UNIVERSITIES, SOCIETY

AND DEVELOPMENT:
African Perspectives of
University Community Engagement
in Secondary Cities

Editors
Samuel N. Fongwa
Thierry M. Luescher
Ntimi N. Mtawa
&
Jesmael Mataga
Universities, Society and Development: African Perspectives of University Community
Engagement in Secondary Cities

Published by African Sun Media under the SUN PReSS imprint

All rights reserved

Copyright © 2022 African Sun Media and the editors

This publication was subjected to an independent double-blind peer evaluation by the publisher.

The editors and the publisher have made every effort to obtain permission for and acknowledge
the use of copyrighted material. Refer all enquiries to the publisher.

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any electronic,
photographic or mechanical means, including photocopying and recording on record, tape or laser
disk, on microfilm, via the Internet, by e-mail, or by any other information storage and retrieval
system, without prior written permission by the publisher.

Views reflected in this publication are not necessarily those of the publisher.

First edition 2022

ISBN 978-1-991201-84-3
ISBN 978-1-991201-85-0 (e-book)
https://doi.org/10.52779/9781991201850

Set in Muli Light 10/13.5

Cover design, typesetting and production by African Sun Media

SUN PReSS is an imprint of African Sun Media. Scholarly, professional and reference works are
published under this imprint in print and electronic formats.

This publication can be ordered from:

orders@africansunmedia.co.za
Takealot: bit.ly/2monsfl
Google Books: bit.ly/2k1Uilm
africansunmedia.store.it.si (e-books)
Amazon Kindle: amzn.to/2ktL.pkL

Visit africansunmedia.co.za for more information.

 CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... i
Contributor biographies ............................................................................................... iii
Foreword .......................................................................................................................... vii
Preface ............................................................................................................................. ix
List of abbreviations ..................................................................................................... xi

1. Universities, society, and development in Africa:

Setting the scene .................................................................................................. 1
Samuel N. Fongwa & Thierry M. Luescher

2. University community engagement: From narrow

conceptions towards a multidimensional framing ....................................... 21
Samuel N. Fongwa & Ntimi N. Mtawa

3. Re-imagining African university towns: Urban visions

and anchor strategies for post-covid African transitions ........................... 45
Leslie Bank

4. Problematising the notion of a social compact in

university-community relationship: Towards a ‘thick’ conception .......... 73
Siphelo Ngcwangu

5. Forging a university-aided indigenous community education:

Village elders and social development in a secondary city
of Cameroon ........................................................................................................... 91
Charles F. Che & Marcellus Mbah
6. A collective agency approach to university-community
engagement partnerships ................................................................................... 109
Ntimi N. Mtawa

7. Towards a transformation agenda for academic engagement

in South Africa ....................................................................................................... 131
Glenda Kruss & Il-haam Petersen

8. Service-based learning as a form of community engagement

in achieving student outcomes: The experience of an
East African university .......................................................................................... 157
Alfred Kitawi & Beatrice Njeru

9. Universities, communities and language development:

Collaboration, partnerships and strategies in the Northern Cape ............ 175
Jesmael Mataga, Sabata Mokae & Lesego Marumo

10. Sustaining university community engagement through

Work Integrated Learning: Critical reflections from
Sol Plaatje University ............................................................................................ 201
Olubunmi Obioha, Fattinald Rangongo & Edward Dakora

11. Development policy and universities in Africa:

Towards a coordinated policy architecture and engagement
practice in South Africa ....................................................................................... 215
Thierry M. Luescher & Samuel N. Fongwa

Appendix 1 ...................................................................................................................... 235

Index ................................................................................................................................. 241
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book is part of the core work of the project “Enhancing University
Community Engagement at Sol Plaatje University: Matching Institutional
Outlook with Regional Absorptive Capacity” that started in 2018. From the start,
the project was conceived as part of the strategic partnership between the new
Sol Plaatje University (SPU in Kimberley, and the Human Sciences Research
Council (HSRC) of South Africa. Thanks are due to the former Chief Executive
Officer of the HSRC, Professor Crain Soudien, and the founding Vice-Chancellor
of SPU, Professor Yunus Ballim, for establishing the groundwork for this
partnership, and the ongoing commitment to the project by the second Vice-
Chancellor of SPU, Professor Andrew M. Crouch and his Deputy Vice-Chancellor
for academics, Professor Mary Jean Baxen. The unwavering support of
Professor Baxen must be highlighted here whose continued interest, intellectual
contribution and operative support have helped move the project and this book
forward even during the times of the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown.

As it would be, the realisation of this book has been a team endeavour.
Our profound appreciation is to the chapter authors who responded to the call
and agreed to participate in the various authors’ workshop, and several individual
and group engagements in the course of the difficult times of 2020 and 2021.
Thank you for sharing your reflections and analysis of your work, experiences,
and views as you looked at them through the lens of university community
engagement. We are particularly glad for the diversity of contributions from
authors from a range of countries, reflecting on community engagement
conceptually, empirically and in policy terms, and illustrating their practice from
different disciplinary backgrounds and engagement with different kinds of
communities. May many follow your lead.

For administrative and logistical support, we are thankful to the incredibly com-
petent and friendly HSRC administrative team, including Ms Mmatselane Maja,
Ms Hilda Watani and Mr Herman Jansen. We are also grateful to our publisher,
African Sun Media, for their early comments on the manuscript, professional
production services, and continued support to the authors and editors throughout
the publishing process. Thanks also to the two external reviewers whose
comments have helped us make improvements to the manuscript.

This work is based on research supported by the National Research Foundation

of South Africa (Grant Numbers: 116279).

i
CONTRIBUTOR BIOGRAPHIES

Leslie J. Bank is a Distinguished Researcher Professor at the Human Sciences Research

Council in Cape Town and an Extraordinary Professor of Social Anthropology at Walter
Sisulu University. He is a former president of the Association of Anthropology Southern
Africa and has been a research fellow at both Oxford and Cambridge University and has
been a senior Fulbright scholar at Emory University in the USA. He has extensive urban
research experience in southern Africa. His two recent books on city-campus dynamics
include Anchored in Place: Rethinking Universities and Development (edited, African Minds,
2018) and the historical monograph City of Broken Dreams: Mythmaking, Nationalism and
Universities in a South African Motor City (Michigan State University Press, 2019).

Charles Fonchingong Che holds a Doctorate in Social Policy – School of Social Policy,
Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent, UK. He holds an MA in Social Work
(distinction), University of Ibadan, Nigeria, BA -Sociolinguistics and Modern Letters from
the University of Yaoundé, Cameroon. He taught previously at the University of Buea,
Cameroon, sessional lecturer at the University of Kent (2005-2007), and Senior lecturer
at Canterbury Christ Church University (2011‑2013) and re-joined 2016-present. Currently,
Course Director for MA Social Work at Canterbury Christ Church University with teaching
responsibility for Sociology and Social Policy at MA and specialist modules such as
Safeguarding and foundations of social work practice. He has been a consultant for United
Nations Research Institute for Social Development and a research fellow at University of
Oxford, UK.

Edward Dakora is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Management Sciences at

Sol Plaatje University in Kimberley, South Africa. He has a DTech in Marketing, a Masters
in Retail Business Management, and a Bachelor of Technology in Retail Business
Management from the Cape Peninsula University of Technology in Cape Town, South
Africa. Dr Dakora’s research has focused on Retail development and internationalisation
in Africa. He has published several articles in peer-reviewed journals. He served on the
Advisory Board of Retail Congress Africa in 2015, a gathering of industry leaders to discuss
retail market opportunities and challenges in Africa. He is a member of the Wholesale
and Retail Sector Education and Training Authority’s (W&RSETA) Higher Education Group
(an advisory body to the W&RSETA).

iii
Universities, society and development

Samuel N. Fongwa is a Senior Research Specialist in the Inclusive Economic Development

Division at the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), Pretoria. He holds a PhD in
Development Studies from the University of the Free State and a Masters in Higher
Education Studies (Cum Laude) from the University of the Western Cape, South Africa.
Fongwa’s research expertise is cross-disciplinary, linking universities to regional and spatial
development, skills development and graduate outcomes. His main research interest is on
the interface between universities and society, especially in the collaborative transformation
of communities, cities and regions.

Alfred Kitawi is the Director of the Centre for Research in Education and a lecturer at
the School of Humanities and Social Science at Strathmore University in Kenya. He has
carried out several monitoring and evaluation projects in the areas of community capacity
development, action research, life-skills development and community engagement in
Kenya and Uganda. He is a member of the DAAD-Dies network. He has published in the
areas of quality assurance in higher education, knowledge management, action research,
integration of information communication technology in higher education, life‑long
learning, developmental aspects of universities and how universities can capacitate
different communities (government, industry, and educational institutions).

Glenda Kruss is the Executive Head of the Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation
Indicators at the Human Sciences Research Council. Over the past ten years, she has
worked in the field of innovation studies, to understand the role of universities and public
research institutes in economic and social development, and the determinants of skills and
knowledge flows within sectoral, national and global systems of innovation. Her current
research focus is oriented towards more contextually appropriate measures of STI for
inclusive and sustainable development in sub‑Saharan Africa. She has collaborated widely
on comparative research projects in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe, and has led
large-scale projects for national government, building alliances and networks between
researchers, policy makers and practitioners in South Africa.

Thierry M. Luescher is the Strategic Lead: Equitable Education in the Human Sciences
Research Council of South Africa. He is also Adjunct Professor of Nelson Mandela
University and a Research Fellow of the University of the Free State in South Africa. Prof
Luescher’s research focuses on the politics, polity, and policy of higher education. His
niche of research expertise is higher education development and student politics in Africa,
the student experience, and the development and professionalization of student affairs
andservices. Thierry is an NRF rated researcher.

Lesego Marumo is a master’s student at Sol Plaatje University, in Kimberley. Her research
looks at how women in the informal economy navigate and cope with the negative economic
effects of Covid-19 lockdown measures. Lesego holds a Higher Certificate in Heritage
Studies, Bachelor of Arts degree, and Bachelor of Social Sciences Honours in Sociology
from Sol Plaatje University. For her honours degree research project, she examined
students’ understanding of sexual harassment at Sol Plaatje University, the meanings
they attach to the concept, and their suggestions for ways to reduce sexual harassment
on campus. Lesego’s main research interest is to understand the socio-economic issues
related to gender-based inequality and discrimination in social institutions.

iv
Jesmael Mataga is an Associate Professor and outgoing Head of Humanities at Sol
Plaatje University, in Kimberley. He has experience in research and training in heritage
management on the African continent with considerable experience in museum
curation, intangible cultural heritage and cultural diversity. His current research, situated
in the emerging focus on critical and decolonial heritage, explores the role and place of
communities in heritage management. His work aims to support innovation in heritage
management practice, which addresses the critical challenges of our time, such as poverty,
inequality, conflict, decolonisation, migration and social justice.

Marcellus F. Mbah is currently a senior lecturer in the Institution of Education, in the

School of Social Sciences, Nottingham Trent University. He contributes to the teaching
of a range of modules, providing research supervision and leading a fortnightly digest
seminar. As an active researcher, he also leads a special interest group (SIG) on Education
and International Development across the University. His research interest captures the
overarching themes of Education for climate change adaptation and Higher Education’s
contribution towards Sustainable Development, and specifically looking at the role of
Indigenous Knowledge Systems.

Sabata Mokae is a lecturer in Creative Writing in African Languages at Sol Plaatje

University in Kimberley. He is also the author of an accessible biography The Story of
Sol T. Plaatje and three Setswana novels: Ga ke Modisa which won the M-NET Literary
Award for Best Setswana Novel and M-NET Film Award in 2013, Dikeledi and Moletlo
wa Manong which won the South African Literary Award in 2019. Together with
Professor Brian Willan, he has edited Sol Plaatje’s Mhudi: History, Criticism, Celebration
which won the Humanities and Social Sciences Award in 2021 as well as Sol T. Plaatje:
A Life in Letters. He is an Honorary Fellow-in-Writing at the University of Iowa and an
affiliate at Tsikinya-Chaka Centre at Wits University. His research interests include the
life and works of Sol Plaatje, politics of African language literature and the post-apartheid
Setswana novels.

Ntimi N. Mtawa is currently a Postdoctoral Research Fellow and a higher education

and development researcher and expert. Mtawa’s research and academic expertise
cover among other things, areas such as higher education and development, knowledge
production, community engagement, pedagogies, human development, social justice,
public (common) good, policy, higher education governance, education and citizenship,
community development, and public sector reform and management. Mtawa is the author
of multiple international peer reviewed journal articles as we all as a book titled Human
Development and Community Engagement through Service-Learning: The Capability
Approach and Public Good in Education (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019).

Siphelo Ngcwangu Dr Siphelo Ngcwangu is currently a Senior Lecturer at the Sociology

Department at the University of Johannesburg. His research focusses on skills develop-
ment, education and the economy, youth unemployment, racial inequality, and the restructur-
ing of work. He has published a range of journal articles, book chapters and monographs in
his areas of research.

v
Universities, society and development

Beatrice Njeru is a lecturer at Strathmore University in Kenya. She is a professional

communication and communication skills trainer with vast teaching experience in higher
education. Her wider research interests lie in Communication and its broad application
and presentation in leadership, organizational success and educational contexts. She has
a background in Education – English and German, a master’s degree in teaching English
to Speakers of other Languages (TESOL) from the University of Ulster- UK, and a PhD in
Communication from Daystar University in Kenya. She has authored and co-authored
conference proceedings, journal papers and book chapters. Beatrice is a keen curriculum
developer and is an acclaimed trainer who employs a variety of collaborative technologies
in content delivery. Beatrice is a fellow of the Higher Education Academy in the UK, and a
Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR-UK) holder.

Olubunmi Obioha is a lecturer in the School of Economic and Management Sciences at

Sol Plaatje University, Kimberley. She holds a Doctoral degree in Business Administration
and other professional qualifications in accounting and law. She has a wealth of working
experience in industry as well as academia, lecturing business law, finance, and business
management courses. She has published in accredited journals in her field and has
presented papers at both local and international conferences. She is actively involved
in business-oriented community engagement, scholarly research and postgraduate
students’ supervision.

Il-haam Petersen is a chief research specialist at the Centre for the Science, Technology
and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII) at the Human Sciences Research Council. She holds
a DPhil in Sociology from Trinity College Dublin. Prior to joining CeSTII in 2017, she
completed a post‑doctoral fellowship in the Education and Skills Development programme.
Il-haam’s research focuses on inter-organizational innovation networks, particularly the
micro-foundations of innovation and the role of universities, and experimentation with
participatory methodologies for understanding innovation in informal settings.

Fattinald Rangongo is studying toward an MTech: Business Administration

(Entrepreneurship) at Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT). He is currently a
Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) Coordinator in the School of Economic and Management
Sciences at Sol Plaatje University (SPU) while lecturing Project Management and
Operations Management at the same institution. Fattinald serves in several committees
including the Senate Teaching & Learning Committee as Chair of the WIL Working group.
He also represents SPU as a member of the W&RSETA HET Forum and member of the
Student Entrepreneurship Community of Practice in EDHE/USAF. He has a keen interest
in WIL, community development and curriculum development. His research focus is on
partnerships and entrepreneurship.

vi
 FOREWORD

Universities cannot solve all the challenges of the 21st century alone, but
without them lasting solutions are unlikely to be found. The global crises facing
humanity – of climate change, degradation of ecosystems, continuing poverty
and inequalities – are characterised by complexity, and resist straightforward
linear solutions and technical fixes. The generative capacity of higher education
institutions in relation to ideas, human capacity development and innovation
make them indispensable in this task, and vibrant institutions and sectors are
needed in every context, in all parts of the globe.

Nevertheless, it is a well-known fact that universities have had an uneasy

relationship with their host towns and communities throughout history. Often,
they have looked towards their universalist and international remit and ignored
the reality immediately surrounding them, resisting entry and exit of ideas and
actors. The rise of the developmental university from the late 19th century has
challenged this attitude, and the pressing social and environmental demands
of the contemporary age have made it even more essential.

This book provides a crucial companion to these pressing contemporary

debates. Taking an original focus on secondary cities, it interrogates the role of
universities in relation to place, providing theoretical and empirical contributions.
While flagship universities and major cities have been widely discussed,
the role of universities in smaller urban areas has had far too little attention.
Covering a range of contexts in South Africa and other parts of the African
content (Cameroon, Kenya), it provides rich practical examples of the inter-
actions between higher education institutions and their communities, as well
as new resources for understanding the relationship. The editors are leading
commentators on the role of universities in society in the contemporary age,
combining expertise on higher education policy, student politics, cultural heritage
and community engagement. They have assembled a rich array of cases and
cutting-edge commentaries from an array of researchers in the field.

vii
Universities, society and development

Africa has made a crucial contribution to the emergence of the model of the
developmental university through the 20th century, and the struggle for social
justice, relevance and impact of the university continues, against the stifling
forces of marketisation, resource constraints and unhealthy competition through
rankings and elitist research-based evaluations. This book provides a critical
resource for those people seeking to understand this struggle, and importantly
for those at the sharp end, working on a day-to-day basis within universities and
communities to forge this new relationship.

Tristan McCowan (5th February 2022)

Professor of International Education and Development
Institute of Education, University College of London, UK

viii
 PREFACE

This book is one of the outcomes of a strategic partnership between Sol Plaatje
University (SPU) and the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) that was
established in 2017 and that sought to advance research capabilities as well
as set a research agenda aligned to the vision and social justice ideals of the
university. As part of HSRC’s research mandate to conduct social science research
that makes a difference, the partnership brought together experienced and early
career researchers who raise and respond to pertinent questions on the role and
contribution of universities in economic and social renewal in a secondary city
with a newly established institution of higher learning. For a new institution with
limited human capital, such a partnership not only offered a career development
platform for early career academics but also became an important vehicle to
advance the research and community engagement trajectory of the institution.

The book is about intentionality, starting with the deliberate decision by South
Africa’s new democratic government in 1994 to establish two new (and post-
apartheid) higher education institutions – one in the Northern Cape and one in
Mpumalanga. Premised on social justice ideals, such a decision responded to
access and inclusion imperatives, with a focus on rural, poor and economically
marginalized communities. It was pregnant with promise and the potential
to not only create opportunities for transformation and redress but also offer
possibilities for social renewal and economic growth and development. Such a
promise materialized when in 2013, Sol Plaatje University, situated in Kimberley,
Northern Cape, was promulgated and in 2014, opened its doors to receive its
first cohort of 124 students. In 2022, the institution has grown to host over
three thousand.

The researchers, to varying degrees, pose and address pertinent questions on

the purpose, role and place of universities in society as transformative spaces
or as catalysts for reconstituting the trajectory of communities and cities by
their very presence, their identities and ideological positions as well as their
institutional cultures, practices and projects. Some chapters trouble notions of
community engagement through a critical analysis of contemporary literature
and practices on the subject while others provide case studies of what is possible
when a university is intentional about its vision to be and become an engaged
institution; one that places community at its centre. There is no settlement on

ix
Universities, society and development

what constitutes community engagement, its multifarious manifestations in

institutions, or its contribution towards systemic and systematic social change
and transformation and economic renewal. While this might be the case, this
is a book of promise in that it offers a glimpse into how the presence of the
university has potential, on the one hand, to contribute to renewal and economic
rejuvenation and on the other hand, offer hope and generate opportunities
for critical engagement with communities given its ideological position and
associated activities especially within secondary cities. Importantly, this
book animates the critical role that partnerships play in realizing community
engagement imperatives that have potential to be sustainable, with shared
values at the heart of such partnerships.

Sol Plaatje University is in its second five-year strategic plan, which commenced
in 2019, making this a timely publication. This phase focuses on, inter alia,
deepening and expanding its academic offerings, becoming more financially
sustainable, and sedimenting its footprint through forging more research and
community-focused partnerships. It is a reflexive yet prospective project that
makes a major contribution towards advancing the discourse on community
engagement and offers exemplars that can shape approaches to partnership
building for mutual beneficiation. A timely book in higher education and for SPU
in particular!
Prof Mary Jean Baxen
Deputy Vice Chancellor: Academics
Sol Plaatje University, South Africa

x
 ABBREVIATIONS

#FMF – #FeesMustFall

#RMF – #RhodesMustFall

ANC – African National Congress

ARUA – African Research Universities Alliance

ASGISA – Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa

AU – African Union

AUC – African Union Commission

CBD – Central Business District

CESA – Continental Education Strategy for Africa

CHE – Council on Higher Education

CID – City Improvement District

COSATU – Congress of South African Trade Unions

CSC – Community Service Centre

CUE – Community-University Engagement

DBSA – Development Bank of Southern Africa

DHET – Department of Higher Education and Training

DOE – Department of Education

DSAC – Department of Sport, Arts and Culture

DSAT – Department of Science and Technology

DSI – Department of Science and Innovation

EMS – Economic and Management Sciences

ES – Engaged Scholarship

xi
Universities, society and development

FAK – Federation for Afrikaans Cultural Societies

GDP – Gross Domestic Product

GEAR – Growth, Employment and Redistribution

HCID – Hatfield City Improvement District

HE – Higher Education

HEI – Higher Education Institution

HEIAAF – Higher Education Institutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom

HEQC – Higher Education Quality Committee

HEQF – Higher Education Qualifications Framework

HERANA – Higher Education Research and Advocacy Network in Africa

HESA – Higher Education South Africa

ICT – Information and Communication Technology

IKS – Indigenous Knowledge Systems

ITMUA – Implementing the Third Mission of Universities in Africa

JSE – Johannesburg Stock Exchange

KPIs – Key Performance Indicators

MDG – Millenium Development Goal

MOA – Memorandum of Agreement

MOU – Memorandum of Understanding

NCHE – National Commission on Higher Education

NCWF – Northern Cape Writers Festival

NDP – National Development Plan

NEDLAC – National Economic Development and Labour Council

NGO – Non-government Organisation

NGP – New Growth Path

NPO – Non-profit Organisation

xii
NRF – National Research Foundation

NSFAS – National Student Financial Aid Scheme

OAU – Organisation of African Unity

OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

R&D – Research and Development

RBM – Retail Business Management

SACP – South African Communist Party

SAPs – Structural Adjustment Programmes

SBL – Service Based Learning

SDG – Sustainable Development Goal

SETAs – Sector Education and Training Authorities

SMMEs – Small to Medium-sized Enterprises

SoE – Scholarship of Engagement

SPU – Sol Plaatje University

SST – State and Social Transformation

SSW – Summer School of Writing

STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

STI – Science, Technology and Innovation

TOC – Ministerial Oversight Committee on Transformation in the

South African Public Universities

TVET – Technical Vocational Education and Training

UCEPS – University-Community Engagement Partnerships

UCT – University of Cape Town

UIL – University-Industry Linkage

UK – United Kingdom

UMP – University of Mpumalanga

xiii
Universities, society and development

UN – United Nations

Univen – University of Venda

UP – University of Pretoria

USA – United States of America

WIL – Work Integrated Learning

Wits – University of the Witwatersrand

xiv
 CHAPTER ONE

Universities, society, and

1
development in Africa:
Setting the scene
Samuel N. Fongwa & Thierry M. Luescher
Human Sciences Research Council

Introduction
The American sociologist and politician, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, famously
once said, “if you want to build a great city, create a great university and wait 200 years”
(in Shapiro, 2015). Many great cities have started as college towns and many great
regions have developed with universities at their centre. Phenomena such as Silicon
Valley and Route 128, along with the development of concepts such as ‘learning
cities’, ‘innovation districts’ and ‘anchor institutions’ in diverse ways reflect Moynihan’s
argument of the central role that universities and other knowledge institutions can
play in urban and regional development (Keane & Allison, 1999; Lawrence, Hogan
& Brown, 2019; Saxenian, 1994). While these concepts have largely dominated the
literature on university community engagement, it provides an opportunity to revisit
the relationship between universities and societies within the African landscape.

When the university was being established in Africa in the wake of national
independence, the expectation in most African states was to create institutions
relevant to their immediate society. Coleman (1986) observes that while universities
in other parts of the world such as Japan, the Soviet Union, and the land grant
universities in the United States of America (USA) were established to support
national development imperatives, the drive of developmentalism in Africa was
insistent and engulfing. This emphasis, Coleman (1986) argues, saturated all

1
Universities, society and development

speeches, studies, debates and discussions of the raison d’être of the African
university. One of the more eloquent exhorters of the developmental role of the
African university was President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, and he articulated the
role of the university as follows:
The University in a developing society must put the emphasis of its work on
subjects of immediate moment to the nation in which it exists, and it must
be committed to the people of that nation and their humanistic goals … …
We in poor societies can only justify expenditure on a university – of any type
– if it promotes real development of our people … …The role of a university in
a developing nation is to contribute; to give ideas, manpower, and service for
the furtherance of human equality, human dignity and human development.
(Nyerere in Coleman, 1986:478)

Fundamental to this observation of the African university’s developmental imperative

is the capacity of the university to identify and respond to societal needs by means
of its core functions of knowledge production, dissemination, and high-level skills
training; its intentionality in using its presence to be socio-economically impactful;
and in the coordination and development of ‘institutional thickness’ (Amin & Thrift,
1995). One aspect of the developmental role of the contemporary university is to
influence the building of great cities, regions and communities, achieved through:
changes in the emphasis on knowledge production from basic to applied, or mode 1
to mode 2; shifts towards more locally responsive curricula, particularly in peripheral
localities; professionalised approaches to higher teaching and learning; as well as
forging stronger links with industry, business and government (Addie, 2020; Harris &
Holley, 2016; Kruss, 2012).

Arguably, while some of the changes in the relationship between universities and
society have been unavoidable and sometimes unintended, others have been
purposeful in response to external pressures and demands (Gibbons et al., 1994).
A diversity of institutional types including the ‘developmental universities’ (Coleman,
1986), ‘entrepreneurial universities’, (Etzkowitz, 1993), ‘regional universities’ (Charles,
2006), ‘civic universities’ (Goddard, et al., 2016), ‘the permeable university’ (Stuart,
2021), ‘grande écoles’ and ‘universities of technology’ to mention but a few, have
emerged and compete for relevance as the great-grandchildren of Cardinal Newman’s
conception of the erstwhile medieval university. Some inspiring, others having been
inspired by, Clark Kerr’s utilitarian ‘multiversity’, successful contemporary universities
are a response to the diverse pressures exerted by government policy, institution-
based stakeholders, and broader society within the context of a globalising world
(Cloete et al., 2002).

2
 Universities, society, and development in Africa

The conception and scope of the broader society in which the university is located
depends on many factors including the mandate, resourcing and capacity, locality,
and interests of the university and university-based actors. Moreover, the needs and
the pressures universities experience may be understood in the context of the forces
of globalisation; the emergence of knowledge economies; the fast advancement and
uptake of new digital technologies; and the swings in the global political economy,
all of which are greatly affecting the functioning of universities (OECD, 2012).
Extending Cloete  et al.’s (2002) argument, as much as institutional transformation
results from complex interactions between state, universities and society, the specific
developmental orientations of universities should be understood as a complex
interplay between multiple factors, including national development and sector-
specific policy, the perceptions, capacities and resources of university-based actors,
as well as stakeholders and communities external to higher education.

African/Global South Perspectives of University-Society

Relationship in Development
One of the silent features of community engagement discourse in the African
context is that the field is dominated by theories and concepts imported from the
Global North. While these perspectives have been helpful in providing theoretical
and conceptual foundations of the field of community engagement, Rajah (2019:5)
among other scholars has criticized the dominance of Global North conceptualisations
by arguing that “they retain the power hierarchies that exist between higher
education and the community and advance a discourse of disempowerment”. There
is a growing body of literature that calls for Global South theories and perspectives
of university community engagement. The need for Global South perspectives of
community engagement is attributed to, inter alia, the demand for epistemic justice
(De Sousa Santos, 2014; Motala, 2015) and decolonised discourses within the
univerity (Mamdani, 2019). Given the growing tensions between Global North and
South paradigms and the hegemony thereof, Mtawa (2019:3) briefly paints a picture
of these tensions with respect to community engagement:
…… Global South and Global North are problematic discourses and [in so far as]
they make realities intelligible in very different ways …
… The question might
be what we gain or lose when we conceptualise community engagement
using problematic geopolitical concepts such as Global North and Global
South. This might suggest that even the practices of community engagement
themselves are not equal practices: somehow the Global North practices of
community engagement are regarded as better and more powerful than the
ones practised in the Global South. Perhaps therefore we need to foreground
Global South theories of community engagement within the broader context
of universities-society relationship in development (our emphasis).

3
Universities, society and development

Against this, the intention here is not to engage in the Global North and South dichotomy,
but rather to begin to strengthen the Global South’s knowledge base, philosophical
systems and beliefs in the scholarship of community engagement (SoE). There are
some important Global South theories able to foster our understanding of the role of
universities within the societal context of the Global South. This is done by leaning on
literature from the Global South with its distinct paradigms and perspectives that are
critical for community engagement within the realm of university-society relationships
in development. In this section we revisit some of the broad constructs around
which early African universities engaged with society and how these constructs
have evolved.

As most African countries gained independence in the late 1950s and 1960s,
strong calls for for recognition of African scholarship and an orientation of the
education system towards indigenous African belief systems and values were
made. Kwame Nkrumah started off such calls in his 1961 inauguration speech
as first chancellor of the University of Ghana (Cleaveland, 2008) – a message
which was later strongly echoed by Nyerere in 1963 calling on the East African
universities to break from the elitist colonial mentality and contribute to society
through diverse forms:
‘…let us be quite clear; the University… has a very definite role to play in development
in this area, and to do this effectively it must be in, and of, the community …
The University of East Africa must direct its energies particularly towards the
needs of East Africa … it’s in this manner that the university will contribute to our
development … …In this fight the university must take an active part, outside as
well as inside the walls’. (Nyerere, 1963, cited in Walters & Openjuru, 2013:143)

This statement attests that the call for African universities to be developmentally
engaged and oriented towards their local communities has been part of their raison
d’être since the establishment of the first African universities. It requires a shift in the
curriculum, governance and pedagogy which was emphasised in the mandate of the
Association of African Universities in 1967 when there were calls for the Africanisation
of the African universities (Preece et al., 2012).

These discourses led to the birth of the concept of the ‘developmental university’
that dominated the African higher education in the wake of independence and into
the late 1970s and provided an alternative pathway in perceiving the relationship
between universities and their immediate and extended societies within the changing
African context at the time (Court, 1980; Yesufu, 1973). Through this idea, African
universities were required to assist postcolonial governments to modernise, expedite
person- power formation and address basic existential developmental challenges
such as supporting farmers, providing informal traders with skills and helping
villagers to improve their livelihoods (Fongwa & Wangenge-Ouma, 2012). While this

4
 Universities, society, and development in Africa

concept could be discussed within the Global North literature in terms of the mandate
of American land grant universities, for example, the idea of the developmental
university has a fertile conceptual history in Africa on its own terms. Some of the
influence of this idea can be found at the University of Dar es Salaam, which soon
became known as the porotype of the developmental university, truly responsible to
its society (Ajayi, Goma & Johnson, 1996; Court, 1980). At the core of developmental
universities was a strong focus on services to the most marginalised group in an
egalitarian sense, promoting non-academic impact, a focus on applied research and
a close relationship with the state and broader governmental organisation (Mtawa,
2019; McCowan, 2019). Especially within the Tanzanian context, the values of Ujaama
could have influenced this university posture.

In apartheid South Africa, the development of universities in the 1950s and 1960s
to serve the black population took a very different path in that in many ways,
it was part of the ‘grand apartheid’ project of under-developing Africans. Contrary to
this, however, the black universities in South Africa soon enough played their own
engagement role within this society strangled by social injustice and inequality.
They became sites of political contestations within an anti-apartheid framing
(Nkomo, 1984). Young minds were developed both within and outside the university
to demand an education with values able to contribute to the transformation of a
socially twisted society. Engagement between university-based progressive, left-wing
scholars and students, trade unions, and community-based organisations resulted
in dynamic interfaces towards a transformed higher education system as well as a
transformed society (Bawa, 2018).

Arguably, the role of the African university in society is to promote justice, equality
and human development values. These may well be linked to the African values and
philosophies of Ubuntu and Ujamaa among others. Ubuntu has been conceptualised
as an African philosophy and worldview which engenders a genuine inclusionary
and relational value system applicable even to the higher education landscape
(Shanyanana & Waghid, 2016). Leaning on Ramose’s (2002:324‑325) concept-
ualisaiton of Ubuntu, “to be human is to affirm one’s humanity by recognising the
humanity of others and on that basis, establish respectful human relations with them”.
Universities therefore have an obligation to recognise and engage with the society
around it. One of the university vice-chancellors in South Africa has conceived the
university’s community engagement mandate within the Ubuntu framing arguing that
“universities exist within a particular social, economic, cultural, political and historical
context and are an integral part of the community in which they exist.” (Mabizela,
2017).1

1 2017 - Community engagement at Rhodes, a manifestation of Ubuntu (ru.ac.za).

5
Universities, society and development

Within the South African context, Hall and Tandon (2021), Padayachee, Lortan and
Maistry (2021), Rajah (2019) and Maistry and Thakrar (2012) are some of the authors
who have explored Ubuntu within the university community engagement framing.
For Hall and Tandon (2021), Ubuntu, is critical for life-centred engagement, collective
knowing and indigenous ways of knowing, which provide an important foundation for
social responsibility and building an intercultural university. Applying Ubuntu in a study
of community engagement context in South Africa, Maistry and Thakrar (2012) found
several elements that are Ubuntu oriented but cultivated in and through community
engagement. From the analysis, the authors argue that because of their participation
in community engagement, respondents started to appreciate: (i) the relationship
between the individual self and community; (ii) a feeling of connectedness between
the individual and the collective; (iii) unity and co-existence with other individuals; and
(iv) values which include acceptance, being non-judgemental, sensitivity, respect,
caring, honesty, willingness to help, dignity and confidentiality (Maistry & Thakrar,
2012:70). These values support the argument that “community engagement’s pivotal
role in forging an identity in humanness, Ubuntu, and in African philosophy through
relations of caring and sharing” (Rajah, 2019:5).

In Latin America, community engagement in the context of university-society

relationships for development has been an integral aspect of most universities in the
region. It has been argued that historically the take-up of community engagement in
Latin American universities was influenced by liberation theology and the university
reform movement or Córdoba reforms that started in the early 20th Century
(McCowan, 2019). Some few terms and approaches have dominated the debate and
practices of community engagement in Latin America. A case is the extension model
through which universities establish extension units in order to link to the community
(Mora, Serra & Vieira, 2018). The extension model is associated with terms such as
‘solidaridad’ (solidarity) and ‘servicios’ (service or civic service) (Baker-Boosamra,
2006; Tapia, 2004).

The term ‘service’ as used in the context of Latin American higher education denotes
an engagement with, and contribution to, the local, national or global community,
recognised and valued by society (Tapia, 2012). The term is associated with elements
of altruism, volunteering as well as structured and intensive civic service programmes
that require a more pro-social approach (Tapia, 2012). This also involves solidarity
service-learning, which is a leading approach, practised by public and private
universities in South America (Hoyt, 2014). With the long-standing strong history of
public mission, many of the traditional Catholic universities have adopted substan-
tial programmes of community engagement in the public benefit (Tapia, 2012).

6
 Universities, society, and development in Africa

Finally, it must be noted that the Taillores Network, which is a global network of
universities committed to civic engagement, has earlier recognised that the practice
and scholarship of university society engagement is “distorted and dominated by
the lens of the Global North and hence the need to provide alternative approaches,
practices and concepts to understanding engagement” (Hoyt & Hollister, 2014:
16916). As shown elsewhere, universities in the Global South are more focused on
community impacts or broader social returns of university engagement as against
the focus on individual or private returns including employment outcomes pursued by
universities in the Global North (Watson et al., 2011). As argued by Hoyt and Hollister,
(2014: 16016) such a difference is embedded in two distinct driving force “societal
demand in the South and institutional push in the North”. Such an observation
echoes the earlier conceptualisation of the purposes of higher education in an
African context and framed within African philosophies such as Ubuntu and Ujamaa
which emphasise the benefit of th university to the broader society rather than its
individual benefits. While external forces such as globalisaiton and neo-liberal
pressures have significantly influenced the social focus of higher education (see
Brock-Utne, 2003), university engagement scholarship deserves stronger foreground-
ing within an African ethos and vice-versa.

Secondary cities and development in Africa

Secondary cities are a typical feature of African economies and development
planning. Most universities on the continent and in the broader Global South region
are located in secondary cities. Secondary cities can be defined as “medium-sized
administrative, political, industrial, military, transportation, tourism and historical
centres which function at a level below primate order or metropolitan region cities”
(Cities Alliance, 2019:17). In terms of size, secondary cities would typically range in
population from 100,000 to 2.5 million inhabitants, but this may differ depending
on the size of a nation’s overall population. In the South African context, Marais and
Cloete (2017) opine that although the concept of secondary cities has increasingly
become integrated in development literature and discourse, there is no universally
accepted definition of the concept. However, within the hierarchy of towns and cities,
secondary cities function within territorially organised sub-national regions and are
subordinate to the core regions.

However, despite evidence that secondary cities and towns are the epicentres of
urban growth in Sub Saharan Africa (SSA), many of the urban development and
governance interventions have focused more on primary and mega cities, presumably
with the expectations of trickle-down of social, economic and physical developments
to other tiers of towns and cities, including secondary towns and cities. In turn, this
has resulted in polarizing effects, with growing gaps in physical and socio-economic
development between primary and secondary towns, creating socio-spatial in-

7
Universities, society and development

equalities and multiple deprivations. In line with the demographics of secondary

towns and cities, children and youth are the most affected by these inequalities and
multiple deprivations.

With more than half of the world’s population living in smaller cities, secondary cities
play a crucial role as economic, social and logistics hubs in linking the urban and
metro centres. Furthermore, the size, management, and functionality of secondary
cities can significantly influence the development and prosperity of national systems
of cities, rural and regional areas. However, evidence from development planning and
policy suggest that the focus by government and development planners has been
on the urban and large metropolitan centres. While there is adequate evidence that
secondary cities and towns are the epicentre of urban growth in SSA, many urban
development and governance interventions have focused more on the primary and
mega-cities with expectations of trickle-down effects into secondary cities (Githira
et al., 2022). Such an approach has resulted in a deprivation and large inequalities
in the social, economic and spatial development. The Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2018) has observed this growing disparity
in the development systems in cities. They argue this “deprives many businesses,
organisation and people living in secondary cities and more impoverished rural areas
of an equitable share of national growth, wealth and prosperity and access to publish
services, jobs and wealth compared to those living in metropolitan regions” (Cities
Alliance, 2019:14). The African Union Development Agency, NEPAD, has echoed this
sentiment within the continent as it argues that “urbanisation in Africa is not just about
emerging megacities like Johannesburg, Kinshasa, Nairobi, Khartoum, Casablanca
and Greater Cairo” (Mayaki, 2019:1).

Positioning and supporting the role of secondary cities in development towards

fostering equitable prospects for growth through improvement of local infrastructure
and service has received adequate attention from the literature, albeit more from
development agencies than academic scholarship. Approaches toward supporting
secondary cites have been by investing in knowledge and innovation, creating
stronger governance within the system, and developing sustainable and enabling
environments within which these cities can excel. While such efforts have enhanced
growth and development in secondary cities, the Cities Alliance (2019) has identified
even more factors critical to the success of secondary cities. They note that integrating
the hard and soft infrastructure of these local economies with the introduction of
sustained tacit knowledge and cultural capital within the city are among some of
the critical aspects in realising a balance. Supporting this assertion is the need for
secondary cities to overcome local and external factors that constrain the growth
and development by developing a system of enhanced connectivity and collaboration
between all systems (Cox & Longlands, 2016; Lee 2016).

8
 Universities, society, and development in Africa

Universities and secondary cities:

building institutional capacity
The role of universities in secondary cities has not received as much attention as
in primary cities and metropolitan areas. However, considering the numerous
challenges facing secondary cities, including lack of adequate infrastructure and
services, weak governance and enabling environments, loss of skills and limited
knowledge, institutional arrangements able to attract skills, investment and jobs
(Cities Alliance, 2019), secondary cities carry many characteristics of less favoured
regions. These cities can be defined as regions in which cultures, economic
structures and institutional arrangements present barriers to economic success and
knowledge infrastructure and capability to support innovation and socio-economic
transformation (Yigitcanlar et al., 2017). Unlike with secondary cities in Africa, the
relationship between universities and less favoured regions has been documented
in scholarly research (Fongwa, 2013). Indeed, the role of universities in supporting
rural and urban transformation of communities, cities, and regions has been well
established in the literature (Bank, Cloete & van  Schalkwyk, 2018; Cloete, Bailey &
Maassen, 2011; Puukka et al., 2012).

Most secondary cities in Africa and South Africa fall into what Roberts (2014) has
defined as the third group of secondary city classification, so-called ‘laggards’.
These cities are described as either those experiencing increasing urbanisation,
rising poverty, little investment and scant formal-sector job creation or as those in
economic decline as they move into a post-industrialisation and declining population
phase. Like in less favoured regions, channels of sharing knowledge, information
sharing, and leveraging the teaching and learning function of post-secondary
institutions such as universities are weak in secondary cities. The local innovation
system is characterised by information networks within the region or city, as well as
from outside the region. These are ad hoc and uncoordinated resulting in ‘institutional
thinness’ of the knowledge infrastructure to support the role of knowledge and skills
in development (Amin & Thrift, 1995). Amin and Thrift (1995) identify four main fact-
ors that serve as prerequisites for institutional thickness. First, the presence of strong
local institutions including research institutions. Second, high levels of interaction
between the local institutions, including formal and informal contacts, information
exchange and mutual isomorphism. Third, a mutual awareness of the needs and
development agenda based on trust. Fourth, structures of domination and coalition
patterns that minimise sectionalism and enhance socialisation and coordination.

The literature on anchor institutions echoes most of these baseline features and goes
on to argue that universities can transform and support revitalisation in post-industrial
cities and regions when they serve an anchoring role. They do this by, inter alia,
adopting shared value approaches and leveraging resources for mutually beneficial

9
Universities, society and development

improvement in the community (Ehlenz, 2018). Anchors have been defined loosely
as universities or institutions that can consciously apply their long-term economic
power and assets in combination with their human and intellectual resources,
to better the long-term welfare and development of their immediate communities
(Hodges & Dubb, 2012). There is a strong emphasis of the role of universities in place-
based transformation and development through the various functions in knowledge
production and skills training and development. In addition, the university can serve
as an economic hub through the purchase of goods and services, the attraction of
skills and investment into the region, and through developing networks of collabora-
tion and partnership with key stakeholders in the region (Perry, Wiewel & Menendez,
2009; Schildt & Rubin, 2015; Sladek, 2019).

The OECD observes that universities have a strong potential to support and drive
regional development within their immediate communities in South Africa (Puukka
et al., 2012). In their report which focused on the South African city of Bloemfontein,
a somewhat similar city to Kimberley, they conclude by arguing for stronger alignment
between the university and regional stakeholders to ensure competitiveness.
Located within a secondary city characterised by declining mining activity, poor
local governance and high skill flight, the newly established Sol  Plaatje University
in Kimberley, South Africa presents an opportunity to address the challenge of
inner-city decline and support socio-economic development and infrastructural
transformation within the region. The location of the university further presents an
opportunity to serve an anchoring role in alignment with the needs and aspirations of
its external  stakeholders.

Especially within the South African context, the relevance of universities to the
development and transformation of their immediate and extended societies continues
to gain currency. However, emphasis has been on the role of universities in primary
cities or metropolitans where universities can engage with business and industry
through knowledge transfer and skills development. In secondary cities universities
with low socio-economic potentials in the immediate and extended vicinity of the
university, engagement has been limited. Universities are either perceived as not part
of the region or their internal core structures and functions do not align to the regional
mission and vision for relevance (Pinheiro, 2012). With increasing inequality, poverty
and unemployment plaguing South African cities in particular and most secondary
cities on the continent, this book interrogates how universities are actively and
consciously leveraging their resources towards secondary cities.

10
 Universities, society, and development in Africa

Relevance, development, and engagement

In the South African context, the policy mandate of the public universities includes
that as critical social institutions they have responsibility to, inter alia, support
redress and equity efforts while contributing to socio-economic development and
transformation through several avenues (Bawa, 2018). This presents a range of
demands for universities, expectations from internal and external stakeholders as
well as opportunities for diverse types of engagement and developmental impact.
In terms of teaching and learning, the public universities have expanded greatly over
the last three decades, South African higher education having massified in the early
2010s. Yet, student-related transformation issues extend beyond providing expanded
access and relevant, quality education to a growing number of students, and
improving particularly the participation and success of black students. It also includes
providing a developmental student experience; a living and learning environment that
can level the playing field between students from different educational and home
backgrounds; training all students in skills that are relevant for their futures in the world
of work; and providing platforms for personal development and the development of
citizenship competencies. The 2015 and 2016 waves of student protests, known
by hashtags such as #RhodesMustFall, #OutsourcingMustFall, and #FeesMustFall,
illustrate the difficulties associated with such complex internal demands (Luescher
et al., 2020). Variably, some groups of university staff, including outsourced support
staff, casualised academic staff, and black and female staff, have echoed student
demands and/or added their own demands to the list of issues. Some of these
include universities not yet adequately responding to the changing circumstances;
addressing inherited and new inequalities and injustices; and/or struggling to mobilise
the resources to address them.

By means of the 2013 White Paper for Post-school Education and Training, the
South African Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) sought to
align higher education policy more closely with national development planning.
The White Paper noted that research and innovation should increasingly focus on
areas important for national development (DHET, 2013:xiv). It asserts:
Universities must undertake research to meet the economic and social needs
of society, building knowledge-generating partnerships with public and private
enterprises, other government departments and other institutions in order to
meet these needs. Such partnerships can lead to a deeper understanding of
our social, cultural and political life, our relationships with each other and
with other societies. It can also lead to technical innovation and economic
advancement that can have a major impact on the strength and effectiveness
of our economy. (DHET, 2013:10)

11
Universities, society and development

The call for partnerships with external stakeholders in order to enhance the ability
of universities to contribute to meeting the needs of society is not only confined
to engaged research and innovation. It has many dimensions including calls for
universities to develop an expanded periphery (Clark, 1998); closer linkages between
university-based education and workplace-based learning and skills development;
various other forms of community engagement involving students; stronger university
industry linkages; as well as the application of university functions of teaching
and research in benefiting external stakeholders. Furthermore, the leveraging of
university resources, assets and spaces towards better livelihoods and benefits of its
communities has also been acknowledged (Bercovitz & Feldman, 2006). Furthermore,
university students and graduates naturally put their imprint on its locality culturally,
socially and economically.

A transformative and developmental impact of universities that is often overlooked

is their role as employers (in relation to employment equity in terms of race, gender,
and nationality in South Africa) and procurers of goods and services (and thus their
requirement to comply with some broad-based black economic empowerment
legislation). In rural areas, small towns and secondary cities, universities are often
among the largest, if not the largest employer and procurer of services. Vincent Tinto’s
(2014) maxim, though directed toward a different space, is still applicable in this
context. He claims that effective developmental impact “does not arise by chance.
It is not solely the result of good intentions. Rather it requires the development of
an intentional, structured, proactive approach that is coherent, systematic and
coordinated in nature” (Tinto, 2014:17). In the university context then, design and
intention is required to develop both universities, and their immediate localities
(including stakeholders) in order to fulfil their potential for contributing to development.

Arguments for a role of universities in place-making and conceptions of universities

as ‘anchor institutions’ appear to have focused more on the potentials of universities
in metropolitan and major urban areas. They have also almost entirely been centred
on universities in the global north. Conversely, universities in the global south and in
secondary cities, small towns and rural areas have not received as much attention
(Fongwa, 2018). This is rather ironic considering that the potential developmental
impact of universities in rural areas, small towns and secondary cities may be far
greater than in well-developed, metropolitan areas. Yusuf (2007:15) argues that:
National and subnational governments are the principal architects of the
national innovation strategy because they set the parameters for higher
education and craft the incentive mechanisms as well as the institutions
that influence decisions regarding where to locate, what to produce and how
much to spend on research, and the degree to which firms [and communities]
link up with universities.

12
 Universities, society, and development in Africa

In the South African context, policy documents such as the White Papers on higher
education and training; the White Papers on innovation, along with the National
Development Plan (NDP), mandate the role of universities, knowledge production,
and innovation within the developmental mandate (Fongwa, 2018). The NDP which
seeks to integrate the developmental trajectory of South Africa summarises the role
of universities in the following words: “In today’s knowledge society, higher education
underpinned by a strong science and innovation system is increasingly important to
open up people’s opportunities” (Republic of South Africa, 2011:262)

This book therefore presents a well-curated collection of conceptual and empirical

cases of university engagement with communities and stakeholders in secondary
cities and beyond, in order to enhance our understanding of university relevance in
society. Centred on the role of university in society, various conceptual approaches,
understandings and practical engagement initiatives are presented. Scholars have
already called on universities and academics to reimagine engagement beyond
the narrow, tick-box curriculum-oriented approach (which limits engagement to a
service-learning credit-bearing activity) towards more expanded notions of university
engagement (Kromydas, 2017). Such an approach constantly interrogates the place
of universities within a changing society service as anchors (Harris & Holley, 2016)
and how to evolve a social contract with external stakeholders to strengthen and
enhance university engagement and relevance (Maassen, 2014).

From an innovation perspective, within informal and rural settings in secondary cities,
universities are increasingly expected to contribute to and support inclusive innovation
within their communities (Arocena, Göransson & Sutz, 2018; Grobbelaar, Schiller &
de Wet, 2017). They have been seen to trigger various forms of innovation initiatives
towards the wellbeing of their communities (see chapter 7 by Kruss & Petersen in this
book). Other participatory forms of engagement including work-integrated learning
and service-learning are explored and presented with reference to the discourse of
broader relevance (see chapter 9 by Obioha, Rangongo & Dakora in this book).

These various forms of developmental impact also need to be explored in relation to

the literature on university-community engagement, which has evolved within the last
decades from both the scholarly and practitioner dimensions. This has resulted in a
variety of definitions and high-level complexity in meaning and practical interpretation.
Koekkoek, Ham and Kleinhans (2021) provide a detailed and comprehensive evolving
literature-based account of the concept of university-community engagement,
concluding with the identification of four gaps: “the under-researched role of societal
perceptions, the need for a more global perspective, a lack of communities’ voice,
and insufficient insight into the impact of university-community engagement on local
communities and the academic community” (ibid:17).

13
Universities, society and development

While this book does not engage with some of the long-standing debates on
university-community engagement, chapter two by Fongwa and Mtawa (in this book)
does explore some of the historical discourses and dominant models of university
engagement. Empirical chapters in the book provide a healthy account of different
societal perspectives regarding engagement and the role of universities with a key
focus on the African context and perspective. The variety of case studies support
the representation of more communities. With authors from a range of South African
universities and knowledge institutions, hailing from Cameroon, Kenya, Nigeria,
Tanzania, Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom, the book provides a glimpse into the
global discourse using both conceptual tools and framing, along with the insights
of local practice and empirical data to map out university community engagement
within an African context.

The structure of the book

There have been arguments that university community engagement should not be
perceived as a ‘third function’ but rather be an integral part of a university’s teaching
and learning functions (Boyer, 1996). This is certainly supported by empirical evidence.
Yet, there are also good reasons to conceive of university engagement as separate
and yet linked to teaching, learning, and research, conceptually and practically.
This book provides a suggestive blend of conceptual and empirical studies to
enhance understanding of the functions of universities in secondary city and rural
contexts. Among the three key contributions that the book seeks to make to the
literature are first, to investigate different conceptual and practical approaches
to community engagement within the African university context towards a multi-
dimensional framing of community engagement including key concepts such as
‘social compact’ and ‘anchoring’. Second to document how teaching and learning
is being integrated into the core function in specific case institutions, departments
and subjects. Third to enrich the imagination of academics, university managers and
higher education policy makers, as well as stakeholders and communities external to
the higher education sector, on how to establish strong developmental relationships
with universities. This is of special focus in secondary cities, so as to enhance the
transformative and developmental potential of universities within their locality.
Conscious of the increasing calls for universities to respond to societal needs and
demands especially in poorer communities wherein universities are expected to play
a stronger role, this book contributes through conceptual investigation, documenting
interventions, initiatives and practices, and providing a unique engagement space
with its focus on university community engagement in secondary cities.

14
 Universities, society, and development in Africa

The book starts by presenting several conceptual approaches to university

community engagement. Following this chapter, which has opened the discussion
by introducing different conceptions of the relationship between universities and
society and presented key definitional issues including that of ‘secondary cities’,
there are three more conceptually oriented chapters. Chapter two, which is the first
of the three, presents a conceptual review of some of the key literature on university
engagement. Fongwa and Mtawa highlight conceptual definitions and evolving
models, approaches and practices, of university community engagement, proposing
an expansive and multidimensional framework. In chapter three, Bank argues
against a narrow conceptualisation of the role of university within an entrepreneurial
and innovation-oriented model of development as common in the Global North.
He rather makes a case for universities in rural towns and secondary cities to rethink
how a university can support urbanisation efforts through effective integration of
all stakeholders. Ngcwangu argues in chapter four against a narrow conception of
social compacts as he illustrates the complex terrain of local developmental efforts in
contestations between labour, business, state and local communities. He argues that
drawing on these perspectives, the higher education space ought to work towards a
‘thick’ conception of social compact between university and society.

The conceptual part is followed by six empirical chapters based on institutional

case studies and particular engagement interventions between universities and
external stakeholders. The section starts off in chapter five, wherein Mbah and
Fonchingong  Che unpack the instrumentality role of a university outward-facing
learning approach in a community in Buea, Cameroon. Using Boyer’s (2016)
scholarship of engagement, they argue for a reformulation of the fabric of social
development through a rethink of university-community partnerships in co-creating
and co-delivering curricula. These should, among other things, secure cherished
community assets and galvanise indigenous know-how in partnership with the
indigenous knowledge of community stakeholders to foster social development.
In chapter six Mtawa examines university-community engagement partnerships
through a collective agency framing. They posit that the principles of reciprocity and
mutuality are loosely used and practised in these university-community engagement
partnerships as he goes on to demonstrate an asymmetric partnership between
university and community affecting voice, participation and agency of community
members. Such skewness, he argues, can ultimately obscure the transformative and
social justice goals of any university-community partnership.

In Chapter seven, Kruss and Peterson make a case for the role of universities in
inclusive innovation in rural areas. They use empirical data to argue for a deeper
understanding of how South African universities engage with informal sectors and
actors in marginalised communities towards a mutually beneficial co-production of
knowledge, bi-directional knowledge flows, and innovation for inclusive development.

15
Universities, society and development

In chapter eight, Kitawi and Njeru examine service learning as part of the core
curriculum at an East African university. They demonstrate that while service learning
develops a sense of being change agents, enhancing cognitive and psycho-social
development and increased civic engagement, the genesis and aims of service
learning within the university seem narrowly linked to the curriculum mandate.

In chapter nine, Mataga, Mokae and Marumo drawing from a three-year collab-
orative partnership between Sol Plaatje University (SPU) in Kimberley and the
Northern Cape’s Department of Sport, Arts and Culture (DSAC), showcase an
engagement in language development between the SPU and its local communities.
The chapter proposes strategies that universities can deploy to make a contribution
to the development and promotion of African languages through working with
partners and collaborating with communities. Chapter ten, by Obioha, Rangongo
and Dakora, provides an analysis of the facets of work-integrated learning (WIL), in
fostering community engagement, particularly in the business community within
Kimberley and its environs. The chapter captures the beneficial learning experiences
for students who study retail management and the productive experiences by host
organisations and the  university.

In the concluding chapter, Luescher and Fongwa analyse the policy and regulatory
frameworks for higher education’s contribution to development in general, and
community engagement, at the continental, national and institutional levels. In the
first part of the chapter, they examine the African Union’s (AU’s) Agenda 2063 and
the AU’s Continental Education Strategy for Africa (CESA), as well as South Africa’s
NDP and higher education sector-specific policy and legislation related to higher
education development goals and community engagement. In the second part, they
present an institution-level analysis of the current conceptions of how the community
engagement functions at South African universities, drawing on a recent study of
the annual reports of the country’s 26 public universities. Overall, they find many
discontinuities in the architecture between different levels of policy, and between
concept, policy and practice. The chapter concludes with a review of the contributions
made by this book, and four sets of elements that need to be considered as part of an
effective, multi-level policy architecture for community engagement.

16
 Universities, society, and development in Africa
References
Addie, J.P.D. 2020. Anchoring (in) the region:
the dyamics of university-engaged urban
development in Newark, NJ, USA. Geografiska
Annaler: Series B, Human Geography,
102(2):172-190. [https://doi.org/10.1080/0435
3684.2020.1729663].
Amin, A. & Thrift, N. 1995. Globalisation,
institutional ‘thickness’ and the local
economy. In: P. Healey, S. Cameron,
S. Davoudi, S. Graham, & A. Madani-Pour
(eds.). Managing cities: the new urban
context. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons,
91-108.
Arocena, R., Göransson, B. & Sutz, J. 2018.
Developmental Universities in Inclusive
Innovation Systems: Alternatives for
Knowledge Democratization in the Global
South. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64152-2].
Baker-Boosamra, M., Guevara, J.A. & Balfour, G.D.
2006. From Service to Solidarity: Evaluation
and Recommendations for International
Service Learning. Journal of Public Affairs
Education, 12(4):479-500. [https://doi.org/10.
1080/15236803.2006.12001452].
Bank, L., Cloete, N. & van Schalkwyk, F.
2018. Anchored in Place: Rethinking
universities and development in South
Africa. Cape Town: African Mind. [https://doi.
org/10.47622/9781928331759].
Bawa, A. 2018. Re-imagining the social purpose
of universities through engagement.
Higher education for diversity, social
inclusion and community: A democratic
imperative, 163‑175.
Bercovitz, J. & Feldman, M. 2006. Entrepreneurial
universities and technology transfer:
A conceptual framework for understanding
knowledge-based economic development.
Journal of Technology Transfer, 31:5-188.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-005-5029-z].
Boyer, E.L. 1996. The scholarship of engagement.
Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences, 49(7):18-33. [https://doi.
org/10.2307/3824459].
17
Boyer, E.L. 2016. The scholarship of engagement.
Journal of Higher Education Outreach and
Engagement, 20(1):15-28.
Brock-Utne, B. 2003. Formulating Higher
Education Policies in Africa: The Pressure
from External Forces and the Neoliberal
Agenda. Journal of Higher Education in
Africa/Revue de l’enseignement Supérieur
En Afrique, 1(1):24-56. (http://www.jstor.org/
stable/244861130).
Charles, D.R. 2006. Universities as key knowledge
infrastructures in regional innovation
systems. Innovation, 19(1):117-130. [https://
doi.org/10.1080/13511610600608013].
Cities Alliance. 2019. Connecting Systems of
Secondary Cities. Brussels: Cities Alliance/
UNOPS.
Clark, B.R. 1998. Creating Entrepreneurial
Universities: Organizational pathways of
transformation. Oxford: Pergamon-IAU Press.
Cloete, N., Bailey, T. & Maassen, P. 2011.
Universities and Economic Development
in Africa: Pact, Academic Core and
Coordination. Wynberg: CHET. [https://doi.
org/10.47622/9781920355807].
Cloete, N., Fehnel, R., Maassen, P., Moja, T.,
Perold, H. & Gibbon, T. (eds.). 2002.
Transformation in Higher Education: Global
Pressures and Local Realities in South Africa.
Lansdowne: Juta and Company.
Coleman, J.S. 1986. The idea of the
developmental university. Minerva,
24(4):476‑494. [https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF01096709].
Cox, E. & Longlands, S. 2016. City systems:
The role of small and medium-sized
towns and cities in growing the northern
powerhouse. IPPR North.
Department of Higher Education and Training
(DHET). 2013. White paper for post-school
education and training: Building an expanded,
effective and integrated post-school system.
Department of Higher Education and Training,
Pretoria, South Africa.
Universities, society and development
Ehlenz, M.M. 2018. Defining university anchor
institution strategies: Comparing theory
to practice. Planning Theory and Practice,
19(1):74-92. [https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935
7.2017.1406980].
Etzkowitz, H. 1993. Enterprises from Science:
The origins of Science-based Regional
Economic Development. Minerva,
31(3):326‑360. [https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF01098626].
Fongwa, S.N. 2013. Universities in Regional
Development: Knowledge Transfer in a Less
Favoured Region. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of the Free State).
Fongwa, S.N. 2018. South Africa’s knowledge-
development policy nexus: implications for
place-based development in the Eastern
Cape Province. Development Southern Africa,
35(5):626-640. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03768
35X.2017.1405798].
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H.,
Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M.
1994. The New Production of Knowledge:
The Dynamics of Science and Research
in Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE
Publications.
Goddard, J., Hazelkorn, E., Kempton, L. &
Vallance, P. 2016. The Civic University.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
[https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784717728].
Grobbelaar, S. S., Schiller, U. & de Wet, G.
2017. University-supported inclusive
innovation platform: the case of University
of Fort Hare. Innovation and Development,
7(2):249‑270. [https://doi.org/10.1080/215793
0X.2016.1252376].
Hall, B. & Tandon, R. 2021. Introduction:
Social Responsibility and Community
Based Research in Higher Education
Institutions. In: B. Hall & R. Tandon (Eds.),
Socially Responsible Higher Education:
International Perspectives on Knowledge
Democracy, 1-18. Brill. [https://doi.
org/10.1163/9789004459076_001].
Hall, M. 2010. Community engagement in
South African higher education. In:
Community Engagement in South African
Higher Education. Kagisano 6. Council on
Higher Education, 1-52.
18
Harris, M. & Holley, K. 2016. Universities as
anchor institutions: Economic and social
potential for urban development. In: Higher
education: Handbook of theory and research.
Cham: Springer, 393-439. [https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-26829-3_8].
Hodges, R.A. & Dubb, S. 2012. The Road Half
Traveled: University Engagement at a
Crossroads. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University Press.
Hoyt, L.M. & Hollister, R.M. 2014. Strategies for
Advancing Global Trends in University Civic
Engagement the Talloires Network, a Global
Coalition of Engaged Universities. All Ireland
Journal of Higher Education, 6(1). (https://ojs.
aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/169).
Keane, J. & Allison, J. 1999. The intersection of
the learning region and local and regional
economic development:
Analysing the role of higher education.
Regional Studies, 33(9):896-902. [https://doi.
org/10.1080/00343409950075533].
Koekkoek, A., Van Ham, M. & Kleinhans, R.
2021. Unraveling university-community
engagement: a literature review. Journal of
Higher Education Outreach and Engagement,
25(1):3-24.
Kromydas, T. 2017. Rethinking higher education
and its relationship with social inequalities:
Past knowledge, present state and future
potential. Palgrave Communications,
3(1):1‑12. [https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-
017-0001-8].
Kruss, G. 2012. Reconceptualising engagement:
A conceptual framework for analysing
university interaction with external social
partners. South African Review of Sociology,
43(2):5-26. [https://doi.org/10.1080/21528586
.2012.694240].
Lawrence, S., Hogan, M. & Brown, E. 2019.
Planning for an innovation district:
Questions for practitioners to consider.
RTI Press [Preprint]. [https://doi.org/10.3768/
rtipress.2018.op.0059.1902].
Lee, S. 2016. Connectivity: Facts and
Perspectives (Vol. II: Connecting Asia and
Europe). Singapore: Asia-Europe Foundation
(ASEF).
 Universities, society, and development in Africa

Luescher, T.M., Webbstock, D. & Bhengu, N. Puukka, J. 2012. Higher Education in Regional
(eds.). 2020. Reflections of South African and City Development: The Free State,
Student Leaders, 1994 to 2017. Cape Town, South Africa. OECD (Higher Education in
South Africa: African Minds. [https://doi. Regional and City Development). [https://doi.
org/10.47622/9781928502104]. org/10.1787/9789264169142-en].
Maassen, P. 2014. A new social contract for Ramose, M.B. 2002. The Philosophy of Ubuntu
higher education? Higher education in and Ubuntu as a Philosophy. In: P.H. Coetzee
societies. Brill Sense, 33-50. [https://doi. & A.P.J. Roux (Eds.), The African Philosophy
org/10.1007/978-94-6209-746-9_4]. Reader (2nd edn.). London: Routledge,
230‑238.
Maistry, M. & Thakrar, J. 2012. Educating
students for effective community Republic of South Africa. 2011.
engagement: Student perspectives on National Development Plan.
curriculum imperatives for universities National Planning Commission.
in South Africa. South African Review of
Roberts, B.H. 2014. Managing Systems of
Sociology, 43(2):58-75. [https://doi.org/10.108
Secondary Cities: policy responses in
0/21528586.2012.694243].
international development. Brussels.
Marais, L. & Cloete, J. 2017. The role of Cities Alliance: Cities without Slums.
secondary cities in managing urbanisation
Saxenian, A. 1994. Regional advantage: Culture
in South Africa. Development South Africa,
and competition in Silicon Valley and Route
34:182-195. [https://doi.org/10.1080/037683
128. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
5X.2016.1259993].
Schildt, C. & Rubin, V. 2015. Leveraging anchor
Mayaki, I.A. 2019. Putting Africa’s secondary
institutions for economic inclusion. Oakland:
cities first. The Jordan Times, 27 May.
PolicyLink [Preprint].
(https://bit.ly/371ZH4j).
Shanyanana, R.N. & Waghid, Y. 2016.
McCowan, T. 2019. Higher education for and
Reconceptualising Ubuntu as inclusion
beyond the sustainable development goals.
in African higher education: towards
Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. [https://doi.
equalisation of voice. Knowledge Cultures,
org/10.1007/978-3-030-19597-7].
4(4):104-120.
Mora, J.G., Serra, M.A. & Vieira, M.J. 2018. Social
Shapiro, S. 2015. New species of city discovered:
engagement in Latin American universities.
The university city. Next City. (https://bit.
Higher Education Policy, 31(4):513-534.
ly/3v3xp1p).
[https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-017-0069-1].
Sladek, E. 2019. The transformative power of
Nkomo, M. 1984. Student Culture and Activism
anchor institutions. Metropolitan Universities,
in Black South African Universities:
30(1):3-4. [https://doi.org/10.18060/22919].
The Roots of Resistance. Westport,
Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Stuart, M. 2021. The permeable university in
The Responsive University and the Crisis in
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
South Africa. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Development (OECD). 2012. Better Skills,
Better Jobs, Better Lives. [https://doi. Tapia, M.N. 2012. Academic excellence and
org/10.1787/9789264177338-en]. community engagement: Reflections on the
Latin American experience. In:
Perry, D.C., Wiewel, W. & Menendez, C. 2009.
Higher Education and Civic Engagement,
The university’s role in urban development:
187‑203. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
from enclave to anchor institution.
[https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137074829_12].
Land Lines, 21:2-7.
Tapia, M.N. & Mallea, M.M. 2003. Service-
Pinheiro, R. 2012. In the region, for the region?
learning in Argentina. In: H. Perold, S. Stroud
A comparative study of the
& M. Sherraden (eds.). Service in the 21st
institutionalisation of the regional mission
Century, 203.
of universities. (PhD dissertation, University
of Oslo).

19
Universities, society and development
Tinto, V. 2014. Tinto’s South African lectures.
Journal of Student Affairs in Africa, 2(2):5-26.
[https://doi.org/10.14426/jsaa.v2i2.66].
Walters, S. & Openjuru, G. 2013. Knowledge,
engagement and higher education in Africa.
Global University Network for Innovation.
20
Yesufu, T.M. (Ed.). 1973. Creating the African
university: Emerging Issues of the 1970s.
Ibadan: Oxford University Press.
Yusuf, S. 2007. University-industry links:
policy dimensions. In: S. Yusuf &
K. Nabeshima (eds.), How universities
promote economic growth. Washington, DC:
World Bank, 1-26. [https://doi.
org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6751-3].
 CHAPTER TWO

University community engagement:

2
From narrow conceptions towards a
multidimensional framing
Samuel N. Fongwa & Ntimi N. Mtawa
Human Sciences Research Council & University of the Free State

Introduction
Globally and locally, higher education institutions and in particular universities are
increasingly being linked to debates about socio-economic development. This trend
is attributed to among other things: the importance of knowledge in an era of know-
ledge driven economy; the recognition of the potential contribution of universities to
promoting development through research; innovation; industrial linkage; graduates’
production; as well as participation in advancing social, cultural, economic, environ-
mental and political activities within their surroundings. Higher Education South Africa
(HESA) (2012:5) states that “carefully conceptualised and planned, such engagement
can create and advance economic, social and cultural opportunities and development
respectively”. In the recent past, some have argued that the current Covid-19 crisis
makes the topic of community engagement more important than ever. Community
engagement is used as an umbrella term for most of activities universities undertake
in communities and with the communities (Farnell, 2020). Others are of the view that
the future trends may depend on how technological advancement can be used to
further community engagement activities in improving communities’ quality of life
(Ogunsanya & Govender, 2020).

In responding to the demands and challenges of the contemporary society,

universities, apart from their core enterprises of teaching and learning, and research,
are increasingly using community engagement to connect with multiple external

21
Universities, society and development

communities. However, the historical origin of universities community engagement

idea and practices goes back to different models of universities. These include the
land-grant model of universities in the United States of America (USA) (Aronson &
Webster, 2007; Mcdowell, 2009); the Cordoba movement of 1918 in Latin America
(Arocena & Sutz, 2005); and the developmental universities of Africa in the 1960/70
(Mtawa & Wangenge-Ouma, 2021). There is also the social component of the Russel
group of universities in the UK established in 1994, and the broader third mission
and entrepreneurial universities in Europe (Clark, 1998; Zomer & Benneworth, 2011).
Community engagement itself, and in some cases the scholarship of engagement
became popular in the 1990s through Ernest  Boyer’s (1996) seminal work entitled
Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoriate. Boyer was critical of what
Cloete, Bailey and Maassen (2011) refer to as an excessive inward orientation
towards strengthening the ‘academic core’ - teaching and research, which results in
the university becoming an ‘ivory tower’ while divorced from the large societal issues.
As such, Boyer (1996:18) argued: “the academy must become a more vigorous
partner in the search for answers to our most pressing social, civic, economic, and
moral problems-and must reaffirm its historical commitment to the scholarship
of engagement”.

In the South African context, community engagement and related concepts have
been an integral part of the discussion about the role of higher education institutions
after 1994. This discussion has been largely within the broader realm of the
transformation agenda. This aims at redressing past inequalities and transforming
the higher education system to serve a new social order, to meet pressing national
needs, and to respond to new realities and opportunities (DOE, 1997; CHE, 2016).
The South African Higher Education White Paper on Transformation (DoE, 1997)
identified multiple purposes of higher education, which included among others
community engagement. As such, this policy framework laid an important
foundation for community engagement in higher education (CHE, 2007). The 2013
White Paper for Post School Education and Training (DHET, 2013:39) asserts that:
Community engagement, in its various forms – socially responsive research,
partnerships with civil society organisations, formal learning programmes
that engage students in community work as a formal part of their academic
programmes, and many other formal and informal aspects of academic work
– has become a part of the work of universities in South Africa.

For community engagement work to have the expected outcomes, the 20-year
review of higher education in South Africa by the Council on Higher Education
(CHE, 2016) acknowledges the strides made by higher education academics and
institutions in community engagement. However, the review goes on to recommend
the strengthening of institutionalisation of community engagement within institutions
and linking it to the broader national development discourse.

22
 University community engagement

Albeit with several scepticisms and misconceptions, community engagement in

South Africa has evolved and matured over time. The evidence of this can be seen
through its articulation in various policy frameworks, increasing body of literature
and array of policy and practices at national and institutions level (Lazarus et al., 2008;
HEQC, 2006). The National Research Foundation’s (NRF) community engagement
funding tool is also enhancing the funding available for community engagement
research. Although universities have different missions, cultures, histories, community
context, orientation and capacities that determine how they engage with local
stakeholders, more conceptual clarity is needed about what community engagement
and related concepts mean. In addition, the required clarification could provide an
understanding of different forms of community engagement and their implications.
The next section provides a discussion of how the concept of community engagement
is defined.

The concept of community

The ambiguity of the concept of ‘community’ coupled with multiple constituencies,
with varying demands and objectives, makes it hard to establish effective community
engagement partnerships that have long-term impact for all partners. As Dempsey
(2010:365) argues: “discussions of community engagement downplay the complex
nature of community by treating it in the abstract”. In essence, these abstract treat-
ments are misleading and assume an amount of unity and homogeneity, which often
do not exist, thus, result in essentialising the conceptions of community (Dempsey,
2010). Hence, community must be treated as heterogeneous, have multiple demands,
and be integral actors and partners in community engagement partnerships. With
universities being knowledge producing and training institutions, their involvement
in communities ought to include both scholarly and social dimensions. This has wit-
nessed a movement from traditional community engagement to a more expansive
and inclusive model foregrounded within the ambit of the scholarship of  engagement.

Considering the complex and multidimensional nature of community in relation to

community and engagement in the South African context, Hall (2010:2) underscores:
“Community can, and does, mean anything from a university’s own staff and students,
and a community of practice to civic organisation, schools, townships, citizens at
large and ‘the people’ in general”.

Providing a rather practical and contextual definition of community, the HEQC

(2006:24), states that:
In the South African context the members of such ‘communities’ will generally be
disadvantaged, materially poor inhabitants of under-serviced urban, peri-urban or rural
areas. In many instances these communities may be accessed most efficiently through
service sector organisations such as government or state departments, as well as non-
governmental, community-based or faith-based organisations.

23
Universities, society and development

Writing in the South African context, Alberty and Daniels (2009:413) indicate
that “often definitions of community within the South African context have been
limiting and prescriptive”. Such narrow conceptions of community have major
implications for community engagement design, implementation, and outcomes
(Dempsey, 2010; Mtawa, 2019). Besides having local communities, universities
also engage with civil society, industry, and government departments. Within this
framing, the entrepreneurial universities (Bercovitz & Feldman, 2006; OECD, 2007)
or university industry linkages (Kruss et al., 2012) have meant the strategic positioning
of business and industry as community stakeholders within the university-community
engagement literature. Increasingly, universities see business and industry as critical
communities to engage with through various facets such as knowledge transfer,
technology transfer, the creation of spin-off companies, and joint research and
supervision projects among others.

University-community
University- community engagement
Community engagement is a concept with complexity of meaning, approaches
and application (Hall, 2010; McIlrath, Lynos & Munck, 2012). Given that there are
so many definitions of community engagement, it begs the question whether it is
possible to find a common and universal one. Key to this engagement, this chapter
draws on Fitzgerald et al. (2005) to define community engagement as:
The partnership of university knowledge and resources with those of the
public and private sectors to enrich scholarship, research, and creative
activity; enhance curriculum, teaching, and learning; prepare educated,
engaged citizens; strengthen democratic values and civic responsibility;
address critical societal issues; and contribute to the public good. (Fitzgerald
et al., 2016:229)

The definition emphasises the centrality of partnership as a feature of community

engagement, which is built on a dialectical or a two-way approach to exchanging
and sharing knowledge, values and skills between the university and external
communities. This relationship has the potential to enrich the university’s core
functions (teaching, learning and research) whilst contributing to the well-being of
all partners involved. Critical to the above definition is the component of preparing
engaged citizens with civic values geared towards strengthening democracies, an
aspect that is largely ignored by contemporary universities. Beaumont (2013) shows
that within the USA context that recent studies of civic learning in higher education
seem to emphasise service learning and volunteering with far less concern with
politics, even when broadly defined. While much of the research on engagement has
focused on economic and social aspects, there are increasing calls for the university
to engage better internally with students, and with vertical structures of society in
developing more democratic citizens (Mattes & Luescher-Mamashela, 2012).

24
 University community engagement

In providing policy directives for community engagement in South Africa, the Higher
Education Quality Committee (HEQC) defined it as:
Initiatives and processes through which the expertise of the higher education
institutions in the areas of teaching and research are applied to address
issues of relevance to its community. Community engagement typically
finds expression in a variety of forms, ranging from informal and relatively
unstructured activities to formal and structured academic programmes.
(HEQC, 2006:12)

A close look at this definition and those in the literature suggest some common
features of community engagement. These include knowledge as a medium of
exchange, and relationships built on the ethos and principles of partnership and
collaborations between higher education institutions and external communities.

Models of community engagement

The relationship between universities and their communities have been
conceptualised and represented through several conceptual models (Koekkoek,
Ham & Kleinhans, 2021). These models have experienced evolution across without
any model being dominant enough to exclusively inform the nature of engagement.
This section provides a broad overview of some of the dominant models from the
literature. It is important to recognise that other authors have used different concepts
to demonstrate various models of engagement. These different concepts have been
referenced where there is an overlap.

One-way or linear approach to community engagement

Traditionally, the one-way approach has dominated community engagement practices.
At the core of this model are the related concepts of outreach, extensions, civic, and
service activities through which the university positions itself as an ivory tower and
academics as experts (Roper & Hirth, 2005). This approach is characterised by a one-
way flow of information from the researcher to the community, with knowledge being
produced only by the researcher with little input from, and feedback to the community,
and/or no attempt to implement a solution or transfer skills or knowledge back to
the community (Brukardt, Percy & Zimpher, 2004; Weerts & Sandmann, 2008). This
approach constrains the knowledge exchange dimension of community engagement
and it is likely to contribute to the production of knowledge for its own sake (Muller &
Subotzky, 2001). This approach is imbued with elements of epistemic injustice through
which communities are not seen as active and integral contributors of knowledge,
thus subjugating their local and indigenous knowledge and experience (Douglas,
2012; Preece, 2016). Thus, the university is deemed as the custodian of knowledge.

25
Universities, society and development

Some argue that this one-way approach to community engagement is a form of

charity whereby the university, through staff and students, provides help or direct
service to those in need while the control of resources and decisions affecting their
distribution remains with the providers (Einfeld & Collins, 2008). This approach is
characterised by inherent power differentials and privilege between the university and
communities. Thus, on the one hand, it defines the university as a powerful and well-
resourced institution and as such, the university is responsible for how community
engagement initiatives should be designed and implemented and for what end.
Overall, this involves several tendencies such as the university forging partnerships
with communities for academic (student learning) and research purposes (Bortolin,
2011). In addition, the relationship between the university and communities carries
elements of paternalism and patronage as the university is the actor that does things
for the communities (Grobbelaar, Napier & Maistry, 2017; Mtawa & Wilson-Strydom,
2018). Bender (2008) has earlier described this mode las a silo model to engagement.

In summary, while some academics continue to practise a one-sided approach to

community engagement, the debate has shifted towards a more collaborative or
intersecting approach, as captured by Boyer (1996:92):
…[t]he scholarship of engagement means connecting the rich resources of
the university to our most pressing social, civic and ethical problems …
…[It] also means creating a special climate in which academic and civic cultures
communicate more continuously and more creatively with each other.

Creating such a climate and culture between academics and communities demands
a two-way dialectic approach to conceptualising and implementing community
engagement.

Intersecting or multi-way approach to community engagement

(partnership)
Current debates focus on community engagement that is built on: the ideas and
principles of partnership; equal participation in knowledge discovery; teaching,
application and integration aimed at strengthening the core functions; cultivating
engaged citizens; and contributing to addressing societal challenges (Glass &
Fitzgerald, 2010). The notion of partnership is central to this new way of approaching
community engagement (Bringle, Clayton & Price, 2012).

Defining partnership, Jacoby and Associates (2003:7) underscore that:

Truly reciprocal partnerships are also termed collaborations, defined
as a mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship [that] includes a
commitment to a definition of mutual goals; a jointly developed structure and
shared responsibility; mutual authority and accountability for success; and
sharing not only of responsibilities but also of the rewards.

26
 University community engagement

Expounding on the notion of partnership, multiple authors (Albertyn & Erasmuss,

2014; Bringle, Clayton & Price, 2012) add that community engagement partnership is
and should be embedded in the principles and shared values of reciprocity, common
goals, relevance, and reflection. Furthermore, partnership ought to include an ethos
of democratic engagement, mutual trust, be mutually beneficial, mutually respectful,
incorporate a genuine commitment, continued feedback, open and accessible
communication, and sustainability. For Williams and Nunn (2016) this typology
of partnership is critical in deconstructing and breaking unequal power relations
as it creates space for relationship building, dialogue, shared learning, and mutual
empowerment. This call for a two-way or town-gown relationship is associated with
the lexicon of the scholarship of engagement.

Of critical importance is that the scholarship of engagement constitutes both the

scholarly and social impact of the university working with external communities.
As such:
…… …
 it reflects a growing responsiveness in higher education that has led
to viewing community engagement and the scholarship of engagement
less as singular constructs to be advanced for their own sake, and more
as strategies for accomplishing broader institutional goals and priorities.
(Sandmann, Furco & Adams, 2016:10)

In other words, the scholarship of engagement is about integrating community-based

and university-based knowledge to strengthen the ‘academic heartlands’ or core
functions while contributing meaningfully to societal change (Shultz & Kajner, 2013).

Conflated within both approaches, Aphane et al. (2016) argue that community
engagement can either be a ‘dispersed model’ wherein individual staff member(s)
engage through self-initiated projects or ‘coordinated model’ that involves the
interaction of academics [and students] with external stakeholders: “teams across
and within department, reflecting the engagement approach” (Nampota & Preece,
2012:107). The intersecting model mirrors the infusion model (Goddard et al., 2016)
which argues that university engagement should be integrated across all aspects
of the university. The infusion model goes further, placing emphasis on dense
collaboration between university and communities that goes beyond the narrow
mandate of employment outcome, and works toward the development of engaged,
responsive citizens.

The language of scholarship of engagement is largely embedded in Ernest Boyer’s

(1996) vision, which moves community engagement and service into the centre of the
academic enterprise through an interactive pursuit of the scholarship of application,
discovery, integration and teaching. Simply put, scholarship of engagement represents
an integrated view of the faculty (academics) role in which teaching, research and
service overlap and are mutually reinforcing. When academics work together in

27
Universities, society and development

collaboration across units and as a mission of the university, this can lead to significant
regional or local development impacts as have been observed in other regions. The
Organisation for European Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been one of the
main actors in evaluating how universities collaborate within themselves as higher
education institutions, and with external communities to stimulate and support local/
regional development (OECD, 2007).

The university and community development: engaged university

Albeit with varying capacities and stages, universities across different contexts have
engaged with their regions differently over time. While community engagement
is becoming a central pathway to responding to challenges of local communities,
cities and regions, a review of literature shows an interesting shift across university
types. With government and other stakeholders exerting pressure on public funded
universities to demonstrate their relevance in cities and regional development,
a number of university variants have been observed (Hoyt & Hollister, 2014).

In responding to calls for relevance, the so-called ‘Traditional University’ emerged

with a focus on teaching and research excellence while ignoring engagement with
communities. This led to a ‘Business Model’ with university forms such as the
‘Entrepreneurial University’, characterised by a strengthened steering core and a
stimulated academic heartland (Clark, 1998). Described by others as the academic
capitalist model, academics engaged more with business and industry in a compet-
itive process of knowledge transfer and application and are sometimes subsidised
by government (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). Frameworks such as the triple helix model,
referring to the relationship for innovation between three stakeholders i.e. university,
industry, and government, evolved to describe this relationship which largely ignored
communities and civil society (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). Universities focused
on developing tech transfer offices and spin-off companies with innovation hubs.
This entrepreneurial engagement model focuses on science, innovation and
technology from a very business premise with little social innovation or inclusive
innovation, less focus on humanities and place-based communities or civil society
(OECD, 2007).

Arguments then emerged for the civic university (Goddard et al., 2016) which focus-
ed on the local community. The civic university seeks to integrate teaching, research
and engagement with external community members such that each activity
enhances the other. Research impact is both social and economic as it adopts a
holistic approach to engagement. While ‘Entrepreneurial Universities’ seek in the
main financial, economic and/or reputational benefits, ‘Civic Universities’ seek to have
social impacts beyond the academy.

28
 University community engagement

As such, Franklin (2009:52) argues that:

Many higher education institutions have established productive relationship
with the regions in which they are situated. These relationships have engaged
students, faculty, and administrators in addressing community challenges
through research, education, and public service activities. The net result
has been closer town-gown relationships, improved quality of life in the
community, applied learning opportunities for students, and satisfaction
for faculty members interested in experiencing tangible impacts of their
scholarly work.

The involvement of universities in regional and cities development (Goddard &

Vallance, 2013) has witnessed several monikers that demonstrate different forms
and strategies universities use in engaging with their cities and regions. The nature
of the relationship of the university and community also influences the conceptual
characterisation of engagement. As described by Appe et al. (2017) a market-
oriented approach to university engagement with an economic focus is largely
labelled as regional development, while a social justice inspired commitment leans
more towards an engaged pedagogies approach. According to Pinheiro (2012)
regional universities are characterised by several traits: (i) they have a strong focus
on knowledge production for application with regional or local partners; (ii) there is a
local embeddedness of the university in the region; (iii) many students come from the
locality or region and the teaching and (iv) learning needs of the students shape the
curriculum and pedagogy.

The ‘Engaged University’ thus seeks to consciously balance a number of

complementary but sometimes competing responsibilities to itself and the
community. These responsibilities reflect the core functions of teaching, research
and engagement of the university. Engaged teaching should be able to emphasise
teaching excellence while also providing opportunities to communities to be positive-
ly impacted, both through the teaching as well as enhancing students’ skills for
society and employment (Mtawa, Fongwa & Wilson-Strydom, 2019). Some of these
teaching approaches include the Work Integrated Learning, Service Learning or short
courses that provide access to adults or those already employed.

29
Universities, society and development

Public engagement with and Engaged teaching.

in knowledge production. Developing teaching
Actively involving the public activities which positively
in the research activity impact on the community
of the institution. and students’ skills.

The Engaged
University

Economic anchor. Social responsibility.

Active economic anchor in Seeking to maximise the
the region/city/community social benefits the
(employer, consumer, institution can leverage to
estate development). the public/region.

Figure 2.1 Overview of dimensions of an Engaged University

As argued by Alberty and Daniels (2009:418): “engagement can facilitate the

connection between moral citizenship and academic excellence of academics by
linking the community to the curriculum in ways that bring new meaning to the why,
what and how of learning, teaching and research approaches at universities” (see also
Hartelius & Cherwitz, 2010). Adopting the posture of an ‘Engaged University’ demands
conscious strategic policies, structures and processes relating to policy development,
implementation and needs to be enforced or incentivised. A critical aspect according
to Appe et al. (2017) is how external stakeholders are involved in the university policy
formulation (see also Mtawa, Fongwa & Wangenge-Ouma, 2016; Wangenge-Ouma
& Fongwa, 2012). Further, ‘Engaged Universities’ tend to recognise and reward staff
engagement with community and adopt an external looking posture instead of an
inward looking one (Puukka et al., 2012; Fongwa, Marais & Atkinson, 2014).

Engaged scholarship
The concept of scholarship of engagement or engaged scholarship implies a scholarly
and social approach and dimensions to designing and implementing various forms
of community engagement. It is also a much debated term, which has acquired a
wide variety of definitions and meanings in various higher education contexts and
spaces. This section will review some of the common definitions of the scholarship
of engagement and identify their commonalities as well as divergences. Table 2.1
provides a list of six of the many definitions of scholarship of engagement or engaged
scholarship in current use.

30
 University community engagement

Table 2.1 Concept of scholarship of engagement/engaged scholarship

The scholarship of engagement, in its many forms, demonstrates that

knowledge can have a public purpose when it is applied to local problems
or opportunities. Indeed, the growing sphere of institutions that embrace
Holland (2005) engaged scholarship demonstrate its capacity to bring coherence to
curricula and strengthen research productivity while also connecting
research to a community’s quality of life through knowledge exchange
rela¬tionships with external partners.
Community-engaged scholarship is the scholarship that involves the
faculty member in a mutually beneficial partnership with the community.
Community-engaged scholarship can be transdisciplinary and often
Stanton, (2008) integrates some combination of multiple forms of scholarship. For example,
service-learning can integrate the scholarship of teaching, application, and
engagement, and community-based participatory research can integrate the
scholarship of discovery, integration, application and engagement.
[It is] a scholarship that cuts across teaching, research, and service
in a manner that involves generating, transmitting, applying, and
Doberneck, Glass and
preserving knowledge for the direct benefit of external audiences in
Schweitzer, (2010)
ways that are consistent with university and unit [faculty, school and
department] missions.
Scholarship of engagement/engaged scholarship is defined as faculty
[academics] engaged in academically relevant work that simultaneously
Tufts University and fulfils the campus mission and goals, as well as community needs…. [It] is
Campus Compact, a scholarly agenda that incorporates community issues that can be within
(2012) or integrative across teaching, research and service. It is collaborative and
participatory and draws on many sources of distributed knowledge across
and beyond the university.
Scholarship of engagement foregrounds the knowledge developed for
a public purpose. It involves discovery, which pushes back the frontiers
Checkoway, (2013) of knowledge; integration of knowledge across disciplines and fields;
application of knowledge to address societal issues; and teaching to
facilitate learning about the other scholarships.
Engaged scholarship as a true academic posture, rooted in values of social
justice and citizenship, which prompt academics and universities, in their
Beaulieu, Breton and
roles of teaching, research, and service to society, to work in ways that will
Brouselle, (2018)
build mutually beneficial and reciprocal bridges between university activity
and civil society (external communities).

Three main threads cut across the above definitions. First, scholarship of engage-
ment is about partnership for co-creation and application of knowledge between
universities and external communities. Second, scholarship of engagement is about
co-learning in mutual and reciprocal ways. Third, scholarship of engagement is
about advancing both the university’s core functions and social benefits. These three
elements depend largely on the approach to community engagement in the design,
implementation and assessment of the outcomes.

31
Universities, society and development

From community engagement to scholarship

of engagement
The concept of scholarship of engagement and/or engaged scholarship emanates
from the work on Ernest Boyer (1996). Boyer (1996) and other critics challenged
higher education to broaden its definition of scholarship to include the scholarship
of discovery, integration, application and teaching. The intent was to elevate the
scholarship of teaching and the scholarship of application to the same level as
the scholarship of discovery with respect to the faculty (academics) roles and
responsibility. The term ‘scholarship of engagement’ provides a new ways of thinking,
defining, framing (planning), implementing and documenting practices that involved
the university and external partners (actors).

Scholarship of engagement is still emerging from its definitional anarchy

(Doberneck,  Glass & Schweitzer, 2010; Sandmann, 2008). More recently, the
discussions on engaged scholarship have evoked the debate about decolonising
knowledge, curriculum and pedagogy with the aim of exposing and challenging
epistemic inequalities and injustice (Barinaga & Parker, 2013). This is partly due
to traditional community engagement being based on the positivist model, which
maintains epistemic privilege, and this privilege promotes the ongoing sanctification
of ‘certain methods, models and ways of thinking’ within the academy as good
scholarship (Douglas, 2012). As mentioned above, Boyer (1996) suggests four forms
of scholarship, namely teaching, discovery, application, and integration (for a detailed
account of this see Mtawa, Fongwa & Wangenge-ouma, 2016).

Within these four dimensions, scholarship of engagement comes into being through
its interactive connections with people outside the university in the activities
of scholarship, such as setting goals, selecting means and methods, applying
meaning and methods, and reflecting on and disseminating results (Sandmann,
2008). The purpose of scholarship of engagement is therefore to address the needs
of communities, to respond to current issues, and to ultimately affect societal
concerns through means appropriate to the mission of higher education that involve
the co-creation of knowledge. In fact, the emphasis on scholarship is what clearly
distinguishes engaged scholarship from community/extension service as service
does not involve the creation of scholarly products. Thus, it is inclusive as both
scholarly endeavour and a means of engaging with communities.

According to Holland (2005) scholarship of engagement is a participatory process

which draws on diverse sources and forms of knowledge through partnerships,
including local, indigenous knowledge systems (IKS), and scholarly. The process
is informed by multi-stakeholder expectations negotiated through collaborative
processes with the aim of achieving a sustainable mutually beneficial outcome.

32
 University community engagement

Scholarship of engagement could also be framed as engaged teaching. In this

understanding the focus is more on the pedagogical component and student
benefits with little emphasis on communities. For example, while HEQC (2006)
acknowledges that both the community and students are primary beneficiaries, the
focus is more on students. Communities are seen as passive actors and receivers
of services provided by students. Thus, service learning is conceptualised as:
…modules [that] engage students in activities where both the community
and student are primary beneficiaries and where the primary goals are to
provide a service to the community and, equally, to enhance student learning
through rendering this service. Reciprocity is therefore a central character-
istic of service-learning. (HEQC, 2006:23)

While service learning is just one aspect of an engaged teaching scholarship, it serves
a broad role which has impact on, and value to the community, university and students.
For students it develops both human or citizenship values as well as employability,
while also responding to community needs in a collaborative way (Mtawa, Fongwa
& Wilson-Strydom, 2019). It also permits the university to meet its engagement
commitments through credit bearing courses and experiences that students gain in
community settings.

Engaged research: beyond academic publications

Defined within the broader notion of scholarship of engagement, Holliman et  al.
(2015:3) define engaged research as encompassing “the different ways that
researchers meaningfully interact with various stakeholders over any or all stages
of a research process, from issue formulation, the production or co-creation of new
knowledge, to knowledge evaluation and dissemination”.

A major emphasis here is the process of creating space for active participation of
community stakeholders in the conceptualisation of the research problem, gene-
ration, and dissemination of knowledge that reflects the aspirations of the community.
To break hegemonic tendencies from academics, Albertyn and Erasmuss (2014)
argue that a radical shift in attitude and practice are needed to break down power
barriers as both partners hold quid pro quo power relations in the process of useful
relevant knowledge creation and ultimately dissemination. Put otherwise, “engaged
research incorporates reciprocal civic engagement practices into the discovery,
development, and mobilisation of knowledge to the mutual benefit of community and
academic interest” (Beaulieu, Breton & Brouselle, 2018:11). Other forms of engaged
research include participatory research, community-based research, and applied
research, contractual research by government or other stakeholders, intervention
research, and needs assessment among others.

33
Universities, society and development

Engaged citizenship
Engaged citizenship relates to how the university positions itself within the commun-
ity as an agent for social justice, transformation and wellbeing. It is also defined as
what is being done as well as how it is done, and for the common or public good
toward what end it is done. Here the attitude of academia towards broader citizenship
values becomes central. Newman and Turner (1996), reflecting on the American
context, suggest that the crisis in the education system is less about the declining
test scores, than it is because we have failed to provide the education for citizenship
that is still the most important responsibility of the nation’s education system. Such
an observation also fits the African context as Luescher-Mamashela (2011) argues
that for universities to serve the purpose of developing engaged citizenship for
students, the current academic environment around most African universities needs
to be reviewed. A shift is needed from a situation where a sprinkle of students are co-
opted into enjoying the spoils of political office on campus to one where structures
and processes permit all students to learn how to exert democratic leadership and
engaged, active citizenry.

Another important element of engaged citizenship is that of ‘academic citizenship’,

which transcends the role of academics beyond teaching and research to include
participation in public issues (Macfarlane, 2007). Through engaged citizenship,
academics are called upon to contribute to public life through fusion of thought
(scholarship) and action (engagement) (Checkoway, 2013; Hartelius & Cherwitz,
2010). In other words, academics are encouraged to integrate their role as expert
with their role as citizen (Beaulieu, Breton and Brouselle, 2018).

Towards an expansive and multidimensional framework for

scholarship of engagement
In their review of literature titled Conceptualizing 20 years of engaged scholarship,
Beaulieu, Breton and Brouselle (2018) identified several values, principles and
processes of scholarship of engagement/engaged scholarship. As can be seen
Table 2, these dimensions provide a nuanced and expansive understanding of the
key components of scholarship of engagement, engaged research, engaged teaching
and learning and engaged citizenship. The one-way linear approach to community
engagement is characterised by overlapping tensions which include power and
privilege, tensions between instrumental (academic and research) benefits vs.
social values and context, conditionalities or incentives under which community
engagement operates (Mtawa, 2019). The weak and add-on perception of community
engagement in relation to other core functions contributes to a reluctance among
academic and community members to engage in community engagement (Cloete,
Maassen & Bailey, 2015).

34
 University community engagement

The issue of power and privilege is at the epicentre of the unequal relationship
between the university and communities. It is argued that traditionally universities
hold some forms of power in relation to their counterparts (communities)
in community engagement (Cipolle, 2004; Mtawa & Wilson-Strydom, 2018).
Paradoxically, the same structures of power the university contributes to creating
community engagement programs limits the action, voice, and autonomy of the
actors and often community partners (Williams & Nunn, 2016; Mtawa & Fongwa,
2020). With the power and privilege entrenched in the university coupled with the
long-standing ivory tower tendency, the university’s staff and students enter the
community as intruders with little understanding of contextual specifics and concern
for local needs and autonomy. Williams and Nunn (2016:1) capture this astutely:
A “power dilemma” often exists in community engagement work because
the people who arrive in a community to offer their skills and resources are,
by definition, outsiders to the community and they are also in possession of
skills and resources that are often otherwise unavailable to the community.
Typically, the skills and resources they bring are entangled in their positions
of economic, social and political privilege.

By the mere fact of having power and privilege, there is a likelihood that the university
staff and students will use communities’ circumstances and conditions as training
and researching grounds. Bortolin (2011) describes this as a mechanism through
which students are immersed in a community environment to gain exposure to issues
complementing what they are doing in the classroom. Such an approach can limit
students’ as well as academics’ ability to experience and critically engage with the
realities and conditions of communities. Thus, Howard (2013:1) states that “privileged
[and powerful] people generally have little contact with the ‘ugly’ life circumstances
of so many others in their own communities and throughout the world”. Such a
tendency perpetuates ‘othering’ – making the privileged apathetic towards those
different from themselves, maintaining the status quo, and disconnecting from the
reality outside their own groups (ibid).

A further issue which has strong bearing on the position of community members
in community engagement partnerships is that of context and conditions under
which community engagement operates. Preece (2016) observes that community
engagement in South Africa operates largely in the context of uneven power
relations, extreme poverty, and inequalities reflecting the larger South African society.
Furthermore, issues of different cultural, class, status and ethnic backgrounds
compound the structural inequalities within which universities conceptualise and
practise engagement (Williams & Nunn, 2016). However, a question of whether
community engagement can advance both scholarship and social purposes in
such contexts and conditions becomes central to how the university responds to
societal needs; demanding a new social contract – a socially just approach in re-

35
Universities, society and development

thinking and re-imagining the design and implementation of community engagement

in the existential social, economic, and political contexts. Such rethinking will
seek to enhance community empowerment and the human dignity values of the
community stakeholders.

The institutionalisation of community engagement within teaching and learning has

also been observed to influence its application within the academe. While some
authors have argued for an integration of community engagement within both
teaching and learning as suggested in South Africa’s policy framing (Bender, 2008),
others have questioned its legitimacy as a stand-alone function (Alberty & Daniels,
2009; Hall, 2010). Such contestations have entrenched community engagement’s
location within the periphery of the university’s core functions as well as receiving
minimal attention and support at institutional and departmental levels. Furthermore,
this ‘peripheralisation’ of community engagement is characterised by institutional
neglect, and lack of strategic priority. This tends to ultimately relegate engagement
scholarship to an add-on, do-good or philanthropic activity detached from the
academic core functions (Kruss et al., 2012).

In conclusion, contemporary society is increasingly faced with diverse socio-

economic challenges demanding more concerted collaborations to address them.
This is even more so in secondary cities and peripheral regions where universities
are located. Universities by their mandate have a bigger responsibility to reflect the
realities of their immediate and extended society and to translate this mandate in
the teaching and learning, and research enterprise it adopts so as to make these
two functions relevant to society. How these two functions are translated into more
relevant and responsive outcomes demands conscious and consistent engagement
and re-engagement within the university itself, and with its external stakeholders
within a broader expansive framework of the university’s function, mandate and
raison d’être.

In the table 2.2 below, we propose a number of engagement values, principles

and processes which need to be adopted and implemented within the community
engagement framing of any university moving from a narrow conceptualisation of
engagement to a more expanded transformative approach. While the lists are not
exhautive, we believe the begin to capture the core human values which have most
often been overlooked.

36
 University community engagement

Table 2.2 An expansive and multidimensional framework for scholarship

of engagement (SoE). (SoE).

SoE/Engaged
Descriptions
scholarship
Value of SoE/Engaged scholarship
1. Integrating vulnerable and marginalised populations into research and
action (equity and civil democracy)
Social justice 2. Focusing on individual and social well-being
3. Moral obligation to develop complementary relationships between
scholarly achievement and the public good
1. Academics integrating their role as expert with their role as citizens
(thinking, acting as members of society – citizen scholars-activist
scholarship)
Citizenship
2. Engaged researcher acknowledging having both a social accountability
and civic responsibility to engage with wider society at local, national
and international level
Principles of Engaged scholarship
1. Meeting the highest academic standard through high-quality scholarship
(academically defined and socially accountable)
2. Adhering to a great sense of rigour
Higher quality
scholarship 3. Ensuring value and relevance of research on both the social and
academic levels
4. Partners producing knowledge in collaboration and communicating
knowledge to the public.
1. Adopt reflective and iterative methods to maximise impact
2. Broaden and deepen connection between the university and external
communities
3. Partnership and collaboration with non-academic or practitioner partners
4. Integration of different types of knowledge in knowledge production
Reciprocity
5. Creation of meaningful interactions for predicting research use
6. Reciprocity between academy and external communities during
production of knowledge and dissemination
7. Sharing knowledge and resources to produce sustainable and mutual
benefit for both community and universities.
1. Address important civic issues (real societal problems)
Identified community
needs 2. Be socially responsive, organise intellectual activities deeply rooted in
practice
1. Involving a multi-inter-transdisciplinary approach to overcome
disciplinary boundaries
2. Interactions across disciplinary and relevant sectors
Boundary-crossing
3. Integrating teaching, research and service (teaching and service
advancing research endeavours)
4. Teaching as a form of service to the community
Democratisation of 1. Decentralising and rethinking access to knowledge and its creation
knowledge process – epistemological access to knowledge production.

37
Universities, society and development

SoE/Engaged
Descriptions
scholarship
Processes of SoE/Engaged scholarship
Individual level
1. Equates transmitting, transforming and extending knowledge and
bringing about change in learning with various audiences through formal
and informal arrangements
2. Views community as a landscape for strengthening students’ discovery
and learning (think and act on local and global issues of real importance)
3. Intends to facilitate students’ ability to integrate theory and practice and
engage in praxis
Engaged teaching
4. Educating students to live as responsible citizens, mobilise multiple
forms of knowledge to make good decisions and use their capacities to
contribute to public good
5. Curricula combine acquisition of traditional knowledge with concrete
actions (teaching is anchored in reality and more active) –
service-learning – experiential learning
6. Creating reflective spaces to maximise learning from experiences
1. Must be systematic and rigorous (based on current knowledge, results
disseminated in publications, critically reviewed and debated among
peers
2. Integration of theory and practice
3. Inclusion of community partners as active contributors to identify goals,
Engaged research research questions and conducting research that addresses real-world
challenges
4. Research providing useful and meaningful benefit to the community
5. Use multiple methods (community-based participatory research,
community-based research, participatory action research, and applied
research.
1. An application of academics’ expertise and scientific or professional
knowledge to address specific issues for the benefits of policy makers,
public officials, agencies, organisation, professionals and civil society
Engaged service
2. It involves advocacy, outreach, technical assistance, expert testimony or
legal advice
3. It drives good teaching, student learning and scholarship

38
 University community engagement

SoE/Engaged
Descriptions
scholarship
Institutional level (Institutionalisation of SoE)
The institution: What is the organisational, institutional and external context within which the
institution operates (political, economic, social, cultural and technological)?
1. Supporting research that responds to the needs of local communities
2. Producing a generation of students who are prepared to contribute
positively to the world around them
3. Community engagement as an essential component of higher-level
Mission and vision teaching and research
4. Transforming institutional culture
5. Institutional leaders supporting the implementation of
engagement­oriented missions – leading to new and emancipatory forms
of scholarship
1. Aligning institutions’ missions and strategic priorities to enhance the
value of academics’ work
2. Rethinking the priorities and values of institutions’ promotion guidelines
3. Changing the norms and introducing new culture that support
engagement and value connections with the community
4. Establishing mechanisms that recognise and reward engaged scholarship
Reward structure
5. Recruitment process, review and promotion criteria taking into account
the multidisciplinary and engaged dimensions of academics’ work
6. Academics involved in engaged teaching, research and service
associated with engaged scholarship feel that the university and
department value their contribution
7. Reward academics for their engaged scholarship work
1. Connects intellectual assets of the university (academic expertise and
high-quality graduate and undergraduate students; infrastructure and
university spaces) to public issues such as social, cultural and economic
development, decisive in helping academics to work actively for the
Logistical support public good
2. Establish and facilitate relationships with a variety of partners within and
outside the universities and between disciplines and departments
3. Fund and create an administrative team to support engagement activities
1. Develop programs or projects to cultivate public-good-oriented skills
2. Creating opportunities for students as well as incentives and reward for
Support to students those engaged with communities and external stakeholders
3. Integrating engaged scholarship into graduate education to encourage
students to become future engaged professionals
Source: Adapted from Beaulieu, Breton & Brouselle (2018)

39
Universities, society and development
References
Albertyn, R. & Erasmuss, M. 2014. Knowledge as
enablement: Engagement between higher
education and the third sector in South
Africa. Stellenbosch: African Sun Media.
Albertyn, R. & Daniels, P. 2009. Research
within the context of community
engagement. In: E. Blitzer (ed.), Higher
Education in South Africa. Stellenbosch:
African Sun Media, 409-428. [https://doi.
org/10.18820/9781920338183/18].
Aphane, M., Mtapuri, O., Burman, C. & Molell,
N. 2016. Academic interaction with social
partners in the case from the University of
Limpopo. Journal of Education, 66:139-184.
[https://doi.org/10.17159/2520-9868/i66a06].
Appe, S., Rubaii, N., Líppez-De Castro, S. &
Capobianco, S. 2017. The concept and
context of the engaged university in the
global south: Lessons from Latin America
to guide a research agenda. Journal of
Higher Education Outreach and Engagement,
21(2):7-36.
Arocena, R., Göransson, B. & Sutz, J. 2018.
Developmental Universities in Inclusive
Innovation Systems: Alternatives for
Knowledge Democratization in the Global
South. London: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64152-2].
Aronson, K. & Webster, N. 2007. A model of
creating land-grant universities: Penn State’s
engagement ladder model. Innovation
Higher Education, 31:265-277. [https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10755-006-9031-7].
Barinaga, E. & Parker, P.S. 2013. Community-
engaged scholarship: Creating participative
spaces for transformative politics. Tamara
Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry,
11(4):5-11.
Beaulieu, M., Breton, M. & Brouselle, A. 2018.
Conceptualizing 2018 years engaged
scholarship. A scoping review. PLoS One,
13(2). [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0193201].
40
Beaumont, E. 2013. Political learning and
democratic capacities: some challenges and
evidence of promising approaches.
In: A.R.M. McCartney, E.A. Bennion
& D. Simpson (eds.), Teaching Civic
Engagement: From Student to Active Citizen.
Washington, DC: The American Political
Science Association, 41-56.
Bender, G. 2008. Exploring conceptual models
for community engagement at higher
education institutions in South Africa.
Perspectives in Education, 26(1):81-95.
Bercovitz, J. & Feldman, M. 2006. Entrepreneurial
universities and technology transfer:
A conceptual framework for understanding
knowledge-based economic development.
Journal of Technology Transfer, 31:175-188.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-005-5029-z].
Bortolin, K. 2011. Serving ourselves: how the
discourse on community engagement
privileges the university over the community.
Michigan Journal of Community Service
Learning, 18(1):49-58.
Boyer, E.L. 1996. The scholarship of engagement.
Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences, 49(7):18-33. [https://doi.
org/10.2307/3824459].
Bringle, R.G., Clayton, P.H. & Price, M.F. 2012.
Partnerships in service learning and civic
engagement. Partnerships: A Journal of
Service-Learning and Civic Engagement, 1(1).
Brukardt, M.J., Percy, S.L. & Zimpher, N. 2004.
Calling the question: Is higher education
ready to commit to community engagement?
A Wingspread statement. Milwaukee, WI.
Checkoway, B. 2013. Strengthening the
scholarship of engagement in higher
education. Journal of Higher Education
Outreach and Engagement, 17(4):7-22.
Cipolle, S. 2004. Service-learning as a counter
hegemonic practice. Evidence pro and con.
Multicultural Education, 11(3):12-23.

Clark, B.R. 1998. Creating Entrepreneurial
Universities: Organizational pathways of
transformation. Oxford: Pergamon-IAU Press.
Cloete, N., Bailey, T. & Maassen, P. 2011.
Universities and Economic Development
in Africa: Pact, Academic Core and
Coordination. Wynberg: CHET. [https://doi.
org/10.47622/9781920355807].
Cloete, N., Maassen, P. & Bailey, T. 2015.
Knowledge production and contradictory
functions in African Higher Education.
Cape Town: African Minds. [https://doi.
org/10.47622/978-1-920677-85-5].
Council on Higher Education/Community Higher
Education Service Partnerships. 2007.
Community engagement in higher education,
Proceedings of the CHE-HEQC/ JET-CHESP
Conference on Community Engagement in
Higher Education. Pretoria: Council on Higher
Education.
Council on Higher Education (CHE). 2016.
South African Higher Education Reviewed:
Two Decades of Democracy. Council on
Higher Education.
Dempsey, S.E. 2010. Critiquing community
engagement. Management Communication
Quarterly, 24(3):359-390. [https://doi.
org/10.1177/0893318909352247].
Department of Education. 1997. Education White
Paper 3: A programme for the transformation
of higher education. Department of
Education, Pretoria.
Department of Higher Education and Training.
2013. White Paper for Post-School Education
and Training: Building an expanded, effective
and integrated post-school system.
Department of Higher Education and Training,
Pretoria.
Doberneck, D.M., Glass, C.R. & Schweitzer, J.
2010. From rhetoric to reality: a typology of
publically engaged scholarship. Journal of
Higher Education Outreach and Engagement,
14(4):5-35. [https://doi.org/10.54656/
RPOV2967].
Douglas, S. 2012. Advancing the scholarship of
engagement: an institutional perspective.
South African Review of Sociology,
43(2):27‑39. [https://doi.org/10.1080/2152858
6.2012.694241].
University community engagement
Einfeld, A. & Collins, D. 2008. The relationships
between service-learning, social justice,
multicultural competence, and civic
engagement. Journal of College Student
Development, 49(2):95-109. [https://doi.
org/10.1353/csd.2008.0017].
Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. 2000.
The dynamics of innovation: from national
systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of
university-industry-government relations.
Research Policy, 29(2):109-123. [https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4].
Farnell, T. 2020. Community engagement
in higher education: trends, practices
and policies. NESET report, Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union.
Fitzgerald, H.E., Bruns, K., Sonka, S.T., Furco, A.
& Swanson, L. 2016. The centrality of
engagement in higher education: reflections
and future directions. Journal of Higher
Education Outreach and Engagement,
20(1):245-254.
Fongwa, S., Marais, L. & Atkinson, D. 2014.
Universities and regional development:
lessons from the OECD regional assessment
of the Free State, South Africa. Journal of
Higher Education in Africa, 12(2):29-52.
Franklin, N.E. 2009. The need is now: university
engagement in regional economic
development. Journal of Higher Education
Outreach and Engagement, 13(4):51-73.
Glass, C.R. & Fitzgerald, H.E. 2010. Engaged
scholarship: historical roots, contemporary
challenges. In: H.E., Fitzgerald, C. Burack,
S.D. Seifer, & J. Vortruba (eds.), Handbook
of engaged scholarship: Contemporary
landscapes. Future directions, 2:9-24.
Goddard, J., Hazelkorn, E., Kempton, L. &
Vallance, P. 2016. The Civic University.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
[https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784717728].
Goddard, J. & Vallance, P. 2013. The University
and the City. New York: Routledge.
[https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203068366].
Grobbelaar, H., Napier, C. & Maistry, S. 2017.
Reinforcing paternalism? the need for a
social justice approach to prepare students
for community engagement at universities
of technology. Journal for New Generation
Sciences, 15(1):74-93.
41
Universities, society and development
Hall, M. 2010. Community engagement in
South African higher education. In:
Community Engagement in South African
Higher Education. Kagisano 6. Council on
Higher Education.
Hartelius, J.E. & Cherwitz, A. 2010. The Dorothy
doctrine of engaged scholarship:
The rhetorical discipline “had it all along”.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 96(4):436-442.
[https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2010.521
180].
Higher Education South Africa (HESA). 2012.
Differentiation in higher education:
Framework document. Pretoria: UNISA.
Holland, B.A. 2005. Scholarship and mission
in the 21st century university: The role of
engagement. In: Proceedings of the 2005
Australian Universities Quality Forum:
Engaging communities. Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia: Australian Universities Quality
Agency, 11-17.
Holliman, R., Adams, A., Blackman, T., Collins, T.,
Davies, G., Dibb, S., Grand, A., Holti, R.,
McKerlie, F., Mahony, N. & Wissenburg, A.
2015. An open research university: Final
report. The Open University: Milton Keynes.
(http://oro.open.ac.uk/44255).
Howard, A. 2013. Privilege, agency and affect.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hoyt, L.M. & Hollister, R. 2014. Moving beyond
the ivory tower: The expanding global
movement of engaged universities. Report:
Higher Education in the World 2014. [https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-49187-9_4].
Jacoby, B. & Associates (eds.) 2003.
Building Partnerships for Service-Learning.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Koekkoek, A., Ham, M. & Kleinhans, R.
2021. Unravelling university-community
engagement: a literature review. Journal of
Higher Education Outreach and Engagement,
25(1):3-24.
Kruss, G., Visser, M., Haupt, G. & Aphane, M.
2012. Academic interaction with external
social partners: investigating the contribution
of universities to economic and social
development. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
42
Lazarus, J., Erasmus, M., Hendricks, D.,
Nduna, J. & Slamat, J. 2008. Embedding
community engagement in South African
higher education. Education, Citizenship
and Social Justice, 3(1):59−85. [https://doi.
org/10.1177/1746197907086719].
Luescher-Mamashela, T. 2011. The university in
Africa and democratic citizenship: Hothouse
or training ground. Wynberg, Cape Town:
Centre for Higher Education Trust. [https://doi.
org/10.47622/9781920355678].
Macfarlane, B. 2007. Defining and rewarding
academic citizenship: The implications
for University Promotions Policy.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 29(3):261-273. [https://doi.
org/10.1080/13600800701457863].
Mattes, R. & Luescher-Mamashela, T.M. 2012.
The roles of higher education in the
democratization of politics in Africa:
Survey reports from HERANA. Journal of
Higher Education in Africa, 10(1):139-170.
Mcdowell, G.R. 2009. Engaged universities:
Lessons from the Land-Grant universities
and extension. The annals of the
American Academy of political and
social science, 585(1):31-50. [https://doi.
org/10.1177/0002716202238565].
McIlrath, L., Lynos, A. & Munck, R. 2012.
Higher Education and Civic Engagement.
Comparative Perspective. United
States: Palgrave Macmillan. [https://doi.
org/10.1057/9781137074829].
Mtawa, N., Fongwa, S.N. & Wangenge-
ouma, G. 2016. The scholarship of
university-community engagement:
interrogating Boyer’s model. International
Journal of Educational Development,
49:126-133. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijedudev.2016.01.007].
Mtawa, N., Fongwa, S. & Wilson-Strydom, M.
2019. Enhancing graduate employability
attributes and capabilities formation:
A service-learning approach. Teaching in
Higher Education [Preprint]. [https://doi.org/10
.1080/13562517.2019.1672150].

Mtawa, N.N. 2019. Human Development and
Community Engagement Through Service-
learning: The Capability Approach and Public
Good in Education. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34728-4].
Mtawa, N.N. & Fongwa, S.N. 2020. Experiencing
service learning partnership: a human
development perspective of community
members. Education, Citizenship
and Social Justice, 1-16. [https://doi.
org/10.1177/1746197920971808].
Mtawa, N. & Wilson-Strydom, M. 2018.
Community service learning: Pedagogy at
the interface of poverty, inequality and
privilege. Journal of Human Development and
Capabilities, 19(2):249-265. [https://doi.org/10
.1080/19452829.2018.1448370].
Muller, J. & Subotzky, G. 2001. What knowledge
is needed in the new millennium?
Organization, 8(2):163-182. [https://doi.
org/10.1177/1350508401082004].
Nampota, D. & Preece, J. 2012.
University community service and its
contribution to the Millennium Development
Goals: A pan-African research project.
Journal of Education, (55):105-126.
Newman, J.H. & Turner, F.M. 1996. The idea of a
university. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ogunsanya, O. & Govender, I. 2020.
University-community engagement:
Current tensions and future trends.
International Journal of African Higher
Education, 6(1):51-76. [https://doi.
org/10.6017/ijahe.v6i1.11089].
Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD). 2007. Higher
education and regions: globally competitive,
locally engaged. Organisation for Economic
Co‑operation and Development.
Pinheiro, R. 2012. In the region, for the region?
A comparative study of the institutionalisation
of the regional mission of universities
(PhD dissertation, University of Oslo).
Preece, J. 2016. Negotiating service learning
through community engagement:
Adaptive leadership, knowledge, dialogue
and power. Education as Change,
20(1):1‑22. [https://doi.org/10.17159/1947-
9417/2016/562].
University community engagement
Puukka, J. 2012. Higher Education in Regional
and City Development: The Free State,
South Africa. OECD (Higher Education in
Regional and City Development). [https://doi.
org/10.1787/9789264169142-en].
Roper, C.D. & Hirth, M.A. 2005. A history of
change in the third mission of higher
education: The evolution of one-way service
to interactive engagement. Journal of Higher
Education Outreach and Engagement,
10(3):3-21.
Sandmann, L.R. 2008. Conceptualization of
the scholarship of engagement in higher
education: A strategic review, 1996-2006.
Journal of Higher Education Outreach and
Engagement, 12(1):91-204.
Sandmann, L.R., Furco, A. & Adams, K.R. 2016.
Building the field of higher education
engagement: A 20-year retrospective.
Journal of Higher Education Outreach and
Engagement, 20(1):1-14.
Shultz, L. & Kajner, T. 2013. Engaged
Scholarship: The Politics of Engagement and
Disagreement. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-290-7].
Slaughter, S. & Leslie, L.L. 1997. Academic
capitalism: Politics, policies, and the
entrepreneurial university. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stanton, T.K. 2008. New times demand new
scholarship: Opportunities and challenges
for civic engagement at research
universities. Education, Citizenship and
Social Justice, 3(1):19-42. [https://doi.
org/10.1177/1746197907086716].
Verjee, B. 2010. Service-learning: Charity-based
or transformative? Transformative Dialogues.
Teaching and Learning Journal, 4(2):1-13.
Wangenge-Ouma, G. & Fongwa, S.N. 2012.
National universities and the regional
dimension: A dilemma? In: Universities
and Regional Development: A Critical
Assessment of Tensions and Contradictions.
London: Routledge, 76-88. [https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203112298-14].
Weerts, D.J. & Sandmann, L.R. 2008. Building a
two-way street: challenges and opportunities
for community engagement at research
universities. Review of Higher Education,
32(1)73-106. [https://doi.org/10.1353/
rhe.0.0027].
43
Universities, society and development
Williams, J.M. & Nunn, L.M. 2016. Immersive
practices: Dilemmas of power and privilege
in community engagement with students
in a rural South African village. Engaging
Pedagogies in Catholic Higher Education,
2(1):5. [https://doi.org/10.18263/2379-
920X.1009].
44
Zomer, A. & Benneworth, P. 2011. The rise of
the university’s third mission. In: J. Enders,
H.F. de Boer & D.F. Westerheijden (eds.),
Reform of higher education in Europe.
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 81-101. [https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-555-0_6].
 CHAPTER THREE

Re-imagining African
3
University Towns:
Urban visions and anchor strategies
for post-covid African transitions
Leslie Bank
Human Sciences Research Council & Walter Sisulu University

Covid-19 has placed higher education in a state of flux, and there are many
uncertainties about the future of face-to-face teaching and class sizes
moving forward. One thing that is certain, however, is that students will
always need good on-campus accommodation … At Fort Hare, most of
our students come from rural areas which means that when they are not
on campus, they do not have access to vital resources, such as wi-fi, and
social support, which are critical to a student’s ability to succeed. Our goal
is to maximise student success through the provision of accommodation.
Professor Sakhela Buhlungu,
Vice Chancellor, Fort Hare University,
at the opening of the Fort Hare Student Village, 29 May 2021

The coronavirus pandemic has fundamentally altered our world, but it

also provides Wits with a fortuitous moment to hit the reset button and to
envision our moon-shot that could dramatically change society for good …
You do not usher in a vision in a moment of euphoria. You do it because
the vision you are articulating is as important as the other challenges which
must be overcome.
Professor Zeblon Vilakazi,
Vice Chancellor, University of the Witwatersrand (Wits),
Inauguration address, 29 April 2021

45
Universities, society and development

Introduction
In his 2016 article, Reimagining the city from the internet up, Dan Doctoroff argued
that cities and towns that are based on the internet and the fourth industrial
revolution could potentially look very different from the cities created by modernist
planners in the second and third industrial revolutions of the 20th century. With his
colleagues at the Sidewalk Labs innovation project in New York he argued that the
fundamental shape of the city will need to change to accommodate the internet,
accelerating processes of innovation and producing new urban forms. Cities, he
argued, will need to become quite different places for society to realise the full
benefits of digitalisation and the power of the internet. Doctoroff (2016) believed
that a new situation had emerged similar to that at the turn of the 20th century
when the Victorian industrial city was no longer tenable and had to be redesigned
to eradicate slums; incorporate new innovations; address urban growth; and reduce
poverty, disease and human degradation.
Looking at history, one can make the argument that the greatest periods of
economic growth and productivity have occurred when we have integrated
innovation into the physical environment, especially in cities. The steam
engine, the electricity grid, the automobile all fundamentally transformed
urban life, but we haven’t really seen much change in our cities since before
World War II. If you compare pictures of cities from the 1870s and the 1940s,
it is like night and day. If you make the same comparison from the 1940s to
today, hardly anything has changed. Thus, it is not surprising that, despite
the rise of computers and the internet, growth has slowed and productivity
increases are so low … Our mission is to accelerate the process of urban
innovation. (Doctoroff, 2016:12)

The turn of the 20th century and the crisis in urbanisation which accompanied it
produced visionary urban thinkers such as Patrick Geddes and Ebenezer Howard,
who promoted the idea of the “garden city”, an imagined new urban form for the new
century. By the 1930s, as families gained access to private automobiles, and new
machines restructured industrial work, the city was again reshaped into an even
more spatially expansive social form, now sub-divided into different functional parts.
Growth, productivity, efficiency and well-being came to be predicated on the idea that
each area or zone in the city had to be designed to perform a specialised function
which contributed to the working of the urban whole. Single-function spatial planning
became embedded in planning practices and was seen as a pre-requisite to unlocking
urban growth and development. This model also gained popularity globally because
it was effective at segregating people, for example, by pushing aside minorities and
entrenching white middle-class interests and dominance. Modernist planning reg-
imes were also adopted in African colonial settler cities, where the northern models
were adjusted to ensure that racial segregation was strictly enforced. In South African
this planning regime has been called “racial modernism” (Bank, 2011; Bozzoli, 2004;
Robinson, 2006).

46
 Re-imagining African university towns

The broad acceptance of single-purpose modernist planning and its longevity was
an important product of the nature of industrial and urban change during the 20th
century; but the popularity of the approach was also a function of the politics of the
era, which supported the new kinds of cities that were being created at this time.
One of the greatest inventions of the modernist city was the creation of the suburbs.
These spaces were constructed as a place where well-paid working- and middle-
class male breadwinners with private cars could break ties with the compact, inner-
city tenements which had formerly been their homes. They could remake their lives
and family forms in more affluent, open surroundings, which were also more rural and
healthier for their children. In America, racial modernism produced the inner-city black
ghetto (Dunier, 2016), which effectively left black residential life outside the pursuit of
modernity, while in Africa colonial governments created ‘native towns’ (Fanon, 1961)
or what Huchzermeyer (2011) calls cities with slums. In his writing on the need for
violence in revolutionary anti-colonial struggles in Africa, Fanon (1961) insisted that
the liberated elites and their followers would always be tempted to seize the luxury
of the settler suburbs for themselves. He argued that such neo-colonial strategies
should be rejected in favour of a complete social and political transformation of the
former settler city away from prejudicial Eurocentric planning models and colonial
cultural tendencies (ibid).

However, by the turn of the 21st century, the modernist model of urban planning had
lost momentum, not only because of the decline of the male-breadwinner ideal, the
impact of feminism and the growing ethnic diversity of cities, but also because the
nature of capitalism and production had changed with the growth of new services,
technologies and financialisation in northern cities. Suddenly, leading former indus-
trial cities of the 20th century were facing deindustrialisation, creating an urban crisis
for the working classes (Castells, 1978). In the late 20th century and early 21st century,
the focus shifted to centralising the city and rebuilding the urban core with new
economic forms, and bringing residents back to the city centre. As part of such efforts,
universities and other place- and knowledge-based institutions such as hospitals and
museums which acted as urban ‘anchors’ played a major role in reviving the centres
of major northern cities socially, culturally and economically (Bank, 2019; Perry &
Villamizar-Duarte, 2018). Young and creative classes moved into the urban cores,
enticed by falling real-estate prices, while commercial and industrial tenants moved
out (Florida, 2003; 2017). A new kind of creative endeavour refashioned heritage
buildings, warehouses and lofts into new restaurants, music venues, art galleries
and accommodation. Amidst these efforts, the role of the universities in the inner
cities changed as they increasingly looked beyond the campus gates towards their
neighbourhoods and host cities, often creating what became known as ‘innovation
districts’ in the process (Drucker, Kayanan & Renski, 2019; Katz & Bradly, 2013; Katz &
Wagner, 2014; Sharma, 2012).

47
Universities, society and development

In a new book on the American experience, Anchoring Innovation Districts:

The Entrepreneurial University and Urban Change, Costas Spirou (2021), provost
and vice president at Georgia College & State University, celebrated this turn in the
American university system which dates back to the 1960s and the creation of Silicon
Valley, but gained enormous momentum in the 21st century. He cited as examples
of the new approach the Boston Innovation District; Georgia State’s inner-city
regeneration efforts in Atlanta; and many other university-city ‘incubators’, ‘city labs’,
‘hubs, ‘start-ups’ and ‘accelerators’ across the country. At the same time, some critics
expressed scepticism about the benefits of such developments, saying that these
districts or precincts have driven spatial inequality and undermined the traditional
mission of the university as a space for critical, non-utilitarian intellectual pursuit.
At the core of Spirous’ (2021) work, and many others who champion the power of
innovation districts, is the belief that capitalism is currently in crisis and rebuilding a
new productive economy through ‘creative destruction’ where older forms of value
creation and accumulation are replaced by new forms. The knowledge economy
of the university is seen to have a critical role to play in the process. In the United
States of Ameria (USA) great faith has been placed in the private sector in driving the
process at an arms-length from state intervention and control, while in Europe and
Asia, and especially China, the belief is that the state could play an instrumental role
in the process and mitigate the possibility of excessive inequality and privatisation in
city campus precincts (ibid).

One of the key issues in these debates is the role of anchor institutions, such as
higher education institutions and hospitals, and their agency in the creation of new
knowledge-intensive economic hubs (Drucker et al., 2019; Katz & Bradley, 2013).
The idea of an anchor strategy is derived from the understanding that public sector
institutions, like universities or museums and hospitals, are unlike businesses that
can easily move to more favourable locations when times get tough. In many run-
down precincts in cities, public sector anchor institutions continue to function,
often under difficult conditions. An anchor strategy is an urban upliftment or
development approach which builds place-based renewal into those institutions that
are ‘anchored in place’ (Bank, Cloete & van Schalkwyk, 2018). Innovation districts
are places where city planners incentivise investment for urban economic renewal,
especially geared toward technology companies. Where anchor strategies succeed,
they are often supported with innovation districts. Innovation districts and anchor
strategies thus have a great deal to do with the perceived need for new forms of
capital formation, entrepreneurship, and innovation in the remaking of capitalism
in the 21st century, but the entrepreneurial university, celebrated by Spirou (2021) is
neither the necessary nor the inevitable outcome of the process of moving beyond

48
 Re-imagining African university towns

the traditional university model. What innovation produces and the world it creates
is potentially much more open than we often imagine, but that depends on the kind
of social contract created between institutions of knowledge production, capital,
citizens and the state (Perry & Villamizar-Duarte, 2018).

The anchor-strategy and innovation-district debates have thus not been limited
only to the USA. They have also become central to discussions about the future
of universities across Europe and Asia, where commonly adopted models for
development have tended to involve a much greater level of state involvement led
by municipal and regional planners. What is clear, however, is that this discussion
about the urbanisation of higher education and the role of universities in new forms
of capital formation have so far had relatively little impact in Africa, and especially
not in the small towns and secondary cities on the continent. In the USA, one of the
driving forces behind the rise of innovation districts and anchor strategies has been a
growing disillusionment with the state as an agent for urban growth and social change.
In Africa, the debate has focused more on issues of decolonisation than economic
integration or innovation. There has also historically been a closer relationship
between universities and the state in Africa than in parts of the Global North.
The evolution of higher education on the continent has been closely connected with
post-colonial state formation, with universities being regarded as infrastructures for
nationalism and incubators for a new generation of civil servants and technicians.
In many parts of Africa, senior university personnel, including deans, faculty heads
and vice-chancellors, continue to be appointed by government officials and politic-
ians rather than their academic peers. In addition, the general lack of industrialisation
in Africa and the historical location of universities away from busy, overcrowded
city centres has meant that some of the themes and issues in the northern debates
have not seemed to have been that applicable, despite the developmental challenges
associated with the continent’s urbanisation and the need for African universities to
play a larger role in urban revitalisation.

In the first opening quote at the top of this chapter, Sakhela Buhlungu, the current
vice-chancellor of the University of Fort Hare, which is a historically disadvantaged
South African institution that is closely associated with the history of African
nationalism, expressed his satisfaction with the fruits of a huge new state investment
in student housing on the university’s rural campus at Alice. He stressed the need for
restitution and redress to allow the university to take its seat alongside the leading
academic institutions in the nation. In the second quote, the new vice chancellor of
the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits), Zeblon Vilakazi, seemed to embrace the
integrated urban innovation model which has become so popular in the Global North.
He appeared to suggest that Wits must drive urban innovation in Johannesburg
and across the continent. Both vice-chancellors also referred to the impact of the

49
Universities, society and development

coronavirus pandemic on their universities and the ways in which their approaches
would assist with the adaptions required in the face of the outbreak. The view of
the two vice-chancellors represents a continuum between the reconstitution of the
traditional university in the case of Fort Hare in Alice, but with a distinct focus on
redress and restitution, and the re-imagination of the large formerly white metropolitan
universities as anchor institutions for the reshaping of the African city, innovation,
and capital formation on the continent.

Referencing these visions of change, this chapter focuses in some detail on

the implications of the strategies suggested by the two vice-chancellors for the
development of the African college towns and secondary cities. However, the
discussion starts with the issue of how the coronavirus, as well as climate change and
the arrival of the fourth industrial revolution, are already changing the way scholars
are thinking about the city of the future. In particular, the paper considers the idea of
the 15-minute city which has been developed by Franco-Colombian scholar Carlos
Moreno (2019) at the Sorbonne in Paris (which has been adopted by a number of
mayors and been awarded the global 2021 Hendrick Obel Award in architecture).
This vision offers a different perspective on ‘creative destruction’ in the current
moment of crisis (Moreno, 2019). He argues that the entrepreneurial cultures of the
inner city, however compromised by de-industrialisation, are not worth recouping
through new processes of urban intensification and capital accumulation. He argues
instead for urban decentralisation and the destruction of modernist forms of Chrono-
urbanism, based on linear time, commuter lifestyles and a general disassociation
with place, towards more sustainable urban forms that are locally contained and
increasingly autonomous, but interconnected.

The chapter begins with a careful consideration of Moreno’s (2019) vision of the
post-Covid-19 15-minute city as a new post-capitalism vision, before exploring some
of the dimensions of the double helix complex and decolonisation in South African
(and African) higher education, where there is growing level of interest in anchor
strategies and partnership models for university reconstruction. The chapter then
shows how easily the Fort Hare redevelopment strategy was able to brush aside calls
for greater town and gown integration, while some of the major, large metropolitan
universities are edging closer towards the innovation-orientated entrepreneurial
model of the Global North. The paper concludes by suggesting that African higher
education authorities, government officials and town planners urgently need to
engage in debates on the function of universities in urbanisation and the future of the
continent. The provocative suggestion of this chapter is that scholars would do well
to think beyond Covid-19 and the entrepreneurial university by re-imagining college
towns and even secondary city campuses through the lens of sustainability.

50
 Re-imagining African university towns

Covid-19, the 15-minute city and the urban core

Since the Covid-19 outbreak of 2020 which brought cities to a standstill around the
world, fundamental questions have been raised about the future of central-place theory
and the urban form against the background of a deepening global environmental
and health crisis. One of the leading thinkers in this period has been Carlos Moreno
(2019), who coined the term ‘the 15-minute city’. This concept proposes that urban
life must shift away from automobile dependence, the need for hyper-mobility,
economic inequality, and social alienation in order to address the multi-layered
crisis of 21st century urban living effectively. Moreno (ibid) recommended scaling
down significant elements of everyday existence to the neighbourhood level and in
the process recovering forms of human existence which have been long forgotten.
The new neighbourhoods, he argued, must be socially diverse, economically inclusive,
walkable, mixed-used, green spaces for work and leisure. All the amenities necessary
for urban living, including transit links to other places, as well as hospitals, shopping,
parks and gardens, should be accessible within a 15-minute walk.

Well before the Covid-19 outbreak, Moreno’s (ibid) work aimed to address the
dominance of single-purpose buildings and neighbourhoods; the growing stress
of urban work routines; alienation among neighbours in the city; and especially
the continued influence of the automobile in urban planning. In response to these
problems, he demanded that urban life be scaled back; time be reclaimed; speed
reduced; and urban life re-centred to make neighbourhoods meaningful, social,
and inclusive. Reconfiguring urban life, Moreno (ibid) insisted, required making
cities more liveable, resilient and equitable by encouraging mixed-use development
and fostering a sense of place-based solidarity among local residents. This meant
bringing people out of their homes into public spaces and encouraging them to walk,
cycle, meet, socialise and work locally. It meant reimagining life on the ground floor.
Moreno (ibid) sought to replace the functionalist models and automotive paradigm
of the modernist era with something more intimate and environmentally sustainable.
‘Proximity’ be-came a key word in his conception of the new city. Everything had to be
close-by, accessible by bike or a short walk. ‘Density’ was another key word. The focus
here was on finding appropriate densities in neighbourhoods to produce sustainable
ways of life, rather than the commercial property-developer-driven versions of the
term, which merely entail increasing densities to maximise profits. ‘Diversity’ was a
third key principle embraced by the model. Here the emphasis was on the need to
bring together diverse social groups and people with different levels of income in
the same spaces to break down urban intolerance and spatial inequality. ‘Digitisation’
was the fourth key component as Moreno and his colleagues imagined that the new
neighbourhoods would be powered by smart-city technologies to enhance service
delivery and connectivity. Services such as online shopping, cashless transactions,
cyber-security, and virtual communication would be accessed from the home to allow
work to continue there, saving commuting time and reducing the need for travel.

51
Universities, society and development

Urban Services

Density

Proximity
15-Minute Diversity
City

Digitalisation

Urban Data

Figure 3.1 Introducing the ‘15-Minute City’: Sustainability, resilience and

place identity in future post-pandemic cities (from Moreno et al., 2021:10)

Moreno’s (2019) vision was that neighbourhoods should be polyrhythmic (people

have different social and personal paces) and polychronic (the uses of the places
should vary according to time), while the city itself had to be polycentric to survive,
that is, it should splinter into a multiplicity of different neighbourhoods which would
be self-sufficient in terms of services, opportunities and amenities. Moreno (2019)
wrote:
The city of proximities seeks to combine social and environmental
responsibility and well-being, in daily life, through the deployment of low
carbon mobility, shared with local services, also supported by the possibility
of digital technology. The new urban model proposes a virtuous cycle in which
time, space, quality of life and sociability are closely linked.

Moreno’s vision found some realisation as Covid-19 lockdowns were slowly lifted
and people began to circulate in much quieter city precincts, while they continued
working from home, and began to know and encounter each other in place in
ways that they had never experienced before because they had been too busy, too
hidden, too driven (in their cars), too private and too alienated from their local areas.
In this regard, the impact of Covid-19 restrictions in scaling city life down to the
neighbourhood level and reducing speed and movement resulted in the rediscovery

52
 Re-imagining African university towns

of place and an experience of urban life without the cars and the hustle – creating
a time for reflection, walking and proximity. However, the new rules only fostered this
new way of experiencing cities in the context of social isolation, which was a goal
of government restrictions intended to contain the spread of the virus. By contrast,
Moreno (2019) proposed remaking the city at the neighbourhood scale in the context
of greater interpersonal contacts on the streets, in the parks and shops and at sports
grounds, so that the entire ground floor of the neighbourhood could become a new
kind of social space. Thus, Moreno’s work revisited the thinking of the great Swiss-
French modernists, such as Le Corbusier, but also built on critiques of modernism,
especially Jane Jacobs’ argument in her 1961 tome, Death and Life of Great
American Cities; Lewis Mumford’s (1938; 1961) persistent criticism of suburbia and
single-function planning; and a more recent body of work by scholars such as Richard
Sennet (2018) on dwelling and building in cities. This literature stresses the centrality
of place, public life and social connectedness to the value of the urban experience.

Moreno (2019) associated the rescaling and re-orientating of the city with a re-
engagement with place-based identities, as residents started to love and protect
the places in which they lived. Accordingly, he promoted the notions of chrono-
urbanism, which relates to feelings of time and rhythm in the city, and topofilia,
which relates to feelings of affect and affiliation to places and space. He also wrote
about the role of well-crafted places in the economic growth and development of
the city and of adjacent urban areas:
The place identity concept also allows cities to create anew or capitalise
on their inherent and unique heritage like culture, art, education, health
and others; thus, allowing them to remain competitive, while retaining their
uniqueness and community heritage…. When place identity is well-crafted,
deployed and achieved, cities are able to attract new business opportunities
and in the long term manage to contribute to improving the quality of lives
of their residents, while reverberating positively on adjacent urban areas.
(Moreno et al., 2021:100)

The idea of the 15-minute city idea has received great attention globally and has
been adopted in various ways as a part of neighbourhood reconfiguration efforts in
cities including Paris, Seattle and Melbourne. Dunning, Calafiore and Nurse (2021)
highlight the genealogy of the 15-minute city, while arguing that it still needs to be
effectively put in practice:
Moreno puts a new title to an older idea within urban planning – that of
mixed-use high-density living. While elements of this model (proximity to
urban green spaces and mixed-use communities) overlap with the Garden
City movement, there is more than a nod to arguments by Jane Jacobs (who
was a staunch critic of the Garden City movement) for higher urban density
and mixed uses, ideas that were built upon through New Urbanism. While this
is not the place to resolve the conflict between Jacobs and the Garden City

53
Universities, society and development

movement, part of the apparent dichotomy is in the application of concepts

for urban living on pre-existing urban forms or new settlements. Jacobs was
driven by the actual, the Garden City movement by the possible. And so, the
15-minute city or 20-minute neighbourhood, drawing on lessons from both,
requires planning for the possible in the context of the existing.

Some of the insights in Moreno’s model are reinforced by Richard Florida (2021),

whose work on the creative class and inner-city revival was behind much of
the innovation-district thinking of the early 2000s. In May 2021, he wrote in the
Bloomberg CityLab that city centres would not die as some pundits had predicted
once office-workers and academics took their laptops home and disconnected
from their inner-city neighbourhoods and offices. At the same time, he noted, these
areas would not return to business as usual after the pandemic. He argued that the
urban cores were too well-placed, too infrastructurally connected and too crucial
to the overall functioning of the city for them to lose their importance. But, at the
same time, he predicted that office workers would only return to the city centre
for between 50% to 75% of their working hours. This would mean that companies
would need different types of spaces for workers, and much less space overall
(Florida, 2021). Skyscrapers and office blocks would need to be converted to other
uses, including residential ones; and new ways of sustaining the density of people
which had previously made these areas economically viable would need to be found.
Meanwhile, new forms of work in third spaces, which were neither conventional
offices nor home-spaces would also emerge and gain traction. He explained:
The office of the future will be less of a cubicle-farm where workers park
behind their laptops and more an arena of social interaction. Offices will
have to be healthier, more spread out, with more common areas and meeting
places, and more outdoor space. Employers will need to ply their workers with
amenities…to coax their workers away from their home offices. (Florida, 2021)

He further suggested that the central business district would need to move away
from single function uses and become a ‘central social district’ in order to drive a
return to the inner city. Indeed, Florida (2021) suggested that many inner-city or
mid-town districts in America had already been moving towards becoming 24/7
mixed-use areas, with pedestrianisation and the installation of cycle paths, greater
social diversity, and increasingly open physical and digital access. He recommended
strengthening this trend by building much needed affordable housing in the inner-
city spaces opened by the impacts of Covid-19 lockdowns and supporting the
establishment of ‘minority-owned businesses’ which encourage diversity. These
measures, he suggested, would help to address the inequalities and hyper-exclusion
produced by the gentrification of central places. He concluded: “We have a once in a
century opportunity to turn our business districts and our cities into something better,
less divided, and more inclusive. Shame on us if we fail to grasp it” (Florida, 2021).

54
 Re-imagining African university towns

Returning to Dan Doctoroff (2016) and his vision of the city of the internet, there
appears to be two alternative visions here of what this ‘once in a century moment’
brought on by the coronavirus, may produce: a restoration of the urban core
along the lines encouraged by Florida; or the creation of a radically different and
decentralised, neighbourhood-based model for city- or town-building and urban
development. In African urban contexts, it has been noted, centrality has never
been as powerful a socio-economic force as has been the case in the Global North.
African cities, like many others in the Global South, tend to sprawl over space,
but there is also clustering around historic grids and existing infrastructure. In many
African cities layer upon layer of settlement is laminated over and beyond the old
colonial city map, creating something new, expansive and polycentric. Moreover, the
extractive, primary-resource-based nature of many African economies meant that
African cities were generally not anchored by large industrial precincts close to the
city centre, except in a few industrial cities in southern Africa, such as Johannesburg.

The most common function of urban central places in Africa has been as centres
for trade and administration. They are places of social density and mixed uses, with
formal and informal markets (and increasingly malls and other shopping complexes)
standing alongside government administration buildings. Meanwhile, education and
health care were often not directly connected with urbanisation on the continent
as some of the best schools and hospitals were located at or near former mission
stations. Post-school training was often largely rural with agricultural schools and
post-school training colleges scattered across small towns and urban areas. After
independence, the new universities were symbols of nationhood and modernity.
They were seldom concentrated in the centre of cities but were often strategically
located on hill tops on the outskirts, with statues and modernist architecture befitting
the new nation. In South Africa, the new ‘homeland’ universities of the 1970s were
always strategically situated on an elevated plain or close to a major road so that
everyone could view these icons of the country’s progress. These symbols of modern
national development were not to be diluted or diminished by being integrated into
busy informal business centres.

The double-helix, Fort Hare and the African university

A combination of geography, when they were built, and their function as centres for
training civil servants and developing a new post-colonial middle class has defined
how many African universities have developed. Against this background, a number
of the northern city-campus development models to which those in the Global South
have at times looked for inspiration appear to make little immediate sense. At the
same time, the close connection between the university and state formation in
Africa has been a source of considerable criticism. In 1961, Franz Fanon expressed
considerable scepticism about the educated classes and how they were likely to use

55
Universities, society and development

colonial education and a sense of refinement acquired by imitating the behaviours

of the former settlers to distance themselves from their fellow Africans, whom they
saw as inferior because of their lack of western education. Fanon (1961) argued that
the ease with which this emerging class could simply inherit the privileges of the
settler elites they had removed would make their lives comfortable and may lead
to them becoming unproductive, parasitic, unscrupulous and unable to complete
the intellectual and political project of liberation (Fanon, 1961; Mbembe, 2021). In a
similar vein, when renowned Ugandan Africanist Mahmood Mamdani took over the
leadership of the Centre for African Studies at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in the
1990s, he gave warning that the Africanisation of universities in South Africa would
not transform them unless it was accompanied by decolonisation. He complained
that academics in other parts of Africa were still largely captured by the state and
served the elitist concerns of those who paid their salaries, or the donors and western
development aid agencies that shaped their national political agendas. In 2010,
Mamdani returned to Makerere University in Kampala from Columbia University in
New York to open MISER, the Makerere Institute for Social and Economic Research,
which would not be determined by the conditionalities of western funding agencies
and the agendas of government development projects. Mamdani said that the
ambition of the new institute was to build a new generation of scholars who could
ponder Africa anew beyond the frameworks of colonial knowledge systems, western
imitation and a dominant neo-liberal policy and development agenda.

A year later in 2011, the Cameroonian scholar Francis Nyamnjoh (2012) published
a paper in which he made similar points about the co-opted character of the African
academy, which, he asserted, continued to imitate and reproduce the values of
colonial education. Nyamnjoh (2012) launched a blistering attack on what he saw
as the majority of African academics, who appeared to him to be ‘potted plants’,
trapped in splendid isolation in a reified atmosphere of social disconnection and
uncritical mimicry, self-congratulation and self-importance. Unlike Mamdani, who
came from eastern Africa, Nyamnjoh used case material from his experiences
in west Africa to show how universities and schools reproduced a version of the
academy that deviated little from colonial models of education. Accordingly, he
questioned the philosophical basis of current primary and secondary education
efforts on the continent and the status economy of its higher education system,
which seemed to be obsessed with foreign degrees, certificates, and qualifications.
Nyamnjoh suggested that Africa was unlikely to find its own voice and perspective
until fundamental changes were implemented across the system. He recommended
developing more African journals; increasing the volume of the post-graduate training
which was taking place; and challenging the ideological and academic content of
the western model for higher education. If Mamdani (2008) echoed the earlier writings
of Fanon, Nyamnjoh’s (2012) writing was closely connected to the literary approach

56
 Re-imagining African university towns

of Kenyan author Ngungi wa Thiong’o (2011), who argued that Africanisation

required the inclusion of African knowledge, folk tales and language in the academy
in order to reset its epistemic foundations.

The work of these scholars laid the foundations for the #RhodesMustFall (#RMF)
movement which began in 2015 at the University of Cape Town, an institution which
Mamdani had criticised as untransformed in the 1990s and which Nyamnjoh had
later joined in the 2000s. The #RMF movement emerged in large part because
higher education in South Africa was still in the early phases of transformation,
which meant that Africanisation and redress, especially for those attending the
country’s historically advantaged institutions, remained a critical priority. Students
participating in the #RMF movement and the nationwide (#FMF) protests succeeded
in demanding Africanisation; free higher education for poor and working-class
students; and a decolonisation of teaching and learning practices and the
curricula. The students pushed hard for the government to meet their demands for
Africanisation and improved access to universities, bringing the higher education
system to a standstill and pushing these issues to the top of the political agenda.
The greatest success of the #FMF movement was to extract an agreement from the
state in 2018 to subsidise the higher education of all students with limited means.
Broadly, the students’ struggle focused on the state as an agent for higher education
transformation, expanded access, and upward social mobility, which is consistent
with the wider African experience, under which issues of access to quality education,
subsidisation and Africanisation have taken priority over the decolonisation project.

In the context of this history and the tight coupling of state formation and the
academy in Africa, it is perhaps unsurprising that the double helix between the
state and a dependent academy has dominated the history of higher education on
the continent. In former colonial countries, it was common for the academy to be
captured by the post-colonial state as a vehicle for bureaucratic class formation and
skills development after independence. This dyad was also strengthened by the fact
that former colonies were often still dominated by colonial capital, which meant that
forging a triple helix, which brought capital into the mix, was initially undesirable.
The idea was to use the state and the new post-colonial middle class to build domestic
capital and companies. After independence, forging alliances with foreign or colonial
capital was seen as dangerous and counter revolutionary. In many African countries,
the deans and leading academics in the universities are still appointed by the govern-
ment which highlights how closely political elites, nationalism and the academy
have been knitted together in Africa. The close embrace of state and university also
explains why student activism in South Africa has been mainly directed towards
galvanising the national government rather than engaging regional authorities,
civil society or appealing to private or business interests beyond the campus gate.
The dominant discourse around higher education has also largely been shaped by the

57
Universities, society and development

need to meet national skills targets and deliver on political redress and restitution. By
contrast, in the Global North there has been greater discussion of the need to integrate
town and gown and the role universities can play in driving urban economic development.
This debate, which has been continuing for several decades, intensified with the
turn of the 21st century and especially after the 2008 recession, when the forces of
financialisation brought down urban economies.

Notwithstanding the different trajectories of the debates over the role of higher
education in the different parts of the world, the new models of the university
developed in the Global North, which have emphasised precinct development and
innovation at the city and regional scale, may be considered of increasing relevance
in the Global South. As the politics of #FMF subside and economic crises in South
Africa and Africa deepen, the role of the university in the development of the continent
is being pondered anew as global capital arrives with a particular focus on develop-
ing digital infrastructures to drive investment. In this context, it is important that
Africa considers its options and reflects carefully on its knowledge and innovation
landscape in the face of the new opportunities. As universities move beyond the
double-helix development models of post-colonial Africa and the newer triple helix
community engagement model of the past decade, it will be interesting to see whether
and how northern models and perspectives can be utilised to develop solutions that
are uniquely African.

Traditional university planning: The Fort Hare Student

Village, 2016-2021
On 31 May 2021, the Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technology,
Blade Nzimande, officially opened Phase Two of a new ‘student village’ inside the
grounds of the University of Fort Hare in the small Eastern Cape town of Alice.
The phase was funded by the national Department of Higher Education, which
contributed R128 million; the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA)
which provided loan capital of R278 million; and the university itself to the tune of
R19  million. Nzimande said the R419 million new phase provided an additional
1,440 beds which would enable the university to accommodate 70% of its students
on its Alice campus. The establishment of the Fort Hare Student Village was in
large part a product of the university’s 2016 centenary celebrations, which focused
on the history and legacy of the Alice campus and set out to restore the stature
and dignity of the university as an African institution of higher education. In this
regard, the unveiling represented a seminal achievement for the university, which
had been in urgent need of renewal both in terms of the restoration of its historic
buildings and in relation to the provision of improved student accommodation.
The project also demonstrated the capacity of the university to manage such a large
infrastructure project with the support of government partners and local contractors.

58
 Re-imagining African university towns

At the opening ceremony, Nzimande commended the university for supporting

small-scale contractors and black economic empowerment firms, creating over
1,000 employment opportunities in the process. The vice-chancellor of the university,
Sakhela Buhlungu, said that the completion of the “student housing development is
an important milestone for the university’s ‘decade of renewal’ master plan, which is
setting the university on an ambitious trajectory of reinvention in the 21st century”.
The CEO of the Development Bank of Southern Africa, Patrick Dlamini, said that the
project provided essential infrastructure required to “contribute to economic growth,
create local jobs and [build] strong vibrant communities” (Engineering News, 2021).

On the same day as the unveiling, Statistics South Africa reported that youth
unemployment in South Africa had topped 72% and the national unemployment rate
had reached its highest ever rate at more than 32% (Cape Times, 2021). Meanwhile,
students’ groups across the Eastern Cape were complaining that their degrees from
Fort Hare and Walter Sisulu University were no longer that useful in the job market
with new opportunities in the civil service falling away, and sought to draw attention
to soaring graduate unemployment rates. In this context, although the opening of
a massive new single-purpose, student housing complex behind the gates of Fort
Hare clearly addressed historical backlogs and restored some dignity to an institution
which had trained much of the leadership of African nationalist movements in the
20th century, its larger value as higher education budgets are being cut and national
economic growth more generally has stagnated, is open to question.

Plate 3.1 Fort Hare Student Village on the outer edge of campus, 2021. (Infrastructure News SA)

59
Universities, society and development

Plate 3.2 The Fort Hare Student Village nears completion. The town of Alice is in the background.

In an environment of austerity, in which university infrastructure spending has

taken a back-seat to the subsidisation of student fees, it is difficult to see how the
national Department of Higher Education and Training will be able to replicate
projects such as the Fort Hare student village on other urban and rural campuses
in the next decade. The scale and stature of the project, which began in 2016, was
linked to the centenary of the university and the feeling that the South African ruling
party, the African National Congress (ANC), owed Fort Hare a historic debt for the
role the institution had played in the liberation struggle. The Minister said that Fort
Hare occupied a “distinctive and historical place, not only amongst its education
peers, but also in the memory in the struggle against colonialism and apartheid”
(Linden, 2021:4). He suggested that the investment indicated a desire to disrupt
the century‑long tendency to have historically privileged institutions and promote a
century-long trend of unequal spatial, social and institutional development.
His greatest hope was to see Fort Hare rise, like a phoenix from the ashes, in the
small, struggling Eastern Cape town of Alice. He insisted that:
It is after all here (in Alice) where leaders such as Nelson Mandela,
Govan Mbeki. Oliver Tambo, ZK Matthews, Chris Hani, Ivy Florence Metsepe-
Casaburri and pioneers such as writer Can Themba and South Africa’s the first
black female doctor…honed their skills. We owe it to these pioneers that Fort
Hare is restored to its rightful place in the development of our democracy.
(Linden, 2021:5)

However, in the context of increasing pressure on public funds at the national level
and the university’s own dependence on National Student Financial Aid Scheme
(NSFAS) grants, the construction of a student village where only one phase of a

60
 Re-imagining African university towns

multi-phase project costs over R400 million may not represent the best, or most
cost-effective way of regenerating this historically significant black higher education
institution, especially if the host town of Alice remains insolvent and dysfunctional.

In this regard, the Amatole District Municipality’s economic development agency,

ASPIRE, suggested in 2011 that the viability of the town of Alice was critical to
the future growth and expansion of Fort Hare and the local Technical Vocational
Education and Training (TVET) college, and vice versa. The agency argued that a
small-town regeneration strategy should focus on three strategic objectives:
• The integration of the university and Lovedale Public TVET College with
Alice to help it become a true ‘university town’;
• Supporting a sustainable community by preserving and restoring
community assets and unlocking economic opportunities; and
• Developing an economically active, culturally vibrant community by
encouraging investment.

The ASPIRE report suggested that these three strategic objectives should be
underpinned by a number of key enablers, namely, the disposal of state-owned
land; the upgrading of infrastructure; and a commitment to an integrated, inclusive
approach to development. The report also noted that:
Two catalytic projects have been identified for implementation, namely
the upgrading of the Alice business district and creation of a Civic Core,
and the development of middle-income residential property and student
accommodation. These catalytic projects will be supported by the promotion
and development of agriculture around and agri-processing in Alice, the
development of ICT infrastructure and services in Alice, and the preservation
and restoration of heritage assets and development of heritage tourism in
Alice. (ASPIRE, 2011:10)

The report also called for intensified investment in the urban centre and greater
integration between town and gown. The spatial isolation of Fort Hare’s campus in
Alice and its limited connection with the surrounding town, along with its disrepair,
were subsequently raised as critical issues by Professor Glen Mills in his contri-
bution to a Long-Range Plan for Fort Hare produced in 2013 which attempted to
align the university’s planning with the National Development Plan. Mills, a former
head of architecture and design at Wits, noted that the historical character of the
university had been overlooked; and its original fort building and related spaces had
been ignored. He described how the student and staff experiences on campus were
restricted in the absence of proper recreational, entertainment, commercial and
cultural facilities, and any connection with a viable university town. Mills (2013) noted
that Alice was suffering from neglect and a lack of vision or a spatial framework for
its development as a university town. As a result, the place was run-down, derelict

61
Universities, society and development

and lacked the infrastructure required for decent urban living. It also lacked, he said,
visitor and tourist appeal, although it had great potential for urban and economic
renewal. He concluded that: “More university buildings and facilities in Alice will
intensify connections between the campus and the city and will be mutually beneficial
for both citizens and scholars” (Mills, 2013:5); and that “pedestrian and spatial linkages
between the campus and the city are inadequate and this arrests the socio-economic
performance of the whole” (ibid).

Apparently, before signing off on the student village plan which came to fruition in
2013, the university council considered the option of placing the proposed new
accommodation in the town and discussed this with the Department of Human
Settlements and the Department of Higher Education and Training. However, after
careful deliberation, the decision was made to consolidate the university as a tradi-
tional gated higher education institution and not to try and engage with the complex
issues of regenerating the town of Alice. The primary focus of the investment in the
campus was to restore the integrity of Fort Hare as the national liberation university
and bastion of African nationalism in southern Africa. The vice-chancellor and the
ministry clearly felt that improvement of the university in its present manifestation as
a traditional, single-purpose, self-contained campus facility should be the goal, rather
than any effort to produce an integrated town and campus precinct.

In November 2020, Buhlungu told Engineering News that the new student housing
development would increase the university’s capacity to accommodate students
on campus from under 50% to more than 65% of the cohort (Engineering News,
2020). As quoted above, he said that the student village represented a timeless
investment in the future saying that Covid-19 has placed higher education in a state
of flux, and there are many uncertainties but: “one thing that is certain, however,
is that students will always need good on-campus accommodation” (Engineering
News, 2020). In the same article, John Schooling, a director at STAG African,
a commercial student housing firm which was working on the project, said:
Good on-campus accommodation means providing more than just beds – it’s
also about creating a safe space where students can learn effectively. Over
60% of learning at the tertiary level occurs outside of a lecture hall, within
the communities we create on campus – this is known as the hidden context
of learning (ibid).

62
 Re-imagining African university towns

Plate 3.3 Priority investment sites for the regeneration of Alice as proposed in the
2011 ASPIRE report.

Plate 3.4 Location of the new student village.

63
Universities, society and development

Meanwhile, Matthew Beard, a contracts manager at Dewing Construction, which was

also working on the project, noted that the development had contributed towards
the general upliftment of Alice through job creation, and by creating demand for
accommodation, food and other necessities, saying: “Local SMMEs [small, micro-
and medium-sized enterprises] were brought on board to assist, and through learning
and skills development, this project will positively impact businesses and residents
in Alice in the long term” (ibid). Given that R63 million went missing from the money
allocated for refurbishing residences during 2016 under then deputy vice-chancellor
of operational affairs, Dr Jabulani Mjwara, it is a matter of significance that the new
vice-chancellor, Sakhela Buhlungu, stewarded the project to completion between
2017 and 2021 without any further budgetary challenges (ibid).

Nevertheless, one is left wondering about the sustainability of the investment in the
light of the poor infrastructure and lack of viability of the host town of Alice which
has around 15,000 residents. The campus is gated and separated from the town;
but with an open, integrated planning scheme, Alice and the Fort Hare campus could
be brought together to form a 15-minute city precinct, along the lines outlined by
Moreno (2019). There are other historical schools and buildings in the town, such
as the run-down, famous mission schools of Lovedale and Healdtown, as well as
the old missionary-run Victoria Hospital. There is also a train station in the village
and plenty of agricultural land for food gardens and woodlots. The campus and city
are relatively flat and easy to traverse on bike or by foot within 15 minutes. What
is missing is high-speed internet, digital connectivity and functional schools and
facilities for academic staff and workers in the town. In 2020, Fort Hare was one of
the South African universities which could not complete the academic year on time
because it was unable to manage the transition to online and blended learning. The
longstanding problem of poor internet infrastructure and connectivity on the Alice
campus, which has hampered education there for some time, was a major factor
in this. A more open attitude towards integrating town and gown combined with
increased efforts to improve internet connectivity to enable teaching and learning to
take place from anywhere, could produce significant new possibilities for small-town
regeneration in Alice, in line with some of the ideas expressed by Moreno (2019) in his
conceptualisation of the 15-minute city.

‘Shooting at the moon’: Innovation and anchor strategies

in Gauteng
In contrast to the traditionalist, double-helix approach adopted at Fort Hare, some
of the big urban campuses in South Africa have started to look outwards into their
neighbourhoods in new ways (also see Mabin, 2018). A good example is Wits.

64
 Re-imagining African university towns

The urban integration appetite and ethos of the university was well expressed by the
institution’s new vice chancellor, Zeblon Vilakazi, who said during his inauguration
speech in April 2021:
The coronavirus pandemic has fundamentally altered our world, but it also
provides Wits with a fortuitous moment to hit the reset button and to envision
our moonshot that could dramatically change society for good…You do not
usher in a vision in a moment of euphoria. You do it because the vision
you are articulating is as important as the other challenges which must be
overcome. (Macupe, 2021)

Vilakazi emphasised in his address the importance of universities and strong public
institutions in society, in particular the role of universities in developing active social
citizens, leaders, intellectuals, innovators and critical thinkers. He also outlined three
key priorities for the university: “We must focus on developing academically excellent
graduates who leave their mark on society; we must continue to conduct world-class
research and foster innovation and entrepreneurship; and we must use our location
in the economic heartland of Africa to lead from the global south” (Macupe, 2021).
One way in which Wits has sought to foster local development is through its efforts
to transform the Braamfontein district of Johannesburg, which is in its immediate
neighbourhood, and through that agency to help the city strengthen its position as
an economic leader and innovator on the African continent. Vilakazi’s vision stressed
the conventional themes of academic excellence and institutional advancement,
while also embracing the wider challenges of the city-region and the continent. At the
same time, he was not suggesting that Wits connect with its immediate neighbour-
hood, city and region as envisaged under Moreno’s (2019) 15-minute city model.

In this regard, it is worth noting the techno-centric and commercial bent of the
university’s sense of its own achievements in the neighbourhood, in particular its
focus on its role in helping to establish the Wits’ Tshimologong Digital Precinct in
Braamfontein through a corporate partnership with IBM. In June 2019, IBM issued a
press release hailing its relationship with the university as driving quantum computing
efforts into Africa. The technology giant described the partnership as a gateway for
academic collaboration across South Africa and the continent, including with the
other 15 African universities which, along with Wits, comprise the African Research
Universities Alliance (ARUA). Vilakazi, who was deputy vice-chancellor for research
and postgraduate affairs at the time, said the collaboration would “drive innovation in
frontier-technologies and benefit African-based researchers, academics and students
who now have access to decades of quantum computing capabilities at the click of
a button” (in Moyo, 2019). IBM said that the collaboration with Wits had brought the
university into the IBM Q Network, which it described as a community of Fortune
500 companies, start-ups, academic institutions, and research labs established to
advance quantum computing and explore practical applications for business and

65
Universities, society and development

science in Johannesburg and across Africa. It was anticipated that researchers at

Wits would investigate the use of quantum computing and machine learning in the
fields of molecular biology with a specific focus on HIV drug research and cosmology
(Moyo, 2019).

This techno-centric vision contrasts with the vision of technology’s uses presented by
Moreno (2019), whose work has been guided by a conviction that cities should
be, first and foremost, places for human habitation, livelihood-making and social
solidarity, rather than places where humans submit to smart technologies and profit-
seeking companies. In fact, Moreno et al. (2021:105) criticised the smart city concept,
which, they noted, was often “overshadowed by the enterprising orientations of
ICT [information and communications technology] providers who are inspired solely by
the lucrative profit margins that this model presents”. As a result, they suggested that
smart-city solutions seldom sought to address social exclusion, embrace divers-ity
and reduce economic inequality, but rather tended to be focussed on selling high-end
services to those who could afford them or had the means and technical know-how
to incorporate them into their daily lives. They also noted that the smart city concept
was now being widely used in the housing market to deepen inequality and drive
gentrification, with the rich gravitating to smart-city neighbourhoods. The strategy
adopted at Wits, especially in the Braamfontein east campus precinct, is very similar
to that adopted by some of the innovation districts in the big technology-anchored
American cities where IBM is a major tenant. In this regard, one of the challenges
for new development in South Africa has been that many of the new technology
firms, including Amazon, are now gravitating to Cape Town. This is partly due to the
landing of two major, high-speed underwater cables in the city in recent years which
will guarantee the infrastructure needed for rapid technology-based expansion. In
October 2021, Cape Town received another major boost in its ambition to become
the Silicon Valley of Africa when the technology-focused 4 Africa Stock Exchange,
a rival to the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE), moved its headquarters there
from Johannesburg.

Meanwhile, Vilakazi has not been alone in seeking to promote a new, bold, city-
facing vision for the African university. In February 2021, President Cyril Ramaphosa
announced in his annual state of the nation address to parliament that a new
comprehensive science and innovation university would be developed in the
vicinity of OR Tambo international airport in the former industrial heartland of the
East Rand, which is today the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality. The mayor of
Ekurhuleni had been complaining for several years that the metro, which is home
to over 3 million people, was the only one in the country without its own university.
He had demanded that the government rectify that situation. In 2017, the strategic
manager for special projects in the metro, Pieter Swanepoel, publicly announced that
feasibility work for a higher education institute was underway. The plan was that the

66
 Re-imagining African university towns

new tertiary institution would focus on improving the skills of youth, especially in
the fields of science and technology, to support re-industrialisation and assist with
the conversion of the OR Tambo airport precinct into an “aerotropolis”. Swanepoel
said the institution would be “established as a comprehensive higher education
institution that is funded by a combination of private and public entities” and that
“continuous engagement with various stakeholders, private and public, will be given
to flesh out the funding model, ownership structure, the vision, mission and fields of
study” (Business Times, 2020). In 2021, Ramaphosa confirmed that the university
would become a reality, although he did not specify time frames for its development.
Preliminary work on the university is now proceeding and the Department of
Science and Innovation has indicated that it is open to alternative models for the
funding and spatial integration/configuration of the campus. It seems clear that the
new campus is not being imagined as a spatially dis-connected and unintegrated
facility in the metro but will likely be located on a site adjacent to the airport so that it
may be readily integrated into the imagined aerotropolis.

Another model for university-city engagement has been pursued for some years
in Tshwane, where the integration of the University of Pretoria (UP) into its urban
environment has gained considerable momentum following the declaration of an
anchor strategy for the redevelop-ment of the Hatfield precinct. Working closely
with other public and private partners in a project to maintain and improve the area,
the university helped to establish a City Improvement District (CID) in the precinct
in 2004. This produced a formal framework for a triple-helix relationship and has
helped to shape spatial planning processes in the area, as well the university’s
own identity. UP now contributes 50% of the levies for the CID, which seeks to
maintain and improve safety and the integrity of the built environment in the
neighbourhood by helping with policing; refuse collection; the removal of graffiti;
and other basic improvement matters. In 2020, the precinct attracted international
funding from the Kresge Foundation in Detroit, which is closely involved in US
innovation and anchor strategies. The funding has been earmarked to support
the development of a Hatfield Campus Village Urban Design Framework over the
next few decades (UP, 2021). The development of this framework will likely entail
the introduction of some of the key elements of Moreno’s (2019) 15-minute city,
such as reducing carbon emissions; increasing green spaces; and making the
precinct walkable and more socially inclusive, diverse and sustainable. The Hatfield
engagement embraces a model of multiple partnerships, although it is more focused
on real estate and the quality of the university-city neighbourhood than on immediate
opportunities for economic development through technological transitions.

67
Universities, society and development

Conclusion
It seems clear that thinking about the relationship between the university and the city
is undergoing dramatic change in Africa, as appears to be happening for example
in the large conurbations in the Gauteng city-region. This is not to say that the
historic focus on universities as sites for training civil servants and supporting state
formation has fallen away. Governments continue to demand loyalty and support
from university faculty and staff members in many countries. However, at the same
time, the economic landscape across the continent is changing rapidly, especially
with the expansion of new ICT infrastructures which are creating new possibilities
for economic growth and connectivity; and this has fostered new approaches to
how universities see themselves in relation to the development of their regions and
countries. There is an urgent need for more debate in Africa about the nature of
universities as anchor institutions and the ways in which universities as knowledge
producers might integrate more dynamically with the societies, places, economies,
and institutional landscapes that surround them. The chapter started with the new
liberalism of the entrepreneurial university that has emerged and evolved in the Global
North, and which embraces the idea that universities are at the centre of the creative
destruction of capitalism in the current age. By compressing capital, knowledge
production and abundant talent in spatial dense zones at the centre of cities, it has
been projected that new forms of capitalism would be constructed that are able to
replace old-fashioned forms of urban industrialism and non-productive economy of
financialisation. It is an experiment through which America and parts of northern
Europe, and China, are trying to reinvent and regenerate their cities and economies.
Why is Africa so silent in this debate, what kinds of cities, precincts, economies, and
knowledge production will allow Africa to rise up beyond colonial forms of extraction
and even digital domination, or recolonisation? (Bernal, 2021; Mbembe, 2021;
McCloskey, 2021; Mazzucato, 2015; 2018).

In this context, this chapter has highlighted the possibilities of the ‘city of the internet’,
and what it might mean for the nature of urban design, built form and experience.
It has further noted the impact of the Covid-19 outbreak on moving forward the de-
bate around how the cities of the future may be shaped as urban planners become
ever more conscious in this moment of reset of the unsustainability of the 20th
century modernist paradigm; a paradigm which was predicated on a particular
configuration of core and periphery, a linear approach to time, rapid movement, and
place-based disconnection. As part of a new wave of conceiving how cities may be
remodelled, the Franco-Colombian intellectual Carlos Moreno and his team at the
Sorbonne in Paris (Moreno et al., 2021) have tried to re-imagine a radically different
alternative to the modernist city championed by planners such as the Swiss-French

68
 Re-imagining African university towns

architect and urban visionary Le Corbusier in the 1930s but taking on board the
critiques of modernism produced by Jacobs (1961) and others. Moreno (2019)
has argued that radical decentralisation and urban re-orientation around the idea of
the 15-minute city is needed to disassemble the toxic, destructive impacts on the
environment and the human, lived nature of cities which have been wrought by
modernist planning. This chapter also noted how the urban crisis of the late 20th
century in the industrial cities of the Global North started to produce a new model of
the university in the city which has sought to place higher education at the service
of intensified urbanisation and integrated it into circuits of capitalist value-creation
and entrepreneurship. It further noted another model for integration that has been
produced, particularly in lagging cities, which has emphasised the potential for
universities to play a crucial role in reconstructing new, more socially diverse, tolerant,
and creative kinds of neighbourhoods.

In the context of this debate, Africa now appears to be embracing the urbanisation
of the university with greater intensity than previously and with greater openness to
entrepreneurial models and institutional configurations, as recent developments in
Gauteng have indicated. At the same time, it is perhaps at the level of the smaller
towns and secondary cities, where double-helix thinking and funding models for
higher education have continued to dominate, that a new integration of town and
gown may produce some of its most significant impacts. In particular, the model of
the post-Covid-19 urban world imagined by Moreno (2019) may be readily applied
with great benefit to small towns and secondary cities where universities and colleges
are still generally kept quite separate from their urban environments. At present, the
notion of integrating town and gown in these places is regarded with suspicion.
For example, the council and the vice-chancellor of Fort Hare University decided
against opening up the university to the surrounding town of Alice on the grounds
that the scale of the local development challenges was too great, and the institution
should not risk becoming involved in an urban area that is widely seen as quite
dysfunctional. In other small towns and cities around South Africa, there is less
incentive for integration. This, we suggest, is detrimental to the capacities of these
campuses and cities to start leading the conversation in new directions that are
more suitable to the debate about sustainable development than the centralising
tendencies of the new innovation districts of the Global North.

In this regard, the experience of Rhodes University in seeking to support its host town
of Makhanda (formerly Grahamstown) offers a salutary example. Rhodes, unlike Fort
Hare, is not fenced off from the surrounding town. Cattle kept by local farmers are
a common sight wandering onto the campus to graze. Yet the connectedness to
the locality may be seen as having produced significant disadvantages for Rhodes.
The institution has struggled to sustain itself in a context where the municipal

69
Universities, society and development

infrastructure and services are collapsing, and a steady supply of clean water cannot
be guaranteed. Indeed, in shouldering responsibility for trying to keep the city open
for business, the university has arguably compromised the funding available for its
core teaching and research functions.

If Rhodes and Fort Hare and many other universities like them across southern and
central Africa are to survive as institutions of higher education there will need to be a
fundamental shift in the way in which the state and other partners reflect on the value
and sustainability of the university towns and other urban spaces in which these
universities are located. Government funding and private-sector support need to be
channelled to restore and rebuild these smaller centres and the universities they host,
but not in the manner that has been pursued at Fort Hare’s rural campus over the past
few years. Here the focus was on increasing the status and standing of the university
through the isolated improvement of on-campus infrastructure, including student
accommodation, without any significant effort to support the broader sustainability
of the university in its small-town context. In this regard, the idea of the 15-minute
city, developed by Moreno (2019), may usefully be adopted, not as a cookie-cutter
prescription for the development of small-town campuses and secondary-city
universities and their urban surroundings, but rather as a framework through which
higher education and urban planners in Africa can start collaborating and thinking
ahead to derive benefits from a more integrated approach, while also recognising the
danger associated with new forms of colonialism and domination through external
control of African futures.

70

References
ASPIRE. 2012. Alice Small Town Regeneration
Report, prepared for the Economic
Development Agency of the Amatole District
Municipality, Eastern Cape.
Bank, L.J. 2011. Home Spaces, Street Styles:
Contesting Power and Identity in a South
African City. London: Pluto Press.
Bank, L., Cloete, N. & Van Schalkwyk, F. (eds.).
2018. Anchored in place: Rethinking the
university and development in South Africa.
Cape Town: African Minds. [https://doi.
org/10.47622/9781928331759].
Bozzoli, B. 2004. Theatres of Struggle and the
End of Apartheid. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Doctoroff, D. 2016. Reimagining the city from the
internet up. Medium, November, 10-18.
Drucker, J., Kayanan, C. & Renski, H. 2019.
Innovation Districts as a Strategy for Urban
Economic Development: A Comparison
of Four Cases. Center for Economic
Development Technical Reports. [https://doi.
org/10.2139/ssrn.3498319].
Dunier, M. 2016. Ghetto: The invention of a
place, the history of an idea. New York: Farrar,
Strauss and Giroux.
Dunning, J., Calafiore, A. & Nurse, A. 2021.
20-minute neighbourhood or 15-minute city.
Town and Country, 20(5):1-14.
Fanon, F. 1961. The Wretched of the Earth.
New York: Grove Press.
Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class:
And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure,
Community and Everyday Life. New York:
Basic Books.
Florida, R. 2017. The New Urban Crisis: How our
cities are increasing inequality, deepening
segregation and failing the middle class -
and what can we do about it. New York:
Basic Books.
Florida, R. 2021. Towards a post pandemic
future. New York: Sun Corridor Inc.
Re-imagining African university towns
Huchzermeyer, M. 2011. Cities with Slums:
From informal settlement eradication to
a right to the city in Africa. Cape Town:
University of Cape Town Press.
Jacobs, J. 1961. The Death and Life of
Great American Cities. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Katz, B. & Bradley, J. 2013. The Metropolitan
Revolution: How Cities and Metros Are Fixing
Our Broken Politics and Fragile Economy.
Washington: The Brookings Institution.
Katz, B. & Wager, J. 2014. The Rise of Innovation
Districts: A New Geography of Innovation
in America. Metropolitan Policy Program at
Brookings, Washington DC.
Linden, A. 2021. Minister Nzimande unveils the
Alice Student Village. ThisWeekAtFortHare
13(8), 7 June. (https://bit.ly/3Ig4Gel).
Mabin, A. 2018. Challenges of the university-city
relationship: Reflections from the University
of the Witwatersrand and Johannesburg. In:
L. Bank, N. Cloete & F. van Schalkwyk (eds.),
Anchored in place: Rethinking the university
and development in South Africa. Cape Town:
African Minds.
Macupe, B. 2021. New VC wants Wits to produce
innovators. Mail and Guardian, 30 April.
Mamdani, M. 2008. Scholars in the marketplace:
Dilemmas of neo-liberal reform at Makerere
University, 1989-2005. Cape Town:
HSRC Press.
Mazzucato, M. 2015. The entrepreneurial state:
Debunking public vs private sector myths.
New York: Random House.
Mazzucato, M. 2018. The value of everything:
Making and taking in the global economy.
New York: Random House.
Mbembe, A. 2021. Out of the Dark Night:
Essays on Decolonisation. New York:
Columbia University Press.
McCloskey, D. 2021. Bettering Humanomics:
A New, and Old, Approach to
Economics. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. [https://doi.org/10.7208/
chicago/9780226766089.001.0001].
71
Universities, society and development

Mills, G. 2013. University of Fort Hare Long Range Perry, D. & Villamizar-Duarte, N. 2018.
Plan 2030: Alice Campus. Commissioned Universities as urban anchor institutions and
Research Report and Plan. the social contract in the ‘developed’. In:
L. Bank & N. Cloete (eds.), Anchored in Place:
Mumford, L. 1938. The Culture of Cities.
Rethinking Universities and Development in
New York: Open Road Media.
South Africa. Cape Town: African Minds.
Mumford, L. 1961. City in History: Its Origins, its
Rajah, S.S. 2019. Conceptualising community
Transformation and its Prospects. New York:
engagement through the lens of African
Harcourt, Brace and World.
indigenous education. Perspectives
Moreno, C. 2019. The 15 minutes-city: for a new in Education, 37(1):1-14. [https://doi.
chrono-urbanism! Carlos Moreno, 30 June org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v37i1.1].
2019. (https://bit.ly/3IaitTC).
Robinson, J. 2006. Ordinary Cities:
Moreno, C., Allam, Z, Chabaund, D., Gall, C. & Between Modernity and Development.
Pratlong, F. 2021. Introducing the “15-Minute New York: Routledge.
City”: sustainability, resilience and place
Sennet, R. 2018. Building and Dwelling:
identity in future post-pandemic cities.
Ethics for the City. New York, Penguin.
Smart Cities, 4:93-11. [https://doi.
org/10.3390/smartcities4010006]. Sharma, P. 2012. Innovation districts:
A look at communities spurring economic
Moyo, A. 2019. IBM, Wits partner to accelerate
development through collaboration.
quantum computing in Africa. ITWeb, 12 June.
Paper prepared for New Jersey Future.
(https://bit.ly/3wbRYLi).
Spirou, C. 2021. Anchoring innovation districts:
Ngungi wa Thiong’o. 1986. Decolonising the
the entrepreneurial university and urban
mind: The politics of language in African
change. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins
Literature. Oxford: James Currey.
University Press.
Nyamnjoh, F. 2012. Potted plants in
University of Pretoria (UP). 2021. UP and Hatfield
greenhouses: critical reflections on colonial
CID: Improving Hatfield one day at a time.
education in Africa. Journal of Asian and
(https://bit.ly/3MUH6r3).
African Studies, 47(2):129-54. [https://doi.
org/10.1177/0021909611417240].

72
 CHAPTER FOUR

Problematising the notion

4
of a social compact in
university‑community relationship:
Towards a ‘thick’ conception
Siphelo Ngcwangu
University of Johannesburg

Introduction
The notion of a social compact in South Africa is generally associated with attempts
by the post-apartheid state to reconcile the goals of political democratisation and
economic development. The usage of the social compact idea has seen the term
creeping into the vocabulary of development in South Africa. As part of the social
compact, the state has made broader concessions in improving the prospects
of students from poor and lower-middle-class backgrounds to enter universities.
Such concessions range from increases to financial aid, directing more resources to
student accommodation and enabling more students from historically disadvantaged
groups to access university. These challenges put into focus the need for higher
education scholars to build a more robust understanding of what is meant by a social
compact, its evolution and relevance in addressing the variety of challenges that
confront higher education in South Africa.

The chapter locates the notion of a social compact in the context of social conditions
in the Global South. As Luiz (2014) has stated a social compact is characterised
by a search for a new social order and is a pressing matter in developing countries

73
Universities, society and development

where high levels of economic growth expose the growing gaps between those who
participate economically and those who are left behind. This creates new interest
groups and alliances and sees old social orders collapse.

This chapter provides a theoretical perspective on the notion of social compacts.

Consensus between various actors, capital, labour, state and communities, rests
mainly on the prevailing balance of forces in the society. Three interrelated concepts:
class conflict, class co-operation and class compromise inform how a social compact
should be conceptualised. Class conflict refers to the inherent conflict between
labour and business which begins at the workplace level where value is generated
and extends to the wider society. The implications of such an understanding are that
the interests of capital and labour may be conflictual, but a degree of co-operation
is necessary for both parties to survive and reproduce themselves (Ngcwangu,
2016). In effect this contradiction is an outcome of wider class struggles in society.
Class compromises are best understood as the compromises between policy actors
in advancing democracy or charting a developmental line of redistribution which
accommodates the interests of actors such as business and labour in conditions
which would otherwise remain conflictual (Seekings, 2004; Webster & Adler, 1999).
Similarly, universities, the state and communities require a degree of consensus to
succeed, which involves concessions between the various actors.

Some of the literature on higher education adopts more of a stakeholder relations

approach to discussing the building of a social compact in higher education (Garcia
& Carlotto, 2012; Pinheiro, 2015; Smolentseva, Knyazev & Drantusova, 2015; Yang,
2015). The limitation of stakeholder relations approaches is that they present a
narrative of harmony between the stakeholders whereas the interests of different
actors arise from pre-existing social relations in society (Balbachevsky, 2015).
A social compact seeks to develop a shared understanding or compromise between
classes in society that are against each other and where capital is the most dominant
social force amongst all the social forces. The concern amongst left critics has
always been that such structures result in working-class containment rather than
radical changes to improve the conditions of the working class (Bramble & Ollett,
2007). The result is that the social compact idea represents more of a social democratic
stalemate to manage what would otherwise be an openly conflictual situation
under conditions of capitalism. It is against this backdrop that this chapter seeks to
problematise the notion of a social compact and relate it to discourses that prevail
in South African higher education focusing on the university system specifically.

The chapter is reflective and conceptual rather than being empirically based,
it relies on secondary literature, analysis of public policy documents and discusses
public discourses on the notion of a social compact in the higher education sector
in South  Africa. The document analysis process involved three main activities:

74
 Problematising the notion of a social compact in university-community relationship

(1) selecting relevant documents and policy papers on the topic; (2) reading through
the documents and examining key questions related to the themes of the paper
and; (3) interpretation and analysis drawn from the documents accessed. This was
an iterative process combining document analysis and content analysis. Following
Bowen (2009) the content analysis entailed a first-pass document review, in which
meaningful and relevant passages of text or other data are identified. This involved
the identification of pertinent information and separating it from that which is
not pertinent.

This chapter investigates the nature of pre-existing tensions in the broader society
which have an impact on how higher education scholars conceptualise the
development of a social compact between universities and society. Questions which
the Sol Plaatje University (SPU) as a new university in South Africa should consider
as it forges stronger relations with its surrounding communities. The contribution of
this chapter is to illustrate the complex nature of the contestations between labour,
business, the state and communities that shape the higher education landscape in
South Africa. The notion of a social compact is often used in everyday speak and
policy discourse in ways that do not pay attention to the pre-existing social relations
that shape its development. This results in often simplistic and linear assumptions
about what constitutes a social compact. The aim of this chapter therefore is to
illustrate what different conceptions of the social compact imply for processes
of community engagement in the higher education sector. The chapter covers
three areas: (1) higher education transformation in post-apartheid South Africa;
(2) intellectual contestations: towards a social consensus or social revolution? and
(3) towards ‘Thick’ conceptions of the social compact, in higher education.

Higher education transformation in post-apartheid

South Africa
The notion of the social compact features strongly in the debates over the
formation of the higher education system in post-apartheid South Africa (CHE,
2008; Du Toit, 2007; Jonathan, 2006; Luescher, 2007). This is especially in relation
to governance structures and processes of democratic participation. South Africa’s
higher education system has been established on the logic of transformation,
historical redress and social inclusion. The centrality of the role of the state has
been articulated and contested by various scholars with concern over whether
the state’s role should be interventionist or regulatory. The ideas of institutional
autonomy and academic freedom are often contrasted with the ‘steering’ role that
the state ought to play. In addition to this is the danger of leaving processes of
change in higher education to be driven by market forces and commercial interests.
As Muller, Maassen and Cloete (2006:291) have argued:

75
Universities, society and development

Policy formulators preparing for a new democratic state started from the
assumption that because apartheid had been such a pervasive, centrally driven
state system, its un-doing would likewise require a state-driven, planned,
policy process, with the key difference being that the goals and processes
would be progressive and participatory. Thus, in addition to having different
goals, the process would be democratised, but still with a strong, central
planning (steering) component. There was widespread agreement that the
market could not correct the injustices and imbalances caused by apartheid,
and that individual institutional transformation, left to itself, would not result
in a co-ordinated, equitable and efficient system.

By 1994, the landscape of 36 higher education institutions included ten historically

dis-advantaged universities and seven historically disadvantaged technikons
designated for the use of black (African, Coloured, and Indian) South Africans,
while ten historically advantaged universities and seven historically advantaged
technikons were designated for the exclusive development of white South Africans.
Two distance institutions catered for all races (Bunting, 2006).

The policy landscape of higher education in South Africa has been influenced by
a variety of internal and external factors, many of which are closely connected to
the nature of the democratic transition in South Africa. According to Badat (2019),
in the early 1990s, as part of policy propositions on change in South African higher
edu-cation, there were strongly contending positions on how equality, equity and
redress, as well as development and quality should be approached. These positions
were entwined with differing views on the kinds of changes that were needed, which
apartheid legacies should be accorded priority, the social purposes and roles of
universities, the kind of (differentiated) higher education landscape that was required
post-1994, access to universities and the quality and standards of universities and
academic programmes (Badat, 2019). At the core of dealing with the apartheid legacy
was a paradox of redressing historical imbalances in the context of a global capitalist
order which since the 1990s has placed pressure on institutions in the developing
world to adopt neoliberal reforms aligned to cost-sharing, rankings, and fiscal austerity.

Mthembu and Bawa (2018) maintain that with all its limitations, the National
Commission on Higher Education provided some sort of framework for a social
compact between the higher education system and society. Perhaps it is time for
another social compact that will allow all parties – universities, staff, students,
parents, government, industry and business, and civil society – to arrive at a shared
understanding of what is expected of our universities and how we will achieve it
(Mthembu & Bawa, 2018). What they do not ask though, is what the class and social
realities are that would inform such a social compact given high levels of inequality in
South African society?

76
 Problematising the notion of a social compact in university-community relationship

SPU opened in 2014 as part of two new universities established by the post-
apartheid government, the other being the University of Mpumalanga (UMP).
According to the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) one of the
key principles that should guide these new universities is that they should be place-
relevant and engaged by being:
Policy formulators preparing for a new democratic state started from the
assumption that because apartheid had been such a pervasive, centrally driven
state system, its un-doing would likewise require a state-driven, planned,
policy process, with the key difference being that the goals and processes
would be progressive and participatory. Thus, in addition to having different
goals, the process would be democratised, but still with a strong, central
planning (steering) component. There was widespread agreement that the
market could not correct the injustices and imbalances caused by apartheid,
and that individual institutional transformation, left to itself, would not result
in a co-ordinated, equitable and efficient system.

Upon establishment SPU ensured that its vision encapsulates the goal of being a
niche university developed within the City of Kimberley. It placed community engage-
ment and social responsiveness as one of its strategic goals. The key challenge for
SPU is how it defines community engagement and social responsiveness within
the local dynamics of the Northern Cape, and how it pursues its vision of being a
city university. What will a social compact mean within the realities of the region the
University is situated in is characterised by high levels of unemployment and poverty?
The context of a new university within a secondary city such as SPU places the
university in a position to clarify the types of issues its social compact with local
communities should involve. A new university typically also brings with it high hopes
and expectations especially in a region that previously did not have a university of
its stature. Practical challenges for SPU are to give true meaning to community
engagement given criticism of universities of paying ‘lip service’ to it. As I show below
SPU ought to have sustained engagement with communities and not see themsel-
ves as informing communities about priority needs.

I have shown elsewhere (Ngcwangu, forthcoming) that South Africa is a country

of high levels of inequality which poses a variety of tensions on the processes of
transforming universities. Ashwin and Case (2018) argue that two main tensions
prevail in the higher education system of democratic South Africa. The first of these
is the aspirations of school leavers and the current arrangements of provision of
undergraduate higher education. Public funding has not grown following growing
enrolments in South Africa and thus an increasing share of the cost has been shifted
to students and their families. Second, the massification of higher education is
typically, but not inevitably, accompanied by increased stratification. These tensions
ultimately point to the emergence of new patterns of inequality. The questions of
affordability of university tuition fees and families’ inability to meet the costs of these

77
Universities, society and development

affected mostly the black student population. More specifically, the #FeesMustFall
(#FMF) mobilisation had to do not only with financial exclusion but a much broader
failure of post-apartheid higher education and a much deeper problem of exclusion
for black South Africans, whose contestation had been at the centre of student
protests earlier in the year (Cini, 2019).

The #FMF protests opened a debate about the vision of higher education in South
Africa and the adequacy of the post-1994 social arrangements in the sector. Bawa
(2001) argues that the higher education sector was facing an existential crisis in
the early 2000s, which was because of the marginal role of higher education in
development. Bawa (2001:13-14) posits four main issues that should inform the
basis of a social contract between public higher education and the nation:
(1) The state of flux in higher education internationally – South Africa’s
challenge in the 21st century being to treat the local and global poles
shaping the future of the university coherently.

(2) A need for the sector to own various policy developments that impact on
public higher education as well as society in general, this is a strong
basis for the sector to unite.

(3) The sector is gravely fragmented and fractious, it seriously requires a

platform from which to draw commonness above fractiousness.

(4) The approach adopted must stand alongside other policy development
processes that have already been engaged.

These four overarching issues gave rise to his argument that there is an urgent need
for a social compact between the public higher education system and the people
of South Africa. As Habib (2013:111) has stated, the issue of social pacts in South
Africa has become a “mantra in the period of political transition”. Although hopes for
a social pact were dashed, the idea retained its hold on the imaginations of many
academics and leaders in business, labour and the state. Now and then, therefore,
the idea resurfaces (ibid). I now turn to a brief discussion of theoretical aspects of the
debate about building social compacts and the underlying concerns over the nature
of social consensus among various intellectual strands in South Africa.

Theoretical perspectives on the social compact: social

consensus or social revolution?
The notion of a social compact draws on a literature that is well established in the
disciplines of political science, sociology, labour studies and the arena of political
activism. The idea of a ‘pact’ is not a new debate; it is an old question with new and
modern interpretations. South African scholars and activists grappled with this
question as early as the 1990s when the democratisation process was beginning

78
 Problematising the notion of a social compact in university-community relationship

to take shape following the unbanning of liberation movements, the release of

Nelson  Mandela from Robben Island and the reform of old apartheid institutions
to build a new social order. Theoretical perspectives illuminate the historical
context of contestations over the meaning of a social compact. This is relevant in
our conceptualisation of meaning of a social compact between higher education
and society.

The terms ‘corporatism’, ‘social contract’ and ‘co-determination’ tend to be used

interchangeably. Schmitter (1974) defined two types of corporatism: Societal
corporatism which refers to arrangements in democratic societies where cer-
tain autonomous interest organisations have been granted representational
monopoly. State corporatism, on the other hand, is characteristic of totalitarian
and authoritarian societies, where interest organisations which have been either
created and/or recognised by the state are granted representational monopoly.
In this sense, societal corporatism is more applicable to the South African con-
text than state corporatism which ordinarily would not accommodate trade unions
and is far more authoritarian. However, corporatism is in some ways different to a
social contract, as Maree (1993:27) explains:
Corporatism is a type of relationship between the state and organised
associations of civil society. It always involves the state as one of the parties
in the relationship. A social contract refers to negotiated agreements between
major actors in the economy.

The vital issue is that corporatism or any of its other conceptual variants is best
understood by analysing the balance of forces prevailing in society. Panitch (1986)
maintains that corporatism should be understood as a form of state-induced class
collaboration. Such class collaboration can result in working-class containment
as opposed to advancing radical changes and restructuring of the economy. How
labour-business and the state participate in structures of corporatism is reflective of
their relative power in society. Bramble and Ollett (2007:569) argue that corporatism
is a process of “working-class containment and roll-back” because of the system of
corporatism representing the hegemonic interests of capital.

The period of the political transition presented spaces in which the trade unions
participated in corporatist fora such as the National Economic Forum and the
National Manpower Commission. Participation and representation presents
numerous problems for varying policy actors. Co-determination debates in South
Africa arose out of the context that there would be no unilateral restructuring of
the economy without union participation. The Laboria Minute, which laid a basis
for the new labour relations dispensation, was the primary example of attempts
at consensus building. The goal of establishing social consensus or a ‘social pact’
arose considering trade unions and the African National Congress (ANC) seeking

79
Universities, society and development

to reconcile two processes of the democratic transition: political democratisation

and economic liberalisation (Buhlungu, 2010; Habib, 2013). The moment of trans-
ition also saw a confluence of intellectual traditions within the trade union move-
ment which sought to influence the direction that the Congress of South African
Trade Unions (COSATU) should take in its relations to business. Occurring during
the period following the ‘collapse’ of the Soviet Union, debates centred around the
viability of socialism or the need to pursue social democracy or democratic socialism
(Bird & Schreiner, 1992; Schreiner, 1991). Social democracy is a political philosophy
which seeks to strengthen state regulation and expand the role of the state in the
economy. Social democracy is not necessarily committed to the overthrow of
capitalism but is more inclined to emphasise gradual changes to improve human
wellbeing within capitalism. The social-democratic alternative proposals drew from
experiences in Western Europe, particularly Germany, where the post-World War II
political settlement was seen as an example of how a social ‘pact’ could be built.

Neoliberalism is a rather broad and general concept referring to an economic

model or ‘paradigm’ that rose to prominence in the 1980s. Built upon the classical
liberal ideal of the self-regulating market, neoliberalism comes in several strands
and variations (Steger & Roy, 2010). One author summed up the contemporary
manifestations of neoliberalism by stating that “The whole point of neoliberalism
is that the market mechanism should be allowed to direct the fate of human
beings. The economy should dictate its rules to society, not the other way
around” (George, 1999:2). Critics of co-determination and social compact arra-
ngements in South Africa question the material basis for a social contract and
what real concessions are made by labour and other popular forces to build
a social contract. These authors argue that neoliberal ideas have been con-
solidated through the social contracts by ignoring grassroots organisations,
marginalised groups, and workers in non-standard employment type of contracts
(Barchiesi, 1998; 1999; 2001; Barchiesi & Bramble 2003; Catchpowle & Cooper,
2003; Lehulere, 1995; Van der Walt, 1997).

Lehulere (1995) shows that joint decision making through co-determination is

not the key to the competitiveness of various enterprises in present capitalism.
Lehulere (1995:72) further argues that the assertion that some European eco-
nomies became more robust due to social partnership was not wholly accurate
considering conditions, particularly in Germany during the post-war era:

80
 Problematising the notion of a social compact in university-community relationship

In Germany the workers had emerged out of the war with demands for the
socialisation of the war industry and coal mining, and their expropriations
without compensation. As part of this process workers set up “anti-fascist”
committees to co-ordinate the provision of food, clothing, and housing.
There was, in other words, the beginning of a form of workers’ power based
on the popularly elected committees. What clearly faced the capitalist class
was not a problem that could be resolved by “getting an agreement” between
labour and capital. A problem like this is resolved by the defeat of one side
by the other.

Within the German scholarly community concerns are being raised about the
fractures to the German model of social consensus. For instance, Streeck & Hassel
(2003) state that amongst other factors affecting the German model (or Modell
Deutschland) is the rising unemployment, and employers resisting the model of
consensus as the industrial sector labour market begins to shrink, relying more
on an ageing workforce and adopting more conservative approaches to labour
market reforms.

When the ANC released a discussion document in 1996 titled ‘The State and
Social Transformation’ (SST), these tensions in the Tripartite Alliance surfaced
as the South African Community Party (SACP) accused the ANC of essentially
characterising the role of the new government as mainly regulatory and as a mediator
between different interest groups particularly between labour and business. Such a
formulation was heavily criticised as lacking a class perspective and advancing a
notion of a ‘golden triangle’ which is class neutral. This led to a critique by Nzimande
and Cronin (1997) arguing that the SST document treated capital and labour as
abstract, technical-economic categories as if they were not social forces shaped
by the history of accumulation, dispossession, and exploitation. This shows that
the issue of a social compact is contested within the ANC- led alliance.

The global financial crisis of 2008 hit the South African economy very hard,
resulting in many job losses; and its effects have permeated throughout the economy
ever since 2008. Of interest is how the SACP sought to frame President Zuma’s
High-Level Package on the economy, which is a consensus amongst business,
labour, and the state in 2012 as a departure from the 1996 SST document (Cronin,
2012). The High-Level Package essentially introduced measures to stimulate
the economy through structural transformation as it was prescribed in the New
Growth Path (NGP), investment in state-led infrastructure programmes and other
interventions. Cronin (2012) defended this High-Level Package as a positive step
towards a comprehensive social pact for South Africa:

81
Universities, society and development

The 13-page executive summary of agreed measures (the “package”) marks

a significant departure from the 1996 class project’s “golden triangle”
assumptions. The package effectively locates our national response to present
challenges within the strategic perspective of the New Growth Path – it is not
about a balancing act. It is about using the economic crisis as an opportunity
to actively transform the structural features of South Africa’s economic
growth path that have given rise to Marikana, to the crises of unemployment,
poverty and inequality.

The key features of the tripartite arrangements have not shifted fundamentally
besides greater investment in infrastructure and further expansion in social
spending. Interestingly, the much-criticised National Development Plan (NDP)
is also framed around the notion of a ‘social compact’ but also is seen as having
neoliberal features, particularly in its dealing with employment issues and the
economy. The SACP’s critique of the NDP has rather focused on the institutional
arrangements but not, as with the 1996 macro-economic policy frame-work,
Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) on its ideological aspects (SACP,
2013). Lolwana (2015) shows that the period of GEAR signalled a significant shift for
higher education on the priorities of the government.

The above synopsis points to complexities around the notion of a social compact
I have sought to draw from South African and international debates that engage with
the philosophical basis of social compacts. Despite the apparent common-sense way
of thinking about a social compact what I have shown is the depth of discussion and
a characterisation of the roles of different class actors in making a social compact.
In the context of higher education and community engagement, this shows that a
simplistic analysis may not be sufficient in building a social compact. It is against this
backdrop that I now concentrate on how the debates over a social compact should
inform our understanding of the role of community engagement in higher education.

Towards a ‘thick’ conception of the social compact in

higher education
There are two major categories of research that have been undertaken in the African
higher education context to examine the questions of governance and the social
compact idea. One is the Higher Education Research and Advocacy Network in
Africa (HERANA) project which broadly researched the relationship between higher
education and development in Africa. The premise of the report was an assumption
that the stronger the ‘pact’ in a country – between government, business, and
core economic actors – about the role of higher education in development, the
better universities will be able to contribute to development (Cloete et al., 2011).
The study grappled with different notions and understandings of the role of higher
education in development and argued that there are three forces that maintain the

82
 Problematising the notion of a social compact in university-community relationship

higher education system. These three nodes are seen as government, universities,
and external groupings, and the report argues that for universities to sustainably
contribute to development there are four fundamental requirements:
1. There needs to be a pact about the importance of knowledge in
development and the special role of the university.

2. The academic core needs to be strengthened, particularly in terms of

knowledge production.

3. There must be greater coordination among the increasing number of

actors and agencies (government departments, business, and foreign
donors) involved in higher education.

4. University development activities must strengthen rather than weaken

academic core capacity (Cloete et al., 2011:xviii).

Essentially the HERANA project located the notion of a ‘pact’ between various social
actors in society within the context of systemic questions confronting universities
and the role of universities in economic development. At the core of the research’s
approach was the idea of examining the location of universities in various contexts
throughout the African continent in relation to changes brought about by global-
isation and the purported shift to a knowledge economy. A key issue emerging in
this report is around the tension between the university’s engagement with external
groupings and how such engagement feeds back into the academic core mandates
of the universities.

The second set of literatures comes out of the Higher Education, Institutional
Autonomy and Academic Freedom (HEIAAF) work which was established in 2005
by the Council on Higher Education (CHE) to investigate independently the past
decade of regulation of South African higher education by government and other
agencies, and to promote debate on conceptions of autonomy, academic freedom,
and accountability in general and in the context of higher education transformation
(Luescher, 2007).

Out of the HEIAAF papers flowing from the project two of them grappled with
issues relevant to the social compact in higher education. First, institutional
autonomy and public accountability in higher education – ‘State-Sector’ relationships
(Jonathan, 2006); and second, autonomy as a social compact (Du Toit, 2007).
The core issues that are covered in Jonathan (2006) relate to the role of the
state, conceptions of public good, market forces and transformation of higher
education. The paper stresses that accountability is not just public but democratic.
Real democratic accountability for all public sector institutions, and in higher
education in a more comprehensive notion than the narrow ‘public accountability’,
requires more than simple co-operative assistance with society’s skill requirements
(Jonathan, 2006).

83
Universities, society and development

What is of value from the report is that it deals with various actors (state, market, etc.)
in higher education and unpacks the tensions and conflicts within their respective
roles (Jonathan, 2006). This work connects strongly with the Du Toit’s (2007)
report on autonomy as a social pact in which systems of accountability operated
both internally to the scholarly profession (e.g. peer review and academic rule), and
externally to state and society (Luescher, 2007).

For Du Toit (2007) the question of a social compact in higher education arises out of
concerns that the social compact built on trust between the state, universities
and society in the mid-20th century was showing signs of collapsing. Pressure for
universities to be more accountable began to increase resulting in many measures
such as quality assurance. The calls indicate that universities are no longer trusted
to benefit state and society if simply left to their own devices. The underlying social
compact has broken down or, at the very least, is under serious threat. If so, then
further questions arise as to the nature and content of that underlying social compact
between the university, on the one hand, and state and society, on the other arise:
how and when did this compact come about; what were its grounds or enabling
conditions; why and how did this underlying social compact begin to break down;
what are the implications and consequences for academic freedom and institutional
autonomy; and what, if anything, might be done to restore the basic social trust
necessary for the defence of academic freedom? (Du Toit, 2007). Analytically the paper
argues that for us to understand the social compact as a reality we need to specify
what would count as evidence for a social compact in different cases and contexts.
The discussion on these two categories of research on the social compact in higher
education show the central role that the desire for consensus and coordination of
various actors is critical in understanding issues of institutional autonomy, regulation,
academic freedom, and public accountability. It is against this backdrop that the
paper explores the link between community engagement and the social compact idea.

The notion of community engagement in higher education is therefore contested and

straddles a wide range of ideologies, policies, processes, and activities. There is a
wide variety of understanding amongst scholars of what community engagement
entails and what it ought to achieve. For instance, Bhagwan (2018) in a study of
six universities found three critical issues that inform community engagement:
(1) institutional preparedness; (2) understanding context, and; (3) demystifying
community engagement. Other researchers such as Unterhalter et al. (2019) locate
community engagement within the understanding of the public good dimension of
higher education. Community engagement was seen as a way in which universities
can serve a greater public good by engaging in a mutually beneficial way, and that
an open campus policy whereby university campus resources are made available
to community members serves a public good, and also enable universities to build
relationships with communities. In their detailed literature review Mtawa and Fongwa

84
 Problematising the notion of a social compact in university-community relationship

(2019) show the fluid nature of community engagement by universities and the
complexity of the range of issues that need to be considered to develop a common
understanding of what constitutes community engagement.

The tension that arises from conceptualising community engagement is based

on how the engagement is framed. Is the engagement about the university being
subjected to the needs of communities surrounding it? Is the engagement about
the university ‘reaching out’ to communities similar to ways the private sector
operates in corporate social responsibility spaces, where superficial and even at
times ritualistic support and donations are provided to communities? Is community
engagement a contrast to the rise of ‘academic capitalism’ and the dominance of
a corporate agenda in the running of universities? To what extent can community
engagement impact on the nature of social science research that is often seen as
using communities as ‘labs’ through extractivist types of methodologies accused of
using ‘helicopter’ methods of data collection as opposed to participatory methods?
Lastly considering the critique of human capital theory orientation of many teaching,
learning and research processes in universities, is community engagement aim-
ing to replace this by subjecting higher education to interests of communities and
their livelihood within the rubric of ‘relevance to communities’ arguments? These
are many questions that require specific attention as we focus more deeply on the
meaning of community engagement.

What is emerging is a tension between two principal conceptions of the social

compact in relation to community engagement which I characterise as ‘thin’
and ‘thick’ conceptions. A ‘thin’ conception of community engagement defines
community engagement narrowly as a university using its resources and knowledge
infrastructure to purportedly support development in society. It is an ameliorative
approach; it seeks to deal with ‘social problems’ which are prescribed by what the
university deems essential as opposed to long-term engagement. Mtawa and
Fongwa (ibid) outline three models of community engagement, (1) a linear one-way
approach to community engagement; (2) a two-way engagement or partnership;
and (3) university and community (city and regional) development. At the core of
‘thin’ conceptions of community engagement would be the linear one-way approach
model which portrays the universities (staff and students) as powerful and knowledge-
able while the community are recipients being ‘served’ by the university. In this sense,
the community is relegated to the overarching interests of the university system
without an in-depth understanding of aspirations and pre-existing crises in the
communities.

To develop a robust understanding of community engagement concerning the social

compact idea, I propose that a ‘thick’ conception is necessary. This conception goes
beyond Mtawa and Fongwa’s (ibid) definition of the second model of community

85
Universities, society and development

engagement which involves collaboration and partnerships. A ‘thick’ conception

would be premised on an understanding of the limitations of community engagement,
as it occurs in an environment of pre-existing social inequalities that are shaped by
power structures in society. Community engagement cannot be seen as a panacea
for existing problems in society. The university itself is part of the development
challenges such as poverty, unemployment, and inequality. Therefore, it can only play
a role of shifting the discourses of development by heightening awareness of the
failures of neoliberal ideas to resolve the development crisis.

The ‘thick’ conception should consider what kinds of class and societal compromises
are necessary for a social compact to succeed. According to MISTRA (2014), the
role of a social compact is to unite society’s stakeholders to facilitate buy-in to a
typical developmental agenda where all parties contribute towards the greater
good to provide reasonable living standards to all who are party to the agreement.
Cognisance and appreciation of the values underpinning the social compact is an
essential precondition to facilitate agreement and action.

Everyday speak of social compacts overlooks how different social actors would need
to make concessions as their class positions are not harmonious. Students, business,
the state, and community must all agree on what types of compromises they will
have to make for a social compact in higher education to be possible. The sector has
been shaken by the protests of the #FeesMustFall movement, which was fighting for
access to higher education and ultimately for free education. Is it possible to speak
of a social compact when no coherent response to the fees issue has been agreed
on? Are student movements in a position to participate in a discussion over higher
education funding that doesn’t accommodate all their current demands? Business
has never committed to justify the extent of its reliance on human resources and
intellectual capital developed in the universities and the broader education system.
Engagement with communities ought to acknowledge them as genuine participants
in the development of universities. It should be realised that the higher education
landscape mirrors many of the prevalent inequalities that exist in society and in
fact may reproduce them. So, to speak of a social compact that uses community
engagement as one of its fundamental driving forces, there is a need to be cognizant
of the prevailing social and economic realities of South Africa.

86
 Problematising the notion of a social compact in university-community relationship

Conclusion
The calls for a social compact in higher education are premised on the notion that
countries that are successful in economic development tend to be those in which
social dialogue is promoted as a way of overcoming challenges. The notion of a social
compact is not necessarily a panacea for all problems in society; it merely creates
a platform for collective approaches to significant societal challenges. South Africa
has had numerous attempts at building social compacts such as the Accelerated
and Shared Growth Initiative of South Africa (ASGISA), the Presidential Jobs Summit
of 1998, the Growth and Development Summit of 2003 and other structures driven
by the National Education and Labour Council (NEDLAC). These structures were
uneven in their success and pointed to a need for a far more in-depth examination
of why social compacting attempts in South Africa have not produced the expected
results. Higher education already has many structures of stakeholder dialogue; we
need to examine why those structures are not seen to create the required consensus.
The role of community engagement in forging a social compact is therefore ultimately
a modest act of bringing the society closer to the university’s strategic objective,
this ought to be the case at SPU which is a new university in the post-apartheid era.

This chapter has focused on problematising the notion of the social compact by
considering its theoretical genesis and relevance within the higher education sector
in South Africa. The chapter shows that relating the social compact idea to goals
of community engagement requires a complex understanding of the myriad of
crises that prevail in society. These challenges are not unique to South Africa as
many other countries in the Global South are faced with similar complexities and
inequalities. By looking at the question of the social compact within conditions of
the Global South we can see that it is not a universal concept but varies based on
the historical developmental challenges in different parts of the world. The higher
education landscape in South Africa shows the relevance of the history of racialised
inequality in the country and struggles across society to democratise access into the
higher education system. The chapter draws on secondary literature and theoretical
perspectives on the social compact from social science disciplines such as
Sociology and Political Science. I argued that drawing on these perspectives we
ought to work towards a ‘thick’ conception of the social compact between universities
and society.

87
Universities, society and development
References
Ashwin, P. & Case, J. 2018. Introduction. In:
P. Ashwin & J. Case (eds.), South African
Undergraduate Education and the Public
Good. Cape Town: African Minds, 3-9.
[https://doi.org/10.47622/9781928331902].
Badat, S. 2019. The equity-quality/development
paradox and higher education transformation
post-1994. In: J. Reynolds, B. Fine &
R. van Niekerk (eds.), Race, Class and
the Post-Apartheid Democratic State.
Pietermaritzburg: University of KwaZulu-Natal
Press, 241-281.
Balbachevsky, E. 2015. The role of internal and
external stakeholders in Brazilian higher
education. In: S. Schwartzman, R. Pinheiro &
P. Pillay (eds.), Higher Education in the BRICS
Countries: Investigating the Pact between
Higher Education and Society. Dordrecht:
Springer, 44-60. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
94-017-9570-8_10].
Barchiesi, F. 1998. Trade unions and
organisational restructuring in the South
African automobile industry: A critique of the
co-determination thesis. African Sociological
Review, 2(2):47-76.
Barchiesi, F. 1999. Economic adjustment,
political institutionalization and social
marginalization: COSATU and the first
democratic government (1994-1999).
Transformation, 38:20-48.
Barchiesi, F. 2001. Review essay: Glen Adler (ed.).
Engaging the state and business: The labour
movement and co-determination in South
Africa (Johannesburg, Wits University Press).
African Sociological Review, 5(1):80-89.
[https://doi.org/10.4314/asr.v5i1.23186].
Barchiesi, F. & Bramble, T. 2003. Introduction.
In: T. Bramble & F. Barchiesi (eds.),
Rethinking the Labour Movement in the
‘New South Africa’. Aldershot: Ashgate
Publishing Company, 1-12. [https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781315198514-1].
Bawa, A.C. 2001. A social contract between
the public higher education sector and the
people of South Africa. South African Journal
of Higher Education, 15(3):10-16. [https://doi.
org/10.4314/sajhe.v15i3.25319].
88
Bhagwan, R. 2018. University-community
partnerships: Demystifying the process
of engagement. South African Review of
Sociology, 49(3-4):32-54. [https://doi.org/10.1
080/21528586.2019.1570324].
Bird, A. & Schreiner, G. 1992. COSATU at the
crossroads: towards tripartite corporatism or
democratic socialism? SA Labour Bulletin,
16:22-32.
Bowen, G. 2009. Document analysis as a
qualitative research method. Qualitative
Research Journal, 9(2):27-40. [https://doi.
org/10.3316/QRJ0902027].
Bramble, T. & Ollett, N. 2007. Corporatism as
a process of working-class containment
and roll-back: The recent experiences of
South Africa and South Korea. Journal of
Industrial Relations, 49(4):1-13. [https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022185607080324].
Buhlungu, S. 2010. A Paradox of Victory:
COSATU and the Democratic Transformation
in South Africa. Scottsville: University of
KwaZulu-Natal Press.
Bunting, I. 2006. The higher landscape under
Apartheid. In: C. Cloete, P. Maasen, R.
Fehnel, T. Moja, T. Gibbon & H. Perold (eds.),
Transformation in Higher Education: Global
Pressures Local Realities. Netherlands:
Springer, 35-52. [https://doi.org/10.1007/1-
4020-4006-7_3].
Catchpowle, L. & Cooper, C. 2003. Neoliberal
corporatism: origins and implications
for South Africa. In T. Bramble &
F. Barchiesi (eds.), Rethinking the Labour
Movement in the ‘new’ South Africa.
Aldershot: Ashgate, 13-24. [https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781315198514-2].
Cini, L. 2019. Disrupting the neoliberal university
in South Africa: The #FeesMustFall movement
in 2015. Current Sociology, 6(7):942-959.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392119865766].
Cloete, N., Bailey, T., Pillay, P., Bunting, I. &
Maassen, P. 2011. Universities and economic
development in Africa. Centre for Higher
Education and Training: Somerset West.
(https://bit.ly/374W39L).
 Problematising the notion of a social compact in university-community relationship
Council on Higher Education (CHE). 2008.
Academic freedom, institutional autonomy
and public accountability in South African
higher education: Report of the independent
task team on Higher Education, Institutional
Autonomy and Academic Freedom (HEIAAF),
5. Council on Higher Education: Pretoria.
Cronin, J. 2012. A social pact for serious
transformation … or back to a golden
triangle? Umsebenzi Online, 11(39):1-5.
Department of Higher Education (DHET). 2012.
Development Framework for New Universities
in the Northern Cape and Mpumalanga
Provinces. Republic of South Africa, Pretoria,
2-13.
Du Toit, A. 2007. Autonomy as a Social Compact:
Research report prepared for the CHE
Task Team on South African Government
Involvement in, and Regulation of, Higher
Education, Institutional Autonomy and
Academic Freedom (HEIAAF), 4. Council on
Higher Education, Pretoria.
Garcia, S.G & Carlotto, M.C. 2012. Institutional
specificity and organizational change:
A case of university social engagement
in Brazil. In: R. Pinheiro, P. Benneworth &
G.A. Jones (eds.), Universities and Regional
Development: A critical assessment of
tensions and contradictions. London:
Routledge, 124-140.
George, S. 1999. A Short History of Neo-
Liberalism, Paper presented at the
Conference on Economic Sovereignty in a
Globalizing World.
Habib, A. 2013. South Africa’s Suspended
Revolution: Hopes and Prospects.
Johannesburg: Wits University Press.
[https://doi.org/10.18772/12013086086].
Jonathan, R. 2006. Academic Freedom,
Institutional Autonomy and Public
Accountability in Higher Education:
Research report prepared for the CHE
Task Team on South African Government
Involvement in, and Regulation of, Higher
Education, Institutional Autonomy and
Academic Freedom (HEIAAF) a Framework for
Analysis of the ‘State-Sector’ Relationship in
a Democratic South Africa, Council on Higher
Education, 6. Pretoria.
Lehulere, O. 1995. The Workplace Forums
and the Struggle for Workers’ Control.
Johannesburg: Khanya College.
Lolwana, P. 2015. The role of stakeholders in
the transformation of the South African
higher education system. In: S. Schwartzman,
R. Pinheiro & P. Pillay (eds.), Higher Education
in the BRICS Countries: Investigating the
Pact between Higher Education and Society.
Dordrecht: Springer, 253-267. [https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-94-017-9570-8_13].
Luescher, T.M. 2007. Higher education and
the substantiation of democracy in South
Africa, in Report on the Research Seminar
of the HEIAAF Task Team, Council on Higher
Education, 6. Pretoria, 1-15.
Mapungubwe Institute of Strategic Reflection
(MISTRA). 2014. Cohesion, covenants and
compacts: Report Prepared for the National
Planning Commission, October 2014.
(https://bit.ly/3NY32Ci).
Maree, J. 1993. Trade unions and corporatism
in South Africa. Transformation Journal,
21:24‑54.
Mtawa, M. & Fongwa, S. 2019. Unpacking
university-community engagement:
A broad overview of literature. HSRC-SPU NRF
Community Engagement project Mapping
university-community engagement in
secondary cities, 1-33.
Mthembu, T. & Bawa, A.C. 2018. There is a need
for a new social compact between society
and higher education. (https://bit.ly/3JcqurP).
Muller, J., Maasen, P. & Cloete, N. 2006.
Modes of governance and the limits of policy.
In: C. Cloete, P. Maasen, R. Fehnel, T. Moja,
T. Gibbon & H. Perold (eds.), Transformation
in Higher Education: Global Pressures Local
Realities. Netherlands: Springer, 289-310.
Naidoo, R. & Ranchod, R. 2018. Transformation,
the state and higher education: Towards a
developmental system of higher education
in South Africa. In: P. Ashwin & J. Case (eds.),
Higher Education Pathways: South African
Undergraduate Education and the Public
Good. Cape Town: African Minds, 10-26.
Ngcwangu, S. 2016. A Sociological assessment
of South Africa’s skills development regime:
1990-2008 (Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Johannesburg).
89
Universities, society and development
Ngcwangu, S. Forthcoming. Researching the
public good: reflections on experiences of
doing research on higher education and the
public good in South Africa. Journal of Higher
Education in Africa.
Nzimande, B. & Cronin, J. 1997. We need
transformation not a balancing act: Looking
critically at the ANC Discussion Document.
African Communist, 146(First Quarter):1-8.
Panitch, L. 1986. Working-Class Politics in Crisis:
Essays on Labour and the State. London:
Verso.
Pinheiro, R. 2015. The role of internal and
external stakeholders. In: S. Schwartzman,
R. Pinheiro & P. Pillay (eds.), Higher Education
in the BRICS Countries: Investigating the
Pact between Higher Education and Society.
Dordrecht: Springer, 43-58. [https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-94-017-9570-8_3].
Schmitter, P.C. 1974. Still the century
of corporatism? Review of Politics,
36(1):85-131. [https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0034670500022178].
Schreiner, G. 1991. Fossils from the past;
resurrecting and restructuring the National
Manpower Commission. SA Labour Bulletin,
16(1):32-40.
Seekings, J. 2004. Trade Unions, social policy
and class compromise in Post-Apartheid
South Africa. Review of African Political
Economy, 31(100):299-312. [https://doi.org/1
0.1080/0305624042000262301].
Smolentseva, A., Knyazev, E. & Drantusova, N.
2015. Russian system of higher education
and its stakeholders: ten years on the way to
congruence. In: S. Schwartzman, R. Pinheiro
& P. Pillay (eds.), Higher Education in the
BRICS Countries: Investigating the Pact
between Higher Education and Society.
Dordrecht: Springer, 215-236. [https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-94-017-9570-8_11].
90
South African Communist Party (SACP). 2013.
Let us not monumentalise the NDP. SACP
Discussion Document, 13 May. (https://bit.
ly/3uhHOHy).
Steger, M.B. & Roy, R.K. 2010. Neoliberalism:
A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/
actrade/9780199560516.001.0001].
Streeck, W. & Hassel, A. 2003. The crumbling
pillars of social partnership. West European
Politics, 26(4):101-124. [https://doi.org/10.108
0/01402380312331280708].
Unterhalter, E., Allais, S., Howell, C., Adu-Yeboah.,
Fongwa, S., Ibrahim, J., Morley, L., Selepe, C.,
et al. 2019. Research Report. Higher
education, inequalities and the public good:
Perspectives from four African countries.
(https://bit.ly/3r8assM).
Van der Walt, L. 1997. Against corporatism:
the limits and pitfalls of corporatism for
South African trade unions. Africa in a
Changing World: Patterns and Prospects,
African Studies Association of South Africa
Third Biennial Internaional Conference.
Webster, E. & Adler, G. 1999. Towards a
class compromise in South Africa’s
double transition. Politics and Society,
27(3):347‑385. [https://doi.org/10.1177/00323
29299027003003].
Yang, R. 2015. Cost sharing in China’s higher
education: analyses of major stakeholders. In:
S. Schwartzman, R. Pinheiro & P. Pillay. (eds.),
Higher Education in the BRICS Countries:
Investigating the Pact between Higher
Education and Society. Dordrecht: Springer,
237-252. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-
017-9570-8_12].
 CHAPTER FIVE

Forging a university-aided
5
indigenous community education:
Village elders and social development in
a secondary city of Cameroon
Charles F. Che
Canterbury Christ Church University, UK
&
Marcellus Mbah
Nottingham Trent University, UK

Introduction and main propositions

Nation building in sub-Saharan Africa requires a rethink of social development.
A possible approach is balancing the role of traditional and modern institutions within
a framework of interconnectedness. Interconnectedness highlights the potential
of creating synergies of knowledge based on the capacity of different community
sectors, such as higher education, traditional elders and state institutions, to foster
meaningful social development outcomes (Fonchingong, 2016). Through these
interconnections, suitable channels of communication enable the voices of diverse
communities to be captured. Such an approach provides insights into existing local
knowledge systems for social development (Mbah, 2016). Village elders engender
social resilience and are pivotal assets in community development transactions.
Indigenous people have a knowledge base that can be pivotal in aiding social
developmental drives (Bird-Naytowhow et al., 2017; Fonchingong, 2016; Mbah &
Fonchingong, 2019). This knowledge can be viewed as indigenous and home-grown

91
Universities, society and development

knowledge (Breidlid, 2009; Mbah, 2019). Indigeneity has been advanced as a pathway
to empowerment for ‘marginalised’ communities (Awuah-Nyamekye, 2015; Bird-
Naytowhow et al., 2017; Ndahinda, 2011).

Given its narrow context of being associated with remote localities, some proponents
of scientific interventions and modern structures have shown little appreciation for
the insight inherent in indigenous knowledge and earlier theorists perceived this as
an obstacle to development (Agrawal, 1995; Awuah-Nyamekye, 2015). However, for
many people, indigenous knowledge represents and reflects the ways they have
come to understand themselves and their environment and how they relate with a
wide range of resources and organise themselves to enrich their life and environment
(Awuah-Nyamekye, 2015; Bird-Naytowhow et al., 2017; Mbah, 2014). Many of the
local interventions and relevance of indigenous knowledge and practices have a
bearing on local governance, architecture biodiversity, climate change, agriculture,
conservation, food security, medicine and conflict prevention amongst others, these
can be construed as the fabrics of social development.

Informed by Barnett’s (2011) engaged university curriculum and Boyer’s (2016)

scholarship of engagement, this paper unpicks the role and instrumentality of the
university and local community stakeholders in contemporary social development.
The conceptual ideas of asset-based approaches, indigenous knowledge, social
capital and its connections to poverty alleviation (Eversole, McNeish & Cimadamore,
2005) all equally underpin this paper. Although scientific knowledge and indigenous
knowledge systems are essential in addressing the social needs of a locality in a
complementary manner, the latter could be said to be robustly different from the
former. The differences between the two can be understood in relation to substantive,
methodological, epistemological and contextual grounds.

From a substantive and methodological point of view, it is argued that indigenous

knowledge engages with the livelihood of ordinary people in each geographical
region; this knowledge is made up of non-technical insight, non-complex theories,
and is close and broadly holistic (Agrawal, 1995; Awuah-Nyamekye, 2015). Briggs
(2013) clarifies three broad themes associated with indigenous knowledge. Firstly,
as a knowledge system associated with a specific geographical locality and by this
assertion there are different types of indigenous knowledge, defined by a geographical
region and its inhabitants. This is particularly relevant to this paper which focuses
on a rural municipality in Cameroon and its environs. Secondly, the concept of
indigenous knowledge has been considered useful in co-production of hybrid forms
of learning through integration with scientific knowledge to address local community
needs. This form of integration is premised on natives showing appreciation and
conformity to knowledge which is relevant to their context (Bird-Naytowhow, et al.,
2017). Thirdly, indigenous knowledge has been considered essential within the current

92
 Forging a university-aided indigenous community education

discourses of neoliberalism as a vital resource to meeting sustainable development

(Awuah-Nyamekye, 2015; Breidlid, 2009). The World Bank underscores the need to
mainstream indigenous knowledge into approaches and processes aimed towards
poverty reduction in developing, and remote regions of the world. Given the relevance
of this knowledge system, it is worthwhile to explore its benefits within the framework
of social development, while taking into consideration the ecological mission of the
engaged university (Barnett, 2010) in fostering engage/d curriculum of social change,
in partnerships with local stakeholders such as traditional elders.

Conceptual grounding: indigenous knowledge, community

engagement, social justice and inequality
Whilst universities have a great scholarly mission of learning and teaching to energise
the community (Barnett, 2010), little is known about the role elders play in enhancing
community engagement and addressing issues of social justice and inequality. Lather
(1998) and Missingham (2007; 2017) have argued that a critical pedagogy is needed
to engage with community development principles, one of which is asset-based
community development. The fundamental concern with such an approach is the
need to promote a community development pedagogy within higher education that
takes cognizance of a dialogic relationship between communality stakeholders and
higher education actors (Ife & Tesoreiro, 2006; Kenny, 2006). Alongside the outward
facing ethos of the university in addressing burning social and development concerns,
the viability of elder traditions in furthering this mission cannot be underestimated.
Finding spaces for openness and accountability with indigenous knowledge
utilisation is crucial for community engagement. We advance the proposition that
village elders provide a cutting edge in repositioning social development as they
occupy important indigenous spaces and hold vital knowledge on how the comm-
unity operates (Fonchingong, 2016). The integration of indigenous knowledge and
institutions is proclaimed as vital for sustainable use of land, natural resources
management, with positive outcomes on the natural ecology and ecosystem.
Universities can tap into the social and cultural repositories of communities by
enabling ways of curating knowledge (Kangalawe et al., 2014; Mbah & Fonchingong,
2019; World Bank, 1998). In transitional economies, current debates around social
justice and development have underscored the importance of harnessing indigenous
knowledge (ECA, 2013; Kangalawe et al., 2014), and building on available forms of
social capital - vital networks in community regeneration through an asset-based
approach (Burnell, 2013; Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993; Ling & Dale, 2014; Mathie &
Cunningham, 2003).

Indigenous knowledge, social capital and a restrained usage of community assets

represents possibilities for enabling the world’s rural poor to re-fashion social
welfare and development, in line with contextual realities. Proponents of asset-

93
Universities, society and development

based community development have advanced the relevance of separating the

dynamics between communities and their natural resources (Mathie & Cunningham,
2003; McLean, 2014). We aim to advance a conceptual cooperative framework that
considers the partnership between higher education institutions and communities,
championed by village elders. As Ernest Boyer (1996; 2016) notes ‘the academy
must become a more vigorous partner in the search for answers to our most pressing
social, civic, economic and moral problems’, and must affirm its historic commit-
ment to what Boyer calls the scholarship of engagement. This requires meaningful
outreach, co-production and engagement strategies with local communities.

Aligned to Boyer’s (2016) proposition is the notion of a scholarship of engagement

and integration at two levels: (1) connecting the university’s rich resources to the
most pressing social, civic, and ethical problems, thereby providing a platform for
action; and (2) creating a climate in which academic and civic cultures communicate
more continuously and creatively. This model according to Boyer (2016) broadens
the universe of human discourse and enriches the quality of life for all. We take a
step further to Boyer’s (2016) scholarship of engagement by making the case for co-
creation, forged through an enabling environment in which universities can partner with
communities formally and informally, utilising their arsenal of indigenous resources,
and know-how to resolve pressing social problems, thereby lowering inequality.

Contextual background
This research is focused primarily on Cameroon, one of the fifty-five sovereign states
that make up the African Union. The site of this research was the municipality of
Buea which is a secondary city situated in the Southwest Region - one of two English-
speaking regions of Cameroon (Mbah, 2016). Created on 29 June 1977, the Buea
Rural Council is a highly complex community caught between a blend of urban, semi-
urban, rural and traditional settings. The municipality is made up of more than eighty
villages spread across a surface area of 870 sqaure kilometres with a total estimated
population of above 200,000 inhabitants (Mbah, 2014). The principal ethnic group
in the municipality is Bakweri with most of these groups residing in the villages.
The urban but cosmopolitan setting within the municipality is the town of Buea. Buea
is a small town located at the foot of Mount Cameroon, which is the highest mountain
in West and Central Africa. Historically, it was the capital of German Kamerun during
their colonial rule. It later became capital of Southern Cameroon under British
colonial rule, the capital of the Federated State of West Cameroon, and now regional
capital of the Southwest Region. Most of the inhabitants rely on agriculture (espec-
ially small scale farming) as a source of livelihood. English and French are two official
languages used for general interaction while ‘pidgin’ is the lingua franca. In addition
to the municipality of Buea which forms the bounded system we investigated, we
also explored the state-owned university within it called the University of Buea,

94
 Forging a university-aided indigenous community education

created following the university reforms of 1993, and aimed at addressing issues of
accessibility, diversity, quality, market needs, capacity building and national develop-
ment (Njeuma et al., 1999). Despite the economic, management and infrastructural
drawbacks that that have plagued the University of Buea, it is fondly referred to as
‘the place to be’. The university strives to pursue its academic mission of providing
opportunities for quality education through teaching, research in response to
market forces (UB, 2020). To strengthen its ties with other universities and be part
of the global academic community, the university is a member of the Association of
Commonwealth Universities and the Association of African Universities.

Methodological considerations
The research that underpins this chapter was nested within a qualitative study.
We made a deliberate choice to adopt a qualitative approach in an attempt to give
our participants, who are ordinary people of a residential community, an opportunity
to have their voices heard. Employing conventional quantitative methods to the study
would have impeded the intention to uncover opinions and ideas of the participants.
Drawing on Holliday (2007), it can be maintained that qualitative research is
predominantly concerned with the narratives of participants, texts and meaning
construction. It often generates interesting insights through the open-ended nature
of the enquiry process.

In-depth interviews were held in July 2016, with follow-up interviews in August 2019.
A total of twenty-seven in-depth interviews were carried out with university and
local stakeholders and the following questions were addressed: What indigenous
strategies are deployed by local community stakeholders for social development? Are
there challenges in indigenous strategies towards social development and how can
the university’s capacity and research spaces be tapped to guarantee sustainability?

Prior to start of data collection, institutional ethical approval was granted, and rele-
vant protocols were observed. Consent was obtained from each participant who
opted to be interviewed. Anonymity of participants was also guaranteed, and they
had the right to withdraw from the enquiry process at any time.

The findings resulting from a comprehensive data analysis suggest that social
change is inevitable. Interventions driven by university stakeholders and local partners
were scrutinised with emphasis on embedding indigenous knowledge in develop-
mental drives, service learning and social research agendas. This can be facilitated
through a framework of trust, recognition and social accountability for the know-
ledge capacities of indigenous people. This paper constitutes an extended version
of an earlier article published in Sustainability Journal in 2019 (Mbah & Fonchingong,
2019). Illustrated by means of extracts from field data derived from the in-depth

95
Universities, society and development

interviews, we stretch the argument made in that article further by exploring how
universities can co-create indigenous knowledge with local community leaders to
address social justice and  inequality.

Essentially, the aim of this paper is twofold. First, to identify how universities grapple
with the challenges of embedding indigenous knowledge. Second, to engage with how
universities can aid relevant drivers, partnering with village elders and communities
in addressing social justice and inequality. This research makes a robust argument
for universities to partner with local communities and community elders to safeguard
indigenous knowledge systems and indigenous knowledge practices. Building on
Boyer’s (2016) notion of the scholarship of engagement, it argues for the importance
of both the documentation and stimulation of indigenous know how including in
governance, biodiversity, food security, agriculture, pharmacopeia and traditional
medicine, conservation, ethics, language, and language practices, language-based
indigenous knowledge, local cultural practices, and the need for co-creating and co-
delivering curricula.

Findings and discussion

Outside the broader public and societal import of universities, the insights into the
research data represented below mirror considerations of social justice and inequality
and how communities feel a sense of a ‘lost voice’. Most communities feel left out in
most university driven research that could be impactful in enhancing the wellbeing
of community members. Within emerging themes discussed, participants proffered
reflections on the process of harnessing indigenous knowledge as a catalyst for social
change and development, spearheaded by village elders. Excerpts of participants’
narratives have been used with the context of thick description, to provide an in-depth
insight into the data.

Indigenous knowledge as catalyst for social change

Indigenous knowledge revolves around promoting the self-reliance and resilience of
communities in resolving problems. A local councillor (X) summed up the place of
indigenous knowledge:
…we may want that we should preserve certain secret areas - can be a certain
forest, an area which use to be a water shed - we can put an injunction for
no one to go there and no one will get there. If people are having a conflict
over land and it is difficult for the village council to solve, we can take up the
matter and investigate properly so that when we want to resolve it, we do
without people being agree. It shouldn’t be a matter of I defeat you and there
I am victorious - we solve the matter but the two of you remain members of
the same community - so we owe that obligation.

96
 Forging a university-aided indigenous community education

So, the indigenous knowledge application goes with the preservation of

certain customs which are made to enhance the village. For instance, the
use of traditional medicine. And this is in the hands of the traditional council.
I am always quick to say that if I was a Phyto chemist, one day I will verify
what are the properties in the herbs consumed medicinally - so we should
see where we can tap that indigenous knowledge to be able to help the world
and not just our local community, Also peace, there are indigenous strategies
of keeping peace as I said before. I learnt a lot that if the world was open and
everybody knew every other thing, sometimes the world would have been in
continuous warfare. Our role is to preserve not only artefacts as they don’t
speak, Afuacom does not speak as we were told it spoke in America.

From the above quote, we can deduce communities are structured with certain
aspects like plants and the ecosystem are considered sacrosanct. The preservation
of indigenous knowledge is pivotal in binding these communities together. This
necessitates community-driven initiatives to understand, document, and project
these valuable assets.

Building a scholarship of engagement as proposed by Boyer (1996, 2016) entails

speeding up partnerships with communities to harness and share what they have
got. Findings show that indigenous knowledge can build symbiotic relationships
that are crucial in alleviating social problems within the community (Mbah &
Fonchingong, 2019).

Worthy of note from the interviews are the challenges linked to preserving indigenous
practices as a result of rapid modernisation and expansion within rural areas on the
fringes of urban areas. One participant (C) observed:
…what we can be proud of today, in those days my people were gifted and they
loved wrestling - Bokwai was so prominent in wrestling and up to today the
practice is still going on but we had some other people who were doing it
with some types of beliefs that if he throws you down, part of your body will
be broken. When it comes to wrestling, Bokwai is noted amongst the villages.

Apart from rearing animals, what brought the Bakweri man money was the
tapping of wine but today the palms are all being fell. You cannot have one
or two tappers in this village while there were too many before. The land too
which was reserved for farming is going away, people are building houses and
development is coming nearer and nearer and my fear is that tomorrow we
will not have anywhere to farm.

Mostly Bokwai is a village which is planted in the middle of the Bakweri

villages. So, the expansion of the village is difficult. We have shortage of land;
the stranger population too is growing and it’s dangerous in that indigenes
may no longer have land to build even though we are happy the village is
getting bigger in terms of the diversity of the population.

97
Universities, society and development

The role of sporting activities and their relevance in cultural entertainment and
conferment of status is inferred from this quote. Partaking in social activities is a
glue that fosters community cohesion. However, other employment related activities
such as palm wine extraction have been impacted by limited availability of land
due to urbanisation, leaving most villagers unable to secure farmlands.

As noted by participant C above, natural wine tapping, and other farming activities
are crucial in regenerating the local community. Utilising indigenous products for
production and transformation of the rural economy is vital for promoting social
development. Livelihoods are impacted when the right rural development policies are
put in place to regenerate the peasant economy (Scoones, 2009).

Another participant (F) made strong links between indigenous knowledge and
culture rooted in practices that promote social justice and development:
…We have, you know, a culture that has not been explored and the peoples’
culture is an embodiment of wisdom and this manifest itself in their oral
tradition. You have oral tales, you have words of wisdom, you have what is
called proverbs. Chinua Achebe said proverbs are the palm oil with which
words are eaten and there is no elder who will make a statement without
necessarily making use of proverbs. Their language is wrapped, embellished
with proverbial aesthetic – so it is very important and you see the handicap
may just be that, like I said, it has not been explored the way we are supposed
to do it.

What is borne out of the above quote is the importance of documenting language
practices, and proverbs which are embellished with wisdom promoting indigenous
knowledge and practices. These proverbs are rooted in cultural metaphor and
language that speaks to the experiences, attributes, good as well bad outcomes
for the community. Therefore, preserving and transmitting these messages can
build community cohesion as they carry a powerful message based on concrete
community events.

Indigenous knowledge is conceptualised as practices that help communities to

protect endangered species and conserve the natural flora and fauna. Participant
(K) summed this up when they said:
…we are looking at deforestation or conservation and particularly conservation.
All these birds that we talk for example that we are conserving endangered
species. In the northwest for example, they have these chiefs and others who
use red feathers. Those red feathers are not just from any bird, so it is of the
interest to conserve that bird. A title may be in the southwest anybody can put
on something – that feather is gotten from a specific bird, so those birds need
to be conserved for these guys to get those and how do they conserve it? So
those are aspects that are essentials. So, when we say these are real species
and we need to conserve – we need to know how locals were doing it before….

98
 Forging a university-aided indigenous community education

The key point in the above quote relates to the importance of conserving biodivers-
ity for cultural purposes. The flora and fauna do not only enhance community
livelihoods but are used as symbols of community power and recognition for those
who have contributed to the development of the community.

Utilising indigenous knowledge remains a catalyst for social change and a good
source to meeting sustainable development needs of local communities (Awuah-
Nyamekye, 2015; Breidlid, 2009).

Universities and community engagement

Emerging from the data is the challenge for universities to re-calibrate their mission
by seeking out opportunities to co-create research with communities as a means
of problem solving. Central to the mission of universities is to actively involve
communities, particularly village elders and traditional authorities in mainstreaming
indigenous knowledge and approaches. Participant (X) noted:
…I think that it is very evident but the unfortunate thing is that there are different
levels of preservation of these traditional knowledge – some have kept these
knowledge for many years and it is the source of pride for people who say,
well I come from an area where this and that is done. Some have lost – yes,
modernity is also a very good thing but have affected the traditional settings
like some of us being trained at universities. Myself as an example, I will say
a perfect African should blend this knowledge and sometimes our indigenous
knowledge should get on a world scale, not at the piecemeal level – but at
some systematic level where it is also the source of ethics, social life, politics,
medicine – not alternative medicine but part of it. For now, it is still seen as
bush medicine or something we can learn a little bit from without taking it
very seriously.

The above quote makes a good argument for documenting indigenous knowledge
systematically. For communities to develop, a good starting point is to show
understanding of its past successes and failures in order to carve out a way forward.
Whilst modernity and westernisation continue to play a part, it is vitally important
for communities to draw upon their repositories of indigenous aspects – culture,
language and biodiversity to foster their development.

Another participant (J) noted the role of universities in helping communities

to document aspects of indigenous knowledge and traditions that have been
successfully handed down to other generations:
…it is important our indigenous practices should not be dying down. It will help
to archive or keep records of our indigenous practices for future generation.
If they can recruit lecturers to teach Bakweri language which is dying out
fast that would be good. There is also a group translating the English Bible to
Bakweri and that is good….

99
Universities, society and development

This above quote conveys a point about the relevance of indigenous language as a
medium of communication. Language is a critical aspect of indigenous practices, and
an important reason why its preservation and dissemination cannot be minimised.

To complement the absence of documented material, another participant (F) noted:

…… the major handicap is that they don’t have any written document.
The traditional rulers (chiefs/Fons) have a way of administration, they have
their way how people are being administer even though they don’t have laid
down rules – but those rules exist just by their knowledge, they know that
this is this, you have hierarchy, you have the Fon, you have the sub chiefs
and others … …

It can be premised from the quotes above that indigenous knowledge rooted in
cultural practices, language, ecosystem and biodiversity complement the social
development initiatives of the community.

Missingham (2017) argues that an agenda for social justice and collective action
informs the goals of critical pedagogy, and this is useful in re-calibrating the
importance of social, relational, and organisational assets, pulled together to achieve
individual and collective learning for social change.

Village elders and social development

Our research findings underline the centrality of village elders and other traditional
institutions in problem solving. The ultimate challenge for universities is to make
themselves relevant to the amelioration of social problems, removing barriers to
social justice and inequality by working closely with communities. Participant X
captured the instrumentality of village elders and positive outcomes on community
and social development at micro-levels when they said:
…With respect to indigenous knowledge, I would like to say, people run the
villages according to indigenous knowledge. Besides that, they can, so, well
let us also have a village council. A village council is not this other part, but
daily when a person has a problem, he is going to the traditional part, he is
not going to the council which is made of quarter heads and elected officials
who may be collecting tax, though tax is not being collected nowadays.
But who is a tax collector in those days so who may for instance want to
manage or mobilise people to run around? The indigenous knowledge is to
our own side where it is about indigenous rules of government indigenous
religious practices and although people see only the religious practices
and mystify them. Even issues with respect to running family matters etc,
it is expected that it is people of the traditional side – either meeting in the
villages or towns will investigate people’s problems.

100
 Forging a university-aided indigenous community education

What is inferred from the above quote is a vivid illustration of the dimensions of
indigenous knowledge which revolves around traditional authority and rules of
governance, religion, family, and community cohesion.

Notably, there are different layers of traditional authority and governance that
universities can tap into to address problem-based challenges, crucial in addressing
social justice (Kenny, 2006). Another participant (B) differentiated between of the
role local council and traditional authority thus:
…A local council is a village people. These are people who can run regular issues
like settling small cases – they can judge a matter that cannot be judged at
the local level. If they want people to go and do communal work, they are
the ones who can do all of that as well as collecting funds – we are not
involved in that but if it is to take a decision about asking government to give
a school, we can take such decision. If people are encroaching into the land
of a neighbouring village and attracting a conflict with our own community,
we can sit and decide – that is the work of a traditional council. Then there is
a village council, there is a quarter council and there is another inner smaller
group which is the Fon’s own council. So, these councils adjudicate over
traditional matters and dispense indigenous knowledge.

Village elders are the repository of wisdom and there are symbols such as folktales,
myths, legends, proverbs and traditional drums that are deployed when needed.
Participant F noted:
…… students now have the tasks of identifying elements of orality like proverbs,
legends, myths, wellerism, oral tales, dance, songs ... you see, even drums.
Drums in Africa are powerful symbols of communication. When they play,
let’s say an elderly person will tell you that it is a signal that there is war.
If it’s just for entertainment, an elderly person will tell you that. So, drums
have a language on its own that can only be decoded by the elderly. That is
also education – somebody can write a paper on just the symbolism of drum….

Overall, it emerged from the findings that there are rigid traditional structures
and community layers of governance with village elders tasked with undertaking
specific village duties. The quote below talks about the different roles or ‘offices’
that different persons occupy in the social organisation of the community. These
duties could range from ensuring the security of the village, to preserving its cultural
artefacts and symbols as captured in the words of participant G below:
…you have the Fon, the sub chiefs. You also have the elders, those they call
the Tarsheys. The Tarnwaron – those guys with red feathers, those with the
porcupine – those are the elders. They have a responsibility; there are some
from the Nfu house – is like the military wing – the warriors. These are those
if there is a tribal war, they sound the drum – they have their own house
where they hold weekly meetings. You also have the Kwifon where the Fon is
crowned. They have the authority to discipline the Fon.

101
Universities, society and development

Informal indigenous forms of education have meaningful outcomes on members

of the community. Engaging with local communities to promote these forms of
informal cultural knowledge transmission is crucial to social justice and tackling
inequality as a participant L noted:
…I think a lot of plant medicine is informed by indigenous knowledge and
they share information on how to deal with malaria, high fever, colds with
indigenous herbs. So, they usually present these things at their meetings –
this is local information of the herbs they have in their locality and how they
can be used for prevention and treatment. They also have their traditional
way of conserving daily activities likes Cassava grinding to turn it into water
fufu, garri….

Village elders are very pivotal in driving through social justice and addressing diverse
forms of inequality through utilisation of indigenous know-how. Their resourcefulness
in social development is anchored on indigenous governance mechanisms that
provide social equilibrium within communities. Such community assets are vital for
social development drives (Fonchingong, 2016; Taylor, 2008; Westerman, 2009), and
crucial in fostering social justice and tackling inequality (Kenny, 2006). Education
pioneered by universities is critical for social change and social justice (Crowther,
Galloway & Martin, 2005).

Co-production and co-creation strategies

Working with universities on burning social development concerns, issues like
climate change and agricultural production, are some of the problem-based
challenges that universities can resolve in partnership with communities and village
elders. As participant F observed:
…I think universities and communities can work together because you know
the population is also growing and the land is limited. You go to my village and
you can see people crying they don’t have maize. I grew up in my village and
understand that we use to eat corn fufu from 1st to 31st but now the people
are crying which means there is a problem. The soil has been exhausted and
secondly they don’t have good storage, the beans are bad, so if they can have
that relationship with the university, that would be good and would boost
production, preservation of the crops and so on… …

The message being conveyed in the above quote is the importance of food security.
Overuse of land has created scarcity and the way out is for universities to work with
communities to find creative solutions such as food storage.

102
 Forging a university-aided indigenous community education

The symbiotic relationship between universities and communities and the need
for heads of communities (Fons) to embrace social change were echoed in the
findings. Participant I noted:
…… though traditional structures are very rigid and resist change, but I think
that if, let’s say they successfully convince some of the Fons that change is
necessary and so on, I think that whilst the indigenous people would benefit
from the university, the university will also benefit from the people because
the people have wisdom, culture and a way of life you can write a book on
and you can explore that area in terms of research. So, I think there is a
symbiotic relationship between the traditional society and the university …

In terms of linkages between universities and communities, it is relevant to go

beyond mere documentation of indigenous knowledge by considering capacity
building. Participant G echoed this:
…… the first linkage is to document the knowledge. Indigenous knowledge may
not be used again based on practice but on information left behind which
was documented. After documentation, you can now address their need for
capacity building. We need to document the knowledge as it is so that we can
get back to it sometime. So, the linkages could just be trying to document
their knowledge, understanding how local communities’ function… …

In order to build on indigenous knowledge and practices, universities are challenged

to collaborate with communities through engagement in problem-based learning
and research. This approach aligns with Boyer’s (1996, 2016) conceptual framing
of a scholarship of engagement, a perspective which warrants universities playing
a vigorous role in the quest for solutions to intractable social and development
concerns. As gatekeepers, village elders hold cultural power. Utilising these assets and
indigenous mechanisms may be usefully channelled at the service of the community,
which in turn can enable compliance (Fonchingong, 2016).

Conclusion and policy recommendations

The main evidence presented in this research relates to participants wanting a
relationship with the university to: (1) document various dimensions of their indigenous
knowledges and practices, such as their language, amongst others. (2) the ‘location’
of that knowledge and practice (reposited in the knowledge and practices of elders, of
indigenous community/social structures and organisations, and transmitted through
them; as well as (3) the request for the university to also share its knowledge on
aspects such as food security and storage and (4) the actual dimensions of those
indigenous knowledges and practices linked to social development, local governance;
local social organisation; cultural practices; and language which is intrinsically
connected to the everyday life of the community.

103
Universities, society and development

This research has flagged the challenge for universities in the South to build
partnerships that can enable indigenous knowledge and practices to be safeguarded.
The underlying rationale was to explore how universities can forge an indigenous
community education policy. The instrumentality of village elders and other forms of
informal education that are utilised to maintain social justice and address inequality
are central to the process of problem-based interaction. Findings of the research
indicate how communities conceptualise indigenous knowledge and point to
complex layers of village authority and governance structures that are struggling to
grapple with indigenous knowledge, whilst simultaneously contending with the task
of promoting social development as a glue that binds communities together.

Boyer’s (2016) scholarship of engagement is employed to consider how university-

community engagement/engaged scholarship as a concept can help conceptualise a
community education practice that is socially just and supports social development,
as well as the documentation, preservation and transmission of indigenous
knowledge. Underpinned by Boyer’s (ibid) scholarship of engagement, the challenge
is how universities in countries in the South, such as Cameroon, can help local
communities document available forms of indigenous knowledge such as medicinal
plants, herbs, and natural fauna (birds) that are increasingly endangered as a result of
modernisation and social change. Whilst universities can rethink their civic and social
agenda, a possibility is to consider a conceptual framework for cooperative higher
education through project-based learning and investigations co-created with local
communities. A community education policy that amalgamates the contribution of
elders, informed by an outreach programme designed by universities in collaboration
with local communities will generate streams of engagement. This requires a
measured approach, including impact, frameworks and practices that engage local
communities to address intractable social problems.

Co-creation and co-delivery of carefully designed curricula on plant botany,

conservation techniques and other ecological approaches that have meaningful
outcomes on livelihoods within communities cannot be delayed. Community
engagement strategies and joint pedagogical approaches may enable universities
to build a curriculum that responds to the changing demands and needs of
the community.

Communities are keen to share their expertise with universities on various aspects of
indigenous knowledge. Flora and fauna, specifically herbal pharmacopeia, plant botany,
and disease treatment using traditionally tested practices that have been handed down
the generations were identified as areas of interest. Through co-designed placement
learning and other forms of service learning, universities could better engage local
communities in the delivery of specialist modules on social change, social justice

104
 Forging a university-aided indigenous community education

and inequality. Local communities will benefit from synergies with universities and
other stakeholders in the training and re-skilling of social development practitioners,
needed to engineer social development in local communities.

At the heart of this paper is the proposition that universities are instrumental
in documenting and galvanising the indigenous know-how of communities. Village
elders and community leaders who oversee the process of social change and
development are important stakeholders in social development. Universities’
scholarly activities should be directed towards evaluating and supporting the
activities of communities, as these touch on livelihoods from the ground-up.
The partnership between universities and local communities is vital for social
development in developing economies where social justice and surging inequality
remain fundamental challenges.

105
Universities, society and development
References
Agrawal, A. 1995. Dismantling the divide between
indigenous and scientific knowledge.
Development and change, 26(3):413-439.
[https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.
tb00560.x].
Awuah-Nyamekye, S. 2015. Indigenous
knowledge: a key factor in Africa’s
sustainable development. In: M. Mawere,
& S. Awuah-Nyamekye (eds.), Harnessing
Cultural Capital for Sustainability: A Pan-
Africanist Perspective. Bamanda: Langaa
Research and Publishing CIG, 221-242.
[https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh9vwzb.12].
Barnett, R. 2010. Being a University.
Abingdon: Routledge. [https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203842485].
Bird-Naytowhow, K., Hatala, A.R., Pearl,
T., Judge, A. & Sjoblom, E. 2017.
Ceremonies of relationship: engaging
urban indigenous youth in community-
based research. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 16(1). [https://doi.
org/10.1177/1609406917707899].
Boyer, E. 1996. The scholarship of engagement.
Journal of Public Service and Outreach,
1(1):11-20.
Boyer, E. 2016. The scholarship of engagement.
Journal of Higher Education Outreach and
Engagement, 20(1):15-27.
Breidlid, A. 2009. Culture, indigenous knowledge
systems and sustainable development:
A critical view of education in an African
context. International Journal of Educational
Development, 29(2):140-148. [https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.09.009].
Briggs, J. 2013. Indigenous knowledge:
A false dawn for development theory
and practice? Progress in Development
Studies, 13(3):231-243. [https://doi.
org/10.1177/1464993413486549].
Burnell, J. 2013. Small change: understanding
cultural action as a resource for
unlocking assets and building resilience
in communities. Community Development
Journal, 48(1):134-150. [https://doi.
org/10.1093/cdj/bss059].
106
Crowther, J., Galloway, V., & Martin, I. 2005.
Popular education: Engaging the academy.
Leicester: NIACA.
Economic Commission for Africa (ECA). 2013.
Progress in the Promotion of Popular
Participation and Governance in Africa.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. (repository.uneca.org).
Eversole, R., McNeish, J.A. & Cimadamore, A.D.
2013. Indigenous peoples and poverty:
an international perspective. London:
Zed Books Ltd.
Fonchingong, C. 2016. Optimising community-
driven development through sage tradition
in Cameroon. Global Social Welfare, 1-9.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s40609-016-0052-6].
Holliday, A. 2007. Doing and Writing Qualitative
Research. London: SAGE. [https://doi.
org/10.4135/9781446287958].
Ife, J. & Tesoriero, F. 2006. Community
development: Community-based alternatives
in an age of globalisation. Sydney: Pearson.
Kangalawe, R.Y.M., Noe, C., Tungaraza, F.S.K.,
Naimani, G. & Mlele, M. 2014. Understanding
of traditional knowledge and indigenous
institutions on sustainable land management
in Kilimanjaro region, Tanzania. Open Journal
of Soil Science, 4:469-493. [https://doi.
org/10.4236/ojss.2014.413046].
Kenny, S. 2006. Developing communities for the
future. Sydney: Thomson.
Kretzmann, J. & McKnight, J. 1993. Building
communities from the inside out: a path
towards finding and mobilizing a community’s
assets. Evanston, IL: Asset based Community
Development Institute.
Lather, P. 1998. Critical pedagogy and its
complicities: a praxis of stuck places.
Educational Theory, 48:487-497. [https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1998.00487.x].
Ling, C. & Dale A. 2014. Agency and social
capital: characteristics and dynamics.
Community Development Journal, 49(1):4-20.
[https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bss069].
 Forging a university-aided indigenous community education
Mathei, A. & Cunningham, G. 2003. From
clients to citizens: asset-based community
development as a strategy for community-
driven development. Development in Practice,
13(5):474-486. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09614
52032000125857].
Mbah, M. 2014. Rethinking university engagement
to address local priority needs within the
context of community development: a case
study (Doctoral dissertation, Canterbury Christ
Church University).
Mbah, M. 2016. Towards the idea of the
interconnected university for sustainable
community development. Higher Education
Research & Development, 35(6):1228-1241.
[https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.114
4570].
Mbah, M. 2019. Can local knowledge make
the difference? Rethinking universities’
community engagement and prospect for
sustainable community development.
The Journal of Environmental Education,
50(1):11-22. [https://doi.org/10.1080/0095896
4.2018.1462136].
Mbah, M. & Fonchingong, C. 2019.
Curating indigenous knowledge and practices
for sustainable development: Possibilities
for a socio-ecologically-minded university.
Sustainability, 11(15):4244. [https://doi.
org/10.3390/su11154244].
McLean, J. 2011. Asset Based Approaches for
Health Improvement: Redressing the Balance,
Briefing Article 9. Concept Series:
Glasgow Centre for Population Health, UK.
(https://bit.ly/37pVkA3).
Mengisteab, K. 2003. African traditional
institutions of governance: the case of
Eritrea’s village Baito. In: O. Vaughan
(ed.), Indigenous Political Structures and
Governance in Africa. Ibadan: Sefer, 208-223.
107
Missingham, B. 2007. Participatory learning and
community engagement in universities.
New Community Quarterly, 5:2-3.
Missingham, B. 2017. Asset-based learning and
the pedagogy of community development.
Community Development. [https://doi.org/10.1
080/15575330.2017.1291528].
Ndahinda, F.M. 2011. Indigenousness in Africa:
a contested legal framework for
empowerment of ‘marginalized’ communities.
Springer Science & Business Media: TMC
Asser Press.
Njeuma, D.L., Endeley, H.N., Mbuntum, F.F.,
Lyonga, N., Nkweteyim, D.L., Musenja, S. &
Elizabeth, E. 1999. Reforming a National
System of Higher Education: The Case of
Cameroon. Washington: ADEA Working Group
on Higher Education.
Scoones, I. 2009. Livelihoods perspectives
and rural development. The Journal of
Peasant Studies, 36:171-196. [https://doi.
org/10.1080/03066150902820503].
Taylor, P. 2008. Higher education curricula for
human and social development. In:
Global University Network for Innovation.
Higher Education in the World, 3:89-101.
New York: GUNI & Palgrave Macmillan. [https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-58169-6_5].
University of Buea (UB). 2020. About UB.
(https://bit.ly/36X1Qym).
Westerman, W. 2009. Folk schools, popular
education, and a pedagogy of community
action. In: A. Darder, M. Baltodano &
R.D. Torres (eds.), Critical pedagogy reader
(2nd ed). New York, NY: Routledge Falmer,
514-561.
World Bank. 1998. Indigenous Knowledge for
Development: A Framework for Action.
Washington DC: World Bank.
 CHAPTER SIX

A collective agency approach to

6
university-community
engagement partnerships
Ntimi N. Mtawa
University of the Free State

Introduction
Globally, the discussion of university-community engagement partnerships (UCEPs)
continues to gain traction in the literature. This is attributed to the changing role and
contribution of higher education to local and regional development, the increasing
importance of knowledge, and the demands for the cultivation of intellectual and
citizenship capacities (Davis et al., 2019). To some, it is due to the power of alliance
in addressing pervasive and complex societal problems and the current state of
human development (Teixeira et al., 2020; Walsh et al., 2020). In the study of UCEPs
in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, Ofek
(2016) discovered that UCEPs provide a stage for the public’s (excluded) voices
and opinions to be heard. In the sub-Saharan African higher education context and
particularly in South Africa, UCEPs often feature in national and universities’ policy
imperatives and are regarded as one of the functions of the university alongside
teaching and research. In recent time, the importance of UCEPs is linked to issues
of sustainable development goals (SDGs) (Global University Network for Innovation,
2020) as well as the Covid-19 global pandemic (Farnell, 2020).

109
Universities, society and development

Notwithstanding the growing popularity of UCEPs, there are several grey areas
regarding the nature and modalities of partnerships. The majority of authors are
concerned about how notions of reciprocity and mutuality are loosely used and
practised in UCEPs (Silbert, 2019; Wollschleger, Killian & Prewitt, 2020). Reciprocity
is the recognition, respect and valuing of the knowledge, perspectives and resources
that each partner contributes to the collaboration (Carnegie Foundation, 2011).
Mutuality entails outcomes anticipated and expected by all parties involved in the
activity initiative or relationship. It is the term that suggests equity – that partners
achieve the outcomes that are just and meaningful to them (Janke, 2013). At the
core of these issues are the questions: What do UCEPs entail, and what must their
underpinning framework be to ensure genuine partnership built on reciprocity and
mutuality? These questions are in line with the concern that some actors’ level of
participation and ability to exercise agency in UCEPs are limited (Mtawa, 2019).
In other words, the modus operandi of UCEPs does not consider active and equal
participation of all actors in decision-making, and their ability to act and bring about
change for themselves. This chapter therefore builds on the argument that:
[The] question of who initiates the partnership leads to the complex problems
of choice, power and perspective that bedevil campus community partnerships.
Failure to devote attention to the question of who starts the partnership
ignores important relational dynamics that may actually undermine the
stated goals of mutuality, equality and reciprocity in relationships between
universities and communities. (Glover & Silka, 2013:39)

The above statement illustrates how complex and difficult it is for UCEPs to embed
and achieve some of their fundamental principles of reciprocity and mutuality. In
conjunction with that, Silbert (2019) reveals that when reciprocity and mutuality are
uncritically applied they function to obscure power differentials between partnering
institutions – and between people who bring different histories and social positions
to those partnerships. This begs the question on how each set of actors, such as
a university’s staff, students and external communities, are involved in partnership
initiatives. Mayfield and Lucas (2000) argue that UCEPs have their share of
opportunities and problems. The opportunities and limitations of partnerships in
most cases favour universities because UCEPs enrich research, teaching and student
learning, generate income and create a positive institutional image. For communities,
the opportunities are mainly on leveraging additional resources, building networks,
and enhancing their well-being (Agard et  al., 2019). Mtawa and Fongwa (2020),
Davis et al. (2019), Mtawa (2019) and Silbert (2019) among others, identify areas
that contribute to a lack of genuine reciprocity and mutuality in UCEPs. These factors
include but are not limited to an overemphasis on research and student learning;
power imbalances in decision-making, negotiation of expectations and obligations;

110
 A collective agency approach to university-community engagement partnerships

and the question of whose knowledge is legitimate or subjugated. There are also
communities’ contextual factors such as extreme poverty and enduring inequality
that led into UCEPs taking a paternalistic and/or charity approach in some cases.

In South African higher education, literature and empirical studies have not paid much
attention to the limitations of UCEPs with the exception of a few authors (Grobbelaar,
Napier & Maistry, 2017; Mtawa, 2019; Mtawa & Wilson-Strydom, 2018; O’Brien,
2012; Silbert, 2019; Williams & Nunn, 2016). Even in these works, what still remains
relatively unexplored is the undergirding conceptual framework that can enhance the
reciprocity and mutuality in UCEPs. This chapter aims to address this knowledge gap.

The starting point for the discussion of UCEPs are concepts of mutuality and
reciprocity. This is followed by an analysis of the idea of collective agency, which serves
as an alternative conceptual framework for UCEPs that encourages reciprocity and
mutuality. What follows is a brief analysis of the UCEPs in the South African context.
Empirical evidence is drawn from a study of UCEP projects at one university in South
Africa. Following a qualitative research design, a total of 16 semi-structured face-to-
face interviews with academics were conducted. In addition, two focus groups with
22 community members were conducted. In analysing academics and community
members’ perspectives, particular attention is given to the idea of collective agency
and how it plays out in UCEPs.

Do mutuality and reciprocity really exist in UCEPs?

One of the common phrases used in university-community engagement literature
is that of ‘partnership’ and it is often regarded as the hallmark of university-
community engagement. UCEPs are underpinned by mutuality and reciprocity
through the processes of partners’ co-learning, and in some cases, co-inquiry
(jointly undertaking research activities). Bernal et al. (2004) define partnerships as
a shared and joint responsibility whereby both or all parties, while coming from
different contexts, share an interest that allows them to work together for their
mutual benefit and for the larger or common good. In Pacheco, Motloch and Vann’s
(2006) view, partnerships constitute collaborative initiatives characterised by
collective actions and are systematically organised to efficiently use resources and
achieve the common interests. Emphasising the values of mutuality and reciprocity,
Agans et al. (2020:37) posit that:
Partnerships are also more likely to be successful if they have mutually
beneficial goals based on a shared set of values for the collaboration and
involve systems for effective communication and a shared decision-making
process. This combination of mutual respect with striving toward a common
goal is more likely to produce a project that is, at minimum, not exploitative
and ideally beneficial to all involved.

111
Universities, society and development

The statement above illustrates the centrality of collective actions, efforts and bene-
fits in UCEPs. Much is written about mutuality and reciprocity as being the corner-
stones of UCEPs (Agans et al., 2020; Mtawa & Fongwa, 2020; Silbert, 2019). However,
higher learning institutions often use mutuality and reciprocity merely as catchy
phrases and symbolic concepts of UCEPs. UCEPs, no matter the context in which
they operate, are inherently engulfed with tensions, elements of power differentials
and inequities, varying agendas, expectations and aspirations be-tween and among
diverse actors. At the core of this pitfall is the power and privilege universities hold
over the community partners, particularly marginalised communities (Preece, 2016).
Perhaps, Young’s (1995:71) argument that “a university need not form partner-
ships with its community to carry out its traditional mission” is true given that
genuine mutual and reciprocal UCEPs are rare. Broadly, there is limited asymmetric
reciprocity, mutuality, collective agency and empowerment of all those involved in
the partnerships (Silbert, 2019). In fact, some suggest that we need to move from
reciprocity to building partnerships that facilitate knowledge co-creation (Hall, et al.,
2015; Home, Chubb & Fouche, 2021; Nelson & Stroink, 2020).

Conceptual Framework
The collective agency approach to UCEPs
Genuine UCEPs are built on the values of reciprocity and mutuality. However, there
are several unexamined but dominant caveats. The three primary ones are as follows.
First, reciprocity and mutuality are seen to be inextricably part of and outcomes of
UCEPs. Second, there is lack of scrutiny of the conditions that enable or impede
the embeddedness and achieving reciprocity and mutuality. Third, reciprocity and
mutuality are merely seen to be an exchange between and among UCEPs partners
without explicitly explaining how such reciprocity is or can be done. Nevertheless, to
incorporate and achieve meaningful reciprocity and mutuality, all actors must have
power to influence, be active agents and be involved in the planning and decision-
making processes at all stages. To use Alkire’s (2008) framing, all actors must enjoy
high levels of agency to engage in UCEPs actions that are congruent with their values.
Most of the existing UCEPs models, however, pay little attention to what I describe as
‘collective reciprocity and mutuality’ in UCEPs.

A point of departure in introducing agency in general, and collective agency as a

conceptual framework for UCEPs, is to first position UCEPs as academic and social
activities aimed at promoting the well-being and development of all participants.
In this context, UCEPs constitute processes and activities that directly or indirectly
affect those involved.

112
 A collective agency approach to university-community engagement partnerships

For this reason, agency of all UCEPs actors becomes imperative. To use
Bhattacharyya’s (1995:61) framing with respect to community development related
programmes such as UCEPs, “such activity must be animated by the pursuit of
solidarity and agency”. Agency is a central component of what Sen (1999) defines as
the capability approach and broader human development. By capabilities, he implies
focussing on what people are effectively able to do and be, and his notions of human
development incorporate people being able to live in freedom and dignity, and being
able to exercise choices to pursue a full and creative life (Sen, 1999). In this context,
agency is defined as “what a person is free to do and achieve in pursuit of what-
ever goals and values he or she regards important” (Sen, 1985:203). At the core of
agency is “the capacity of people to order their world, capacity to create, reproduce,
change, and live according to their own meaning systems, the powers effectively to
define themselves as opposed to being defined by others” (Bhattacharyya, 1995:61).
Capability approach scholars believe that any activity be it social, economic, political,
environmental, educational, and others, must put agency of the people at the fore-
front (Davis & Wells, 2016; Ibrahim & Alkire, 2007; Robeyns, 2017). The notion of
agency is associated with elements of self-help, self-determination, felt needs and
participation (Bhattacharyya, 1995) as well as control over, power to, and power from
within (Ibrahim & Alkire, 2007). Agency is vitally important because it allows people
not to be seen as passive ‘inert’ recipients, rather as able to bring changes in their lives
through individual and/or collective activity (Sen, 1999).

Agency can be at both individual and collective levels. For the purpose of UCEPs,
I argue for a collective agency. Crocker (2008:178) defines this process:
Collective agency takes place when individuals engage in a collective process
that results in a joint decision and action. When this process expresses the
agency of all affected and respects individual rights, we have collective
agency that is democratic.

Those who argue for collective agency are of the view that individuals and their
actions are socially embedded and what they value can be achieved by the interdepen-
dence of a group or a community’s members (Alkire, 2008). In UCEPs, collective
agency can be reflected when partners set goals that are achievable only through
interdependent and collective efforts (Sabiescu, 2011). Central to this framing is
that collective agency, if foregrounded, is likely to allow UCEPs partners to work
together in the direction of reciprocity and mutuality. As emphasised by Lund and
Kerosuo (2019:3) “the capacity to work with others and the ability to share knowledge
are important features that shape collaboration in collective and collab-orative
endeavours”. This is a form of collective action through which people act and mobilise
around common or shared concerns. Such framing mirrors quite closely perspectives
of Ubuntu, Ujamaa and Extension, which are heralded by some Global South propo-

113
Universities, society and development

nents for their potential to making community engagement a collective agency and
equitable endeavours (Mtawa, 2019, Rajah, 2019; Maistry & Thakrar, 2012; Tapia,
2012). Of critical importance to this study is that, these Global South perspectives
push community engagement in the direction of humane collective centred on ethos
of dimensions of being for, caring and compassion (Garlic & Palmer, 2008) in spirit
of mutual support and social solidarity (Padayachee, Lortan & Maistry, 2021).

However, questions continue to be raised regarding the possibility of achieving

collective agency given that diverse people have different expectations, choices and
aspirations. This is essential given that regardless of the importance of collective
agency, “the unit of analysis remains the individual” (Samman & Santos, 2009:16).
Within the UCEPs, implementing collective agency is often difficult partly due to
two important factors. One, the agency of university’s students and staff is largely
towards advancing learning and research agenda, whereas the agency of external
community members and particularly at grassroots level is to leverage resources
and use partnerships to address existential social challenges. Two, UCEPs operate
in a particular ‘opportunity structures’ and contexts, which are engulfed with power
imbalances, privilege and unequal voices (Mtawa & Fongwa, 2020). Given these
factors, exercising collective agency becomes a futile process. Nevertheless,
if incorporated throughout the processes, the UCEPs provide fertile and ideal spaces
for partners to exercise their agency in a collective fashion. This framing is within
the germane of Davis, Kliewer and Nicolaides’ (2017:39) notion of “deliberative
engagement”, which is about dialogue and critical deliberation between and
among UCEPs partners. Similarly, collective agency provides a repertoire through
which McNall et al. (2009) identified four qualities of effective UCEPs that can be
achieved. These qualities are (i) cooperative goal setting and planning, (ii) shared
power, resources, and decision-making, (iii) group cohesion, and (iv) partnership
management. Against the above enumeration, the table below provides a summary
of key elements of collective agency, Ubuntu, Ujamaa and Extension perspectives and
their relevance and implications for UCEPs.

114
 A collective agency approach to university-community engagement partnerships

Table 6.1 Key elements of collective agency and their implications for UCEPs
Agency elements Implications for UCEPs
Power over The extent of control over partner/s decisions
Power to Ability of partner/s to jointly take decisions or choose not to take decisions
Power with Partner/s ability to decide what should be changed in UCEPs
Power from within Partner/s ability to change some elements of UCEPs if he/she wants to
Source: Alkire, 2008; Ibrahim and Alkire, 2007; Samman and Santos, 2009
Ubuntu, Ujamaa and Extension in UCEPs context
Perspective Relevance to UCEPs and partners
Respect for oneself and others, caring for another’s well-being,
compassionate, sense of belonging, connectedness, social solidarity,
Ubuntu
reflection and awareness, co-respnsibility, mutual enjoyment, citizenship
capacities.
Enhanced partners’ relationships, human diginity, fostering of care,
promoted equality of opportunities, equitable sharing of benefits, working
Ujumaa together as a team (solidarity), self-help attitude, people’s power and
control of their lives, responsibility for oneself and others, solving own
problems, citizenship capacities.
Services, volunteering – altruism, community relations, promotion of
human dignity, solidarity and sense of belonging, obligation for others,
Extension moral development, formation of sensitivity, creativity and critical spirit,
community well-being, mutuality, commitment to local (contextual)
realities.
Source: Ngomane, 2019; Museva, 2018; Tapia, 2012; Ortiz-Riaga & Morales-Rubiano, 2011

Against the above table, UCEPs that encourage collective agency put partner/s
freedoms, choices, motives, responsibility, voices and power at the forefront of the
design, implementation and evaluation of outcomes. However, as evident in the
empirical section, implementing this in practice is often a challenging process.

The study: UCEPs in South Africa

Research setting
University-community engagement in the South African context was founded on
the idea of higher education institutions (HEIs) forging partnerships with their
multiple communities. The Higher Education White Paper of 1997 called upon HEIs
to show their commitment to contribute to social transformation and redistribution
through building and sharing of capacity. The Community – Higher Education
Partnership tripartite partnership model, which consisted of community, higher
education and service providers was seen to be the fulcrum of UCEPs in South Africa.
The tripartite partnership was envisaged to serve three purposes, namely community
empowerment and development; transformation of the higher education system

115
Universities, society and development

in relation to community needs; and enhancing service delivery to previously

disadvantaged communities. Such partnership requires all actors (students,
academics, practitioners, and external communities) to work together in a collective
fashion. However, relatively little is explored regarding the context and conditions
under which UCEPs operate. These conditions include but are not limited to: a grossly
unequal society, enduring inequalities, universities preferring a charity approach to
engagement, and an overemphasis on students’ learning and overall university’s
benefits of engagement. The conditions are likely to impede the relational, open,
equitable, just and collective UCEPs.

To unpack the embedding of collective agency in UCEPs, this study made use of a
case study of one South African university that offers a useful space for what Stake
(2000) refers to as an ‘opportunity to learn the most’. This case is known for its long-
standing history of UCEPs and it is often regarded as one of the leading universities
with respect to UCEPs in South Africa (Fourie, 2003). In its recent strategic plan, the
case study university articulates UCEPs as a cornerstone for its knowledge project
and the quest to contribute to social justice and the common good. With this case
study university emphasising the centrality of partnerships built on the ethos of
reciprocity and mutuality, it is important to examine how collective actions and efforts
are incorporated and practised.

Data collection
Data for this paper emanates from two sources, namely a broader study that looked
at the role of UCEPs in promoting human development, and ongoing research on
UCEPs at the case study university. The actual data was collected from January
October 2014 to June 2015. A qualitative approach through using semi-structured
interviews and focus groups was deemed suitable for this study in order to capture
the realities and lived experiences of UCEPs partners. The interviews involved 16
academics across the university and six community members as well as two focus
groups, each with eight community members.

The interviews and focus groups were centred on two categories of questions.
The first involved academics and they included:
• How are UCEPs established and what are the processes involved?
• How is the community partner selected?
• Who decides on type and nature of UCEPs activities and how to
implement them?

116
 A collective agency approach to university-community engagement partnerships

The second category involved community members and they included:

• Why and how did the partnership with the university start?
• Who decides on the activities of partnerships?
• How do you get involve in establishing the partnership and
implementing activities?

In all cases, the data collection followed standard ethical procedures. The academics
to be interviewed were identified from the university community engagement data-
base and recruited through face-to-face meetings, emails and telephonic commun-
ications. The academics were purposively sampled across different disciplines and
by looking at their longevity of involvement in UCEPs, which spanned two years and
above. The community members were identified through the support of Non-Profit
Organisations (NPOs), which often serve as an intermediary between the university
and communities at grassroots level.

The data was transcribed verbatim and coded manually in order to allow the views,
experience and languages of participants to be captured and analysed (Saldana,
2009). The study relied on thematic analysis using both deductive and inductive
approaches through which some themes emerged from the data while others were
generated through using the elements of the idea of collective agency. In reporting the
data, participants have been identified using the pseudonym of ‘university academic’
and ‘community members’.

Findings and discussions

The findings are divided into two parts, namely university’s academics perspectives
and external community members’ views.

UCEPs from the academics’ perspectives

Power conundrum in building, implementing and sustaining
collective UCEPs
The analysis of the data indicates evidence of a power conundrum being at the epi-
centre of UCEPs. At the core of the issue of power is that the university’s academics
and students hold more power in making key decisions about UCEPs activities and
their implementation. From the academics’ views, the power conundrum manifests
through decision-making, positioning of community partners, agenda priority, owner-
ship and reaping of UCEPs benefits. There are clear senses that UCEPs decisions
and agenda are imposed on community members with academics thinking that
by merely being present in communities, partnership is taking place. What is clear
from the analysis is the power enactments by academics who are acting out of

117
Universities, society and development

their particular contexts (Davis, Kliewer & Nicolaides, 2017), with less consideration
on the collective efforts, shared vision, plan and action. With the lack of collective
agency, academics enter the community with pre-determined and planned activities
in order to advance specific goals. This excerpt provides a classic example:
Obviously, we have academic objectives, which are research and curriculum
informed, the community on other side have their needs and what they want.
We go there having our objectives and in the initial phase we open up to them
to say this is what we have in hand, this is what we can offer, and this is what
we want our students to achieve. In turn, they tell us we want feedback from
you because you academics come here to do your research, get your degrees,
and forget about us. They say we want involvement: if you do anything, don’t
bring people with you; we want you to involve us in whatever you are doing,
don’t come with ready-made projects, involve us in what you are doing.
(University academic 1)

The above excerpt reflects the tendency and powers of the university to impose
their value agendas on community partners. Of particular importance is that the
academic’s perspective illustrates some evidence of community members demanding
for collective and inclusive efforts in initiating, designing and implementing UCEPs.
If partnership is about “parties coming from a different context, share an interest
that allows them to work together for the mutual benefit” (Bernal et al., 2004:33), then
the above excerpt illustrates a good example of a fragmented and misconceived
notion of UCEPs. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, the above academic represents
those who do not define and practise UCEPs as a collective endeavour. Through such
approach, the university does not treat community members as equals and partners,
rather as passive actors who play an auxiliary role for academics to advance their
research and teaching agenda.

When collective agency is constrained in UCEPs, some partners and often external
communities, to use Young’s (2011:32) view, get “exploited and expulsed from
participation”. In other words, their “self-determination or the ability to participate in
determining one’s action and the conditions of one’s action” (ibid) become limited.
This is evident in the following excerpt:
I feel as a lecturer you have to protect the community against exploitative
ways of working with them. I do not have facts as to whether they are
benefiting, but I hear the university has been working for many years there. We
had couple of instances last year where students said community members
shouted at them and said, “You from the university you just come here; we
don’t want you here.” It was not a violence but we had community members
who were unwilling to participate. (University academic 3)

118
 A collective agency approach to university-community engagement partnerships

The two foregoing excerpts indicate the complex nature of incorporating collective
agency in UCEPs context. On the one hand, it is evident that the university’s aca-
demics have the opportunity to exercise some forms of power in terms of control
over decisions and to decide what should be changed based on the research and
teaching agenda. On the other hand, community partners have less power with
respect to control over decisions, jointly working with the university as active partners,
and deciding what should be changed in accordance with their valued ends. This is
evident through the community partners’ sense of frustration, discontent, and mistrust.
In other words, community partners seem to try to exercise agency by questioning
the university’s approach, which undermines collective efforts and actions. However,
there is what is described as the impasse in exercising agency.

Overall, the university’s academics treat community partners in line with what
Sen (1999) refers to as docile and passive recipients of instructions, services or
development-related initiatives. As emphasised in this excerpt:
I think one would say that we view community as laboratories. People talk
about the communities without actually being there. However, there is a
ruling that there should be a partnership where the community is not only
going to be a passive recipient. The community had to be a partner whereby
both students will be learning as much as community will be learning.
If students were teaching the community, then the community had an active
role of educating students in things like cultural norms, values, and believes.
(University academic 6)

The co-learning and teaching mentioned above are central elements of mutual
and reciprocal UCEPs, which can be achieved through collective actions and
interdependence of actors. This, however, requires active participation between and
among UCEPs partners.

A case for participation in a collective driven UCEPs

The data from the interviews also support a second theme labelled A case for
participation in a collective agency-driven UCEPs. Participation is central to
promoting or inhibiting the collective agency in UCEPs. For Lund and Kerosuo
(2019) participation is interconnected with power and collective action for
social change. On the one end of the spectrum, there is evidence to suggest the
importance of embedding concepts of ‘freedom’ and ‘participatory parity’ in UCEPs.
Sen’s (1999) notion of freedom for people to involve in the public discussions and
social interactions is critical in UCEPs spaces. Similarly, the participatory parity
as espoused by Fraser (2009) offers a repertoire through which UCEPs partners
can collectively act and bring changes on an equal footing. On the other end of
the spectrum, the data indicates two dominant forms of participation, namely:
nominal, when members of the groups rarely attend any meetings and their

119
Universities, society and development

participation is symbolic to serve their interest of inclusion and to keep their

names on the book; and instrumental which is participation necessary to serve the
efficiency interests outside of funders, rather than community partners’ contribution
being valued in itself (White, 1996). These forms of participation stifle the abilities
of external community partners to collectively work with the university partners.
Commenting on the participation, some academics expressed:
If I rate on a scale of 1 to 10, I would say community members’ involvement
is at 1, which I am ashamed of. However, I believe something connect with
the community members. (University academic 10)

My problem when I got here is that students would be taken into the
community and be told go and find a family, do a family study and that family
would get information, sometimes a toy to stimulate a child. I felt that was
kind of ad hoc; we were coming in and do something and then leave, and the
benefit would be largely to the students and the communities would be sort
of by the way. (University academic 8)

The forgoing excerpts demonstrate that with limited active participation from the
external community members, UCEPs activities take a one-way approach rather
than collective efforts. At issue is the lack of liberty of acting as partners who matter
and whose voices count. This results in UCEPs yielding less change particularly in
underserved communities, as demonstrated below:
Often you would hear community members saying ‘it is not our responsibility’
there is no involvements of people in the things that affect their lives.
But also there’s no continuity because there is always new students going
into community every year and you need to start building relationship all
over again, and when the relationship begins to grow you are out. (University
academic 14)

My concern is that we keep going there and give, but there is no change happening.
I have seen so many projects being done, but I think communities are not
fully involved when we are trying to help them to address issues. They think
we are just there to help and give them whatever is available. (University
academic 10)

Although some academics seem to be cautious of the lack of external community

members’ participation, their concerns do not suggest that they think that UCEPs
ought to be undertaken in a collective fashion. Rather, their expressions show that
it is academics’ responsibility to act on behalf of external community partners.
Consider this illustrative example:
[……] you need to be careful when planning community engagement projects
knowing that there will be a specific starting point, there will also be an end,
between that what kind of activities will be undertaken, and how will they
empower community members for a long period. (University academic 2)

120
 A collective agency approach to university-community engagement partnerships

The above perspective offers an important link between agency and empowerment.
This academic emphasises the centrality of developing UCEPs activities that
empower external community partners. However, empowerment depends largely
on the expansion of agency (Ibrahim & Alkire, 2007) and participation, which as
evidenced here do not happen in UCEPs context. What we see across the excerpts
are conditions of disempowerment, which do not position external communities
as significant actors in the change process. Broadly, empowerment suggested by
academics cannot be achieved as external communities lack direct control, effective
power, and active participation, which are some of the key dimensions of agency
(Lund & Kerosuo, 2019).

UCEPs from the community members’ perspectives

A feeling of disconnectedness
As discussed earlier, collective agency is promoted through interdependence of
actors. This interdependence embodies elements of mutuality and reciprocity
through which collective deliberation and coming together to advance partner’s
UCEPs value goals become possible. Nevertheless, external community members
express a sense of being excluded and alienated, particularly in the decision-making
process. A major concern is that of university’s academics and students doing
things for the communities rather than doing with them in the direction of collective
action. For example, one community member stated that:
For me, it does not help when they come here. We do not know each other,
we do not talk to each, and they are only interested in getting what they want.
In some cases, students will come here and ask us what they can work on,
we tell them about our needs. (Community member, focus group)

With the ‘doing for them’ being the dominant practice, opportunities for collective
action become limited while external communities merely act as learning ground
as well as research site for academics and students. Such is another way of
undermining external community members’ agency. Using the example of students,
one community member expressed that:
The students will come here for that period they are assigned, after three or
four months they are done. They just come and steal information but in a
long run, we do not get anything back. They just focus on getting information,
what do we get after they get their degrees? (Community member, interview)

As the university enters the community with its predetermined agendas, external
community members are compelled to co-operate and internalise whatever
processes and approaches are implemented. Such ways of undertaking UCEPs
activities disregard the community’s autonomy and authorship (Davis & Wells,
2016) and perpetuates a sense of dependence in communities. As these
examples illustrate:

121
Universities, society and development

You must always receive people and give them what they are looking for
because if they do not find what they are looking for, they will go elsewhere.
So, what we do is to try our best to assist anybody from the university. We
gladly help them and do what they want us to do. (Community member,  group)

A closer look at the theme on feeling disconnected depicts a clear sense of lack
of voice, and voice is one of the central elements of agency. The ability of community
members to articulate their needs and interests collectively (Gammage et al.,
2016) is limited.

Limited opportunity to ‘voice’

Similar to the issue of power and participation, the absence of community members’
voices remains one of the major limitations of UCEPs. This was another theme
that emerged from the analysis of the data. Voice is arguably the most critical
component of and an expression of agency. Couldry (2010) describes that voice
is a form of agency, and the act of voice involves taking responsibility for, and the
effective opportunity to, have one’s voice heard and taken into account, and that
this is a human good. Linking this to UCEPs, Gammage et al. (2016:6) point out that
“for change to happen, voice must go beyond the capacity to speak, it must be
heard, listened to, and acted on”. Contrary to this description, the voices of commun-
ity members are largely undermined in UCEPs. At issue is the inability of community
members to voice their opinions, interests and valued ends, as well as the ways
in which they want UCEPs activities to be implemented. Key to this is the issue of
clear and effective communication, which seems to be lacking.
For me communication needs to improve because sometimes they just say
we are coming in November, but before that they do not even communicate
in terms of what they are coming to do. We need to schedule according to
different dates and according to what they want to do and how long and
who do they want to meet. Sometimes they come here in the morning, and
they just surprise us to see that students are here without preparing us.
They should communicate better. (Community member, interview)

I think there must be continuous communication because things do change

as time goes on. At the moment, it is very difficult to have a clear commun-
ication with the university. (Community member, focus group)

The above view is a typical example of the unheard community members’ voices,
which is expressed from an extremely powerless position. The lack of clear
communication has always been one of the major challenges in UCEPs. However,
what community members are pointing out is not just an issue of communication.
Rather, it is a deeper problem of undermined voices (Mtawa & Fongwa, 2020).

122
 A collective agency approach to university-community engagement partnerships

To use Couldry’s (2010) framing, what we see is the organisation of UCEPs

that ignores voice and that assumes voice does not matter. Further, we see a
clear sense of pre-existing conditions and forces that contribute to constraining
community members’ voices. These include but not limited to power imbalances,
discrepancy in material conditions and status between the university and external
communities (Mtawa, 2019). When voices are constrained in UCEPs, it results in
unequal exchanges in terms of outcomes and community members often become
the victims. As such, elements of ‘exploitation’ as described by Young (2011) start
to creep in UCEPs practices. As expressed below:
One of the reasons we cannot extract the benefits is because we cannot
communicate and tell the university our problems. If we cannot tell them
about our problems, they run into conclusion and think for themselves
that what they bring might be the solutions or be the answers. We do not
communicate properly. (Community member, interview)

A manifestation of undermined voice is largely seen through mass civic

consciousness, which Mtawa and Nkhoma (2019:112) describe as “a collective
duty to cause trouble or raise indignation to all sorts of exploitation and oppression”.
Perhaps the recent civil unrest in South Africa is a classic example of the aftermath
of the unheard voices amid promises left unfulfilled, joblessness, poverty and
exploitative capitalist economic conditions.
If the communities are not heard properly, they get frustrated and then
you have these riots and strikes as we continue to see in South Africa.
In communities and recently in universities students and people are very
vocal about their demands and partly it is because of lack of participation in
decision-making and limited voice. (Community member, interview)

The excerpt above indicates two important dimensions. On the one hand, is a typical
example of the consequences of the undermined participation and voice as well as
misrecognition. On the other hand, it is an indication that community members have
agency, be it individual or collective. However, what is lacking is enabling environ-
ments for them to exercise it. As such, UCEPs must consider the context in which
they are operating and strive toward affirming of human agency and capacities
for working collaboratively to create change. Related to the issue of voice is the
communication breakdown between the university and community members. The
community members do not only say that they are not heard but they also say they
do not hear. In other words, it is not only that the university ‘partners’ do not listen,
they also do not speak or communicate with the community members. As such,
community members feel ambushed, which results into frustrations.

123
Universities, society and development

Conclusion
This chapter sets out to examine UCEPs from the collective agency standpoint.
The core argument is that for reciprocity and mutuality to be achieved, the design
and implementation of UCEPs must foreground elements of collective agency.
A collective agency approach to UCEPs is central to ensure that there is equal power
sharing, valuing of voices, and active participation in decision-making. While taking
into consideration the complexities of achieving collective efforts, actions and goals,
the chapter has uncovered issues that constrain the promotion of collective agency
in UCEPs context.

The issue of power seems to be the main barrier to incorporating collective agency
and its elements in UCEPs. The kind of power that exists in UCEPs are in line with
Michael Foucault’s conception of power as restricting freedom and “influencing
others in one’s own favour or to one’s own purposes and even being able to enforce
one’s own will against others and their possible resistance” (in Ricken, 2006:544).
The voices of academics and community members show that the university holds a
certain amount of power over the community partners. The evidence of such power
can be seen through the university making decisions for the community, imposing
ideas and activities on community, and favouring academic benefits over those
of the community partners. The worrying part of this is that community members
appear to have internalised, adapted and accepted that they passive actors who
exist in a powerless position and on the margin of UCEPs. In this context, UCEPs,
rather than acting as repertoire through which community members collectively act
and bring about change, entrench elements of dependency in communities. In other
words, power perpetuates the long-standing university’s tendency of doing for the
community rather than with them collectively.

Closely connected to power, there are issues of restricted participation, voiceless-

ness, and disconnectedness. Within the foundational concepts of reciprocity and
mutuality is the underlying assumption that UCEPs partners participate on equal
footing in terms of power to decide, capacity to voice and work collectively to advance
common goals. However, the reality is that participation and voice are overlooked in
the design and implementation of UCEPs activities. The university’s academics and
students make the majority of UCEPs decisions with the community members acting
as recipients. In Sen’s (1999) sense, community members are treated as passive and
docile recipients of instruction or dispensed assistance. Such approach is largely
due to the deprived material conditions of the community members, as UCEPs,
particularly in South African context, operate in the context of extreme poverty, and
enduring and deep inequalities (Mtawa, 2019). Perhaps this is where the argument
that “for the less privileged attaining development as freedom requires collective
action” (Evans, 2002:56).

124
 A collective agency approach to university-community engagement partnerships

However, while the collective agency approach provides some generative and ideal
tools, the relationship between and among UCEPs actors is that of tensions and
conflicts, inhibiting their ability to act and bring about change collectively. These
UCEPs complex relationships are beyond the individual vis-à-vis collective agency
(Evans, 2002; Leßmann, 2020). Rather it is the question of how dialogic spaces might
be created for interrupting normative discourses and practices, and for re-imagining
new possibilities for collective collaborative across contexts of difference and varying
priorities and expectations.

125
Universities, society and development

Acknowledgements
The South African National Research SARCHi Chair Initiative [Grant Number U86450]
supported this research.

126
 A collective agency approach to university-community engagement partnerships
References
Agans, J. P., Burrow, A. L., Kim, E. S., Garbo, C.,
Schroeder, M., Graf, S. & Davis, T. 2020.
“You’re going to burn some bridges if you
come at it the wrong way”: Reflecting on the
realities of research-practice partnerships.
Community Development, 51(1):36-52.
[https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2020.171
4686].
Agard, C., Ansari, Z., Conner, J., Ferman, B.,
Pappas, L.N. & Shiller, J. 2019. Community-
engaged research through the lens of
school closures: Opportunities, challenges,
contributions, and lingering questions.
Education policy analysis archives,
27(55):1‑24. [https://doi.org/10.14507/
epaa.27.2622].
Alkire, S. 2008. Concepts and measures
of agency. OPHI Working Paper Series.
Oxford Poverty & Human Development
Initiative. [https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:o
so/9780199239115.003.0025].
Bernal, H., Shellman, J. & Reid, K. 2004. Essential
concepts in developing community-university
partnerships CareLink: The Partners in Caring
Model. Public Health, 21(1):32-40. [https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1525-1446.2004.21105.x].
Bhattacharyya, J. 1995. Solidarity and
agency: Rethinking community
development. Human organization,
54(1):60-69. [https://doi.org/10.17730/
humo.54.1.m459ln688536005w].
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching. 2011. Classification description:
community engagement elective
classification, reciprocity.
Nursing, 21(1):32‑40.
Couldry, N. 2010. Why voice matters:
culture and politics after neoliberalism.
Los Angeles: Sage.
Crocker, D.A. 2008. Ethics of global development:
agency, capability, and deliberative
democracy. New York: Cambridge
University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511492594].
127
Davis, K.L., Kliewer, B.W. & Nicolaides, A. 2017.
Power and reciprocity in partnerships:
Deliberative civic engagement and
transformative learning in community-
engaged scholarship. Journal of Higher
Education Outreach and Engagement,
21(1):30-54.
Davis, J., Madden, E., Cronley, C. & Beamon. K.
2019. Voices from the field: A qualitative
exploration of community partners’
definitions of service-learning. Partnerships:
A Journal of Service-Learning and Civic
Engagement, 10(1):146-155.
Davis, J.B. & Wells, T.R. 2016. Transformation
without paternalism. Journal of Human
Development and Capabilities, 17(3)360-376.
[https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2016.114
5198].
Department of Education (DoE). 1997.
Education White Paper 3: A programme for
the transformation of higher education.
Pretoria: Republic.
Evans, P. 2002. Collective capabilities, culture,
and Amartya Sen’s development as freedom.
Studies in comparative international
development, 37(2):54-60. [https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF02686261].
Farnell, T. 2020. Community engagement in
higher education: Trends, practices and
policies. Analytical report. NESET report,
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union.
Fourie, M. 2003. Beyond the ivory tower:
Service learning for sustainable community
development: Perspectives on higher
education. South African Journal of Higher
Education, 17(1):31-38. [https://doi.
org/10.4314/sajhe.v17i1.25189].
Fraser, N. 2009. Scales of justice: Reimagining
political space in a globalizing world.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Gammage, S., Kabeer, N. & Rodgers,
van der Meulen Rodgers, Y. 2016.
Voice and agency: Where are we now?
Feminist Economics, 22(1):1-29. [https://doi.
org/10.1080/13545701.2015.1101308].
Universities, society and development

Global University Network For Innovation.
2020. Implementing the 2030 Agenda at
Higher Education Institution: Challenges
and Responses. Global University Network
for Innovation, Barcelona. (https://bit.
ly/3NXaCg8).
Glover, R.W. & Silka, L. 2013. Choice, power
and perspective: The neglected question of
who initiates engaged campus-community
partnerships. Gateways: International Journal
of Community Research and Engagement,
6:38-56. [https://doi.org/10.5130/ijcre.
v6i1.3192].
Grobbelaar, H., Napier, C. & Maistry, S. 2017.
Reinforcing paternalism? The need for
a social justice approach to prepare
students for community engagement at the
universities of technology. Journal of New
Generation Sciences, 15(1):74-93.
Hall, B., Tandon, R., Tremblay, C. & Singh, W.
2015. Challenges in the co-construction of
knowledge: a global study for strengthening
structures for community university research
partnerships, in Perspectives on community
practices: leaving and learning in community.
Proceedings of ESREA conference, Ljubljana.
97-109.
Home, A., Chubb, L.A. & Fouché, C.B. 2021.
Facilitating co-creation of knowledge in two
community-university research partnerships.
Collaborations: A Journal of Community-
Based Research and Practice, 3(1).
[https://doi.org/10.33596/coll.68].
Ibrahim, S. & Alkire, S. 2007. Agency and
empowerment: A proposal for internationally
comparable indicators. Oxford development
studies, 35(4):379-403. [https://doi.
org/10.1080/13600810701701897].
Janke, E. 2013. Increased community presence
is not a proxy for reciprocity. eJournal
of Public Affairs, 2(2):1-23. [https://doi.
org/10.21768/ejopa.v2i2.13].
Leßmann, O. 2020. Collectivity and the capability
approach: Survey and discussion. Review of
Social Economy, 1-30. [https://doi.org/10.108
0/00346764.2020.1774636].
Lund, V. & Kerosuo, H. 2019. The reciprocal
development of the object of common space
and the emergence of the collective agency
in residents’ workshops. Learning, Culture
and Social Interaction, 22. [https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100327].
Mayfield, L. & Lucas Jr, E.P. 2000.
Mutual awareness, mutual respect:
The community and the university interact.
Cityscape, 173‑184.
McNall, M., Reed, C.S., Brown, R. & Allen, A. 2009.
Brokering community-university engagement.
Innovative Higher Education, 33(5):317-331.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-008-9086-8].
Mtawa, N.N. 2019. Human Development and
Community Engagement Through Service-
learning: The Capability Approach and
Public Good in Education. Cham: Palgrave
Macmillan. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
030-34728-4].
Mtawa, N.N. & Fongwa, S.N. 2020.
Experiencing service learning partnership:
A human development perspective
of community members. Education,
Citizenship and Social Justice. [https://doi.
org/10.1177/1746197920971808].
Mtawa, N.N. & Nkhoma, N.M. 2020. Service-
learning as a higher education pedagogy
for advancing citizenship, conscientization
and civic agency: A capability informed view.
Higher Education Pedagogies, 5(1):110-131.
[https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2020.178
8969].
Mtawa, N.N. & Wilson-Strydom, M. 2018.
Community service learning: Pedagogy at
the interface of poverty, inequality and
privilege. Journal of Human Development and
Capabilities, 19(2):249-265. [https://doi.org/10
.1080/19452829.2018.1448370].
O’Brien, F. 2012. Constructing service learning
in South Africa: Discourses of engagement,
in Community Engagement in African
Universities. Perspectives, Prospects and
Challenges. Leicester: NIACE, 197-213.
Ofek, Y. 2017. Evaluating social exclusion
interventions in university-community
partnerships. Evaluation and program
planning, 60:46-55. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
evalprogplan.2016.09.004].

128
 A collective agency approach to university-community engagement partnerships
Pacheco, P., Motloch, J. & Vann, J. 2006.
Second chance game: Local (university-
community) partnerships for global
awareness and responsibility. Journal of
cleaner production, 14(9-11):848-854.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.047].
Preece, J. 2016 Negotiating service learning
through community engagement: Adaptive
leadership, knowledge, dialogue and power.
Education as Change, 20(1):1-22. [https://doi.
org/10.17159/1947-9417/2016/562].
Ricken, N. 2006. The power of power - questions
to Michel Foucault. Educational Philosophy
and Theory, 38(4):541-560. [https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00210.x].
Robeyns, I. 2017. Wellbeing, freedom and social
justice: The capability approach re-examined.
Cambridge: Open Book Publishers. [https://
doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0130].
Sabiescu, A.G. 2011. The issue of collective
agency in community-based open content
creation. Proc. IDIA, 2011.
Saldana, J. 2009. The Coding Manual for
Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Samman, E. & Santos, M.E. 2009. Agency
and Empowerment: A review of concepts,
indicators and empirical evidence. Oxford
Poverty & Human Development Initiative:
Oxford. (https://bit.ly/3xaKhW0).
Sen, A. 1985. Well-being, agency and freedom:
The Dewey lectures 1984. The journal of
philosophy, 82(4):169-221. [https://doi.
org/10.2307/2026184].
Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Silbert, P. 2019. From reciprocity to collective
empowerment: Re-framing university-school
partnership discourses in the South African
context. Gateways: International Journal of
Community Research and Engagement, 12(1).
[https://doi.org/10.5130/ijcre.v12i1.6620].
Stake, R.E. 1995. The Art Of Case Study
Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
129
Nelson, C. & Stroink, M. 2020. Understanding
the dynamics of co-creation of knowledge:
A paradigm shift to a complexity science
approach to evaluation of community-
campus engagement. Michigan Journal
of Community Service Learning,
26(1)197-217. [https://doi.org/10.3998/
mjcsloa.3239521.0026.112].
Teixeira, S., Lombe, M., Figuereo, V., Chu, Y.,
Wang, K., Bartholomew, M.W. & Mayes, L.
2020. University and community agency
research partnerships: implications for
teaching, scholarship, and service. Journal of
Social Work Education, 1-14. [https://doi.org/1
0.1080/10437797.2020.1713943].
Walsh, M.E., Adams, S.M., Ferguson, S.,
Hearst, M.O., Jones, J.V., Wall, S. &
Theodorakakis, M. 2020. Inquiry in action:
reflections on the implementation of best
practices in child- and family-focused
university-community partnerships.
Journal of Education. [https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022057420903255].
White, S.C. 1996. Depoliticising development:
The uses and abuses of participation.
Development in practice, 6(1):6-15. [https://
doi.org/10.1080/0961452961000157564].
Williams, J.M. & Nunn, L.M. 2016. Immersive
practices: Dilemmas of power and
privilege in community engagement with
students in a rural South African Village.
Engaging Pedagogies in Catholic Higher
Education (EPiCHE), 2(1):5. [https://doi.
org/10.18263/2379-920X.1009].
Wollschleger, J., Killian, M. & Prewitt, K. 2020.
Rethinking service learning: Reciprocity and
power dynamics in community engagement.
Journal of Community Engagement and
Higher Education, 12(1):7-15.
Young, I.M. 2011. The five faces of oppression.
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Young, W.B. 1995. University-community
partnerships - Why bother? Metropolitan
Universities, 6(3):71-77.
 CHAPTER SEVEN

Towards a transformation agenda

7
for academic engagement
in South Africa
Glenda Kruss & Il-haam Petersen
Human Sciences Research Council

Introduction
The starting point for this chapter is that South African universities need to engage
with and respond to ever more complex development challenges, in a rapidly
changing global economic, political, technological, environmental, and social context.
Our universities need to link to global science, and to address local economic and
social problems related to local resource conditions. Equally, they need to respond to
the enduring legacy of colonisation, racial and ethnic segregation, and the resultant
high levels of poverty, inequality and diversity (Albuquerque et al., 2015; Cloete et al.,
2011; Kruss et al., 2013; Suzigan & Albuquerque, 2011).

These transformation challenges are magnified for universities embedded in

secondary cities, located outside the major metropoles, in regions with higher levels
of unemployment, poverty and inequality, and fewer opportunities for economic
growth. These universities too, have complex legacies with which they still grapple,
of historical under-resourcing, weak institutional cultures and political demand from
students. Here, there are stronger and more urgent pressures on universities to act as
agents of change that support and catalyse inclusive socio-economic development
at local and regional levels (Bank, 2019; Bank, Cloete & van Schalkwyk, 2019; Bank &
Kruss, 2019).

131
Universities, society and development

A renewed call for transformation was at the forefront of social protests that emerged
in the South African higher education system from 2015, calling for change to
universities’ mandates, orientations, institutional cultures, and curricula (Booysen et
al., 2016; Habib, 2019; Heffernan et al., 2016; Pattman & Cornelissen, 2018). In the
context of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is also evident that the very nature, and perhaps
even the survival, of the university in the form we know it is at stake. Institutions are
forced to pivot rapidly to accommodate online learning and research, exposing fault
lines in their ability to meet the needs of impoverished students, making calls for
transformation all the more urgent, particularly in cities, towns and regions that have
been poorly resourced for decades.

The implications for promoting university-community engagement in such secon-

dary cities are significant, and as the chapter will argue, this requires fundamental
changes to the prevailing trends.

University-community engagement has typically received sporadic and insufficient

attention in mainstream higher education transformation academic and policy
debates. A recent study of the national literature on transformation in higher education
found that ‘community engagement’ did not feature at all as a theme of analysis.
Instead, the literature focused on analytical themes of transforming teaching and
learning in relation to curriculum, structures and access (Du Preez, Simmonds &
Verhoef, 2016).

We argue in this chapter that a renewed transformation agenda needs to go beyond

the predominant focus on transforming access, teaching and decolonisation of the
curriculum, to change the orientations, practices and beneficiaries of the teaching,
research and engagement missions of the university, in an integrated manner. To be
transformative, a university needs to ensure that the ways in which academics teach,
research and engage with societal challenges will contribute to shift long-established
structures and practices of inequality, and promote inclusive and sustainable
development, particularly at the local level.

The chapter draws on a transformative approach to innovation and inclusive

development in the Global South (Cozzens & Sutz, 2014; Heeks et al., 2013; Pansera,
2015) to propose how such a renewed transformation agenda can be created.
Innovation for inclusive development may be broadly defined as “innovation that
aims to reduce poverty and enable as many groups of people, especially the poor and
marginalised, to participate in decision-making, create and actualize opportunities,
and share the benefits of development” (IDRC, 2011). An innovation for an inclusive
development-grounded approach is particularly relevant for universities’ community
engagement in secondary cities, as it means that a different set of actors are
included as partners, a different set of goals are prioritised, and alternative practices
are activated.

132
 Towards a transformation agenda for academic engagement in South Africa

The analysis draws on a set of empirical investigations conducted over a number

of years, which allows for a perspective on evolving trends and practices in different
types of universities located in different contexts (Kruss et al., 2013; 2016; Kruss &
Gastrow, 2015; 2016; Petersen et al., 2016). The aim is to provide guiding principles
for a transformative model of university-community engagement.

As a means of illustrating critical issues and identifying these guiding principles,

the chapter draws on empirical evidence from only one comprehensive university,
CompUniv, based in a large secondary city. The metropole is one hub for industrial
development in the Eastern Cape, a province with high levels of poverty and
significant socio-economic development challenges. CompUniv has a long history
but was most recently shaped by a merger between a relatively young university
and a well-established university of technology (formerly technikon). They had
begun to collaborate around ‘engagement’ oriented to city and regional economic
development, even before the merger, and before the national policy imperative
towards community  engagement.

The chapter proceeds as follows, after this introduction. First, it argues that new
South African innovation policy can provide an enabling framework for engagement
that promotes the role of universities in transformation towards inclusive and
sustainable development. It proposes a distinction between three forms of inclusive-
ness that can inform engagement policy in universities in secondary cities particular-
ly, in valuable ways: industrial, social and territorial. This framing is illustrated by
a vignette describing one engaged research project at CompUniv, to illustrate
the kinds of engagement that are more likely to promote inclusion and transformation.

Second, we show the significance of mapping patterns of engagement to identify

whether and how the balance of effort across a university is oriented to promote the
three forms of inclusiveness, and hence, transformative goals. Again, data from a
survey of academics at CompUniv are used to substantiate and illustrate the guiding
principles that emerge.

Third, the focus shifts from the macro- and meso- to the micro-level of academic
practice, to explore the challenges of engagement with actors in local communities
and in informal settings. Here, we suggest new ways to close a gap in current
orientations and practice.

Finally, the conclusion summarises guiding principles for how universities in

secondary cities can balance forms of engagement for transformation that promote
industrial inclusiveness and social inclusiveness, in order to contribute to territorial
inclusiveness, towards local socio-economic development.

133
Universities, society and development

Guiding principle for higher education policy: align with the

framework of innovation for transformative change
Engagement for transformation can best be conceptualised in terms of the
changing role of universities in innovation. There is growing recognition that science,
technology and innovation policy itself has evolved over the past decades. The most
useful distinction to understand the paradigmatic shifts has been drawn by Schot
and Steinmuller (2018), who distinguish three consecutive ‘framings’. The first frame
encompasses a science-push, linear model focused on the goal of economic growth,
and would promote universities’ roles in driving research and development (R&D)
and knowledge intensification. The second frame centres on the concept of building
national systems of innovation to promote global competitiveness and catch-up
and focuses on universities’ roles in interaction with other actors, and particularly,
through building university–industry linkages.

The third framing foregrounds transformative change, and focuses on how science,
tech-nology and innovation can address socio-economic development needs for
inclusive and sustainable development. This transformation frame allows for the
extension of the boundaries of innovation system concepts in relation to the critical
issues of exclusion, marginalisation and inequality experienced in low-income or
highly unequal middle-income economies (Cozzens & Sutz, 2014; Crespi & Dutrenit,
2014; Pansera, 2015; Swaans et al., 2014). It lays the foundation for understanding
university interaction through engagement, and promoting innovation for, by and
with marginalised groups (Petersen & Kruss, 2018), and is therefore proposed
as the most valuable framework for conceptualising university engagement in
general, and particularly in secondary cities. How do universities understand their
‘engagement’ role, and how can they contribute in this frame, with the emphasis on
transformative innovation?

By using a framing of transformative innovation, we propose that inclusive

‘engagement’ with marginalised groups, at the local level, is central for academic
knowledge creation that leads to transformative social and economic development.
From this perspective, the stark inequalities that are more evident in secondary
cities create a stronger impetus to consider inequalities inherent in the practices of
producing and using knowledge, which determine who creates and who benefits
from university knowledge, innovation and technology development activities.

Posing such questions shifts the focus to a consideration of how engagement can be
oriented to promote transformative potential across a university, and at a systemic
level, across the higher education system. This section interrogates how current
higher education and innovation policy frameworks conceptualise and promote
university engagement that is transformative.

134
 Towards a transformation agenda for academic engagement in South Africa

Evolving innovation and university engagement policy:

towards an integrated conceptualisation
Drawing on international models in developed economies, from the time of the White
Paper on Science and Technology (DASCT, 1996), and reflecting the second inno-
vation framing identified by Schot and Steinmuller (2018), South African universities
were challenged to build linkages with firms and government to support national
innovation and economic growth agendas (Kruss, 2005). The assumption here was
that ‘university-industry linkages’ (UILs) would increase knowledge flows across a
national system of innovation in order to enhance economic growth. Academics were
comfortable collaborating with their counterparts in firm R&D labs or innovation units,
particularly where there was financial benefit to fund research and post-graduate
students. Universities drew on the experience of developed economies to create
mechanisms for technology transfer, collaborative research and skills development,
amongst others.

In parallel, and driven by South Africa’s equity and development agenda, from 2005
there was a strong higher education policy imperative to institutionalise ‘community
engagement’ in university policies and structures. How to promote interaction
with community, civil society and government actors was increasingly the focus.
Extensive debate centred on how ‘community engagement’ – the predominant term
used by most universities at that time – should be conceptualised, who should be
the main stakeholders, and how this activity should fit with the mission and mandate
of the university (see Bender, 2008; Bhagwan, 2017; Johnson and Cooper, 2014 for
terminological debate on this issue).

In South Africa, the origins of ‘community engagement’ lie in a historical tradition

of community service and outreach and have not been linked to innovation policy.
‘Community’ tended to stand as a proxy term for impoverished black citizens, long
marginalised as participants in, and beneficiaries of, formal knowledge practices
(Akpan, Minkley & Thrakrar, 2012; Thakrar, Kenn & Minkley, 2014). The result has been
much practice that is philanthropic in nature, and that is viewed by many academics
as an additional stream of work, not integrated into their main identities and roles
(Kruss, Haupt & Visser, 2016), nor into universities’ core knowledge functions.

The focus shifted over time, from a concern with terminological and definitional
issues (Bhagwan, 2017; CHE, 2010; 2016; Lazarus et al., 2008), to an emphasis
on ways to integrate community engagement with the core missions of teaching,
particularly through approaches such as service learning (Bender, 2008; Thomson
et al., 2011), and the value of working within a framework of ‘engaged scholarship’
or social responsiveness (Boyer, 1996; Johnson & Cooper, 2014; Mtawa, Fongwa
& Wangenge-Ouma, 2016). A Council on Higher Education (2016) review of twenty
years of change in higher education reflected these shifting discourses of community

135
Universities, society and development

engagement, in relation to national higher education policy imperatives. What was

missing however, was a reflection on how higher education ‘community engagement’
policy aligns with innovation policy.

Firms
UILS

National Higher
Education System:
Diverse types of universities.
Govt Research, mission, Informal Sector/
regional with a balance
of multiple teaching research,
Community
research, innovation and
outreach activities.

Civil Society IID

Figure 7.1 Extending academic knowledge to the direct benefit of all external actors

Figure 7.1 summarises these shifts in the conceptualisation of ‘engagement’ with

external actors, in higher education and innovation policy and practice over the past
two decades in South Africa. The shifts are uneven and play out in different ways
across different types of universities with their specific missions.

One challenge is that two strands of activity – one oriented primarily to firms and the
other to communities and civil society actors – have tended to operate largely on
parallel tracks, with differing policy assumptions, targets, institutional structures and
strategies. A second challenge is that university engagement with firms was informed
by the second framing of innovation for catch-up and global competitiveness.

Using the third frame of transformative innovation, it is possible to delineate a

conception of ‘engagement’ that includes activities oriented to multiple actors – in
industry, government and civil society – in a coordinated and integrated manner. This
should be seen as part of a university’s strategic commitments and roles, and as part
of academics’ core roles and identities.

136
 Towards a transformation agenda for academic engagement in South Africa

Such an integrated conceptualisation of ‘engagement’ is aligned with current

innovation policy shifts informed by the third frame in South Africa, to promote
innovation for inclusive and sustainable social and economic development,
defined as innovation policy that:
… …should enable all sectors of society to equitably access knowledge infra-
structure and participate in creating and actualising innovation opportunities,
and ensure that all individuals share in the benefits of innovation. (RSA,
2019:36)

Opposed to the second frame’s emphasis on formal research and large firms in the
formal sector, a third frame transformative approach also prioritises improving the
well-being of low-income and marginalised consumers; prioritises improving the
productivity of informal producers; and emphasises economic and social development
(Bortagaray & Gras, 2014; Heeks et al., 2013). The approach stresses the significance
of agency, participatory processes, collective action and understanding the values
and institutions of marginalised groups (Petersen & Kruss, 2021).

The White Paper on Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) (2019) set out a
new systemic vision, of “science, technology and innovation enabling inclusive and
sustainable South African development in a changing world” (DST, 2019:11), which
requires partnerships and collaboration between business, government, academia
and civil society, driven by a shared and “coherent whole-of-society STI agenda” (ibid).
The White Paper on STI (2019) reflects a growing commitment to a transformative
innovation policy approach, in contrast to the typical second frame focus on
economic growth and competitiveness. In that it promotes purposive and directional
innovation to address societal challenges (Diercks, Larsen & Steward, 2019), it allows
for a reconceptualisation of engagement that is transformative and oriented to the
full range of actors, including those who were traditionally marginalised.

A definition based on extending knowledge to the benefit of

all actors
A useful working definition of ‘engagement’ therefore is that it should involve
universities and their academics in “generating, transmitting, applying and preserving
knowledge for the direct benefit of external audiences, in ways that are consistent with
university and unit missions” (MSU, 1993). Transformative models of ‘engagement’
should involve extending knowledge in all of these ways to the direct benefit of the
full range of diverse external audiences significant to the socio-economic needs of the
local context, whether private or public sector, whether in formal or informal settings,
whether in firms or in households, as depicted in Figure 7.1 above.

137
Universities, society and development

Within the umbrella term of ‘engagement’, forms of engagement oriented to distinct

types of external actors can be distinguished, such as ‘industry engagement’ or
‘policy engagement’ or ‘social engagement’ (Mora, Aguiar & Vieira, 2017). Forms
of engagement oriented primarily to the core missions of teaching, research or
outreach can also be distinguished. However, the integrated relationship between
these activities in the practices of individual academics and their organisational
units is better captured by distinguishing activities along the spectrum of generating,
transmitting, applying and/or preserving knowledge.

A definition based on a broad conceptualisation of inclusion

For a transformative approach, it is proposed that universities conceptualise their
‘engagement’ within such a framework of inclusion and prepare to extend their
knowledge in diverse ways to the benefit of diverse actors in systems of innovation.
For this purpose, it is useful to draw on a distinction between three broad objectives
of innovation policy that can promote inclusion. The aim may be to promote industrial
inclusiveness, or social inclusiveness or territorial inclusiveness (Phaho & Dlamini,
2020; Planes-Satorra & Paunov, 2017). This threefold distinction may be adapted to
inform the complex roles and ways in which universities can engage and extend their
knowledge in secondary cities specifically.

First, is the role of the university to promote ‘territorial inclusiveness’, by contributing

to narrow the gaps between secondary cities and impoverished regions, and the
leading regions in the country. In this regard, there is a growing literature on the role of
the university in place-making that provides direction (Bank, 2019; Bank et al., 2019;
Thakrar, 2018). The focus is increasingly on universities’ roles as key actors in local
development networks. Universities may play a role as brokers and intermediaries
in local development networks, bringing scientific knowledge to bear, and in turn,
generalising insights from the local to the national or global levels.

Second, for a university in a secondary city to promote ‘industrial inclusiveness’,

where many firms are less innovative, there is a critical role to be played in extending
academic knowledge to a range of firm actors. Research and teaching can be oriented
to enhance their innovation and technological capabilities, across industrial sectors,
firm size, local or global ownership, and formal or informal enterprises.

Third, to promote social inclusiveness, universities need to extend their knowledge

to impact on the well-being of individuals and groups in a highly unequal society,
by promoting broader participation and including actors in marginalised settings.
Extending knowledge to the benefit of actors at the community level, based in
informal and micro enterprises or local government, remains a challenge, however.

138
 Towards a transformation agenda for academic engagement in South Africa

The aim is to engage in ways that are mutually beneficial and that promote co-
production and bi-directional knowledge flows, to contribute to inclusive local socio-
economic development. As Trencher et al. (2014) argue, focusing at the local level is
necessary for transformative change, and this is particularly vital in secondary cities.
Nevertheless, it is not easy for all universities, as formal knowledge producers, to
engage through their academic teaching and research with users in informal settings,
who have traditionally been excluded, or have been passive recipients of knowledge.

Therefore, transformation depends on how universities in secondary cities can

achieve a strategic balance in their activities of generating, transmitting, applying and
preserving knowledge in an engaged manner, to the direct benefit of the full range of
diverse external actors, to promote territorial, industrial and social inclusiveness. Such
a framing of engagement gives strong direction to the question of how universities
can better contribute to transformative socio-economic development.

Engagement informed by and promoting a transformative

approach: a vignette from a comprehensive university in a
secondary city
This section is based on a case study conducted at a comprehensive university,
of engaged research focussed on enhancing well-being and livelhoods of actors
in informal settlements. The vignette we share here for illustrative purposes,
demonstrates and reflects such a transformative framing. Notably, at the time of the
research, CompUniv displayed a strong institutional focus on the local and regional
levels, rather than on its contribution at the national or international levels. CompUniv
had a comprehensive and all-encompassing definition of ‘engagement’ at the heart
of its institutional policy, which was implemented in practice across departments in
highly varying ways. The case described here stood out in the strength of the networks
built up, the commitment to active participation by community-based partners –
who would more typically have been included as ‘objects’ of research – and the
creation of livelihood opportunities.

The research project at the heart of the case was initiated at the request of the local
municipality, which faced ‘service delivery protests’ in an informal urban settlement
located in an environmentally sensitive area, close to the work opportunities of the
residents. A leading university researcher was tasked to work with residents to identify
creative solutions to the local authorities’ inability to resolve the tension between the
environmental conservation needs, and livelihood needs. The lead academic was
selected based on prior engagement with local government and conducting relevant
research on human settlements.

139
Universities, society and development

The local residents engaged in tenuous livelihood activities in formal and informal jobs
based in the nearby affluent suburban areas. They faced the threat of resettlement
at a distance from their current livelihood opportunities, due to the environmental
vulnerability of the area where they resided (see Gastrow et al., 2016). This is a typical
South African story, related to patterns of spatial segregation as cities developed,
with the result that the issue of sustainable human settlements has become a major
social and economic development problem (Bradlow, Bolnick & Shearing, 2011).
The research project attempted to manage the tension by avoiding the route of
unsustainable traditional construction methods, and instead, involved local actors in
identifying technologies that could make the settlement truly sustainable and self-
sufficient, while creating further livelihood opportunities for residents.

The project used a highly participative and reflexive mode of engaged research,
in a network consisting of the university’s department of development studies,
the provincial department of human settlements, the metropolitan municipality, a
local non-governmental organisation (NGO) network, and residents of the informal
settlement. The university research group had a linked master’s programme, and
students worked with local participants. The lead academic reported difficulties
bringing other academic departments into the project, claiming that most academics
displayed an ‘elitist attitude’ that prevented engagement in the same way. Nevertheless,
the project had significant traditional academic benefits for the university, in the
form of post-graduate students, scientific reports and academic publications, and
reputation building local networks in the city. More than that, the involvement of the
university led to significant knowledge generation with potential socio-economic
benefits. Drawing from the experience of one specific case, academics could create
new methodologies and approaches to sustainable human settlements that could be
used in multiple settings to enhance social and territorial inclusion.

Furthermore, the project had direct benefit to the specific local residents.
The participatory action research approach adopted required that residents explore
alternatives and come up with their own solutions and plans for development,
including exploration of cost-effective and eco-friendly technology, such as bio-
digester toilets, sandbag houses, solar lighting and water harvesting mechanisms.
The origins of these technologies were diverse, but generally stemmed from local
and international best-practice models identified through previous academic
research. None of these technologies were new to the world, but they would all be
diffused to a new local setting – and provided a model for wider diffusion to multiple
informal settlements.

Local participants were trained to become ‘community researchers’, elected by the

residents, on the basis that they were already in leadership positions in the local
area. The action research methodology involved a substantial degree of knowledge

140
 Towards a transformation agenda for academic engagement in South Africa

co‑construction, with the local participants involved in activities such as feedback

about their problems, choices and solutions, which in turn, fed into the research
process as a source of knowledge for the academics. Livelihood opportunities for
local residents to create new businesses supplying these energy, housing or sanitation
technologies were promoted and supported, through linkages with NGOs and local
government, enhancing industrial inclusiveness. A less tangible but critical outcome
was the cohesion fostered in the informal settlement through the establishment of a
committee structure for engagement with academic and government actors.

Such a case illustrates the transformative potential of engaged academic activity that
goes beyond the typical practices found widely across the higher education system.
It highlights that for a transformative agenda, different kinds of questions should
be posed. The national discussion around university‑community engagement has
tended to focus on defining ‘community’, debating which ‘communities’/university
stakeholders should be engaged, and whether all types of universities should be
expected to engage at the ‘community’ level. The more fundamental question to be
posed is: how can ‘engagement’ be promoted to more equitable socio-economic
benefit, in the interests of the public good? This kind of engagement is not widely
found in academic practice. It is particularly critical in secondary cities that are
challenged to contribute to local economic and social development. Action research
models and participatory methods in general are well-established paradigms, but a
recent trend is their growth in popularity across disciplines and fields. While there
are signs that practice is changing, there is not yet a systemic response. How can
these models be combined to develop a systematic response (Trencher et al., 2014)
across the higher education system and policy domain, to address socio-economic
development needs and transformation at the local level?

Guiding principle for university strategic planning:

Orient academic engagement to socio-economic benefit
towards territorial inclusiveness
The challenge is how to balance the engagement effort within a specific university,
and across the higher education system, oriented to a transformative inclusive and
sustainable development agenda. Of necessity, such a process must consider each
university’s context, history, mission and strengths. In this section, we outline ways
in which the existing patterns of engagement at CompUniv were analysed, against
their ideal model, to identify spaces for change.

141
Universities, society and development

Map patterns to ensure the strategic balance of engagement effort

across the university is oriented to transformation
The complex history of higher education in South Africa, characterised by the
establishment of different types of universities for distinct purposes in different
periods, means that research, comprehensive and technology-oriented universities
have distinctive balances of the core missions of research, teaching and engagement
(Kruss et al., 2013; Kruss et al., 2016; Thune et al., 2016). Universities in secondary
cities are more strongly tasked to respond to the distinctive developmental challenges
of the regions and cities in which they are located, which are directly linked to the
histories of their establishment (Bank & Kruss, 2019). And of course, academics in
different fields will interact with different kinds of external actors in different ways
(Kruss et al., 2016). So, while all are mandated to extend knowledge to the benefit of
all actors, not all universities and not all academics in all disciplinary fields will do so
in the same way.

A university in a secondary city needs to understand its own local socio-economic

developmental challenges, in relation to national challenges, and to its insertion into
the global context. The aim is to determine the most appropriate balance between the
missions of teaching, research and outreach, and the set of external actors appropriate
to that context. On this basis, a university, department or research group can focus
on how to build sustainable capabilities to address these challenges. A coordinated
strategy is required across the university to consider disciplinary differences and
different forms of interaction (Kruss et al., 2013) that promote all three forms of
inclusiveness. For example, collaborative forms of interaction with firms may involve
bi-directional flows of knowledge to the mutual benefit of the university and the firm
(Kruss, 2005; Kruss, 2012), promoting industrial inclusiveness. In contrast, traditional
service-learning forms of interaction that primarily have uni-directional knowledge
flows, act primarily to the benefit of the university, and may be limited in promoting
social inclusiveness. If the university prioritises limited forms of engagement with a
narrow set of actors, this may restrict its ability to promote territorial inclusiveness.

Hence, it is imperative to map academics’ patterns of engagement in distinct types

of universities and academic fields (Kruss et al., 2012), to provide evidence of the
scale and nature of interaction relative to individual, institutional, regional and national
mandates. By understanding what exists, university leadership can strengthen
existing effort, promote more effort in neglected areas, support emergent niche
activities and so on.

One way of doing this was designed for the South African context in different types
of universities in 2010 (Kruss, 2012; Kruss et al., 2013; Kruss et al., 2016; Kruss &
Visser, 2017). A survey of academics’ engagement activity was conducted, and
interpreted within an analysis of the institutional mission, policies, structures,

142
 Towards a transformation agenda for academic engagement in South Africa

mechanisms and incentives in place to promote engagement (Kruss et al., 2013).

The approach has been influential in the literature on engagement in sub-Saharan
Africa (Zavale & Langa, 2018). Academics were asked to report on the scale and
nature of their engagement with a list of potential actors, including different types of
firms, government, civil society, community and welfare partners, at local, regional,
national and global levels. Survey questions probed the type, channels, outputs and
outcomes, as well as the barriers to interaction. Such mapping analysis points to
critical questions for promoting the desired balance of engaged activity in a university
or set of universities to promote territorial, industrial and social inclusiveness.

A skewed balance of patterns of engagement

Here we provide insights into how universities balance effort in line with their miss-
ions and local demand, through an analysis of the patterns of engagement within
CompUniv. Most academics surveyed claimed that they were engaging with external
partners, but the scale and nature of this engagement differed widely between facul-
ties (Kruss et al., 2013). There is independent evidence from other studies to suggest
that there were competing notions of engagement operating within CompUniv, which
were not all contributing to strengthen the ‘academic core’ (Van Schalkwyk & Bailey,
2011). Nor were they all contributing to development agendas in a strategic and
proactive manner (Cloete et al., 2011).

143
 Table 7.1 A teaching-oriented community pattern and a research-oriented firm pattern of interaction
Broad concept of ‘engagement’ as a strategic focus, both industry- and community-driven.
University policy Four types: through research and scholarship, through teaching and learning, through professional or
discipline‑based service provision, and through outreach and community service.
• 79% of academics reported they engage with an external partner.
• Most – 48% – engage in isolated instances only.
Scale of engagement
• Active interaction (moderate to strong basis) with only one (30%) or two partners (16.5%), with 36% of these
interacting with community partners, 23 % with academic partners, and 16% with firm partners.
Universities, society and development

144
Main pattern of engagement:
(Clustering using Principal Component
Analysis techniques was used
to map the types of actors and
types of relationship and then, the
associations between them were
explored using Pearson’s chi-squared
and Cramer’s V value. The categories
were all derived from the PCA
analysis, with the labels informed by
the framing of the analysis in terms of
the dominant concept of ‘community
engagement’ at that time.)
Main understanding of partners
Community, welfare and civil society partners in relation
to teaching and learning- oriented types of relationship:
Type of relationship associated most strongly with
community partners: student learning, health, and
alternative forms of teaching.
Alternative teaching most frequent: service learning,
student voluntary programmes, education of socially
responsive students and customised training.
Few research-oriented types of relationship.
Individual and households, a specific community,
and religious organisations (stering using Principal
Component Analysis techniques was used to map the
types of actors and types of relationship and then,
the associations between them were explored using
Pearson’s chi-squared and Cramer’s V value).
Firms and academic partners in relation to research and
technology transfer-oriented types of relationship:
Type of relationship associated most strongly with firm
partners: technology transfer; alternative teaching;
community participatory.
Technology transfer most frequent:
Design, prototyping and testing of new technologies;
technology transfer; design and testing of new
interventions and protocols; contract research; joint
commercialisation of a new product.
Community participatory: participatory research
networks; collaborative R&D projects; research
consultancy; community-based research projects.
Multinational companies; small, medium and micro-
enterprises; large South African firms; national
regulatory and advisory agencies.
 1. A five-year project to offer a social development
module where students go into the poor local
community and aid in social projects (help with
understaffing at health care facilities, establish
community gardens etc.).
2. Second year students do voluntary social
responsibility projects with local communities
(such as orphanages) and request donations from
various agencies.
3. Helps to organise fashion shows for local
Examples of engagement communities in which students design their
own clothes.
4. Informal settlements and social network type
of project that benefits both students and
the community.
5. A ceramic sculpture project with the aim to transfer
skills and promote sustainable development,
partnering with a local government development
agency, and a local municipality.
145
6. Involved in a community-building and uplifting
project linked with NGO agencies.
1. Resource-related challenges: competing priorities on time, too few academic staff, limited financial resources
for competing university priorities and sustainable external funding
Challenges and obstacles
2. Not frequently related to the distinct challenges of extending scholarship to the benefit of external partners,
or to communities specifically
1. A project with a large sugar company to find ways
of using by-products for more purposes.
2. Built a statistical functional model for demand
forecasting for a public energy supply company.
3. Collaborated with a small pharmaceutical company
to produce an indigenous plant product.
4. Research partnership with small and large
landowners on ways to harvest timber on steep
slopes, investigating different techniques and
new technologies.
5. Working with a company that manufactures
pharmaceutical products; company provides
resources to the department and they in turn
supervise students who would later work in
the company.
6. Collaboration with electronics MNE for more than
two years; able to establish two laboratories,
train employments and catalyse other partnerships.
Towards a transformation agenda for academic engagement in South Africa
Universities, society and development

Factor analysis of the survey data revealed two distinctive patterns of engaged
activity, evident in the practice of separate clusters of academics (Table 7.1).
1. A set of academics who engaged with ‘community’, ‘welfare’ and ‘civil
society’ actors through ‘alternative teaching and learning-oriented’ types
of relationship, potentially promoting social inclusiveness.

2. A set of academics who engaged with ‘firms’ and ‘academic’ actors

through ‘research’ and ‘technology transfer-oriented’ types of
relationship, potentially promoting industrial inclusiveness.

The dichotomy in the nature of engagement was stark. Engagement with ‘community’
partners entailed little research centred on activities to generate or apply knowledge.
The main types of relationship were related to transmitting knowledge – ‘alternative’
forms of teaching, such as volunteering, service learning or cooperative learning.
For the most part, students in professional programmes such as health, social work,
teaching or law, were involved in learning through development projects that took
place in local communities. These equipped students to operate more effectively in
the South African context in their future careers, but the benefits to local communities
or to growing knowledge fields were less clear.

A distinctive feature at CompUniv was that the factor for ‘community’ partners
included religious organisations, linked to projects with a more traditional outreach
and service orientation. It also included a concentration on schools and education
development projects, which are a core concern for promoting social inclusiveness
in the region. Not all engaged activities were directly related to the students’ field
of study to develop their practice, however. Some activities displayed the potential
for social and industrial inclusiveness, such as a ceramic sculpture project that
aimed to transfer skills and promote sustainable development, by partnering with
local agencies. Notably, as the examples cited in Table 7.1 reflect, many of these
engagements displayed a strong philanthropic orientation of outreach and service,
rather than being related to the core knowledge functions of the university, or to
promote livelihood opportunities for social and industrial inclusiveness.

In sum, the main engagement with ‘community’ actors related to the transmission
of knowledge. Knowledge flows tended to be uni-directional, from the university to
the community partners, with students as the main channels of interaction. In terms
of outputs and benefits, engagement was more likely to produce academic outputs,
with teaching and learning benefits to the university. Less frequently reported were
outputs or benefits for the community-based actors involved. Community partners
were largely passive recipients, and at best, were involved with students in applying
knowledge new to their context, limiting the potential for promoting social or
industrial inclusiveness.

146
 Towards a transformation agenda for academic engagement in South Africa

A small cluster of ‘community participatory research’ type of relationships was

evident, but these were more strongly associated with firm actors. ‘Community’
actors based in households and local settings were not significantly associated
with these types of relationships. This suggested that they may be involved through
intermediary agencies like academic, welfare or government partners, as potential
beneficiaries, but not directly as active partners. These types of relationship largely
produced academic outputs that had academic benefits, suggesting that they do not
easily promote social inclusiveness.

In contrast, the main types of relationship with firm actors were clustered around
‘research’, ‘technology transfer’ and ‘alternative teaching’ types of relationship. These
related to distinct historical forms of co-operative education and work-integrated
learning, traditionally based in firms, as well as examples of academics offering
short courses and training in firms. Here, the main activities involved the generation,
transmission and application of knowledge, and knowledge flows could more often
be bi-directional. Firms actively collaborated in knowledge activities, potentially
promoting industrial inclusiveness. The ‘technology transfer’ type of relationships,
for example, primarily produced academic and firm-related outputs that had mainly
firm‑related benefits, potentially promoting industrial inclusiveness.

Create a balance of forms of engagement that can effect

transformative change for a diverse range of partners
Analysis of the pattern at CompUniv at that particular point in time (if our mapping
exercise were repeated in the present, it is possible that a different pattern would
emerge) highlighted an imbalance in the nature of engagement, a trend that was
not unusual across the university system (Kruss et al., 2013). Unlike firm actors,
community-based actors were not strongly or widely involved across the full
spectrum of knowledge activities. They were more likely to be passive recipients of
formal knowledge produced in the university and diffused by intermediary agencies.
The pattern suggests a balance of effort that attempted to promote ‘territorial
inclusiveness’, but that promoted ‘industrial inclusiveness’ with formal sector firms
and related to public and private sector actors only. The university did not strongly
engage with informal sector firms, and the forms of engagement with community
actors could promote only very limited forms of ‘social inclusiveness’.

A more recent study of engagement at CompUniv came to a similar conclusion.

The university showed evidence of investment in local partnerships and ‘community-
focused’ teaching and research (Van Schalkwyk & De Lange, 2018). However,
increasingly, its engagement patterns were more strongly driven by financial
imperatives, a market logic, and a choice to orient activity around a national and
global reputation-building mission. These shifts came at the expense of engagement

147
Universities, society and development

oriented to “the challenges faced by the communities which share the city with the
university” (Van Schalkwyk, 2018:80), to promote territorial inclusiveness in a way that
is socially inclusive.

Our analysis highlighted that if the activities within a specific university are to be
oriented to industrial and social inclusiveness in a balanced manner to promote
territorial inclusiveness, then academic engagement with local actors based in
communities and households, informal enterprises, local government and non-profit
organisations (NPOs) should also be prioritised. Such transformative engagement
should also involve their active participation in the full range of knowledge generation,
transmission and application activities.

The challenge is to promote the forms of engagement that can extend knowledge to
the direct benefit of typically excluded actors, on a wider scale across the university.
And, it is vital to ensure that these are integrated more effectively into academic
identity and practice, in ways that are seen to be of value. The vignette showed
that transformative forms of engagement may have direct benefit for academics
and the university. Significantly, they are critical to inform more sustainable and
transformative solutions to complex socio-economic problems in the local setting of
the secondary  university.

Guiding principle for departmental and academic practice:

Create and promote new modes of bi-directional
engagement with all partners as active participants
The first section focused on how transformation can be promoted at the macro-level
of policy through alignment with the commitment to innovation for inclusive and
sustainable development. The second section focused on the meso-level of university
strategy, showing how an imbalance of forms of engagement to the detriment of
informal and community-based actors can limit the promotion of industrial and social,
and hence, territorial inclusiveness. This section moves to focus on the micro-level,
of the practices of individual academics and their departments that can facilitate
engagement with informal and marginalised actors that promotes all three forms
of inclusiveness.

A shift to more participatory, collaborative and bi-directional forms

of engagement
There is a growing recognition of the need to create more participatory, collaborative
and bi-directional forms of community engagement (Mutero & Govender, 2019;
Scheepers, 2019). Preece (2013) for example, calls for the use of an asset-based
community development lens. Engagement through listening, reciprocity, community

148
 Towards a transformation agenda for academic engagement in South Africa

ownership, and illuminating power relationships can lead to service-learning types

of relationship that have a greater chance of effecting change (see also Preece,
2016 for elaboration of an ‘adaptive engagement’ approach). One creative and
potentially impactful initiative, Common Good First, set up a digital network that
aims to connect and provide a platform for ‘community-driven social impact
projects’, using tools such as digital storytelling to illuminate a more inclusive range
of experiences and stories (https://commongoodfirst.com/about/). Academics are
increasingly promoting participatory action research approaches for community
engagement (Kearney, Wood & Skerrit, 2013; Nhamo, 2012), particularly in fields
like health and environmental management. However, these come with their own
challenges (Emmet, 2000). This section considers how the conceptual distinctions
proposed in the chapter can contribute to shift these challenges.

The need to build cognate knowledge to facilitate bi-directional

knowledge flows
One of the key constraints is the knowledge differential between university academics
and community-based actors, usually evident in language differentials, which reinforce
power differentials. Central to academics’ role and identity is that they are formal
knowledge producers, transmitters, appliers and diffusers. Engagements with firm
actors, while there are challenges, are more easily facilitated by the fact that firms
are formal knowledge users. Interaction is typically ensured through R&D, training,
student or researcher exchange, funding and so on. In contrast, community-based
actors are typically informal knowledge users, and typically located in under-resourced
informal settings, defined as “a set of places where people live, namely, marginalised
households and communities, as well as a set of places where they work, namely, the
informal economy” (Cozzens & Sutz, 2012:5). The institutional settings are thus also
very different, making engagement across formal-informal boundaries difficult.

It takes time to build up the kinds of cognate knowledge necessary to facilitate bi-
directional knowledge flows and co-production (Benneworth & Olmos-Penuela, 2018;
Petersen et al., 2016; Petersen & Kruss, 2021). Cognateness is multi-dimensional and
may involve cognate knowledge about the differing institutional contexts. Academics
and students need to have some level of understanding of the social context, at
least, what is valued and practised in communities, and their development priorities.
If not, an intermediary actor such as an NGO active in the local area may be needed
to assist with knowledge transformation. Similarly, community partners are able to
gain more from engagement with academics and students if they place some value
on formal knowledge. The recognition of the inter-dependency of academic and
community knowledge is another dimension of cognateness (Benneworth & Olmos-
Penuela, 2018).

149
Universities, society and development

Engagement practice that emphasises cognate knowledge bases is more likely

to promote social and territorial inclusiveness. It can foster proactive strategies
by community-based actors (see Petersen et al., 2016), and hence, lead to
transformation. Specific techniques that facilitate the building of cognate knowledge
include participatory action research and community-based research methods that
enable the co-determination (Sarewitz, 2016 in Benneworth & Olmos-Penuela, 2018)
of research questions, agendas, methods and planned outputs, as illustrated in
the vignette.

Conclusion: towards a transformative agenda of

engagement
The chapter began by arguing for the integration of engagement into the discourse
on higher education transformation in South Africa, informed by a conceptualisation
of innovation and inclusive development. To be transformative, a university needs
to ensure that what and how academics teach and research, and the ways they
engage with societal challenges, will contribute to shift long-established structures
and practices of inequality, and promote inclusive and sustainable development,
particularly at the local level. To contribute to transformative social and economic
development, internal transformative change should take place in university
policy, academic identities and practices, and the norms and values that underpin
institutional behaviour (Petersen & Kruss, 2021). An approach of innovation for
inclusive and sustainable development, as articulated in the new White Paper on
Science, Technology and Innovation (RSA, 2019), provides a useful overarching
framework to promote the university transformation imperative. This approach leads
us to think differently about the third mission of the university, through an emphasis
on inclusion and participation. A conceptual distinction between the three forms of
territorial, industrial and social inclusiveness is important to guide public policy and
university strategy. Engagement orientations and practices need to be aligned with
each of these, embedded in the distinctive knowledge functions of the university, and
extended to the benefit of a diverse range of actors. In particular, a transformative
agenda requires socially inclusive engagement with those actors that have typically
been excluded or marginalised as knowledge partners. The common practice of
uni-directional knowledge flows to passive recipients in communities and informal
enterprises will not promote inclusion or transformation, as the evidence shows.
A skewed balance of forms of engagement with a limited set of formal sector actors
will not enable a university to achieve transformation objectives.

150
 Towards a transformation agenda for academic engagement in South Africa

What then are the guiding principles that can be drawn from the analysis, to inform
conditions of possibility? First, engagement policy, at the national government
and university level should align with the innovation policy emphasis on inclusive
and sustainable development. It should distinguish how each of the three forms
of inclusiveness may be promoted simultaneously and in an integrated manner.
Second, for strategic planning at the university level, it is vital to map existing forms of
engagement with diverse partners. This can provide a basis for balancing a suitable
range of engaged activity aligned with the mission of the university and its units. Here,
the focus on local development imperatives to promote territorial inclusiveness is
vital. Third, for practice at the level of departments and individual academics, we need
more research and experimentation with action and participatory research methods.
More effective forms of engagement that promote bi-directional knowledge flows and
co-creation with informal marginalised actors at local level can be designed. Imagine
if universities were able to intervene to find solutions to complex societal challenges
in networks with communities at local level, using such forms of engagement?

151
Universities, society and development
References
Akpan, W., Minkley, G. & Thakrar, J. 2012. In
search of a developmental university:
Community engagement in theory and
practice. South African Review of Sociology,
43(2):1-4. [https://doi.org/10.1080/21528586.
2012.694239].
Albuquerque, E., Suzigan, W., Kruss, G. & Lee, K.
2015. Changing dominant patterns of
interactions: Lessons from an investigation
on universities and firms in Africa, Asia and
Latin America. London: Edward Elgar.
Bank, L. 2019. City of Broken Dreams:
Myth-making, nationalism and the university
in an African city. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Bank, L., Cloete, N. & Van Schalkwyk, F.
2019. Anchored in place: Rethinking the
university and development in South Africa.
Cape Town: African Minds. [https://doi.
org/10.47622/9781928331759].
Bank, L. & Kruss, G. 2019. Beyond the campus
gate: Higher education and place-based
development in South Africa. In: C. Soudien,
V. Reddy & I. Woolard, State of the Nation:
poverty & inequality: diagnosis, prognosis and
responses. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Bender, G. 2008. Exploring conceptual models
for community engagement at higher
education institutions in South Africa:
Conversation. Perspectives in Education,
26(1):81-95.
Benneworth, P. & Olmos-Penuela, J. 2018.
Reflecting on the tensions of research
utilization: Understanding the coupling of
academic and user knowledge. Science and
Public Policy, 45(6):764-774. [https://doi.
org/10.1093/scipol/scy021].
Bhagwan, R. 2017. Towards a conceptual
understanding of community engagement
in higher education in South Africa.
Perspectives in Education, 35(1):171-185.
[https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.
v35i1.13].
152
Booysen, S., Godsell, G., Chikane, R.,
Mpofu‑Walsh, S., Ntshingila, O. & Lepere, R.
2016. Fees must fall: Student revolt,
decolonisation and governance in South
Africa. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.
[https://doi.org/10.18772/22016109858].
Bortagaray, I. & Gras, N. 2014. Science,
technology and innovation policies for
inclusive development: Shifting trends in
South America. In: G. Crespi & G. Dutrenit
(eds.), Science, Technology and Innovation
Policies for Development: The Latin
American Experience. Switzerland: Springer
International Publishing. [https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-04108-7_11].
Boyer, E.L. 1996. The scholarship of engagement.
Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts
& Sciences, 49(7):18-33. [https://doi.
org/10.2307/3824459].
Bradlow, B., Bolnick, J. & Shearing, C. 2011.
Housing, institutions, money: The failures
and promise of human settlements policy
and practice in South Africa. Environment
& Urbanization, 23(1):267-275. [https://doi.
org/10.1177/0956247810392272].
Cloete, N., Bailey, T., Pillay, P., Bunting, I. &
Maassen, P. 2011. Universities and
Economic Development in Africa. Cape Town:
Centre for Higher Education Transformation.
[https://doi.org/10.47622/9781920355807].
Council on Higher Education (CHE). 2010.
Community engagement in South African
higher education. Kagisano No. 6. January.
Council on Higher Education (CHE). 2016.
South African higher education reviewed:
Two decades of democracy. CHE, Pretoria.
Cozzens, S. & Sutz, J. 2014. Innovation in
informal settings: Reflections and proposals
for a research agenda. Innovation and
Development, 4(1):5-31. [https://doi.org/10.10
80/2157930X.2013.876803].
Crespi, G. & Dutrenit, G. (eds.). 2014.
Science, technology and innovation policies
for development. Springer International
Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-04108-7].
 Towards a transformation agenda for academic engagement in South Africa
Department of Arts Culture Science and
Technology (DACST). 1996. White Paper on
Science and Technology: Preparing for the
21st century. Pretoria: Department of Arts,
Culture, Science and Technology.
Diercks, G., Larsen, H. & Steward, F. 2019.
Transformative innovation policy:
Addressing variety in an emerging policy
paradigm. Research Policy, 48(4):880-894.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.028].
Du Preez, P., Simmonds, S. & Verhoef, A. 2016.
Transformation in higher education -
rethinking and researching transformation
in higher education: A meta-study of
South African trends. Transformation in
Higher Education, 1(1):1-7. [https://doi.
org/10.4102/the.v1i1.2].
Emmett, T. 2000. Beyond community
participation? Alternative routes to
civil engagement and development in
South Africa. Development Southern
Africa, 17(4):501-518. [https://doi.
org/10.1080/03768350050173903].
Gastrow, M., Kruss, G., Esemu, T. & Bolaane, M.
2016. Innovation and inclusive development
on the edge: Universities interacting with
marginalised African communities in
ecologically fragile locations. Innovation and
Development. [https://doi.org/10.1080/215793
0X.2016.1200970].
Habib, A. 2019. Rebels and rage:
Reflecting on #FeesMustFall. Johannesburg:
Jonathan Ball Publishers.
Heeks, R., Amalia, M., Kintu, R. & Shah, N.
2013. Inclusive innovation: Definition,
conceptualisation and future research
priorities. Development Informatics
Working Paper 53. Centre for Development
Informatics, University of Manchester, UK.
[https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3438439].
Heffernan, A., Nieftagodien, N., Ndlovu, S.M. &
Peterson, B. (eds.). 2016. Students must rise:
Youth struggle in South Africa before and
beyond Soweto’76. New York: NYU Press.
[https://doi.org/10.18772/22016069193].
International Development Research Centre
(IDRC). 2011. Innovation for Inclusive
Development. IDRC: Ottawa.
153
Johnson, B. & Cooper, D. 2014. Some theoretical
considerations of ‘engaged scholarship’ and
‘use-oriented research’ at a new university
in South Africa: The Vaal University of
Technology. Southern African Review of
Education with Education with Production,
20(2):97-120.
Kearney, J., Wood, L. & Zuber-Skerritt, O. 2013.
Community-university partnerships: Using
participatory action learning and action
research (PALAR). Gateways: International
Journal of Community Research and
Engagement. [https://doi.org/10.5130/ijcre.
v6i1.3105].
Kruss, G. 2005. Financial or intellectual
imperatives. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Kruss, G. 2012. Reconceptualising engagement:
A conceptual framework for analysing
university interaction with external social
partners. South African Review of Sociology,
43(2):5-26. [https://doi.org/10.1080/21528586
.2012.694240].
Kruss, G., Visser, M., Aphane, M. & Haupt, G. 2012.
Academic interaction with social partners:
investigating the contribution of universities
to economic and social development. Cape
Town: HSRC Press.
Kruss, G. & Gastrow, M. 2016. Universities and
innovation in informal settings: Evidence
from case studies in South Africa. Science
and Public Policy. [https://doi.org/10.1093/
scipol/scw009].
Kruss, G., Haupt, G. & Visser, M. 2016.
‘Luring the academic soul’: Promoting
academic engagement in South African
universities. Higher Education Research &
Development. [https://doi.org/10.1080/072943
60.2015.1137874].
Kruss, G. & Visser, M. 2017. Putting university-
industry interaction into perspective:
A view from inside South African universities.
Journal of Technology Transfer. [https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10961-016-9548-6].
Kruss, G., Visser, M., Aphane, M. & Haupt, G. 2013.
Academic interaction with social partners:
Investigating the contribution of universities
to economic and social development.
Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Lazarus, J., Erasmus, M., Hendricks, D.,
Nduna, J. & Slamat, J. 2008. Embedding
community engagement in South African
higher education. Education, Citizenship
and Social Justice, 3(1):57-83. [https://doi.
org/10.1177/1746197907086719].
Michigan State University (MSU). 1993.
University outreach at Michigan State
University: Extending knowledge to serve
society. A Report by the Provost’s Committee
on University Outreach. East Lansing: MSU.
(https://bit.ly/3O5nwJk).
Mora, J-G., Aguiar Serra, M. & Vieira, M.J. 2017.
Social engagement in Latin American
universities. Higher Education Policy,
31(4),513-534. [https://doi.org/10.1057/
s41307-017-0069-1].
Mtawa, N.N., Fongwa, S.N. & Wangenge‑Ouma, G.
2016. The scholarship of university-
community engagement: Interrogating
Boyer’s model. International Journal
of Educational Development,
49:126‑133. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijedudev.2016.01.007].
Mutero, I. & Govender, I. 2019. Moving from
transactional partnerships to collaborative
university community engagement: A case
study evaluating creative placemaking in
KwaZulu-Natal province. South African Review
of Sociology, 50(1):3-17. [https://doi.org/10.1
080/21528586.2019.1632578].
Nhamo, G. 2012. Participatory action research
as a platform for community engagement in
higher education. JHEA/RESA, 10(1):1-21.
Pansera, M. 2015. The cross-pollination of
development and innovation discourses:
an integrative literature review. Paper
presented at the Globelics International
Conference, 23-25 September, Havana, Cuba.
Pattman, R. & Carolissen, R. (eds.). 2018.
Transforming transformation in research
and teaching at South African universities.
Stellenbosch: African Sun Media. [https://doi.
org/10.18820/9781928480075].
Petersen, I. & Kruss, G. 2018. Promoting
alignment between innovation policy
and inclusive development in South
Africa. Development Southern Africa,
36(3)351‑375. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03768
35X.2018.1490175].
Petersen, I. & Kruss, G. 2021. Universities
as change agents in resource-poor local
settings: An empirically grounded typology
of engagement models. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 167. [https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120693].
Petersen, I., Kruss, G., Gastrow, M. & Nalivata,
P. 2016. Innovation capacity-building and
inclusive development in informal settings:
A comparative analysis of two interactive
learning spaces in South Africa and Malawi.
Journal of international Development,
30(5)865-885. [https://doi.org/10.1002/
jid.3232].
Phaho, D. & Dlamini, T. 2020. Towards inclusive
and sustainable economic growth through
innovation. In: M.B.G. Cele, T.M. Luescher,
& F.A. Wilson (eds.), Innovation policy at
the intersection: Global debates and local
experiences. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Planes-Satorra, S. & Paunov, C. 2017.
Inclusive innovation policies:
Lessons from international case studies.
OECD Science, Technology and Industry
Working Papers, 2017/02. [https://doi.
org/10.1787/a09a3a5d-en].
Preece, J. 2013. Service learning and community
engagement in South African universities:
Towards an ‘adaptive engagement’ approach.
Alternation, 27(4):265-291.
Preece, J. 2016. Negotiating service learning
through community engagement: Adaptive
leadership, knowledge, dialogue and power.
Education as Change, 20(1):1-22. [https://doi.
org/10.17159/1947-9417/2016/562].
Republic of South Africa. 2019. White Paper on
Science, Technology and Innovation Science,
technology and innovation enabling inclusive
and sustainable South African development
in a changing world. Pretoria: Department of
Science and Technology.
Scheepers, J. 2019. Collaborative service-
learning partnerships between government,
community and university for implementing
social change. Balkan Region Conference
on Engineering and Business Education,
1(1):307-315. [https://doi.org/10.2478/
cplbu-2020-0036].
Schot, J. & Steinmuller, E. 2018. Three frames for
innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation
and transformative change. Research Policy,
47:1544-1567. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respol.2018.08.011].
Suzigan, W. & Albuquerque, E. 2011.
The underestimated role of universities
for the Brazilian system of innovation.
Brazilian Journal of Political Economy,
31(1):3-30. [https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-
31572011000100001].
Swaans, K., Boogaard, B., Bendapudi, R.,
Taye, H., Hendrickx, S. & Klerkx, L. 2014.
Operationalizing inclusive innovation:
Lessons from innovation platforms
in livestock value chains in India and
Mozambique. Innovation and Development,
4(2):239-57. [https://doi.org/10.1080/215793
0X.2014.925246].
Thakrar, J. 2018. University-community
engagement as place-making? A case
of the University of Fort Hare and
Alice. Development Southern Africa,
35(5):673‑688. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03768
35X.2018.1433022].
Thakrar, J., Kenn, D. & Minkley, G. 2014.
Across the continents: Engaging and
questioning community. Comparative
Sociology, 13(6):773-792. [https://doi.
org/10.1163/15691330-12341331].
Thomson, A.M., Smith-Tolken, A.R., Naidoo, A.V.
& Bringle, R.G. 2011. Service learning and
community engagement: A comparison
of three national contexts. VOLUNTAS:
International Journal of Voluntary and
Nonprofit Organizations, 22(2):214-237.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-010-9133-9].
Thune, T., Reymert , I., Gulbrandsen, M. &
Aamodt, P. 2016. Universities and external
engagement activities: Particular profiles
for particular universities? Science and
Public Policy, 43(6):774-786. [https://doi.
org/10.1093/scipol/scw019].
Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K., Doll, C.
& Kraines, S. 2014. Beyond the third mission:
Exploring the emerging university function
of co-creation for sustainability. Science
and Public Policy, 41:151-179. [https://doi.
org/10.1093/scipol/sct044].
Van Schalkwyk, F. & Bailey, T. 2011.
Beyond engagement: Exploring tensions
between the academic core and engagement
activities at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan
University, South Africa. Beyond the Apartheid
University. Interrogating the transformation
of the South African higher education
landscape. University of Fort Hare. November
2011, 153-174.
Van Schalkwyk, F. & De Lange, G. 2018.
The engaged university and the specificity
of place: The case of Nelson Mandela
Metropolitan University. In: L. Bank, N. Cloete
& F. Van Schalkwyk (eds.), Anchored in Place.
African Minds. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03768
35X.2017.1419858].
Zavale, N. & Langa, P. 2018. University-industry
linkages’ literature on Sub-Saharan Africa:
Systematic literature review and bibliometric
account. Scientometrics, 116:1-49. [https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2760-4].
 CHAPTER EIGHT

Service-based learning as a
8
form of community engagement
in achieving student outcomes:
The experience of an East African university
Alfred Kitawi & Beatrice Njeru
Strathmore University, Kenya

Introduction
The modern university is expected to be many conflicting things at the same time:
conservative and radical; critical and supportive; competitive and collegial; autonomous
and accountable; traditional and innovative; local and international (Watson, 2007).
These expectations arise from different stakeholders within the community (with
different needs) and from these expectations arise different forms of engagement.
Community engagement, whether in the form of service-learning, public scholarship,
or community-based research, is a wonderfully complex and situated practice that
forces students to rethink their normal patterns of working. Community engagement
has the goal of providing faculty, students, and education managers with an additional
set of tools to achieve their ends (Butin, 2010). This chapter will explore some of the
key concepts around community engagement, particularly service learning as one
aspect of this. The background for understanding service-learning as part of a higher
education landscape in Africa is also explored to contextualise the research. Using
data gathered from 400 students who complete compulsory service-learning work as
part of their undergraduate programme at Strathmore University in Kenya, it seeks to

157
Universities, society and development

answer the following questions: What is the effect of communities’ issues in realising
student service-based learning outcomes? What are the dominant community
activities students engage in to realize student service-based learning outcomes?
What are some of the service-based learning outcomes? Which students’ skills are
relevant in achieving service-based learning outcomes?

Few studies have presented the effect of service-learning on educational outcomes,

including organizational arrangements that facilitate partnerships (Preece & Manicom,
2014). This study examines the effect community service-learning had on this cohort
of 400 students who are about to complete their university studies. The outcomes
will give insights into effectiveness of service-learning activities and aspects which
universities may consider in improving student experiences.

Key concepts and contexts

Definitions of community engagement
Many researchers identify the need for community engagement in universities,
and specifically research universities, yet lack a strong emphasis to promote it
(Williams, Soria & Erickson, 2016). Jacob et al. (2015) define community engagement
as sustainable networks, partnerships, and activities between Higher Education
Institutions (HEI) and communities at local, national, state, regional and international
levels. The engagement may be formal (structured) or informal. Carnegie (2015)
defines community engagement as the collaboration between institutions of higher
education and larger communities (local, regional, state, national, and global) for
mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of reciprocity
and partnership. Association of Commonwealth Universities defined engagement as
both a core value, and as a thoughtful interaction, with the non-university world in
four spheres: aims, purposes and priorities of the university; connecting teaching and
learning to the wider world; continual dialogue between researchers; and practitioners;
assuming wider responsibilities towards neighbours and citizens (Gibbons, 2001).

Community engagement enables HEIs to enrich scholarship, research, creative

activity, and curricula. It helps to enhance teaching and learning, prepare educated
citizens, strengthen democratic values and civic responsibility, and address
societal issues that contribute to the common good (Carnegie, 2015). Community
engagement can have a wide range of pedagogical and philosophical strategies.
It has different perspectives such as service-learning, community-based research,
and civic engagement (Butin, 2014). Some authors limit community engagement to
political and social activism (Poterfield, 2016). Civic engagement entails working to
make a difference in the civic life of communities (Burke, Smith & Hirschberg, 2012).
Engaged partnerships with communities are exemplified through a schedule of on-
going evaluations, an inventoried academic community project, and training provided

158
 Service-based learning as a form of community engagement in achieving student outcomes

for students. Students play a key role in the community projects. The intensity of
community engagement depends on the type of HEI, its mission, functions, and the
priorities of its main stakeholders. The historicity of a university may determine the
level of community engagement.

There are four narratives on community engagement – the technical, cultural,

political, and antifoundational. The technical narrative focuses on instrumental
effectiveness in teaching, learning and research. It provides an avenue for real-
world linkages though the existential challenges may not match the content focus.
The cultural perspective examines the meanings of practice for the institutions and
individuals involved in the teaching, learning and research practices (accepting diver-
sity and engaged citizenship). It is relevant in the understanding of self in the comm-
unity. A political approach focuses on the promotion and empowerment of voices
and practices of historically disempowered and non-dominant groups of societies.
It exists in a social justice worldview. A political approach aims to question the
ontological and epistemological foundations, and it may therefore disenfranchise
some members. The anti-foundational narrative is a pre-requisite for thoughtful
deliberation. It is a scholarship of engagement that questions natural norms, be-
haviours, and assumptions (Butin, 2010).

The historical background of community-university engagement

in Africa
There are several community–university engagement projects in Africa, though
some remain undocumented. Some examples include the National University of
Rwanda, Centre for Conflict Management developing policies and potential strat-
egies for peace in communities; the University of Western Cape, School of Public
Health community-based field training that empowers communities to participate
in debates around ethical issues; the Eduardo Mondlane University in Mozambique
that has engagement programmes with farming communities (Walters & Openjuru,
2014). Community engagement initiatives do not operate in silos but emerge from
unique historical, social forces and cross-cultural dynamics. Historical dynamics
can be classified into pre-colonial, colonial, post-independence and post-structural
adjustment programmes.

At the pre-colonial era, few regions had universities. The notable institutions were
the famous University of Alexandria, the Al-Azhar University, the epitome of Islamic
scholarship at the time, and Timbuktu, Mali. During the pre-colonial era, indigenous
knowledge and transmission in traditional African societies was embedded into
day‑to‑day activities. Indigenous knowledge was mainly oral, gained through obser-
vations and individuals participated in real-life experiences. Knowledge was integra-
tive and holistic in nature. It emphasised intuition, emotional involvement, and subject-
ivity in perception (Esiobu-Ezeanya, 2019).

159
Universities, society and development

During the colonial era, the colonial powers had varied political-economic structures.
In Kenya, education policy was elitist and segregationist. The British particularly
encouraged newly created chiefs and headmen to educate their children to succeed
their fathers in ruling posts. The colonial officials intended to have such literate
children assist their uneducated fathers in the government business to make colonial
administration more efficient. Their efforts to support government were rewarded
with parcels of land through evictions of poor peasants in their neighbourhoods.
This forced some peasants to work for chiefs and headmen. The Phelps-Stokes
commission (1920–1924) made recommendations applicable in East Africa (Vischer,
1925). Its aim was to assess the nature and quality of Negros’ education both in
Africa and in the USA. The commission’s report stressed character training, rural
improvement, secondary education, and cooperation among Africans. The aim of
education was to conserve whatever was sound in the African life and transmit the
best that civilisation and Christianity had to offer. It condemned government technical
schools for training Africans with employment in white-settler regions. It urged the
need for basic agricultural training for the majority. Missionaries protected people
who attended mission schools from forced labour.

Education policy practice after World War II focussed on the ‘civilising mission’
that provided legitimacy for colonial rule in Africa (Sifuna & Oanda, 2014).
The Second World War situation led to the growth of local industries because
goods could not be imported from Europe due to disruptions. This led to rural-
urban migration. Urban areas presented better employment prospects. Many
African countries experienced an increase of basic education institutions. In
East Africa, Makerere College was the apex of university education for Africans.
At independence, the Africans educated in universities like Makerere and abroad
(mainly in the USA, France, and Russia) were instrumental in forging the Pan-
Africanism agenda. In Kenya, it led to the restructuring of the education system. The
reports which formed a foundation were the Beecher Report (provided framework for
education planning in 1950s); Binns Report (focused on school governance); Castle
Report (argued for an abolition of the A-Levels); the Ominde Report and Sessional
Paper no. 10 (aligned education to national needs and removed school segregation
and led to the formation of the University College, Nairobi – later renamed as the
University of Nairobi); the Gachathi commission of 1975 (brought out the need of
the curricula to provide entrepreneurial and practical skills); the Mackay Commission
(created the 8-4-4 system of education) (Mackay, 1981).

The restructuring efforts were affected by the structural adjustment programmes

(SAPs) which reduced funding for many public universities (Ngethe et al., 2003).
Universities were pushed towards a mercantile finance model to survive and had to
seek funding for themselves. This was mainly through tuition fees and increasing
student numbers. Education became a product that could be bought and sold,

160
 Service-based learning as a form of community engagement in achieving student outcomes

with the highest bidder having access to a better education. This marketisation
and commodification of universities led to the emergence of entrepreneurial and
corporate universities which meant the forms of engagement with communities
became more mercantile in nature. Many universities have insisted on a need for
universities to return to the original mission of serving community needs and being
the foci for new directions of knowledge. This represents a shift from mode 1 forms,
where universities focussed mainly on teaching and knowledge was for knowledge’s
sake, to mode 2- knowledge creation embedded in communities (Gibbons, 2006).

These examples demonstrate how needs emerge from the different histories and
cultures, and how education objectives are grounded on different histories. During
the colonial era it was towards the colonialism project, and at post-independence the
focus changed towards a Pan-Africanism agenda. This drive towards the Pan-
Africanism agenda is reflected in the comments of the first president of Tanzania, Julius
Nyerere, who stressed education for self-reliance. He emphasised that a university
must be in and of the community. It must not only be intramural but extramural.
Reiterating Yesufu (1973:40): “The truly African university must be one that draws
its inspiration from its environment: not a transplanted tree, but one growing from a
seed that is planted and nurtured in the African soil”. Nyerere insisted that a condition
of university graduation was the completion of a placement in a rural village, whereby
village leaders would contribute to the student’s final assessment (Preece, 2017).
Therefore, the education system in some countries was readjusted to the African
traditional lifestyle while other countries continued the colonial western  lifestyle.

During the 1962 conference in Tananarive and upon the establishment of the
Association of African Universities, an appeal was made to Africanise the curriculum
and management by serving national and developmental needs. More recently, the
‘Implementing the Third Mission of Universities in Africa’ (ITMUA) initiative, a Pan
African Action Research study funded by the Association of African Union (2010
to 2011), and lead by Professor. Julia Preece of the National University of Lesotho
explored how the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) can lead to poverty
reduction addressed through community and university engagement efforts
(Walters & Openjuru, 2014). It was emphasised that students need to be engaged in
community activities.

Service learning
Service-learning is a form of experiential education in which students engage in
activities that address human and community needs, together with structured
opportunities for reflection designed to achieve desired learning outcomes (Jacoby,
2015). As Mtawa (2019:9) states: “It is a pedagogical approach and a sub-set of
the public mission of universities through which staff and students and external

161
Universities, society and development

communities establish sustainable partnerships and participate in activities that

empower them, develop their capabilities and functioning”. The learning outcomes
can be intellectual, social, ethical, civic, spiritual, or moral in nature. The needs are
defined by the community but there is mutuality in terms of engagement and sharing
of resources. There exists some overlap between service-learning and community
engagement. Community engagement relies on collaboration and partnership be-
tween different actors in activities, knowledge exchange and sharing of resources.
Service-learning occurs in communities and arises because of reflections in engaged
activities with community actors. Reciprocity exists in service-learning, therefore
service-learning and community engagement have many common elements. This
explains why some define service-learning as community engaged learning to show
the inseparable connection between the two concepts (Jacoby, 2015).

Thomson et al. (2010) trace the emergence of service-learning to Kolb’s, Lewin’s,

Dewey’s, and Piaget’s experiential learning models. The term itself emerged in the
work of Sigmon and William Ramsey at the Southern Regional Education Board
and Volunteers Service in America. Thomson et al. (2010) elaborate that other scholar
date the service-learning movement to the work of the National Society for Experiential
Education in 1978, and the International Partnership for Service Learning in 1982.
In the 2000s service-learning was hinged on the establishment of campus service-
learning centres and integration into curriculum. At the same time, civic engagement
gained prominence to assist students to participate in democracy and make more
democratic choices, and service learning was recognised as positively affecting lives
of students. Service-learning has also evolved from voluntary service to embedding it
as part of core curriculum (examples include USKOR at Stellenbosch University and
SHAWCO at the University of Cape Town).

Service-learning can occur through volunteer activities, internships and field-based

activities, also called academic service learning. In this book chapter, we focus on
field-based activities. The aim of service-learning is to instil in students values of
democratic participation, concern for the underprivileged and a sense of commonality
of shared experiences across social divides.

Service-learning aspects
Universities have provided different aspects of service-learning based on their
contextual needs. Bringle and Hatcher (1995) articulated service-learning within
the United States in relation to how students were learning in communities, mutual
benefits, and the explanation of learning experiences. And credits were given based
on student programmes. Stellenbosch University identified service-learning aspects
to be curriculum-based credit learning experiences, participation in contextualised,
well-structured activities aimed at addressing community needs; reflection of service

162
 Service-based learning as a form of community engagement in achieving student outcomes

experiences to gain a deeper understanding of the linkage between curriculum cont-

ent and community dynamics; as well as to achieve personal growth and sense of
social responsibility (Hlalele, Manicom & Preece, 2015). In situations where service-
learning is civic engagement, it identifies the aspects as developing civic skills for
democratic processes in addition to academic outcomes. The domains of education
in such a case are responsible citizen, participatory citizen, and justice-oriented citizen.
The reasons students are involved in civic activities can be altruistic humanitarian
motives or provision of new learning experiences (Thomson et al., 2010). Service-
learning can lead to increased student sensitivity, increased student knowledge,
ability to get along with people of different backgrounds, increased tolerance and an
increase in the ability to work with diverse groups.

Student engagement: the experience of

Strathmore University
Student engagement in universities, which is an aspect of student success, retention
and progression depends on staff capacity, institutional management, coordination,
and student capacity building. Student retention is linked to building a sense of
belonging, which implies that students choose to remain and complete education
when they feel accepted, included, and valued. These affective aspects are depicted
in various activities from active learning, prompt feedback, social networking
among students, embedding graduate employability into a university’s structure,
cooperation among students, respect for diverse learning styles, communicating
high expectations, prompt feedback, and frequent staff-student contacts (Liz et
al., 2017). Student engagement occurs at the intersection of active learning and
motivation and is depicted through expectancy (students know they can succeed)
and value (valuing the task itself which is an intrinsic form of motivation). One way in
which universities have engaged students is through service learning as an organised
way to participate in activities that meet specific community needs (Butin, 2010).

Several studies have covered the issue of student engagement. Plaut and Campbell
(2008) explain that community engagement activities can improve academic
preparation and aspirations as well as foster inclusivity and diversity. Others, like
Astin et al. (2006), Bridgeland, Dilulio and Morison (2006), and Prentice and Robinson
(2010) linked community engagement with greater learning and increased graduation
rates (Lockeman & Pelco, 2013). Students who participate in civic engagement
learn more academic content (Gallini & Barbara, 2003), develop higher-order skills
(Cress et al., 2010) and emotional intelligence (Bernacki & Jaeger, 2008). Other
studies have brought out the fundamental need of student engagement in enhancing
participation among minorities (Kinzie et al., 2008; Larrimore & McClellan, 2005).
It assists students to develop capacities of understanding their role in complex

163
Universities, society and development

social and political systems (Cress, 2012). Ndege and Kimengi (2010) state that
student engagement practices provide an important and cost-effective alternative for
improving access and efficiency outcomes of higher education. Student engagement
can lead to improved institutional commitment to curricula, retention, and enhanced
relations with community actors. Faculty can be enabled to develop research that
resolves community issues and discover new avenues for research and providing
networking opportunities.

Student engagement refers to the level at which students participate in activities

that represent effective educational practices both in and out of classroom. Institu-
tions should spend time to understand how to engage and activate students (Tight,
2019). Engagement has two important elements: the amount of time and effort
students put into their studies; and other activities that lead to student success.
However, despite these evident benefits, multiple challenges to universities in
Kenya hinder the inclusion of student engagement through field-based structures
embedded into degree programmes (service-learning), and these are rare within the
Kenyan context. One institution that does incorporate these practices is Strathmore
University, a young university situated in Nairobi, Kenya. It was awarded a university
charter in 2008. Before 2008, it operated as a middle-level college. It was started in
1961 as the first multi-racial college, and now has an enrolment of approximately
6,300 students. Its mission is to provide an all-round education in an atmosphere
of freedom and responsibility, excellence in teaching, research, and scholarship.
The main internal stakeholders involved in community engagement efforts are
management, administrators, faculties, schools, students, faculty and support staff.
The external stakeholders involved in community engagement are alumni, other
educational institutions at different levels (primary, secondary, and tertiary), private
partners (companies and entrepreneurs), public partners (government and civil
society groups) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

The structure of many community engagement initiatives is technical in nature, since

the community engagement efforts are focused on instrumental effectiveness in
teaching, learning and research. Under the technical narrative, there are five forms of
community engagement: economic, legal, cultural, technological, and social. Within
Strathmore University, the economic form is focused on improving the standards of
living of communities within and outside the university. The main emphasis of the
legal form is to focus on transparency, ethical governance, public administration
and enforcement of law and order. The cultural form is on preservation of positive/
formative local cultures, civic responsibility and cross-cultural (local) activities.
These were assisting the disabled in society, work-camps, prisoners’ rehabilitation
exercises, and environmental and natural disaster management activities. Health
activities are through construction of health clinics, provision of medical care
together with students studying medical sciences, and blood donation exercises.

164
 Service-based learning as a form of community engagement in achieving student outcomes

The technological forms of engagement are innovation and diffusion activities

through information technology hubs and business incubators. The social forms
of engagement are varied and include visiting prisons and supporting prisoners to
join professional certificate programmes offered by the university, visits to homes of
the elderly and sick, mentoring and peer counselling of undergraduate and high
school students (SPU, 2019).

This chapter focuses on service-learning experiences of approximately 400 under-

graduate students which represents 80,000 student hours of community service.
Service-learning is embedded as part of the undergraduate learning experience. Each
student is expected to engage in community service after completing their first year
of undergraduate studies and engage in critical reflection through daily logs. Service
learning is coordinated through the Community Service Centre (CSC), which also
operates a student and staff community service club. It has projects that offer and
facilitate volunteer opportunities for students and members of staff. The CSC has
partnerships with various communities, health facilities, governmental (for example
prisons department, and the public prosecutor’s office), NGOs, and education
institutions (primary, secondary schools and technical institutions).

The purpose of the service-learning is to instil in learners a sense of service in society,

to fulfil the goal of the university to produce socially responsible citizens (Luescher-
Mamashela, 2015) and provide students an opportunity for reflection designed to
achieve improvements in society. The expected learning outcomes are to recognise
and explain the need for service in society; develop a sense of concern for others;
demonstrate a sense of responsibility in the work environment; and apply knowledge
and skills to address societal problems.

Methodology
This study does not focus on students’ reports which are mainly qualitative in
nature but on a survey of 400 student respondents who had completed their
service-based learning (SBL). The 400 student responses represent approximately
50% of the graduating student population. The survey evaluated how much service
learning has made students aware of societal concerns, participation in resolving
activities and consequent learning outcomes. There were six sections in the survey.
Sections examined: their interests in service learning; evaluated their awareness of
societal challenges (community issues) (Jacoby, 2015); the types of community
service-learning activities students were engaged in (Butin, 2010); the outcomes of
service learning; the kinds of skills they considered relevant in providing solutions
to problems (Farber, 2011); and any other pertinent information on service learning.
The survey was administered during the months of July 2020 to October 2020 and
was filled-in by students expected to graduate in 2021. The focus on 4th year

165
Universities, society and development

students was deemed important since they had passed through the service-learning
experiences and adequate time had passed for them to reflect on the impact of
service-learning experiences on their student life through campus. A pilot survey
was done in June to ascertain issues of validity and reliability. The CSC provided
information on whether constructs in the survey were valid and were representative
of what they had to measure. The constructs used were based on aspects provided
by Butin (2010), Farber (2011) and Jacoby (2015). Internal consistency was assured
by asking similar questions, and the answers provided were consistent.

Findings from the study

What follows is an overview of the key findings from the study.

Challenges students were addressing through service learning

Percentage
Mental and health issues
Education inequalities
Environmental degradation
Poor leadership
Drug and substance abuse
Weak morals among youth
Technological divide
Weak Kenyan Identity and Societal...
Economic inequalities between different...
Lack of sufficient legal protection
Increased challenges in use of technology
Corruption
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Figure 8.1 Challenges students were addressing

166
 Service-based learning as a form of community engagement in achieving student outcomes

Types of community service initiatives students

were engaged in (community issues)

Percentage

Technological issues

Social economic and

technological challenges

Technological and economic challenges

Technological and social challenges

Social and cultural challenges

Social and economic challenges

Social challenges

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Figure 8.2 Types of community service initiatives students were engaged in

There were several challenging social and community issues students thought
needed to be addressed through service learning. Students had the desire to address
corruption (80%), the increased challenges in the use of technology (60%), lack of
sufficient legal protection (30%), economic inequalities between different groups and
regions (73%), weak Kenyan identity and societal consciousness (45%), technological
divide (50%), weak morals especially among the youth (62%), drug and substance
abuse including alcoholism (58%), poor leadership (75%), environmental degradation
(44%), education inequalities (lack of education facilities) (56%), and mental health
issues (40%).

Many students addressed social challenges (31.2%), both social and economic
challenges (17.5%), social and cultural challenges (9.4%), technological and social
challenges (13.3%), technological and economic challenges (3.8%), social, economic
and technological issues (20.9%) and technological issues only (3.8%). The rest
addressed technological and economic challenges. Examples of social issues
addressed were: construction of school infrastructure; mentoring and counselling
students experiencing different social challenges; working in orphanages, homes of
the sick, elderly, and disabled; and blood donation exercises. The economic activities
were assisting small businesses in book-keeping; assisting in creating business
documents; and involvement in drought-relief activities. Cultural challenges were
addressed through counselling and health clinics (SPU, 2016).

167
Universities, society and development

Outcomes of service learning

There were seven different types of outcomes of service learning. These out-
comes were classified into education outcomes, cultural outcomes, environmental
outcomes, work-place outcomes, intellectual outcomes, leadership outcomes, psy-
chological outcomes, civic outcomes, and technological outcomes. The highest type
of education outcome was an increase in academic performance in the students they
were helping and that was linked to improved motivation to pursue other qualifications
(29.2%). The cultural outcomes were a reduction in judgmental attitudes towards
other students, awareness of societal challenges, and developing an ability to
empathise with individuals in societies experiencing challenges. The highest cultural
outcomes were an increased sense of giving (30.2%). The environmental outcomes
included awareness of environmental issues communities were experiencing and
understanding the complex issues communities face in managing environments.
The highest environmental outcome was their perceived role in being change
agents in conserving their own environments (21.8%). In terms of work, the highest
outcome was developing a greater sense of the meaning of work (32.5%), followed
by developing professional interests and a need to work hard. Students were more
aware of critical challenges facing their communities, the source of these challenges,
and their role in creating effective solutions which was the highest of the intellectual
outcomes (50.6%). Leadership outcomes elicited from students the responses of
taking charge of solutions, the need for working together to resolve challenges and the
most important was knowledge transfer for effective leadership (52.2%). In relation
to psychological outcomes, students felt more fulfilled and more aware of mental
issues affecting communities. A sense of fulfilment had the highest psychological
score (24.4%). Civic outcomes generated were creation of a sense of belonging
within their respective societies (the highest at 39.3%) and their role in resolving civic
issues. The highest technological outcome was equipping others with information
communication technology (ICT) skills (24.7%) and developing other ICT solutions.

Kinds of skills considered relevant in providing solutions

to problems
The skills that students found necessary for service learning were communication
skills (20%), problem solving skills (15%), critical thinking skills (15%), technological
skills (8%), interpersonal skills (3%), teamwork (2%) and other skills. This implies that
service-learning can contribute to the development and promotion of critical 21st
century skills.

168
 Service-based learning as a form of community engagement in achieving student outcomes

Other information they considered important that was not captured on the survey
included the importance of good communication skills, being open to experiences,
and to show love and care. SBL also helped students to appreciate their personal gifts.
For others it has also assisted in improving personal aspects like time management,
empathy, as well as developing an awareness of societal issues.

Significant outcomes
The following outcomes had a significant relation when a chi-square test was done:
a relation between SBL activities focussed on education and better outcomes; a link
between SBL activities focussed on technological instruction with better outcomes
(0.000); and an association of SBL activities focussed on economic challenges
and better outcomes (0.000). There was a relationship between environmental
outcomes and economic challenges which meant that the more students were
involved in economic issues affecting communities the more they were aware
of the environment (0.000). There was also a similar relation between health
challenges and environmental outcomes as above (0.000), and between technology
and environmental outcomes (0.000). Community engagement in education was
related to intellectual outcomes (0.002). Students engaged in cultural SBL activities
reported improved psychological awareness (0.000). There was also a correlation
between improved intellectual outcomes and health and technological SBL activities
(0.000). Lastly, students who were involved in activities which addressed economic
inequities (0.000) and technological issues (0.000) reported gaining better leadership
qualities (0.000).

Discussion
Some students were able to improve as leaders intellectually. They became more
aware of what others were experiencing and helped them to think through issues
more deeply which helped many students acquire vital 21st century skills like critical
thinking, creative ability, collaborative working, and leadership skills. Students felt
more fulfilled as people, which meant they were happy to be able to solve the issues
they encountered and therefore felt more effective overall in carrying out their tasks.
Involvement with communities can provide avenues for students to be self-aware of
their personal talents and make it possible to make appropriate career choices.

The findings also show that it is important for students to engage with varied
organisations in order for them to acquire, as well as to apply various skills in a variety
of contexts. Students need to be given a list of possible places where SBL can be done
since this makes it easier to engage with communities. If students have had prior
contact with an organisation, engaging with it later makes it easier, based on previous
institutional interactions. In addition, the same organisations can host many students

169
Universities, society and development

in a day if students perform service-learning based strictly on specific hours/sessions

during the day. It is important to prepare students for SBL and continuously provide
supervisees and students with up-to-date and clear information. If higher institutions
of learning want to improve the performance of students as better workers, there is
a need to involve them in service-learning which makes students aware of inequities.
From this study, it was noted that students became more aware of their critical role as
change agents in society. Increased engagement in cultural, legal, and economic SBL
activities may therefore lead to better civic engagement. Finally, SBL assists students
to be self-aware, grow in all forms and effectively work with others.

Conclusion
Service-based learning can lead to improved student outcomes, and integration
of SBL into the core university curricula provides many opportunities for students,
institutions, and communities for various forms of development and growth.
At the level of the student, an individual can develop cognitively, psycho-socially, and
emotionally. In terms of cognitive growth, it leads to student retention, success, and
improved attitudes towards learning, and students who participated in service-learning
reported improved learning outcomes (Prentice & Robinson, 2010), development of
higher-order skills (Cress et al., 2010) and emotional intelligence. Psycho-socially,
students feel like an important part of the society because of the first-hand exposure
they get to the world and the fact that a small part of the world relies on their skills
and competencies to solve everyday problems. Students are made more aware of
societal needs and challenges and realise that their contribution is critical in resolving
some challenges facing communities (Kitawi, 2019). At the emotional level, the
student develops a stronger sense of connection (Kuh et al., 2005), mutuality, and
sense of community (Stayhorn, 2012). Studies have found that emotional connection
is tied to academic achievement and consequently, improved student outcomes
(Creasey, Jarvis & Gadke, 2009). Individual engagement in this case had emotional
investment, social investment, and cognitive investment (Carini, 2012; McMillan &
Chavis, 1986), and students become more conscientious and responsible citizens
(Luescher-Mamashela, 2015). At an institutional level, service-learning enables
universities to create connections with communities and community actors which
can promote the university’s profile and help achieve the third mission of universities.
It provides faculty with more information on issues facing communities and can
further enrich learning experiences by bringing the real-world issues facing societies
into the classroom. Communities also benefit since reciprocity is created and some
community challenges are resolved (Mtawa, 2019). Service-learning contributes to
creation of sustainable and connected communities. Service-learning is a way for
universities to contribute to local, regional, and national needs.

170
 Service-based learning as a form of community engagement in achieving student outcomes
References
Astin, A., Vogelgesang, L., Misa, K., Anderson, J.,
Denson, N., Jayakumar, U., Saenz, V. &
Yamamura, E. 2006. Understanding the
Effects of Service-Learning: A Study of
Students and Faculty. Los Angeles, CA: Higher
Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Bernacki, M. & Jaeger, E. 2008. Exploring
the impact of service learning on moral
development and moral orientation.
Michigan Journal of Community Service
Learning, 14(2):5-15.
Bridgeland, J., Dilulio, J. & Morison, K. 2006.
The Silent Epidemic Report. Washington, DC:
Civic Entreprises.
Bringle, R.G. & Hatcher, J.A. 1995. A service
learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan
Journal of Community Service Learning,
2(1):112-122.
Burke, T., Smith, P.T. & Hirschberg, D. 2012.
Theory matters: Articulating a theoretical
framework for civic engagement. In:
D. Butin & S. Seider, The engaged campus:
certificates, minors, and majors as the
new community engagement. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 15-29. [https://doi.
org/10.1057/9781137113283_2].
Butin, D. 2010. Service Learning in Theory
and Practice: The Future of Community
Engagement in Higher Education.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [https://doi.
org/10.1057/9780230106154_7].
Carini, R. M. 2012. Engagement in learning. In:
N.M. Seel (ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences
of learning. New York: Springer, 1153-1156.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-
6_1006].
Carnegie. 2015. How is community engagement
defined? (Carnegie community engagement
classification). Boston, MA: University of
Massachusetts Boston.
Court, D. 1980. The development ideal in higher
education: The experience of Kenya and
Tanzania. Higher Education, 9:657-680.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02259973].
171
Creasey, G., Jarvis, P. & Gadke, D. 2009. Student
attachment stances, instructor immediacy,
and student-instructor relationships as
predictors of achievement expectancies in
college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 50(4):353-372. [https://doi.
org/10.1353/csd.0.0082].
Cress, C. 2012. Civic engagement and student
success: Leveraging multiple degrees of
achievement. Diversity & Democracy,
15(3):2-4.
Cress, C., Burack, C., Dwight, G., Elkins, J. &
Stevens, M. 2010. Promising Connection:
Increasing College Access and Success
through Civic Engagement. Campus Compact:
Boston, MA.
Esiobu-Ezeanya, C. 2019. Indigenous knowledge
and education in Africa. Gateway East,
Singapore: Springer.
Farber, K. 2011. Change the World with Service
Learning: How to Create, Lead, and Assess
Service Learning Projects. Plymouth: Rowman
& Littlefield Education.
Gallini, S. & Barbara, M. 2003. Service-learning
and engagement, academic challenge, and
retention. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning, 10(1):5-14.
Gibbons, M. 2001. Engagement as a core value
for the university. London: Association of
Commonwealth Universities.
Gibbons, M. 2006. Engagement as a core value
in a mode 2 society. CHE-HEQC/JET-CHESP
conference on community engagement in
higher education, Cape Town: CHE.
Hlalele, D., Manicom, D. & Preece, J. 2015.
Strategies and outcomes of involving
university students in community
engagement: An adaptive leadership
perspective. JHEA/RESA, 169-192.
Jacoby, B. 2015. Service Learning Essentials:
Questions, Answers and Lessons Learned.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Universities, society and development
Kinzie, J., Gonyea, R., Shoup, R. & Kuh, G.D.
2008. Promoting persistence and success
of under-represented students: Lessons for
teaching and learning. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 115:21-39. [https://
doi.org/10.1002/tl.323].
Kitawi, A. 2019. Improving transition rates
of students in informal settlements into
higher education: An analysis of the Macheo
Mentoring Programme. International Journal
of Community Research and Engagement,
1-18. [https://doi.org/10.5130/ijcre.
v12i1.6150].
Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H. & Whitt, E.J.
2005. Student success in college: Creating
Conditions That Matter. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Larrimore, J.A. & McClellan, G.S. 2005.
Native American student retention in U.S.
postsecondary education. New Directions
for Student Service, 109:17-32. [https://doi.
org/10.1002/ss.150].
Luescher-Mamashela, T.M. 2015. The Impact
of Student Engagement on Citizenship
Competencies. Cape Town, South Africa:
Centre for Higher Education Transformation
(CHET).
Liz, T., Hill, M., O’Mahony, J. & Yorke, M. 2017.
Supporting student success: Strategies for
institutional change. What works? Student
retention and success programme. London:
Paul Hamlyn Foundation.
Lockeman, K. & Pelco, L. 2013. The relationship
between service-learning and degree
completion. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning, 20(1):18-30.
Mackay, C. 1981. Mackay Commission Report.
Nairobi: Government of Kenya.
McMillan, D.W. & Chavis, D.M. 1986.
Sense of community: A definition
and theory. Journal of Community
Psychology, 14:6-23. [https://doi.
org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1<6::AID-
JCOP2290140103>3.0.CO;2-I].
Mtawa, N.N. 2019. Human Development
and Community Engagement through
Service-Learning: The Capability Approach
and Public Good in Education. Cham,
Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. [https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-34728-4].
172
Ndege, T.M. & Kimengi, I.N. 2010. Students’
engagement and student retention in Moi
University. In: G. Vlasic & J. Pavicic (eds.),
Global Business & Economics, 13-16 October,
Dubrovnic.
Ngethe, N., Assie-Lumumba, N., Subotzky, G. &
Esi-Sutheland, A. 2003. Higher Education
Innovations in Sub-Saharan Africa, with
specific reference to universities. Association
for the Development of Education in Africa.
Poterfield, V. 2016. Civic and community
engagement impact on economically
disadvantaged students. In: K. Soria &
T. Mitchell, Civic engagement and community
service at research universities: Engaging
undergraduates for social justice, social
change and responsible citizenship. London:
Palgrave Macmillan, 63-82.
Plaut, J. & Campbell, J. 2008. Promoting inclusive
access and success through community
engagement. Diversity and Democracy, 11(2).
Preece, J. 2017. Background context for
universities and community engagement
in Africa. In: J. Preece. (ed.), University
community engagement and life long
learning. Durban: Springer. [https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-56163-9].
Preece, J. & Manicom, D. 2014. Community
based learning spaces and environments.
UTLO Conference, 25-27 September 2014,
Edgewood: University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Prentice, M. & Robinson, G. 2010. Improving
Student Learning Outcomes with Service-
Learning. Washington, DC: American
Association of Community Colleges.
Sifuna, D. & Oanda, I. 2014. Historical and
Contemporary Trends in the Development
of Education in Kenya: Government Policy,
Gender and Regional Dimensions. Nairobi,
Kenya: Jomo Kenyatta Foundation.
Stayhorn, T.L. 2012. College students’ sense of
belonging: A key to educational success for
all students. New York: Routledge.
Strathmore University (SU). 2019.
Community Service Centre, 2 July 2019.
(https://bit.ly/374Dhzh).
Thomson, A. M., Smith-Tolken, A., Naidoo, A.
& Bringle, R. 2010. Service learning and
community engagement: A comparison of
three national contexts. International Journal
of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,
22(2):214-237. [https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11266-010-9133-9].
Tight, M. 2019. Student retention and
engagement in higher education.
Journal of Further and Higher Education,
44(5):689‑704. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03098
77X.2019.1576860].
Vischer, M. 1925. Phelps-Stokes Education
Commission 1924 Report. East African
Protectorate.
Walters, S. & Openjuru, G. 2014. University-
community engagement in Africa. In: B. Hall
& R. Tandon, Higher Education In the World:
Knowledge, Engagement & Higher Education
Contributing to Social Change. Global
University Network for Innovation.
Williams, J., Soria, K. & Erickson, C. 2016.
Community service and service-learning at
large American public research universities,
in Civic engagement and community
service at research universities: Engaging
undergraduates for social justice, social
change and responsible citizenship, London:
Palgrave Macmillan, 83-97. [https://doi.
org/10.1057/978-1-137-55312-6_5].
Watson, D. 2007. Managing universities and
colleges: guides to good practice (civic and
community engagement). Berkshire, England:
Open University Press.
Yesufu, J.M. 1973. Creating the African University.
Ibadan: Oxford University Press.
 CHAPTER NINE

Universities, communities
9
and language development:
Collaboration, partnerships and strategies
in the Northern Cape
Jesmael Mataga, Sabata Mokae, & Lesego Marumo
Sol Plaatje University

Introduction
Research on university-industry-government engagement has emphasised what
David Cooper describes as ‘the triple helix’ – a triad of research relations linked to
the mission of research and economic development (Cooper, 2011). Beyond the
research and economic development imperatives, our discussion extends the role
and contribution of universities to social-cultural development within previously
marginalised communities (Kruss & Gastrow, 2015). We see universities as playing
a central role, where conceptually the triple helix here refers to the triad of cultural
industry (writers, publishers); the provincial government (Department of Sport
and Culture – DSAC) and a university (Sol Plaatjie University – SPU). While most
universities look and contribute to languages through their teaching and research
strategies, we call for indigenous language development to be entrenched as a central
aspect of university-community engagement, and to pay attention to languages that
were marginalised during the apartheid or colonial era, and whose pace of change
and development in the postcolonial Africa era has been acknowledged as slow
and inadequate (Beukes, 2009; Parmegian, 2012; Prah, 2011; 2018; Webb, 2002).
We propose that in addition to their research and teaching missions, universities

175
Universities, society and development

have a central role to play in the development, preservation and promotion of local
languages through university–community collaboration – the so-called third mission
of universities. Over the last decade, the Department of Higher Education and Training
(DHET) has laid some foundation for the universities’ role in the development and use
of African languages, and some universities have progressed relatively well, though
more still needs to be done (DHET, 2011; 2015).

Drawing from a three-year collaborative partnership between SPU in Kimberley and

the Northern Cape’s DSAC, this chapter proposes strategies that universities can
deploy, working with partners and collaborating with communities, to contribute
to the development and promotion of African languages. These include capacity
building in writing using local languages, translation and other promotional activities
centred around the university, and building a community of writers and language
practitioners (Gikandi, 2002; Helland, 2013; Shole, 2018; Thiong’o, 1993). We highlight
the plans, strategies, working methods, successes and challenges that SPU has
deployed, with support of the provincial DSAC, and working with communities on
a programme to develop creative writing in the province. Drawing upon its social
justice thrust, and using its intellectual capital, and other resources, SPU successfully
enabled a coalescing of a community of writers – accomplished and budding –
and became a space for engagement, collaboration and networking. While creating
capacity and developing communities, these activities also created good space for
intellectual growth of the discipline of creative writing at SPU and the development of
creative writing in the province and nationally. Located in a geographically, culturally
and linguistically diverse province, SPU, a new (and the only) university in this region,
is placed in a strategic position to take a leading role in this field specifically, and
in imagining and implementing a transformative 21st century university. SPU is
located in the secondary city of Kimberley, the capital of the Northern Cape province,
which hosts a diversity of indigenous languages including threatened/endangered
languages from the Nama, Khoi and San communities.

SPU has an ambitious social justice thrust in its vision and mission, and worked
with the DSAC, and a diverse community of writers distributed across the main
languages spoken in the province. The primary source of data for the research was
documentary evidence from the two main partners in the programme i.e. the SPU and
the DSAC. This entailed a desktop study, analysing formative documents, plans and
strategies, agreements and reports from the activities of the three-year collaborative
programme. Written by authors who were central to coordinating the programme, this
positionality allowed critical self-reflection, allowing the authors to describe, analyse
and critique processes in which they were intimately involved for the duration of
the programme.

176
 Universities, communities and language development

Universities and the language question in Africa

Language plays a central role in national transformation, reconstruction and
development, while also contributing to the processes of decolonisation. We see
universities as sites where interaction with marginalised communities and other
social actors happen, and where they engage in new social compacts where the
players become agents for inclusive social change and economic development
(Kruss & Gastrow, 2015). In our case, the field where this partnership has been
enacted is in the development of local or indigenous languages. The language
debate or ‘the language question’ (Brock-Utne, 2003; Omar, 2015), or ‘the problem
of language’ (Webb, 2002), is a recurrent debate in post-colonial contexts and has
emerged as central to debates around decolonisation (Gikandi, 2000; Helland,
2013; MacPherson, 1997; Spivak, 2012; Thiong’o, 1986). The works by Ngügí wa
Thiong’o and others have challenged the inherited, lopsided hierarchy of language
and have reiterated indigenous languages’ constructive role, highlighting the close
relationship between language, culture and identity (Gikandi, 2000; Thiong’o, 1986).
Ngügí wa Thiong’o has vehemently argued that the best way to ‘decolonise the
African mind’ is to reclaim African languages (Thiong’o, 1986). Mukoma wa Ngügí
commenting on his father’s contribution to the debates on decolonising African
languages, reiterates that “local languages embody the entire body of values by
which we come to perceive ourselves and our place in our world” (Ngugi, 2018:1).
Beyond tokenist approaches, Ngügí (2018:1) proposes that in order to change the
uneven nature of the status of languages in Africa:
… the work of linguistic decolonization cannot be done by writers alone.
Governments must change their policy towards the teaching of African
languages and create economic opportunities in those languages – whether
it’s agricultural extension officers trained in the languages of the communities
they serve, or teachers trained in teaching African languages, or interpreters
for national and international organizations, and so on. African languages
have to move from being primarily social languages to vehicles of political,
cultural, and economic growth.

In the context of South Africa, given its apartheid past, discussions on language have
highlighted not just the role of language in development and transformation, but
have also foregrounded the relationship between language and inequality and how
language development can contribute to social justice and democratic transformation
(Brock-Utne, 2003; Parmegian, 2012). Yet as shown by Webb (2002) the realities on
the ground continue to show the lop-sided power relations between the languages;
the striking differences in the structural, functional and symbolic adaptation of
the official languages; and how other languages enjoy greater use, resources and
attention, while others, mainly indigenous ones, remain marginalised.

177
Universities, society and development

One of the many and important areas of damage caused by apartheid that a post-
1994 South Africa has yet to recover from was the neglect and stunting of the
development of local African languages. Kwesi Kwaa Prah characterised this as ‘the
challenge of language in post-apartheid South Africa’ (Prah, 2011; 2018; see also
Alexander, 2012). Prah (2018) reminds us that in language development, African
languages were ossified in the racial and linguistic geography of the apartheid
imagination and left to stultify as English, and Afrikaans became increasingly
hegemonic. Yet, despite this marginalisation, in the informal setting, many African
languages developed, showing resilience and adaptation, even as colonialism put
pressure on the survival for many languages. However, as pointed out in SPU’s
inaugural academic plan, without support, these developments were not properly
captured or codified in the more conventional forms such as creative writing – both
in original form or in translation. This lack of development has done much harm to the
value of African languages and as a result the majority of South Africans cannot read
their own archive in their home languages (SPU, 2014). In present-day South Africa,
the dominant cultures and languages remain Afrikaans and English, the languages
of the socio-economically prevailing white minority. The African languages have,
throughout these periods, remained societally inferior and relatively insignificant
(Prah, 2018). Prah (2018) also notes that most formal education is conducted and
instructed in either English or Afrikaans, and less than five percent of the newsprint
media is in African languages. While there have been some positive developments in
elevating certain languages, most are used almost exclusively in the domestic and
informal domains in the social lives of African language speakers.

Given this context, the question of the role of universities as knowledge institutions
in local social and economic development has always been a subject matter for
research. In recent years, the anticipated ways in which universities can serve as
economic anchors in urban and rural communities has been highlighted (Kleinsmith
& Horn, 2015). The major emphasis is on the economic and social impact of the
environment and places in which they are located. In the African context, the role
of the university beyond its immediate constituencies of academics, learners and
the research/scientific community has been emphasised (Kleinsmith & Horn, 2015;
McCowan, 2019). Tristan McCowan (2019), examined higher education institutions
(HEIs) in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), foregrounding
that the inclusion of higher education in the SDGs marks a significant turning point
in the views of higher education in the international development community. In this
dispensation, McCowan (2019:307) talks of the basis of this proposed new role as the
“developmental university” – a model of institution that is oriented towards service
to society, and particularly the most disadvantaged populations, bringing tangible
impact on their lives through the application of knowledge. McCowan suggests that
a developmental university “is an institution that can extend quality education beyond

178
 Universities, communities and language development

the elites and engage in research and community engagement for the public good”
(McCowan, 2019:308). Beyond the research and teaching missions, universities have
a central role in development initiatives where they are located. In countries where
challenges of poverty, inequality and economic marginalisation are rampant, it is a
necessity for universities to contribute to addressing these.

Debates on the relationship between the university and society in a developing country
like South Africa have emerged in the past decade or so, and these have been elevated
by what has happened in the sector following the 2015/6 #FeesMustFall movement.
The emergent and sometimes highly contentious debates on decolonisation of
the higher education sector have reiterated the need to consider the role that local
languages play in transformation of the sector, and of society (Heleta, 2016; Jansen,
2019; Maringira & Gukurume, 2016; Mbembe, 2016). Notwithstanding the contests,
diversity of views, and varied understandings of decolonisation, the imperative for
a need for change and transformation are evident. Beyond the benefits to broader
society, the development and promotion of local languages enhances the knowledge
production and teaching mandates of universities. It also helps to integrate diverse
ways of knowing, thereby enhancing epistemological access and diversity within
universities built in the colonial era (Kaschula & Wolff, 2020; Mignolo, 2009; Mkhize,
2020; Smith, 1999).

There has been considerable debate, discussions and analyses of the role that
universities play in the development of places, regions or towns/cities where they are
located. However, there is also general agreement that the field is conceptually under-
specified and theoretically rather thin (Kruss et al., 2013). There have been various
empirical studies on the social and economic impact of universities in South Africa
and there are increasing calls for demonstrating the value of empirically assessing
the impact of universities on their communities (Bank, Cloete & van Schalkwyk, 2018;
Snyman, 2014). The findings suggest that universities’ outputs do not necessarily
equate with or guarantee impact, and that impact is optimised when outreach
activities are based on the actual needs of communities (Coetzee & Werner, 2018).
There is thus, across the sector, the call to engage seriously with the place-based
developmental role of universities, drawing attention to the important roles of
universities in their local towns and cities. Work done by several selected universities
shows how these universities have brought economic change in their immediate
environments, catalysing meaningful development of their own precincts, cities and
regions (Bank, Cloete & van Schalkwyk, 2018). Yet more is still expected from the
institutions given the context of rising levels of poverty and inequality in the country.

In higher education, community engagement is considered as the core function of

the university to encourage and facilitate the cooperation between the university and
the community (Snyman, 2014). Snyman further explains that community engage-

179
Universities, society and development

ment is a mutual relationship between the community and the university, by which
both parties reciprocally learn from one another. This relationship involves the use
of the resources which belong to the university to meet the needs of the community.
Moreover, community engagement takes place in the form of organised outreach or
community-based research just to name but a few. What then is the role of a new
university, built in post-apartheid South Africa in one of the most disadvantaged but
also culturally and linguistically rich province?

Kleinsmith and Horn’s (2014) work on the impact of new universities on hosting cities
predicted the social and economic impact of SPU in Kimberley – a mining city whose
economic heydays hinged on diamond mining were slowing down. While Kleinsmith
and Horn’s (ibid) work was useful in its predictive approach, its focus was much
more on the quantified economic impacts. The expectation that the university would
change the economic, social and cultural dynamics of the city of Kimberley and the
Northern Cape province was always evident, even at the planning stages of the new
university. The next section attempts to put SPU in its historical, local and regional
context. The focus of this project veers away from the usual economic imperatives
and foregrounds social development initiatives in unique areas of languages,
contributing to further understanding of different ways in which universities could
use the aspect of local languages development to critically engage and work with
local communities in mutually beneficial ways, that also challenge the elitist/‘ivory
tower’ status of universities located within less materially endowed, but culturally
rich communities.

Sol Plaatje University in context

SPU was established in 2013 in Kimberley, Northern Cape as one of the two,
entirely new public universities set up in South Africa after 1994. It was formally
launched in September 2013 and started its first academic year in 2014. While
it is notable for its social and political emancipation from apartheid history, this
institution was established in a period when South Africa was experiencing a wave
of student protests. It arrived in the period of #FeesMustFall, #RhodesMustFall,
and #FreeDecolonisedEducation just to name a few. This is when students from
different races and class backgrounds voiced solidarity, opposing the high fee
increases proposed by several universities (Langa, 2016). Yet beyond the protests
against university fees and the dismantling of the Cecil John Rhodes Statute at the
University of Cape Town, these movements critically highlighted and articulated
major challenges engrained in post-apartheid South Africa. The challenges include
the broader structural issues inherited from apartheid, such as racial oppression and
inequality that continues to be a problem in society (Maringira & Gukurume, 2017;
Nyamnjoh, 2016).

180
 Universities, communities and language development

The university was constructed in a key historical moment, where the role of universities
in postcolonial and post-apartheid society was being questioned. Universities
were criticised as sites where the colonial power relations were reproduced within
its structures, physical spaces and modes of engagement, all encapsulated in the
student strikes and emergent debates on decolonising universities (Jansen, 2019;
Mbembe, 2016; Ndlovu-Gatsheni & Zondi, 2016; Nyamnjoh, 2016). SPU was born
in this context where change and transformation were high on the agenda. It was
established in the post-apartheid era under expectations to positively react to the
enormous social damages created by apartheid, and that a new university born in
the post-apartheid dispensation would be different from old institutions, which were
seen as less integrated into the realities of the broader South African society. Whether
the institution could succeed in living up to such expectations, is probably subject
to investigation after a few decades of its existence. What is clear, however, is that
SPU’s formative documents, mainly its strategic plan, as well as its vision, mission
and values show a deliberate thrust towards a social justice agenda. This is quite
clear in the inaugural strategic and academic plans of the university (SPU, 2014).
Its inaugural strategic plan says: “the drive for equity, social justice and democracy is
a particularly significant policy focus in the South African higher education context,
given the high levels of poverty and inequality that remain endemic in the society”
(SPU, 2015:5). Thus, at inception, the university argued that it intended to respond
to social challenges by producing graduates with a high level of skills that would
contribute to knowledge development in society and also be critically engaged
citizens in their communities and the corporate world (SPU, 2015).

Since its formation, SPU has regarded itself as a knowledge partner to several
stakeholders, including provincial and local government departments and agencies,
as well as a number of general educational institutions. In these engagements SPU
sought “to leverage its knowledge resources and academic capital in the interests of
enhancing relevant social, economic and institutional outcomes” (SPU, 2014:6).

A key aspect of the social justice thrust of the university is aptly encapsulated in
its vision statement which saw SPU as “a university critically engaged in learning,
research and development – while enhancing democratic practice and social justice
in society” (SPU, 2014:1) and argues that the university would be “a site of learning, the
SPU is envisaged as an intellectual space for the production of ideas and knowledge
that facilitate and enrich participation in, and democratic transformation of political,
social, cultural and economic life” (SPU:11). Its mission and positioning was “to
become an institution of higher learning uniquely positioned to: graduate citizens
competent and capable of realising the aspirations of society; produce new knowledge
impacting on key challenges of the region; engage critically with communities of
discourse and communities of people in order to search out pathways to equitable
development” (SPU, 2014:12). The university also saw itself as “a functional symbol

181
Universities, society and development

of the new South African order, SPU is unencumbered by the history of advantage and
disadvantage pertaining to the institutions of higher learning established during the
previous political dispensation” (ibid).

In its inaugural five-year strategic plan, the institution saw itself as “a 21st century
social institution… be adept at developing innovative governance, funding, teaching,
research, as well as civic engagement modalities, able to respond to rapidly changing
social, cultural, political, environmental and economic conditions” (SPU, 2014:8-9).
Therefore, SPU, as an institution that was established in a democracy, is obliged by
civil society to become relevant and share the knowledge that will promote social
justice and meet societal needs (Snyman, 2014).

As demonstrated above, the university drew for itself a relatively ambitious social
justice agenda that took into consideration its historical and geographical context,
setting higher ideals for making meaningful change in the place in which it was
located. However, such ambitions could only be judged by what strategies would
be put in place to achieve the ideals. In its augural strategic plan, SPU identified the
broad area of Heritage Studies and African languages as some of the niche areas
and declared:
One of the important characteristics of Kimberley and the general Northern
Cape is the remarkably rich archive of human and natural heritage.
This archive exists both in formal collections and in informal communal and
natural environments…. Located in this rich narrative that has yet to be told,
SPU is presented with a unique opportunity to make a global contribution
to intellectual development and understanding in this field of study. (SPU,
2014:13)

SPU thus recognised the imperative of re-intellectualising these languages and the
need to advance their development, especially in the modern domains of language
use. Given the history of systematic marginalisation of African languages, and the
erasure of knowledge emanating from societies speaking these languages, the
process should involve unarchiving of knowledge. The SPU plan in acknowledging
the ‘language question’, and this negative development and the state and status of
African languages, foregrounded the important role of the development of Creative
Writing as an intervention. They argued that the culture of creative writing and reading
in African languages is in serious need of development in South Africa, and the
university needed to respond, specifically in the local Northern Cape and secondary
city context.

The plan acknowledged the damage caused by colonial and apartheid policy to
the develop-ment of African languages and made references to the politicisation
and marginalisation of some languages. In reference to the Afrikaans language,
the plan indicated that:

182
 Universities, communities and language development

Afrikaans as a language was liberated in 1994 from the regulatory grip of

organisations like the then Federasie vir Afrikaanse Kultuurvereniginge (FAK).
This allowed a predominantly White apartheid Afrikaans to acknowledge and
draw from the large variety of Afrikaans that grew independently through the
lived experience of the Black Afrikaans-speaking communities of our country.
Post-1994 also saw an effusion of new forms of Afrikaans cinema, writing
and music that expressed a far more inclusive South African-ness than had
previously been experienced. This experience makes a sufficient case for
Afrikaans to be included in an academic programme that is to focus on the
future development of African languages. (SPU, 2014:15)

One of the challenges identified in language development in South Africa is the

disjuncture between plans/policies and the implementation thereof. In spite of
constitutional, policy and structures/organisational imperatives pertaining to
indigenous language development, implementation has been slow (Beukes, 2009;
Cakata & Segalo, 2017). It is this gap that universities as knowledge partners can
fill. A central part of SPU’s commitments to national and provincial development
imperatives is the commitment to make a significant contribution to intellectual
capacity development in African languages and make inroads to developing and
preserving the rich linguistic and literary heritage of the Northern Cape. The linguistic
landscape of the Northern Cape Province provides a rich and diverse bedrock
for the developing research, teaching and community engagement activities in
indigenous languages including the Khoe and San languages, especially Nama –
which has the most speakers among those languages in the province – Afrikaans,
Setswana and isiXhosa. Located in this rich linguistic archive, SPU is presented with
a unique opportunity to make a global contribution to intellectual development and
understanding in local languages (SPU, 2014). The foregrounding of African lang-
uages is also key in the opening and in the appreciation of the rich cultural archive
contained therein. SPU’s community development in regard to creative writing
builds on the city and province’s history of literary output, with the Northern Cape
and Kimberley at some point being a home to some of South Africa’s well-known
writers, including Olive Schreiner, Sol T. Plaatje and Ingrid Jonker. In a multilingual
and multicultural country such as South Africa is, monolingualism is a great disad-
vantage. Practical plans have to be enacted to challenge homogeneity of certain
languages over others and create space for multilingualism.

183
Universities, society and development

Universities, communities and language:

collaboration and partnerships
In response to the challenges indicated in the preceding section, the university
developed a plan, whose central vehicle for intervention would be to establish a
Centre of Excellence in Creative Writing in African Languages. While the establish-
ment of this centre of excellence could not be realised immediately, given the
capacity challenges of a new university, SPU built upon what the city already had by
conceptualising and developing a community engagement programme in partner-
ship and collaboration with the DSAC, whose mandate includes the promotion
and development of indigenous literature and languages. DSAC had over the
years facilitated several programmes in the province, including the Northern Cape
Writers Festival (NCWF), which had somehow become a permanent feature of the
province’s cultural events calendar. The involvement of the university as a knowledge
partner was identified as key to the future of such programmes in the province,
leading to signing of a memorandum of understanding between DSAC and SPU in
2017. Building on its intellectual capital, resources and networks, the university would
provide a platform for the preservation and promotion of marginalised indigenous
languages like Nama, Setswana and isiXhosa to mention but a few.

SPU and the DSAC have had the clear vision of enhancing and strengthening the
development of literature in the province through various objectives in the past five
years. These objectives include creating a location where authors in the Northern
Cape could be developed, creating opportunities for the development of margin-
alised indigenous languages like Nama, Xhu, Khwedam, !Nu, Setswana and IsiXhosa;
creating a writer’s incubator programme that is intended to benefit local writers,
especially aimed at young women from the province; enhancing the utilisation
of libraries throughout the province; and jointly stimulating programmes that are
intended to promote a culture of writing and reading in the province.

The main formal instrument of engagement was a Memorandum of Agreement

(MOA) mediated between DSAC and SPU. Though DSAC and SPU are the main
signatories, the MOA provided scope for collaborative work for four main partners.
SPU and DSACs roles included SPU as the main knowledge partner contributor
to the intellectual programming and coordinating of the agreed key performance
indicators (KPIs); and the provincial DSAC, whose main mandate is to create an
enabling environment and spaces for promotion and preservation of arts, culture
and heritage (Table 1). In this primary partnership the School of Humanities at
SPU and the DSAC’s libraries section were the main implementation structures at
the respective institutions. The third group of partners was selected institutions
in Kimberley and the community of writers in the Province. Scattered across the
various districts, the communities of writers were the main beneficiaries in the

184
 Universities, communities and language development

community engagement programme. The fourth element was a community of

established and published South African writers and intellectuals who provided the
intellectual and professional input to the identified programmes (Table 1). On one
hand, the programme allowed communities to use the space offered by the university
to work on developing languages, and on the other hand, the programme fulfilled
the university’s strategic goals, especially its research/academic plan. At faculty level,
activities of the programme laid the building blocks for the envisaged Centre for
Creative Writing in Africa languages that were part of the university’s inaugural
strategic and academic plans.

185
Universities, society and development

Table 9.1 The Parameters of the SPU-

SPU-DSAC
DSAC MOA
MAIN PARTNERS
Sol Plaatje University (SPU)
(SPU) Department of Sport, Arts and Culture (DSAC)
(DSAC)
The parties’ objectives in this agreement are to enhance and strengthen the development of
literature in the Province through:
• The co-hosting of the annual Northern Cape Writers’ Festival.
• The hosting of the annual Summer School for Writing to benefit local writers.
• To create opportunities for the development of marginalised indigenous languages including Nama,
Xhu, Khwedam, !Nu, Setswana and IsiXhosa.
• Creation of a writers’ incubator programme that is intended to benefit local writers, especially
aimed at young women from the Province.
• Enhancement of the utilisation of libraries throughout the Province.
• Jointly stimulating programmes that are intended to promote a culture of writing and reading in
the Province.
SPU DSAC
• In consultation with the Department, develop • Ensure the participation of book clubs,
and implement a comprehensive programme emerging writers and authors in the above
for the hosting of the annual Northern Cape programmes;
Writers Festival; • Ensure the allocation of sufficient resources
• Identify and ensure the participation of towards the above programmes over the
renowned authors who will play a meaningful three-year period;
role in the development of local writers and • Ensure the participation and support of
poets; communities throughout the Province in the
• Develop a comprehensive Writers’ Incubator above mentioned programmes;
Programme that will develop and mentor local • Ensure the procurement of local content as
writers to increase their capacity to publish part of libraries’ book procurement programme
their work; in all libraries in the province;
• Develop and implement a Summer School for • Identify and mobilise key partners within the
Writing programme that will benefit at least 36 province to ensure the success of the above
local writers in the next three years; programmes;
• Submit a comprehensive annual report to the • Ensure that all libraries in the province
Department on the outcomes of this provide materials that are in line with the
Agreement and its obligations as well as the above objectives and support the outcomes of
utilisation of the transferred funds; this agreement;
• Identify and sustain national and international • Identify key personnel to form part of the
networks that will seek to benefit local Steering Committee that will be established to
writers and local publications while developing manage this agreement.
a platform for the marketing of local stories at
those levels; • Participate in the marketing and promotion of
all of the above programmes;
• Develop and implement a programme for the
growth of children’s literature in the province • Support the implementation of the above
in all local languages; programmes on an ongoing basis;
• Identify and ensure the participation of • Ensure a compliant and efficient Supply Chain
other strategic local, national and international Management system and processes;
partners to the above programmes; • Provide necessary infrastructure to support
• Provide the necessary facilities and spaces in and sustain the programmes.
support of the above programmes;
• Contribute significantly to the development of
indigenous literature in the province.
COLLABORATORS TARGETED GROUPS
Invited Local and International Writers and Intellectuals Local Writers and Community

Capacity Building through: Participation

Training, Facilitation, Mentoring Reflective Feedback

186
 Universities, communities and language development

While the MOA brought together the main partners, the activities and forms
engagement extended to wider local institutions such as arts associations,
independent artist organisations, museums, galleries and others from the province
(Image 1). All the activities became a key feature of the city and the provinces’
annual cultural activities calendar, drawing much wider audiences and receiving
widespread local, national and international media attention. The working methods
and the programme of activities allowed local institutions, stakeholders and role
players to play a central role either in hosting activities, facilitating events or as
participants. The activities as outlined below included local museums, the Northern
Cape theatre, art galleries, prisons, schools, and local artists, clubs and associations.
The programme allowed entrance into the university space by members of society
who ordinarily would not have had this kind of access. For the city, the various
programme activities interspaced through a variety of institutions and stakeholders,
transformed the city into a vibrant site for robust engagements on language, culture
and the arts in the province.

Phetsolelo: repatriation and recovery

Drawing from a conceptual notion of phetsolelo, book translation was a key aspect
of the SPU-DSAC partnership and collaboration. The project was derived from
the concept of phetsolelo which, beyond just literary translation of language of
texts, foregrounds translation as a form of repatriation and recovery of the values,
symbols, and deep meanings that get lost when writers write about the African
experiences using a foreign language like English (Helland, 2013; Ngugi, 2018;
Omar, 2015; Shole, 2012; 2016; 2018; Thiong’o, 1986; 1993).
Phetsolelo (derived from phetsola) means ‘revert, flip, turn inside out or
upside down; make a turn-around’ (as in phetsophetso). The term phetsolelo,
as a concept of translation as a means of capturing what was lost, itself
derives from the Setswana proverb: ‘Kgomo ga e ke e phetsolela nageng’
(A cow never strays or stays away from home until its horns degenerate or
turn inside out from ageing; it is bound to revert homewards sooner). (Shole
& Pooe, 2020)

Another translation of the proverb is ‘that which is in foreign lands must be returned
home’ (Shole, 2016; 2018). As explained by Shole, the proverb is usually used in refer-
ence to the return of mortal remains or that which is sacred to a particular community.
In this case the writing of African stories in languages other than indigenous African
languages denotes that the stories are in a linguistic exile and that phetsolelo would
be a repatriation process, of bringing them back to where they originate (ibid).
The concept reiterates the idea that the value of African languages, as with any
language, is in their ability to communicate and preserve all forms of knowledge
of society – a society’s conceptualisation of the world around them is embedded

187
Universities, society and development

in their language. Society’s culture, historical experiences and philosophical values,

for example, are embedded in the meanings of the lexicon of their language (Gikandi,
2002; Helland, 2013; Mokaya 2014; Omar, 2015; Thiong’o, 1986; 1993).

Drawing from this conceptual framing of translation as repatriation of values,

symbols, cultures, and ways of knowing, the main thrust of the Repatriation of letters
project was to translate selected English novels and other creative literature back into
Setswana. This project involved SPU’s language and literature academics, translators,
language practitioners, and some writers who specialised in writing in Setswana.
The objective of this programme was to take part in countering the shortage of
novels written in Setswana, while also ‘repatriating’ those novels and books which,
though written in English, were embedded in Setswana culture, idioms and forms
of expression. The selected novels were written by Setswana-speaking authors in
a second language – English. The project team identified seven books (six novels
and one work of nonfiction) to pilot the programme. The criteria for the selection
was that the works must be in English but set in Setswana-speaking communities or
that the author’s mother tongue is Setswana, or both. The selected works are Mhudi
by Sol Plaatje, Taung Wells by Martin Koboekae, Sarcophagus by Tuelo Gabonewe,
This Book Betrays My Brother by Kagiso Lesego Molope, Maru by Bessie Head, Call
Me Woman by Ellen Khuzwayo and Matters of Life and Death by Lesego Malepe.
Each of the selected titles is authored by a Setswana-speaking author or it is set in
a Setswana-speaking community even when the author is not Setswana-speaking
(e.g. the book by Bessie Head) (see Table 9.2).

The project was coordinated by the SPU creative writing lecturer, translator
and novelist, Sabata-Mpho Mokae while seasoned translator and academic,
Shole J. Shole, who is based at the North-West University in Mahikeng, supervised
the team of translators selected from acclaimed writers who have published works
in Setswana, and academics who research and teach Setswana. Geko Publishing,
a wholly black-owned publishing company has agreed to publish all the translated
titles. Prof Shole’s supervision of the translators involved helping them to steer away
from literal translation, but rather to adapt the stories from one language to another –
conceived as another cultural space and another way of telling for a different audience
than the one originally intended by the author when the book was originally written
in English. The process, which Shole preferred to term ‘transcreation’ was inspired
by the argument he made in the early 1980s that Sol Plaatje’s Mhudi is essentially a
Setswana story written in English. The other scholar who had made a near similar
argument was R.M. Malope in 1974 and later Eileen Pooe, who in 2019 went further
to make a case for the repatriative translation of Mhudi.

188
 Universities, communities and language development

These carefully selected titles represented a diversity of themes and writing styles
and included some of the most seminal works written by South African writers in
the last century. While written in English, all the titles rely on deep Setswana cultural
and linguistic idioms. The translating team worked as a community of translators,
critiquing each other’s work to ensure consistency and quality.

Table 9.2 List of Titles and Translators

Translator Affiliation Title Author
SPU Setswana
Palesa Mabilo researcher and Mhudi Solomon T. Plaatje
academic
SPU Setswana
Richard Moloele researcher and Call Me Woman Ellen Khuzwayo
academic
Tuelo Gabonewe Writer Sarcophagus Tuelo Gabonewe
This Book Betrays My
Lorato Trok Writer Kagiso Lesego Molope
Brother
Wame Molefhe Writer Maru Bessie Head
Setswana researcher Matters of Life and
Shole J. Shole Lesego Malepe
and academic Death
SPU Setswana
Motho-Osele Kgoe researcher and Taung Wells Martin Koboekae
academic

Besides the ideal of recovering the cultural aspects of writing, on a practical level the
project intended to increase the number of prose works in Setswana where there
is a dire shortage of such in libraries, schools and universities. It is also hoped that
the project will assist in mainstreaming the practice of literary translations, which
is a respectable creative process but has not been adequately done or promoted
in South Africa. The project is also a case study for literary translation by students
and scholars. Already several of the translators involved have committed to writing
essays on their translation processes or the philosophical argument for literary
translation. The future plans for this project involve ten non-fiction works (memoirs
and biographies) and poetry to be translated into more than one language, especially
the acutely marginalised Khoe and San languages.

The Northern Cape Writers’ Festival

NCWF is a culmination of a year-long programme which includes community
writing workshops which were held in all the five districts of the Northern Cape
(Frances Baard, John Taolo Gaetsewe, Namakwa, Pixley ka Seme and ZF Mgcawu
districts); public readings that were held every second month at the university;
and the SPU  Annual Summer School of Writing which takes place every year in

189
Universities, society and development

the beginning of January before students get back to campus. The NCWF, now a
permanent and prominent feature of Kimberley and the Northern Cape’s cultural
calendar, is intended to be a platform for the celebration and promotion of literature
from the Northern Cape, South Africa and the continent at large. NCWF was one of
the two main annual programmes of this partnership which were initiated as part
of the DSAC’s broad mandate of developing local content for their growing number
of libraries and also improving the culture of reading and writing among the people
of the Northern Cape province. The first collaborative NCWF happened in 2016 with
guests like Sabelo Mncinziba,  Primrose  Mrwebi, Tina Schouw, Tuelo Gabonewe,
Moagi Modise and Phehelo Mofokeng. The 2017 NCWF was successfully hosted,
with writers such as Prof Lesego Malepe, Jackie  Zimba, Prof  Jean-Jacques Sene,
Fred Khumalo and Niq Mhlongo. The 2018 festival proudly hosted five international
guest writers amongst who was Prof Bankole Omotoso (Nigeria), who delivered
the prestigious annual Sol Plaatje lecture which was titled “The power of politics,
the power of literature: Sol Plaatje and the madness of making humanity shudder”.
Prof Lesego Malepe (USA), Dr  Brian Willian (UK), Mrs Marla Druzgal (USA) and
Prof Thapelo Otlogetswe (Botswana) were also featured at the festival.

All the festivals were linked to the specific theme – Our roots in words – stories that
speak to the South African soul. The dates for the festival were usually as close as
possible to Solomon Tshekisho Plaatje’s birthday, which is on the 9th October and the
official opening of the festival would be marked by the Annual Sol Plaatje Lecture.
The 2019 festival came as the country celebrated 25 years of democracy and
highlighted the necessity of the promotion and preservation of indigenous languages.
The 2019 festival represented the pinnacle of the programme, foregrounding the
networking created over the years and the bringing together of diverse sectors in
Creative Writing in the country.

The festival featured book launches as well as panel discussions in various Northern
Cape languages including Nama, Setswana, IsiXhosa and Afrikaans. There were
other panel discussions focusing on various issues affecting literature. These in-
cluded publishing, the role of historical fiction and biographies in the post-apartheid
South Africa, literary translations, collaboration between literature and other art forms,
the important role of book clubs as well as the role of poetry in social change.

The NCWF was also fortunate to host some of the most celebrated names in literary
South  Africa and Northern Cape specifically as facilitators in the different progra-
mmes, who contributed vastly to the various topics that held NCWF participants’
interest. Writers like Prof  Shole J.  Shole, Diana Ferrus, Sihle Khumalo, EKM Dido,
Mthunzikazi Mbungwana and many more. In 2018 NCWF hosted fifteen writers
nationally and ten Northern Cape based writers. The typical programme over
a period of three days included a carefully curated choice of activities centred

190
 Universities, communities and language development

around four pillars i.e. roundtables, masterclasses, and book launches; the annual
Sol Plaatje Public lecture; community outreach to allow for engagement; and the
meet the publisher sessions. This variety of programming offered a diverse choice
for participants, allowing them to get involved in networking, capacity building and
community outreach. Each day afforded festival goers an opportunity to engage
with various topics that have affected literature in South Africa and the Northern
Cape. The facilitators, along with festival goers, discussed the issues and in some
cases, made valuable networks to actively work at changing the wrongs in literature
where it is possible for them to do so. Festival goers were also spoiled with an
array of book launches of some of the most talked about titles in South Africa
like Sihle  Khumalo’s Rainbow Nation my Zulu Arse, Lesego Malepe’s Reclaiming
Home and Duncan  Kgatea’s Dikhutsana tsa Marikana, the Launch of the Albertina
Sisulu Poetry Anthology; Duncan Kgatea’s Dikhutsana tsa Marikana and a double
book launch of Phehello Mofokeng’s Sankomota: An Ode in one Album with
Mpho A. Leepa’s Born for Greatness: A Biography of Frank Leepa.

In 2019, the year’s participants included publisher Phehello Mofokeng,

biographer Gaongalelwe  Tiro, linguist Hleze Kunju, biographer Lorato Trok, poet
Molebatsi Bosilong, fiction writer Linda Fisher, nonfiction writer Johannes Madjiedt,
nonfiction writer Sam Maphalane, publisher and poet Jabulile Buthelezi, literary
translator Modise Tshite as well as emerging writers Cisca Julius and Pelonomi
Itumeleng. The latter pair were at the time of the festival, students at SPU.
Participating SPU academics were drawn from disciplines related to creative writing,
literature and languages. The five roundtables were based on carefully selected
themes: reflections on the 60th anniversary of Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart;
literary translations as a form of repatriation of stories; righting the past: writing
history in post-apartheid South Africa; the Nama language round table; and the
role of book clubs in the development of literature. The Masterclasses included the
following themes: writing for children by Lesego Malepe; and women writers and a
changing society hosted by Diana Ferrus. The authors outreach took authors and
writers to Barkley West and Tswelopele correctional centres to engage with budding
writers incarcerated in these institutions, as well as old-age home and youth centres
to share the knowledge, frustrations and successes of writing with those who might
have their own stories to tell. Another key aspect of the programming was what was
called a Meet the Publishers Session, where book publishers were invited to network
with writers. Interspaced between the above activities, were several book launches
from well-established writers.

Another central aspect of the NCWF was community engagement and outreach.
For the 2018 festival, some of the international guests arrived a few days before
the official opening and were required to contribute to the young literary world
in Kimberley by donating some of their time to creative writing students at SPU.

191
Universities, society and development

The NCWF made sure to not leave any group of Northern Capers out by incorpora-
ting into its programmes the daily Authors’ Outreach which aimed to take the love of
literature to those who have little to no access to it. To cater for the young readers,
a children’s festival, with storytelling and puppet shows was held and children from
different centres in Kimberley were brought to SPU where they were treated to a fun-
filled programme. A key aspect of the festival in 2019 was a visual arts segment,
ArtLit (Art and Literature), through which visual artists from the Northern Cape
and the United States have created artworks that are based on excerpts of African
literature. The exhibition was cited at a sister institution, William Humphreys Art
Gallery, emphasising the collaborative nature of the project and officially opened by
MEC for Sport, Arts and Culture, Ms Bernice Sinxeve.

The basis for the ArtLit exhibition was the history of collaboration across art forms.
There are many such examples where poetry and music find a common outlet, or
novels and film, theatre and poetry, music and dance and so forth. In this case the
artists were showcasing a conversation between literature, in particular African
literature, or literature by writers and poets of African origin, and visual art. Both
art forms tell human stories. The selected works included that of Northern Cape-
born poets Ingrid Jonker and Sandile Dikeni. There are also excerpts of the works
of Chinua Achebe (Nigeria), Langston Hughes (USA), Don Mattera (South Africa),
Ellen  Khuzwayo (South Africa), Bessie Head (Botswana), Es’kia Mphahlele (South
Africa), Zakes Mda (South Africa/USA), Jamaica Kinkaid (Antigua) and Sol Plaatje
(South Africa). Participating artists from the Northern Cape included seasoned
artists such as Rochester Mafafo, Ulrich Roberts, Xolani Kitsi and Pierre Cloete. Their
counterparts from the states of Texas and California in the United States of America
included Derrick Bell, Clara Johnson and Isaac Alexander. ArtLit was curated by
Oakland, California-based artistic manager and arts curator Jowhari Trahan, who has
years of experience in arts curatorship and management in the United States and has
also invested years in understanding the arts scene in South Africa.

Exposure, promotion and networking

The writers’ workshops, held in the city and in the far-flung districts, exposed the
aspiring writers to the world of literature as well as identifying the potential writers in
the Northern Cape province. This programme enabled interaction between budding
writers from the town and province with a mixture of renowned and well established
local and international authors. At these sessions, while the invited authors focussed
on exposing local writers to their work, they also engaged in conversation on the
statecraft of creative writing. The semi-formal sessions enabled flexible interactions
in which the power dynamics between the local writers and the invited experts was
somehow flattened. The local writers got exposed to the common issues in writing

192
 Universities, communities and language development

and the universality of the human experience, and how creative writing is an integral
part of expressing, promoting and archiving the universal human experiences.

In 2019, an academic language conference on the role and development of

Afrikaans brought together over 300 academics, language practitioners and the local
communities to discuss the place and importance of the use and preservation of
Afrikaans in the country. The programming also included the facilitation of public
talks such as the annual Africa Day celebrations and read aloud sessions by authors.
A range of local and international academics, writers and professionals were invited
to share ideas and engage. Open to attendance by the wider community these
sessions were aimed at creating a reading culture and closing the gap between
the author and the reader. Authors launched their books and allowed a critical
engagement with the readers. Some of the books and authors that were hosted
through this programme included: Prof Zakes Mda, Zukiswa Wanner, Fred Khumalo,
Niq  Mhlongo, Mamle  Wolo (Ghana), Rose Francis, Prof Brian Willian (UK),
Franca Treur (Netherlands), and Martin Egblewogbe (Ghana).

In 2018, the programme hosted award-winning poet Athol Williams at SPU.

The poet shared his views on the current state of literature in South Africa and
engaged with the audience on how to get the Northern Cape province to where it
deserves to be in the literary world. In May  2018, the programme hosted Zukiswa
Wanner, Niq Mhlongo and Fred Khumalo who spoiled Northern Cape book lovers by
agreeing to come to Kimberley as a part of their tour and public reading programme
as they launched their new publications. Niq Mhlongo presented the participants
with his new short story collection, Soweto Under the Apricot tree. Zukiswa brought
along her 2018 release Hardly Working and Fred, his historical fiction based on the
tragic 1917 events of the SS Mendi, Dancing the Death Drill. British historian,
Dr Brian Willian came to Kimberley in June 2018 to launch his extensive biography
of Sol Plaatje titled Sol Plaatje: A life of Solomon Tshekisho Plaatje 1876-1932.
The biography takes a look at Sol Plaatje and his personal life, beyond the achieve-
ments and the work he did for the African National Congress (ANC). A Kimberley-
based author and SPU lecturer, Sabata Mokae, launched his third award winning
novel Moletlo wa Manong which means “A Feast of the Vultures”. It is a sequel to his
debut Setswana novel Ga ke Modisa – “I Am Not My Brother’s Keeper” – which won
the M-Net Literary Award for Best Novel in Setswana as well as the M-Net Film Award
in 2013.

The 2018 Africa Day Lecture was held at the McGregor Museum as it coincided
with the 40th anniversary of Robert Sobukwe’s death and in honour of the great icon,
an exhibition was opened at McGregor Museum. It was only appropriate for SPU,
DSAC and McGregor Museum to collaborate in the commemoration of this day.
The public lecture was delivered by Judge Bernard Makgabo Ngoepe, one of eight

193
Universities, society and development

lawyers who drafted the South African Interim Constitution of 1993. The judge
highlighted the importance of young people carrying on with the dream of South
Africa that Robert  Sobukwe died for. He reminded participants of the importance
of knowing and sharing accurate history. In August 2019, at a time where violence
against women and children was taking centre stage, Dianna Ferrus presented a talk
on The life of Sarah Bartmann.

Capacity building and mentorship: Creative Writing

Workshops
The aspect of building capacity and assisting local writers and poets in developing
themselves was identified as important in the programme. The purpose of these
workshops was to identify aspirant writers, mainly in the Northern Cape districts,
who show enough potential for possible follow-up workshops that will refine their
skills and hopefully inspire them to produce quality literature that can be published.
Each of the five districts in the Northern Cape was afforded with a one-day workshop
with a total of 25 of these taking place over three years. These impacted a total
of 450 aspiring writers and poets. The writing workshops became an opportunity
for aspiring writers and literature lovers to be introduced to the world of literature
from the perspective of a writer. While the majority of participants were from the
Northern Cape, a few also travelled from the neighbouring provinces of North West
and Free State to participate. Facilitators for the writing workshops are all
acclaimed writers, including Niq Mhlongo, Athol  Williams, Kabelo Duncan Kgatea,
Sabata‑mpho Mokae, Lance  Fredericks, Marla Druzgal, Primrose Mrwebi, Zukiswa
Wanner, Phehello Mofokeng, Tuelo  Gabonbewe and Prof Lesego Malepe. In the
Frances Baard, Joe  Morolong and ZF  Mgcawu districts, participants included
inmates serving time in correctional centres. Some of the participants have written
manuscripts which show great potential in English, Afrikaans and Setswana, and were
allocated mentors. These mentors included SPU academics Sabata-mpho Mokae,
Richard Moloele and other academics and writers. The mentors are in the process of
guiding these writers to a level where their manuscripts will be ready to be submitted
to commercial publishers.

Writing as doing: The SPU Summer School of Writing

The SPU Summer School of Writing (SSW) was the second biggest annual pro-gramme
of the two institutions after the annual Northern Cape Writers Festival. Held over one
week, this programme created a semi-formal platform to develop and nurture local
writers and poets who previously had no access to formal institutions in the Northern
Cape. It was intended to help them refine their writing skills. Aspiring authors were
asked to submit their manuscripts for selection, and a maximum of 20 promising

194
 Universities, communities and language development

manuscript’s authors were chosen to attend the programme. Facilitators were

individually responsible for three genres – poetry, creative non-fiction and fiction, and
included Zukiswa Wanner, Niq Mhlongo, Lesego Rampolokeng, Prof Tumi Khumalo,
Percy Zvomuya, Moagi Modise and Wame Molefhe.

Facilitators read new work that participants produced each day and hosted daily
feedback sessions that created a build-up to the Day 4 session. On this writing day,
participants were expected to incorporate the knowledge and information gained
from the facilitator feedback sessions in order to produce their best work yet. These
gruelling sessions were both mentally and emotionally draining, which accordingly
gave facilitator Prof Tumi Khumalo, a clinical psychologist, the opportunity to discuss
the mental health of creatives, and to facilitate a mental health assessment and talk
with the participants. In 2019, participants of SSW went through an intensive four
days of writing and evaluating their work, and it was only fit to celebrate their growth
in true literary style by ending the week off with a treat. Wame Mofhe launched her
redesigned and republished “intimately captivating” collection of short stories titled
Go Tell the Sun.

Over the three years the SSW ran, 60 participants from the five districts of the
Northern Cape participated.

Conclusion
The collaborative programme discussed in this chapter encapsulates the emerging
ways for small universities in the context of South Africa to practise community
engagement. The case study points to how universities and communities can organise
themselves productively in ways that engender effectiveness, limit the skewed
power relations, and open up universities for communities that would ordinarily not
participate in the space. We show that a new university formed in the post-apartheid
dispensation can contribute to addressing the inherited marginalisation of indigenous
languages in terms of language development. As propounded by Kruss and Gastrow
(2015), we suggest that universities located within local communities marginalised
by the experience of colonialism and apartheid must be drivers of social interaction
and cohesion, while addressing the legacies of the past. The strategies used to
deal with this should acknowledge universities’ role as knowledge partners and as
sites where diverse stakeholders can meet and collectively tackle social issues.
As elaborated in this chapter, a university community engagement intervention
has to be locally informed and deliberate, and as our experience at SPU shows,
the intent has to be explicit in foundational documents, strategic and operational
plans. Universities, within their locations, need to formulate strategies for facilita-
ting social change through partnering with relevant public and private entities and
by allowing university interactions with various social actors and marginalised

195
Universities, society and development

communities. In the context of discourses of decolonisation, beyond using indigenous

languages in teaching and research, direct community-based programming enhances
these two missions. Attention to language development makes a direct impact
at the community level, while enabling universities to change their research and
teaching activities and to challenge their inherited institutional cultures. Collaborative
engagements with local communities embed universities as institutions that are fully
integrated in communities in which they are located, enabling them to challenge their
‘ivory tower’ disposition and contribute to equality and social justice.

196
 Universities, communities and language development
References
Alexander, N. 2012. The centrality of the
language question in the social sciences and
humanities in post-apartheid South Africa:
Revisiting a perennial issue. South African
Journal of Science, 108(9):1-7. [https://doi.
org/10.4102/sajs.v108i9/10.1443].
Bank L., Cloete N. & van Schalkwyk, F. (eds.).
2018. Anchored in Place: Rethinking
universities and development in South
Africa. Cape Town: African Minds. [https://doi.
org/10.47622/9781928331759].
Beukes, A. 2009. Language policy
incongruity and African languages in
post-apartheid South Africa. Language
Matters, 40(1):35-55. [https://doi.
org/10.1080/10228190903055550].
Brock-Utne, B. 2003. The language question
in Africa in the light of globalisation, social
justice and democracy. International Journal
of Peace Studies, 8(2):67-87.
Cakata, Z. & Segalo, P. 2017. Obstacles to post-
apartheid language policy implementation:
Insights from language policy experts.
Southern African Linguistics and Applied
Language Studies, 35(4):321-329. [https://doi.
org/10.2989/16073614.2017.1373364].
Coetzee, H. & Werner, N. 2018. Measuring
impact and contributions of South African
universities in communities: The case of the
North-West University. Development Southern
Africa, 35(6):774-790. [https://doi.org/10.1080
/0376835X.2018.1475218].
Cooper, D. 2011. The University in Development:
Case studies of Use-Oriented Research.
Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Department of Higher Education and Training
(DHET). 2011. Charter for Humanities and
Social Sciences Catalytic Project of Concept
Formation in African Languages. Pretoria,
RSA: Government Printers.
Department of Higher Education and Training
(DHET). 2015. Report on the use of African
languages in higher education. Pretoria:
Government Printers.
197
Gikandi, S. 2002. Ngũgĩ’s conversion: Writing
and the politics of language. In: P.J.O. Smith
& D.P. Kunene (eds.), Tongue and Mother
Tongue: African Literature and the Perpetual
Quest for identity. Asmara: African World
Press, 21-38.
Heleta, S. 2016. Decolonisation of higher
education: Dismantling epistemic violence
and eurocentrism in South Africa.
Transformation in Higher Education, 1(1):1-8.
[https://doi.org/10.4102/the.v1i1.9].
Helland, K.I. 2013. Writing in Gikuyu: Ngugi wa
Thiong’o’s search for African authenticity. In:
T. Akande & R. Taiwo, Contact Linguistics in
Africa and Beyond. New York: Nova Science
Pub Inc.
Jansen J.D. 2019. Decolonisation in Universities:
The politics of knowledge. Johannesburg:
Wits University Press. [https://doi.
org/10.18772/22019083351].
Kaschula, R.H. & Wolff, H.E. 2020.
The Transformative Power of Language:
From Postcolonial to Knowledge Societies in
Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kleinsmith, D. & Horn, A. 2015. Impacts of
new universities on hosting cities and the
implications for Kimberley, Northern Cape,
South Africa. Development Southern Africa,
32(4):494-510. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03768
35X.2015.1039712].
Kruss, G. & Gastrov, M. 2015. Linking Universities
and Marginalized Communities: South African
Case Studies of Innovation Focused on
Livelihoods in Informal Settings. Cape Town:
HSRC Press.
Kruss, G., Visser, M., Haupt, G. & Aphane, M.
2012. Academic interaction with external
social partners: Investigating the contribution
of universities to economic and social
development. Pretoria: HRSC Press.
Langa, M. (ed.). 2016. #Hashtag an analysis
of the #FeesMustFall Movement at South
African universities. Johannesburg: Centre for
the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.
Universities, society and development
MacPherson, S. 1997. Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o:
An African vision of linguistic and cultural
pluralism. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3):641-5.
[https://doi.org/10.2307/3587848].
Maringira, G. & Gukurume, S. 2016.
‘Being black’ in #FeesMustFall and
#FreeDecolonisedEducation: Student protests
at the University of the Western Cape. In:
M. Langa (ed.), #Hashtag: An analysis of the
#FeesMustFall Movement at South African
universities. Johannesburg: Centre for the
Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 33-46.
Mbembe, A. 2016. Decolonising the university:
New directions. Arts & Humanities in
Higher Education, 15(1):29-45. [https://doi.
org/10.1177/1474022215618513].
McCowan, T. 2019. Higher Education for and
beyond the Sustainable Development Goals.
Pretoria: Palgrave Macmillan. [https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-19597-7].
Mignolo, W. D. 2009. Epistemic disobedience,
independent thought and decolonial freedom.
Theory, Culture and Society, 26(7‑8):159-181.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409349275].
Mkhize, T. 2020. The role of African languages
in decolonising South African universities.
In: H. Russell, H. Kaschula & E. Wolff (eds.),
The Transformative Power of Language: From
Postcolonial to Knowledge Societies in Africa.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 33-42.
[https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671088.003].
Mokaya, N. 2014. The Language Debate in
African Literature. (https://bit.ly/3NVWxzL).
Thiong’o, N. 1986. Decolonising the mind:
The politics of language in African literature.
London: James Currey.
Thiong’o, N. 1993. Moving the Centre:
The Struggle for Cultural Freedoms. London:
James Currey.
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. & Zondi, S. (eds.). 2016.
Decolonizing the University, Knowledge
Systems and Disciplines in Africa. Carolina:
Carolina Academic Press.
Ngugi, M. 2018. What decolonizing the mind
means today. Literary Hub, 23 March 2018.
(https://bit.ly/371FU4U).
198
Nyamnjoh, F.B. 2016. #RhodesMustFall: Nibbling
at resilient colonialism in South Africa.
Cameroon: Langaa Research and Publishing
Common Initiative Group. [https://doi.
org/10.2307/j.ctvmd84n8].
Omar, A.H. 2015. The question of language
and the role of translation. (https://bit.
ly/3DSpE29).
Parmegian, A. 2012. Language, power and
transformation in South Africa: A critique of
language rights discourse. Transformation
Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa,
78(1):74-97. [https://doi.org/10.1353/
trn.2012.0042].
Prah, K.K. 2011. The language of development
and the development of language in
contemporary Africa. Knowledge construction
in applied linguistics: a critical perspective.
Annual Conference of the American
Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL),
Chicago. 26-29 March 2011. (https://bit.
ly/3rbirFp).
Prah, K.K. 2018. The challenge of language
in post-apartheid South Africa.
Universiteitseminaar University Seminar.
(https://bit.ly/38CRLXK).
Shole, S.J. 2012. An evaluation of some drama
translations in Setswana. South African
Journal of African Languages, 3:1-38. [https://
doi.org/10.1080/02572117.1983.10586508].
Shole, S.J. 2016. Translation for cultural
repatriation, presentation to International
Writing Program. University of Iowa
Department of Sport, Arts and Culture (NC)
Creative Writing Seminar, February 23-24,
2016.
Shole, S.J. 2018. Phetsolelo: repatriation and
recovery. Presentation to the Project Team
Working Meeting, July 2018. School of
Humanities, Sol Plaatje University.
Shole, S.J. & Pooe, E. 2020. Maropeng: on
repatriating Mhudi as a Setswana novel.
In: Sol Plaatje, Mhudi: History, Criticism,
Celebration. Johannesburg: Jacana.
Smith, L. 1999. Decolonising methodologies:
Research and indigenous peoples. London:
Zed Books.
 Universities, communities and language development

Snyman, L. 2014. An analysis of community Spivak, G. 2012. Ngugi wa Thiong’o: In praise of

engagement at South African universities, a friend. In: O. Lovesey (ed.), Approaches to
(Masters Thesis, University of Johannesburg). Teaching the Works of Ngugi wa Thiong’o.
New York, Modern Language Association of
Sol Plaatje University (SPU). 2014. The Academic
America, 5-10.
Plan, 2015-2019. Kimberley: SPU.
Webb, V. 2002. Language in South Africa: The
Sol Plaatje University (SPU). 2015. The Strategic
role of language in national transformation,
Plan, 2014-2018. Kimberley: SPU.
reconstruction and development. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing. [https://doi.
org/10.1075/impact.14].

199
 CHAPTER TEN

Sustaining university
10
community engagement through
Work Integrated Learning:
Critical reflections from
Sol Plaatje University
Olubunmi Obioha, Fattinald Rangongo & Edward Dakora
Sol Plaatje University

Introduction
Within the past two decades, there has been a shift in emphasis regarding higher
education’s role in community engagement to the notion of an engaged institution
that contributes to social development (Muller, 2010). According to Temple, Story
and Deleforce, (2005), the ‘engaged university’ is one that is seriously committed
to interacting with its communities in a meaningful and mutually beneficial way.
Higher educational institutions (HEIs) are confronted with questions regarding their
mission and relevance in relation to society. There are arguments that a university
should not just operate as an ‘ivory tower’ for teaching institutions where students
get their qualifications and academics produce knowledge which may not have a
direct bearing on civic, social, economic and moral challenges at the local, national
and international levels (Gibbons et al., 1994). There are also strong debates in support
of the fact that campuses should not act as isolated islands, but as staging grounds
for action and more responsive to the needs of stakeholders (Goddard, 2018). Thus,

201
Universities, society and development

there have been demands for transformation in higher education to create a culture
that fully legitimises, embraces and supports community-engaged scholarship
(Fitzgeral et al., 2012; Franz, 2010). In response to these demands, several approaches
are being utilised in the HEI environment to bridge the knowledge-to-action gap and
frame community engagement towards building interactive relationships identified
by pro-engaged institutional movement (OECD, 2007).

One of the notable ways in which HEIs have been involved in their local communi-
ties has been through research, such as community-based participatory research
(Bender, 2008). Academics apply their knowledge to problems identified in the comm-
unity and then proffer solutions, thereby imparting new knowledge to the community.
Another way HEIs engage with their local community is by providing community-
responsive clinical care and working with city authorities to address social problems.
Yale University in the United States for example, as a university within a city, worked
with their city authorities to fight prevalent crime in order to revitalise their downtown
area (Breznitz & Feldman, 2012). There are also records of other HEIs engaging
with relevant stakeholders towards improving their surrounding neighbourhoods
(Maurrasse, 2001). Apart from these forms of community engagement, literature
suggests that the scholarship of engagement should also include a variety of work
academics do through their teaching. According to Bender (2008), teaching and
research can be translated into, and form an integral part of community engagement.
For example, this could be done through service-learning that enables students and
academic staff to acquire skills and to experience particular types of learning in a
community-based context, particularly in a context of poverty or under-development.

This chapter provides the context for describing a work integrated learning (WIL)
programme as one of the themes that falls within higher education comm-unity
engagement. It describes a WIL programme that goes beyond enhancing student
graduateness, but also importantly, serves as a mechanism for university-firm
interaction and engaged scholarship with the local and broader community in a new
university, operating in a developing economy context. It explores WIL as a form of
scholarly community engagement in order to argue that it fosters a sustained and
mutually beneficial relationship between the university and the community.

Concept of university-
university-community
community engagement
There are many forms of community engagement in the higher education
environment. This is manifest in a wide range of activities, formal or informal between
higher education and communities at many levels, ranging from international,
to regional and local. Consequently, community engagement is interpreted and
assessed in various ways, making it a difficult concept to define. Some perceive
community engagement as a form of social welfare, demonstrated by philanthropic

202
 Sustaining university community engagement through Work Integrated Learning

gestures and activities to the disadvantaged in the community; some scholars

resist it as a core function of academic work (Bender, 2008). Meanwhile other
scholars conceive it as a collaboration between universities and their communities
“for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of
partnership and reciprocity” (Driscoll, 2008:39). Bhagwan (2017) posits that the
different forms of university community engagement, models, and multiple benefits
to the community, university and external collaborators of community engagement
are reasons for the lack of a consensual definition of community engagement.
Notwithstanding the different views and understandings of what community
engagement is about or should be, the unifying feature is the component of interaction
and engagement with the world outside the university (Sachs & Clark, 2017).
As opposed to the charitable notion of community engagement which has been
heavily criticised as being uni-directional and not offering mutual benefit to both
parties (Kruss, Haupt & Visser, 2016), there is an increasing inclination towards
conceptualising community engagement to reflect core academic activities (Fourie,
2006). Scholars, as well as the governing bodies of HEIs in South Africa, tend to
progressively adopt this notion of academic scholarship being integral to community
engagement (Cooper, 2011; Kruss, 2012) manifested in the national policy frame-
work. Bhagwan (2017) shows how The Education White Paper 3: A programme for
the transformation of higher education put out by the Department of Education in
1997 laid a new foundation of community engagement in South Africa in that it
reconceptualised community engagement to be integral to and embedded within
teaching and research.

Community engagement in secondary cities

Literature suggests that the approach to and extent of community engagement
differs amongst HEIs (Jacob et al., 2015). Older HEIs tend to have strong, established
relationships and networks with their communities at local, national and interna-
tional levels in comparison to relatively new universities which may have very few
connections with their local community. Furthermore, the unique missions and
regional settings, whether rural or urban, also influence how community engage-
ment is understood and prioritised (Holland, 2005). These assertions suggest that
multiple contextual factors shape the manner in which community engagement is
expressed.

Fitzgerald (2019) asserts that universities are considered as national assets that
benefit the country as a whole and by extension, their surrounding communities.
Sol Plaatje University (SPU) as a new public HEI in the Northern Cape province,
also holds the expectations of contributing to knowledge-based development of
the country. The university, named after intellectual and politician Sol Plaatje,
was formed in 2013 and began its academic programme subsequently in 2014.

203
Universities, society and development

The Northern Cape has the smallest share of the national population at 2% and is
ironically the biggest province by land mass (Northern Cape Provincial Government,
2018). It also has a record of being the lowest contributor to national Gross Domestic
Project (GDP) (Statistics South Africa, 2018). This gives rise to pertinent questions
regarding the nature of university community engagement. The negative economic
growth that the province recorded in 2016 was attributed to contractions in the
agriculture, mining, electricity and transport industries. Community services and
mining were the two largest industries in the province. Negative growth in output
in mining in both 2015 and 2016 highlight the need for the province to diversify the
economy and venture into other industries. In addition, the unemployment rate in the
Northern Cape was reported to be higher than the unemployment rate in South Africa
(Statistics South Africa, 2018). In the context of these socio-economic challenges in
the Northern Cape, SPU was conceived to be a knowledge partner to the development
of the city and the province. It is poised to exert its impact on society by becoming
a catalyst of change through stimulating significant community improvement and
propelling the local economy of the region. Within the province itself, there is an
anticipation by the various stakeholders that the university, as a social institution, will
play a significant role in the development of the province

SPU as an engaged anchor institution: a policy overview

The location of SPU in the central business district (CBD) of Kimberley, in the Northern
Cape, positions it as an anchor institution that engages directly with the city. It was
intended to be integrated into the economic, political, cultural and intellectual life
of Kimberley and its residents (Ballim, 2016). Literature suggests that construction
of a university building in the city opens opportunities for growth and support for
industries (SPU, 2019). SPU strives to be an exemplar of this. Its presence within
the city holds the prospect of stimulating new economic opportunities in the form
of employment of labour, boosting the retail sector through patronage of staff and
students, expanding the housing market, skills development, and small business
incubation amongst others (Ballim, 2016). This is a positive boost to the economy
of the city which has recorded a gradual decline in the activity of the mining sector.
Its setting in the heart of the city makes it accessible and enables a constant flow
of connections with existing networks within its immediate community, the region,
nationally and internationally.

The physical site and infrastructure of SPU were envisioned to become a signifi-
cant urban renewal project for the city (Fitzgerald, 2019). This aligns with the
development strategies and expectations of the city authorities in Kimberley as
alluded to in the report by the South African Cities Network where it was stated that:

204
 Sustaining university community engagement through Work Integrated Learning

The establishment of the Sol Plaatje University has injected life back into the
Kimberley CBD, which will stimulate regeneration in the avenues of residential
and commercial developments. These developments will occur as a result of
support structures that will be needed by the University. (Stewart, 2017:7)

This assertion suggests a high level of co-operation and goodwill the university has
attracted from its host community. Apart from the contribution to the economic
sector, SPU has highlighted community engagement and social responsiveness as
one of its core values, further indicating that “productive social engagement, and
beneficial community engagements will be guaranteed in terms of our operational
style of work” (SPU Strategic Plan, 2019:12). This assertion is demonstrated, for
example, by its citizenship in Kimberley and its environment with regard to the
cultural and intellectual sphere, through facilitating regular writer’s workshops
held for creative writing in local languages and the hosting of public lectures that
attracted both the public and private sector in the region (Fitzgerald, 2019). Overall,
it can be deduced that SPU as a new university, has established itself as an active
citizen in Kimberley and the Northern Cape. Furthermore, SPU has expressed its
community engagement mandate by building a positive relationship with its host
community through its commitment to addressing the unique needs, competencies,
and characteristics of the Northern Cape region. While still setting up structures for
curriculum or new programme development, enrolment and lectures for students,
physical infrastructure development, staffing and research capacity development,
the university is always cognisant of promoting civic participation and engagement.
In addition, many mutually beneficial strategic partnerships have been forged and are
still ongoing in Kimberley and the Northern Cape Province.

Concept of Work Integrated Learning

WIL is a holistic term that embraces programs which integrate formal studies and
their practical application (Hays, 2019). The term was introduced into the higher
education document for the first time through the promulgation of the new Higher
Education Qualifications Framework (HEQF) in South Africa (Lewis, Holtzhausen
& Taylor, 2010). WIL provides the means for students in tertiary institutions, during
the course of their academic program, to integrate knowledge of theory acquired in
the classroom and real-world practical experiences in the workplace environment.
It provides a context for skills development and an opportunity for students to prepare
for the transition from university to professional practice (Davies & Shirley, 2007).
It was developed in response to criticisms that higher education curricula failed
to meet the needs of industry and produced graduates who were perceived to be
insufficiently prepared for the workplace (D’Abate, Youndt & Wenzel, 2009). According
to Orrell (2011), the aim of WIL is to intentionally integrate theory and practical
knowledge; it may, or may not, include a placement in a workplace, a community,

205
Universities, society and development

or civic arena. WIL is thus designed to close the perceived gap between theoretical
academic studies and practical knowledge obtained in the workplace environment
(ibid). It is structured to have a learning experience in a real-world context, where
skills and knowledge acquired through formal study, generally abstract in nature, is
exercised by the students and they in turn obtain learning complementary to what
they acquired in the classroom. Students are placed in a host organisation where
there is collaborative arrangement with the host organisation in charting their
learning experience, formulating assessments and feedback processes between the
academic supervisors and the organisation. With this form of involvement with the
community, students are able to test their subject knowledge and apply it, thereby
enhancing their educational experience.

The National Diploma in Retail Business Management (RBM), one of the flagship
programmes offered by SPU in the School of Economic and Management Sciences
(EMS), includes a WIL component in the curriculum. The programme was developed
as a way of forging sustainable ties between the university and its community.
It was implemented to address the shortage in the intellectual and entrepreneurship
skills identified in the Northern Cape (Ballim, 2016). It therefore seeks to advance
the university’s civic engagement through addressing the unique needs of the region.
Apart from embedding the university’s core business of teaching and learning, WIL
was designed to enhance the RBM students’ workplace readiness, consequently
leading to an interface between the university and the community.

The current SPU Mission is:

… …to become an institution of higher learning uniquely positioned to: graduate
citizens competent and capable of realising the aspirations of society; produce
new knowledge impacting on key challenges of the region; engage critically
with communities of discourse and communities of people in order to search
out pathways to equitable development. (SPU, 2019:2)

WIL is a practical example of this mission as it aims to contribute to actualising

the commitment of the university to building firm interaction and promoting strong
partnerships with the local business sector in Kimberley and the Northern Cape.
At SPU, WIL in the RBM programme is built into the curriculum in the third year,
which is the exit year of the programme. This enables students to engage meaningfully
with the local community. They are placed in businesses or host organisations
in Kimberley for three months. This arrangement provides the mechanism for
continuous interaction and fosters dialogue between SPU, through the School of EMS,
and the host organisations where the students are placed.

206
 Sustaining university community engagement through Work Integrated Learning

From community engagement to WIL

Literature suggests that community engagement should exhibit a partnership of
university knowledge and resources with those of its external stakeholders, comprising
of both the public and private sector to enrich scholarship, research, teaching and
learning amongst other academic functions in addition to addressing societal issues
and contributing to the public good (Bhagwan, 2017). Bender (2008) supports this
view by maintaining that an engaged university should place greater emphasis on co-
operative, collaborative development and mutual benefit while it prepares students to
be socially responsible citizens through civic engagement and social responsibility.
WIL is recognised as a type of curricular community engagement, amongst other
forms, which include academic service learning, experiential learning, community-
based education, internships, community outreach, community service and clinical
practicals (Lewis, Holtzhausen & Taylor, 2010). Ideally, it should embody interactions
that address community identified goals or needs and enhance the well-being of the
community aside from deepening students’ civic and academic learning (UP, 2006).
The Policy of Work Integrated Learning at SPU (2017:3) refers to and adheres to the
principle of WIL outlined by the Council of Higher Education (CHE), to the effect that
the programme must be “consonant with the institution’s mission, form part of the
institutional planning, meet national requirement, the needs of students and other
stakeholders and intellectually credible”. This principle illuminates the purpose of WIL
towards deepening students’ learning, acknowledging relations with stakeholders
and most importantly aligning with the mission of the SPU, which values engagement
with communities of discourse and communities of people in order to search out
pathways to equitable development.

According to Maloti, Junqueira, and Odora (2011), WIL promotes partnerships with
business, industry and government to improve economic growth for the country.
Given the dearth of entrepreneurial skills identified in Kimberley and the Northern
Cape, WIL provides the opportunity to fulfil SPU’s community engagement aspirations.
While students are exposed to a work-based context as intended by the program,
it simultaneously fosters dialogue and enhancement of skills in the sector, with a
specific focus on Kimberley and the Northern Cape.

Methodology
In order to capture the role of WIL in fostering community engagement, this chapter
articulates on its nature as a mechanism for community engagement particularly,
in a newly established university context in the Northern Cape Province, South
Africa. A qualitative methodology was followed given that this paper focuses on
the concep-tual realm. A documentary survey and analysis of research articles and
documents on WIL was utilised. The document analysis method refers to the analysis

207
Universities, society and development

of documents that contain information about the phenomenon that is studied by the
researcher (Mogalakwe, 2006). The researchers used mainly document analysis
to understand WIL as a form of scholarly community engagement between the
university and its local community. An internet search via Google scholar was
conducted for grey literature, using the following search phrases: ‘Work integrated
learning in higher education institutions’; ‘Work integrated learning in higher education
institutions in a developing country’; ‘Work integrated learning in higher education
institutions in South Africa’; ‘Benefits of work integrated learning in higher education
institutions’, ‘Work integrated learning as a form of community engagement.’ After
downloading the necessary articles, the researchers reviewed the contents of the
articles to identify appropriate and relevant information. Furthermore, given the paper
also dwells on the context of WIL in the university, institutional documents including
policy on WIL, strategic plans and WIL reports compiled by the WIL Coordinator in the
School of EMS in the university were consulted. A total of 30 articles and documents
were reviewed for this paper. Secondary data from self-reflection notes during the
usual 12 weeks WIL period from 2016 to 2018 as captured in the WIL reports, were
analysed to show experiences of students and the respective representatives in the
host organisations. All protocols to secure students’ placement with the university
and host organisations were followed before the WIL reports were compiled. All
these articles, reports and institutional documents provided evidence and an in-depth
understanding of the interface of the university community engagement and WIL.

Implanting WIL in the Northern Cape

WIL as a teaching and learning tool is embedded in the curriculum of the RBM
diploma programme. The programme is intended to provide students with the
knowledge, insight and skills needed to follow a successful management career
in retail, wholesale and other related sectors. Prior to its execution as a novel
programme in a new university with no existing similar curriculum in neighbouring
institutions to benchmark with, WIL had to be interpreted and conceptualised to
the best of the school’s ability, in line with the mandate by the HEQF. This required
integrating it into the qualification to enhance students’ career prospects as well
as factoring in the unique need for entrepreneurial skills in the Northern Cape.
The students’ participation in the WIL programme and completion thereof makes
them eligible for graduation given it is embedded into the curriculum as part of a
credit bearing module. WIL has the potential to serve as a vehicle to address the
challenge of graduate unemployment and also contribute positively to the economy
through skills development. Furthermore, it seeks to align academic and workplace
practices for the mutual benefit of students and workplaces.

208
 Sustaining university community engagement through Work Integrated Learning

The implementation of WIL in the School began in 2016, the third year of the first
cohort of the RBM diploma students. In the first semester, students undergo a work
preparedness programme to equip them for the workplace. Following this, in the
second semester, students are placed in various companies and host organisations
majorly in the retail sector in Kimberley and the Northern Cape for three months
(12 weeks). During their placement, they are attached to supervisors and/or mentors.
The hosting of the students entails work rotation in different departments/activities
of the organisation in areas including but not limited to operations, finance, and
logistics. This exposes students to diverse and increased learning opportunities in
the different units of the organisation that are not possible in formal classrooms.
Within the usual twelve weeks of the programme, site visits are made by the WIL
Coordinator, who is an academic staff member, to companies where students are
placed. The purpose of the site visits is to monitor and assess the workstations in
terms of the teaching and learning (as per the breakdown provided to employers),
interact with supervisors/mentors, establish challenges, and generally interact with
students. The WIL Coordinator engages with the students to determine the extent of
practical learning that they have acquired and how the workplace experience has been
beneficial to them amongst other issues. Students keep a log of their activities and
reflections on their placements, and they integrate these reflections into assignment
portfolios which are submitted for academic credit. Furthermore, they share their
reflections with the class both through an oral presentation and class discussions.
Since inception there has been an increase in the number of companies that have
accepted hosting students. This demonstrates the increasing support of the Northern
Cape business community for the programme.

Extant literature highlights numerous benefits of WIL for all stakeholders, including
students and the host organisation (Maloti et al., 2011; McLennan & Keating, 2008),
and the challenges and efforts made to mitigate the associated risks (Johnson,
2020). Jackson (2017) asserts that many WIL experiences aim to strengthen
students’ agency, sense of relevancy and connection with the community. From the
students’ perspective, they benefit across a number of dimensions. They are able
to develop skills in communication, interpersonal relations, technology, writing,
punctuality, attendance, team work, leadership, career development, observing theory
in practice, putting theory into practice, awareness of workplace culture, meeting
workplace expectations, opportunity to develop a range of personal attributes, coping
in a rapidly changing world of work, enhanced employment prospects, develop-
ing career strategies, developing interactive attributes, and building a network of
contacts (Cooper, Orrell & Bowden 2010; McLennan & Keating, 2008; Orrell, 2004).

The experiences gained help students assess future career prospects and make a
smoother transition into paid employment. From the viewpoint of the academics,
WIL is valued for the opportunity it offers to merge theory and practice, assess their

209
Universities, society and development

experiential learning, and exposing graduates-to-be to the world of work. Inputs from
the host organisation also help to improve teaching and learning within the WIL
curricula, increasing the knowledge base and upgrading skilled students to function
in the industry. From the angle of the host organisations that support students’
placements, WIL has the potential to advance their businesses and their corporate
image. First, in their recruitment processes as they are able to observe first-hand the
work readiness of future graduates. Second, it facilitates them having access to new
thinking from the emerging research gained through close ties with the university.

Findings from the WIL Implementation

Since the inception of WIL in the RBM programme in 2016, it has been successful to a
large extent. As a teaching and learning tool, it has been structured and is still evolving
to align academic and workplace practices for the mutual benefit of students, the
university and host organisations. It has also promoted and sustained positive
partnerships with the retail sectors of the economy. These partnerships are considered
essential in addressing socio-economic and employment challenges amongst others
in the region. Currently, none of the companies or host organisations have formally
reported any incident of misdemeanour or disrespectful behaviour from the students.
Although experiences during the WIL placement period vary amongst students and
host organisations, what comes out strongly is the beneficial place-ment experiences
captured in repeated statements over the years, both from the students and host
organisations which serve as proxy of the external community.

A summary of the feedback from students as compiled in the WIL placement reports
(Rangongo, 2018:4) were expressed as “I have learnt a lot” (ibid). Another expression
of positive feedback from a student was “this world is different from class, I just wish
the time could have been longer” (ibid). In the same vein, reflections from the host
organisation representatives captured in the WIL placement report (ibid) were mainly
articulated as follows: “If this was my company, I would hire her without thinking
twice” (ibid). Further remarks from host organisation indicated “this is a student that
is very keen to learn, a joy to work with” (ibid).

Equally important to note is the fact that during the course of this relationship over
the years, some of the host organisations demonstrated their support of the university
by instituting awards for a variety of student categories to reward stellar performance
of students in the course of their WIL exposure in their respective organisations.

Notwithstanding the accomplishments made with WIL, there were areas where
some challenges were experienced. The first of these is securing a work placement
and ensuring that students are appropriately supported. Given that placements are
often in organisations across the province, farther away from the university and

210
 Sustaining university community engagement through Work Integrated Learning

homes of students, it becomes necessary that students are provided with stipends to
cover the costs of transportation and subsistence. Unfortunately, many host organisa-
tions were unable to provide such stipends and as a result it became challenging
to secure funding for this. The difficulty in securing funding for all students may be
attributed to the developing country context in which WIL is implemented. This is
in contrast to the situation in a developed economy, for example Germany, where,
typically, students are well remunerated during the course of their work placement
(Reinhard, Pogrzeba, Townsend & Pop, 2016).

Second, there were language barrier problems that came up in the course of the
WIL placement. A few students experienced communication challenges from
customers while on site, as some customers in some instances insisted on being
assisted in Afrikaans. Afrikaans is the dominant language of communication in
the Northern Cape while the student body comprises of individuals from a diverse
linguistic background, representing the various ethinc groups across provinces within
the country. This disparity necessitated supervisors/mentors and other colleagues
often assisting with translation. Finally, in addition to these, scheduled start of the
WIL programme was delayed in some instances due to adjustments in the university
academic calendar. This ultimately affected the length of time earmarked for the
duration of the WIL placement coupled with some logistical problems with host
organisations (Rangongo, 2018).

Conclusions
In this chapter, we considered how community engagement has been represented
in a new university operating in a developing economy context and how WIL,
as one of the components of civic engagement in the university, fosters engage-
ment in Kimberley and the Northern Cape region. As one of the formative learning
tools towards developing entrepreneurial skills in the region and work prepared-
ness of students, it fosters interaction with a range of stakeholders in the region,
particularly the business community. Despite identified shortcomings in the WIL
programme in the third year RBM programme at SPU, there have been beneficial
learning experiences for students on the one hand, and productive experiences
by host organisations, particularly businesses, on the other. Most importantly,
we argue that WIL advances positive engagement between the university and its
host community ensuring positive graduate outcomes and employer satisfaction.

211
Universities, society and development
References
Ballim, Y. 2016. Ambitious visions: Sol Plaatje
University, Kimberley and the Northern Cape.
Independent Thinking (6th edn.). Pretoria:
Department of Highter Education and
Training. (https://bit.ly/3LReYne).
Bender, G. 2008. Exploring conceptual models
for community engagement at higher
education institutions in South Africa.
Perspectives in Education, 26(1):81-95.
Bhagwan, B. 2017. Towards a conceptual
understanding of community engagement
in higher education in South Africa.
Perspectives in Education, 35(1):171-185.
[https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.
v35i1.13].
Breznitz, S. M. & Feldman, M. P. 2012.
The engaged university. Journal of
Technology Transfer, 37(1):139-157.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9183-6].
Cooper, D. 2011. The UCT idea of social
responsiveness: Engaged scholarship must
be at its conceptual core for academic staff
(Social Responsiveness Report 2010).
Cape Town: University of Cape Town.
Cooper, L.J., Orrell, J. & Bowden, M. 2010.
Work integrated learning: A guide to effective
practice. New York: Routledge. [https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203854501].
D’abate, C., Youndt, M. & Wenzel, K. 2004.
Making the most of an internship: An
empirical study of internship satisfaction.
Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 8(4):527-539. [https://doi.
org/10.5465/AMLE.2009.47785471].
Davies, I.T. & Shirley, M.J. 2007. Community
engagement through a model of Virtual
Work-integrated Learning. AUCEA Inc National
Conference, Charles Darwin University: Alice
Springs, 27-32.
Driscoll, A. 2008. Carnegi’s Community-
Engagement Classification: Intentions
and insights. Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 40(1):38-41. [https://doi.
org/10.3200/CHNG.40.1.38-41].
212
Fitzgerald, H.E., Bruns, K., Sonka, S., Furco, A.
& Swanson, L. 2012. The centrality of
engagement in higher education. Journal of
Higher Education Outreach and Engagement,
16(3):7-28.
Fitzgerald, P. 2019. Selata: Sol Plaatje University
is Five Years Old - But You Ain’t Seen Nothing
Yet! (https://bit.ly/3LUlLg9).
Fourie, M. 2003. Beyond the ivory tower:
service-learning for sustainable community
development. South African Journal of
Higher Education Outreach and Engagement,
17(1):31-38. [https://doi.org/10.4314/sajhe.
v17i1.25189].
Franz, N. 2010. A holistic model of engaged
scholarship: Telling the story across higher
education’s missions. Journal of Higher
Education Outreach and Engagement,
13(4):31-50.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H.,
Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M.
1984. The new production of knowledge.
The dynamics of science and research in
contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Goddard, J. 2018. The civic university and the
city, in Geographies of the University. Cham:
Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
75593-9_11].
Hays, J.M. 2019. Towards a Theory of Industry
Engaged and Work Integrated Learning: Much
Needed Theory for Much Touted Practice.
(https://bit.ly/3vnkA2f).
Holland, B.A. 2005. Reflections on community-
campus partnerships: What has been
learned? What are the next challenges?
In: P.A. Pasque, R.E. Smerek, B. Dwyer,
N. Bowman, B.L. Mallory (eds.), Higher
education collaboratives for community
engagement and improvement, National
Forum on Higher Education for the Public
Good. University of Michigan, 10-17.
Jackson, B.J. 2017. Developing pre-professional
identity in undergraduates through work-
integrated learning. Higher Education,
74(5):833-853. [https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10734-016-0080-2].
 Sustaining university community engagement through Work Integrated Learning
Jacob, W.J., Sutin, S.E., Weidman, J.C. &
Yeager, J.L. (eds.). 2015. Community
Engagement in Higher Education:
International and Local Perspectives.
Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-007-9].
Johnson, B.J. 2020. Community engagement:
Barriers and drivers in South African higher
education. South African Journal of Higher
Education, 34(6):87-105. [https://doi.
org/10.20853/34-6-4116].
Kruss, G. 2012. Reconceptualising engagement:
A conceptual framework for analysing
university interaction with external social
partners. South African Review of Sociology,
43(2):5-26. [https://doi.org/10.1080/21528586
.2012.694240].
Kruss, G., Haupt, G. & Visser. M. 2016. Luring
the academic soul: Promoting academic
engagement in South African universities.
Higher Education Research and Development,
35(4):1-17. [https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360
.2015.1137874].
Lewis, M., Holtzhausen, N. & Taylor, S. 2010.
The dilemma of Work-integrated Learning
(WIL) in South African higher education:
The case of town and regional planning at
the University of Johannesburg.
Stade-en Streeksbeplanning Town and
Regional Planning, 57:25-35.
Maloti, N., Junqueira, E.K. & Odora, R.J. 2011.
A comparative study of pre-service teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs before and after work
integrated learning. South African Journal of
Higher Education, 25(6):1140-1177.
Maurrasse, D.J. 2001. Beyond the campus: How
colleges and universities form partnerships
with their communities. New York: Routledge.
McLennan, B. & Keating, S. 2008. Work-
integrated learning (WIL) in Australian
universities: The challenges of mainstreaming
WIL. In: ALTC NAGCAS National Symposium.
Mogalakwe, M. 2006. The use of documentary
research methods in social research. African
Sociological Review, 10(1):221-230.
Muller, J. 2010. Engagement with engagement:
A response to Martin Hall. Kagisano 6,
January, 68-88.
Northern Cape Provincial Government. 2018.
Socio-Economic Review and Outlook.
Kimberley, South Africa.
213
Organization for Eonomic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). 2007. Review of South
Africa’s Innovation Policy. Directorate for
Science, Technology and Industry. Paris.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development.
Orrell, J. 2004. Work-integrated learning
programmes: Management and educational
quality. In: Proceedings of the Australian
Universities Quality Forum, 1-5: AUQA
Occasional Publication.
Orrell, J. 2011. Good practice report: Work-
integrated learning. New South Wales:
Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Rangongo, F. 2018. Work-integrated Learning:
2018 Placement Report (RBM-EMS).
(Unpublished).
Reinhard, K., Pogrzeba, A., Townsend, R. &
Pop, C.A. 2016. A comparative study of
cooperative education and work integrated
learning in Germany, South Africa, and
Namibia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative
Education, 17(3):249-263.
Sachs, J. & Clark, L. 2017. Learning through
community engagement. Singapore:
Springer Science. [https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-981-10-0999-0].
Sol Plaatje Municipality. 2019. Integrated
Development Plan (IDP) Review 2017/18,
Planning 2018/19. (https://bit.ly/3DRTaFn)
Sol Plaatje University (SPU). 2017. Policy on
Work Integrated Learning (WIL). Kimberley:
Sol Plaatje University.
Sol Plaatje University (SPU). 2019. Strategic Plan
2020-2024. (https://bit.ly/3jh5vJA).
Statistics South Africa. 2018. Quarterly Labour
Force Survey, Quarter 4:2017. Pretoria.
(https://bit.ly/3DSNtXA).
Stewart, T. 2017. Sol Plaatje Municipality.
South African Cities Network.
Temple, J., Story, A. & Deleforce, W. 2005.
AUCEA: An Emerging Collaborative and
Strategic Approach Dedicated to University
- Community Engagement in Australia.
Brisbane, Australia: Proceedings of the
International Conference on Engaging
Communities.
University of Pretoria. 2006. Policy on
Community Engagement. Pretoria: Faculty of
Education, University of Pretoria.
 CHAPTER ELEVEN

Development policy and

11
universities in Africa:
Towards a coordinated policy architecture
and engagement practice in South Africa
Thierry M. Luescher & Samuel N. Fongwa
Human Sciences Research Council

Introduction
What is the policy architecture for the community engagement function in African
higher education? How has policy acted as lever of change to establish more socially
responsible, transformative and developmental relationships between universities
and external constituencies? The preceding chapters have presented rich perspec-
tives and debate on conceptions of community engagement as well as concrete
cases of engagement with external communities and stakeholders with the aim of
enhancing understanding of the developmental contributions made by universities
in secondary cities in Africa. Against this background, this chapter seeks to analyse
the policy and regulatory frameworks for higher education’s contribution to develop-
ment in general, and community engagement in particular, at the continental, national
and institutional levels. At the African level, it discusses the pronouncements of the
African Union’s (AU’s) Agenda 2063 and the AU’s Continental Education Strategy
for Africa (CESA) on higher education-related development goals and community
engagement (AUC, 2015; 2016). The chapter then considers how a particular AU member
state, South Africa, has sought to steer university community engagement by means
of national policy. The chapter then discusses current conceptions of the community

215
Universities, society and development

engagement function at South African universities drawing on a recent study of the

annual reports produced by the country’s 26 public universities. The institutional-level
analysis concludes by reviewing the conceptual and empirical cases presented in
this book to produce an understanding of the relationship between concept, policy,
and practice. The chapter highlights many disconnects in the policy architecture
regarding the community engagement function in higher education and concludes
with four sets of elements that need to be considered as part of an effective, multi-
level policy architecture for community engagement.

African aspirations for development and higher education

On June 8, 2017, the AU established a higher education cluster as an implementing
structure to achieve the goals outlined by the Continental Education Strategy for
Africa 2016-2025. CESA represents a continent-wide intervention towards the
realisation of the vision outlined in the AU’s Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want.
This agenda, which was adopted by the continental body in 2015, features seven
aspirations each with its own set of goals and strategies. The seven aspirations are
described by the AU as reflective of “our desire for shared prosperity and well-being,
for unity and integration, for a continent of free citizens and expanded horizons,
where the full potential of women and youth are realised, and with freedom from
fear, disease and want” (AU, 2021:1). The aspirations should be viewed in the context
of a drive to complete the unfinished work undertaken by the AU’s predecessor, the
Organisation for African Unity (OAU), in pursuit of the developmental goals of shared
prosperity, integration and wellbeing (Legum, 1975; Twala, 2014; Vhumbunu, 2019).
The seven aspirations are:
Aspiration 1: A prosperous Africa based on inclusive growth and sustainable
development;

Aspiration 2: An integrated continent, politically united and based on the

ideals of Pan-Africanism and the vision of Africa’s Renaissance;

Aspiration 3: An Africa of good governance, democracy, respect for human

rights, justice and the rule of law;

Aspiration 4: A peaceful and secure Africa;

Aspiration 5: An Africa with a strong cultural identity, common heritage,

shared values and ethics;

Aspiration 6: An Africa, whose development is people-driven, relying on the

potential of African people, especially its women and youth, and caring for
children; and

Aspiration 7: Africa as a strong, united, resilient and influential global player

and partner. (AU, 2021:1)

216
 Development policy and universities in Africa

Each of the aspirations has a descriptor and is elaborated and concretised with
several goals (see Appendix 1 below). Agenda 2063 makes it clear that higher
education plays a crucial role in achieving the AU’s cultural, social, economic and
political goals. In this regard, the second goal of the first aspiration explicitly aims
to produce “well educated citizens and skills revolutions underpinned by science,
technology and innovation: developing Africa’s human and social capital (through an
education and skills revolution emphasizing science and technology)” (AU, 2021:1).

As a blueprint for inclusive and sustainable political, socio-cultural and economic

development in Africa, Agenda 2063 is likely to continue to inform the direction
and emphasis of the economic and social interventions undertaken by national
governments across the continent. Higher education clearly has a significant role to
play in national and place-based development through its core functions of teaching
and learning, research, and community engagement. In this regard, Agenda 2063
emphasises the importance of efforts to “build and expand an African knowledge
society through transformation and investments in universities, science, technology,
research and innovation” (AUC, 2015:15). It further promotes initiatives to standar-
dise and harmonise the African higher education space with the goal of removing
obstacles to student and academic mobility, as well as other efforts to enhance the
role that universities may play in Africa’s development agenda.

The Continental Education Strategy for Africa, 2016-2025, which was established to
help realise Agenda 2063, features 12 strategic objectives. These focus on, among
other things, revitalising the professionalism, quality and relevance of teaching;
infrastructure development and access to quality education; the use of information
and communications technologies (ICTs) in education; knowledge and skills develop-
ment; gender parity and equity in education systems; revitalising and expanding
higher education, research and innovation to address continental challenges and
promote global competitiveness; and the promotion of peace education and conflict
prevention and resolution. Teferra (2018) argues that CESA provides an appropriate
guide for Africa’s aspirations in the higher education sector and outlines the crucial
role that universities must play so that meaningful and sustainable economic
growth and socio-economic development are achieved on the continent.

217
Universities, society and development

In relation to CESA’s ninth strategic objective, which calls for the revitalisation
and expansion of higher education, research and innovation, Teferra (2018:1) notes:
It identifies eight elements deemed necessary to achieve this [that is, the
revitalisation and expansion of higher education, research and innovation],
including allocating 1% of GDP to research and innovation; creating conducive
environments for research and innovation through the provision of adequate
infrastructure and resources; linking research to the development of priority
areas and enhancement of global competitiveness; consolidating and
expanding centres of excellence; promoting international research and
development cooperation; and strengthening quality (post)graduate and
post-doctoral education, among others.

In Teferra’s (2018) reading of the CESA, research rather than teaching or community
engagement plays the most important role in the development of priority areas.
Indeed, the community engagement function of universities is not explicitly mentioned
here as a factor in the proposed efforts to revitalise the higher education sector.

At the same time Teferra emphasises that the responsibility for implementing
Agenda 2063 and CESA is supposed to fall to the AU’s member states rather than
the continental body itself. It is the duty of the national governments to try and
enact the continental plans through their development plans, strategies and related
regulatory frameworks, including those specific to higher education. It is also
at the national level (state level in federal systems) that the link between higher
education and development, and the role of community engagement in this, must
be elaborated. In this regard, Teferra (2018:1) notes:
According to CESA, virtually all development players now concur that for
meaningful and sustainable economic growth to be achieved, tertiary
education must be central to any national development agenda. Countries
around the world are striving to build this sector either under pressure, as
is the case in Africa, or as a priority in their strategic development plans,
as in developed and emerging countries. It is clear that building a tertiary
education system is no longer a luxury that African countries were once
chastised for indulging in, but a critical imperative for national development
and global competitiveness.

Against the background of the continental pronouncements on the role of higher

education in development, and the role of member states therein, the following
section discusses South  Africa’s National Development Plan (NDP) and its higher
education regulatory frame-work as an illustrative case.

218
 Development policy and universities in Africa

South Africa’s National Development Plan and higher

education
South Africa published its National Development Plan 2030: Our future – make it
work (NDP) in August 2012, three years before the AU’s Agenda 2063 was adopted.
Chapter 9 of the plan is dedicated to education, including a section on higher
education. According to Nel (2014), the NDP outlines three main developmental
roles for higher education:
1. Produce new knowledge and discover pioneering innovations to respond
to pressing societal challenges;

2. Educate and train high-level human resources for a wide range of

employment needs in the public and private sectors, while simultaneously
equipping pupils to be job creators and entrepreneurs; and

3. Contribute to democratic consolidation by strengthening equity, promoting

social justice and advancing an active citizenry.

The NDP conceives higher education’s developmental mission primarily in terms

of research, innovation, and knowledge production, as well as the production of highly
skilled, employable graduates, especially in the science, technology, engineering
and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. The plan also emphasises how the sector can
contribute to socio-political development by deepening democracy and promoting
social justice and redress. According to Nel (2014), “these ideals can be achieved
through socially responsive university curricula, teaching practices, and knowledge
generation agendas”.

In spite of the plan’s emphasis on the developmental contribution that should be

made by education in general, and higher education in particular, there is no mention
of community engagement per se in the NDP’s Chapter 9: Improving Education,
Training and Innovation – although the chapter does note in its further education
section the importance of engaging in strategic community development programmes
and responding to community needs. Overall, the NDP’s view of how higher education
can contribute to development in South Africa is focussed on expanding capacity
within the system, including by building two new universities in provinces which
previously had none, as well as a new medical school; increasing student enrolment in
general and in STEM subjects and at PhD level in particular; and enhancing the quality
of higher education on offer and its capacity to produce innovation (NPC, 2012).

In summary, South Africa’s NDP, like the continental Agenda 2063, makes no direct
mention of community engagement. Rather, the community engagement function
of the country’s universities is viewed as part of higher education’s broad mandate
to contribute to development and support the social, political and economic
transformation of post-apartheid society (DOE, 1997, section 1.13; NPC, 2012).

219
Universities, society and development

National steering towards transformative community

engagement in South Africa
The notion that higher education should serve the public good and contribute to
development is widely recognised in South African higher education policymaking
and regulations, as well as in the statutes, policies and practices of public universities
(Luescher-Mamashela, Favish & Ngcelwane, 2015). In the wake of the country’s
transition to democracy, ‘development’ became a guiding principle for the post-
apartheid transformation of higher education “to contribute to the common good of
society” (DOE, 1997, section 1.20). The principle was elaborated in a national goal
for the sector “to promote and develop social responsibility and awareness among
students of the role of HE [higher education] in social and economic development
through community service programmes”; as well as in a goal established for the
institutions that they should “demonstrate [their] social responsibility … and their
commitment to the common good by making available expertise and infrastructure
for community service programmes” (DOE,1997, sections 1.27 and 1.28).

One of the enduring legacies of 350 years of colonialism and apartheid in South
Africa is that the country has one of the most unequal societies in the world. South
African society is characterised by very high levels of unemployment, particularly
among black youth and black women, and high levels of poverty and deprivation
among the majority black population which coexist with pockets of great wealth and
privilege concentrated in the previously white but now increasingly “de-racialised”
elite strata. Amidst this unequal and unjust system stands the university sector,
which is highly, if unevenly, developed and massifying. The sector includes 26 public
universities, of which several rank among the best on the continent, as well as about
100 smaller, mostly vocationally focused private colleges. In government policy, the
university sector is understood as part of a larger post-school education and training
system which also includes 50 public technical and vocational education and training
(TVET) colleges, many private colleges and a few community colleges. Public and
private higher education are governed by a common national regulatory framework,
which centres on the Higher Education Act (Republic of South Africa, 1997, as
amended), the White Paper for Higher Education Transformation of 1997 (DOE, 1997)
and the White Paper for Post-School Education and Training of 2013 (DHET, 2013),
among other acts, regulations and policy pronouncements.

After the introduction of democracy in 1994, the focus for higher education policy
was the need to transform the unjust inherited apartheid system as most South
African universities were established as part of the institutional architecture of a
colonial and apartheid state. In other words, they were officially and/or in practice
segregated by race and ethnicity and directed to serve a specific population group and
support particular functions only. In the main, the historically white institutions were

220
 Development policy and universities in Africa

racially exclusive and elitist, while the historically black institutions were designed to
narrowly serve the needs of segregated homeland administrations and economies.
However, after 1994, all universities were opened to all population groups.

Against this historical background, the earliest policy pronouncements by the

democratic government on universities’ community engagement function should
be seen in the context of the drive to transform the system as a whole to support
the aspirations of a non-racial, non-sexist, democratic, and prosperous society.
This can be seen in the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) Report
(NCHE, 1996) and the White Paper for Higher Education (DOE, 1997). During the first
decade of democracy, this transformation project was enacted by means of multi-
ple initiatives, most evident in a process of mergers, incorporations and closures,
which were undertaken to do away with the “geo-political imagination of apartheid
planners” (Asmal, 1999:11). The reconfigured institutional landscape now included
large multi-campus institutions such as Walter Sisulu University in the Eastern Cape
and the University of KwaZulu‑Natal. The merger process created opportunities for
historically disadvantaged institutions, such as the rural University of Fort Hare, which
gained an urban footprint in the secondary city of East London. At the same time,
the process affirmed the status of certain historically white metropolitan institutions,
allowing them to remain largely untouched. In the second decade of democracy,
two new universities were added to the consolidated higher education landscape:
Sol Plaatje University in Kimberley and the University of Mpumalanga in Mbombela
adding new educational and economic opportunity in these two secondary cities.

In addition to an inequitable structural legacy, the higher education sector’s colonial

and apartheid history had also produced a skewed approach to development among
its institutions. The elite system of higher education inherited in 1994 had focused
exclusively on the needs and aspirations of the colonial and apartheid political projects,
which prioritised the educational, social, political and economic interests of the small
white population over those of the majority black population. Thus, for example,
the historically white and well-resourced University of Stellenbosch successfully
engaged for many decades with local white wine farmers, becoming a world leader
in viticulture and oenology as a result. Conversely, many historically black universities
lacked the mandate, capacity and resources to develop in such economically relevant
directions – although some, such as the University of the Western Cape in Cape Town,
became deeply involved in the liberation struggle as a way of addressing the dire state
of their surrounding black communities and the social, political and economic needs
and aspirations of this population.

It is therefore not surprising that it has been difficult to produce and implement a
common agenda among the universities in pursuit of their mandates to support
national development and promote societal and economic transformation to meet

221
Universities, society and development

the needs and aspirations of the black majority. Aside from the legacy of a skewed
higher education system, this may be attributed to the high degree of autonomy and
freedom from government interference that is enjoyed by the universities in their
operations. It can also be attributed to competing institutional priorities and conditions
of austerity at many higher education institutions, which may lack the resources to
adopt and pursue a comprehensive developmental mandate. In addition, individual
faculties, departments and academics tend to set their own agendas within broad
frameworks which are shaped by quality assurance directives; funding incentives
and constraints; and their own capabilities. Meanwhile, the national government only
has a limited set of policy instruments with which to steer the universities; it has
also shown to have limited will, capacity and imagination to drive substantive change
within this context. The result is that there is a fair degree of variation in the way
universities conceptualise and implement their responses to national policy, including
in relation to community engagement, development, and their social responsibilities.

The notion of social responsibility as ‘community service programmes’ which was

espoused in the 1997 White Paper (DOE, 1997), was actually masking a wide range
of understanding and practices, including community service and outreach; civic
engagement; volunteering; service-learning; and community engagement (see
Chapter 2 by Fongwa and Mtawa in this book). Only in 2001 a more comprehensive
policy-based conception of community engagement was produced by the statutory
quality assurance body of South Africa, the Higher Education Quality Committee
(HEQC), which included in its founding document knowledge-based community
service as one of the pillars of its quality assurance framework. Singh (2006:17-18)
explains why the HEQC included this function of higher education in its framework:
The reasons for the HEQC focus on community engagement in higher education
had to do with issues of academic reconstruction, and wanting to bring the
three core functions [of teaching and learning, research, and community
engagement] much more explicitly into the restructuring framework….
In addition … there was already in the HEQC a clear awareness that the issue
of community engagement was a potentially powerful way of giving content
to the transformation agenda in higher education, through new partnerships
and relationships between higher education and its multiple communities.

The affirmation of community engagement as a core function of higher education

by the HEQC led to the development of quality assurance criteria for the function.
Other government entities soon followed suit. The Department of Science and
Technology (DST) and its research funding agency, the National Research
Foundation (NRF), established mechanisms to support university-led community
engagement, which included funded research chairs specialising in community
engagement and funding calls for community engagement-focused research

222
 Development policy and universities in Africa

(e.g. University of the Free State, 2021). In 2013, the Department of Higher Education
and Training (DHET) published a new White Paper on Post-School Education and
Training, which noted:
Community engagement, in its various forms – socially responsive research,
partnerships with civil society organisations, formal learning programmes
that engage students in community work as a formal part of their academic
programmes, and many other formal and informal aspects of academic work
– has become a part of the work of universities in South Africa. (DHET, 2013,
section 4.8)

While the DHET did not introduce funding specific to community engagement,
it affirmed that community engagement would be financially supported insofar as it
was “linked directly to the academic programme of universities and formed part of
the teaching and research function of these institutions” (DHET, 2013, section 4.8).
In addition, in 2014, the DHET introduced new regulations for public universities
which required them to report on:
… …how a public higher education institution has both positively and negatively
impacted on the economic life of the community in which it operated
[including] inclusivity of stakeholders; innovation, fairness, and collaboration;
[and] social transformation [and] relationships with the community, both
academic and service. (DHET, 2014:26-28)

With the introduction of these reporting requirements, it became possible to analyse

how South Africa’s public universities conceive of and practice community engage-
ment, insofar as this function is covered in their annual reports to the DHET.

Current conceptions of community engagement at

South Africa’s public universities
In 2020 and 2021, the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) undertook research
to assess the state of transformation among South Africa’s public universities on
behalf of the Ministerial Oversight Committee on Transformation in the South African
Public Universities (TOC) (Luescher et al., 2021).

The assessment was based on a critical review and analysis of the contents of the
2018 and 2019 annual reports produced by the country’s 26 public universities.
Overall, the TOC report found that in the two years preceding the Covid-19 outbreak,
the universities had responded to the challenge of transformation in a range of ways.
Some had adopted piecemeal and compliance-based approaches, while others
had attempted to forge a holistic response to the challenge of producing teaching,
and research that addressed the country’s major developmental challenges while
building strong, collaborative relationships with government, private-sector and civil-
society  stakeholders.

223
Universities, society and development

The HSRC report focussed on several key higher education functions and how these
may be leveraged to promote transformation. It practically identified the univer-
sity’s role in promoting societal relevance and community engagement as a key
dimension of their drive to transform themselves and the broader society (see
Luescher et al., 2021 for a complete overview of the framework and methodology).
In this regard, it found that the universities had increasingly sought to integrate
their identity and core functions within their immediate and extended community-
regions and had engaged with an increasing number of stakeholders in pursuit of
developmental and social transformational objectives. At the same time, it noted
that the kinds of engagement had varied widely among the institutions; and that little
consideration had been given in the annual reports to producing a comprehensive
account of the transformative impacts of such efforts.

In their annual reports, many of the universities emphasised the importance of

engaged scholarship, which many progressive analysts have argued should be
integrated within the core functions of teaching, learning and research (e.g. Bender,
2008; Cooper, 2011). For example, in its 2018 annual report, the University of Cape
Town conceptualised its commitment to engaged scholarship as a response to
calls for deeper transformation and decolonisation within the institution. It noted
that the university aimed:
… …to enhance the scope, quality and impact of engaged scholarship [ES] with
an emphasis on addressing development and social justice … …the value of ES
in the current context of decoloniality and transformation is that it challenges
the attitudes of researchers, which determine how, by and for whom research
is conceptualised and conducted and the corresponding location of power
in the research process. It is this orientation to research that speaks to the
theme of transformation and decolonisation. (University of Cape Town, Annual
Report 2018:24)

A similar position was adopted by several other institutions, suggesting a reactive

approach to how community engagement may serve a social justice function
within  society.

Although the HSRC report for the TOC found that there were diverse understandings
of how best to address and implement community engagement across the
country’s universities, it also identified a number of common approaches among
the institutions. In general, the universities framed their commitment to society at
large in one or more of following ways:

224
 Development policy and universities in Africa

1. As a response to calls for deeper transformation and decolonisation;

2. As the fulfilment of a responsibility to deploy institutional resources to

ensure social justice;

3. As a response to local needs in the context of a global knowledge

agenda, and;

4. As a form of collaboration which may produce interventions in support

of the university’s teaching and learning functions while also benefiting
the population.

The notion of a commitment to society beyond the campus gates was also
expressed in the idea of universities as place-based ‘anchor institutions’. Under this
concept, universities position themselves as institutions that “consciously apply
their long-term, place-based economic power, in combination with their human and
intellectual resources, to better the long-term welfare of the communities in which
they reside” (Axelroth & Dubb, 2010:3; also see Bank, Cloete & van Schalkwyk, 2018).
In line with this concept, there were a growing number of mentions of ‘precinct
development’ in the reports, particularly in those produced by universities in
metro-politan areas, such as the Durban University of Technology, the University
of Pretoria, the University of the Western Cape in Cape Town and the University of
the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. The University of Pretoria reported that, as an
anchor institution, it had actively engaged municipal officials and the local metro
police to improve neighbourhood security and support environmental protection
and renewal. These passages from the university’s 2018 and 2019 reports provide
an example of the new outlook from the perspective of a metropolitan university:
As an anchor institution, UP is rooted in its communities and plays a central
role in their social, cultural and economic wellbeing. (University of Pretoria,
2020:36)

Impact as an Anchor Institution: We work closely with the Hatfield City

Improvement District (HCID) to create a clean, safe, secure, and attractive
environment beyond the University boundaries. Our efforts were recognised
when we received the 2018 Gauteng Premier’s Service Excellence Award in
the category: Creating Safer Communities. (University of Pretoria, 2019:38-39)

The concept was also referenced by a few institutions outside metropolitan areas,
even if it was not described as ‘anchoring’. For example, Rhodes University in its
rural-town setting of Makhanda (formerly Grahamstown) in the rural Eastern Cape
envisioned itself as a strong economic player in its locality. Its 2019 report stated:

225
Universities, society and development

Our university is the largest source of employment and contributes the

highest percentage in the GDP of Makhanda/Grahamstown. Our future, as
Rhodes University, is inextricably bound up with that of the greater Makhanda/
Grahamstown community. It is in recognition of this inescapable reality that
on 30 July and, again, on 16 September 2019 we convened a civil society
forum to harness the collective energy, creativity and resourcefulness of our
community to contribute towards creating a sustainable future for our city.
(Rhodes University, 2020:34)

The notion of place-based socio-economic development including the more specific

concept of anchoring thus seemed to be gaining increasing traction across the
country’s universities, according to their annual reports (see also Fongwa, 2018).

At the same time that the country’s universities seemed to be displaying responsive-
ness to the challenges facing their local communities, there appeared to be little
consensus on the nature of the developmental paradigms and engagement
approaches to be adopted. Only 14 of the 26 universities articulated a concise
conceptual understanding of community engagement and linked this to their mission
and vision statements in their annual reports. In addition, the ways in which comm-
unity engagement were conceptualised varied widely, with the engaged scholarship
ethos standing at one end of the spectrum, and a preference for community
involvement with philanthropic overtones standing at the other.

The universities across the country not only produced different understandings of
their community engagement role, but they also adopted different approaches to how
they should try and integrate their identity and core knowledge-production and other
functions into the surrounding socio-political and economic landscape. For example,
some focussed on local community contexts, while others envisaged their community
engagement role in a national, continental or even global context. In this regard,
many historically white, metropolitan universities espoused the notion of globally
competitive and locally engaged research touted by the Organisation of Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2007). For these institutions, the kudos that
such work could bring at the international level was clearly an important driver.

By contrast, several historically black and rural universities sought to establish

their local relevance by placing the emphasis on a closer alignment with the
priorities of communities in their immediate and extended regions. In this regard,
community engagement in many historically black and/or rural universities appear-
ed to be embedded in a variety of memoranda of understanding (MoUs) and
projects being implemented in surrounding communities, which are generally poor
and quite marginalised from mainstream socio-political and economic life. Among
these institutions there was a strong sense of the mutual benefits that could be
accrued through a reciprocal engagement with local communities. They thus

226
 Development policy and universities in Africa

adopted collaborative approaches, working with nearby communities to identify and

implement initiatives and interventions that could support teaching and learning,
and benefit local development. For example, the University of Venda (Univen) in
Thohoyandou stated in its 2018 annual report:
Univen sees community engagement as goal-orientated, reciprocal
interactions between the university and the community, with the aim of
establishing a win-win partnership, through collaborative projects…. These
interactions are expected to also serve as vehicles for increasing community
awareness, social consciousness and active citizenship among our students.
(University of Venda, 2019:53)

A number of universities reported implementing curriculum-driven external engage-

ments through their teaching and learning, and research activities. The initiatives
included service-learning; co-operative education programmes; and community-
based research – all of which may be seen as benefiting both the university, with
students gaining credits, and the community. This pedagogic method also promotes
a reflexive educational approach that may support the broader transformation of
students, staff and universities.

Although the engagement efforts reportedly undertaken by the universities tended to

be small‑scale, fragmented and focused primarily on immediate, local communities,
especially at the historically black and rural universities, it was notable that all the
universities reported engaging with a plethora of stakeholders in pursuit of various
developmental and social transformational objectives. Partnerships were reported
to have been forged with firms, government officials, local communities, schools and
sectoral education and training bodies.

The engagements with businesses and industry were reported to have been largely
geared towards enhancing graduate employability through initiatives such as work-
integrated learning and career shows with employers. Many universities also reported
engaging with Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) as part of efforts to
develop skills within the business sector while acquiring much-needed third-stream
income. A large number of universities further reported assisting schools across the
country in various ways, including through tutoring and mentoring programmes and
internship placements.

227
Universities, society and development

In reflecting on the scope and potential developmental impacts of its community

engagement efforts, the University of Pretoria noted:
The University’s community engagement continues apace, with 1,500
community sites of learning and 33,000 students involved in community
outreach programmes, or volunteering. As a result of its contribution, UP is
a member of the University Social Responsibility Network, a network of 16
top universities in the world selected for their responsiveness to their local
context. It is critically important that the University uses knowledge to make
a decisive difference to the lives of the people in South African communities.
(University of Pretoria, 2020:7)

Most of the universities, particularly those in small rural towns and secondary cities,
reported engaging with various government departments at the local, provincial
and national levels. Universities in the secondary cities reported engaging with the
Department of Science and Innovation (DSI), as well as other government departments
and public entities.

While almost all the universities reported on various aspects of engagement, the
institutionalisation of such engagement within the system appeared, from the
universities’ own accounts, to remain quite weak. In this regard, the analysis of the
annual reports indicated a lack of proper coordination of engagement efforts by a
central, institutional structure at most South Africa’s universities. Moreover, while
the adoption of an ad hoc, flexible and decentralised approach at the national/
system level may allow the various institutions to produce their own, appropriate
forms of engagement; weak coordination and a lack of recognition and support
for engagement within the system cannot be regarded as the best way of ensuring
optimal or comprehensive impacts.

In addressing the finding that there was a lack of effective mainstreaming of

community engagement as an institutional goal, the Human Sciences Research
Council’s report recommended establishing staff reward and recognition schemes
in support of engagement activities and producing appropriate strategic plans and
budgets. It further recommended that efforts should be made to implement reporting
structures that could consolidate accounts of the relatively significant amounts of
engagement already taking place within institutions and across the sector.

228
 Development policy and universities in Africa

Community engagement in South Africa in the context of

its policy architecture
The analysis of the 2018 and 2019 annual reports of South Africa’s public universities
indicated their awareness of the challenges facing communities, youth, the business
sector, and society in general within their local contexts (Luescher et al., 2021).
However, there are a number of caveats to this. First, the annual reports showed
that there was little consensus on the nature of the developmental paradigms and
engagement approaches that should be adopted. While most universities were
reportedly pursuing an engaged scholarship ethos, others continued to focus on a
community engagement approach with philanthropic or voluntaristic overtones.
Some analysts have also given warning of a ‘projectisation’ trend, under which
engagement has been limited to projects and thus has tended to have little impact
on the underlying teaching and learning or research approaches adopted by the
universities, or on community development more broadly (Cloete et al., 2011).

Second, the annual reports generally failed to consider how community engage-
ment had transformed or was transforming academia, for example, by encouraging
the production of a scholarship of engagement informed by actual initiatives
undertaken with the community. Furthermore, while some universities stressed that
they were becoming more responsive by developing more employable and well-
rounded graduates, as well as socially relevant knowledge, many were silent on this
topic. In this regard, one way forward could be to consider service-learning not only
in the context of its credit-bearing function but as a reflexive approach that could
support the broader transformation of internal stakeholders (students, staff, and
senior management) and contribute to transformation in the external community –
that is, through firms and businesses, local communities, schools and government
bodies. More broadly, the annual reports indicated that the universities’ community
engagement efforts seemed to be suffering from a lack of policy guidance and
steering at the national level.

Meanwhile, analysis of the major policy pronouncements made by the AU and the
South African government on the developmental role of universities indicates that
their community engagement function has been generally overlooked. Neither
Agenda 2063, CESA or the NDP make direct reference to community engagement.
Mention of the conceptions and practices that link higher education to develop-
ment through community engagement is confined to sector-specific policy and
regulations in the South African case; and the focus of these is on infusing teaching
and learning, research and other university activities with a social responsibility
component, with the emphasis being placed on practices such as university-
community research partnerships, service learning, and the like.

229
Universities, society and development

Analysis of the policy architecture directing the kinds of engagements that

universities should undertake in pursuit of socio-economic development also
indicates a disconnect between continental and national plans. In the specific case
discussed in this chapter, this disconnect may partly be attributed to their timing: the
production of South Africa’s NDP precedes that of the AU’s Agenda 2063. By contrast,
a clearer policymaking continuity is evident between the NDP and the subsequent
South African White Paper on Post-School Education and Training, which includes
prominent references to community engagement and thus goes well beyond the
NDP’s considerations and proposals in relation to this higher education function.

At the same time, the alignment of national with continental policymaking may
be considered less important than the need to elaborate detailed conceptions
and approaches to higher education’s contribution to development, which must
necessarily take place at the sectoral level. The South African case illustrates the
extent to which universities’ community engagement function may be articulated at
the sectoral level – although it should also be noted that the framing of the concept
especially at the institutional level, has tended to emphasise its developmental rather
than transformative aspects.

Conclusion
The analysis of the policy architecture for community engagement in Africa and
South  Africa, and the overview of current conceptions and practices in South
Africa’s public universities is meant to complement the conceptual and empirical
contributions made in the previous chapters. Overall, this volume contains a rich
repository of accounts of various community engagement efforts in secondary cities
in Africa, which may produce a greater understanding of the concept of community
engagement and its practice in a range of settings, and from which lessons may
be learned that can be transferred to a wider range of contexts or form the basis
for further research. Policymakers may wish to consider the multi‑dimensional
conception of community engagement produced by this volume as they seek to
promote a more comprehensive definition of the community engagement function
of universities and the developmental and transformative benefits that it may
foster. In this regard, a useful summary of the various conceptualisations and
related practices that fall under the ‘community engagement’ heading is provided
by Fongwa and Mtawa in Chapter 2. These include:
1. Anchoring, place-based development, precinct development, smart
precincts and the need to partner local, provincial and national
government and stakeholders in such initiatives, acknowledging the
transformative and developmental impacts that universities can help to
produce as anchors in African secondary cities;

230
 Development policy and universities in Africa

2. Inclusive innovation-focused engagement practices as against

community-focused engagement approaches;

3. The need for a collective approach among agencies to foster community

engagement and the need for social compacts in university-community
engagements which include a broad range of stakeholders;

4. Service-learning and work-integrated learning as forms of community

engagement which can foster sustained and mutually beneficial
relationships between universities and the business sector to enhance
students’ work preparedness, graduateness and employability; and

5. Engagement with indigenous knowledge, art, and practices through

university‑community research partnerships. The aim should be to
document indigenous knowledge on a wide range of matters including
local governance and ethics, sustainable agriculture and biodiversity,
pharmacopeia and traditional medicine, and language and language
practices – and to create joint curricula and social events to popularise
and celebrate indigenous knowledge.

The call in this chapter is for policymakers at all levels to coordinate a policy
architecture that can promote effective forms of university community engage-
ment. Such an architecture should provide suitable, multi-faceted conceptions,
approaches and steering mechanisms which can facilitate the transformative,
developmental contribution of African universities in their localities and beyond. It is
further suggested that the following elements of a multi-dimensional policy-based
intervention may form the basis of an effective policy architecture for community
engagement:
1. Concentric spheres of locality for place-based developmental
engagements of universities and other social institutions (such as
hospitals and schools) as anchors within business and residential areas
to foster integrated development precincts;

2. Explicit development pacts between universities and university-linked

entities and external stakeholders, especially government at all levels;
local small, micro and medium-sized enterprises (SMMEs) and large
businesses; and residential communities;

231
Universities, society and development

3. Directing the core functions of teaching and learning, research

and community engagement to help develop highly skilled graduates and
knowledge to address local solutions with regard to: population growth
and rapid urbanisation; improvement of habitats and access to the
necessities of life such as clean water and sanitation, electricity and
transport, as well as data traffic infrastructure; social security and
protection; and health, food security, biodiversity and conservation;
various sectors of economic and cultural activity and their relation to
the core functions of universities, with respect to research and
innovation; humanities, arts and civic development; business
development (in all local sectors at the level of SMMEs and beyond);
work-integrated learning, and service-learning; and graduate employment
and entrepreneurship;

4. Different social groups including youth, women, the elderly and

impoverished communities with a view towards fostering open-learning
offerings, extra-mural teaching and learning courses, and university-
access courses; open access to university knowledge resources such as
the university library, and university infrastructure such as the university’s
Wi-Fi; and pro bono access to student and staff services as available
(for example, employment advice, health counselling and disability
services).

In this manner, national development planning should be able to “localise” and inte-
grate the aspirations of Agenda 2063 in relation to higher education’s contribution to
development into sectoral policymaking and the regulatory framework for universities.
SDG.

232
 Development policy and universities in Africa
References
African Union. 2021. Our aspiration for the
Africa we want. African Union. (https://bit.
ly/37a1Wm3).
African Union Commission (AUC) 2015. Agenda
2063: The Africa We Want. Popular version,
September 2015. (https://bit.ly/3KxxxfV).
African Union Commission (AUC). 2016.
Continental Education Strategy for Africa
(CESA), 2016-2025. (https://bit.ly/37yzQAU).
Asmal, K. 1999. Call to Action: Mobilising
Citizens to Build a South African Education
and Training System for the 21st Century.
Statement by Professor Kader Asmal, Minister
of Education, 27 July 1999.
Axelroth, R. & Dubb, S. 2010. The Road Half
Traveled: University Engagement at a
Crossroads. Michigan: Michigan State
University Press.
Bank, L., Cloete, N. & van Schalkwyk,
F. (eds.). 2018. Anchored in Place:
Rethinking universities and development
in South Africa. Cape Town: African
Minds. (https://bit.ly/3E1bhbR). [https://doi.
org/10.47622/9781928331759].
Bender, G. 2008. Exploring conceptual models
for community engagement at higher
education institutions in South Africa.
Perspectives in Education, 26(1):81-95.
Cloete, N., Bailey, T., Pillay, P., Bunting, I. &
Maassen, P. 2011. Universities and Economic
Development in Africa. Wynberg: Centre for
Higher Education Transformation. [https://doi.
org/10.47622/9781920355807].
Cooper, D. 2011. The University in Development:
Case Studies of Use-Oriented Research.
Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Department of Education (DoE). 1997.
Education White Paper 3: A programme for
the transformation of higher education.
Government Gazette, 386(18207). Pretoria:
Government printers.
Department of Higher Education and Training.
2013. White Paper for Post-School Education
and Training. Pretoria: Government printers.
233
Department of Higher Education and Training.
2014. Regulations for reporting by public
Higher Education Institutions. Government
Gazette, 37726(R.464), 9 June 2014. Pretoria:
Government printers.
Fongwa, S. N. 2018. South Africa’s knowledge-
development policy nexus: Implications for
place-based development in the Eastern
Cape Province. Development Southern Africa,
35(5):626-640. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03768
35X.2017.1405798].
Legum, C. 1975. The Organisation of African
Unity - success or failure? International
Affairs (Royal Institute of International
Affairs), 51(2):208-219. [https://doi.
org/10.2307/2617233].
Luescher-Mamashela, T.M., Favish, J. &
Ngcelwane, S. 2015. One bangle cannot
jingle: community-university research
partnerships in South Africa’. In: B. Hall, R.
Tandon & C. Tremblay (eds.), Strengthening
Community University Research Partnerships:
Global Perspectives. Victoria, CA: University of
Victoria, 197-220.
Luescher, T.M., Mncwango, B., Fongwa, S.N.,
Oppelt, T., Mthombeni, Z. & Paterson, M.
2021. The State of Transformation in South
Africa’s Public Universities. Research report
for the Ministerial Oversight Committee on
Transformation in the South African Public
Universities (TOC). Embargoed.
National Commission on Higher Education
(NCHE). 1996. Report: A Framework for
Transformation. Pretoria: HSRC Publications.
National Planning Commission (NPC). 2012.
National Development Plan 2030: Our Future
- Make it Work. Pretoria: The Presidency.
(http://www.npc.gov.za).
Nel, H. 2014. Can varsities meet Manuel’s aims?
Mail & Guardian, 14 February. (https://bit.
ly/3xpP5qy).
Republic of South Africa 1997. Higher Education
Act No. 101 of 1997. Government Gazette,
18515(1655), 19 December 1997. Pretoria:
Government Printers.
Universities, society and development
Rhodes University (RU). 2020. Annual Report
2019. (https://bit.ly/3E1MR2f).
Singh, M. 2006. Opening Remarks. In:
Council on Higher Education/Community
Higher Education Service Partnerships (eds.),
Community Engagement in Higher Education.
Proceedings of the CHE-HEQC/JET-CHESP
Conference on Community Engagement
in Higher Education: 3-5 September 2006.
Pretoria: Council on Higher Education.
(http://www.chesp.org.za).
Teferra, D. 2018. CESA, not SDG4 - A guide for
the continent’s aspirations. University World
News Africa, 4 May. (https://bit.ly/3LRToPF).
Twala, C. 2014. The 50 years struggle of the
Organisation of African Unity (OAU): A search
for a developmental paradigm in Africa?
Journal of Social Sciences, 39(1):103-109.
[https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.2014.118
93273].
234
University of Cape Town (UCT). 2019.
Annual Report 2018. (https://bit.ly/3xiH4Uv).
University of Pretoria (UP). 2019. Annual Report
2018. (https://bit.ly/3jttntP).
University of Pretoria (UP). 2020. Annual Report
2019. (https://bit.ly/3v1o220).
University of the Free State (UFS). 2021. Higher
Education and Human Development Research
Group. (https://www.ufs.ac.za/hehd/home).
University of Venda (UniVen). 2019.
Annual Report 2018. (https://bit.ly/3O1CcJu).
Vhumbunu, C.H. 2019. African regional economic
integration in the era of globalisation:
Reflecting on the trials, tribulations, and
triumphs. International Journal of African
Renaissance Studies, 14(1):106-130. [https://
doi.org/10.1080/18186874.2019.1577145].
 APPENDIX 1

Agenda 2063:
1
The Seven Aspirations

Aspiration 1
A prosperous Africa based on inclusive growth and sustainable development

We are determined to eradicate poverty in one generation and build shared prosperity
through social and economic transformation of the continent.

Goals
1. A high standard of living, quality of life and well-being for all: ending
poverty, inequalities of income and opportunity; job creation, especially
addressing youth unemployment; facing up to the challenges of
rapid population growth and urbanization, improvement of habitats
and access to basic necessities of life – water, sanitation, electricity;
providing social security and protection;

2. Well educated citizens and skills revolutions underpinned by science,

technology and innovation: developing Africa’s human and social
capital (through an education and skills revolution emphasizing
science and technology);
3. Healthy and well-nourished citizens: expanding access to quality
health care services, particularly for women and girls;
4. Transformed economies and jobs: transforming Africa’s economies
through beneficiation from Africa’s natural resources, manufacturing,
industrialization and value addition, as well as raising productivity and
competitiveness;

235
Universities, society and development

5. Modern agriculture for increased proactivity and production: radically

transforming African agriculture to enable the continent to feed itself
and be a major player as a net food exporter;
6. Blue/Ocean Economy for accelerated economic growth: exploiting the
vast potential of Africa’s blue/ocean economy;
7. Environmentally sustainable climate and resilient economies and
communities: putting in place measures to sustainably manage the
continent’s rich biodiversity, forests, land and waters and using mainly
adaptive measures to address climate change risks.

Aspiration 2
An integrated continent, politically united and based on the ideals of Pan-Africanism
and the vision of Africa’s Renaissance

Since 1963, the quest for African Unity has been inspired by the spirit of Pan-
Africanism, focusing on liberation, and political and economic independence. It is
motivated by development based on self-reliance and self-determination of African
people, with democratic and people-centred governance.

Goals
1. United Africa (Federal/Confederate): accelerating progress towards
continental unity and integration for sustained growth, trade,
exchanges of goods, services, free movement of people and capital
through establishing a United Africa and fast-tracking economic
integration through the CFTA.

2. World-class infrastructure criss-crosses Africa: improving connectivity

through newer and bolder initiatives to link the continent by rail, road,
sea and air; and developing regional and continental power pools, as
well as ICT.

3. Decolonisation: All remnants of colonialism will have ended and all

African territories under occupation fully liberated. We shall take
measures to expeditiously end the unlawful occupation of the Chagos
Archipelago, the Comorian Island of Mayotte and affirming the right to
self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.

236
 Appendix 1

Aspiration 3
An Africa of good governance, democracy, respect for human rights, justice and the
rule of law.

Africa shall have a universal culture of good governance, democratic values, gender
equality, and respect for human rights, justice and the rule of law.

Goals
1. Democratic values, practices, universal principles for human rights,
justice and rule of law entrenched: consolidating democratic gains and
improving the quality of governance, respect for human rights and the
rule of law;

2. Capable institutions and transformed leadership in place at all levels:

building strong institutions for a development state; and facilitating
the emergence of development-oriented and visionary leadership in all
spheres and at all levels.

Aspiration 4
A peaceful and secure Africa.

Mechanisms for peaceful prevention and resolution of conflicts will be functional

at all levels. As a first step, dialogue-centred conflict prevention and resolution will
be actively promoted in such a way that by 2020 all guns will be silent. A culture
of peace and tolerance shall be nurtured in Africa’s children and youth through
peace education.

Goals
1. Peace security and stability is preserved: strengthening governance,
accountability and transparency as a foundation for a peaceful Africa;

2. A stable and peaceful Africa: strengthening mechanisms for securing

peace and reconciliation at all levels, as well as addressing emerging
threats to Africa’s peace and security;

3. A fully functional and operational APSA: putting in place strategies for

the continent to finance her security needs.

237
Universities, society and development

Aspiration 5
An Africa with a strong cultural identity, common heritage, shared values and ethics.

Pan-Africanism and the common history, destiny, identity, heritage, respect for
religious diversity and consciousness of African peoples and her diaspora’s will be
entrenched.

Goal
1. Africa cultural renaissance is pre-eminent: inculcating the spirit of
Pan Africanism; tapping Africa’s rich heritage and culture to ensure
that the creative arts are major contributors to Africa’s growth and
transformation; and restoring and preserving Africa’s cultural heritage,
including its languages.

Aspiration 6
An Africa, whose development is people-driven, relying on the potential of African
people, especially its women and youth, and caring for children.

All the citizens of Africa will be actively involved in decision making in all aspects.
Africa shall be an inclusive continent where no child, woman or man will be left behind
or excluded, on the basis of gender, political affiliation, religion, ethnic affiliation,
locality, age or other factors.

Goals
1. Full gender equality in all spheres of life: strengthening the role of
Africa’s women through ensuring gender equality and parity in all
spheres of life (political, economic and social); eliminating all forms of
discrimination and violence against women and girls;

2. Engaged and empowered youth and children: creating opportunities for

Africa’s youth for self-realization, access to health, education and jobs;
ensuring safety and security for Africa’s children, and providing for
early childhood development.

238
 Appendix 1

Aspiration 7
Africa as a strong, united, resilient and influential global player and partner

Africa shall be a strong, united, resilient, peaceful and influential global player and
partner with a significant role in world affairs. We affirm the importance of African
unity and solidarity in the face of continued external interference including, attempts
to divide the continent and undue pressures and sanctions on some countries.

Goals
1. Africa as a major partner in global affairs and peaceful co-existence:
improving Africa’s place in the global governance system (UN Security
Council, financial institutions, global commons such as outer space);

2. Africa takes full responsibility for financing her development;

3. Improving Africa’s partnerships and refocusing them more strategically

to respond to African priorities for growth and transformation; and
ensuring that the continent has the right strategies to finance its own
development and reducing aid dependency. (African Union, 2021).

Details see: AUC (2015).

239
 INDEX
Symbols
1. #RhodesMustFall xi, 11, 57, 178,
196
2. Francis Nyamnjoh 56
3. Mahmood Mamdani 3, 56-57, 71
4. Double-helix 55, 58, 64, 69
5. Innovation district 18
6. Modernism 46-47, 53, 69
7. Triple-helix 67
8. 15-minute city 50-51, 53-54, 64-65,
67, 69-71
9. Carlos Moreno 50-51, 68, 72
10. Costas Spirou 48
11. Anchor-strategy 49
12. Wits University v, 88-89, 150, 195
13. University of Fort Hare 18, 49, 58,
72, 153, 219
14. Sakhela Buhlungu 45, 49, 59, 64
15. Zeblon Vilakazi 45, 49
16. Dan Doctoroff 46, 55
17. Covid-19 i, iv, 21, 45, 50-52, 54, 62,
68-69, 109, 130, 221
#FMF xi, 57-58, 78
#FeesMustFall xi, 11, 78, 86, 88, 151,
177-178, 195-196
#RMF xi, 57
#RhodesMustFall xi, 11, 57, 178, 196
241
A
Academic engagement 129, 139, 146,
151, 211
Academic scholarship 8, 201
Access 8-9, 11, 29, 37, 45, 54, 57, 63,
65, 73, 85-87, 130, 135, 159,
162, 170, 177, 185, 190, 192,
208, 215, 230
Afrikaans xii, 176, 180-181, 188,
191‑192, 209
Agency 15, 42, 48, 61, 65, 110-119,
121-128, 135, 143, 207, 220
ANC xi, 60, 79, 81, 90, 191
African National Congress xi, 60, 79,
191
ARUA xi, 65
African Research Universities
Alliance xi, 65
ASGISA xi, 87
Accelerated and Shared Growth
Initiative for South Africa xi
Association of African Universities 4,
95, 159
AU xi, 16, 213-217, 227-228
African Union xi, 8, 16, 94, 159, 213,
231, 237
AUC xi, 213, 215, 231, 237
African Union Commission xi, 231
Universities, society and development
B Community i, iv-vii, 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 12-19,
Bi-directional engagement 146
Business community 16, 207, 209
C 155‑157, 159-163, 165, 168-171,
Cameroon iii, vii, 14-15, 91, 92, 94,
104, 106-107, 196
Capabilities ix, 63, 65, 113, 126, 136,
140, 160
Capital ix, 8-7, 49-50, 57-58, 65, 68, 74,
79, 81, 84-86, 92-94, 104, 106,
174, 179, 182,
Cardinal Newman 2
CBD xi, 202-203
Central Business District xi
Cecil John Rhodes 178
CESA xi, 16, 213-216, 227, 231-232
Continental Education Strategy for
Africa xi, 16, 214-215, 231
Change agents 16, 152, 166, 168
CHE xi, 22, 41, 75, 83, 89, 133, 150,
169, 205, 232
Council on Higher Education xi, 18,
22, 41, 42, 83, 89, 133, 150, 232
CID xi, 67, 72
City Improvement District xi, xii, 67,
223
Civic engagement 7, 16, 33, 40-41,
43, 126, 156, 160-161, 168, 169,
180, 204-205, 209, 220
Civic universities 2
Civil society 22, 24, 28, 31, 38, 57, 76,
79, 133-135, 140, 142, 144, 162,
180, 221, 224
Clark Kerr 2
Class 35, 45-47, 54-57, 65, 71, 73-74,
76, 79, 81-82, 86, 88, 90, 178,
207, 208
Collective agency 15, 111-119, 121,
124-125, 127-128
242
21-28, 53, 29-42, 52, 58, 61, 65,
72, 77, 81-89, 91-107, 109-124,
126-128, 130-131, 133-134,
136‑140, 142-148, 150-153,
173-174, 176-178, 181-183,
185‑187, 189, 191, 193-194,
197, 199-211, 213-222, 224-231
Community engagement i, iii-viii, x, 1,
3-6, 11-19, 21-28, 30-32, 34-36,
40-43, 58, 72, 77, 82-87, 89,
93, 98-99, 102, 104-105, 107,
109, 111, 114-115, 117, 120,
126‑128, 130-131, 133-134, 139,
142, 146-147, 150, 152-153,
155-157, 160-162, 169-171, 173,
177-178, 181-183, 189, 193,
197, 199-203, 205-206, 209-211,
213-222, 224-229, 231
Community members 15, 28, 34-35,
43, 85, 96, 111, 114, 116-118,
120-124, 127
Community Service Centre xi, 163,
170
Community service initiatives 165
Companies 24, 28, 48, 54, 57, 65-66,
142, 162, 207-208
Comprehensive university 131, 137
Consensus 74
Co-operation 74, 203
COSATU xi, 80, 88
Congress of South African Trade
Unions xi, 80
Creative Writing v, 180, 182-183, 188,
192, 196
CSC xi, 163, 164
Community Service Centre xi, 163,
170
CUE xi
Community-University Engagement
xi

D E
DBSA xi, 58
Development Bank of Southern
Africa xi, 58-59
Democracy 37, 60, 74, 80, 89, 126,
150, 160, 179, 180, 188, 195,
214, 217-219
Developing country 177, 206, 209
Development iii-vii, 1-12, 15-19, 21‑22,
27-30, 33, 39-40, 49-51, 53,
55-62, 64-72, 75-76, 78, 82-89,
91-100, 102-107, 109, 112-113,
115-116, 119, 124, 126-133,
135-139, 141, 143-144, 146-152,
166, 168-169, 173-184, 189,
191, 193-197, 199-207, 210,
213-220, 222-224, 228-231
Developmental universities 2, 5, 22
DHET xi, 11, 17, 22, 77, 89, 174, 195,
218, 221
Department of Higher Education and
Training xi, 11, 17, 41, 62, 77,
174, 195, 221, 231
DOE xi, 22, 217-220
Department of Education xi, 41, 127,
201, 231
DSAC xi, 16, 173-174, 182-185, 188,
191
Department of Sport, Arts and
Culture xi, 16, 183, 196
DSAT xi
DSI xi, 226
Department of Science and
Innovation xi, 67, 226
243
Index
Employment 7, 12, 27, 29, 59, 80, 82,
98, 158, 202, 207-208, 217, 224,
230
Empowerment 12, 27, 36, 59, 92, 107,
112, 116, 121, 127-128, 157
EMS xi, 204, 206, 211
Economic and Management
Sciences vi, xi, 204
Engaged institution ix
Engaged universities 18, 30
Engagement i, iv-vii, 3-7, 10-37, 39-43,
53, 58, 64, 67, 72, 77, 82-89, 94,
96-97, 99, 102-107, 109, 111,
114-117, 120, 126-153, 155-157,
159-163, 167-171, 173-174,
177‑183, 185, 189, 191, 193,
197, 199-206, 209-211, 213-222,
224-231
Entrepreneurial universities 17, 40
ES xi, 222
Engaged Scholarship xi, 43
Extension 113-115
F
FAK xii, 181
Federation for Afrikaans Cultural
Societies xii
Firms 12, 59, 66, 133-136, 140, 142,
144-145, 147, 150, 225, 227
Universities, society and development
G HERANA xii, 42, 82-83
GDP xii, 202, 216, 224
Gross Domestic Product xii
GEAR xii, 82
Growth, Employment and
Redistribution xii, 82
Goodwill 203
Government iv, xii, 2, 8, 10, 11, 23-24,
28, 33, 49, 50, 53, 55-58, 63, 66,
77, 81-83, 88, 100-101, 133-137,
139-140, 143, 145-146, 149,
152, 158, 162, 173, 179, 205,
218-221, 225-228
H 176-177, 179, 195, 199-201,
HCID xii, 223
Hatfield City Improvement District
xii, 223
HE xii, 218
Higher Education iii-vi, xi-xii, 11,
17‑19, 21-22, 25, 40-44, 58, 60,
62, 76-77, 82-83, 88-90, 106-107,
115, 126-128, 133, 150-152, 156,
169-171, 174, 195-196, 203, 205,
210-211, 218-221, 231, 232
HEI xii, 156-157, 200-201
Higher Education Institution xii, 127
HEIAAF xii, 83, 89
Higher Education Institutional
Autonomy and Academic
Freedom xii
HEIs 115, 156, 176, 199-201
Higher Education Institutions vii,
21‑22, 25, 28-29, 40, 76, 93-94,
115, 150, 176, 206, 210, 220
HEQC xii, 23, 25, 33, 41, 169, 220, 232
Higher Education Quality Committee
xii, 25, 220
HEQF xii, 203, 206
Higher Education Qualifications
Framework xii, 203
244
Higher Education Research and
Advocacy Network in Africa xii,
82
Heritage Studies iv, 180
HESA xii, 21, 42
Higher Education South Africa xii,
21, 42
Higher education iv-vii, 3-7, 11‑22,
24, 25, 27-30, 32, 40-43, 48‑50,
56‑59, 61-62, 66-67, 69-70,
73‑79, 82-91, 93-94, 102, 104,
109, 111, 115-116, 126‑127,
130, 132-134, 139, 148,
150‑153, 155-156, 162, 169-171,
203, 206, 210-211, 213-222,
227-228, 230
Higher Education iii-vi, xi-xii, 11, 17‑19,
21-22, 25, 40-44, 58, 60, 62,
76‑77, 82-83, 88-90, 106-107,
115, 126-128, 133, 150-152,
156, 169-171, 174, 195-196,
203, 205, 210-211, 218-221,
231-232
Host community 203, 209
Host organisation 204, 207-208
I
ICT xii, 61, 66, 68, 166, 234
Information and Communication
Technology xii
IKS xii, 32
Indigenous Knowledge Systems v, xii
Inclusive development 16, 130, 148,
150-152
Industrial inclusiveness 131, 136,
139-140, 144-145

Inequality iv-v, 5, 10, 43, 48, 51, 66,
71, 76-77, 82, 86-87, 93-94, 96,
100, 102, 104-105, 111, 127,
129‑130, 132, 148, 150, 175,
177-179
Innovation iv, vi, xi, xiii, 17-18, 20, 40,
48, 64, 67, 71-72, 107, 109, 127,
130, 135, 148, 150-153, 171,
195, 211, 217, 226
Institutional thickness 2, 9
isiXhosa 181-182
ITMUA xii, 159
Implementing the Third Mission of
Universities in Africa xii, 159
J N
Japan 1
JSE xii, 66
Johannesburg Stock Exchange xii,
66
K 197, 199, 201-202, 205,
Clark Kerr 2
Kimberley iii-vi, 10, 16, 76-77, 174,
178, 180-182, 188-191, 195,
197, 202-205, 207, 209-211
Knowledge flows iv, 16, 133, 136, 140,
145, 147-149
KPIs xii, 182
Key Performance Indicators xii
L National Development Plan xii, 13,
Labour 15, 74-75, 78-81, 88, 158, 202
Livelihoods 98, 107, 195
Local economy 17, 202
245
Index
M
Market iii, 29, 59, 66, 75-77, 80-81,
83‑84, 95, 145, 202
MDG xii
Medieval University 2
MOA xii, 182-183, 185
Memorandum of Agreement xii, 182
Memorandum of Understanding xii
MOU xii
Mutual benefit 33, 111, 118, 140, 201,
205-206, 208
Mutuality 15, 110-113, 115-116, 121,
124, 160, 168
National iv, 1, 3, 6-8, 11-12, 16, 22-23,
37, 41, 55-60, 62, 82, 95, 109,
130-134, 136-137, 139-140, 142,
145, 149, 153, 156, 158-159,
168, 171, 175, 181, 184‑185,
213, 215-216, 218, 220, 224,
226‑228, 230
NCHE xii, 219, 231
National Commission on Higher
Education xii, 76, 219, 231
NCWF xii, 182, 187-190
Northern Cape Writers Festival xii,
182, 192
NDP xii, 13, 16, 82, 90, 216-217,
227‑228
19, 61, 82, 216-217, 231
NEDLAC xii, 87
National Economic Development and
Labour Council xii
Universities, society and development
Cardinal Newman 2
NGO xii, 138, 143, 147
Non-government Organisation xii
NGP xii, 81
New Growth Path xii, 81, 82
Northern Cape province 174, 178,
188, 190-191, 201
NPO
Non-profit Organisation xii
NRF iv, xiii, 23, 89, 220
National Research Foundation i, xiii,
23, 220
NSFAS xiii, 60
National Student Financial Aid
Scheme xiii, 60
O 18-20, 22-23, 25, 30, 36, 38, 56,
OAU xiii, 214, 232
Organisation of African Unity xiii,
231, 232
OECD xiii, 3, 8, 10, 19, 24, 28, 41, 43,
109, 152, 200-211, 224
Organisation for Economic
Co‑operation and Development
xiii, 19, 43, 109
P 86, 92-93, 106, 111, 123-124,
Participation 6, 11, 15, 21, 26, 33‑34,
75, 78-110, 113, 118-124,
128, 136-137, 146, 148, 151,
160‑161, 163, 179, 184, 203,
206
Partners 16, 18, 23-24, 29, 31-33,
35, 37-40, 42, 58, 67, 70, 95,
110‑121, 123, 124, 126, 130,
137, 140-149, 151, 162, 174,
181-182, 184-185, 193, 195, 211
246
Partnership i, ix-x, 9-10, 13, 15-16,
24-27, 50, 65, 80, 83, 85, 88, 90,
93-94, 101-103, 105, 110-111,
114-119, 127-128, 143, 156,
160, 174‑175, 182, 185, 188
Partnerships vi, 11-13, 15, 22-23, 26,
67, 86, 88, 92-93, 96-97, 102,
104, 109-112, 114-117, 126-128,
135, 143, 145, 151-152, 156,
160, 163, 173, 182, 203-205,
208, 210-211, 220
Patterns of engagement 131, 139-141
Permeable university 2, 19
Phetsolelo 185, 196
Policy i, iii-vii, 2-3, 7-8, 11, 13-14, 16,
74-79, 82, 85, 88-90, 103-104,
109, 126, 130-137, 139, 142,
146, 148-153, 158, 175, 179,
180-181, 195, 201-202, 206,
213-214, 218-220, 227-229, 231
Post-apartheid v, ix, 73, 75, 77-78, 84,
87, 176, 178-179, 188-189, 193,
195-196, 217
Poverty v, vii, 9-10, 35, 43, 46, 77, 82,
127, 129-131, 150, 159, 177,
179, 200, 218
Power 3, 19, 26-27, 33-35, 43-44, 46,
48, 79, 81, 86, 99, 103, 109-110,
112-115, 117, 119, 121-124,
127-128, 147, 152, 175, 179,
188, 190, 193, 196, 222-223
Private sector 48, 71, 85, 145, 203,
205

R Skills iv-vi, 2, 4, 9-12, 24-25, 29,
RBM xiii, 204, 206-209, 211
Retail Business Management iii, v,
xiii, 204
R&D xiii, 132-133, 142, 147, 153
Research and Development xiii, 211
Reciprocity v, 15, 27, 110-113, 116,
121, 124, 126-128, 146, 156,
168, 201
Regional universities 2, 29
Retail sector 202, 207
S 45‑46, 57, 62, 65, 74-75, 78‑80,
SACP xiii, 81-82, 90
South African Communist Party xiii,
90
SAPs xiii, 158
Structural Adjustment Programmes
xiii
SBL xiii, 163, 167-168
Service Based Learning xiii
Scholarship of engagement 15, 17,
22-23, 26-27, 30-34, 40, 41, 43,
92, 94, 96-97, 103-104, 106, 150,
157, 200, 227
SDG xiii, 230
Sustainable Development Goal xiii
Service delivery 51, 116, 137
Service learning 16, 24, 33, 40, 43,
95, 103-104, 127-128, 133, 142,
144, 152, 155, 160-161, 163,
165-166, 169, 205, 227
SETAs xiii, 225
Sector Education and Training
Authorities xiii, 225
Setswana v, 181-183, 185-188,
191‑192, 196
247
Index
35, 39, 57-58, 60, 64, 67, 89,
133, 143‑144, 156, 158, 161,
163, 166-168, 179, 192, 200,
202‑207, 209, 215, 225
SMMEs xiii, 64, 229-230
Small to Medium-sized Enterprises
xiii
Social compact 14-15, 73-89
Social inclusiveness 131, 136-137,
140-141, 144-146, 148
Society iv, vi-vii, ix-x, 1, 3-7, 11-13,
15, 21‑22, 24, 28-29, 31, 35‑36,
83-87, 89, 101, 103, 116,
133‑136, 140, 142, 144, 152,
162-163, 168-169, 176-180,
185, 189, 199, 215, 217-219,
221‑224, 227
Socio-economic development 7, 10,
11, 21, 129, 131-132, 136-137,
139, 215, 224, 228
SoE xiii, 4, 37-39
Scholarship of Engagement xiii
South Africa i, iii-iv, vii, 4-6, 9-10,
12‑13, 16-19, 21-23, 25, 35-36,
40-41, 55, 57-60, 64-69, 71-82,
86-90, 109, 111, 115-116, 123,
127, 129, 133-135, 139, 148,
150-153, 170, 175-178, 180-181,
187-193, 195-197, 201-203,
205-206, 210-211, 213, 217-218,
220-221, 226-228, 231
Soviet Union 1, 80
SPU i, vi, 16, 13, 77, 84, 87, 89, 163,
165, 173-174, 176, 178-183,
185-193, 197, 201-205, 209
Sol Plaatje University i, iii-vi, ix-x, 13,
16, 75, 173, 178, 183, 196-197,
199, 201, 203, 210
Universities, society and development
SST xiii, 81
State and Social Transformation xiii,
81
SSW xiii, 192-193
Summer School of Writing xiii, 188,
192
Stakeholder 32, 74, 87
Stakeholders 2-3, 9-15, 23-24, 27-28,
30, 33, 36, 39, 67, 74, 84, 86,
88-90, 92-93, 95, 103, 105, 133,
139, 155, 157, 162, 179, 185,
193, 199-200, 202, 205, 207,
209, 213, 221-222, 225, 227-229
State 3, 5, 15, 18, 23, 45, 48-49, 55-57,
61-62, 66, 68, 70-71, 73-81,
83‑84, 86, 88-89, 91, 94, 109,
156, 162, 180, 191, 213, 216,
218-219, 221, 235
STEM xiii, 217
Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics xiii
STI iv, xiii, 135
Science, Technology and Innovation
iv, vi, xiii, 135, 148, 150, 152
Strategic balance 137, 139
Strathmore University iv, vi, 155,
161‑162, 170
Student engagement 161-162
Student outcomes 155, 168
Students iv, vi, 5, 11-12, 16-17, 19,
22‑24, 26-27, 29, 33-35, 38-39,
41, 44-45, 57-59, 62-63, 65,
73, 76, 85, 100-101, 110, 114,
116‑124, 127-130, 133, 138,
142-144, 147, 155-157, 159-170,
178, 187-189, 199-200, 202-209,
218, 221, 225-227
Sub-Saharan Africa 91, 140
Systems iv, 4, 8, 17, 32, 41, 56, 84,
91‑92, 96, 106, 111, 113, 132,
136, 153, 162, 215-216
248
T
Territorial inclusiveness 131, 136,
139-140, 145-146, 148-149
TOC xiii, 221-222, 231
Ministerial Oversight Committee on
Transformation in the South
African Public Universities 221,
231
Transformation iv, vi, 3, 5, 8-11,
15, 17, 22, 34, 41, 47, 55, 57,
75‑77, 80‑81, 83, 87-90, 97-98,
115‑116, 127, 129-132, 137,
139, 146-148, 151-153, 175,
177, 179, 196-197, 200-201,
215, 217-223, 225, 227, 231,
236-237
TVET xiii, 61, 218
Technical Vocational Education and
Training xiii, 61
U
Ubuntu 5-7, 19, 113-115
UCEPS xiii
University-Community Engagement
Partnerships xiii, 109
UCT xiii, 56, 210, 232
University of Cape Town xiii, 57, 71,
160, 178, 210, 222, 232
UIL xiii
University-Industry Linkage xiii
Ujamaa 5, 7, 113-115
UK iii, vi, viii, xiii, 18, 22, 41, 91, 107,
151, 188, 191
United Kingdom xiii, 14
UMP xiii, 77
University of Mpumalanga xiii, 77,
219
UN xiv, 237
United Nations iii, xiv
United States of America xiv, 1, 22,
190
 Index

Univen xiv, 225 V

University of Venda xiv, 225, 232
Universities iv, vi-viii, 1-7, 9-25, 28-31, Voice 13, 15, 19, 35, 56, 96, 122-124,
34-37, 39, 40-43, 47-50, 55-58, 126
64-66, 68-70, 75-77, 82-87,
95‑96, 99-105, 107, 109-110, W
112, 116, 123, 127, 129-137, WIL vi, xiv, 16, 200, 203-209, 211
139, 140-141, 149-153, 156-159, Work Integrated Learning xiv, 29,
161-162, 168, 170-171, 173-179, 199, 203, 205, 210-211
181, 187, 193-197, 201, 211, Wits v, xiv, 45, 49, 61, 64-66, 71-72,
213-229, 231 88‑89, 150, 195
Universities of technology 2, 41, 127 University of the Witwatersrand xiv,
University i, iii-viii, x, xiii-xiv, 1-7, 9-37, 45, 49, 71, 223
39-43, 45, 47-50, 54-62, 65-72, Work Integrated Learning xiv, 29, 199,
77-78, 83-91, 93-96, 101-107, 203, 205, 210-211
109-112, 114-124, 126-128, Workplace 12, 74, 203-204, 206-208
130‑153, 155-163, 168-171,
173‑174, 176-180, 182-183,
185‑187, 193, 195-197, 199-206,
208-211, 213, 217-227, 229-232
University-industry linkages 133
University of the Free State iv, 18, 21,
109, 221, 232
UP xiv, 67, 72, 205, 223, 226, 232
University of Pretoria xiv, 67, 72, 211,
223, 226, 232
USA iii, xiv, 1, 17, 22, 24, 48-49, 158,
188, 190
United States of America xiv, 1, 22,
190

249