Farmers' acceptability of university-based agricultural extension in a pluralistic extension system in Gauteng Province of South Africa

Abstract

Pluralistic extension systems involving various stakeholders have been implemented in many countries to improve the efficiency of, and access to, extension and advisory services. From the perspective of some sections of society, universities offering agricultural programmes have the potential to render extension and advisory services in collaboration with the government because they are involved in knowledge generation through research and teaching. However, it is unknown whether farmers are in favour of a pluralistic extension system involving universities. The aim of the study was to explore farmers’ willingness to accept university-based agricultural extension in a pluralistic extension system in the province of Gauteng in order to establish whether the extension services are demand-driven. The objectives of the study were to profile the socio-demographic characteristics of farmers who receive public agricultural extension and advisory services in Gauteng; to determine farmers’ perception of public agricultural extension and advisory services, with specific reference to the perceived quality of extension services and influencing factors, as well as the frequency of access to public extension services and its determinants; to ascertain farmers’ access to sources of extension services; to determine farmers’ perception of the effectiveness of public agricultural extension and advisory services, with specific reference to perceived effectiveness and influencing factors, as well as exploratory factors associated with the perceived effectiveness; to ascertain farmers’ acceptance of university agricultural extension in a pluralistic extension system, with specific reference to willingness to accept, the perceived benefits of university agricultural extension and factors influencing the acceptability of university agricultural extension; to determine which university agricultural extension delivery system(s) farmers preferred, as well as factors influencing their choice; to identify the reasons why farmers prefer different university extension delivery systems; to ascertain farmers’ perception of a suitable funding model for university agricultural extension services; and to determine farmers’ willingness to pay for university agricultural extension services, as well as factors influencing their choice. A sample of 442 farmers from Gauteng who were receiving agricultural extension and advisory services from the government were randomly selected to participate in the study. Using a semi-structured survey instrument, primary data were collected through face-to-face interviews. Quantitative data were subjected to descriptive statistical analysis, principal axis factoring (PAF), Kendall’s tau correlation, binary logistic regression (BLR), multiple linear regression (MLR), multinomial logistic regression (MNLR), ordered logistic regression (OLR), Cochran’s Q test, McNemar’s test and the binomial test found in the IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 27. Qualitative data were analysed using codes, themes and indicators and converted to frequencies and percentages. The results obtained in respect of the socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the respondents showed that the majority of the respondents were black African females who were above 35 years of age, had an average of six years' farming experience, spoke Southern Sotho and had spousal support through marriage and cohabitation. Most of the farmers farmed in small-scale settings for non-commercial purposes – the average farm/plot size being 4.55 ha – and occupied communal and rented farmlands. On average, the respondents earned a net income of about R21 387.56 from farming per annum and had various sources of income. Large-scale and highly educated farmers a substantial” income from farming, whereas farmers who were frequently visited by extension officers did not. It was found that nearly half of the respondents had access to extension services from various sources apart from the government, such as commodity organisations, mines, local municipalities, non-governmental organisations and universities. On average, the respondents were located about 42.4 km away from public extension offices, and the majority of the farmlands were ≤50 km from the offices. As a result, the respondents were visited on average twice a month by public extension officers, and farmers who relied on farm income to sustain their livelihoods and who were satisfied with the quality of public extension and advisory services received more monthly visits. However, farmers who made a larger profit received fewer visits per month. About 51.1% of the respondents were satisfied with the quality of public extension and advisory services, and they included farmers who were frequently visited by extension officers, commercial farmers and farmers who regarded public extension services as effective in complying with the principle of Batho Pele in dealing with people and planning activities. The results obtained in respect of the perceived effectiveness of public extension and advisory services showed that the majority of the respondents were of the view that the services were ineffective. Highly educated farmers, older farmers, farmers who were frequently visited by extension officers and farmers who were satisfied with the quality of services perceived public extension and advisory services to be effective. In addition, the exploratory factor analysis indicated that public extension and advisory services that provided relevant and good-quality services, information that improved agricultural production and access to technologies were perceived as effective by farmers. The study found that pluralistic extension involving the government and universities was demand-driven because a significant majority (91.2%) of the farmers accepted the inclusion of university extension in a pluralistic extension system, even though most of them did not know universities that offered agricultural programmes in the study area. The majority of the respondents were in favour of university extension because of the various benefits it presents, such as better access to extension and advisory services; access to formal education and training; and the opportunity to get advice from subject matter specialists and others. The results of the BLR showed that farmers who made a larger profit from their agricultural enterprises and perceived their association with universities as an opportunity to access research funding accepted the inclusion of universities in a pluralistic extension system. Moreover, three important factors associated with the acceptability of university extension that were extracted from the exploratory factor analysis were access to research resources, improved extension services and training, and the diffusion of university research. The study findings showed that most farmers (56.8%) in the study area preferred an extension delivery system that involved public extension as a means of coordination between farmers and universities (farmer–public extension–university extension delivery system). The mentioned system was preferred most importantly because it would enable farmers to acquire more information from various sources and to maintain a relationship with the government. The results of the MNLR indicated that farmers who made a greater profit form their agricultural enterprises preferred a farmer–public extension–university extension delivery system over a farmer–university extension delivery system. About half of the respondents preferred to receive extension services from universities at their farming places, whereas the other proportion of farmers was divided into those who preferred to visit universities only and those who chose both

locations (universities and farming places). Again, most of the farmers (41.9%) preferred to receive extension and advisory services from universities in their vernacular languages. From a funding perspective, it was found that the majority (55.4%) of farmers, especially those who relied on farming as their main source of income, were willing to pay for university extension services. However, commercial farmers and those who were located far from public extension offices were not willing or less likely to pay for university extension services, as shown by the results of the BLR. However, the majority (91%) of the respondents agreed that the government should provide funding for transport, university staff allowances, medical aid (where necessary), Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) and pension fund contributions (if applicable), office space (if required), office equipment and furniture, information and communication technology (ICT), stationery, training programmes for farmers and research for university extension services. Therefore, farmers expect the government to provide most of the funding for university extension services. To improve the effectiveness of public extension and advisory services, it is recommended that public extension agents render relevant, good-quality services and provide information that improves agricultural production and facilitates access to the technologies required by farmers. Further, it is recommended that a formal framework for a pluralistic extension system be developed through a participatory process involving the Ministry of Higher Education and Training, the Ministry of Agriculture, farmers, universities and other stakeholders. The framework for a pluralistic extension system should enable universities to provide research resources to farmers; to improve access to extension services and training of farmers; and to create a platform for the diffusion of university research outcomes to farmers. An extension delivery system involving public extension as the means of coordination should be the main system of university extension. University extension services should be provided mostly in the farming areas (farmlands) using South African vernacular languages. The government should provide most of the funding for transport, gross income, medical aid, UIF and pension fund contributions, office space, office equipment and furniture, ICT, stationery, training programmes for farmers and research for university extension services. Moreover, farmers, universities and farmers’ organisations should pay a negotiated fee for university extension services.

In talle lande bevorder pluralistiese voorligtingstelsels waarby verskeie belanghebbendes betrokke is, die doeltreffendheid van en toegang tot voorligting en adviesdienste. Universiteite wat landboukursusse aanbied, kan volgens sommige sektore in die samelewing saam met die regering voorligting en adviesdienste lewer omdat hulle deur navorsing en onderrig kennis genereer. Dit is egter onbekend of boere te vinde sal wees vir ʼn pluralistiese voorligtingstelsel waarby universiteite betrokke is. Die doel van hierdie studie was om vas te stel of boere in die Gautengprovinsie universiteite se landbouvoorligting as deel van ʼn pluralistiese voorligtingstelsel sal aanvaar, en of daar ʼn vraag na sodanige voorligtingsdienste is. Die oogmerke van hierdie studie was ten eerste om ʼn sosiaal-demografiese profiel saam te stel van boere in Gauteng wat openbare landbouvoorligting en adviesdienste ontvang. Ten tweede om boere se siening van openbare landbouvoorligting en adviesdienste te bepaal, in die besonder hulle siening van die gehalte van voorligtingsdienste asook die faktore wat dit beïnvloed, en hoe gereeld boere toegang tot openbare voorligtingsdienste het en faktore wat dit bepaal. Ten derde om boere se toegang tot die hulpbronne van voorligtingsdienste vas te stel. Vierdens om boere se siening van die doeltreffendheid van openbare landbouvoorligting en adviesdienste en die redes daarvoor te bepaal. Vyfdens om vas te stel of boere universiteite se landbouvoorligting as deel van ʼn pluralistiese voorligtingstelsel sal aanneem, met verwysing na hulle aanvaarding van die voordele van universiteite se landbouvoorligting en die faktore wat dit bepaal. In die sesde plek om vas te stel watter universiteitsvoorligtingstelsel(s) boere verkies, en watter faktore hulle voorkeur bepaal. In die sewende plek om die vas te stel waarom boere verskillende universiteitsvoorligtingstelsels verkies. Die agtste doelwit was om boere se siening van ʼn geskikte befondsingsmodel vir universiteitsvoorligtingsdienste te bepaal. Die laaste oogmerk is om vas te stel of boere bereid is om vir universiteitsvoorligtingsdienste te betaal asook die faktore wat hulle bereidwilligheid beïnvloed. ʼn Steekproef is lukraak geneem van 442 boere in Gauteng wat voorligting en adviesdienste van die regering ontvang. Die primêre data is met behulp van ʼn

halfgestruktureerde meningspeiling tydens onderhoude onder vier oë ingesamel. Die kwantitatiewe data is onderwerp aan ʼn beskrywende statistiese ontleding; hoofasfaktorering (HAF); Kendall se taukorrelasie; binêre logistiese regressie (BLR); meervoudige lineêre regressie (MLR); polinome logistiese regressie (PNLR); geordende logistiese regressie (OLR); Cochran se Q-toets; McNemar se toets; en die binome toets in die IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) weergawe 27. Die kwantitatiewe data is aan die hand van kodes, temas en aanwysers ontleed en na frekwensies en persentasies herlei. Volgens die resultate wat behaal is ten opsigte van hulle sosiaal-ekonomiese en demografiese kenmerke, was die meeste respondente swart vroue van ouer as 35. Hulle het gemiddeld ses jaar ondervinding van boerdery gehad, was Suid-Sothosprekers en was getroud of het saam met ʼn man gebly. Die meeste van hulle het om niekommersiële redes op ʼn klein skaal – die gemiddelde grootte van hulle plasies of kleinhoewes is 4,55 ha – op gemeenskaplike of gehuurde grond geboer. Hulle het ʼn gemiddelde netto inkomste van nagenoeg R21 387,56 per jaar uit boerdery verdien, en op verskillende inkomstebronne staat gemaak. In teenstelling met grootskaalse en hoogs opgeleide boere, het hierdie boere, wat gereeld besoek van voorligtingsbeamptes ontvang, nie ʼn groot inkomste uit boerdery verdien nie. Sowat die helfte van die respondente kry toegang tot voorligtingsdienste uit verskillende bronne benewens die regering, soos landbouprodukorganisasies, myne, plaaslike munisipaliteite, nieregeringsorganisasies en universiteite. Die naaste openbare voorligtingskantoor was gemiddeld 42,4 km ver, en die meeste respondente se landbougrond was minder as 50 km vanaf ʼn voorligtingskantoor geleë. Gevolglik besoek openbare voorligtingsbeamptes respondente gemiddeld twee keer per maand. Boere wat ʼn bestaan uit boerdery maak en tevrede was met die openbare voorligting en adviesdienste, het egter meer besoeke per maand ontvang. Respondente wat ʼn aansienlike wins gemaak het, is egter minder kere per maand besoek. Sowat 51,1% van die respondente was tevrede met die gehalte van openbare voorligting en adviesdienste. Boere wat gereeld deur voorligtingsbeamptes besoek word, kommersiële boere en boere wat van mening was dat openbare voorligtingdienste wat deur hulle hulp en aktiwiteite die Batho Pele-beginsel nastrewe, word hierby ingereken.

Wat die boere se siening van die doeltreffendheid van openbare voorligting en adviesdienste betref, toon die uitslag dat die meeste respondente van mening was dat die dienste ondoeltreffend is. Hoogs opgeleide boere, ouerige boere, boere wat gereeld besoek van voorligtingbeamptes ontvang, en boere wat tevrede is met die gehalte van dienste, het te kenne gegee dat die openbare voorligting en adviesdienste doeltreffend was. Afgesien hiervan was openbare voorligting en adviesdienste volgens die verkennende faktorontleding relevant en van ʼn goeie gehalte. Boere het laat blyk dat die inligting wat landbouproduksie laat toeneem en hulle toegang tot tegnologie verbeter, doeltreffend was. Hierdie studie het bevind dat daar inderdaad ʼn vraag na pluralistiese voorligting deur die regering en universiteite bestaan, aangesien 91,2% van die boere, wat ʼn oorweldigende meerderheid is, ten gunste was van die insluiting van universiteitsvoorligting by ʼn pluralistiese voorligtingstelsel, ofskoon die meeste nie bewus was van universiteite in Gauteng wat landboukursusse aanbied nie. Die meeste respondente was ten gunste van universiteitsvoorligting vanweë die voordele wat dit inhou, soos beter toegang tot voorligting en adviesdienste, tot formele onderwys en tot opleiding asook vak- en ander spesialiste. Die uitslag van die BLR het getoon dat boere wat ʼn groot wins uit hulle landboubedrywe maak en hulle verbintenis met universiteite beskou as ʼn geleentheid om fondse vir navorsing te bekom, die insluiting van universiteite by ʼn pluralistiese voorligtingstelsel aanvaar het. Hierbenewens is drie faktore rakende die aanvaarding van universiteite se insluiting uit die verkennende faktorontleding verkry, naamlik toegang tot navorsingshulpbronne, beter voorligtingsdienste en opleiding, en die verspreiding van universiteite se navorsing. Volgens die bevindings verkies 56,8% van Gautengse boere ʼn leweringstelsel waarvolgens openbare voorligting ʼn manier is om boere en universiteite te koördineer (ʼn leweringstelsel bestaande uit boere, openbare voorligting en universiteite). Boere het hierdie stelsel verkies omdat hulle sodoende meer inligting uit verskeie bronne kon inwin en betrekkinge met die regering kon handhaaf. Die resultate van die PNLR dui daarop dat boere wat ʼn aansienlike wins uit hulle landboubedrywe maak, ʼn leweringstelsel bestaande uit boere, openbare voorligting en voorligting deur universiteite verkies het bo ʼn leweringstelsel bestaande uit boere en universiteitsvoorligting. Nagenoeg die helfte van die respondente het verkies om universiteitsvoorligtingsdienste op hulle boerderye te ontvang. Die ander helfte was dit oneens. Sommige boere het slegs besoeke aan universiteite verkies, terwyl ander weer besoeke aan sowel universiteite as hulle boerderye verkies het. Die meeste boere (41,9%) het verkies om universiteite se voorligting en adviesdienste in hulle eie taal te ontvang. Wat befondsing betref, was die meerderheid (55,4%), in die besonder boere vir wie boerdery hulle belangrikste inkomstebron was, bereid om vir universiteitsvoorligting te betaal. Kommersiële boere en boere vir wie openbare voorligtingskantore ver weg was, was egter volgens die uitslag van die BLR onwillig om vir universiteite se voorligtingsdienste te betaal. Die meeste respondente (91%) was dit eens dat die regering moet instaan vir vervoerkostes, die toelaes van universiteitspersoneel, mediese fondse (as dit nodig is), die Werkloosheidsversekeringsfonds (WVF), pensioenfondsbydraes (as dit toepaslik is), kantoorruimte (as dit nodig is), kantoortoerusting en -meubels, inligting- en kommunikasietegnologie (IKT), skryfbehoeftes, opleidingsprogramme vir boere en navorsing vir universiteitsvoorligtingsdienste. Kortom, boere het verwag dat die regering universiteite se voorligtingsdienste grotendeels befonds.

Ten einde die doeltreffendheid van openbare voorligting en adviesdienste te verbeter, word aanbeveel dat voorligtingsagente ʼn toepaslike, uitnemende diens lewer en dat hulle inligting nie alleen landbouproduksie nie, maar ook boere se toegang tot tegnologie verbeter. Voorts word aanbeveel dat ʼn raamwerk vir ʼn pluralistiese voorligtingstelsel ontwikkel word deur die Ministerie van Hoër Onderwys en Opleiding; die Ministerie van Landbou; boere; universiteite en ander belanghebbendes. Universiteite moet volgens hierdie raamwerk hulle navorsingshulpbronne aan boere beskikbaar kan stel, boere se toegang tot voorligtingsdienste kan verbeter, boere kan oplei en ʼn platform kan skep om hulle navorsingsuitkomste aan boere beskikbaar stel. ʼn Voorligtingleweringselsel waarby openbare voorligting betrek word om koördinering te vergemaklik, moet die hoofstelsel van universiteitsvoorligting word. Universiteite moet oorwegend in landbougebiede (boerderye) en in die inheemse tale voorligting gee. Die regering moet fondse bewillig vir vervoer, ʼn bruto inkomste, mediese hulp, bydraes tot die WVF en pensioenfondse, kantoorruimte en -toerusting, IKT, skryfbehoeftes, opleiding vir boere en navorsing met die oog op landbouvoorligting. Laastens moet boere, universiteite en boereorganisasies ooreenkom op ʼn tarief vir die voorligtingsdienste wat universiteite lewer.

Mananeo a go hlahla balemi go ya ka dinyakwa tša bona ao a akaretšago batšeakarolo ba mehutahuta a phethagaditšwe ka dinageng tše ntši go kaonafatša go šoma gabotse ga, le go fihlelela, ditirelo tša tlhahlo le keletšo ya balemi. Go ya ka kwešišo ya dikarolo tše dingwe tša setšhaba, diyunibesithi tšeo di rutago dithuto tša temo di na le bokgoni bja go aba ditirelo tša tlhahlo le keletšo ya balemi ka go dirišana le mmušo ka gobane ba kgatha tema ka tšweletšong ya tsebo ka go dira dinyakišišo le go ruta. Le ge go le bjale, ga go tsebje ge eba balemi ba rata lenaneo la go hlahla balemi go ya ka dinyakwa tša bona go tšwa ka diyunibesithing. Maikemišetšo a dinyakišišo tše e bile go utolla go nyaka ga balemi go amogela tlhahlo ya balemi go tšwa ka diyunibesithing ka go lenaneo la go hlahla balemi go ya ka dinyakwa tša bona tše di fapanego ka phrobentsheng ya Gauteng ka nepo ya go tseba ge eba ditirelo tša tlhahlo ya balemi di theilwe go go nyaka ga bona. Maikemišetšo a dinyakišišo e bile go hlaloša seemo sa balemi bao ba hwetšago ditirelo tša tlhahlo le keletšo go lebeletšwe dipalopalo tša setšhaba ka Gauteng; go tseba maikutlo a balemi mabapi le ditirelo tša tlhahlo le keletšo ya setšhaba ka tša temo, go lebeletšwe boleng bjo bo bonwago bja ditirelo tša tlhahlo ya balemi le mabaka ao a di huetšago, gammogo le phihlelelo ye e diregago kgafetšakgafetša go ditirelo tša tlhahlo ya setšhaba le tšeo di laolago se; go tseba phihlelelo ya balemi go methopo ya ditirelo tša tlhahlo ya bona; go tseba maikutlo a balemi mabapi le go šoma gabotse ga ditirelo tša tlhahlo le keletšo ya setšhaba ka tša temo, go lebeletšwe kudu go šoma gabotse le mabaka ao a huetšago se, gammogo le mabaka a kutollo ao a amanago le go šoma gabotse fao go bonwago; go tseba go amogela ga balemi ga tlhahlo ya balemi go tšwa ka yunibesithi ka go lenaneo la go hlahla balemi go ya ka dinyakwa tša bona tša go fapana, go lebeletšwe kudu go nyaka go amogela, dikholego tše di lebeletšwego tša tlhahlo ya balemi go tšwa ka yunibesithi le mabaka ao a huetšago go amogelega ga tlhahlo ya balemi go tšwa ka yunibesithi; go tseba gore ke lenaneo(mananeo) lefe la tlhhalo ya balemi la go tšwa ka yunibesithi leo balemi ba le ratago, gammogo le mabaka ao a huetšago kgetho ya ona; go tseba mabaka a gore ke ka lebaka la eng balemi ba rata mananeo ao a fapanego a kabo ya tlhahli ya balemi; go tseba maikutlo a balemi ka ga mokgwa wa maleba wa thušo ya ditšhelete wa ditirelo tša tlhahlo ya balemi go tšwa

ka yunibesithi; le go tseba go nyaka ga balemi go lefa ditirelo tša tlhahlo ya balemi go tšwa ka yunibesithi, gammogo le mabaka ao a huetšago kgetho ya bona. Sampole ya balemi ba 442 go tšwa ka Gauteng bao ba bego ba hwetša ditirelo tša tlhahlo le keletšo ya balemi go tšwa mmušong ba kgethilwe ka sewelo gore ba kgathe tema ka dinyakišišong. Ka go šomiša setlabelo sa dinyakišišo sa dipotšišo tša go nyaka gore baarabi ba hlatholle, tshedimošo ya motheo e kgobokeditšwe ka go dira dipoledišano tša sebele. Tshedimošo ya bontši e ile sekasekwa ka dipalopalo tša tlhathollo, mokgwa wa dikamanyo tša tshedimošo (PAF), kamanyo ya Kendall tau, mokgwapoelomorago ya kgokaganyo (BLR), mokgwapoelomorago ya karolo ka bontši (MLR), mokgwapoelomorago ya dipalontši (MNLR), mokgwapoelomorago wa tatelanyakgokaganyo (OLR), teko ya Cochran’s Q, teko ya McNemar le teko ya payonomiale yeo e hwetšwago ka go Sehlopha sa Dipalopalo sa IBM sa Sengwalwa sa Dipalopalo sa Dithutamahlale tša Leago (SPSS) bešene ya 27. Tshedimošo ya bontši e ile ya sekasekwa ka go šomiša dikhoute, merero le dilaetši gomme ya fetošetšwa go difrekhwentshi le go dipersente. Dipoelo tšeo di hweditšwego mabapi le seemo sa ekonomi ya setšhaba le sa dipalopalo ka ga baarabi di laeditše gore bontši bja baarabi ba be ba le basadi ba bathobaso bao ba bego ba na le mengwaga ya ka godimo ga ye 35, ban a le palogare ya mengwaga ye tshela ya maitemogelo a bolemi, ba be ba bolela Sesotho sa Borwa ebile ba na le thekgo ya balekane ka lenyalong le go dula mmogo. Bontši bja balemi ba be ba lema ka mafelong a mannyane mabakeng a go se rekiše ditšweletšwa tša bona – palogare ya bogolo bja polasa/pholoto e le dihekthara tše 4.55 – le go ba dinageng tša dipoloasa tša setšhaba le tšeo di rentišitšwego. Ka kakaretšo, baarabi ba be ba hwetša palomoka ya letseno la tšhelete ye e ka bago R21 387.56 go tšwa go bolemi ka ngwaga ebile ba na le methopo ya mehutahuta ya letseno. Balemi ba bagolo le bao ba rutegilego kudu ba hwetša letseno le lentši go tšwa go bolemi, mola e le gore balemi bao ba bego ba etelwa kgafetšakgafetša ke bahlankedi ba tlhahlo ya balemi bas a hwetše letseno le lentši. Go hweditšwe gore tekano ya go nyaka go ba seripagare sa baarabi ba bile le phihlelelo go ditirelo tša tlhahlo ya balemi go tšwa go methopo ya mehutahuta ka ntle le mmušo, go swana le mekgatlo ya ditšweletšwa, meepo, mebasepala ya selegae, mekgatlo ye e sego ya mmušo le diyunibesithi. Ka kakaretšo, baarabi ba be ba le dikhilometara tše di ka bago tše 42.4 kgole le dikantoro tša tlhahlo ya balemi, gomme

bontši bja dipolasa di be di le dikhilometara tše ≤50 kgole le dikantoro tšeo. Ka lebaka la se, baarabi ba be ba etelwa ka kakaretšo gabedi ka kgwedi ke bahlankedi ba tlhahli ya balemi, gomme balemi bao ba bego ba tshephile kudu letseno go tšwa ka polaseng go tšwetša pele go iphediša ga bona le bao ba bego ba kgotsofetše ka boleng bja ditirelo tša tlhahlo le tša keletšo ya balemi ba be ba hwetša diketelo tše ntši mo kgweding. Le ge go le bjale, balemi bao ba bego ba dira dipoelo tše ntši ba hweditše diketelo tše mmalwa ka kgwedi. Tekano ye e ka bago 51.1% ya baarabi ba be ba kgotsofetše ka boleng bja ditirelo tša tlhalo le tša keletšo ya balemi, gomme bona ba be ba akaretša balemi bao ba bego ba etelwa kgafetšakgafetša ke bahlankedi ba tlhahlo ya balemi, balemi ba tša kgwebo le balemi bao ba bego ba bona ditirelo tša tlhahlo ya balemi bjalo ka tšeo di šomago gabotse go obamela molawana wa Batho Pele go šoma le batho le go beakanya mešomo. Dipoelo tšeo di hweditšwego mabapi le go šoma gabotse ga ditirelo tša tlhahlo le keletšo ya balemi di laeditše gore bontši bja baarabi ba be ba na le maikutlo a gore ditirelo tšeo ga di šome gabotse. Balemi bao ba rutegilego kudu, balemi bao ba tšofetšego, balemi bao ba bego ba etelwa kgafetšakgafetša ke bahlankedi ba tlhahlo ya balemi le balemi bao bao bego ba kgotsofetše ka boleng bja ditirelo ba bone gore ditirelo tša tlhahlo le keletšo ya balemi di šoma gabotse. Godimo ga fao, tshekatsheko ya kutollo ya mabaka e laeditše gore ditirelo tša tlhahlo le keletšo ya balemi yeo e abago ditirelo tša maleba le tše kaone, tshedimošo yeo e kaonafaditšego tšweletšo ya tša temo le phihlelelo ya ditheknolotši e bonwe bjalo ka yeo e šomago gabotse ke balemi. Dinyakišišo di utollotše gore lenaneo la go hlahla balemi go ya ka dinyakwa tša bona leo le akaretšago mmušo le diyunibesithi ke leo le bego le phethagatšwa go ya ka ge le nyakwa ka lebaka la gore bontši (91.2%) bja balemi bo amogetše kakaretšo ya tlhahlo ka diyunibesithi ka gare ga lenaneo la go hlahla balemi go ya ka dinyakwa tša bona, le ge e le gore bontši bja bona ga ba tsebe diyunibesithi tšeo di abago mananeo a tša temo ka mo lefapheng le la dinyakišišo. Bontši bja baarabi ba ratile lenaneo la tlhahlo ka diyunibesithi ka lebaka la dikholego tša mehutahuta leo le fanago ka tšona, go swana le phihlelelo ye kaone go ditirelo tša tlhahlo le keletšo ya balemi; phihlelelo go thuto le tlhahlo tša semmušo; le sebaka sa go hwetša keletšo go tšwa go ditsebi le go tšwa go ba bangwe. Dipoelo tša BLR di laeditše gore balemi bao ba dirago poelo ye kgolo go tšwa go dikgwebo tša bona tša temo ebile ba bona kamano

ya bona le diyunibesithi bjalo ka sebaka sa go fihlelela thušo ya dinyakišišo ba ile ba amogela go akaretšwa ga diyunibesithi ka go lenaneo la tlhahlo ya balemi go ya ka dinyakwa tša bona. Godimo ga fao, mabaka a mararo a bohlokwa ao a amanago le go amogelega ga tlhahlo ka diyunibesithi ao a hweditšwego go tshekatsheko ya kutollo ya mabaka e bile phihlelelo go methopo ya dinyakišišo, ditirelo le tlhahlo ya balemi tšeo di kaonafetšego, le go phatlalatšwa ga dinyakišišo tša ka yunibesithi. Dikutollo tša dinyakišišo di laeditše gore bontši bja balemi (56.8%) ka lekaleng le la dinyakišišo le ratile lenaneo la phethagatšo ya tlhahlo ya balemi leo le akaretšago tlhahlo ya setšhaba ka tša temo bjalo ka mokgwa wa kgokaganyo magareng ga balemi le diyunibesithi (lenaneo la kabo ya tlhahlo ya balemi–tlhahlo ya setšhaba–ka diyunibesithi). Lenaneo leo go bolelwago ka lona le be le ratwa kudukudu ka gobane le tla kgontšha balemi go hwetša tshedimošo ka botlalo go tšwa go methopo ya mehutahuta le go tšwetša pele kamano le mmušo. Dipoelo tša MNLR di aleditše gore balemi bao ba bego ba dira poelo ye kgolo go dikgwebo tša bona tša temo ba ratile lenaneo la kabo ya tlhahlo ya balemi–tlhahlo ya setšhaba–ka diyunibesithi go feta lenaneo la tlhahlo ya balemi ka yunibesithi. Tekano ye e ka bago seripagare sa baarabi e nyakile go hwetša ditirelo tša tlhahlo ya balemi go tšwa ka diyunibesithi mafelong a bona a temo, mola e le gore karolo ye nngwe ya balemi e be e arogane magareng ga bao ba nyakago go etela diyunibesithi fela le bao ba kgethilego mafelo ka bobedi (diyunibesithi le mafelo a temo). Gape, bontši bja balemi (41.9%) ba nyaka go hwetša ditirelo tša tlhalo le keletšo ya balemi go tšwa ka diyunibesithing ka dipolelo tša bona tša ka gae. Mabapi le thušo ya ditšhelete, go hweditšwe gore bontši (55.4%) bja balemi, kudukudu bao ba tshephilego bolemi bjalo ka letseno la bona le legolo, ba be ba nyaka go lefa ditirelo tša tlhahlo ka diyunibesithi. Le ge go le bjale, balemi ba kgwebo le bao ba lego kgole le dikantoro tša tlhahlo ya balemi ba be ba sa nyake goba go na le kgonagalo ye nnyane ya gore ba ka lefela ditirelo tša tlhahlo ka diyunibesithi, ka ge go laeditšwe ke dipoelo tša BLR. Le ge go le bjale, bontši (91%) bja baarabi ba dumetše gore mmušo o swanetše go aba thušo ya ditšhelete tša dinamelwa, diputseletšo tša bašomi ba yunibesithi, thušo ya tša kalafo (fao go hlokagalago), Sekhwama sa ba go Lebogišwa Mešomong (UIF) le ditefelo tša tšhelete ya phenšene (ge go kgonagala), dikantoro (ge di nyakega), ditlabelo tša dikantoro le fenišara, theknolotši ya tshedimošo le dikgokagano (ICT), setešenari, mananeo a tlhahlo a balemi le dinyakišišo tša ditirelo tša tlhahlo tša yunibesithi. Ka fao, balemi ba emetše gore mmušo o abe thušo ya ditšhekete go bontši bja ditirelo tša tlhahlo ka diytunibesithi. Go kaonafatša go šoma gabotse ga ditirelo tša tlhahlo le keletšo ya setšhaba, go šišinywa gore badiredi ba ditirelo tša tlhahlo ya setšhaba ba fane ka ditirelo tša maleba, tša boleng bjo bokaone le go fana ka tshedimošo yeo e kaonafatšago tšweletšo ya temo le go nolofatša phihlelelo go ditheknolotši tšeo di nyakwago ke balemi. Godimo ga fao, go šišinywa gore motheo wa semmušo wa lenaneo la tlhahlo ya balemi go ya ka fao ba nyakago ka gona le hlongwe ka go diriša tshepedišo ya go kgatha tema ga ga makala a mangwe go akaretšwa Kgoro ya Thuto le Tlhahlo ya Godingwana, Kgoro ya Temo, balemi, diyunibesithi le batšeakarolo ba bangwe. Motheo wa lenaneo la tlhahlo ya balemi go ya ka fao ba nyakago ka gona o swanetše go kgontšha diyunibesithi go fana ka methopo ya dinyakišišo go balemi; go kaonafatša phihlelelo go ditirelo tša thušo ya balemi le go hlahla balemi; le go hlama sefala sa go phatlalatša dipoelo tša dinyakišišo tša yunibesithi go ya go balemi. Lenaneo la kabo ya tlhahlo ya balemi leo le akaretšago tlhahlo ya setšhaba bjalo ka mokgwa wa kgokaganyo le swanetše go ba lenaneo le legolo la tlhahlo ka yunibesithi. Ditirelo tša tlhahlo ka yunibesithi di swanetše go abja kudukudu ka mafelong a temo (ka dipolaseng) ka go šomiša dipolelo tša ka gae tša Afrika Borwa. Mmušo o swanetše go aba bontši bja thušo ya ditšhelete tša mabapi le dinamelwa, palomoka ya letseno, thušo ya kalafo, ditefelo tša UIF le tša phenšene, dikantoro, ditlabelo tša dikantoro le fenišara, theknolotši ya tshedimošo le dikgokagano (ICT), setešenari, mananeo a tlhahlo a balemi le dinyakišišo tša ditirelo tša tlhahlo tša yunibesithi. Godimo ga fao, balemi, diyunibesithi le mekgatlo ya balemi ba swanetše go lefa tšhelete ye go kwanwego ka yona ya ditirelo tša tlhahlo ka diyunibesithi.