EDITORIAL PREFACE
This special issue of TRANSFORMATION is composed of the edited papers and
discussion from our recent symposium (January 1992) on the Role of Research in
Transforming South Africa.
Our rationale in holding this symposium was that research in the social sciences in
South Africa, both inside and outside the universities, has had a major effect on both
the maintenance of apartheid and attempts to dismantle it.
On the one hand, a variety of research activities and projects have had an important
effect in empowering organisations to struggle against the apartheid system. The
influence (and receptiveness of the different mass organisations) has not however
been uniform. Some have resisted analyses from outside their own ranks which
differed from their own policies, programs and agendas. Others nave gained ad-
vantage enormously from independent research initiatives - whether these were
abstract analyses, policy programs or service projects. However, in general, the
relationship between research bodies and activities, and the mass organisations has
not been an easy one. It has thrown up a number of contradictions - conflicts over
academic freedom and accountability/relevance; between organisational control and
independent analytic inquiry; between the immediate needs of organisations and the
demands for more long-term research. As the emphasis shifts from the focus on the
politics of opposition to that dominated by transformation, reconstruction, and policy
research, there is a grave need to reflect on these issues.
On the other hand, research has played an important role in maintaining apartheid,
particularly in so far as it has been institutionalised in certain state sponsored
research centres. In the last decade research institutions also played a critical role in
facilitating the process of reform. Agencies such as the Council for Scientific and
Industrial Research, Human Sciences Research Council, the Development Bank and
the Urban and Rural Foundations have not been analysed in terms of the relationship
between research and social change. The association between such research ac-
tivities and state interventions has been fairly complicated. It is of major importance
to unravel the complexity of this relationship as we enter into a new political phase,
particularly where those brought up in the culture of opposition may find themselves
in positions of power.
The articles comprising mis special issue are not identical to the papers presented at
the symposium. Most were much longer and some included a number of points that
were not necessarily germane to the issue at hand. We have radically edited them to
ensure that the main thrust of the various inputs is reflected in the published
proceedings. Some of the inputs included here are based solely on the transcript of


the presentations, and as such are shorter or have a more colloquial ring to them. We
have also edited the discussion and included some of the points we considered
pertinent in a few pages on each session in this special issue in order to bring out the
flavour of the debate. As always, some discussion, no matter how interesting, was
not germane to the topic under examination and hence was also not reflected in our
published discussion notes.
The symposium was a pathbreaking event in post-1990 South Africa as the first real
attempt by participants to discuss the future of research in the country. Papers
reflected a range of interests: universities and establishment institutions; the interests
of political and labour organisations; committed service work projects with a
research component Much of the discussion became focussed on institutions and
their future. There was a tension between thinking largely in terms of annexing
"space" for progressive opportunities and hoping to transform or abolish those
institutions themselves. Even the most radical alternatives were tempered by the
enormity of the practical tasks of reconstruction ahead and the need to get workable
answers to huge but mundane questions. This in turn put in question what was meant
by transformation, which differed from one speaker to another. The notion of a
 paradigmatic shift from research for opposition to research for transformation
 evoked discomfort for many as to the relation of research to authority. Suspicions
 of a future bureacracy and concern for the continued future of the critical dimension
 of research came clearly to the fore. Perhaps there is a tendency for people to use
 the same terms to mean different things. If the question of what is transformation
 was left unclear, so indeed was what we mean by research.
 In the final analysis the symposium only opened discussion on this important topic.
 Hopefully the range of views presented here will be a further stimulus in encouraging
 and sharpening debate. The issues at hand must be the most important ones in terms
 of the relationship of intellectuals to a society in transition.
 In conclusion, we would like to thank all those who made the symposium possible.
 In particular we would single out Marc van Ameringen and the IDRC for the
 financial assistance, Linda Price for administratively coordinating the symposium,
 our fellow editors Vishnu Padayachee and Gerry Mar6 without whom the sym-
 posium would not have been possible, and lastly, but not least, all the participants
 who attended for making the discussion such a vital and lively part of the symposium.
 BiUFreund
 Mike Morris
 (Special Issue Editors)