A South African University Funding Model and its Contribution to Transformation Agenda
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In this paper I report on a study which investigated a South African university funding model and its impact on the country’s socioeconomic transformation agenda. The main objective of the study was to develop a South African university funding model that would align with the country’s transformation agenda. The data presented in the paper were sourced using a combination of quantitative and qualitative research design methods. The quantitative approach involved 160 questionnaires, and 17 respondents participated in interviews as part of the qualitative research process. The respondents were purposively selected from six groupings which included the recently employed former National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) funded students, Department of Higher Education and Training officials, NSFAS officials, Students’ Representative Council (SRC) members, and officials employed in the finance divisions and registrar’s offices at public universities in South Africa. The results demonstrated that amongst the various sources of funding for the South African university sector, government and NSFAS funding were significantly contributing to the transformation agenda in South Africa. The findings confirm the agency theory perspective that funding is a tool that governments use to entice universities towards the achievement of the transformation agenda.In this paper I report [AB1] on[AB2] a study[AB3] which investigated a South African university funding model and its impact on the country’s s[AB4] ocioeconomic transformation agenda. The main objective of the study was to develop a South African university funding model that would align with the country’s transformation agenda. The data presented in the [MOU5] [OM6] paper w[AB7] ere sourced[AB8] using a combination of quantitative and qualitative research design methods. The quantitative approach involved 160 questionnaires, and 17 respondents participated in interviews as part of the qualitative research process[MOU9] [OM10] . The respondents were purposively selected from six groupings [AB11] [OM12] which included the recently employed former National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) funded students, Department of Higher Education and Training[AB13] [OM14] officials, NSFAS officials, Students’ Representative Council[AB15] [OM16] (SRC) members,[AB17] [OM18] and officials employed in the finance divisions and registrar’s offices at public universities in South Africa. The results demonstrated that amongst the various sources of funding for the South African university sector, government and NSFAS funding were significantly contributing to the transformation agenda in South Africa. The findings confirm the agency theory perspective that funding is a tool that governments use [AB19] [OM20] to entice universities towards[AB21] [OM22] the achievement of the transformation agenda.[MOU23] [OM24] [AB1]You (or “we”) report; the paper does not. APA prefers to avoid use of anthropomorphism (attributing human qualities to nonhuman things). APA permits use of first-person pronouns (e.g., I, we). [AB2]Consider being more specific. “evaluate”? “analyse”? “investigate”? [AB3]It is not clear which researcher you are referring to. Consider using the researcher’s name and publication year. Or, do you mean “In this study I investigate a South African university . . .” If so, to avoid confusion and to adhere to APA guidelines, refer to yourself as “I.” [AB4]APA closes the prefix “socio.” [MOU5]Add the research objectives to be studied in full. [OM6]Done [AB7]“Data” is plural. [AB8]If you sourced the data, use “I sourced the data in the paper . . .” [MOU9]Add quantitative and qualitative results [OM10]Added [AB11] [AB11]If you selected the respondents, use “I selected the respondents from six groupings using purposive sampling . . .” [OM12]accept [AB13]Use the full name. The initialism is not needed because it is not used again in the abstract. [OM14]Done [AB15]Use the full name. The initialism is not needed because it is not used again in the abstract. [OM16]Done [AB17]APA uses the serial comma, regardless of English style. [OM18]agreed [AB19]Revised for active voice, which APA prefers. [OM20]Accept [AB21]Per your request, I have retained use of UK English/spelling, but please note that APA prefers use of US English. [OM22]Noted [MOU23]Write down your findings according to the goals you want to achieve. [OM24]Links to the research objectives
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,017 |
| Communication savante | 0,020 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,014 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».