In chapter three, we outlined a range of research activities currently being undertaken by SABC Education Television. These indicate that there is already significant research work being undertaken and commissioned by SABC Education Television in this area. Nevertheless, it is worth reflecting briefly on the role of research in educational broadcasting, before identifying various research activities that can build effectively on SABC Education Television and Radio’s existing work.

One version of the history of research ownership and output in South Africa highlights that it was a process of control, regulation and institutionalization. Research ownership and output was largely concentrated in the hands of tertiary institutions – universities more than technikons – and in state-funded research councils and various research and development departments in chemical, mining and agricultural companies(Only relatively recently has the state changed its relationship with and funding of parastatals such as the Human Sciences Research Council, Foundation for Research Development, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Medical Research Council. Likewise, apartheid research was carried out in various industrial and chemical research departments within state-funded industries, and the research activities, such as those of Dr Wouter Bouson, unquestionably reveal the ideological bent of these activities and researchers). Research was deliberately constructed as something esoteric, powerful and inaccessible to the majority of the population. A consequence of this is that control – of knowledge and discourses that upheld (or obscured) the political and economic realities of apartheid – existed in institutions and among the privileged within those institutions. Research findings were, if at all, reported in authoritative and academic jargon, deliberately inaccessible, and therefore only a few could challenge the claims made. A second consequence was that different knowledge claims and voices were silenced under

a deliberate and precise campaign to exclude the majority of South Africans from the process of influencing and impacting on organized knowledge production.(Ndebele, N. and Diedricks, M-A. 1997)

Related to this was the development of the view that research was conducted and understood only by specialists or specialist departments, called Research and Development Units. Research – as one of the ways in which we accumulate, verify, contest and debate knowledge claims – came to be regarded as something in which ordinary people did not and could not participate actively. In many situations, research findings were set up in juxtaposition to grassroots knowledge developed by organic intellectuals and activists.

A third consequence was that, because several infamous research studies produced results used to support oppression, research came to be regarded as a tool of oppression, and thus as something negative in and of itself. Of course, as a concept, ‘research’, like the example of ‘outcomes-based education’ used in chapter one, is not in itself a good or bad thing. Its quality depends upon how it is used and for what purposes. Undeniably, research skills are currently the luxury of a privileged few in South Africa.

We have only outlined three general issues above. There are of course, many more, but, as will be highlighted in this chapter, these three issues continue to shape and influence many organizations’ management of research systems within overall organizational strategy. It is critical, therefore, that good research be developed as a key SABC Education organizational strategy and output, and that the nature of research management within SABC Education be scrutinized on an on-going basis.

Research activities are key organizational activities, and hence a critical part of how any organization develops and implements its strategies. This is important because many South African organizations have avoided research activities, and assessing the quality of research. Thus, instead of asking ‘What research activities have been carried out’, it is necessary to ask first ‘Does this organization regard research as something it should and can do?’

In the last few decades, there has been a global shift away from research as being regarded exclusively as a higher education and governmental activity. Research is now carried out, backed by significant resources, by the corporate sector, typically as part of marketing strategies for the company. University professors and postgraduate students hold research chairs or scholarships funded by major corporate players, while other multinational companies, establish laboratories for employees to conduct experiments. These insulated research departments, and highly prestigious staff they attract, provide these companies with a strong power base.(Scott, A. 1994, p.187)

Another important, but less publicly visible trend, is the response of left wing social movements against in particular university, governmental and international funding agency research interventions in developing countries. Intellectuals such as Paolo Freire and Robert Chambers, have, at various times, led a wave of left wing concern against institutionalized research, and the exploitative relationship established between researcher and the ‘researched’. While many of these efforts are to be commended, a consequence of this is that some non-governmental organizations and civil society movements have responded with unsophisticated strategies and policies around research. A typical response is that the lack of expertise or funding for quantitative research is justified by appeals that quantitative methods are in some way to be ‘exploitative’ of the rural poor or historically disadvantaged groups.

When organizations do recognize the importance of conducting research, and of making research a key operation of the organization, there is a dilemma about deciding how much should be spent on research activities, in terms of human and financial resources. This issue has been well covered by discussions in literature on corporate strategic planning. In one instance, a large scale American research study examined the relationship between research expenditure and organizational innovation.(Scott, A. 1994) The results from that study revealed that for corporate organizations, the rate of return on research expenditure was of the order of 30 percent. Clearly, this shows that successful research activities can generate a rate of return is high but this needs to be contextualized with reference to unsuccessful research activities, which might generate negligible rates of return.

It is not always possible to accurately identify what an organization's research expenditure is or who is driving research output, especially if that organization is an NGO, and less formally structured than traditional corporate companies. Some of this difficulty is because a significant amount of joint production may exist, and/or there may be spillover effects between research activities and other activities within the organization. Determining research expenditure (human and financial) within an organization should involve identifying the most indicative factors and assessing their relative importance. These factors are:
•    Measurement of research expenditure: determining which units or people are undertaking research activities, which budgets are covering research activities, or activities that can be incorporated into research outputs.
•    Past research budget: determining whether the budget has remained constant or variable, and reasons for this.
•    Expenditure as proportion of sales: determining programmes produced, and broadcast (successfully or otherwise) and the total costs of production processes.
•    Track record of new ideas: determining the extent to programmes developed or produced were based on new ideas and innovations from the research (or other) units.
•    Spillover effects: determining which units’ activities are effected by research activities in terms of human and financial costs, and ascertaining efficiency and/or duplication.
•    Power base: determining the real influence and responsibilities (power base) of research staff or units within the organization as a whole.(Based on a table, Research Expenditure: Indicative Factors, adapted from Scott, A. Op cit. p 188)

These five factors have guided our cursory examination of SABC Education research management processes as a whole, particularly given the emphasis we place on effective research management in relation to supporting the school service.

We have described in chapter three, the roles and responsibilities of the SABC Education Radio unit, and do not repeat those descriptions here. Based on discussions held with various SABC Education Radio staff, as well as station managers in various regional stations, the following can be said about research activities within the coordinating unit:
•    SABC Education Radio recognises the importance of monitoring its programmes;
•    Station managers recognise the need for evaluation of programmes, especially early childhood development and teacher development programmes;
•    SABC Education Radio is perceived as responsible for coordinating the process of monitoring of programmes;
•    It adopts a traditional broadcasting research framework to inform how it monitors (or commissions outside agencies to evaluate) its programmes;
•    SABC Education Radio management staff define monitoring within a broadcasting conceptual frameworks, such as effectiveness of a programme based on public responses measured through the number of people phoning in during or after a programme has been broadcast;
•    Continuous, long-term research on programmes is perceived to be the responsibility of the general SABC’s support service, the Broadcasting Research Unit; and
•    Additional research on educational programmes is commissioned as, or when needed, by SABC Education Radio’s executive producer.

There are significant differences between SABC Education Radio and Television in a number of areas, such as the legacies of educational radio; the organizational roles and functions of the departments; and human resources within the departments. Additional differences exist in terms of how effectively each unit manages research within the overall organization’s operations.

What SABC Education Television shares with its sister, Radio, is a similar relationship with SABC Broadcasting Research Unit (BRU) activities. According to SABC Education Television’s Research Coordinator, the Broadcasting Research Unit has traditionally used the services of market research agencies, which in her opinion, have limited expertise in educational media research, and which do not consider this research focus a priority.(Based on an interview held with Shamima Vawda and Carey-Ann Jackson (SAIDE) on SABC Education Television research systems, on 31 August 1998, at SABC TV Park, Johannesburg)

Both Education Television and Radio perceive expertise in educational media and broadcasting research as a skill, which is lacking within the corporation, and within the South African research industry, as a whole. What this has meant, is that in the first eighteen months of existence, SABC Education has had to rely on the SABC Broadcasting Research Unit to manage many important projects, and to support the priorities identified by Education Television and Radio, respectively. With regard to the relationship with SABC Broadcasting Research Unit, the Research Coordinator has stated that SABC Education Television needed a new ‘paradigm’, and hence a decision was taken in July 1997, that SABC Education would begin managing critical research projects itself.(Based on an interview with Shamima Vawda. Op cit.) SABC Education Television has appointed a Research Coordinator, who is responsible for managing various aspects of the unit’s research activities. All of the research required by the unit, is outsourced to research agencies, including Paul Musker and Associates; CASE, Khulisa Management Services; Social Surveys; SAIDE; and Hope Madikane-Otto and Associates, among others. Not all agencies, which traditionally carried out research for the corporation, continue to enjoy the same relationship with SABC Education. For example, one agency has raised this issue with the Research Coordinator, who responded that research agencies do not have sufficient expertise in educational media research, nor do they have this as a priority research focus. She has argued that what this ‘weakness’ means is that SABC Education Television can only get ‘quality [research] products if there are quality agencies.’(Based on an interview with Shamima Vawda. Op cit.)

The aims and outcomes of the research unit within SABC Education Television (and given the lack of availability of documentation on research management processes, our discussion focuses on Television’s research activities), were initially supposed to be identified by a reference group, made up of key educationalists and role players. The Research Coordinator, however, mentioned that this was not a successful process, and for this reason, she had to ‘step in and identify’ what was SABC Education Television’s core business and hence its research support priorities. She states emphatically that research alone cannot determine SABC Education Television priorities but rather, the research unit is an internal support service. The SABC Education Television Research Coordinator recognizes that research is a key organizational operation within SABC Education Television. But what is done about this, and how effectively this is done, can be ascertained from the Research Coordinator’s description of how SABC Education Television determining what research it requires.

The Research Coordinators states that SABC Education’s partners, such as the Departments of Health or Transport, will identify priority focus areas, and allocate a certain portion of its budget to promoting health or road safety transport through broadcast media. She states that often, not all of these priorities can be translated effectively into broadcast programmes. To assist with this process, she, in consultation with the partner, sets up a working group, consisting of a wide spectrum of representatives. This group identifies suitable priorities, and a focus for the broadcast strategy. Based on this, the Research Coordinator compiles a research brief, and an initial brief is circulated to the working group. It is fine-tuned, and agencies are invited to submit tender proposals. The Research Coordinator then shortlists three agencies and their proposals are circulated to the working group. Following this, an agency is selected and commissioned to undertake the research. At this point, the key role players meet with the agency, and further refine the proposal brief. Once this is completed, contracts are drawn up, and typically, are followed by fieldwork, in which the Research Coordinator participates, and takes responsibility for encouraging other role players, such as the script writing team or producers, to participate in some part of the fieldwork. Upon completion of the fieldwork and analysis, a top-line presentation is held between the Research Coordinator, SABC Education Television commissioning editor/s, production teams, and the agency. Further consultation is undertaken to convert the findings into a workshop programme. At this workshop, the findings are presented. The Research Coordinator argues that it is not simply a matter of reporting the findings, but rather ensuring that the findings are focused on change and implementation in order to enhance production processes.

Dissemination of these findings to a wider audience, is determined by the Research Coordinator, and the relative importance of the findings and the programme, series or campaign that was evaluated. She argues that this is a strategic decision, and depends to a large extent on whether or not the commissioned research study was focused on a key SABC Education priority.

SABC Education Television identifies strengths in this approach as the production of diverse findings; contact with a wider range of research agencies; development of good relations with these agencies; experimentation with diverse methods; and gained insight into the demands of educational broadcasting research. But there are several weaknesses, according to the Research Coordinator, such as:
•    A lack of educational media research expertise;
•    An over-reliance on focus groups as a data collection process;
•    A lack of prioritization given to educational media research by research agencies and NGOs undertaking evaluation research;
•    Short lead-in time for production and research processes;
•    Challenges associated with measuring impact of educational broadcasting, especially if synchronously used in the classroom; and
•    The broader context of transformation and commercialisation within SABC as a whole.

For the sake of brevity, we focus on only some of the issues in relation to this overall research management strategy, namely:
•    Quality assurance of research management, which we discuss below; and
•    Conceptualization of educational broadcasting research, which we address in more detail in the section, entitled Educational Broadcasting Research.

What is evident in the existing system is that the management process is conceptualised in a linear way. Although the Research Coordinator states that research activities are intended to support strategic decisions, production processes, and defining the core business of SABC Education Television, it is clear that many research activities and outputs are not undertaken by the unit has a whole, but rather by individuals, particularly the Research Coordinator.

A second concern is that how the needs are identified, and what needs are identified, for the research unit, are largely shaped by concerns with funding available for specific projects and time. The Research Coordinator stated that SABC Education Television has neither the time nor money to evaluate every pilot episode produced by the unit, and hence, those that are evaluated, are ‘big projects’(Based on an interview with Shamima Vawda. Op cit.). Quality assurance of the research support service is informal and ad hoc.

A third concern is that there does not appear to be a system in place to deal with ‘diverse’ findings, which are sometimes in direct conflict with one another, and other times, offer information about broadcasting but which is substituted for educational information. What these three examples (there are others) highlight is the lack of formal quality assurance of research activities within SABC Education Television. Although the Research Coordinator has provided documentation with informal and individual (namely, her own) monitoring of research management systems, this monitoring is not a formalized, organizational process. This is an omission but given that SABC Education Television has a good basis from which to work and further develop its research activities, this will no doubt be rectified. We discuss the issue of quality assurance in more detail later in this report.

Two questions are worth posing at this juncture: ‘What is educational about the research commissioned to date by SABC Education’, and ‘what processes are in place to ensure rigour in the research activities.’(Based on an interview with Shamima Vawda. Op cit.)

SABC Education Television states that it has, in the last eighteen months, ‘focused primarily on post-broadcast evaluation of programmes’ because of the pressures of adequate research expertise, and financial resources within the unit. Post-broadcast evaluation of programmes is, by definition, summative in the sense that it is an evaluation of a finished (broadcast) product. Given this and the types of evaluations commissioned by the department, it is necessary to briefly discuss educational evaluations, and the two main types, formative and summative evaluations.

Formative and Summative Evaluations
In education and training, formative evaluations have a relative recent history. The application of formative evaluations in educational settings was first linked to educational research processes that tried to ascertain the merits of the audio-visual movement of the 1920s. Formative evaluations have historical links with educational technologies, especially in the 1930s and 1950s, when the technique was used to evaluate educational film. Formative evaluations are, therefore, linked to instructional design processes. Only in the 1960s were formal methods drawn up for formative evaluations, and the label ‘formative evaluation’ was ascribed to the process of evaluation (Tessmer, M., 1993,p. 11)that had before then been variously referred to as pilot testing and developmental testing.

The second type of evaluation, summative evaluations, is those activities that together provide an evaluation of a completed resource. The purpose of such evaluation of the completed or final version is to assess whether or not these resources were better comparative to another. According to Tessmer:

In terms of the design and improvement of instruction, this method was similar to locking the stable door after the horse had bolted, since the materials were already completed and disseminated, and could only be revised if a new version was designed.(Tessmer, M., 1993,p. 12)

The difference between summative and formative evaluation has been identified as the difference between using evaluation to prove and to improve something about the resources.(Tessmer, M., 1993,p. 12)

As early as the 1940s, Ralph Tyler warned that development of educational resources was a continuous process, and that developers and instructional designers should not see resource production as a finite process that ends with the development of a product which is then ‘tested’ and ‘proved’ to be useful. The shift then was towards a more organic approach to instructional design. Formative evaluations themselves then become part of the overall instructional design process. The importance of formative evaluations in instructional design processes has been well established:

Over the last 30 years, a number of empirical studies have shown that formatively evaluating instructional materials has resulted in revised instructional that produces statistically significant increases in student performance over the original, unevaluated versions of the instruction.(Tessmer, M., 1993,p. 14)

In educational broadcasting, given the high production costs of (prototype) resource it is recommended that formative evaluations be undertaken at all stages to avoid wastage of resources. This will ensure that formative evaluations are part of the instructional design process, and means that they require sufficient time and resources for effective information and implementation to be fed back into the overall production process. Formative evaluations, rather than summative evaluations, also require significantly closer, and better, management and communications between producers, instructional designers, education advisors and/or evaluators (if they are different from educational advisors brought into the process of production). Summative evaluations tend to use traditional research relations and management processes in that the evaluator stands separate from the producer and production processes.

The overview of research activities poses another challenge, namely, to evaluate what it is supposed to evaluate. Often, educational broadcast research design does not evaluate the educational impact or effectiveness of broadcasts. Instead, because of difficulties and challenges in field research, videocassette copies of a resource are used. In this sense, formative evaluation does run the risk of evaluating asynchronous use of broadcasts rather than synchronous use of the educational broadcast resources. For example, if an evaluation of an educational programme uses videocassette copies of the resource to test educational effectiveness of a programme, the broadcast and synchronous use is not evaluated. Students and teachers included in a study will use the resource asynchronously, and therefore the research report is only able to comment on the appeal of the programme in very narrow terms. A critically important part of formative evaluations, especially with field test, one-to-one and small group studies, is that the broadcast be used synchronously with students and teachers and the evaluation focus on this use. This approach requires considerable effort, resources and skill on behalf of those managing the evaluation processes. This point is linked to the development of a research design that does not conflate educational and broadcasting criteria; and does not conflate the educational potential of television and radio with video or audiocassette recorders.

Formative evaluations have an additional benefit in terms of the communication of research findings. In summative evaluations, information generated by the research is formally reported in a written document. Unless a system exists to integrate findings into an organization’s key operations and planning, information from summative evaluations remains simply as a report, with no other organizational action conducted. Information from formative evaluations, which are integrated into instructional design processes, are incorporated into the overall production process and the organization’s key operations.

A further implication of relying too heavily on summative evaluation research is that summative evaluation research seeks to generate hypotheses about things on the basis of correlation or contiguity. These research approaches usually develop hypotheses such as ‘X is causally linked to Y because X is positively correlated with Y, where X is a score for mastery of a skill and Y is an educational programme’. In this statement, causality is assumed without proper verification that ‘Y does in fact cause X to occur’. This is what is referred to as the post hoc fallacy or the unwarranted presumption that X and Y are causally linked just because one has observed Y precede X.

For example, if the findings from an assessment of a pilot episode focus on attractiveness and impact, there is some risk that the research model used is based post hoc research assumptions, where hypotheses about the educational effectiveness of these programmes are tested by screening the programme (exposing children to the programme, the Y condition), and ‘measuring’ children’s responses (observing children’s responses, the X condition). In this case, the research design assumes that Y and X are causally linked simply because the screening of the programme happened before the researchers’ observed certain children’s reactions. Only with further verification or research would these particular findings within the overall report potentially be free of the risk of the post hoc fallacy.

In response to these issues, the SABC Education Television Research Coordinator claims that traditional conceptualizations of formative and summative evaluations are not possible in educational broadcasting research. She states that:

With respect to the use of formative evaluations in broadcasting, some of the principles are the same as those used in traditional settings. But there are different assumptions. Broadcasting can’t be didactic. If SABC ETV focuses on the wrong priorities, it is the same as shooting oneself in the foot. For example, if a programme focuses on breastfeeding, people may already know about this, and the programme won’t work. But if it focuses on nutrients in breast milk, then that is an audience’s priority. Broadcasting research therefore has to identify the key topics and issues for a series. This was done with a series focused on land issues. But there were considerations such as, should the presenter be female, given the patriarchal attitudes in rural areas. It is necessary to look at what are the goals at a national level, what are the audience’s goals, [and] what are the broadcaster’s goals. (Based on an interview with Shamima Vawda. Op cit.)

She explains that:

It is necessary to use formative and summative evaluations, but you have to understand what is meant by this. For example, in traditional uses of formative evaluations, such as in the production of a distance education book, there is a clearly defined ‘site’ of implementation. But SABC ETV programmes were intended for use at home. In the home, young learners will be watching cartoons and other entertainment-type programmes. Formative evaluations of broadcasting programmes therefore are undertaken with differences in implementation and in different ‘spaces’ and sites. Also, evaluating synchronous use of SABC ETV programmes is difficult. The same principles hold but there are different ‘spaces’ that need to be taken into consideration.(Based on an interview with Shamima Vawda. Op cit.)

While these issues are important, we do agree, that in a developmental sense, all SABC Education research can be regarded as ‘formative’, in that it is possible for it to inform future production processes. We also recognize, however, that to date, concern with the difficulty of conducting formative evaluations of synchronously used programmes, has, in some ways, justified the lack of commissioned research in this area and avoidance of difficult evaluation studies.

In its vision for educational broadcasting research, the Research Coordinator believes that SABC Education Television has a responsibility to develop educational media research capacity. The Research Coordinator states that she has commissioned a consultant

to run a strategic workshop with educationalists, market research agencies and NGOs who evaluate educational initiatives. Few of these players have really done work in media. The workshop will focus on what is possible; what can be determined in research, especially if broadcasting into the home, and whether broadcasting makes a social impact, and how it achieves that impact. It will also focus on how to measure synchronous impact and will put educational media research on the agenda. [The consultant] will conduct eleven interviews with educationalists, educational researchers and educational media researchers. Twenty five surveys will be sent out.(Based on an interview with Shamima Vawda. Op cit.)

Based on this, the Research Coordinator and consultant are in the process of developing a workshop programme, and have scheduled a role players’ workshop. The intention of the workshop, according to the Research Coordinator, is to put educational media research on the ‘agenda’ of research agencies and NGOs that conduct evaluation research.

The Research Coordinator also indicates that SABC Education Television will need to work with higher education institutions. She explains that this is because higher educational institutions have a responsibility to undertake research to support transformation, and she identifies SABC Education Television’s priorities as part of this. The focus on working with tertiary institutions as a strategy to improve the quality of educational broadcasting research does, however, require comment, especially given that there is some risk of excluding other research agents, and sites in which research is (and should be) being conducted. Professional development of teacher policies and documentation, described in chapter one, highlight for example, that teachers are critical researchers, who undertake action research in their classrooms. An exclusive focus on tertiary institutions is not sufficient to support either the transformation of attitudes to research or the de-institutionalization of research outcomes and ownership in South Africa. It is recommended that research activities be introduced as an element within the partnerships into which SABC Education enters into with, among others, professional associations, teacher unions, governing bodies, student representative bodies, and other educational stakeholder bodies. The need for research activities to be integral to all aspects of the organization’s operations, activities and partnerships is that which forms the basis of the plans that outlined in the next section of this chapter.

On the basis of the above, we recommend the following basic research activities to support the school-based educational broadcasting service. We are aware that the SABC Education Television research unit is already engaged in a wide range of research activities, many of which we referred to in chapter three. The recommendations below are intended to build on this existing work, and are made in cognisance of the reality that work may already be taking place in some of these areas. Furthermore, it is clear that what is described below will be subject to various financial constraints. Hence, we are aware that comprehensive research will obviously not be possible in all of these areas during 1999. It will be necessary to prioritize research activities to take account of these financial realities.

SABC Education Television and Radio need to ensure that research is a key organizational activity, and that research systems be managed in a way that ensures integration between various other activities carried out by the units. Implementation of a sustainable school broadcasting service will rely greatly on good research management processes, and this will require the following to happen:

Define and Describe Research Objectives
Given the limited research activities, and specific focus of commissioned research studies, in Education Radio and Television over the last eighteen months, it is essential that the units at this point spend time and energy on defining and describing their research objectives within the school-based service, and their other activities. An overall objective should be worked out collaboratively between Radio and Education.

Specify Nature of Relationship between SABC Education and Research Agencies
This will include reviewing successful relationships, and defining which organizations (such as teacher unions) can potentially be regarded as research agencies for SABC Education. The workshop on educational media research, already mentioned, has been identified by the Research Coordinator of SABC Education Television as the process for working out this relationship.

Contribute to Developing SABC Education’s Information Base
In chapter seven, we outlined what role an information base can play in managing and coordinating various activities in SABC Education. A key research activity would be to contribute to and extend existing database information on researchers, research agencies, and academics, as well as incorporating research findings into the overall information base.

Disseminate Research Information
It is important to commission and/or collate research on the use of audio and video education resources in schools. Other important topics include: educational architectural design; repair and maintenance strategies; and systems of security, storage, cataloguing of educational resources and technological equipment. Collation is an important activity and the research unit should collate commissioned research findings into statements about target audiences or the environment in order to offer support to promotion and sales units in the department. The Research Coordinator does however emphatically argue that it is not SABC Education’s responsibility to extend access to resources in schools, and hence it can only provide information on what has happened with other initiatives. She argues that SABC Education is a content provider, and hence SABC Education Television is not responsible for putting televisions and other resources, in schools and classrooms. This has been reflected in the activities outlined in chapter eight.

Strengthen Internal Support Systems
A critical task of the Research Coordinator is to coordinate research activities by liaising with promotion, production, and consultation teams on a continuous and proactive basis. For this reason, it is essential that information about the following be collated by the Coordinator and distributed to relevant department staff for further action:
•    Physical Access;
•    Promotion;
•    Professional Development Networks; and
•    Educational Broadcasting Evaluations.

•    Physical Access Research: SABC Education should assist with setting targets for growth and access provision in schools. This information should be collated and used for promotional activities and as content in broadcasts. Although the Research Coordinator argues that this is the responsibility of the Department of Education and Communication, we argue that, given that the broadcaster provides a particular service, it should contribute to this process. SABC Education should track physical and infrastructural resources provision initiatives, and collate the findings as part of keeping the public information about these initiatives. This does not contradict the Research Coordinator’s insistence that SABC Education is a content provider.

•    Professional Development Networks Research: Seconded teachers can be included in SABC production, research, consultation, and promotion activities. We describe the issue of secondment in chapter nine, and argue that this recommendation supports transformation of SABC Education and supports professional development of teachers and other educators. We argue that not only will this assist with supporting professional development networks, it also enhances the research activities in the department and integration of information and expertise into all aspects of the department’s functions. A second important activity is the collection and distribution of information on teacher associations, unions, and others in support of professional development networks. This information can be distributed via e-mail or on the web site, and again, is in line with SABC Education’s role as content provider.

•    Promotion Research: Market research, and in particular monitoring of the extent to which SABC Education has met its promotional objective, is an important activity. This will require close collaboration between the research unit and teams responsible for promoting the school service either via advertising, publicity, or sales promotion. The important issue here is that the SABC Broadcasting Research Unit, according to the Research Coordinator, focuses on market research issues such as audience ratings, which do not necessarily reflect the impact of SABC Education programmes among niche audiences, such as teachers or small-scale farmers. For this reason, it is important that SABC Education works in partnership with the Broadcasting Research Unit, and still undertake or commission specific market research studies on its educational products.

•    Educational Broadcasting Evaluation Research: An existing activity within the department, and which must be strengthened is the commissioning of educational broadcasting evaluation research. This demands that SABC Education specify clearly what type of research it will commission and which it can obtain from SABC Broadcasting Research Unit. Suggestions were made earlier in this chapter, but it is critical that SABC Education Television reviews its prioritization of summative or post-broadcast evaluation research over other types of evaluations, over the last eighteen months.

Support Capacity Development in Educational Broadcasting Research
Information about education and educational psychology internship programmes should also be collected. This will require liaison with coordinators of internship programmes at various tertiary institutions and organizations offering internships. SABC Education should investigate the possibility of establishing an internship programme at the SABC. The internship programme will allow intern students to work at the SABC while developing their skills in educational broadcasting. The Research Coordinator has stated that five interns will be joining her unit later in 1998, but it is clear that there is a need to establish a formal internship, with clearly specified outcomes for interns, within the unit.

Another option available here is for SABC Education to liaise with research funding agencies such as the Human Sciences Research Council, and to establish, with research funding agencies, an SABC bursary scheme in postgraduate education courses for historically disadvantaged students. In this way, SABC Education can forge closer links with these institutions, and support the development of expertise in South Africa.

A third important option, is to second teachers into SABC Education research, production, consultation, and promotion processes. Seconded teachers can assist with field research or research design, and also dissemination of information about various educational broadcasting research findings to educational stakeholders. It is also possible to set up formal relations with teachers in schools so that teachers can collect data in their classrooms, which is formally channelled back to SABC Education, without removing the bulk of its teacher partners from the classroom environment.

Disseminate Research Information
As the public broadcaster, the SABC will need to disseminate commissioned research projects. An important first step would be to prepare updated catalogues of SABC commissioned research reports for e-mail distribution to various educational stakeholders. This role is recognized by the Research Coordinator, who argues that SABC Education Television will disseminate a lot of its research information through the Centre for Educational Technology and Distance Education’s clearing house. She states that the diverse users and different information needs will be well served by this clearing house, and hence is supportive of ensuring that the clearing house is established.

Other ways in which information can be disseminated is through publication of articles in refereed education journals. Presentation of papers at international conferences is also a minor but effective information dissemination strategy. The Research Coordinator states that she is in the process of preparing papers for publication and presentation at conferences, but states that, although she supports and encourages her colleagues to do this, this does not always happen, nor is there any specific system for reviewing research publication output. This is something that the unit should attend to. As it is clearly an important aspect of formal quality assurance of research in SABC Education Television and Radio.