Leading by example, Heather Ford and the ethnography of knowledge

Written by Andrew Rens on March 28th, 2011

My good friend Heather Ford has just announced that she is working for Ushahidi/Swift River as an ethnographer.

Now why would I write a blogpost about that? I have quite a number of friends and many of them move to new and exciting career opportunities. I think that the story which Heather tells in her announcement is an important one. You will have to read Heather’s own account to get the story.

There are aspects of this story which are opposite of the sub-text of media and corporate stories.

Heather describes how she went back to university to learn.
Perhaps that shouldn’t be such a surprising statement that I was tempted to end it with an exclamation mark, but it is. The prevalent message is our age and time is that one should go back to school to pick up a qualification that is currently in demand by incumbent industries. But Heather didn’t do that, she wanted a space to work on some of the problems she’d experienced as she headed up the iCommons team. Even on its own account the corporate story doesn’t work, while it makes a lot of sense to engage in continuous learning, acquire skills demanded in the market it doesn’t make as much sense

Heather sought to work on what she is passionate about. She is passionate about technology, and about Africa, and about the potential for technology to change Africa in positive ways. Heather wrote an essay on the Missing Wikipedians, in which she talked about the way African knowledge was systematically undervalued even in open peer produced Wikipedia. That essay prompted the creation of the position for which Heather was hired.

Heather shared her story. Heather describes how surprised and gratified she was. We need more leaders with can share inspiring stories as simply, humbly and gracefully as Heather has.

PS: Heather has been an amazingly energetic volunteer in no small number of cool ICT 4 development projects.

 

Tax and Innovation Policy

Written by Andrew Rens on March 25th, 2011

In yesterdays post I considered some of the implications of a recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment on foriegn exchange regulations. That analysis segued into a brief consideration of some other legal provisions that affect foriegn investment into innovation in South Africa, including tax. Short as that was it consideration made it clear to me that the various rules of tax and financial regulation have been made and revised for a number of reasons, none having anything to do with innovation. The collective impact of the rules doesn’t seem to have been considered, nor does there seem to have been any empirical research into their impact on innovation.

Neither that post, nor this is a detailed study of the arcana of South African tax legislation, regulation and practice. Instead its to invite comments on what would constitute tax and financial provisions which would encourage innovation.

To start the conversation I’ve listed a few of the proposals I’ve heard in the last few years. The South African government, especially the Ministry of Science and Technology have espoused a great deal of interest in South Africa entering the ‘Knowledge Economy’. One aspect of South African government policy is to try to increase the number of maths, science and engineering graduates and especially postgraduates. Another is to encourage entrepreneurs in information technology, biotech and nanotech.

Some simple changes to tax policy that would encourage such innovations could include the following.

Exempt textbooks from VAT.

Provide tax relief for the cost of postgraduate study.*

Provide an efficient mechanism for South African entrepreneurs to attract foriegn capital, and enter foriegn markets with intangible rights such as patents.

*My understanding is that while currently professional continuing professional education, at least for lawyers, engineers and some health professionals is permitted as a revenue deduction post graduate education is regarded as capital expenditure. Capital expenditure might of course be permitted as a deduction from capitals gains tax. This might make sense for expenditure on something which on its sale may result a capital gain such as house but its hardly applicable to a research scientist.

What are your ideas?