Previous| Next | Content| Main | Home
Review of OSSREA and Its Future Prospect
A review of OSSREA and its activities has recently been conducted on behalf of Sida/SAREC, and the report of the review was released in September 2001. Sida/SAREC is one of the major donors of OSSREA and provides a core grant for the running of the Secretariat office, the junior and senior research grants (in conjunction with other donors), and the Dryland Husbandry Project. The review was conducted by Dr. Gunnar M. Sørbo, Director of the Chr. Michelsen Institute (Norway), and Ambassador Berhane Ghebray, a private consultant from Ethiopia.
The two reviewers acknowledge that OSSREA in general and its specific programmes in particular had been evaluated in 1994, 1995, 1997, and 1998 (twice), and that these earlier reviews and evaluations have been largely positive. The two reviewers also note that has OSSREA reacted favourably to the recommendations made by the different evaluation teams, namely, by working hard to improve the quality of its publications, establishing more activities aimed at retaining African social science research capacity on the continent, and continuing to expand while remaining cost-effective and accountable to donors as well as members.
In their report, the reviewers affirm that OSSREA continues to play an important role for the social sciences in the sub-region.
While it has grown into a relatively sizeable organisation over the years, it “remains efficient, innovative and conscious of the need to keep high quality in terms of its services and publications”. The reviewers particularly note that OSSREA-sponsored books have recently been published by renowned publishers such as MacMillan. Pluto and Kluwer, and think that the future prospects of OSSREA look “bright and promising”.
However, the reviewers also see a number of challenges which OSSREA must strive to tackle. In this context, they point out the following four interrelated issues that deserve special attention:
i) Forging synergies and the role of chapters
While recognising OSSREA’s efforts to strengthen the local chapters by allocating an annual budget of USD10,000 to each local office, the reviewers also feel that there is still a need to further strengthen the linkages between different OSSREA activities as well as between the Secretariat and local chapters. As a step in this direction, they recommend the launching of: (a) comparative research programmes that are regional in nature and include participants from different countries; (b) national research programmes wherein funds are provided to researchers within individual countries, on topics that are given priority by OSSREA. The reviewers also recommend that OSSREA explore the possibilities for decentralising some of the functions and activities, for instance, different publication activities (editing, printing), as well as the direction of research programmes that may more conveniently be done elsewhere, depending on the topics and geographic coverage.
ii) Building and retaining capacity
The reviewers commend OSSREA’s efforts to build regional capacity through its research competitions and grants, trainings, and publication activities. However, they also see that there is room for further extending OSSREA’s training activities, perhaps in collaboration with research institutions outside Africa. Two areas of training cited as examples in this regard are applied social science research (which could attract the attention of both researchers and donors), and writing courses that are aimed at enhancing skills of both senior and junior researchers to promote international publishing.
Another dimension in capacity building is in the area of Master and Ph.D. training through a collaborative programme between several universities and comprising a common curriculum and standards as in the AERC’s M.A. Programme in Economics. A sub-regional co-operation programme at the Ph.D. level, between two or three universities and perhaps assisted by one or two partners from outside the continent, is another area of capacity building to be considered. The role of OSSREA would be to backdrop such efforts, liase with partners and secure funding for both the collaborating universities and students.
iii) Sustainability
In view of the fact that OSSREA is predominantly dependent on donors for funding its activities and sustaining itself, it is felt that it needs to explore other means of ensuring its sustainability. One suggestion is to diversify its source of funds by securing the support of other donors as well. The other is to institute an endowment fund to which donors could be invited to make contributions.
Another area of concern is the sustainability of the leadership of the Organisation in the event of changes at the top management-level. The challenge in this regard is to ensure that OSSREA is provided with the kind of leadership that can “maintain a dynamic momentum while retaining the trust of members, staff and donors”. They note that OSSREA has already taken steps in this direction.
iv) Policy/Research interface
One of the strategic objectives of OSSREA is to create an effective policy/research interface. The Organisation has been striving to ensure such interface by making its research available to policy/decision makers and by facilitating the latter’s participation in its workshops. OSSREA’s efforts to realise this objective could be further enhanced by the inclusion of candidates from government departments and the selection of themes recognised as being of particular concern to public authorities as well as by increasing the accessibility of its publications on the Internet to policy and decision makers.
In their concluding remarks, the reviewers acknowledge the major achievements made by the institution during the two decades of its existence and stress the need to consolidate these achievements. At the same time, they note the difficulty of trying to resolve the tensions arising from the attempt to combine the role of a membership organisation, sensitive to local needs and initiatives, with the more centralised role associated with providing services, grants and avenues for research and publications. Their recommendation is, rather than trying to resolve these tensions, to strive to make them as productive as possible.