An analysis of community engagement at South African universities

by

L Snyman

MINOR DISSERTATION

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

MAGISTER COMMERCII

in

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

in the

FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT

at the

UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG

Supervisor: Dr A Drotski

MAY 2014

ii

DECLARATION

I certify that the minor dissertation submitted by me for the degree Master’s of Commerce (Business Management) at the University of Johannesburg is my independent work and has not been submitted by me for a degree at another university.

_______________________________

(Leonardo Snyman)

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dedicated to all the strong women in my life.

iv

ABSTRACT

Community engagement (CE) has been a concept which the South African higher

education system has struggled with since it was first proposed. The purpose of this

study was to explore how community engagement has been implemented in South

African universities. A literature study, a data matrix analysis and interviews with the

respondents who met the criteria of the study were used to collect and analyse the

data. Primary data was gathered through personal in-depth interviews, and secondary

data was gathered through university websites and is shown in a data matrix. The

questions were aligned with the objectives set out in the study.

The study examined, through a literature review, the themes underpinning the

objectives of the research, namely the development of CE, CE policy, defining

community, engagement, community engagement and implementation and

monitoring. Each subject was investigated individually, after which the research

literature was evaluated to determine how CE developed and what the basic definition

of the concept entails. In the literature component a critical conceptual analysis of CE

at universities reflects a lack of a structural and functional framework for the

functioning of CE.

The analysis of the data revealed that only a few universities have a CE policy; the

majority of universities do, however, have a CE definition. The data also revealed that

most universities have a CE office, but that this is not supported by an enabling

university environment of clear monitoring and evaluation practices. Thus it can be

concluded with limitations that CE is only effectively implemented in a few universities

in South Africa, and that there is a need for a clear definition of the concept as well as

the introduction of monitoring and evaluation tools.

v

CONTENTS

Affidavit ii

Acknowledgements iii

Abstract iv

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Background and context 2

1.3 Problem statement 5

1.4 Purpose of the study 5

1.5 Research objectives 5

1.6 Research methodology 6

1.7 Literature review 8

1.8 Importance and benefits of the study 9

1.9 Outline of the study 9

1.10 Summary 11

Chapter 2: Literature review

2.1 Introduction 12

2.2 CE in the context of CSR 13

2.3 The development of CE within the changing environment of universities 14

2.4 The link between CE and the other core activities of the university 18

2.5 Policy on CE 20

2.6 Definition of key terms 23

vi

2.6.1 Community engagement 23

2.6.2 Community 26

2.6.3 Engagement 28

2.6.4 Service learning 30

2.7 Challenges for implementing and monitoring CE 31

2.8 Conclusion 36

Chapter 3: Research methodology

3.1 Introduction 37

3.2 Research approach 37

3.3 Research design 38

3.3.1 Research population 39

3.3.2 Sampling 40

3.3.3 Data collection 41

3.3.4 Data analysis 43

3.4 Ethical considerations 44

3.5 Summary 45

Chapter 4: Research results

4.1 Introduction 46

4.2 Description of respondents 46

4.3 Research results 47

4.3.1 CE policy at South African universities 48

4.3.2 CE office within universities 51

4.3.3 Definition of CE at universities 54

vii

4.3.4 CE environment at universities 57

4.3.5 Monitoring and evaluation 60

4.4 Summary 64

Chapter 5: Findings and conclusion

5.1 Overview of the study 65

5.2 Research objectives 65

5.3 Report on research findings 65

5.3.1 Major finding 1: There is no clear definition of CE 65

5.3.2 Major finding 2: National policy on CE is vague 66

5.3.3 Major finding 3: SA universities give sufficient

support to internal CE offices 67

5.3.4 Major finding 4: Insufficient monitoring

and evaluation of CE takes place 67

5.4 Limitations of the research 68

5.5 Recommendations 70

5.6 Suggestions for further research 71

5.7 Conclusion 72

References 74

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Interview Guide 80

Appendix B: Transcribed Interview A 81

viii

List of Tables

Table 4.1: Policy 48

Table 4.2: Community engagement office 51

Table 4.3: Community engagement definitions 54

Table 4.4: Community engagement environment at institution 57

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction

Higher learning institutions have often been catalysts for teaching, learning and

research. Investing resources into these areas has been a standard model for

universities in the 20th century. However, with the rise of information and

communication technology and the re-examination of the traditional methods of

knowledge acquisition, community engagement (CE) is now considered as

increasingly important. CE implies a less paternalistic, more reciprocal and inclusive

relationship between a community and a higher education institution (CHE, 2004).

This study sought to explore the origins of CE and how it is currently implemented

in universities in South Africa. It was anticipated that the knowledge generated from

this inquiry would afford new insights into and also inform higher education

practices on CE. A qualitative multicase study methodology was employed to

illustrate the phenomenon of CE. Participants in this study included all South African

public universities.

This chapter begins with an overview of the background and context that frames

the study. Following this are the problem statement, the statement of purpose and

accompanying research questions. Also included in the chapter are discussions

around the research approach and the researcher’s perspectives and assumptions.

The chapter concludes with a discussion of the rationale for and significance of this

research study.

2

1.2 Background and context

Community engagement is one of three core responsibilities of higher education,

alongside research and teaching. It is, however, clear that in South Africa, despite

clear policy mandates originally set out in the 1997 White Paper on Education

stating that CE is an important task, it has been neglected. Universities are involved

in many activities structured around research, teaching and outreach that entail

engagement with a wide range of communities, but these activities are

uncoordinated and are the result of individual initiative, rather than of strategically

planned, systematic endeavours.

In order to understand what CE is and where it fits into the Higher Education Policy,

one needs to start by looking at the White Paper of 1997, which informed the Higher

Education Act of 1997 (Ministry of Education, 1997). This White Paper sets out an

agenda for the transformation of higher education in South Africa. CE is stated, along

with teaching and research, as one of the pillars of higher education. Universities are

called upon to “demonstrate social responsibility, and their commitment to the

common good by making available expertise and infrastructure for community service

programmes” (Ministry of Education, 1997). A key objective is to “promote and

develop social responsibility and awareness amongst students of the role of higher

education in social and economic development through community service

programmes” (ibid., p.10). This policy position regarding CE was reaffirmed three

years later in the Ministry of Education’s National Plan for Higher Education, which

confirmed the priority of enhancing “responsiveness to regional and national needs,

for academic programmes, research, and community service” (Ministry of Education,

2001).

3

Adding to this, the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC), itself established in

terms of the 1997 Higher Education Act, identified “knowledge-based community

service” as a basis for programme accreditation and quality assurance (CHE, 2004).

In order to make this policy operational, the HEQC required specific reporting on CE

against Criterion 18 in institutional audits.

Unfortunately even with clear policy on CE set out in these two documents, the

outcomes have been disappointing. Lazarus (2007) notes that in 1999, while most

higher education institutions (HEIs) included the concept of CE in their mission

statements, only one out of the then 36 institutions operationalised it in their three-year

rolling plans submitted to the Department of Education. This is borne out by the

outcomes of the 13 institutional audits completed by the HEQC between 2004 and

2008. Audit reports generally show that universities are at widely varying stages in

conceptualising CE practice:

“some institutions had done no more than conduct internal audits or compile

inventories of ongoing community engagement activities. There were few

databases available and no monitoring systems. Community engagement was

sometimes driven by volunteerism, and foreign students were queuing up to

come to South Africa to involve themselves in community engagement. The

activities were generally decentralised, and it was difficult to find a Senate

committee that was responsible for community engagement. This does not

mean that there were no institutions with a more coherent and structured

approach to community engagement, but those were in the minority. Where

there were structures in place, they were trying to develop policies on, and

criteria for, community engagement. There was minimal funding for community

4

engagement, and the funding that was available generally fell within the realm

of partnerships” (CHE, 2008)

The question that is starting to be asked is why, if there is clear policy on community

engagement, it is not being successfully implemented. Hall (2010) argues that the lack

of progress in implementing CE relates to a lack of conceptual clarity, and reflects a

need for better theorised understanding of CE. He refers to an “epistemological

disjuncture” between CE and the way in which knowledge is structured and organised

in the course of the more traditional work of universities, but argues that this need not

be so.

A reason for the failure of CE may be that there is no official definition of the concept.

One definition of CE is proposed by Hall (2008):

“community engagement can be understood as a cluster of activities that

includes service learning, problem-based teaching and research that

addresses specific wants and needs, the pursuit of alternative forms of

knowledge and challenges to established authorities that control and direct

research systems and the allocation of qualifications”

Therefore CE should be viewed “as part of a set of public goods emanating from higher

education” (Hall, 2008). This places CE in “that part of civil society located between

the family, the state and the market” (ibid., 2008).

5

Why has the kind of work that Hall (2008) describes in his definition remained outside

academia, despite a decade of clear public policy, and why does there appear to be

resistance to its inclusion within universities despite a number of incentives that

include moral affirmation for contributing to social and economic justice? It is clear

that there is a gap between policy and practice in CE in South Africa. From the 1997

White Paper to the present very little progress has been made with regard to CE in

South African universities. Therefore this study sought to shed light on what exactly is

meant by community engagement as well as to investigate how universities in South

Africa are implementing it.

1.3 Problem statement

It is evident that despite clear policy on the importance of CE at South African

universities, very few are implementing it successfully. The aim of this study is to

investigate what universities are doing to implement CE.

1.4 Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study is to first establish what is meant by CE, and then to explore

how CE is being implemented at South African universities.

1.5 Research objectives

The purpose of the research is rooted in the above statement of the problem. The

objectives of the research are therefore the following:

6

The primary objective is to explore how CE is implemented in South African

universities. The main research question is: How is community engagement currently

implemented in South African universities?

The secondary objectives are to determine the following:

Whether the various universities’ internal definition of and policy on CE are

in line with national policy

Whether universities have the necessary support structures for the

implementation of CE

Whether any internal monitoring and evaluation takes place at universities

1.6 Research methodology

The nature of the research is qualitative. Thus, qualitative methods are used to identify

how CE is implemented at South African universities. The qualitative paradigm stems

from an antipositivistic, interpretative approach, is ideological and thus holistic in

nature, and aims mainly to understand social life and the meaning that people attach

to daily life (De Vos et al., 2011:64). The research is exploratory and representative of

a snapshot of the environment, and not longitudinal in nature. It aims to help

stakeholders concerned with and affected by CE to understand the requirements and

importance of CE as well as the potential benefits and solutions to challenges.

Methods used in this research study differs, ranging from primary data gathered from

semi-structured interviews to secondary data analysis in the form of a data matrix.

7

This study will consider what South African public universities are currently doing to

implement and manage CE. The potential benefits of CE for all stakeholders involved

were investigated.

The research methodology used in this study is one of theoretical analysis of different

sources. The study aims to present a theoretical framework that facilitates

understanding of the topic. All public universities in South Africa, and their experience,

understanding and perceptions were examined with the aim of coming to a critical

conclusion.

The research methodology followed to fulfil the objectives of this study entails a

literature review (to gain theoretical knowledge of the topic) and a critical analysis of

the different strategies employed at universities with regard to the implementation of

CE. To understand the problem a literature study on CE will be undertaken. A matrix

was developed using university websites and annual reports to establish what is

currently being done regarding the implementation of CE in universities in South

Africa. This is supplemented by primary data gathered through semi-structured

interviews with two universities in Gauteng.

1.7 Literature review

8

The literature review in this study focuses on corporate social responsibility, CE and

definitions of key terms.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become very significant for business

worldwide and even more so in South Africa. CSR is a form of corporate self-

regulation integrated into a business model. The pressures for business to behave in

an ethical manner have broadened its core functions; hence the need to embrace it in

the organisational strategy. However, universities function very differently from

corporates as they are state funded, but they too have been forced to broaden their

core functions. CE can thus be seen as the HEI version of CSR. Traditionally,

teaching and research were seen as the core functions of a university. CE is now

commonly accepted as the third core function.

CE can be described as activities that involve partnership initiatives with communities

that utilise the knowledge capital and resources of the university to meet the

development needs of communities at no cost. CE usually takes the form of service

learning, organised outreach and community-based research.

It is clear from the literature that there is growing pressure on universities to not only

be more relevant and accountable, but also to produce more engaged and socially

responsive graduates. CE could be seen as the primary method through which this

can be achieved. Bender (2008:81) summarises the changing role of universities

perfectly when she says: “The promise of community engagement lies in its potential

to rejuvenate academia, redefine scholarship and involve society in a productive

conversation about the role of higher education now and in the future.”

9

Currently in South Africa CE is one of the three founding principles (together with

teaching and research) of the post-apartheid reconstruction of the South African higher

education system. Both the UNESCO World Declaration on Higher Education and the

White Paper on Education acknowledge the Council on Higher Education’s view that

CE is a “strategy in the transformation of higher education in relation to community

development priorities” (CHE, 2004:130). If CE is the tool universities should use to

become more relevant and to produce more socially responsive graduates, it needs

to be solidified as a core activity at institutions and one that is integrated with the other

activities at universities.

1.8 Importance and benefits of the study

The rationale for this study emanates from the researcher’s desire to uncover a way

in which to best implement CE in a South African university. This could enable CE to

be implemented more strategically.

1.9 Outline of the study

The outline for the other chapters in the study is given below.

Chapter 2 covers the literature review and underlying concepts that were pivotal to the

study by investigating the concept of CE, and the nature and role that it has, if any, in

universities. What is meant by CE and policy on its implementation are elaborated on.

The chapter concludes with a view of CE as the third pillar of universities.

10

Chapter 3 presents an overview of the research methodology, research approach and

techniques utilised in the study. The research was qualitative in nature and the design

of the research was exploratory. Use was made of a matrix model and internet

research. The chapter ends with a brief reflection on the ethical considerations

identified in the research.

The penultimate chapter (4) presents the analysis of the data gathered in the course

of the research and interpretation of the results. The method of analysing the data

was that of individual interpretation. The results are presented in a framework that

initially identifies a problem area, states the findings and then ties them together with

integrative commentary. A statement is then provided on the results obtained.

The final chapter (5) provides a brief summary of the research objectives, the major

findings and the conclusions drawn from the research. Recommendations regarding

the potential of CE for universities are made. In conclusion, a number of suggestions

are made for further research.

1.10 Summary

11

In this chapter the reader was provided with insight into the background of the research

study. The research problem was clarified and the objectives were set out. This was

followed by a brief account of the literature reviewed as well as a description of the

method of research followed in the study.

The primary objective of this research was to explore how CE is implemented in South

African universities. The main research question is: How is community engagement

currently implemented in South African universities?

The literature relevant to this study is reviewed and discussed in the following chapter.

12

Chapter 2: Literature review

2.1 Introduction

CE can generally be described as activities that involve partnership initiatives with

communities that utilise the knowledge capital and resources of the university to meet

the development needs of communities at no cost. CE usually takes the form of service

learning, organised outreach and community-based research. It is argued that CE

must be a core academic function of the institution. This will have the reciprocal benefit

of enabling the community to access the university’s intellectual capital and resources.

At the same time, staff and students gain awareness of the community’s needs and

can thus assist the community in meeting them. By doing so, the university can create

areas of research for staff and students. This will, in turn, lead to increased publication

output and increased postgraduate student numbers.

CE generally comprises three components at South African universities,

namely service learning, community-based research and organised outreach:

Community-based research entails research projects by academics and

students that make a contribution to a community in the form of services,

products and/or new knowledge and skills transfer.

Organised outreach relates to the provision of community-determined

services and resources by students and employees, outside of academic

programmes, to meet development needs.

Service learning entails teaching and learning that targets specific

community needs through a curriculum-based assessment that is

13

accredited and that enables students to participate in as well as reflect on

contextualised structured activities that meet identified service needs.

This chapter provides a comprehensive review of the academic literature on CSR, CE,

as well as the two main topics which form the basis of this study, namely community

and engagement. The literature on each topic is critically reviewed with specific

reference to the following matters: reasons for universities to implement CE, existing

policies on CE and challenges around implementation and monitoring.

2.2 CE in the context of CSR

CSR is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model. CSR

policy functions as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby a business monitors

and ensures its active compliance with the spirit of the law, ethical standards and

international norms. According to Belu and Manescu (2013:2751), “CSR is often

associated with the notion of sustainable development”. CSR is a process with the

aim to embrace responsibility for the company's actions and encourage a positive

impact through its activities on the environment, consumers, employees,

communities, stakeholders and all other members of the public sphere who may also

be considered stakeholders. Njenga and Smit (2007:5) say that CSR “refers to the

accountability of companies, to both the shareholders and stakeholders, for their

utilisation of resources, for their means of production, for their treatment of workers

and consumers, for their impact on the social and ecological environment in which

they operate and for the way in which they exercise their legislative and fiduciary

duties”.

14

In South Africa, CSR has been shaped by both the political landscape and the social

and economic challenges of society. Companies are faced with the challenge of

addressing the pressing socio-economic and environmental needs of their customers

and communities in which they operate whilst simultaneously responding to the

demands of stakeholders. According to Nickel (2010:13), most companies have come

to the conclusion that their welfare cannot be isolated from the communities of which

they are corporate citizens. CSR requires companies to develop policies and

strategies to tackle social, economic and environmental imperatives of the ‘triple

bottom line’.

Businesses are under pressure to behave ethically and this has broadened their core

functions; hence the need to embrace it in the organisational strategy. Universities

have also been forced to broaden their core functions. CE can thus be seen as the

HEI version of CSR. The following section will discuss how CE developed in

universities.

2.3 The development of CE within the changing environment of universities

Universities have an inherent role to play in the communities they are situated in as

well as to the general public. This role can be defined as social, economic, cultural,

scientific and/or political. It can be established through university research, curriculum

and choice of pedagogy. Favish (2010:90) agrees with this by explaining how the

University of Cape Town (UCT) approached and reported on their CE activities: “as a

public institution receiving considerable funding from the public purse, it was deemed

15

appropriate that the university should report annually on how the university was

addressing major development challenges facing the country”. Universities do not only

have to play an active developmental role in South Africa, but they must also show

accountability as a public institution in helping achieve national goals for

transformation of higher education as outlined in the White Paper (Ministry of

Education, 1997). Hall (2006:2) insists that an examination of universities’

contributions to addressing inequality is critical to thinking about the mission of a public

university in contemporary South African society, because poverty and growing

inequalities can be regarded as the biggest challenges facing the new democracy. “A

necessary condition for the continued reproduction of the defining aspects of the public

university is addressing inequality and its consequences” (ibid., 2006).

Scott and Harding (2007:2) comment that the new competitive higher education

climate requires universities to become more relevant and to take up their role in their

communities “whether they consider themselves ‘world class’ and in possession of an

‘international reputation’ … or as essentially ‘national’ or ‘civic’ institutions with fewer

international credentials … most claim to produce eminently useful knowledge that

can be utilised by a huge range of ‘communities’, but is especially valuable to those

living, metaphorically speaking, on the university’s doorstep”. However, this sharing of

information is what universities struggle with in implementing CE.

CE is the method by which universities not only stay relevant, but also share the

knowledge generated that can serve the community. According to Muller (2010:69),

communities are “in practice, more or less anything that is in the university’s external

environment, and relevance can be anything from engaging in policy on national

16

priorities, regional engagements with development projects, to local engagement with

poor communities, new links with firms, and disseminating results of research”. A more

detailed description of the terms will be provided later in the chapter.

Universities generate powerful knowledge that can influence and change

communities. Muller (2010:85) points out that successful engagements “are likely to

be those that are based on knowledge that can make a difference to technological

development, to regional or national policy development, and to solving problems of

local communities”. Communities need not only applied knowledge though; they also

require use-inspired basic knowledge and fundamental knowledge, and these

requirements of the public or community are what the university can provide.

There is also growing external pressure on universities to become relevant and to

share knowledge. University policy, commitment to promoting social justice as well

as contributions to various dimensions of development have to accord with the World

Declaration on Higher Education which states that the “relevance in (or

responsiveness of) higher education should be assessed in terms of the fit between

what society expects of institutions and what they do. This requires ethical standards,

political impartiality, critical capacities and, at the same time, a better articulation

with the problems of society and the world of work, basing long-term orientations on

societal aims and needs, including respect for cultures and environmental protection

… Higher education should reinforce its role of service to society, especially its

activities aimed at eliminating poverty, intolerance, violence, illiteracy, hunger,

environmental degradation and disease” (UNESCO, 1998:8). The World Declaration

on Higher Education can be seen as the overarching starting point for CE at

17

universities and will be discussed later.

The imperative of the socio-economic development of communities requires

universities to promote students’ social and civic responsibilities through CE. Maistry

and Thakrar (2012:59) view students “both as agents and beneficiaries of community

engagement. A major implication of this view is that university students in South Africa

have to be educated and prepared for engagement with communities”. This

expectation of universities, as explained by Maistry and Thakrar, can be seen as an

addition to the UNESCO imperative and can help universities better understand what

is expected of them.

But how will this new knowledge be created in an established institution? Favish

(2010:97) maintains that it is “the collaboration between researchers, practitioners and

local communities that generates the necessary set of new and different perspectives

to create new knowledge”. Academics are necessarily involved in discourses and

research that are quite technical as a result of being influenced by particular theoretical

backgrounds and their circumstances. But, as mentioned before, the knowledge

generated has to be shared in some way with the community they serve. Universities

struggle with sharing this knowledge they create, but for CE to be successful they will

have to find a way to do this. Favish (2010:97) is also aware of this when she observes

that “there may be a need for trans-cultural interpretation”.

It can be deduced that new knowledge and more socially responsive graduates are

what is needed to assist with university CE. Favish (2010:98) states that this can be

done through “enhancing the relevance of the curriculum as a result of knowledge

18

gained through engagement with external constituencies”. Engagement with the

university’s community can not only work to build an appreciation for local knowledge,

but it can also enhance more academic, university-based forms of knowledge.

“Through this, the curriculum can begin to challenge hegemonic forms of knowledge

thereby facilitating new forms of learning and understanding for students” (Favish &

McMillan, 2009:175). The importance of CE is undeniable, but how does CE fit in with

the other core functions of the university, namely teaching and research? Should it be

seen as a third core function of the university or should it be at the core of the

universities’ mission?

It is clear from the literature in this section that universities are experiencing growing

pressure to be more relevant and accountable, as well as to produce more engaged

and socially responsive graduates. CE could be seen as the primary method through

which this can be achieved.

2.4 The link between CE and the other core activities of the university

There is a common misconception that CE refers to activities that have no relationship

with research and teaching, i.e. the core processes of the university. Hall (2009:8)

suggests that the widespread marginalisation of CE, especially in research-intensive

universities, may be due to an “epistemological disjuncture in the way knowledge is

structured and organised” and “contestations about the role and location of the

authority that serves to validate the structure and content of knowledge”. Countering

this marginalisation, he suggests, entails an openness to different epistemologies and

a recognition of the value of CE in the knowledge generation project. This, as Favish

19

(2010) proposes, also helps promote the idea that socially engaged research

necessitates some form of community involvement in determining the research

questions and interpreting the data. For Nyden (2006), collaborative university-

community research typically involves partnerships in all stages of the research and

dissemination of results, including conceptualisation of the issues to be studied, design

of the methodology, collection of data, data analysis, report writing and dissemination

of research results. However, this cannot be expected of all researchers and the

research they do, but if universities hope to become more relevant and comply with

the Declaration on Higher Education, a shift to what Nyden proposes needs to be

made.

Muller (2010) agrees with Hall (2010) that engagement should be integrated with

teaching and research, and not regarded as a separate category. He also concurs

with Hall that there is nothing in the ideal of engagement which is inherently contrary

to disciplinary business as usual. If the three core pillars of research, teaching and

learning are connected to CE, CE will take root in institutions, thus speaking to their

‘academic soul’ by being consistent with scholarship. CE will, however, only be

institutionalised as a core value and incorporated into key activities once it can, like

teaching and research, be measured. The question remains is how this should be

done.

In order to re-establish this link between CE and teaching and research, universities

need to reconnect with the communities in their founding, mission and vision

statements. According to Slamat (2010:111), reconnecting with the university’s

community creates several opportunities for the university “to redefine how

20

practitioners interpret their task in relation to the communities referred to in those

statements; opportunities to consider how community engagement can invigorate,

enhance, deepen, contextualise and enrich pedagogy, including teaching, learning,

curriculum and assessment; opportunities to consider how community engagement

can contribute to research relevance and opportunities to consider the types of

knowledge, outside of academic knowledge and how they can benefit the university

and invigorate and excite its knowledge project”.

If CE is the tool universities should use to become more relevant and to produce more

socially responsive graduates, CE needs to be solidified as a core activity at

institutions and one that is integrated with the other activities at universities.

2.5 Policy on CE

It is very important to note that the impetus for rethinking the status of CE and its place

in South African HEIs came from the outside, and as part of legislation that initiated

the restructuring of higher education in South Africa.

It is also important to note that historically, in the practice of scholarship in South Africa,

there were already notions related to CE. “If one looks at the founding, mission and

vision statements of universities, there is bound to be a reference to the rootedness of

the universities in particular communities as well as notions of service to particular

communities” (Slamat, 2012:109). It seems as if, over time, the connectedness of

South African universities with the communities of their founding statements was lost

or became looser. It also seems as if, over time, the academic community became the

21

primary community to whom universities and academics felt themselves accountable.

But in essence there is a deep interconnectedness between South African universities

and their communities.

Historically, there were also notions of outreach, community service or extension in

South African HEIs. What is important to note is that these activities did not form part

of the core business of universities. They were activities on the periphery of higher

education, performed by well-meaning people, not quite as important as the main core

functions of teaching and research. These were mostly philanthropic and voluntary

activities and were mostly unrelated or poorly related to the core academic functions.

The South African 1997 White Paper on Higher Education changed all that and

formalised CE in South African higher education. Among other things, it started a

national conversation about the status of CE in higher education. One could, however,

argue that what is called for now is not to define from scratch what CE means, but how

its meaning and role in the practice of scholarship has changed, also in the light of

expectations in the higher education legislation and international requirements. The

challenge should now be to redefine CE in such a way that it is integral to the practice

of scholarship as suggested by Favish, i.e. a view of CE as scholarship. The White

Paper in principle calls on institutions to demonstrate social responsibility (Ministry of

Education, 1997:10). It also calls on their commitment to the common good by making

expertise and infrastructure available for community service programmes. The White

Paper was preceded, as mentioned earlier, by UNESCO World Declaration on Higher

Education for the Twenty-First Century, which was published a decade ago. This

declaration refers to sustainable development and the improvement of society as a

22

whole as being the core mission of higher education systems, together with education,

training and research (UNESCO, 1998).

Currently in South Africa CE is one of the three founding principles (together with

teaching and research) of the post-apartheid reconstruction of the South African

higher education system. Both the Declaration and the White Paper acknowledge the

Council of Higher Education’s view that CE is a “strategy in the transformation of

higher education in relation to community development priorities” (CHE, 2004:130).

This policy position contained in the White Paper was reaffirmed three years later in

the Ministry of Education's National Plan for Higher Education (NPHE), which

asserted the priority of enhancing “responsiveness to regional and national needs,

for academic programmes, research, and community service” (Ministry of Education,

2001).

The UNESCO World Declaration as well as the South African national policy on CE

are what should guide South African universities in establishing their own policy on

CE. The concept of CE as set out in national policy needs to be understood, and it

would therefore be wise to have a clear definition of the related concepts.

Bender (2008:83) notes that despite all the national documents and initiatives, in

practice there is still a perception that CE and service are merely add-on, nice-to-have,

philanthropic activities. There is also resistance to integrating CE as a core function in

the academic field and there is still confusion and a diversity of understandings of CE

at South African universities. Many university documents mention CE and service

23

learning in the same sentence, but these two terms are not interchangeable. What is

meant by community and engagement?

2.6 Definition of key terms

In order to respond to policy imperatives, a definition and understanding of the concept

of CE are needed. A clear definition of what is meant by community and also by

engagement is also required, as well as of other related concepts such as service

learning.

2.6.1 Community engagement

The problem is not that there is no definition of community engagement in South

African HEIs. The problem is that there are different definitions in different institutions.

According to both Slamat (2010) and Nongxa (2010), CE has not been clearly defined

in South African HEIs. Current activities include outreach activities, national research

projects and service learning. Pienaar-Steyn (2012) says that academics have

difficulty defining their contribution because the concept is so vague. She also agrees

that there is no clear definition of CE, and says that despite “numerous attempts by

scholars to clarify ‘community engagement’, it remains a vague concept in South

African higher education institutions”. She also goes on to say that conceptual

frameworks are sorely lacking, which leads to a lack of standards against which the

impact of CE activities can be measured.

24

Almost two decades ago, Ernest Boyer (1990) introduced the concept of an engaged

institution as an institution that is interwoven in the fabric of its community. Universities

are not merely located in a community – they are members of it too. As such, they

have a vested interest in the wellbeing of their community. Since universities are firmly

located within a community, they have certain responsibilities as members of the

community. Their responsibility is not only to create knowledge and to educate; they

also have a civic responsibility to engage and enrich their community (Bacon, 2002).

Mallory (2005) suggests that, historically, universities have sought engagement with

their community to gain access to research sites, internships, labour, or to meet other

needs. Other academics have viewed CE as knowledge or charity they bestow on the

community. This one-sided view of engagement is being replaced by a more robust

application which defines CE as mutually beneficial (Jischke, 2006). These new

partnerships build on one another’s strengths. Favish (2010) at the University of Cape

Town has developed a conceptual framework for implementing CE. This framework

“acknowledges the interconnectedness between social engagement and the other

core activities of the university” (Favish, 2010:99). The university provides a foundation

for knowledge, while the community provides insights to co-create this knowledge and

presents a platform for knowledge to be shared and utilised. Through community

collaborations, academic departments are able to engage faculty and students in

initiatives that further academic research agendas. Effective university-community

partnerships are able to address critical needs within the community they serve.

For the purpose of this mini-dissertation the HEQC definition is used. The HEQC

(2004:19 &26) gives the following definition of community engagement, and it is used

25

as a basic reference in most HEIs in South Africa: Community engagement refers to

the “initiatives and processes through which the expertise of the institution in the areas

of teaching and research are applied to address issues relevant 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 addressed at particular community needs (for example service-learning

programmes). Some projects might be conducive towards the creation of a better

environment for community engagement and others might be directly related to

teaching, learning and research”.

2.6.2 Community

Firstly, community needs to be defined, but there can be various difficulties in

identifying a single community for a university as a whole. Members of a university

work on a very wide range of external constituencies at local, provincial, national and

sectorial level. In this regard Chatterton and Goddard (2000:478) suggest that

“territoriality is an extremely complex and problematic concept for Higher Education

Institutions [because] universities operate within multiple and overlapping territories

and usually manage a portfolio of activities ranging from the global to the local”.

In her overview of the outcome of the HEQC’s institutional-level audits on CE in South

Africa completed between 2004 and 2008, Lange (in CHE, 2008) concludes that it “is

26

a vexed question as to what communities are, who they are and where they are. One

of the questions we have asked of institutions in the audits (all of which have a de

facto or de jure community attached to them) has been: ‘Who is your community?’

Some institutions defined their communities in historical terms, and remained stuck in

the community divisions of the apartheid era. Some defined their communities in

conservative terms, while others were more progressive. The question can be posed

whether it is necessary to open or broaden the concept of community, since

communities can be a form of democratisation, tolerance and pluralism. Does the

community include those living on the doorstep of the institution or those further afield?

The ‘community’ could be understood to mean everybody who is outside the institution

(in other words, all stakeholders), including industry, the labour market, provincial and

local government and NGOs. There are no clear answers to the question of who the

community is”.

Naidoo’s response (CHE, 2008) to this issue is helpful here: “Rather than looking at

a reductionist way of defining community”, he observes, “should we not engage with

a broader definition of ‘community’, or ‘communities’? We talk of differences between

institutions, but often forget that within an institution, different faculties define this

concept in a way that is expedient to them, in terms of the way in which a particular

grouping of disciplines engages with communities. We can have nice policies and

structures in place, but institutions can end up ‘playing the community engagement

game’ without contributing to reconstruction and development in the country. They

may make the right gestures and appear to meet the criteria, but fall far short of the

actual essence of reconstruction and development.”

27

Hall’s comments on the notion of community illustrate the difficulties involved in

seeking to identify a university’s community: “Community can be taken as a cluster of

households or an entire region, as an organisation ranging from a provincial

government department to an NGO, as a school, clinic, hospital, church or mosque or

as a part of the university itself. This suggests a double meaning. Obviously,

communities are a loosely defined set of social organisations. But community also

functions as an adjective, as a qualifier that indicates work that is socially beneficial.

Understood in this way and in the South African context, community work contributes

to social or economic justice” (Hall, 2009:17).

Slamat (2012:107), however, argues that defining a university’s community is not such

a daunting task: “The following all shape an institution’s definition of community:

history, race, geography, repositioning statements, developed strengths and interest

areas, regional challenges and their interpretation of reconstruction and development

imperatives within the context of their own geographical areas. Every higher education

institution will be able to tell who its community is and what it regards as its community

engagement.”

Nyden (2006:16) regards communities as partners who have a full say in the

identification of service needs and development challenges.

It is clear that there is confusion not only regarding what is meant by community, but

also regarding how easily community can be defined. There is, however, a final

understanding of the concept of a community and the definition used for this mini-

dissertation is that it is a group of people who plan, work and learn together (Mtembu

28

& Daniels, 2006). The latter definition means that HEIs are themselves a subset of the

broader community.

2.6.3 Engagement

Just as difficult to define as community is the concept of engagement. According to

Bender (2008:86–87), engagement suggests a different sort of relationship, one

where there is a “governance” or “university” system and a “community” system. One

can thus start by saying that two parties need be present to form an engagement.

However, the university system has to understand the dynamics of the community if

it wants to work in the community and it must be prepared to adapt and develop

structures and processes to make them accessible and relevant to these

communities. The term engagement warns against making assumptions about

communities. For CE to be successful the “university” will have to engage with

communities as well as asking communities to engage with it. It is clear from this that

engagement cannot be forced on a community. As Kaniki points out (CHE, 2008),

claims to engagement by HEIs can be very broad, embracing almost any form of

linkage: “universities become involved in engagement with communities, sometimes

without even having been invited by the communities…”

Engagement must be defined by some sort of partnership in which there is a mutual

understanding of the objectives of specific projects. There are several models that set

out specific processes for setting up such partnerships. One of these is the concept of

the learning region championed by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and

Development (Favish, 2003). A second is the asset-based community development

29

approach, which works from the observation that all communities have assets, the

assessment of which by members of the community can be the basis for identifying

needs and therefore the terms of productive partnerships. Approaches such as these

will provide more concrete ways of giving shape to engagement through partnership.

These considerations and complexities of the meanings of community and

engagement make the working definition offered by the 2006 conference of the

Council on Higher Education (CHE) seem provisional, and in need of further

development. The conference’s working group concluded that “a community is a group

of people who plan, work and learn together” (CHE, 2007) and that “community

engagement is a process of creating a shared vision among the community (especially

disadvantaged) and partners (local, provincial, national government, NGOs, higher

education institutions, business, donors) in society, as equal partners, that results in a

long-term collaborative programme of action with outcomes that benefit the whole

community equitably”.

At the CHE’s 2006 conference, the then Minister of Education Naledi Pandor raised a

similar concern: “What we tend to have, and talk about, is a ‘community service’ notion,

rather than a ‘community engagement’ one. In other words, it is a ‘needy’ definition of

the community and a ‘giving’ or ‘able’ notion of the university, and I think we need to

move to a different level and character of engagement” (CHE, 2007). Defining

engagement correctly is thus key to effective implementation of CE. This definition

should take into account international and national CE policy, the need for more user-

friendly knowledge and the need for more engaged graduates.

30

2.6.4 Service learning

Service learning is a form of CE which entails teaching and learning that is directed at

specific community needs and is curriculated into (and therefore also assessed as part

of) a credit-bearing academic programme. It enables students to participate in and

subsequently reflect on contextualised, structured and organised service activities that

address identified service needs in a community, it seeks to infuse students with a

sense of civic responsibility and promotes social justice.

The ethos of service learning is social justice, i.e. engagement with developing

communities in order to assist in their social and economic upliftment. It must be clear

that service learning can only be a small, if important, part of the CE role of public

HEIs. It is therefore alarming that, through the years, terms such as service learning,

community engagement, community service and the scholarship of engagement have

been used interchangeably (Lazarus et al., 2008).

This is in line with Favish (2003:7-8), who gives the following caution: “the focus on

service learning … excludes a range of other ways in which higher education

institutions can be socially responsive through other aspects of their core process of

teaching and learning. For example, institutions can demonstrate their responsiveness

through the introduction of new programmes, which may or may not include service

learning; the revision of existing programmes to accommodate changing needs; the

transfer of technology to community projects through education and training

programmes and applied research projects”. Slamat’s response (2010) to the current

developments in CE is that “those developments focused almost exclusively on

31

service learning as a vehicle into community engagement and that not much serious

conceptual and other work was done to develop and advance a comprehensive notion

of community engagement in higher education”.

The inclusion of service learning as an important definition serves as a caution that

CE and service learning are not interchangeable. There are various aspects to CE,

only one of which is service learning. Others include organised outreach and

community-based research.

2.7 Challenges for implementing and monitoring CE

It is clear that there is both an international and national imperative to implement CE

at HEIs. It is also clear and understandable that there is confusion regarding what is

meant by CE and still little progress being made in implementing it. Pienaar-Steyn

(2012:44) notes that “despite clear policy mandates positioning CE as one of the

three core responsibilities of higher education alongside research and training, and

despite many attempts to clarify this notion, CE is still a vague concept with limited

application”.

But what are the hurdles? Hall (2010) says that there are no articulated standards or

objectives with clear indicators against which to monitor progress, measure impact

and evaluate effectiveness. Consequently, the contribution of HEIs to development

is not taken seriously by government and CE is left to fend for itself, with little

recognition by institutions and small budget allocations from the Department of

Higher Education.

32

The key processes and criteria for evaluating the work of HEIs in South Africa

originated in the White Paper and the Higher Education Act, 1997. The HEQC (CHE,

2004) advises that “where community engagement is discharged through a range of

activities, including service learning, quality considerations for institutional

engagement with the local and broader community should be formalized within an

institution’s quality management policies and procedures. These arrangements

should be linked to teaching and learning and research, where possible, and given

effect through the allocation of adequate resources and institutional recognition”.

Between 2004 and 2008, the HEQC completed 13 institutional audits and concluded

that very few institutions had done more than conduct internal audits or compile

inventories of ongoing CE activities. Only a couple of institutions were, at the time,

trying to develop policies on and criteria for CE (CHE, 2008). Audit reports show that,

in practice, universities are at widely varying stages of implementing and measuring

CE practice.

Pienaar-Steyn (2012) notes the need for a “conceptual framework for CE

engagement”. This was also recognised at the Community Engagement in Higher

Education Conference hosted in Bantry Bay, South Africa, in 2006. At this conference

it was proposed that conceptual work be undertaken at both a national and a context-

specific level to set broad parameters for CE, establish a relationship between CE

and the other two core functions, and signal the place of CE in the social development

agenda (CHE, 2007). The following questions therefore arise: Why has this not been

implemented? Why is it not working?

33

Pienaar-Steyn (2012:46) believes that so far, “scholarly work on conceptualising CE

in South Africa has centred mostly on epistemological work and conceptual models

to integrate the three core functions of CE. Although the development discourse is

prevalent in this work, no explicit attempt has been made to conceptualise CE within

the global development discourse”. This might be the reason why CE is not seen as

important in spite of international and national policy.

“The lack of a conceptual framework for CE is a major reason for the lack of

monitoring and evaluation measures, similar to those existing in the other focus areas

of teaching and research” says Pienaar-Steyn (2012:45). She suggests an alternative

for the audits currently being done by the HEQC, namely using the Millennium

Development Goals as a conceptual framework for enabling and evaluating CE. HEIs

would then be able to “position community engagement within the sustainable

development discourse. This framework would also facilitate the integration of the

activities of research, training and community engagement by directing such activities

towards the common objective of global sustainable development, thereby creating

an enabling environment for academics to articulate community engagement

activities. The Millennium Development Goals conceptual framework could be the

starting point for the development of a monitoring tool which could lead to increased

accountability when planning and evaluating community engagement activities”

(Pienaar-Steyn, 2012:40). Adapting these goals as a conceptual framework would

also position CE in the global development discourse, and this would allow CE to

become more of a priority at HEIs.

Regardless of the method of implementation and monitoring, Olowu (2012:90)

identifies a critical problem with CE implementation in HEIs: there are few incentives

34

and little grounding for academics to engage in community advancement. He also

asks how engaging communities becomes recognised as “career boosting,

equivalent to the customary benchmarks of teaching and research? How can efforts

to develop communities through collaboration be sustained on a long-term basis?

How should community engagement efforts by academics be measured in real

terms?” These very valid questions might be the reason why, despite clear policy on

CE, it still has not been implemented properly. They might also show why academics

who will be the implementers of CE and university management are so reluctant to

engage with CE. For engagement to become a core faculty activity, the institution will

also need to change the way it hires, promotes or rewards faculty and administrative

staff. It will also need to “find ways to evaluate research and publication based on its

value to society” (Tapia in Watson, 2011:236). This will be key in implementation.

Olowu (2012:89), however, provides some practical directions for developing a

systematic approach to benchmarking university CE within the South African milieu:

“comparative university experiences could provide useful insights into the challenges

of evaluating university–community engagement in South Africa”. It is for this reason

that this study examined what all South African public universities are currently doing

to implement CE. This benchmarking allows for a full picture of the CE landscape in

South Africa.

Olowu (2012:95) also identifies the following criteria that could be used to measure

CE in South African HEIs: “attendance and feedback; external appraisal; peer review;

articulation of public value; securing funding for further engagement or community-

based participatory research; curriculum development; evidence of successful

relationships; evidence of successful project management; how the specific goals

35

were met in terms of responding to the public/community organisations’ needs and

expectations; how the activity enhanced the public’s/ community’s understanding of

an issue and/or research; capacity development within the institution of higher

education or the community; leadership or direct contribution to building a network,

consortium or partnership; and a report of evaluation that is appropriate to the type

of activity”.

Finally, Olowu (2012:100) argues that “it would be prudent for all South African

universities to enlist in networks such as Talloires, both to include their own data as

part of international standard-setting and to learn from best practices. This will be a

veritable way of positioning South African universities as reference points in a future

continental quest for the evaluation of community engagement and its best practices”.

Doing so will assist universities with not only the implementation of CE, but also the

monitoring of CE activities. Talloires is a global alliance of HEIs that are deeply

committed to strengthening the civic roles and social responsibilities of

universities and colleges around the world.

The challenges with regard to implementation and monitoring as identified above are

the main hurdles in the success of CE at South African HEIs. A clear idea is needed

of what is currently being done at HEIs in order to identify solutions.

2.8 Conclusion

By defining the university’s community and also engagement, universities can realise

their potential ‘professional empowerment’. Slamat (2010:112) says that professional

36

empowerment will allow universities to fully appreciate the power of community

engagement, that CE is the “invigoration of scholarship and, ultimately, community

engagement as scholarship”. He goes on to say that CE should not reduce the

university to a “development agency”, but it should allow the university to use its

expertise to contribute meaningfully to the development challenges of our country.

That way the university can perform its functions in a more meaningful way that will

ultimately benefit society.

37

Chapter 3: Research methodology

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the primary theoretical framework of the research methodology

on which this research project is based. The basic research methods and approach

used will be described with reference to the underlying rationale as well as the

pertinent literature regarding the applicability of the method chosen for this particular

study.

The elements of the research method, that is, the research population, sampling

method, methods of data collection and analysis, are defined as discussed in relation

to the research problem. In conclusion, the essential ethical considerations and

procedures are outlined.

3.2 Research approach

An exploratory approach was used in this research. Zikmund (2013:52) explains that

exploratory research is “conducted to clarify ambiguous situations or discover ideas

that may be potential business opportunities”. It can also be described as the initial

research conducted to clarify and define the nature of a problem. He further mentions

that exploratory research provides qualitative data, and that the nature of the research

is thus qualitative.

38

In this study, the research objective was to determine what is being done in South

African universities to implement CE. To do this, each university would need to be

investigated individually to determine what their experience was in implementing CE.

The researcher therefore based this study on a qualitative data collection and analysis

method of research. Kumar (2005:12) refers to this method of inquiry as an

“unstructured approach”, which aims to explore the nature of the research problem.

This method of inquiry, as highlighted by Zikmund (2013:52), provides the researcher

with a greater understanding of a concept rather than a precise measurement.

Flick (2002:48) describes qualitative research as being mainly concerned with the lived

experience and meanings of explored phenomena. Qualitative research was therefore

deemed appropriate to determine how CE is implemented. Silverman (2001:48)

supports this when he argues that qualitative research can provide a deeper

understanding of the social phenomenon, which in this case is community

engagement and how it is implemented in South African universities.

3.3 Research design

Kumar (2005:84) states that a research design is a plan, a structure and a strategy of

investigation that is developed to obtain answers to research questions and/or

problems. Furthermore, Kumar (2005:84) suggests that a research design is an

operational plan undertaken to obtain valid, objective and accurate answers to the

research questions.

39

The researcher used a qualitative research design for this study in order to establish

personal contact with South African universities. Universities are aware of the policy

which expects them to implement CE but they are not sure how to implement it. This

study combined primary and secondary data to answer the research question. The

basis of the research was secondary data presented in a matrix format. This was used

as supporting information for the primary empirical data.

3.3.1 Research population

In this study, the relevant population comprised all South African public universities. A

research population, according to Zikmund (2003:369), is any complete group of

people that share some set of characteristics. Private universities were excluded as

they do not need to adhere to this guideline and in effect do not have the same

characteristics as public universities. All public universities were included for the

secondary data for the matrix model in order to show what has been done nationally.

For the primary data from which conclusions were drawn, two universities were

selected in Gauteng. Babbie (2001:110) defines a population as a group, usually of

people, about whom one wants to draw conclusions. Gauteng has five public

universities, namely the University of Johannesburg, University of the Witwatersrand,

University of Pretoria, University of South Africa and Tshwane University of

Technology. Only two of these universities could be used as the University of the

Witwatersrand and Tshwane University of Technology have no CE office and the

researcher was also unable to get an interview with the CE manager at Unisa.

3.3.2 Sampling

40

Zikmund (2013:385) explains that sampling is the process of using small numbers of

items or parts of a larger population to draw conclusions about the entire population.

In order to collect the primary data it was decided to use two universities in Gauteng

(University of Johannesburg, University of Pretoria). Both have CE offices and the CE

manager was available for an interview. The sample of two universities for the primary

data was useful for supporting the secondary data used as the basis of the study and

assisted in making conclusions about the current state of CE in South African

universities.

Owing to the exploratory nature of the research, it was decided to use non-probability

sampling. Zikmund (2013:392) explains that a non-probability sample is

representative of a sample selected on the basis of personal judgement or

convenience. The sample for this research was identified based on geographical

convenience as the three universities with CE offices are situated in the Gauteng

province.

Given the time and resources available for the study, the sampling technique that was

used within the non-probability method was convenience sampling. According to

Zikmund (2013:392), “convenience sampling refers to sampling by obtaining units of

people who are conveniently available”. In addition, it is “best for exploratory research”

(Zikmund, 2013:393). In accordance with the definition of convenience sampling,

respondents who were conveniently available were selected for this study.

Therefore the sample for the primary data was the University of Johannesburg and the

University of Pretoria (two respondents).

41

3.3.3 Data collection

The research is a study that attempts to describe what South African universities are

doing to implement the CE policy of national government. This called for a descriptive

investigation to be done. A descriptive investigation has a broad appeal to the policy

analyst for planning, monitoring and evaluating (Cooper & Schindler, 2001:13). An

inductive approach to research, as is generally taken in qualitative research (Thietart,

2002:15), was taken in this project. According to Cooper and Schindler (2002:35), to

induce is to draw a conclusion from one or more particular facts or pieces of evidence.

A descriptive investigation using an inductive approach allowed the researcher to

evaluate the CE strategies of the universities as well as draw conclusions based on

the evidence. As was the case in this research, an inductive approach begins with

immersion in the social process, not with hypothesis or existing theory. Evidence of

what has been done was the primary driver of the data collection process. The detail

in the evidence gathered was the basis of this study. This is in line with Cooper and

Schindler (2001:137), who state that emphasis on detail provides valuable insight for

problem solving, evaluation and strategy.

Given the topic of research, semi-structured interviews and a matrix presentation and

analysis were the appropriate means of collecting data. The research was divided into

primary and secondary data, drawing upon three semi-structured interviews and a

matrix model. The primary data was collected from personal in-depth interviews with

participants who met the criteria. Zikmund (2013:149) states that an in-depth interview

is a relatively unstructured, extensive interview, where the researcher asks the

42

respondent many questions. This approach proved to be very useful given the

confusion around CE in South African universities. The in-depth interview is a

qualitative research technique which is particularly useful for exploration purposes,

and it is an appropriate technique for exploring ambiguous fields of study (De Jong &

Hartog, 2007:48) such as this one.

Mansourian (2007:281) notes how the semi-structured format will allow “both the

interviewee and the interviewer to discuss anything which they might find useful or

related to the topic”. During the interviews, all necessary aspects pertaining to the

research objective were addressed. Seeing that the primary data was only used to

support the secondary data, the primary data gave the researcher the information he

needed to clarify and elaborate on the secondary data collected. May (1993:93) states

that semi-structured interviews allow the interviewer to seek both clarification and

elaboration on the answers given, and this in turn enables the interviewer to have more

latitude to probe beyond the answers.

Semi-structured interviews were held with the CE manager at each institution to

identify what had been done to implement CE. The duration of each interview was

approximately 25-35 minutes. However, this varied depending on the discussion on

the topic.

The secondary data was gathered from the websites of all 23 South African

universities and serves as the foundation of the research. The data is presented in a

matrix model. Zikmund (2013:486) defines a data matrix as “a rectangular

arrangement of data into rows and columns”. The model indicates what each of the

43

23 public universities in South Africa is currently doing to implement CE. It was

assumed that current practices were captured on their websites. The matrix model

allows for a comparative analysis between universities and also gives a full picture of

what has been done to implement CE at universities. Further data collection involved

a literature review of scholarly journals, books, dissertations, policy reports and

papers.

This report ends with recommendations, which are imaginative but also practical and

implementable within the current structures of the institutions and in accordance with

national CE policy requirements.

3.3.4 Data analysis

The data analysis was structured so that the data would be interpreted from the matrix

model drawn up from the various university websites and policy documents. The

information captured in the matrix model was supplemented by the semi-structured

interviews in order to give more detail as well as describe current practices and to help

elaborate and help with clarification. Zikmund (2003:73) suggests that “analysis is the

application of reasoning to understand and interpret the data that have been

collected”.

The technique used for the analysis of the data was determined by the information

requirements of management, the characteristics of the research design and the

nature of the data collected (Zikmund, 2013:73). The chosen methods for analysing

the data were content and descriptive analyses. Descriptive data analysis, as

44

highlighted by Zikmund (2013:459), refers to the “transformation of raw data form that

will make them easy to understand and interpret”. This is done through a process of

rearranging, ordering or manipulating data in order to provide descriptive information

that answers research questions (Zikmund, 2013:459). The use of semi-structured

interviews was intended to afford the interviewer the flexibility to probe and analyse

the responses of the interviewees, and change direction if it might benefit the study,

as pointed out by Mansourian (2007:281).

The information gathered in the matrix model was used to determine how universities

are implementing CE and how this relates to national policy. A comparison could then

be made of universities’ involvement in CE and implementation of policy. The semi-

structured interviews also allowed for more information to be provided on current

practices.

Finally, the primary and secondary data were considered in relation to the literature

review so as to develop a deeper understanding of the subject of this research.

3.4 Ethical considerations

Due to the nature of this study there was no personal involvement other than

telephonic contact with the representatives of the respective institutions. The purpose

of the request was explained and the CE policy documents were forwarded

electronically. All participants providing information did so voluntarily and were fully

informed of the purpose of the research beforehand. No remuneration was offered or

given to those agreeing to provide information.

45

The information is public information as it is available on the institutions’ websites and

confidentiality was therefore not a consideration.

3.5 Summary

This chapter contained a description of the research method and procedures used in

investigating the topic of the study, namely how CE is implemented in South African

universities.

Chapter 4 deals with how the data gathered was analysed according to the research

methods used in the research. A discussion and interpretation of the data as gathered

by means of the procedures set out in this chapter are also presented.

46

Chapter 4: Research results

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter the analysed data obtained from the matrix study and the interviews is

presented. Individual interpretation was used to analyse the data. The data obtained

from the matrix study provides the framework for the presentation of the results and is

categorised according to pertinent topics underlying the study. The comments from

the respondents are used to support the data in the matrix study. Research cited in

the literature review is integrated where necessary to support research findings. The

matrix study as well as the responses obtained from the interviewees either support,

question or challenge the statements gathered from the literature.

4.2 Description of respondents

The researcher aimed to gather information from all 23 public universities in South

Africa. This secondary data was used for the data matrix study that formed the

structure of the research. Representatives from two universities based in Gauteng

were interviewed for the primary data that was to be used to support and help

elaborate on the matrix study.

The two respondents happened to be female. Both of them had been involved in the

university environment for more than five years and both of them held postgraduate

qualifications. Both respondents were between 40 and 45 years old.

4.3 Research results

47

The research results have been structured around five topics:

CE policy at South African universities

CE office within universities

Definition of CE at universities

CE environment at universities

Monitoring and evaluation

The topics underlying the study were analysed according to the data collected from

the data matrix, the sample and the literature cited in chapter 2. Each section will start

with a table (data matrix) supported by responses by the interviewees. The tables

present what is currently done at South African public universities to implement CE.

These areas of practice can apply as a guide for developing and measuring CE as

suggested by the national imperative to implement CE. These practices can be

applied as auditing tools to measure progress against set targets.

The following indicators were used when assessing the information on the university

websites: Y - Yes; N - No; NA - Not available on website. Websites were accessed

on 25, 26 and 27 October 2013.

The responses provided by the interviewees are presented according to the following

framework:

Each response is obtained from the questions documented in the interview

guide (refer to Appendix A).

48

The responses from the interviews were recorded and are included in this

chapter.

The responses are categorised according to the topics covered in the literature

review and the data matrix.

4.3.1 CE policy at South African universities

Table 4.1: Policy

Name of university

Does the institution have an approved CE policy?

Is the policy in line with the requirements contained in national policy documents?

Is CE included in the institution’s annual report?

Cape Peninsula University of Technology NA NA N

Central University of Technology NA NA Y

Durban University of Technology NA NA N

Mangosuthu University of Technology NA NA N

Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University Y Y N

North-West University Y Y Y

Rhodes University Y Y Y

Stellenbosch University y y Y

Tshwane University of Technology NA NA N

University of Cape Town y y Y

University of Fort Hare NA NA N

University of Johannesburg y y Y

University of KwaZulu-Natal NA NA N

University of Limpopo Y Y N

University of Pretoria Y Y Y

University of South Africa Y Y Y

University of Venda NA NA N

University of Zululand NA NA N

University of the Free State Y Y N

University of the Western Cape NA NA Y

University of the Witwatersrand NA NA N

Vaal University of Technology NA NA N

Walter Sisulu University NA NA N

Table 4.1 above refers to policy in terms of the White Paper and the guidelines by the

HEQC. To establish how South African universities are implementing CE, it had to be

determined whether they have a CE policy, if it contains the requirements stipulated

in national policy and also if CE is included in the universities’ annual reports.

49

To further elaborate on policy matters the two respondents were required to expand

on the CE policy as implemented in their respective universities, and how they defined

CE at their institution. The question was asked whether they had an approved policy

and how CE was defined within the policy. The feedback from the respondents is as

follows:

Respondent 1: It started, I think sixty years ago in the archives you can pick up the

first community engagement. In the medical faculty, the medical school did it forever

and the social work department also, more than forty, fifty years.

Respondent 2: Yes, the policy was approved in 2009 and within that, from 2009 to

now, there are number of things that happened to the policy. Uh around 2010, there

was a call for a review by the faculties to say certain elements of the policy yes

although they are in line with National guidelines, there are certain elements where

buy-in was not obtained from the faculties. So there was an attempt to do a review in

2010 and it didn’t take place and then there was a call again 2012 for the review. So

we are still sitting with the review of the policies going to take place I’m sure in 2014.

The information obtained from the responses and the data matrix indicates that only a

few South African universities have an approved CE policy. These policies are

generally in line with national policy. Unexpected feedback was that only a small

number of universities include CE in their annual report. Both respondents’

universities had CE policies, but it was interesting to see the difference in inception.

Respondent 1’s institution had conducted CE activities for 40-50 years, whereas

respondent 2’s institution had only had a policy in place for four years.

50

In the literature review reference was made to the importance of including CE in the

university’s core business. There is, however, still little progress being made in

implementing CE. Pienaar-Steyn (2012:44) notes that “despite clear policy mandates

positioning CE as one of the three core responsibilities of higher education alongside

research and training, and despite many attempts to clarify this notion, CE is still a

vague concept with limited application”. Based on this the respondents were asked if

they believed CE was integrated in the core business of the university.

Respondent 1: Ja. 15 000 students every year, we have voluntary workers, we have

voluntary personnel.

Respondent 2: I think there is a mandate. I mean it’s supposed to be the third core

function.

It is evident from this feedback that both felt that CE was integrated. The institutions

of both respondents 1 and 2 had a clear mandate to implement CE. Whether CE was

truly integrated is, however, difficult to assess.

Establishing clear policy in line with national policy is the first step in implementing CE

at an institution. It is clear from the matrix that there are only a few universities that

have a CE policy.

51

4.3.2 CE office within universities

Table 4.2: Community engagement office

Name of university

Does the institution have a dedicated CE office?

Does the institution have a dedicated CE website?

Website address Comments

Cape Peninsula University of Technology Y Y http://www.cput.ac.za/services/ccewil

Central University of Technology Y Y http://www.cut.ac.za/community-engagement/

Durban University of Technology N N http://foundation.dut.ac.za/about-us/

Development project office

Mangosuthu University of Technology Y Y http://www.mut.ac.za/communityengagement

Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University Y Y http://caec.nmmu.ac.za/

North-West University

Y Y http://www.nwu.ac.za/content/community-engagement-community-engagement-office

Rhodes University

Y Y http://www.ru.ac.za/communityengagement/quicklinks/feedback/

Stellenbosch University Y Y http://www.sun.ac.za/english/ci

Tshwane University of Technology Y Y

http://www.tut.ac.za/Other/RnI/Comm/Pages/default.aspx

University of Cape Town

Y Y http://www.socialresponsiveness.uct.ac.za/about/overview/

University of Fort Hare N N NA

University of Johannesburg

Y Y http://www.uj.ac.za/en/Community/Pages/home.aspx

University of KwaZulu-Natal N N NA

University of Limpopo

N N NA

Policy in place but no office

University of Pretoria

Y Y http://web.up.ac.za/default.asp?ipkCategoryID=85

University of South Africa

Y Y http://www.unisa.ac.za/Default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=10

University of Venda

Y Y http://www.univen.ac.za/index.php?Entity=Community%20Engagement

University of Zululand

N Y

http://www.unizulu.ac.za/outreach-centres/community-engagement-working-group-about/

Only a working group

University of the Free State

Y Y http://supportservices.ufs.ac.za/content.aspx?DCode=451

University of the Western Cape Y Y http://www.uwc.ac.za/CE/Pages/default.aspx

University of the Witwatersrand N Y

http://www.wits.ac.za/aboutwits/governance/cups/3059/community_engagement.html

Vaal University of Technology

N Y

http://www.vut.ac.za/index.php/component/content/article/41-about-the-university/651-community-engagement

Walter Sisulu University N N NA

In the second table (4.2) the aim was to determine how the CE office operated in each

institution. This was done by determining if the universities had a dedicated CE office

and website. Respondents were asked under which division CE fell at their institution

in order to establish how the universities saw and valued CE.

52

Respondent 1: Uh education innovation at the moment but if it changes all the time,

just to my department needs to be in a neutral place so before I was part of uh research

and community development so they, it depends on where it fits in at any specific time.

It’s a practical arrangement basically.

Respondent 2: I think CE is more of an academic portfolio and I would say this is

because of the service learning component because it’s clear that you know although

CE at UJ really has got three components, first is the service learning component, and

then secondly is the projects, the community based projects and then we’ve got the

community based research and if you look at the research component and also the

service learning, they are leaning closely towards academia and that space and the

community projects themselves, yes we say they are open to all; internal, academia,

support divisions and also students; but when you look at them carefully, even those

projects end up with the faculties, the placements happen there and the students will

belong to the faculties also to this project. So really it is an academia activity, it’s just

that for some reason I think UJ Senior Management has always thought that you know,

it should be separate but why it was placed under advancement, I don’t think there

has been a good reason given. We have made submissions to that effect, I’ve said

many times that you know why we are falling into problems is because half of the time,

we have service learning that belongs to the faculties and we have the community

based research belonging to the faculties and the faculty projects also, much of them

being placed in the faculties, but then the CE office does not have a mandate to really

control the faculties to sort of ensure compliance with CE policy makers around those

things so it’s always going to be a problem as to who really has a mandate to enforce

53

the policy on the faculties and other UJ stakeholders so really the matter is still under

discussion.

Secondly, respondents were asked how many staff members worked in the CE office.

They also had to indicate their qualifications. The answers given by respondents

would further assist in determining how the university saw and valued CE. The

answers did not only show what human resources the university allocated to the office,

but also the quality of appointments.

The responses were as follows:

Respondent 1: Four.

Respondent 1: Yes and then at least one designated person from each faculty.

Respondent 2: Um that’s myself, (counting) five.

Respondents were asked what qualifications the CE staff had.

Respondent 1: Ja. Community engagement or social science or, it doesn’t really

matter, you don’t get a professional in community engagement um so its people who

are qualified and who might have been involved in community engagement

themselves in the academic field, that’s the kind of thing I’m looking for when I

advertise a post ja.

Respondent 2: They actually come from various backgrounds but what has happened

in the last three years that I’ve been here, we have had the recognition that much of

CE activity involves project coordination and project management so we have given

54

them training and they have sort of like now, most of them have the skills now to run

CE projects and also the student volunteer program that has come in, our flagship

project, they are all now pretty much competent to run that.

For the CE office to be successful, and for that matter CE at the institution, the office

needs to be resourced with the correct and moreover capable employees. In both

respondents’ institutions the office was resourced with 4-5 people that had tertiary

qualifications. This shows that these institutions value CE and that they should be able

to implement CE successfully.

The second logical step for an institution implementing CE is to set up a CE office and

website. It is interesting to note that most universities have a CE office as well as a

website but, according to table 4.1, do not have a CE policy. This could help explain

why CE is only vaguely implemented in South Africa.

4.3.3 Definition of CE at universities

Table 4.3: Community engagement definitions

Name of university Does the institution have an approved CE definition?

Is the definition of CE the same as/similar to the one contained in the national policy documents?

Comments

Cape Peninsula University of Technology Y Y

Central University of Technology Y Y

Durban University of Technology N N

Mangosuthu University of Technology Y Y

Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University Y Y

North-West University Y Y

Rhodes University Y Y

Stellenbosch University

Y Y

DEFINED AS COMMUNITY INTERACTION

Tshwane University of Technology N N

University of Cape Town

Y Y

DEFINED AS SOCIAL RESPONSIVENESS

University of Fort Hare N N

University of Johannesburg Y Y

University of KwaZulu-Natal N N

55

University of Limpopo N N

University of Pretoria Y Y

University of South Africa Y Y

University of Venda Y Y

University of Zululand N N

University of the Free State Y Y

University of the Western Cape Y Y

University of the Witwatersrand N N

Vaal University of Technology N N

Walter Sisulu University N N

From the data collected in table 4.1 it is evident that only a small minority of universities

have approved CE policies.

A clear definition of CE in the absence of a policy should be able to give the university

guidance in the implementation of CE. If that CE definition is in line with the national

policy definition, it will ensure that CE is implemented correctly. From the data matrix

it is evident that CE is not clearly defined at universities. Both Slamat (2010) and

Nongxa (2010) confirm that “community engagement has not been clearly defined in

South African higher education institutions. Current activities include outreach

activities, national research projects and service learning”. Pienaar-Steyn (2012)

remarks that academics have difficulty defining their contribution since the concept is

rather vague. The merits of both these statements are evident in the data matrix. Only

a few universities have a CE policy, and marginally more have a definition of CE. This

lack of a clear definition impedes the implementation of CE. There seems to be

confusion over who should implement CE and who should ultimately be responsible

for it at institutions.

Based on this information, the respondents were asked who they believed was

responsible for the implementation of CE.

56

Respondent 1: It cannot be done centrally because it, if you want to link it to the

curriculum, it must be done in faculty.

Respondent 2: The community, no, I mean now prior to 2012 the CE department had

the mandate to run CE at UJ but in 2012 there was a new decision taken by senate?

That now the CE will struggle between two points. Prof Parech you know academic

section is in charge of service learning, Prof Maluleke is now in charge of the

community.

The above responses call into question how universities understand CE. In respondent

1’s institution, the CE office provided guidelines on how faculties could implement CE.

Respondent 2’s institution, however, had not established who needed to implement

CE. Pienaar-Steyn (2012:40) points out that “despite numerous attempts by scholars

to clarify ‘community engagement’, it remains a vague concept in South African higher

education institutions”. This is also clear from the answers of the respondents; their

answers differed on major conceptual levels and this can be seen as very problematic

for the successful implementation of CE.

It is clear that there is a need for a conceptual framework for CE. Hall (2010) mentions

that there are no articulated standards or objectives with clear indicators against which

to monitor progress, measure impact and evaluate effectiveness. If this conceptual

framework does not exist, as it does in the other core functions, namely teaching and

research, CE will always remain on the periphery.

The aim in section 4.3 was to see if universities had a clear definition of CE. From

section 4.1 it is clear that only a few had CE policies. A clear definition might then help

57

universities implement CE in the absence of an official policy. Less than half the

universities do not have a CE definition. Those that do, have definitions that are mostly

correlated to the national CE definition. This shows a clear understanding of the

definition of CE at South African universities.

4.3.4 CE environment at universities

Table 4.4: Community engagement environment at institution

Name of university Does the institution have an enabling environment for CE?

Are there any incentives for individuals establishing CE projects at the institution?

Cape Peninsula University of Technology Y NA

Central University of Technology N NA

Durban University of Technology Y NA

Mangosuthu University of Technology N NA

Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University Y NA

North-West University Y Y

Rhodes University Y Y

Stellenbosch University Y Y

Tshwane University of Technology N NA

University of Cape Town Y Y

University of Fort Hare N NA

University of Johannesburg Y NA

University of KwaZulu-Natal Y NA

University of Limpopo N NA

University of Pretoria Y Y

University of South Africa Y Y

University of Venda Y NA

University of Zululand N NA

University of the Free State Y NA

University of the Western Cape Y NA

University of the Witwatersrand N NA

Vaal University of Technology N NA

Walter Sisulu University N NA

It is clear that universities with a CE policy or at least a clear definition of CE have a

more enabling environment. Respondents were asked if their institution had an

enabling environment. The following responses were given:

58

Respondent 1: Yes and obviously as part of that environment, you need central

support from management or your MEC.

Respondent 2: Ja strangely enough we have, you know it, you know we have our

challenges but you know looking at it from Senior Management support in so far as

staffing and resources, I would say no but when I look at the will, the sheer will of staff

and students to engage in CE activity then I will say it is an enabling environment.

Both respondents felt that their university had an enabling environment to support CE.

Both were from universities with a clear CE policy. This enabling environment is crucial

to the success of CE, since the supportive environmental context will enhance the

success of CE.

To follow on this, respondents were asked what they thought were the elements of

such an enabling environment.

Respondent 1: I think the willingness um definitely passion to do it and also what

happened here I think was that it started on a small scale and the, there’s two things;

the impact that it can make in the community when it’s done in the appropriate way,

the damage that it can done to the community if it’s not happening in the appropriate

way and then also but that is something that you must be cautious about is using

community engagement as a teaching and learning tool because that can develop into

a problem because um internationally community engagement is used as a teaching

and learning tool but the environment in other countries is conducive for this. For

instance, in the USA or Australia or UK, you can get on a public bus or train and you

can get to the community and back within two hours and you can, the student can do

59

work in the community for at least one and a half hours. We cannot do that in South

Africa so this means that the costs of community engagement is extremely high so

what happened here was that lecturers started to use community engagement as a

teaching and learning tool. They implement it in every module so students would

complain that they have two hundred hours of community work to do to cover for their

six modules so we had to steer the whole thing down. Community engagement cannot

be used as a teaching and learning tool, it’s only designated, registered modules that’s

allowed to do community engagement or to have a component in community

engagement otherwise everyone would use it. They want to use it. At this university,

it’s a very popular teaching and learning tool. Once you’ve done it and you’ve seen

the impact, then you want to use it as a tool and we had to steer that down. The costs

are just too high and also its time consuming. And also research has proven that the

impact you want to make through community engagement, you reach that with the

student within ten hours and the community agrees with that otherwise the student

gets bored and they just hang around.

Respondent 2: I think the ethos of UJ, the values, they have instilled in both staff and

student, something that says, “Yes we are here but we are not inward looking, we are

always outward”, that’s why UJ has become a brand. We are always looking outside

so although we are doing our work here, we are always saying, “Ok what is it that we

can do, use our intellectual capital for the development of our communities”, and that

brings in CE inevitably into the discussion and I think secondly, the calibre of staff and

students is such that they, I find that they have that integral passion for community

development just by themselves, they feel that it’s their call just to you know use the

knowledge they have for the betterment of society. So I find that you know, you don’t

60

have to struggle much, it’s just that we need more of the forum to send the message

out.

An enabling environment can be seen as one of the key drivers of CE at universities.

4.3.5 Monitoring and evaluation

In table 4.4 there is no evidence of any universities monitoring and evaluating projects.

The aim was also to establish if universities incentivise the establishment of CE

projects.

Taking into account that most universities have a dedicated CE office and that most

have a clear definition of CE, respondents were asked if they monitored and evaluated

CE internally. The following responses were given:

Respondent 1: And also impact assessment but participatory impact assessment, we

don’t treat the community as we are the experts and we want to see what our students

did well or what, where the impact assessment is done in participation with the

community.

Respondent 2: Yes. If you think of, there are two ways of monitoring at UJ, you know

there’s the formative one, you know ongoing and then there’s the summative. Now the

ongoing is supposed to be taking place with the project leaders and also with the

faculties but there has been what would I call it, some communication problem here in

the sense that there is a feeling you know because when you have to assess

somebody, you have to have the mandate to assess them. I can’t just come and

61

evaluate you when you have not been told that I am supposed to evaluate you. You

will say, “why is she coming here, what is she looking for”, so CE suffers from that in

the sense that you know, you have a CE department that has been given half a

mandate to look after CE and then that will have an impact on the monitoring and

evaluation of CE because when I go out there to the MEC and say, “ok ten faculty

coordinators please come here, you are supposed to attend the placement meeting,

you are supposed to provide an update of each project on the system, or each project,

ensure as the project coordinator that each project leader updates their progress

report monthly or quarterly according to whatever formative evaluation”, what. I have

to have the mandate to do that. Right now in the past two years, it was only the DVC

who could send out something and the faculties report because the mandate must not

start with me and you as part of a faculty, the mandate must also start with the Dean.

The Dean must recognise that I have the mandate to come and talk to staff and they

must comply but then they don’t have that. Yes I can run to any Dean and say we need

this, this, this and then oh you know, he glances, ok we can do or they can if it doesn’t,

if it happens; good, if it doesn’t happen; there is nobody who enforces but any

document from senate, when somebody says, “this thing must be in”, you know the

compliance that goes with such things. It doesn’t happen with CE. So it’s like you are

in some domain that has no compliance. There’s no compliance although I mean they

and then the other challenge that sits there that should tell you that you know we can’t

have this formative evaluation, remember the quality unit of UJ, the role of the quality

unit for UJ, what is it for you in your faculty?

62

The responses indicate that there are various methods of monitoring and evaluating

CE. Respondent 1’s institution followed more of a reciprocal way of evaluating CE.

At this institution both the university and the community were included in the

monitoring and evaluation process. Respondent 2, however, indicated that monitoring

and evaluation at her institution was more of a one-way process, where the community

had very little say in the perceived success of CE.

At the CHE’s 2006 conference, the then Minister of Education Naledi Pandor raised a

similar concern: “What we tend to have, and talk about, is a ‘community service’ notion,

rather than a ‘community engagement’ one. In other words, it is a ‘needy’ definition of

the community and a ‘giving’ or ‘able’ notion of the university, and I think we need to

move to a different level and character of engagement” (CHE, 2007).

The final question posed to respondents emanated from the data obtained though the

data matrix and the interviews. Having reflected on and understood the challenges to

CE, the respondents were asked to share thoughts around the measures for

successful implementation of the CE policy at their institutions.

Respondent 1: Well obviously everyone must buy into it that is going to be part of it.

It’s a very long process, it’s not something that happens overnight but I think your

culture must be open for it otherwise, I don’t know why the other universities struggle

so much to establish it. I don’t know um I’m lucky that we don’t have that problem

because I think it can be, I think also the people who drive the program, if you have an

attitude of forcing people to do it then you’re gonna get resistance um we don’t force

nobody but everyone wants to do it so that is…

63

Respondent 2: We have a measure, the scope and impact studies.

It can be noted from respondent 1 that for CE to be implemented successfully, buy-in

is needed, not only from management, but from both academics and administrators,

to make CE successful.

In this section the data matrix was used as no information could be found on monitoring

and evaluation of CE at universities. This could be because there are no clear

guidelines on how to monitor and evaluate CE. Clear monitoring and evaluation

guidelines are crucial for the successful implementation of CE at South African

universities. If there are no such guidelines, universities have no structure that will help

them plan their activities. In the absence of such monitoring and evaluation guidelines

universities should consider establishing their own monitoring and evaluation tools.

This could not only help them plan their activities more strategically, but also provide

them with a tool to measure the impact of CE activities.

64

4.4 Summary

In this chapter, the data gathered for the research was analysed. A matrix study and

interviews were the means of gathering the data, which was analysed qualitatively.

The data generated through the matrix study and interviews was compared and

interpreted to determine how CE is being implemented at South African public

universities.

In the next chapter, an overview of the study will be included to provide a basis for

concluding the study. The data gathered through the research will be considered

together with the views cited in the literature review, to conclude on the outcomes of

the objectives of the study as formulated in chapter 1. The limitations of the study will

be discussed and recommendations for future research will be made.

65

Chapter 5: Findings and conclusion

5.1 Overview of the study

The purpose of the study was to determine the manner in which universities in South

Africa are implementing CE. This involved examining the relevant literature and the

data collected by the researcher.

The research involved five major steps or phases, each of which formed a separate

chapter in this study. The breakdown is as follows:

5.2 Research objectives

The research objectives set out in chapter 1, and reiterated below, are the foundation

on which the study was based. In this section the objectives of the research are

investigated in terms of the literature cited in chapter 2, the data obtained and

documented from the matrix and respondents’ quotes in chapter 4.

5.3 Report on research findings

5.3.1 Major finding 1: There is no clear definition of CE

The primary research objective of the study was to explore how CE is being

implemented in South African universities.

66

The literature review and the data obtained from the data matrix and the respondents

suggest that CE is being implemented at some South African universities to varying

degrees. It is also evident that there is confusion around the conceptual framework in

which CE exists and that there is no clarity on the definition of CE.

It can be concluded that, with limitations and generalisations, even though CE is seen

as the third pillar of universities, there is vagueness surrounding the definition of CE

and how it should be implemented.

5.3.2 Major finding 2: National policy on CE is vague

Three secondary research objectives were formulated.

Secondary objective 1: To determine whether the various universities’ internal

definition of and policy on CE are in line with national policy.

The research revealed that only a few universities have approved CE policies. There

are, however, more universities that have a CE definition.

At the universities with policies, the policies are generally in line with national CE

policy. But as the literature review in chapter 2 shows, there is no clear national policy

to guide universities in establishing their own policy.

67

The definition of CE provided from the White Paper, the HEQC and CHE is also vague

and, as a result, definitions of CE at universities vary considerably. For this reason it

is difficult for universities to not only align their policy, but also to define CE internally.

5.3.3 Major finding 3: SA universities give sufficient support to internal CE

offices

Secondary objective 2: To determine whether universities have the necessary support

structures for the implementation of CE

The literature review in chapter 2 showed the importance of CE. It is clear that CE

should be seen as the third pillar of HEIs. For this to happen CE must have the

necessary support. The support should come from university management in terms

of conceptual thinking, human resources and finance. It is also important for CE to

get the necessary support from staff.

The data matrix as well as the responses of the participants show that there is

commitment to the implementation of CE. Almost all universities have a dedicated CE

office and website. According to the respondents, the offices at their institutions were

well staffed with people with the appropriate qualifications.

5.3.4 Major finding 4: Insufficient monitoring and evaluation of CE takes place

Secondary objective 3: To determine whether any internal monitoring and evaluation

takes place at universities

68

From the data matrix it is evident that very few universities have monitoring and

evaluation policies and governance structures in place. This is, as the literature

suggests, mainly blamed on the lack of a conceptual framework and definition of CE.

The two respondents both stated that their institutions had internal monitoring and

evaluation processes in place. These processes, however, differed hugely.

The aim of this study was to investigate what South African universities are doing to

implement CE. From the results presented in Chapter 4, some key findings can be

established:

Most South African universities do not have a CE policy, yet the majority do

have an official CE definition.

The majority of universities have a dedicated CE office and website, but this

does not mean that they have an enabling environment.

Almost no universities indicated that they have monitoring and evaluation

policies and structures in place.

These findings correlate with the literature that there is a need for CE monitoring and

evaluation guidelines as well as a clear definition, conceptual framework and policy

around CE.

5.4 Limitations of the research

69

Convenience sampling was used to gather respondents for the study. Zikmund

(2013:393) argues that, with convenience sampling, variability of estimates cannot be

measured or controlled and that projecting data beyond the sample is inappropriate.

As this study is presented and submitted as a dissertation of limited scope in partial

fulfilment of the requirements for a master’s degree in Business Management, the

researcher could not undertake an in-depth investigation into sub-topics covered in

this research.

In-depth interviews were used to generate the empirical data. Response bias might

have occurred based on the way the interviewer was dressed, the interviewer’s age,

gender, tone of voice and other non-verbal characteristics (Zikmund, 2013:189).

The secondary data gathered through the universities’ websites for the data matrix

was used to structure the presentation of the results. Information contained in the data

matrix is specific to the dates on which the websites were accessed and this research

does not allow for changes after these dates.

The study investigates how universities have implemented CE and did not consider

the success attained in the implementation of CE. This limited a possible comparative

showing the success rate of CE at tertiary institutions.

70

5.5 Recommendations

The literature review, data obtained from the matrix and respondents and the

perspectives gained brought to the fore the following recommendations:

The findings of this study suggest that for universities to implement CE successfully,

the following aspects need to be present:

Commitment to CE should be reflected in the institution's vision, mission and

strategic plans.

The institution should have a clear policy that supports CE.

The university should have a dedicated well-resourced CE office.

An enabling environment for CE needs to be created and maintained.

The university should have internal monitoring and evaluation procedures for

CE.

In order to develop CE in South African higher education more effectively, two factors

are important. One critical factor is the development of a conceptual framework for

CE in higher education. Another critical factor is the adequate and sustainable funding

of CE, not only from national government, but also internally from university

management.

Once an HEI has conceptualised a CE model that includes the aspects as mentioned

above, the next phase would be to introduce institutional self-assessment to

71

benchmark CE. The self-assessment instrument should be constructed around, but

not limited to, the following indicators: definition, mission and philosophy of CE, staff

commitment to and involvement in CE, student involvement in CE and community

involvement. This should allow the institution to assess its CE activities in a more

formal and consistent manner.

The need for a good practice guide on CE is crucial for CE’s success. This guide

should capture generic good practices, policies, definitions and models that could be

drawn on by different HEIs.

5.6 Suggestions for further research

The research data was gathered using a sample of respondents residing in Gauteng.

Additional studies could be undertaken in other provinces of the country in order to

obtain a more accurate view of how universities are implementing CE nationally.

Respondents were asked questions related to the universities’ overall CE

implementation. Future research could drill down to college and faculty level to see

what they are doing in terms of CE. Through the matrix study the researcher was able

to establish that in some instances universities might not have a CE policy, CE

definition or activities but that a college or faculty does. It would be interesting to see

if in some instances colleges and faculties drive CE rather than the core of the

university. Perhaps they follow a more decentralised model.

72

The study only examined data within the parameters of the broad understanding of

CE, and not the various forms of CE as discussed in the literature review. Further

research could look at the various components of CE and how they have been

implemented.

5.7 Conclusion

HEIs have often been catalysts for teaching, learning and research. Investing

resources in these areas was a standard model for universities in the 20th century.

However, with the rise of information and communication technology and the re-

examination of the traditional methods of knowledge acquisition, CE is now considered

as being increasingly important. This study set out to explore how CE is currently

implemented in universities in South Africa.

CE is one of three core responsibilities of higher education, alongside research and

teaching. In South Africa, despite clear policy mandates originally set out in the

1997 White Paper on Education stating that CE is an important task, it has been

neglected. Universities are involved in many activities structured around research,

teaching and outreach that entail engagement with a wide range of communities,

but these activities are uncoordinated and are the result of individual initiative,

rather than of strategically planned, systematic endeavours.

A reason for the failure of CE may be that there is no official definition of the concept.

Because there is no clear definition, institutions cannot formulate CE policies. This

research has shown that the lack of a CE policy clearly relates to a lack of

73

implementation. What is also evident from the research is that a clear conceptual

framework for CE needs to be developed. This framework should be developed

nationally in order to assist universities with their policy formulation as well as

implementation of CE.

It is imperative that scholars of CE, CE managers, practitioners, representatives and

executives come together to develop an agreed upon definition of CE and a good

practice guide on CE.

The perspective on CE by Hoy and Johnson (2013) helps educators envision an

emerging future for HEIs. They describe a future that challenges students to be more

engaged and more self-directed in all aspects of their learning and for institutions to

be more democratic in their governance and in their relationship with the wider

community in which they exist. In this analysis of community engagement at South

African universities it was shown that South African universities are still struggling with

the concept of community engagement and that the effective implementation thereof

is minimal. The continued development of higher education in South Africa will, no

doubt, depend in large measure upon the continued development of meaningful and

sustainable partnerships with the communities and organisations beyond the

boundaries of the campus. As such, the partnerships and collaborations that are

forged between educators and the community should be purposeful, integrated,

symbiotic and meaningful.

74

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.

Babbie, E. (2001). The practice of social research. 9th ed. Belmont, California:

Thomson Learning.

Babbie, E. & Mouton, J. (2009). The practice of social research. 9th ed. Cape Town:

Oxford University Press.

Bacon, J.L. (2002). Promoting community through citizenship and service. In W.M.

McDonald (ed.), Creating campus community: In search of Ernest Boyer’s

legacy (pp. 121-143). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Belu, C. & Manescu, C. (2013). Strategic corporate social responsibility and

economic performance. Applied Economics, 45:19, 2751-2764.

Bender, G. (2008). Exploring conceptual models for community engagement at

higher education institutions in South Africa. Perspectives in Education,

26(1):81–95.

Bernardo, M.A.C., Butcher, J. & Howard, P. (2012). An international comparison of

community engagement in higher education. International Journal of Educational

Development, 32(1):187-192.

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. New

York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Brown-Luthango, M. (2013). Community-university engagement: The Philippi CityLab

in Cape Town and the challenge of collaboration across boundaries. Higher

Education, 65(3):309-324.

75

Chatterton, P. & Goddard, J. (2000). The response of higher education institutions to

regional needs. European Journal of Education, 35(4):475-496.

CHE. (2004). Criteria for Institutional Audits. Pretoria: Council on Higher education.

CHE. (2007). Community engagement in higher education. Proceedings of the

Community Engagement in Higher Education Conference. 3-5 September 2006,

Bantry Bay.

CHE. (2008). Proceedings of the CHE/NRF Workshop on Community Engagement.

22 August 2008, Pretoria.

CHE. (2009). Proceedings of the CHE Symposium on Community Engagement.

19 March 2009, Pretoria.

Cooper, D. & Schindler, P.S. (2001). Business research methods. New York:

McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

De Jong, J.P.J. & Hartog, D.N.D. (2007). How leaders influence employees’ innovative

behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1):41-64.

De Vos, A.S., Strydom, H., Fouche, C.B. & Delport, C.S.L. (2011). Research at

grassroots. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Douglas, S. (2012). Advancing the scholarship of engagement: An institutional

perspective. London: Routledge.

Favish, J. (2003). Monitoring the quality of higher education: The case for making

contributions to development central to considerations of quality. International

Conference on Assessing Quality in Higher Education. 14-16 July 2003, Cape

Town.

76

Favish, J. (2010). Towards developing a common discourse and a policy framework

for social responsiveness. Kagisano, 6(January):89–103.

Favish, J. & McMillan, J. (2009). The university and social responsiveness in the

curriculum: A new form of scholarship. London Review of Education, 7(2):169-

179.

Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hall, M. (2006). Toward engagement for the public good. Working Draft, 31 October,

University of Massachusetts.

Hall, M. (2009). Community engagement in South African higher education. Paper

presented at the CHE Symposium on Community Engagement. 19 March

2009, Pretoria.

Hall, M. (2010). Community engagement in South African higher education.

Kagisano, 6(January):1–52.

HEQC. (2004). Criteria for institutional audits. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education.

Hoy, A. & Johnson, M. (2013) Deepening community engagement in higher

education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jischke, M.C. (2006). Universities. Vital Speeches of the Day, 72:509–512.

Kumar, R. (2005). Research methodology: A step by step guide for beginners. 2nd ed.

London: Sage.

Lazarus, J. (2007). Embedding service learning in South African higher education:

The catalytic role of the CHESP Initiative. Education as Change, 11(3):91-108.

77

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.

Maistry, M. & Thakrar, J. (2012). Educating students for effective community

engagement: Student perspectives on curriculum imperatives for universities in

South Africa. South African Review of Sociology, 43(2):58-75.

Mallory, B.L. (2005). Reflections of the wingspread experience. In P.A. Pasque, R.E.

Smerek, B. Dwyer, N. Bowman & B.L. Mallory (eds.), Higher education

collaboratives for community engagement and improvement (pp. 18–21). Ann

Arbor, MI: National Forum on Higher Education and the Public Good.

Mansourian, Y. (2007). Exploratory nature of, and uncertainty tolerance in, qualitative

research. Journal of Qualitative Research, 109(5/6):237-286.

May, T. (1993). Issues, methods and process. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Ministry of Education. (1997). Education White Paper 3, A programme for higher

education transformation. Pretoria: Government Printer.

Ministry of Education. (2001). National Plan for Higher Education. Pretoria:

Government Printer.

Mtembu, T. & Daniels, P. (2006). Community engagement through partnerships:

Workshop report. Proceedings of Conference on Community Engagement in

Higher Education. 3-5 September 2006, Pretoria, University of South Africa.

Muller, J. (2010). Engagements with engagement: A response to Martin Hall.

Kagisano, 6(January):68–88.

Nickel, H.A. (1985). Corporate social responsibility. Ecquid Novi: African Journalism

Studies, 6:1, 13-21.

78

Njenga, S. & Smit, A. (2007). Leading the way through CSI: A guidebook for

corporate social investment practitioners. Randburg: Knowledge Publishing.

Nongxa, L. (2010). An (engaged) response to Hall’s paper; CE in South African higher

education. Kagisano, 6(January):53–67.

Nyden, P. (2006). The challenges and opportunities of engaged research. Paper

presented at the CHE-HEQC/JET-CHESP Conference on Community

Engagement in Higher Education. 3-5 September 2006, Cape Town.

Olowu, D. (2012). University–community engagement in South Africa: Dilemmas in

benchmarking. South African Review of Sociology, 43(2):89-103.

Pandor, N. (2006). Keynote address. Proceedings of Conference on Community

Engagement in Higher Education. 3–5 September 2006, Pretoria, University of

South Africa.

Pienaar-Steyn, S. (2012). The Millennium Development Goals as a conceptual

framework for enabling and evaluating community engagement. South African

Review of Sociology, 43(2):40-57.

Scott, A. & Harding, A. (2007). Universities, ‘relevance’ and scale. In A. Harding, A.

Scott, S. Laske & C. Burtscher (eds.), Bright Satanic mills: Universities, regional

development and the knowledge economy. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Shannon, J. & Wang, T.R. (2010). A model for university: Community engagement:

Continuing education’s role as convener. The Journal of Continuing Higher

Education, 58(2):108-112.

Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Slamat, J. (2010). Community engagement as scholarship: A response to Hall.

Kagisano, 6(January):104–114.

79

Thietart, R.A. (ed.). (2002). Doing management research – a comprehensive

guide. London: Sage.

Thomson, A., Smith-Tolken, A., Naidoo, A. & Bringle, R. (2011). Service learning and

community engagement: A comparison of three national contexts. Voluntas:

International Journal of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations, 22(2):214-237.

UNESCO. (1998). World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-first

Century: Vision and Action. Accessed 15 March 2005 from

http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/declaration_eng.htm

Watson, D., Hollister, R.M., Stroud, S.E. & Babcock, E. (2011). The engaged

institution: lnternational perspectives on civic engagement. New York:

Routledge.

Zikmund, W.G. (2013). Business research methods. 9th ed. South-Western: Cengage

Learning.

80

Appendix A: Interview Guide

1. Do you have an approved policy? How is CE defined within the policy?

2. Under what division does the CE office fall?

3. How many people work in the CE office?

4. What qualifications do they have?

5. Who is responsible for the implementation of CE?

6. Is community engagement integrated in the core business of the university?

7. If your institution does have an enabling environment.

8. What are the elements of such an environment?

9. If you incentivize the establishment of CE projects, what are these incentives?

10. Do you monitor and evaluate your projects internally?

11. What are the measures for successful implementation of the community

engagement policy at your institution?

81

Appendix B: Transcribed Interview A

Interviewer: Um I have looked at your policy and looks like you’ve got a clear policy

in place regarding community engagement um your definition of community

engagement, does it fit in with the definition given by National policy?

Respondent: HEQC framework?

Interviewer: Yes and also according to the white paper um and I think it was all, it

started with the UNICEF um ya looking right back to the start of community

engagement, it started with UNICEF.

Respondent: Ok but community engagement started no, not with UNICEF, it was

done here for a hundred years because it’s part of some of the academic programs

from the beginning so it didn’t start with UNICEF, definitely not. It started, I think sixty

years ago in the archives you can pick up the first community engagement. In the

medical faculty, the medical school did it forever and the social work department also,

more than forty, fifty years.

Interviewer: Ok but basic policy actually just started coming into play recently uh

National policy so your University did it on their own…

Respondent: National policy

Interviewer: yes national ya. Under what division does CE fall in the…

Respondent: Community engagement is a division on its own.

Interviewer: A division on its own. And who would you report to?

Respondent: Uh education innovation at the moment but if it changes all the time, just

to my department needs to be in a neutral place so before I was part of uh research

and community development so they, it depends on where it fits in at any specific time.

It’s a practical arrangement basically.

Interviewer: Yes ok.

Respondent: I don’t think I will be in this part of reporting to education innovation

forever. I do foresee in the near future, I’ll move again. It’s just practical for budgeting

purposes.

Interviewer: Yes definitely. In your office, how many people do you have reporting to

you?

Respondent: Four.

Interviewer: Four?

Respondent: Yes and then at least one designated person from each faculty.

Interviewer: Ok but they are situated in the faculty?

Respondent: In the faculty.

82

Interviewer: and they have a data clipboard reporting line to your division?

Respondent: Yes.

Interviewer: Ok. The people in your department, do they have any qualifications um

and is it related to community engagement?

Respondent: Ya. Community engagement or social science or, it doesn’t really

matter, you don’t get a professional in community engagement um so its people who

are qualified and who might have been involved in community engagement

themselves in the academic field, that’s the kind of thing I’m looking for when I

advertise a post ya.

Interviewer: Ok um there seems to be two models related to the implementation of

community engagement, some universities feel that faculties should implement

community engagement and some it’s done centrally um how is it done?

Respondent: It cannot be done centrally because it, if you want to link it to the

curriculum, it must be done in faculty so I don’t know what you talking about.

Interviewer: Um coz uh it needs to be obviously within a faculty but is it driven from

the community engagement office? Is there, do you have any kind of leeway with

faculties to force them to implement community engagement?

Respondent: You cannot force anybody nothing, we don’t work that way um

community engagement is according to the policy; it is supposed to be part of the

curriculum. Every student must have one curricular related community engagement

module in their academic program and that is what it is at the moment. Um where

occupational boards may require more than that, then we will have more than one but

we must have one at least. Nobody force, I don’t think that is a word that you would

use in this culture but it is, there is a community engagement module in each academic

program.

Interviewer: And would that be seen as service learning there?

Respondent: No. Service learning is one type of curricular related community

engagement, you get different types. You get service learning, you can get community

based learning, you get community learning, there’s many different names but the

names are more political issues. They do the same. The traditional service learning

thing is not really a mutual beneficial approach, it’s the focus is on the student not on

what it does for the community and how it impacts on the community so we don’t look

at that pure service learning approach, we must, the balance, the mutual beneficial

element must be there.

Interviewer: Yes. Brilliant. Um my next question is: Is community engagement

integrated in the core business and obviously it is integrated in the core business um

uh do you think the institution has an enabling environment for community

engagement?

Respondent: Yes.

Interviewer: Yes.

83

Respondent: Ya. 15 000 students every year, we have voluntary workers, we have

voluntary personnel.

Interviewer: Ok. Um in terms of an enabling environment, what would you say would

enable a university to be conducive to community engagement?

Respondent: I think the willingness um definitely passion to do it and also what

happened here I think was that it started on a small scale and the, there’s two things;

the impact that it can make in the community when it’s done in the appropriate way,

the damage that it can done to the community if it’s not happening in the appropriate

way and then also but that is something that you must be cautious about is using

community engagement as a teaching and learning tool because that can develop into

a problem because um internationally community engagement is used as a teaching

and learning tool but the environment in other countries is conducive for this. For

instance, in the USA or Australia or UK, you can get on a public bus or train and you

can get to the community and back within two hours and you can, the student can do

work in the community for at least one and a half hours. We cannot do that in South

Africa so this means that the costs of community engagement is extremely high so

what happened here was that lecturers started to use community engagement as a

teaching and learning tool. They implement it in every module so students would

complain that they have two hundred hours of community work to do to cover for their

six modules so we had to steer the whole thing down. Community engagement cannot

be used as a teaching and learning tool, it’s only designated, registered modules that’s

allowed to do community engagement or to have a component in community

engagement otherwise everyone would use it. They want to use it. At this university,

it’s a very popular teaching and learning tool. Once you’ve done it and you’ve seen

the impact, then you want to use it as a tool and we had to steer that down. The costs

are just too high and also its time consuming. And also research has proven that the

impact you want to make through community engagement, you reach that with the

student within ten hours and the community agrees with that otherwise the student

gets bored and they just hang around.

Interviewer: So you limit it to…

Respondent: Ten hours, we steer it down. We had to because you’ve got, we’ve had

modules four hundred hours can you believe that? And so we had to steer it down

from this year, I had permission to steer it down.

Interviewer: Yes and obviously as part of that environment, you need central support

from management or your MEC, I mean with our…

Respondent: Absolutely, and we had to really manage it very well otherwise it

develops into a mad stir which happened here um so I think we are but probably the

only university who went overboard and then had to steer it down.

Interviewer: Yes you’ve got too much where others have got almost nothing.

Respondent: Ya but I know all the other universities are suffering to get it off the

ground.

84

Interviewer: Yes exactly. Ok and then obviously from the get go, you had support

from your Chancellors and Vice Chancellors, they all supported it?

Respondent: XXX

Interviewer: Do you incentivise the establishment of community engagement projects

amongst staff?

Respondent: No.

Interviewer: Not.

Respondent: No we don’t allow that even. You cannot do that because why, why do

they need to do that? It’s not, I know UNISA does it but we’ve also moved away from

the project mentality because um you cannot, we need at least a thousand projects a

year to do our community engagement, we cannot project manage a thousand projects

so what my department has done over the past ten years, we’ve phased out all the

project management to the community. The ownership of all the projects must stay in

the community. We cannot project manage it and since we did that, our projects were

sustainable because ten years ago, our projects wasn’t sustainable and we couldn’t

figure out why but it was because we tried to keep the ownership here and to project

manage it from here and since we’ve handed all the projects over, we don’t project

manage any projects anymore so and the lecturers did that in the past, they’d manage

it. You cannot do that.

Interviewer: Coz that that’s the model at UJ and that’s, none of it works and I’ve never

realised that’s the reason why it doesn’t work.

Respondent: I know and it doesn’t work, that’s why it doesn’t work. We’ve made all

the mistakes, I can tell you all the mistakes.

Interviewer: That’s a question later on. Ok so the projects are managed by the

community, you just allow students to do their work on the project.

Respondent: Work on the project. Ya.

Interviewer: Do you have any, do staff need to get involved with community

engagement?

Respondent: If they want to, they can as volunteers ya. They, we have a community

engagement management system where all projects are registered, all modules are

registered, all students book the projects that they want to do in the communities and

lecturers but also book projects for curricular or for, voluntary or curricular purposes.

Say for instance the teaching students, the lecturers also book on that same program

where they want to work.

Interviewer: And in terms of post grad students, do they also, they get involved?

Respondent: Same. Ya we list the research related community engagement projects

and they can investigate

Interviewer: choose a project and investigate

85

Respondent: if they want to or they can find their own and then we list it for them.

Interviewer: Oh brilliant.

Respondent: Even students can also relay, because our students are coming from

the communities and they can also make suggestions for projects if they know about

a project then we investigate it and we add it to our project list.

Interviewer: Ok um do you uh you said you don’t manage the projects anymore but

do you monitor and evaluate these projects from your office as well just to make sure

that?

Respondent: And also impact assessment but participatory impact assessment, we

don’t treat the community as we are the experts and we want to see what our students

did well or what, where the impact assessment is done in participation with the

community.

Interviewer: Ok so they tell you what they, how they’ve benefited, you obviously also

assess how you’ve benefited from this module?

Respondent: That’s the difference with service learning doesn’t do that.

Interviewer: Yes it doesn’t. Um what are the measures for successful implementation

of community engagement uh policy and do you have any?

Respondent: Well obviously everyone must buy into it that is going to be part of it. It’s

a very long process, it’s not something that happens overnight but I think your culture

must be open for it otherwise, I don’t know why the other universities struggle so much

to establish it. I don’t know um I’m lucky that we don’t have that problem because I

think it can be, I think also the people who drive the program, if you have an attitude

of forcing people to do it then you’re gonna get resistance um we don’t force nobody

but everyone wants to do it so that is…

Interviewer: Ya coz we’ve got a culture of forcing it onto faculties and departments

and I know it just never works.

Respondent: I cannot really tell you how it came about that everyone bought into the

idea. It wasn’t like that in the beginning. We started slowly but everyone just got on

board and wanted to do it and it developed into such a huge thing that we couldn’t

manage it anymore and then we had to steer it down.

Interviewer: Ok and your policy’s been accepted by your?

Respondent: We’ve upgraded our policy now for the second time.

Interviewer: Ok coz I saw the one on your website and it said “being upgraded” I think.

Respondent: Ya you have to upgrade it at least every second or third year because

things change a lot and you learn a lot and you adapt a lot. We’ve made all the

mistakes that’s why we’ve, we are where we are and I think we’ve been allowed also

to make the mistake. I think the other universities want to control everything and they

think that’s how you gonna not make mistakes, that’s how you don’t learn, that’s all.

86

Interviewer: Yes but I think your model is the better one to go for uh it’s nice though

that you’ve got it as part of your curriculum. I think that’s something that we struggling

with.

Respondent: We have a lot of voluntary work also. The curricular related community

engagement is the larger one and the voluntary work is 50% of that.

Interviewer: And that module, the curricular module, is it weight bearing, do they get

assessed on?

Respondent: Ya it must be if it’s curricular it must be.

Interviewer: Ok and that’s in their first year generally?

Respondent: No, it’s not allowed in the first year. It’s only senior students. We cannot

use the first year student to do community engagement, they have to adapt and they

don’t do it, they don’t know what must they do? They cannot do sub pitchets, we don’t

allow charity work anymore; it must be development orientated work.

Interviewer: And it must obviously be related to the field of study that they are in?

Respondent: Yes but no first years. If required by an occupational board, like in social

work, very limited and medical students, very limited but that’s because of the

occupational work. Mostly its third year students are better ones to do it and where we

had second year modules, we have also changed that to third year. We’ve made the

mistakes.