Vol 4 _2_- Cont. J. Soc. Sci. - Wilolud Journals

Continental J. Social Sciences 4 (2): 34 - 49, 2011 ISSN: 2141 - 4265 

© Wilolud Journals, 2011 http://www.wiloludjournal.com 

Printed in Nigeria 

THE INTERFACE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY: COMPARATIVE 

EXPERIENCES OF SOUTH AFRICA AND NIGERIA 

Adejuwon, Kehinde David 

Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management Sciences, Lagos State University, Ojo 

Lagos State. E:mail: ade_kennytee@yahoo.com; adekennytee@gmail.com 

ABSTRACT 

This paper examines the contribution of social science research to development of public policy and 

practice. It considers how academics in general and social scientists in particular can collaborate with 

policy-makers and practitioners to enrich development work, and thereby promote overall national progress. 

This paper acknowledges that states in Africa have contributed to the problems confronting social science 

research in the continent. It argues, however, that the causes of the problem go beyond the state. The paper 

identifies several factors as challenges facing research; intellectual distancing of the disciplines from 

society, the retrogressive socio-political atmosphere that characterizes some African universities, and the 

negative attitudes of individual academics. It further examines social science and public policy in South 

Africa and Nigeria. It therefore recommends measures for greater relevance of social science in public 

policy. The paper concludes that without a correction of these internal and external deficiencies, it will be 

difficult to maintain a respectable and beneficial level of research endeavour, integrity, collaboration, and 

sustainability. 

KEYWORDS: Social Science; Public Policy, Policy Making, Research, Policy formulation, 

Policy actors 

INTRODUCTION 

There is often an uneasy relationship between researchers and policy practitioners. Each looks at the world through 

different coloured lenses. Each has different perspectives on what the problem is, and unrealistic expectations of 

each other. This dynamic reflects the complexity of interacting factors, and can impede a good relationship between 

policy practitioners and researchers. 

There is a great deal of interest in understanding policy-making processes in Africa, and the role of research in 

informing policy decisions and actions. Ideally, equal emphasis should be placed on both. In spite of the urgency of 

the need to understand the role of research in informing policy decisions and actions, very little intellectual capital 

has been spent on such inquiries. Yet, donor agencies and some African governments continue to spend a great deal 

of resources on policy research (Jimoh and Ogundiya, 2010). 

Although there is a significant body of literature that examines the role of research in policymaking, very little 

empirical work has been undertaken within the context of developing countries. There are many perspectives on the 

policy process and the role that research plays within it help to provide theoretical explanations for why there is an 

inherent difficulty in bridging the research and policy divide. As one gains a better understanding of the 

complexities of the policy process itself, which is unique to each country, it becomes a little more apparent how 

research can play a role. The important “how” question is not simply about how to improve the transfer of research 

into policy and vice versa, but more so about understanding the peculiar conditions under which links between the 

two can be made more effective—the political context, bureaucratic structures and institutions, interest groups, actor 

networks, types of interactions and influences, value systems, and so forth (Noora-Lisa, et al 2010). 

In Africa the situation is even more complicated. The policy terrain is murkier, due largely to domestic pressures 

and the heavy external influence from decision centres located outside the official bureaucracies. Borrowing from 

work on the politics of trade policy making in Africa, it has been noted that ‘… the underlying forces behind policy 

34

Adejuwon, Kehinde David: Continental J. Social Sciences 4 (2): 34 - 49, 2011 

epochs and episodes vary from country to country and from regime to regime weaved around ethnic, military or 

other ruling and bureaucratic interests in a manner that suggests a forced consensus … the loss of policy autonomy 

in most countries and the absence of the organized private sector as key players in the policy process compound the 

picture’. 

There is a renewed interest in the policy– research nexus in many countries, which appears to be more demand (via 

governments) than supply driven (Solesbury 2002). This suggests governments recognise their inadequate internal 

capacity and the need to evaluate what works in a fiscally constrained environment. 

The premise of this paper is influenced by views of scholars such as Adesina (2007) who, in his review of African 

policy experiences, concluded that most policy-making initiatives in Africa were influenced by the ‘nationalist’ 

agenda of nation building and (economic) growth. Also, the view that the role played or not played by the state is 

critical for development or lack of it influences the approach this paper takes, especially since it is posited that the 

South African government has been relatively hands-on in both policy making and implementation or rather that the 

configuration of government since 1998 or so has lent itself readily to an active developmental state (Johnson, 

1999). This paper conceptualise social science and public policy, it examines the nexus between social science and 

public policy. The paper examines public policy in South Africa and Nigeria; the limitations of impact of social 

science on public policy were examined, while remedial actions for greater relevance of social science in policy 

making were proffered. 

SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY: CONCEPTUAL EXPLANATIONS 

The social sciences consist of a variety of disciplines, subject areas, and methods. Social science is that broad range 

of field that studies the society. Political science, Sociology, History, Anthropology, Economics, Geography, etc. all 

provide their own, largely independent, definitions of scope, research agenda, and research methods. And there is no 

grand plan according to which the disciplinary definitions jointly capture all that is of scientific interest about the 

social sciences. The major social science disciplines have grown up in the past century and a half by creating 

stylized answers to these topic areas: the “political” concerns institutions of coercion and governance; the 

“economic” has to do with production, exchange, and distribution of goods and services; the “anthropological” has 

to do with the cultures, values, and practices through which individuals and groups conduct their local lives. 

Generally, social sciences engage in social research which is a systematic inquiry into social events/phenomena or 

processes. Fadeyi and Adedokun (2004: 1) averred that social research includes: 

Any research which has as its subject of investigation or inquiry, human groups, human nature, human 

relationships, human organization and human institutions…In broad sense social research is 

concerned with systematic gathering of data that can help us answer questions about various aspects 

of society and these can help us to understand society. 

The essence of social research is to contribute to the store of knowledge about human society in order to solve 

certain confronting problems. Such investigation needs to influence formulation of programs that are meant to 

address those problems. 

Enough has been written about definitions of public policy. Academics continue to contemplate the definition of 

public policy, since there is currently no consensus. As Howlett and Ramesh (2003) put it, there are many competing 

definitions of public policy. The study of public policy began in 1922, when Charles Merriam, a political scientist, 

sought to build a link between political theory and its application to reality. Numerous issues are addressed by public 

policy, including crime, education, foreign policy, health, and social welfare. Thomas Dye opines that it is 

“whatever governments choose to do or not to do”. By this, “action” or “inaction” both define public policy (cited in 

Adesina, 2008). The Longman`s Dictionary of Contemporary English defines policy as “a plan or course of action in 

directing affairs, as chosen by a political party, government, business company, etc.”. 

Public policy in the view of Gumede (2008) is defined broadly as all formal and publicly known decisions of 

governments that come about through pre-determined channels in a particular administration. Properties of this 

definition would readily lend themselves to scrutiny but, given limited space and time, this paper cannot unpack 

35


these. Moran, Rein and Goodin (2006) view public policy ‘as the business end of political science, where theory 

meets practice in the pursuit of the public good’. Public policy is an attempt by the government to address a public 

issue. The government, whether it is city, state, or federal, develops public policy in terms of laws, regulations, 

decisions, and actions. There are three parts to public policy-making: problems, players, and the policy. 

The problem is the issue that needs to be addressed. The player is the individual or group that is influential in 

forming a plan to address the problem in question. Policy is the finalized course of action decided upon by the 

government. In most cases, policies are widely open to interpretation by non-governmental players, including those 

in the private sector. Public policy is also made by leaders of religious and cultural institutions. 

For the purposes of a better understanding in this paper, we will adopt the definitions of a policy as defined by 

DeConing (2006) and Gumede, (2008). DeConing (2006) defines a policy, as a statement of intent, which articulates 

basic principles to be pursued to attain specific goals and actions. DeConing goes on to say that policy interprets the 

values of society and is usually followed by pertinent project and program management actions related to 

implementation. Thus, policies when formulated must be implemented to achieve the set goals and objectives. 

One may summarise its conceptualization by identifying the following salient characteristics of public policy: 

Public policy is purposive and goal-oriented. 

It consists of courses or patterns of action by government officials. 

Public policy is what government actually do...not what they intend to do, or say they are going to do. 

Public policy can be either positive or negative in form i.e government overt action or a decision by 

government officials not to take action. 

It is based on law, and is authoritative. 

The purposes and objectives of policies are to promote the professed values and goals of the society as identified and 

defined by the political leadership. Public policies are the expression of political systems goals and the means with 

which it purse them. The content of policies is the political actions programmes designed to purse such values, goals 

and aspirations. 

SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY: WHAT NEXUS 

The role of social science in policy formulation and the question of how to use social science research and expertise 

in policy making is one of the recurring issues facing social scientists across the globe. Hence, the roles, which 

social scientist expected to play for the success of any public policy either by the government or private 

organizations, can never be over-emphasized. In addition, research is a process of discovering new or additional 

useful information. This makes research central to the policy-making process in the efforts to bring about sustainable 

development. The need for research derives either from insufficient information, which does not lead policy makers 

to definite conclusion and policy direction, or from lack of information on an issue of public concern for which a 

policy action is eventually desired. 

The research-policy nexus is not linear, even in advanced countries, and even when governments of those countries 

are funding the research. Weiss (1995) noted the haphazard connection between social science research and policy 

making in the United States, and the misguided belief by many social scientists involved in policy research that the 

results of their work would be used by the government. Weiss observed that they ‘tend to believe that if officials 

ignore relevant research, they are either ignorant, uncaring, or overtly “political” in the pejorative sense of the 

word’. This means that in assessing the research-policy interface, a fair amount of value must be assigned to 

serendipity and knowledge externalities that may not be readily captured and quantified. 

In the view of Jimoh and Ogundiya (2010) three important points have emerged with respect to the research-policy 

interface. First, it is useful to have a market for contestation of policy ideas. Second, policy entrepreneurship is 

critical in bridging the research–policy gap. Third, policy research priority setting involves many players and can be 

demand or supply driven, depending on the coalition for policy change and the institutional arrangements on the 

ground. In Africa, all of these conditions have, for the most part, been either weak or absent. 

36


The goal of social sciences is to traverse the array of social, political, economic and environmental problems facing 

the human race. Without reversing the trend in the array of these problems, the human society will be anarchical and 

inhuman for human survival (Jimoh and Ogundiya, 2010). It is in this light that social sciences dabble into the 

mainstream of vigorous systematic investigation of the etiologies, patterns and consequences of these socio-political, 

economic and environmental problems so that appropriate strategies will be developed to curtail them. As regards 

this investigation, social sciences operate at two distinct but interrelated levels the conceptual-theoretical and 

observational-empirical (Nachimias and Nachmia 1991). 

David Blunkett, (then) Secretary of State for Education and Employment in the United Kingdom, has expressed a 

policy practitioner’s view in terms of his government’s frustration about the tendency for research to ‘deal with 

issues other than those which are central and directly relevant to the political and policy debate; fail to take into 

account the reality of many people’s lives when identifying the research questions; or be seemingly perverse – when 

research does try to be directly relevant to the main policy and political debates, it is often ‘driven by ideology 

paraded as intellectual inquiry or critique, setting out with the sole aim of collecting evidence that will prove a 

policy wrong rather than genuinely seeking to evaluate or interpret impact’(Blunkett, 2000). In response, the 

researcher refer to lack of government interest in, or even knowledge of research that is available and relevant; 

impediments to researchers accessing data held within bureaucracies; insufficient effort by government in 

identifying and publicising policy priorities; an anti-intellectual approach adopted within government; a risk-averse 

attitude to findings that practitioners could see as embarrassing to the Minister, resulting in a wariness of critical 

analysis; short time-frames under which governments operate, resulting in a preference for immediate 

‘instrumentalist’ policy advice; and a lack of incentives for researchers to produce policy relevant material. 

These two positions reflect quite different frames of reference. Caplan (1979) has coined the phrase ‘two 

communities’ to depict the cultural divide between social science and policy. Indeed, communication as well as 

culture could be expected to be at the heart of any divide between the world of social scientist and policy 

practitioner. 

From the above, it shows that there is a troubled relationship between social science and public policy. Because of 

the focus of study in social sciences, it is expected that the outcome of social science researches should translate to 

social action. But this is not so in reality, as the interface between social science and public policy is weak. 

In Nigeria, the best evidence for the disconnection between social science and public policy is in the level of 

development in the country. For example before the recent crisis in the financial sector, various research findings by 

experts have sought to draw the attention of the regulators to various warning signals that all is not well in the 

sector. Some of the findings show that the reported profit level of most of the banks is at variance with other 

economic indices. Because of the inappropriate interface between policy research and public policy, theses warnings 

were not heeded by the regulators. The outcome was the crash in the stock market and instability in the financial 

institutions. 

There are three main avenues through which social scientists can, in the course of their professional duties, interact 

with other members of the society. Social scientists may teach and enlighten both students in the universities and 

adults in the wider society. Secondly, social scientists may influence other societal members through their research 

and writing or publications. And thirdly, social scientists may interact with policy makers through the playing of 

roles as consultants, advisers, planners, commissioners and direct government officials in the civil service (Sanda, 

1981:4). With respect to contemporary Nigerian society, social scientists have been most influential with respect to 

the third area of interaction with policy makers. It is probably necessary to elaborate on each of these aspects. 

Social scientists conduct researches into different aspect of social and economic progress in Africa and they publish 

such findings in both local and international journals. In Nigeria, for instance the foremost among the local journals 

utilised as a medium of communication with policy makers and the rest of the society are the Nigerian Journal of 

Economic and Social Studies, Quarterly Journal of Administration, ASCON Journal of Management, Journal of 

African Studies, etc. 

37


Additionally, social scientists, because of the requirements for upward mobility within the academic community, 

publish a great deal of their research findings in foreign journals of high academic repute. In relation to direct 

participation in policy formulation and execution, the most influential social scientists are those in full employment 

in the public service. These people have had different degree of input into policy at different points in the planning 

and development process. 

Policies do not just evolve, they are based on available precedence and evidence. Such evidence usually emanates 

from various research findings which inform the policy makers about the direction of events. This signifies that part 

of the function of the body discipline of (social sciences) is to unfold social milieu about problems confronting the 

society. This will definitely influence policy formation to address societal problems. 

Oronsaye (1995) observed that the importance of basing policy on knowledge has been recognized in every 

civilization. The diagram below shows the cyclic nexus of research and policy. The figure depicts that research 

provides cesspool of knowledge required to formulate, modify and evaluate any policy. Even in monitoring the 

implementation of the policy, systematic investigations are needed. This signifies a reciprocal relationship between 

research and policy as policy formulation is not an end in the continuum process but a means to an end as researches 

are needed to evaluate, modify, monitor and (even) change the policy. 

Output 

Research 

Policy 

Formulation/Modification 

Theoretical 

& Empirical 

Observation 

Research 

Problem 

Social, Political 

Economic 

Discrepancies 

Human 

Concern 

Research-Policy Nexus (Adapted from Jimoh and Ogundiya, 2010). 

This also stipulates that a policy could be archaic. The human society is dynamic, so also all social remedies need to 

respond to the dynamics. Social research exposes such dynamics, patterns and dimensions. This thereby sets 

direction and adequate knowledge–base for the formulation of a new policy or modification of existing ones (Jimoh 

and Ogundiya, 2010). 

38


There is an urgent need to explore the interface and the complementarity between social science research and the 

policy-making process. Critics complain that academic knowledge does not easily or necessarily translate to 

practical wisdom and action because of the many deficiencies in the methods of generating, communicating and 

utilizing this knowledge (Bathgeber, 1988; Glover, 1995; MacNeil, 1990). Research tends to be supply-and not 

demand-driven. On the supply side some of our institutions of higher learning are still very patterned along inherited 

colonial lines, and tend to hold on to the old ideals of the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, or the limited 

objective of producing an indigenous elite for the decolonization and Africanization process. This influenced the 

form and content of the curriculum, which paid very little attention to direct problem-solving or to the professions as 

the concern of higher education (Sawadago, 1995; Ngara, 1995). 

Now governments’ donor agencies and private sector interests are becoming impatient with academic research and 

learning not related or only remotely related to the practical problems of development. Research is often carried out 

in a fragmented and narrow discipline-based manner, and research results, often influenced by ideological 

differences among feuding scholars, are usually ambiguous, inconclusive and sometimes even contradictory. 

Findings are typically too critical, offering few concrete suggestions or clear options to guide policy choices. The 

quality of scholarship and of the knowledge generated is now constrained by the limited exposure of our social 

scientists to current literature and modern analytical techniques, and their isolation from global discourse and trends 

in their fields. 

This would not entirely eliminate the many barriers that get in the way of effective collaboration between 

researchers and policy-makers since both sides traditionally approach their tasks differently. Policy-makers and 

politicians are usually under pressure to produce results quickly, social scientist tends to be more systematic, 

reflective and therefore slow. Academic researchers do not sufficiently anticipate problems and prescribe preventive 

measures, and there appears to be very little link between the process of doing research and the implementation of 

research findings. As well, policy-makers are asking for policy-relevant research and knowledge ‘generated and 

sustained in the context of application, and not developed first and then applied to that context later by a different 

group of practitioners’ (Gibbon, 1998). They are looking for more ‘flexible ways of integrating research into 

programmes so that the benefits from learning can be applied during, not after the events’ (AID-Watch, 1999). This 

is a departure from or perhaps just an extension of the traditional practice that assumes that: 

It is mistaken to expect university research to produce marketable results, for it is essentially 

fundamental research. It is the entrepreneur who can convert the fundamental research findings into 

commercial products through applied research conducted in their own laboratories or undertaken in 

the universities under their sponsorship (Biobaku, 1985). 

Policy-makers ad practitioners on the demand side also create problems for the dialogue and co-operation that 

should exists between them and academic researchers. They often seem to regard academic research contemptuously 

as esoteric, and as not taking into account the politics and economics of policy-making, which involve reconciling 

conflicting social and commercial interests. Objective and scientifically based research findings may turn out to be 

politically awkward or commercially inconvenient to these various vested interests. For this reason it is common for 

government or business interests to hire their own consultants or set up their own commissions of inquiry or task 

forces (suitably composed), with specified terms of reference, to look into this or that matter, and provides policy 

advice. Such a report is then vetted, and a ‘white paper’ issued to guide official decisions and action. 

There is a further and even more worrying concern that both researchers and policy-makers do not take sufficiently 

seriously the interests and views of the people whom research and development are meant to benefit. ‘Much 

conventional research is useless because it is for the satisfaction of the researcher rather than the researched’ 

(Edwards, 1989). This is the basis for the call for a more participatory and bottom-up approach to research and 

development, and a more active outreach and extension component of our development studies programmes. 

39


The above point summarise the troubled relationship that exist between social science and public policy. The effect 

of non-utilisation of research findings is seen in the poor level of development. It is important to state that this poor 

relationship is not peculiar to developing societies, it is a global phenomenon. 

However, the measure of impact of social science on policy in Africa, must include not just the participation of 

social scientists in policy making, but also the results of policy and the extent which policy is informed by social 

sciences research findings 

OVERVIEW OF THE POLICY PROCESS IN SOUTH AFRICA 

This section briefly depicts the policy-making process in South Africa, and the role played by various institutions, 

with added attention to non-state actors. One of the key institutions, besides parliament, is the Policy Co-ordination 

and Advisory Services (Policy Unit) in the state presidency. It not only deals with policy making and its various 

components (such as policy analysis, policy coordination and policy advice), but also leads to medium- to longrange 

planning as well as government-wide monitoring and evaluation. In brief, the Policy Unit provides research, 

analytical, advisory, policy, project/programme and strategic support to the presidency and government as a whole 

on matters of socioeconomic development, justice, governance and international affairs. It comprises five main 

policy sectors: economic, social, justice, crime prevention and security, international relations, and governance and 

administration. There are three additional units: monitoring and evaluation; planning; and special programmes 

(which deal with issues related to gender, disability and children’s rights). There is also a youth desk, which deals 

with youth development issues. Mirroring policy sectors are the five Forum of South African Directors-General 

(FOSAD) clusters. The Policy Unit works very closely with the FOSAD clusters and acts as a link between them 

and cabinet committees (Gumede, 2008). 

During the apartheid era, particularly in the period of the Premiership of P.W. Botha (as Prime Minister 1979-84, 

and as State President 1984-89), the policy-making process in South Africa was significantly militarised. This 

occurred mainly through the mechanism of the National Management System, at the apex of which was the State 

Security Council, and which provided military, intelligence and defence officers and officials with considerable 

leverage over the policy process. A militaristic `Total Strategy’ became the organising principle of policy – this 

essentially argued that all activities of state and society had to be orchestrated through a counter-revolutionary 

security agenda aimed to preventing a `communist’ takeover. 

As might be expected, the military came to dominate national security and defence policy-making during the Botha 

era. Without a functioning Ministry of Defence, defence policy was largely the preserve of the defence general staff, 

under the overall purview of the Minister of Defence, General Magnus Malan, who himself had been the Chief of 

the South African Defence Force (SADF). Defence policy-making was carried out in a closed and secretive 

environment in which little public or political consultation took place (Cawthra 1986). 

With the advent of the Premiership of F.W. de Klerk and the onset of negotiations to end apartheid, a rapid reduction 

in the policy influence of the military occurred and the Total Strategy framework was largely discarded. The period 

1990-94 saw multi-party negotiations which culminated in the establishment of the Transitional Executive Council 

(TEC) which oversaw the first universal democratic elections in South Africa in April 1994. During this period, 

defence policy was radically challenged and reviewed, both in the negotiating forums and also in civil society. A 

range of non-governmental organisations, many of them newly established, became involved for the first time in 

defence policy-making and a window of opportunity was opened for academics and other experts who had 

previously been marginalised from the defence process. This was a period of considerable policy fluidity and was 

characterised by a fairly open-ended debate, although at a formal level defence policy was to some extent protected 

from wider transitions, and `ring-fenced’ by the main actors in the interests of stability. 

The Government of National Unity was installed in May 1994 and led by the African National Congress (ANC) 

instituted a major policy revision soon after its establishment in May 1994, in which a new White Paper on Defence 

was drawn up. This resulted in the adoption of a new security paradigm - `human security’, which replaced the old 

Total Strategy framework. NGOs played a crucial role in drawing up the White Paper, but it will be argued that 

although public consultations took place, the process was in fact the preserve of small elite of defence experts. The 

40


parliamentary defence committees - especially the Joint Standing Committee on Defence (JSCD) drove this process, 

while the role of civil servants in the Ministry of Defence was minimal. 

South Africa made a commitment in 1994, through the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), to 

meeting basic needs, building the economy, democratising the state and society, developing human resources, and 

promoting nation building. Since then, the country has experienced a stable democracy, entrenchment of freedom, a 

growing economy and steady progress in bringing a better life to all. Over and above material conditions, there are 

improvements in areas such as national identity and relatively higher levels of social cohesion, in terms of unity, 

coherence, functionality and pride. The country has, to some extent, been exemplary in mitigating racial, ethnic and 

cultural tensions, in redressing decades of discrimination and underdevelopment, and in redefining and pursuing a 

collective national vision. South Africa is a nation that has harnessed meagre resources towards improved human 

development, at little disruption to the economy and the lowest costs to future generations, in a collective effort that 

addresses the ugly political history and its legacy (Gumede, 2008). 

South Africa is building its democratic institutions from scratch," Drake said. "As democracy puts roots deeper into 

South African soil, we expected -- and have seen -- growth in public policy-related disputes. This is a positive sign, 

because formerly disenfranchised groups now have the ability to contest government policies through participation 

rather than violence." 

South Africa finds itself in one of those rare situations in which there is enormous opportunity; but also great 

uncertainty about outcomes," Bellman (2008) observed that, "Successful implementation of collaborative problem 

solving systems can greatly enhance South Africa's ability to secure its future. During our mission, we found a 

strong appetite at all levels of government for dispute resolution systems. That is most encouraging." 

Collaborative problem solving to implement established policy has very little history in South Africa, if any at all, 

Carlson (2009) also noted; 

In the past, negotiation has typically been limited to narrowly defined issues with only two parties, 

such as labour-management matters. Based on what we learned in our recent mission, we believe that 

the State Office of Mediation model can be adapted to assist in introducing collaborative approaches 

to dealing with disputes over policy implementation in South Africa. 

A significant element of the policy-making and implementation process in South Africa is the involvement and/or 

participation of non-state actors – what public policy literature refers to broadly as quasi-autonomous nongovernmental 

organisations (‘quangos’). The South African policy-making process provides ample room for 

participation of the public, in its various forms. This approach is in accordance with the democratic nature of the 

government, giving voice and respect to the governed from various sectors, and from all walks of life. In a quest to 

achieve impartiality and independence of views of the public, government, as mandated by the Constitution, has put 

in place several institutions to strengthen constitutional democracy. These institutions account to the NA and include 

the Public Protector, the South African Human Rights Commission, the Commission for the Promotion and 

Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities, the Commission on Gender and 

Equality, the Youth Commission, and the Electoral Commission. Although these are state institutions, the 

Constitution protects their independence by allowing them to contribute to the policy making, implementing and 

monitoring process ‘without fear, favour or prejudice’ for the sectors that these institutions represent (Gumede, 

2008). 

Although the integrated governance system requires further interrogation, it could tentatively be concluded that 

South Africa has established ideal institutions for the policy-making process. Overall, South Africa encapsulates 

most of the salient features of a democratic developmental state which is seen as a state that is active in pursuing its 

developmental agenda, working with social partners, and has the capacity and is appropriately organised for its 

predetermined objectives (Gumede, 2008). 

41


SOCIAL SCIENCE AND POLICY FORMULATION: THE NIGERIAN EXPERIENCE 

How research contributes to the policy process in developing countries in general, and in Nigeria more specifically, 

is not well understood. Yet such understanding is a critical part of doing effective policy research. The ultimate aim 

of policy research is to have an impact on policy. However, making the link between policy research and policy is 

not straightforward without an understanding of the underlying policy process and how policy research plays a role 

in that process (Noora-Lisa Aberman, et al, 2010). 

One of the ways by which the successive government in Nigeria since independence have been trying to better the 

socio-economic conditions of Nigerians and narrow the gaps between it and advance countries of the world, is to 

formulate and execute policies which are “pragmatic” in nature (Olaniyi, 1998). He noted further that such policies 

often take different forms – political, economic, social,, etc and they differ from regime to regime. In fact, it can be 

asserted here that the adoption of these policies have become a political contest and any new regime which fails to 

evolves its own strategy will be deemed by Nigerians as lacking national orientation. 

The research-to-policy linkages in Nigeria have been generally described as weak (Olomola, 2007). A few factors 

have been cited for the low uptake of research by Nigerian policymakers. The first has to do with the lack of highquality 

research. Compared with other African countries, Nigeria is home to a relatively large number of policy 

research institutions and think tanks. 

The second factor according to Noora-Lisa, et al (2010) is the apparent disconnect between researchers and 

policymakers. There is little interaction between policymakers and researchers. Thus, meaningful discussion of 

available research findings, their suitability to policy-related problems, and identification of other policy areas 

requiring research attention is severely lacking. In some cases, policymakers do not have confidence in research 

findings, probably due to doubtful methodology or the highly technical language used by researchers (Obada and 

Uga, 2002:515). Closely related is the problem of mutual suspicion between the researchers and policymakers. 

Policymakers have often been alleged to hoard information needed for policy research, and researchers have been 

accused of abusing classified information divulged to them. The only aspect of a linkage between research and 

policy is the dissemination of research findings, but most policymakers hardly attend dissemination seminars and 

workshops, or they send their representatives with little or no caliber to contribute to policy debate (Olomola, 2007). 

These according to Hansohm (2003) has been described those as generally weak and unreliable. This has been 

attributed to many years of military rule, bad governance, and a high level of corruption, especially in the late 1980s 

and early 1990s when most Nigerian research establishments suffered from inadequate funding, decay of 

infrastructure, and a flight of highly qualified academics to Western institutions (Centre for African Policy and 

Peace Strategy, 2007). The latter—often referred to as “brain drain”—remains a critical challenge facing local 

research institutes in Nigeria. 

Insufficient use of available research-based in policy is the third factor. Obadan and Uga (2002) suggest that the 

insufficient use of available research-based information in public policy-making leads to disenchantment by policy 

researchers. In this context, policy researchers may redirect their efforts toward research that does not necessarily 

address social and development problems but rather adds to their publications or contributes to an ongoing 

intellectual debate. Supporting that theory, a recent study conducted to ascertain causes of poor research output 

among Nigerian academics identified the lack of use of research findings by policy practitioners as most critical 

(Egwunyenga 2008). 

However, the return to civil rule in 1999 ushered in a stronger role for research in policymaking by facilitating the 

inclusion of more academic and policy expertise into the policy process. 

Since the beginning of the present democratic dispensation public policy have been identified and formulated for 

adoption by the executive arm of government to the knowledge of some top government, party leaders. Usually, the 

Presidency through a committee of policy analysts assists in the formulation efforts. The strategy of policy 

announcement is usually made through the media press conference, interview or an important non political body like 

the National Council of States which has authority to legislate on the matter. 

42


Beginning with President Obasanjo’s administration, from 1999 to 2007, technocrats with sound academic 

backgrounds and strong advocacy for the inclusion of research output in the policymaking process formed part of 

the cabinet. Some policy programs initiated by Obasanjo included the Nigerian development agenda, the National 

Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy, the establishment of the Institute for Peace and Conflict 

Resolution (a government think tank), and the annual presidential strategic retreat. All these initiatives received 

substantial inputs from policy experts, thereby providing a link between academic researchers and policy-makers. 

Even though this effort has started creating an interface between researchers and policymakers, research has not 

been directly used for policymaking largely due to poor political will and limited political value of research in the 

policy process (CAPPS, 2007). As a way of bridging the gap between policy and practice, there is need for further 

research to develop and facilitate effective strategies for participatory, transparent, and evidence-based policymaking 

in Nigeria. 

How research can feed into the policy process in developing countries in general, and in Nigeria more specifically, 

is not well understood. Yet that understanding is a critical part of doing effective policy research. A key challenge 

for research organizations in Nigeria, therefore, is to improve their understanding of the policy process, their 

interactions with policymakers, what information they will use and in what form, and with whom they should 

establish interactions. 

SOME LIMITATIONS ON THE POSSIBLE IMPACT OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCE ON PUBLIC POLICY 

Policy making in Africa in the 1980s and 1990s was dominated by what is widely known as the “Washington 

consensuses”. By implication, two institutions in Washington, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World 

Bank, agreed on both the diagnosis for the lack of economic progress in Africa and the preferred solutions. Needless 

to say, African leaders and peoples were not consulted; they disagreed significantly with both the analysis of the 

problems and the solutions that the two institutions forced them to adopt. The neoclassical thinking and the market 

fundamentalism so central to the Washington consensus did not allow for any alternative view. African 

governments, by then heavily indebted and reliant on the IMF and the World Bank to bail them out of their 

economic quagmires, capitulated and reluctantly adopted their policies. The ideas and knowledge from Washington 

were backed by financial resources, and the role of the IMF as the global arbiter of good policies precluded access to 

other external sources of finance if a country’s rating, in their judgement, was unsatisfactory (Soludo, et al, 2004). 

The troubled relationship between social science and public policy is more pronounced in Nigeria. It is not obvious 

if research outcome is having impact on social action. The failure to establish a connection between policy and 

social research in developing countries has resulted in what is “the failure prone thesis”. The failure prone policy 

process thesis argues that policy makers in the developing nations are guilty of setting unrealistic goals. According 

to Albert Hirschman, “the fundamental problem of developing nations lies in the ability of their policy makers to 

make decisions that will include development due to psychological and social structural inadequacies that inhibit 

them from bringing to bear the needed amount of knowledge and commitment to make proper judgements about the 

allocation of resources”. He further argues that the choice of policy that developing countries made compounds the 

failure of policy for two reasons. First, developing countries hardly posses government with the policy making 

apparatus adequate to the task of producing a comprehensive programme. Second, this inadequacy is met with the 

introduction of policy solution from elsewhere, usually from advanced economies, solution which are hardly 

suitable to local problem (Adesina, 2008). 

There are practical examples of policies in Nigeria which are copied from developed country or are adopted from 

those designed by international organisations like World Bank, United Nations etc. Policies in Nigeria are affected 

more by research outcome from foreign study and most often by foreign scholars. This is one of the reasons why 

public policy often failed in Nigeria. The Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) policy in the 1980s was adopted 

from the International Monetary Fund policy papers. The implication of this on the suppose nexus between social 

science and public policy is the undermining of local intellectual resources to act on local problems. It also deepens 

the underdevelopment of local talents and deprives them of the opportunity to master the problems on their own 

terms. Ideally, there is a basis for linkage between social science and public policy. Halpern shows the importance of 

social science research in informing public policy. She emphasises benefits of social science research to include 

improved quality of life, motivating learning, reducing crimes among many others. Rob Niji, a director at the 

Netherland Institute for Social research points out the need for social science researcher to help policy makers find 

43


acceptable solution to the societal problems. Cobin (2009) also suggests that academic social scientist should strive 

to engage in what they called policy-relevant research. This is consistent with many economists and political 

scientists who are oriented towards the popular Austrian economics and Chicago school. 

A critical factor which conditions public policy in developing countries generally is economic dependency which is 

a feature of post-colonial societies. Adesina (2008) states that a dependency economy coheres in a dependent state, 

together they breed a category of policy makers who are materially weak and who crave political power in order to 

amass wealth. The implication of this linkage is that public policies are made on the basis of political considerations. 

There are numerous factors which militate against the social sciences having the degree of impact that these 

disciplines could have had on policy. Some of these factors are concerned within the practitioners of the disciplines, 

as well as their tools of research and analysis. Other factors are inherent in the nature of African society with its 

characteristically endless power struggle in a basically anti-intellectualist environment. 

Firstly, there is the limitation imposed by basically western and received theories in all the social sciences. Professor 

Phillips (1979) has put the problem briefly but accurately; 

To date, much of social science research in Nigeria revolves around received theories. Specifically, 

the emphasis has been on testing the applicability to the country of theories developed in and received 

from the more economically advanced countries to such a low level that the next logical step is to 

develop what in essence amounts to new theories, test these and then base policy prescriptions on 

them; to date, social scientists demonstrate through empirical tests the inapplicability of several 

received theories but then stop short of the substitution process mention above. The upshot, of course, 

is that the researcher has nothing to offer to the policy makers. 

Secondly, even in situations where empirical researches have been embarked upon, the professional requirements of 

the social scientist and their considerations of requirements for mobility frequently lead to the utilisation of vague, 

specialised and sophisticated methodologies and language of communication, all of which act as barriers to effective 

communication with would be users of findings of social scientists. The use of academic jargons and the adoption of 

complex models and methodologies by social scientists through repulsive and alienating to policy makers, represent 

such a mark of professionalism and academic excellence to the older social scientists that these phenomena may 

continue to widen the gorge between the producers and users of social science knowledge for a long time (Sanda, 

1987). 

Thirdly, the over-dependence on the academic journals with restrictive circulation, and to which most policy 

makers do not subscribe, further limits the access of policy makers to the research findings of social scientists. 

Again, in view of the great premium placed on academic journals by social scientists, the latter have in the main 

been talking to each other, to the exclusion of most of the policy makers. 

Fourthly, and perhaps most important social scientists in this society do not engage in long term policy oriented 

researches partly as result of their obsession with publishing results of short-term researches in an academic 

environment dominated by the publish or perish syndrome, and partly for other reasons which include, inadequate 

funding and lack of adequate societal support for social research. 

All the above mentioned constraints are internal to the social science disciplines and practitioners. They partly reflect 

the absence of an in-depth knowledge of the socio-structural environment within which social scientists are 

functioning. Apart from the internal constraints, there are also limitations which inherent in the nature of African 

society. First and foremost is the paucity and unreliability of statistical data in Africa. The inadequately organised 

and uncoordinated production of statistics acts as a major constraint to their use by policy makers. For instance, Idele 

(1991) observed that: 

44


Lack of statistically trained personnel... and the general public apathy towards statistical studies, 

scarcity of up-to-date and reliable data... the uncooperative attitude of industrial organisations and 

government organs having to do with those materials, lack of data processing facilities... the sheer 

size of country...all these constitute some of the well known problems facing statistics in Nigeria today 

Also, there is the impatient and frequently indifferent attitude of policy makers in the public sector as far as 

research is concerned. Part of the policy makers’ attitude can be explained by their belief in calling upon 

researchers only when the latter are considered necessary. This may be related to the power over policy 

decisions in relation to the facts or knowledge possessed by the social researchers. 

RESTRUCTURING THE SOCIAL SCIENCES FOR GREATER RELEVANCE 

We have drawn attention to the diverse ways in which the social sciences are categorized in different places, and to 

the problem of communication and comprehension among scientists, and between them and policy-makers and 

administrators. The problems of duplication and overlap in the various disciplines and sub-disciplines are too well 

known require further comment. Obviously, there is a need to reconsider the organization and update the methods of 

social science in order to enhance its status and improve its social relevance and impact. 

The emerging trends in social science thinking favour greater communication across the traditional disciplines, and 

with the wider non-academic public, and a move from the disciplinary tradition of narrow specialization to a broad 

and more flexible trans-disciplinary approach. As a critic has recently observed, ‘it is no longer valid for researchers 

to remain entrenched within the boundaries of their own disciplines (as) the process of development is beyond the 

analytical capacities of any single discipline’. The 1995 Wallerstein Commission on the social sciences questioned 

the logic of the present disciplinary divisions, and showed that ‘the level of consensus concerning the traditional 

disciplines has diminished’. The report urged social scientists to innovate, and to ‘amplify the Wallerstein et al., 

(1998) stated thus: 

To be historical is after all not the exclusive purview of persons called historians. It is an obligation of 

all social scientists. Economic issues are not the exclusive purview of economists. Economic questions 

are central to any and all social scientific analysis. Nor is it absolutely sure that professional 

historians necessarily know more about historical explanation, sociologists more about social issues, 

and economists more about economic fluctuations than other working social scientists. In short, we do 

not believe that there are monopolies of wisdom or zones of knowledge reserved to persons with 

particular university degrees. 

Professor Ali Mazarui had earlier cautioned about the uncritical adoption of the ‘conventional western disciplinary 

categories’ in African universities. He recommended instead problem-based and policy-oriented classifications such 

as the ‘school of rural studies’, ‘school of urban studies’ and similar structures now used for area studies and 

development studies in some parts of the world. He also prescribed other ways to emancipate Africa culturally by 

diversifying the external models and influences on our education system, and by domesticating Western and other 

external ideas and forms which we choose to adopt (Mazrui, 1992). Other educationists have proposed how staff and 

students should be made to establish multiple departmental affiliations in their institutions, and how interdisciplinary 

research groups and clusters could be formed to work together on specific issues and problems over a given period 

of time. This approach is already increasingly being adopted in several parts of the academic world. 

While considering these long-terms goals, our institutions of higher education should urgently seek to promote their 

national and African cultural character, without of course diminishing their international outlook and standing. As 

they rightly aspire to international standards and ideals they must reckon with local conditions and needs without 

undermining the culture and ideals of academic. More emphasis should be placed on such issues of current concern 

as the need for unity, justice and inter-ethnic harmony; a home-grown model of democracy and human rights based 

on African cultural values; and poverty alleviation, national self-reliance and the other development objectives 

enunciated in our Second National Development Plan, 1970-75, in the Fundamental Objectives and Directive 

45


Principles of State Policy in our Constitution, in VISION 2020, and in other more recent policy initiatives and 

development programmes. 

For government agencies to effectively facilitate deliberative policy-making processes require significant 

institutional transformation and capacity. It is critical to build the skills needed by bureaucrats to reach out 

effectively to civil society and create appropriate mechanisms to ensure that information is disseminated adequately. 

There is a need to establish links between state institutions and civil society stakeholders at the provincial and local 

levels, as a basis for participatory policy-making and to enable the joint planning and facilitation envisaged. 

Social scientists should not only align themselves and their programmes with national development goals, but 

should also press for a greater role in the policymaking process, and take a more active interest in the 

implementation of their research findings. They should anticipate development issues and problems and provide 

timely advice, and not wait for ‘post-mortem’ analysis and commentary after the event. Through their teaching, 

research and public debates they should seek to produce good, competent and patriotic graduates and citizens 

through whom the quality of the country’s public administration and governance will be enhanced. 

Some of the weaknesses and problems are as a result of inadequate information and data leading to “planning 

without facts” and also most policy decisions and statements are not predicated on sound analysis. Government must 

therefore adequately fund gathering management and policy research, which can help to identify problems, state 

options and proffer practical recommendations for easy decisions and actions. With good library facilities, policy 

researchers should be able to research pertinent issues and communicate the results in a clear, concise way 

The need for research derives from either insufficient information, which does not lead policy makers to definite 

conclusion and policy direction, or lack of information on an issue of public concern for which a policy action is 

eventually desirable. But it must be realized that research is tantamount with library facilities and without adequate 

library provision, successful research cannot be meaningfully carried out. So every hand must be on deck to see that 

necessary attention is given to library provision by both the government and other stakeholders in the public policy 

development in Nigeria. This paper suggests that serious social scientists need to change their attitude and be more 

aggressive in their research effort to assert their scholastic prowess and influence policy and practice. 

CONCLUSION 

We began this study with the assumption that policy researchers want their work to have an impact on the policy 

landscapes they study. However, the dynamic between research and policy actors is complex and takes place in a 

complex context. Implicitly or overtly, policy researchers walk a fine line between advocacy and science. How they 

choose to walk that line may be influenced by their personal beliefs and the stance of the organization with which 

they are associated. And their beliefs and affiliations may influence the way in which they interact with 

policymakers and the ultimate goals of their interactions (Noora-Lisa Aberman, et al, 2010). 

The contribution of research to policy-making in Africa can be significant – but its impact can be uneven. The 

degree to which research influences policy often depends on individuals building relationships of mutual trust and 

respect, rather than on an ongoing and sustained discourse between governments and researchers. If Africa’s 

capacity for policy innovation is to be sustained, research needs to be something much more than a mere 

afterthought or a post hoc justification for a predetermined policy position. The long-term benefits to research and to 

public policy are too important for there not to be a systematic and sustained effort to bridge the divide between 

them. 

REFERENCES 

Adesina, J. (2007). “Social Policy and the Quest for Inclusive Growth: Research findings from Sub-Saharan Africa”. 

Social Policy and Development Programme Paper: 33. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social 

Development. 

Adesina, S (2008). “What is Public Policy”, in Anifowose, R and Enemuo, E (eds), Elements of Politics. Lagos: 

Malthouse Publications. 

46


Bellman, R. (2008), "On the construction of a multi-stage, multi-person business game," Operations Research, 5 (4), 

469-503. 

Biobaku, S. (1985). Have the Academics Failed the Nation?, Ibadan: University of Ibadan. Institute of African 

Studies, Occasional Publication, No. 35. 

Blunkett, D (2000). “Influence or Irrelevance: Can Social Science Improve Government?” Speech to a meeting 

convened by the Economic and Social Research Council, Sweden: Department of Education and Employment, 

February: 2. 

Caplan, N (1979). “The Two Communities Theory and Knowledge Utilization”, American Behavioural Scientist, 

23(4). 

Carlson, Deven. (2009). Trends and Innovations in Public Policy Analysis. Policy Studies Journal 39(s1): 13-26. 

Cawthra, G (1986). Brutal force: the apartheid war machine. London: IDAF. 

Centre for African Policy and Peace Strategy (CAPPS). (2007). DFID research strategy (2008–2013) consultation— 

Africa: Country report for Nigeria. 

. Accessed June 

2011. 

Cobin, J (2009). A Primer on Modern Themes in Free Market Economics and Policy. Florida; Universal Publishers 

DeConing, C (2006). “Overview of the Water Policy Process in South Africa, School of Government”. University of 

the Western Cape. (www.iwaponline.com/wp/00806/0505/008060505.pdf) 

Edwards, M (1989). “The Irrelevance of Development Studies”. Third-World Quarterly, II(1) 

Egwunyenga, E. (2008). “Dystrophies and associated crises in research and academic publications in Nigerian 

universities”. The Anthropologist 10 (4): 245–250. 

Ellwood, J. W (2008). “Challenges to Public Policy and Public Management Education”. Journal of Policy Analysis 

and Management, 27(1). 

Fadeyi, A.O, Adedokun, O.A (2004). Fundamentals of Social Research. Lagos: Landmark Global-Links. 

Gibbon, M. (1998), Higher Education Relevance in the 21st century, Washington, DC: World Bank. 

Glover, D. (1995). “Policy Researchers and Policy Makers: Never the Twain Shall Meet? Where Research Meets 

Policy.” IDRC Reports, October 1995. 

Gumede, V (2008). “Public Policy Making in a Post-apartheid South Africa: A Preliminary Perspective”. Africanus 

38 (2), 7-23 

Hansohm, D. (2003). Economic policy research as an input to good governance in Africa. NEPRU Working Paper 

91. Windhoek, Namibia: Namibia Economic Policy Research Unit. 

Howlett, M. and Rames H, M(2003). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford: Oxford 

University Press 

Idele, G. (1991). Independent living. Policy Studies Journal, 21, 724–734. 

47


Jimoh, A and Ogundiya, I.S (2010). “From Research to Policy: The Missing Links” Journal of Social Sciences, 

23(1): 69-74 

Johnson, C. (1999). MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The growth of Industry Policy, 1925-1975. Standford: 

Standford University Press. 

Lasswell, H (1951). “Policy Orientation”, in Lerner, D and Lasswell, H, (eds). The Policy Sciences. Stanford, 

California: Stanford University Press. 

Moran, M., Rein, M and Goodin, R (2006). The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University 

Press. 

Mazrui, W. D. (1992) ‘Policy Networks, Policy Communities and the Problems of Governance’. Governance: An 

International Journal of Policy and Administration Vol. 5 No. 2. 

McNeill, J. (1990) Politics and technical complexity: the European Parliament and the F-Gas Directive, Asia-Pacific 

Journal of EU Studies., 3, 1. 

Nachmias, D and Nadimias, C (1991). Research Methods in Social Sciences. NY: St. Matin’s Press. 

Ngara, A. (1995). “Water and Food Security”. Policy Forum, Center for Policy and Development Studies. 

University of the Philippines Los Baños 12(4):5-7. 

Noora-Lisa Aberman; Eva Schiffer; Micheal Johnson and Victor Oboh (2010). “Mapping the Policy Process in 

Nigeria: Examining Linkages between Reserach and Policy”. International Food and Policy Research Institute, 

IFPRI Discussion Paper 01000 

Obadan, M.I., and Uga, E.O. (2002). “Think tanks in Nigeria”. In Mcgann, F.G and Weaver, R.K (eds). Piscataway 

Think tanks and Civil Societies: Catalysts for ideas and action, N.J., U.S.A.: Transaction Publishers. 

Olaniyi, J.O (1998). Foundations of Public Policy Analysis. Ibadan: Sunad Publishers Ltd 

Olomola, A. (2007). “An Analysis of the Research-Policy Nexus in Nigeria”. In Ayuk, E.T and M.A. Marouani, 

M.A (eds). The policy paradox in Africa: Strengthening links between Economic Research and Policymaking. Africa 

World Press/International Development Research Centre. 

Oronsaye AO (1995). Policy sciences: Its limits, critique and lessons for Nigeria. Annals of the Social Sciences 

Council of Nigeria, 7: 57-72. 

Phillip, A.O (1979). “Factors Inhibiting the Effective Utilisation of Social Science Research Findings in 

Governmental Decision Making”. Paper presented at the National Workshop on the Impact of the Social Science on 

Policy in Nigeria, Ibadan, June 4-6 

Roefs, M and Liebenberg, I. (1999). “Public participation in South Africa as we enter the 21st century”. In Muthien, 

Y. G; Khosa, M.M and Magubane, B.M (eds). Democracy and Governance Review. Pretoria: HSRC Press. 

Sanda ,A.O (1987) (ed). Social Science and Social Policy in Nigeria. Ibadan: Nigerian Institute of Social and 

Economic Research 

Sawadago, P. (1995). “Indicators of Sustainable Agricultural Development— Concepts and Illustrations.” In B. 

Bellows, ed., 1995. Proceedings of the Indicators of Sustainability Conference and Workshop, August 1-5, 1994. 

SANREM Research Report No. 1-95, Georgia, USA: University of Georgia. 

48


Solesbury, S (2002). “Evidence-Based Policy: The Continuing Search for Effective Policy Processes”. Planning 

Theory and Practice B3, 1(96). 

Soludo, C.C., Ogbu, O. and Chang, H. (Eds.) (2004). The Politics of Trade and Industrial Policy in Africa: Forced 

Consensus? Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. 

Wallerstein, E., et al. (1998). “Restructuring the Social Sciences”. Nigerian Social Scientist 1(1). 

Weiss, C.H. (1995). The haphazard connection: Social science and public policy. International Journal of 

Educational Research, 23(2). 

Received for Publication: 12/07 /2011 

Accepted for Publication: 20/08 /2011 

49

Vol 4 _2_- Cont. J. Soc. Sci. - Wilolud Journals

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?