

10

0.1

99 0.5

109 0.4

8

0.1

94 0.5

102 0.4 1175

9

0.1

104 0.5

113 0.4 1156

South Africa South Africa South Africa

8295 100 20,367 100 28,662 100

813

990

246

Note: Agencies with a minimum of 100 publications included All are the same institution

a

Joint Research Centre of the European Commission funded 2.4  per cent of the publications. South Africa supported 8.4  per cent of the publications and Egypt 1 per cent. In the second period, the majority of the listed agencies increased their funding towards African environmental sciences/ecology. The National Research Foundation of South Africa, the National Science Foundation in the USA, the European Union, the Natural Environment Research Council in the UK, the Department of Science and Technology in India, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the French National Research Agency in France and the USAID were among them.

5  Major Research Areas 

223

Being the fourth largest research area in Africa, environmental sciences/ecology covers a wide range of subjects, ranging from environmental health to climate change. Publications in this research area witnessed considerable growth in the second period of analysis (2010–2018). Obviously, this is due to the importance ascribed to contemporary issues relating to the environment and ecology. They are as relevant to Africa as for the world. In this research area, a few countries in Africa have taken the lead in conducting and publishing research on themes of the environment and ecology. More international countries are keen to associate with African countries to conduct research in this area. They include countries from Europe, North America, the Middle East and Asia. Funding for research in environmental sciences/ecology comes mostly from countries outside Africa. Some of the funding agencies were from Asia, namely, India, China and Japan. Given the publication trends, this research area has the potential to grow in the future.

Materials Science In the order of publications, materials science is the fifth largest research area in Africa. The area contributed 6.2 per cent of all the publications that Africa produced in all its research areas during 2001–2018.

Publications in Materials Science Materials science, according to the WoS definition, consists of branches such as biomaterials, ceramics, characterisation and testing, coatings and films, composites, multidisciplinary, paper and wood, and textiles. This research area had a total of 27,546 publications with an average increase of 2.5 times (8023 during 2001–2009 and 19,523 during 2010–2018). The production trends of the materials science publications are demonstrated in Fig. 5.5. Except for two years, there was a consistent increase in the number of publications. Growing at an average rate of 11 per cent per annum, the research area had an average of 1530 publications a year during the entire period of analysis. In the beginning of the decade,

224 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Fig. 5.5  Publication trends in materials science, Africa, 2001–2018

materials science had 726 publications which increased to 3156 in 2018. The relationship between the year and the number of publications was significant (r = 0.94). It seems that the importance of materials science is growing in Africa.

Major Countries in Materials Science Research In Table 5.21, the publications in materials science for the period are classified according to countries in Africa. These countries that have been part of the production of at least 1000 publications are listed. Among these 6 countries, four of them (Egypt, South Africa, Tunisia and Algeria) were involved in 85 per cent of all the publications in materials science. Egypt had the largest share of 37  per cent, followed by South Africa, Tunisia and Algeria with about 16 per cent each. Morocco participated in 8 per cent of all publications in the area and Nigeria in 4 per cent. When Egypt had a share of 37 per cent, South Africa, the second-highest producer of materials science publications, had only 17 per cent which was less than half of the papers that Egypt produced. In terms of the share of

225

5  Major Research Areas  Table 5.21  Publications in materials science by African countries, 2001–2018 2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

African countries

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

% Increase

Egypt South Africa Tunisia Algeria Morocco Nigeria All publications in materials science

2898 1172 1276 1275 883 235 8023

36.1 14.6 15.9 15.9 11.0 2.9 100.0

7317 3373 3148 2998 1301 837 19,523

37.5 17.3 16.1 15.4 6.7 4.3 100.0

10,215 4545 4424 4273 2184 1072 27,546

37.1 16.5 16.1 15.5 7.9 3.9 100.0

252 288 247 235 147 356 243

Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was analysed

publications in this field within Africa’s total output, all the first three leading countries successfully expanded their respective shares during the second period. However, Algeria, Morocco and Nigeria recorded a decline. When the number of publications was taken into account, the highest increase between the two periods was reported in Nigeria (by 3.5 times), and the lowest in Algeria (1.5 times). With the exception of South Africa, the key countries in materials science research were in North Africa. Although Nigeria has entered this group, its share of the publications in the total count was not high. It is however the sixth largest contributor to this research area.

International Partners of Africa in Materials Science Research The international partners of Africa in materials science were represented by 14 countries (Table  5.22). France and Saudi Arabia were the two international partners of Africa that participated in generating the highest number and share of publications. They had a combined 30 per cent of publications for the period. The USA and Germany produced 4–5 per cent each, England, India and China about 3  per cent each, and the remaining countries such as Spain, Japan, Italy, Canada, South Korea, Malaysia and Turkey produced 1–2  per cent of the publications with Africa. Some of these countries were successful in increasing their production in the second period by more than 10 times. This was reflected

226 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.22  International partners of Africa in materials science, 2001–2018 International partners

2001–2009

2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

No.

%

%

%

% Increase

France 1933 24.1 3390 17.4 5323 19.3 175 Saudi Arabia 176 2.2 2822 14.5 2998 10.9 1603 USA 385 4.8 1043 5.3 1428 5.2 271 Germany 343 4.3 789 4.0 1132 4.1 230 England 199 2.5 636 3.3 835 3.0 320 India 69 0.9 739 3.8 808 2.9 1071 China 60 0.7 699 3.6 759 2.8 1165 Spain 123 1.5 520 2.7 643 2.3 423 Japan 170 2.1 388 2.0 558 2.0 228 Italy 103 1.3 430 2.2 533 1.9 417 Canada 113 1.4 404 2.1 517 1.9 358 South Korea 61 0.8 359 1.8 420 1.5 589 Malaysia 15 0.2 396 2.0 411 1.5 2640 Turkey 15 0.2 311 1.6 326 1.2 2073 All publications in materials 8023 100 19,523 100 27,546 100 243 science Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was analysed

in the real increases in the number of publications. They included Saudi Arabia (16 times), India (10 times), China (11 times), Malaysia (26 times) and Turkey (20 times). While France had the highest number of publications among all the international partners, it lost about 7 per cent of its share in the second period. But it is still the largest international player in African materials science research.

Institutions Involved in Materials Science Research The institutions from countries that produced most of the publications in the research area are shown in Tables 5.23 (in Africa) and 9.4 (outside Africa). The key institutions in materials science research in Africa were based in Algeria (5 institutions), Egypt (17 institutions), Morocco (3 institutions), South Africa (9 institutions) and Tunisia (5 institutions). These were mostly universities. Egypt had the highest number of institutions involved in materials science research. The National Research Centre (NRC), Ain Shams University and Cairo University were

227

5  Major Research Areas 

Table 5.23  Major African institutions producing publications in materials science, 2001–2018 Country

2001–2009 2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

Egypt

661

8.2

1304

6.7 1965

7.1 197

Egypt Tunisia

444 319

5.5 4.0

980 829

5.0 1424 4.2 1148

5.2 221 4.2 260

Egypt Tunisia

328 308

4.1 3.8

718 724

3.7 1046 3.7 1032

3.8 219 3.7 235

Tunisia Egypt Egypt Egypt

199 185 159 247

2.5 2.3 2.0 3.1

769 473 506 409

3.9 2.4 2.6 2.1

968 658 665 656

3.5 2.4 2.4 2.4

Algeria

180

2.2

438

2.2

618

2.2 243

Egypt South Africa South Africa

171 80

2.1 1.0

405 500

2.1 2.6

576 580

2.1 237 2.1 625

120

1.5

427

2.2

547

2.0 356

Egypt Egypt Egypt Algeria

142 157 77 137

1.8 2.0 1.0 1.7

379 378 403 314

1.9 1.9 2.1 1.6

521 535 480 451

1.9 1.9 1.7 1.6

Algeria

113

1.4

334

1.7

447

1.6 296

Egypt 100 Morocco 101

1.2 1.3

350 326

1.8 1.7

450 427

1.6 350 1.6 323

South Africa South Africa

151

1.9

301

1.5

452

1.6 199

79

1.0

343

1.8

422

1.5 434

Institutions National Research Centre (NRC) Ain Shams University Universite De Tunis El Manar Cairo University Universite De Monastir Universite De Sfax Al Azhar University Assiut University Central Metallurgical Research Development Institute (CMRDI) University Djillali Liabes Sidi Bel Abbes Zagazig University University of Johannesburg Council for Scientific Industrial Research (CSIR) Helwan University Mansoura University Alexandria University Universite Ferhat Abbas Setif University Science Technology Houari Boumediene Tanta University Mohammed V University University of Pretoria National Research Foundation South Africa

%

% Increase

386 256 318 166

267 241 523 229

(continued)

228 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.23 (continued) Country Institutions

2001–2009 2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

%

No.

Universite De Tunisia 84 1.0 328 Carthage University of the Free South 46 0.6 347 State Africa Universite Badji Algeria 120 1.5 226 Mokhtar Annaba Egypt 139 1.7 220 Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority (EAEA) Suez Canal University Egypt 104 1.3 263 Morocco 135 1.7 233 CADI Ayyad University of Marrakech University of Cape South 144 1.8 215 Town Africa Benha University Egypt 93 1.2 243 Sohag University Egypt 32 0.4 299 Hassan II University Morocco 143 1.8 192 of Casablanca Tunisia 101 1.3 217 Ecole Nationale D Ingenieurs De Tunis (ENIT) Universite Algeria 127 1.6 175 Constantine Stellenbosch South 73 0.9 225 University Africa South 78 1.0 214 University of KwaZulu-Natal Africa University of South South 23 0.3 278 Africa Africa Menofia University Egypt 67 0.8 220 Egypt 88 1.1 199 South Valley University All publications in materials 8023 100 19,523 science

%

%

% Increase

1.7

412 1.5

390

1.8

393 1.4

754

1.2

346 1.3

188

1.1

359 1.3

158

1.3 1.2

367 1.3 368 1.3

253 173

1.1

359 1.3

149

1.2 1.5 1.0

336 1.2 331 1.2 335 1.2

261 934 134

1.1

318 1.2

215

0.9

302 1.1

138

1.2

298 1.1

308

1.1

292 1.1

274

1.4

301 1.1 1209

1.1 1.0

287 1.0 287 1.0

328 226

100 27,546 100

243

Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was analysed

5  Major Research Areas 

229

conspicuous by their contributing shares (4–7%). South Africa published through nine institutions at varying levels of 1–2  per cent each of the publications. The Council for Scientific Industrial Research (CSIR) had the highest share among South African institutions. In Algeria, the University Djillali Liabes Sidi Bel Abbes contributed to the highest share in the country. The major institution in Morocco was Mohammed V University. Three institutions, all universities, were significant in Tunisia: Universite De Tunis El Manar, Universite De Monastir and Universite De Sfax. The institutions that presented a significant growth in the production of publications were the University of South Africa (by 12 times), Sohag University in Egypt (9 times), the University of the Free State in South Africa (7.5 times), and the University of Johannesburg in South Africa (6 times). The institutions of the international partners of Africa in at least 1 per cent of publications were from only two countries, namely, France and Saudi Arabia (Table 5.24). France had a presence through 10 institutions whereas Saudi Arabia was represented by only 2 institutions. The Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) in France made the highest contribution to the field of materials science with its African partners. King Saud University was the major institution in Saudi Arabia, which increased its share of publications from 0.3  per cent during 2001–2009 to 3.8  per cent during 2010–2018. This increase was 35 times in the number of publications. Most of the African contributors came from North Africa. France, in line with its participation in Africa in other key research areas, joined Saudi Arabia with its contribution to the highest share of publications in materials science.

Funding for Research in Materials Science Information regarding funding agencies that supported at least 100 publications in materials science was collected for analysis (Table 5.25). There were 18 agencies from countries such as Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sweden, Tunisia and the USA. Each of them had one or more funding agencies

230 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.24  Institutions of international partners of Africa producing publications in materials science, 2001–2018 2001–2009 2010–2018

2001–2018

Institutions

Country

No.

No.

Centre National De France La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) CNRS Institute of France Chemistry (INC) King Saud University Saudi Arabia Communaute France Universite Grenoble Alpes CNRS Institute for France Engineering Systems Sciences (INSIS) Universite Grenoble France Alpes (UGA) Universite De France Lorraine Fondation I Site Ulne France Universite De Lille France Universite France Paris-Saclay Taif University Saudi Arabia CNRS Institute of France Physics (INP) Total of all publications

1047 13.0

%

No.

%

1932 9.9

%

2979 10.8

% Increase 185

180

2.2

611 3.1

791

2.9

21

0.3

738 3.8

759

2.8 3514

135

1.7

391 2.0

526

1.9

290

101

1.3

354 1.8

455

1.7

350

91

1.1

359 1.8

450

1.6

395

112

1.4

259 1.3

371

1.3

231

131 131 130

1.6 1.6 1.6

224 1.1 223 1.1 223 1.1

355 354 353

1.3 1.3 1.3

171 170 172

10

0.1

269 1.4

279

1.0 2690

56

0.7

218 1.1

274

1.0

389

19,523 100 27,546 100

243

8023 100

339

Note: A minimum of 1 per cent of all publications was analysed

that provided support to research in materials science in Africa. The National Research Foundation in South Africa provided funding for the highest number and proportion of publications in this field. Between the two periods of analysis in particular, some agencies notably increased their financial support. The Science and Technology Development Fund in Egypt, the European Union, the German Research Foundation and the National Natural Science Foundation of China were among them. The agencies included research organisations, universities and governmental organisations.

5  Major Research Areas 

231

Table 5.25 Funding agencies for materials science publications in Africa, 2001–2018 Funding agencies National Research Foundation (NRF)a Science and Technology Development Fund (STDF) National Natural Science Foundation of China Department of Science Technology India National Science Foundation (NSF) National Research Foundation NRFa King Saud University Council of Scientific Industrial Research (CSIR) India European Union Engineering Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) German Research Foundation (DFG) Tunisian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research Ministry of Education Culture Sports Science and Technology Japan (MEXT)

Country

2001–2009 2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

%

No.

%

No.

32

0.4

690

4

0.0

China

7

India

%

% Increase

3.5 722

2.6

2156

412

2.1 416

1.5 10,300

0.1

342

1.8 349

1.3

4886

23

0.3

295

1.5 318

1.2

1283

USA

16

0.2

191

1.0 207

0.8

1194

South Africa Saudi Arabia India

10

0.1

176

0.9 186

0.7

1760

0.0

195

1.0 195

0.7

16

0.2

183

0.9 199

0.7

1144

Europe Sweden

2 28

0.0 0.3

186 146

1.0 188 0.7 174

0.7 0.6

9300 521

Germany

3

0.0

154

0.8 157

0.6

5133

0.0

149

0.8 149

0.5

0.0

120

0.6 124

0.5

South Africa Egypt

Tunisia

Japan

4

3000

(continued)

232 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Table 5.25 (continued) Funding agencies Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) Ministry of Higher Education Scientific Research (MHESR) Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University French National Research Agency (ANR) All publications

Country

2001–2009 2010–2018

2001–2018

No.

No.

%

No.

%

%

% Increase

France

9

0.1

126 0.6

135

0.5 1400

Egypt

7

0.1

118 0.6

125

0.5 1686

12

0.1

120 0.6

132

0.5 1000

0.0

110 0.6

110

0.4

0.0

112 0.6

116

0.4 2800

Canada

Saudi Arabia

France

4

8023 100 19,523 100 27,546 100

243

Note: Agencies with a minimum of 100 publications included a All are the same institution

Publications in materials science by scholars affiliated to institutions in Africa have certain characteristic features. They have been increasing both in number and share to the total research publications of Africa, making it one of the highly productive research areas of Africa. The growth in the number of publications was consistent during the period of analysis. Egypt contributed to more than one-third of Africa’s publications in materials science. South Africa, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Nigeria were the other countries that contributed differentially to Africa’s production in this research area. Among the countries that worked with Africa in this research area, France and Saudi Arabia produced a fairly large number of publications. Other countries that partnered with Africa included the USA, Germany, England, India, China and Malaysia. Being the leading science-producing country, Egypt had the distinction of having the largest number of institutions engaged in publishing in the research area of materials science. As for the international partners, institutions from France and Saudi Arabia were significant.

5  Major Research Areas 

233

Conclusion This chapter focused on the comprehensive analysis of Africa’s top research areas, namely chemistry, engineering, physics, environmental sciences/ecology and materials science. The analysis encompassed various influencing variables such as the year of publications, international partnerships demonstrated through joint publications, the institutions and countries involved in publication production, and research funding received from both Africa and overseas institutions and agencies. Through the analysis, publication trends over a specific period were identified for each research area. The major African countries leading in publications across all five areas were determined, along with the international partners collaborating with African countries in publication production. The role of institutions in terms of both the number and proportion of publications was evaluated, as well as the funding support received by African authors from within the continent and overseas, facilitated by various national and international funding agencies. The findings varied among the five research areas, highlighting both similarities and differences. These insights are valuable for understanding the trajectory of these research areas in Africa and their contribution towards fostering a self-reliant and independent scientific landscape on the continent. Having conducted the aforementioned analysis of the five major research areas in Africa, the attention now turns to the forthcoming chapter, which will explore the topics of self-reliance and dependency. These issues will be examined through the lens of partnerships, funding, research capacity and policy matters.

References Abegaz, B. (2016). Challenges and opportunities for chemistry in Africa. Nature Chemistry, 8, 518–522. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.2533 Asfaw, N., Licence, P., Engida, T., & Poliakoff, M. (2007). Empowering green chemists in Ethiopia. Science, 316, 1849–1850. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1144439

234 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Asfaw, N., Licence, P., Novitskii, A. A., & Poliakoff, M. (2005). Green chemistry in Ethiopia: The cleaner extraction of essential oils from Artemisia afra: A comparison of clean technology with conventional methodology. Green Chemistry, 7, 352–356. https://doi.org/10.1039/b417961g Carmichael, H. (2006, November 28). Chemistry in Africa. Chemistry World. https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/chemistry-­in-­africa/3004536. article Crawford, M. (1965). Thoughts of chemical research and teaching in East Africa. Minerva, 4, 170–185. Darkwa, J. (2014). Global chemistry research: Where is Africa on this stage? In H. N. Cheng, S. Shah, & M. L. Wu (Eds.), Vision 2025: How to succeed in the global chemistry enterprise (pp.  167–179). American Chemical Society. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-­2014-­1157.ch016 Diab, R. (2010). Conclusion. In R. Diab & W. Gevers (Eds.), The state of science in South Africa (pp.  277–284). The Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf ). https://research.assaf.org.za/handle/20.500.11911/65 Durbach, I. N., Naidoo, D., & Mouton, J. (2008). Co-authorship networks in South African chemistry and mathematics. South African Journal of Science, 104, 487–492. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0038-­23532008000600024 Griffith, I. (1924). Scientific distribution modern selling: A dynamic wealth producing force. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 115, 38–46. Haines, R. (2010). Chemistry. In R. Diab & W. Gevers (Eds.), The state of science in South Africa (pp. 105–131). ASSAf. Jevons, F. R. (1972). Chemistry in Africa. Nature, 236, 92. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/236092a0 Jumbam, N. D. (2015). Green chemistry in Africa: Its inception and challenges. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 70, 187–190. https://doi. org/10.1080/0035919X.2015.1019386 Loyson, P. (2011). Chemistry in the time of the Pharaohs. Journal of Chemical Education, 88, 146–150. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100492a Matthews, A. P. (2013). Physics publication productivity in South African universities. Scientometrics, 95, 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-0120842-2 Matthews, P., Ryan-Collins, L., Wells, J., Sillem, H., & Wright, H. (2012). Engineers for Africa: Identifying engineering capacity needs in sub-Saharan Africa. Municipal Engineer, 165, 187–188. https://doi.org/10.1680/ muen.12.00052

5  Major Research Areas 

235

Moraal, H. (2010). Physics and astronomy. In R. Diab & W. Gevers (Eds.), The state of science in South Africa (pp. 83–102). The Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf ). Nameroff, T. (2004, September 27). Chemistry crosses borders. Chemical & Engineering News, 43. https://cen.acs.org/articles/82/i39/CHEMISTRY-­ CROSSES-­BORDERS.html Njine-Bememba, C. B., & Tchekwagep, P. M. S. (2022). Challenges of electrochemistry research in Central Africa: The case of Cameroon. Current Opinion in Electrochemistry, 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coelec.2021.100861 Onyancha, O.  B. (2011). Research collaborations between South Africa and other countries, 1986–2005: An informetric analysis. African Journal of Library & Information Science, 21, 99–112. Patra, S.  K., & Muchie, M. (2017). Engineering research profile of countries in the African Union. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 9, 449–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/2042133 8.2017.1341732 Pemberton, J. E. (2012). Analytical chemistry is alive and well all over Africa! Editorial. Analytical Chemistry, 84, 8095. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac302648a Pouris, A. (2010). A scientometric assessment of the Southern Africa Development Community: Science in the tip of Africa. Scientometrics, 85, 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­010-­0260-­2 Sa’id, R. S., Fuwape, I., Dikandé, A. M., Mimouni, J., Hasford, F., Haynes, D., Gledhill, I., Amolo, G., Akin-Ojo, O., & Eassa, N. (2020). Physics in Africa. Nature, 2, 520–523. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-­020-­0239-­8 Sheikheldin, G., & Nyichomba, B. (2019). Engineering education, development and growth in Africa. Scientific African, 6, 1–4. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sciaf.2019.e0 0200 Stephen, A. M. (2005). A history of the chemistry department, University of Cape Town. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 60, 19–48. Wicht, K. J., & Woodland, J. G. (2021). Medicinal chemistry out of Africa. Journal of Medical Chemistry, 64, 10523–10516. https://doi.org/10.1021/ acs.jmedchem.1c01183 Zhao, S. X., Tan, A. M., Yu, S., & Xu, X. (2018). Analyzing the research funding in physics: The perspective of production and collaboration at institution level. Physica A, 508, 662–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.04.072

6 Barriers to Self-Reliance

Introduction The previous chapters have provided insights into some of the pressing issues that African science is experiencing today. These are investigated in this chapter to recognise the barriers to making Africa more self-reliant and less dependent. The issues covered in the chapter include partnerships, funding, research capacity and science policy. They are examined from the perspective of how they are affecting African science, both positively and negatively.

Partnerships Partnerships in science continue to grow and expand globally. It is accepted as an established means to support national research structures and to catch up with the world standard (Glänzel & Zhang, 2018). This aligns with the SDG-17 of the United Nations, specifically highlighting 17.6, 17.7 and 17.8 to science partnerships in Africa. SDG-17.6 aims to enhance cooperation and partnership in science, technology and innovation (STI) including North–South, South–South and triangular regional © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 R. Sooryamoorthy, Independent Africa, Dependent Science, Sustainable Development Goals Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5577-0_6

237

238 

R. Sooryamoorthy

and international partnerships with a focus on knowledge sharing (UN, 2015). These partnerships are intended to promote development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of technologies to developing countries on favourable conditions. Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that the UN goals are specifically designed to address the partnership needs of Africa. They unequivocally reaffirm the significance of supporting the programme outlined in the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) as part of the African Union’s Agenda 2063 (UN, 2015). As a major form of collaboration, international partnerships are heavily relied on for enhancing research outputs as well (Blom et al., 2016). The bulk of science publications that originate from most of the African countries is the result of partnerships between Africa and developed countries (Jumbam, 2015; Vieira & Cerdeira, 2022). Ribeiro et  al.’s (2018) research on 200 countries acknowledged the widening network of partnerships in science. The study identified the leading countries that have a large network of international connections in scientific partnerships. A part of this, expanding partnership is also reflected in Africa. South Africa, a leading country of science production in Africa, is connected to 171 countries around the world. Given the nature of science, it is unimaginable to think about an individual or a country that can conduct any serious research without ever entering into scientific partnerships. It does not imply that scientists cannot conduct and publish research individually. Sole-authored publications would have been the result of the research by a single scientist. This however may not be feasible in frontier research areas that require advanced skills, laboratories and equipment. It is obvious in the empirical data presented in the previous chapters that scientific partnerships of Africa with international partners are quite prominent. Corresponding to the data, other studies also lend evidence to support the significance of international partnerships in science that are growing in Africa. Of particular interest are the types of partnerships that Africa has established in the past and present, as well as the advantages and disadvantages associated with these partnerships in relation to scientific and overall development. Scientific partnerships in Africa have been transforming over time. While the colonial partners of Africa continue to retain their presence in scientific research their participation as indicated by the data in the recent

6  Barriers to Self-Reliance 

239

period has declined. At the same time, some other countries, mostly from Asia, have come to the forefront to play a more active role in joint scientific research with Africa. China, India, Japan and Malaysia are among those that pursue partnering relationships with Africa. The economic interests of the Asian countries in the natural resources of Africa encourage partnerships with Africa. In a way, the concept of partnership is changing with the emergence of relatively new partners from Brazil, India and China (Bradley, 2007). In agreement with the findings of the data, China and India have become Africa’s main partners as noted in other studies (e.g. Cheru & Obi, 2011). Several bilateral agreements between China and Africa have been signed. In joint research and publications, there is a real growth among researchers in China and Africa (Muchie & Patra, 2019). China collaborates actively with several African countries, but mostly with South Africa, Egypt and Morocco (Muchie & Patra, 2019). These are the scientifically strong countries in Africa. China’s attraction to Africa’s energy sector and raw materials, and its trade interests in opening African markets for their hardware have raised doubts about China’s political and economic interests in Africa (Langan, 2018). The neo-colonialist attitude of China towards Africa has been criticised even by African countries. Compared to international partnerships, regional partnerships within Africa are reportedly at a low ebb. African countries are more likely to collaborate with countries outside Africa rather than within Africa (Guns & Wang, 2017). Studies have documented the low levels of scientific partnerships within the continent (Asubiaro, 2019; Boshoff, 2009a, 2009b; Guns & Wang, 2017; Onyancha, 2020; Simpkin et  al., 2019; Sooryamoorthy, 2019, 2020). This is true for both sub-Saharan and North Africa which are different in many respects. In North Africa, the degree of partnerships within the same region is relatively poor (Landini et al., 2015) and is even less with the rest of Africa. This is evident in the data analysed in the previous chapters. In sub-Saharan Africa, knowledge production through collaborative research among its countries is minimal (Onyancha & Maluleka, 2011). During 2001–2010, the countries in West Africa cooperated less with each other and less with African and developing countries than they did with developed countries (Mêgnigbêto, 2013).

240 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Only a few African countries appear to have scientific links with other African countries (Toivanen & Ponomariov, 2011). Scientifically capable countries in Africa such as South Africa, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia have extended scientific partnerships with countries outside the continent. Egypt is the centre of research partnerships in North Africa (Landini et al., 2015). As Landini et al. (2015) pointed out, one reason for the centrality of Egypt in North Africa is because of its key partner Saudi Arabia. This has also been supported in the data presented in previous chapters. Regional cooperation even among Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries, which have the objective of collaborating in S&T, has not been encouraging. According to Boshoff (2009a) collaboration between SADC and other African countries is virtually non-existent with less than 2 per cent of the SADC research output. This figure is comparable with 47 per cent of SADC publications and 60 per cent of all continental co-authored publications that have a partner from high-income countries. Boshoff (2009a) also observed that the few instances of intra-regional and continental collaboration in the SADC are largely the product of North–South collaboration, mainly facilitated by the North. Concerns have been raised by scholars in the Global South regarding the prospects and impact of North–South collaboration. The review of North–South partnerships undertaken by Bradley (2017) revealed that Southern researchers look for funding and publication opportunities while Northern researchers are keen to gain access to data and fieldwork opportunities (Bradley, 2017). In partnerships, not only the African partners but also non-African partners benefit. Tu’s (2019) analysis illustrated that US institutions have a significantly greater impact compared to non­US institutions. Although North–South collaboration has the potential to enhance research capacities and to promote sustainable networks, it has limited impact due to the neo-colonial nature of the donor–recipient network (Ishengoma, 2016). It perpetuates power asymmetries and resource dependencies. According to Ishengoma (2016), the hegemony of the North over the South in collaboration is largely unquestioned, and the countries in the South are unable to mobilise internal resources.

6  Barriers to Self-Reliance 

241

Examining North–South research partnerships and using a combination of data, Carbonnier and Kontinen (2014, 2015) have summarised relevant findings. These suggest that research partnerships are not immune to unequal, biased donor–recipient relations and the entrenched behaviour of the partners and practices affect the quality and effectiveness of research partnerships. In the opinion of the researchers, the role of the Southern partners is limited to collecting data, and the Northern partners play a leading role in analysis and publications. Many of their informants experienced that achieving more equal relations in partnerships was more fraught with difficulties due to weaker capacities in the South. In deciding a research agenda there were concerns among the participants about unilateral dictation and predetermination by Northern partners and funding agencies who decide the terms of research, the topic to be investigated, and the methods to be used. As apparent in the African infectious disease research, for example, the voices of the researchers in the North are more likely to be heard than the ideas and discoveries of their endemic-­ area-­based colleagues (Andersen, 2016). Along this line, Asare et  al. (2020) reported that North–South partnerships in sub-Saharan Africa favoured only particular countries or institutions. In their discussion on ways to accelerate partnerships aligned with SDG 17, Stibbe et al. (2020) propose a serious of phases. The process begins by increasing understanding and building partnering skills and competencies, which is then followed by supporting organisational transformation to become ‘fit for partnering’. Subsequently, the focus shifts towards drawing from good practices and facilitating the development of robust SDG partnerships. In partnerships that are initiated by Northern scholars, African partners are apprehensive about being treated as data collectors with limited connections to their own research interests and priorities. In an interview, César Pulgarin, Professor at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) Institute of Chemical Sciences and Engineering, who led several North–South research collaborations that involved African countries says, Collaboration needs competence, rigour and skills, where charity alone is not enough and those from the North must avoid taking on the role of saviour or hero or indulging in any lurking notions of superiority. (quoted in Plummer, 2021)

242 

R. Sooryamoorthy

As expressed by the participants in the study of Okwaro and Geissler (2015) in good partnerships Southern partners are also allowed to be the principal investigators and not local principal investigators. They were uncomfortable about the power dynamics between North and South partners when the former controls the research process, and there was always the question of working with or working for collaborators. Nevertheless, some successful stories of North–South partnerships have been documented, providing lessons for effective partnerships. In one such partnership between Switzerland and Tanzania that led to the formation of the Ifakara Centre in Tanzania, local priorities formed the basis of all activities (Tanner et al., 1994). In another partnership between Ghana and the Netherlands, the former steered the partnership in defining its own research agenda through a consultative process (Binka, 2005). However, such instances are limited in number. In recent times, ‘collaboration’ has been replaced by ‘partnership’ when it comes to North–South cooperation since it implies a sense of inequality that exists between the partners from the North and the South. At the same time and tactically, the word partnership is used to allay the fears and concerns of the partners from the South about the recognition of their roles in partnerships. It is meant to sound more like real partners. This has also been labelled as a transformation from scientific colonialism to research undertaken by ‘mosquito’ or ‘parachute’ scientists (Edejer, 1999). Okwaro and Geissler (2015) mention three forms of partnerships inferred from their participants. One type comes from a long-standing association with a Northern institution that assists in the initial formation of a partnership with an African partner. In this case, the African institution will be acting like an outsourced station for research. Another form of partnership starts when African scientists respond to calls from Northern funders, which require the formation of collaborations between North and South. In this form, the rights and responsibilities of partners are clearly spelt out, and there is no room for one to feel superior or inferior to the other. The third way of collaborating is when scientists and institutions seek Southern partners as a requirement stipulated by the funders. In the experience of the informants,

6  Barriers to Self-Reliance 

243

this type of collaboration is fraught with friction and has a greater risk of exploitation. South–South partnership is another form. The Buenos Aires Plan of Action for promoting and implementing technical cooperation among developing countries was adopted by 138 states in 1978. Both South– South cooperation and Triangular cooperation which involves collaboration among developing countries and a developed country were recognised (UN, 2020). The experience of the United Nations Environment Programme shows the lessons learned in both South–South cooperation and South–South–North cooperation. They include (UN, 2020, p. 3): • Knowledge sharing and flow of information should be continuous. • Building strong relationships among partners is necessary to ensure political buy-in. • Influencing decisions does not depend solely on producing science and useful information; it is also about building relationships. • Objectives aligned with national strategies and goals. • Creating synergies and scale-up environmental monitoring capacities. • Cooperation at many levels for the highest impact and results. South–South cooperation, as envisaged in the UNDP document (2017), includes a set of components. It defines South–South and Triangular cooperation as a process whereby two or more developing countries pursue their individual and/or shared national capacity development objectives through exchanges of knowledge, skills, resources and technical know-how, and through regional and interregional collective actions including partnerships involving Governments, regional organizations, civil society, academia and the private sector, for their individual and/or mutual benefit within and across regions. [2]

The partnership models that apply to African nations are seemingly different from those prescribed by other models. The model of partnership that prevails in South Africa, for example, has certain lessons to

244 

R. Sooryamoorthy

offer. It has become an accepted practice in the scientific enterprise, supported by the government and higher education institutions, research institutes, industry, the private sector and individual researchers (Sooryamoorthy, 2013).

Funding Blues Funding for research in Africa is scarce which has resulted in poor performances in several research fields. Whether locally or internationally sourced, it is not substantial enough to meet the research needs of Africa. Most of the African countries rely rather heavily on international funding. The analysis presented in the previous chapters is in support of this. Often funding is a cause for international partnerships rather than partnerships within Africa (Asare et al., 2020; Asubiaro, 2019). Researchers in Africa agree that funding is crucial for their research and there is a dependency on international funding. The participants of a large empirical study of scientists in Africa were frank about disclosing to Beaudry et al. (2018) that Africa has become dependent upon international funding. Many of them reported that 80 per cent of their funding is secured from donor agencies and wondered how long they could count on external funding, which in their opinion was not sustainable. Researchers in biomedical research at a research centre in East Africa felt that it was impossible for them to conduct research without Northern collaborators due to the limited government funding and facilities for research (Okwaro & Geissler, 2015). Funding dependency also varies from country to country. The dependency on foreign donors is much greater in Tanzania than for grantees in Africa as a whole (Gaillard, 2003a). Tanzania is surviving in scientific research as it has been able to attract external funding and researchers as foreign colleagues at each stage of their research (Gaillard, 2003a). In the early years of independence, Senegal relied on external resources for about two-thirds of its total, and the training of researchers was largely dependent on fellowships for studying overseas (Gaillard, 1997). About 38 per cent of the funding for R&D in Senegal came from overseas (Irikefe et al., 2011), although this has changed in later years. Senegal has taken

6  Barriers to Self-Reliance 

245

steps to strengthen homegrown research and cutting dependence on foreign funding (Gaillard, 2003b; Irikefe et al., 2011). In Kenya, most of the research funding is from overseas through partnerships linked to international organisations (Muriithi et  al., 2018). Ghana’s research institutions including universities look for grants from international donor agencies (Owusu-Nimo & Boshoff, 2017). Where there are international collaborations, Ghanaian scientists received funding of up to 55 per cent of their co-authored publications. Cases obtained from Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda and Tanzania suggest that research funding at the national level remains low and does not reach their target spend (Chataway et al., 2019). The research sector in West Africa has minimal impact due to the lack of national research and innovation strategies, low investment in R&D, and little intraregional collaboration (UNESCO, 2015). The situation is not dissimilar in North Africa either. Some of the Maghreb countries like Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia are dependent on foreign funding for their research activities (Zebakh et  al., 2022). The same finding was obtained from the data analysed and presented in Chap. 4. Funders of African research are numerous. Agencies such as the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa, the European Union (EU), National Institute of Health (NIH), Wellcome Trust, German Research Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Government of Spain, and the National Science Foundation of China are the major funding institutions for Africa (Huang & Huang, 2018; Kozma et al., 2018). The preferred areas of funding indicate the focus of donors. NRF funding has a presence in most of the natural fields on the continent, the EU placed strong emphasis on funding astronomy and astrophysics, and the NIH, the Wellcome Trust, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded mostly health-related research (infectious diseases, immunology, virology, parasitology and tropical medicine) in Africa (Kozma et al., 2018). Funding for research into malaria has mostly been allocated to African countries such as Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, Ghana and Nigeria in the last few years (Head et al., 2017). Large amounts of funds have been flown to Africa to conduct research in preferred areas. Crane (2010) calls this the ‘new scramble for Africa’.

246 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Some fields of science in Africa such as medical sciences are internationally oriented and attract international funding (Tijssen, 2007). In clinical research, dependency on outside funding is obvious. Most of the clinical research in sub-Saharan Africa is supported and led by researchers from high-income countries (Diakou et  al., 2017). This has several implications for both the area of research and for Africa. Accessing funds to conduct research, as Adewole et al. (2014) argued in the case of cancer research, will diminish the ability of African scientists to lead and conduct research relevant to Africa. They also find that the most successful models of cancer research are those driven by partnerships between scientists motivated by science which is relevant to Africa’s needs. Funding is generally connected to partnerships. For this reason, both are to be considered parallel to each other. In a study of co-authorship patterns, Chersich et al. (2016) found that funding agencies characterised by partnerships between scientists in higher-income and lower- or middle-income countries produced fewer locally led articles. Evidence also suggests that higher international partnership intensity of African researchers is significantly and positively associated with receiving international funding (Confraria et al., 2020). Funding has a direct connection with the productivity of scientists. In a comparative study of Canada and the USA, Tahmooresnejad et  al. (2015) reported that research grants have a positive influence on the research output. Authors from high-income countries dominate the outputs of research that involves funding agencies such as USAID, the NIH and the EU. While funding had an impact on partnerships, the partnerships formed to capitalise upon funding opportunities were not effective in promoting productivity (Defazio et al., 2009). In some African countries, substantial funding is associated with improved research performance. Fedderke and Goldschmidt (2015) observed this dimension in South Africa by pointing out how strategic funding at the national level influenced the productivity of researchers. The conclusive evidence that Fedderke and Goldschmidt (2015) provided supports that substantial public funding (not international funding) is associated with a higher number of publications and citations. What is important in these findings is that South Africa, through its national funding agency (NRF), has made a strategic intervention via its

6  Barriers to Self-Reliance 

247

research chair funding called the South African Research Chairs Initiative programme which began in 2006. Having realised the connection between funding and productivity, South Africa injected considerable sums of money into its research activities, which eventually paid off in the form of higher publication productivity and the impact that raised the status of South Africa in African science. The data analysed in this book also correspond to the funding contribution of the South African national agency to various research areas, in relation to other outside agencies. Rather than relying on outside sources, South Africa has taken a pro-­ active approach by mobilising its own resources to support scientific research. National and domestic resources that are capitalised for scientific research have an insignificant impact on self-reliance in science. The data in Table 6.1 illustrates this clearly. A few representative countries around the world are examined for the same period of 2001–2018 from the same source of the WoS. The data in the table represent the funding received in select countries which consequently resulted in publications. The names of the funding agencies are provided in the WoS database but not the country where they are based. The origin of the funding agencies was therefore collected from other sources and integrated into the dataset. As there are numerous agencies for each country a selection was made. This was done according to the two criteria of the maximum Table 6.1  Funding in science, select countries, 2001–2018 Countries

Funded Publications publications Domestic funding Publications

Egypt South Africa Africa Brazil India England Japan China USA

110,870 123,490 484,463 513,901 731,899 1,195,334 1,338,206 2,866,788 5,117,524

102,390 189,967 823,488 707,970 471,752 1,854,305 1,258,040 3,810,281 7,849,330

6419 30,468 27,302 405,501 242,825 992,898 811,664 3,078,922 6,300,575

Per cent

International funding Per Publications cent

6.27 95,971 16.04 159,499 3.32 796,186 57.28 302,469 51.47 228,927 53.55 861,407 64.52 446,376 80.81 731,359 80.27 1,548,755

93.73 83.96 96.68 42.72 48.53 46.45 35.48 19.19 19.73

248 

R. Sooryamoorthy

number of funding agencies limited to 500, and the contributions to funded publications were at least 0.01 per cent of the total funded publications for each country. The agencies were then grouped into national agencies specific to each country in Africa and the international agencies not based in the same country. Both the actual publications and funded publications were collected but the numbers for these are different as some funded publications have more than one agency sharing the cost of research. For the figures of Africa given in the table, the same data used in the analysis (Chap. 3) was used for consistency, which covered the funding agencies that supported at least 1000 publications in Africa. The data is abundantly clear that Africa relies on international agencies for funding for the major block of its scientific research. It was able to use its own resources for only 3  per cent of all funded publications. The two leading countries chosen in Africa were South Africa and Egypt. South Africa’s funded scientific research using its own domestic funds constituted 16 per cent of the total funded publications and the remaining 84 per cent was from overseas. Egypt funded only 6 per cent of the publications using its own domestic resources. Compared to this, India spent 51  per cent of its own funds on research, England 54  per cent, Brazil 57 per cent, Japan 65 per cent, China 80 per cent and the USA 80 per cent. The data is explicit in showing the reliance and non-reliance on external sources in a sample of countries. Other than Africa, countries in the table were funding science more from their own domestic resources than those they obtained from international sources. Agenda 2063 includes Goal 20, which focuses on Africa assuming full responsibility for financing its own development. An assessment of the implementation of this goal, as reported by the African Union Commission and African Union Development Agency-NEPAD (2022), reveals that several countries on the continent have taken measures to finance their own development. The report highlights Africa’s strong performance in the funding contribution of national capital markets to the public sector budget (21% in 2021) and its proportion to official development assistance in national budgets. However, the continent has faced challenges in achieving the target of total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP (31% compared to the 2021 target of 63%), as well as the proportion of resources raised through innovative funding mechanisms as a percentage

6  Barriers to Self-Reliance 

249

of national budgets (stagnated at 11% against the 2021 target of 62%). These issues, especially the decline in total tax revenue and the poor performance in resource mobilisation indicators are a concern and require prompt action to ensure that the continent can achieve its goal of becoming independent in funding its development, in which S&T is an integral component.

Research Capacity Science in Africa as an enterprise has been suffering from a host of problems. These problems prevent Africa from making it less dependent and more reliant on others. Several African countries have issues in research capacity, ranging from the lack of critical mass and adequate skills of scientific personnel (Confraria & Godinho, 2015). Lack of capacity prevails in several fields of scientific research. Research capacity in most of the African countries is severely compromised (Sawyerr, 2004). It is a major problem which in a broader sense refers to a set of shortages. They include individual research skills, the quality of the research environment, funding, infrastructure and incentives (Sawyerr, 2004). A growing consensus in Africa is that there is a need to build its own capacity for science and technological development (Blackie, 1989). Regarding capacity building and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals especially SDG-17.6, there is a focus on providing support for effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries to facilitate the implementation of national plans and partnerships. The UN document (UN, 2015) states that under the UN inter-agency task team on STI will promote the coordination, coherence and cooperation within the UN system on STI-related matters with the objective of enhancing capacity-building initiatives. This will be of great assistance to Africa as most of it is struggling with their capabilities for development. The UN inter-agency task team on Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) aims to foster coordination, coherence and cooperation among UN agencies regarding STI-related issues, with the goal of enhancing capacitybuilding initiatives (UN, 2015). This initiative holds great potential to

250 

R. Sooryamoorthy

assist Africa, as many countries on the continent face challenges in developing their capabilities for development. Research capacity is associated with Africa’s ability to develop human capital. Africa has a shortage of skilled professionals in health, science, engineering and technology. Human capital development, as shown in a study of 33 African countries (Shuaibu & Oladayo, 2016) is linked to public expenditures on health, education, infrastructure and institutions. Capacity is notably weak in medical research in Africa (Confraria & Wang, 2020). Africa carries the burden of having many infectious and non-communicable diseases on its health system (Bcheraoui et al., 2020; Diakou et al., 2017; El-Gamal et al., 2017; Ezeh et al., 2010; Rosenkranz et al., 2015; Young et al., 2017). Health issues that most African countries currently experience have prompted them to focus on research in the medical and life sciences (Tijssen, 2007). In the case of clinical pharmacology, locally conducted research is essential to safeguard drug efficacy, safety, quality and rational use (Suryawati, 2005, cited in Gutierrez et al., 2017, p.  786). This demands a strong research capacity (Ezeh et  al., 2010). Many African countries have a low density of physicians and health care workers (Conradie et al., 2018). It is not unusual that African institutions and African researchers play an ancillary role in health research carried out in Africa, as much of the research is led by the institutions and researchers in high-income countries (Adanu et al., 2015). It is crucial for Africa to develop its research capacity, particularly in medical research, on the determinants of diseases and their relation to gender, ethnicity and genetic distributions (Confraria & Wang, 2020). This naturally has consequences for global medical research as the benefits are not just confined to a country or region but to all of humanity. In agricultural science Africa has an untapped potential (Blackie, 1989). According to Blackie (1989), the reason for national researchers in agricultural science operating below their capacity is because of the poor articulation between research and policy which is further constrained by inadequate funding. The persistent failure of agricultural production in Africa, as Paarlberg (2008) argued, is also because of a deliberate attempt to keep the modern agricultural science out of Africa.

6  Barriers to Self-Reliance 

251

UNESCO played a large role in assisting Africa to develop its scientific capacity through its multi-pronged approach ranging from collaboration to research capacity to policy development (Andersen, 2016). Andersen (2016) called for Africa to improve its institutions, promote good governance, increase output and provide adequate infrastructure to support human capacity development. They are crucial for capacity development in science. To develop research capacity the existing institutions in Africa need to be supported, and more public and local funding is to be resourced (Adetokunboh et al., 2021). While collaborative research is growing, there has been little investment in the capacity of Africa’s state-run public health system (Geissler & Tousignant, 2016). The lack of local capacity training for African researchers is evident in Western-funded collaborative research enterprises (Lutumba et al., 2010). The donor community frowns upon the promotion of research capacity in Africa (Odhiambo, 1992). At the same time, there are some external-funded programmes for developing the research capacity of African scientists. The funds transferred to African scientists for the genome project under the Human Heredity and Health in Africa Consortium (H3Africa) by the NIH and the Wellcome Trust allow African scientists to study the African populations (McCall, 2012). As McCall (2012) reported, the project has the potential to eliminate the modes of research exploitation under the old models of African scientists taking samples and shipping them to the developed world. Elliott et al. (2015) supplied examples of capacity-building programmes in augmenting the science of global importance in Africa, with the help of international research programmes. Initiatives to develop research capacity occasionally come from external funders. In 2009, the Wellcome Trust spent 30 million pounds to form 7 new international consortia in Africa as part of its African Institutions Initiative (The Lancet, 2009). But as Velho (2006) thought, it is unlikely that research capacity in least-­ developed countries can be built by adopting research training schemes developed or offered by developed countries. African governments must strengthen local research capacity to develop a critical mass of local African scientists (Mwaba et  al., 2010). While emphasising the exigency of innovations in health, Al-Bader et al. (2010) asserted that to increase domestic capacity to solve the challenges in

252 

R. Sooryamoorthy

health in sub-Saharan Africa, health innovation provides the opportunity to move beyond foreign aid and dependency. The case of computer science in East Africa (Harsh et al., 2018) illustrates how Africa can gain research autonomy, global competency and expression of regional priorities. It is inevitable for Africa to develop a new generation of scientists. Young scientists are becoming scarce, and it is increasingly difficult to find a scientist below the age of 40 and the retiring scientists are increasing in several parts of Africa (Gaillard, 2003b). Countries like Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia have difficulties in recruiting and renewing their population of researchers (Zebakh et al., 2022). A wide range of research on capacity-building initiatives has occurred in Africa in a range of disciplines (Jones et al., 2007). However, as Jones et al. (2007) remarked, the overall proportion of dedicated spending for research capacity building is low. This is mainly due to the focus of the funders on knowledge generation (Jones et al., 2007) more than on research capacity. The creation of the Centres of Excellence in Africa, the joint initiative of the World Bank and the Association of African universities, is a step towards strengthening research and training. Such centres are expected to empower African countries in research areas that are relevant to Africa’s development (Mohamedbhai, 2014). The capacity of Africa to advance its science and technology system is not sparse. It has been gaining strength in recent years. Africa is advancing its strengths in the scientific fields of astrophysics, cosmology, geology, geography and ecology (Oyewole, 2017). A review of the research output in sub-Saharan Africa reveals encouraging results. All regions in sub-Saharan Africa have more than doubled their research output from 2003–2012 and citations to sub-Saharan Africa articles have increased from 0.12 per cent to 0.28 per cent (Blom et al., 2016). The Egyptian science and technology system has demonstrated its strengths. It has a good research base, consisting of a fairly large number of researchers, about 50 universities and 120 research centres, a highly productive research community, scientific databases, digital libraries and data management applications, high broadband connectivity to support research applications, and huge funding allocated for research (Radwan & Sakr, 2017). Egypt’s strengths, as per the research output for 2005–2009, are

6  Barriers to Self-Reliance 

253

in pharmacology, materials science, chemistry, engineering and physics (Bond et al., n.d.) which is also supported by the data we analysed earlier. Egypt has invested significantly in agriculture research which is reflected in its agricultural research system (Ayele & Wield, 2005). Another country, Senegal, implemented strategies to provide world-class resources to their researchers, and Ethiopia could increase its output by 28 per cent in one year (Duermeijer et al., 2018). Developing research capacity does not come easily. Many nations on the continent are trying to deal with challenges as increasing research capacity is crucial for them. Studying the research system in Ghana, Arthur and Arthur (2016) found that the most serious bottleneck to capacity building in Africa is the collapse of research activity in higher education. This situation is not dissimilar in many African countries (Sooryamoorthy & Scherer, 2022). South Africa, for instance, has recognised the need for high quality and quantity of doctoral training to expand its research capacity (Mkhize, 2022; Müller et al., 2018). The lack of resources and the willingness to invest in infrastructure is still a problem in several African countries (Tijssen, 2007). Internal problems such as wars, conflicts and terrorism continue to ravage Africa and, as a result, scientific capacity is diminished. Burkina Faso, for instance, had one of the highest research intensities by 2017. This was short-lived due to terrorist attacks, and by 2019, the government was compelled to divert its funding to addressing security concerns (Schneegans et  al., 2021). Corruption in Africa is systemic, and it makes an impact on economic growth (d’Agostino et al., 2016) and research capacity. It is on the rise in Africa as shown in the Afro barometer of Africa prepared by the Transparency International in 2019 (Pring & Vrushi, 2019). The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) of the Transparency International presents the revealing status of African countries.1 Most of the African countries are known for the rampant corruption that is plaguing them  The CPI, using several sources of information measures the perceptions of corruption in the public sector in different countries. According to the CPI for 2020 that presents data for 180 countries, some African countries are at the bottom of the ranking scale. They are South Sudan (179), Somalia (179), Sudan (174), Libya (173), the Democratic Republic of Congo (170), Congo (165), Burundi (165) and Eritrea (160). The better of countries include Seychelles (27), Botswana (35), Rwanda (49), Mauritius (52) and Namibia (57). 1

254 

R. Sooryamoorthy

and eating into valuable resources that could have been well spent on productive purposes like R&D. A substantial number of political leaders who were in the vanguard of fighting for the liberation of their countries have turned out to be corrupt, neglecting their country and people. This has been a major obstacle for Africa in moving forward as the resources are stolen by its own leaders. Developing research capacity with local resources is a viable and sustainable option for Africa. Initiatives in this direction have taken place in some parts of Africa. The African Research Coalition for Health linked some 11 African-led consortia that covered 54 African research institutions and universities across 17 sub-Saharan countries and aims at building high-quality research capacity (Kinyanjui et al., 2020). Local efforts of this kind have generated a cohort of prolific African researchers who are involved in leading their research programmes and fostering local collaboration (Kinyanjui et  al., 2020). Nigeria announced its National Science Research, Technology and Innovation Fund in 2012 along the lines of the NSF in the USA. The fund is created from sources from the government, the private sector and developmental agencies. The role of the Academies of Science in Africa cannot be neglected in the development of science. Not many African nations are credited with their own academies of science. South Africa has one of the strongest academies of science on the continent, namely the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf ) with a substantial annual budget (Michelson, 2006). In its bid to encourage young scientists, ASSAf designed supportive programmes for them. As a strategy, ASSAf opened the doors for young scientists to top-quality international networks and institutions. The intention of the academy is to ensure that young scientists in the country can involve in the global young academy movement and benefit from interaction with other young scientists in the world (Slippers, 2016). This is not the experience of other academies. The presence of the African Academy of Science, a pan–African organisation based in Nairobi and responsible for developing research capacity on the continent, has not been effective. Mismanagement and withdrawal of key international funders have landed the organisation in a crisis (Nature, 2021). Africa lacks the capacity to attract and retain a critical mass of experienced scientists, technicians and postgraduate and postdoctoral fellows

6  Barriers to Self-Reliance 

255

(Gwenzi & Rzymski, 2020). A strong African research sector can, as African and international researchers like Baden et al. (2020) believed, emerge within Africa only if scientifically engaged governments and the general public support R&D spending. For the development of African’s social, intellectual and material culture, science should be made part of their social life (Tindimubona, 1991). Since 1990, Africa has been losing 20,000 professionals a year (IDRC, 2011). The cost of the brain drain is estimated to be huge for Africa. As scientists leave at a rate higher than what Africa can balance through local opportunities it is continuously disadvantaged by brain drain (Sheikheldin & Mohamed, 2021). In a study conducted in Ethiopia, Nigeria and Kenya, Adeyemi et al. (2018) realised that the lack of economic growth in these countries is linked to the brain drain, which is reflected in the positive relationship between economic growth and human capital. It means the shortage of human capital has a decisive effect on poor economic growth. Adeyemi et al. (2018) explained how the brain drain is causing institutional failure, low investment and endemic levels of corruption. While the underlying causes of the exodus of professionals from Africa rest with the internal situations, Africa does not take seriously the impact of this exodus on its future. The internal climate for scientific research, political instability, corruption, natural disasters, conflicts and wars and the spread of epidemics add to the push factors for the educated elite to leave Africa. The remark of Oyewale Tomory, the past president of the Nigerian Academy of Science, in an interview is quite realistic: “The brain will drain to where it can be nurtured. If your environment does not mature the brain, the brain is not going to come back” (Byrne, 2022). Due to the shortage of human capital, Africa depends on foreign expertise and employs up to 150,000 expatriate professionals at a cost of US$ 4 billion a year (IDRC, 2011). The forecast of the IMF in 2016 was that the migrants from sub-Saharan Africa to Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development countries could increase from 7 million in 2013 to about 34 million in 2050. This outflow of skilled labour from Africa widens the gap in science and technology between Africa and the rest of the world (IDRC, 2011). The advantages of having Africa-led research are significant. The importance of shifting internationally led research and capacity-building

256 

R. Sooryamoorthy

efforts towards African-led research models is acknowledged in the literature (Kasprowicz et  al., 2020). Africans are more often best placed to identify and contextualise the most pressing problems and scientific research, particularly in the health fields, that will not improve without Africans taking a leading role in research (Kasprowicz et  al., 2020). Kasprowicz et al. (2020) identified three key areas to support the pathway for successful capacity building in Africa: directly empowering Africa-based researchers; offering quality training to large numbers of junior African researchers; and effective information exchange and collaboration. Africa needs concerted efforts that are meant to strengthen its scientific system which is a prerequisite for dealing with many of its socio, economic, medical and health problems that continue to haunt the continent. Measures for a strong scientific system are mandatory. Hassan and Schaffer (2006) recommended a few measures to be taken in this regard, particularly for sub-Saharan Africa. Firstly, to develop, sustain and utilise local capacities and leadership it is necessary to advance S&T. It is important for African nations to invest in the education and training of scientists. Secondly, Africa needs to mobilise the most relevant S&T to deal with its critical problems in areas of poverty, food and energy, drinking water, tropical diseases and pandemics. In this effort the region needs to provide leadership in S&T. Thirdly, it will be beneficial to focus on the indigenous development of S&T.  Finally, it will enable the sharing of successful and innovative experiences in the development and application of S&T within the region. Finally, it may be noted that Goal 2 of the African Union’s Agenda 2063 is to produce well-educated citizens and a skills revolution underpinned by science, technology and innovation. The assessment of the implementation of the agenda (African Union Commission and African Union Development Agency-NEPAD, 2022) showed some positive results: there have been significant improvements in the proportion of qualified teachers in STEM (from 44% in 2013 to 51% in 2021 which is close to the target of 54%). Africa has the capacity to move forward.

6  Barriers to Self-Reliance 

257

Policy Imperatives By definition, science policy covers policies that influence the growth of knowledge. Technology policy is meant to influence the rate of the transformation of scientific knowledge and has practical implications to produce goods and services (Radnitzky, 1983). The science, technology and innovation (STI) policy deals with the promotion and support of innovation. Science policy as practised today is not a single social system, because of several converging factors. These include the need to economise on science resources, the emergence of a systematic mode of thought, the conception of the comprehensive planning of society and the precedent of societal controls over other forms of culture such as literature, art and religion (Shils, 1968). At the same time, as Shils (1968) argued, science cannot be planned as a single goal or a set of goals, and there is no harmony between the development of all branches of science and other social, economic and political needs. Policies are more imperative than ever in the COVID-19 pandemic and post-pandemic period. For Africa, it is a matter of research capacity and preparedness to deal with the pandemic and its socio-economic consequences. For instance, the pandemic has triggered the role of science and its preparedness in Africa (Kinyanjui et al., 2020). Studies (Dilling & Lemos, 2011, for example) revealed that to produce usable science, effective science policies are mandatory. A science policy is essential in preparing the agenda and building capacity. It relates to how and what science should be supported and for what purposes. A science policy enables countries to create conditions for professionals to emerge on top (Dilling & Lemos, 2011). Rodríguez-Navarro and Brito (2022) indicated that the link between economic and scientific wealth can be modified by research policy. The expectation is that science policies provide the necessary specific knowledge content and therefore fund science selectively (Gläser & Laudel, 2016). As the review by Beesley (2003) presented, policy documents of several governments illustrate an awareness to establish a unified innovation system connecting industry, government and researchers. As a result, countries are more directly involved in supporting specific areas of research for policy purposes (Gläser & Laudel, 2016).

258 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Science policy encompasses various essential dimensions. As Kreilkamp (1973) demonstrated, one such dimension is the effect of goals and values on the substantive side of the process of policy making, and the other is the effect of the value judgements on its methodological side. Science policy forms a deliberate and coherent basis for issues related to national decisions that can affect the investment and utilisation of scientific research for development (Hetman, 1979). It enhances the effectiveness of the overall research and development strategies (Beesley, 2003). Africa is yet to prove that its science and technological research and development priorities are in line with priority needs (Thisen, 1993). Several studies (Forje, 1989; Gaillard, 2003b; Nour, 2012; UNESCO, 2000; Wad, 1984) have reported about the major stumbling block for Africa to achieve economic growth lies in its shortcomings in S&T. The lack of well-defined S&T policies in certain countries results in the absence of suitable structures of R&D (Benneh, 2002). Most of the countries in Africa are yet to exhibit the integration between science or STI policy and policies of national development (Sooryamoorthy, 2020). Until the 1960s, the science policy for Africa was not separate from the educational policy (Hetman, 1979). The integration of policies pertaining to national issues and scientific research was absent in these policies. Nevertheless, countries in Africa by and large recognise the indispensability of STI as crucial components of national development. Starting from the 1950s when countries on the continent gained politically independence, efforts were initiated to rein in the advantages of the benefits of STI to national development. In the early years of independence, several countries in Africa formulated plans to promote S&T which was based on the conviction that it is necessary for long-term development (Clark & Frost, 2016). The Lagos conference and the resultant Lagos Plan of Action in 1964 served as an eye-opener for Africa. Leaders realised the need for national science polities in their respective countries (Forje, 1992; UNESCO, 1974). Following this in 1967, the Yaoundé symposium held in Cameroon reiterated the urgency of national agencies for science planning and development. The 1970 UNESCO-initiated regional symposium in Addis Ababa in Ethiopia came up with recommendations for policymaking in Africa. The Vienna Programme of Action in 1979 called for the

6  Barriers to Self-Reliance 

259

formulation of individual national policies for S&T in all developing countries (UNESCO, 1986). The UNESCO-led conferences of the Ministers of African States Responsible for the Application of Science and Technology for Development, CASTAFRICA, gave further impetus to the development of science policies in line with the development objectives. At the time of CASTAFRICA I held in Dakar in Senegal, only a few African countries had national S&T policies, but after this event, more countries came forward to establish structures for the implementation of S&T in their respective countries (Forje, 1992). By 1973 countries like Algeria, Egypt, Guinea, Ivory Coast and Tunisia established a Ministry of Science or a ministerial science policy committee. Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zaire and Zambia had a general science planning body and The Gambia was soon to join the league (Teng-Zeng, n.d.). Tunisia began to develop science policies to respond to the economic demands of the society (Siino, 2003). Uganda did not have a formal STI policy until 2009 (GOROU, 2009). In hindsight, it admits that underdevelopment in the country was the result of the absence of a coherent and overarching national STI policy, overdependence on imported technology and inadequate social awareness about the role of STI in national development (GOROU, 2009). However, it corrected these shortcomings by setting up a new Ministry of Science and Technology and by developing its Vision 2040. Burundi has a Vision 2025 (MPCDU & UNDP, 2011) but S&T is not part of this vision. Burkina Faso’s strategy for 2011–2015 envisaged S&T as its preferred area of action, with the objective of consolidating economic growth. As part of the Growth and Transformation Plan, Ethiopia developed an STI policy in 2012 (FDRE, 2012; Mamo et al., 2014). This policy was to build its capacity in STI and to promote S&T.  Ethiopia has emerged as one of the prominent science-producing nations in sub-Saharan Africa (Sooryamoorthy, 2020). Lesotho is keen to use STI for its economic and developmental needs. Finding S&T useful for its national productivity and development Malawi made efforts to reform the S&T sector (GOM, n.d.). Without a clear STI strategy, Mauritania deals with its own challenges. Mozambique devised a strategy which attempts to harness STI for its economic and social development. Namibia, adopting its Vision 2030, plans to

260 

R. Sooryamoorthy

transform rapidly into a knowledge-based economy (Nyiira, 2005). Its national programme for STI has been able to identify priority key areas of development. Rwanda made use of S&T to support a knowledge-­ based and technology-led economy (ROR, 2006). The plan embodied in its Vision 2020 is to stimulate growth in the GDP and integrate science and technical education. Rwanda also made a rapid increase in the scientific output of publications during 2010–2015 and doubled its share in Africa from 0.17 per cent to 0.34 per cent. Zambia in its policies emphasises the development of its indigenous technological capacity and underpins development through science and technology. Zimbabwe introduced a series of relevant policies and established a separate department for S&T for national development. Not all countries on the continent can claim to have a developed science policy although some have elaborate STI policies to their credit (Sooryamoorthy, 2020). A general approach to the development of social policy in Africa is not feasible. It must be viewed in the regional, cultural, and economic contexts (Juma & Clark, 1995). South Africa, for example, is among the few countries on the continent to introduce a well-­ developed STI policy (DST, 2002). It continues to revise and advance its STI policies. In the Arab countries that are part of Africa, rational policies for a knowledge society (UNDP, 2003) which requires the support of science are insufficient. The main reason for this handicap is the presumption that a knowledge society is possible through the import of scientific products without investing in the production of knowledge (UNDP, 2003).

Conclusion The chapter offered a careful examination of crucial components of science, investigating their interplay and contributions to either a more self-­ reliant or highly dependent scientific system in Africa. The discussion centred on research partnerships, research funding, research capacity and the influence of science policies. Through analysis of published literature and relevant data, key findings were revealed.

6  Barriers to Self-Reliance 

261

The transformation of scientific partnerships in Africa has been evident since the era of political independence. New partners are drawn to Africa, not solely to advance and develop scientific systems, necessitating a shift in the dynamics of partnerships on the continent. The importance of fostering more robust regional partnerships is apparent. Acquiring resources for research remains a significant challenge, as dependence on external funding is no longer a sustainable solution for Africa’s advancement. Urgent attention must be given to addressing issues related to research capacity, aiming to cultivate a critical mass of scientists that can propel Africa towards a path of relative scientific independence, technological advancements and innovation. Notably, many African countries need to prioritise the development of robust science policies, as they form the foundation for scientific progress and independence. The discussion in the chapter shed light on some significant obstacles that African science is encountering and explored potential strategies to overcome these. The next chapter elaborates on the status and future of science in Africa.

References Adanu, R., Mbizvo, M. T., Baguiya, A., Adam, V., Ademe, B. W., Ankomah, A., Aja, G.  N., Ajuwon, A.  J., Esimai, O.  A., Ibrahim, T., Mogobe, D.  K., Tunçalp, Ö., Chandra-Mouli, V., & Temmerman, M. (2015). Sexual and reproductive health research and research capacity strengthening in Africa: Perspectives from the region. Reproductive Health, 12. https://doi. org/10.1186/s12978-­015-­0055-­2 Adetokunboh, O. O., Mthombothi, Z. E., Dominic, E. M., Djomba-Njankou, S., & Pulliam, J. R. C. (2021). African based researchers’ output on models for the transmission dynamics of infectious diseases and public health interventions: A scoping review. PLoS ONE, 16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0250086 Adewole, I., Martin, D.  N., Williams, M.  J., Adebamowo, C., Bhatia, K., Berling, C., Casper, C., Elshamy, K., Elzawawy, A., Lawlor, R. T., Legood, R., Mbulaiteye, S.  M., Odedina, F.  T., Olopade, O.  I., Olopade, C.  O., Parkin, D. M., Rebbeck, T. R., Ross, H., Santini, L. A., et al. (2014). Building capacity for sustainable research programmes for cancer in Africa. Nature

262 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Reviews Clinical Oncology, 11, 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nrclinonc.2014.37 Adeyemi, R. A., Joel, A., Ebenezer, J. T., & Attah, E. Y. (2018). The effect of brain drain on the economic development of developing countries: Evidence from selected African countries. Journal of Health and Social Issues, 7, 66–76. African Union Commission, & African Union Development Agency-­ NEPAD. (2022). AUC & AUDA-NEPAD second continental report on the implementation of Agenda 2063. AUC & AUDA-NEPAD. https://au.int/en/ documents/20220210/second-­c ontinental-­r eport-­i mplementationagenda-­2063 Al-Bader, S., Masum, H., Ken Simiyu, A., & Daar, P. A. S. (2010). Science-­ based health innovation in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-­698X-­10-­S1-­S1 Andersen, C. (2016). “Scientific independence”, capacity building, and the development of UNESCO’s science and technology agenda for Africa. Canadian Journal of African Studies, 50, 379–394. https://doi.org/10.108 0/00083968.2016.1272060 Arthur, P., & Arthur, E. (2016). Tertiary institutions and capacity building in Ghana: Challenges and the way forward. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 54, 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/14662043.2016.1175690 Asare, S., Mitchell, R., & Rose, P. (2020). How equitable are South–North partnerships in education research? Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 52. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2020.1811638 Asubiaro, T. (2019). How collaboration type, publication place, funding and author’s role affect citations received by publications from Africa: A bibliometric study of LIS research from 1996 to 2015. Scientometrics, 120, 1261–1287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­019-­03157-­1 Ayele, S., & Wield, D. (2005). Science and technology capacity building and partnership in African agriculture: Perspective on Mali and Egypt. Journal of International Development, 17, 631–646. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1228 Baden, T., Maina, M.  B., Chagas, A.  M., Mohammed, Y.  G., Auer, T.  O., Silbering, A., Tobel, L. v., Pertin, M., Hartig, R., Aleksic, J., Akinrinade, I., Awadelkareem, M. A., Koumoundourou, A., Jones, A., Arieti, F., Beale, A., Münch, D., Salek, S. C., Yusuf, S., & Prieto-Godino, L. L. (2020). TReND in Africa: Toward a truly global (neuro)science community. Neuron, 412–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.06.026

6  Barriers to Self-Reliance 

263

Bcheraoui, C. E., Mimche, H., Miangotar, Y., Krish, V. S., Ziegeweid, F., Krohn, K. J., Ekat, M. H., Nansseu, J. R., Dimbuene, Z. T., Olsen, H. E., Tine, R. C. K., Odell, C. M., Troeger, C. E., Kassebaum, N. J., Farag, T., Hay, S. I., & Mokdad, A.  H. (2020). Burden of disease in francophone Africa, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017. The Lancet Global Health, 8, e341–e351. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S2214-­109X(20)30024-­3 Beaudry, C., Mouton, J., & Prozesky, H. (2018). Lack of funding. In C. Beaudry, J. Mouton, & H. Prozesky (Eds.), The next generation of scientists in Africa (pp. 71–88). African Minds. Beesley, L.  G. A. (2003). Science policy in changing times: Are governments poised to take full advantage of an institution in transition? Research Policy, 32, 1519–1531. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-­7333(03)00023-­4 Benneh, G. (2002). Research management in Africa. Higher Education Policy, 15, 249–262. Binka, F. (2005). Editorial: North–South research collaborations: A move towards a true partnership? Tropical Medicine and International Health, 10, 207–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-­3156.2004.01373.x Blackie, M. J. (1989). International science and the research needs of agriculturally dependent communities in Southern Africa. Agricultural Systems, 31, 169–183. Blom, A., Lan, G., & Adil, M. (2016). Sub-Saharan African science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research: A decade of development. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank. Bond, M., Maram, H., Soliman, A., & Khattab, R. (n.d.). Science and innovation in Egypt. http://www.bibalex.gov.eg/cssp/publications/Atlas%20Egypt_ final%20proof_report.pdf Boshoff, N. (2009a). Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa. Scientometrics, 81, 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-­008-­2211-­8 Boshoff, N. (2009b). South–South research collaboration of countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Scientometrics, 84, 481–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­009-­0120-­0 Bradley, M. (2007). North–South research partnerships: Challenges, responses and trends—A literature review and annotated bibliography. Working Paper 1, IDRC Canadian Partnerships Working Paper Series. International Development Research Centre.

264 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Bradley, M. (2017). Whose agenda? Power, policies, and priorities in North– South research partnerships. In L. J. A. Mougeot (Ed.), Putting knowledge to work: Collaborating, influencing and learning for international development (pp. 37–70). Practical Action Publishing. Byrne, D. (2022, May 4). Science in Africa: Lessons from the past, hopes for the future. Nature Career Podcast. https://www.nature.com/articles/ d41586-­022-­01148-­6#MO0 Carbonnier, G., & Kontinen, T. (2014). North–South research partnership: Academia meets development? Bonn: EADI Policy Paper Series, European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI). Carbonnier, G., & Kontinen, T. (2015). Institutional learning in North–South research partnership. Revue Tiers Monde, 221, 149–162. https://doi. org/10.3917/rtm.221.0149 Chataway, J., Dobson, C., Daniels, C., Byrne, R., Hanlin, R., & Tigabu, A. (2019). Science granting councils in Sub-Saharan Africa: Trends and tensions. Science and Public Policy, 46, 620–631. https://doi.org/10.1093/ scipol/scz007 Chersich, M.  F., Blaauw, D., Dumbaugh, M., Penn-Kekana, L., Dhana, A., Thwala, S., Bijlmakers, L., Vargas, E., Kern, E., Becerra-Posada, F., Kavanagh, J., Mlotshwa, P. M. L., Becerril-Montekio, V., & Rees, K. F. H. (2016). Local and foreign authorship of maternal health interventional research in low- and middle-income countries: Systematic mapping of publications 2000–2012. Globalization and Health, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-­016-­0172-­x Cheru, F., & Obi, C. (2011). Chinese and Indian engagement in Africa: Competitive or mutually reinforcing strategies? Journal of International Affairs, 64, 91–110. Clark, N., & Frost, A. (2016). It’s not STI: It’s ITS—The role of science, technology and innovation (STI) in Africa’s development strategy. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 15, 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1386/tmsd.15.1.3_1 Confraria, H., Blanckenberg, J., & Swart, C. (2020). Which factors influence international research collaboration in Africa? In M.  Ramutsindela & D. Mickler (Eds.), Africa and the sustainable development goals (pp. 243–255). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­14857-­7_23 Confraria, H., & Godinho, M. M. (2015). The impact of African science: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 102, 1241–1268. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­014-­1463-­8 Confraria, H., & Wang, L. (2020). Medical research versus disease burden in Africa. Research Policy, 49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103916

6  Barriers to Self-Reliance 

265

Conradie, A., Duys, R., Forget, P., & Biccard, B. M. (2018). Barriers to clinical research in Africa: A quantitative and qualitative survey of clinical researchers in 27 African countries. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 121, 813–821. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2018.06.013 Crane, J. T. (2010). Unequal ‘partners’: AIDS, academia, and the rise of global health. Behemoth, 3. https://doi.org/10.1524/behe.2010.0021 d’Agostino, G., Dunne, J. P., & Pieroni, L. (2016). Corruption and growth in Africa. European Journal of Political Economy, 43, 71–88. https://doi. org/10.1386/tmsd.15.1.3_1 Defazio, D., Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research Policy, 38, 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2008.11.008 Diakou, L.  A. N., Ntoumi, F., Ravaud, P., & Boutron, I. (2017). Published randomized trials performed in Sub-Saharan Africa focus on high-burden diseases but are frequently funded and led by high-income countries. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 82, 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclinepi.2016.10.008 Dilling, L., & Lemos, M. C. (2011). Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Global Environmental Change, 21, 680–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2010.11.006 DST (Department of Science and Technology). (2002). South Africa’s National Research and Development Strategy. Department of Science and Technology, The Government of the Republic of South Africa. https://www.gov.za/documents/national-­research-­and-­development-­strategy-­south-­africa Duermeijer, C., Amir, M., & Schoombee, L. (2018, March 22). Africa generates less than 1% of the world’s research; data analytics can change that. Elsevier Connect. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/africa-­generates-­less-­than-­1-­of-­ the-­worlds-­research-­data-­analytics-­can-­change-­that Edejer, T. T.-T. (1999). North–South research partnerships: The ethics of carrying out research in developing countries. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 319, 438–441. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7207.438 El-Gamal, Y. M., Hossny, E. M., El-Sayed, Z. A., & Reda, S. M. (2017). Allergy and immunology in Africa: Challenges and unmet needs. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 140, 1240–1243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jaci.2017.09.004

266 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Elliott, A., Nerima, B., Bagaya, B., Kambugu, A., Joloba, M., Cose, S., Pantaleo, G., Yazdanbakhsh, M., Mabey, D., Dunne, D., Moffett, A., Rwakishaya, E.  K., Kaleebu, P., & Mbidde, E.  K. (2015). Capacity for science in sub-­ Saharan Africa. The Lancet, 385, 2435–2437. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-­6736(15)61111-­4 Ezeh, A. C., Izugbara, C. O., Kabiru, C. W., Fonn, S., Kahn, K., Manderson, L., Undieh, A.  S., Omigbodun, A., & Thorogood, M. (2010). Building capacity for public and population health research in Africa: The consortium for advanced research training in Africa (CARTA) model. Global Health Action, 3. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v3i0.5693 FDRE (The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia). (2012). Science, technology and innovation policy. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Fedderke, J. W., & Goldschmidt, M. (2015). Does massive funding support of researchers work? Evaluating the impact of the South African research chair funding initiative. Research Policy, 44, 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2014.09.009 Forje, J. W. (1989). Science and technology in Africa. Longman. Forje, J. W. (1992). The role and effectiveness of national science and technology policy-making bodies in Africa. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 28, 12–30. Gaillard, J. (1997). The Senegalese scientific community: Africanization, dependence and crisis. In J. Gaillard, V. V. Krishna, & R. Waast (Eds.), Scientific communities in the developing world (pp. 155–182). Sage. Gaillard, J. (2003a). Tanzania: A case of ‘dependent science’. Science, Technology & Society, 8, 317–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/097172180300800208 Gaillard, J. (2003b). Overcoming the scientific generation gap in Africa: An urgent priority. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 28, 15–25. https://doi. org/10.1179/030801803225010359 Geissler, P.  W., & Tousignant, N. (2016). Capacity as history and horizon: Infrastructure, autonomy and future in African health science and care. Canadian Journal of African Studies, 50, 349–359. https://doi.org/10.108 0/00083968.2016.1267653 Glänzel, W., & Zhang, L. (2018). Scientometric research assessment in the developing world: A tribute to Michael J. Moravcsik from the perspective of the twenty-first century. Scientometrics, 115, 1517–1532. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­018-­2647-­4 Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2016). Governing science: How science policy shapes research content. European Journal of Sociology, 57, 117–168. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0003975616000047

6  Barriers to Self-Reliance 

267

GOM (Government of Malawi). (n.d.). Malawi growth and development strategy II, 2011–2016. Department of Development Planning, Government of Malawi. https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-­FAOC148772/ GOROU (Government of the Republic of Uganda). (2009). National science, technology and innovation policy. Government of the Republic of Uganda. Guns, R., & Wang, L. (2017). Detecting the emergence of new scientific collaboration links in Africa: A comparison of expected and realized collaboration intensities. Journal of Informetrics, 11, 892–903. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.07.004 Gutierrez, M., Pillai, G., Felix, S., Romero, F., Onyango, K., Owusu-Agyei, S., Asante, K., Barnes, K., Sinxadi, P., Allen, E., Abdulla, S., Masimirembwa, C., Munyoro, M., Yimer, G., Gebre-Mariam, T., Spector, J., & Ogutu, B. (2017). Building capability for clinical pharmacology research in Sub-Saharan Africa. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 102, 786–794. https://doi. org/10.1002/cpt.695 Gwenzi, W., & Rzymski, P. (2020). When silence goes viral, Africa sneezes! A perspective on Africa’s subdued research response to COVID-19 and a call for local scientific evidence. Environmental Research, 194. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110637 Harsh, M., Bal, R., Wetmore, J., Zachary, G. P., & Holden, K. (2018). The rise of computing research in East Africa: The relationship between funding, capacity and research community in a nascent field. Minerva, 56, 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-­017-­9341-­1 Hassan, M. H. A., & Schaffer, D. (2006). Building scientific capacity in Sub-­ Saharan Africa: From despair to hope. Discovery and Innovation, 18, 279–287. https://doi.org/10.4314/dai.v18i4.15755 Head, M. G., Goss, S., Gelister, Y., Alegana, V., Brown, R. J., Clarke, S. C., Fitchett, J. R. A., Atun, R., Anthony, J., Scott, G., Newell, M.-L., Padmadas, S. S., & Tatem, A. J. (2017). Global funding trends for malaria research in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic analysis. The Lancet Global Health, 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-­109X(17)30245-­0 Hetman, F. (1979). Planning: Perspective analysis and science and technology policy. In V. L. Urquidi (Ed.), Science and technology in development planning: Science, technology and global problems (pp. 21–32). Pergamon Press. Huang, M.-H., & Huang, M.-J. (2018). An analysis of global research funding from subject field and funding agencies perspectives in the G9 countries. Scientometrics, 115, 833–847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­018-­2677-­y IDRC. (2011). Brain drain and capacity building in Africa. IDRC. https://www. idrc.ca/en/research-­in-­action/brain-­drain-­and-­capacity-­building-­africa

268 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Irikefe, V., Vaidyanathan, G., Nordling, L., Twahirwa, A., Nakkazi, E., & Monastersky, R. (2011). Science in Africa: View from the front line. Nature, 474, 556–559. https://doi.org/10.1038/474556a Ishengoma, J. M. (2016). North–South research collaborations and their impact on capacity building: A Southern perspective. In T. Halvorsen & J. Nossum (Eds.), North–South knowledge networks: Towards equitable collaboration between academics, donors and universities (pp. 149–186). African Minds. Jones, N., Bailey, M., & Lyytikäinen, M. (2007). Research capacity strengthening in Africa: Trends, gaps and opportunities. Overseas Development Institute. https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/2774.pdf Juma, C., & Clark, N. (1995). Policy research in Sub-Saharan Africa: An exploration. Public Administration and Development, 15, 121–137. https://doi. org/10.1002/pad.4230150204 Jumbam, N. D. (2015). Green chemistry in Africa: Its inception and challenges. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 70, 187–190. https://doi. org/10.1080/0035919X.2015.1019386 Kasprowicz, V. O., Chopera, D., Waddilove, K. D., Brockman, M. A., Gilmour, J., Hunter, E., Kilembe, W., Karita, E., Gaseitsiwe, S., Sanders, E.  J., & Ndung’u, T. (2020). African-led health research and capacity building: Is it working? BMC Public Health, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12889-­020-­08875-­3 Kinyanjui, S., Fonn, S., Kyobutungi, C., Vicente-Crespo, M., Bonfoh, B., Ndung’u, T., Sewankambo, N.  K., Djimde, A.  A., Gaye, O., Chirwa, T., Musenge, E., Elliott, A., Nakanjako, D., Chibanda, D., & Awandare, G. (2020). Enhancing science preparedness for health emergencies in Africa through research capacity building. BMJ Global Health, 5. https://doi. org/10.1136/bmjgh-­2020-­003072 Kozma, C., Medina, C. C., & Costas, R. (2018). Research funding landscapes in Africa. In C. Beaudry, J. Mouton, & H. Prozesky (Eds.), The next generation of scientists in Africa (pp. 26–42). African Minds. Kreilkamp, K. (1973). Towards a theory of science policy. Science Studies, 3, 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277300300102 Landini, F., Malerba, F., & Mavilia, R. (2015). The structure and dynamics of networks of scientific collaborations in Northern Africa. Scientometrics, 105, 1787–1807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­015-­1635-­1 Langan, M. (2018). Neo-colonialism and the poverty of ‘development’ in Africa. Palgrave Macmillan.

6  Barriers to Self-Reliance 

269

Lutumba, P., Kande, V., Boelaert, M., Kayembe, J., & Mampunza, S. (2010). Correspondence: Research capacity strengthening in the DRC. The Lancet, 375, 1080. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-­6736(10)60476-­X Mamo, A., Mekuriaw, A., & Woldehanna, F. (2014). IFS-AAS project on developing an enabling scientific equipment policy in Africa: Ethiopia country study. International Foundation for Science and MacArthur Foundation. McCall, B. (2012). Grants aim to boost African genomic research. The Lancet, 380, 1546. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-­6736(12)61866-­2 Mêgnigbêto, E. (2013). International collaboration in scientific publishing: The case of West Africa (2001–2010). Scientometrics, 96, 761–783. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­013-­0963-­2 Michelson, E. S. (2006). The transformation of African academies of science: The evolution of new institutions. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26, 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467606292506 Mkhize, M. (2022). The state of doctoral training in South Africa: Current and emerging practices. In C.  Scherer & R.  Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (pp. 36–60). Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781003183952-­3 Mohamedbhai, G. (2014). Massification in higher education institutions in Africa: Causes, consequences and responses. International Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 1, 60–83. https://doi.org/10.6017/ijahe.v1i1.5644 MPCDU & UNDP (Ministry of Planning and Communal Development/ Forecasting Unit United Nations Development Programme). (2011). Complete vision Burundi 2025. Ministry of Planning and Communal Development/Forecasting Unit and United Nations Development Programme. Muchie, M., & Patra, S. K. (2019). China–Africa science and technology collaboration: Evidence from collaborative research papers and patents. Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/1476528 4.2019.1647004 Müller, M., Cowan, R., & Barnard, H. (2018). On the value of foreign PhDs in the developing world: Training versus selection effects in the case of South Africa. Research Policy, 47, 886–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2018.02.013 Muriithi, P., Horner, D., Pemberton, L., & Wao, H. (2018). Factors influencing research collaborations in Kenyan universities. Research Policy, 47, 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.002

270 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Mwaba, P., Bates, M., Green, C., Kapata, N., & Zumla, A. (2010). Correspondence: Research capacity strengthening in African countries. The Lancet, 375, 1874. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-­6736(10)60874-­4 Nature. (2021). Editorial. African Academy of Sciences needs support, not rejection. Nature, 599, 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-­021-­02991-­9 Nour, S. S. O. M. (2012). Assessment of science and technology indicators in Sudan. Science, Technology & Society, 17, 323–354. https://doi. org/10.1177/097172181101700206 Nyiira, Z. M. (2005). New directions for Namibia’s science and technology sector: Towards a science and technology plan. Report submitted to UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Namibia. https://pdfslide.net/documents/ new-­directions-­for-­namibias-­science-­and-­technology-­new-­directions-­for-­ namibias.html?page=1 Odhiambo, T. R. (1992). Designing a science-led future for Africa: A suggested framework. Technology in Society, 14, 121–130. https://doi. org/10.1016/0160-­791X(92)90028-­9 Okwaro, F.  M., & Geissler, P.  W. (2015). In/dependent collaborations: Perceptions and experiences of African scientists in transnational HIV research. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 29, 492–511. https://doi. org/10.1111/maq.12206 Onyancha, O. B. (2020). Regional and international research collaboration and citation impact in selected sub-Saharan African countries in the period 2000 to 2019. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication. https://doi. org/10.1108/GKMC-­04-­2020-­0039 Onyancha, O. B., & Maluleka, J. R. (2011). Knowledge production through collaborative research in sub-Saharan Africa: How much do countries contribute to each other’s knowledge output and citation impact? Scientometrics, 87, 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­010-­0330-­5 Owusu-Nimo, F., & Boshoff, N. (2017). Research collaboration in Ghana: Patterns, motives and roles. Scientometrics, 110, 1099–1121. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­016-­2221-­x Oyewole, S. (2017). Space research and development in Africa. Astropolitics, 15, 185–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/14777622.2017.1339254 Paarlberg, R. (2008). Starved for science: How biotechnology is being kept out of Africa. Harvard University Press. Plummer, L. (2021). How to create a successful global North-South collaboration. Elsevier Connect. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/how-­to-­create-­a-­ successful-­global-­north-­south-­collaboration

6  Barriers to Self-Reliance 

271

Pring, C., & Vrushi, J. (2019). Global corruption barometer Africa 2019: Citizens’ views and experiences of corruption. Transparency International. Radnitzky, G. (1983). Science, technology, and political responsibility. Minerva, 21, 234–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01097965 Radwan, A., & Sakr, M. M. (2017). Review of Egypt science and technology system: SWOT analysis. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 5, 204–211. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2017.5.2(3) Ribeiro, L. C., Rapini, M., Silva, L. A., & Albuquerque, E. M. (2018). Growth patterns of the network of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 114, 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­017-­2573-­x Rodríguez-Navarro, A., & Brito, R. (2022). The link between countries’ economic and scientific wealth has a complex dependence on technological activity and research policy. Scientometrics, 127, 2871–2896. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­022-­04313-­w ROR (The Republic of Rwanda). (2006). The Republic of Rwanda policy on science, technology and innovation. The Government of the Republic of Rwanda. Rosenkranz, B., Reid, M., & Allen, E. (2015). Medicines development and regulation in Africa. Journal of Medicines Development Sciences, 1, 33–36. https://doi.org/10.18063/JMDS.2015.02.006 Sawyerr, A. (2004). African Universities and the challenge of research capacity development. Journal of Higher Education in Africa / Revue de l’enseignement supérieur enAfrique, 2, 213–242. Schneegans, S., Lewis, J., & Straza, T. (2021). UNESCO science report: The race against time for smarter development. Executive Summary. UNESCO. https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377250 Sheikheldin, G. H., & Mohamed, A. A. (2021). Skills for science systems in Africa: The case of ‘brain drain’. In R. Hanlin, A. D. Tigabu, & G. Sheikheldin (Eds.), Building science systems in Africa: Conceptual foundations and empirical considerations (pp. 135–161). Mkuki na Nyota Publishers and African Centre for Technology Studies. Shils, E. (1968). Introduction. In E. Shils (Ed.), Criteria for scientific development: Public policy and national goals (pp. i–xvi). MIT Press. Shuaibu, M., & Oladayo, P. T. (2016). Determinants of human capital development in Africa: A panel data analysis. Oeconomia Copernicana, 7, 523–549. https://doi.org/10.12775/OeC.2016.030 Siino, F. (2003). Tunisian science in search of legitimacy. Science, Technology & Society, 8, 261–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/097172180300800206

272 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Simpkin, V., Namubiru-Mwaura, E., Clarke, L., & Mossialos, E. (2019). Investing in health R&D: Where we are, what limits us, and how to make progress in Africa. BMJ Global Health, 4. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmjgh-­2018-­001047 Slippers, B. (2016). ASSAf and young scientists: Transforming the future of science in South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 112. https://doi. org/10.17159/sajs.2016/a0189 Sooryamoorthy, R. (2013). Scientific collaboration in South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 109, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1590/sajs.2013/a0016 Sooryamoorthy, R. (2019). International collaboration in Africa: A scientometric analysis. In G. Catalano, C. Daraio, M. Gregori, H. F. Moed, & G. Ruocco (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (Vol. I, pp. 151–159). Edizioni Efesto. Sooryamoorthy, R. (2020). Science, policy and development in Africa: Challenges and prospects. Cambridge University Press. Sooryamoorthy, R., & Scherer, C. (2022). Doctoral training in Africa: Taking stock. In C. Scherer & R. Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (pp.  1–17). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.432 4/9781003183952-­1 Stibbe, D., Prescott, D., Initiative, T. P., & UNDESA. (2020). The SDG partnership guidebook: Practical guide to building high impact multi-stakeholder partnerships for the Sustainable Development Goals. UN and The Partnering Initiative. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26627SDG_ Partnership_Guidebook_0.95_web.pdf Tahmooresnejad, L., Beaudry, C., & Schiffauerova, A. (2015). The role of public funding in nanotechnology scientific production: Where Canada stands in comparison to the United States. Scientometrics, 102, 753–787. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­014-­1432-­2 Tanner, M., Kitua, A., & Degrémont, A. A. (1994). Developing health research capability in Tanzania: From a Swiss Tropical Institute Field Laboratory to the Ifakara Centre of the Tanzanian National Institute of Medical Research. Acta Tropic, 57, 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-­706x(94)90006-­x Teng-Zeng, F. (n.d.). Mapping research systems in developing countries: Country report—The science and technology system of Ghana. UNESCO. The Lancet. (2009). Strengthening research capacity in Africa. The Lancet, 374, 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-­6736(09)61213-­7 Thisen, J. K. (1993). The development and utilization of science and technology in productive sectors: Case of developing Africa. Africa Development, 18, 5–35.

6  Barriers to Self-Reliance 

273

Tijssen, R. J. W. (2007). Africa’s contribution to the worldwide research literature: New analytical perspectives, trends, and performance indicators. Scientometrics, 71, 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­007-­1658-­3 Tindimubona, A. R. (1991). Science culture in Africa. South African Journal of Science, 87, 542–544. Toivanen, H., & Ponomariov, B. (2011). African regional innovation systems: Bibliometric analysis of research collaboration patterns 2005–2009. Scientometrics, 88, 471–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­011-­0390-­1 Tu, J. (2019). What connections lead to good scientific performance? Scientometrics, 118, 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­018-­02997-­7 UN. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development A/RES/70/1. United Nations. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20 Development%20web.pdf UN. (2020). South–South cooperation in action: Stories of success. United Nations Environment Programme. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/31239 UNDP. (2003). The Arab human development report 2003: Building a knowledge society. United Nations Development Programme. https://wedocs.unep.org/ handle/20.500.11822/1847?show=full UNDP. (2017). South–South cooperation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strategies for UNDP engagement. UNDP. https://www.africa.undp.org/content/rba/en/ home/library/reports/south-­south-­cooperation-­in-­sub-­saharan-­africa0.html UNESCO. (1974). National science policies in Africa: Situation and future outlook. UNESCO. UNESCO. (1986). Comparative study on the national science and technology policy-­making bodies in the countries of West Africa. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2000). World conference on science: Science for the twenty-first century—A new commitment. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2015). UNESCO science report: Towards 2030. UNESCO. Velho, L. (2006). Building a critical mass of researchers in the least developed countries: New challenges. In L.  Box & R.  Engelhard (Eds.), Science and technology policy for development: Dialogues at the interface (pp.  55–72). Anthem Press. Vieira, E.  S., & Cerdeira, J. (2022). The integration of African countries in international research networks. Scientometrics, 127, 1995–2021. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­022-­04297-­7 Wad, A. (1984). Science, technology and industrialisation in Africa. Third World Quarterly, 6, 327–350. https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/12.4.164

274 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Young, T., Garner, P., Clarke, M., & Volmink, J. (2017). Series: Clinical epidemiology in South Africa. Paper 1: Evidence-based health care and policy in Africa: Past, present, and future. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.06.006 Zebakh, S., Rhouma, A., Arvanitis, R., & Sadiki, M. (2022). Mapping the agricultural research systems in the Maghreb (Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia). Science, Technology & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218221078231

7 African Science: Realities, Possibilities

Introduction Following the discussions in the previous chapter on some crucial issues that affect African science, this chapter goes further into Africa’s current situation to understand the conditions and difficulties with a view to addressing them. The topics in the chapter are therefore viewed from the perspective of the core theme of the book, dependency of Africa in science.

The Present As revealed in the earlier presented data, it is evident that scientific production in Africa, as reflected in scientific publications, has exhibited promising growth trends. Comparing the recent years to the previous decade, the data indicates a potential for Africa in terms of scientific publication output. Notably, there has been a remarkable increase of 41 per cent in the average number of publications during the recent period. Africa has witnessed an eight-fold surge in its production of scientific publications. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 R. Sooryamoorthy, Independent Africa, Dependent Science, Sustainable Development Goals Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5577-0_7

275

276 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Disparity in science across countries and regions prevails in Africa. The most important differences across the regions relate to structural or institutional arrangements and capabilities at both national and regional levels (Chataway et  al., 2017). For instance, historically, the science communities in West Africa made faster progress in the sub-Saharan region, while Southern Africa, except for South Africa, made slower progress. The Anglophone countries in general performed better in science than the Francophone countries (Chataway et al., 2017). In agreement with the aforementioned views, the data given in the book signals that the production of science in Africa is neither even nor uniform. Nearly half of the production in Africa rests with two countries, while a large majority of 44 countries made only 2 per cent each or less of the total production. Only four other countries were able to produce 5–10 per cent each of the publications. Based on the data, African science is concentrated in 6 countries, namely South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Nigeria and Morocco, and account for about three quarters of Africa’s publications in science. Similar findings have been reported in other studies. Duermeijer et al. (2018) found that the bulk of the scientific production in Africa originated from Algeria, Egypt, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa and Tunisia. The disparity within Africa becomes strikingly prominent when considering certain specific research areas that have immediate applications for the contemporary African context. Institutions that made modest efforts in the production of science as shown in the data indicated that scientific research is confined to only a few institutions in a few African countries. Not all African countries have any single institution as the key science-producing institution. The uneven production of science in Africa, regardless of the size of the population, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD) and the number of researchers in the population, is quite appalling. Similarities with world science are distinctive in the data on Africa. Africa is not backward in science when compared to the world. Like the rest of the world, Africa produced the highest percentages of publications in the same research areas such as chemistry, engineering and physics. Agriculture, infectious diseases, immunology, tropical medicine,

7  African Science: Realities, Possibilities 

277

parasitology and veterinary sciences witnessed growing interest and attention in Africa. Physics attracted more international partners and funding agencies than several other research areas. This is due to the nature of the research area that requires more elaborate and intensive collaboration, shared equipment and resources and funding. Research in physics is also connected to the advancement of other areas of science. In funding, chemistry attracts more than any other research areas. In chemistry, 47 per cent of the publications were funded, while it was only 26 per cent for engineering. Funding therefore tends to be research area dependent. It constantly changes to accommodate the complex and ever-changing demands for technological, economic and social development (Jin et al., 2022). Naturally, the research focus of a country is largely determined by the demand for immediate applications and to find solutions to the problems the country experiences at a particular point. The increasing interest in such areas is closely linked to the persistent challenges that Africa faces. Infectious diseases, agriculture and veterinary fields demand the attention of many more researchers in Africa. Africa has begun to appreciate the role of science to deal with its developmental issues. According to the World Health Organization report released in 2020, Africa accounted for 13 per cent of the 1000 new or modified existing technologies developed all over the world in response to COVID-19. This is close to its share of the global population which is 14 per cent (Schneegans et al., 2021). Since independence, African countries either on their own or collectively began to adopt strategies to develop science. Towards the objective of attaining a measure of self-­ reliance in scientific and technological advancements, several resolutions and communiques have been announced, and workshops on science and technology have been organised (Ogunniyi, 1996).1 The Agenda 2063  These include: The International Conference on the Organisation of Research and Training was organised in Lagos, Nigeria, in 1964; A symposium on Science Policy and Research Administration in Yaoundé in 1967; the Conference of Ministers of African Member States Responsible for the Application of Science and Technology to Development (CASTAFRICA) held in Dakar in 1974; the 1979 Vienna Conference on Science and Technology for Development; the Assembly of the Heads of State and Government of the Organisation of African Unity held in Lagos in Nigeria in April 1980, formed an integral part of the Lagos Plan of Action; the Kilimanjaro Declaration in 1987 for the implementation and promotion of S&T; the Cairo Plan of Action in 2000; the African Union Ministerial Conference in 2005 which adopted the Africa’s Science and Technology 1

278 

R. Sooryamoorthy

document states that “well educated and skilled citizens, underpinned by science, technology and innovation for a knowledge society is the norm” (African Union Commission, 2015, p. 2). By 2063, Africa hopes to have enough investments in science, technology, research and innovation among others. To have a fully developed human capital, Africa will have to resort to sustained investments in basic education, higher education, science and technology, research and innovation.

Partnership Concerns Scientific partnerships are unavoidable. Although partnership may be perceived as a need for a developing country, it is much more complex due to its ubiquitous character (Ayele & Wield, 2005). While scientific partnership is integral to global science, it reflects a strong Western control and bias (Peters, 2006). The overreliance on international partnerships is a concern as it affects internal research capacity and critical mass of scientists to produce quality research (Blom et al., 2016). The issue is not whether to partner with or not. It is how to make a partnership functional, operational, meaningful and beneficial for partners, Northern and Southern partners alike, in the roles, responsibilities, equality, resources, skills and expertise. Costello and Zumla (2000) looked at specific research models that exist in developing countries. In these models and practices publications indicate a minimal representation by the developing countries. In the semi-colonial model, which is still prevalent, the research agenda is set by the outsiders, the dissemination of findings is oriented to international journals, and has low levels of influence with local policy makers. Opposed to this is the partnership model in which the agenda is negotiated with partners, dissemination of results is balanced by outputs in national and international journals and have a high influence with local Consolidated Plan of Action as a framework to respond to the socioeconomic challenges of Africa (AU-NEPAD, 2010; the Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the African Union at Addis Ababa in 2007; and the AU plan, the Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy for Africa (STISA) in 2014.

7  African Science: Realities, Possibilities 

279

policy makers (Costello & Zumla, 2000). Seemingly, the last model is more appropriate for Africa. Ribeiro et al. (2018) demonstrated that the least-developed countries with rudimentary national research systems depend strongly on international cooperation. In other words, the less productive a country is the greater the dependence on international partnerships. In partnerships the strength of the institution and researchers in the South will have a decisive effect. The capacity of a Southern institution is a primary factor in negotiating the research agendas that are mutually beneficial and rooted in Southern priorities (Bradley, 2008). In North–South partnerships, neo-colonialist tendencies have been observed. Jentsch and Pilley (2003) found that neo-colonialist tendencies manifest when it comes to proprietorship of data and the proper acknowledgement of individual contributions. There are instances in which Northern inputs are often overemphasised while Southern contributions are neglected. Baud (2002) has reiterated the issues that affect North– South partnerships. These touch upon research priorities, institutional preconditions for partnerships and outcomes of research capacity. Unless the current North–South partnerships change, their consequences for local research structures will subvert the efforts to build national capacity in Africa (Edejer, 1999). Despite the encouraging patterns of partnership, the need for more inter-African collaboration in Africa is felt (Abegaz, 2016). As stated in the African Science and Technology Consolidated Plan of Action, no country can achieve higher levels of scientific advances without interacting with its neighbours. The Plan called for the establishment of regional networks of Centres of Excellence on the continent (UNESCO, 2015). The passive role of the leading countries in Africa to collaborate with other African countries is also a matter for deliberation, as revealed in the data that has been presented earlier. For instance, South Africa has more to gain from collaborating with the North than with the South (Boshoff, 2009). The obvious preference of South African researchers is to work with core countries (Schubert & Sooryamoorthy, 2010). The lack of inter-regional partnership is also a result of lack of communication, as Hountondji (1990) underlined, and it is an index of the dependence of Africa. Scientists in the South are more active in a vertical exchange and

280 

R. Sooryamoorthy

dialogue with scientists from the North than in horizontal exchange with others in the South (Hountondji, 1990). This will only further diminish the significance of African science and undermine the dignity of African scientists. For concrete research partnerships, South–South–North models of partnerships have been proposed to harness learning, to reinforce research capacity and to set the priorities (Maleka et  al., 2019). There has also been a tendency to move away from the old models of North–South partnerships that hinge on aid. The new models that come into play link Northern money and expertise to Southern know-how (Corbin et  al., 2012). South–South collaboration, as discussed in the previous chapters, is also proposed as a remedy to engage in equal partnerships with Northern partners. South–South partnerships for Africa, even between countries in Africa, have more to offer in building research capacity, advancing research areas of mutual and specific interest, and increasing research output. An outcome of South–South partnership should be strengthened national research systems that will have the negotiating power to forge egalitarian North–South partnerships and make the Northern partners treat their Southern counterparts fairly. Apparently, this is not occurring in Africa to the extent it should. All South–South partnerships may not however bring the desired results. In a study of Rwanda-China relations, Lisimba and Parashar (2021) acknowledged that the dependency between China and its African partners is complex due to other traditional actors and China’s unique approach and output expectations. Whether it will lead to increased capacity for self-reliant science in Africa is questionable given the imperialistic interests of China which are more pronounced now than ever before. China’s policy on collaboration is more focussed on strengthening its global economic and political agenda (Eduan & Yuanqun, 2019). The efforts on the part of China in this regard have been referred to as the rebirth of colonialism in Africa. As Eduan and Yuanqun (2019) warned, collaboration with China can facilitate the development of Africa’s research capacity but it could undermine Africa’s capacity if China is using collaboration as a tool to market its science and technology (S&T). The stronger presence of China in Africa has not been viewed lightly by other countries either.

7  African Science: Realities, Possibilities 

281

It is not easy to prescribe a set of conditions for Africa to attain scientific self-reliance based on equitable and respectable international partnerships. Equitable partnership in research is an ideal situation that probably does not exist. African researchers should not envisage partnerships as a means to supplement their incomes and for personal benefits. This however excludes intentions behind career advancements and for improving skills and knowledge in their respective scientific fields. To have a mutually acceptable, profitable and respectful partnership a great deal is to be achieved by African partners. The first step for African countries is to revitalise their scientific systems at all levels by revamping the infrastructure and providing advanced facilities, quality resources, better equipment and decent salaries. When African partners have contributory resources and skills, partnerships become more meaningful and effective in which both parties are recognised for their inputs. Southern partners should aim at and work for building their capacity, if not on a par with their international counterparts. This view does not undermine the structural differences and inequalities. By any measure, there is an inherent inequality between the South and the North. Within these inequalities, there is room for the Southern partners to prove their mettle as capable researchers. In Africa, as Hountondji (1990) observed, there is a system of the reproduction of mediocrity. Hountondji (1990) asked the question of how someone who has never proved to be a good scholar or has not written a paper can take the responsibility of training young scholars. Therefore, Africa should work for fostering and encouraging excellence in all fields (Hountondji, 1990). To be considered seriously, the quality of research produced in Africa should be of value to science and society. This will be a precondition for negotiation on an equal footing with their Northern partners and can change the attitude of Western scholars that African scholars are not to be used as contact points for accessing data and conducting fieldwork. When Southern partners are competent, resourceful and have a track record of publications they will be able to negotiate and enter into an equal partnership with their Northern counterparts. For Southern partners to reach this stage, they should have the research capacity to contribute equally or significantly to partnered research. This can be achieved over a period time by conducting research at the national level, using funds sourced

282 

R. Sooryamoorthy

nationally and publishing in reputed journals. In funding, Southern partners should be able to contribute, even if only partly. This will change the dynamics of partnerships which should not always be chasing internationally funded projects by Southern partners. On the contrary, it is the international partners who approach Southern partners to initiate partnerships. The results of development in underdeveloped countries, as Frank (1969) noted, occur when the ties between the underdeveloped and developed countries are at the lowest ebb. For African countries to reach the level of equality and prevent exploitative practices in North–South partnerships and to level the playing fields, the sustained interest of the state in its scientific system is mandatory. The development of a scientific system should be treated as part and parcel of a country’s central system that should be nourished for overall growth. Channelling resources such as earmarking a minimum of 1 per cent of the GDP for Research and Development (R&D) is imperative. Not even the best performing countries on the continent have allocated 1 per cent to its R&D.2 This is not just to create a strong scientific system to attract international partners but also for its own developmental agenda. The percentage of the GDP should be increased regularly to reach at least the level of the world average which is in the region of 1.7  per cent. For the majority of the African countries, this is not an unattainable goal, but rather a matter of the preferences and determination of their leaders. As seen in the previous chapters, the allocation of the funds for R&D has a cumulative and positive effect on the research outputs and scientific publications. The benefits that the increased allocation of funds for R&D brings to the countries cannot be underestimated.  According to the UNESCO statistics (http://data.uis.unesco.org/; accessed 25 February 2020), sub-Saharan Africa in 2016 spent only 0.42 per cent and northern Africa 0.61 per cent, as against the world percentage of 1.68. South Africa had 0.82  per cent, Tunisia 0.60  per cent, Tanzania 0.53 per cent in 2013, Ethiopia 0.60 per cent in 2013, Egypt 0.61 per cent in 2017, China 2.13 per cent in 2017, India 0.62  per cent in 2015, Japan 3.2  per cent in 2017, the Republic of Korea 4.55 per cent in 2017, Saudi Arabia 0.82 per cent in 2013, Spain 1.21 per cent in 2017, Sweden 3.31 per cent in 2017, the UK 1.67 per cent in 2017 and the USA 2.8 per cent in 2017. Not all countries in Africa had the figures. These available figures for Africa can be compared with 1.7 per cent for the world, 2.4 per cent for North America and Western Europe, 2.1 per cent for East Asia and the Pacific, 1 per cent for Central and Eastern Europe and 0.7 per cent for Latin America and the Caribbean (UNESCO, 2019). 2

7  African Science: Realities, Possibilities 

283

Attaining a satisfactory level of independence in scientific research is not an elusive dream for Africa. Africa is poised to grow as the current GDP statistics indicate. From a real GDP growth of 3.4 per cent in 2019, Africa was projected to increase to 3.9 in 2020 and 4.1 per cent in 2021 (ADB, 2020). In 2019, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Rwanda, Tanzania and Benin were among the world’s ten fastest-growing countries (ADB, 2020). East Africa is the fastest region in Africa, followed by North Africa, West Africa and Central Africa (ADB, 2020). The biggest economies, Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria and South Africa accounted for 55 per cent of Africa’s growth in 2019 (ADB, 2020). Although Africa is responsible for less than 1 per cent of the world research output it has the potential for growth. Duermeijer et al. (2018) found that compared to other regions Africa has the strongest growing scientific production and the number of authors is growing astoundingly at a rate of 43 per cent.

Approaches to Funding Research in Africa continues to rely heavily on foreign funding (Arvanitis et al., 2022). Dependency on international funding has the potential risk that the research agenda is set by the international agencies which may not be aligned to the local needs (Confraria & Wang, 2020) and it is likely to diminish local capacity (Louis et al., 2017) in due course. Diakou et  al. (2017) cautioned about the concerns in funding. Funding from high-income countries will impact the research agenda of sub-Saharan Africa, and as the funders have a strong influence on the research agenda their priorities may not be in line with those of African countries and their local priorities. Dependence on funding impedes research development in Africa (Diakou et al., 2017) and as a consequence Africa fails to invest in science, technology and innovation (Urama et al., 2010). African scientists who participate in research collaborations that do not address their local problems may have devastating consequences for Africa (Vieira, 2022) and for its future development. Kozma and Calero-Medina (2019) observed that the research that is deemed to be valuable to the international community is unlikely to be identical to locally relevant research. There are cases in which African

284 

R. Sooryamoorthy

institutions have acted as an outsourced station called a field station by Northern research partners (Okwaro & Geissler, 2015). This is often the case. The question remains: who decides the research agenda for Africa? It may not be in the best interests of Africa when research is undertaken with funding available from international agencies. Mouton (2018) noted that the agendas and priorities of international organisations are set at a supra or international level and as a result, they are disconnected from the national science systems of African countries. The issue that occurs repeatedly in discussions is whether there is a trade-off between international scientific integration and alignment with local needs (Confraria & Wang, 2020). Donor policies shape agenda-setting processes by prompting and requiring researchers from the South to partner with Northern researchers (Bradley, 2017). A consultative process that considers the local needs and setting a research agenda is called for (Swingler et al., 2005). Investment in Africa by foreign countries does not necessarily lead to growth or contribute to capacity building, as we have seen earlier. The effectiveness of foreign direct investment in Africa is yielding mixed results (Wamboye et al., 2014). Dependency theorists are critical of the role of foreign investment in the economic growth of developing countries as they believe that the benefits of foreign direct investment are unequally distributed and favour multinational corporations (Seyoum et al., 2015). African researchers often anticipate a continuous flow of funds from external sources. This is a mind-set that is ingrained in the dependency syndrome. Too much reliance on external funding will be detrimental to the development of science in Africa and will not meet their local and contextual needs. While sourcing funds from overseas, Africa should also be able to complement it by raising funds of their own. Where countries have recognised and implemented timely measures to mobilise funds locally, science has advanced. South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and to a lesser extent Nigeria, Ethiopia, Uganda and Tanzania are examples. Brazil, for example, made substantial progress in its scientific system by establishing scientific and technological funding agencies, supporting research activities and building infrastructure (Leta et al., 2006).

7  African Science: Realities, Possibilities 

285

As recommended by Whitworth et al. (2018), long-term funding to support young African researchers to build national research capacity and grants raised from national governments, charities and corporations are required. Kok et al. (2017), in light of their study in Ghana, commented that the key to strengthening research capacity is to increase the funding that is available for locally led research. To materialise this, it is crucial to establish well-functioning local institutions. Kok et al. (2017) also argued that a demand-driven programme approach which orients research to local needs is to be taken as a strategy for strengthening research capacity in the South. Increasing domestic funding helps increase African research excellence as has been suggested by Tijssen and Kraemer-Mbula (2018). The Lagos Plan of Action underlined the need for self-reliance a long time ago, but it is yet to be accomplished in Africa. The African Union’s (AU’s) Agenda 2063 articulates a vision for developing the continent. The document states (African Union Commission, 2015), Mobilization of the people and their ownership of continental programmes at the core; the principle of self-reliance and Africa financing its own development; the importance of capable, inclusive and accountable states and institutions at all levels and in all spheres; the critical role of Regional Economic Communities as building blocks for continental unity; taking into account of the special challenges faced by both island and land-locked states; and holding ourselves and our governments and institutions accountable for results. [1]

The drying up of funds expected from other countries forces Africa to look for its own resources. Efforts have been made to mitigate the reliance on overseas funding in Africa. National funding agencies have been established or are in the process of being strengthened to reduce dependence on foreign funding (Gaillard & Mouton, 2022). National-level research funding is an important source of capital to support basic research (Yin et al., 2018). In emerging economies, the role of national research funds in promoting scientific production has been emphasised. Benavente et  al. (2012) noticed significant and positive impacts of national funding in publication outputs.

286 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Karikari et al. (2015) demonstrated how South Africa has become a leader in bioinformatics research in Africa with the support of government funds. Unlike several other countries on the continent, South Africa was fortuitous to have a basic grounding in science even during its dark period of apartheid. The commitment of the country to science was obvious in this period and later scientists in the country explored frontiers of knowledge in core areas of scientific and technological innovation (Beinart & Dubow, 2021). South Africa is known to have its historical commitment to research through financial support which is carried on in the new democratic South Africa (Luruli & Mouton, 2016). Karikari et al. (2015) argued that with public funds and emulating the example of South Africa, many other African countries can do well. Funding models that have been successfully adopted and implemented in countries like South Africa exhibit their repeatability in other African countries. With a long history of supporting research at public universities, South Africa developed its funding formula with timely adaptations and amendments.3 In countries like Egypt and Morocco, as shown in the analysis of publications by Kozma et al. (2018), local funders are at the same level as foreign funders. In Tunisia, the strongest funder is its own Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (Kozma et al., 2018). Ethiopia, also shown in our data, has made remarkable strides in science in recent years. The commitment of the government of Ethiopia to increasingly finance research and its policy aims at strengthening national research by supporting research institutes is strong (Chataway et al., 2019). In terms of local funding, the role played by African non-profit organisations cannot be underestimated. There are instances in which science based non-profit organisations in Africa supported scientific research and  South Africa moved from agency funding to competitive funding over the years (Luruli & Mouton, 2016). There are core and project funding models in South Africa. The former, as Luruli and Mouton (2016) demonstrated, also called block funding for universities, is given through the relevant ministry of higher education for universities to conduct their core businesses of teaching and learning, research and community service. This core funding to universities is calculated in terms of the number of students, staff and infrastructure. Performance-based funding, introduced since 1985, rewards the most research-productive universities (Luruli & Mouton, 2016). Project funding model to support research is channelled through an agent, directly or indirectly (Luruli & Mouton, 2016). This is also called competitive funding, based on open competition which exists in different countries. 3

7  African Science: Realities, Possibilities 

287

they have become excellent sources of support for scientific development in Africa (Karikari et al., 2016). This source must be tapped into for its full potential. Funding in science, as revealed to Chataway et  al. (2019) by their study participants, should be more immediately aligned with social and economic agendas. African countries need to reinvest in their national research and higher education systems, renew capacity and sustainability and be supported by national political determination reflected in long term investment (Gaillard, 2003). While resources required for research in Africa remain a deterrent factor, equally decisive are the political, economic and socio-cultural factors, including lack of policy makers’ understanding of the benefits of research (Confraria & Wang, 2020). Most of Africa is rich in natural resources such as minerals, metals and oil. A majority of the 54 countries in Africa are in sub-Saharan Africa with 44 countries. Among these, 8 of them have rich oil reserves and export oil.4 About 15 others among the 44 are resource–intensive countries (International Monetary Fund, 2020).5 A part of the revenue can be set apart for R&D and for the creation of a national fund. Even a levy on this revenue can make a big difference for science and technology. To materialise this, a strong political will is necessary and must have leaders who understand the relation between science, growth, development, wealth and health for their countries. The emerging economies such as Ethiopia and Rwanda have shown a strong political will to support science and receive benefits from its actions. Moving towards less dependence, a close alignment between the research priorities and programmes of international organisations that funded research in Africa and the national R&D priorities of individual countries in Africa is inevitable (Mouton, 2018). The notion of ‘national science’ articulated by Gaillard and Waast (2000) in post-independent Africa places African states at the centre of the scientific system, and the state institutions become the major funders for scientific research. But  They are Angola, Cameroon, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Nigeria and South Sudan. 5  Include Botswana, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Namibia, Niger, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. 4

288 

R. Sooryamoorthy

this has not been accomplished to a satisfactory extent in the subsequent years. A funding model for national R&D will work for the countries that are lagging behind in scientific research due to lack of sufficient resources. For this, countries must develop appropriate, effective and sustainable structures that are well funded and supported. Naledi Pandor, South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, was very frank when she called for Africa, “it is time for the African continent to be serious about investing in research, development and innovation” (quoted in Ngumbi, 2019).

A More Self-Reliant Science A key feature of the African economy is its dependency on other countries particularly its former colonial countries (Ake, 1976). To achieve a greater degree of self-reliance several necessary conditions are to be met. Research capacity is a major one. Education, tertiary education in particular, plays a critical role in the development of research capacities in Africa. Here again Africa has difficulties as it is deprived of the requisite resources while the higher education sector is expanding (Teferra, 2013). The continent has inadequacies regarding institutions and tertiary enrolment. Sub-Saharan Africa has one of the lowest tertiary enrolments in the world (Mohamedbhai, 2014; Sooryamoorthy & Scherer, 2022). If the connection between tertiary enrolment and performance in science is considered, countries that focussed on increasing their enrolment rates have made a positive effect on the production of scientific knowledge. Nigeria, with the largest tertiary education system in Africa (Mohamedbhai, 2014), secures a prominent place among the scientifically productive countries in Africa. Ethiopia and Rwanda also registered staggering increases in their enrolment (Mohamedbhai, 2014). They are moving forward in their research capacity and becoming important African countries in science. Producing science and scientists for the future requires careful attention as it determines the future of a scientific community and science. This starts at the school level. The way science and mathematics subjects are taught in schools will affect the inflow of students to these subjects at

7  African Science: Realities, Possibilities 

289

higher levels of learning. It will be difficult to attract talented students at the university level if they have not been exposed to adequate training in these subjects at the school level. Students must be stimulated and moulded to choose careers in science, leading to the creation of a strong scientific community that can lead the country in science and technology. Research has shown the poor level of teaching science in schools. A study conducted in South Africa reported that teaching approaches employed in the schools in the natural sciences and technology are not likely to inspire young learners to continue studying science at high school and tertiary levels (Bantwini, 2017). Bantwini’s study threw light on the teaching approaches that are not intellectually stimulating but make science boring. The study recommended a deeper learning to set a foundation for learning science at higher stages of education. The cost of a scientist is relatively expensive. It depends on their research orientation (Balsmeier & Pellen, 2016). This indicates the capacity of the employers to pay well for scientists and retain them by providing competitive salaries and perks. This may not be easy for many African countries. It is quite normal for researchers in Africa to work without a salary. A survey (Maleka et al., 2019) of 412 academics in Cameroon, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and South Africa revealed that 85 per cent held unpaid research positions in their jobs. Among them, one-third had to work for one to five years without pay. Over the years many of the high performing institutions in Africa lost their image as pioneering research institutions. Research in formerly well-­ resourced institutions such as Makerere University in Uganda, Ibadan in Nigeria and the University of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania has deteriorated (Mouton, 2018). Several cases in which premier institutions in Africa have diminished in their stature and are retrogressing have been reported. Still, some African countries such as Egypt, Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, Morocco, South Africa and Tunisia have high ranking institutions and universities (Lusigi, 2019). The centres of research such as universities and research institutes need to be the focus. They should be revitalised and restructured to meet the timely scientific needs of the country. The production of science begins at these institutions. They should have adequate facilities—infrastructure, equipment, power, high-speed internet and skilled manpower. Given the current economic situation in Africa, it

290 

R. Sooryamoorthy

may not be possible to support and develop all the institutions. But a country can identify a few select institutions that are productive and competent and provide extended support to make them excellent institutions of science. The analysis presented in Chap. 5 showed that there are national institutions in countries that are competent to produce science in the areas of chemistry, physics, engineering, environmental sciences/ ecology and materials science. Around the world, there are a few leading institutions that are responsible for the major share of science production. In any given country, developing or developed, such institutions are the beacons of hope. Take India for instance. Although it is a developing country and has several pressing problems such as poverty, unemployment, sanitation and hygiene, it is credited with some of the top-class world institutions. It runs high-ranking universities and institutes of science, technology and management that are comparable with superior world class institutions. They have the best infrastructure and staff, and produce quality graduates who can compete with those from prestigious institutions in the world. Science advances through them. These institutions maintain their stature and reputation in their respective fields. Funding is not an issue for them. The international science community is keen to forge alliance with these institutions. To achieve self-reliance at a higher level, Africa should make use of some of its structures that are already in place. For instance, as recommended by Midega et  al. (2021), the Africa Centres of Excellence Initiative, the Pan-African University, African Research Universities Alliance, Coalition for African Research and Innovation, Alliance for Accelerating Excellence in Science in Africa and Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa can be instrumental in this regard. Dependency on developed economies is not sustainable in the long run. Africa needs to think about its future without relying on others, and also develop its capacities to negotiate with other developed economies in trade, exchange and transfer of science and technology. Africa needs to be aware of the resources at its disposal that can be better managed through efficient administration and by rooting out corruption. As Odhiambo (1967, 1992) called for, Africa has more responsibility for its future. He recommends the tasks of the scientific community as

7  African Science: Realities, Possibilities 

291

promoting R&D as a means for national development, developing new frontiers of scientific research and technological advancement that will respond to Africa’s unique problems, and forging a new partnership between the scientific community and African geopolitical leadership to activate the emergent political will. Self-reliance in science largely depends on the share and the volume of the national resources that a country is willing to invest in science. When a country mobilises its own national resources more than those drawn from other countries it declares the degree of self-reliance in science. Countries that have advanced in science are less reliant on outside funding. China, Japan, the USA and England are using domestic funding for most of their research. The data presented in Table 6.1 gives rise to several key inferences as outlined below. Firstly, Africa is dependent on countries outside the continent for the conduct of scientific research as only a miniscule amount of its expenditure on scientific research is sourced internally. Dependency on other countries, mostly in the Global North, puts Africa in a difficult situation even after 70 years of independence. Secondly, the scientifically advanced countries became strong in science and advanced well as they were able to use their own resources rather than depending on financial support from elsewhere. For instance, China is a top producer of world science along with Japan and the USA. Thirdly, Africa is trailing other Asian or Latin American countries in using national funds for the production and development of science. Fourthly, countries need their own national funds more than those they obtain from other countries for a more self-reliant science. Fifthly, core countries become advanced in their science as they have been successful in garnering their own resources. The core–periphery gap in science will continue to widen if the countries in the periphery fail to find their own national resources. At the same time, core countries will strengthen their standing in science by forging scientific partnerships with other core countries for mutual benefits. Peripheral counties depend on core countries not only for funding but also for partnerships. The scientific interests of core countries in peripheral countries are rather limited to the advantages the latter have in original primary data on scientific aspects and access to data that are necessary for scientific research and the advancement of science in the core

292 

R. Sooryamoorthy

country. This is the main reason that the core countries collaborate with the peripheral countries. Peripheral countries, on the other hand, do not have adequate research capacity, skilled research personnel, infrastructure or finance. In this process, core countries become even stronger while peripheral countries struggle hard to achieve scientific advancement.

Conclusion The chapter examined various aspects of African science to comprehend its strengths and weaknesses in progressing towards a more self-reliant and relatively independent scientific Africa. The discussion delves into crucial factors, ranging from reliance on external funding and partnerships to national resources and infrastructure. Notably, there are promising trends in scientific production in Africa, with an increasing number of scientific publications being generated by African scholars. However, disparities persist across the continent in terms of scientific strengths and capabilities, with a significant portion of scientific production concentrated in just two countries and a limited number of reputable national institutions leading the way in scientific endeavours. It is important to emphasise that the quality of scientific output from Africa is not inferior. The growing recognition of the importance of science for development signifies positive progress in scientific advancement. Nevertheless, Africa’s overreliance on international partnerships and external funding presents obstacles to achieving greater self-reliance. Such means alone cannot sufficiently enhance Africa’s research capacity or cultivate a critical mass of scientists. A preferred partnership model should be adopted, one that allows Africa to fully reap the benefits of collaborations while maintaining a balanced and mutually beneficial approach. Undoubtedly, the continent’s focus should be on revitalising scientific and higher education systems, as these are integral in propelling Africa towards a satisfactory level of independence in scientific research. By prioritising these areas, Africa can pave the way for significant advancements and foster a thriving scientific landscape.

7  African Science: Realities, Possibilities 

293

Despite all the challenges, the future of science for a more self-reliant in Africa is not bleak. It has one of the youngest populations in the world, rich natural resources and a diversity of flora and fauna, among others. Africa is a continent that is young at heart. It has the most youthful population, and the number of people is growing faster than anywhere else… Its nations are also young, with most having achieved independence in the past 50–60 years… Africa also struggles with a disproportionate share of strife, disease, poverty and hunger. Scientific and technical advances—particularly those that draw on research on the continent—will be central to tackling those problems. (Nature, 2011, p. 555)

References Abegaz, B. (2016). Challenges and opportunities for chemistry in Africa. Nature Chemistry, 8, 518–522. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.2533 ADB. (2020). African economic outlook 2020. African Development Bank. African Union Commission. (2015). Agenda 2063: The Africa we want. African Union Commission. https://au.int/sites/default/files/ documents/36204-­doc-­agenda2063_popular_version_en.pdf Ake, C. (1976). Explanatory notes on the political economy of Africa. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 14, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0022278X00023971 Arvanitis, R., Mouton, J., & Néron, A. (2022). Funding research in Africa: Landscapes of re-institutionalisation. Science, Technology & Society, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218221078235 AU-NEPAD (African Union—New Partnership for Africa’s Development). (2010). African Innovation Outlook 2010. Ayele, S., & Wield, D. (2005). Science and technology capacity building and partnership in African agriculture: Perspective on Mali and Egypt. Journal of International Development, 17, 631–646. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1228 Balsmeier, B., & Pellen, M. (2016). How much does it cost to be a scientist? Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 469–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10961-­014-­9388-­1

294 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Bantwini, B. (2017). Analysis of teaching and learning of natural sciences and technology in selected Eastern Cape province primary schools, South Africa. Journal of Education and Practice, 67, 39–64. Baud, I. S. A. (2002). North–South partnerships in developmental research: An institutional approach. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 1, 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1386/ijtm.1.3.153 Beinart, W., & Dubow, S. (2021). The scientific imagination in South Africa: 1700 to the present. Cambridge University Press. Benavente, J. M., Crespi, G., Garone, L. F., & Maffioli, A. (2012). The impact of national research funds: A regression discontinuity approach to the Chilean FONDECYT. Research Policy, 41, 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2012.04.007 Blom, A., Lan, G., & Adil, M. (2016). Sub-Saharan African science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research: A decade of development. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank. Boshoff, N. (2009). Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa. Scientometrics, 81, 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­008-­ 2211-­8 Bradley, M. (2008). On the agenda: North–South research partnerships and agenda-setting processes. Development in Practice, 18, 673–685. https://doi. org/10.1080/09614520802386314 Bradley, M. (2017). Whose agenda? Power, policies, and priorities in North– South research partnerships. In L. J. A. Mougeot (Ed.), Putting knowledge to work: Collaborating, influencing and learning for international development (pp. 37–70). Practical Action Publishing. Chataway, J., Dobson, C., Daniels, C., Byrne, R., Hanlin, R., & Tigabu, A. (2019). Science granting councils in Sub-Saharan Africa: Trends and tensions. Science and Public Policy, 46, 620–631. https://doi.org/10.1093/ scipol/scz007 Chataway, J., Ochieng, C., Byrne, R., Daniels, C., Dobson, C., Hanlin, R., Hopkins, M., Hanlin, R., & Tigabu, A. (2017). Case studies of the political economy of science granting councils in Sub-Saharan Africa. IDRC, University of Sussex and African Centre for Technology Studies. Confraria, H., & Wang, L. (2020). Medical research versus disease burden in Africa. Research Policy, 49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103916 Corbin, H., Mittelmark, M. B., & Lie, G. T. (2012). Scaling-up and rooting-­ down: A case study of North–South partnerships for health from Tanzania. Global Health Action, 5. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v5i0.18369

7  African Science: Realities, Possibilities 

295

Costello, A., & Zumla, A. (2000). Moving to research partnerships in developing countries. BMJ, 321, 827–829. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321. 7264.827 Diakou, L.  A. N., Ntoumi, F., Ravaud, P., & Boutron, I. (2017). Published randomized trials performed in Sub-Saharan Africa focus on high-burden diseases but are frequently funded and led by high-income countries. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 82, 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi. 2016.10.008 Duermeijer, C., Amir, M., & Schoombee, L. (2018, March 22). Africa generates less than 1% of the world’s research; data analytics can change that. Elsevier Connect. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/africa-­generates-­less-­than-­1-­of-­ the-­worlds-­research-­data-­analytics-­can-­change-­that Edejer, T. T.-T. (1999). North–South research partnerships: The ethics of carrying out research in developing countries. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 319, 438–441. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7207.438 Eduan, W., & Yuanqun, J. (2019). Patterns of the China–Africa research collaborations from 2006 to 2016: A bibliometric analysis. Higher Education, 77, 979–994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-­018-­0314-­6 Frank, A. G. (1969). Crisis in the Third World. Holmes and Meier. Gaillard, J. (2003). Overcoming the scientific generation gap in Africa: An urgent priority. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 28, 15–25. https://doi. org/10.1179/030801803225010359 Gaillard, J., & Mouton, J. (2022). The state of science, technology and innovation in Africa: Trends, progress and limitations. Science, Technology & Society, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218221078548 Gaillard, J., & Waast, R. (2000). Science in Africa at the dawn of the 21st century. IRD Publishing. Hountondji, P. (1990). Scientific dependence in Africa today. Research in African Literatures, 21, 5–15. International Monetary Fund. (2020). Regional economic outlook. Sub-Saharan Africa: A difficult road to recovery. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/ REO/Issues/2020/10/20/Regional-­Economic-­Outlook-­October-­2020-­Sub-­ Saharan-­Africa-­A-­Difficult-­Road-­to-­Recovery-­49787 Jentsch, B., & Pilley, C. (2003). Research relationships between the South and the North: Cinderella and the ugly sisters? Social Science & Medicine, 57, 1957–1967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-­9536(03)00060-­1 Jin, Q., Chen, H., Wang, X., Ma, T., & Xiong, F. (2022). Exploring funding patterns with word embedding‑enhanced organization–topic networks: A

296 

R. Sooryamoorthy

case study on big data. Scientometrics, 147, 5415–5440. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11192-021-04253-x Karikari, T. K., Cobham, A. E., & Ndams, I. S. (2016). Building sustainable neuroscience capacity in Africa: The role of non-profit organisations. Metabolic Brain Disease, 31, 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11011-­015-­9687-­8 Karikari, T. K., Quansah, E., & Mohamed, W. M. Y. (2015). Developing expertise in bioinformatics for biomedical research in Africa. Applied & Translational Genomics, 6, 31–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atg.2015.10.002 Kok, M.  O., Gyapong, J.  O., Wolffers, I., Ofori-Adjei, D., & Ruitenberg, E. J. (2017). Towards fair and effective North–South collaboration: Realising a programme for demand-driven and locally led research. Health Research Policy and Systems, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-­017-­0251-­3 Kozma, C., & Calero-Medina, C. (2019). The role of South African researchers in intercontinental collaboration. Scientometrics, 121, 1293–1321. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­019-­03230-­9 Kozma, C., Medina, C. C., & Costas, R. (2018). Research funding landscapes in Africa. In C. Beaudry, J. Mouton, & H. Prozesky (Eds.), The next generation of scientists in Africa (pp. 26–42). African Minds. Leta, J., Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2006). Science in Brazil. Part 2: Sectoral and institutional research profiles. Scientometrics, 67, 87–105. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­006-­0051-­y Lisimba, A. F., & Parashar, S. (2021). The ‘state’ of postcolonial development: China–Rwanda ‘dependency’ in perspective. Third World Quarterly, 42, 1105–1123. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2020.1815527 Louis, G. E., Nazemi, N., & Remer, S. (2017). Innovation for development: Africa. In C. C. Mavhunga (Ed.), What do science, technology, and innovation mean from Africa? (pp. 151–168). The MIT Press. Luruli, N. M., & Mouton, J. (2016). The early history of research funding in South Africa: From the Research Grant Board to the FRD. South African Journal of Science, 112. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2016/20150097 Lusigi, A. (2019). Higher education, technology, and equity in Africa. New Review of Information Networking, 24, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13614576.2019.1608576 Maleka, E. N., Currie, P., & Schneider, H. (2019). Research collaboration on community health worker programmes in low-income countries: An analysis of authorship teams and networks. Global Health Action, 12. https://doi. org/10.1080/16549716.2019.1606570

7  African Science: Realities, Possibilities 

297

Midega, J., Kyobutungi, C., Okiro, E., Okumu, F., Aniebo, I., & Erondu, N. (2021, May 18). African countries must muscle up their support and fill massive R&D gap. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/ african-­countries-­must-­muscle-­up-­their-­support-­and-­fill-­massive-­randd-­gap-­ 161024 Mohamedbhai, G. (2014). Massification in higher education institutions in Africa: Causes, consequences and responses. International Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 1, 60–83. https://doi.org/10.6017/ijahe.v1i1.5644 Mouton, J. (2018). African science: A diagnosis. In C. Beaudry, J. Mouton, & H.  Prozesky (Eds.), The next generation of scientists in Africa (pp.  1–12). African Minds. Nature. (2011). The land of promise. Nature, 474, 555. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/474555a Ngumbi, E. (2019, November 23). African governments must invest in science for future growth. Mail & Guardian. https://mg.co.za/article/2019-­ 11-­23-­00-­african-­governments-­must-­invest-­in-­science-­for-­future-­growth/ Odhiambo, T. R. (1967). East Africa: Science for development. Science (New Series), 158, 876–881. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.158.3803.876 Odhiambo, T. R. (1992). Designing a science-led future for Africa: A suggested framework. Technology in Society, 14, 121–130. https://doi. org/10.1016/0160-­791X(92)90028-­9 Ogunniyi, M. B. (1996). Science, technology and mathematics: The problem of developing critical human capital in Africa. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180301 Okwaro, F.  M., & Geissler, P.  W. (2015). In/dependent collaborations: Perceptions and experiences of African scientists in transnational HIV research. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 29, 492–511. https://doi. org/10.1111/maq.12206 Peters, M. A. (2006). The rise of global science and the emerging political economy of international research collaborations. European Journal of Education, 41, 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-­3435.2006.00257.x Ribeiro, L. C., Rapini, M., Silva, L. A., & Albuquerque, E. M. (2018). Growth patterns of the network of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 114, 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­017-­2573-­x Schneegans, S., Lewis, J., & Straza, T. (2021). UNESCO science report: The race against time for smarter development. Executive Summary. UNESCO. https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377250

298 

R. Sooryamoorthy

Schubert, T., & Sooryamoorthy, R. (2010). Can the centre–periphery model explain patterns of international scientific collaboration among threshold and industrialised countries? The case of South Africa and Germany. Scientometrics, 83, 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-­009-­0074-­2 Seyoum, M., Wu, R., & Lin, J. (2015). Foreign direct investment and economic growth: The case of developing African economies. Social Indicators Research, 122, 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-­014-­0679-­6 Sooryamoorthy, R., & Scherer, C. (2022). Doctoral training in Africa: Taking stock. In C. Scherer & R. Sooryamoorthy (Eds.), Doctoral training and higher education in Africa (pp.  1–17). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781003183952-­1 Swingler, G.  H., Pillay, V., Pienaar, E.  D., & Ioannidis, J.  P. A. (2005). International collaboration, funding and association with burden of disease in randomized controlled trials in Africa. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 83, 511–517. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/269435 Teferra, D. (2013). Funding higher education in Africa: State, trends and perspectives. Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 11, 19–51. Tijssen, R., & Kraemer-Mbula, E. (2018). Research excellence in Africa: Policies, perceptions, and performance. Science and Public Policy, 45, 392–403. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx074 UNESCO. (2015). UNESCO science report: Towards 2030. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2019). Global investments in R&D. UNESCO. Urama, K. C., Ozor, N., Kane, O., & Hassan, M. (2010). Sub-Saharan Africa. In UNESCO (Ed.), UNESCO science report 2010 (pp. 279–321). UNESCO. Vieira, E. S. (2022). International research collaboration in Africa: A bibliometric and thematic analysis. Scientometrics, 127, 2747–2772. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-­022-­04349-­y Wamboye, E., Adekola, A., & Sergi, B. S. (2014). Foreign aid, legal origin, economic growth and Africa’s least developed countries. Progress in Development Studies, 14, 335–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464993414521526 Whitworth, J. A. G., Kokwaro, G., Kinyanjui, S., Snewin, V. A., Tanner, M., Walport, M., & Sewankambo, N. (2018). Strengthening capacity for health research in Africa. Lancet, 372, 1590–1593. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-­6736(08)61660-­8 Yin, Z., Liang, Z., & Zhi, Q. (2018). Does the concentration of scientific research funding in institutions promote knowledge output? Journal of Informetrics, 12, 1146–1159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.003

Index

A

Academies of Science in Africa, 254 Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf ), 254 Africa of Africa, 229 African Science and Technology Consolidated Plan of Action, 279 Agenda 2063, 4, 11, 17, 24, 248, 256, 277, 285 agricultural science, 250 brain drain, 255 capacity building, 251–253 chemistry, 160, 163, 169, 173, 174 China in, 239, 280 collaboration, 6, 7, 34, 35, 155 colonial partners, 238 colonial period, 3

contribution to world, 81 core research areas, 70 corruption, 253 data quality, 17, 18 dependency, 6, 291 disparity, 276 education, 288 engineering, 175, 177, 185, 186 environmental sciences/ ecology, 211 features, 23 funders, 87 funding, 11, 35, 87, 98, 201, 244, 245, 283 GDP, 12, 16, 18, 283 GERD, 32 health research, 250 health system, 36 infectious diseases, 81 international partners, 105

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 R. Sooryamoorthy, Independent Africa, Dependent Science, Sustainable Development Goals Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5577-0

299

300 Index

Africa (cont.) Lagos Plan of Action, 258, 285 materials science, 223 The Monrovia Declaration, 36 natural resources, 287 NEPAD, 18 partners, 105–111, 115–117, 125–127, 131, 149, 150, 153, 163, 177, 179, 189, 192, 214, 225, 229, 239 partnership, 9, 34, 111, 115, 125, 139, 147, 151, 152, 155, 238, 239, 241, 261 physics, 187, 210 publications, 64, 66, 68 R&D, 18, 32, 282 research, 35 research areas, 69, 74, 79, 101 research capacity, 249, 250, 252, 254 research specialisation, 81 science, 4, 33, 36, 81, 147, 276 science policy, 258–260 science producers, 80 scientific capacity, 251 scientific output, 22 STISA–24, 18 and world, 276 world ranking, 3 African Academy of Science, 254 African Science and Technology Consolidated Plan of Action, 279 Agenda 2063, 4, 11, 17, 24, 248, 256, 277, 285 Agricultural science, 81 in Africa, 250

Association of Pure and Applied Chemistry, 174 Authorship disparity, 37 B

Brain drain in Africa, 255 and economic growth, 255 C

Capacity building, 284 in Africa, 251–253, 255 CASTAFRICA, 259 Centre–periphery model, 46 Chemistry, 160 in Africa, 160, 163, 173, 174 branches, 160, 161 countries, 165 education, 174 in Egypt, 160 in Ethiopia, 174 features, 173 funders, 169 funding, 169 institutions, 165, 168 partners, 163, 165 partnership, 173 publications, 161 research, 162–163, 165, 169, 173, 174 in South Africa, 173 China in Africa, 239, 280 Co-authorship, 6, 33 Collaboration, 8, 33, 111, 174, 240, 243, 283

 Index 

in Africa, 6, 7, 34, 35, 151, 152, 155 co-authorship, 6 countries, 109 definition, 243 experience, 7 forms, 238 inequality, 8 inequity, 34 influence of, 152 inter-African, 279 international, 151 networks, 151 with non-African countries, 151 North–South, 240–242 partners, 105 policy, 280 SADC and, 240 South–North, 115 South–South, 280 South–South–North, 243 Cooperation, 7, 126, 154, 237, 240, 242, 243, 249, 279 in science, 6, 33, 34, 239, 251 (see also Partnership) See also Collaboration Core and periphery, 45 Core–periphery gap, 291 Corruption in Africa, 253 Corruption Perceptions Index, 253 COVID-19 publications, 37 D

Data quality in Africa, 17, 18

Dependency, 10, 290, 291 consequences, 11 in funding, 9–11 indicators, 6 in science, 6 in scientific research, 5 Dependency theory, 44–46 assumptions, 44 developments, 44 notions, 45 Development S&T in, 32 science and, 32 E

Economic capital, 41 Education in Africa, 288 in science, 288 Engineering in Africa, 175, 177, 185, 186 branches, 175 countries, 176–178, 182, 186 funding, 183, 185 institutions, 179, 181, 182 research, 176, 179, 185, 186 skills shortage, 186 in South Africa, 183, 186 in Sub-Saharan Africa, 186 Enrolment, 288 Environmental sciences/ecology in Africa, 211 countries, 211, 213, 215 funding in, 219 institutions, 215, 217, 219 research in, 213 subjects, 223

301

302 Index

and research performance, 246 in science, 9 in South Africa, 183, 246, 248, 286

F

Full-time equivalent (FTE), 20 countries, 21 Funders, 8, 87, 98, 245 in countries, 286 Funding, 6, 10, 11, 186, 247, 248 for Africa, 287 in Africa, 9, 11, 35, 87, 244, 245, 283 agencies, 87–100, 201, 219, 230 areas, 245 in chemistry, 169, 173 countries, 87, 98, 209, 210, 229, 284 dependency, 244, 246, 283, 284 and development, 287 domestic, 285 domestic resources, 248 drawbacks, 10 in engineering, 183, 185 in environmental sciences/ ecology, 219 foreign, 9, 35, 99, 244, 283 influence of, 36 institutions, 99, 201, 219 international, 11, 244, 246 issues, 210 local, 286 in materials science, 229 model, 288 national, 99, 285 and partnership, 34, 245, 246 patterns, 183 in physics, 201, 210 and productivity, 246 and publications, 169, 248 and research agenda, 283

G

Gross domestic product (GDP) Africa, 12, 16, 18, 283 for R&D, 18 Sub-Saharan Africa, 12 world, 12 Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD), 16 in Africa, 32 developed countries, 19 per researcher, 20 and publications, 17 in Sub-Saharan Africa, 18 H

Health research in Africa, 250 Health system, 36 Human capital dependency, 255 I

Independency measures, 5 Infectious diseases, 80 Institutions countries, 200 foreign, 192, 200, 219 physics, 200

 Index 

research, 289 research areas, 290 L

Lagos Plan of Action, 258, 285 Local capacity, 8, 251, 283 M

Materials science in Africa, 223 branches, 223 countries, 224, 225, 232 funding, 229 institutions, 226 publications, 223, 224, 232 The Monrovia Declaration, 36 N

New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), 18 P

Partners of Africa, 105–111, 115–117, 125–127, 131, 149, 150, 153, 163, 177, 179, 192, 214, 225, 229, 238, 239 in environmental sciences/ ecology, 215 international, 110, 116, 125, 126, 177, 178, 182, 189, 192, 214, 225, 229, 282 in North, 117, 139, 148, 281, 284

303

in physics, 277 in South, 127, 130, 131, 154, 281 Partnership, 6, 41, 126, 130, 150, 241, 242, 279 in Africa, 6, 9, 111, 115, 125, 139, 147, 151, 152, 155, 238, 261 with African countries, 155 within Africa, 239, 240 Africa–South, 149 Asian countries, 239 autonomy, 10, 241 causes, 154 challenges, 7, 9 in chemistry, 173 and co-authorship, 33 colonial legacy, 150 core-periphery, 291 countries, 152, 238 dependency, 7 in engineering, 179 equity, 281, 282 experience, 34 forms, 242 intention, 238 international, 33, 238, 278, 281 inter-regional, 279 issues, 241, 279 models, 243, 278, 280 mutual benefit, 240 in North, 125, 154 North–South, 7, 240–242, 279, 282 and productivity, 34 and publications, 6 in science, 174, 237, 278 (see also Collaboration) and SDG, 241

304 Index

Partnership (cont.) self-determination theory, 41 in South, 127, 154 in South Africa, 174, 243 South–North, 111–126, 149 South–South, 127, 154, 243, 280 South–South–North, 148–152, 280 Physics in Africa, 187, 209, 210 branches, 187 challenges, 210 countries, 188, 189, 191, 200 funding, 201, 210 institutions, 192, 200 partners, 189 productivity, 210 publications, 191, 192 research, 189 in South Africa, 210 Publications, 3, 37, 111 on Africa, 37 Africa and world, 78 in chemistry, 160–163, 168 countries, 66–69, 100, 109–111, 116, 117, 125, 139, 147, 148, 162–164, 173, 176, 178, 183, 185, 187, 189, 191, 200, 211, 214, 215, 223–225, 232 disparity, 69 in engineering, 175, 176, 178, 181, 183, 185, 186 in environmental sciences/ecology, 211, 213–215, 223 funding, 87, 98, 99, 101, 169, 183, 248

and GERD, 17 immunology, 78 institutions, 82, 101, 165, 182, 192, 201, 209, 215, 217 in materials science, 223, 224, 232 parasitology, 78 partners, 108–110 partnership, 6, 127, 149 patterns, 74 in physics, 187, 191, 192 production, 64 research areas, 70, 74, 78, 79 in science, 33 South Africa, 183 trends, 64, 100, 161, 187, 211, 223, 232, 275 world, 153 R

R&D, 5, 282 in Africa, 18, 32 Research agenda, 284 Research areas, 101, 159, 173, 175, 189, 211, 223, 276, 277 Africa and world, 74, 78 countries, 80 publications, 69, 70, 74 Research capacity, 249–251, 285 in Africa, 249–252, 254, 281 countries, 254 and COVID-19, 257 in health research, 250 in South Africa, 253 Research models, 278

 Index 

Research output in Sub-Saharan Africa, 252 Research specialisation in Africa, 81 S

S&T, 36 for development, 32 in Egypt, 252 Science advancements, 1, 4 in Africa, 3, 4, 33, 36, 147, 276, 277 chemistry, 160 colonial period, 3 countries, 276 dependency, 6 and development, 4, 277 in development, 32 disparity, 4 education, 288 funding, 9 GERD, 5 independency, 5 indicators, 12–24 institutions, 81–83, 98, 165, 276, 289, 290 outputs, 1 partnership, 5, 174, 237 physics, 277 problems, 249 producer, 139, 149 production, 33 publications, 33 in South Africa, 286 teaching, 289 under colonialism, 4

uneven nature, 276 use, 1 world ranking, 3 Science education in South Africa, 289 Science policy, 257 in Africa, 258–260 definition, 257 elements, 258 Scientific capacity in Africa, 251 problems, 253 and UNESCO, 251 Scientific output in Africa, 22 indicator, 3 Scientific research domestic resources, 247 need for, 23 Scientific system, 256, 281 Scientometrics, 46 Self-determination theory, 42, 43 applications, 43 Self-reliance in science, 288, 290, 291 Social capital dimensions, 40 partnership, 40 theory, 40, 41 Social network analysis, 41 applications, 42 assumptions, 42 features, 41 theory, 42 Southern African Development Community (SADC), 240 STI, 249, 257 in Africa, 32

305

306 Index

STISA–24, 4, 18 Sub-Saharan Africa GDP, 12, 18 GERD, 18 Sustainable Development Goals, 11, 24 data quality, 17 and partnership, 6, 237 research capacity, 249

social capital, 40 social network analysis, 41, 42 sustainability, 39 U

UNDP collaboration, 243 UNESCO and social policy, 258

T

Theory dependency, 44–46, 284 self-determination, 42, 43

W

Web of Science (WoS), 47