SUMMARY OF MEETING OF EASTERN CAPE PHYSICS COMMUNITY regarding “The Future of Physics in South Africa” held on 30 August 2002 in the Kraal, UPE Chaired by Prof JAA Engelbrecht *************************************** 1. OPENING AND WELCOME BY CHAIRMAN 2. OPENING ADDRESS BY SAIP PRESIDENT (Dr P Whitlock) 2.1 Welcome and thanks 2.2 Summary/Format of meeting: a) Welcome b) Desired outcomes c) Brief background d) Terms of Reference (ToR) for study e) Discussion 2.3 Objective of meeting: To introduce the process of looking at the future of Physics in South Africa. 2.4.1 Primary purpose of meeting: § To inform about the initiative. § To receive preliminary feedback and encourage later feedback by e-mail. § To elicit commitment to participation in the process. 2.4.2 Secondary objective of meeting: To encourage greater involvement in SAIP (especially from industry). § To encourage development in links between Eastern Cape physicists. 2.5 [Refer 2.2(d)] Brief background to initiative: 2.5.1 Dissatisfaction amongst academic physics community with respect to: § Physics curriculum at school § The number of students studying physics § Availability of student/post-doc grants § Availability of research grants and funding for meetings/schools § Funding for equipment § Salaries of academic physicists 2.5.2 Statement from DG of DACST and NRF strategic planning: § DACST would support an initiative by SAIP to examine role, and priorities, of physics in South Africa. 2.5.3 Ideal time to take advantage of three key leaders in SA: § Minister of Science & Technology § Rob Adams § President of NRF 2.6 Pertinent questions: 2.6.1 What can and should physics be doing for South Africa? § How can physics contribute to national priorities? § In what areas does physics in South Africa have strategic advantages? § Which physics initiative might leverage funding? 2.6.2 What can South Africa do for physics? 2.7 Proposed process that initiative will follow (hereafter referred to as “the process”). 2.7.1 Hold local consultative meetings in W.C., E.C., Gauteng and KZN. 2.7.2 Use SAIP AGM for discussion with physicists who are members of SAIP. 2.7.3 Choose members for a national workshop by end 2002. Form: Ÿ Management and Policy Committee (MPC) – representative capacity. Ÿ Technical committee (to carry out plans). 2.7.4 MPC to finalise ToR for review. 2.7.5 MPC to select an international review panel. 2.7.6 International review panel to conduct review within the ToR. 2.7.7 Distribution to distribute review report to contributors and public. 2.7.8 Implement the recommendations. 3. OPENING ADDRESS BY NRF REPRESENTATIVE (PRINCE): “Positioning Physics in the future of South Africa” 3.1 Feedback/background: § NRF involved in discussion regarding this issue since 2000. § NRF originally approached by Prof Malherbe (UP) regarding student number crisis. § NRF were unable to respond then, but now ready to support physics in addressing the crisis issues. § NRF did not support Prof Malherbe’s proposal (to increase physics bursaries for black students) as it was considered non-sustainable – were seeking a sustainable solution. 3.2 Primary functions of speaker: § Research capacity building and development: a) Develop people. b) Identify and study foundations/disciplines for supporting research. c) Infrastructure. d) Systems and processes. 3.3 Assessment: § Function of workshop is to collect feedback and ideas from stakeholders. § Necessary that physicists provide the drive for the process of positioning physics in the South African future. § There is the recognition that physics is part of a greater community, therefore it is necessary that the collateral beneficiaries (e.g. industry) participate in the assessment process. § Assessment is necessary to find solutions, therefore acceptance of the process by the physics community is vital. § Results are required quickly, therefore process must address the urgency of the matter. § Assessment process is a learning experience. § NRF is committed to this process at the highest level. Eagerly awaits outcome of the evaluation. 4. OPENING OF THE FLOOR FOR COMMENTS “What can we as physicists take to the party of the NRF and government?” 5. ADDITIONAL SUMMARY COMMENT BY NRF REPRESENTATIVE § Physics is identified as being in trouble. § Physics needs to be positioned in the South African future. § Physics needs to go forward. § What must be done to ensure that the solution forecoming from the initiative is embraced by the people on the ground? § Necessary to identify the heart of the problem and strategise for solutions. RESPONSES FROM FLOOR AND SUMMARY OF COMMENTS MADE IN DEBATE WITH REPRESENTATIVES 6. Felt that “crisis” is a poor description of the current situation since South Africa still has some world-class physicists. 7. “Crisis” is the result of insufficient qualified science teachers so that the resultant number of black physicists is low. 8. The South African research ethos has changed. The emphasis of research is changing, giving rise to some questions: Ø “What role does physics play in preparing students for their chosen careers?” Ø “Can we show that our students can solve SA-related problems?” Ø “Do our students ‘serve’ their country?” Ø “What impact do they have on society?” 9. The marketing of physics is important – need to utilise our partners in physics. Important to show that we can help solve real South African problems. Also important to show that physics has a place for academics/teachers/those who prefer the applied physics fields. “Space” for pure research should be retained/maintained. 10. Applied/industrial physicists are required to bridge the gap between industry and pure physics. 11. Suggestion was made to separate physics and chemistry (as subjects) at school level, so that pupils are exposed to “Physics” and not just “Science” at an earlier stage in their education. 12. SAIP and NRF support this subject definition. However, the drive is inhibited by the lack of teachers capable of teaching “physics only” at school level. 13. Industry needs to realise and recognise the value of physicists – Industry/University/Technikon collaboration must be encouraged. 14. It was suggested that South Africa is a “quick fix” society that wants a very fast return on study investment – this is not consistent with the current image of physics and the returns it can yield (especially financially). The question “can physics be marketed as being able to yield a good return?” was raised. 15. Industry must be convinced to recognise its needs for physicists as they are desirable as part of an engineering team. 16. Suggestion that co-op degrees (3 or 4 year incorporating work and study) be offered to bridge the gap between economics and industry. 17. Physics is perceived as being too expensive and physicists as being too arrogant. The perception has been created that few people can “do” physics. This percentage of capable people is further reduced because of the small number of matriculants with higher grade science. The percentage of physics first years (relative to rest of community) is smaller than expected, due to school situation. 18. Physics needs to focus on producing teachers. Teaching is socially at a low level – it is necessary to address this problem. Status of teaching needs to be raised and quality teachers trained. Physics students should also become involved in voluntary teaching at local schools. 19. What is the status of physics departments at universities? Apparently not held in high esteem by university governance. (Need to establish “average cost” of departments in RSA.) 20. Noted that from 2004, Grade 10-12 Maths will be compulsory for all pupils – this should have a positive effect on physics student numbers. However, note that not everyone is a physicist! 21. Physics needs to appeal to the “inner being” in its marketing approach – people want to contribute to their country. Physics needs to market to target this desire and make our own future. 22. National Facilities have been noted to be a good model, cheaper for universities. Also brings together people and universities and encourages collaboration (e.g. SALT, RAO, Themba = good facilities). 23. Noted that a National Science Library is essential for South Africa. 24. Group requested to focus on the evaluation of the “evaluation process” (see 2.7) that NRF/SAIP hope to follow: Re-focussing guided by NRF representative: 25.1 AGM at SAIP considered too short a time to allow for discussion. Suggested that NRF provide funding so that a general meeting can be arranged outside of AGM. Noted that AGM was originally chosen because it includes physicists from all of South Africa. 25.2 The National Workshop should be representative of entire physics community. Essential to involve industry. 25.3 SAIP encouraged to identify industry stakeholders via the SA Quality Institute. 25.4 Suggested that International Panel comprise local as well as international members. 25.4.1 Advantage: Local members understand the situation in South Africa. 25.4.2 Disadvantage: Report by Panel will be less credible if panel is not exclusively international. 25.5 Necessary to invite feedback from public after distributing report to contributors BUT before implementing any recommendations. 25.6 Time frame for process – estimated that MCP be formed and active by April/May/June 2003. 25.7 Physics is a broad field and the fringes are not clearly defined. Representation of the fringes (e.g. maths and engineering) is necessary. Not clear whether this representation would be at national level. 25.8 Important that a clear message be sent to university administration that this review process is not directed towards rationalisation. It should be stressed that review is purely informative and should not create the perception that it is to aid the pruning of any university departments. 25.9 An additional point: 2.7.9 should be added to the process outlined in 2.7: Point 2.7.9 should read: “Post mortem of recommendations resulting from review”. It is necessary to evaluate the effects of the review and the extent to which the physics community accepted the recommendations. 25.10 Suggested that a student representative be included on the MPC/Review Panel. Necessary to consider student input at all levels. 25.11 Teacher involvement should be considered. NRF felt this would unnecessarily lengthen the process and results are required as soon as possible. Suggested that teachers be consulted for their ideas on the small student numbers in physics. 25.12 Group (representing the Eastern Cape physics community) satisfied that SAIP or NRF manage the process and make the final recommendations based on the review report. Group recognises advisory capacity of NRF and SAIP and the influence NRF has on the national Education Department. 25. CLOSURE OF MEETING 26.1 Final comments by NRF representative: a) NRF needs to create some forum to encourage continuous feedback on the process, e.g. web chat site. b) NRF impressed by vibrance of discussion. c) NRF appreciates suggestions for process improvement. 26.2 Final comments by SAIP representative: a) Noted high quality and value of the interaction. b) Grateful for group participation. 26.3 Final thanks and meeting closure by Chairman. PRB/LK/Departmental