The research experience of young scientists in South Africa

The South African Young Academy of Science (SAYAS) was launched in 2011. SAYAS was borne out of the need for young scientists to contribute towards solutions to national and global challenges facing society. This diverse group of young academics was created after a stringent process of individual selection, executed and administered by the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf). Part of SAYAS’s mandate is to act as the voice for young scientists in South Africa. In order to fulfil this mandate, the Young Academy requires a deeper understanding of the needs and challenges of young scientists in the country; a requirement which motivated this project – a survey that focused on the profile and research experience of postgraduate students and postdoctoral fellows in South Africa.


INTRODUCTION
The South African Young Academy of Science (SAYAS) was initiated in September 2011 when 20 founding members were inaugurated by the then Deputy Minister of the Department of Science and Technology. This diverse group of young academics was selected after a stringent process of individual selection, performed and administered by the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf).
SAYAS's mandate is to be a voice for young scientists in South Africa. In order to fulfil this mandate, the Young Academy needed a deeper understanding of the profile and general needs of young scientists in the country. Due to SAYAS's close affiliation with ASSAf and the Global Young Academy (GYA), it is possible to build on the knowledge and experiences gained by these organisations. However, it seems that sufficient knowledge on this subject is lacking at present -not only in South Africa, but on a global scale.
A previous landmark study commissioned by ASSAf, namely The PhD Study, aimed at assessing and making recommendations about the status, needs, and challenges of PhD graduates in South Africa. One of the main outcomes from The PhD Study, published in 2010, was the recommendation to escalate the numbers of doctoral graduates in South Africa through various mechanisms such as external intervention programmes and expanding funding for doctoral studies in South Africa. This recommendation was based on the relatively low doctoral graduation rate in South Africa. For example, South Africa produced 1274 doctoral graduates in 2007 (i.e. 26 doctorates per million persons), considerably lower than the production rates of other countries such as Turkey (48 per million persons) and Australia (264 per million persons). This shortage of doctoral graduates threatens the future development of science, innovation and technology in the country. In addition, The PhD study recommended further research to develop a better understanding of the dynamics affecting postgraduate throughput and doctoral education in South Africa (such as funding and mentorship).
This report is a first step towards obtaining a broad overview of the status and experience of young scientists in South Africa. It reports on the challenges and needs of a wide range of postgraduate students, including those at the earlier stages of postgraduate studies than The PhD study (for example, Honours and Masters students). By understanding the experiences of postgraduate students that form part of the production line of doctoral studies, this survey may provide some insights into the various reasons for the relatively low production rate of doctoral students in our country. The experience of postdoctoral fellows adds an extra dimension to the survey results that have not been reported before. The results of this report may also act as baseline that policy makers and academic institutions can use for evaluating interventions to assist with the development of young scientists.
It is anticipated that the resulting information and recommendations will influence the decisions and policies related to the development of young scientists in South Africa, including those of the Department of Science and Technology, the Department of Basic Education, the Department of Higher Education and Training and institutional management from all tertiary institutions in South Africa. It is the long term aim of SAYAS to promote a more supportive and fertile research environment for young scientists, and to assist with policy decisions through the production of Page | 4 evidence based reports, to ultimately increase the production of young scientists in South Africa.

METHODOLOGY Preparatory Procedures
SAYAS aims to understand the experiences and to obtain a basic demographic profile of a broad spectrum of young scientists in South Africa. In this study a young scientist is defined as a science postgraduate currently engaged in postgraduate education or a postdoctoral fellowship.
A SAYAS Working Group was established in 2012, comprising individuals from five different tertiary institutions throughout South Africa (Refer to Appendix 1). The SAYAS Working Group prepared a research proposal, which set out the aims, methodology and content of the survey. This proposal was also formally supported by ASSAf.

Content of the Survey
The survey consisted of a questionnaire to be completed anonymously. It comprised four main sections: A. General demographic profile B. Description of respondent's current academic situation [focussed on student motivation for study and academic indicators] C. Financial indicators D. Future plans The questions were formulated by the Working Group members to obtain information on the respondents' demographic profile; academic status including qualifications, current level of study [i.e. Honours/Masters/PhD student/postdoctoral scientist], fields of expertise and research interests; needs and challenges, and opportunities available to them within their respective academic settings. The survey took approximately 10-20 minutes to complete, and consisted mostly of multiple choice items and a few open-ended questions. The final open-ended question gave respondents the opportunity to voice any concerns or ideas not addressed by the survey. The complete survey is provided in Appendix 2.

MAIN FINDINGS
During the survey period of four months, a total of 1021 young scientists completed the online survey. This section describes the main findings from the survey.

A. General Demographic Profile of Respondents
As expected, most respondents were South African citizens (n=867, 85.2%), with 111 (10.9%) responses from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and other African countries. The remaining respondents (less than 4%) originated from Europe, Asia, and the Americas.

FIG 1. LEVEL OF ENROLMENT OF RESPONDENTS (N=1021)
The distribution of current enrolment is shown in Figure 1. Most respondents were enrolled for a Masters (46%) or Doctoral (33%) degree, whereas Honours and Postdoctoral scholars comprised 12% and 9% of the sample, respectively ( Fig. 1). More specific details regarding the age, race and gender profile of respondents, registration period and study discipline are presented in Table 1.
The age-range of the group was 20-78 years, with a mean age of 29 years. Young black scientists represented about one fifth of responses across all enrolment categories. Sixty-five percent of respondents identified themselves as white, which may reflect the general imbalance in the racial distribution of postgraduate students in South Africa. Representation from female science students (56%), Masters students (46%) and students enrolled for Natural Sciences (38.6%) were slightly higher than expected.
Although the invitation to complete the online questionnaire was sent to all tertiary institutions in South Africa by an administrator from ASSAf, approximately 70% of the responses were from four institutions (Fig. 2), namely the Universities of Stellenbosch, Pretoria, Cape Town and the North-West University. The University of Witwatersrand, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University and the University of KwaZulu-Natal also feature, each comprising approximately 5 % of the sample. The remaining 15 % of responses originated from 13 different institutions, as shown in Figure 2.

Motivation and Academic Indic ator s
This section describes survey results about young scientists' motivation for study and other academic indicators, and will be addressed according to different themes below:

Motivation for Pursuing Postgraduate Studies
The main finding and broad consensus from The PhD study was that not enough PhDs are being produced in South Africa in relation to the developmental needs of the country. The Young Scientist Survey therefore attempted to understand the motivation of young scientists to continue their studies and to pursue a PhD locally.
When viewing the 2011 figures of registered undergraduate and postgraduate students in South Africa, it is noteworthy that 476 840 students were registered for 3-year or 4-year undergraduate degrees, whereas 48 873 and 12 832 students were registered for Masters and PhD studies, respectively (HEMIS, 2012). Based on crude calculations it appears that approximately 10% of undergraduate students continue to study at Master's level. In the Young Scientist Survey, 70% of respondents indicated that they planned to perform postgraduate studies while being an undergraduate student.
A surprising finding from the Young Scientist Survey is that 43% of respondents indicated that the reason for pursuing their postgraduate studies was an interest in an academic career (Fig 3). This figure increased significantly with level of enrolment (as might be expected) from 24% at Honours level, to 34% at Masters, and to 58% for PhDs and postdoctoral fellows. While the broader established scientific community realises the importance of increasing PhDs in South Africa to contribute to the high-level skill demands in our emerging economy, large numbers of postgraduate students seem to have career aspirations in academia. Career opportunities in the tertiary education sector may either not be sufficient to accommodate these numbers of graduates at present, or young scientists may not be aware of career opportunities in industry. Moreover, no large scale expansion of teaching and research staff at higher education institutions has been identified in the National Development Plan. Similar mismatches in the career aspirations and opportunities for postgraduate students are experienced overseas, leading to potential unhappiness if this expectation is not properly managed and if alternative careers in government and industry are not promoted.
The career aspirations and expectations of postgraduate students is a subject that is flagged here as needing further investigation. Further support for "soft skills" development (beyond that which is strictly required to meet the academic requirements of their chosen degrees) should be made available to postgraduates. In addition, better communication, focused career planning and strengthened relationships between universities and industry are strongly encouraged. Postgraduate students need career development information and opportunities.

Emphasis on Quality
The general trend at tertiary institutions to focus on quality research and to publish research results was also evident from the responses. Respondents seemed knowledgeable when it came to the characteristics that would make an institution favourable for postgraduate studies (e.g. "University/institution provides the highest quality in my particular field of study") beyond factors that would make postgraduate studies more convenient (e.g. "Closest to home (therefore cheaper)" or "Cheapest registration costs") (Fig 4). However, it seemed that the institution where undergraduate studies were performed and institutions that offered bursaries were also favoured, for obvious practical and logistic reasons. The focus on quality was maintained when asked which characteristic was perceived as the most important when choosing a supervisor (Fig 5). Being an expert within the study field was considered five times more important than being "intelligent". Personality traits such as being understanding and enthusiastic were also appreciated, with 14% perceiving quick feedback to be of primary importance.
Despite the emphasis on quality in choosing an institution or supervisor, students expressed variable levels of satisfaction with their current experience, with respect to the academic quality of the research subject and environment. In Figure 6 we captured the ratio of satisfied (stating "probably the best on a national level" and "competes with the best internationally") versus the expression that the research quality and environment have a "poor standard" or only "acceptable quality". This ratio provides an indication of student satisfaction with their current postgraduate experience. These ratios were only captured for institutions having 17 or more responses (ranging between 17 to 269 responses per institution). The satisfaction of students enrolled at the University of Cape Town was overall the highest (N=156), with almost 80 % (N=122) being satisfied versus 20% (N=34) being dissatisfied.

Supervision
The Survey also included a number of questions on the student-supervisor relationship. Most students, regardless of enrolment level (Honours to PhD students and postdoctoral fellows) were satisfied with their own study progress and their primary supervisor. For example, 70% of respondents reported "good" or "excellent" levels of satisfaction with their study progress, whereas 73% gave similar ratings to their satisfaction with their primary supervisor. Only 6.5% and 7.7% rated their progress or supervisors as "poor" and "very poor", respectively. The majority (82%) were satisfied with their current supervisor although a worrying 17.3% of respondents indicated that they would switch to another supervisor if it were possible. Figure 7 depicts the number of hours of supervision received by respondents on a monthly basis. The majority of students (approximately 75 %) at all enrolment levels received less than 5 hours of supervision per month.

Mentorship
The majority (82.5%) of respondents indicated that they see the need for or the value of having a mentor in addition to their supervisor. When asked what type of support from their institution they would value, 36% indicated that "an active mentorship programme" would be one of the most important types of support (Fig 8). It is encouraging to note that 59% of respondents had at least one mentor in the academic environment that was not their academic supervisor.
Further analyses indicated that young scientists with at least one mentor were 46% more likely to report good or excellent academic progress (rather than very poor, poor or adequate progress) compared to those without mentors (p=0.007). This finding highlights the importance of young scientists having mentoring relationships with more established scientists.

FIG 7.HOURS OF SUPERVISION PER MONTH ACCORDING TO THE LEVEL OF ENROLMENT (%) Expected Support from the Institution
We wanted to establish what type of institutional support respondents perceive as important for their development as young scientists. Respondents had the opportunity to choose three options from ten suggestions (See question #21 in Appendix 2). More than 50 % of the respondents ranked courses in writing for publication as important for their development as young scientists, indicating a desire for institutional support in this critical area. Postgraduate scientists in South Africa, it appears, are well aware of the need to publish research results. Other notable needs indicated were for courses on analysing/managing their data, active mentorship and improved internet access.
Solid research methodology is of critical importance to the success of postgraduate research. Question #20 of the Survey explored postgraduate student experiences of courses on Research Methodology. Surprisingly, 40.5 % (N=413) of young scientists reported that they either have not done such a course, will not enrol for such a course, or that the quality of the course(s) that they attended was poor (Fig 9).Respondents were least likely to endorse courses on using the internet effectively, possibly indicating a high level of computer literacy. This was also supported by the reported availability of computer and laptop facilities by respondents, with 96% reporting access to a computer at home, and 92% reporting access to computer facilities at their institution. Reported internet access at home was somewhat lower (73%) which supports the fourth ranked need for unlimited free internet access at their institution (Fig 8).

Research Exposure and Dissemination of Results
The Survey probed the young scientists' experience of writing and presenting conference and journal papers. The importance of publishing research results and presenting results at local and international conferences is highlighted by the responses of survey respondents, with 52% reporting that they have been an author on one or more research articles before, and 86% indicating that they plan to publish their results. A total of 64% reported that they plan to submit two or more manuscripts for publication resulting from their current degree.
Some of the respondents reported that they do have opportunities to attend scientific meetings locally (34%) or internationally (46.5%). Whereas attendance is typically funded fully or in part by some institutions (62%), 20% reported that all costs would have to be covered by their personal funds, a potential barrier for many students.

C. Financial Indic ators
The ability to financially support postgraduate studies was an area that attracted a great deal of comment from respondents. When asked how their studies are funded (Fig 10), 63% of respondents indicated that they funded their studies with bursaries. Less than 20% of the respondents reported funding their studies from other sources. From the results it appears that many young scientists use multiple ways to fund their studies, such as bursaries and part-time work (many students ticked more than one box).
In support of this finding, 77% of respondents indicated that they applied for bursaries and 62% had a successful outcome. Forty-four percent (44%) received help from an academic staff member or another person when applying for a bursary. One area where institutions could improve their visibility is to provide information to undergraduate students regarding possible scholarships or bursaries for continuation of postgraduate studies, since only 43% indicated that this information

FIG 9.DESCRIPTION ON WHETHER A FORMAL COURSE ON RESEARCH METHODOLOGY WAS DONE (%)
Page | 15 was readily available. This could lead to increased interest from undergraduates in pursuing postgraduate studies.

D. Future Pl ans
Earlier in this report it was indicated that a surprisingly high percentage of young scientists expect to pursue an academic career, with the highest percentage of 58% reported for those enrolled for a PhD or postdoctoral scholarship (Fig 3). When focussing only on Honours and Masters students (Fig  11), about a third of both Honours and Masters students wanted to complete their current degree only. Considerable proportions of both these groups plan to continue with a doctoral degree (29% and 43% for Honours and Masters students, respectively). More than 20 % of Masters students had the desire to pursue PhD studies but were prevented from doing so by external factors, as shown in Figure 11. Obtaining further information about those external factors and providing support to assist students with overcoming those barriers may improve the number of enrolled PhD students in the future.

FIG 10.NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO FUNDING SOURCES (%)
When questioned on whether young scientists would consider postgraduate studies abroad, 68% indicated that they would consider this, and 23% of Masters and Doctoral students indicated that they already have an opportunity to work internationally after completion of their studies. More than half of the respondents also reported that they were interested in pursuing postdoctoral studies locally or internationally (56.6%). When questioned on whether they would return to South Africa after a postdoctoral fellowship, the majority reported "definitely" or as a "high possibility" (63.6%), whereas 17% reported that it was unlikely or that they were unsure (Fig 12).

Summary of Issues C oncerning Postgraduate Students and Postdoctora l Scholars
The final open-ended question of the Survey (Question #42, Appendix 2) invited suggestions, comments and challenges from respondents. The aspects mentioned by respondents are summarised in the word cloud below: By far, the most responses discussed concerns and challenges regarding funding of postgraduate studies. Given that many respondents were bursary holders, their concerns may have been about funding the next level of study should they wish to pursue the subsequent degree. The other key focus of the open-ended responses was on the need for more opportunities following completion of their current degree. The third key focus was on support: respondents requested financial support, mentorship and career guidance.

RECOMMENDATIONS
In summary, SAYAS aimed to understand the experiences and academic needs of postgraduate students and postdoctoral scholars in South Africa, at all levels from Honours to post-PhD. The survey findings may assist in developing postgraduate students at junior levels into PhD graduates.
The results should be interpreted in the context of the limitations of this study, namely that some elements of response bias cannot be ruled out. Participation from white respondents (65.3%) from the four of the largest institutions (approximately 70%) was higher than expected, and the overall results may underrepresent challenges and needs of young scientists from smaller institutions.
Finally, it is critical to translate any increased numbers of PhD graduates into a valuable resource for national and industrial development. Achieving these aims will require additional development of young scientists, in terms of numbers, "soft skills" and academic quality.
Based on the survey results, the following key findings are summarised: 1. A mentorship programme may prove extremely valuable to postgraduate students not only for progress on their current degree but also to assist with career guidance. It is acknowledged that such a system is already in existence at some of these institutions (e.g. University of Stellenbosch and University of Cape Town); further research on the functioning and efficacy of these systems should be encouraged. Students with at least one mentor were more likely to report good progress with their studies than respondents without a mentor. 2. Postgraduate scientists in South Africa are well aware of the need to publish research results. More than 50 % of the respondents ranked courses in writing for publication as important for their development as young scientists, indicating a desire for institutional support in this critical area. Although some institutions provide such courses, in many instances these are focused on academic staff members, and the focus should therefore also be shifted towards postgraduate students and postdoctoral fellows. 3. Information on scholarships and bursaries should be made readily and prominently available to all senior undergraduate and postgraduate students. Although institutions may all have financial departments focussing on bursaries and loans, the services of such departments need to be advertised more effectively to students. Assistance with completing scholarship and bursary applications should also be provided by all institutions. 4. Approximately 20 % of Masters students indicated an interest in continuing to PhD level but were prevented from doing so by external factors such as lack of funding. The external barriers preventing Masters students from continuing to PhD studies should be researched in more detail and ways to overcome them should be addressed. 5. Postgraduate students should receive adequate institutional support to assist them with the development of other skills necessary for careers outside of the academic environment, and be assisted with career information and development opportunities.Further research should explore the career aspirations of postgraduate students