Much stronger than the impact of peer evaluation on good science is the impact of strategy,
vision and policy. In this regard we decided to evaluate the contents of two important policy
documents. The documents are important given the position, the status and the decisive role
with reference to scientific work in this country of the institutions which generated them. As
these documents provide us with the strategic plans for science development in the country,
they deserve thorough and critical attention, which we give them in this part of our reflection.
We approach these documents by way of the procedure of interpretative reading. Three
aspects are highlighted: what our reading uncovers in them and what aspects and nuances
are missed; issues advanced as key issues, but which we find problematic or even
counterproductive given the general aim; and issues and aspects which are considered as
important with reference to the stated objectives but which are not discussed in the
documents. We find that in most cases, to realise good science, which is the objective of the
documented policy statements, a thorough deconstruction is needed, providing new meanings
different from those assigned to them in the texts. In addition we explore the importance of
issues not mentioned in the documents but without which it would hardly be possible to speak
of science at all. In this way we are preparing the ground for a third article in which the
conditions for good science, science that will be exactly that, science proper (and not merely
research) and that will at the same time have a marked positive remedial impact on humans
and human societies, will be explored.
Veel sterker nog as die impak van ewekniebeoordeling op goeie wetenskap is die impak
van strategie, visie en beleid daarop. In hierdie verband het ons besluit om op twee
betekenisvolle dokumente van hierdie aard te fokus. Die dokumente is betekenisvol
gegewe die status, die deurslaggewende rol en die belangrikheid wat die instellings wat
die dokumente gegenereer het, vir hulleself opeis, maar wat ook aan hulle toegeken is
met die oog op wetenskapwerk in die land. As verteenwoordigende voorbeelde van
strategie, visie en beleid verdien hierdie dokumente deeglike aandag en dít probeer ons
verwesenlik met die hulp van ons interpreterende leesproses. Ons plaas die fokus op
drie aspekte: dit wat ons raak lees daarin en dit wat ons mis in wat ons daar lees;
daardie sake wat as kernsake beskou word, maar problematies is en selfs
teenproduktief mag wees; en sake wat nie ter sprake kom in die dokumente nie, maar
wat volgens ons oordeel van kritieke belang is vir die verwesenliking van presies die
ideale wat hierdie dokumente wil bevorder. Ons beklemtoon hoedat al die genoemde
sake, ten einde te vermag wat daarmee voorgegee en daarvan verwag word, dus om die
ideaal van goeie wetenskap te verwesenlik, deeglik gedekonstrueer behoort te word
deur dit met nuwe betekenisse, anders as in die dokumente, te vul. Hierbenewens wys
ons op ongenoemde sake waarsonder dit haas onmoontlik is om selfs van goeie
wetenskap as sodanig te praat. Met hierdie besinning probeer ons ook die weg
voorberei vir ’n derde artikel wat handel oor die voorwaardes vir goeie wetenskap;
wetenskap wat werklik daartoe in staat sal wees om behoorlik wetenskap (en nie bloot
navorsing nie) te wees en wat terselfdertyd groot positiewe remediërende impak op
mens en samelewing sal kan hê.
