CHAPTER I: ENHANCEMENT OF THE STUDY

1.1 INTRODUCTION

While it may be axiomatic, it is necessary however, to prelude the ensuing discussion with the

truism: “… it is obvious that research topics are not developed in a vacuum, but are shaped through

a confluence of many different factors and considerations within a broad context … [italics my own

emphasis]” (TWR Research Documents, 2004: 2) (see also TWR Postgraduate Research Manual,

2002: 4-5). At its inception, the research project was funded by the former Technikon Witwatersrand

(TWR) in 2002. The (former) TWR therefore had financial and administrative fiat over the study

through its research-related protocols. For juxtaposition purposes, the significance of the (axiomatic)

observation lies in its highlighting of the relationship between higher education (hereinafter referred

to as “HE”) as a dynamic and complex field of study, and other (political, socio-economic, cultural)

variables attendant to society’s overall development. The fundamental and perennial themes and

propositions of this study, therefore, are premised on challenges to 21st century HE organizational

reform/transformation in general; and curriculum design, development and management in

particular, with due reference to the South African context. This is the basis on which this study

attempts to establish its “truth value” (Babbie & Mouton, 2001: 9); that is, determining the extent of

the study’s practical implications. The realm of such practicality could be advanced in terms of

conceptualizing and analyzing the complex relationship between the real-world concerns (in this

case, HE organizational reform, as well as curriculum development and management), and the

scientific environment (as a systematically designed plan to address the identified problem(s)).

The purpose of this chapter then, is to present a ‘sneak preview’ of the most salient aspects of the

research topic as a whole. In the course of such a presentation, the scientific, technical; as well as the

empirical domains of the research topic are explored and collated into an “… analytically-conducive

framework” (Babbie & Mouton, 2001: 4), upon which the findings and the conclusions are arrived

at. It is this “analytically-conducive framework” which has been utilized to give cogent meaning to

the “scientific” modus operandi of this study. To the extent of dialectically systematizing the terrain

for the study’s execution and lending it to the “scientific” mode of enquiry, Babbie and Mouton (p.

4), aver that “[s]cientific knowledge is the outcome of rigorous, methodical, and systematic inquiry

as opposed to the haphazard way in which ordinary knowledge is acquired”.

The mode of enquiry in this study is dominantly qualitative, but with quantitative elements. Such an

orientation is in keeping with the multiple methods by which the scientific method explores “truth

value” from multiple dimensions. To that extent, the above authors mention that: “Science is not

1

based on taking second-hand sources at face value, but is inherently skeptical. It questions all

claims, irrespective of the authority and origin, until they have been tested, and furthermore, stood

the test of time [italics mine]” (Babbie & Mouton, 2001: 6).

1.2 BACKGROUND/CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

1.2.1 The international context of higher education curriculum reform/transformation

This study maintains that the ramifications of globalisation (as an exponent of a new world order)

legitimate the hegemony and monopoly of the developed countries. Giddens (1990: 174-175) seems

to accede to this notion:

“... I have spoken of “modernity” without much reference to the larger sectors of the world outside the orbit of the

so-called developed countries. When we speak of modernity, however, we refer to institutional transformations

that have their transformations in the West ... No other, more traditional social forms have been able to contest

this power in respect of maintaining complete autonomy outside of global development. Is modernity distinctively

a Western project in terms of the way of life fostered by these two great transformative agencies? To this query,

the blunt answer must be “yes” [italics mine]”.

HE transformation is an international phenomenon, the magnitude of which could not be

underestimated. The (Western?) university, as the quintessential HE model (Altbach et al., 2005:

1-3) has historically contributed to, and been affected by change both in its (university’s)

“private”/internal and “public”/external worlds. The nature, scope, and pace of change has

periodically varied, depending on its contributory variables – which determined whether the kind of

change is rapid or radical (ergo, revolutionary and turbulent); or whether it is incremental or

developmental (ergo, evolutionary and controlled). The role of the university, nay, its relevance and

responsiveness to society and its needs, has been the perennial issue throughout its history of

survival. In fact, the complex study of HE and its relationship with society, has been the subject of

many disciplines which seek to answer the question: “What is the unique contribution of higher

education to society that no other institution can make … [especially in respect of] social cohesion

and cultural continuity?” (Szczepanski, 1997: 349). In the light of the daunting magnitude of

developments within and without the academe, the above author further argues that “… the

challenge for higher education throughout the world is whether current changes in the role of the

state, corporate sponsors, parents and students, will also bring about, deliberately or not, a change in

human philosophy [italics mine]” (p. 354). Despite the challenges HE faced from the pre-modern to

the current post-modern era, its resilience has been the primary anchor of its survival.

2

The prevalence of techno-scientific innovations necessitated the existence of a highly trained

workforce. University-industry partnerships motivated the structuring of work-related programmes

by higher education to cope with this unprecedented demand for highly knowledgeable workers.

Industrially developed countries were increasing the gap between themselves and least developed

countries (Altbach et al., 1998: 9). The international flow of capital galvanized HE towards

transformation as governments were gradually receptive of closer co-operation between themselves

and the multinationals, which could afford their own industry-based, application-oriented, research

initiatives. While curriculum organization is central to 21st century HE reform, the management of

HEIs could not be viewed as peripheral to these challenges and concomitant reforms. It is therefore

the contention of this study that curriculum reforms are analogous with institutional management

transformations and attendant funding dynamics. This contention premises on the view that a

reform-oriented curriculum is the outcome of reform-minded faculty and administrators. The biggest

challenge facing both international and local HE systems then, is its adaptability to socio-cultural

and economic needs of society in this era referred to by some scholars as ‘post-Fordist’ (Kraak,

2000: 3). It is ‘the adaptability factor’ that constitutes the primary rationale for the study’s enquiry.

Its design and methodology are intended to determine the extent to which both the international and

local higher education institutions’ (hereinafter referred to as HEI’s) curriculum approaches

‘conform” to the notion of responsiveness.

Innovation and the supreme importance of knowledge are at the centre of high-volume economic

activity. High-quality skills and expertise are needed for a workforce that should participate

meaningfully in the workplace. The growing links between government, HE and industry, warrant

that HE, if it is to comply with the knowledge needs of modern society, has to transcend its

perceived elitist image and become more accessible to heterogeneous kinds of students who have

non-standard career orientations. While articulating new vision for the university in the 21st century

(the term “university”, for the purpose of this study, is used to refer to all institutions of post-

secondary education recognized as such by a competent authority), Articles 1 to 17 of the UNESCO

World Conference on Higher Education, adopted on 9 October 1998 in Paris; recognize the

predominance of universities as important vehicles for the betterment of life both for individuals and

societies in modern times. To the extent that HE is in the above instances posited as a major change

agent, the principles of relevance, sensitivity and responsiveness are a sine qua non and are not to be

treated separately, peripherally or continually. It means that HE reform in general, and curriculum

reform in particular, must be prevalent as a result of the awareness of the needs of the society and the

economy and taking relevant action in accordance with those needs. The action perceived as being

relevant, should not be seen as militating against the rights of other social groupings in respect of

3

race, gender, physical ability, creed or ethnic origins (sensitivity) – therefore, reinforcing knowledge

and social stratification and promoting sectoral interests.

Another international aspect of HE transformation, ‘internal’ to the university, is in the field of

knowledge per se. This is pertinent when considering the provenance of the university as the highest

centre in the basic production, interpretation and dissemination of knowledge. A contradiction

however, occurs when knowledge begins to be ‘weighed’ or accorded a value in terms of a

geographically-determined ‘country of origin’. To counter this view, Ekong and Cloete (1997: 5)

warn:

“Institutions will in particular also need to be able critically to evaluate whether, as is often claimed in

transformation debates, certain bodies of knowledge in a discipline are global (usually referring to aspects of a

discipline that relate to Western society and values) while others are local and therefore presumably of lower

intellectual status [authors’ parentheses]”.

Scott (1997b: 21) adds another dimension to the debate on knowledge. Historical in perspective,

his analysis traces this perceived Western hegemony in the scientific method to “…the growth of

colonial empires that projected [and privileged] European knowledge traditions around the world”.

The link between scientific knowledge and technological growth is another factor influencing

Western hegemony of knowledge traditions. This study – by propositioning the inclusion of other

forms of “knowing” – eventually makes an attempt to ameliorate some of this hegemony.

Scott (1997b: 13) further mentions some of the internal HE factors impacting on knowledge in the

international and transformational domain, as unbalanced views of: what is to be taught (content),

how it is to be taught (method of delivery) and who wields the power to decide both content and

its methodologies and processes. He asserts:

“…Western knowledge traditions were produced, and reproduced, by elites, socio-economic, cultural and

political. As those elites have been dissolved by democratisation and their value systems have been eroded by

the advances of mass culture, alternative knowledge traditions have (re?) emerged. Within the West, ‘local’

knowledge traditions – black history or women’s writing – increasingly challenge ‘metropolitan’ intellectual

cultures”.

From this view it could be stated that democratisation worldwide has had the effect of transforming

HE institutions as components of the larger society, rather than impervious ivory towers enhancing

social stratification. The domains of HEIs (higher education institutions) that are affected by the

need for reform include inter-alia, more access by marginalized sectors of the population.

4

1.2.2 The South African context of higher education curriculum reform/transformation

Global trends necessitating change are studied as a reference framework from which it could be

determined whether or not the responsiveness to societal demands is sufficiently applied. The

centripetality of this approach is characterized by referring to international trends as a comparative

basis for the national (South African) context; with a local, institutional focus at the end of the

discussion. The South African context is additionally addressed in the empirical mode encapsulated

in Chapter 5 through the judgement sampling of two institutional cultures. This approach is much

in agreement with the assertion:

“Universities share a common culture and reality. In many basic ways, there is a convergence of institutional

models and norms. At the same time, there are significant national differences that will continue to affect the

development of academic systems and institutions. It is unlikely that the basic structures of academic

institutions will change dramatically…patterns will, of course, vary worldwide. Some academic systems,

especially those in the newly industrializing countries, will continue to grow. In parts of the world affected by

significant political and economic change, the coming decades will be ones of reconstruction [italics

mine]” (Altbach et al., 1998: 13).

It is on the basis of this observation that microcosmic South African components of HE reform are

derived from the comparable macrocosmic elements internationally. Variations and organizational

changes may be influenced by such phenomena as: open universities and distance learning

institutions, student mobility, accountability, available technology, and funding mechanisms

(Altbach et al., 1998: 13).

On redressing past inequalities in general, and transforming HE in particular, a degree of state

intervention was necessary in this regard. The regulatory framework was designed to provide a

climate of stability within which common objectives for all HEIs in the country could be

formulated and achieved. This study concurs with the view that:

“The challenge of new state policy on higher education today is not so much to try to specify the exact

institutional shape – for example a binary or unified structure – but rather to place the greater emphasis on the

regulatory environment. The regulatory environment will have a dual task: to establish a single coherent

national system of norms, rules and procedures to steer the entire educational project in directions that are

consonant with key economic, social and cultural goals, and to facilitate in an orderly fashion the diversity and

responsiveness now an intrinsic part of all modern systems of higher education” (Kraak, 2000: 13).

The empirical phase of the study is the critical sphere in which South Africa’s nascent HE

curriculum trends are compared with those practices already applied worldwide. Given the

5

historically idiosyncratic HE problems, the CHE (Council on Higher Education) Report (2000b:

13), has identified that “… the absence of a clear, explicit and comprehensive national framework”

was at the heart of problems relating to ‘structural’ and ‘conjunctional’ issues in the radical and

urgent transformation of the HE system. ‘Structural’ issues relate to those problems extant within

the South African HE system that have fundamentally been a characteristic of how this system had

been conceived (p. 23). A few examples include the geo-political location of universities,

Historically Advantaged Institutions and Historically Disadvantage Institutions, resulting in

fragmentation and duplications; disproportionate distribution of staff in terms of race and gender,

and unequal research capability as a result of discriminatory funding mechanisms. ‘Conjunctural’

issues relate to problems in the HE system that are of an immediate consequence and require

immediacy of protracted action. They include, but are not limited to, the decline in HE student

numbers (paradoxically when massification is supposed to have impacted meaningfully on HE),

subsequent inability of some institutions to fund themselves or to attract alternative funding

sources, and “fragile governance capacity…and… the persistence of crises” at some HEIs (p. 15).

‘Conjunctural’ problems challenging the HE system, ipso facto the nature of institutional

organization, lie in the overall institutional failure to retain, and even increase, the 15% of the

20-24 years designated age group. The 1999 figure of 15% is low, especially “… for a country

striving to become competitive in the global knowledge-based economy” (CHE Report, 2000b:

15). Expansion and radical diversification could be impaired. The labour market also suffers. The

25 000 less graduates-to-be, sorely needed in different high-skills occupations (in 1998 alone), are

an example of what encourages ‘networking’ between firms and university personnel directly. An

attractive curriculum that translates into pecuniary relevance is a challenge that will help student’s

retention and increase class size in courses that are (rightfully or wrongfully) viewed as

anachronistic, especially in the humanities and social sciences.

This report also recognizes the importance that the HE system has to effect in the socio-economic

development of the country, as well as the need to train a highly-skilled and professional workforce

in consonance with the requirements of the knowledge-based economy, especially “… in the

scientific, technological, technical and business fields. Professional and managerial occupations

have been growing at 5% per annum. It is estimated that their share total will increase from 15.2% in

1997 to 22% by 2000” (CHE Report, 2000b: 21). The report is also cautious that the

commercialization of HE should not in any way preclude the other societal functions waiting to be

fulfilled by HE such as in Health and Law. The establishment of multi-purpose HE institutions

would enhance the inter-/multi-/ trans-disciplinary requirements of the production, interpretation and

6

dissemination of new knowledge in newly developing areas of study; a function that is inhibited in

single-purpose institutions. The regulatory framework therefore, is perceived in this study as a

coordinated effort intended to implement the new HE vision as proposed in the New Academic

Policy:

promoting lifelong learning: e.g. flexible learning that recognizes prior learning, and the

establishment of a single qualifications framework;

promoting equity and social redress: e.g. student enrolment that is demographically

representative of race, gender, creed, social class, etc. and offering academic programmes

and expanded curriculum that is not only ‘commercial’;

improving the quality and standards of academic delivery, as a basis for reference of

compatibility and ‘competitiveness’ of qualifications (CHE Report, 2000b: 22).

In terms of the background of the study, the following diagrammatic presentation is meant to

illustrate the continuing reform path of HE – from an elitist institution with feudal origins, to a

mass-learning organization serving multiple constituencies. With the researcher’s own minimum

modification, the original schematic idea is from Barnett (1997: 29).

FIGURE 1.1: The classical mode of “one-dimensionality” of higher education as the sole producer

and dispenser of knowledge.

HIGHER EDUCATION

KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY

In this mode, HE ‘presides’ over a monopoly over knowledge ownership. Society has become

mere recipients, rather than participants. It implies that the socialization of knowledge is given

7

scant regard. The space between “Knowledge” and “Society” is somewhat vacuous; HE is the only

‘actor’ in the knowledge field.

FIGURE 1.2: A multi-dimensional (mode 2?) relationship between higher education and other

agencies in the production of knowledge.

HIGHER EDUCATION

KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY

In this mode, there is reciprocity, as knowledge is produced “in the context of application” at

multiple production sites by multiple knowledge workers and practitioners (Gibbons, 1998a). A

social context of knowledge becomes inevitable as HE becomes more responsive.

1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

From this researcher’s point of view, this study is of immense didactic value in its contribution to

educational research – an extremely difficult (but not impossible) function of postgraduate studies.

The reasonable completion of the study’s tasks and objectives rested on navigating the inherent

difficulties in both research complexities and the concomitant dynamics of HE and its curriculum.

This is a pertinently mention worthy, given the broad range of issues that are prevalent in the

domains of “education” and “society”. It is this complexity that lends multidisciplinary approaches

as more credible vehicles for advancing “claims” within the dynamics of “education”. In arguing for

research as a means of advancing postgraduate studies, while interrogating and explicating

difficulties attendant to education research in particular, Schoenfeld (1999: 166-167) succinctly

states:

8

“... given a reconception of locus, methods, media, agents and standards for education research, researchers

and mentors of research are confronted with the challenge to outline approaches for preparing the next

generation of education scholars. What should graduate work in education scholarship entail? ... there is no

straightforward solution to ... the two main problems of research preparation in education: the definition of

core knowledge and the development of research competency in beginning researchers ... It is a

commonplace that “education” is not a discipline in the sense of mathematics and anthropology. The problem

of the core manifests itself in two ways... the intersection of perspectives represented in education is near

null. On the other hand, the union is immense – far larger than can be dealt with in a short time in a

meaningful way ... If a long-term professional has such a lacunae in his background, how can anyone have

reasonable expectations of solid knowledge bases among those who are just entering the field? ... Each of

the constituent fields of education (anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, psychology, and more) has

its own paradigms ... [which] are for the most part inadequate for addressing education fields. [bold italics

my own emphasis]”.

While this study is essentially the product of advancing “… the mutually reinforcing relationship

between teaching and research [on the part of both the institution and the student-as-

researcher” (TWR Research Documents, 2004: 1); its usefulness (or lack thereof?) however, is

largely to be determined by the extent of its contribution to the narrower (scientific/intellectual or

philosophical) corpus of knowledge; as well as by its practical implications (truth value?) and

contribution to the broader national sphere of HE curriculum development. This statement already

encapsulates a two-fold dimension – intellectual on the one hand, and skills development on the

other.

From an institutional perspective, the study contributes to the research profile and revitalization of

intellectual enquiry, especially in an environment which was not meant for such, due to legislated

binary division of post-matric education into “academic”/university and “vocational”/technikon

sectors. Skills development/professionalization of research, or training of specialized knowledge

practitioners in general, has been the one area – in respect of the missions of institutions of applied

knowledge – in which the ‘know-how’ has been in ‘short supply’: “… the historically low level of

research activity [among technikons, for instance] has resulted in a lack of research ethos …. and an

underdeveloped technological and administrative research infrastructure” (TWR Research

Documents, 2004: 3). This study, therefore, has the potential to contribute to the promotion of the

envisaged “research ethos”, especially now that the institution has become a partner in the new

institutional reconfiguration (merger) with a university with a prolific research capacity and

repertoire of its own. In the South African context in particular, the transformation of the HE

curriculum has not been the exclusive preserve of the “bedrock” HEIs alone. The government, with

its NQF (National Qualification Framework) initiatives, appears to have observed this trend. The

9

NRF (National Research Foundation) Report of 3-14 February, 2005a: 6-7 acknowledges both the

scientific/intellectual role and skills/human resources dimension of research as a strategy for

meeting national aspirations:

“South Africa is fortunate to have an active national research agency with the scope to shape a wider-ranging and

ambitious research strategy in line with national goals. The Higher Education sector has undergone extensive,

policy-driven change over the past 5 years, and there is acceptance of the need for research support (where the

research culture and activity is well-established) and research capacity development (where for historical and

structural reasons, this is not the case) [italics mine, author’s parentheses]”.

Furthermore, the government’s clear intentions became unequivocal through the relevant Act

mandating the NRF “… to support and promote research through funding, human resources

development, and the provision of the necessary facilities in order to facilitate the creation of

knowledge ... [italics mine]”. Such enterprise as outlined in the NRF’s (research-driven) missions is

therefore in line with the country’s national goals. The NRF, “the premier national research agency”,

(NRF, 2005a: 7) is cited here for the particular attention of highlighting the significance and

momentum with which the culture of research within higher education (especially in the ‘scarce

skills’ category) has become inextricable to the country’s innovation and development goals. At the

national level, the study of HE curriculum transformation in particular, is relevant for highlighting

the importance of linking HE with ‘the world of work’. The traditional and academic discipline-

centred HE curriculum emphasised on cognitive and vertical (hierarchical) acquisition of

knowledge. Innovative curriculum trends such as outcomes based education (OBE), competency

based education and training (CBET), not only signify the “marketization” of knowledge. Most

importantly, a shift in the intellectual and epistemological justification for this is posited as a (post-

modern?) paradigm from which “knowledge” and “employment” have become intertwined.

The usefulness of this study does not necessarily translate into immediate commercial or industrial

gain. However, and for policy imperatives, it might have practical implications for an institution that

is now facing an ‘uncharted’ curriculum environment (dual, mixed-mode, academic and

technological/vocational) whose programmatic articulation and trajectory warrant painstaking

attention and exploration.

1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The competing and polemical interests of globalisation and local imperatives constitute the sphere

within which the research problem is situated. While it is necessary that the South African higher

education ecology be transformed into a “system” that is both competitive and innovative; it is of

10

paramount importance that such educational reform/transformation be linked to general socio-

economic development. This study contends that it has now tended to become an irreversible

international trend for the higher education curriculum to be linked to the ‘world of work’. To that

extent, “vocationalization”/“industrialization” of HE knowledge, albeit denial from its traditionalist

‘mainstream’ curriculum gatekeepers, has had to be integrated alongside the academic component.

The problem arises when the polemical “equity” and “developmental” needs are to be addressed,

also taking an African context into account. The former addresses globalistic and meritocratic

concerns; while the latter two concerns relate well with the total transformation of society (De

Clercq, 1997). Additionally, the former reinforces less government spending; while the latter two

concerns relate well with the human resources development of the rest of society, therefore, skills

and competence redistribution for the majority of those who had been denied such opportunities. It

is the hypothesis here that a plethora of curriculum-related issues will determine South Africa’s

macro-economic transformation. The “balance” between the global/external concerns and

local/internal imperatives is construed here as being problematic. On the one hand are the competing

interests of government, society and industry; while on the other hand is the extent of voluntary

curriculum transformation local HEIs are determined to implement, save for conformity inspired by

government funding for NQF compliance and sensible programme mixes. What is the extent of

influence and impact of SA’s new political re-alignment on the HE policy environment? Has the

“negotiated settlement” ‘compromised’ a total overhaul of the HE curriculum? Is evolution or

revolution the most appropriate ‘way forward’ for a new curriculum dispensation? Can the African

context find expression in curriculum thinking? These are some of the questions and problem areas

which have informed the study’s conceptualisation.

1.5 OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH

The objectives of this study relate to the specific (rather than the general/broad) intentions that the

study intended to achieve at its inception. The objectives of this study are derived from two contexts

– the international and the local/national scenario. At the local level, this study is motivated by the

desire to examine the extent to which South African HE in general, and the curriculum

(design/development, management and delivery mode), are developing in terms of redressing

irrational inequities of the past, while responding effectively to current socio-cultural and economic

needs of the population. To this end, the curriculum is viewed as the via media not only for

institutional responsiveness, but also as the instrument for providing student satisfaction. The

curriculum thus becomes a core issue as it needs to be managed in an institutional environment that

is not averse to change and innovation, the pre-requisites of a relevant curriculum as the product

11

concerned with quality and satisfaction of the consumer (the students, the public and employers).

The rationale therefore premises on the notion of the curriculum as an institutional product, well

managed to withstand the rigours of quality assurance in the environment outside the higher

education institutional walls. It is not only its content, but the application, usefulness, and contextual

sensitivity that reflect the kinds of experiences from which the students will benefit academically,

professionally or vocationally. It is hence posited here that the curriculum as the ‘face’ of the

institution is mirrored in the kind of student produced (graduatedness). It is this context that

motivates an enquiry into the role of South African HE institutional programme offerings insofar as

the diversity of student needs is concerned. It is in this regard that an investigation is necessary for

the challenges posed by the need to service mature learners. HE curriculum content, delivery and

assessment modes now have to accommodate this category of ‘non-standard’ students. The basic

question on which the rationale of the study premises is: “To what extent are curriculum means

being deployed to effect student satisfaction and a competitive quality of products (curricula)?” The

objectives have been articulated in a sequence commensurate with the overview and organization of

the topic’s chapters; that is, “... in the order that the research’s tasks need to be

accomplished” (Muller, 2004: 37):

(a) To provide an overview and analysis of HE curriculum development, management and reform

internationally and nationally. Chapters 2 and 3 are the spheres in which this objective was

located and actuated.

(b) To provide an overview of 21st century HE curriculum transformation challenges both

internationally and nationally. This objective was optimally met in Chapter 4.

(c) To survey a sample of local HEIs’ development and management of curriculum, learning

materials, processes, structures, and outputs. Chapter 5 is the sphere in which this objective

was largely realized.

(d) To develop an appropriate curriculum conceptual and development model for South African

HEIs that will encompass the process, content and management dimensions of curriculum

development, implementation and reform; and take the African context into account. This

objective has been largely realized in Chapter 6.

1.6 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The research design and research methodology have been presented in more detail in Chapter 5. The

research design of this study refers to the broader ‘plan’ of how the research was to be conducted;

whereas the research methodology refers to the specific ‘tools’ to be used in meeting objectives of

the research. Both the ‘plan’ and the ‘tools’ have been guided (rather than pre-determined) by the

12

nature of the study/‘type’ of research – which is primarily qualitative. While the study is

predominantly qualitative in its design and methodological orientations, it does however, employ

some quantitative ‘instruments’ for its ‘plan’ and ‘tools’ where the context demands so. The

qualitative method of enquiry is essential to the optimum realization of the objectives of this study.

It is for this reason that triangulation is viewed here as congenial, as it enhances multiple methods

and perspectives of data collection. As a basis for conceptual analysis, it (triangulation) is adaptive

to the description, analysis and interpretation of both primary and secondary sources of information,

both of which are paramount to the empirical and theoretical premises of this project. Considering

the huge number of recognized public higher and further education institutions in the country the

sampling technique will be complied with. These samples will form part of a sub-group of a

population of Further and Higher Education Institutions (FHEIs) in the country, according to which

a criterion for institutional representativity (insofar as curriculum reform practice is concerned)

will be constructed and considered to represent the whole group. Such criteria will include amongst

others; idiosyncratic variables between HAIs (Historically Advantaged Institutions) and HDIs

(Historically Disadvantaged Institutions); urban-rural location, academic reputation, financial

viability and research capacity.

As opposed to quantitative studies, which are more experimental and have the characteristic of

numerical structuredness and measurability, qualitative studies are largely exploratory (not

subjected to any predetermined categorization) and descriptive (researcher’s interpretive capacity

instrumental in explaining data/phenomena). Adler and Adler (1998: 80-81) refer to “non-

interventionism” as a distinguishing feature between qualitative and quantitative studies:

“Observers neither manipulate nor stimulate their subjects. They do not ask the subjects research questions, pose

tasks for them, or deliberately create new provocations. This stands in marked contrast to researchers using

interview questionnaires, who direct the interaction and introduce potentially new ideas into the arena [such as the

case for Interview B in sub-section 5.3.3.2], and to experimental researchers, who often set up structured

situations where they can alter certain conditions to measure the covariance [degree of variability] of others …

Qualitative observers are not bound, thus, by predetermined categories of measurement or response but are free to

search for concepts or categories that appear meaningful to subjects … Naturalistic [qualitative] observers thus

often differ from quantitative observers in the scope of their observations: Whereas the latter focus on minute

particles of the world that can be agglomerated into a variable, the former look for much larger trends, patterns,

and styles of behavior [sic]. These differences are rooted not only in variations between the ways the two groups

observe, but in the types of questions they pose”.

13

1.6.1 Data collection methods and procedures

Both the theoretic and empirical aspects of the research topic were operationalised for the purpose of

maximizing the study’s objectives and results; as well as the methods and procedures used for the

collection and analysis of (primary and secondary) data/information. This has been done in keeping

with the maxim that: “The worth of all scientific findings depends heavily on the manner in which

the data was collected and analysed” (Babbie & Mouton, 2001: 563). The detailed data collection

and concomitant procedures are presented in Chapter 5.

1.6.1.1 Literature review

The literature review, with an orientation towards “scholarship review” (Mouton, 2001), is discussed

in more detail in section 6.2 of Chapter 6. Guiding the literature search was the contention that “…

every research project should be innovative or original in nature and therefore in its own unique way

contribute to the state of knowledge in a particular field [italics my own emphasis]” (Muller, 2004:

3). In this particular instance, the specific purpose of conducting a comprehensive review of existing

literature (from the corpus of current knowledge) on higher education organizational and curriculum

challenges, is among others, to ensure the viability of the study; that is: “To ensure that adequate

and relevant literature is available to inform the theoretical approach, the research design and

methodology, the instrument development and to assist in data analysis and findings made [italics

mine]” (Muller, 2004: 5). Furthermore, the literature review/search has served as the theoretical

premises and an authoritative source that could: “… pronounce on what has, and what has not been

established in a particular field [e.g. the field embodied in the research topic; italics my own

emphasis]” (p. 4).

In its totality, the thrust of the “scholarship review” has been on emergent trends in the HE

curriculum discourse, rather than focusing on the content of a compiled literature survey. Such an

orientation has been necessitated by the fact that the predisposition of most of the literature towards

conceptual analysis and model creation has tended to attenuate the empirical element; which is the

fundamental base upon which realistic curriculum transformation has to occur. In other words, the

approach adopted here towards literature survey examined the extent to which case study features as

a relevant aspect of research in education (Kaplan, 1999: 79-81; 83-89; Stuurman, 1999: 103-107).

1.6.1.2 The empirical (fieldwork) phase of the study

This aspect of the research is also reflected in more detail in Chapter 5. Despite the fact that it is not

the intended purpose of the study (at the conceptual level) to develop, appraise, or even partly or

14

wholly denounce some theory or theoretical paradigm(s); to the extent that inductive analysis does

form some aspect of arriving at the findings and conclusions towards the end of the study, the

grounded theory could be said to have been applied in such contexts. For instance, specific events

(research sites) are utilised as parameters for generalizations. In arguing for the usefulness and

contribution of the grounded theory to research, Davidson (2002: 1-3) states:

“Grounded theory is most accurately described as a research method in which the theory [or phenomenon, e.g.

socialization of curriculum] is developed from the data, rather than the other way round. That makes this an

inductive approach, meaning it moves from the specific to the more general. The method of study is based on

three elements: concepts, categories and propositions, or what was originally called “hypotheses”... it should fit

the phenomenon, provided it has been carefully derived from diverse data and is adherent to the common reality

of the area... Because the data is comprehensive, it should provide generality, in that the theory includes

extensive variation and is abstract enough to be applicable to a wide variety of contexts”.

(a) Sampling: Whereas the South African HE population (‘universe of universities’) consisted of

36 institutions prior to this research project being undertaken in 2002, the number had decreased to

21 (as a direct result of the reconfiguration/merger processes) at the initial stages of the research’s

execution. Due to some un-premeditated circumstances, a survey could only be conducted on the

number of institutions (sample size) indicated in Chapter 5. Judgement sampling became the

primary sampling method most suited to this scenario and set of circumstances. Inclusive

representativity was constructed on the basis of the researcher’s critical judgement of what

constituted similarities (for purposes of the generalisability or transferability of findings) between

the selected HEIs, despite their disparate institutional and intellectual cultures (university and

technikon ‘eccentrics’). The researcher’s judgement became very crucial in determining minimum

factors of variability, ergo, maximum grounds for similarity (Sarantakos, 1998: 141, 151; Strydom

& Delport, 2002: 333-335).

(b) Questionnaires: Referred to as Plan A, these were considered as instruments designed to

augment to the representativity of the empirical component of the study, as personnel and

institutions not included in any of the above instruments would have the opportunity to participate in

this empirical component of research. It was envisaged that this (empirical) aspect of the study

would complement the theoretic aspects and, cumulatively, bring to fruition the intended objectives

and outcomes (Huberman & Miles, 1998: 195). The length of the questionnaires (about ten pages)

justifies the range of variables to be covered (HE organizational and curriculum issues), as well as

optimizes grounds for representativity, due to the prevalent sampling size. It was initially hoped that

where direct participant observation (either through the questionnaires or interviews) could not

15

materialise, questionnaires would be widely distributed and collected later at an agreed-upon time. A

full sample of the questionnaire is attached in Appendix D of the thesis.

(c) Interviews: Referred to as Plan B and supplemented by an Interview Schedule, these were

scheduled for designated institutions according to applicable criteria in respect of some of the above-

mentioned criteria acted upon in the judgement sample. These face-to-face interviews included both

structured and unstructured formats, so as to elicit maximum respondent participation. In this case

the respondents included senior academics and managers – as curriculum knowledge workers and

practitioners in those institutions. The collective inclusion of the Questionnaires and (recorded)

Interviews served as the parameters for surveying the extent of local institutional initiatives in the

area of organizational and curriculum reform, in the context of global trends. A full transcription of

the interviews themselves also appears in the list of appendices together with an interview schedule.

The latter acted as a ‘back-up’ instrument in the event that the respondent was not requested to fill

in a questionnaire. The interview schedule and the two interviews are respectively attached as

Appendix E, Appendix F, and Appendix G. Following is an outline of the salient features of the

interview itself:

The literature review and survey then, has enabled and provided the study with both the conceptual

and empirical framework within which the field of HE curriculum fieldwork could be narrowed in

terms of the requirements of the research topic itself. A multi-paradigmatic was adopted here, thus

facilitating the analyses from various intellectual and academic perspectives.

1.7 OVERVIEW OF CHAPTERS

In this section, a brief overview of the most essential aspects of each chapter is presented.

1.7.1 Chapter 1: Enhancement of the study

The chapter basically presents an overview of how the entire study ‘unfolds’. In the course of such a

presentation, the scientific, technical; as well as the empirical domains of the research topic are

explored and collated into an analytically-conducive framework upon which the findings and the

conclusions are arrived at.

1.7.2 Chapter 2: Overview of trends in international higher education transformation

Forces for change in both the internal and external environments of HE have impacted on the ways

in which curriculum is understood. In that regard, the major thrust of this chapter is on how

worldwide HE curriculum practices have reacted to the largely externally-induced forces for

16

change; which include (but are not limited to) the role and impact of globalisation, ICT (information

and communication technologies), massification, and the world of work. The international domain

of the changing HE environment has acted as the comparative basis for the local South African

context.

1.7.3 Chapter 3: Overview of South African higher education

While some aspects of the erstwhile racially-segregated educational dispensation are briefly

referred to, the major focus of the chapter is the local post-1992 scenario. New higher education

policies in general, and curriculum reform/transformation in particular, are viewed against the

backdrop of the extent of their ‘conformity’/’compliance’ to, or ‘deviation’ from trends and

practices that have been adopted and applied in other (Western?) parts of the industrialised world.

1.7.4 Chapter 4: Overview of trends in higher education curriculum reform and development

This chapter attempts to present the impact of various epistemological and intellectual influences

and paradigms on the higher education curriculum. The subject/discipline was located as the

pivotal basis upon which these influences gravitated.

1.7.5 Chapter 5: Research methodology, data collection, and data presentation

The fieldwork/empirical domain of the study is largely located in this chapter. Actual curriculum

practices and thinking in selected local HEIs are conflated into an analytic mode according to which

literature-based knowledge (which guided the theoretical and conceptual terrain of the study) is

‘tested’.

1.7.6 Chapter 6: Findings and discussion

The main findings of the study – both literature- and empirically-based – are presented and

discussed. An attempt has been made to base these findings in the context of their affinity and

relevance to curriculum design and management.

1.7.7 Chapter 7: Conclusions and recommendations

The main conclusions and recommendations are proposed in this chapter. The study’s practical

implications – in both its narrower (scientific/academic) and wider (socio-economic) context – are

viewed as being premised in this chapter. Its significance or relevance (as in Chapter 6 also) is

determined by the extent of the collective efficacy of the preceding chapters.

17

1.8 CONCLUSION

Research in higher education curriculum issues is a complex process, which necessitated that

eclectic research design and research methodologies (triangulation) be applied for the purpose of

acquiring data, processing it, and finally presenting it into meaningful findings. While the

international comparative sphere was largely derived from an extensive review of the commensurate

literature, the two observed local HEIs served as a representative sample for actual curriculum

practices against which a framework of emergent trends could be established. HE curriculum

transformation is a process acted upon by a confluence of factors. Multiple research approaches

ensured that multiple perspectives adequately address any aspect and degree of complexity.

18

CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION

TRANSFORMATION

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Higher education has throughout its history had to contend with changes occurring in its internal

and external environments (Fehnel, 2002: 1-3; Weber, 1999: 3-5). Many academic and other social

scientists contend that globalisation and ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) are

two of the most potent and radical forces presenting HE with serious pressures and challenges

(Quddus & Rashid, 2000: 490-491; Weber, 1999: 5). In addition to having to reform itself

organizationally from within (Deem, 2001: 10-11; Hill, 1997: 5); the extent to which HE sustains

its claim to intellectual/academic hegemony and to being society’s most excellent centre of learning,

will to the greatest extent be determined by its (HE’s) adaptation and responsiveness to these

powerful forces and their multifaceted impact and influence on higher education functioning and

development (Weber, 1999: 16). That HE is confronted with the challenge of reform or

transformation is no longer in dispute. What remains for HE development is whether the mainly

externally-induced changes will be (in) voluntarily embraced or not (Scholte, 2000: 90).

2.1.1 THE CHANGING HIGHER EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

A wide-ranging body of literature on the state of HE in the millennium, incontrovertibly points out

that external developments and changes have had a profound on the internal organization and

functioning of HE as traditionally conceived. Morrow (2003: 6) categorizes market forces and

political pressure as some of these external developments and changes; while Hirsch and Weber

(1999: xiii; 3) mention epistemological changes as constituting the “invironmental” context – an

internal factor exemplified by “... new combinations of disciplines to innovate and break through

the old paradigms [italics my own emphasis]” (Preuss, 1999: 90). The irrevocable need for HE’s

adaptation to the changing environment is succinctly captivated in this stentonarian statement:

“In comparison with industries, and even with the state, universities have remained extremely conservative

institutions ... It is at least implicit ... that accelerating geo-political, economic, and technological changes, which

affect the whole world, do not spare the university. Even their secular history, in particular in the Old World, the

universities had to face difficult periods, now, for the first time ever, the way in which they fulfil their missions or

even their existence is challenged not only by political threats, but also by technological and economic changes

and pressures. First the corporate world has had to change; now it is the turn of higher education [italics my own

emphasis]” (Weber, 1999: 3-5).

19

Consequently, these external developments are fundamentally necessitating, nay, irrevocably,

shaping and influencing the ways in which HE conducts its “business”. Accordingly, traditional

higher education institutions (HEIs) are compelled to take serious cognisance of these largely

external issues and trends, if they are to fulfil their fundamental knowledge-producing,

dissemination and validation mandates; and if they are to continue laying claim to their

epistemological hegemony and intellectual legitimacy, as well as (continuing to lay claim to) socio-

economic relevance and responsiveness to their increasingly diverse constituencies. This chapter

then, seeks to explore those forces considered to be germane in exacting “… the inevitable

transformation…” (Weber, 1999: 5) in HE’s development in general, and its curriculum structuring

(including its management and evaluation) in particular. Due to the complexity of the subject of

higher education (as both an organization and as a field of study), the internal-external matrix (mind

map) is found to be replete with conceptual ‘overlaps’. It therefore presupposes that the logic of

presentation (discussion) is not cast in any particular concatenation order. The inter-relatedness of

issues obviates the presentation of any issue in a ‘stand-alone’ format. For instance, the notion of

diversity is not only confined to programmatic (curriculum) differentiation; other factors such as

missions, organizational forms, funding mechanisms, and organizational forms are reined in as

examples of the multi-faceted approaches that HE has to adapt to in order to survive the overarching

developments occurring outside of it. Furthermore, lifelong learning is not only confined to the

student domain (where it would be categorised as a particular form of learning designed for a

particular student category). It is also encompassed in such areas as the world of work, and its

implications for the ‘knowledge society’.

It is also worth noting at this early stage of discussion that “reform” and “transformation” are

understood and applied differently by different academic commentators and analysts – based on

their conceptions of the pace and direction of curriculum change (Hirsch & Weber, 1999: xiii;

Morrow, 2003: 5). The latter author however – by specifically locating this reform/transformation

argument in the South African context – refutes the view that the pace and magnitude of curriculum

change are interrelated:

“…there is no direct link between the degree and speed of curriculum change and … it is possible that gradual

changes, each relatively minor, could be at least as significant as some major and rapid transformation… we need

to be wary of the rhetorical force of words such as ‘reform’ and ‘transformation’. The tendency to think that any

change must be good no doubt arises [in the South African context] out of bitter experiences of colonialism and

apartheid…This view tended to be transferred to the sphere of curriculum change …” (Morrow, 2003: 5).

20

The mammoth spectre and magnitude of these challenges, compared to “…an overload of demands”

(Clark, 1998: 129), has placed HE in a difficult, but not intractable, condition. Of all the (largely

externally-induced) forces for change collectively facing HE in the 21st century – including the

revolution in information and communication technologies (ICT), as well as the increase in a

heterogeneous student population (massification) – those ushered in by globalisation present perhaps

the most daunting of challenges, due to the prevalence of a radically changing external environment

which threatens the epistemological ‘privilege’ previously enjoyed and monopolized by traditional

HEIs (Weber, 1999: 4-5). It is the contention here that, if the external environment is changing so

rapidly and so radically (Scholte, 2000: 8), commensurate curriculum change is then

incontrovertibly required. Ergo, occasional pockets of adaptation (reformism/evolution) perpetuates

elitism; while protracted and radical changes would not only change the conservative face of higher

education, but would also determine its commitment to the nuances of mass higher learning systems

– thus maximizing the equality of higher learning opportunities (and attendant socio-economic

benefits), especially for those previously marginalised social categories, including aspirant adult and

working students whose formal learning had been affected by work, family and other disruptions.

The changing HE environment then – from the perspective of this study – refers to the non-static

prevalence of external and internal factors that necessitate a re-orientation of how HEIs confront

their mandate to a worldwide society that is undergoing a reconfiguration of mentalities (Scholte,

2000; Scott, 1998). This scenario, referred to by Gibbons (1998a: 10), as “… the changing

‘dynamics of relevance’”, encompasses a range of activities that are the primary domain of HE’s

purpose of existence – from students’ academic and labour markets, to HE-industry-society relations

(p. 10). The notion of “… the changing dynamics of relevance” then, becomes closely related to the

adaptation of HE to change in a context-specific (techno-economic) paradigm. The context itself is

impacted on by among others, the growth of a heterogeneous/hybrid student population and

institutional idiosyncrasies on the one hand; and the imperatives of global competitiveness

manifested for instance, by organizational innovative capacity as a determinant of productivity. A

changed higher education environment/context in essence, explicitly entails the fact that it can no

longer be “business as usual” for higher education – systemically or institutionally. Neave (2002: 1),

states that: “Higher education stands at the heart of the knowledge society. It faces far-reaching

challenges, particularly from the thrust towards globalization [italics my own emphasis]”. In further

illustrating the magnitude of the challenge of globalization, and citing Manuel Castells, “…one of

the leading authorities on globalisation” (Neave, p. 1), he (Neave), further contends: “…

[globalization’s] effects on the university will be more drastic than industrialization, urbanization

and secularization combined [italics my own emphasis]”. Mention needs to be made, however, that

21

globalization and its attendant features of ICT and massification, is not peripheral to the entire

process of human development; a plethora of historically-shaped antecedents confluenced in the

shaping of globalisation. Albeit this discussion not being a treatise on human history (curriculum

per se constitutes some aspect of human history and development!), reference is made to ‘human’ in

view of globalisation’s (intended or not?) devaluation, nay de-legitimation, of the ‘human’ in the

sacrosanct preference of the mechanistic, the virtual, and the financially profitable (Urry, 1998: 2).

2.1.2 The multi-faceted impact and influence of globalisation on higher education

development: an overview

The new world economic order, one of the most pronounced catch-lines of recent times, and perhaps

(from this study’s perspective), the most prominent product of globalization, has engendered an

environment and sphere in which human society is undergoing tremendous and irrevocable

transformation (Kennedy et al., 2002: 1-3); while “… higher education as an institution and faculty

as its labor (sic) [also] face change unprecedented” (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997: 1). The view that

globalisation has tended to have a multi-faceted impact on virtually all of HE’s functioning is also

corroborated by a host of academic analysts, including Duderstadt (2000b: 3-8); Fehnel (2002: 2-3);

Gibbons (1998a: 1-3); and Weber (1999: 4-5). For instance, HE-industry relations have brought in

forms of corporate governance into the traditional campus; (applied) research has been influenced

by the competitive environment of industrial innovations; entrepreneurial means of alternative

funding has had to be resorted to; the curriculum has incontrovertibly been affected and influenced

by the dynamics of the workplace and the preponderance of alternative for-profit HE providers; the

explosion in knowledge (multiplying every five years) manifested by the rapidity of ICT has both

imploded and exploded the disciplinary architecture of subject fields.

Confronted with massive and radical change externally, HE’s internal operations have had to

‘navigate’ the difficult path of reconciling the old and cherished value systems with the new and

daunting economic imperatives. For instance, Salmi (1994: 410), in emphasising the trend towards

reform in general, states:

“The world of higher education is characterized by a unique paradox reflecting the tension between the old and

the new, between tradition and innovation. On the one hand, universities are very conservative institutions… On

the other hand, higher education institutions are faced with formidable challenges: the political challenge of

democratisation, the social challenge of the growing demand for post-secondary education, the financial challenge

of doing more with fewer resources, and the technological challenge of supporting knowledge-based economic

growth strategies… many countries are considering significant higher education reforms at the national as well as

the institutional level”.

22

The transformation/reform trajectory by HEIs in compliance with the changing external

environment necessitates writ large that these institutions seriously undertake to be more responsive

to society’s needs. Meanwhile Orr (1997: 43) makes the observation that global imperatives are

directing HEIs to move towards the “market university” – the essentialisation of knowledge as a

tradable commodity – stating: “Globalisation is of interest in relation to higher education because of

the emphasis on the role of knowledge in international competitiveness. It is of further interest with

regard to the decreasing role of the state and the impact this has on the public sector, including

education”. The state’s reduction of funding has been viewed as a propellant for HE resorting to

entrepreneurial means of functioning (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997: 14-15). That HEIs resort to

“market-like” tendencies, perhaps portends the shape of HE’s future organizational practice, ipso-

facto, its curriculum predisposition. Slaughter and Leslie (1997), and Clark (1998), suggest that an

orientation towards entrepreneurial or purely economic models within the

globalisation/internationalisation framework is symptomatic of globalisation’s pulling (or sucking?)

power. This is the realm within which old forms of governance are ‘usurped’ by new forms such as

the ‘new managerialism’. Meanwhile, others propose a ‘hybridization’ approach that does not

diminish the local conditions, as “… the local dimension can make a difference to how universities

respond to global forces, because local conditions or a lack of overall national policies can affect the

extent to which academic capitalism or entrepreneurialism develop (Deem, 2001: 18). She goes on

to cite Urry (1998), and his ‘globalisation hypothesis’, which suggests that economic considerations

are not supreme to human culture. In view of the latter:

“… it seems likely that social relations and human culture will continue to have an impact on how different

universities respond to the challenges of material culture and environment. It is therefore important that these

dimensions [of the global/local and economic/cultural] are fully encompassed by the theoretical frameworks and

methodologies used by those who investigate the ways in which universities in different countries respond to

international and global pressures. Until this is done, it is certainly premature to talk of convergence either in the

ways academic work is organised or in the framework for the enterprising universities of the future [italics my

emphasis]” (Deem, p. 18).

2.1.2.1 A historic and economic perspective of globalisation

The new world economic order condition has, however, been precipitated by other momentous

developments in history (Deem, 2001: 8-10; Hirsch & Weber, 1999: ix). The collapse of the Berlin

Wall and the subsequent demise of the erstwhile Soviet Union are seen by some (e.g. Cooper &

Subotzky, 2001: 94-95; Van Damme, 2002:21) as a victory of capitalism and democratisation of

societies over communism and its concomitant state control of the individual and the economy

(Quddus & Rashid, 2000: 487; Gardner, 1999). The significance and mention worthiness of this

23

politico-economic metamorphosis lies not only in emphasizing the ‘uniformisation’ of the entire

world into a predominantly single economic framework through capitalism (Van Damme, 2002: 21;

Castells, 2000: 8); but also in illustrating that globalisation – in its quest for capital and financial

‘sovereignty’ and expansion (of products, ideas, finance, markets, etc.) – needs a state of geographic

borderlessness for its unhindered processes to be fully realizable (Kennedy, p.77-82; Scholte, p.

182). The advent of new economic ‘blocs’ –particularly the countries of Asia and the Pacific Rim –

is credited with the reconfiguration of the world’s economic systems of distribution (Quddus &

Rashid, 2000: 492), which had for decades been the ‘privileged’ monopoly of the countries of the

West (Western Europe and North America). Technological advances in these countries are generally

credited with facilitating such quantum leaps into economic transformation (Van Damme 2002: 21).

Consequently, the international flow of capital and finance is no longer one-dimensional.

Competition and innovation has been the fundamental characteristic of the new international

economic environment (Gibbons, 1998a: 20-21).

Van Damme (2002: 21), in his analysis of the impact of globalisation on higher education, cautions

against over-generalizing as the situation differs from country to country. However, patterns and

trends of similarities (of globalisation’s impact on HE) are extant:

“The impact on the various trends and challenges related to globalization on higher education institutions and

policies is profound, but also diverse, depending on the specific location in the global arena. There is a danger of

generalization and oversimplification when dealing with globalization; diversity has to be recognized but also to

a certain extent promoted [italics mine]”.

Furthermore, globalisation is not all about conformity to international uniformity, “... but asks for

policies balancing the global and the local” (Van Damme, 2002: 21). Cooper and Subotzky (2001:

94-95) and Orr (1997: 44-45), aver that the sheer size, scale, and complexity of globalisation is such

that its trans-national engine and character is propelled and made possible by networking and the

existence of for instance, TNCs (trans national corporations), TMCs (trans (multi national) media

corporations), IGOs (international governmental organizations), and NGOs (non-governmental

organizations) or AGOs (alternative governmental organizations). It is estimated that by 1992

growth in financial markets was sixty times higher than world trade (Cooper & Subotzky, 2001: 94).

The electronic and communication media provided the vehicle for traversing these new frontiers. In

this kind of environment, it therefore makes “business” sense that HE responds by utilising its key

commodity – knowledge – to function as a creditable public institution of knowledge excellence,

lest this important function be usurped by new entrants into the “knowledge industry” (Gibbons,

1998a: 28-29).

24

The economic significance of globalisation lies in the extent to which HE is able to package its

knowledge ‘products’ to its clients, the students who pay for curriculum ‘products’. This economic

context is perhaps traced back to the Fordist mode of economic production. Rupert (1995: 1), states

that: “... Fordism has more recently been appropriated ... with more economically-centered [sic]

regulation theories ... the regulative principle of a macro-social regime of accumulation involving

specific forms of capitalistic production as well as social consumption norms”. However, the

weaknesses (steeped in a culture of mass production with cheap labour) arose when this capitalistic

mode consumption could not balance production with consumption (p. 1), especially in the late

twentieth century (p. 4).Towards the end of the 20th century, flexible specialization (flexi-spec)

and flexible production have become the primary features of work. Thompson (undated: 5) states

that “Flexible production dramatically reduced the demand for unskilled labour. ... [it] requires

literate and numerate workers, capable of a high degree of self-direction. As a consequence, the

number of unskilled industrial workers in the developed world has been falling for nearly thirty

years [italics my own emphasis]”. Transformation within the workplace, therefore, has had an

irrevocable impact on the nature of knowledge needed to function in the flexi-spec environment.

Muller (2000:25) locates the transformation of the capitalistic political economy (globalisation/post-

fordism/”neo-industrialisation”) and its nuances of competitiveness within the techno-economic

paradigm (TEP), in which research and design become the engines of technological development.

The transformation of work (as a consequence of globalisation’s impact on modes of production and

consumption) and its resultant influence on highly skilled work specialised knowledge is discussed

in more detail in the section on students and the world of work.

2.1.2.2 Proliferation of non-traditional higher education providers“The market forces unleashed by technology and driven by increasing demand for higher education are powerful.

If they are allowed to dominate and reshape the higher education enterprise, we could well find ourselves losing

some of our most important values and traditions of the university. While the commercial, convenience-store,

model of the University of Phoenix may be an effective way to meet the workplace skills for some adults, it

certainly is not a model that would be suitable for many of the higher purposes of the university. As we assess

these emerging market-driven learning structures, we must bear in mind the importance of preserving the ability

of the university to serve broader public interests” (Duderstadt, in Hirsch & Weber, 1999: 47).

A nexus seems to exist between the preponderance of alternative (non-traditional) HE providers and

the environment of deregulation ushered in by the combined might of globalisation and the advent

of ICT (Duderstadt, 1999: 44). The provision of higher education services, especially tuition by the

mutating variants of private learning organizations, is undoubtedly a major challenge to the

traditional public university’s academic and epistemological hegemony. Quddus and Rashid (p.

25

490), attribute the growth of private universities to “the [general] shift in the political, social, and

intellectual climate in favour [sic] of the private sector”. (Reference is made in much more detail

later in this chapter in the section on the impact of ICT on higher education). Deregulation per se

militates against the notion of public (higher?) education as citizens’ entrenched right (Zusman,

1999: 121; Ziegler, in Hirsch & Weber, 1999: 111-112). It is maintained that the growing demand

for HE has increased the notion that education is a private good, and governmental budgets should

thus be structurally adjusted to cater for other social needs (Quddus & Rashid, 2000: 489). The latter

authors succinctly captivate this view thus:

“The university and higher education were considered “the great equalizers” because, with access contingent only

upon merit, the poor had an available means for social and economic advancement ... in the 1970s and 80s this

notion changed. The prevailing notion was that the beneficiaries of university education should shoulder a greater

proportion of the burden ... it is now believed that free access to higher education may worsen the income

inequalities ... Therefore, the burden should be borne directly by the beneficiary and not the taxpayer.

Increasingly, societies now regard higher education as more of a “private good’ with not enough immediate and

positive externalities [socio-economic rates of return?] ... to justify public support”.

The trend towards the “privatisation” of higher education is global in scale (Quddus & Rashid,

2000: 487; Gibbons, 1998a: 48-49), and manifests itself in higher education institutions or

organizations that deviate from the conventional contact university. They have successfully and

relentlessly exploited the market for lifelong learning (continuing education) which all HEIs in the

21st century should penetrate if they are to remain relevant (Gibbons, 1998a: 48). These institutions/

organizations may have no physical campus, and offer tuition by ICT means (such as the virtual

university variant) or cater for a specific ‘clientele’ (such as the ‘corporate’ university).

The revolution in technological knowledge-production and diffusion that occurred from the 1980’s

(Castells, 2000: 7) is indicative of the macro-developmental process of the transformation of society,

within which the network society forms a sub-unit. The network society, as opposed to the

information society, “ … emphasises a new paradigm…In this sense what is characteristic of the

network society is not the critical role of knowledge and information, because knowledge and

information were central in all societies…What is new in our age is a new set of information

technologies… they represent a greater change in the history of technology than the technologies

associated with the Industrial Revolution, or with the previous Information Revolution” (pp. 7-8).

The “self- expanding” nature of knowledge and information production is what distinguishes the

information from the network society. Because the knowledge capacity of the network society is an

economic imperative to which higher education has to conform, it is necessary to examine the

26

characteristics of this new economic state of affairs. Just how important the power of ICT and its

concomitant interactive multimedia network is, is illustrated in the following context which is

largely premised on the establishment of global distance education providers and their interactive

modes of curriculum delivery. Eggins (1998), and Altbach (2000), offer an illuminating perspective

of how the traditional university is being threatened by alternative modes of HE service delivery;

failure to grasp this momentous challenge provided by ICT and other HE competitors spells huge

challenges for conventional HE.

A range of flexible, learner-centred, ICT-generated and disseminated HE knowledge providers

already exists in countries such as the US, the UK and Australia. These metropolitan providers are

either individual institution, partnerships with other ‘non-university’ sectors, or institutional mergers

and consortia (Eggins, 1998: 25). In the UK for instance, the BAeVU (British Aerospace Virtual

University) has become the quintessence of the virtualisation of knowledge with the full utilisation

of ICT. Gibbons (1998a: 49) cites the BAeVU as an example of “... a virtual organization providing

a framework for lifelong learning ... BAeVU is an example of a Mode 2 organization ... the very

embodiment of a knowledge institution, rather than a knowledge-based institution. Its primary

functions are problem identification ... and problem brokering”. To fulfil its curriculum obligations,

“the company-owned” (p. 49) and 47 000 student-strong BAeVU ‘contracts’ or ‘hires’ programmes

from other HE systems and incorporates them into their continuing education designs. This practice

illustrates the very tenet of global privatization of higher education, collaboration and competition.

While competing for students in the lifelong learning sphere, the BAeVU simultaneously seeks the

co-operation of those who will help it to obtain maximum benefits of this niche ‘market’. Gibbons

(1998a: 49), illustrates this point further:

“The British Aerospace Virtual University may be an example of a movement that could become a trend. But

what kind of “university” is it? BAeVU will draw for most of its courses on the conventional university system. It

sees no point in duplicating this expertise in-house. All course elements that are agreed with existing universities,

would, de facto [author’s emphasis] be approved university courses. So there are two sorts of university in this

equation: traditional universities supplying specialist courses on the supply side, and the configuring of the

elements into a learning trajectory for each student-employee on the demand side. The value-added by BAeVU is

precisely in configuring courses to its own need [italics my own emphasis]”.

Further afield, Open Learning Australia (OLA) is a recognised body of Australian universities

offering courses to students in remote parts of the world. Degrees, however, are offered by the

individual host universities operating under the auspices of OLA. The electronic multimedia has

become the mode of course delivery with no real-time pastoral intimacy between ‘students’ and

27

‘teachers’. An example of a partnership in this ‘hybrid’ trend is the opening in 1997 of the Western

Governors University, founded by 17 governors and 14 business partners including IBM, KPMG,

AT &T, Microsoft and Sun (Eggins, 1998: 26). The USA-based WGU aims

“… to act broker within the higher education market, working on the principles of partnership and competition. It

won’t itself employ teachers, or develop courses: instead its academic content will be drawn from a range of

national and international providers. Its courses will come from universities, corporations and publishers.

Everything will be delivered on-line, and it plans to have 95000 students within ten years [italics my own

emphasis]” (Eggins, 1998: 25).

Such daunting prospects are, for the traditional university, while sounding academically

‘competitive’, de facto profit-making motives masquerading as HE academic ‘provision’. Virtual

universities (“most commonly conceived as the Internet extension of conventional distance

learning” (Duderstadt, 2000a: 229)) not only lack a distinguished scholastic base and track record,

insofar as basic research is concerned, their efforts are perceived as a convenient economic and

informational response to an educational ‘need’. The UK-based Open University, one of the

multinational mega-universities offering distance education, was established in 1971. By 1997 it had

registered some 2.5 million students. It has ‘campuses’ in Europe, Eastern Europe, and the Far East

and has partnerships in the US with Florida State University, Colorado State University Campuses

and Western Governors University.

The US offers an interesting dimension to the phenomenon of global and open distance-learning

education (which is itself a ramification of ICT on HE curriculum modes of delivery), with its

plethora of ‘hybrid’ organizational forms – ranging from individual institutions ‘going it alone’, to

partnerships such as those of Western Governors University, mergers of institutions – such as the

DeVry Institution of Technology in Chicago, enrolling some 48 000 students in business and

technical programmes on 15 campuses in the US and Canada (p. 26).The University of Phoenix, “…

now America’s largest private post secondary institution, and a for-profit corporation listed in the

New York Stock Exchange” (Altbach, 2000:01), exhibits a new development whose declared

motive is purely profiteering. It had (by 1997), 48000 degree-credit students at 57 centres in 12

states in America. It has an on-line campus and offers Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in business,

IT and teacher education. In 1995, the US Department of Education observed that “ …over half of

all higher education institutions offered or planned to offer distance education courses” (p. 26); this

in itself is symbolic not only of the “market-like behaviour” of HE referred to earlier by Slaughter

and Leslie (1997), but also of the rampant HE ‘market’ which the ICT forces have unleashed. The

implication of the observation made by the US Department of Education, is that the “academic

28

heartland” of the world – the US – is moving towards the business of exporting higher education

programmes in various packages to meet the academic ‘needs’ of higher education learners in every

corner of the planet. Whether quality is an ingredient of such exported educational packages, is

open to speculation – considering that the predilection towards the market does not poignantly

contribute to the educational needs of local populations, especially in the under-developed and

developing world. What can be verifiably indicated is that there is no reciprocity in this

multinational enterprise. It is a one-way, on-line ‘trade’ (Altbach, p. 1). Because most, if not all, of

these consumers are still retarded by “… economic and institutional backwardness, including the

insufficient diffusion and inefficient use of information technology” (Castells, p. 10), the supply-

demand disequilibrium in HE in the South is a huge off-shore investment from the Northern

suppliers – and will most probably be so for a long time to come.

Whereas students of the developed countries enrolled for on-line degree programmes are doing so as

an optional exercise , (given the proliferation of the traditional and non-traditional HE service

provision sector); for those in the offshore market of the South, it is more a question of educational

or occupational survival than an option;( given the conditions of backwardness in research and its

sustainability, complicated by monetary difficulties and limited numbers of ‘home grown’ HEIs in

the home country), the relative cost-effectiveness of on-line HE, and its facilitation of work-and-

study without the one necessarily impacting on the other. Altbach (2000: 1), reaffirms that

conventional HEIs need to tap into the expanding market of multinational education; he also

contends that in the interests of ‘live’ teachers and students and others associated with scholarly

discourse and intellectual capabilities of the conventional HE mode of teaching and learning, the

university should not sell its soul and become a capitalistic institution at the expense of its other

roles and expectations by society. While multinational higher education may be beneficial to a wider

audience, especially with budgetary constraints imposed by governments on HE limiting the

numbers of local students, some negative implications associated with this trend towards

multinational on-line HE, warrant some scrutiny. The very definition of ‘multinational HE’ suggests

that academic programmes of an institution are also being offered in another country (Altbach, p. 2).

These programmes may be ‘stand-alone’ or be established in the ‘new’ country in partnership with

the private sector or local public HEIs. In battling to stave off competition and to survive in the

competitive environment of their home countries, HEIs such as the University of Chicago Business

School have established overseas ‘campuses’ or ‘branches’. The American University of Bulgaria is

another example, of a free-standing/stand-alone institution, “… which [exists] in one country but

follows the curriculum of another country and accredited abroad” (Altbach, p. 2). The Internet

provision of HE programmes excludes the face-to-face pastoral intimacy that students derive from

29

real classroom or laboratory experience. The ‘Internet students’ also miss out on the extra-curricular

experience opportuned by such face-to-face, on-campus socialization. This is important for the

totality of student development – cognitively, socially, culturally, and otherwise. Altbach (2000: 2)

also cites that a disturbing factor is that large numbers of those enrolling through the Internet for

open and long-distance distance education do not have sufficient prior knowledge about the content

and quality of courses or programmes they embark on studying, least of all the reputations of the

institutions or schools offering these.

Most disturbing is the perceived attitude displayed by the multinational mega-universities. It is the

view of this study that the ‘offshore student market is conditioned into a caveat emptor situation, “...

the principle that the buyer [consumer] alone is responsible if dissatisfied” (The Pocket Oxford

Dictionary of Current English, 1996: 129) – a contradiction in terms of the business maxim that:

“the customer is always king”. It is the view of this the study that the on-line multinational HE

providers are using the impoverished countries as educational colonies, in much the same way their

governments are using the terra firma and the oceans of the South as nuclear-waste dumps. Such a

‘dumping ground’ disposition is corroborated by Altbach (2000: 2):

“Multinational higher education always has elements of inequality. Institutions from the developed world are

selling their products abroad, usually in developing countries. They are in general providing “off the shelf”

programs [sic] which are simply used overseas. The decisions about the curriculum, standards, faculty, and

requirements are all made by the sponsoring institution”.

For a developing and capitalist country such as South Africa, it would be wise to guard against such

‘educational imperialism’. It is through the institutionalisation of bodies such as SAQA (South

Africa Qualifications Authority) that the educational integrity of the country could be safeguarded.

Quality control and assurance need to be the guiding principles in protecting the academic and

intellectual profile of our home-grown HEIs. This of course does not preclude the importance of a

global awareness and competitive ethos within our HE system in particular, and education in

general. While prevention of debt is the norm in any business undertaking, the degree to which

profit-making is pursued becomes problematic. Overseas-based HEIs have adapted on-line methods

to make up for revenue deficits. But many, “… such as Australia’s Monash University, are quite

open about it [being a for-profit institution in the mould of the University of Phoenix]” (Altbach,

2000: 2).

The corporate model of mergers, partnerships and alliances has effectively penetrated higher

education, propelling the development of various organizational forms (Currie, 2001: 21-21).

30

Copious instances of alliance formation between education providers and technology companies

have become a norm, rather than an exception. For example, Deakin University of Australia has

partnered with Coles Australia, “a retail corporation” (Currie, p. 21). MIT (Massachusetts Institute

of Technology) in the US offers a joint degree with Cambridge in the UK. Some universities from

Australia, Asia, Canada, and the UK, have formed an on-line conglomerate that provides on-line

courses. Currie (2001: 21) furthermore states that: “There are some estimates that the number of

online higher education subjects available worldwide will be more than a million within a few

years”. The University of Phoenix and Jones International University are examples of institutions

which have the prefix ‘university’ in their names, but are in fact

“… degree delivery machines, providing tailored programs [sic] that appeal to specific markets. They do not have

regular faculty, nor is there the kind of participatory governance system typical of universities. They do not

research, and there is no free enquiry. They are devoted to delivering a clearly defined product, and they hire

employees or contractors to produce and deliver it. They should not be called universities. Perhaps the better name

would be the “Phoenix Training and Credentialing Service, a division of the Apollo Corporation” (Currie, 2001:

21).

Although these amalgamations fundamentally depict the structural/organizational implication of

ICT, it does also illustrate the extent to which compression of time and space has been instrumental

in the development of learning materials and content that are instantaneously and ubiquitously

deliverable to clients anywhere in the world.

The trend towards total virtualisation has fast gathered momentum. In the US, for instance,

California Virtual University, Penn State University, and the University of Nebraska, are some of the

HEIs blazing the trail in this regard (Eggins, 1998: 26). New York University, Boston University,

and Duke University are also following suit. Not only is this citation of examples in the US

symptomatic of the preponderance of alternative HE providers; most significantly, it illustrates that

ICT has become an avenue for income generation by developing “just-for-you” courseware for a

variegated student base in any part of the world. In partnerships with private learning and teaching

systems producers and suppliers, the new ICT-dependent producers and suppliers, these hybrid HE

providers have provided traditional higher learning with formidable challenges. World Space of

Washington, DC, through its global satellite-digital radio network, helps course providers to reach

most of the under-developed world. Lotus Notes and Learning Space develops software produced by

IBM Global Campus, for the specific needs of distance learning providers and students. Other

courseware providers of the same ilk include TCI, a cable company, Oracle, Knowledge Universe,

Convene International (San Francisco), and Microsoft – all are pioneers in the provision of

31

courseware systems for universities (Altbach, 2000: 2). This high degree of HE-industry

collaboration in curriculum development and design systems could perhaps be regarded as the most

direct ‘encroachment’ that the revolutionary advent of ICT has had on higher learning, apart from its

contribution in the modernisation of its administrative processes – in respect of, for instance, the

storage, retrieval, and processing of information in a “reusable” way.

Despite the barrage of criticism against alternative HE providers, Quddus and Rashid (2000:

491-492) mention that these providers have brought a positive human resources dimension. To the

extent that the transforming nature of work (from Fordist mass production modes to post-industrial/

post-fordist modes of flexible specialisation) requires a highly skilled and literate workforce, non-

traditional providers fill this ‘void’ by enabling adult and mature workers for instance, to work and

study at the same time. In addition, the private sector – as opposed to the public sector – is credited

with faster response time to changes needed in the world of work (p. 492). As a matter of fact,

developing and under-developed countries, where this mode of HE provision has made gigantic

strides, are finding this to be the most affordable way (Zusman, 1999: 117) of ‘fast-tracking’ the

high demand for knowledge workers (Quddus & Salmi, 2000: 492).

2.1.2.3 Commercialization/commodification of higher education ‘products’

As opposed to “academic capitalism”, the commodification of higher education products is

construed here as relating to the new (market-influenced) practice by HEIs of packaging the

curriculum into tailor-made fashion that would particularly appeal to the personal and

occupational/career needs of the heterogeneous student population (Altbach, 1999: 26; Duderstadt,

1999: 41). The commodification of knowledge is the fundamental problem whose prevalence in the

new economic order is lamented (Altbach, 2002: 1). The author further states, “[n]o longer is it

[education] seen as a set of skills, attitudes, and values required for citizenship and effective

participation in modern society – a key contribution to the common good of any society. Rather, it is

seen as a commodity to be purchased … to be used in the marketplace or a product to be bought and

sold by multinational corporations, academic institutions that have transmogrified themselves into

businesses and other providers” (p. 2). The “marketisation” of higher education is viewed in this

context as the erosion of other valuable purposes of HE, such as moral, cultural, democratic and

cognitive development of individuals for broader social participation. Furthermore, and in citing the

devaluation of the core function of HE by globalisation, Nuttall (2003: 57), states: “The first impulse

for change in the university sector relates to the diversification of locales of expert knowledge …

[however] In today’s world of … mass consumption of knowledge produced by a global media

industry … the distinctiveness of universities as knowledge-sites is eroded”. In other words, the

32

former (commodification/marketization) is curriculum-based; whereas the latter (academic

capitalism) is a macro-cosmic initiative by HEIs and its personnel, designed to bring financial value

to the institution or individual academic (Altbach, 2002: 27). In this latter sense, initiatives are

broad-based and not only restricted to curriculum entrepreneurialism’. All key functions relating to

teaching, research, and community involvement are directed at generating revenue for the institution

as a whole, as well as the academic and/or student entrepreneurs involved in the creation,

development, and fruition of such profit-generating ventures. Examples in this latter category would

include partnerships in research, licensing fees, intellectual property, and consultancy work.

The commodification/marketization paradigm assumes that HE is the ‘seller’ of commercially viable

curriculum packages to the ‘buyer’ – the paying student-as-client. Drawing from Duderstadt’s

(1999: 41) analysis of the growing demand for higher education, it would seem that the continuing

adult student is most likely to become the primary ‘catchment area’ for this form of packaged

knowledge; which could be in the mould of “ ‘just in time’ ... education through nondegree programs

[sic] when a person needs it” (Duderstadt, p. 41), or “ ‘just for you’ ... educational programs [sic]

that are carefully tailored to meet the specific lifelong learning requirements of particular

students” (Duderstadt, p 41). In another dimension, the primordial HE mode of teaching and learning

is likened to that of “a cottage industry” Duderstadt (2000b: 300). Individual courses were “custom

made” by individual lecturers for a specific group of learners. In that context, “... the industrial age

bypassed the university” (Duderstadt, 2000b: 300). Due to traditional HE’s conservative image and

slow response time, courses “... continue to favour programs [sic] and practices based more on past

traditions than upon contemporary needs” (p. 300).

The proliferation of alternative/private universities and learning organizations targeting mainly adult

learners has accentuated the competition for a mass production and provision of subjects and

courses with commercial value. Content has thus become the major determinant of the (market)

value of the knowledge. Duderstadt (p. 301) puts it in a more illuminating way:

“... it may be quite wrong to suggest that higher education needs to evolve into a mass production mode or

broadcasting mode to keep pace with the needs of our society ... Besides, even industry is rapidly discarding the

mass production approach of the twentieth century and moving toward products more customized to particular

markets ... The individual handicraft model for course development may give way to a much more complex

method of creating instructional materials. Even the standard packaging of an undergraduate education into

“courses” in the past required by the need to have all the students in the same place at the same time, may no

longer be necessary with the new forms of asynchronous learning ... there is also a long-standing culture in which

the faculty has come to believe they own the intellectual content of their courses and are free to market these to

33

others for personal gain, for example, through textbooks or off-campus consulting services ... But the [faculty

members] have not traditionally been particularly adept at “packaging” this content for mass audiences ... many

faculty have written best-selling text-books, but these have been produced and distributed by text-book publishers

[italics mine]”.

Ensuing from the foregoing excerpt, it appears that, in order to seriously compete in “the commodity

market” (p. 301) traditional HEIs have to identify for themselves which student categories they wish

to market profusely and how content will be “packaged” in an ‘attractive’ manner without sacrificing

quality and academic credibility at the expedience of profits and survival. While pursuing

competition-driven interests on the content and commercial value of courses (such as Business,

Management, Accounting, Marketing), the quality assurance imperative should not be forsaken,

especially by the traditional HEIs, as they possess the ‘in-house’ knowledge and intellectual

expertise to out manoeuvre their private HE competitors (who have the advantage of resources, and

thus offer their ‘products’ in more cost-effective means).

While threatening cultural and ethnic sovereignty of nations, academic freedom, intellectual

autonomy and financial independence of HEIs, globalisation also destabilizes the HE systems of

less-developed and still-developing countries. Developed and industrialised nations have

unrestricted access to these markets, where they “sell” their educational products in an environment

where little, if any, sophisticated and creditable regulatory mechanisms of quality control and

validation exist. The educational integrity of lesser-developed nations faces a very formidable

challenge of globalisation, whose market orientation is one-sided, given the legacy of colonialism in

those countries (Botha, 2003: 143-144). In corroborating this pattern of unequal development

which HE has to confront in developing countries, Castells (1994: 30) asserts: “With the important

exceptions of China and Thailand, the specificity of the university system in the Third World is that

it is historically rooted in its historical past. Such specificity maximizes the role of universities as

ideological apparatuses in their origins, as well as in their reaction to cultural colonialism”. It is self-

evident from the collective summation of both Botha’s and Castells’ afore-cited comments that

Third World HEIs have an added task of dealing with their historical-ideological legacy, if they are

to successfully define their roles and those of their societies in the global era. Failure to do so will

result; in a serious lacuna of what Meszaros (2005: 46-47) terms “… the ideological articulation of

social needs” – thus reinforcing not only the financial dependency syndrome, but to a larger extent

buttressing the ideological/cultural reproduction of the dominant intellectual-financial groups (pp.

47) of the countries from which marketed knowledge in particular, originates. Compounding HE’s

integrity in those under-developed/still developing countries, is the stark idea of having to work just

as hard in developing their R&D (Research and Development) profiles, which are very costly

34

undertakings relying on sustainable financial support – a cumbersome state of affairs, given their

poor HE-state-industry ‘track record’. Research being the primary mode of knowledge production,

Third World higher education seems ‘destined’ to survive on a dependency mode as monetary

difficulties severely limit their ability to inspire, nurture, and recruit local expertise and skills.

Therefore, while globalisation increases the industrial/technological gap between the developed and

under-developed/developing nations, it also expedites the knowledge lacunae of the North-South

divide. Gibbons (1998a: 53), in expressing this research disparity, states:

“Unfortunately, the ideology of pure science continues to retain considerable force in the universities of the

developing world, despite the fact that it is precisely in the better universities that research practices are being

changed. It is unfortunate because few of these institutions have the resources to pursue research agendas set by

the developed economies. The dilemma for the universities of the developing world might be expressed in this

way: most universities are “locked into” a mode of knowledge production that is based on the disciplinary

structure, is capital dependent, and works on problems which are context free. In contrast, scientific development

in many developed countries is moving in the direction of “research in the context of application”… in which

capital and other costs are shared. Throughout the developed world, a certain impatience is emerging with regard

to disciplinary science [science being the foundational phase of R&D]… manifested precisely in the formation of

transdisciplinary groups… Why should similar groups in the developing world not do so as well [to alleviate the

burden of external donor support, while establishing a science and technology research base for themselves and

their countries – in this era where the wealth of nations and of individuals is determined by their knowledge

capacity?] [bold italics mine]”.

2.1.2.4 The advent of academic capitalism

(The advent of academic capitalism, as a form of securing an alternative funding base for HE, is

discussed further in Section 2.5 – the financing of higher education). The notions of both academic

capitalism and the commodification of higher education products and services have drawn diverse

responses from their proponents and antagonists alike (Van Damme, 2002: 24). Bok (2003: 4) for

instance, explicitly condemns the negative impact these will have on the university’s cherished

traditional values and ethos:

“If one looks more broadly at the university, however, one quickly finds that many faculties and departments are

quite clear about their purposes and that these are the very parts of the institution in which commercialization is

most rampant. Within the traditional disciplines, no faculty members feel a stronger sense of mission than the

scientists, yet it is here – not the humanities – that commercialization has taken hold most firmly ... If there is an

intellectual confusion in the academy that encourages commercialization; it is a confusion over means rather than

ends. To keep profit-seeking within reasonable bounds, a university must have a clear sense of the values needed

to pursue its goals with a high degree of quality and integrity. When the values become blurred and begin to lose

their hold, the urge to make money quickly spreads throughout the institution ... The influence of the private

economy on the university is undeniable ... Anyone harbouring doubts on this score need only contrast the

35

opulence of business schools with the shabbiness of most schools of education. The world of commerce and

industry affects the curriculum in even more striking ways through the jobs it provides and the salaries it offers;

witness the growth of undergraduate business majors, the rise of computer science departments, and the generous

compensation offered to professors of management and economics, compared to that paid to colleagues in

literature and philosophy”.

Despite the threats posed by globalisation to the university’s broader missions, not all of HE’s

existential purpose is threatened by the consumerist thrust of globalisation. For instance, “…

university-level basic research, certain curricular offerings, and other elements of academic work do

not lend themselves easily to commercialization” (Altbach, 2002: 2). Given the fact that the

university as conventionally understood today, is an accumulation of roles and functions developed

over time through various historical moments, a one-dimensional approach of emphasising the

economic imperatives over other exigencies, is acting against the ethos of HE’s broader socio-

economic responsibilities. In cautioning against a one-dimensional orientation in the university’s

functions – of emphasizing economic interests over other concerns such as moral and cultural

cultivation – Castells (1994: 29-30) asserts:

“The more a university system is politically or socially forced to coexist the implicitly excluded segments with its

productive functions, the less effective it is, actually disintegrating into various organizational systems that try to

recreate social segregation outside the formal institutional system. Indeed, the critical element in the structure and

dynamics of university systems is their ability to combine and make compatible seemingly contradictory functions

which have all contributed to the system historically…This is probably the most complex analytical element to

convey to policymakers ... Because universities are social systems and historically produced institutions, all their

functions take place simultaneously within the same structure, although with different emphases. There is no

chance to have a pure or quasi-pure, model of a university. Indeed, once the developmental potential of

universities has been generally acknowledged, many countries are trying to build “technology institutes”,

“research universities”, and “university-industry partnerships”. Thus, after centuries of using universities mainly

as ideological apparatuses and/or elite selecting devices, there is a rush of policy makers or private firms towards

the university as a productive force in the information economy but universities will always be, at the same time,

conflictual organizations, open to the debates of society, and thus to the generation and confrontation of

ideologies…The ability to manage such contradictions, while emphasizing the role of universities in the

generation of knowledge and the training of labor [sic] in the context of the new requirements of the development

process, will condition to a large extent the capacity of countries and regions to become part of the dynamic

system of the new world economy [italics my own emphasis]”.

The orientation to academic capitalism is largely HE’s entrepreneurial response to the globalisation

threat (of eroding research funds due to the new prevalence of Mode 2 research-in-the-context-of-

application paradigm); research is conducted at multiple sites by knowledge workers and

practitioners from diverse academic, intellectual, or scientific cultures motivated by the problem-

36

solving motif (Zusman, 1999: 129-30; Gibbons, 1998a: 4-6). In addition to the globalisation

scenario, “… the changing nature of science” (Altbach, p. 128) is ascribed as being influential in

compelling HEIs to engage in financially value-added research with huge returns to themselves and

(in most cases) their industrial partners. This frame of reference falls in the mould of “academic

capitalism”, according to which “… [higher education] institutional and professorial market or

market-like efforts [are expended] to secure external moneys…” (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997: 8).

These two authors characterise “market like behaviour” as competition for funds from external

sources. (The scope of commodification/commercialization of research (as a form of HE’s academic

capitalism) is discussed further in the sub-section on the role of research in a globalised world –

Section 2.3 of this selfsame chapter).

On the whole, “academic capitalism” becomes writ large, “…the embodiment of the profit motive

into the academy” (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997: 9). Since globalisation, as emphasised by Deem (2001:

8-10) and others, is fundamentally a neo-liberal capitalistic ideology, the marketisation of higher

education illustrates this competition-driven profit motive and the probabilities of “the ideological

articulation of social needs) as emphasised by Meszaros (2005: 46) earlier. In re-affirming the above

view that HEIs may drift entirely towards profiteering at the expense of its social responsibility,

Elbaz (2000: 89), states: “Therefore, [in the quest to rid the university of its conservative image]

there is the temptation to run the University like a business and only consider the economic aspect of

its development, thus minimizing its social role [italics my own emphasis]”. For purposes of this

chapter, the example cited above (of historical antecedents) is consonant with the international

dimension of higher education curriculum reform/transformation; where ‘internationalisation’ is

construed as a means by which HE conforms and responds to the demands and challenges exacted

on it collectively by massification, globalisation, and ICT (Henry et al., 2001: 145-155; Scott, 1998:

108-109). In differentiating between ‘globalisation’ and ‘internationalisation’, Scott (2001:2-3)

mentions that,

“It can be argued that not only are internationalisation and globalisation different; they are actually opposed.

Internationalisation reflects a world order dominated by nation states. As a result, it has been deeply influenced by

the retreat from empire, the persistence of neo-colonialism…The emphasis continues to be on strategic

relationships, and higher education is no exception. In other words, the recruitment of international students and

the staff exchanges and partnerships between universities in different countries were all conditioned to a

significant extent by this geopolitical context…Globalization is a very different phenomenon…[ reflecting, among

others] global competitiveness…intensified collaboration [due to the development of] …a global division of

labour…a radical reordering of [the] status quo [of superpower hegemony]…and their allies and client states…

national boundaries are rendered obsolete by the transgressive tendencies of high technology and mass culture …

internationalisation presupposes the existence of nation-states, globalization is agnostic about, nation-states, or

37

positively hostile to, nation-states… internationalization, because of its dependence on the existing unequal

pattern of nation-states, tends to reproduce – even legitimise – hierarchy and hegemony”.

The internalization process is manifested by, inter alia, staff and student mobility; transnational

sharing of knowledge; collaboration in the content of knowledge (although internalization of HE

curriculum is not yet fully realized (Henry et al., 2001: 153)); agreements on performance indicators,

quality assurance, as well as on accreditation of programmes of study and qualifications (Deem,

2001: 114). Significant change has also encompassed the realm of knowledge, its production, its

forms/’types’, its dissemination and its application. (Adherents of the traditional mode of higher

education provision object to the notion of students becoming classified as customers/clients.

Morrow (2003: 7), asserts that “… students are not ‘customers’, and the goods of education cannot

be ‘bought’. Real customers buy already manufactured goods…”). The challenge in the intellectual

and epistemological domain has had an impact in establishing alternative contenders for the higher

education market, especially in view of the changing nature of work and the emergence of a new

student base demanding to be treated as paying clients, and, ipso facto, raising the stakes and

competition for student places between, and among, traditional HE and their non-traditional

competitors. Seen against this backdrop, therefore, is the cumulative effect of the new HE

environment in general, and of globalisation in particular, which has been that a kind of profound

and unprecedented ethos has been exacted on the ways in which HE manages its affairs (as result of

e.g. the influences of the ‘new managerialism’); deals with knowledge (what with new competitors

and the changing nature of the ‘triple helix’, i.e. state/HE/industry relations); as well as service to

society (which, in the resonating demand for relevance and responsiveness, can no longer be

relegated to the realms of an optional academic extra).

In this discussion then, and in taking cognisance of Scott’s ‘separation’ of globalisation and

internationalisation, the two concepts will, however, be used interchangeably – their contextual

application being the main determinant of whether or not reference is specifically being made to the

national or to the borderless indicators. The three aspects underlying globalization in particular, are

viewed concurrently, viz. its nature (ideological base); its relationship with, and relevance to

curriculum issues (taking cognisance of the changing nature of employment patterns and the

attendant requirement for a high and diverse skills base); as well as its implications for HE in

general, and curriculum in particular. The rationale and justification for such an approach constitutes

a reasonable basis for a trend-based analysis of universal HE organizational ‘behaviour’ in response

to globalisation (Orr, 1997: 42). Most importantly, this approach defines the centripetal focus along

which the path of this entire study is cast. Globalisation and its concomitant proliferation of

38

knowledge-generation sites, has its negatives. Altbach (2002: 1), while contending that,

“Globalization is probably both inevitable and unstoppable”, nonetheless mentions the problems

associated with this phenomenon that has even affected social organization (Altbach, 2002: 1;

Castells, 2000: 20). The following graphical presentation depicts the critical factors which exact

internal and external pressures in the ways in which higher education is functioning and developing

in the (post?) modern era. These forces for change, together with their ramifications on HE

curriculum organization and management, are discussed in varying degrees throughout this and

subsequent chapters.

FIGURE 2.1: A diagrammatic depiction of factors shaping and influencing higher education reform in the twenty-first century.

Source: Researcher’s own ‘invention’, derived from various sources on HE challenges in the 21st century.

39

ICT(Information

and CommunicationTechnologies)

GlobalisationCommodification of research; Academic Capitalism; Glocalisation

Governance Threats to Academic Freedom and Institutional Autonomy

FundingReducing Costsand Developing Alternative Funding Bases

StaffingPreparing a New Cadre for Excellence in Teaching

Responsiveness Societal Demands and World of Work

Research Collaborations and Partnerships

Private HEProliferation andQuality concerns

HE Hegemony Threats to Claims of Intellectual Legitimacy

Knowledge Its Explosion and Shifts in its Epistemological Base

Curriculum Relevance and Innovation;Mode 2 nuances; Multiple Stakeholders

Massification Expanding Student Access and Growing Demand for Lifelong Learning

21st Century Higher Education Challenges/ Forces for Change

(It has already been mentioned earlier (in the Introduction section of this chapter) that these issues

are not free-standing and disconnected, but intensely inter-connected).

2.1.3 The role of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in higher education“The impact of information technology will be even more radical than the harnessing of steam and electricity in

the 19th century. Rather it will be more akin to the discovery of fire by early ancestors, since it will prepare the

way for a revolutionary leap into a new age that will profoundly transform human culture” (Attali, 1992 quoted in

Duderstadt, 2000b: 220).

Since the advent of ICT prevails in both the external and internal environments of HE functioning,

its (ICT’s) impact on HE, the opportunities and challenges it presents, are then inextricably linked.

“Some authors have suggested that technological change has been the single driving force of

globalization” (Scholte, 2000: 99). Others have rejected “technological determinism” (p. 99) – the

notion that technology’ superiority and momentous pace are “self generating” (p. 99); ipso facto,

responsible for galvanizing other ‘subsidiary’ developments) – as the focal point of the apparent new

world order. However, an attempt has been made to present a ‘segmented’, but unified scenario of

the ramifications of ICT on higher learning. Universities, as the highest centres of learning have

existed in an environment shaped by historical and other social factors, which have to a large extent

informed the basis for HE’s production, dissemination, and validation of knowledge. Altbach et al.

(1998: 9) emphasise the development of science and technology scholarship (“techno-science”, as

referred to by Slaughter & Leslie (1997: 38)), as the informational/knowledge base in which HE has

founded its international reputation; also providing the central function for socio-economic activity

(CHE, 2002: 14), giving rise to the information-/knowledge-based society. Technology has become

the primary means by which this knowledge is produced, disseminated, and consumed. Urry (1998:

2), contends that the compression (nay, invasion and reconfiguration), of time and space, as the

primary function of ICT, has destabilized the territoriality of human interaction and social movement

through the establishment of the ‘cyborg cultures’; according to which time and space have been ‘re-

designed’ into a manoeuvrable spatial entity. It is ‘the information age’ that contextualises the

prevalence and salience of ICT as an irreversible feature of the post-modern era.

The historical context of globalisation and ICT cannot be relegated to the periphery, though this is

referred to in ‘a bird’s-eye view’ approach – considering that this is not a history-steeped discussion.

It is therefore against this assumption that an overview of ICT and its curriculum implications are

contextualised in respect of all of human development as located in a particular moment in its

historical development (Apple, 1990: 61-81). It is this historically contextualised aspect which

provides to knowledge in general its “cultural embeddedness” (Van Damme, 2002: 24) – the specific

40

provenance of the symbols and values that give meaning to a particular worldview (usually serving

the interests of the particular dominant group in society). The ICT overview then, provides a context

of the metamorphological transformation of modes of production – from industrial (energy

production) mode to the informational mode (information/knowledge production and distribution) –

within which dominant activities are organised around the networking of information. The

information age itself refers to the era of human development after the industrial age. Whereas the

latter was “… organized primarily around the production and distribution of energy” (Castells, 2000:

2), the former refers “to a historical period in which human societies perform their activities in a

technological paradigm constituted around microelectronic-based information/communication

technologies, and engineering” (p. 2). For HE to become a meaningful participant in this knowledge-

based era and networked-information age, the latter’s extant ubiquity has to be fully comprehended,

and not to be taken as a mere passing whim (Eggins, 1998: 24; Tien, 1999: 182).

Technology then, affords a base for the inordinate production of knowledge (Scholte, 2000:

99-100), since it is a productive tool for networked knowledge – considering that networks

themselves “… are the most flexible, and adaptable forms of organization, able to evolve with their

environment, and with the evolution of the nodes that compose the network” (Castells, 2000: 15).

The affinity between technology, production and consumption manifests itself in social class

organization. Those who directly or indirectly control the modes of production exert some control or

power over the forms and levels of consumption, including the consumption of knowledge.

Elaborating on the extent to which techno-science becomes an instrument for social stratifications,

Eggins (1998: 24), asserts:

“One view of our society is that a new wave of economic and social activity, associated with profound

technological change, is replacing the industrial age ... A number of researchers have analysed the impact that the

new technologies have had on society. They find on the one hand, the potential for moving towards a more

egalitarian society, in which there are hugely expanded opportunities for accessing and exchanging information.

But they also find, on the other hand, evidence of new social divisions between those who hold much information

and those who hold little, the ‘information rich’ and the ‘information poor’. They also find some evidence for the

use of these technologies as a means of introducing subtle forms of social control. (In) equality among individuals

and among nations in the 21st century, therefore, becomes measured by the quality and quantity of, and access to,

technology-based information/ knowledge [italics my own emphasis]”.

41

2.1.3.1 The impact of ICT on higher education

With the rise of the “information age” and its attendant “network society” facilitated by the massive

influence of ICT, the speed at which the flow of ideas materialises has become the competitive basis

for knowledge sharing. The Internet has become a crucial invention in facilitating the prevalence of

“... an integrated world community” (Van Damme, 2002: 21).

Traditional HE ‘conformity’ to the ICT mode of teaching and learning to a radically different

student population has become an absolute sine qua non for its survival and epistemological

credibility (Bates, 1999: 27; Pister, 1999: 232). Eggins (1998: 24) however, reaffirms the

differential power of IT to the extent that it has tended to become an instrument of stratification

between the information-technology rich (individuals, communities, organizations, and

governments) and those who are materially unable to source it. In a very revolutionary way, ICT

has become an integral facilitator of the trend towards student-centred and lifelong learning, by

radically nullifying time and place as the primary determinants of the didactic and pedagogic

processes. It is in this regard that open and distance learning has carved a niche for itself in the

provision of higher education. In a re-affirmation of this fact, Guri-Rosenblit (1999: 1), declares

that, “[b]y eliminating the lecture hall, seminar room and university library and placing the student

at home, the distance teaching universities have presented the most radical challenge yet to the

traditional concept of a university.” In illustrating technology’s capacity to enhance HE’s large-

scale operation, especially in the case of distance education, Guri-Rosenblit (p. 24) further states

that:

“Distance education is a rationalized method – involving the division of labour – of providing knowledge which,

as a result of applying the principles of industrial organization as well as the extensive use of technology, thus

facilitating the reproduction of objective teaching in any numbers, allows a large number of students to participate

in university study simultaneously regardless of their place of residence and occupation [italics mine]”.

2.1.3.2 Opportunities presented by ICT

Technology, as a form of development, refers to “the use of scientific knowledge to specify ways of

doing things in a reproducible manner” (Castells, 2000: 06). Technology has opportuned the

“reproducibility” of doing things. Knowledge continues to be produced inordinately and reaches a

broad spectrum of practitioners, producers, individuals and organizations through its interactive

networks and structures. Castells (pp. 7-8) has highlighted that the “self-expanding” nature of the

knowledge/ information economy has engendered the continuous invention of technologies that

disseminate knowledge and information instantaneously through an array of multi-media software at

a plethora of sites. While some are cynical about HE’s ability to cope with the rapid IT challenges,

42

Ikenberry (1999: 56-7) offers an optimistic perspective in this regard. He reiterates the fact that HE

has shown its resilience and tenacity by being able to adapt to momentous changes in the last

thousand years. To date, millions of people around the world have computers and access to the

Internet. The HE student population has increased from 14 million in 1960 to around 82 million by

1995 (p. 56), which is an indication of the vast potential that computer-based inter-connectivity still

has to tap into. This feat is by no means insurmountable, considering the copious Internet-based

providers’ capacity to “reproduce” and distribute data and information to anyone, anywhere in the

world (Duderstadt, 2000b: 221). Despite the ‘window of opportunity’ presented by ICT, the “digital

gap” between developed and developing/least developed countries reflects some technological

disparity that is likely to remain unchanged – even by 2050! (Kennedy et al., 2002: 9-11).

The prevalence of ICT has ushered in the profuse generation, dissemination, and consumption of

knowledge and information from multiple sources (e.g. electronic, textual, audio-visual), and by

multiple participants (e.g. governments, NGOs, HEIs, industry, private database providers)

(Thompson, (undated): 5) The ICT environment – as exemplified by inter-connected computer

networks and telecommunication systems – has become an exploitable research terrain,

“... enabling the computer simulation of complex phenomena, linking scholars together in networked communities

such as collaboratories, and providing them access to the vast resources of digital libraries and knowledge

networks. [Furthermore] Many of our administrative processes have become heavily dependent upon information

technology – as the concern with the date reset of Year 2000 made all too apparent” (Duderstadt, 2000b: 324).

The most revolutionary aspect of ICT is the capacity to virtually obviate time and space limitations,

due to the speed with which knowledge and data are generated, compressed and disseminated, and

feedback is facilitated. This process is practicable through the interactive processes of connecting

voice, sound, images, text and data. For research tele-conferencing and collaborations, this aspect is

extremely cost-effective, saving institutions travel and conference expenses. Individual and teams of

researchers can actually collaborate and conduct research from any part of the world without having

to physically leave their campuses or research sites (Duderstadt, 2000b: 324). Ikenberry (1999: 58)

refers to this virtually-created multi-party environments as “collaboratories” in which, for instance,

faculty in different campuses locally, regionally or internationally share their academic exploits and

pursuits in a collaborative manner. While this fact is an opportunity for HE development, is also

indicative of the general impact of technology on higher education. It is on the basis of such

examples (tele-conferencing and collaboratories) that the inextricability of the impact, opportunities

and challenges presented by ICT on HE was mentioned earlier in this sub-section.

43

The ICT revolution is fundamentally paramount insofar as reusability of, and accessibility to

information, is concerned. Physical and material impediments to knowledge and information are

obviated through:

“… the creation of virtual environments where human senses are exposed to artificially-created sights, sounds,

and feelings [that] liberate us from restrictions… Close, empathic, multi-party relations mediated by visual and

aural digital communications systems encourage the formation of closely bonded, widely dispersed communities

of people interested in sharing new experiences and intellectual pursuits” (Duderstadt, 1999: 42).

ICT has had a massive impact on institutional administrative systems in the ways that data and

information are collected, processed and disseminated. These technology-driven systems have to be

constantly updated and upgraded in tandem with changes and developments in the ICT sphere. An

example of such changes is the Y2K phenomenon – the electronic changes required for information

networks to be millennium-compliant (Duderstadt, 1999: 42). Administrative duties involving

students, staff and faculty records, research data, financial matters, and so forth, are better collected,

stored and disseminated electronically as these can be frequently retrieved and utilised with ease.

Libraries are linked globally and information is accessible to different kinds of readers, knowledge

producers and practitioners. The ‘invisible’ colleges and academics disseminate their knowledge

through their ICT ‘libraries’ – the library is in the computer! The advent of ICT has in a very radical

way diminished the age-old salience of the physical textbook (as the primordial mode of the print

technology in which a particular curriculum ‘paradigm’ is symbolized); the classroom (as the

revered place and site of teaching and learning, impacting on the time of teaching and learning); as

well as replacing the chalkboard (as the conventional instrument of teacher-directed learning).

2.1.3.3 Challenges occasioned by ICT

Since HE is a knowledge “industry” serving a range of traditional and emerging constituencies

(Quddus & Rashid, 2000: 504), its capacity to technologically-manage the inordinate quantities of

‘unprocessed’ data/information and convert or transfer it into knowledge (increasing every five

years) – or whatever is perceived to count as “knowledge” – is a challenge of enormous proportions.

Universities – if they are to sustain their academic and intellectual/epistemological legitimacy – are

therefore confronted with the task of utilising technology to reconfigure the vast quantities of

information into intelligible content for various fields of knowledge (Duderstadt, 2000b: 221). Of

HE’s fundamental missions, it is in the realm of teaching that ICT has been abjectly deficient (p.

228). A statistical ‘breakdown’ of the application of information and communication technologies in

the classroom/lecture hall suggests that concerted efforts are still to be seriously embarked upon, in

order that these technologies become an integral – rather than a peripheral – part of the learning

44

process. The following ‘indictment’ by Duderstadt (p. 228), is very much in tandem with some

(questionnaire-based) observations made during the empirical phase (Chapter 5) of this study:

“Imagine the reactions of a nineteenth century physician, suddenly transported forward in time to a modern

surgery, complete with all of the technological advances of modern medicine. Yesteryear’s physician would

recognise very little – perhaps not even the patient – and certainly would not be able to function in any meaningful

way. Contrast this with a nineteenth century college professor, transported into a contemporary university

classroom. Here everything would be familiar – the same lecture podium, blackboards, and students ready to take

notes. Even the subjects would be familiar and taught in precisely the same way. Universities are supposed to be

at the cutting edge of both knowledge generation and transmission. Yet their primary activity, teaching, is

conducted today as it was a century ago. Technologies that were supposed to drive radical change – television,

computer-assisted instruction, wireless communications – have bounced off the classroom without a dent [italics

mine]”.

It is acutely ironic that HE is lagging behind the private sector which it (HE) is attempting to

emulate through its commodification efforts. Could this be a manifestation of Clark’s (1998)

observation that the traditional “heartland”/core of universities is (organizationally) “bottom heavy”

and “top-laden”, ergo, slow to respond to change? Or could it be that insufficient resources make it

difficult for maximum implementation of technology in the core teaching functions (apart from

students’ own after class initiatives)? A possible explanation (from this study’s perspective) could be

that: the classroom is still the primary site of learning – i.e. asynchronous an ubiquitous learning is

not yet fully optimized for all student ‘types’, backgrounds and needs. Or could it be that the

epistemological canons of HE are traditionally disdainful towards external change? Invariably,

university lecturers could still have to be continuously re-trained in technology-driven education.

Distance education institutions and virtual/‘cyber’ universities have a competitive advantage in their

usage of Internet-based interactive multi-media to reach and deliver instruction to any student, any

time, and anywhere – including at home and at work (Duderstadt, 2000: 229). The physical

university lecture hall could be the only sphere in which an electronic replacement is yet to be found.

The student-teacher pastoral care still gives the human/personal character to university education,

which virtualisation is still to exploit fully. It is averred by the above author that this is not

impossible, considering that media and film companies are involved in the production of instruction

software. Professional actors are likely to be hired to ‘impersonate’ teachers in the production of

packaged courseware (Duderstadt, 1999: 46).

From all of the variables relating to the role of ICT in 21st century higher education, it is imperative

that quality be maintained without sacrificing commitment to society’s development. Technological

infrastructure development, implementation, and maintenance do not come cheap. Increasing student

45

fees beyond GDP would make higher learning inaccessible to the socio-economically challenged,

and still render higher learning elitist and a privilege of the few (Quddus & Rashid, 2000: 506). The

challenge then is for higher education institutions to keep abreast of technological developments and

apply the relevant aspects for its knowledge-related benefit (e.g. teaching and research); while at the

same time developing mechanisms to keep tuition costs at reasonable levels.

2.2 HIGHER EDUCATION MISSIONS IN A NEW AND DIVERSIFIED ENVIRONMENT

In the light of the rapidly changing environment within which universities function, their declared

existential purposefulness and missions should be directed at achieving both academic excellence

and socio-economic and cultural responsiveness, while simultaneously sustaining the external

pressure of competitiveness against contending forces. To arrive at these declared objectives,

“… universities must strive to contribute to the discovery of new knowledge, and to instil an appreciation of the

value of the pursuit of knowledge. In doing so, universities contribute to both the intellectual vitality and the

economic well-being of society; produce educated citizens; train the next generation of leaders in the arts,

sciences, and professions; and …actively engage in public service activities that bring that faculty knowledge and

research findings to the attention of citizens and industry” (Hirsch & Weber, 1999: viii).

The view being amplified here is that higher education institutions are by their very nature endowed

with the academic and intellectual wealth necessary for socio-economic development, which in the

present times has to touch and shape the lives of the general population, as opposed to only a

specific segment of the population. The irrevocable and radical changes ‘imposed’ by globalisation

and the advent of ICT necessitate that HE unambiguously conform its basic missions – of teaching,

research, and community service in ways that directly respond to the growing demands and

expectations of its increasingly diverse constituencies. Old paradigms in the entire spectrum of HE

functioning and missions necessarily have to give way to new and adaptive ways of conducting HE’s

‘business’.

Diversity has been identified as the most salient macro-cosmic element (Gibbons, 1998a: 8) that is

indicative of the review and adaptation of university missions in the changing and challenging

climate of the current millennium. Clark’s (1998) comparative exegesis of the “bottom heavy” and

“top laden” bureaucratic management of five European HEIs (whose structural ineptitude renders

them ‘averse’ to change), is an assertion of just one of many HE organizational challenges that still

need to undergo transformation. His analysis best captures the nature of all organizations for whom

change is either ‘loathsome’ or applied at a very slow pace, because of adherence to an ethos of

collegiality that has placed the interests of the few above those of the many. Collegiality, as an ethos

46

permeating the broad operational functions of HE, is “… pervasive, affecting numerous offices and

units across the institution; deep, touching upon values, beliefs and structures (Kezar & Eckel, 2002:

440). It is the one institutional norm which is viewed here as the fundamental factor of

organizational culture that has to be addressed. In outlining an understanding of organizational

change, Kezar & Eckel (p. 440) present a multidimensional review of its occurrence. For purpose of

this discussion, only the most salient aspects of their exegesis are briefly referred to.

Organizational culture could become an impediment to change. Change and culture are interrelated,

and change may be accepted or rejected (Kezar & Eckel, 2002: 438); culture being defined as “…

the deeply embedded patterns of organizational behavior [sic] and the shared values, assumptions,

beliefs or ideologies that members have about their organization or its work” (p. 438). The affinity

between organizational culture and change strategies to be implemented, were affirmed in the results

of a study undertaken by these two authors (p. 455). The culture of organizations, or some important

tenets of it – such as vision or mission – is amenable to change, and the modified product takes the

form of the change strategy applied. In other words, “... the outcome of change is a modified culture”

(p. 438). In presenting the afore-going analytic scenario, an attempt is being made here to cast the

future roles of HE in respect of how their missions are able (or not) to respond emphatically and

prognostically (rather than reactively) in the diverse environment that is perennially introducing

change in one form or the other. Dill & Sporn (1995: 212-235), explore various models that apply to

organizations when faced with moments of change. It is the expressed view here that their network

organizational model, as opposed to the contingency model, would be most suited to effecting

serious change. The contingency model, on the other hand, would only be like a ‘just in case’

mechanism that does not adequately indicate total compliance with comprehensive change.

Contrastingly, the network model, in view of the complexities in which HE now finds itself, would

enable it to be responsive in a manner corresponding to the pace of change in the external

environment (Dill & Sporn, 1995: 216-218).

2.2.1 The imperative for diversity

Diversity is HE’s fundamental response to external realities (Fehnel, 2002: 1-3). As an aspect of HE

transformation, diversity is also an international phenomenon that transcends the confines of time

and place in the “global village”. It should, however, be borne in mind that individual and national

idiosyncrasies do not just simply disappear. Diversity is construed in this study as the single most

powerful force that could foster an equitable dimension to civilisation in general. In his analysis of

the unifying aspect of human diversity, Power (2001: 22) states that:

47

“World citizenship does not imply an abandonment of legitimate national and cultural loyalties, nor the abolition

of national autonomy, nor the imposition of uniformity. It does imply unity in diversity, internationally as well as

nationally ... In the twenty-first century, we will need to give much greater attention to developing an

understanding of, and respect for, the richness and diversity of the world’s cultures ... [italics mine]”.

From the perspective of this study, it is considered extremely significant that the contextual usage of

the term “diversity” be clarified. On one hand this term is understood as referring to only a single

alternative path that is resorted to in addressing a prevailing problem (in respect of. curriculum

organization and delivery modes). Such a conception renders HE curriculum transformation in an

evolutionary (gradualistic) mode of change. On the other hand, the term is understood to refer to a

range of multiple approaches designed to address all of higher education’s functions and missions.

This latter trend therefore, conforms to the radical mode of HE transformation in which no quarter

of its structures and systems is spared. The question then, is one of whether “diversity” is only

curriculum- and qualifications-based, or whether it is an overarching systemic concern. It is in this

latter context that the term has been applied in this chapter and elsewhere in this study. Newby

(1999: 120) also suggests that the term “diversity” is applied in contexts that lend it synonymous

with “differentiation”. In analyzing “generic trends in mass higher education” and clarifying

confusion arising from the usage and application of “diversity” in HE, Newby (p. 120) puts this in a

more illuminating perspective thus:

“This term [diversity] can be interpreted in a variety of ways. On the whole, most commentators favour [sic] an

increase in diversity in the higher education sector, but are divided over what it precisely means. There is also

some confusion over whether diversity is best seen as a means – a variety of pathways towards a common degree

standard – or an end – a variety of degree standards ... the move towards a mass system of higher education has

produced a greater diversity of institutions in terms of their structure, organization, purpose, mission etc. ... the

growth of higher education also produces greater diversity among the student body ... and staff, with respect to

their class origins, ages, interests, and talents. This development, in turn, brings about an increasing diversity in

curricula and pedagogy [bold italics mine]”.

Gibbons (1998a: 8), in accentuating the overarching and pervasive nature of diversity/heterogeneity

especially since the ‘inception’ of the Mode 2 paradigm of knowledge creation, dissemination and

authentication, mentions that the organizational character of higher education can ill afford to remain

stagnant against the ‘wave after wave’ of externally-induced change. For instance, and since

knowledge is no longer the sole preserve of HE, flexible organizational cultures and collaborative

mechanisms are required to emphasise the social context of knowledge. Such a state of affairs would

be foundational in increasing the imperative for diversity, while also empowering HE with the

much-needed response-time “... to tackle ... problems ... [and] to accommodate the changing and

48

transitory nature of the problems” (Gibbons, 1998a: 8). The “transitory nature” of existing and new

problems and challenges demands that HE differentiate between its core and peripheral functions,

although these could be indistinct due to the increasing multiplication of fields of study into more

and more ‘segments’ and sub-divisions (pp. 8, 14). An institution could for instance, direct its core

focus towards both undergraduate and postgraduate education, as well as part-time or continuing

education. This “diversification of functions” (p. 8) has resulted into HE missions that are less

distinct.

Diversity is HE’s fundamental response to external realities. The reconfiguration of HE into various

institutional types (e.g. comprehensive universities) and a plethora of ‘fields’ of study and

programmes occasioned by the knowledge explosion, are challenges that make some traditional

approaches to HE’s problems become anachronistic (Gibbons, 1998a: 2). The growing access to HE

by ‘non-standard’, working adults for instance, necessitates that diverse and asynchronous ways of

learning and curriculum delivery be incorporated into the ‘mainstream’ HE organizational missions

and culture (Zusman, 1999: 119-120). The increasing state of HE operational costs and tuition, as

well as the economic imperatives of globalisation, has collectively also accentuated the need to

introduce into higher education alternative measures and diverse means of funding higher education.

The state’s structural adjustment mechanisms and its spending of taxpayers’ money on other social

concerns, together with its demand for more accountability on the part of HE, has engendered and

accentuated an entrepreneurial character within higher education institutions (Gibbons, 1998a: 7).

2.2.1.1 The growing demand and changing higher education constituencies

The economic implications of globalisation have quantitatively increased the demand for higher

education worldwide (Van Damme, 2002: 23). Age is no longer a factor of who ‘qualifies’ for higher

education learning (Zusman, 1999: 118). Furthermore, the quest for a “knowledge society” has

ushered in the need for a highly knowledgeable workforce skilled in diverse knowledge-related

areas. Lifelong learning (which is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 of this study), has ‘re-

demarcated’ higher learning from primarily serving traditional “just-in-time” students who are newly

matriculated and have had no disruptions in their formal education from high school to post-

secondary learning. While traditional degree and diploma qualifications still have labour market-

related currency (thus accentuating the belief that these are automatic guarantees to a job), the

growing lifelong learning market has necessitated that these qualifications “... be supplemented by

specialized programmes, vocational and competency-oriented training and modular courses adapted

to a new lifelong learning demand [italics my own emphasis]” (Weber, 1999: 16). The lifelong

learning sector therefore, has engendered an avenue of massification that specifically addresses the

49

needs, circumstances, and expectations of a particular student population (e.g. part-time, working

adults). This study is of the view that this particular dimension of a growing demand for HE

(massification) is conceptually different from the notion of “access” (in the same way as “diversity”

and “differentiation”) as applying for instance, in the South African context – where it is used as a

form of state intervention to numerically increase the numbers of students from social categories that

were previously marginalised/disadvantaged. In this latter context, it becomes a means towards an

end (of achieving equity and redress to dissipate the imbalances of the past). However, both notions

(massification and access) would be bound together as being features of the democratisation of

society and its public institutions (Duderstadt, 2000b: 328). Ironically, democratisation has also

brought about perceptions that higher education in particular, is a private good that does not need

support from public coffers. This issue of students as being an integral constituency in the growing

demand for higher learning is discussed further in sub-section 2.3.1.5 of this chapter.

It could be said that the knowledge “industry” of HE has brought about a multiplicity of groups with

disparate interests (and agendas!) to the turf of public higher education, to the extent that these

interest groups seem to be lobbying for a strong and powerful stake in higher education’s future

(Harcleroad, 1999: 241-243). Private foundations (appearing as a consortium of associations, trusts,

corporate organizations, etc.) are an example in an arena that might tend to overshadow the public’s

right to be fully served by higher education institutions they are funding through their taxes. The

foundations’ form, size and choice of financial support to higher education influences the areas of a

particular institution’s functioning. In this kind of higher education-private sector relations (which

also applies to industry and commerce) institutional autonomy and academic freedom are bound to

be kept under constant vigilance. This state of affairs is what basically characterises “the hidden

hand [of] external constituencies and their impact” (p. 241). This issue is discussed further in section

2.6 of this chapter.

2.2.2 Responsive and responsible universities’ adaptation

“No one university can do everything it would like to do and maintain excellence at every

level. Defining the university’s vision is one of the most important issues facing higher

education today” (Tien, 1999: 165).

The “dynamics of relevance” referred to earlier in this chapter, are pivotal in shaping institutional

missions. Because of the new context within which HE conducts its business,

diversity/differentiation, has become an operational theme in the execution of reform-directed

commitment to research, teaching and training, as well as service to the community (Gibbons,

50

1998a: 31; Neave, 2002 24). In re-affirming “diversity” as a factor of relevance /responsiveness and

mission changes, Gibbons (1998a 14) states: “The total mission of higher education has become

fuzzier and more diverse, more difficult to define and defend”. This is so, because the core functions

and those in the periphery have become interstitial to each other. Responsive and responsible

universities in the 21st century are those that are conscious of the need to adapt to the changes

occurring around their physical and virtual campuses. By adapting pragmatically and decisively to

these changing factors and pressures, they are becoming responsive to the external environment and

transforming from within to become organizational entities that do not intend to be submerged in a

sea of change. Realizing the urgency for higher education to sustain its responsiveness and

responsibility, the Gilion Colloquium reiterated, “… the three fundamental missions of universities –

teaching, research, and community service are fundamentally [still] correct… these should

[however] be taken more seriously” (Weber, 1999: 6). In this regard, the biggest challenge for HE is

whether or not it is practicable for these three missions to be executed collectively or separately at

institutional level. The traditional university has since its existence been able to fulfil all three

simultaneously (Ikenberry, 1999: 59). More than its own internal activism or external threats, HE

must respond and transform largely due to the changing social needs and the perennially expanding

knowledge frontiers (Marginson, 2000: 30-31; Rhodes, 1999: 182). A comprehensive response to

change would have greatly enhanced HE’s functions as a community service agent.

Taking stock of societal concerns and demands (thereby broadening the knowledge stakeholder

constituency) is a key illustration of HE’s conscience to what society aspires for (Pretorius, 2003:

13-15). Nüesch (1999: 157) asserts that “[i]f the university intends to contribute to the development

of society, it has to deal with and to anticipate major societal issues [italics mine]”. By implication,

the challenge for HE is to be not only in the world, but to be part of it. This reorientation of internal

HE operations and intellectual cultures is an imperative, as Coffield & Williamson (1997: 4), aver:

“Being in the business of discovering and disseminating knowledge and of recreating new generations of

professionals, universities are among the most important institutions of the knowledge-based information

economy. As bodies uniquely specialized to test out all claims to knowledge, they have a role to play in public

life. … To do so, however, they themselves will have to change”.

The public supports HE financially and has unadulterated trust in HE’s impartiality, academic

excellence and professional judgement. Hence HE’s institutional autonomy and academic freedoms

are rarely interfered with. In return, society expects HE to reciprocate this trust by displaying the

highest standards in areas such as the accreditation and certification of competencies and skills

necessary for the professions and industry. Accountability is another pivotal factor determining the

51

extent of (dis)trust between HE and the public it serves. It is contended that “… universities should

not, as they were too long inclined to do, pretend that they are above the crowd and not accountable

to anyone. Universities, public or private, belong to society and therefore have to be both transparent

and accountable [bold italics mine]” (Weber, 1999: 6). Sound accountability procedures and

practices perpetuate public confidence in the HE systems. Accountability and the concomitant issues

of governance are discussed further in later sections of this chapter.

2.3 THE STATE OF HIGHER EDUCATION MISSIONS

The literature of “education” and “management” define “missions” differently. Missions distinguish

one organizational characteristic from another. The distinction itself premises on the purposes for

which the particular institution or organization was established. Such a purpose is given a context by

the constituency for whom the organization is established to serve. HE and corporate missions,

however dissimilar their institutional cultures may be, are ‘bonded’ by the similar feature of both

being client-oriented. It is the client base which helps organizations clarify organizational priorities

and objectives, as well as strategic processes by which such objectives and priorities are to be

realized. “Missions” have the cumulative effect of guiding organizations through moments of

change occurring internally and externally; enhance effective decision-making; facilitate

communication with relevant constituencies; as well as establish mechanisms that help evaluate the

achievement of objectives and priorities. Opponents of “missions” view them as the corporatisation

of HE functioning by, for instance, the inclination towards “new managerialism”. They still adhere

to the halcyon days of the predominance of collegiality as a way of a canonically-defined HE

organizational functioning.

2.3.1 The higher education teaching context

Knowledge has become the common currency of the knowledge society, giving rise to the neologism

– “the knowledge industry” – to express the ways in which “market-like” behaviour has resulted into

the “packaging” of knowledge into a commodity that can be bought and sold, and whose value is

determined by the nexus between its producers and its high-consuming clientele. With ICT having

revolutionized the way knowledge and information are obtained, processed, and managed, it

becomes somewhat axiomatic that HE academics abandon obsolete and anachronistic teaching

methodologies, and notions of the teacher’s prescience. This reality confronting HE teaching is both

unavoidable and unstoppable. “Unavoidable” because the secularity of knowledge has presented

questions whose answers could not be left to the idiosyncrasies and confines of the lecture halls

alone, as exemplified by the Mode 2 thesis of the generation of knowledge “in the context of

application” by multi-disciplinary teams of knowledge workers. “Unstoppable” because the ‘wave

52

after wave’ of inventions and innovations (emanating from the ICT revolution and knowledge

explosion), has shifted the focus from traditional teaching to a host of invisible and sometimes

anonymous academics on the Internet. The complexities of knowledge found this way have relegated

the role of the teacher to that of a facilitator of learning experiences. The traditional pedagogical

function of the lecturer is becoming antiquated. The ever-increasing knowledge needs of society

require that teachers be multidisciplinaristic in their approach to the dissemination of knowledge

(Gibbons, 1998a 42). One of the ways in which multidisciplinary knowledge-dissemination

strategies could be achieved is by faculty constantly and throughout their academic and professional

careers, acquainting themselves with developments outside their university walls (Elbaz, 2000: 94;

Gibbons, 1998a 134; Naude, 2003: 76). Such an approach would diminish the psychological

‘distance’ between learners’ experiences and lecturers’ expectations; a closer interaction between

lecturers and students creates a better context in which teaching and learning occurs. It would also

help in translating the principles of teaching (e.g. pastoral intimacy) to the practices of “… the new

[learner-based] learning” (Blasi, 1999: 30-31) in the new millennium. In traditional lexicon, this

teaching-across-the curriculum complements the core curriculum’s thrust towards the infusion of

both academic/cognitive ability; as well as non-academic / ‘auxiliary’ skills.

Teaching excellence is one of the fundamental tenets in which HE makes its contribution to society

(Marginson, 2000: 34). Excellence in teaching (individual), and excellence of teaching

(departmental and/ or institutional), are two key areas in which the pedagogic contribution may be

assessed. Excellence of teaching enhances a(n) institution’s/department’s profile and reputation

insofar as a (trans-/multi-/inter-disciplinary) programmatic offering of tailored courses for students’

needs is concerned. The totality of individual academic contribution by academic staff popularizes

the way in which pedagogic methodologies are applied to capture students’ interests in their chosen

fields of study. Conventional modes of curriculum delivery are ostensibly inadequate for the present

era in which student-focused learning is the focal point of many HE systems. Because most (if not

all) HE professors and academics are not products of the “digital generation” and its “cyborg

culture”, retraining and other staff development measures might be necessary for their exposure to

technology-driven instruments and methods of curriculum delivery (Gibbons, 1998a 42; Guri-

Rosenblit, 1999: 24; Naude, 2003: 76). Due to the preponderance of technology-driven modes of

curriculum delivery, the classroom, chalkboard, textbook and other current and conventional

pedagogical paraphernalia may become obsolete as ‘conduits’ for the expression of teacher-based

learning. Students’ learning preferences cannot be ignored (Gardner, 1999: 24). In this fast-changing

teaching environment where learners are accustomed to “plug-and-play” (p. 24) learning, teamwork,

and conceptualised experimentation, teachers will assume the role of coaches or consultants, having

53

to become “…designers of learning experiences, processes and environments” (Duderstadt, 1999:

42). By implication, teachers will become less and less of “curriculum delivery machines” p. 42). By

augmenting auxiliary skills to the development of technology-driven curriculum delivery systems,

teachers are also creating conditions that are congruent with the learning expectations of different

kinds of learners. The Mode 2 paradigm in this regard, would imply that HE teachers and their

teaching methods should focus on the centrality of problem-solving across the curriculum (i.e. as the

cohesive element of all courses offered by the institution). Tsichritzis (1999: 105) condemns the

monotony of the teacher-centred methods of disseminating knowledge; characterised by the same

person(s) repeating explanations on issues whose substance is widely available for instance, through

the electronic multimedia. The author states: “It [the isomorphic orientation of teaching] is the

equivalent of monks copying books in an age of printing presses. It will probably become

obsolete” (p. 105).

The new dynamics of teaching, as indicated above, will require a major change in graduate and

postgraduate education as well (which is intended for the training of future professionals/elites?).

Many of today’s faculty members have been ‘inducted’ in the traditional discipline-based modes of

knowledge production – the ‘sacrosanct’ apprenticeship model being a case in point (Gibbons,

1998a: 43-44). The emphasis on the separation of teaching and research (which is the focus of

research universities), implies that (post) graduate study is the terrain in which student-centredness

might obtain maximum attention, although the student-researcher is guided by the constraints of time

(and resources) to finally complete the study. Most distinctively – in terms of the Mode 2 focus of

knowledge generation – undergraduate studies will become very divergent from their (post) graduate

corollaries (Gibbons, 1998a 43; Naude, 2003: 72-73). Postgraduate studies, by virtue of preparing

students for knowledge specialities, will bring students into contact with other practitioners from a

variety of disciplines and academic/intellectual paradigms in the process of conducting their research

(Lagemann & Shulman, 1999: xiii-xiv). Whereas socialization into the nuances of a particular

discipline may be one of the pillars of the ‘apprenticeship’ model, the epistemological shifts

accentuated by knowledge’s proliferation diminish disciplinarity of post graduate research. By and

large, the dominance of any particular research culture appears to be endangered, given the

prevalence of multiple teams of multidisciplinary researchers in the execution of problem-solving

research. Trans-disciplinarity could become the new and dominant culture of graduate and

postgraduate research. With specific reference to the UK (although this is particularly illuminating

for other HE systems as well), Deem and Brehony (2000: 12) mention that:

54

“[m]ore tolerance of diversity among research students, and more attempts to explain what doctoral study is about

for the benefit of those students not familiar with the UK [higher education] system, would help many students,

not just those who are from other countries. Without such changes, it is hard to escape those powerful critics of

the UK higher education system who see it as an elite system designed only for the privileged few [bold italics

mine]”.

Viewed against this background, (post) graduate student supervision itself, as a form of teaching (p.

13), is destined to undergo changes in which research cultures are likely to diminish due Mode 2’s

“problem-solving in the context of application” increasingly becoming a pivotal approach to

research.

2.3.1.1 The changing role of university academic staff

The academic profession, if it is to play a meaningful role in the rapidly changing global context,

requires bold and visionary institutional and systemic leadership; the kind of leadership that will

elevate the quality of education in respect of research, teaching and social responsibility. The

changing role of teachers and the development of a new generation of staff are some of the most

fundamental areas in which HEIs need to express their capacity (or lack thereof) to become a huge

component of the broader socio-economic, cultural, political, and other forms of transformation

taking place in the 21st century.

The changing role of university teachers in the millennium is largely technology-induced and has

profound effects on the traditional teacher-centred pedagogical frameworks, which have been

canonized for ages. Multimedia course delivery instruments (for both on-site and distance-teaching

purposes), including tele-learning and an array of computer-based technologies, have ushered in an

era where the traditional role of the teacher is becoming less a sine qua non for education to occur.

The place of learning is no longer confined to the lecture hall. HE teachers are becoming animators,

facilitators, coaches and consultants to students – an indication of the importance of the student in

the teaching and learning enterprise. The dominant synchronous, single-site mode of teaching is

being challenged by the asynchronous, self-paced mode of learning, thus impugning the notion of

the classroom as the irreplaceable place of learning. Consequently, all ‘types’ of learners learn

anywhere and at anytime convenient to them. Computer-based learning now supersedes the

sequential quantity of teacher-acquired knowledge, thus transforming the didactic process from

passive to active learning – from regurgitative and rote learning, to learner-compliant practical ways

of knowing. Primitive modes of the static presentation of knowledge (e.g. slides) have been

overtaken by dynamic multimedia technologies (e.g. digital television); in science and technology,

55

the usage of real objects for experimentation has been ‘usurped’ by virtual, computer-simulated

objects to reconcile theory with reality.

To the extent that many university teachers are more apt at, and inclined towards the traditional

academic frameworks of their respective disciplines, some academic commentators recommend that

the D.A. (Doctor of Arts) degree be recognised as an alternative to the Ph D (Doctor of Philosophy)

degree for entry-level teaching staff – those who are beginning their careers as academics (Zusman,

1999: 135-136; Duderstadt, 2000b: 88-102). Furthermore, a practical and a teaching methodological

component are recommended for inclusion as integral (research-based) curriculum requirements for

prospective university lecturers. While the academic profession has been unequivocally affected by

the new and changing environment; while time and place in teaching are already dissipating as

pivotal learning and teaching contexts, it is the continued necessity of the ‘person’/human aspect of

the teacher that is still to be tested as a significant aspect in the knowledge-acquisition process.

Many academic analysts hold the view that HE quality assurance methods intended for evaluating

faculty performance should change as well. Publication of research papers by faculty – as a

condition of employment – is one such area that has for long shaped the dominant perception of

what the role of a university teacher should be. That is to say: What is the contribution of the

individual academic to the corpus of knowledge in his/her particular field of expertise? Publication-

inclined perceptions promote allegiance to the particular discipline (ipso facto, alienating the self-

same discipline from other disciplines), rather than allegiance to the broader missions of the

institution. Brookfield (1995: 128), asserts that reflective practice is becoming a more acceptable

alternative to publication-as-a-condition-for-employment:

“Whilst the publish or perish syndrome is still evident in the larger and more prestigious [American] research

universities, many campuses within the state university system, as well as numerous smaller public and private

universities, have moved to a more reflective approach to evaluating faculty performance… we can see how

teachers’ ability to reflect on teaching has emerged as a focus for employment… and for assessing scholastic

competence… An engagement in what is generally described as ‘reflective practice’ has been invoked as the

conceptual cornerstone in building a case for broadening how scholarship is conceived and for making changes

in how faculty are appointed, promoted and tenured… the concept of ‘reflective practice’ [impacts] on how

university cultures and reward systems would have to change if scholars’ engagement with critical reflection on

teaching became the chief professional behaviour that administrators wished to change [italics mine]”.

Emphasized here is that disciplinary affiliation should not be a supreme condition of employment;

the former, instead, should be subsumed by a commitment to the culture of teaching. Loyalty to the

discipline and its canons, or “programme affiliation”/“subject dignification” (Becher & Trowler,

56

(2001: 14), reinforces academic cultures that become resistant to HE change and reform (Naude,

2003: 72, 76-77).

Reflective practice per se emanates from the Enlightenment era. It is presented as a rational way of

enhancing better understanding of events and situations by eliminating aberrant thinking. (Scholte,

(2000: 93) attributes “rationalism” as a cogent factor in respect of knowledge structures that

dominates within globalization discourse.) It encourages teachers to reflect on how they teach what

they teach, and why they teach it. Reflective practice theories then,

“… argue that professional education has taken a wrong turn in seeing the role of staff and faculty as being to

interpret, translate and implement theoretical insights… Good teachers, according to this tradition, are in the habit

of identifying and checking the assumptions behind their practice and of experimenting creatively with

approaches they have themselves evolved in response to the unique demands of the situations in which they work”

(Brookfield, 1995: 129).

By continuously revamping their pedagogical methodologies to reflect both changing knowledge

dynamics, as well as adapting these methodologies to become learner-centred, good teachers are

therefore carving a role for themselves as change agents (they are teaching and learning with the

learners, therefore, illustrating excellence in teaching), than steadfastly reinforcing the status quo

ante in teaching. To the extent that reflective practice relates to the adaptability of the teaching

context to the learning environment (therefore, a volte-face from the sanctity of teacher-based

learning), it becomes a step in the right direction towards making the learner the focal point of

pedagogy. Reflective practice could also be construed as redefining the power dynamics between

teacher and learner. The traditional “power” of the teacher is eroded, as (s)he is no longer the only

provider of information/knowledge. By encouraging ‘learning with the learners’, reflective practice

militates against “… the intended and unintended ‘repressive dimensions’ – the ways in which

educational practices and ideologies impede the realization of democratic forms and values” (p.

130). The changing intellectual cultures – from closed to open knowledge systems (Kraak, 2000: 6)

– clearly enhance transparency, thus the role of repression and power-wielding in the teaching

context is therefore not an element for change. As in research, a multidisciplinary teaching

framework is envisaged as enhancing the role (rather than proscribing on it) of the teacher in the

knowledge-driven society. Not only does it enrich the personal and professional growth of the

university teachers, it broadens the scope of teaching across disciplines, departments, institutions,

and regions. This strengthens quality assurance for curriculum and methodological practice in the

interest of broadening the learners’ scope of understanding.

57

The notion of “the disempowerment of the academic profession” (Marginson, 2000: 32) is another

factor characterizing the changing nature of academic work. Other factors extant in this environment

are identified by the author as:

The impact of globalisation on universities – more open ways of knowledge production,

dissemination, and application have been ushered in;

Declining state funding of higher education – the role of the fiduciary state is shifting

towards the privatisation of public responsibilities;

Conflictual values – academically cherished values (such as collegiality) are being

outmoded by those of the corporate world.

In addition to the above, and for the specific purposes of this section, the fourth characteristic refers

to “...the deconstruction of the academic profession” (Brookfield, 1995: 32); according to which

tendencies towards performativity/accountability have ‘eroded’ the strength of the profession

compared to its vigorous levels of the 1960s. The credibility of the profession is becoming

increasingly embattled; the conditions of work are no longer a resemblance of the era of “the

donnish dominion”; as the primary producers of knowledge, HEIs’ status/privilege is challenged;

they are besieged by the nuances and practices of alternative HE providers. Other academic analysts

view accountability as a necessary compliance instrument for more responsiveness to society’s needs

(Neave, 2000: 20). This latter view propounds and compares accountability “… with the obligation

of a firm to report to its share-holders, to keep them abreast of its fortunes and appraised of how the

enterprise has fared in attaining its objectives” (p. 20). Accountability then, focuses on two elements

of HE functioning. On the one hand, it is directed at establishing an efficacious fiscal management

system; while on the other, it is a means by which knowledge disseminators are held responsible for

what they purport to be doing. Performance audits have become one of the ways in which academic

staff is ‘tested’ – to determine the extent to which they are complying with institutional and

programmatic requirements and objectives.

The trend towards performativity by staff, rather than by students in this instance, may be

considered by some as ‘disenfranchising’ the academics, an erosion of their autonomy by

‘outsiders’. Contrarily, ‘disempowering’ academic staff could also be viewed as re-orientating HE

more towards society, and removing perceptions of its elitist vestiges. Both government’s and

society’s demands for transparency add more responsibility to academics’ workloads. Performativity

by academic staff may inadvertently introduce an administrative burden which might severely limit

their instructional responsibilities. Marginson (2000: 32) alludes to the possibility of the blurring of

58

operational functions becoming a problem caused by the quest towards academic performativity. For

instance, a range of ‘para-academics’, such as curriculum technologists – as a second tier to teaching

– blurs the extent of both accountability and academic freedom. While they ‘lessen’ the work for

academics, the boundaries between the academic and the professional would warrant clearer

distinction. While academics of yonder years might have been answerable to their disciplines, their

((post) modern?) counterparts are having a more representative and broader stakeholder

constituency to account to. The marketisation of the HE curriculum has meant that there are even

‘invisible’ academics that have severely diminished the role of the traditional academic as an

autonomous knowledge provider.

2.3.1.2 Nurturing a new generation of academic staff

The importance of developing a new generation of staff should not be underestimated. It is a

prognostic means of ensuring that the life-blood of higher education is not in short supply. The

salience of preparing a new generation of staff is illustrated by the statistical facts derived from the

US academic environment, where it is estimated that between 1985 and 2010, about 260 000 new

faculty members will be needed in every five year period to service a student population of about 30

million students (Duderstadt, 1999: 45). A projected breakdown of the 260 000 staff indicates that

50 000 will become faculty “content providers”, 200 000 will be “learning facilitators”, and 1000

faculty “celebrities” (p. 45). Weber (1999: 10) corroborates this view (of the transient/evolving role

of HE educators: “Teachers will have to accept that their role is changing; they will be decreasingly

information providers and increasingly animators and commentators in charge of giving context and

in-depth understanding of an area [of study]”. Several factors necessitate the preparation of such

huge faculty numbers for the future education of students. Firstly, it is espoused that the new

generation of staff be thoroughly immersed in the fundamental principles embodying their

disciplines or fields of study. This (fundamental) knowledge should translate itself to current

problems and issues. Secondly, the new generation of staff should have a profound understanding of

the history of HE and its responsibilities to society. This should help them assess the future role of

HEIs in the context of its declared missions. Thirdly, they should be exposed to practical

experiences through relevant course work and teaching internships while they are still studying at

university. This experience will inculcate a reasonable understanding of the nature and processes of

human learning and some familiarity with educational methods and technology. Lastly, the ability

and capacity should be developed to relate their respective disciplines to associated (cognate) fields.

This latter approach applies to the focus on multi-/trans-/inter-disciplinarity in the teaching missions

of HE – currently the dominant feature in most discussions on HE reform in the millennium.

59

The importance of future faculty members to understand the historic and evolutionary stages of HEIs

as non-stagnant organizations will create the awareness that the history of HE has not been isolated

from changes undergone by society in general. Such awareness will reverse the trend by which

“[t]he academic profession on the whole is astonishingly ignorant of the province of … [its] own

commitment” (Clark, 1998: 1). Limited knowledge of the history of higher education as a

continuously reforming institution, diminishes an understanding of HE’s ability to exercise control

over its own destiny. With only fragmented knowledge of the continuing changes that have taken

place in the evolution of universities, many faculty members will not recognize the extent to which

it is inevitable that their institutions will continue to evolve and to adapt to changing external

circumstances. Without that understanding, members of the professoriate for instance, either drift

along as reluctant participants in changes perceived to be externally triggered, or tend to resist all

change to preserve what they believe to be immutable institutions (Naude, 2003: 76). If faculty are to

play an active and constructive role in actually shaping and indeed, influencing that change, they

need to know more about past historically-steeped organizational developments within the higher

education sector. Such an approach is cogent enough for the development of the next generation of

staff, professionalism and work satisfaction as pivotal components shaping HE transformation and

restoring society’s trust and confidence in its [HE’s] ability, readiness, and willingness to address its

(society’s) concerns and problems.

As in business, the next generation staff is not only necessarily trained for purposes of filling the

academic and intellectual ‘space’ left by their older predecessors. Most importantly, a well-trained

and competent academic staff will boost HE’s capacity to contest with alternative HE providers that

have emerged as an aftermath of ICT and globalization. The ever-increasing scope and quantity of

knowledge is such that academic staff has to keep abreast of knowledge developments as part of

their preparation and participation in the new teaching environment. This notion is aptly

encapsulated in a working document at UNESCO’s 1998 World Conference on Higher Education

(UNESCO, 1998: 11):

“In some academic fields it is said that the total of human knowledge is doubling every five or ten years. It is thus

almost impossible for an individual staff member to remain in touch with the subject without a conscious

investment in scholarship and self-tuition. When this knowledge is allied to similar changes in pedagogy, learning

materials development and the use of technology, the scale of self-improvement required becomes massive. For

administrative and support staff, there are equally rapid changes in management processes, techniques, and

technology. Surely, the institution should recognise this and have a strategy for enabling each individual to

confront this task. Or can it afford to sit back and ignore the fact that its teachers are providing out of date

information in an inefficient way? If this happens, how long will it be before employers, governments and the

60

students themselves complain about the [ir] relevance of the courses and the skills and understandings they have

failed to acquire [italics my own emphasis]?”

This statement affirms writ large, that HEIs in the millennium will be assessed by the extent to

which their staff exhibit not only professionalism, but knowledgeability, and understanding of the

role of HE as a pivotal and potential change agent. In other words, HEIs will be ‘measured’ by their

faculty members’ ability to reconcile academic and pedagogic excellence with societal expectations

outside of the campus walls. A plethora of reasons abound as to why the human resources of HEIs

need to be developed at all levels. Amongst those cited at the 1998 UNESCO World Conference on

Higher Education were (UNESCO, 1998: 11):

The challenge for gender equity cannot be left unnoticed. Women participation and

recognition of their role in academy have to be lauded and appreciated. They should be

represented in academic and administrative positions, “and staff development provisions

should serve to accommodate the differing needs of women and men” (p.11). This

encourages the retention of high quality staff in HEIs. Whereas in the past it has been a fait

accompli that women are inherently incapable of significantly contributing to the academy,

this myth and stereotypical fallacy has become anachronistic;

HE is expected more than ever before to serve a wider segment of students. Different kinds

of student needs and backgrounds (e.g. part-time students) impact on teacher workloads and

require differently trained faculty to deal with this phenomenon. The “dual mode” of using

the same staff and same teaching materials for both distance teaching and face-to-face

teaching accentuates not only the need for a numerical increase of teachers, but

methodological dimensions that are in consonance with the emergence of the new

knowledge clientele (students), vis-à-vis other national, regional, and international providers

of HE. This concern (for quality education) therefore raises the stakes for the new generation

of teachers to be illustrious agents of excellence, competent enough to contribute to the

development of lifelong education;

Technological changes warrant that faculty members be very conversant with the teaching

methods and curriculum delivery technologies. This trend in technology impacts on faculty

members’ ages – younger members are likely to be more technology reliant than their older

colleagues. The ‘discipline factor’ emerges – some disciplines are more technology

compliant than others.

Labour market trends are responding to globalisation, and are changing profusely. Some

workplace recruitments are occurring on an international scale – employers preferring one

61

country’s graduates over another’s. For purposes of academic excellence, faculty are

compelled to maximise their international experience, exposure, and collaboration to better

understand human development in individual and cognate fields of knowledge. The

management of HEIs will require new forms of leadership. Collegiality (with its perceived

‘gate-keeping’ tendencies) might be construed as an impediment to actualizing some of the

positive spin-offs accruing from HE-industry links, such as ‘corporatisation’ and its attendant

culture of efficiency in HE management. The most salient benefit of efficiency-based HE

management (from this study’s perspective) is its potential to improve HE’s response rate to

especially external change; as this would not necessarily compromise HE missions. Deem

(2001) argues that it is the fusion of the old (e.g. obviating elements of the ‘heaviness’ of

vertical/bureaucratic structures with the new (e.g. elements of corporate governance) that

guarantees the success of HEIs as viable organizational entities.

It should be borne in mind that these changes in the conditions of work, as well as the preparation of

a new generation of staff, affect the entire spectrum of HE staff – academic, management,

administrative and technical support staff (UNESCO, 1998: 16). For leaders and managers of

institutions (Vice-Chancellors, Deans, etc.), visionary skills in strategic, persuasive, and

communication acumen, are needed to convince the entire staff that change is both indispensable and

necessary. Change management will then become a crucial aspect of leadership. Steering institutions

in directions that are compatible with often contradictory societal needs, corporate expectations,

and governmental frameworks (sometimes enforced as blueprints) inevitably requires visionary

leadership acumen as well. Included amongst a host of roles required for the next generation of HE

leadership to position higher education institutions are the following attributes (pp. 14-15):

Professionalized (as opposed to collegial) people management skills to amplify and mobilize

financial and other support from diverse external organizations and structures;

Planning and strategic management skills that help to anticipate change, rather than

forestalling it; these skills encourage innovation and an entrepreneurial culture in all facets of

institutional operations;

A culture of continuing professional development (CPD) should be sustained as a process for

commitment to institutional missions (as opposed to loyalty to one’s discipline), and

restoring society’s faith in HEIs’ ability to transform their lives;

Selections, promotion and retention policies should be continuously reviewed, noting that

quality assurance (staff performance vis-a-vis accountability) cannot be undertaken in

amorphous ways that are oblivious of the voluminous increase in the frontiers of knowledge.

62

To actualize this vision, some academic analysts recommend that staff development should

be obligatory, “… before promotion or entry to certain posts. This should apply to both

academic and administrative staff” (UNESCO, 1998: 20);

For administrative staff, a range of competencies is expected, with ICT skills definitely

constituting the foremost requirement. For purposes of record-keeping, information

processing and retrieval, they need to do this with ease – be it for internal (e.g. institutional

management and leadership, financial and academic records, curriculum-related information)

or external (e.g. institutional collaboration, sponsors and donors, industrial and community

partnerships) utilization.

Given the broad-based clientele of HE in the millennium, academic staff are pivotal in the

transformation process. They are tasked with the responsibilities of facilitating the different ways in

which different learners learn. Research capacity and coping mechanisms are required for working

with these large numbers of students from varying socio-economic backgrounds for larger periods

than has been the case in synchronous learning contexts. ‘Quality’ has become a serious

consideration in a competitive research market that requires expeditious findings for financial

viability. Academic HE researchers will need to be cogent proposal writers, astute international

networkers and versatile project managers; as well as being excellent motivators of graduate

students’ research initiatives (UNESCO, 1998: 16). While research per se is mainly an academic

enterprise, its purpose and proceeds could be converted into an entrepreneurial activity for

departmental/faculty project sustenance (e.g. intellectual property rights and licensing fees).

Necessarily, inter-departmental/-faculty competition based on the research capacity of its very own

academic staff would elevate both the quality of research and teaching. For academic support staff/

‘para-academics’ (e.g. librarians, software engineers and technicians, counsellors, graphic

designers), processes and auxiliary services that actuate the meaningfulness of the curriculum to the

clients – technology-driven techniques and methods are an absolute necessity. As providing a link

between academics and students, their various roles as support staff are faintly distinguishable from

those of the actual academic staff.

The development of a new generation staff at all levels of HE has incontrovertibly become an

indispensable requirement for HE’s adaptation to change. Implied is that a new repertoire of

attitudes should be embraced as part of a new culture of human resource development at HEIs.

Swanepoel (2000: 496) states that HRD (human resources development) – as an organizational (re?)

education and (re?) training strategy, serves among others, “[t]o improve the performance of

employees who do not meet the required standards of performance, once their training needs [e.g.

63

updating of student-centred learning, and innovative assessment techniques] have been identified ...

To prepare employees for future positions [italics my own emphasis]”. This study concurs with the

above-cited UNESSCO document, in respect of its proposition and support for the establishment of a

new generation of higher education academic and non-academic personnel. Higher education staff

development is a continuing mission – a means towards an end, rather than an end in itself. The

most convincing way of ensuring that the lifeblood of HE is not always in short supply, is the

adoption of new values (ergo, a new culture) that is more receptive and, prognostic to change.

2.3.1.3 Academic freedom and perceived threats

In the argot of higher education, “academic freedom” and “university/institutional autonomy” are

nuances that signify HE’s ‘independence’ or self-regulation without any external interferences (as

opposed to external intervention, by the state, for instance). In this study, the two terms are not

construed as being synonymous. While they both convey the same message of non-interference

(perhaps derived from the feudal era when the church and the secular state granted the university the

right to become an ‘autonomous’ and separate (elitist?) entity) (Altbach et al., 1998: 4-5); academic

freedom is used here to apply for the intellectual/epistemological terrain in which individual

academics are free to explore various approaches (intellectual paradigms and persuasions) to

explaining phenomena. The orientation adopted here derives from Altbach et al. (p. 6): “Academic

freedom [author’s italics] is the freedom of the individual scholar to pursue truth wherever it leads,

without fear of punishment or of termination of employment or having offended some political,

methodological, religious, or social orthodoxy [bold italics mine]”. However, that ‘liberty’ should

not be covertly used as a launching pad for propagandistic purposes or to satisfy the whims of so-

called political correctness. On the other hand, university autonomy is applied here in the context of

norms and values adopted in the governance of higher education institutions. This differentiation is

(from this study’s perspective) necessary, as the terms will not be used in the same conceptual

terrain. Academic freedom strictly applies in this sub-section, whereas institutional autonomy is

dealt with later in the section (2.5) on Governance.

In its Thematic Debate on Autonomy, Social Responsibility and Academic Freedom, the UNESCO

World Conference (1998: 13) highlights the difficulties of interpretation associated with these two

concepts:

“There are many ways of viewing academic freedom: as a functional condition which allows the University [sic]

to fulfil its responsibilities to society; as a philosophical proposition and as a moral imperative. Is a professional

ethic different from academic freedom? Not all those engaged in the academic community enjoy the same degree

of academic freedom. Nor does it follow necessarily that academic freedom can – or should – be extended beyond

64

academia. There is a view which argues, it should be confined to those places and circumstances where it may be

practised. This distinction is an exclusive one. It denies the notion that academic freedom leads on to the general

right of freedom of expression and to the general “right to know” [italics mine]”.

While this study proposes no particular orientation to any particular perspective of academic

freedom, the aforegoing excerpt provides an interrogative framework that simply impugns: Is HE,

by virtue of its self-regulation, above society? Unbridled academic freedom could also become an

instrument for promoting the views of a dominant group, to the detriment and disadvantage of

others. Even the view that academic freedom is only confined to the academic community is fiercely

opposed by those outside of the academic community. Opposition is premised on the notion that

academic freedom is not above all else, it is only a microcosm in the larger human rights sphere of

the right to freedom of information and of expression. It is apparent that tensions and threats to

academic freedom will not dissipate, especially in an era which is – among others – proliferated by

the explosion in knowledge; the emergence of various disciplinary branches and sub-branches; the

generation of knowledge at multiple (non-university) sites; and the state’s interventionist policy

inclinations. It is to be expected that the threat to academic freedom will increase rather than

decrease. This assumption is made on the basis that the notion of a university as a feudal institution

has long disappeared. HEIs are gradually compelled to discard their elitist past, especially in the

light of the advent of the mass HE system. Society demands that HE be part of it, and insularity

renders higher education sub-servient to the interests of a few. The right to freedom of information

and expression threatens academia in that even those outside of it maintain that knowledge is infinite

and is a condition of human advancement, therefore its production and enquiry is not the sole

preserve of those inside academia (UNESCO, 1998: 13).

Critics also maintain that academic freedom is constrained by institutional research obligations (p.

13). For instance, research undertakings related to national military or defence systems is bound by

secrecy codes. Academic researchers involved in military/defence systems would obviously have

their freedom to express any aspect of such research curtailed, even to their peers. On the whole,

while academic freedom may, from an institutional perspective, be necessary for maintaining HE’s

epistemological legitimacy (rather than hegemony!), justifying academic freedom on the merits of its

historical antecedent is no longer valid (UNESCO, 1998: 13). If academics in public universities are

employees of the state, how can they justify and defend their academic freedom as ‘separate’ from

other inalienable forms of freedom to which the public are privy? For whose service is knowledge

created within HE intended? Is simply keeping professional ethics not sufficient grounds for

conditions of work? Is clamouring for academic freedom not a licence to privatising “ways of

knowing” within public institutions? Individual academics are therefore confronted with the

65

challenge of reconciling their intellectual pursuits without abandoning their accountability to their

employers, their institutions, their funders, and the society that is continuously demanding and

expecting more from higher education services. In its “call to imaginative boldness and responsible

freedom” the Glion Declaration (in Hirsch & Weber, 1999: 178) re-iterates the challenges:

“All members of the university community – young and old – are committed to learning, and to the discovery and

exploration on which it is based. Scholarship, though it is rooted in individual insight and personal inquiry, is a

cooperative venture supported by public funds and private patrons as a social enterprise, because it enriches

human understanding and contributes to human well-being. That public support presupposes the impartiality and

independence of the scholar, and the integrity of the scholarship [italics my own emphasis]”.

2.3.1.4 Higher education curriculum and students in the context of teaching and learning

The preceding sub-sections have attempted to highlight the importance of, and challenges to

teaching as one of the dynamics of HE missions. It is axiomatic that teaching is related to both

learning (as an activity by which teaching is facilitated) and the curriculum (as the sphere from

which the ‘content’ of taught and learned knowledge is derived). The increase in the heterogeneous

student population is an indication of the democratisation of societies – the increase in the demand

that society is making for more and more access to HE learning opportunities (Bennich-Bjorkmann,

1997: 7-8; Castells, 1994: 29-30). As the techno-economic ramifications of the new world order

compel a changing nature of work and employment patterns, and lifelong learning becomes an

integral feature of education systems in general, a new generation of students has ‘descended’ on the

physical and virtual ‘campus.’ (In South Africa for instance, “… the number of black students at

institutions of higher learning rose dramatically from 191 000 in 1993 to 404 000 in 2002” (Badat,

quoted in Sowetan, 06/25/2005:29).

(a) The student domain (perspective)

Student demands for higher education have a bearing on the extent to which they, as paying

customers, expect value from the educational programmes offered by HEIs. Their demand for higher

education challenges HE’s capacity to reciprocate their expectations. In meeting these new student

demands, therefore, HEIs are confronted with the challenge of having to move away from closed and

disciplinary academic cultures to open trans-disciplinary ones. The latter also implies that

programme offerings be ‘tailored’ to the students’ needs – a factor that has proliferated the higher

education ‘market’ with the advent of a range of alternative HE providers. In other words, students’

different backgrounds, needs, and expectations are of paramount importance – in terms of the

variables of, among others, their age, whether they are full-/part-time, and so forth. Linked to the

significance and role of students in the context of transformation occurring within and without HE

66

campuses, are an array of very profound issues; such as the cost of HE provision and demands for

quality and maintenance of standards, the readiness of the education system to service the labour

market needs in conjunction with the learners’ different backgrounds, needs and expectations.

Inclusivity is therefore a necessary norm in the context of HE’s broadening of its (programmatic)

missions.

All of the above factors are centripetally linked to student-focused learning (Weber, 1999: 8-9),

as well as to “the scholarship of engagement” (Nuttall, 2003: 57); according to which HE executes

its social responsibility by rendering services that address real needs – social, economic, and others

through programmatic relevance. The significance of the adult, part-time student should not be

downplayed. The advent of ‘new’/ ‘non-traditional’ students – the adult, part-timers – has then

necessitated the reformulation of HE missions. Mori (2000: 16) states:

“… ‘new students’, whether defined in terms of their social origins, their age, their particular study requirements,

their career plans or their national provenance, are a powerful force for institutional change. Their presence

obliges the university to redefine its historic mission beyond the confines of the elite on the one hand, and beyond

the range of occupations which such elites were traditionally expected to fill, on the other”.

Guri-Rosenblit (1999: 43) adds that part-time education has become “… the most pragmatic means

for expanding access [and lifelong learning] to higher education… enabling students to combine

study with work, domestic and social responsibilities”. Furthermore, the latter author illustrates their

significance, ipso facto, the increasing momentum for lifelong learning, by citing that in the UK for

instance, the 1989/1990 student numbers indicate that 37% of the entire student population of

1,086,300 were part-timers. Among that 37%, were postgraduate part-timers as well. The

postgraduate contingent, (among the 37%), however, constituted 47% percent of the entire UK

higher education system for that academic year (p. 43).

Heterogeneous student types and increasing demand for lifelong learning

The traditional university students, young and just graduated from high school, have been the

quintessential ‘gold standard’ for many years; they are resident on campus until their chosen point of

exit. The changing HE environment ushered in by e.g. democratisation, globalisation and ICT has

brought to HE, adult working students. Their first ‘route’ to formal education had been disrupted by

personal or other reasons – hence the need for recognition and incorporation of their previous semi-

formal, informal or non-formal learning experiences into the mainstream curriculum. They are full-

time workers who commute to the traditional HEI. They require formal training, knowledge and

skills that are pertinent for their occupational and/or personal needs. Some pay fully for their higher

67

education costs. Some are recurrent/continuing part-timers whose tuition might be partially or

wholly paid for by their employers (such as might be the case for the ‘corporate class room’). These

are former graduates whose (part-time or full-time) studies are paid for by their employers, because

they require specialized knowledge and high skills. The recurrence of their learning is another

avenue for socio-economic development. It is in the light of the above that HE in the millennium

confronts the challenge of catering for the different needs of the different categories of students.

Lifelong (continuous) education becomes an essential part of HE programme offerings, which

requires institutional initiatives in determining asynchronous ways of offering programmes in the

context of the above-mentioned student variables and dynamics. Duderstadt (1999: 41) states that in

conforming to the changing societal and economic needs, HE can respond to the needs of different

types of learners by offering programmes in one or more of the following three formats:

‘just-in-case’ education: “...in which we expect students to complete degree programs (sic)

at the undergraduate or professional level long before they actually need the knowledge”

This would be the case for students who entered HE straight from high school and completed

it (HE) uninterrupted by work, domestic, or some other commitment;

just-in-time’ education: “...through non-degree programs [sic] when a person needs it” This

would apply to learners for instance, who already have the knowledge, skills and experience,

but seek accredited certification for self-employment (entrepreneurship), sub-contracting, and

so on;

‘just-for-you’ education: “...in which educational programs [sic] are carefully tailored to

meet the specific lifelong learning requirements of particular students”. This latter kind of

programme offering would suit working adults who require formal higher education to

acquire knowledge and obtain skills that are work-related.

Lifelong education encompasses the seamlessness of learning throughout life. This implies that the

organization of a country’s entire education system, from elementary to higher education, be

integrated such that continuity/seamlessness of purpose is established. For a lifelong learning

continuum to prevail within HE, “… [a] system of education… [also has to blend] undergraduate,

graduate, and professional education; apprenticeships and internship; on-the-job training and

continuing education …” (Duderstadt, 1999: 49). For an institution, lifelong learning implies that

learning programmes are transformed, epistemologically and otherwise; the context for teaching

approaches and learning changes; diverse patterns of entry and exit are accommodated; and success,

rather than failure, is encouraged (Wagner, 1999: 140-41).

68

The “digital generation” of students (Duderstadt, 1999: 49), and their “cyborg cultures” (Urry, 1998:

1-2), is another category of students whose perception of the world (Weltanschauung), poses a big

challenge in the traditional approach to teaching. They have spent their life

“[s]urrounded by robust, visual, electronic media – Sesame Street, MTV, home computers, video games,

cyberspace networks… and virtual reality… they expect, [nay] indeed demand, interaction… They approach

learning as a “plug-and-play “experience, unaccustomed and unwilling to learn sequentially – and inclined to

plunge in and learn through participation and experimentation [italics mine]” (Duderstadt, 1999: 41).

One is tempted to suggest that if the culture of learning does not conform to their psyche, they do not

conform to its authority and nuances. Gardner (1999: 23) corroborates the digital generation’s

psyche and worldview thus:

“Today’s students have a heightened sense of its own authority… Such matters as the purpose of learning; the

transmission of the culture from one generation to the next; the formulation and structuring of knowledge into a

cohesive and credible curriculum [are construed differently] … the students’ view has become that of a consumer

and, as with most consumers, the worth of what the university offers or requires is “priced”… not so much within

the academy’s historic norms and values but more within the vocational or professional ambitions of the

individual student”.

It is almost aphoristic that the interactive multimedia has shaped their self-centred (as opposed to

selfish”) perceptions of and expectations from HE. To them, teacher-focused and sequential ways of

learning become unproductive and antiquated. Learning becomes most ‘interesting’ when it becomes

multimedia-focused, asynchronous and ubiquitous in the context of animated interaction with the

learning environment (e.g. group discussions, teamwork, etc.) – designed to be pragmatic and relate

to their (sound byte?) experiences – rather than the solitariness and ‘detachment’ of learning

processes that de-contextualise the salience and centrality of the learner.

To accommodate this category of students and their learning preferences into mainstream

methodological practice, Gardner (1999: 24) suggests two approaches could make learning more

appealing to them. Firstly, re-orienting curriculum offerings to vocational, professional or pre-

professional directions, while limiting liberal arts programmes; and secondly, commercializing some

technological aspects of the curriculum and research would enhance the learner-centredness of

instruction and learning. This, he contends, will reconcile the students’ expectations and preferences

with ‘solitaristic’ HE learning norms and values. These suggestions are made against the realization

that “…there is a disconnect between students who come to the universities steeped in technological,

electronic, and other visually based methods of learning and a university pedagogy that is rooted

69

more in the past than planted in the future, at least in the lower-division or pre-specialized programs

[sic] and majors [bold italics mine]” (p. 24). The reality then (however distasteful it might be to

some) is that access to HE learning opportunities by heterogeneous student categories has ushered in

an evolvement of new and inclusive epistemological/curriculum frameworks – from closed to open

ones – which have incorporated amongst others, learner-focused approaches and the

vocationalisation of the curriculum (or some aspects of it). This reality cannot be undermined and

precluded by any serious HEI from its missions. With massification as the macrocosmic domain of

access to HE learning opportunities, the heterogeneity of student backgrounds has necessitated the

formulation of new ‘catchment’ strategies for this student market – market-related and commercially

viable subjects/courses of study, and/or curriculum ‘tailoring’, have become a very strategic and

integral part of the HE system.

Massification and its implications for growth/access

Massification (the extension of access to HE learning opportunities for all previously marginalized

sections of the population) is indicative of society’s growing demand for HE relevance and

responsiveness to its (society’s) needs and expectations for a better life; and unhindered preparation

of all learners for meaningful participation in the socio-economic activity of the country. In other

words, HEIs should not be perceived as reinforcing exclusionary admission practices, as these limit

and diminish the equitable employment of citizens in general, and higher education graduates in

particular (Henry et al., 2001: 161-163). Proponents of the differential function of HE (therefore,

perpetration of elitism) (un)wittingly reinforce the three dimensions in which it

(differentiation/exclusion) expresses itself; namely, economic – resulting in loss of employment

opportunities; socially – resulting in loss of one’s ‘standing’ in the eyes of the public; and politically

– resulting in deprivation of one’s human rights and a ‘say’ in government (p. 162). Educational

exclusion or marginalization therefore, would mean the loss of all or some, of the above as a result

of having been deprived of (higher) learning opportunities. (Reference is being made here to Mori

(2000:6-10), regarding the ambivalence of who it is actually referred to by “community”, for it is the

basis upon which exclusion could be ‘justified’ or not). Newman (2000: 21), in emphasising the

need for equitable and representative access as factors of HE’s missions, comments:

“…It is hard to maintain a functioning democracy when a significant part of the population does not have access

to its benefits. Education, including higher education, plays a key role in determining one’s opportunity for

upward mobility, and civic and workforce participation. The public, therefore, needs to decide what form of

democratic society it desires and fashion a higher education system to achieve that end”.

70

It is vehemently contested here, that expansion has not brought about class representativity,

especially for ‘first generation’ HE entrants. It is still the ruling political and economic elite, as well

as the (upper?) middle classes that are major beneficiaries – since they can afford better schools for

their children to comply with the ‘gold standard’ requirements presently regarded (by this study) as

the conduit for their labour market dominance.

Equitable integration into the mainstream activities of society – through the empowering function of

education in general, and HE in particular, is viewed here as an example of the means by which HE

responsiveness and a “scholarship of engagement’ are achieved. In addressing the issue of equity of

access to HE learning opportunities, Article 6 of UNESCO (1998: 6) declares inter alia that,

widening access should be a holistic initiative of the entire education system, rather than a peripheral

instrument unrelated to the macro-development of society:

“Equity of access to higher education should begin with the reinforcement and, if need be, the reordering of its

links with all other levels of education, particularly with secondary education. Higher education institutions must

be viewed as, and must also work within themselves to be part of …a seamless system starting with early

childhood…and continuing through life…Access to higher education should remain open to those successfully

completing secondary school, or its equivalent, or presenting entry qualifications…at any age and without

discrimination”.

Such a continuum of what is taught, safeguards the ‘social rates of return’ which society invests in

an efficient and effective educational system, in which learning occurs from childhood to adulthood.

From a developmental point of view, it is argued here that this approach (of seamlessness) would

stand developing nations in good stead in the transition from learning, to learned societies; from

elitist to mass HE models. Because of the developmental stratification between themselves and

developed nations, developing nations will benefit by embracing access in a manner that enhances

flexible specialization (flexi-spec). The digital gap between developed and least-/developing

countries for instance, is reinforced by the former’s capacity to invest in capital-intensive

technological research, an area in which the latter are acutely lagging behind. Levels of literacy in

predominantly Third World countries are very low compared to that of developed countries. HEIs in

the Third World can then not afford to foster development aberrations such as socio-economically

disjunctured and elitist policies that do not empower all categories of learners. That is to say, they

are best suited to train students for skills in various components of the economy. It is on this basis

that an argument is made for developing countries to be politically and economically stable. It is

futile and unimaginative for instance, for a developing country to clamour for nuclear development

while millions of its citizens suffer the scourge of illiteracy. This would be both a developmental

71

tragedy and an economic aberration. The democratisation of societies from the 1960s changed the

student demography of higher learning. Notwithstanding the increase in student numbers, it is the

API (Age Participation Index) that becomes crucial in determining the widening of learning

opportunities to society (Kaneko, 2000: 54). The API could also be construed as a mechanism for

determining the efficacy of the HE system, from points of entry and exit in a manner that is not

inimical to students’ age at a particular time during the period of study. The proportion of students’

age to the total number of students enrolled, becomes the yardstick for determining whether the

institution’s admission practices are elitist or egalitarian. However, in an age where the non-

traditional student has become an integral part of the student population; where asynchronous ways

of learning and teaching have become a norm; age has become an insignificant determinant of access

to higher education learning opportunities.

Social and political issues either reduce or increase the rate of age participation. Depending on the

educational policies of the government of the day, the API could either be reduced or increased

when HEIs are compelled to demand entry only from ‘suitable’ applicants; that is, only those

conforming to the ‘gold standard’ requirement of newly matriculated students, in which case the

‘silver’ and ‘bronze’ categories of students – those with non-standard requirements (e.g. mature part-

timers, and those for whom experiential learning might be more relevant), are relegated to the

periphery. This (gold standard) approach significantly reduces the broadening of access to learning

opportunities. Access is increased when social policy in general, and HE policy specifically, are

consonant with the objectives of equality of opportunity. In their admissions policies, HEIs, if they

are to be seen as applying equality/equity, should desist from marginalizing candidates on the basis

of such factors as creed, gender, social class or ethnic provenance, and most significantly, on the

basis of age. Equality/equity as a socio-economic variable, poses a problem in respect of social

stratification still being an existent phenomenon even in the industrialized world itself – where the

transition from elitist to mass-universal HE systems is supposedly more than two decades old, and

where ICT is supposedly the driving force in virtually all aspects of life. In his June 1973 paper

delivered at an OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) Conference in

Paris, Martin Trow (in Scott 1975:4) cited the non-linear metamorphosis of higher education from

elitism to universalism. To a greater extent, this reference is congenial to this study as it illustrates

that massification – if it is to address broad socio-economic and educational inequalities – must be

an implementable access strategy, not a mere grandiose and developmentally hoped-for, policy

ideal. According to Trow, the first (prototypical, elitist) type of institution receives 15% of the API;

mass institutions receive 15% to 50% of the API; and universal ones receive more than 50% of the

API. However, the disproportionate percentage distribution (in all three HEI ‘types’) leaves no

72

doubt as to which social category of students is predominantly represented. Thus, the off-campus

class differentiation makes inroads to what transpires on campus, depending on the type of

institution. ‘Type’ of institution is emphasized here, because the transition from elite to mass

institutions has not yet actualized itself in toto (Trow in Scott, 1975: 5). ‘Type’ of institution is also

stressed in the light of the realization that it impacts on the declared mission of such an institution:

“The different phases [of institutional types] are also associated with different functions of higher education both

for students and society at large. Elite higher education is concerned primarily with shaping [cultivating?] the

mind and character of the ruling class, as it prepares students for broad elite roles in government and the learned

professions. In mass higher education, the institutions are still preparing elites, but a much broader range of elites

that includes the leading strata of all the technical and economic organizations of the society. And the emphasis

shifts from the shaping of character to the transmission of skills for more specific technical elite roles. In

institutions marked by universal access, there is concern for the first time with the preparation of large numbers

for life in an advanced industrial society; they are training not primarily elites, either broad or narrow, but the

whole population, and their chief concern is to maximise the adaptability of that population to a society whose

chief characteristic is rapid social and technological change [italics mine]” (p.5).

Massification – as a developmental trend affecting the organizational and functional structures of

HE – is not isomorphic, it applies differently from country to country. In the US, largely due to

diversified forms of public control of education, and “ …the existence of a large private sector of

education, and many thousands of proprietary schools… the possibility of institutional diversity is

much greater” (p. 6). Massification, an attendant feature of mass higher education systems, aims at

addressing educational imbalances that have manifested themselves in society over long periods of

time. It attempts to create equity and increase the life and the learning opportunities with little regard

to the age of the learners and their various socio-economic variables. It is a democratic expression of

the individual’s right to learn.

(b) The world of work and its skills requirements“During a recent job interview, an applicant, when asked about curriculum change, said that ‘Trying to change a

curriculum is like trying to move a cemetery’…For some people a traditional curriculum is indeed held as sacred,

with humility and reverence as the proper attitudes as we enter them. Curricula … are also seen by some acolytes

as repositories of precious memories and traditions, as texts from which we can learn the lessons of history.

Curricula especially, are bridges between the past and the future…Opponents of a curriculum are likely to say it

is little more than the storehouse of dead texts, or of the work of dead white men... There are additional

considerations that we can add for why curriculum change is difficult … any current curriculum embodies a set of

intellectual habits and routines which have become comfortable for those who teach that curriculum … To ask

them to change the curriculum, in effect, is to ask them to develop a new professional identity and probably also,

in their eyes to fatally compromise their standards, and to abandon their arduously acquired understanding of the

73

disciplines they teach and the significance of their academic practice [italics my own emphasis]” (Morrow, 2003:

2-4).

(A discussion of this verisimilitude is engaged in Chapter 4 of this study in the sub-section on The

Higher Education Market and the Changing World of Work. However, a supplementary dimension

is included in the ensuing discussion).

That there is a relationship between work and HE is no longer in dispute, what is in dispute is

whether such a relationship has to exist (Holmes, 2000: 1). In other words, there is the contentious

issue of whether HE should be subservient to the economy, or put its service to the community

above all else. In his analysis of the relationship between work and knowledge/curriculum, Muller

(2000: 13) comments that the rise of the professional and intellectual classes – themselves allied to

the ruling and capitalist classes as exhibited by the (direct or indirect) shareholding instruments at

their disposal, and exercising power or control over knowledge (or what counts as “knowledge”) –

has become one of the bases of the credentialing (through certificates) and legitimation of the nature

of the range of skill domains necessary for economic currency. In other words, the production and

credentialing of certain types of skills determine the orientation of the curriculum in respect of the

national economy and its core human resources requirements, in a manner that is already pre-

determined by the professionalized “new informational middle classes” (p. 14), or the professional

intellectual classes whose interests will also be best served by an educated and highly skilled

workforce. The problem arises when supply-demand imbalances occur. The world of work demands

a supply of educated and competent workers from HE students. In the world of work, employers

basically look for a skills repertoire that includes a combination of ‘know what’ and ‘know how’; as

well as social skills that include “... relationship building ... self-management ... business

orientation ... and foreign language competence ...” (Kearney, 2000: 132). The increasing

unemployment of these products is indicative of a serious problem extant in the supply-demand axis.

In the context of “neo-industrialisation”/globalisation – where technology is unimpeded and knows

no borders of firms, countries or markets – a “techno-economic” paradigm of work and knowledge

has become paramount (Muller, 2000: 28). Such a paradigm, where scope/quality of

work/production supersedes its scale/quantity (e.g. mass production by a massive, but unskilled and

illiterate or semi-literate workforce), is fundamentally characterised by the development of a range

of tacit, highly innovative and competitive skills in the work place. The techno-economic paradigm,

due to its R&D-driven emphasis, is most practicable in industrialised countries.

74

The flexi-spec (flexible specialisation) approach on the other hand, “... places great emphasis on

cultivating this [innovative capacity of a productive workforce] by training in ‘broad and high

skills’. This is the origin of the educational advocacy of non-specialist generic skills” (Muller, 2000:

29). The flexi-spec mode of skills and human resources development adheres to “the regulationist

school” (p. 29) of macro-economic production, according to which co-operation between labour and

business engenders more production (profits?). Muller’s work-and-knowledge analyses are premised

on innovation being central to a viable economic mode of post-Fordist production. Innovation is

itself based on two theories, both of which have a direct impetus on HE’s curriculum relevance to

the changing world of work. The knowledge-driven theory of innovation is most suited for research

and design. As knowledge increases and expands, so does the need for advancement in R&D (p. 31).

Public and private collaborative networks facilitate the production and transfer of researched

knowledge. These are activities that can be engaged in only by highly trained specialist knowledge

workers, each rendering valuable skills towards the completion of a product. The social-driven

theory of innovation on the other hand, emphasises tacit knowledge becoming the salient variable in

the manipulation of technology. The “… art of doing” (p. 31) is necessarily complemented by “the

art of knowing …” (p. 31). To the extent that both process and product are fundamental

requirements of innovation “knowing” and “doing” are both indispensable and are thinly divisible

(p. 32). The implication for HE learning is that not only is skills training necessary. It is also crucial

for higher education institutions to exercise economic savvy in determining the type of skills it is to

offer to its clients, the paying students.

It appears that the literature focusing on higher education and the world of work is replete with the

uni-dimensional approach of focusing primarily on the requisite skills. In that mode of analysis, HE

has become the sole bearer of economic burden by its inability to balance the supply-demand of

highly skilled and knowledgeable workers who can function in any of the knowledge/social

paradigms of technological competitiveness and innovation. Kearney (2000: 128) states that if work

is to be understood as a means of poverty eradication and uplifting the human resources capacity of

society at large, then other important spheres need to be explored as well. These would include

sound economic policies (to encourage investments) that are open “… to the world economy for

broad-based sustainable growth ...” (p. 128). The implication here is that the reconfiguration of HE

curriculum towards (cross-fields) skills development should be done in tandem with government and

the private sector making important macro-economic contributions. “Macro-economic” is not used

here in the context of the GEAR (Growth Employment And Redistribution) economic intervention

strategy which failed as a result of focusing primarily on world business trends (e.g. reducing

foreign debt) at the expense of local people-centred concerns (e.g. poverty and unemployment).

75

Kearney (pp. 129-130) indicates that if the broader economic situation is to be reasonably addressed,

the functions of the state should include the establishment of a sound economic environment and

take cognisance of world trends in the sectors where unemployment is most problematic. (That

GEAR was an abysmal and cataclysmic failure has been abundantly chronicled, especially by

commentators regarded as ‘enemies’ by the SA government and its functionaries. Seepe (2004a:

175) for instance, makes implicit reference to the fact (of failure). However, he makes this more

explicit later in the same document that: “The party’s (ANC’s) political dominance has, sadly, not

translated into the fast-tracking of development ... The much-acclaimed and non-negotiable ... [Gear]

has proved to be an economic disaster ... One million jobs have been lost ... [bold italics

mine]” (Seepe, 2004b: 254).

Postgraduate students and employment “... life as a graduate student is not without stresses, foremost among them the concern about future

employment ... Graduate students are more concerned with the job market for graduates and the time to obtain a

degree [bold italics mine]” (Duderstadt, 2000b: 89-90).

An ‘inventory’ of skills needed by employers indicates that HEIs still have a lot to do in ensuring

that there is a balance and complementarity of expectations between themselves and the world of

work. It is clear that employers expect knowledge, skills and social development to be the

fundamental currency of employment in the labour market (Kearney, 2000: 131-133). Experience is

the one contentious and interstitial area in which both HE and the private sector have to collaborate.

In the current post-industrial economic era, educated and knowledgeable people will be pivotal in

determining how the economy should work. This is clearly a departure from the ‘cog in the wheel’

mould into which the industrial economy had been cast. In an era where innovation is the common

denominator for change and growth, the role of postgraduate education becomes critical insofar as

“... critical reflection and independence of mind” are concerned (Kearney, 2000: 131). The students’

own perspectives of postgraduate education and work have not been considered, causing an

unrepresentative stakeholder scenario (p 134). The UNESCO Thematic Debate on students’

perspectives on HE and society (1998: 11) stresses the flaws inherent in ignoring this perspective.

Postgraduates have cited HE’s inability to prepare them adequately for the application of their

research-acquired skills to the world of work (Duderstadt, 2000b: 91). One of the ‘solutions’ to this

problem may be to draw research topics from real-life situations, rather than from those that simply

satisfy the researcher’s curiosity (p. 43).

76

Duderstadt (2000b: 90) further suggests that the highly specialised nature of graduate studies might

in itself be an indirect cause of unemployment, as it militates against the construction of knowledge-

in-the-context-of-application. As the most important supplier of knowledge and skills necessary for

the economy and society, HE’s collaborative enterprise with government, industry and commerce is

strongly urged (p. 90). Job market trends and the worldwide volatile economic scene are the explicit

terrains and indicators of how postgraduate education could be effectively improved (and changed if

necessary) to address the dynamics of employer expectations and the supply-demand imbalances

There are already areas of knowledge where there are more postgraduates than needed in the

economy. Conversely, there are fewer postgraduates in some fields, especially those driving the

economy, such as Engineering, Science, and Technology. Research funding, which is governed by

the requirements of funding bodies, could be diversified to address the human resources

development of postgraduate students, as research and academic jobs become scarce. As a result of

dwindling job opportunities, postgraduate students are left with temporary or part-time appointments

in which security and other fringe benefits of permanent positions are obviously unavailable.

Depending on the country of origin and other socio-economic dynamics (e.g. poverty, schooling

system), age is another factor that could count against a prospective postgraduate employee.

Duderstadt (p. 91) estimates that in the US for instance, “... only about 60 percent of Ph. D.s in the

life sciences have permanent positions six years after graduation. The average life scientist is likely

to be thirty-five to forty years old before obtaining his or her first permanent appointment [bold

italics mine]”.

Just how drastic the postgraduate employment market is in South Africa, is indicated by Naidoo

(Sunday Times (Business Times Careers), 2006: 1). Sixty thousand university students (p. 1), some

of whom have job experience, remain unemployed and – paradoxically – unemployable. The article

is about the state of the unemployed educated classes as a whole, from which the 60 000

unemployed postgraduates is extrapolated. The Department of Correctional Services advertised 2

600 positions in the R60 000 to R80 000 annual salary categories. A staggering 800 000 applications

were received, and 80% (640 000) met the application criteria. In another example, the Department

of Education (DoE) advertised for 5 600 teaching posts in December 2005. An overwhelming 500

000 applications were received. “... 75% [375 000] of the applicants had the necessary

qualifications and work experience [bold italics mine]” (p. 1). This statistical information is in stark

contrast with the same DoE’s claims of the unavailability of a qualified teaching cadre in the

country. In unpacking the statistical data, Hilton Brown, the CEO of Adcorp Talent Resourcing – the

company that was hired to find prospective candidates for the advertised posts – commented thus:

77

“In the case of correctional Services, the volumes show the desperation of the educated unemployed masses ...

because they are willing to settle for relatively low-paying jobs ... While there is a lot of activity across the board

in terms of demand for jobs, the positions and skills required don’t attempt to solve the unemployment problem

[italics mine]” (Naidoo, 2006: 1).

Asked for comment on this crucial issue, the Minister of Labour (Mr M. Mdladlana) responded: “If

the statistics are correct, then we have a serious articulation problem between the institutions of

learning and the labour market [italics mine]” (p. 1). His response was thematically similar to that of

the Deputy President (Mrs P. Mlambo-Ngcuka), who located the postgraduate unemployment

problem to the skills incongruence between HE and the labour market“The number of unemployed graduates has grown significantly in the past five years. Jipsa [the Joint Initiative for

Priority Skills Acquisition] must seek ways of absorbing unemployed graduates into the economy while

addressing the mismatch in relation to the type of training offered to these students compared to skills needed

by the job market [bold italics mine]” (Naidoo, 2006: 1).

It has become apparent, from the body of evidence on this subject, that in addressing the problem of

unemployment as a whole – and that of postgraduate unemployment in particular – no single

stakeholder could (and should not) attempt to resolve the issue by themselves. Government, higher

education, labour and industry need to function collaboratively in averting what could possibly lead

to a permanently irreversible trend of a ‘brain drain’. This applies not only to South Africa, but any

other country that strives to alleviate poverty, improve its human resources development, and open

its economy to more foreign investment.

(c) Unpackaging the traditional curriculum models

This aspect of higher education missions is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. Rather than focus

on specific curriculum models (addressed in Chapter 4), this sub-section focuses more on the

intellectual/ideological domain of the traditional curriculum’s disciplinary aura and base. The

traditional curriculum, with its canonisation of knowledge into ‘compartments’/disciplines, is no

longer sustainable in an era where the explosion of knowledge has resulted into a quantitative

increase in the scope and scale of fields of knowledge. The challenge on HE’s epistemological and

intellectual hegemony has also been exacerbated by the creation of knowledge at multiple non-

university sites by multiple teams of knowledge workers and practitioners from various intellectual

and academic backgrounds and persuasions (Stephen & Harrison, 2002: 2-3; Gibbons, 1998a: 3-8).

Against this backdrop, “Universities are coming to recognise that they are now only one player,

albeit still a major one, in a vastly expanded knowledge production process” (Gibbons, 1998a: 31).

Diversity in the modes of knowledge creation is therefore a paramount factor in the development of

78

new and alternative means of organising the curriculum and its ‘content’. It is the contention of this

study that albeit semblances of transformation in unpackaging the canonical roots of ‘subjects’, the

disciplinary base of the HE curriculum still looms large in the offering of tuition. Cast in that mode,

the ‘breaking down’ of the curriculum into unitised or modular structures would mainly be viewed

as a survival strategy intended to capture the lifelong learning market, lest it be wholly dominated by

private and alternative higher education providers.

Inspired by globalisation and ICT, the changing HE environment, or “the new context of

relevance” (Gibbons, 1998a: 31), demands that the social context of knowledge production be

seriously considered, clearly a departure from elitist and disciplinary orientations of knowledge as

being the exclusive ‘property’ of higher education. It is therefore logical that lifelong learning has

been incorporated into the ‘new’ curriculum, despite this being more a survival strategy than an

authentic transformation mission. That HE’s disciplinary roots still form the basis of cognitive

development of the curriculum’s recipients, is indicative of the ideological loyalties of higher

education. This is a contention that this study maintains. The ‘line’ of argument being pursued here

is not one of curriculum within the “power” and “control” dynamics. What is actually argued is that

the extant canonisation of higher learning is itself epistemologically discriminatory. The

maintenance of the notion that certain “ways” of “knowing” are more cognitively advanced than

others, is tantamount to the belief that there is “knowledge” and “non-knowledge”. That is to say,

some forms of knowledge and ways of knowing have arbitrarily been declared as socially irrelevant.

This is the premise upon which this study’s “ideological loyalties” argument is based.

Unpackaging the curriculum would the mean a disgorging of the canonical orientations that promote

knowledge-for-knowledge’s sake propensities, obviating the provision of knowledge from learners’

perspectives (considering their needs, circumstances, and expectations). The thrust of the

‘repackaging’ of the HE curriculum into smaller units (e.g. modularisation) and broader scopes (e.g.

competencies/skills/outcomes) is therefore viewed here as moving away from disciplinarity to trans-,

inter-, or multi-disciplinarity structures and organization of knowledge and its purposes. However,

service departments (e.g. finance and management sciences) sustain the maintenance of abundant

disciplines. One of the problems of a disciplinary provenance of fields of study is that some are more

“disciplines” than others. The epistemological and intellectual wholesomeness or purity of

disciplinary knowledge is problematic. Schoenfeld (1999: 166-167) accentuates this problem:

“It is a commonplace that “education” is not a discipline in the sense of mathematics or anthropology ... The

canon just does not seem to be there. The problem of the core manifests itself in two ways. On the one hand, the

79

intersection of various perspectives represented in education is near null. On the other hand, the union is immense

– far larger than can be dealt with in a short time in a meaningful way ... As an evolving interdisciplinary field,

education does not yet have relevant methods to approach many of the problems we need to understand. In

Thomas Kuhn’s terms (1970), ours is not a period of “normal science” ... To sum it up, there is no canon [in

“education”], there are no core methods, this is not a time of normal science, and there are myriad models of

mentoring, even among those especially talented in it”.

The above scenario is further elaborated on by Pallas (2001: 6), stating that: “One of the most

confusing developments in education research over the past quarter-century has been the

proliferation of epistemologies – beliefs about what counts as knowledge in the field of education,

what is evidence of a claim, and what counts as a warrant of that evidence”. In a rapidly and

radically changing world, uniformisation and homogenisation of knowledge and systems is not

likely to succeed (D’Ambrosio, 1997: 1). The creation of knowledge even outside HEIs suggests the

vastness of what was hitherto understood as “intellectual/academic community” (Stephen &

Harrison, 2002: 2-4). In this regard, disciplinarity could not be said to be an exclusively HE

prerogative. While the disciplinary-rootedness of subjects/courses may reflect and buttress the

uniformisation and homogenisation of “ways” and “forms” of “knowing”, transdisciplinary

knowledge signify both the sociological and epistemological diversity/heterogeneity/differentiation

of the basis of “ways” of “knowing”, which Nowotny (2003: 1) refers to as “socially robust

knowledge”.

Lifelong learning is an area which realistically indicates the unpackaging of the curriculum to meet

the needs of a growing and diverse student population, especially adults whose early route to formal

learning was disrupted by other factors, personal or otherwise. In the context of globalisation and the

concomitant need for “the knowledge society”, lifelong learning has different connotations and

applications for both developed and still-developing or under-developed countries (Torres, 2002: 4).

In the developed countries of the North, where the general standards and quality of life, as well as

literacy levels are high, non-formal and informal learning are treated as substantive entities of the

formally organised education system. In the South, mere completion of primary and/or secondary

education is an onerous task mainly due to poverty and poor educational policies. The South is

‘afflicted’ by an illiteracy pandemic spanning all ages. The discrepant notions are a serious concern,

as this tends to reflect the discrepant funding by international donor agencies between North and

South countries. The developmental contradictions between developed and least developed countries

have engendered notions of “lifelong learning for all” and “education for all” (p. 5).

80

In the North informal and non-formal education are recognised and ‘mainstreamed’ into the entire

education system. Any individual, regardless of their age, can fit into any lifelong category. Such an

approach to lifelong learning enables adults to pursue any form of pursuit in knowledge that could be

credited in HE systems for certificate or diploma purposes. Such knowledge is not necessarily for

employment in the formal sector. The formal certificate could be needed mainly to gain more

knowledge on, for instance, managing one’s own business, or mainly for personal interest, such as in

painting. Torres questions the legitimacy of the “education for all” framework, as it is severely

restrictive. Instead of addressing the illiteracy crisis in the South, it has become another mechanism

for creating a semi-literate underclass of citizens. Its application puts “a ceiling” on primary school

level and adult basic education. The latter mainly assists adults to be functionally literate. The non-

formal and informal sectors are therefore not reined-in as part of developing an educational system

that caters for all learning uninhibited by age and other circumstances (e.g. work or home

commitments). The author emphasises this concern: “Adult education [in the South] continues to be

viewed as remedial and compensatory, with particular attention to the extremely poor, and is very

much associated with adult illiteracy rather than with adult basic education in a broad [lifelong]

concern [italics mine]” (Torres, 2002: 5-6).

The thrust of lifelong learning should “ ... comprise both essential learning tools and the basic

learning content required by human beings to be able to survive, develop their full capacity, live and

work in dignity, participate fully in development, improve the quality of life, to make informed

decisions and continue learning [italics mine]” (Torres, 2002: 8). This is the paradigm of lifelong

learning that truly addresses the repackaging of the traditional HE curriculum. Merely addressing the

basic education needs of adults precludes them from incorporation into the entire education system,

ipso facto, denying them full participation in the knowledge-base economy and world citizenship.

(d)The need for appropriate (standardized?) quality control mechanisms

Traditional HE has been associated with the validation/authentication of knowledge by awarding

certificates in various levels and fields of study. The advent of alternative HE providers has

engendered a contest about the ‘standard’ of knowledge accredited. In addition, there is also the

problem of whether uniform or broad mechanisms of validation are relevant within and among HEIs

(Newby, 1999: 122). The problem is compounded by lack of agreement on whether the same criteria

for quality control are applicable within courses/subjects and degrees/diplomas in the same

institution. Since the advent of the transfer/ ‘portability’ of credits from one institution to another,

how are the validation criteria of those institutions to be reconciled? With institutions experiencing

comprehensive organizational transformations, this could be more of a challenge. How do

81

departments/faculties for instance, articulate assessment and validation criteria in a manner that

integrates both the academic orientation and vocational culture of courses/subjects. Is each to have

its own quality control mechanisms? Newby cites the general discomfort posed by the issues of

quality and standards in the UK, irrespective of whether it is within a binary HE system or not:

“The growth of diversity in the UK has led to a countervailing determination to narrow a band of permissible

variability in levels of attainment. There has developed a massive “quality industry” to assure the output of the

higher education system, but this in turn has been treated with deep suspicion by most of those in the academic

profession (particularly in the older universities) [author’s parenthesis] who see quality control as a threat to

academic autonomy. The shift from elite to a mass HE system has therefore been accompanied by a shift from a

‘connoisseurship approach to standards – “I know it when I see it” – to a more forensic approach –evidence-based

quality control” (Newby, 1999: 122).

The preponderous availability of knowledge, information and date through the Internet poses

further challenges on quality, standards, and the benchmarks thereof, especially with the inordinate

quantity of invisible cyberspace academics and intellectuals who independently publish their

research through their own Web sites (Ikenberry, 1999: 61). The continuous increase in the creation

of knowledge makes the need for a worldwide regulatory framework even more compelling (Van

Damme, 2002: 25). Private HE providers are also to be included in controlling the “quality

industry”. The author proposes a set of measures to regulate/standardise quality in international

higher education which will include the following (p. 26):

a common international glossary of “common concepts, definitions and terminology” of what

constitutes nuances such as “university”, “professor”, “doctorate”;

basic rules stipulating the right to “teach”;

an international accountability mechanism for who can be held responsible;

intellectual property arrangements with private HEIs;

accreditation and recognition of degrees, diplomas and courses obtained from another higher

education institution.

In principle, the purpose of quality control in HE should be to guarantee that the ‘consumer’/student

has been provided with ‘goods’/knowledge and skills and attitudes that are of the highest standard

(Duderstadt, 2000b: 175). This also helps to maintain and protect the reputation of the particular

issuing institution or authority intact. Confidence and trust are also inspired in the community, the

state and the private sector as to the efficacy and effectiveness of the particular institution’s delivery

of what it promised to. Additionally, HEIs need to understand that improving quality is another

82

mechanism of containing costs (p. 176). HEIs have to identify the areas of their strength and focus

on those. Peripheral activities (e.g. those that are not directly linked to customer/student needs)

might be found to be costly and adding minimum value to overall institutional performance. Further

discussion on this issue takes place in some aspects of Chapter 4 of this study, in which the

involvement of those outside the academy (e.g. parastatals and NGOs, as well as co-operative work

facilitators) acting as quality assurance controllers is also discussed.

2.3.2 The role of research in higher education

The above contextual explication of HE’s teaching dynamics in a diverse environment – where

innovative and quality products (including curriculum as an item of ‘consumption’) have become

the common denominator in all of higher education’s functions – is an attempt also to explore

whether or not the conceptual framework guiding the formulation of such missions (systemic and

institutional) enables institutions as organizations to adequately discharge their stated

responsibilities, in respect of research, knowledge dissemination, and commitment to social and

cultural upliftment. It is also crucial to interrogate the degree to which these responsibilities are

executed in the context of a diversified stakeholder constituency. In other words, higher learning

institutions and their missions, have to distinctly articulate a path that is able to determine whether or

not these responsibilities can be discharged simultaneously. For instance, in the area of research,

would basic research be more preferable than applied research – and vice versa? Also, are teaching

and research mutually exclusive or not? Of HE’s constituencies, in whose interest is the curriculum

focused? (That is to say, what purpose is higher education knowledge supposed to serve?) These,

and many more related questions, are some of the issues waiting to be resolved. For this to happen,

clearly-articulated and unambiguous missions have to be formulated – conceptually uncomplicated,

and pragmatically viable.

In the early years of the university’s inception, the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake was

deemed to be the sacrosanct function of research (UNESCO, 1998: 7). This approach could be

viewed as having laid the foundation for ‘pure’ science. However, the scientific mode of knowledge

should not be viewed as being above all else: “Science and technology are a manifestation of human

creativity in the highest level, with profound implications for society. But as a search for truth, for an

understanding of Nature and in creating the enormous edifice of knowledge that we have today, it is

undoubtedly an intrinsic part of culture, perhaps a different face of culture on account of its

philosophy and method from that of the arts. Science in its internal functioning is universal but must

derive its strength from the multi-cultural nature of our global society; it is the latter, which makes

human society so productive ...” (p. 10).

83

The utilitarian function of knowledge being applied to socially-useful and materially-beneficial

contexts was ignored (UNESCO, 1998: 7). As an indispensable mission of HEIs, the research

function has had to change dramatically. Among other factors necessitating the reconceptualisation

of research are: government funding is shrinking, especially since the post 2nd world war years

when research universities in the USA for instance, received huge funding for defence-related

research; the post-industrial economy necessitates collaborative partnerships (for technology

transfer) between HE and industry; the explosion in knowledge has ushered in the social context for

the creation and application of knowledge (pp. 11-12). Used to signify humanity’s domination over

nature, the utilitarian function has had hazardous implications, as illustrated in by copious situations

where the combination of science and technology has had (and continues to have!) deleterious

implications on the environment and civilisation itself (p. 13). Despite some negativity surrounding

“the ethical vigilance” of some research universities in the industrialised countries especially, the

positive aspects of basic research still hold the key for humanity’s achievements (p. 15). The 19th

century researchers could not resolve the dilemma between Newton’s mechanics and

electromagnetism. The 20th century left an indelible mark in humanity’s quest for creative

excellence – demonstrated by the discoveries of quantum theory and the theory of gravitation by

Einstein. Will the 21st century best be remembered by researchers’ discoveries that will bring about

some synthesis between Newton’s quantum mechanics and electromagnetism, and Einstein’s theory

of gravitation? (UNESCO, 1998: 15).

2.3.2.1 The changing ecology of the research university

“A university cannot and should not enter all activities in all scientific areas. A strict selection

is required to position the university” (Tsichritzis, 1999: 110).

“The science-oriented [research] university came in fact very late in history, in spite of the practice of science in

universities in all times, including the achievement of fundamental scientific discoveries in universities that were

by and large ideological apparatuses. In fact, the first universities focusing on science and research as a

fundamental task were the leading German universities in the second half of the nineteenth century, although there

were a few early transfers of the science university model to the United States …” (Castells, 1997: 27).

Juxtaposing the above statements is the notion that current conditions (emanating from the 2nd World

War to the post-Cold War era; from the turbulent 1960’s to the advent of globalisation), warrant the

transformation of HEIs of all sizes, shapes and types. No aspect of HE has been left untouched

profoundly by these current forces for change. Organizationally and functionally, the previously

dominant form of HE learning, the research universities, is compelled to change too. The greatest

challenge facing the research university is whether teaching and research are divisible or not. In

84

other words, the utilitarian view of “knowledge-as-a-product” vis-à-vis “knowledge-as-a-process”, is

highlighted as pivotal in this respect. In the US the research university has been the dominant form

of higher education in the past fifty years (Duderstadt, 1999: 48). National security concerns in the

US had actuated a partnership between research universities (numbering 92 by 1976), and the state

and its military subsidiaries. The pivotal basis of this dual helix was university-based military

technology and research. In this context, the American research university had become ‘the

ideological apparatus’ of the state, according to which the interests of the state (which in itself

reflects class contradictions in society), and its militaristic machinery of establishing world

dominance – are considered pre-eminent to those of other societal concerns (Castells, 1997: 23).

After two world wars and the subsequent Cold War, the research university has the arduous task of

not only reinventing itself, but transforming its research capabilities for the academic and

occupational needs of the larger population, and balances these with the requirements of the

competitive, global informational economy (p. 15).

knowledge is the core business of the university, HEIs – as traditionally the custodians of this core

business – have to reconceptualise the ways in which they research about nature and society.

Confronted with the revolution in IT and globalisation, a reconceptualisation has to occur in respect

of addressing serious problems relating to the socio-economic well-being of humankind, rather than

engaging in research that satisfies the researchers’ idiosyncratic and narcissistic interests and views.

The disciplinaristic paradigm of the production, evaluation and dissemination of knowledge, is “…

unable to answer many of the burning questions of a modern society” (Nuesch, 1999: 157), and has

to be replaced with interdisciplinary modes of research. The latter facilitates many knowledge

producers and practitioners from a spectrum of intellectual backgrounds and persuasions (Pretorius,

2003: 15). This kind of orientation in HE research capabilities will allow for the development of

“New concepts permitting the asking of new and differently structured questions …” (p. 157). Mode

2 knowledge generation, validation, and dissemination – as propounded by Gibbons et al., appears to

be more socially responsive due to its “ …transdisciplinarity… heterogeneous, trans-institutional

production sites [and] … socially useful knowledge” (Kraak, 2000: 15); – a view also corroborated

by Marginson (2000: 30).

The advent of the ICT revolution is perhaps the single most contributing factor in the shaping of the

research university’s re-orientation from basic and pure research, to for-profit R&D (Castells, 1997:

27). The two research cultures of science and technology are also influential in determining the

future role of the research university (UNESCO, 1998: 14-15). The scientific approach provides

technology with the wherewithal of the instrumentalisation and application of knowledge. The US –

85

renowned for being the academic heartland of the world, has become quintessential in this regard.

(Of the 3500 universities and colleges only about 200 “… can be considered as knowledge

producers at various levels” (p. 27).) The “Silicon Valley syndrome” (p. 27) is both an apt indication

of how HE-industry partnerships have advanced research and design, and how scientific innovation

has been applied in the development and manufacturing of globally competitive niche products, such

as computers and other electronic components, using silicon as the basic raw material. This general

shift in the new responsibility adopted by research-only HEIs, therefore, occurs against the

background that state funds are being competed for; there has also emerged a category of new

stakeholders in the HE environment – from students to service providers vying for government

funding. Additionally, the imperative for global competitiveness; the centrality of

knowledge/information in the new economic mode of production – Mode 2; the salience of R&D for

innovative manufacturing; the advent of new HE knowledge providers; have become some of the

factors that are challenging the role of research universities as the pristine sites for (basic)

knowledge production. Duderstadt (1999: 48-49) contends that what shape the research university

will take should be guided by the following principles:

Universities, by virtue of them being the highest centres of learning, should be learner-

centred at all levels. The learning needs, expectations and experiences of the diverse student

population should supersede narrow sectarian interests, considering that in the global

economy the learners now have various options open for the provision of higher learning;

Institutions of higher learning have to provide lifelong learning opportunities, as adults

continue to refine their skills in tandem with their career and professional orientations

throughout their lives. Seamlessness of learning, from primary to higher education, is a

challenge underpinning “the culture of learning in all forms and systems of learning;

Interactive and collaborative ways of teaching and learning should be conducive to

“asynchronous” ways of learning; i.e. learning anytime and anywhere without the

constrictions of time and place;

Diversity plays a huge role in the reformulation of the research university (or any other HE

model, for that matter). This trend is viewed (in this study) as an integration of all of the

above-mentioned principles. For purposes of survival and relevance in the millennium

(considering the metamorphosis from elite to mass-universal higher education provision),

flexible non-traditional curriculum options (e.g. lifelong and adult basic education and

training) should be incorporated into the mainstream curriculum. (Nuttall, 2003: 57) argues

that this view affirms the notion of “scholarship of engagement”, which he describes as: “… a

praxis that connects university-based classrooms and research projects with off campus sites of knowledge

86

generation and action. The core purpose of this engagement is to address pressing issues in contemporary

society, responding to the challenges of social development and democratic citizenship… [italics my own

emphasis]”.

The metamorphosis of the research university, from being a scientific/academic knowledge

producer, has evolved to include a fourth function of HE, namely the training of professionals for

both the public and private services, e.g. bureaucrats, managers, etc. This transition is basically a

reflection of the ‘disjuncture’ of teaching and research (Altbach et al., 1998: 2-3; Bennich-

Bjorkmann, 1997: 5). (The other historically known HE functions are: knowledge production

(research), teaching (knowledge dissemination/diffusion), and service to society.) This fourth

function, of the training of professionals, could be construed as an amalgamation of both teaching

and service to society. The professional university has now been entrusted with the skilling of a

labour force competent enough to deal with new requirements exacted on it by the informational

economy and its concomitant diverse requirements of work. It has been stated earlier in this sub-

section (i.e. in discussing responsive and responsible universities), that society’s increasing demand

for higher education has increased HE’s responsibilities. The professional university, despite its

emphasis on training, is nonetheless ‘burdened’ by the same “demand overload” (Clark, 1998), that

is faced by other HE organizational types. Castells (1994: 29) puts it thus:

“While these four functions (generation and transmission of ideology, selection and formation of the dominant

elites, production and application of knowledge, training of the skilled labor ([sic] force) represent the main tasks

performed by universities, with different emphases on one or another according to countries… universities as

organizations have also submitted to the pressures of society, beyond the explicit roles they have been asked to

assume; the overall process resulting in a complex and contradictory reality…the demand for education has

reached the status of a social need, regardless of the actual functional requirements of the economy or of the

institutions [italics my own emphasis]”.

The author also, significantly, argues that whilst the research university might change in its focus, its

substance, like for all other university ‘types’, is still to be of service – of being in the world,

therefore contracted to service to society. Performing its missions simultaneously, is then viewed (by

him) as fulfilling these contradictory functions – as he contends that there is no ‘pure’ higher

educational model, organizationally and/or functionally (Bennich-Bjorkmann, 1997: 2-5; Castells,

1994: 30).

2.3.2.2 Research commercialization

The “deregulation” of research – from previously being the monopoly of HE, to becoming the

domain of many non-university sectors – has necessitated transformations in the research

87

environment for the socio-economic upliftment of society at large, not for researchers’ individual

interests, or research funders’ agendas (Dowling & Seepe, 2004: 187; Orr, 1997: 52). Universities

need to stay aggressively in the research market so as to be able to finance their academic activities

through incentives and benefits accruing from these research ventures. Universities that are slow or

unable to utilize on networked research for innovative products face a gloomy future (Tsichritzis,

1999: 102). The emphasis on higher education research being at the service of the private sector –

“research for profit” – has become the terrain known as “the commodification of knowledge” (Orr,

1997: 53). While Gibbons (1998a: 69) characterise this emphasis/shift as moving to “socially

distributed knowledge” (which benefits the poor), Orr (1997: 55) insists that it is a shift from

“academic knowledge” (which is professionalized and elitist) to “market knowledge” (which is

technology-based and profit-driven).

The production of knowledge at multiple sites, as well as the role of innovation and technology, has

influenced “the shift [from basic or pure research] towards applied research” (p. 52). Tensions

between basic research and applied research have intensified with the shift towards the financial and

economic benefits of the market economy (UNESCO, 1998: 12). Because research is expensive to

undertake, entrepreneurial initiatives necessitate that HE researchers collaborate with other

knowledge producers and knowledge practitioners outside their campuses. While the pursuit for

knowledge excellence is the fundamental “business” of higher education, the very knowledge that is

“discovered…gained…tested…shared [and]…applied…is not a free good, it is not a naturally-

occurring resource” (Tsichritzis, 1999: 180). The complexities of the globalisation- and ICT-inspired

research environment is changing and warrants that “research results… be promoted immediately or

they lose their value” (p. 100). The economic interests in research findings have created a

competitive market for research output. It is against this background that HE researchers’ mentalities

have to change and seek new partnerships in the now diverse research markets, especially as

companies compete for innovative products on a continuous basis: “Innovation is becoming a

strategic advantage more important than cost cutting or financial strength” (p. 101). Networked and

collaborative efforts among HE and non-university researchers yield desirable economic dividends.

Since innovation is at the centre of the new economy – “the ability continuously to reinvent products

and add value to existing designs through reconfiguring new information and knowledge about

product and process” (Kraak, 1997: 53) – becomes the engine for further (research-based)

development.

Some of the instruments to be utilized by HE in the competitive research market include ownership

of techno-parks, patent offices, and technology-transfer operations and competence centres

88

(Tsichritzis, 1999: 102). Competence centres would be owned and controlled by the university and

other interested industrial partners. They only become functional when there is a need for research-

related innovation, therefore giving credence to the thesis of knowledge production becoming a

factor of contextual application; as famously propounded by Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Nowotny,

H., Schwartzman, Scott, and Trow in their1994 exegesis titled: The new production of knowledge:

the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Competence centres would perform

functions that are “… all the things that academic research is allergic to. It contracts companies,

builds prototypes, runs certification, sells patents and licenses … and runs industrial labs [among

others]” (Tsichritzis, 1999: 103). It is a conduit for academic research for direly needed results in the

innovation business. Competence centres, such as a university-owned hospital, visualizes the

university’s role in both economic activity and social development through research. Intellectual

property rights – the exclusive ownership of research-based knowledge – has become a contentious

issue, especially with the competition for research funding becoming harder. Research funding itself

is characterised by copious ‘conditions’ to satisfy the funders’ interests (Dowling & Seepe, 2004:

187; Orr, 1997: 55; UNESCO, 1998: 11-12). The problem with “market knowledge” is that it

circulates in a strictly guarded environment, as Orr (1997: 56), citing Buchbinder 1993: 344)

comments:

“Commodified knowledge is not available for social use – under the so-called free market, knowledge is used in a

controlled and centralised manner for private gain ... the true nature of market knowledge is concealed by the

prevalence of salutatory writings, in which the ‘new knowledge industries’ are hailed as flexible, innovative and

dynamic. But knowledge represents power; this is also reflected in the transfer of knowledge between countries,

which is characterised by patterns of domination and control. The emergence of intellectual property rights

means that knowledge is no longer social property. Whereas social knowledge is an ongoing social process and is

socially ‘owned’, commodified knowledge is private property [italics mine]” (Orr, 1997: 56).

While it is important for HE to lay its claim in the knowledge industry, extreme caution has to be

exercised in balancing the “private” with the “public”. It is the declared mission of HEIs to be of

service to society and provide creditable knowledge towards its upliftment. On one hand, the

interests of academic freedom and institutional autonomy would suggest that it is not for higher

education to be subservient to the dictates of industry; conversely HE continues to be under-funded

and needs research-driven external partnerships for alternative funding bases. On the other hand, the

public’s right to know may be compromised by some protocol requirements between HE and the

funder (e.g. in defence contracts), or between HE and its collaborative industrial partners. Public

disclosure of their research enterprise could be construed as an affront to so-called ‘market

intelligence’ – disclosing information or knowledge that might be exploited by competitors in the

89

same industry. Commodification of knowledge is discussed further in this chapter in the section on

higher education finance (Section 2.4).

2.3.2.3 The teaching-research debate

From this study’s perspective, the teaching-research debate, invariably, lends itself to the prevalence

of tensions in the status/prestige and organization of knowledge itself. On the one hand, a view

persists that research and teaching are indivisible (Forschung und Lehre) (Tsichritzis, 1999: 99).

Conversely, as maintained by others, knowledge creation (research) and its dissemination through

teaching, should be divisible, so as to accord the former Einsamheit und Freiheit (p. 99). The notion

of the divisibility of the two is assumed to bring to HE the very essence of “higher” learning by a

cadre of professors/knowledge specialist who are endowed with the ‘gift’ of creating knowledge for

an ‘untrained’ knowledge consuming public. It assumes that others are teachers/knowledge workers

or practitioners and some are professors/researchers (knowledge producers).

The production of knowledge at multiple sites has contributed to the intensification of the mass

higher education system (Gibbons, 1998a: 14). The elitist character of scientific research has

therefore been attenuated by the social character of knowledge attributed to by the multi-disciplinary

participation of teams of researchers in real-life problems. The heterogeneous character of student

populations has narrowed, rather than increased, the higher education missions in respect of the

undergraduate and postgraduate curricula (p. 14). Collectively, the shifts from liberal education to

professional and entrepreneurial education, as well as the utilitarian approach to research, have

impacted on what institutions consider to be their “core” and “peripheral” functions. The costly

nature of research has become a decisive factor in determining the core/peripheral vis-à-vis the

undergraduate/postgraduate curriculum (Altbach et al., 1998: 282).

The undergraduate curriculum is necessarily the focus of the teaching-research balance (Zusman,

1999: 126). On the one hand, “institutional drift” or the influence of “outside actors” may impact on

the nature of institutional priorities/missions and its differentiation of relationships between

undergraduate and postgraduate studies (p. 127). On the other hand, the reward structure of

research has been sternly criticised for influencing the teaching-research imbalances (Altbach et al.,

1998: 283). Zusman (pp. 127-128) raises the issue of “scholarship” as being instrumental in defining

the relationship between research and teaching at departmental level. If “scholarship” is narrowly

understood as discovery of knowledge, then faculty members, in the quest for recognition and

reward, may be inclined to focus on research. If this becomes an accepted institutional version, then

its relationship to the broader curriculum should be stated unambiguously (Altbach et al., 1998: 30).

90

Alternatively, if “scholarship” is broadly applied to include both the creation and dissemination of

knowledge, then departments carry the onus of stimulating excellence of teaching and research, as

well as excellence in teaching and research (Zusman, 1999: 128). Most importantly, excellence in/of

teaching and/or research (the difference has been alluded to earlier in this chapter) has a bearing on

the (un) popularity of courses and class sizes. “Scholarship” differentiation is crucial in that it

becomes an internal/departmental ‘rating’ mechanism for determining faculty workloads (ipso facto,

time allocated for teaching and/or research) and undergraduate/postgraduate curricula prioritization.

For HEIs pursuing both undergraduate and postgraduate education, they should be able to clarify the

nature of interface between the former (for general education) relates to the latter (in respect of

professional/entrepreneurial); as well as the nature of interface between the two and research. In all

of the above, it should be explicit as to how it relates to students acquisition of knowledge (Altbach

et al., 1998: 30). Furthermore, methods of quality assurance should be in tandem with the goal of

students’ acquisition of that knowledge. Some critics have argued that the quality and relevance of

search is in some instance questionable (p. 30). At the same time, the purposes of research by faculty

and research by (post) graduate students should be clearly explicated, as well as their integration

into the broad curriculum; taking into cognisance the priority of training students on how knowledge

is developed.

2.3.3 Higher education and community service

In addition to the creation/production, dissemination/teaching, and authentication of knowledge, the

social contract of responsiveness has been one of HE’s missions. However, accountability to

society did not emerge as a pivotal and concurrent mission of early higher education development.

Nascent university development was characterised by a sense of self-regulation within secular and

aristocratic dynamics (Altbach, 1999: 17). The notion of the university’s social commitment evolved

from the Humboldtian era when German universities linked their scientific disciplines to national

development. However, the growth of earlier American universities is credited with HE’s

establishment of direct links with society by first developing agricultural programmes for socio-

economic development (Altbach, 1999: 17; Duderstadt, 2000b: 145). Scott (1998: 5) argues that

“America’s rhetorical [and functionalist] public [HE] culture ...” serves as an example of how the

idea of “university” has traversed various ideological and philosophical/existential grounds

throughout its history. Such an analysis is located within the social and cultural tradition of HE

development. In this analytic mode, “... higher education features as the producer of cultural capital,

engaged in the formation of national, professional and technical elites, the agent of modernity ...” (p.

5). In other words, the university’s responsiveness to society’s needs has at various historical

periods, undergone stages of metamorphosis; from being verily elitist and insular (variously

91

‘accountable’ to the interests of the clergy and the church, the aristocracy and their feudal empires,

and the industrial oligarchy), to gradually becoming part of society.

2.3.3.1 The indispensability of HE’s social consciousness

Society is the one sector of the HE constituency that warrants critical attention of university missions

(Pretorius, 2003: 13). The author contends further that:

“… universities and academics should endeavour to find a dynamic balance between internal and external

determination by simultaneously pursuing social responsiveness by seeking to maintain institutional integrity …

the notion of socially engaged knowledge generation [author’s own emphasis] is promoted as an approach to an

academic regime that is aimed at both contextualising teaching and research for optimal social impact, and

maintaining the institutional integrity of the university by keeping core institutional features intact”.

That is to say, social participation should not be limited to mission focus on students (because of the

competition for the ‘catchment’ of the variegated student population) but be broadened as a feature

of accountability in respect of involvement in the concerns of the local communities. Mori (2000:

xiii) ascertains that by fulfilling the mandate that society has placed on it, HE will have enriched its

credibility and legitimacy value, therefore, reconceptualising the whole notion of HE-society

relations (Duderstadt, 2000b: 145). Society’s expectations are not monolithic; culture and other local

imperatives are not static, giving way to imperatives of global competitiveness. Neave (2000: 6),

(and Duderstadt, 2000b: 243) propounds some arguments for clarity on “community”; in other

words, who are ‘the people’ HE is supposed to serve? He argues:

“If the basic responsibility of academia is to hand on knowledge and to advance it, one has also to admit that to

whom it is handed on – or down, depending on whether one’s views on the world are hierarchical or not – and for

what purpose are largely defined by “the community”. In some instances, who may receive higher education – and

thus the “clientele” of academia – is set out in formal legislative, administrative or constitutional enactment [to

determine whether or not it is a privilege or a right] which applies in a uniform manner across a given territory ...

But the “community” is very much a catch-all concept.[italics my own emphasis]”.

To the extent of “community” or “society” being adjudicated on by political/historical,

cultural/religious, and economic variants, higher education has the ‘burden’ of articulating which

“community” it is required to serve. Failure to explicitly articulate these responsibilities therefore,

and failure to formulate mechanisms on how appropriately to address which constituencies are

served, will not help in enhancing higher education as an institution that is not only just in society,

but of society. Perceptions (which might germinate into beliefs), of socially exclusionary missions

and practices may be leveled against the academy (Henry et al., 2001; Marullo & Edwards, 2000:

92

897; Newman, 2000: 17). In that context, higher education could be accused of failing to discharge

its moral obligation to society (UNESCO, 1998: 16). In a changing scenario, replete with multiple

stakeholder interests, public HE could be turned into a lobbying ground and be derailed from being

the ‘property’ of society, to becoming the educational wing of the state (by e.g. application of

‘politically correct’ knowledge systems) or of the private sector. In an era of such competing

interests, the publicly-funded university cannot ‘escape’ accountability (p. 11).

As the most integral component to the university’s functioning, student interests and leadership is

arguably a terrain not properly articulated by HE administrators. This is worth mentioning, as these

are society, s most direct and immediate link with HEIs. Addressing the UNESCO World

Conference on Higher Education, Dennis Longid, a delegate from the Office of the Student Regent

at the University of Philippines, propounded the dearth of students’ involvement in their future. HEIs

are viewed as ‘riding rough shod’ on their interests:

“When someone from the audience [at this conference] in the student debate yesterday asked the students who

were actually part of their official national delegation, I was quite disappointed to see very few hands. It speaks

highly of how, up to the present, in general, students are not yet recognised as major stakeholders in education by

their respective governments ... during the first forum meeting many of us were given the impression that we

should be actually grateful that we are here at this World Conference ... For us students, the freedom to know, to

pursue what we want to study, and the necessary freedom to express this knowledge, these ideas should at all

times be respected” (UNESCO, 1998: 23).

While it could be argued that the above issue relates to HE administration, and therefore an intrusion

on HE governance, it is also important to note that the focal point here is the right to participate and

engage in all matters pertaining to the end-product of studying. For instance, when students protest

against increased fees in particular, they might be representing their parents as the paying public.

Students easily interpret such measures as applying financial restrictions to deny some from under-

privileged communities access to higher learning (UNESCO, 1998: 23). Secondly, and as the

constituency that is most likely to be affected by the content of what is prescribed as their

curriculum, “ ... the entry of multinational corporation [sic] in universities, students are at best

limited in what they want to pursue and at worst, forced to study matters that are of interest to these

companies [italics mine]” (p. 23).

While it is imperative for HEIs to be part of society, they face the challenge of reconciling the

increasing demand for higher education, against scarcity of resources. The latter presents most of

the dilemmas as institutions, in their quest to remain competitive and to survive, resort to various

93

forms of “academic capitalism” and entrepreneurial partnerships which might conflate its

fundamental priorities. Duderstadt (2000b: 145) illuminates that being of service to society is neither

an incidental nor an occasional ‘extension service’. It is a protracted and continuous activity.

Responsive institutions will be pro-active in identifying areas in which they have to be involved

“when a service has simply outlived its usefulness” (p. 145). In whatever capacity a university

engages in community service, its primary education and scholarship character should not be lost,

lest it be caught in a “policy drift” syndrome (Altbach et al., 1998: 166). For HEI’s service to society

to be taken seriously, Weber (1999: 6) offers the following caveat:

“... universities should listen more carefully to society to learn and understand its changing needs and

expectations, as well as its perceptions of higher education, especially in light of the forces driving change.

Universities should be more responsive to needs when offering new study programmes or starting new research ...

universities should sharpen their sense of responsibility towards society ... The greatest threat is that knowledge,

which is traditionally a public good available to all those seeking it, might become a private good reserved only

for those who can pay for it [italics my own emphasis]”.

2.4 THE FINANCING OF HIGHER EDUCATION“Universities are caught up in grand contradictions: with less money, do more and more; maintain as always the

culture heritage, the best of the past, but quickly and flexibly develop new fields of study and modes of thought;

relate to everyone’s demand because all are “stakeholders”” (Clark, 1998: 146).

By complying with the sometimes conflicting interests and demands of a multifaceted constituency,

HE is compelled to forge a way forward that involves the development of a secure funding base on

the one hand, while prudently reducing costs, on the other (Weber, 1999: 12). The state of “grand

contradictions”, or crises, “…is part of the broader neo-liberal policy of reduced state expenditure in

the public sector and the contracting out of public services. These changes are leading to a

transformed relationship between universities, the state and the market [my emphasis]” (Orr, 1997:

48); also corroborated by Deem (2001: 8).

The preponderance of “stakeholders” (ushered into the HE system by factors such as access and

equity); the ever-increasing frontiers of knowledge; the diversity of learning needs; university-based

research which is expensive to undertake; the provision of graduate education; all these are some of

the factors in a plethora of emerging trends that characterise the fiscal challenges HEIs have to

contend with (Duderstadt, 1999: 40). A convergence of these factors has created a “demand

overload” for HE (Clark, 1998: 131 This means that the fiscal environment of HE limits its

response-capacity to fulfil its responsibilities to the (conflicting) demands of its stakeholder

constituencies. The under-funding mode, in which many of the world’s HEIs find themselves in, is

94

largely due to the demand-response disequilibrium, which relate to HEIs “… outrun[ning] their

capacity to respond… In the face of the increasing overload universities find themselves limited in

response capability. Traditional funding sources limit the provision of university finance …

Traditional university infrastructure becomes even more of a constraint on the possibilities of

response” (pp. 129,131). The traditional mode of funding for earmarked projects was viewed as

producing high academic standards, as HEI managers would not be bogged by financial accounting

audits, but concentrate on more pressing academic issues. However, faced with socio-economic

contradictions and multi-sectoral expectations, HEIs have to operationalise the maxim, “…doing

more and more with less and less” (Rigby, 1995: 141, cited in Clark, 1998: 146). They are driven to

being accountable, and provide quality higher education at low cost, as demanded by society,

government, and employers.

Pressures of more accountability, more performativity, and more efficiency, are directing HEIs

towards entrepreneurial means of securing more funding for themselves (Orr, 1997: 48). The fiscal

burden of HE is exacerbated by governments’ fiscal austerity. In the US for instance, the provision

of financial aid has changed (in the late 1990s) from grants to loans, “… reflecting a fundamental

philosophical shift to the view that education is a private benefit rather than a larger public

interest” (Duderstadt, 1999: 40). The same trend prevailed in the UK, where the UGC (University

Grants Committee), until the late 1980s, had been responsible for operating

“… a system of quinquennial block grants whereby universities received unhypothecated grants, fixed in real

terms for five years, with little accountability for anything except financial probity …A curious feature of the

arrangement was that the UGC never made known the criteria on which it had it had made allocations to

individual universities. This was justified on the grounds that it would have been an intrusion on their autonomy

[italics my own emphasis]” (Williams, 1999: 176).

This is the fiscal scenario engendering the tensions, contradictions and conflict of interests which the

HE system in general, has to contend with. Despite this somewhat austere fiscal scenario, Rhodes

(1999: 181-182), cautions against irresoluteness on the part of HEIs:

“It is the public, through direct state and federal payments, tax exemption… who sustain the university. To them,

the university must be openly and appropriately accountable for the prudent use of its resources…What it

[accountability] does not mean, however, is accommodation to every political pressure, popular-demand, public

interest, scholarly fashion or social whim, whether from within or without…Anything less would make it truly

unaccountable, as well as fundamentally compromising its essential function [italics my own emphasis]”.

95

2.4.1 Securing revenue for operational sustainability

Resorting to market practices has ostensibly become the way to addressing the fiscally contradictory

responsibilities of higher education institutions (Deem, 2001: 8-10; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997: 8-10).

Consequently, efficiency has indirectly become a ‘tradable’ commodity since “… governments buy

academic services from producers, or subsidise students to buy them, rather than supplying them

directly, or indirectly through subsidy of institutions” (Williams, 1999: 179). A second aspect of the

new funding is based on governments’ assumptions that an increase in student enrolments should be

followed with a concomitant commitment by the private sector to ‘absorb’ some of the costs of

student funding, so that HE quality is maintained. Thirdly, students and their families are also to

make a contribution in the cost of higher education, so that quality and equity are achieved at the

same tie; this is also premised on the notion that higher education is also a private benefit to the

student and his/her family. This is reflective of a trend according to which the state itself is

privatising some its fiduciary functions, including its responsibilities to society (Duderstadt, 1999:

11; Salmi, 2002: 2).

In response to the inhospitable funding climate of HEIs, securing alternative and diversified

funding mechanisms has become the most viable option for the self-preservation (survival) and self-

reproduction (sustainability) of HE. In its fiduciary capacity as custodian to the public good (Scott,

1998), the state has been the traditional supporter of HEIs through taxes generated through the public

purse. As a traditional first-generation (first-stream) financial supporter of HE, through input-based

and output-based funding (Salmi, 2002: 9), the state has gradually ‘abdicated’ this role by opting for

contractual arrangements in which HEIs have to ‘bid’ for public funding. Some of the state’s fiscal

responsibilities are outsourced to cost-effective bidders in the private sector to provide for instance,

maintenance of buildings. HE’s previous share of public revenue is impacted on by governments

realizing that other levels of education (primary, secondary, and adult-based education and training)

have to be integrated into the national system of education and, therefore, warrant more funding for

their higher social rates of return/investment (Gibbons, 1998a: 57-58). In addition, the state’s budget

incurring more demands (e.g. health care, poverty alleviation, security), limits its fiscal capacity to

invest more in the HE sector. On the other hand, the private sector’s financial involvement carries

with it the ‘risks’ of the corporatisation of some HE services and functions (Weber, 1999: 2). The

private sector’s involvement, furthermore, is compounded by “… imperfections [and turbulence] in

capital markets [limiting] the ability of individuals to borrow sufficiently for education, thereby

reducing the participation of meritorious but economically disadvantaged groups in tertiary

education [italics my own emphasis]” (Salmi, 2002: 2). The costs for running viable and competitive

higher education institutions has been exacerbated also, by the need for running viable research

96

projects, which has necessitated a closer HE-industry association, especially since competitive and

continuous innovation – the basis for R&D – is costly. More than ever before, prudence and

entrepreneurial engagement on the part of universities has had to be optimized, so as to secure a

diversified revenue base by utilizing both internal and external resources. While such an approach

might ‘free’ HEIs from governmental ‘intrusions’ and budgetary restrictions, they still face the threat

of ‘invasion’ by organised business as a funding partner. Balancing these stakeholders’ interests is

required in developing a new framework for HE support through public financing (for which HE is

expected to service societal needs and expectations), and seeking private sector support (for which

HE is still criticised for a supply-demand disequilibrium), while giving more serious attention to

governmental demands for ‘delivery’ and more accountability.

University-based research is one instrument by which an institution can secure its own revenue.

Faculty engagement in the generation of (new?) socio-economically useful knowledge, endow

intellectual property rights and licensing fees to the university. Those industrial firms and companies

making use of the discoveries and innovation, through legally endorsed arrangements, generate

alternate finances for the particular HEI, thus becoming external and alternative funders. In this way,

intellectual property rights become a source of revenue. Start-up, or participatory arrangements for

joint research initiatives between HEIs and industry, have the added advantage –in much the same

way as patent rights and licensing fees (in that the financial rewards for HE are more immediate) –

of being a continuous source of operational income, depending on legal arrangements made between

the particular higher education institution and its private sector partner. The university could also

derive revenue by its faculty engaging in consultancy work in their occupational, rather than private

capacity. Their (and the institution’s) profiles will be elevated on the basis of their marketing skills

as well. However, Hirsch (1999: 81-82), cautions against the ‘culture shock’ and risks attendant to

entering the HE-business nexus for financial support. HEIs have to be astute, in anticipation of the

prevalent conflict of interests. A profit-motive may be lurking on the part of industrial funders as a

condition for financial support. They may, for instance, require that corporate representation in HE

committees become a pre-requisite for such financial assistance. While this might be covertly a

veiled attempt to influence decision-making in favour of corporate interests, it might overtly also

introduce a corporate culture for HE administration to new ways of organizational management by

professional practitioners rather than by collegial academic administrators (‘donnish dominions’?).

The introduction of management by professional practitioners rather than by collegial academic

administrators’ – executivism – is the basis of the ‘culture shock’ referred to earlier. This state of

affairs then, calls for HEIs to be wary of unfair advantage and business practices which might

underlie HE-industry partnerships. Meanwhile, Deem (2001: 10) refers to the “…formation of

97

internal markets” as another department-/faculty-based possibility in the ongoing struggle against

fiscal difficulties. In a single HEI for instance, a single academic cost centre is established, or

different academic cost centres for various operational units (faculties, departments, etc.) within the

same institution. In such a framework, competition on fiscal austerity and discipline, as well as

entrepreneurial initiatives in securing external funding, is encouraged. This approach could be

construed as a ramification and reinforcement of the corporate culture ‘shock’ of entrepreneurialism

and the “new managerialism”, among others, as heads of departments, schools, or faculties, are

compelled to be responsible for their own budgets in an internally-competitive environment.

For the effective realisation of a diversified funding base, university leadership is urged (individually

and collectively) to optimize its managerial clout to campaign privately for mega-sums fundraising;

that is, “high transaction” donations/contributions (Hirsch, 1999: 77). In the US for instance,

between 1990 and 1995, private funding initiatives raised for the HE system $12, 7 billion – a 30%

increase compared to the preceding five-year period. This excludes patent and licensing fees – which

in 1996 accounted for $592 million in 73 universities and colleges (p. 7). These dollar figures

represent a 167% increase from the preceding five-year period (1985-1990). Commercialisation of

university property (such as logos and emblems on clothing items, airline products, etc.) generates

royalty revenue which also adds to the money that can be made available for discretionary funding.

Such entrepreneurial initiative, apart from programme offerings, is what will separate one higher

education institution from the other. With globalisation ostensibly becoming an indelible feature of

the new economic order, ‘unbundling’ or outsourcing of HE services or assets, has become an extant

feature in those HE organizations struggling for financial survival. Outsourcing university-owned

utilities and engaging in commercial enterprises (such as obtaining shares/stock in other companies)

are an optimistic direction towards warding off competition from especially non-university

competitors. Such enterprises might also include (co)ownership of a hospital, engagement in the

stock market, real estate and mining. These are some of the examples. Tien (1999: 166), cites as

enhancing “… the portfolio-management” of HEIs. This emulation of the corporate sector is

indicative of the salience of a “stand-up” culture for HE systems to enhance their resource capacity –

rather than lamenting a lack thereof. The securing of funds, in the light of the entrepreneurial

scenario, is perceived here as being within the institutional sphere; whereas the financing of HE is

viewed as falling within the systemic terrain. Research and non-research HEIs might not benefit

equally from research-based enterprises. Student fees are definitely not a cogent source for long term

sustainability. (The scourge of student debt presently afflicting the NSFAS (National Student

Financial Aid Scheme) in South Africa is evidence of the difficulty of completely relying on

students and their parents to pay). Alumni contributions, with all the nostalgic sentiments attached,

98

might not be sufficient to match “high transactions” generated from the private sector (including

philanthropic foundations and research councils). Resorting to “academic capitalism” appears to be

the most viable option left for HEIs to survive in “the knowledge industry”.

2.4.2 Reducing costs for operational sustainability

Cost control is imperative for HEIs as access and admission to HE learning opportunities (with the

concomitant accruement of debt by students who are unable to pay), have become difficult to limit

Visionary leadership – an indispensable attribute at HEIs besieged by ‘unpopular’ decisions (e.g.

with-holding of results, expulsions, and cancellation of registration for non-paying students) – might

necessitate an array of risky responses in the continuous struggle to reduce costs (Clark, 1998: 4).

These might include for instance, a re-evaluation of missions (e.g. changing the client/market base

by shifting the focus of programmes offered to cater for high-paying clients in the corporate sector).

However, this could also be construed as ‘gentrifying’ the campus, exclusionary, and obstructing the

goals of access. In such a scenario, prioritisation of institutional missions, objectives, and services

could become a guiding principle in determining the importance of some cost and expenditure

services or items over others that are to be (temporarily or permanently) discontinued. The types of

responses to cost reduction will inevitably vary institutionally and systemically, depending on the

scope of financial need, and the burden of debt. The fundamental objective of

streamlining/rationalising institutional finances should be the optimisation of all available resources

to most of the HE stakeholder constituencies (staff and students included). Deem (2001: 11),

suggests that teaching and research-related audits are some of the baseline measures that are

essentially cost-cutting. For instance, inadequately funded research could be shared by departments,

faculties or schools, in a collaborative and cost-sharing effort; while mutually benefiting from the

same research output, without compromising the standards thereof. In some institutions, difficult

decisions might have to be made regarding the ‘downsizing’/ restructuring of staff (with the

resultant labour disputes for unionised members), services and programmes. Weber (1999: 12)

reaffirms such an alternative:

“… one cheap but extremely difficult way to finance new priority projects is to save money in sectors whose

value to the university and to society has greatly diminished … universities should not necessarily always try to

expand, but should more seriously consider renewing themselves through reallocating resources …[within] an

organizational structure and a process [that is not averse to] … taking and implementing unpopular decisions” It is

incumbent on HE leadership to devise reasonable mechanisms and criteria to be implemented on the restructuring

process, either by reducing budgetary allocations in those areas or reducing staff. In some cases, administrative

and service costs are the first to be affected”.

99

Bona-fide intentions have to prevail in implementing academic or administrative staff reductions, so

as to pre-empt undue labour disputes, which may put more pressure on time and financial resources.

Unbundling or outsourcing of peripheral services, especially in the light of competition from

external providers and competitors, is another avenue for alleviating the expenditure burden. Non-

academic services provided by HEIs include “… responsibility for all manner of activities beyond

education – housing and feeding students, providing police and other security protection, counselling

and financial services, even maintaining campus power plants” (Duderstadt, 1999: 45). Outsourcing

some of such services to low-cost, outside bidders attenuates the burden of expenditure for the

university. The outsourcing (unbundling) of especially non-academic functions, as well as

programme restructuring (of those courses of study either receiving less financial support or the least

registered for by students), strengthens those areas best enhancing the HEI’s core missions and

prioritisation profile. This is considered an imaginative way for survival and remaining competitive

in the knowledge “industry”. The (American) comprehensive is cited:

“Today comprehensive universities – at least full-service organizations – are at considerable risk. One significant

impact of a restructured higher education “industry” may be to break apart this monolith [of controlling all aspects

of academic and non-academic services or activities], much as other industries have been broken apart through

deregulation … they may well find it necessary beginning to see the growth of differentiated competitors for

many of these activities. Universities are under increasing pressure to spin off or sell off or close down parts of

their traditional operations in the face of this new competition. Many of our other activities, e.g., financial

management and facilities management, are activities that might be outsourced to specialists [thereby relegating]

… areas where they do not have a unique competitive advantage” (Duderstadt, 1999: 45).

Programme/course restructuring might be met with opposition by faculty whose allegiance is more

to their disciplines than to institutional goals and priorities. As unpopular as it may be, it is sound

business nous to restructure unproductive units in the face of a fiercely competitive market

environment. In the case of HEIs, ‘unpopular’ courses (e.g. the classics?), may be discontinued for

more ‘popular’ courses (e.g. business management, ICT?) – where the prominent distinction of the

(un) popularity of a course/subject may be indicated for example, by expanding or shrinking class

sizes. Programme restructuring (in) advertently translates into outsourcing peripheral non-academic

functions; faculty and support staff reductions, which might be instituted randomly or targeting the

specific courses referred to as unpopular. Older faculty members could be considered for premature

retirement. Such measures, however, would necessitate amicable resolution of contractual

obligations, so as to obviate any labour relation disputes – especially for those unionised members.

100

The employment of younger, part-time, teaching staff reduces salary costs for the institution. This

however, does not imply lesser workloads for them. The maximum utilization of teaching and

learning technologies lessens costs, especially where asynchronous learning occurs (Guri-Rosenblit,

1999: 24). Teachers’ contact time with learners is mediated by the intervention of ICT. This is more

practicable in the instance of distance teaching. While these technologies might have an initial cost

burden to bear on the particular institution, the long-term rewards are huge. The teacher does not

have to be always there next to the student. The technologies are re-usable and periodically

modified. The costs for this are lesser than the salaries for teachers – especially for senior full-time

staff delivering classroom-based content in dual mode, for full-time students and part-time, working

adults attending classes in the evenings, on weekends, and during holidays. Interdisciplinary and

inter-institutional teaching and research collaboration is another area lending support to cost

reduction. Virtually-simulated research replaces actual physical collaboration, and requires. HEIs in

dire financial straits might be stood in good stead by working together with teams of researchers in

other institutions, unrestricted by time and distance. As in research, administrative duties could be

collaborated – thus increasing efficiency and reducing costs (Ikenberry, 1999: 59). The same holds

true for academic content and professional support services, for instance, a single accounting

department or information centre, which can serve multiple audiences and campuses in several

locations, as well as library resources that can be shared more conveniently. The positive aspect of

collaboration lies not only in the reduction or sharing of cost by HEIs; it is also an aspect of

networking and a precursor to the voluntary merging of institutions. Faculty rewards, perks or fringe

benefits not directly related to teaching (e.g. travel and accommodation allowances), need to be

reviewed. In business, company executives’ perks are reviewed in the face of stringent budgetary

constraints. In some instances, they are the first to be considered should occasion warrant

retrenchment in a unit of production that is marginal to company objectives. One executive’s salary

may be equivalent to that of several subordinates-depending on their position in the company’s

hierarchy. For HE, such a scenario calls for caution. It could be that ‘meritocratic downsizing’ may

need to apply. There are faculty whose commitment to research and publication translates into either

pecuniary benefits (necessary for discretionary funding) or academic/intellectual prestige (necessary

for attracting potential funders/donors and partnerships) for the institution. This category of faculty

is ostensibly of high standing and may need some kind of ‘incentivisation’ as a means of retaining

their valuable intellectual capital, which is vital for institutional research capacity.

Reducing costs, therefore, is not only a survival mechanism applying to ‘the universe of universities’

in the face of a “demand overload” previously alluded to. Cost reduction, essentially, is a process

designed to implement organizational efficiency, while instituting more accountability within the

101

HE environment of conflicting stakeholder interests. Within this broad university environment

(‘universe of universities’), reducing costs is detrimental to one sector or the other. Difficult, and

sometimes unpopular choices, have to be made eventually. It is up to the management of HEIs to

steer their organizations towards directions that are financially rewarding, while safeguarding the

academic and intellectual integrity of those higher education institutions without compromising

higher education’s responsibility to society.

2.5 GOVERNANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION“The challenges of improvement and innovation that face higher education… cannot be limited to financial

reform alone, they also call for a rethinking of the traditional relationship between governments and universities.

Central planning and control of higher education has resulted in uniformity, rigidity and politicisation of the

system at a time when diversity, responsiveness to evolving development demands, and faculty and student

commitment to institutional objectives of quality and relevance are essential [italics my own emphasis]” (Salmi &

Verspoor, 1994: 7).

Implicit in the statement is the fact of the pivotal role of institutional missions in a diverse

environment that calls for “planning and control” measures that are compliant with the techno-

economic paradigm. Affirming this view is the statement by Gibbons (1998a: 58):

“The developments in knowledge production…are part of a much larger shift within society. They are part of the

emergence of what has been called a new techno-economic paradigm. This new paradigm involves, in addition to

the massification of mass higher education and the globalisation of the world economy, a major shift in the nature

of work, and the nature of employment, in general …One aspect that runs through all these social changes is the

emergence of a culture of accountability that applies to all institutions, public or private…which is firmly linked

to the spread of managerialism and to the ethos of value for money throughout higher education [italics my own

emphasis]. Much of the angst in higher education about the spread of this culture arises from the rather one-sided

view in which accountability is seen as a threat to university autonomy [italics my own emphasis]”.

While the observation made by Salmi and Verspoor (1994: 7) above focuses on HE-government

relations as some of the factors necessitating HE reform, Gibbons above pays specific attention to

the very essence of the viability of governance, vis-à-vis fiscal accountability as the product of

market deregulation impacting on how university managers are to execute their duties to the

‘satisfaction’ of every stakeholder constituency. Both statements recognise the obsolescence of

purely vertical forms of organizational governance/management. The common denominator in all

previous discussions in this chapter is that public higher education institutions in particular, have to

emerge out of their primordial ‘cocoons’; it is the best way of safeguarding their future survival and

intellectual legitimacy. Whereas some analysts and commentators from across the disciplines (e.g.

102

Drucker (1993) and others), portend its demise, indications are that adaptive measures being

undertaken by HE systems themselves have the effect of revitalizing and reinventing higher

education as a viable educational organizations of knowledge excellence in the millennium.

Visionary leadership and proactive managerial skills are some of the instruments to be utilized in

charting a protracted and sustainable way forward in a climate that has changed radically since the

inception of the university more than a thousand years ago. To the extent that HE has been able to

adapt to change and turbulence throughout this period, the lessons learnt from these experiences are

to be built on as milestones for the next thousand years, and beyond. The governance of HEIs, as

much as financing, teaching, research, and other organizational functions and responsibilities, is

most fundamental in establishing a culture of reform. It is the contention of this study that the

propensity, attitude and values of institutional leadership determine whether or not a culture of

transformation does exist. The more traditional values HEIs espouse, the less susceptible to change

they are likely to become.

2.5.1 Main shortcomings in the traditional mode of governance“Universities also possess structural inefficiencies that impair the prospects for adaptation and change. Examples

of such inefficiencies include clinging to the familiar and to custom even though they are less well suited to the

future than to the past; excessive preoccupation with prerogatives, especially in the academic departments; and, in

a university’s institutional relations, being driven by practice and turf rather than by synergies and new ways of

cooperation and sharing to mutual advantage. One does not read of mergers or even joint ventures in higher

education as one does in the corporate world [italics mine]” (Gardner, 1999: 23).

‘Governance’ as a form of organizational leadership and control system, changes either as a result

of the leadership itself ushering-in the change from within, or compelled to do so by external

pressures. Invariably, the context and the extent of externally-induced change may impact on HE

leadership to adapt to this climate of change. Middlehurst (1995: 76) asserts:

“Several authors have noted the relationship between change and leadership … a changing context creates

instability, uncertainty and a need for adaptation in individual roles and attitudes as well as in organizational

structures and cultures. The existence and the experience of a turbulent environment … create both a

psychological and a practical need for leadership. The link between leadership and change can therefore be made

from both a context-centred [e.g. political, economic, technological] and a person-centred perspective … change

creates the need for leadership and leaders are, or are perceived to be, initiators and drivers of change”.

The point being alluded to here is that, whether internally- or externally-driven, change becomes

only meaningful when the organizational leadership does not create attitudinal barriers that are

inimical to that change making a positive impact on the organization itself. It is in the light of the

103

above (person-or context-centred) perspectives that the traditional mode of university leadership,

based on the collegial ‘chair’ system, becomes a serious shortcoming in the context of current trends

towards more participative forms of governance. Collegiality emphasises the kind of leadership (by

the professoriate) that is immersed in the sacrosanct pre-eminence of, and loyalty to, discipline by

the ‘chairs’ of respective departments. Their loyalty is to their disciplines. In this kind of leadership

structure, the academic function becomes an integral aspect of governance. While these quasi-

professional administrators might possess the gift of academic and intellectual prominence, they are

not necessarily professional management practitioners. The insufficient skilling of academic

managers with corporate-like leadership skills is a huge deficit for institutional efficiency. This is not

to say that traditional values could not be re-modeled to fit a new context – the problem is with the

people who are still nostalgic for the past and refuse to acknowledge the dawn of a mass-universal

era for HE. In other words, attitudinal (disdain for externally-induced change), and ideological

(unwavering commitment to collegiality), seem to be the main realm within which governance

shortcomings prevail.

The structural elements in HE make it difficult for change to be realized immediately. There is a

plethora of committees forming layer upon layer of deliberation, decision-making, and

implementation. The faculty/department structure re-affirms a ‘top-down’ system of management

because consensus decision-making by all concerned faculty, is nullified by senior academic

managers whose management skills could be transparently lacking – a point noted by Newby (1999:

126): “As Coffield himself declares elsewhere, collegiality is not [author’s emphasis] appropriate for

all decisions and academics are often wasting precious time on matters best dealt with by trained

administrators”. This points to a lack of management training for senior managers in higher

education, particularly in the management of change. It also points to a lack of a widely accepted

management model that can be effectively applied in higher education. What has been observed so

far is that leadership skills impact on the degree to which change will become a feature of HE’s

organizational environment.

Given the current size and scope of the HE enterprise (e.g. massification and the new

institutional/organizational forms such as comprehensive HEIs), bureaucratic practices often obviate

the expedience with which choices have to be made. The inevitable shift from “collegiality” to

“administration”; from “management” to “corporatism”, and “strategic planning”, has increased

demands for more and more accountability (Clark, 1998: 144). The link between leadership and

change is accentuated more by “… the dilemmas of conflicting priorities, alternative markets and

missions, competing interests from diverse constituencies, or opposing traditions and

104

values” (Middlehurst, 1995: 77). This link is significant in that it gives insights as to which levels of

HE governance are actual driving forces for reform, or oppose it. ‘Leadership style’ (contingent

upon interpretation of the leadership-change nexus), is an obstacle to be overcome. It is a

shortcoming on the basis that it characterises an institution’s adaptation or resistance to the

organizational dynamics around it. A collegial perspective of leadership for instance, is sectarian. It

predominantly represents the values and interests of a particular group, which has “… ceded some of

its autonomy in exchange for certain ‘goods’, for example, protection, economic resources, and an

organizational framework which allows professional freedom to be exercised. This kind of

leadership is largely transactional in nature and is constrained by strong cultural

expectations” (Middlehurst, 1995: 84). This example of leadership style obviously militates against

the principle of accountability. The main shortcomings of HE governance therefore, related to

leadership perspectives and attitudes to change. The collegial mode of institutional governance, with

its emphasis on the disciplinary affiliation of the leader, weakens the ‘interstitial’ levels of authority.

A sense of strong bureaucratization decontextualises line-management as only senior management

have the prerogative to deal with risk and change management, a task they are not particularly adept

at fulfilling (Newby, 1999: 122,126). The World Conference on Higher Education declared, for all

purposes and intents, that, “[l]eadership in higher education is thus a major social responsibility and

can be significantly strengthened through dialogue with all stakeholders … [italics my

emphasis]” (UNESCO, 1998: 13).

2.5.2 The need to improve higher education governance

Whereas the professionalisation of university management is largely seen as panacea, others view it

as performance oriented, and thus behaviouristic. For instance, Henry et al. (2001:169) state that:

“...the proliferation of accountability mechanisms associated with performance management has served to

increase rather than decrease bureaucratisation, while adding new layers of performance demands...performance

management...is to a very large extent...time consuming and feeding the will to measure rather than the will to

know, to teach, or to learn. While the rhetoric of new public management favours flatter structures and reduced

hierarchies, corporate management in higher education has overseen the creation of new layers of (well paid)

administrators – human resource managers, managers of technology , pro-vice-chancellors...executive deans and

so forth [italics my own emphasis]”.

A dichotomous view (to the one emphasising performativity) however, projects the

professionalisation of leadership as a sine qua non for the facilitation of change within HEIs.

Professionalisation (from a human resources development perspective), is viewed as enhancing skills

development and strategic planning; especially when decisions have to be taken and implemented

105

expeditiously, and staff deployed to those organizational units where they are most effective. Such

an approach obviates slow and tedious processes of decision-making that are characteristic of

bureaucratic structures. Managerial skills are in themselves agents for change: “Changes in the

structure of organizations, whether public or private, have also increased the demand for certain

kinds of generic skills, while the growing pace of both technological and social change has ushered

in an era of lifelong learning, whereby these skills need to be constantly refreshed and

updated” (Newby, 1999: 119). In the training and professionalization of these skills “boundary

management” is not to be ignored, according to which:

“Each element or component has boundaries which are more or less permeable and each will exhibit different

levels of dependency and integration between itself and other elements. ‘The university’ may be thought of as a

concentrated system linked to a variety of other systems… in a network of relationships and interactions. The

precise boundary between one system and another … is not always clear and a central leadership task is likely to

involve ‘boundary management’, both practically and symbolically” (Middlehurst, 1995: 82).

It is incumbent upon HE management to be cognisant of the “systems perspective” of universities –

this enables them to relate in practical terms, to the multifaceted dimensions of the knowledge

business they are governing at institutional levels. The contemporary university functions in a

completely new and different environment from the one that characterise He’s halcyon days

(Duderstadt, 2000b: 257). New leadership and governance models are desirable in the 21st century.

The myriad of needs and challenges; the range of activities and responsibilities; and the multiplicity

of stakeholders and emerging patterns and levels of authority; are some of the internally and

externally ‘imposed’ pressures that necessitate a reconceptualisation of how universities are to fulfil

their declared purpose of existence in the first place. The monolithic and “chimney-like”

hierarchical governance structures obviously lack a participative and shared governance element that

would help in making higher education’s response-time to change more compatible with its internal

and external environments. Ways of improvement these “structural inefficiencies” are thus

summarized by Weber (1999: 14-15) and Duderstadt (pp. 257-258), who recommend the following

ways of improvement:

the different units on campus to regulate their own human and financial resources;

avoiding multi-structured levels of decision-making;

the most senior executive (e.g. vice-chancellor or president) should participate in final

decision-making relating to e.g. budget, strategic planning, human resource allocation

(faculty);

106

strategic planning to be implemented in accordance with administrative competencies at

different levels;

faculty governance to change from being administrative watchdog, to full participation in

decision-making; and

past traditions to be vigorously scrutinized through visionary leadership, the whole of

university governance should be restructured and not defend obsolete practices of the past.

Mention has to be made of the overarching role and impetus that globalization and the revolution in

information and communication technologies have had in the “destabilization” of the traditional

university organization. These two unstoppable and inevitable forces for change in effect, point at

the direction of how this change will occur. All aspects of HE have been affected; from leadership

(resulting in participative governance) to financing (resulting in entrepreneurial income generation

and cost reduction); from teaching (necessitating new pedagogic roles and paradigms) to learning

(actualisation of asynchronous, lifelong and learner-centred approaches); from research (multiple,

inter-disciplinary team collaboration) to community service (recognition of non-university sector for

socio-economic advancement).The question therefore, is not whether change has come or not. The

question, rather, is how to respond or adapt to that change. There are those who view this change as

evolutionary, and those who view it as a revolutionary process. For the “evolutionists”, this change

is seen as peripheral to the structural and organizational being of the university (Duderstadt, 1999:

50). For this category of (elitist?) thinkers, it would somewhat be both ‘heretic’ and ‘apostate’ to

conceive of the university as departing from its cherished halcyon past. The “evolutionists” do not

wish for change to ‘infringe’ on the traditional values, culture, and mores of the university. Such a

view propounds for the days of the “donnish dominion” when university privileges were only

enjoyed by a few of its employees (Newby, 1999: 127). From this study’s perspective such yearning

could be seen as a narcissistic perception meant to preserve individual egos. They acknowledge the

change, yet abhor its nature, pace, and direction. The ‘revolutionists’, interestingly are mainly

outside of the HE system (Duderstadt, 1999: 50). They see the present HE challenges as momentous

and dramatic enough to allow for an incrementalist/gradualist response to these forces for change

Perelman (1997, cited in Duderstadt, 1999: 51), like Drucker, contend that the current form of HE

organization with collapse even before change (evolutionary or revolutionary) occurs. Does this then

imply that HE is inherently incapable of reforming itself?

107

2.5.3 Issues of accountability and institutional autonomy

(It has been explained earlier that ‘academic freedom’ is viewed in a separate domain from

‘university autonomy’ The former is construed in this study as relating to teaching (classroom-

based) excellence, while the latter focuses on institutional self-regulation (Duderstadt, 2000b: 241)).

University autonomy is historically derived from the measure of ‘independence’ granted to it by the

church and aristocracy (Altbach et al., 1998: 16-17). The special “understanding” and status of

‘independence’ rests largely on the assumption that unlike other social institutions – governed by

legislation or “public opinion” – HEIs are best suited to regulate their teaching and scholarship

activities (Duderstadt, 2000b: 240). Most of the governance-related issues of public HE do also

affect private higher education (p. 240). The trends of commonality between these different modes

of HE provision are influenced by the fact that HE is not only bound by the unwritten social

contract to be a servant to society, both private and public institutions also carry the mandate to

criticize society, albeit from different vantage points – the latter on the basis of the scientific and

“cultural capital” mandate, and the former on the technological and “economic currency”. Also,

private HEIs are less reliant on state funding, but that does not absolve them from being held

accountable for, and conforming to acceptable norms of rendering quality education.

In the language of the post-industrial era, the university has been viewed as a risk-taking

organization, and as such, is entitled to its autonomy so as to adapt to the demands of a ‘risk

society’ (UNESCO, 1998: 14). To that extent, universities have to determine their relationships with

society within a phalanx of ‘risk taking’ principles such as “accountability”, “social responsibility”

and “transparency” (p. 14). According to this view, autonomy/self-regulation is the university’s

“right” which it is obliged to execute by, inter alia, being the highest centre of knowledge

excellence. This “right” is to be exercised without external pressures of conformity. However,

perceived threats to this “right” have materialized in the form of governments’ legislative and other

regulatory mechanisms which ‘coerce’ HEIs to abide by certain policy requirements (Duderstadt,

2000b: 43). Pressures for more accountability and transparency have put HE in a difficult situation.

It is in this context that the university’s erstwhile organizational ‘sovereignty’ is forecast as unlikely

to return:

“The assumption[s] underpinning Academic Freedom and University Autonomy [author’s bold] ... [are that] for

the foreseeable future it is highly unlikely that universities will return to a period of stability. Rather they will be

faced with an evolving series of demands from different sectors of society and from the economy the more higher

education becomes central in the latter ... for the university simply to ‘meet’ whatever demands society places

upon them is neither acceptable nor likely to be judged appropriate. The assumption is that universities ought to

108

be “pro active” ... prepared to take the risk of seeking ways of anticipating and taking the initiative in meeting

society’s demands” (p. 15).

Autonomy and accountability have become externally-designed mechanisms for HE to meet certain

performance-related requirements such as rendering tangible quality education. Accountability itself

has tended to be a central issue in HE’s macro-cosmic policy domain and meeting a variety of

interests and demands. The greatest challenge for higher education is how to be satisfactorily

accountable to these contending interests.

The following two scenarios are included here to illustrate the fact that insofar as institutional

governance is concerned, the relationship between the state and higher education worldwide

(perhaps with a few exceptions) is in a state of flux. The first scenario exemplifies a senior HE

academic’s expression of the latter point of view, whereas the second scenario relates to a

government Minister of Education’s harsh reaction to the academic’s point of view on the issue of

higher education’s autonomy.

Scenario 1: A paper presented at the University of Cape Town by a prominent Dean of Education of

one of South Africa’s reputable HEIs, titled: Accounting for Autonomy.

For purposes of logical argumentation (rather than concatenation of events), only the salient and

relevant aspects are referred to. The paper begins by making basic assumptions about the provenance

of institutional autonomy, culminating in the challenges and pressure that HEIs are facing in the 21st

century. Most notable is the author’s reference to the fact that threats to HE autonomy are not only

external. Internally, the emergent professional management elite (“new managerialism”?) is viewed

as posing a threat to academic freedom and university autonomy (Jansen, 2004b: 2).

The paper begins to steer off ‘political correctnesss’ when the author (Jansen) interrogates the nature

of HE-state relations in the post-1994 dispensation in South Africa. The author’s contention is that

“the relationship between the state and universities is unlikely to be resolved because of a deep

ambivalence on the part of both about what universities are for” (p. 2). Furthermore, the author

contends that

“... the most far reaching changes in higher education [in South Africa] are to be found in the gradual but

systematic erosion of historical standards of autonomy that were ingrained within the institutional fabric of

universities ... fundamentally alter[ing] the ways in which we talk about ‘the university’ in contemporary South

Africa” (p. 3).

109

Examples of how the state is eroding the notion of autonomy include: the state deciding what is to

be taught, and where it will be taught (e.g. closing Pretoria University’s Mining Engineering

department and arrogating that as Wits University’s prerogative), or institutions not complying could

face the risk of financial subsidization; the state deciding who can be taught and in which fields of

study, and how students are taught by locating qualifications within the NQF. The author concludes

by seriously questioning the levels of state intervention and interference in HE’s business, perhaps

stirring a hornet’s nest by attributing this mode of state policy intransigence as a consequence of the

irreconcilable political agendas within the ruling ANC party: “There has always been, and continues

to be, a tension within [author’s italics] the post-apartheid state between centrist and democratic

tendencies in relation to society in general and, in particular, in relation to the governance of the

universities” (p. 5).

Scenario 2: Responding to the above presentation (of July 2004), Naledi Pandor, Minister of

Education, directly responded to Prof. Jansen’s presentation in an article published in the Sunday

Independent of 24 October 2004 – about three months later, in an article titled: We cannot stand by

and watch institutions collapse.

The Minister is obviously responding as a political principal under whose administration HE is

located, rather than as an academic or intellectual commentator. The substance of her response is on

defending her department’s (ipso facto, government’s) intervention and interference on higher

education’s autonomy. While both scenarios might be symptomatic of HE governance in transitional

societies, it also underlines writ large, the extent to which electoral victories could be utilised by

government to advance agendas that perpetrate, rather than attenuate, internal power struggles. (A

view is expressed here that even those academics who were once vocal opponents of the previous

apartheid government, have become acquiescent in the present government’s academically

dysfunctional HE policies. Once appointed as Vice Chancellors, they have become conspicuous by

their silence on debatable issues).

Minister Pandor accuses Professor Jansen and his “flat-footed” presentation of, among others, “...

failure to distinguish between institutional autonomy and academic freedom”. Notwithstanding the

merits of her criticism in the entire article, the two scenarios (apart from sprucing-up the freedom of

speech and of expression terrain) are indicative of tensions that will always characterise HE-state

relations in many policy areas, HE governance not exempted.

110

2.5.4 Faculty governance

Whereas institutional governance is centrifugal (outbound) and determines the university’s

safeguarding itself against external threats, how does it define its internal (centripetal)

‘independence’? The top-most structure is at the level of governing boards or Senate/Council whose

composition includes faculty representatives. Depending on organizational preferences various

committees (e.g. a curriculum committee), may be constituted at this level to address important

existential matters of the university. Deans of departments/faculties/schools become the

administrative leaders of these committees. As opposed to the American system (where an appointed

President becomes leader of the university), the South African system espouse the (Vice?)

Chancellor as the administrative leader of the university. This level of institutional governance is the

one vested with exercising the university’s substantive autonomy, “the power of the university or

college in its corporate form to determine its own goals (the what of academe) [author’s

parenthesis]” (Altbach et al., 1999: 6). On the other hand, procedural autonomy could apply at

more than one level or sub-unit of institutional governance. The latter form of autonomy relates to

“the power of the university or college in its corporate form to determine the means by which its

goals and programs [sic] will be pursued (the how of academe)” (p 6).

A very significant observation here is that irrespective of the President and (Vice) Chancellor

system, the academic and scholarship missions are still vested in the departments/schools/faculties. It

is insightful that this latter organizational ‘protocol’ is also the epistemological/intellectual nerve

centre of disciplines/subjects. Therefore, departments have become both organizational sub-units of

governance, as well as the custodians of a particular intellectual culture within which knowledge

dispensation is practised in a specific field of study. That is to say departments are the ‘self-

government’ of all academic matters, and the sub-unit of macro-institutional governance. It is at the

department level that academic freedom may receive its most uninterrupted manifestation. The

department allows for academics in it to make decisions relating to, among others, what is to be

taught, how it will be taught, who to hire, how funds are spent, and so forth (Duderstadt, 2000b:

247). The micro-cosmic governance of faculties is problematic in that commitment to macro-cosmic

issues does not receive the same level of commitment expended on discipline-related issues:

“The current disciplinary-driven governance structure makes it very difficult to deal with broader, strategic issues.

Since universities are highly fragmented and decentralized, one finds a chimney organization structure, with little

coordination or even concern about university-wide needs or priorities. The broader concerns of the university are

always someone else’s problem ... There is yet another factor that mitigates against faculty governance ... the

111

fragmentation of the faculty into academic disciplines and professional schools, coupled with the strong market

pressures on faculty in many areas, has created an academic culture in which faculty loyalties are generally first

to their scholarly discipline, then to their academic unit, an only last to their institution [italics my own

emphasis]” (p. 247).

2.6 TRANSFORMATION TRAJECTORIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION“Indeed, in the increasingly competitive global economy, education holds the key to the capacity of countries to

face the next millennium and substantially improve both the standard of living and the quality of life of their

people. There is no way in which a country can transform its political economy and society without first

transforming its schools and its universities. No one now disputes the fact that education is a critical ingredient in

the transformational process” (Adedeji, 1998: 64).

Highlighted and emphasised in the above excerpt is the pivotal role played by education in the

reconstruction and the development of the country. This forms the very conceptual foundation on

which “transformation” is problematised; for the very fact that HE, together with the fundamental

socio-economic upliftment of the formerly disenfranchised sections of the population, are the two

issues that have to be thoroughly re-examined.

The magnitude and complexity of change occurring outside the university is such that it cannot be

ignored. HEIs are compelled to drastically review the ways in which they are conducting their

“business”. Transformation in higher education, like many other concepts, has tended to have

various analytic frameworks and interpretations, lending credence to the notion of a preponderant

“transformation industry” (Bohler-Muller, 2004: 153; Seepe & Lebakeng, 1998: 6-11). On one hand,

“transformation” could broadly become associated with a macro-cosmic reconceptualisation and

restructuring of higher education’s fundamental missions and activities as a way of adapting and

responding to change in the context of broader socio-economic factors; while on the other hand

“transformation” could be associated by some with the narrower role of only addressing some

specific areas of HE functioning. The broader application (adopted in this study) is therefore not

restricted to mere strategic diversification of specific HE functions and programmes (Seepe &

Lebakeng, 1998: 6-7). Diversity itself is problematic in that it does not necessarily connote a

complete reconceptualisation and restructuring culture. Institutions of higher learning could diversify

some of their activities and return their fundamental tenets which are inimical to change. For

instance, unbundling some peripheral function such as maintenance of residences to an outside

agency does not say much about whether or not the particular institution’s intellectual and

epistemological cultures are elitist. Transformation has also been equated by some with “reform”.

The view of this study is that “reform” is an evolutionary process of change, and “transformation”

the radical (revolutionary) variant of change. Reform/transformation therefore determines the pace

112

and direction change (Duderstadt, 1999: 50). The evolutionary mode of change is primarily

espoused by those within HE itself, demanding that the university adhere to its traditional character ,

“ ... stress[ing] the role of the university in stabilizing society during periods of change rather than

leading those changes ... And they will do everything within their power to prevent change from

occurring” (p. 50). The radical mode of change is espoused basically by those outside of the

university. Does this then mean that HE is innately incapable of changing from within?

In the light of the scope and scale of forces driving change both within and without HE, response

mechanisms are the only viable options for the university’s adaptation to these changes. In other

words, planning for change (and being part thereof) is a very essential and strategic measure for

higher education to continue its claim as society’s highest centre of knowledge (Duderstadt, 2000b:

265). Because HEIs are complex organizations, planning for change (as opposed to planning against

it) should be in the framework of chaos theory and its “butterfly effect”; according to which even a

minor disturbance in the butterfly’s wings could affect weather patterns halfway around the world

(p. 267). By implication, revolutionary and paradigmatic changes in higher education can be caused

by the most unpredictable of ideas, individuals or occurrences, whether directly or indirectly linked

to the academic mission of the university. Planning should always be done in anticipation of

foreseeable and as-yet-unforeseeable change.

The transformation implications for South Africa’s higher education appear to be steeped in political

undercurrents. In a country with a chequered history of race relations such as, consensus about the

national agenda has not always been realizable. In the context of HE – the sphere where change and

transformation receive the most superlative articulation and conceptualisation than in any social

organization – the incessant controversies are indicative of the political character of education in

South Africa. This view (of the political dimensions) is accentuated by Donn (1997: 191) who

declares: “The question remains as to whether higher education institutions are resistant or

impervious to change. Attention has been drawn to the manner in which educational structures have

been part of the struggle for a new South Africa by forming a platform on which tensions have been

[and are still being!] played out”. This is largely due to the ideological postures overtly or covertly

espoused by each of the three HE institutional sub- types (HWIs (historically white institutions:

Afrikaans-medium and English-medium; and HBIs (historically black institutions: African,

Coloured and Indian), during the pre-democracy period. These postures, inherent in the dominant

institutional cultures, have made inroads in many of the controversies currently a part of acerbic

debates within the HE fraternity.

113

For purposes of this study, it is posited here that ‘equitable’ transformation is yet to occur. By

implication, transformation currently being bandied about is ‘inequitable’. Therefore ‘reform’, rather

than ‘transformation’, is in fact viewed as the norm enveloping the post-apartheid re-organization of

society and its dominant institutions. This means that aberrant ideology becomes the philosophical

foundation of education (Nkondo, 1998) and thus causes tension between the role of higher

education (as articulated by the ‘supervisory’ state) and the broader population’s expectations (as

contrasting the propounded mode of symbolic policy development). ‘Reform’ is the outcome of a

wider political environment characterized by “a negotiated settlement” to the dissolution of the

apartheid dogma. Because reconciliation formed the pinnacle of negotiations, the ‘settlement’

could not be radicalized (ipso facto conducive to ‘revolution’), because a revolution, by its turbulent

nature needs no “negotiation”. Hence, the GNU (Government of National Unity) – as the political

outcome of the “settlement” process – is bound by an incrementalist (symbolic?) approach, as apart

from the higher education realm, other spheres of socio-economic development (e.g. education,

employment, wealth redistribution) were bound to follow incrementalist trajectories towards change.

Policy development therefore, occurred within a supra-structural aura replete with contradictions

(Fataar, 2003: 32-34).

In comparing HE developments between the US and SA, Eckel (2001: 2-3) makes the observation

that transformation is not an isolated activity, it is to be linked to all other societal activities:

“Transformation requires a shift in the institution’s culture – common set of beliefs and values that create a

shared interpretation and understanding of events and actions … [focusing] on how profoundly the change affects

behaviors [sic], structures, policies, and programs [sic] within the institution. The deeper the change, the more it is

infused into the daily lives of those affected by it… Transformational change is pervasive in that it affects many

units, not an isolated few. Transformation is shaped by the local context of each institution, as well as national,

political, and social environments … Transformation for South Africa’s higher education is explicitly linked to

the broader societal and political transformation [bold italics mine]”.

The ‘inclination’ of this study is therefore ‘dissentient’ from the notions that synonymously equate

‘reform’ with ‘transformation’. A broader conceptual understanding of these two terms has to be

obtained in the context of the following framework (Eckel, 2001: 4):

a mandate for change; who sets the transformation agenda, and for whom is it meant?

the urgency and abundance of change; a “demand overload” (Clark 1998) occurs because

of failure to recognize that “… South African institutions simply do not have luxury of time

114

to implement transformational changes available in the US. The stakes are high and the

consequences of failure serious” (pp. 6-7).

legitimate and transparent decision-making; this ensures that all stakeholder

constituencies are involved in the making of decisions that affect them. ‘Ownership’ of the

transformation process will be shared, than if it is imposed, resulting in ‘inequitable’

transformation’;

the language of transformation; depending on institutional cultures and their leadership

idiosyncrasies (sometimes politically expedient and narcissistic) the term ‘transformation’

has been ‘usurped’ to mean all types of forms of change.

Tendencies prevail that confuse SA transformation in HE with that of US or European models

(supported by luxury of time) as Eckel (p. 8) cautions that: “Transformation in South Africa will

require different and more accelerated strategies than does transformation in the US …”. This

sentiment was explicitly corroborated by the Director of the University of Cape Town Graduate

School of Business, Nick Segal (2000) at a CHET (transformation) seminar (quoted in Eckel, 2001:

8):

“From a South African perspective I am concerned that all of the writing and thinking is seen through well-

resourced, leading edge academic and institutionally stable North American eyes. These circumstances could not

be more different from those that prevail here [in South Africa]. We must be cautious not to draw too quickly

from the US as well as the European experiences”.

2.7 POSSIBLE FUTURE TRENDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT“In time, we may learn that what appeared to loom so large at the end of the twentieth century will turn out to be

but one more morsel that will be assimilated an digested by higher education with only modest lasting change.

And yet, it may also be in the early years of a sea change that will forever alter the history of colleges an

universities and their relationship to society” (Ikenberry, 1999: 63).

The following scenarios are seminal projections, rather than prescriptive determinations, of the

probable courses of action which the university will take given the magnitude, volatility and pace of

developments around it. Due to the complexity of higher education development as a field of study

in general, and the curriculum field in particular, the seminal projections below are not necessarily

inclusive of all the tenements in this sphere. Rather than speculative, these scenarios are based on

reflections inherent in the range of forces driving change in higher education. The three areas

selected here represent both the organizational and mission spheres of HE development.

115

2.7.1 A technologically-induced environment

The advent of technology has unleashed copious potential for HEIs, particularly in respect of

research and curriculum delivery modes (Rhodes, 1999: 171). However, the “place” of learning

remains as one of the biggest of HE’s challenges (Ikenberry, 1999: 63; Pister, 1999: 232). In other

words, the “university” as a fixed place/organization (i.e. a physical description), and as an idea, are

radically being challenged. The emergence of hybrid student populations – for whom asynchronous

ways of learning have become most viable – has become one of the ways in which the electronic

multimedia has found optimum utilisation. The very meanings of “education” and “knowledge”

might have to be re-defined and reconceptualised as both teaching and learning now take place

without the agency of the “human” character of the former. Emanating from the role of ICT in 21st

century higher education in particular, the culture of traditional norms and values, if not adapted to

these changes, will definitely be absorbed into the turbulence of the curriculum “industry”, where

“time” and “distance”, in addition to “place” of learning, are inconsequential components of the

knowledge enterprise. For the mass HE systems to become effective in delivering education to their

increasing ‘clients’, the costs of developing and sustaining new technology have to be reconciled

with the increasing demand for higher education, which is not likely to dissipate (Ikenberry, 1999:

62).

2.7.2 What type of curriculum?

The cost and quality of higher learning are perennial features of contestation between HEIs and its

stakeholders – the state demanding more efficiency and accountability for the money it ‘invests’ in

HE; the private sector demanding graduates with ‘appropriate’ work knowledge and experience; and

society demanding more access and relevant qualifications. The market for lifelong learning is

compelling HE policy to adopt strategies that infuse higher education with the entire education

system of a country. In this way, the rates of return are not conflated in a single socio-economic age

group, that of learners who conform to the “just-in-time” frame of learning. The education-as-a-right

(ergo, a public good) and education-as-a-privilege (ergo, private good) will continue to be high on

the agenda of higher education policy between the state and HEIs. HEIs will therefore have to

continuously develop strategic plans in anticipation of risk-taking and uncertainty, taking into

account Duderstadt’s (2000b) “butterfly effect” mentioned earlier. In still-developing countries,

where illiteracy rates are very high, the struggle to acquire HE will become the requirement for

survival. In developing countries, where the quality and standard of living are relatively better,

higher education could become a commodity of choice, degree qualifications might not be a defining

currency for possibilities and options for survival. Different forms and levels of knowledge will

116

continue to be one of many available choices in the knowledge society (Rhodes, 1999: 170-171). By

implication, the notion of a “knowledge society” will not apply equally until the technological gap

between the developed and still-developing world is closed – if it ever will.

The effect of globalisation on the curriculum is immense and incalculable. Higher education

partnerships with the private sector are unlikely to be reversed, and the commodification of higher

education knowledge is most certainly becoming a permanent feature of the 21st century. The

ideological premises of higher education knowledge in particular, are an area most likely to create

tensions between various philosophical and epistemological adherents (Rhodes, 1999: 168). Already,

a view persists that universities are the agents of capitalism and its neo-liberal variant, globalism.

Disciplines and fields of study/knowledge that do not carry much economic/market clout are

gradually facing ‘extinction’ save for some philanthropic gestures that may keep them in mere

survival mode.

Programmatic and mission differentiation/diversification will be enhanced by “... the emergence of

a greater separation between teaching and research” (Weber, 1999: 8). At the same time, the binary

separation between universities and non-universities in the HE sector is unlikely to have an impact

as both sectors, in their undergraduate or postgraduate education, strive for utilitarian application of

research that has financial and economic value (Duderstadt, 1999: 42; Fehnel, 2002: 2-3).

2.7.3 Stakeholder responsibility

For collaboration in research enterprises, the stakes are high for universities’ economic survival

(Fehnel, 2002: 3-4, 6). Whether the same is true for epistemological relevance is subject to HEIs’

prioritization of their missions, activities, and responsibilities. The stakeholder terrain is problematic

already, with competing interests that continuously place the university’s purposes and relevance

under constant scrutiny and interrogation (Altbach et al., 1998: 142; Rhodes, 1999: 171-172). Will

collaboration with industry ultimately lead to the final industrialisation of higher education? The

above author (p. 170) maintains that the American university (from which many university models

are shaped worldwide) will face the challenge of both independence (retaining its relative

scholarship and academic freedom, and institutional autonomy) and dependence (acknowledging

that it needs other partners to survive, because “ ... no institution, however wealthy, can “do it all”.

No university, however large, can be truly comprehensive in its programs [sic]. Nor should it seek to

be”. From this study’s perspective, this is the terrain which will most certainly steer universities

towards relevance. At the same time, for whom is “relevance” mostly attributed to? On the other

hand, inter-institutional co-operation (other than in administrative areas) might become a viable

117

alternative, especially for those HEIs with weaker systems (Fehnel, 2002: 6). For instance, a dental

department/faculty / school may combine its (human, physical, technological, etc) resources with

those of one or more other institutions and share the costs of running these from their respective

locations. This approach could as well be translated into a curriculum exchange effort, in the same

way as firms engage in technology transfer between themselves.

The increasing demand for lifelong learning will have a corresponding effect on higher education.

The pressure to meet the supply-demand equilibrium might cause a ‘conflict’ of interest between

society and the private sector, with institutions of learning finding themselves in a perennial trend of

“devil’s advocate’ between the two constituencies. The state’s increasing pressure for HEIs to

conform to performativity in both the administrative (governance) (e.g. accounting for money

allocated and spent, creditable assessment of programmes, etc.) and teaching (e.g. producing

industry-competent graduates) sense – through legislative and other regulatory mechanisms – is

viewed here as creating a climate of conformity. Particularly in developing countries (where IMF-

and World Bank-steered structural adjustment initiatives and donor funding are the norm)

institutional autonomy and academic freedom are likely to be transcended by continuous government

intervention (Rhodes, 1999: 168).

On the whole, the “university” in its traditional organizational form will undergo tremendous

changes (Duderstadt, 1999: 50; Duderstadt, 2000b: 277; Van Ginkel, 1999: 92). Those HEIs which

are not planning ahead might be ‘swept away’ and disappear. Various organizational forms have the

potential to be implemented, ranging from the cyberspace university, laboratory university, lifelong

university, to the divisionless university, creative university, etc. (Duderstadt, 2000b: 278). The

scenarios of possible trends in the university’s future development is succinctly summarized in the

following except:

“Some colleges and universities may be able to maintain their current form and market niche. Others will change

beyond recognition. Still others will disappear entirely. New types of institutions – perhaps even entirely new

social learning structures – will evolve to meet educational needs. In contrast to the last several decades, when

colleges and universities have endeavored [sic] to become more similar, the years ahead will demand greater

differentiation. Many different paths will lead to the future [bold italics my own emphasis]” (Duderstadt, 1999:

50).

2.8 SOME REMARKS PERTAINING TO CURRICULUM IMPLICATIONS

The following remarks are based on the study’s own interpretation and understanding of the most

critical areas affecting and driving change within and without higher education institutions

118

worldwide. The complexities associated with the nature of the pace and direction with which these

forces are driving the noted changes, compel that a macro-cosmic overview be derived as a

framework within which the remarks pertaining to curriculum implications are structured. To that

extent, the international-local, as well as the literature-based (theoretical)-empirical (fieldwork)

dimensions have been conflated so as to advance some dialectic organization of these remarks and

observations. This approach is viewed here as being critically compatible with both the envisaged

aims and significance of the study as indicated in sections 1.3 and 1.5 of Chapter 1. The former is

generally intended to determine the extent to which local HEIs are influenced, or are adapting to

current curriculum trends as pertaining to the international environment. On the other hand, the

study’s significance contributes to the HE curriculum debate by an implicit interrogation of whether

the notion of ‘democratisation of society’ is necessarily compatible with that of ‘democratisation of

the (HE) curriculum’; if so, has that been applied to the South African context? If the two notions are

generally incompatible phenomena worldwide, can they be made compatible locally? As most of the

aspects have variously been discussed in more detail, following is basically a less detailed overview

of the inferences impacting on curriculum.

2.8.1. The impact of globalisation on higher education: Globalisation has ushered in an

irreversible trend for HE. Its neo-liberal ideology has transformed “knowledge” into a commodity

that is bought and sold to the highest ‘bidders’. The environment of de-regulation is lending

credence to the view that higher education in particular is a commodity that has private ‘rates of

return’. The “marketization” of higher learning is therefore fostering a trend by which fields of

learning are apportioned value and currency on account of their marketability by HEIs and their

‘need’ by especially adult, part-time learners. There is also the debate concerning the local-global

content, purpose and nature of knowledge. In the South African case this has tended to rekindle

tensions between the Afrocentricism vis-à-vis Eurocentricism perspectives.

2.8.2. ICT and its reconceptualisation of the “time” and “place” of learning: The advent of ICT

has radically ushered in the compression of time and space, drastically reconceptualising the time

and place (distance) of learning. Anyone interested in higher learning can do so at any time, an

anywhere without any physical constraints. The preponderance of ICT-intensive alternative

providers of higher education has accelerated a competition for the lifelong learning market.

Furthermore, various HE organizational mutations have come to rely on technology as the

fundamental mode of curriculum delivery to its students-clientele. However, conflict has arisen as to

whether the quality of learning has not been threatened by cost of learning engendered by the need

to develop and sustain learning ‘packages’ technologically, especially for the traditional higher

119

education institution. Furthermore, quality has become an “industry” in which a plethora of

claimants from outside HE propound modes of assuring the creditability of higher learning.

2.8.3. Massification and the ‘hybridization’ of the student population: As an expression of the

advent of a hybrid student population and increasing growth and access, massification is seen as an

example of traditional HEI’s “democratisation” of the curriculum – ipso facto – its epistemological

organization of curriculum is shifting from elitism. In other words, the curriculum is viewed as

gradually undergoing “democratisation’ or people-centredness. However, epistemological arguments

for the mainstreaming of curriculum models such as RPL/RAPEL (the recognition and accreditation

of prior experiential learning) are still difficult to maintain.

2.8.4 The ‘relevance factor’ in HE skills provision: The skills imbalance, or the supply-demand

disequilibrium between HE and the private sector appears to be widening rather than decreasing.

Judging by the unacceptably high rate of graduate unemployment in South Africa particularly,

higher education institutions are either producing more students in fields or areas of knowledge that

are not strategically located to elevate socio-economic productivity, or they are have not yet

optimally achieved the infusion of a whole range of skills (cross fields skills) into their curriculum.

2.8.5 Perceived epistemological stratification in the HE curriculum: The study argues that the

epistemological terrain of higher education is still in a state of flux, not yet in the mode of a

Kuhnian paradigmatic revolution that addresses all of mankind’s needs and plight in the millennium.

As a social institution, the university – through its curriculum – has not undeniably achieved the

pinnacle of e.g. reversing the adverse poverty trends through social responsibility programmes. To

that extent, it is perceived as an institution perpetrating a neo-capitalist agenda of socio-economic

differentiation by advancing techno-economic paradigms of knowledge (for work only) at the

expense of the socio-cultural paradigm.

2.8.6 Modes of HE adaptation to the changing knowledge ecology: Diversity/differentiation,

rather than specialisation in all of HE functioning, appears to be the primary mode of adaptation and

survival. Specialisation – since no HEI can excel in all fields – could materialise in those well-

funded and resourced institutions with reputable research programmes. The extent to which teaching

and research are separated or not, largely influences the nature of programmes likely to be offered by

an institution.

120

2.8.7 The link between curriculum content and context: The organizational character of (un)

responsive HEIs is a predictive variable for the content and context of the curriculum to be adopted

by any higher education institution. For instance, a corporatist governance structure steers the

particular institution towards a form of entrepreneurial culture in which learning and its purpose are

viewed as market-related dynamic factor.

2.8.8 The HE curriculum and social class contradictions: This study contends that the higher

education “curriculum” has become a ‘lobbying’ terrain for competing ‘interest groups’. To that

extent, the view being propounded is that there is a difference between HE’s stakeholders and its

share holders. The stakeholders are those intended to benefit from HE and its unwritten social

contract. This stakeholder perspective holds that public higher education is the ‘property’ of the

people and regulated on its behalf by a fiduciary state. Therefore, publicly-funded HE ‘owes’ its

existence to society (as direct, indirect or symbolic beneficiaries). Direct stakeholders become the

students, who might not be taxpayers but are the immediate beneficiaries on daily experiences with

HEIs. Working and part-time students are also both taxpayers and beneficiaries. Other taxpayers not

studying become symbolic (indirect) beneficiaries by the knowledge accruing from HE itself. These

stakeholders are a constituency that does not directly influence institutional policy, nor participates

in its formulation. The shareholders on other hand, have material benefits through, e.g. intellectual

property, research partnerships translating into pecuniary dividends. They have an intellectual stake

as well, by the nature of policies whose formulation they directly influence. The

stakeholder/shareholder is the primary analytic framework for determining which direction

university development will take. On the whole, the power of the shareholder has transcended that of

the stakeholder.

2.8.9 Complexities of transformation nomenclature: In the South African context in particular,

there appears to be a lexical/conceptual discord when compared to corresponding international

phenomena. Only a few are cited here:

Transformation in the local higher education context has tended to be restricted to a

political domain reminiscent of the affirmative action debate. The concept has tended to be

associated with ‘political correctness’ that reflect the changing demographic structure –

racial, gender, class – of a supposedly non-racial society. Cast in this mode, it implies that the

primary focus of reconstituting the HE ecology rests on racial composition of teaching and

learning personnel. In the international sphere, transformation embraces all of higher

education functioning and development, including the epistemological base of knowledge.

121

The latter is no longer a monolithic and isomorphic philosophical entity. The whole of HE is

cast as needing transformation, as opposed to trans-formation.

Comprehensivity has locally been confined to a corporatist organizational model (merger).

Comprehensive institutions are viewed as an amalgamation (or absorption?) of two or more

institutions with divergent intellectual cultures, e.g. a university and a technikon, or two

universities with different missions (e.g. medical and non-medical). In other words, this is

largely an implosion of the past binary division of knowledge. The American context, on the

other hand suggests that a comprehensive institution that offers a range of fields of study at

all levels, including the doctoral levels.

Diversity/differentiation: In the local context, the orientation towards the assumption of a

combination of missions and programmes has been associated with “differentiation”; such as

in “programmatic differentiation” to imply the mixing of subjects to construct a programme

of study that has both academic and practical/application content, and “mission

differentiation” to imply the adoption by HEIs of statements that categorically indicate

compliance with the offering of a range of skills and knowledge to a range of students-

clients. Furthermore, the adoption of “a single but differentiated educational system” would

imply more a regulatory/structural framework than a functional environment of HE

functioning and development. On the international terrain, diversity is stressed more to relate

to a broader reconceptualisation in which all of higher education functioning is situated. In

this way for instance, HEIs are constituted towards a more ‘independent’ or ‘liberated’

stance, such as developing the capacity to generate alternative funding mechanisms as an

integral component of teaching, research and community service.

The emergent impression is that local HE policy is in a state of becoming, still struggling for an

ideological identity. The stakeholder constituency is replete with disparities, contending interests,

and institutional cultures that vacillate between the global competitiveness of knowledge and its

local relevance. The drive towards the Commercialisation of knowledge content and qualifications

appear to be the dominant feature of curriculum offerings, whereas elsewhere in the world, national

imperatives have not been sacrificed at the expense of the ‘sovereignty’ of capital and finance

systems. The problem is that South Africa is believed (or wished) to be a First World country in a

Third World continent.

122

2.9 CONCLUSION

Trends in international higher education curriculum reform and development seem to be largely

responsive to the externally-induced forces of globalisation, ICT, and increased access to higher

education learning opportunities. Market forces have even compelled some HEI systems to adopt

corporate forms of institutional governance. The proliferation of alternative and multiple HE

providers has drastically affected the ways in which the HE curriculum is conceptualised and

managed. For a HEI to be able to maintain its creditable purposes of existence, such an institution

would have to craft a stake in the lifelong sphere and cater for the needs of a diverse student

population.

123

CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW OF SOUTH AFRICAN HIGHER EDUCATION

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The previous chapter provided an international overview of HE challenges in general, and

curriculum reform in particular. Albeit these challenges having been approached in a generalistic

manner, salient and extant features/trends have been incorporated in a thematically focused

perspective. In this chapter, a similar approach has been adopted for the South African context of

these unprecedented HE challenges, which – if not prudently addressed – may portend survival

difficulties for the next generation’s quest for HE learning opportunities.

3.1.1 The legacy of apartheid higher education

Kraak (2000:17) argues that “… [post-1994] South Africa is going through a unique historical phase

where democratic consolidation and social reconstruction and development are priority goals”.

Pivotal to the “democratic consolidation” process is the integral role that HE is expected to play in

the total transformation of society as a whole (Walters, 1999: 575-77). The educational vestiges of

apartheid have to be viewed against the broader pre-1994 socio-political environment that had

provided legitimacy for the methodical exclusion of the majority of the citizens from the benefits of

higher learning (Jansen, 2001a: 12). To the extent that HE is the one sphere of South African society

that is capable of deconstructing the social, political, cultural, and economic engineering designed by

apartheid ideology (Cloete et al., 1999: 39-41); the present “unique historical phase” warrants that

cogent steps be taken in ameliorating the devastating effects of past educational differentiation (CHE,

2000b: 9-10; King, 1998: 5-7). The Department of Education (1997c: 3) hereinafter referred to as the

DoE, succinctly avers:

“While parts of the South African higher education system can claim academic achievement of international

renown, too many parts of the system observe teaching and research policies which favour academic insularity

and closed-system disciplinary programmes… there is still insufficient attention to the pressing local, regional

and national needs of the South African society and to the problems and challenges of the broader African

context [italics mine]”.

In accentuating and corroborating “… the problems and challenges” expressed above, CHE (Council

on Higher Education, 2000b: 9) explicitly refers to the nature of ameliorative steps needed to off-set

the damage caused by past racially-steeped policies of segregation in education: “Given the apartheid

legacy and the social and developmental challenges, the higher education transformation has to be

radical and comprehensive. It also needs to be pursued with particular urgency [italics mine]”. It is

argued here that the pre-1994 scenario is inherently a radical and exclusionary condition; and

124

necessarily becomes the precursor for the present and future comprehensive courses of action, in

respect of HE policy formulation and implementation (Seepe, 2000: 52, 54, 57; Welsh & Savage,

1977: 135-36). As having fulfilled an ideological function (Welsh & Savage, 1977: 131), apartheid

education also advanced the course of class stratification and monopoly over economic power.

Meszaros (2005: 257ff) elaborately contends that education is inextricably linked to issues of power,

class and access to means of production.

In a historical sense then, the legacy of apartheid HE specifically refers to, and embraces a

macrocosmic HE environment characterised by ideologically-driven racial and educational practices,

which to a greater extent, are encapsulated by Welsh and Savage (1997: 131) in their observation

that:

“The phenomenon of universities’ becoming focal points for the generation of nationalist ideas and activity is a

common one, and in relatively homogenous societies this contributed to the growth of national identity and the

consolidation of the nation-state. In ethnically divided societies, however, the same politicisation of the

universities by nationalism may have highly divisive implications for society. Either the university is rooted in a

particular segment of the population and becomes the symbol of their intellectual awakening; or the university

may seek to straddle the ethnic cleavages, when it may well become the battleground for its own possession.

Rarely, it would appear, is the university able to remain aloof from the powerful, and often divisive, forces of

nationalism in the society in which the university is situated [italics mine]”.

3.1.2 The past: structural and conjunctural problems

Two sets of challenges simultaneously confront South African HE transformation policy (DoE,

1997b: 11). These challenges derive from the unjust and inequitable HE policies of the past. The first

category of problems are structural – their prevalence within the HE domain is primarily due to the

ideological and philosophical parameters on which this policy was founded (CHE, 2000b: 13; Seepe,

2000: 53-54). These structural deficiencies were characteristically fundamental to the sustenance of

racial discrimination in education in general, and HE in particular; and long-standing – enduring

from the past and may ramify to the present, thus acting as independent variables in the future trends

of HE policy formulation. The ascendancy to political power by the National Party in 1948 provided

the context for the legitimation of racially differentiated education policies (Seepe, 2000: 53). During

the 1980s, the apartheid government’s “… conception of race and the politics of race” (Bunting,

2002: 59) shaped the HE landscape, replete with its manifest distortions, duplication and

fragmentation (CHE, 2002: 11-13). Unsurprisingly, unbridled political machinations and overt racial

HE policies were initiated, culminating in the division of the RSA into five legislatively “sovereign”

enclaves – “white South Africa” on the one hand, and the four TBVC “states” (Transkei,

125

Bophutatswana, Venda, & Ciskei) on the other. The physical location of the HDIs then, was attrition

in itself (CHE, 2000b: 13). Far-flung from the mainstream economic activities of the country, they

(in) advertently gained themselves the label of “bush colleges”. Their remoteness from other urban-

based HEIs created an obstacle for, among others, academic interaction and inter-institutional

collaboration both nationally and regionally. Travel, communication, the purchase and maintenance

of equipment and supplies, and insufficient fund-raising capacity, are some of the financially inherent

limitations experienced by these isolated institutions. Environmental and infrastructural factors added

to the backwardness of these mostly rural institutions, which became financially dependent on their

“homeland” administrations. Furthermore, the general multiplicity of racially-separated HEIs

throughout the country is illustrative of HE policy that is more ideologically driven than strategically

planned (Seepe, 2000: 53). Wolpe (1995: 285) corroborates this view of aberrant planning, stating

that South Africa’s “complex dual legacy” of apartheid education reflects

“… [the] organic outgrowth of an undemocratic political system [which gave rise to the HWUs and the HBUs

becoming] the artificial outgrowth of racially motivated planning [which had] … not been primarily designed to

accommodate the profile or patterns of civil society or, until recently – the economy… [thus] ensuring that they

contributed to the reproduction of the apartheid social order… [italics my own emphasis]”.

This geo-political reconfiguration (Asmal, 2001: 2) resulted in the existence of 36 HEIs (21

universities and 15 technikons) haphazardly scattered within the borders of the RSA. Eight different

departments of education controlled these 36 HEIs. This is a profound premise underlying

“… the apartheid thinking which led to the differentiation of higher education in South Africa into two distinct

types – universities and technikons – and [it shows] how [this apartheid thinking manifested itself into] sharp

racial divisions, as well as language and culture, [contributed to] the [skewed] profile of the institutions in each

category” (Bunting, 2002: 59).

The binary division of the HE ecology also carried with it misconceptions of “race” and

“knowledge” (Bunting, 2002: 64; Walters, 1999: 577). The following table depicts the number of

HEIs between 1990 and 1994 under various types of educational authority and jurisdiction.

TABLE 3.1: Racial distribution of the binary mode in higher education provision: 1990-1994

Responsible Authority Universities Technikons TOTALSHouse of Assembly/Whites 11 8 19House of Delegates/Indians 1 1 2House of Representatives/Coloureds 1 1 2Department of Education & Training/Africans 4 2 6Transkei/Xhosas ‘independent’ homeland 1 1 2

126

Responsible Authority Universities Technikons TOTALSBophutatswana/Tswana ‘independent’ homeland 1 1 2Venda/Venda ‘independent’ homeland 1 0 1Ciskei/Xhosa ‘independent’ homeland 1 1 2TOTALS 21 15 36

Source: Bunting (2002: 64)

The above scenario reflects a creation of the 1984 Constitution which instituted separate departments

for separate racial development; “own affairs” for the exclusive preserve of Whites, Indians, and

Coloureds in three separate “Houses” within the “tricameral parliament”. As non-TBVC Africans

had neither “House”, “Assembly,” nor “Representatives”, they were relegated to the status of

“general affairs” for all of their (primary, secondary, and higher) educational requirements – under

the administrative aegis of the DoE. In addition to this multitudinous dissection of the HE landscape,

legal constraints deterred ‘educational miscegenation’; in that, (higher) education institutions

designated for the exclusive use of one race could not accord such exclusivity to other racial groups –

unless permission to the contrary had been obtained from the relevant Minister. Ipso facto,

“The government maintained that any public higher education institution in the RSA [Republic of South Africa]

was essentially a legal entity, a “creature of the state”. It was brought into existence by an action of the state, and

its existence could be terminated by another action of the state. This made legitimate, the government believed,

any decision to restrict institutions to serving the interests of one and only one race group” (Bunting, 2002: 61).

Legislation such as the Extension of Universities Act of 1959 could be credited with empowering

the state to create universities as the state’s entity (p. 577). Racially motivated HE fragmentation and

its attendant lack of co-ordination, gave rise to urban-rural disparities (CHE, 2000b: 6; Walters,

1999: 577; Wolpe, 1995: 126-127).

The second taxonomy of HE challenges, the conjectural problems, relate to the nature of

institutional functioning per se. It includes, but not limited to, such issues as declining student

enrolments within the public HE sector; institutional difficulties in securing a diverse funding base –

as a decrease in student enrolments subsequently affects first-stream (state) funding; the threat posed

by emergent private HE providers; and the unstable governance capacity of some institutions (CHE,

2000b: 15; CHET, 2003b: 4). In such cases as the latter,

“[c]o-operative governance has been severely tested … ‘agreement in principle’ has not always translated into

‘unity in practice’. Competing and sometimes irreconcilable claims and interests [between, e.g., senate, council,

management, administration, and students] have led to institutional paralysis and/or loss of coherence and

direction …” (CHE, 2000b: 15).

127

3.1.3 Old institutional types and sub-types in a racially differentiated HE environment“All higher education institutions are products of segregation and apartheid, of the ‘geo-political imagination of

apartheid planners’. It is also beyond dispute that under apartheid certain higher education institutions experienced

a history of disadvantage. Claims for institutional redress on the part of ‘historically disadvantaged’ institutions

must confront the realities of the financial and human resources available to higher education to meet all

claims” (CHE, 2000b: 11).

It is of paramount importance – especially in the context of the legacy of apartheid HE policy – that

it be stated forthwith that this sub-section, logically culminating in sub-section 3.5.2., categorically

refers to the pre-merger scenario; and not the post-2002 reconfiguration of the HE landscape as

conceived by the National Working Group! It is in this specific context that the notion of

“separateness” becomes more illuminated by the binary division of HE in the early 1980s, when, in

addition to the already existing racially differentiated universities, the National Party instituted “… a

new set of institutions to which it gave the new and unique term ‘technikons’” (Bunting, 2002: 61).

The term “technikon” is “new and unique” as it had no antecedence in SA; in the UK these were

called “polytechnics”. The National Party’s own perception of the “essences” or “properties” of the

country’s HEIs resulted in universities being designated as centres for science, and technikons as

centres for technology:

“It [the National Party government] used the term ‘science’ to designate all scholarly activities in which

knowledge for the sake of knowledge is studied, and the term ‘technology’ to designated activities concerned with

the applications of knowledge. It followed from this philosophy of ‘essences’ that the government at that time

believed that universities could not become involved in technology [in the sense of the application of knowledge]

and that technikons could not become involved in scholarly activities involving the generation of new knowledge”

(Bunting, 2002: 62).

Such an analytic approach (that a university was not designed for applied knowledge, and that a

technikon could not of itself be a generator of knowledge), reinforces the notion of duplication, with

which racially differentiated HE policies were energetically embraced and enforced. It is such

mandarin-type machinations that set in motion a process designated by the democratically elected

government to engender a climate of seamless learning – from elementary to higher levels of

education. That in itself is a demystification of the blurred boundaries between university education

(as the highest level “education”), and technikon education (as a component of “training”). Not only

does the approach of seamlessness explicate the problematic (speculative) nature of knowledge, it

further advances the notions of the indivisibility of knowledge and its utilitarian function.

Following the functionality-based (as opposed to organizational/structural) differentiation of

128

institutional types (in respect of the binary division), qualification routes were differentiated

accordingly in a manner schematically depicted below.

TABLE 3.2: *Binary division of higher and further education qualification routes in the early 1980s

University qualification Equivalent technikon qualificationDoctorate

Masters degree

Honours degree

Post-graduate diploma

Professional first bachelors degree

General first bachelor’s degree

Laureates in technology

National diploma in technology

National higher diploma

Post-diploma diploma

First national diploma (4 years)

First national diploma (3 years)Source: Bunting (2002: 63)

*University qualifications format and duration of degrees were used to determine those of

technikons, and not vice-versa. Technikon studies had to ‘remove’ “… abstract thinking and

scientific or scholarly approaches to knowledge [as their primary functions] had to be only that of

training students who would be able to apply scientific principles within the context of a specific

career or vocation” (Bunting, 2002: 63).

Implicit in the above principle therefore, is the notion that the primary function of a university was

“… to train basic scientists; and basic researchers, and therefore had to be concerned with the

development rather than with the application of knowledge … educating students in a range of

scientific or scholarly disciplines to enable them to enter high level professions” (p. 63). Whereas the

“scientific” view above espouses the academic, knowledge-as-a-process orientation, the technikon

framework adopts the practical, knowledge-as-a-product approach. In a broader context, this state

of affairs impugns on one of the challenges facing HE: Should the epistemological provenance of

knowledge remain located in the disciplinary mode, or should the curriculum (as the knowledge

‘product’ of an institution) relate to the multidisciplinary mould according to which “knowledge”

itself is redefined in the context of its innovative utility? Secondly: Can the production and

application of knowledge not be simultaneously executed within the same institutional framework?

This latter question is in fact a challenge located in the future of the research or comprehensive

university. It premises on whether or not teaching and research could be embraced as separate or

complementary institutional missions. An institutional mission and programme mix could resolve

the binary division, especially during the era of seamless lifelong learning and the recognition of

prior learning.

129

The stark racial divisions propounded by the pre-1994 government reveal a myriad HE neologisms

under various categorizations – from historically black/white universities; historically black/white

technikons; historically black/white institutions; to historically advantaged/disadvantaged

institutions (Cloete et al., 2002; Cooper & Subotzky, 2001; Subotzky, 1997; Welsh & Savage, 1977).

Cooper’s & Subotzky’s (2001: 1) apartheid-indicting and historical-sociological analysis of the “…

various sub-types of universities and technikons…” provides a rational attempt to “…make

sense…”of this plethora of sub-types; “… particularly regarding the development of white

universities and technikons about which, interestingly often less is known than about the Black

apartheid-structured institutions” (p. 1). The post-1994 HE landscape was confronted with a range of

challenges, amongst which access (massification) by previously social groups had to be addressed

(CHE, 2000b: 7, 10; DoE, 2001: 5). At the initial stages of this policy initiative, increasing

participation rates among the 20-24 years age cohort was viewed as a mechanism for both

institutional redress and a broadening of socio-economic development. The DoE (2001: 27)

supported the initiative, arguing that human resources development and other labour market trends

were a challenge which required “… a full spectrum of advanced educational opportunities for an

expanding range of the population irrespective of race, gender, age, creed or class or other forms of

discrimination”.

It is worth noting that the gap between policy rhetoric and actual implementation realities has been

vividly illustrated in the later ‘containment’ of the broadening of access and participation by

particularly students from previously disadvantaged backgrounds. This volte face on the part of the

DoE (2004: 4) is illustrated in Interview B (see Interview B in Appendices List). During the

scheduled interview, a question was posed to the respondent (Vice-Chancellor, Academic, at

Institution B) relating to the sharing of resources at newly merged HEIs: But is there hope that some

mechanisms can begin to be developed, according to which the new University [merger of the

former technikon with former traditional university] can rid itself of this national crisis [of the

increasing student debt due to unpaid university fees]? The response was as follows:

“But the question of student debt, I think that is going to be a problem that we will live with as long as higher

education is not free, and I don’t see higher education becoming free in the next thirty years, or so. In fact what is

going to happen, this is what universities are faced with, [and] because government is not able to provide for

higher education … they [the government] are putting pressure to reduce the numbers of students at universities.

That includes our own merging university, because government is saying that we should take back the numbers to

[those] we had in 2003. So, rather than expand, the numbers will be reduced ... dealing with that picture tells if

130

government cannot pump in a lot of money into higher education … and the only way to keep it sustainable is to

control numbers”.

The above excerpt – apart from illustrating the lacuna between policy rhetoric (which is

fundamentally symbolic) and policy implementation – affirms the viewpoint of the unsustainability

of unplanned access; financial prepared ness on the part of the DoE was necessarily a pre-requisite

condition for the massification of HEIs. It is in this context that later amendments were made for

each institution to present its own three-year ‘rolling plan’ indicating among others, how it would

implement growth and access within its idiosyncratic circumstances (DoE, 2001: 5). On the socio-

economic front, HE is therefore confronted with the task of producing more graduates in response to

both the local needs and the broader technology-driven and market-oriented global landscape.

Retaining enrolled students to their desired points of exit is yet another mammoth responsibility,

compounded by, and not restricted to, the following factors (p. 20):

a 23% decline in matriculation exemptions, from 89 000 to 68 626 between 1994 and 2000;

first-time HE entrants constantly at around 120 000 (40 000 distributed between UNISA,

while the other 80 000 is distributed among the contact HEIs);

exclusionary financial and academic factors leading to high drop-out rates; and

fewer postgraduates being available immediately after their first degree qualification.

In addition to the above-stated programmatic distortions, the ‘type’ of HEI relates to the quality of

student and skills produced. The following table is a depiction of institutional types as determining

the kind of student(s) produced, as Wolpe (1995: 279) indicates:

“The coincidence of the de facto division between ‘teaching’ and ‘research’ universities within the HBU/HWU

divide is reflected not only in research but in the area of graduate programmes. Needless to say, graduate

programmes and research are mutually conditioning insofar as the skills of graduate students are drawn as

research assistants, while the magnet of research is a key means of attracting good graduate students”.

131

TABLE 3.3: Programmatic and research orientation per HE institutional type: 1992

Level of Study *HWU:

Afrikaans

*HWU:

English

HBU *Distance

Education

*TOTAL

NUMBERSUndergraduate

diplomas 7% (15%) 7% (14%) 74% (53%) 12% (18%) 5 671 (3 515)Bachelor’s degree 36% (37%) 30% (31%) 6% (15%) 18% (18%) 16 119 (1 2240)Professional first

Bachelor’s 49% (47%) 31% (43%) 11% (11%) 9% (9%) 7 314 (6 351)Postgraduate

Bachelor’s diploma 30% (38%) 37% (35%) 19% (12%) 14% (15%) 5 742 (4 775)Honours 48% (52%) 24% (22%) 7% (6%) 22% (20%) 5 936 (4 371)

Master’s & doctorates 52% (1%) 33% (33%) 5% (4%) 11% (12%) 3 532 (2 824)TOTAL 16 135 12 151 9 279 6 746 44 314 (34 076

Source: Wolpe (1995: 279)

*The figures and/or percentages appearing in dual mode in some cells indicate the inclusivity of a

technikon and a university under that particular institutional type.

Extrapolated from the data above is that programmatic orientation and research culture between the

hitherto racially defined institution types was skewed. The strength of the HWUs is underlined by

their numerical strength of postgraduate students spread across the economically-strategic fields of

Science, Engineering and Technology (SET), and Business and Commerce (Subotzky, 1997:

114-116; Wolpe, 1995: 277-279). The DoE (2001: 22) indicates that between 1993 and 1999, there

has, however, been a shift in the Humanities from 57% to 49%, while the Business fields increased

in output from 19% to 26%. The financial implications for “access” not being adequately achieved

translate into a R1, 3 billion loss in public subsidy (DoE, 2001: 25). The amount accrues due to

retention difficulties and high drop-out rates, 20% of all undergraduate and postgraduate students

each year, therefore a nett loss of 120 000 students not reaching the qualification points of exit. The

HE system then suffers the moral and psychological consequences associated with “failure”. In an

attempt to thwart off this trend from becoming an extant feature of the HE system in a transformed

environment, the DoE proposed the following benchmarks as part of a strategic planning initiative

intended to improve HE access, quality and efficiency. It is necessary to re-iterate that these are

propositions based on a pre-merger scenario:

132

three-year undergraduate studies to improve by 25% annually for conventional HEIs, and by

15% for dedicated distance HEIs;

four-year (or more) undergraduate programmes to improve by 20% in traditional institutions,

and 10% for distance education;

postgraduate to honours studies to improve by 60% for contact institutions, and 30% for

distance education;

Masters’ to improve by 33% in contact HEIs, and 25% for DEIs; and

Doctoral studies to improve by 20% at contact HEIs and 20% for DEIs.

3.1.3.1 Historically White Universities (HWUs)“Both the white and black institutions were products of apartheid though in different ways. The difference was not

only in the institutional culture, that the former enjoyed institutional autonomy and the latter was bureaucratically

driven. The difference was also in their intellectual horizons. It was the white intelligentsia that took the lead in

creating apartheid-enforced identities in the knowledge they produced. Believing that this was an act of intellectual

creativity unrelated to the culture of privilege, in which they were steeped, they ended defending an ingrained

prejudice with a studied conviction. The irony is that the white intelligentsia came to be a greater, became a more

willing, prisoner of apartheid thought than its black counterpart” (Mamdani, 1998: 131).

By virtue of the pre-1994 HE legislative framework, all white HEIs were inside the RSA, and not

dislodged from the urban-based, mainstream economic activity (Bunting, 2002: 65). These HWUs

are invariably also referred to as HAIs (Historically Advantaged Institutions); the latter deriving

from their privileged status as recipients of more benevolent funding than their black and

disadvantaged counterparts. The historically white/advantaged universities/institutions were

linguistically, culturally, and instructionally categorised into Afrikaans-medium, “…which was the

home language of most people in government” (p. 65); also, “Afrikaans was actively developed as a

language to be used in the public domain” (Desai & Van Der Merwe, 1998: 248). A further

delineation was in the form of those whose medium of communication, cultural expression, and

instruction was English – “… which was the home language of most people in big business and

private enterprise” (Bunting, 2002: 65). The latter author (p. 65) further argues that political support

for/or against the National Party – more than the linguistic and cultural variables – was the major

determinant for distinguishing historically Afrikaans-medium institutions from their historically

English-medium counterparts. On the other hand, Cooper and Subotzky (2001: 7) make a very

thought-provoking assertion that “[s]egregation within the South African higher education system

preceded the National Party’s gaining power in 1948 [bold italics mine]”. If the two points of view

above are symbiotically placed, could it then be asked: Has racial discrimination in higher

education been practised by successive white governments long before 1948; and that only the

133

magnitude of its application became the determining factor of its Afrikaner or English ideological

provenance? Notwithstanding their being imbued with traditional British liberalism, the “open

universities” such as UCT and Wits, for instance, were viewed as admitting black students then

(comprising of 5% to 6% of the entire student body in 1957) only as

“… a matter of acquiescence, rather than an active concern to promote any kind of racial ‘integration. The

universities were deeply conscious of powerful segregationist norms in the white community outside, and were

accordingly reluctant to go any further than permitting black students to ‘academic equality’ while seeking to

preserve social segregation inside each institution [italics mine]” (Welsh & Savage, 1977: 139).

The following table illustrates the research dominance in science (per contract incomes) at only four

previously white English- or Afrikaans-medium HEIs between 1995 and 2000. The directors of

research at these institutions indicated an increase, rather than a decrease in the acquisition of

science research-related contracts (Bawa & Mouton, 2002: 316). A very critical implication is that

such HEIs are able to generate a much-needed alternative income stream.

TABLE 3.4: Science research contracts at four previously white HEIs: 1995-2000

HIGHER EDUCATION

INSTITUTION 1995/6 1998 2000

% INCREASE:

1995 to 2000Pretoria *27 61 92 480%Stellenbosch 46 78 119 258%Natal 46 83 138 300%Cape Town 102 139 190 186%TOTAL 221 361 539 1224%Source: Bawa & Mouton (2002: 316)

*All the non-percentage figures indicate Rands in millions, accruing from the science research-

related contracts

(a) Historically Afrikaans-Medium Universities (HAMUs)

This HEI sub-type (5 in number) directly became the bedrock of Afrikaner nationalism (Babbie &

Mouton, 2001: 536-38). They are listed here in their chronological order of acquiring full university

status (Cooper & Subotzky, 2001: 7): University of Stellenbosch (1916); University of Pretoria

(1930); University of the Orange Free State (1950); Potchefstroom University (1951); and Rand

Afrikaans University (1967). The sixth, the University of Port Elizabeth (UPE) (1964), used a dual

(Afrikaans and English) mode of instruction. The founding rationale of UPE’s duality was to entice

conservative white English-speaking students into the predominantly Afrikaans-speaking

government mould (Bunting, 2002: 65). Despite this conciliatory posture, UPE like the other five,

134

“… was dominated by Afrikaans-speaking executives and governing bodies … and councils which gave strong

support to the apartheid government, [and its] ideology of universities being ‘creatures of the state’ and therefore

took their chief function to be that of acting in the service of government [italics my own emphasis]” (p. 65).

The political allegiance of these HEIs transformed them into becoming instrumentalist HE

organizations of the state becoming the intellectual centres of Afrikaner nationalism (Babbie &

Mouton, 2001: 536-538). Notwithstanding the fact that this study has not focused on the views of

the general Afrikaner population on university mergers as such, a seemingly ‘quintessential’ reaction

is encapsulated in the following abridged Sunday Times article by Minister Asmal (2002b: 4, July

28), in his response to the defenders of exclusively Afrikaans-medium education:

“The debate on the language policy for higher education has reached new lows in recent days. The insults hurled by

those opposed to Afrikaans-medium universities becoming dual medium … have become more heavy-handed,

personalised and vulgar, despite our attempts to allay fears that the Afrikaans language is not under threat. Judging

by the strident comments in support of Afrikaans being retained as the only language of tuition at certain

institutions, it is evident that some individuals are beginning to show their true colours and to speak through the

justifications of those who created and manned the apartheid regime. In fact this is no longer a debate on language,

but a contestation of power by those who want to continue to possess our institutions of higher learning as their

own, as separate or segregated spaces, not to be meddled with by the bringers of democracy and the implementers

of transformation …The defence of Afrikaans in this [racist] context is not so much a defence of the language as

such but of a mentality that still upholds the ideology of superiority … The real debate ought to be access to higher

education … There is a serious shortage of black doctors, for instance, resulting in hundreds of students being sent

for medical training in Cuba. Yet, among the so-called Afrikaans universities, there are excellent capacity and

world-class facilities. These must be used to the benefit of all … Our Constitution speaks directly to the need to

receive education in the official language of choice and yet links this to other basic rights such as equity and the

need to redress the inequalities of the apartheid legacy …[italics my own emphasis]”.

Bunting (2002: 66-67) contextualises the role and function of an instrumentalist HEI as:

“… one which takes its core business to be the dissemination and generation of knowledge for a purpose defined

or determined by a socio-political agenda. Knowledge is not regarded as something which is good in itself and

hence worth pursuing for its own sake. It follows that knowledge which could be used for a specific social,

economic or political purpose would be the primary form pursued … [bold italics mine]”.

This socio-political affiliation was demonstrated by the international boycott of South Africa in the

1980s, leading to the Afrikaans-medium universities adopting the “herd instinct” mode of operation;

by which it is posited here that when under attack, members of the same species or group tend to

protect and to defend one another by whatever means are at their disposal. This ‘instinctive’

behaviour is assumed to be the best way to vouchsafe the specie’s survival and self-preservation.

135

Similarly, the Afrikaans-medium universities rallied behind their besieged political guardians and

financial benefactors. The thrust of this support was directed at proffering sanction-busting

alternatives, so as to circumvent the crippling economic effects and other deleterious consequences

of the boycotts. South Africa had been ex-communicated from the international fraternity of

academics, intellectuals, and researchers. Alternative financial support from overseas countries

(especially Netherlands) was severely affected (Bunting, 2002: 66-67). The instrumentalist function

came to the fore when it was most needed during this time – offering military expertise, knowledge

and skills. At the same time, private funding for these institutions came from apartheid-supporting

organizations within the country and from “… fee-paying students, most of whom came from

government-supporting white families” (p. 67). Historically Afrikaans-medium universities

therefore, rather than being socio-economically relevant and responsive centres of knowledge and

excellence, consciously became the intellectual base for the solidification of apartheid against

perceived ‘enemies of the state’ both within and without the borders of ‘white South Africa’. Their

authoritarian governance system dominated by Afrikaner males was an emulation of their political

benefactor – the apartheid state and its rigidly bureaucratic machinery. Furthermore, and in

analyzing especially the pre-1994 national distribution patterns of black students across fields and

levels of study, CHE (2000b:14) noted that “[a] further worrying trend is that at historically

Afrikaans-medium universities, the predominant form of incorporation of African students has been

through the enrolment of distance students who are seldom seen on campus [italics mine].”The

following table quantitatively illustrates the total pre-1994 distribution of black students among the

Afrikaans-language HEIs.

TABLE 3.5: Access by black students to predominantly Afrikaans-medium HEIs: 1988

1988: Afrikaans-Medium UniversitiesU University A African C ColouredI Indian White T TOTALF Free State 97 1 1% 147 2% 0 0% 8 973 97% 9 2171 100% Port Elizabeth 97 2%3 3508 8% 3 31 1% 4 1089 90% 4 568 100%P Potchefstroom2 2633 3%1 109 1%1 130 0% 8 8159 96% 9 200 100%Pr Pretoria 64 0 0% 77 0 0%2 24 0 0%2 22 8119 99%2 22 9761 100% RAU 1302 2% 3074 4% 12 0% 7 86895 95% 8 3171 100%S Stellenbosch 40 0 0%50 507 4%1 910 0%1 13 2699 96%1 13 82710 100%T TOTAL 673 11% 1497 2%9 91 0% 65 844 97%6 68 105 100%

Source: Cooper & Subotzky (2001: 36)

(b) Historically English-Medium Universities (HEMUs)

The four predominant English–medium universities, in chronological order of being awarded full

university status are: University of Cape Town (1916); University of the Witwatersrand (1922);

University of Natal (1949); and Rhodes University (1951) (Cooper & Subotzky, 2001: 70). They did

not immediately acquire full university status at their inception. The University of Cape Town for

136

instance, started off as the South Africa College (SAC), established in 1829; University of the

Witwatersrand was initially the South Africa School of Mines and Technology, established in 1903;

Natal University was formerly know as Natal University College, established in 1909 as an offshoot

of Maritzburg College; and Rhodes University College, established in 1904 (Cooper & Subotzky,

2001: 5-6; SAUVCA, 2002: 1).

Prior to the establishment of all historically white universities, the University of Cape of Good Hope

(UCGH), established in 1873, was the only university in South Africa. It was later to become

forerunner to the University of South Africa (UNISA), which was legally constituted in 1916 – the

same year as UCT and Stellenbosch (Cooper & Subotzky, 2001: 6). In stark contrast to the state-

supporting Afrikaans-speaking universities, the English-speaking universities premised their

ideological and philosophical existence by their refusal to adhere to the apartheid government’s

notion of HEIs being “creatures of the state” – thus earning themselves the ‘label’ of liberal or “open

universities” (Bunting, 2002: 70). By the very nature of their opposition to apartheid in general, and

apartheid HE policies specifically, a polarised relationship defined the character of these

institutions’ image in the context of their being recipients of state funds – the very state whose

political ideals the English universities could not be functionaries of. As opposed to linguistic,

cultural, and other variables, political support for, or opposition to apartheid became a major

distinguishing feature between English-and Afrikaans-medium HEIs. Insofar as the respective

attitudes of English- and Afrikaans-medium HEIs relates to broad transformation, their disparate

reactions engender historically rooted perspectives. For instance, the national DoE’s protracted

reconfiguration of the HE landscape (mergers) has met with different reactions from Afrikaans- and

English-medium universities; the former volubly citing fears of linguistic/cultural assimilation as

their basis of contention. It is contended in this study that the very fact of the advent of HEIs

becoming immersed in political nuances, that in itself helped create a context later for HBUs

(Historically Black Universities) – especially the African ones within the TBVC ‘states’ and ‘White

South Africa’ – to establish a ‘third (ideological) front’ in the HE scenario. The very principles of

reform and transformation that are being bandied about nowadays have had a political and historical

rootedness – hence the three pillars, access/growth/expansion, equity and redress – becoming policy

instruments that are even legislatively protected (DoE, 1997c: 8-9). The liberal English-medium

universities were quick to observe that:

“… by their very nature as universities, they were not servants of the state and thus they would not accept that

their functions could be limited to those of serving the needs and implementing the policies of the government of

the day. Indeed they believed that their commitment to the universal values of academic freedom made it

impossible for them to act as servants of the apartheid state … they did not believe that their existence was

137

dependent on the patronage of the apartheid government. Their view was that any university in any country, by its

very nature, had to maintain a ‘distance’ from government. They regarded themselves as being part of an

international community of scholars which was dedicated to the advancement and propagation of all human

knowledge” (Bunting, 2002: 70-71).

This liberal predisposition implied that “academic freedom”, like “institutional autonomy”, was one

of their prerogatives that could be deployed to ward off unjust HE education policies. It implied that

they could teach whatever they deemed relevant and important; admit whoever fulfilled their

academic entry requirements, notwithstanding hindrances of race, creed, and gender. By the same

maxim, they could choose any suitable candidate for any academic post. The liberal universities had

observed that academic freedom under apartheid was virtually approaching ‘rigor mortis’. Not only

was ‘educational miscegenation’ prohibited (through the permit system); academic freedom became

an anomaly due to any HEI being prevented from teaching “… any courses or to use any materials

which the apartheid government deemed to be of a ‘subversive’ nature designed to further the aims

of [so-called] communism” (Bunting, 2002: 70).

The cumulative effect of liberalism in HE was that between 1990 and 1993, 28% and 38% of the

registered students at the historically English-speaking universities were respectively African or

Indian. Bunting (p. 71) further asserts that other than political reasons compelling them to distance

themselves from the apartheid government, the four liberal institutions’ approach was an

academically logical fait accompli. For this reason, maintaining disciplinary affinity with

international institutions and organizations was viewed as fundamentally significant for accentuating

their academic repertoire. Their anti-apartheid posture translated into huge financial ‘rewards’ as

overseas organizations donated generously into their coffers, so that their academic programmes and

missions were gradually becoming inclusive. Consequently, they could broaden their funding base

and not be completely reliant on state funding. Their ‘blue-skies’ research enhanced their distancing

themselves from governmental instrumentalism, therefore excluded themselves from e.g. research

for military purposes. To further actuate their non-instrumental stance,

“[n]one of the four [liberal institutions] permitted their academic staff members to become involved in any kind

of policy work for the government and governmental agencies. Specific bans were put in place forbidding staff to

become involved in any contract work for defence-related industries, because of the significant role these played

in apartheid conflict and oppression” ” (Bunting, 2002: 72-73).

Mamdani (1998: 73) expresses the view that irrespective of their anti-apartheid struggles, the four

English-medium institutions “… were never major agents for social political change in South

138

Africa”. This contention is attributed to their governance and management systems, as well as their

research agendas, which were perceived as perpetrating insularity towards social accountability to

the generally underprivileged South Africa populace. On the other hand, Jakes Gerwel, former Vice-

chancellor of the University of the Western Cape, argues that neither the conservative stance of the

HAMUs nor the liberal one adopted by the HEMUs ‘fitted’ the aspirations of the majority SA

population as envisaged by the HBUs (p. 73):

“In spite of our genuine commitment to free scholarly discourse and research, every South African university has

a dominant ideological orientation which describes the context of its operations … This is demonstrably true of

both the subsets of historically white Afrikaans-language and English-language universities. The Afrikaans

universities have always stood, and still firmly stand within the operative context of Afrikaner nationalism

networking in a complex way into its various correlative institutions … Equally, the English-language universities

operate within the context of Anglophile liberalism, primarily linking and responding to its institutional

expressions as in the English schools, cultural organizations and importantly, big business. The one ideological

formation under-represented or not at all represented in a similar way within the South African universities

community is that of the more radical Left”.

In interrogating the HEMUs profound commitment to the current goals of equity and access policy

requirements, Moja and Hayward (2001: 120) contend that this has been speculative:

“A somewhat surprising problem was posed by the limited enthusiasm and support from South Africa’s liberal

white institutions. While they participated in the process, the liberal institutions seemed more concerned about

what they might lose than about how to overcome the legacies of apartheid they had so vocally opposed in earlier

years …. [This] approach … seemed to be defensive, and their submissions to the policy-making process were

viewed with suspicion in some quarters”.

The following table illustrates the distribution of black students among the two HWIs in 1988.

TABLE 3.6: Access by black students to predominantly English-medium HEIs

1988: English-Medium Universities University African ColouredI Indian White T TOTAL Cape Town 1 9907 76% 1 686 13% 392 3% 10 302 78% 13 280 100% Natal 1 444 11% 266 2% 2 080 16% 8 942 70% 12 732 100% Rhodes 4 77 13% 156 4% 163 4% 2 940 79% 3 736 100% Witwatersrand 1 938 11% 276 2% 1 334 7% 14 471 80% 18 019 100%T TOTAL 4 759 10% 2 384 5% 3 969 8% 36 655 77% 47 767 100%

139

Source: Cooper & Subotzky (2001: 37)

When compared to Table 3.4 (on p.13), the above figures show that by 1988, Afrikaans-medium

universities were still recoiled in their conservative cocoons, collectively enrolling 2 261 Black

students (African, Indian and Coloured); 3% of a total of 68 105 students of all races. During the

same period, English-medium universities collectively enrolled 11 112 Black students, 23% of a

total of 47 767 students of all races – a justification and vindication of their stance in refusing to

become the instrumentalist agents of the apartheid state.

3.1.3.2 Historically Black Universities (HBUs)

The proliferation of HEIs into racially divided sub-types effectively applied binary divisions with a

racial connotation; historically “advantaged” universities and technikons for whites on the one

hand, and historically “disadvantaged” universities and technikons for blacks on the other.

Compounding this maze, was that all white HEIs were within ‘white South Africa’, and for blacks

these institutions were disjointedly scattered between rural TBVC ‘states’ and urban South Africa.

Depicting how preoccupation with race blurred the educational vision of the apartheid architects,

Cooper and Subotzky (2001: 7) comment that for a country with a population of under 50 million,

the prevalence of 36 HEIs is a world first. Adding to this labyrinthine existence of HEIs within the

black educational ‘system’ – apart from the TBVC/RSA cleavage – there was the Coloured-Indian

university-technikon (sub) types. The ethnic categorization of HBUs was dispersed among

Africans, Coloureds, and Indians in mainstream South Africa at the following institutions (Cooper

& Subotzky, 2001: 7-8): University of the North (1960), and its Qwa Qwa branch (1982);

University of the Western Cape (1960); University of Zululand (1960); and two ‘special purpose’

higher education institutions were added – namely Medunsa (1976); and Vista University, which

“... opened in 1982 to deal with what was seen as the ‘problem’ of university education for urban

Africans. Its seven urban campuses were to be strictly controlled to avoid a repetition of the student

revolts of the early 1970s which began at the University of the North” (p. 8).

Whereas the HAMUs supported the apartheid status quo and the HEMUs opposed it, the HBUs

espoused the radical approach (hence their ‘leftist’/militant propensity alluded to earlier by Gerwel);

calling for the total annihilation of apartheid and its multi-faceted structures. The HBUs were

managed authoritatively. Their councils, executive managers, and senior academic staff “… were

[predominantly] White Afrikaans who had been trained at one [or the other] of the six historically

White Afrikaans-medium universities” (Bunting, 2002: 75). Although black Vice-Chancellors were

appointed later in the 1980’s authoritarian systems of governance ensued, with the state appointing

council members and Afrikaner heads of departments, as well as senates to service its machinery of

140

conformity to unequal educational opportunities. Such machinations were designed also to pre-empt

writ large, any academic and/or socio-economic relevance on the part of programme offerings:

“To the extent that the African HBUs were to be tied to the development of the Bantustans, the limited and

restricted sense in which this ‘development’ was intended was to profoundly condition the academic character as

well as the roles and functions of these institutions. If a major function of the early HBUs was to generate the

administrative corps for the black separate development bureaucracies, the ideological task was to wean new

generations of students away from black nationalist and socialist sentiments, and win them to the separate

development project through the appropriate mix of repressive controls and the promises of economic

opportunities in the Bantustans … [italics my emphasis]” (Wolpe, 1995: 285).

Training was accentuated more than research,

“[a]s a consequence, few of the academics employed by the historically black universities believed it necessary to

introduce research and postgraduate programmes in these universities. The intellectual agenda of the institutions

often became no more than that of reproducing material taught in previous years at historically white Afrikaans-

medium universities [italics my own emphasis]” (Bunting, 2002: 75).

Wolpe (1995: 285) reaffirms this fact by noting the levels and fields of study at HBU as conforming

to the state’s defined and intended ‘contours’ of restriction. Undergraduate and diploma course

offerings were predominant in the areas of liberal arts, education, law and the humanities. The

following table illustrates the discrepancies inherent in the academic and intellectual roles of the

HBUs vis-à-vis the HWUs, this trend also being illustrative of their racially differentiated research

output.

TABLE 3.7: Research output per racially segregated higher education institutional ‘type’

Type of Institution Name of Institution * Year 1987 1990

HWUs: Afrikaans/English University of the Witwatersrand 1 003 1 004University of Cape Town 912 797University of Pretoria 658 767University of Stellenbosch 492 458University of Natal 401 479Orange Free State University 372 300

Rand Afrikaans University 213 283University of Potchefstroom 173 242

141

Type of Institution Name of Institution * Year Rhodes University 129 174

University of Port Elizabeth 106 82HBUs: African/Coloured/Indian University of Durban-Westville 62 80

University of Western Cape 45 47Medunsa 45 27University of the North 25 42Vista University 26 34University of Zululand 21 20University of South Africa 260 333

TOTAL 4 943 5 169Source: Wolpe (1995: 287)

*The figures in indicated for each year quantitatively reflect the numbers of published research work

in the form of books, journal articles, and so on.

142

The above statistical data shows that by and large, HBUs lag far behind HWUs in the context of

their research output, which necessarily defines the intellectual cultures of both university subtypes.

Between 1984 and 1991, HWUs accounted for 36 869 research credits; while HBUs accounted for a

meagre 1 785 (4.8%), with 224 credits (4.5%) and 250 credits (4.8%) for 1987 and 1990 respectively

(Wolpe, 1995: 287). This state of affairs reflects that only a few HWUs were the ‘powerhouses’ of

research in the country. For the English-speaking HWUs, the University of the Witwatersrand

ostensibly took the lead, whereas Pretoria University assumed the same status for Afrikaans-

language HWUs. It is also remarkable that UNISA – a distance teaching institution – out-performed

all HBUs put together for the afore-stated period under review. This trend, therefore, tallies with the

‘politics of knowledge’ according to which there is an attachment of some hierarchical ‘principle’

between ‘race’ and the nature of knowledge (ability to know). The following table further

demonstrates the consequences of skewed programme funding mechanisms across fields and levels

of study among racially categorised HEIs. This scenario is directly related to the respective

institution’s research capabilities.

TABLE 3.8: University masters and doctoral degrees awarded in 1996 per racial group

White Coloured Indian AfricanTOTAL

Natural Sciences and Engineering 964 27 48 116 1 155 Health Sciences 411 11 25 52 499 Social Sciences and Humanities 2 281 106 144 217 3 026 TOTAL 3 656 144 217 663 4 680

Source: Human Sciences Research Council (1998, in Seepe, 2000: 56)

Extrapolated from the above figures is the fact that institution-based postgraduate participation (and

completion) rates are concentrated in HWUs (Afrikaans- and English-medium). This is against the

background that, “[i]n 1996 the total university student enrolment in South Africa was 374 131, and

African students totalled 245 302” (Seepe, 2000: 56). Furthermore, a mere 0.31% (116 students)

constituted the number of African students in science and engineering. The present dearth in the

same African group is virtually a replica of past inequalities – albeit the percentages might have

improved somewhat. However,

“[t]hese statistics clearly indicate that the current system in South Africa has been hopelessly inadequate in

providing a viable skills base for a technology-driven economy. If South Africa is to meet the challenge of

producing sufficient graduates for the economy it must contend with the historical legacy of apartheid

colonialism” (Seepe, 2000: 56).

143

The skewed racial composition of students across the country was also reflected in funding

mechanisms. Funding being the backbone of institutional survival, less of it invariably translates into

a plethora of interrelated challenges. Just how this financial differentiation was achieved is made

axiomatic by the following figures.

TABLE 3.9: State funding for racially-differentiated higher education institutions: 1992

Sources of Income HBUs HWEUs* HWAUs** Government subsidy 331.6 54% 552.3 41% 711.7 46% Tuition and other fees 125.1 20% 257.3 19% 257.7 17% Government grants and contacts 4.6 1% 48.7 4% 37.4 2% Private gifts, grants and contacts 52.6 8% 240.2 18% 147.7 10% Investments 43.4 7% 124.3 9% 195.6 13% Auxiliary services, etc. 38.8 6% 86.1 6% 96.1 6% Other 23.1 4% 29.1 2% 94.3 6% TOTAL 619.2 100% 1 338 100% 1541 100%

Source: Subotzky (1997: 125)

* Historically White English Universities

** Historically White Afrikaans Universities

The non-percent figures above depict Rands in millions. From the above information, it is explicit

that racially preferential treatment was applied in the order: HWAUs (R1541 million), HWEUs

(R1338 million), and lastly, HBUs (R619.2 million). As chief instrumentalist agents, it is not

unexpected of Afrikaans HEIs to be substantially funded. Government subsidy is the largest source

of income on the higher education landscape. Bunting (2002: 115) affirms this view:

“In the period before 1994, the South African government’s funding policies mirrored apartheid’s divisions and

the different governance models which it imposed on the higher education system. As was shown … the apartheid

higher education landscape in the years before 1994, control of South Africa’s 36 universities and technikons was

divided amongst four government department in the ‘independent republics’ … and four government departments

in the … RSA. Different funding policies and practices were applied within these eight departments [italics my

own emphasis]”.

The various funding policies prior to and after 1994, are discussed later in this chapter. It has been

necessary to review the legacy of apartheid higher education in general, as it constitutes the context

144

within which current higher education polices are being transformed for the total eradication of past

injustices.

3.1.3.3 The former technikon sector

Generally, this sub-type of the pre-2002 HE landscape follows similar ‘conceptual contours’ as the

university sector. Such a scenario of a multiplicity of fragmented institutional types and roles –

defined by duplicity of purposes and discriminatory funding mechanisms – characterise e.g. their

academic excellence and research output, or a lack thereof. Conceptually, technikons as FETs “…

originate from the Colleges of Advanced Technical Education (CATEs), which were established by

an act of parliament in 1967. In fact, the shift from CATE to technikon a decade later was simply a

name change” (Cooper & Subotzky, 2001: 8). Their establishment formed a layer between

matriculation and university education.

(a) The former historically white technikons (HWTs)

The seven HWTs are: Cape Technikon; Free State Technikon; PE Technikon; Pretoria Technikon;

Vaal Triangle Technikon; and Technikon Witwatersrand. The ‘political affiliation’ dinosaur rears its

head once more: “These seven institutions could not be divided into Afrikaans and English sub-

groupings. All tended to be conservative institutions which, like the Afrikaans-medium universities,

aligned themselves with the National Party government and its higher education policies” (Bunting,

2002: 78). The racial character of student enrolments in the entire technikon sector is depicted

below.

TABLE 3.10: Technikon student composition by race, during the stated period(s)

Race 1984 % 1988 % 1993 % 1995 % 1997 % 1998 % A African 42 856 18% 97 485 29% 199 197 41% 275 636 49% 313 590 56% 308 878 57%

C Coloured 13 300 6% 22 716 7% 28 648 6% 33 184 6% 30 836 5% 28 664 5%

I Indian 17 749 7% 24 270 7% 31 842 7% 36 931 7% 36 396 6% 36 757 7%

W White 164 770 69% 196 204 58% 223 048 46% 216 623 39% 180 937 32% 171 866 31%

T TOTAL 238 675 100% 340 675 100%4 482 746 100%56 562 374 100% 562 119 100% 546 613 100%

Source: Cooper & Subotzky (2001: 12)

The most salient aspect of the figures above is that for the years stated above, most white student

enrolments at HWTs surpassed that of any racial grouping prior to 1995; but black student

enrolments exceeded those of any other racial grouping from 1995. This reversal of trends in the

racial composition of the technikon sector follows the same phenomenon observed earlier in the

university sector. Notwithstanding other factors (such as students’ own choice of institution, and

affordability), this reversal in admission trends necessitates that a question be posed: Does the

145

post-1994 HE transformation process (vis-à-vis equity, redress, and access) ‘favour’ Africans at the

expense of other racial constituencies of South African society?

TABLE 3.11: Proportion of African student headcounts at the seven HWTs

Source: Cooper & Subotzky (2001:80)

The percentages shown in the respective cells indicate a comparative value to the rest of the country.

The above scenario reflects an increased participation rate by African technikon students in all the

technikons, from 2% in 1988 to 53% by 1998. These figures do not translate into gender delineation,

as well as levels and fields of study. The above table does, however, also corroborate the evidence in

Table 3.9 above; which indicates a 27% (24 338 students) decline in white technikon student

enrolments from 196 204 (58%) in 1988 to 171 866 (31%) in 1998. The inference in the increase

could be ascribed either to black students not meeting HE entry requirements, or their increased

awareness of possible employment opportunities arising from the practical application of knowledge.

With regard to the funding of the entire technikon sector, the following table illustrates the same

disproportionate racial funding mechanisms applicable in the public HE sector, as indicated in

TABLE 3.12: Disproportionate funding for HWTs and HBTs

Y Year HWTs HBTs TOTAL

1986 *R144m 68% *R66m 32% *R210m 100% 1988 R211m 77% R64m 23% R275m 100% 1990 R321m 78% R91m 22% R412m 100% 1992 R441m 78% R122m 22% R563m 100% 1994 R570m 76% R179m 24% R749m 100%

TOTAL*R1.687bT **R522mT *R2.209b

Source: Department of Education (in Bunting 2002:123)

Y Year Cape Free State Natal Port

Elizabeth

Pretoria Vaal Triangle Witwatersrand TOTAL

1988 5 618:1% 2 702:2% 4 631:3% 3 042:5% 8 127:1% 4 239:4% 6 508:3% 3 4867 2% 1993 8 971:4% 4 479:10% 6 345:19% 7 290:24% 12 438:16% 7 860:21% 10 994:25% 5 8377 17% 1996 9 854:13% 6 412:47% 9 489:51% 8 281:44% 16 149:43% 9 103:60% 12 459:50% 71 747 44% 1997 9 916:15% 6 768:57% 10 380:5% 8 538:50% 16 977:49% 11 510:71% 11 683:56% 75 772 51% 1998 10 130:1% 6 147:58% 10 052:5% 8 646:55% 1 442:49% 3 519:76% 11 683:56% 81 619 53%

146

*The non-percent figures represent Rands in billions. The percentage figures reflect a comparative

Rand value for the particular technikon sub-type. **The non-percent figures represent Rands in

millions. The percentage figures reflect a comparative Rand value for the particular technikon sub-

type.

On the whole, the amounts shown above indicate that for the years cited, discrepant government

appropriations per technikon sub-type were prevalent. From a total of R2, 209 billion allocated, R1,

687 billion was for the HWTs, and only R522 million for the HBTs – a staggering difference of R1,

165 billion! This discrepant funding mechanism was prevalent despite evidentiary proof of the fact

that access by black students at HWTs (as in the HE sector) was already increasing prior to 1994.

(b) The former historically black technikons (HBTs)

This anomalous ‘type’ is constituted by three ‘sub-types’; for Indians and for Coloureds each, for

Africans in the RSA, and for Africans in the TBVC ‘homelands’. For Indians, the ML Sultan

Technikon was established in 1969; and for Coloureds, the Peninsula Technikon was established in

1972 (Cooper & Subotzky, 2001: 8). For Africans living in ‘white South Africa’, two technikons

were established under the “general affairs” Department of Education and Training; namely,

Mangosuthu Technikon (1979) and Northern Transvaal (Gauteng) Technikon (1980). By 1990, the

two institutions collectively had an African student population of 4000, increasing to 8000 by 1993

(Bunting, 2002: 79). In the TBVC ‘states’, three technikons had been established; namely, the

Northwest Technikon (1976), the Eastern Cape Technikon (1987), and the Border Technikon (1988)

(Cooper & Subotzky, 2001: 9-10). The tables below indicate the headcount enrolments at the TBVC

and ‘white South Africa’ technikons. They are arranged chronologically in order of their inception.

TABLE 3.13: Number of African students across the TBVC ‘states’ between 1988 and 1998

Name of Technikon 1988 1993 1996 1997 1998 North West (1976) 30 997 2 167 2 167 3 312 Mangosuthu (1979) 50 812 32 831 2 190 3 768 Northern Gauteng (1980) 1 027 3 286 4 091 4 132 5 551 Eastern Cape (1987) 1 822 5 530 8 589 8 835 8 934 Border (1988) 450 1 113 2 580 3 080 3 910 TOTAL 3 379 11 378 20 658 20 404 25 475

Source: Cooper & Subotzky (2001: 74)

The above figures also show the growth in popularity of the technikons among African students,

irrespective of their geographic location; from 3 379 students in 1988 to 25 475 a decade later. A

trend of the same verisimilitude (of growth and popularity) is observed in the presence of African

students on the terra firma of HWTs, as borne testimony to by the tables below.

147

TABLE 3.14: African headcounts at historically white technikons: 1988

Te Technikon African Coloured Indian White TOTAL Cape 29: 1% 379: 7% 30: 1%5 180: 92% 5 618: 100% Free State 50: 2% 9: 0% 0: 0% 2 643: 98% 2 702: 100% Natal 152: 3% 63: 1% 165: 4% 4 251: 92% 4 631: 100% Port Elizabeth 155: 5% 184: 6% 55: 2% 2 648: 87% 3 042: 100% Pretoria 45: 1% 30: 0% 15: 0% 8 037: 99% 8 127: 100% Vaal Triangle 180: 4% 9: 0% 103: 2% 3 947: 93% 4 239: 100% Witwatersrand 207: 3% 56: 1% 65: 1% 6 180: 95% 6 508: 100% TOTAL 818: 2% 730: 2% 433: 1% 32 886: 94% 34 867: 100%

Source: Cooper & Subotzky (2001: 79)

Table 3.14 above and Table 3.15 below illustrate that access to technikon education by African

students was also popular at HWTs, and has since accelerated remarkably.

TABLE 3.15: African Headcounts at HWTs, in relation to other racial groups: 1998

T Technikon African Coloured Indian White TOTAL Cape 1 845:18% 2 727:27% 234:2% 5 321:53% 10 130:100% Free State 3 591:58% 275:4% 10:0% 2 271:37% 6 147:100% Natal 5 818:58% 259:3% 1 498:15% 2 477:25% 10 052:100% Port Elizabeth 4 736:55% 996:12% 111:1% 2 803:32% 8 646:100% Pretoria 1 046:49% 288:1% 224:1% 10 470:49 21 442:100% Vaal Triangle 10 278:76% 156:1% 113:1% 2 667:20% 13 519:100% Witwatersrand 6 573:56% 455:4% 645:6% 3 997:34% 11 683:100% TOTAL 43 301:53% 5 156:6% 2 835:3% 30 006:37% 81 619:100%

Source: Cooper & Subotzky (2001: 79)

Griesel (2003: 2) ascribes the increased rate of participation by black matriculants in the technikon

sector to barriers posed by “matriculation endorsement” as the basis for determining university and

technikon admissions:

“The Senior Certificate results illustrate the small proportion of school-leavers who qualify for university entry.

The 2002 results show that 68.9% of learners succeeded in obtaining the Senior Certificate and, of this grouping,

24.5 % passed with “matriculation endorsement”, the current minimum entry regulation for degree study. Even

though school pass rates have steadily improved in recent years … “matriculation endorsement” presents a barrier

to increased participation and broadened access … the achievement of the final schooling exit qualification

presents a major achievement for the majority of learners, especially from poorly resourced schools [italics my

own emphasis]”.

148

Emphasised here is that the (former) technikon sector, while it has become the main post-secondary

school ‘catchment’ pool for career and vocational education, the secondary school idiosyncrasies of

its majority students might conflate quantitative growth with qualitative curriculum differentiation;

the total pass rate does not translate into the minimum requirements for degree study. While this

observation might be outside the ambit of this study, it could at least be stated the current merger

processes (especially of two distinct intellectual cultures such as a technikon and a university) could

provide the emergence of a new epistemological environment. In the instance of technikons merging

to form a “university of technology”, the curriculum at such an institution could wholly be geared

towards the technological application of knowledge in the service of industry.

In the instance of a technikon and a university merging to become a completely new ‘brand’, the

epistemological terrain could already have been laid for a comprehensive university, in which

different articulation pathways are pursued for different levels and fields of knowledge. (The new

HEQF (of 5 October 2007) seems to militate against the diploma-to-degree articulation trajectory, in

that a diploma should be considered as a qualification in its own right. Such a state of affairs could

be seriously inhibitive to comprehensive institutions.) In the view of this study, the black technikon

sector – irrespective of whether or not in the former TBVC ‘states’ or erstwhile ‘white South Africa’

– acted as a ‘buffer’ interface between secondary (general) and higher education: between highly

specialised academic-professional knowledge and vocational-technological skills, with the latter

(due to poor secondary school backgrounds) providing a layer of technical labour, rather than a

managerial and technological layer of decision making within the workforce.

The fundamental legacy of particularly apartheid higher education therefore (i.e. the collective

effects of “structural” and “conjunctural” problems), is most conspicuous in the extent to which it

not only attempted to entrench Afrikaner nationalism; but also promote the hegemony of Eurocentric

epistemologies through intellectual, technological, and other means. In other words, the evolvement

of the racial South African HE system accentuated, rather than attenuated, political-racial and

ethnic-cultural differences within the broader SA society (Welsh & Savage, 1977: 135-137). The

creation of the Afrikaans-medium institutions and their English-medium counterparts has become a

mirror of loyalties and identities respectively associated with British imperialism on the one hand,

and Afrikaner nationalism on the other (p. 143). By fragmenting the African HE system on

ethnic/political terms, racial privilege was buttressed since the so-called homeland universities were

inferior by any standards, and financially dependent on pitiful homeland funding. In essence, the

entire HE system in South Africa reinforced an ideological function, rather than an

149

educational/intellectual mission. In this regard, HEIs’ collective capacity as nation-building agents

had been severely compromised (pp. 140-141).

3.2 THE HIGHER EDUCATION REGULATORY FRAMEWORK“Emerging higher education policy in South Africa is characterised by the tensions in the wider national and

international economic and political imperatives … Within the reconstruction of higher education in South Africa,

the shape and size … will ultimately be determined in relation to the concerns of the emerging economic and

social development path equity. Of particular importance will be the balance struck between redistributive and

global development and in turn between two main policy goals of equity/redress and development”. Therefore, a

regulated framework becomes intertwined with the transformation process as policy benchmarks. This

contradictory state of affairs prevailed because of the “settlement” approach towards the redefinition of the

political, economic, social, and cultural power relations in post-apartheid South Africa” (Cooper & Subotzky,

2001: 107).

De Clercq (1997: 145-146) explores and explicates the various theoretical tenets and policy

typologies. In a general context, policies would “… refer to statements of intent, decisions, courses

of action and/or resource allocations designed to achieve a particular goal or resolve a particular

problem” (p. 145). Policies can therefore, be regarded as a conflict resolution mechanism designed

“… to restore the cohesiveness, order and functionality of society” (p. 146) resting to a large extent

as government’s responsibility. Policies can also have the negative impact of accentuating power

dynamics in society – promoting the interests of one group at the expense of the other dominated

group(s). Although different types of policies exist (e.g. substantive, procedural, material, symbolic,

regulatory, and redistributive), shared attributes are to be found on more than one of these (De

Clercq, 1997: 147). For instance, as a trustee of the public good, government has substantive power

to determine what it should do to rectify past educational imbalances. To the extent that it utilizes

legal instruments to ascertain its intentions and course of action, the state exhibits the regulatory

and procedural aspects of policy initiation, formulation, implementation and evaluation. By

embarking on policy initiatives such as equity, redress, and access, the state (through the DoE), is

fulfilling both the redistributive and material function of policy. Both policy domains apply when

resource allocation is equitably shifted to groups such as those previously marginalized and excluded

from such resources. Symbolic policy is an extreme case, when there is more of rhetoric and

promises than actual fulfillment and implementation. Elaborating on the deleterious effects of the

“negotiated settlement” on the expectations of the previously disadvantaged majority of the South

African population, Cloete, Maasen and Muller (2005: 449-50) comment that “… symbolic policies

are not designed to be implemented as proposed: they nearly always have to disguise the nature of

the strategic trade-offs to win broad consensus”.

150

In the context of the South African HE policy formulation environment, the post-1994 era has been

generally characterised by competing interests,

“… a struggle for alignment [in which] … Higher education policy has been made within larger societal processes

… The government has been unable in the post-1994 period to move far in establishing a systematically

reconfigured and transformed system. The period can be characterised as having manifested policy hesitance and

inefficacy [italics my emphasis]” (Fataar, 2003:31).

Most interestingly, however, is the observation that “… much of the influences that contributed in

shaping the policy field have come from outside higher education [italics mine]” (p. 32). Section 3.1

above focused on the past HE landscape as being inimical to the development of democratic values

and socio-economic development of the country. The current and subsequent sections are intended to

focus on the post-1994 premises within which

“… universities [and technikons] in South Africa [are to] propose a well-founded framework for university [and

technikon] qualification which reflects not only aims and considerations that are internal to the sector, but also to

the broader educational, social and economic sector … the aims, content and functions of the education and

training sector must take into account the essential process of reconstruction and development that is taking place

in South Africa at present and make a constructive contribution in this respect ” (Universities and Technikons

Advisory Council (AUT), 1996: 6).

To the extent that the fragmented HE order of the past could not reform itself, urgent and protracted

interventionist strategies needed to be developed and implemented in the reconstruction of SA

society. To the extent that a methodical re-organization and interventionist strategies were being

implemented, it could be stated that the new Ministry of Education had derived a “systems

development” approach towards defining a new terrain for higher education development for South

Africa. This approach premises on the principle that public higher education in general, had to be

incorporated into the education system of the entire country rather than be left to function as a

peripheral component pursuing its private agendas while dependent on the public trough for

sustenance (Frackmann, 1997: 108). In systematizing HE into an effective and efficient (inter)

national educational and socio-economic sector, a regulated environment would also assist in

obviating the “structural” and “conjunctural” inefficiencies of the past. The regulatory environment,

however, has had to be navigated in a manner that does not unduly infringe on the principles of

academic freedom and institutional autonomy. To that extent, Olivier (2001: 2-4) differentiates

between “state control”, “state supervision” and “state interference” models of intervention. “State

control” would refer to a highly regulated and bureaucratic framework in which the state virtually

assumes all planning, financing, quality control, etc. of HE responsibilities. “State interference” on

151

the other hand, applies when “… the state… allows HE institutions to largely proceed at their own

discretion… However, when problems at those institutions present themselves … the state then takes

direct steps …” (pp. 3-4). The HE regulatory framework then, is a comprehensive mechanism

designed to locate the state as primary catalyst for change within the socio-economic

democratisation of society (Badat, 1999: 3).

3.2.1 The context for a regulated higher education environment

The general post-1994 policy environment in South Africa has been characterised by, and imbued

with “[c]hanging from an oligarchic racial state to an inclusive political democracy …” (Fataar,

2003: 32). It has to be noted that this study differentiates between “… a regulated higher education

environment” and “governance” of HEIs. The latter would refer to internal administrative and

operational systems that are deployed to sustain organizational missions; whereas the former strictly

relates to external policy parameters by which the state intends to actualize its mandate within the

education sector in general. In this specific context, a regulated “systems development” environment

– in the light of the enormity of the inherited problems – would be construed as embracing ‘hybrid’

intervention. That is to say, various elements of the afore-cited three control frameworks would

materialise, depending on the nature of the tensions between the macro (state) policy framework and

the particular micro (institutional) idiosyncrasies. The ‘hybrid’ intervention alluded to above then,

becomes a modus operandi for reconciling tensions between accountability and autonomy. The AUT

(1996: 7) succinctly avers to a tension-reducing environment:

“Such a scenario of the relationship of control between the Government and the universities implies that the

Government merely provides a broad qualification structure for universities [and technikons], containing for

example, broad parameters for types of qualifications, their admission requirements, their content and mutual

relationships … individual universities [and technikons] must then by virtue of their autonomy develop their own

qualification structure in accordance with their specific client group … an institution could avail itself of certain

options made possible by the broad qualification structure, for example, concentrating on the offering of certain

types of degrees and diplomas. On its part, the Government would grant recognition to programmes developed

within the parameters of the broad qualification structure by approving such programmes, and in so far as this is

possible, making a financial contribution per student in respect of such programmes”.

In other words, the fundamental principles of the regulatory environment should be guided by a

philosophy of education that espouses the complete reconstruction and development of HE for the

betterment of life for all South Africans (Nkondo, 1998: 24). In defining a (new?) philosophy of

education – ipso facto, the terrain for a regulated environment for the envisaged HE system – some

difficult hindrances would have to be overcome. These included, but are not limited to: aberrant

ideology that deviates from the liberatory national ideals, research that does not contribute to

152

transformation, and firm foundation for educational practice revitalization. Consequently, this task is

one of “… [defining] the responsibilities of South African universities and technikons. These would

include meeting South Africa’s need for qualified new generations, initiating socialization processes

in harmony with the quest for freedom and justice, and developing the cultural traditions of South

Africans” (Nkondo, 1998: 24).

In March 1995, some eleven months into the ‘new’ South Africa, the first Minister of Education

(Professor S.M.E. Bengu), declared that “[t]he Ministry [of Education] … has a responsibility to

advise the government on whether this vast [higher education] infrastructure of intellectual and

professional endeavour, substantially supported by public funds, is yielding a good return to the

nation, and how it [the Ministry] might be assisted to do better” (DoE, 1997b: 5).

The regulation of the HE environment therefore, instills a sense of harmony within the system’s

potential, and a modicum of relevance to the country’s socio-economic needs, while redefining its

weakness in accordance with internationally acceptable norms and standards. The regulatory

approach required that the post-1994 GNU (Government of National Unity) reconcile its globalistic

supporters, as well as the conflicting “race” and “class” interests, whose supporters emerged from

various RDP (Reconstruction and Development) constituencies (De Clercq, 1997: 147; Fataar, 2003:

32). “Settlement” – invariably called a “negotiated” approach, was the terrain in which HE policy

was to be reformed, rather than transformed. It is contended here that it is the very “settlement”

approach within which the pace and direction of HE reform is located.

The development and ultimate delivery of HE policy determines its responsiveness (or lack thereof)

towards the highly imperious local socio-economic conditions against those of the internationalist,

knowledge- and technology-driven market economy (Subotzky, 1997: 111-112). Market-driven

policies are propellants for the “market university” with its propensity towards the commodification

of knowledge (Altbach, 2000: 2; Subotzky, 1997: 112). To the effect that the GNU opted for the

“settlement” policy imperative, its point of departure for HE policy development became symbolic:

“It was necessary for the new government to show that there would be a break with the past… However, this did

not imply that the government’s approach to higher education would be a ‘big bang’ policy aimed at changing the

higher education system, as created by the apartheid regime, through a fundamental, revolutionary change

process [italics mine]” (Cloete, Maasen, & Muller, 2005: 419).

The symbolism lay in the government’s declaration of intent to reconstruct HE, though not

implementing immediate and radical change. Financial constraints were cited as being prohibitive to

153

such radical and immediate change in educational policy. A symbolic policy framework, therefore,

premises on perceptions of the incremental responsiveness of HE to socio-economic needs, vis-a-vis

globalisation’s dictates. Opposing the perception that globalisation is sine qua non for the equitable

development of the SA HE environment, Subotzky (1997: 111) argues that,

“… globalisation is not to be construed as an inevitable and incontestable process. It contains internal tensions

and contractions and therefore can be challenged. Engaging in international competitiveness does not imply the

uncritical neo-liberal hegemony. In seeking to mediate the tensions within macro-economic and higher education

policy, both global and redistribution development must be pursued [italics mine]”.

From symbolic policy, the path of policy development leads to policy proposal, in which HE policy

is subjected to a variety of (implied or negotiable) trade-offs in the interests of a ‘common’ national

goal. Because a network of different interests and groups exists, for an organization with multiple

alliance structures, partners and ideological strands such as the ANC, the “everything to everybody”

maxim limits its delivery capacity towards radical HE responsiveness to society’s disparate needs.

In a scenario where ‘non negotiable trade offs’ becomes a norm for strategic HE policy

development, problems arise, as an element of the interactive policy development and

implementation process has been broken. That element lies in the realm of a disproportionate

representation of interests. The implementation of policy on the basis of ‘non-negotiable’ principles

is likely to perpetuate the prevalence of a policy implementation vacuum – a state of inertia where

state-HE relations are characterised by official statements and documents that are ambiguous or

sectarian. The HE regulatory environment is therefore viewed as not only attempting to address past

inequalities, but also defining a HE policy context along which the reconstruction and development

of society and its competing interests is to be followed.

3.2.2 Determinants of higher education policy

The determinants (steering mechanisms) of HE policy referred to hereinafter, relate mainly to state-

initiated legislative instruments intended to foster an environment for equitable policy formulation

and implementation. These “determinants”/propellants highlight past problems and challenges – and

how they are to be overcome (within the incrementalist trajectory of reformist). Cloete and Bunting

(2000: 79) contend that, despite South African HE having “… one of the most comprehensive policy

frameworks in the world”; this will amount to very little if the policy levers/determinants have not

been properly articulated and steadfastly adhered to. The above authors cite examples of

international HE “policy drivers” as: quality, relevance, efficiency, and the size and shape of the HE

system itself.

154

3.2.2.1 The constitutional perspective

Both Nkondo (1996), and Badat (1999) agree that nationally-shared ideals (such as a common HE

should be based on primary sources (documents) that prominently reflect an unwavering

commitment to such ideals. The Constitution (Act 108 of 1996) castigates any form of act that

deviates from the democratic principles of the country, and sets the legal parameters of state-HE-

civil society interaction, and the repealing of such laws as may be inimical to the practice of

democracy. The intentions of the Constitution, as declared in its preamble, are, among others, to

“[h]eal the divisions of the past … [and to] [b]uild a united and democratic South Africa…” (p. 1).

Fataar (2003: 32) asserts that, based on liberal democratic values, the Constitution however, did not

guarantee socio-economic rights such as the right to free education. Olivier (2001: 2) declares that

the HE-state nexus in the RSA context is underpinned by the notion of “co-operative governance”.

Therefore, by not “… including institutional autonomy as a fundamental freedom …” (p. 2) in both

the interim 1993 Constitution and the final 1996 version, the state would exercise its supervisory

control of the HE sector by demanding certain levels of accountability. Furthermore,

“[t]he … Constitution [author’s bold] provides for higher education to be in the functional domain of the

national sphere of government… the Constitution does not contain any reference to the institutional autonomy of

HE institutions. In view of the fact of Higher Education institutions being public bodies, established in terms of

legislation and performing public functions, …[it] categorises them as organs of state” (p.9). As being publicly

funded, HEIs are therefore constitutionally bound by the principles of public administration (which include

equity, transparency, and accountability) in their policy determination frameworks (p. 9).

Chapter 2 of the Constitution (Bill of Rights) is the one section of the supreme law, which most

directly relates to HE. Section 9 (1) to (5) of the same chapter (the Equality Clause), advances the

access principle and defines a liberatory state-civil society relationship. The state may not apply

discrimination of any form to any person, “… unless it is established that discrimination is fair” (p.

8). HEIs therefore, especially the publicly funded ones, have the responsibility of ensuring that

equality prevails. Such a responsibility also applies to the state, in its fiduciary capacity, to ensure

that no student is denied access to higher education opportunity, as this already constitutes ‘unfair

discrimination’. Sections 15 (1); 16 (c); (d); 29 (1) and (2) (9) respectively address the issues of

“academic freedom and freedom of scientific research”, the right to basic and further education, as

well as the application of equity in redressing the educational injustices of the past apartheid era. The

relevant and applicable sections and clauses of the Constitution are in this regard (insofar as

providing the HE legal framework is concerned), a jurisprudentially negotiated ‘settlement’ for

effecting ‘incrementalist’ policy re-formulation for the role of higher education in the nascent

democratic dispensation.

155

3.2.2.2 The legislative framework

Following on some Constitutional provisions, the 1997 Higher Education Act (Act 101 of 1997),

through its preamble, could be regarded as the precursor to the establishment of a single

coordinated HE system (Olivier, 2001: 9); therefore, making legal provisions for HE policy

development. Insofar as it accommodates “transitional arrangements” such as repealing past

discriminatory laws, the Act becomes the legal embodiment of an incrementalist and reformist

approach to HE policy development. It becomes a move-away from symbolic policy

implementation, with all the attendant problems (e.g. fiscal) that are directed at pre-empting a

‘policy vacuum’. The Act addresses a range of issues, including the establishing of CHE as and

advisory body to the Minister of Education, quality assurance within the HE enterprise, funding, and

governance. It empowers the Minister to effect HE-related changes; a point in case being the NWG-

inspired reconfiguration of the HE landscape generally referred to as ‘mergers”. Among other

Ministerial prerogatives is the “… attaching [of] conditions to the granting of funding [and

recognition of programmes of study]” (Olivier, 2001: 10). The Act thus enables participatory

governance and forestalls a policy vacuum – whose state of inertia had been manifested by “… many

of the key implementation instruments such as inter-linked planning and funding system, redress

funding, a capacity-building plan and a research plan [which] had not been implemented by

2001” (Cloete & Maasen, 2002: 423). Amended in 1999 and 2000, the Act therefore, is perceived as

a legal propellant for broadening state intervention where necessary; e.g. regulating

(inter)institutional governance and HE-society co-operation.

3.2.2.3 The RDP (Reconstruction and Development Programme) perspective

Nkondo (1998: 24) argues that the RDP document – with all its symbolic policy ramifications – is

one of the significant primary documents to be consulted in the conceptualisation of a philosophy of

education for South Africa. Such a philosophy lays the seminal groundwork for the formulation of

commonly-shared national ideals and priorities, as well as for HE policy formulation in the context

of promises and delivery on the one hand, and the roles and functions of the new HE system on the

other (Subotzky, 1997: 105). Premised in this context, it means that local demands and global

techno-scientific concerns are to be reconciled in the RDP mode, “…which underscored the need for

a development strategy designed to meet the [educational] needs of the poor and rural

communities…” (Kallaway, 1998: 23). The RDP is largely seen as a symbolic means as it did not

thoroughly address a redistributive human resource mechanism for the alleviation of poverty – the

major obstacle to rectifying past inequalities. The RDP approach’s shortcomings thus confirm the

existence of tensions within a

156

“… dual, but integrated structure of South African society shaped by apartheid and largely determined along

racial lines: namely, the combination of a relatively advanced political, economic and social order linked to a

relatively under-developed one, upon which the former has depended on the latter in many critical ways for its

existence and reproduction” (Subotzky, 1997: 105).

The RDP is viewed here as a link between the articulation of higher education philosophy as far as

the functions of HE are concerned – whether a “… redistributive development, premised on RDP

goals and growth through redistribution …[or] … the global development path, premised on

redistribution through growth [of the market]” (Subotzky, 1997 105). Nkondo’s view of a relevant

philosophy of higher education is one that attempts to strike balance between the development

university and the market university; the former addressing basic and direly-needed socio-economic

opportunities through innovative curriculum approaches; whereas the latter addresses the neo-liberal

doctrines and concerns through which HE has entered the fray in the trans-national

‘commodification’ enterprise. In a policy context, the RDP perspective was “high on rhetoric and

low on implementation…” (King, 1998: 5).

3.2.2.4 The Department of Education (DoE) framework

The DoE, through its HE section, has initiated a participatory mode of policy formulation (Badat,

1999: 1). From the initial period of the first and second Ministers of Education, Professors S.M.E.

Bengu and K. Asmal, to the current Minister of Education, Naledi Pandor, HE policy has made

remarkable strides from symbolic policy rhetoric to actual implication framework. This is

remarkable, considering the time and resources required to undo an HE environment that has been

in existence for decades, into a catalyst for change in the country, recognised and respected

regionally, and in the African continent. Although numerous policy documents and initiatives have

been devised and initiated by the Department of Education, those cited here are viewed as being

directly relevant to the objectives of this study – the 1996 National Commission on Higher

Education (NCHE); the 1997 Education White Paper (EWP) 3; the 2001 National Plan for Higher

Education (NPHE); and the 2002 National Working Group (NWG) Report on the reconstitution of

the size and shape of a new HE landscape (mergers).

(a) The NCHE (National Commission on Higher Education) framework: 1996

Cloete and Muller (1998: 1) make an interesting, yet profound observation about both the

composition and terms of reference of the NCHE. Interesting, because it outlines the outcomes of

157

such bodies as having a direct bearing on “who” the members are. Profound, because it signifies the

pervasiveness of tensions between the “equity” and “development” propensities (p.1). Constituted by

presidential proclamation in December 1996, NCHE was

“… charged with advising the government of national unity on issues concerning the restructuring of higher

education by undertaking a situation analysis, formulating a vision for higher education and putting forward

policy proposals designed to ensure the development of a well-planned, integrated, high quality system of

education…address the inequalities and inefficiencies inherited from the apartheid era, as well as respond to the

social, cultural and economic demands of a globalising world” (Cloete & Muller, 1998: 1).

The NCHE was composed of old order and new order representatives; policy experts and those who

mainly came from very influential and powerful constituencies. Some of its (radical) members

supported the total overhauling (transformation) of the existing HE ‘system’, while others (the

progressives/reformists) saw the total restructuring as a threat to their stakeholder interests (p. 1).

These tensions signified orientation and ideological differences within NCHE itself. The

significance of citing the two dynamic variables above lies in the extent to which these act as

precursors to what are to be regarded as the tenets of a single integrated, and quality HE system.

Ultimately, a policy environment characterised by compromise, trade-offs, and incremental reform,

gives credence to the notion that NCHE was “a Commission of ‘national unity’” (Cloete & Muller,

1998: 1); rather than one of educational restructuring. In other words, it was dominated more by

political ideological imperatives, than by educationally ‘tried and tested’ principles. It is imperative

to highlight, especially the membership component here, as it indicates the introduction into the HE

argot, of “political correctness”; demonstrated by such parlance as “stakeholders”. Kallaway

(1998: 33) highlights the extent to which policy determination had been swayed by the politicisation

of “stakeholder” expediency:

“The dominant mode of consultation that is used to justify these processes [of policy formulation in the

generation of policy documents] is that of ‘stakeholder’ consultation, a mode of operation inherited from the

times of the struggle, where all parties to a discussion are seen to have a democratic right to equal say and

influence – even in areas where expertise of a high level is needed to make informed educational judgements

[italics my emphasis]” (Kallaway, 1998: 33).

The stakeholder orientation discourse of NCHE is accentuated by Fataar (2003:34) as a weakness

that eroded conceptual clarity on the ‘definition’ of “stakeholder”: “…the NCHE did not satisfy the

need for a conceptual approach to policy that could inform the key trade offs between competing

interests or difficult policy choices around systemic change and the link to development and HRD

[italics my emphasis]” (Fataar, 2003: 34).

158

In spite the structural weaknesses mentioned above, the NCHE could be credited as being the

quintessential product of the state’s initiation of substantive policy responsibilities. To its credit,

NCHE proposed the need for increased participation (access) of formally marginalized groups;

greater responsiveness to societal demands; and cooperative governance as an administrative norm

within HEIs. Weaknesses in the latter, especially among the HDIs/“crisis-ridden institutions” (Cloete

& Bunting, 2000: 57), had been noted to result in “management paralysis” (p. 53). NCHE thus

became a harbinger in the formulation of a systemic single and integrated HE system. Central to its

envisaged creation of such a system is the notion of programmatic differentiation at institutional

level (Fataar, 2003: 34). In addition, its initiatives have been credited with seeking to address South

African HE’s “triple challenge” (Badat, 1999: 1) of:

confronting “social-structural inequities” created by apartheid;

participating in reconstruction and development for HE’s responsiveness trajectory; and

positioning the country to respond accordingly in respect of the wider context of

globalisation and its attendant market competitiveness.

Badat (1999: 1) further argues that the magnitude of the challenges confronting higher education in

South Africa requires that these challenges be addressed simultaneously, not sequentially or

randomly. This view then, would concur with the earlier radical approach, which propagates for

equitable transformation as non-incrementalist and non-reformist. The NCHE attempted to reconcile

the tensions and contradictions inherent in the formulation of new HE policy, for instance through

“equity” and “redress”. According to Badat (p. 4), while NCHE sought to pre-empt policy inertia,

“… it [NCHE, however] did not disaggregate equity and confront the existence of, and indeed competing

claims of, different kinds of equity. Thus, it was inconclusive about the priority and balance between, for

example, individual social equity/redress and institutional equity/redress. This is a key issue that needs to be

faced: the priority and balance between institutional redress (a focus on historically disadvantaged institutions)

and individual social redress (focus on historically disadvantaged individuals) [italics mine]”.

Despite some misgivings, the NCHE is particularly significant insofar as it pioneered initiatives that

interactively and cumulatively contributed to broadening the scope and relevance of SA higher

education in the 21st century; attempting to reconcile the ‘structural’ and the ‘conjunctural’ tensions

on the one hand, and the local and global context on the other. Despite that, Nkondo (1998: 26ff)

reiterates flaws inherent in NCHE’s approach to resolving the inherently conflicting challenges.

Some of these are:

159

A lacunae of “… a coherent philosophy of education derived from the national aspiration for

liberation and justice” (p. 26). These concepts are ideologically-sensitive, and could therefore

perpetrate dominance and “…form a significant part of the grammar of neo-liberal

economies” (p. 27);

Failure to link the nuances of “power” and “knowledge”. For that reason, there is inadequate

analysis on its part of ‘defining’ transformation – its agents, capacity, and (ideological)

orientation. NCHE’s goals of a transformed HE landscape are therefore located in a rather

broad analytic mode (pp. 26-27);

The role of the HE curriculum as the ideological terrain – vis-à-vis the knowledge-power

nexus – is still to be located in a transformational framework that links skills/expertise to the

political economy. In other words, the stakeholder orientation of “knowledge” could “…be

co-opted to serve counter-liberatory forces” (Nkondo, 1998: 28).

(b) The Education White Paper 3/EWP 3: (Notice 1196 of July 1997)

The above document, invariably referred to as A programme for the Transformation of Higher

Education, lays the blueprint for the ultimate and incrementalist implementation stages of HE

transformation. The document itself (EWP3) “… is the culmination of a wide-ranging and extensive

process of investigation and consultation that was initiated by the establishment of …

NCHE” (Bengu, in DoE, 1997c: 2). The policy parameters of the EWP3 are viewed as adopting an

HRD (human resources development) perspective (King, 1998: 5). It has therefore, been viewed as

attempting to balance the competing forces of (social) development and equity (e.g. institutional and

individual redress) on the one hand, and those of (economic) growth (e.g. macro-economic global

perspectives which emphasize market domination) on the other (Fataar, 2003: 35). The author

further states that the (non) alignment of HE policy with either the developmental/equity or the

growth mode has been one of the most debatable issues in the HE policy terrain (p. 35). In the

Foreword to the EWP3, the first Minister of Education, S.M.E. Bengu, mentioned that its existence

is significant for two reasons (DoE, 1997c: 2). Firstly, it illustrates the DoE’s determination to adopt

a consultative approach in resolving issues that further enhance the public interest. Secondly, this is

a reflection of the consultative process as on-going, hence this 1997 document being,

“…the culmination of a wide-ranging and extensive process of investigation and consultation that was initiated

with the establishment of the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) in February 1995 … and the

subsequent release of the Green Paper on Higher Education in December 1996 and the Draft White Paper on

Higher Education in April 1997” (p. 2).

160

As a significant primary document, the department opted for a stronger interventionist approach,

implying that very little space was afforded for some trade-offs on critical issues. The Minister

himself declared (in the Foreword) that:“The transformation of the higher education system to reflect the changes that are taking place in our society and

to strengthen the values and practises of our new democracy is, as I have stated on many previous occasions, not

negotiable. The higher education system must be transformed to redress past inequalities, to serve a new social

order, to meet pressing national needs and to respond to new realities and opportunities” (DoE, 1997c: 2).

(c) The National Plan for Higher Education in South Africa/NPHE: (February 2001)

While there had been other influential and authoritative HE-oriented primary documents mediating

the transformation process prior to, and after 2001, the National Plan for Higher Education (2001) is

viewed here as implementation-focused. In its Foreword, the then Minister of Education, Kader

Asmal, signifies its importance by stating that it is not an end in itself, but a means for a “… lasting

contribution towards building the future generation …” (DoE, 2001: 2). Its broad-sweeping approach

is indicated by his further assertion that:

“The vision for the transformation of the higher education system was articulated in Education White Paper 3 …

of 1997. Central to this vision was the establishment of a single, national co-ordinated system, which would meet

the learning needs of our citizens and the reconstruction and development needs of our society and economy. This

National Plan outlines the framework and mechanism for implementing and realising the policy goals of the

White Paper. It is far-reaching and visionary in its attempt to deal with the transformation of the higher education

system as a whole. It is not aimed solely at addressing the crises in some parts of the system, although these must

be overcome. It will impact on every institution, as the institutional landscape of higher education is the product of

the geo-political imagination of apartheid planners …. The National Plan therefore provides the strategic

framework for re-engineering the higher education system for the 21st century” (p. 2).

The NPHE identifies the strengths (e.g. knowledge generation potential) and the weaknesses (e.g. a

form of programmatic differentiation that is incongruent with NQF) of the current system in order

to steer it towards a systemically unified enterprise of achieving the goals and the targets of the re-

engineered HE landscape (Fataar, 2003: 32). Most importantly, it views HE as providing the critical

base for the socio-economic re-vitalization of the country, the region and the African continent

(DoE, 2001: 9). To the latter extent, HEIs are required to submit to the DoE three-year “rolling

plans” indicating how their mission statements, current and proposed programme integration/mix

adhere to the Department’s specific goals in this regard. The high rate of graduate unemployment

has also accentuated the need for both institutional and individual redress. The NPHE (p. 36) further

argues that, if race and gender were significant employment variables, then white male graduates,

161

more than any social category in a racially segregated society, are more likely to be employed in the

wider labour market and the HE labour market in particular:

“The race and gender impact of changes in the labour market and the link to educational qualifications is clearly

indicated by the labour market studies [referring to employment/unemployment in relation to (un)skilled labour in

various occupations; professional, technical and technological, and managerial vis-à-vis the mining and

agricultural sectors] … The shift in employment distribution in favour of professional and managerial occupations

between 1970 and 1995 has had a different impact on the rate of employment of African and non-African labour

based on educational qualifications. In this period the employment of non-Africans increased by between 48% and

108%, while that of Africans remained constant. This difference is in part explained by the differing access of

Africans and non-Africans to education in general, and to higher education in particular” (p. 36).

The NPHE then, makes the crystal-clear point that access, redress and equity, translate into HE’s

capacity to deliver relevant socio-economic services (employment readiness, for instance) in a

transformed local context and in the technology-driven global scenario. Institutional access and

equity goals (which must enhance the country’s human resources developmental needs (Griesel,

2003: 5), should also reflect enrolment targets that are indiscriminate of race and gender (Fataar,

2003: 34). Griesel (2003: 5) and Herman (1998: 39-48) raise the difficult challenges associated with

“access” and “equity”. While some view these as an affront to meritocracy, standards, and academic

excellence; others view these as indispensable instruments for addressing HE transformation. Fataar

(2003: 34), furthermore, asserts that the NPHE made significant policy strides in the sphere of

research:

“Acknowledging the increasingly trans-disciplinary and trans-institutional nature of knowledge production and its

increasing value in the information economy and society, …Mode 2 thesis of research [was adopted] by

encouraging the development of a research spectrum of four interdependent categories; traditional, applications-

driven, strategic, and participation-based research” (p. 34).

This is ostensibly an orientation towards HE becoming locally relevant and responsive, while also

striving towards internationally competitive standards. The ubiquitous question warrants mentioning:

In its quest of maintaining “standards”, how does local HE deal with the contradictory local-global

polemic? The local imperative warrants that the reconstruction and development needs (e.g. of

previously marginalised social categories such as the poor and unskilled) should supersede those of

global interest (where e.g. “competition”, “excellence” are some of the benchmarks of “world best

practice”).

(d) The National Working Group Report: (February 2002)

162

CHE (2002), the NWG (2002) ‘shape and size’ restructuring of the HE system, and DoE (2000), are

some of the collectively confluent DoE-induced primary documents intended to advise the

Department (as an organ of state) in the formulation and conceptualisation of HE policy (Bunting &

Cloete, 2004: 59). Some initiatives, like statutorily-established bodies such as CHE and HEQC, are

intended to advise the Ministry of Education on the basis of the following goals and principles:

HE’s contribution to national, regional and continental socio-economic development;

advancing institutional redress, recognising access and equity for both staff and students;

promoting quality through programmatic rationalisation and sustainable retention rates;

openness/transparency and responsiveness of transformed academic cultures;

a volte-face from discipline-based, to programmatic forms of learning and delivery; and

diversity for institutional missions and programmes (NWG, 2002: 69).

Kraak (2000: 15-16) contends that many of the new proposals and recommendations raised by these

HE policy initiatives derive their conceptual frameworks from the Mode 2 mode of knowledge. The

significance of the homogeneity vis-avis hybrid knowledge structures lies in the ‘unification’ of the

purpose of HE’s existence, and the extent to which it produces and applies knowledge, thus allowing

for permeability of the cognitive/professional and the skills/vocational ‘borders’ being reconfigured

in terms of quality-focused institutional types. The NWG was established in April 2001 by the then

Minister of Education Asmal to advise his Ministry on, among others,

“… restructuring the institutional landscape of higher education, as outlined in the National Plan for Higher

Education… [and]…appropriate arrangements for consolidating the provision of higher education on a regional

basis through establishing new institutional and organizational forms, including reducing the number of higher

education institutions” (NWG, 2002: 1).

Its terms of reference could be viewed in the context of its ‘shape and size’ reconstitution of the HE

ecology. This would be in tandem with the nuances of promoting HE quality; integrating the HE

sector into the general education system of the country so as to harmonies its goals and objectives;

advance the course of a regulatory framework by the establishment of a single (at systemic level),

but differentiated (at institutional level through missions and programme offerings) HE sector that

justified its “fitness for purpose” (NWG, 2002: 21).

It is the view of this study that the Ministry of Education, while seeking to be advised, already had

some views of its own from which it would not shift. Section 3 of the NWG Report (i.e. Terms of

Reference) significantly points out that: “The National Working Group must: 1. Address how the

number of institutions can be reduced and the form that the restructured institutions should take, and

163

not on whether the number of institutions can or should be reduced [italics my emphasis]” (NWG,

2002: 69). That HEIs were to be reduced (from 36 to 21), rather than be added (considering that the

provinces of Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape are the only two in the country’s nine provinces

without a regionally-dedicated HE base), most significantly presents two possible scenarios. It is

either that some HEIs would completely cease to exist in their pre-merger form and structure, or the

present scenario (of mergers) would prevail. The complexities associated with implementation of the

latter option have continued to become the subject of acerbic and undercurrent debates even after the

mergers have already taken place (see Curri, 2002: 133; Harman & Meek, 2002: 4). The ensuing

discussion focuses more on the organizational and conceptual aspects of the mergers, than on

institutional typologies resulting from the reconfigured HE ecology in South Africa.

The merging of South African higher education institutions: product of the NWG

“Whatever we choose to call it, merger is one of the most significant events an institution may engage in. In fact,

for some institutions, merger may mean that they cease to exist, at least in their pre-merger form. In both the

educational and commercial worlds, there are few ‘true’ mergers. The more common practice is that one

institution takes over another institution. Moreover, few if any, mergers are painless. In the literature on mergers

it is generally agreed that it can take up to ten years for the wounds to heal and for the new institution forged

from previously autonomous identities to operate as a cohesive and well integrated whole. … those individuals

and groups who feel that they have lost advantage because of the merger may continue their opposition long after

agreements are formalised [italics mine]” (Harman & Meek, 2002: 4).

Curri (2002: 133-151) indicates that data analysis of a qualitative study undertaken in New South

Wales, Australia, in the late 1980s revealed that HEIs voluntarily engaged in mergers: only when

they feared that government would implement this mandatorily as part of its restructuring policy; old

and established institutions are difficult to restructure; personalities of those engaged in merger

negotiations tend to influence and shape the outcome of merger negotiations; senior administrators

are very poor in understanding organizational change; and loosely structured mergers (federations)

are more susceptible to become bureaucratic and less efficient than amalgamations. Significant

inferences need to be made from the above results, as some points of convergence may be drawn

into the SA scenario. Firstly, it would seem that HEIs are by their nature self-centred – very prone to

safeguarding their egos, reputations, and status/prestige. It is this proclivity that governs their

relations with the external environment, including collaborations with other HEIs. Institutional

cultures, shaped by prestige, status and privilege, then become factors by which the ‘herd instinct’ is

operationalised by institutional ‘academic tribes’ to fiercely ward off threats to their ‘academic

territory’. ‘Territoriality’ then becomes a huge factor militating against voluntary mergers.

Institutional culture and loyalty – writ large manifestations of ‘territoriality’ – shape the personal

164

idiosyncrasies of those involved in actual merger negotiations. The difficulty arises in determining

the criteria by which HEIs are labelled “old” and “established” – the “traditional elite

institutions” (Cloete & Bunting, 2000: 55). Are these the criteria in which privilege, status/prestige,

and reputation are ensconced? Opponents to mergers would find it difficult to view it otherwise. A

very significant point emanating from Curri’s observation (p. 133) indicates that for a relatively

successful merger to occur, an interaction/relationship of factors must occur. Such an interaction is

in the realm of: the nature of institutional leadership and its management of organizational change;

external forces for change; managing staff relations during, and after mergers; as well as

organizational attitude to change per se.

In the South African case, the NWG’s preliminary report of February 2002, sought to restore some

semblance of rationality in the maze of apartheid HEI types and sub-types. The restructuring into

new shapes and sizes “fitness for purpose” HE organizational forms was met with different

responses from different HE quarters. Historical and political considerations have been at the

forefront of these responses, which is a fait accompli, given that this is the very context within which

the HE system in the country had been designed to function. It is paradoxical that while the new

educational dispensation advocates for openness and consultative policymaking, the notions of

institutional and social redress appear to have been subsumed by the overzealousness to cast the new

HE landscape in an institutionally reconfigured terrain. The view persists that application of

‘institutional redress’ would mean the empowering of HDIs in areas such as funding, programmatic

diversification, staffing, etc. However, in deviating from racist tendencies of the past, the Ministry of

Education, in agreeing with the CHE’s recommendations, attenuates the differences between

‘institutional’ and ‘social’ redress – and uses this distinction to ‘mute’ the racially-motivated

categories of ‘historically white institutions’ vis-à-vis ‘historically black institutions’. These

differences, manifest in the very existence of 36 HEIs, are rather conflated (by the Department) into

institutional types i.r.o. mission and programme mix, instead of racial and geo-political

differentiation. The DoE’s view was thus one of using ‘type’/form; rather than ‘race’ as one of the

defining mechanisms for reducing the number of institutions. At any rate, there were more HWIs

than HBIs. The premise of institutional redress then, is not on elevating the down-trodden status of

the HBIs at the expense of the capacity-rich HWIs; rather, it is on utilising all 36 HEIs as South

African, “… to be embraced as such, [and] must be transformed where necessary and must be put to

work for, and on behalf of all South Africans” (DoE, 2001: 14). In spite of the institutional redress

mechanisms, most, if not all HBIs had been engulfed by a state of uncertainty (Cloete & Bunting,

2000: 56-57; Cloete & Maasen, 2002: 453).

165

Notwithstanding this fact, this study is of the view that the HBIs have been ‘condemned’ to the

category of being ‘beyond salvage’ as the reconfiguration process has drifted more towards an

absorption/take-over, than towards an amalgamation/integration, or even a federation. This view,

however, does not nullify the lack of efficacy on some of the HBIs; a concern that the Ministry of

Education vehemently expresses:

“The Ministry therefore agrees with the Council on Higher Education that: “The categories of ‘historically

advantaged’ and ‘historically disadvantaged’ are becoming less useful for social policy purposes (and that) the 36

public higher education institutions inherited from the past are all South African institutions. They must be

embraced as such, must be transformed where necessary and must be put to work for and on behalf of all South

Africans”…The continued instability and permanent state of crises that characterises a small number of the

historically black institutions cannot be countenanced any longer. Although the origins and genesis of the

historically black institutions as products of apartheid cannot be ignored, the instability and crises cannot be

reduced only to the legacy of apartheid. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that it does not affect all the

historically black institutions and that some of the affected institutions have been able to turn around and achieve

stability” (DoE, 2001: 14).

While the NWG’s conceptual bona fides were above board, (without casting aspersions on its

integrity), the following statement by Minister Asmal in the Foreword to the NWG Report, seems to

suggest that the NWG was functioning in a context whose outcome was a foregone and pre-

determined matter:

“I am particularly impressed by the fact that while sensitive to the historical and political complexities involved,

the report has not allowed these complexities to stand in the way of advancing a bold framework for the

restructuring of the higher education systems … I am in no doubt, however, that those opposed to the restructuring

will examine the report with a fine toothcomb to support their objections. I am confident that they will not succeed

… there may be differences in terms of the detail, the principles that underpin the framework of the

recommendations cannot be challenged [italics my own emphasis]” (NWG, 2002: 1).

It is this conceptual and analytic gerrymandering (of “will nots” and “cannots”) that impugns on the

NWG’s political mandate. By the very fact that the NWG was responsible to its political principal, it

implies that a political mandate was covertly ‘written’ into its terms of reference. Whether or not the

reconfiguration of the HE landscape subscribes to the intended outcomes, of noteworthy

significance, is the fact that the weaker HBI system was absorbed by the stronger HWI system. (The

University of Venda for Science and Technology is the only PDI left ‘unscathed’ by the merger

process). Two ‘schools’ of thought prevail on the issue of merging (absorption vis-avis

amalgamation, vis-à-vis federation). “Absorption” here would imply total loss of autonomy of the

weaker partner (such as in a mixed/vertical) merger; “amalgamation”/ “integration” would imply

166

equal or ‘dualistic’ autonomy of merging partners irrespective of pre-merger institutional cultures,

dominance is not amplified; whereas “federation” would imply a highly bureaucratic framework

regulating institutional entities irrespective of their proximity to each other/one another, and of

‘verticalness’ or ‘horizontalness’.

3.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INTERGATED AND DIFFERENTIATED NATIONAL

HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM“The Ministry of Education favours an integrated and co-ordinated system of higher education, but not a uniform

system. An important task in planning and managing a single national (sic) co-ordinated system is to ensure

diversity in its organizational form and in the institutional landscape, and offset pressures for

homogenisation” (EWP3, 1997: 3).

CHE (2000b: 25) employs the terms “differentiation” and “diversity” as “… both distinct and

connected”, in respect of “… orient[ing] institutions to meet economic and social goals by focusing

on programmes at particular levels of the qualification structure and on particular kinds of research

and community service … ‘Diversity’ is used with reference to the specific [and varied] missions of

individual institutions” (p. 25). As understood in this study, “differentiation” would then imply a

system-wide framework within which HEIs have to collate their missions to broad socio-economic

imperatives. In the connective context, the two terms are complementary “… in that mandates

provide the overall national framework within which institutions pursue specific institutional

missions” (p. 25). Additionally, both “diversity” and “differentiation” are necessary transformative

goals that nullify homogeneity and its concomitant duplication and wastefulness. Secondly, these

terms advance the course of HE quality. In reversing the fragmented and socio-economically

unproductive trend inherent in the previously differentiated HE sector, a single co-ordinated national

HE system establishes purposefulness and efficiency in higher education provision. As an aspect of

the democratisation of South African society, it also enhances the principles of access, equity and

redress within a uniformly regulated, but diversified HE environment. Kraak (2000: 20) and CHE

(2002: 14) argue that the conceptual basis of the former apartheid dispensation did not warrant to be

termed a “system” for three reasons. Firstly, the HE output did not contribute to the modernisation of

the economy, whose employment patterns illustrated racial hegemony and class stratification,

rather than the upliftment of training and education programmes necessary for the production and

manufacturing of industrially-competitive products. Secondly, the teaching, learning and research

methods were premised on ‘fading’ academic cultures that emphasised discipline-based knowledge,

rather than problem-solving teamwork. Thirdly, the inherent organizational duplication (of functions

and roles) and scant regard for accountability, resulted in an incoherent regulatory framework with

race acting as the primary determinant for successful HE participation.

167

3.3.1 Implementation of a single, but differentiated system of national higher education

The envisaged model of a single, co-coordinated HE system does not imply a uniform responsive

capacity for teaching, research, and service to the community. The regulated environment,

functioning in a reconfigured HE context, determines institution types (i.r.o. size, shape, and

programme offerings), and sets the framework for such types to develop their own missions in

tandem with a nationally targeted qualifications framework designed to render efficient effective HE

service delivery. The co-coordinated system enables goal-directed delivery of services in that

institutions have to have three-year strategic plans outlining how they intended to increase their

socio-economic capacity (Fataar, 2003: 34). While uniformity and co-ordination/integration are at

macro/systemic level, diversity is at micro/institution level. The current merger processes, for

purposes of curriculum/programmatic diversity, illuminate an unprecedented challenge for HE in

general. The size and shape has in many instances, given rise to new institutional forms that pose

profound challenge to the intellectual and academic cultures of these institutions. It would seem that

the reduction in size has led to an expansion in the shape on the new institutional types. Traditional

elite, hybrid and same-type institutional forms have been derived from the creation of a single, but

co-coordinated higher education system:

“Traditional/elite” HEIs: “These institutions are maintaining their pre-1994 character of

catering primarily, mainly within their main campus, to full-time, straight-from-school [just-

in-time] (18-22 year old) students … maintain[ing] a strong emphasis on ‘excellence’,

postgraduate teaching and research” (Cloete & Bunting, 2000: 56-57). Any external merging

partner has not fundamentally shaken their pre-1994 character. Examples here would include

the University of Cape Town and the University of the Witwatersrand.

Same-type institutional forms: These could be in the form of a (contact) university and a

(contact) university, or a former technikon and another in partnership to form a new

institutional type. The former category is illustrated by, for in stance, the new University of

Kwa Zulu-Natal being the product of the former University of Durban-Westville, and the

former Natal University. In such a scenario (which would be construed as a comprehensive

university in the American sense, considering the range of programmes, including Medicine);

missions of the new institution become the unifying curriculum base for the diverse range of

fields and levels of study being offered. In this type of curriculum ‘divergence’, an explicit

articulation for curriculum pathways, entry and exit levels has to be adopted and

unambiguously defined in mission statements. Another example in this mould is the new

University of Limpopo, which consists of the erstwhile Medunsa and Turfloop University.

168

Another example (with a non-medical curriculum) is the new University of the Northwest,

comprising of the former Potchefstroom University and Northwest University (with its

provenance in the former Bophutatswana ‘homeland’).

A former technikon and another technikon; e.g. the former Technikon Natal, the former

Mangosuthu Technikon, and the former ML Sultan Technikon becoming the new Durban

Institute of Technology. In some cases of this nature, “university of technology” has been

preferred to “institute of technology”. This is the case with the new Tshwane University of

Technology (product of the former Pretoria Technikon, the former Technikon Northwest, and

the former Technikon Northern Gauteng). The curriculum articulation path here would be

less problematic as all the various components of the new structure are cognate from a single

disciplinary/academic culture, namely, the application of (technological) knowledge.

Hybrid or “emerging-stable” (p. 56) HEIs from dissimilar academic and intellectual

cultures, have invariably been termed as “comprehensive” (in stark contrast to the American

nomenclature, where this would signify an institution offering programmes across a range of

field and levels). The mix of universities and former technikons straddles the racial barriers

formerly recognised in their HBU/BWI and HBT/HWT predecessors (Cloete & Bunting,

2000: 56).

The NWG ‘size and shape’ Report’s Executive Summary declares:

“In some cases where it is considered appropriate, … the NWG recommends as part of a single co-ordinated

[national HE] system, the merger of a university and a technikon to establish a comprehensive institution …but

cautions that in these forms of combinations great care should be taken to prevent academic drift [bold italics

mine]” (NWG, 2002: 1).

In the mould of a former technikon and a university combining into a comprehensive institution,

examples would include: the former Technikon Witwatersrand, the former Vista/RAU (East Rand

and Soweto campuses), and the former RAU, becoming the new University of Johannesburg; the

new Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (NMMU) being the product of the former Port

Elizabeth University, Vista (PE campus), PE Technikon and Border Technikon. For distance

education/open learning, an example would be the amalgamation of UNISA and a dedicated former

technikon offering distance tuition (e.g. TSA), becoming the (new?) University of South Africa.

It is inevitable that these new organizational forms would require conformity to the transformation

agenda as stipulated in various DoE primary documents (some of which are outlined in Section 3.2

above); with alternative institutional cultures and curriculum re-orientation becoming the major

determinants of such ‘conformity’ (Cloete & Bunting, 2000: 58). As for institutional cultures, “It is

169

not possible to determine conclusively if this transformation condition has been satisfied between

1997 and 1999 because no data on institutional culture are gathered in a systematic way in South

Africa either at an institutional or at a national level”(Cloete & Bunting, 2000: 58). The case for a

single, co-coordinated national HE system is accentuated by some institutions’ lack of a planning

capacity, resulting in institutional drift, a tendency to ‘flow with the current’. A co-coordinated and

diverse HE system also reduces the competition for status and prestige by institutions (e.g.

universities vis-à-vis technikons; research universities vis-à-vis those not capacitated in research); a

common legal, funding and quality assurance framework pre-empts a drift towards

academic/programmatic uniformity. Additionally, a co-coordinated system reduces the ‘threat’

posed to distance learning; such as the traditionally dedicated distance teaching institutions (e.g.

UNISA and TSA) being ‘threatened’ by the preponderance of private HE providers with a market-

driven motive – the “entrepreneurial-expanding institutions [which] are making full use of the new

market environment … often boasting … access to a range of resources [and] are able to take

advantage of the demand for higher education by non-traditional students through distance

education, telematics and flexible programme offerings” (Cloete & Bunting, 2000: 55). Griesel

(2003: 4) avers that access is necessarily related to the implementation of transformation:

“The quest for increased access, while a world-wide phenomenon is particularly marked in the South African

context with its intense focus on the transformation of the systems inherited from our divided past. At one level

the need to build on the foundation that schooling has created is uncontroversial; at another level, the issue of who

gains access to higher education – and to which levels and fields of study – remains highly contentious given that

such data serve as a barometer of institutional and system change [bold italics mine]”.

As part of its regulatory mandate and efficiency mechanisms, the DoE requires that HEIs submit

three-year “rolling plans” which indicate the incorporation of the principles of equity, redress, and

access as benchmarks for a ‘non-negotiable’ adoption of curriculum transformation plans. These

plans are basically the embodiment of mission statements, by which quality-assured programmatic

diversity is to be applied. These are some of the steering-mechanisms for the achievement of HE

transformation within the broader context of social justice and democracy. Furthermore, the explicit

mission statements moulded according to the intended goals of a co-coordinated and diversified

national HE system should culminate in an environment where taxonomies of “historically

advantaged” and “historically disadvantaged” will become less relevant (DoE, 1997c: 3). From this

study’s perspective, HE curriculum transformation (determined by, inter alia, teaching, content, and

assessment innovativeness, graduate competitiveness), insofar as programmatic differentiation/

diversity is concerned in a single and integrated framework, is the intended outcome of establishing

new institutional forms/types and identities. Fataar (2003: 34) attests: “A strong recommendation

170

made by the NCHE [1996:85] and which led to variable response by institutions was in the area of

programmes and programmatic provision. It viewed programmes as key instruments in the

creation of a unified system”. The centrality of programmatic diversity, then, reduces an

unwarranted proliferation of sub-standard courses and qualifications both in the public and private

domains of HE provision.

3.3.2. The complexities of differentiation and their convergence in higher education“The idea and practice of differentiation at the level of schooling – whether in the form of knowledge

streams, subject levels and combinations, assessment or exit-level examinations – are complex, especially in

our current South African context” (Griesel, 2003: 6).

The following discussion ensues from the post-merger context, in respect of curriculum

transformation becoming a very integral aspect of the reconstitution of the HE landscape. It is

posited here that the newly reconstituted HE landscape is complex, and has a convergent link with

the nature of academic content and organizational structure of the emergent comprehensive HE

institutional forms. A complexity of issues arises from the very nature of “comprehensivity”; about

which there appears to be no conceptual clarity or unanimity (Auf der Heyde, 2004: 1). In a broader,

international context, “comprehensivity” is ‘defined’ mainly by institutional functionality, rather

than by structure (Gibbon, 2004:6-7). Auf der Heyde’s view seems to concur with Gibbon’s – that

local HE dynamics give shape and form to the notion of comprehensivity. In the South African case,

the provenance of the term is ‘traced’ back to the NCHE’s (19960) advocacy for “diversity”, and

later by the NWG (Gibbon, 2004: 2-4). However, the DoE could not provide clear distinction

between this term, “university” and “technikon” (Auf der Heyde, 2004: 1). The merging of HEIs has

necessitated that no hasty ‘definition’ be adopted locally (p. 2). A “bottom-up”, programme-based

approach should rather be adopted, and academic content (straddling both theoretic and application,

career-focused trajectories) would provide the pedagogic parameters for comprehensivity. He argues

further that the current merger-based notion of comprehensivity is mainly strategic (for “branding”

and marketing purposes) and organizational/operational (for indicating the size of merging

‘partners’). The conceptual terrain therefore poses a significant sphere of complexity for the

convergence of comprehensivity into the differentiation of local HEIs in terms of what they teach;

where it is taught; and how it is taught.

3.3.2.1 Organizational/Institutional differentiation

Organizational differentiation has been manifested mainly in the creation of new and ‘modified’

institutions, such as exemplified by traditional/elite, same-type, and hybrid types of HEIs.

Consequently, six hybrid/comprehensive HEIs have been established. The public sector education

171

environment presently is organised in FE (college) and the traditional/elite and mix-

mode/comprehensive HE sectors; with urban-rural, single- or multi-campus, and rich-poor

dynamics. The DoE (1997c: 13), in de-emphasising uniformity/homogenisation, recognises

universities and technikons (including the distance education sector variants), and colleges as “…

three institutional types [which] will not continue to be regarded as discrete sectors with mutually

exclusive missions and programmes”. To that extent, institutional plans will determine ‘type’ of

institution. To the extent that the merger process incorporates both same-type and ‘hybrid’

institutional forms, organizational homogeneity/uniformity is diminished; ergo, mission diversity is

established – thus facilitating “… an easing of [epistemological?] boundaries” (p. 3) between

institutions and enhancing institutional collaboration. It is in this context that organizational

differentiation is construed as impacting directly on the size of the new HE landscape – a reduction

in numbers (36 to 21), and yet an increase in service delivery requirements for society and the

economy. Despite the reduction in size, a systemically differentiated HE should organizationally and

programmatically conform to the following fundamental pinnacles (Gibbon, 2004: 4-5):

Responsiveness: educational programmes and research should focus on local, national, and

regional needs and concerns of students and communities;

Diversity: a range of programmes (with a critical- and cross-fields outcome) should cater for

the vocational, career-focus, professional and general formative needs of students;

Accessibility: learning should be facilitated through various entry and exit levels for students

from different learning backgrounds;

Flexibility: as with responsiveness, flexible learning programmes should be availed for the

general human resources development of society;

Student mobility: in tandem with all of the above, academic programmes should enhance

vertical and horizontal advancement trajectories. The DoE (1997c: 15-16) as well as the CHE

(2002: 31ff), call for a qualifications structure that diminishes “… the boundaries between

academic, vocational, and technological post-matric education” (DoE, 1997c:15). The

previous separate qualifications structures created “impermeability” and “… hindered

articulation and transfer between institutions and programmes, both horizontally and

vertically” (DoE, 1997c:15).

3.3.2.2 Programmatic/Streams differentiation

The thrust of programmatic/streams differentiation is to prevent “academic drift” (Gibbon, 2004: 7)

– the tendency to focus on a homogenous programme articulation trajectory. Gibbon argues further

that it is through this form of diversity that programme qualification mix (PQM) or areas of

172

programme correspondence (APC) could be cogently achieved in respect of the

academic/disciplinaristic vis-à-vis competence/application framework. Naude (2003: 74-75) views

programmatic differentiation as a measure of curriculum transformation in the broader sense;

according to which diversity is viewed as a paradigm shift in HE-society relations towards more

responsiveness. Furthermore, the parlance of “learning programmes” contained in DoE primary

documents indicates an academic and institutional restructuring towards trans-/multi-/inter-

disciplinarity (p. 74). This is the sphere in which fields of study are geared towards incorporating

both an academic component (for professional expertise) as well as a vocational orientation (for

skilling purposes). Mission statements in particular (as opposed to broad institutional plans), serve as

the articulation point of how HEIs will ‘divert’ from ‘academic drift’ (CHE, 2000: 6; DoE, 1997c:

8). A diversified curriculum is construed here as giving shape to the new institutional ‘types’.

With the current boundaries between PDIs and PAIs (in an organizational and operational, rather

than in a racial context) diminishing (or expected to diminish), institutional missions have become

the terrain in which the voca-demic (vocational and academic) shape of the curriculum is given

substance. The NQF has become the ‘overseer’ of qualifications and quality assurance mechanisms,

ensuring that (horizontal and vertical) mobility and progression are enhanced at entry and exit points

through flexible qualification requirements (DoE, 1997c: 3-4, 15). Examples of facilitating mobility

and flexibility include the inclusion of non-formal (“just-for-you” and “just-in-time”) areas of

knowledge into the mainstream curriculum; such as RPL and RAPL, thus de-emphazing the

centrality of the discipline as both organizational and epistemological forms of higher education

knowledge (CHE, 2002: 31). This study contends however, that programmatic differentiation has

been left rather nebulous and to the discretion of an institution. The notion of “differentiation”

conjures two levels of interpretations; one at subject/discipline level, and another at programme

level, where “programme” denotes a group of subjects/courses constructed for a particular field of

study. At subject level, if skills training and critical thinking, (academic) are to be merged in the

same field of knowledge, how is the proportion of “training” and “education” to be determined in

that selfsame subject? At programmes level, which courses are to be skills-/competence-compliant,

and which ones academic? How is the distinction to be determined, and by whom – students,

lecturers, institutions, or DoE?

In further raising the stakes for the complexities associated with “differentiation”, Griesel (2003: 6)

asks whether the academic, the vocational, and the occupational – as “… three distinct learning

pathways…” – could be configured at school level, into a single exit qualification; such as the

proposed Further Education and Training Certificate. Griesel’s argument (pp. 6-9) further provides

173

some clarity in unraveling the “differentiation” issue, as it addresses both subject- and programme-

based forms of differentiation. He proposes that, in view of the centrality of access as a ‘non-

negotiable’ policy issue, the complexity/difficulty levels of a subject be spread to cater for students

from all intellectual categories and backgrounds. Students should then have the choice of registering

a particular subject at a level of complexity they feel comfortable with. Secondly,

frameworks/principles should be developed for subject content. These should be statements guiding

the development and inclusion of disciplinary knowledge into the curriculum. He argues further that

the preoccupation with outcomes will erode the epistemological foundations of knowledge

construction. Additionally, exposing students to a range of knowledge complexities is supported by

recent developments in cognitive theory; according to which these levels of complexity are

categorised into:

“Knowledge/content, i.e. the what [author’s emphasis] of subjects;

Skills, i.e. the how of subjects; and

Applied competence, i.e. speed or efficiency in combining knowledge and skills “…

effectively to engage with familiar and unfamiliar problem-solving tasks” (Griesel,

2003:39) (see also CHE, 2000: 6).

Morrow (2003: 4-5) cautions that there are sensitivities around unplanned curriculum

transformation. Firstly, there are those who still cherish the epistemic/disciplinary values of

knowledge, and regard this as the ‘official’ version of knowledge around which explicit principles of

content, outcomes, skills and attitudes are organised (see also Muller & Cloete, 2004: 37-38; Naude,

2003: 70). Critics of this ideological version cite that – since curriculum theory is not mutually

exclusive from a theory of ideology – the “hidden curriculum” could overtly be transmitted as ‘real’

knowledge. In addition, “… constructed knowledge can be deconstructed and reconstructed to serve

different sets of interests” (Morrow, 2003: 8). Secondly, the notion of a radical curriculum

transformation is strongly repudiated: “… epistemic values cannot be re-invented at will, or

modified without good reason that is accepted by the relevant academic community” (p. 10). The

implication here is that knowledge-for-knowledge’s-sake is not necessarily problematic; it is its use

that could be problematic. To that extent, diversifying the curriculum in the interests of HRD (a

utilitarianistic/instrumentalistic perspective), erodes the fundamental (epistemic?) tenets which serve

as the basis for further knowledge generation.

174

On the whole, it appears the notion of “diversity’ has been largely confined to programmatic

differentiation, rather than to the whole being of the ‘university community’. Cloete and Bunting

(2000: 60) corroborate this view further (which, for effect and clarity, is quoted extensively):

“Are diversity and tolerance being brought into the curriculum? It seems that where institutions are undertaking

curriculum reforms, the focus is on making the curriculum more relevant to the labour market, rather than

bringing gender, race and broader socio-political awareness into the curriculum. A number of institutions have

introduced modules on gender or Africa, but these are ‘add-on’ and rather marginal to the main curriculum. The

notion that bringing diversity into the curriculum can strengthen scholarship, and that it is not to improve

political correctness, is not widespread. The hope for a curriculum for common citizenship and campuses as sites

for democratic practices, and that these could play a central role for higher education in South Africa’s fledgling

democratic project, have not yet been realised. Even though no firm conclusions can be drawn from the data

available, the overview does show that while some important changes have occurred, the South African higher

education system may have some way to go before it satisfies the transformation goals regarding the culture of

institutions [italics mine]”.

3.3.2.3 A newly proposed higher education quality assurance framework

The DoE (1997c) advocated for a HE quality assurance mechanism that would be a clear departure

from the pre-merger scenario, which was characterised by “[s]eparate and parallel qualification

structures for universities, technikons and colleges [which] have hindered articulation and transfer

between institutions and programmes, both horizontally and vertically” (p. 15). These structures

were effectively impermeable for student mobility and progression through various certificate,

diploma and degree qualifications. The NQF was thus established with the purpose of registering,

recognising, and accrediting courses for various qualification routes for any form of learning the

learner chose to pursue, without constraints of rigidity of whole course qualifications. The HEQC

(Higher Education Qualifications Committee), a branch of CHE, complemented the task of quality

assurance by accrediting and assessing programmes and their qualification structures. The newly-

reconfigured HE landscape requires that the pre-merger quality assurance obstacles that militated

against student mobility and progression between programmes, qualifications and institutions, be

thwarted (Gibbon, 2004: 34). In creating an enabling environment within which student mobility

and progression prevails, conditions for the articulation of such mobility and progression have to be

established, taking cognisance of:

“An accurate assessment of the achieved levels of competency in the programme from which the student is

transferring ... An accurate comparison of curricular contents and outcomes between the two programmes ... On

the basis of the above, a calculation of which courses can be credited for transfer to the new programme, and at

what level; ... an assessment of the level at which the student will enter the new programme ... [and] the

175

identification of any additional ‘catch-up’ courses that the student may have to take to fill significant gaps before

progression is possible” (Gibbon, 2004: 34).

While the DoE’s August 2006 HE qualifications framework document “… has been designed to

meet demanding challenges facing the higher education system in the 21st century ... [and to] guide

higher education institutions in the development of programmes and qualifications that provide

graduates with intellectual capabilities and skills ...” (p. 2); it is construed here – to the extent that

the document draws its thrust from previous policy documents (such as CHE, 2002 and DoE, 1997c)

– that the new HE landscape and its thrust on quality and flexibility is still in a state of evolvement,

in much the same way as “comprehensivity” being in status nascendi. The pervasive search for

“quality” in higher education, accentuated by the quest to integrate academic and career-focused

knowledge/programmes or qualifications, suggests that HE quality assurance is a continuous DoE

mission; hence insistence on “… a single qualifications framework applicable to all higher education

institutions” (DoE, 2006: 2). To a very significant extent, such an orientation pre-empts duplication

and fragmentation, which are some of the key elements for which apartheid education planning had

come to be known. Admission to higher education is viewed in the document as one of the pivotal

tenets of ensuring that quality constitutes a significant segment of programme offerings,

qualification structures, progression and mobility within any field of learning chosen by the student.

The following table is intended to graphically represent the August 2006 HEQF structure of

minimum entry and exit level requirements between qualifications.

TABLE 3.16: Higher education qualifications descriptors: 2006

Qualification Type NQF Exit Level Minimum CreditsHigher Certificate 5 120Advanced Certificate 6 120Diploma 6 360Advanced Diploma 7 120Bachelor’s Degree 7 360Bachelor’s Honours 8 120Postgraduate Diploma 8 120Master’s Degree 9 180Doctoral Degree 10 360Source: Department of Education (2006)

The notion of seamlessness is facilitated, for instance, by articulating progression and mobility

trajectories between FE and HE, as well as between HE itself (p. 13). According to the HEQF (of

August, 2006) from 01/01/2009, an NQF level 4 qualification (National Senior Certificate) becomes

the minimum HE entry requirement; though HEIs, in terms of the HE Act (1997), become the

176

ultimate arbiters of their own entry requirements (p. 14ff). The HEQC, in conjunction with SAQA,

has to determine and register “legitimate, credible [and] common” standards pertaining to

qualifications and programmes of learning. Among others, these standards would determine the

amount (volume) of learning and the accumulation of credits necessary for a qualification. In its

entirety, the fundamental thrust of a common HE qualification (and quality assurance!) framework is

‘nested’ within the following (summarized) parameters (DoE, 2006: 9):

Flexibility: allow for various HE ‘types’ and their curriculum missions to be pursued

creatively through new qualification types or specializations;

Graduate preparation: qualifications should enable HE ‘products’ to be sufficiently

equipped to participate in the knowledge economy and socio-economic upliftment of society;

and

Systemic efficiency: user-friendliness is enhanced by simple and clear articulation (e.g. of

qualification descriptors), which will assist students to develop their lifelong learning

potential.

3.3.2.4 Challenges posed by instability within the HEQF environment

A framework for HE qualifications seems to be in a continuous state of formation (in status

nascendi). The August 2006 HEQF policy document has subsequently been followed by yet another

HEQF policy document (of October 2007). The motivation for briefly revisiting the qualifications

and articulation issue is premised on the extent to which the implications – as is the case with the

‘aborted’ massification/broadening of access issue now being reverted to the ‘containment’ of

student numbers – seem to militate against student mobility and progression at both universities of

technology and the envisaged comprehensive universities. Pivotal to this perceived threat is the

endorsement of the diploma articulation (in the 2007 HEQF stipulations) as a ‘free-standing’

qualification in its own right. The 2006 HEQF (p. 20) states: “This qualification [Diploma] is

primarily vocational or industry specific”. In contradistinction to the former, the 2007 HEQF (p. 20)

states: “This qualification [Diploma] is primarily professional, vocational or industry specific [DoE

underlined]”. While these two documents are similar with regard to, among others, exit level,

minimum and maximum credits required, and qualifiers; the major point of divergence relates to the

professionalisation of the Diploma. In conventional HE qualifications argot, “professional” would

refer to degree programmes and qualifications.

For the emerging comprehensive universities and universities of technology sectors, articulation for

the “professional” component of a diploma is problematic in that the national diploma mode is the

trajectory according to which further qualifications (student mobility and progression) would be

177

based. If “professional” is to be infused into the university diploma model, to what extent would a

work-integrated learning and programme qualifications architecture be fused into the new ‘stand

alone’ “professional” diploma model?

3.4 GOVERNANCE IN SOUTH AFRICAN HIGHER EDUCATION

The internal and external dynamics of South African HE warrant that transformation of “… all

existing practises, institutions and values [be] viewed anew and rethought in terms of their fitness for

the new era” (DoE, 1997c: 2-3). Given the vestiges of HE organizational inefficiencies created by

the apartheid ideology, the creation of a new governance culture for HE is a mammoth undertaking.

“Administration” and its writ large ramifications, rather than “management”, was the focal point of

keeping the HEIs (as “creatures of the state”) under control. “Administration”, as a form of

institutional regulation, emphasises top-down, authoritative, and bureaucracy-ridden enforcement of

policy. “Management” implies that such regulation is interactively and systematically implemented

in a process by a team of organizational (sub) units, each of which is accountable to other

components of the larger organizational unit. The establishment of co-operative forms of

governance by the state (Department of Education) and the HEIs is a mutually ‘contracted’

agreement of rights and duties, the breach of which is legally regulated. While the state provides

supra-institutional governance guidelines, institutions provide their own day-to-day governance

mechanisms and procedures with the active involvement of all constituencies in the HE enterprise.

In the provision of supra-institutional guidance and leadership, the state (in democratic societies)

devolves certain rights/obligations onto HEIs. Such ‘privileges’ may exist in the form of “academic

freedom” and “institutional autonomy”. The former implies that no outside interference poses

impediments to free and critical academic enquiry and intellectual activity; and the latter

presupposes the existence within HEIs of “… a high degree of self-regulation and administrative

independence with respect to [inter-alia] student admissions, curriculum, methods of teaching and

assessment, establishment of academic regulations and the internal management of resources

generated from private and public sources [italics mine]” (DoE, 1997c: 6).

3.4.1 The systemic context of higher education governance

In the spirit of transformation and transparency, the Ministry of Education has opted for a

participative approach towards the policy-formulation and implementation processes, so as to

obviate bureaucratic inefficiencies reminiscent of the past. HE governance is therefore viewed as

being instrumental in advancing the broad goals of a transformed higher education system (CHE,

2000b: 9; Cloete & Bunting, 2000: 49; DoE, 1997c: 7). On the other end of the interactive process of

HE policy formulation, is the legislative framework (e.g. the Constitution (1996), the HE Act

178

(1997)), which ensures that all HE practices are conducted in tandem with the newly-acquired

culture of rights. State ‘supervision’, rather than ‘control’ and ‘interference’, is the maxim of this

aspect of governance. Within the DoE per se, the Higher Education Branch has been established to,

among others, enhance the capacity for developed and goal-orientated management of HE

institutional affairs. This also helps to synergize the political sphere with the actual academic

environment. The establishment of CHE on the other hand, boosts both the Ministerial and the

institutional capacity to transform HE in a managed manner, as well as assure quality service

delivery within the HE sector. The independence of CHE affirms the Ministry’s deviation from

authoritarian and instrumentalist practices of the past. Most significantly, CHE advises the Ministry

on HE’s alignment with the priorities, goals and needs of the country and society as a whole.

3.4.2 The institutional context of higher education governance

The pre-1994 regulation of HE was quintessential of state control (see Kruss, 1998: 98; Olivier,

2001: 2-4). The principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy were subjected to

political overlordship (Bunting, 2002: 132). Political and bureaucratic machinations enabled the state

to exercise the creation, funding and management of HEIs (CHE, 2000b: 11; Donn, 1997: 186). The

concomitant ‘demographic governance’ (racial separation and control of HE into eight different

education departments according to their geo-political location) inculcated an institutional culture of

apartheid reproduction (Donn, 1997: 186). In inculcating a culture of transparent and democratic

governance, the DoE (1997c: 7) categorically states:

“At the institutional level, the goals ... are [among others]: To transform and democratize the governance

structures of higher education. New structures should provide for co-operative decision-making between separate

but functionally interdependent stakeholders who recognise their different identities, interests and freedoms, while

pursuing the common goal of a coordinated and participative polity and civil society”.

In the post-1994 democratic dispensation, institutions have to promote the values of

responsibility/accountability to the state and to society: “The principle of public accountability

implies that institutions are answerable to their actions and decisions not only to their own governing

bodies and the institutional community but also to the broader society” (DoE, 1997c: 6).

Furthermore, the “institutional community” is expected to embrace a mindset that equitably reflects

the new democratic ethos of society in respect of racial tolerance and acceptance of cultural

diversity; and freedom of political debate and assembly as part of student development.

Acting strongly against the background that there was growing evidence that some HEIs still have a

seminal culture of racism, and giving scant regard to the new dispensation, the DoE cautioned:

179

“The ministry is seriously concerned by evidence of institutionalised forms of racism and sexism as well as the

incidence of violent behaviour on many campuses of higher education institutions. It is essential to promote the

development of institutional cultures which will embody values and facilitate behaviour aimed at peaceful

assembly, reconciliation, respect for difference and the promotion of the common good [italics mine]” (DoE,

1997c: 26).

Even the laws of the country that outlaw racism are flouted. An example here includes the assault of

African students at Pretoria University’s ‘Die Volkstaat’ residence (Sunday Times Metro, May 18,

2003: 6). These are some of the instances that necessitate the posing of the question: Are South

African higher education institutions (especially some of the previously advantaged institutions)

transforming voluntarily or not?

As an aspect of institutional governance, the problem of ‘institutional culture’ is not ‘singled out’ on

an emotive or subjective basis; what is mostly worrisome is the laxity with which affected HEIs and

the Ministry of Education seem to be confronting this problem. How is total transformation to be

achieved, if institutional cultures are in stasis? Could there be genuine curriculum transformation,

without a correspondingly equal degree of institutional cultural rebirth? This could reinforce the

argument of ‘unequal transformation’ at HEIs, as well as the ‘settlement approach’ to

transformation. Councils, Broad Transformation Forums, Student Services Council, Student

Representative Councils – all these institutional governance structures are bereft of hope and devoid

of integrity if they function in an environment that does not take cognisance of the rights of all

stakeholders. The following statement is cited as an ‘indictment’ on both the Ministry of Education

and the HE system in general and those with ‘defective’ institutional cultures in particular.

‘Defective’ institutional cultures imply here the prevalence of practices and values that are legally

and academically inhibitive to the well being of other role-players (staff, students, community, and

so on). To the extent that rampant acts of intolerance go unpunished, to the extent that this has

become a sore in the eye for public HE, it has even been well-documented and received detailed

public attention:

“For a long time now the former historically white tertiary institutions have been dogged by accusations of racism

against black students. Nine years into democracy we would have thought that the demon of racism at tertiary

institutions would have been slain. However, it seems that racism on many of the formerly white campuses

continues unabated. Black students are daily subjected to overt racism. Many are complaining that they are treated

with disdain in the lecture rooms, residences and by mainly white administrations. In many cases the racism is

practised by both white staff and students. Not surprising, the incidents of racism against black and other students

are usually denied or suppressed. Campus administrations usually vigorously deny that racism exists on their

campuses … Worse, the racism on formerly white campuses is not new. The question that must be asked is: what

180

are these institutions doing to combat racism? … Sadly, evidence so far, albeit anecdotal, suggests that the will

of the campus administrators to effectively combat racism is questionable. Additionally, is the Education Minister

… doing enough to deal with the problem? As a start, the minister must make it explicitly clear that racism on

campuses exists and that it is widespread. And a national strategy to combat it must be formulated… [bold italics

mine]” (Sowetan, May 21, 2003: 12).

The direction of the discussion is not meant to cast aspersions at the well-intended governance of

institutions. However, serious concern is raised in respect of the environment within which HE

institutional governance is expected to materialise effectively. Both undemocratic and

unconstitutional values must be outlawed, or transformation will just be another word in the

nomenclature of the ‘new’ South African dictum.

3.5 FUNDING IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT

A general survey of funding patterns indicates that government accounts for 50% of HE financial

sustenance; while student fees and an alternative (private) funding base respectively accounts for

25% each (Cloete & Bunting, 2000: 63). Apart from improving the planning capacity and enhancing

quality in both the systemic and institutional domains of HE; reform measures have also focused

towards efficiency and financial viability (CHE, 2000b: 9). The reduction of unwarranted

expenditure, as well as goal-directed performance related public funding, has become integral in

meeting the goals of a single and integrated HE system. Accordingly, funding has been designed to

conform to the following guidelines and principles (DoE, 1997c: 27):

cost reduction in an open and transparent public funding environment, characterised by

normative costs and performance criteria;

reducing duplication of institutional, programmatic, and service targets and services;

expanding the use of technology in teaching and learning at multiple sites of (contact and

distance) higher learning; and

increasing HE’s retention and completion rates through academic development (for staff?)

and student support mechanisms.

Out of a total of 600 000 technikon and university student enrolments for 1998 (350 000 in contact

and 250 000 in distance education programmes), only 75 000 graduates and diplomates succeeded –

a 12% odd overall pass rate. CHE (2000b: 13) comments that such a downward trend indicates the

prevalence of some serious problems in the system, with adverse financial and HRD consequences:

“If the system had achieved reasonable throughput rates of 20% for contact programmes and 12% for distance

programmes, then at least 100 000 graduates/diplomates would have been produced by the higher education

181

system in 1998. The inefficiency of the system resulted in South Africa producing 25 000 fewer

graduates/diplomates in 1998 … The total number of students that drop out of South African universities and

technikons is at least 100 000 students per year [since 1998], out of an enrolment of about 600 000

students” (CHE, 2000b: 13).

For purposes of meeting the goals of expansion and (individual and institutional?) redress, the DoE

believes that current levels of expenditure on HE (vis-à-vis GDP) could fundamentally be

sustainable by strategically employing a mixed base of funding (CHE, 2000b: 15; DoE, 1997c: 27).

Failure by HEIs themselves (to involve alternative entrepreneurial initiatives/new investments) may

lead to an austere financial environment that would not effectively address issues such as over

utilised resources; a deleterious decline in staff morale; a deteriorating quality (and relevance!) of

programmes; as well as “… a loss of confidence by students, employers, and funders in the

devalued products of higher education [bold italics mine]” (DoE, 1997c: 27). While the Ministry is

committed to meeting the above-cited goals, it is clear that free HE provision would not be a

sustainable option under the current economic conditions” (CHE, 2000b: 18). A significant amount

of the national budget still needs to be dispensed in other areas of service delivery; such as poverty

alleviation programmes, health and affordable housing for the socio-economically depressed. The

following table indicates the proportional allocation increases designed to meet the goals and targets

of expansion in the higher education sector.

TABLE 3.17: Proportion of earmarked and block funding: 1997-2002

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002Earmarked Funding 545 694 807 810 912 984Block Funding 4887 309 5803 6204 6620 6985TOTAL 5432 6003 6610 7014 7532 7969

Source: Bunting & Cloete (2004: 52); all the amounts above are Rands in millions

The table indicates that for 2002, earmarked funds were 81% higher than in 1997; while block

grants were only 43% higher for the corresponding period (Bunting & Cloete, 2004: 52). The table

explicitly indicates that the government’s initiatives on earmarked funding are increasingly receiving

significant attention.

3.5.1 Formula funding

In confronting past inequitable and disproportionate funding mechanisms, the post-apartheid HE

education authorities are faced with the responsibility of adding ‘value for money’ in the new

funding initiatives. Whereas public accountability had not been a norm high on the agenda in a

systemic context, the new goal-oriented and performance-oriented approaches seek to foster a

182

culture of the efficient utilisation of available resources. All relevant constituencies should

participate in maximizing these resources with demonstrable results. The new formula-funding

framework aligned to the EWP3 stipulations – was adopted in 2003 and applied for the first time in

2004 (Bunting & Cloete, 2004: 52). The formula funding framework therefore, premises on the

following main guidelines (DoE, 1997c: 34):

balancing institutional autonomy with public accountability;

management procedures that are imbued with flexibility, simplicity, and transparency; such

procedures will be compatible with institutional academic and managerial capabilities and

DoE expectations.

The goal of public funding includes increasing access, invigorating quality of teaching and research,

fostering quantitatively observable rates of completion by students, and responsiveness to socio-

economic needs. To ‘measure’ these desired outcomes, institutions are to submit three-year plans

that include block grants for general institutional needs. Institutional missions and plans should

justify payments for such needs (e.g. full-time enrolments in various fields and levels of study). The

plans should also indicate how the particular institute hopes to implement redress and equity (DoE,

2001: 48). A new public funding formula has been identified as constituting an integral component

of the goal-oriented, performance-related, pecuniary assistance by the state. By that very fact, the

interventionist (rather than interference) approach is applied as an intermediate phase. In the long-

term, state financial supervision will determine institutional compliance with the funding goals.

The tri-annual plans should also explicate those curriculum fields in which institutions wish to

expand, to retain, or to discard of. This is in keeping with the SET imperatives that would enable

HEIs’ global competitiveness and curriculum innovativeness in both socio-economic and academic

labour markets. Fiscal discipline inculcates an outcomes-based ethic, in that availability of block

grants is linked to institutions meeting their three-year plans, the failure of which “… will make an

institution liable to forfeit equivalent funds by way of reductions to its operating grants according to

a publicly known procedure” (DoE, 1997c: 29). Institutions wishing to enroll beyond the number of

publicly subsidized student enrolments, or wish to offer programmes not registered or accredited by

the NQF, do so on the proviso that they use their privately-raised funds.

3.5.2 Earmarked funding

Ear-marked funding constitutes the second element of the new funding framework. Whereas block

grants are for general operational needs, earmarked funds are for specific, targeted purposes, such as

institutional redress, student financial aid, staff development, research development, libraries and

183

information technology upgrading, capital works and equipment, postgraduate development and

regional co-operation (Bunting & Cloete, 2004: 52; DoE, 1997c: 33-34). Bunting and Cloete (p. 64)

contend that the government appears to have given more support for individual, rather than

institutional redress. For instance, in 1999 alone R390 million had been allocated to TEFSA

(Tertiary Education Fund of South Africa) – representing 5% of total HE allocation for that year

(Bunting & Cloete, 2004: 64). Between 1998 and 1999, a total of R87 million was allocated for

institutional redress alone (p. 64). Averaging less than 1% of total government allocation for HE

between 1998 and 1999, the Rand value did not correspond to the rhetoric of “institutional redress”.

Particularly for HDIs, earmarked funding for institutional redress would meaningfully enhance

access, quality, and “…other forms of deliberate disadvantage suffered by learners and institutions

as a result of past government policies” (DoE, 1997b: 35). These HDIs, however, should

demonstrate their capacity and/or potential to improve on those specific areas for which redress is

targeted, such as staff and student development, curriculum and ICT development. In order to be

eligible for these funds, HDIs would be required to submit three-year ‘rolling plans’ that indicated

financial audits, staff profiles reflecting qualifications and levels of posts being occupied on the basis

of age, race and gender. Ear-marked funding for student financial assistance is premised on a cost-

sharing approach. The principle is that since HE generates private benefit for the student, its cost

should be shared by government and the students (Bunting, 2002: 132; DoE, 1997c: 31). This

innovative approach is diametrically in contrast to the apartheid situation (pontificated and advanced

by SAPSE (South African Post Secondary Education) framework in the 1980s and early 1990s

which absolved the government of any direct financial aid):

“The government funding framework of the 1980s and early 1990s … explicitly rejected the principles of equity

and redress, holding that it was not the business of the higher education system to deal with social inequalities

which affected either individuals or institutions. Its built-in assumptions about institutional autonomy and the

efficacy of the free market implied … that the SAPSE funding framework could not satisfy the principles of

development or those concerned with efficiency and effectiveness” (Bunting, 2002: 132).

As expansion in student enrolments becomes demographically representative of the general South

African society, the inability of many students to pay – “... particularly first-generation students from

poor families” (DoE, 1997b: 35) – necessitates that previously disadvantaged students benefit from a

student financial aid scheme that is

“… effective … equitable … businesslike … sustainable … transparent [not to be misconstrued by recipients as]

an optional extra… but an integral part of the public and private investment in the nation’s high-level human

resources development. Neither is [it] a substitute for responsible self-help by students, but a valid form of

184

supplementary support, especially for the majority of young South Africans whose family support systems can

bear only a fraction of the cost of current higher education programmes” (DoE, 1997: 36).

The new funding mechanisms (formula and earmarked funding) are pivotal in meeting the goals of

access, redress, and equity. While there is no state interference in the structuring of HE fees, cost-

sharing by private and public means has become a viable higher education transformational and

funding initiative (Donn, 1997: 189).

3.6 SOME ISSUES IN LOCAL HIGHER EDUCATION

The following issues are as perennially integral to the rest of this chapter in particular, as to the

entire research topic in general; their extant nature spans both the pre- and post-merger life of higher

education in South Africa. It is the considered opinion here that these issues cannot be left uncited,

however minimal such citation has been presented hereinafter. Welsh and Savage (177: 144-45)

contend that the long-term academic effects of apartheid HE will still take long to be eradicated. In

this regard, it could be stated that, while the “struggle” for political emancipation is construed as

“over”; the struggle for the true liberation of the entire South African HE ecology – notwithstanding

the isolation of the Africanisation of the HE curriculum – is one that has to be fundamentally

addressed through policy objectives of, for instance, equity, redress, and access. A lacuna of a

vigorous and robust culture of intellectual engagement within and among HEIs is still extant (Cloete

& Bunting, 2000: 60; Jansen, 2004b: 101-102; Seepe, 2004: 179). Such a state of affairs is an

indictment on apartheid HE policies, as well as the current ideologically aberrant policy frameworks;

indigenous knowledge systems are undermined as socially and culturally relevant components of the

mainstream curriculum in its entirety. In a country with a chequered history of race relations such as

SA, consensus about the national agenda has not always been realizable. Is South African higher

education presently in a state of intellectual denial? Welsh and Savage (1977: 144-46) stress the

precarious state of the South African university:

“... serious efforts ought to be made to promote a vigorous and deep-probing debate on South Africa’s problems

among scholars from the different segments of South Africa’s universities. It is a matter for deep regret, and also

an indictment of South Africa’s academic separation, that such debate hardly occurs. South African conferences

of the various social sciences which attract scholars with radically different opinions are rare occasions, and even

then they are often inclined to take on the air of ‘bridge parties’ whose participants are too polite to take the

gloves off and, intellectually speaking, fight it out. The position is as serious within [author’s italics] universities,

for here too not only is the debate on critical issues facing South Africa too often blunted, or even avoided but, in

their teaching, the particularly contentious or sensitive areas of the society are often only marginally examined

where they are examined at all ... behind the different postures adopted by different groups of scholars in South

Africa there may be a greater measure of consensus on the role of the university than first appearances might

185

suggest. This could be an entirely misplaced optimism; nevertheless the possibility of its truth ought to be

explored [bold italics mine]” (pp.144-145).

Adam (1977: 270) significantly points out that insufficient participation by academics in the total

transformation of South African society, and HE in particular – irrespective of their previous stances

in “the University of Apartheid” project – has led to a withdrawal syndrome manifesting itself in

“... the selection of safe research and non-controversial teaching” (p. 270). The author refers to this particular

attitude of withdrawal as privatism; academic/intellectual disengagement from transformational discourse,

however conservative or controversial (radical) such input may be construed. Privatism is construed as

academic/intellectual retreat, as it is involved in world of esoteric abstractions “... whose vagueness and concern

with theoretical issues renders any relationship to South Africa’s social problems dubious” (p. 270).

Academics and scholars in this withdrawal mode could be said to be in intellectual “exile”, without

having to leave the country. From the perspective of this study, the notion of intellectuals’ and

academics’ attitudes towards change and transformation (as propounded by Eckel, Adam, and

others) cannot be overlooked. It is the one fundamental sphere within which polarising fissures have

sedimented the transformation debate on racial, ideological, philosophical, and other societal

concerns.

Adam (1977: 270) further observed and commented on the propensity and dilemma of the liberal

academics/ intellectuals in the context of HE’s contribution towards nation-building:

“A common non-racial society ... seems to constitute the most principled intellectual stance ... they [liberal

academics] are easily emasculated by governmental repression, or liquidated by extremists on both sides [of the

racial divide]. And yet liberal South African academics continue to proclaim against all odds the ideal of ... ‘the

apocalyptic vision which sees a world where the wolf lies down with the lamb’... In political terms, the liberal

dream amounts to an internal exile ... liberals do not face South African reality ... Equal status contact is excluded

in conditions of vast discrepancies of wealth and power. While the liberal academic lives in the illusion that these

factors can be temporarily set aside on a personal level, outside observers have frequently commented on the

phoniness of such contacts”.

In view of the broader societal imbalances of the past, liberalism and its concomitant emphasis on

the individual and the particular, does not seem to hold adequate solutions to mass expectations. Its

form of addressing past injustices and inequities appears to be confined to the non-racial domain;

the Constitution is reverently mentioned as outlawing discrimination. However, equality of

(learning and life) opportunities is the most poignant challenge and reality of the post-1994 South

186

African situation. Liberal orthodoxy is cited here, precisely as it has a direct bearing on the power

relations, as well as the ideological-philosophical dynamics characterizing the Afrocentricism/

Eurocentricism debate firstly within the realm of HE curriculum/epistemological transformation; and

secondly, within the broader context of socio-economic and cultural re-organization of SA society.

Adam (1977: 273) argues then, that liberalism cannot become a viable transformation option due to

its lack of community-rootedness (i.e. contradictory class structure): “In the South African situation,

moreover, what distinguishes the historical role of white intellectuals from historical predecessors or

contemporary colleagues in Third World societies is the certainty that white intellectuals will not be

the actual or spiritual leaders of the transformation in South Africa”. It could be said that liberal

orthodoxy lends itself to reform, or “substantial modification” (p. 276) – as opposed to radical

changes/”transformation” – of grand apartheid policies. Change would be viewed in relation to its

effects on their power and their wealth.

Afrikaner intellectuals, on the one hand, espouse contradictory degrees of identification and

autonomy/ “ideological voortrekker” (Adam, 1977: 276). By denouncing the status quo ante and

joining the ranks of the new political elite, they risk being “kort broek” and betraying Afrikaner

culture or group identity; “... they may have become part of the [new] intelligentsia but certainly

cease to be intellectuals” (p. 276). This category of Afrikaner intellectuals might have been inspired

by the material rewards accruing from joining the ranks of the ‘mainstream’ (i.e. struggle-

incentivized) transformation agenda. The organic Afrikaner intellectual, contrarily, would espouse

Afrikaner “group solidarity”, seeking and venturing into those ideological spaces and territories that

safeguard the group against absorption or perceived extinction.

On the other side of the polarised spectrum of academic/intellectual (non?) participation and (non?)

contribution to the transformation of SA society, is the situation of the black intellectual and other

critical thinkers to whom colour is no definition of their opposition to injustice or any other societal

aberrations. Espousing views either formed in exile or by moral obligation, this category of critical

thinkers are not necessarily looking to benefit materially from the new dispensation. Going beyond

the community-rootedness of their “conscientisation”, these political reformers are involved in

societal concerns which are “... beyond charity, paternalism and tutelage” (Adam, 1977: 277).

Furthermore, the “conscious” intellectuals/political reformers are non-conformist:

“Critical scholars can challenge the scientific articulation of official ideology, they can confront the claims with a

contradictory reality and redefine the issues ... so that their opponent is on the defensive of justification. Like the

‘intellectual guerillas’ who work for change through rational persuasion in association with the powers, the

reformers work at de-traumatising the public by speaking the unspeakable rather than accommodating existing

187

sentiments for short-term political gains. Above all, they clarify and concretise viable alternatives and thereby

remove fears which are associated with the so far abstract designs [italics mine]” (p. 277).

The incorporation of the South African HE intellectual and academic environment (past and present)

as either an institutional or systemic characteristic of reform/transformation, is justifiable on the

grounds that – as anywhere in the world – local public HEIs are anxiously looked upon to be part of

society, not mere expensive apparatuses of elitism which are unresponsive to societal demands. In

the view of this study therefore, the imbalances of the past would still be extant, in the event of SA

higher education becoming ideologically and epistemologically representative of dominant and

hegemonic interests as conceptualised by the colonial-imperialistic agenda. The following overview

of a study “… in response to a situation that arose at the University of the Witwatersrand [where two

senior black staff members had resigned in quick succession]” (CHET, 2003a: 2), is not meant to

particularize transformational challenges. Neither is it intended to generalize on the basis of a single

institutional occurrence. Instead, some salient findings of the ensuing University of the

Witwatersrand study are referred to, in order to determine whether race and ideology are factors of

correlation in the transformation/reform agenda of HEIs in South Africa.

As a result of the resignations cited above, the University of the Witwatersrand Vice-Chancellor

instituted a study headed by Prof. Cheryl Potgieter of Pretoria University. The study had to “…

examine why black academics and staff members were leaving higher education and [specifically]

why they chose to move away from an institution with high status and international

reputation” (CHET, 2003a: 2). The University of the Witwatersrand itself, UPE, Fort Hare, UWC,

UCT, Free State University, (the former) Peninsula Technikon, and (former) Cape Technikon were

chosen as research sites. Thirty interviews were then conducted with twenty-three lecturers, three

senior lecturers, and two associate lecturers from the above sites. Racism – as one of the study’s

terms of reference for this ‘diaspora’ – was sub-divided into four categories. Firstly, institutional

racism at both historically (liberal) English-medium and (conservative) Afrikaans-medium HEIs.

Attitudes, practices, values and processes employed throughout the particular institution were

interpreted by the respondents. They indicated that “... white staff were still ‘in control’” (p. 2).

Those few black appointees in senior management at such institutions were ineffectual in addressing

this problem, even at departmental level. Secondly, the respondents indicated that liberalism was

used to masquerade racism. That is to say, the particular HEI erroneously(?) hides behind its former

principled (but nominal?) opposition to grand apartheid, but avoids self-examination of overtly

racist practices such as tokenism; being discriminated against on the grounds of being ‘inferior’; and

being overlooked for appointment as though one is “… invisible, voiceless, and

188

anonymous” (CHET, 2003a: 3). Thirdly, racism extended to black academics at HWIs due to

unrealistic expectations, for evaluative and performance auditing purposes; the respondents (on the

basis of the unrealistic nature of expectations) regarded this as setting a separate set of standards as

a way of eliminating them from the hallowed domains of white intellectual privilege and hegemony.

In other words, they were viewed as deficient in the nuances of traditional (read: Western)

intellectual and cultural capital. Fourthly, and related to the third aspect, is the notion of “black

essentialism”; according to which it is assumed that black culture is homogenous, therefore

unsophisticated. Aspects of the curriculum that have a “black” component are to be taught by black

academics. This respondent view of arrogating intellectual ‘superiority’ to Eurocentricism tallies

with Cloete and Bunting (2000: 58, 60), on the lack of urgency in instituting protracted curriculum

diversity; and Welsh and Savage (1977: 144-145), on Anglicization of these aspects that would

occur for the convenience of white academics.

Although the University of the Witwatersrand study’s findings included other reasons for black

academics’ migration between institutions and emigration out of the HE system (e.g. poor

management and political agendas that are incongruent with institutional transformation); it is the

issue of racism that has so many variants and substantive causal effects on the transformation of

HEIs themselves. Even then, it has to be noted that the Wits study did not include related

components of the HE landscape, such as student and non-academic staff experiences. Based on that

study’s findings, it would seem that HEIs (even post-mergers) have not yet seriously grappled with

issues of HE’s role in the democratisation of society (Cloete & Bunting, 2000: 58, 60). It is in the

light of the prevalence of such trends as observed above, that Welsh & Savage (1997: 143-45)

commented that:

“The leavening effect of academic values may be a long-run process ... serious efforts ought to be made to

promote a vigorous and deep-probing debate on South Africa’s problems among scholars from the different

segments of the university system. It is a matter for deep regret, and also an indictment of South Africa’s

academic separation, that such debate hardly occurs”.

Inordinate bouts of ‘academic speak’ (esoteric discourses that are embedded in scientific discourse,

but thin on social reality), and avoidance of sensitive issues such as ‘race’ (under the guise that such

discussion would invariably fuel racism and scupper nation-building and reconciliation initiatives);

only serve to perpetuate inequality and new mutations of racism. In the employment sector for

instance, affirmative action and employment equity, have been understood differently by different

racial groups; in the economic sphere, black economic empowerment (BEE) is viewed by some as

reverse discrimination. The HE sector itself has been besieged by debates and lack of unanimity on

issues of, for instance standards, access, equity, and redress. In a country where there is gross lack of

189

national consensus, South African public higher education – if it is part of transformation – could at

least voluntarily reform itself first, then take the lead in guiding national discourse on the pressing

issues of society, in an un-prevaricating manner.

3.6.1 The transformation debate: evolution or revolution?

The stasis in intellectual engagement across political, cultural, religious, ideological and other

barriers seems not to have improved dramatically since the de-legitimation of apartheid education;

the academic vestiges of racially-driven (higher) education policies have not been totally eradicated.

Writing about a decade and a half after the celebrated first democratic elections in South Africa,

Seepe and Kgaphola (2004: 45-46) comment:

“While these developments [the aftermath of the 2004 general elections and concomitant euphoria] were changing

the political landscape, a parallel but low intensity struggle was being waged – the struggle for intellectual and

ideological hegemony. This struggle is to be expected if we consider that apartheid did not only deny the African

majority a right to vote, but had subjected the African also to economic, spiritual, and cultural subordination. To

sustain the logic of apartheid – it became necessary for apartheid-supporting intellectuals to create certain

philosophical, historical, cultural and scientific myths [explicitly cited by Welsh & Savage, 1977: 144-45] ...

Given this experience, it is and remains necessary to challenge the intellectual edifice that sustained apartheid.

This challenge and the historic task of transforming South Africa will of necessity require the participation of an

assertive African intellectual leadership”.

In the context of HE – the sphere where change and transformation receive the most superlative

articulation and conceptualisation than in any societal sphere – the incessant policy controversies are

indicative of the political character of education in South Africa (Adedeji, 1998: 64; Donn, 1997:

191). The political will of the GNU was still stifled by its adopting a “settlement” approach – a

middle-of-the-road strategy between “reform” and “transformation” (Cloete, 2002: 88). Reform was

adopted, as it is conciliatory to the moderate interests of both the ‘left’ and ‘right’ of the SA political

spectrum. The reformist approach affords a win-win stance, whereas transformation would be an

option for win-lose positions. A revolutionary (transformational?) approach lends itself to perceived

austerity as steering the course of state-society relations; whereas a reformist (compromising?)

approach defines a relaxed and co-operative governance framework as steering the course of future

state-civil society relations. These are also the theoretical and conceptual premises on which

systemic/institutional governance is envisaged to function.

Against the (political) context cited above, the regulatory environment for HE policy development

has become problematic. Cloete, Maasen and Muller (2005: 447) argue that a theory of a

conspiratorial verisimilitude characterises the trajectory between HE ‘reform’ and ‘revolution’.

190

Accordingly, the proponents of globalisation have ‘conspired’ to ‘sabotage’ transformation. This

scenario would be to their advantage in opening-up HE for perpetual ideological/intellectual

recolonisation. The proponents of this view cite that transformation thus becomes inequitable –

widening the rift between rich and poor at institutional, systemic, national, and international levels.

Secondly the regulated environment for policy development is problematised by the lack of a

technically skilled, and intellectually expert and experienced bureaucracy to interpret and understand

the grandiose policies developed by external, non-bureaucratic intellectuals. The third problematic

factor of the regulatory framework is the prevalence of an intricate nexus including, but not limited

to: the tasks of establishing the new state; democratisation of society membership to a global

community; the growing trend of state-HE-society interaction; as well as the dominant academic

and intellectual traditions and cultures inherent within some HEIs. It is very significant that the

problems of the regulatory framework be stated, as it defines the very supra-structural factors of

policy determination. For purposes of this study, it is posited here that equitable transformation is yet

to occur. Therefore reform, rather than transformation, is in fact viewed as the norm enveloping the

post-apartheid re-organization of society and its dominant institutions. This means that aberrant

ideological and conceptual frameworks have been legitimated as appropriate and relevant

foundations of education (Nkondo 1998). It is then clear that “reform” and “transformation” are

conceptually and ideologically polemic nuances – and are understood differently in any other

framework. Welsh and Savage (1997: 277) illustrate the (liberal/radical) contradictions inherent in

these two approaches:

“Of course, there will be those who charge that reforms will merely streamline the existing system and make it

less vulnerable. Surely, ‘a more comfortable prison is not to be confused with freedom’, as Wallerstein (1975:29)

argues in ridiculing ‘liberalisation’ in South Africa. But he forgets to add that it is for the inmates to reject the

improvement [i.e. total demolition of the prison, rather than improving its living conditions] ... If I were an

inmate, I would opt and strive for as many improvements as possible – without abandoning the utopia, which in

the end might perhaps be composed of the accumulation of small and much deriled piecemeal reforms, ‘revolution

at the micro-level’ (Galtung, cited in Kuper, 1975:102), rather than the often totalitarian and impossible grand

design [authors’ parentheses and brackets]”.

The above excerpt is also a reflection is the contradictory mode into which anti-colonialism has been

cast by globalisation forces; a case for the “dual legacy” (Wolpe, 1995: 286) of First World symbols

and identities in a largely Third World country. In comparing HE developments between the US and

SA, Eckel (2001: 2-3) makes the observation that transformation is not an isolated activity, it is to be

linked to all other societal activities:

191

“Transformation requires a shift in the institution’s culture – common set of beliefs and values that create a shared

interpretation and understanding of events and actions … [focusing] on how profoundly the change affects

behaviors [sic], structures, policies, and programs [sic] within the institution. The deeper the change, the more it

is infused into the daily lives of those affected by it … Transformational change is pervasive in that it affects

many units, not an isolated few. Transformation is shaped by the local context of each institution, as well as

national, political, and social environments … Transformation for South Africa’s higher education is explicitly

linked to the broader societal and political transformation [bold italics mine]”.

This study’s view is therefore ‘dissentient’ from the notions that synonymously equate “reform”

with “transformation”. A broader conceptual understanding of these two terms has to be obtained in

the context of the following framework (Eckel, 2001: 4):

legitimate and transparent decision-making; this ensures that all stakeholder constituencies

are involved in the making of decisions that affect them. ‘Ownership’ of the transformation

process will be shared, than if it is imposed, resulting in ‘inequitable transformation’;

a mandate for change; who sets the transformation agenda, and for whom is it meant?

the urgency and abundance of change; a “demand overload” (Clark, 1998) occurs because

of failure to recognize that “… South African institutions simply do not have the luxury of

time to implement transformational changes available in the US. The stakes are high and the

consequences of failure serious … Transformation in South Africa will require different and

more accelerated strategies than does transformation in the US” (Eckel, 2001: 6-7); and

the language of transformation; depending on institutional cultures and their leadership

idiosyncrasies (sometimes politically expedient and narcissistic), the term ‘transformation’

has been ‘usurped’ to mean all types of forms of change.

Tendencies prevail that confuse SA transformation in HE with that of US or European models. This

sentiment was explicitly corroborated by the Director of UCT’s Graduate School of Business, Nick

Segal (2000) at a CHET (transformation) seminar (quoted in Eckel, 2001: 8):“From a South African perspective I am concerned that all of the writing and thinking is seen through well-

resourced, leading edge academic and institutionally stable North American eyes. These circumstances could not

be more different from those that prevail here [in South Africa]. We must be cautious not to draw too quickly

from the US as well as the European experiences”.

As one of the issues in the local HE ecology, and closely associated with the reform/transformation

debate, is the issue of Africanisation. For various contexts and perspectives, the latter issue is

presented in both Chapter 4 (as discussion on epistemological/intellectual equality or diversity), and

Chapter 6 (for curriculum modelling purposes).

192

3.7 CONCLUSION

As opposed to the international terrain of higher education curriculum reform and development, the

South African context is still at the embryonic stages of development. The vestiges of the past

political dispensation have compelled that some form of state intervention be applied to infuse the

nuances of equity, redress, and access in the systemic mould of transformation. While reform and

transformation appear to be taking shape in spheres such as human resources and infrastructural

development, this study is of the view that the epistemological terrain of knowledge construction is

still predominantly Eurocentric. In this particular context, therefore, epistemological diversity is still

to occur at a scale commensurate with the multicultural dynamics of South African society.

CHAPTER 4: OVERVIEW OF TRENDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION CURRICULUM

REFORM AND DEVELOPMENT

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The aim of this chapter is to accentuate the knowledge-education curriculum (KEC) nexus as a

fundamental conceptual framework and research paradigm within which the discourse of the study’s

contribution is framed; while also linking this framework to the specific and broad aims of the study

as a whole. It is critical that such a discourse analytical framework be cited, as it establishes both “...

193

the epistemological and thus also the methodological “home” of the study ... that is, the way in

which the research procedures are linked to constitute a whole, and how this “whole” is given a

name, or a home. The naming of the “whole” is again linked to the philosophical underpinnings of

the coherent whole, plus the intellectual tradition that spawned it” (Henning, 2005: 30-31).

Throughout this chapter then, knowledge – as both the fundamental HE ‘business’, and a pivotal

aspect of the present discussion – becomes the interconnective variable. As the perennial and

contested metaphor of discussion in this chapter, the epistemological/methodological “home”, or the

theoretical/conceptual framework (pp. 25-26) adopted here is one that is eclectic in character.

The multi-paradigmatic approach adopted here enhances the interconnectedness of various

perspectives and assumptions (generalizations) between the knowledge-education-curriculum axis

(cultural-intellectual capital) on the one hand; and the application-utility value on the other. To that

extent, an interpretivist mode of discussion (as one of the epistemological and conceptual

“homes”/frameworks) is utilized, in which the social character of knowledge-as-metaphor

phenomenon is critically integral to the discussion (Luke, 1999: 170). Also, the multiple perspectives

of the KEC nexus facilitate a critical mode of discourse analysis in which knowledge is viewed

within the realms of such variables as gender, culture, class, identity, and power (p. 161). In other

words, knowledge is also critically viewed in the post-structuralistic (post-modernistic?) sense of

being context-specific, rather than as being purely scientific and universalistic (Luke, 1999: 161;

Scholte, 2000: 191-92). Such an approach “deconstructs” and “reconstructs” the world; knowledge –

central to ‘education’ and ‘curriculum’ – is essentialised as a pivotal aspect of socio-economic and

political-ideological dynamics (Henning, 2005: 22-24; Joseph, 2000: 9; Luke, 1999: 167). In essence

therefore, the multiple discourse analytic mode is an explicit depiction of “cultures of curriculum” –

conflicting conceptual frameworks from which the nature, organization, and dissemination

(reproduction?) of knowledge is essentialised; that is, subject matter (content) is accentuated above

other considerations such as “organization” (Joseph, 2000: 9). The multiple perspectives mode of

discourse analysis adopted herein, ‘aligns’ itself to the ‘cultures of curriculum’ conceptual

framework, and is in tandem with Giddens’ (1990: 2) observation that: “... post-modernity refers to a

shift away from attempts to ground epistemology and from faith in humanly engineered progress ...

The post-modem outlook sees a plurality of heterogeneous claims to knowledge, in which science

does not have a privileged place [italics my emphasis]” (see also Henning, 2005: 22-24).

4.1.1 KNOWLEDGE, EDUCATION, AND CURRICULUM DYNAMICS: A HIGHER

EDUCATION PERSPECTIVE

The following diagrammatic presentation attempts to highlight what is construed here s the most

194

salient aspects of this chapter.

FIGURE 4.1.1: The knowledge-education-curriculum axis: a synthetic dimension

IDEOLOGICAL CONTESTATIONS OWNERSHIP CONTESTATIONS

SOCIAL CULTURAL

STRATIFICA- TRANSMISSION

TION

COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT SKILLS/COMPETENCE DEVELOPMENT

Source: Researcher’s own synthetic derivation from various sources

Knowledge Domain: “Knowledge” is viewed as the all-embracing variable, characterised by

contesting ‘logics’ such as: who determines what knowledge is? whose knowledge is it? knowledge

for what? Epistemological tensions arise between knowledge as a process, and knowledge as a

product.

Education Domain: As the transmission of knowledge, “education” is subsumed by knowledge

itself. It is viewed as ‘subservient’ to the power-knowledge and vested interest dynamics. It becomes

the vehicle (infrastructure?) by which contending powerful interests in the knowledge domain are

realized.

Curriculum Domain: “Curriculum” becomes the central factor in the ‘packaging’ or

‘compartmentalization’ of knowledge and education, respectively. It is the domain in which ‘types’

of knowledge/education consumption are produced. In the long term, HE resilience, as in previous

centuries, is being tested once more.

The ‘curriculum industry’ (read: minefield) is a highly contested educational terrain. A motley of

schools of thought have over time engaged in divergent theoretic conceptualizations and

interpretations of the nature and purposefulness of knowledge (Naude, 2003: 71, 74). Calls for the

195

KNOWLEDGECURRICULUM

EDUCATION

social relevance of knowledge have accentuated the momentum for the re-definition of what

constitutes “knowledge” (Cheng, 2003: 202). The multiple impetus of socially-relevant knowledge is

emphasized by Pretorius (2003: 13-14) thus:

“The pursuit of a contextually or socially informed and engaged academic practice is advanced as an academically

legitimate way to enhance the position of the university in society ... [and] as a means of enhancing student

learning, generating knowledge, and expanding networks and reciprocal relations between university

constituencies and societal stakeholders and thus creating academically informed social benefits. The effects of a

more socially engaged mode of knowledge generation has consequences for the process of curriculum design or

restructuring, programme design and implementation, research, problem-solving projects, and so forth, that will

have to be dealt with in future ... The principal reason for promoting socially-engaged knowledge generation for

universities, is that much of the knowledge that is required by universities to enhance their societal significance is

embedded in the societal context or environment outside the university”.

It is largely against this background that this chapter attempts to posit the KEC axis as vital to

gaining a more insightful overview of trends and perspectives in reforming the development and

management of HE curriculum. From the study’s perspective then, the KEC axis forms part of “an

academically legitimate way” (Henning, 2005) to contribute to the study’s significance. Context-

specific social knowledge has not been attenuated by the might of globalisation and its supra-

territorial imperatives: “Contemporary globalization has not substantially weakened the hold of

rationalism on the social construction of knowledge ...” (Scholte, 200: 184). From this study’s

perspective then, critical discourse analysis has become a more viable methodological paradigm and

means by which the social construction of knowledge, or “the sociology of education” (Luke, 1999:

171), could be more meaningfully analyzed. Society’s increased participation in the process of

‘knowing’ is attributed to a number of factors, including: “New workplaces, communities, and civic

spheres ... New texts, genres, and discourses ... [and] new social identities” (p. 171). Multi-

culturalism and the increasing democratisation of societies worldwide in the l960’s enabled more

and more students from demographically heterogeneous backgrounds to access HE opportunities.

Previously disadvantaged social groupings’ demand for education-as-a-right ushered in the ‘blue-

collarisation’ of HE – therefore, a curriculum that would cater for the diversity of student needs.

Globalisation, with its free-market orientation, ushered in the marketisation of knowledge, and by

that very fact, enhanced HE programme offerings in the direction of job compliant skills and

competencies. ICT on the other hand, has exacerbated traditional HE’s knowledge production and

delivery modes with one of its inordinate contraptions, the Web-based curriculum and its invisible

colleges/universities and academics; thus affording the young and the mature, ubiquitous and

asynchronous ways of learning. A combination of Scholte’s and Luke’s analyses of HE-society

nexus above, has ramified into what Coffleld and Williamson (1997: 5) have categorized into four

196

identifiable implications:

despite its ‘reluctance’, HE is confronted with externally-induced epistemological

paradigms and challenges to which it must conform;

societal expectations impact on HE definitions of processes of ‘knowing’; ipso facto, a

critical sociological perspective of the HE curriculum becomes more compelling;

‘knowing’ is no longer a higher education prerogative, “A viable model for higher education

is inseparable from one for society as a whole [bold italics mine]” (p. 5);

collectively, the above three factors are reflective of increasing pressures for HE to become

more responsive to “... becoming an institution of society and not simply an institution in

society” (p. 22). Ipso facto, a critical sociological perspective of the HE curriculum becomes

almost sacrosanct (albeit not arbitrary) to its (curriculum’s) epistemological construction,

organization and function.

4.1.2 Higher education and societal contestations over knowledge as a strategic resource

As early as the Middle Ages, the trend towards the diversification and organization of knowledge

had become “... a reflection of the need for an academic division of labour [to signify that] artes

serviles or artes mechanicae were opposed to artes liberals [author’s italics]” (Naude, 2003: 71).

That mechanical arts were viewed as “opposed to” liberal arts, demonstrates an (inherent?)

epistemological polarity. To that extent, (of ‘innate’ epistemological contradictions), Szczypula et

al., 2001: 93) propose that the HE curriculum base be re-defined in respect of three pivotal areas:

“new curricula content and subjects”, in order to keep abreast of information explosion and

the attendant blurring of knowledge boundaries;

“new learning and thinking abilities, and the pedagogies for fostering them”, in the light of

changing workplace dynamics/patterns;

“new skills, such as the ability to use IT and the Internet”, for participation in the knowledge-

based society.

Donald (1999: 39) avers that HE knowledge (in its disciplinary context) is highly specialised, and

classified in three levels. Firstly, “knowledge of specifics” (p. 38); such as terminology and critical

facts. Secondly, “knowledge of ways and means of dealing with specifics ... trends ... principles and

methodology for investigating problems and phenomena” (p. 38), Lastly, “knowledge of universals

and abstractions in a field ... [including] principles and generalizations ... of theories and structures

that represent a systemic view of a complex phenomenon, problem r field” (p. 38). Such a high-

197

density categorization of the epistemological basis of knowledge already posits a link between

knowledge and learning. Implicitly, ‘certain’ ways of learning are necessarily ‘imposed’ for ‘certain’

forms of knowledge.

The ‘sacrosanct’ stature of knowledge in the informational era illustrates its significance as a

strategic commodity whose ‘ownership’ is contested by various political, economic, intellectual,

cultural, and other interest groups. Citing the highly contested stakes of knowledge, education and

national development in the USA, Lagemann (1989: 4-5) asserts that the strategic value, or “… the

politics of knowledge …” manifests itself in three distinctive and extant ways. Firstly, which fields

and approaches within fields of knowledge (scientific vis-à-vis non-scientific) are to be considered

as “authoritative” and “expert” sources for public policy formulation? Secondly, how are

communication mechanisms to be developed between the “authority” of “experts” and “non-

experts”? The distribution of power and knowledge (“… enfranchisement and participation” (p. 5))

in public life has always been contentious for centuries. Lastly, how is access to the means of

knowledge-production to be determined? Who has access to the professions and their elites? In a

very broader context,

“… these elites were related to the professions. The professions and knowledge elites developed simultaneously.

Access to knowledge-producing elites often came through access to one of the professions, which in turn was

granted by access to educational credentials. Educational credentials were not, however, sufficient. Rather,

personal acquaintance ... political views, even manners, and other presumed measures of merit determined access.

Such access was often limited to those already considered potential elites (ipso facto, conformists?) ... many were

excluded on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, or social class [italics mine]” (Lagemann, 1989: 5).

As a resource, knowledge is credited with being an asset for wealth creation and generation of skills

(The Pocket Oxford Dictionary, 1996: 773); its strategic value has attracted hegemonic interests in

respect of rationalist and epistemology-based interpretations of the natural and social worlds

(Scholte, 2000: 184-86). It is almost a truism that knowledge production, authentication and

diffusion, have traditionally been the exclusive preserve and ‘business’ of the university. The basic

modes of knowledge use, viz. replication, application, interpretation and association (Eraut, 1994),

were the prerogatives of the academy. Barnett (1994) conceptualizes this traditional matrix of

knowledge generation, validation, and dissemination as being one-dimensional. The one-

dimensional proposition posits that the production and usefulness of knowledge are hierarchically

located in the manner depicted in the triangular diagram of Figure 1.1 in Chapter 1; where HE is

indicated as the hegemonic dispenser and producer of knowledge. Such a matrix depicts the

historically academic/elitist nature of: who decides what constitutes “knowledge”; and how that

198

“knowledge” is to be disseminated. HE, as traditionally omniscient (and prescient?), ‘presided’ over

a scientifically-focused knowledge ‘citadel’, with society acting as mere recipients/consumers (or

functionaries?). However, much as innovative innuendo and insinuations are suggestive of change-

in-action, the reality is that much of HE knowledge content is still planned, produced, validated and

disseminated around “… the historical and epistemological relativity of disciplines...” (Naude, 2003:

72). One-dimensionality reinforces the view that “... Higher Education has been bewitched by a

sense that real knowledge is scientific knowledge [italics mine]” (Barnett, 1994: 14). The latter

author further states elsewhere that:

“Until relatively recently, the academic class imposed its own definitions of knowledge on society, especially

through its educative function. Now society is contesting those definitions of knowledge, is expressing its

dissatisfaction with them and is seeking to have its own much more operational and instrumental definitions of

knowledge taken up by higher education. The wider society ... looks to impose its definitions of knowledge on the

academy and to see them shaping the student experience. In short, we are seeing a complete inversion of the

relationships between knowledge, higher education and society [italics my emphasis]” (Barnett, 1994: 29-30).

One-dimensionality therefore, narrows and reduces humanity to conceptually simplified versions, a

view that favours “... those forms of knowledge that might have offered a counter-balance [and

which] have often succumbed to the dominant cognitive interest of the age” (Barnett, 1994: 14).

Does this then mean that HE is facing an epistemological and legitimacy crisis, since it is no longer

the pristine site for knowledge generation? Haldane (1997: 65) resonates the sentiments of the

‘denialists’ – those who do not perceive such a crisis: “Knowledge is possible; any sense of a general

crisis of skepticism is therefore misplaced. Perhaps certain subjects are in trouble ... Some areas lie

nearer the intellectual surface and it may be that exposure has dried them up”. Crisis or not, the

question of: ‘who’ defines ‘what’ knowledge is, and ‘how’ the processes of “knowing” should be

formulated, is closely linked to the knowledge-power dynamics. The symbiotic affinity between the

knowledge-power variables is illustrated by the fact that “power” authenticates and legitimates what

is acceptable as knowledge/truth; and, reciprocally, the ‘acceptable’ version of knowledge

legitimates those in power (Jansen, 1999: 6). To illustrate the point (of the knowledge-power

contradictions) further, the above author states, that the (pre-1994) political struggle in South Africa

has given rise to the contestation that,

“... disciplinary formation, content, methods and discourse are profoundly political events and that any attempt to

challenge and restructure the dominant claims on knowledge in South Africa must be based on such

understanding. In short, there is an increasing awareness of the relationship between knowledge and power in

South African social science [italics mine]” (Jansen, 1999: 3).

199

Systematized, institutionalized or codified knowledge articulated by academics has paradoxical

effects. While it legitimates domination, it mobilizes resistance as well, especially among the non-

conformists and the deprived. This context of higher education becoming an instrumental variable in

the knowledge-power dynamics is not unique to South Africa. For instance, the military resurgence

of the USA is mostly attributed as having its antecedence in its links with the American research

university. Further afield,

“In the ‘age of extremes’ in Europe, universities were at the centre of both the civilization and the conflicts of the

century. Universities at their best have been the symbols of hope for a better future for mankind, promoting the

values of critical and independent thought, objectivity, truth and intellectual integrity and placing these at the

centre of the idea of a higher education. At their worst, they have been agents of repressive states ... the social

exclusiveness of the German university in the inter-war years served to nurture and protect reactionary

organizations within them. The intellectual vitality of Eastern Europe was not something nurtured in universities

but among intellectual dissidents seeking to live ... ‘within truth’ ... Universities have played a role in both

reproducing and changing structures of social inequality. They have simultaneously nurtured social, cultural and

political elites and opened up opportunities for meritocratic social mobility [italics mine]” (Coffield &

Williamson, 1997: 5) (see also Babbie & Mouton, 2001: 535-545).

Muller (2000: 14) makes a compelling case for society’s skepticism over HE’s claims to knowledge

legitimacy and hegemony. The author argues that the mental workers – those trained in

cognitive/scientific HE disciplines, and by implication, in the ‘high’ culture of reason, knowledge

and truth – are becoming “… the new informational middle class ... [who] have increasingly

professionalized themselves and [consequently] knowledge has become even more packaged and

commodified than before. The commodification and professionalization of knowledge could mean

too that the knowledge of intellectuals increasingly reflects their own interests [italics mine]”. These

vested interests, advertently or inadvertently, have become an inherent feature of the culture of

curriculum planning, organization, and implementation; such that the dominant (academic, political,

and socioeconomic) culture and its attendant knowledge formations, becomes the legitimated,

codified curriculum version. The specialized, esoteric, and technical nature of academic knowledge

is exclusionary. Its traditional production, reproduction and dissemination sites include laboratories,

libraries, books, seminars, conferences and journals. Because this kind of knowledge circulates

mostly among those with a specialised understanding, it thus creates “... an ever-growing distance

from everyday understanding and popular culture” (Muller, 2000: 14). This class, “… the knowledge

elite” (p. 15), is ensconced by the technicality/technicity of its discourse, which strategically

alienates the non-academic ‘others’. Insofar as ‘ownership’ of knowledge is concerned, the schism

between the academic domain and ‘everyday life’ poses a threat to the egalitarian organization of

curricular knowledge (Pretorius, 2003: 13). Cast against this mould of “power” and “interest”

200

dynamics, knowledge as a strategic resource will continue to be (re?)produced and dominated by

those who determine the agenda for its ‘definition’ and the use to which it is put.

4.1.2.1 Knowledge explosion: an overview

In this sub-section, the dominant focus is on the external environment’s impact on HE’s

epistemological legitimacy. It is imperative that HE’s epistemological legitimacy/crisis be viewed

against the background of knowledge explosion as a factor contributing to the deconstruction of

disciplinary/scientific rootedness of knowledge. As external to HE, the explosion in knowledge

formations have the effect of dominating, or even subordinating “the internal self-determination” of

HEIs (pp. 16-17). In explicating both the nature and context of the knowledge explosion, Lyotard

(1994: 4), states that

“[t]he nature of knowledge cannot survive unchanged within this [technological] context of general

transformation. It can fit into the new channels and become operational, only jf learning is translated into

quantities of information. We can predict that anything in the constituted body of knowledge that is not translated

in this way will be abandoned and that the direction of new research will be dictated by the possibility of its

eventual results being translatable into computer language… Along with the hegemony of computers comes a

certain logic, and therefore a certain set of prescriptions determining which statements are accepted as

“knowledge” statements [italics mine]”.

With the massive advent of information and communication technologies, has unfolded a

proliferation of knowledge producers and consumers, as well as a preponderance of ‘forms’ of

knowledge, thus precipitating “... the dislocation of intellectual culture [which] is undoubtedly a

component of the late twentieth-century condition [expressing itself historically by its] intellectual

turbulence [italics mine]” (Scott, 1997b: 19-20).

Scott (1997b: 16-22), broadens the horizon of the proliferation of ‘academic tribes’ and discourses/

intellectual paradigms, offering an illuminating perspective of the preponderance of knowledge

fields and the velocity with which this expansion/explosion materialises. His discourse thematically

premises on whether or not there is a crisis in the scientific/cognitive domain of knowledge

construction. He offers two levels of the argument. The first accounts for a pessimism associated

with knowledge explosion as signaling HE epistemological disjuncture, thus precipitating the

demise and extinction of its intellectual hegemony, particularly the un-bundling of the gains of “...

the cognitive values first made manifest in the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century

…” (Scott, 1997b: 16). According to this view, “[t]he culture of disciplined reflection and orderly

rationality, which often substituted social arrangements for those anachronistically linked to high

culture and religion, is at risk” (p. 16). The proliferation of knowledge fields emerging from the

201

unbundling of erstwhile disciplines is viewed by some experts as signaling HE’s epistemological

crisis; while to others it is only a manifestation of the acceleration/velocity with which the

production and creation of knowledge has been impacted on by ICT (Lyotard, 1994: 19-21). On the

extreme end of knowledge explosion (the crisis/dislocation paradigm) is the notion of a revolution of

ideas in the Kuhnian sense; that paradigm shifts have been necessitated by a disjuncture in the

cohesiveness of scientific disciplines. The disjuncture itself has been so rapid and uncontrollable

that the multiplication of subject fields – each with its own professional codes, publications, and

standards of acceptance into its respective ‘academic tribe’ – defies commonplace logic. Such a view

(of the revolution in ideas) also posits that research-for-profit has contributed profusely to the

proliferation of knowledge fields and sub-fields; researchers’ independence and immediacy of

research results have also been boosted by ICT’s ability to communicate and conduct research with

others in real time, regardless of distance. Lyotard (p. 4) attests further that the technology-research

nexus, as well as the dislocation of “normal science”, have contributed to the preponderance of

knowledge fields:

“These technological transformations can be expected to have a considerable impact on knowledge. Its two

principal functions – research and the transmission of acquired learning – are already feeling the effect, or will in

the future. With respect to the first function [research], genetics provides an example ... it owes its theoretical

paradigm to cybernetics ... As for the second function [transmission], it is common knowledge that the

miniaturization and commercialization of machines is already changing the way in which learning is acquired,

classified, made available, and exploited” (Lyotard, 1994: 4).

In another example illustrating the ‘miscegenation’ (hybrid generation of new and ‘independent’

forms of knowledge) and the collapse (‘implosion’) of erstwhile intellectual cultures, Drucker

(1993: 197) mentions:

“Both economics and meteorology are being transformed at present by the new mathematics of Chaos Theory.

Geology is being profoundly changed by the physics of matter; archaeology by the genetics of DNA typing;

history by psychological, statistical and technological analyses and techniques [and subject boundaries are so

thinned that] an American, James U. Buchanan ... received the 1986 Nobel Prize in Economics for applying

recent economic theory to the political process and thereby standing on their head the assumptions and theories

on which political scientists had based their work for over a century [italics mine]”.

Ensuing from this citation is not only that new knowledge fields are a function of epistemological

permeability; but also that the value of applied knowledge is accentuated as the product of those

trans-disciplinary fields of knowledge in which application is both the process and the desired end

202

result. The second level of Scotts’ (1997b: 16-22) crisis/legitimacy thesis (conjuncture/confluence)

is diametrically opposed to the first. This (second) account views the preponderance in knowledge,

information and ideas, as a reconstitution of society

“… from modernism to post-modernism. Just as modernism infiltrated society, politics, industry, and technology

in the last ten years of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth century; so has emerged another

culture in the late twentieth-century, a similar confluence of intellectual, aesthetic and cultural currents on the one

hand; and political, socio-economic, institutional and organizational flows on the other – and, this time, as the

millennium turns, ... [this] new kind of culture seems to be emerging, labeled confusingly as postmodernism in

the boutique of ideas, post-industrialism or post-Fordism in the socio-economic arena, the ‘end of history’ in the

domain of ideology” (Scott, 1997b: 16).

As in Lyotard’s earlier argument, there appears to be an affinity between the advent of ICT as

expanding in an uncontrollable manner; and post-modernism as a prelude to knowledge explosion

and implosion – some established knowledge fields becoming inter-/trans-/multi-disciplinarily

‘subservient’ to new ones. In Scott’s latter postmodern thesis, knowledge explosion (or implosion)

would be viewed not as an isolated or peripheral development; it is an inextricable part of the

postmodern condition. Essentially, it is the culture of science and its principles of enquiry (rather

than its ontology), which is being challenged – a reversal of the methods of ‘normal’ science as

previously understood. It is against this background that this “intellectual turbulence”, exacerbated

by the massive velocity of its expansion; is perceived as a transition leading to the reconstitution of

intellectual/scientific paradigms – as has happened in the past. Scott (1997b: 17) also emphatically

attributes a linkage between the shift in intellectual cultures and the advent of mass HE systems:

“But this reformulation of ‘crisis’ as ‘conjuncture’ limits the available interpretations of the relationship between

a shifting intellectual culture and the massification of higher education … the alleged association between

epistemological volatility (all too readily misinterpreted as the chaotic collapse of academic standards) and the

growth of a mass system (again, too easily glossed as ‘over-expansion’) [author’s parentheses] may continue to be

an influential, even irreducible, element in debates about the future of higher education [italics mine]” (Scott,

1997b: 17).

The crisis/disjuncture argument has been exacerbated by a variety of issues that historically and

theoretically explain the problematic nature of the preponderance of knowledge forms. Acceleration

accounts for the ‘market-like behaviour’ (volatility) and voluminous abundance of knowledge. For

instance, on modern literature alone, thirty-thousand doctoral theses are completed in US and

European universities every year; in New York City alone, art works are produced at the rate of 15

million over a ten-year period (Gibbons et al., 1994: 95-95, cited in Scott, 1997b: 19). The

203

increasingly shorter ‘sell-by’ shelf lives of ideas, data, and theories, minimizes turnover for least-

demanded fields (e.g. the classics); while rampant explosion is extant in those knowledge fields with

tangible commercial value. Complexity is another characteristic of knowledge’s multi-directional

explosion. The interaction between knowledge, its creators/inventors or producers, the environment

(including the users and consumers), has dramatically changed the culture of intellectual enquiry

(‘normal science’) into circular structures that become cohesive through the vast computational

resources available to knowledge producers. The circularity makes it difficult, but not impossible,

to locate ‘ownership’ of knowledge in this ‘scramble for ideas’. Reflexivity becomes the final aspect

of the preponderance of intellectual discourses. It prevails in several forms. The

complexity/circularity of radicalized knowledge has ‘imploded’ boundaries between forms of

knowledge, and between multiple producers, practitioners, and consumers. The interaction of

various role players in the non-linear chain of innovative and creative knowledge production and

consumption has constructed a locus of repetitive invention on a massive and accelerated scale. Post-

industrialism is self-serving in that its progress – whether technically- or intellectually-induced – is

continuously re-inventing and exacerbating risk to its traditional environment.

4.1.2.2 Higher education curriculum reform: a socio-economic dimension

The curriculum, as HE’s ‘heart and soul’, has been identified as the single most important factor

acting as a determinant of how traditional HEIs will be able to survive in the face of relentless

competition from alternative HE providers. It needs to be pointed out however, that the open

distance mode of learning has not been directly addressed. This does not preclude its significant

contribution to among others, lifelong learning, IT enhancement, and cost-effective education

provision. Traditional contact HEIs were addressed as the point of departure of this study, due to the

range of more threatening challenges prevalent in this sector of education provision. Coffield and

Williamson (1997: 4-5) note that traditional HEIs’ responsiveness is internally-stagnated, and their

more willingness to meet societal demands could enhance their role in the community:7“... the impetus for change has come from without. People who work in higher education now have a unique

opportunity to help to define the direction of change from within … Higher education institutions could have

much more public support than they currently enjoy ... The core of the argument is this: universities must

themselves change, as otherwise their future will be defined for them by political or business elites. The limits of

what they [universities] can achieve are, however, set by the societies in which they function. For this reason, it is

not sufficient for higher education institutions, universities in particular, to reform themselves ... [italics my own

emphasis]”.

By linking educational reform to “... existing patterns of social inequality” (Ball, 1994: 2) a moral

character becomes integrated into such reform initiatives; thus establishing an ethnographic

204

perspective to educational reform. That is to say, “... it [ethnographic approach] offers a way of

bringing into play the concerns and interest and diverse voices of marginalized or oppressed social

groups as well as a way of accessing the voices of authority and influence” (pp. 4-5). Such a

dualistic and conflictional approach – of combining ex-cathedra voices as well as local ‘everyday’

voices – advances consensus and credibility of educational reform. Ball (1994: 3) further highlights

the valuable contribution of critical ethnography to education reform:

“... it [ethnography] offers a more direct style of thinking about relationships among knowledge, society and

political action”. The ethnographic dimension then, becomes “... a way of engaging critically with ... ‘the real’ ...

it is disruptive, it is often about giving voice to the unheard, it is also about the play of power-knowledge relations

in local and specific setting: here the curriculum, management, leadership, choice and competition ... It is very

much about local memories and marginalized perspectives [italics my own emphasis]” (Ball, 1994: 3).

Societal involvement in the articulation of knowledge is therefore viewed as ‘the missing link’ in the

completion of the ‘borderlessness’ of knowledge creation. The powerful and irreversible forces of

massification, globalization, and ICT, have collectively impacted on HE’s epistemological

predilection towards the organization and content of knowledge in the direction of performativity –

producing highly knowledgeable, competent, and skilled workers. With the changing nature of

work, employability has become an occupation on its own – an indication of the extent to which

HRD has become the most viable route to satisfactory job performance. This paradigm, of linking

curriculum with economic productivity, is not without controversy within political, academic,

cultural and economic fraternities; some of whom view this linkage with cynicism. ‘Cynicism’ is

used here in the context within which Beck (1992: 57-58) illustrates the schism between knowledge

producers and knowledge consumers. From this study’s perspective, the ardent linkage of HE

curriculum with economic productivity, as compliance with the “new dynamics” explicated by Beck

(p. 58), have much to do with the paranoia of the traditional economic powerhouses of the West

(North?); due to the rise to economic prominence of the erstwhile ‘minnows’ – the economic miracle

performed by the countries of the “new industrial ethic” (Altbach, 2002), particularly the countries

of East Asia (Goodson, 1994: 97). Furthermore, and on the basis of the above, it would not be

iconoclastic and ‘unscientific’ to posit that the paranoia was not only based on the former economic

superpowers’ claim on knowledge hegemony; in another (political) dynamic, it is construed as an

ideological class-based interpretation of locating knowledge as a monolithic commodity of the

(economically) dominant group of nations for the reproduction of their capitalist interests. It is in this

context that the “nations at risk” phenomenon is located in the 1980s in countries such as the UK,

where a sharp decline in economic competitiveness was attributed to lack of efficiency on the part of

the HE system in particular (Ball, 1990: 137; Goodson, 1994: 98). The “nations at risk” paranoia

205

implied that the technological superiority of the economically dominant nations was under the threat

of subordination to the emergent countries of the new industrial and technological bloc. The threat to

their global markets and the concomitant profit motif is thus located in this discussion as the

‘provenance’ of the ‘national curriculum’ viewpoint, to which Ball (1990: 137) adds:

“...in my [author’s] view the ambitions of DES [Department of Education and Science (in the UK), which

supported the ‘national curriculum’ notion] are not solely driven by bureaucratic concerns of efficiency and

control, they are also driven by an ideology of education, a conception of what counts as ‘good’ education, and in

particular what counts as an appropriate curriculum … [italics mine]”.

Winch (2002: 101) argues that conforming education to broader economic aims is consistent with

liberal ideological thinking. It is in that particular context that a national curriculum would find some

justification; while others (e.g. Altbach (2000)) would view this orientation as prescribing

knowledge for the service of capital. With its genesis in the patriotism-evoking fervour of the

“nations at risk”, the UK’s ‘national curriculum’ was conceived as an educational manifestation of

an economic ideology – that the state had to regulate the education system in the direction of

reclaiming the nation’s pride through economic productivity and competitiveness in the new global

economic order’s markets. The school curriculum in particular, was the area in which DES located

its efforts of rejuvenating economic prosperity. The ‘national curriculum’ then, inadvertently or

otherwise, disenfranchised teachers, the very people closely associated with the daily experiences

of curriculum delivery; because CAP (curriculum-as-prescription) became the means by which the

objectives of the national school curriculum would be realized (Goodson, 1994: 110). CAP derives

from the notion that the component of a course of study can be defined and then taught sequentially;

it (CAP) also supports the view that the state-school-society nexus is located in the former exercising

its control and expertise through its educational bureaucracies and university communities, who will

authenticate and legitimize the state’s ‘expertise’ through their epistemological and philosophical

validations. The prescribed school curriculum for national consumption rested on the theoretical

premises that the revitalization of courses of study was the key to the realignment of the decline in

economic performance. The state funded and supervised the ‘outward-bound’ (economy-oriented)

curriculum. Taylor (1993: 4), in clarifying such a development of a unified curriculum, states that

such an approach – while serving to diffuse socio-economic tensions (in respect of globalization)

and taking serious cognizance of the salience of the world economy – is an attempt to orientate

academic subjects towards

“... the study and transformation of work and technology ... [such that] new forms of specialization are required to

reflect new economic, technological and social developments, and to satisfy the need for a ... more flexible

workforce. At the same time, an interdisciplinary approach would facilitate the interrogation of the world of work

206

necessary to promote an understanding of some of the moral, aesthetic and social implications of productive

processes [italics my emphasis]”.

The ‘national curriculum’ phenomenon therefore, signifies a bureaucratic dynamic attempting to

exert its power and influence in the school curriculum, “... in a period [l980s] of rapid economic

change when demands for new types of knowledge, [and] new ways of organizing knowledge and

new forms of certification are emerging almost daily …”(Salter & Tapper, (1980) cited in Ball,

1990: 137). This phenomenon is quintessentially a case of the perennial jostling for the control of

curriculum in general, given the dichotomous nature of stakeholder interests in society. Despite the

disquiet that raged on a proposed nationalized school curriculum, the “bureaucratic dynamic” within

DES, propelled by its “ambitious bureaucracy” (Ball, 1990: 137) saw to it that a precedence was

unilaterally being enforced. Schooling was relegated to a status of service supplier for the supreme

benefit of the economy, as demonstrated in the statement: “... the Green Paper [DES 1997] formally

set the seal on the school-work bond as the rationale for schooling: the subordination of schooling to

the requirements of industry was complete [my emphasis]” (Salter & Tapper, 1984: 25, quoted in

Ball, 1990: 144). Thus far, in making reference to the knowledge-HE curriculum axis, this section of

the discussion attempts to establish a super-structural, analytic framework within which some

theoretic and conceptual influences and positions frame the knowledge industry.

TABLE 4.1.2.2: A *SWOT analysis of the main challenges in higher education curriculum reform

Area of Discussion Strengths/Opportunities Weaknesses/Threats1. IDEOLOGY Paradigmatic flexibility;

Enhanced socio-cultural diversity;

Enhanced international comparability;

Demystification of ‘non-truth’.

Hegemonic & Eurocentric

predispositions;

De-Africanisation;

Locally generated transfixation;

Imperviousness to change. 2. KNOWLEDGE Epistemological diversity/open

intellectual cultures;

Inter-/Multi-/Trans-disciplinarity;

Sociological/ethnographic approaches.

Epistemological opacity/close

intellectual cultures;

Disciplinarity;

Sociological disjuncture.3. EDUCATION Inclusive orientations/Outcomes;

Holistic development of students;

Recognition of student choices.

Social stratification/Exclusion;

Cultural disjuncture/Veneration

of ‘intellectual capital’;

Teaching for work

differentiation.4. CURRICULUM Diversification/mix of missions;

Integrative design, delivery and

Homogenization of missions;

Purely market-related (neo-

207

Area of Discussion Strengths/Opportunities Weaknesses/Threatsassessment approaches;

Mainstreaming of non-traditional

curriculum modes.

liberal) principles;

Adherence to traditional

curriculum modes.5. GLOBALISATION Advancement of networking;

Continuous curriculum innovation;

Expanded knowledge sites.

Curriculum commodification;

Proliferation of ‘the

invisible university’;

Problem of standards. 6. MASSIFICATION Heterogeneous student participation;

Socio-economic de-stratification;

Enhanced lifelong learning.

Purely traditional curriculum;

Insufficient state funding;

Unequal employment chances.7. ICT (INFORMATION

& COMMUNICATION

TECHNOLOGIES

Extended inter-institutional

collaborations;

Enhanced asynchronous learning;

Competitive curricular offerings.

Host competitors’ proliferation;

Rampant knowledge explosion;

Unregulated commodification/

Marketisation of knowledge.8. GOVERNANCE Flattened bureaucratic practices;

Corporatist organizational cultures;

Change: Increased response time.

Vertical bureaucratic practices;

Donnish collegial cultures;

Change: slow response time. 9. FUNDING Strengthened HE-industry links;

Diversification of funding base;

Institutional entrepreneurialism.

Declining state/society support;

Competitors’ cost-effectiveness;

Shrinking student enrolments. 10. STAFFING Expanded human resources

development;

Professionalisation of roles;

Contract work utilization.

Generation-gap attrition;

Labour law obligations;

Lacunae in multi-skilled

personnel.11. TEACHING Continuous re-training of academics;

Student-centredness;

Inter-departmental team work.

Generation-gap attrition;

Teacher-/Lecturer-centredness;

Departmental hegemony.12. RESEARCH Proliferation of knowledge workers &

knowledge sites;

Mode 2 contextual application;

Socially generated knowledge.

Elitist research agendas;

Mode 1 adherence/basic

science;

Socially impervious interests;

Constrained HE-industry links.14. TRANSFORMATION Transparent and accountable

organizational cultures;

Ideological flexibility;

Active responsiveness;

Affinity with ‘world of work’

Collegial organizational

cultures;

Ideological loyalties/

Aversion to ‘change’;

Occasional responsiveness;

208

Area of Discussion Strengths/Opportunities Weaknesses/Threatsrequirements;

Positive change management attitude.

Scant social participation;

Limited inter-institutional

collaborations.Source: Researcher’s own synthetic derivation from various sources

*The ‘classical’ SWOT (Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats) table has been ‘amended’

above to reflect an S/O & W/T dimension. In this ‘format’, Strengths are conceived as being

‘synonymous’ with Opportunities; and Weaknesses as analogous with Threats. The rationale for

such an ‘amendment’ is purely for clarity’s sake, rather than premised on any conceptual or theoretic

analyses. It is worth stating that an Area of Discussion might ‘overlap’ into either an S/O or W/T

domain. However, the ‘overlap effect’ does not necessarily imply a ‘polarity effect’ – where for

instance, an S/T aspect is necessarily the opposite of an W/T aspect. This also does not mean that

one aspect in any domain is necessarily an extension of another in the same or different domain.

Such a scenario is occasioned by the discursive and eclectic-synthetic nature of the broad issues

under discussion, rather than occasioned by any analytic ‘imposition’. The S/O and W/T columns

both denote a scenario of “what is” and “what could be”, rather than a one-dimensional one.

HE’s capacity for curricular reform is compounded by the conflictual nature of multiple stakeholder

interests. This refers to questions of autonomy and academic freedom on the one hand, and

accountability and curriculum management on the other; all of which have significant impetus on

the curriculum as HE’s ‘heart’ and ‘soul’. What is taught and learnt at public HEIs has been the

outcome of historical and cultural developments from the classical times of the trivium and the

quadrivium; to the contemporary post-industrial times in which many new subject fields have

developed. The hitherto classical organization of subjects into disciplines and departments

‘privatized’ knowledge/learning into the hands of the professors acting as gatekeepers to the

acquisition of ‘their’ (professors’) knowledge (Duderstadt, 1999: 43). The advent of the

heterogeneous student populations “... who neither possess an ‘academic culture’ as part of their

family tradition nor aspire to join the ‘elite professions’ ...” (p. 43), has qualitatively and

quantitatively resulted in more active management practices having to be adopted in the place of the

passive administrative culture which once prevailed in much of elitist HE. In particular, institutional

managers have been galvanized into becoming most active in two critical areas: improving

productivity because budget increases have not matched the expected rise in student numbers, and

maintaining the quality of courses as well as the public’s confidence. The issue being accentuated

here is that a reform-minded HE management structure is most likely to be demonstrated through

multi-dimensional curriculum and institutional missions becoming the vehicles through which higher

209

education’s curriculum goals and intentions are made known.

The form (as opposed to ‘style’) of institutional management therefore, is inextricably related to

curriculum reform (or lack thereof). (‘Form’ is construed here as systemic/public, and ‘style’ as

individual/private). Allegiance to the discipline as the organizational focus of knowledge adheres to

cognition as the supreme purpose of learning. Conversely, a strategically managed HEI would

incorporate in its curriculum approach a pluralistic agenda both for teaching and learning (Barnett,

2001: 15-18; Larsen & Langfeldt, 2005: 343-347), with the view to establishing qualitative output

(productivity) in the interests of a diverse stakeholder constituency. In order that internal

equilibrium be maintained, academic freedom (individual) has to be reconciled with substantive and

procedural autonomy (institution-wide). Such an initiative, of striking a balance, has the advantage

of obviating discontent regarding the dispensing of authority in curriculum management. On the

other hand, HE’s accountability to its varied interest groups warrants that, insofar as curriculum

issues are concerned, partnerships and community-of-interest approaches be adopted (Altbach et al.,

1998: 9-10).

4.1.2.3 Is the higher education curriculum an instrument for knowledge stratification?

The notion of “knowledge stratification” as used here, refers to the establishment of a socio-

economic environment that is fundamentally governed and regulated according to the levels and

dynamics of literacy and /or illiteracy. In such a scenario, the dominant class or groups of

individuals are those (regardless of race, gender, and other variables) whose intellectual or

knowledge capital is highly valued; that is, those who have had access and opportunities to specific

and strategically valuable knowledge. In the South African HE context, issues such as curriculum

reform (as a factor of ‘knowledge stratification’) were not immediate policy concerns of the

post-1994 government; instead issues such as: academic freedom, institutional autonomy and HE-

government relations, received priority (Downing & Seepe, 2004: 186-89; Nuttal, 2003: 54-56).

Breier (2001a: ix) categorically puts it thus:

“The restructuring of higher education curricula was not a priority in the flurry of education policy proposals that

accompanied the historic political transformation of South Africa. The need for systemic change in higher

education overshadowed demands for curriculum reform... This was not the case in schooling where curriculum

reform was regarded as an immediate priority culminating in the publication of the national curriculum

framework, Curriculum 2005, in 1999. This attitude was in keeping with long standing traditions in higher

210

education in which ... curriculum is usually not examined outside of the discipline and cross-disciplinary

understanding is limited. These traditions are changing, however, mainly due to the effects of globalization,

massification and internationalization, which have impacted on higher education institutions in similar ways.

Some of the key themes in cross-disciplinary debates internationally ... [including] contestations around

knowledge and the move towards inter- and trans-disciplinarity could be seen to have had influence on local

policy goals, with inevitable consequences for curriculum design”.

Up to the end of the 1990s, this paucity in critical HE curriculum discourse had been extant (Muller,

2000: 10); as further corroborated by Breier (2001b: 10): “It remains to be said that a general

discourse about curriculum in society was conspicuously absent in academic circles in South Africa

at the start of the 1990’s, and to a large extent, remained the case at their [1990’s] end”. A host of

curriculum theorists, academics and knowledge practitioners locate the sociology of education as the

focal point for curriculum planning, development and implementation in the modernization process.

Expansion of knowledge in the mass HE system points out that anti-egalitarian outcomes exacerbate

social inequalities (Young, 1998: 168). No longer is it sufficient for HE to dispense one-dimensional

(isomorphic?) knowledge formations that do not translate into addressing the knowledge needs of all

of society. In its responsiveness to society’s needs, the university should demonstrate its capacity to

transform the knowledge base itself; that is, “... differentiation and de-differentiation of learning” (p.

171) should be a crucial aspect of the modernization process. The narrower/specialist character of

curriculum development had previously undermined other forms of learning, such as non-formal and

informal processes. In the UK for instance, the advent of massification resulted in government

encouraging people not to be entirely dependent on the state, but use their own experiences to obtain

qualifications. “This interest in non-school learning [by the UK authorities] is often associated with

the claim, illusory or not, that information technology can improve access to learning as well as

reduce costs” (Young, 1998: 173). Differentiation then, is at subject level – proliferating the

epistemological dimensions (learning areas) for end-user operationalisation. Bridges (2000: 41)

refers to the phenomenon as “deconstructing the subject [discipline]”.

The ownership of the means of organization of knowledge, its content, and its application, are a

means for the acquisition of power, status and prestige (Naude, 2003: 74). The notion of the

curriculum as systematic and sequential organization of knowledge – ipso facto, as content which is

to be learnt (Popkewitz, 1987b: 59) – is located in the nature of curriculum theory in its historical

context (Giroux, 1999: 8). An analytic overview of these various paradigmatic discourses is essential

not only for narrative logic and balance, but as a means of juxtaposing these various intellectual

persuasions to the design and management of various curriculum options deemed as sine qua non for

HE relevance and competitiveness. It is significantly worth mentioning that ‘knowledge’ as the

211

macrocosmic conceptual base, will feature prominently in discussions of ‘curriculum’. Inversely,

curriculum then becomes a means to an end. The means-end axis become the contested terrain in this

regard, between the curriculum-as-text and the curriculum-as-theory conceptual frameworks; with

the purpose of determining the extent of “knowledge stratification”, if it does exist.

Of the two levels of education (higher- and school-level education) it is the view here that school

knowledge is the one epistemological terrain where “... the formal education system ... [exhibits

more] the social mechanism for the reproduction of dominant culture” (Muller, 2000: 10) (see also

Naude, 2003: 73-74). The reproductive mode, according to which learners and teachers engage in

the education enterprise, precludes any formal input in the organization or definition of what

counts as knowledge. The textbooks, according to which the syllabus is organized, are written for

the teachers (usually by academics) for the implementation of pre-designed knowledge (Laurillard,

2002: 151). The notion of the-curriculum-as-prescribed-text is more applicable in this context.

What is prescribed is subject to the author’s interpretation and is codified as factual knowledge

(Joseph, 2000: 8-11; Morrow, 2003: 4). In this mode, curriculum as fact – “... the official or

codified knowledge that is packaged in the school syllabus and taught to children” (Muller, 2000:

9) – is perceived as being the precursor to the absorption within the school system of curriculum-

as-a-process; “... the passage of knowledge within the school system ... by which some ... social

knowledge becomes validated as school knowledge” (p. 9). School knowledge, by virtue of its

receptive character, becomes the means by which learners are socialized into the acceptance of

such values as obedience, aesthetic awareness, self-discipline, and moral development.

De-differentiation on the other hand, focuses on “… the identity of place” (Bridges, 2000: 38). The

‘sacrosanct’ status of the place of learning is de-emphasized, as learning and teaching occur

ubiquitously at both orthodox and previously unorthodox sites, including the workplace. The idea of

a ‘learning organization’ reinforces work-based (as well as lifelong) learning. Distance is no longer a

determinant of where one learns. The private sector-HE relations, bringing together education and

employment, linking vocational, technological, and academic education – all these, apart form

signifying an epistemological shift in curriculum organization, also demonstrate a shift towards a

more social orientation in the benefits accruing from all forms of learning. Such an orientation,

embarked on sincerely, might do well to obviate the social class stratification and other economy-

directed ‘conspiratorial’ propositions put forward by Bernstein (1996), and Gouldner (1979). Their

arguments conflate in a framework in which the capitalistic, the academic, and the cultural elites

coalesce and utilize various curriculum options at their disposal (such as ‘skills’ and ‘competence’)

to maximize working class energy for more profits. In this context, the epistemological paradigms

212

are viewed as reinforcing, rather: than deconstructing, social stratification. Young (1998: 24-27)

illuminates on the curriculum in the UK as historically having had links with traditional capitalists.

He cites the division of the curriculum into academic knowledge and vocational skills as perpetrating

“... those [class] divisions that existing [capitalist] elites depend on for their power and

privileges” (p. 24). This kind of division projects the “... historical links with occupations associated

with two quite distinct social classes. Academic qualifications [knowledge-intensive] originated in

the nineteenth century to facilitate a section of the population into the Civil Service (and later guide

those responsible for university admissions) [author’s parentheses]” (Young, 1998: 24). Vocational

qualifications, on the other hand, were associated with labour-intensive crafts (Breier, 2001).

The ‘conflictional’ state of HE curriculum (reform) arises due to tensions between (internal)

epistemological predispositions and (external) socio-economic realities (Young, 1998: 17).

Fundamental to the prevalence of curriculum tensions, is the perceived threat to academic freedom

and institutional autonomy, and externally ‘imposed’ accountability. Inevitably, “... this [perceived

threat] is rarely welcomed by the higher education institutions that have, through their many

incarnations, jealously guarded the right to control what they might teach and research” (Ensor,

2002: 266). Scott (1995: 155-156) argues that the shift from elitism evinces a sociological extension

of the utility of scientific (academic) knowledge and its attendant cognitive characteristics acting in

concert with the (public) socio-economic world; thus attempting to resolve HE’s epistemological,

ipso facto the curriculum, crisis/legitimacy. It is these internal (private) and external (public)

epistemological tensions that HE has to resolve if it is to resuscitate its knowledge legitimacy, as

opposed to ‘hegemony’. The new directions for higher education necessitate that resolving the

‘conflict’ combines teaching and research towards establishing a continuum between non-cognitive

(practical) and cognitive (academic) skills. To this end, Scott (1995: 156) states:

“It was argued ... that the erosion of a common intellectual culture, and its generic cognitive structures and social

practices, meant that the integrity of the university was now based on operational rather than cultural principles ...

However, ... the knowledge capacities of the mass university are greater than those of its elite predecessor,

precisely because its heterogeneity reflects the breakdown between cognitive and non-cognitive value structures.

The specific impact of these new intellectual and scientific environments on higher education can be observed in

both teaching and research. In the case of teaching, many recent innovations reflect the influence of these

environments as well as that of the changing socio-economic context ... their purpose is not only to act on supply

and demand, by widening access to higher education, in the interest of social justice, and increasing the supply of

highly skilled graduates, in the interest of economic efficiency. It is also to represent the changing balance of

epistemological power, by increasing student choice and offering students a stronger sense of ‘ownership’ of their

courses, through the application of consumerist principles, and by embodying more open interpretations of skills

and knowledge”.

213

In his exegesis on the sociological construction and organization of knowledge/curriculum, Young

(1998: 179) makes the case against knowledge stratification – in support of a critical theory of

learning that advocates a “curriculum of the future”. In the latter mode, learning is not accorded a

secondary status “… on the assumption that it [learning] is a psychological, or at best a social

psychological issue. Schooling should be a social participation process, rather than one of social

selection [italics mine]”. Lifelong learning has become an incontrovertible component for

expanding curriculum opportunities in formal education, in communities, and at the workplace. The

stratification of societies and individuals on account of access to knowledge can only be exacerbated

by prestige and property acquisition especially for “the knowledge elite” (Muller, 2000: 15). The

emerging picture illuminates that powerful forces and interests have raised the stakes for control and

influence in respect of the aims of HE curriculum, and what counts as ‘legitimate’ knowledge. The

sociological base of forms, organization, and uses of knowledge can no longer be ignored (Ensor,

2002; Muller 2000; Pretorius, 2003: 13-14; Young 1998). Academic/cognitive knowledge is no

longer HE’s pristine determinant of its contribution to society. Training in “specialized

competencies” (Naude, 2003: 78) has become an essential aspect of innovative curriculum reform.

To that extent, human resources, rather than natural resources, are the supreme ‘barometer’ of the

wealth creation of nations (and individuals) in post-industrial society (Young, 1998: 177). In his

chapter aptly entitled From Capitalism to Knowledge Society, Drucker (1993: 40-41) succinctly

encapsulates the strategic salience of knowledge as a resource: “... that knowledge has become the

resource, rather than a resource is what makes our society ‘post-capitalist’. It [knowledge] creates

new social dynamics. It creates new economic dynamics. It creates new politics [bold italics mine]”.

Knowledge stratification also translates itself into the socio-economic status between those

individuals, social categories and nations that are either deficient, or sufficient in the acquisition of

the specialized uses of knowledge. Material benefits such as property and prestige/power are

illustrative of the strategic salience of knowledge as the resource shaping relations between

institutions, individuals and nations. The notion of “power” resides in the restrictions or controls of

access to certain knowledge areas by certain social groups. For learning, this relates to the scope,

content, and organization of knowledge provided for areas of specialization for different learners at

different ages and stages of their lives. The “prestige” associated with knowledge acquisition exists

in the way in which different forms or types of knowledge are accorded material value; for instance,

vocational or academic, pure or applied, general or specialist knowledge. The value placed by

categories of society on the knowledge bears a “status” symbol. As for “property” associated with

knowledge, it refers to “... how access to knowledge is controlled ... The value different societies

place on property (private, state, and communal) [author’s parentheses] is associated with that

214

society’s value on the conception of knowledge” (Young, 1998: 15). The “new dynamics” referred

to by Drucker earlier, determine relationships not only among individuals, institutions and societies;

but control to the means of access also determines the relationships between different forms of

knowledge and its organization as a socially consumable product. The ‘knowledge explosion’ has

thus occasioned greater stratification (Sagasti, undated; Young, 1998:15). The proliferation in areas

and forms of knowledge is ‘re-gerrymandering’ the knowledge boundaries – insulating ‘low-density’

knowledge (e.g. the classics) while expanding massive connectivity between ‘high-density’

knowledge (e.g. medicine, ICT); all of which point to the salience of knowledge as the strategic

resource, stratified in terms of who has access to what kind of knowledge.

In his “… impulses for a scholarship of engagement” thesis – which is viewed here as having some

similarities with Young’s notion of “… a curriculum of the future”, Nuttal (2003: 56-58) propounds

another perspective to knowledge stratification. The first “impulse” (perspective) refers to “… the

changing nature and claims of knowledge ... [or] ... the diversification of locales of expert

knowledge ... linked ... to the need for new paradigms as social actors respond to the challenges of

development at the dawn of the 21st century [italics mine]” (p. 57). Accordingly, different

knowledge workers and practitioners, even individuals, produce consumable knowledge at a lot of

different sites. In this context, ‘knowledge explosion’ then takes its complex and reflexive form as

the culture of knowledge production is shaped by the nature of interaction among its producers

(Gibbons, 1998a: 95; Nuttall, 2003: 57). The second “impulse” relates to the university’s need to

justify its epistemological existence in the light of competition from non-traditional providers of HE

(Nuttall, 2003: 57). Thirdly, the labour market “impulse” has influenced HE curriculum in the

direction of the ‘types’ and ‘content’ of (marketable) courses offered (Nuttall, 2003: 58) (see also

Naude, 2003: 78). Whereas the institutionalized “curriculum of the past” (Young, 1998: 16), was

characterized by insularity (theoreticity), narrow specialization (reductionist) and high stratification

(elitist/esoteric); a “curriculum of the future” propounded by Bridges (2000), and Young (1998),

among others, argues for connectivity (deconstructing disciplinarity); generalized methodological

approaches that make room for skills generation; and low knowledge stratification (inclusive, rather

than exclusionary predilection to curriculum opportunities for different kinds of learners).

Education then, as transmission of knowledge, can inadvertently or otherwise, become a process of

both knowledge and social stratification by placing discriminatory prestige, material value and

status on various domains and types of knowledge. Those in control of legitimized knowledge could

exercise such (political, academic or otherwise) fiat for the acceptability of intellectual cultures that

are predisposed towards a particular goal; such as economic productivity and survival over ‘less’

215

commercial fields, such as morality/ethics, aesthetics, and cultural awareness.

4.2 THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL TERRAIN OF HIGHER EDUCATION CURRICULUM

DEVELOPMENT: FROM CLOSED TO OPEN INTELLECTUAL CULTURES

Whereas sections 4.1 to 4.1.2.3 attempted to establish a centripetal-dialectic approach to the

discussion (one in which external forces impact on the internal operations of HE curriculum); the

present section (4.2) attempts to establish a centrifugal-eclectic approach (one in which the ‘outward

bound’ higher education’s epistemological shift demonstrates its intention to become part of

society). Such a dialogical approach implicitly indicates that the knowledge-education-curriculum

nexus had historically prevailed in an environment of HE’s unfettered epistemological hegemony,

academic freedom and institutional autonomy. The current section of the chapter is premised on the

assumption of HE’s diminishing epistemological hegemony as a direct consequence of the

increasing demand for more accountability to all its stakeholders; as evinced by trends towards the

process of ‘liberating’/de-constructing the subject from its disciplinary fetters – or the

‘democratisation’ of the curriculum, also referred to as the “… plurality of knowledges” (Smith &

Webster, 1997: 104), or “… the egalitarianization of the education system” (De Vuyst, 1999:94) (see

also Bauman, 1997: 17-26). That is to say, factors such as multiple stakeholder representativity

(with its concomitant conflictual interests), more accountability (occasioned by the increasing

demands and expectations of ‘new’ and ‘old’ stakeholders), as well as massification (occasioned by

the advent of heterogeneous student populations and resultant salience of lifelong learning); have

collectively had the immediacy of challenging erstwhile intellectual cultures into moving towards

openness in the production, validation, and dissemination of knowledge (Barnett, 2001: 13-16; DoE,

1997c: 15-16; Gibbons, 1998a: 50; Scott, 1997b: 40-42) (see also Brown & Kirwan, 1999: 113-16;

Cloete & Bunting 2000:1; Cloete, Cross et al,. 1999: 40-42; Filmer, 1997: 54-57; Smith & Webster,

1997a: 5, 9-10; Smith & Webster, 1997a: 101-102; 106-07).

Bearing in mind HE’s dissipating epistemological monopoly vis-à-vis external threats and multiple

stakeholder demands on the curriculum, the epistemological terrain of higher education curriculum

development is then ‘demarcated’ into two discussion areas. Firstly – and emanating directly from

the educational perspective of curriculum theoretical development – the main focus is on the HE

systemic terrain in which points of convergence and divergence among the various disciplinary and

non-disciplinary approaches are considered. Secondly, strategic responses to knowledge

management are referred to, within the ambit of knowledge as the strategic resource for the creation

of wealth for nations, organizations, and individuals in this era of ‘the knowledge revolution’.

216

4.2.1 Disciplinarity: the cognate identity and organizational framework of knowledge fields“Disciplines have traditionally provided homes within the larger learning community because they determine the

domain or parameters of knowledge, the theoretical or conceptual structures and the mode of inquiry that guide

learning and the construction of knowledge in the domain. A discipline is expected to possess a specialized body

of knowledge or theory with a reasonably logical taxonomy so that gaps or incoherencies in knowledge can be

recognized ... Disciplines are expected to have particular techniques for theory testing and revision and a sense of

sequence that enables scholars to predict where they should look next [italics mine]” (Donald, 1999: 38-39).

Kraak (2000: 9) identifies disciplinarity as having a dual characteristic. It is both a feature of a

closed intellectual culture, as well as an organizational reference identifying the epistemological

provenance of HE knowledge. The latter observation is also noted by a host of other analysts,

including Botha (2003: 142; Cherry & Christie, 2003:131) and Naude (2003: 72); as well as Donald

(1999: 37). It is therefore compelling in this text, that disciplinarity be discussed as the cognate

provenance of a particular curriculum trend prevalent in a particular HE organizational milieu –

when teaching and research were two separate features of both the undergraduate and the

postgraduate curriculum; when HE was answerable to itself and thus wielding inordinate academic

freedom and less accountability to society; when collegiality was valued in terms of loyalty to the

subject; and when access by students (apprentices) was demographically disproportionate to the

socio-economic realities of society, and gentrification thus becoming a product of access to HE

knowledge. Historically, disciplinarity has tended to be the ontological nature of HE knowledge and

its curriculum structures: “For some people, a traditional curriculum is held as sacred, with humility

and reverence as ... proper ... curricula [and] also seen by some acolytes as repositories of precious

memories and traditions ...[italics mine]” (Morrow, 2003: 3). Despite the yearning of the

disciplinaristic status quo ante, disciplinarity is gradually being overtaken by other curriculum

innovations such as Mode 2 knowledge applications. Except for its relevance in basic and pure

research, disciplinarity – as fundamentally a Mode 1 epistemological orientation – is seriously

becoming intellectually challenged. There are contending epistemological paradigms, which focus

on, for instance, deconstructing the epistemic essence of subjects, the key skills movement, and the

learning from experience movement (Bridges, 2000: 41 ff). Disciplinarity, in essence, has so far

been the one teaching and learning mode from which current methodological, epistemological and

organizational types are cognate (Breier, 2001: 12).

A discipline-based course construction is premised on the theoretical assumption of the divisibility

of knowledge into boundaries identifying real and relative worlds (Squires, 1990: 101). The ‘real’

world is then understood in the cause of investigating knowledge/truth as a process of structures/

compartments. This (scientific?) process is canonically observed as the basis for establishing

217

objective phenomena, as is predominantly the case in natural sciences. The relative world is

perceived then as a social science phenomenon, separating the ‘known’ and ‘real’ world from the

‘unknown’ and ‘relative’ world. Nuttall (2003: 55-56) further accentuates the problematic nature of a

lack of a social base in HE’s disciplinary knowledge orientations: “Community-based learning

pushes higher education in the direction of multi-disciplinarity ... Community-based learning occurs

in the ‘real world’; it cannot be divorced from its social context”. The erosion of a social base

elevates disciplinary knowledge to the ‘prestigious’ level of the ‘secret’ and ‘private’ garden whose

topography is only understood by a few of its beneficiaries in society. The disciplinary method –

which requires sustained and sequential learning – compartmentalizes knowledge/learning;

reinforces the bewitching authority of the teacher; obviates ‘ownership’ of the processes, means, and

outcomes of learning; and its intellectual values cultivate and idolize individualism. The “donnish

dominion” (Scott, 1998) of the supremacy of the professoriate in course construction promotes

collegiality and unwavering loyalty to the subject, as pristine academic virtues. Viewed in its

historical provenance, disciplinarity (notwithstanding its contribution to traditional HE’s excellence

in basic and pure research), is becoming an epistemological anachronism. For its reductionism and

division of knowledge into departments, for its characterization of what constitutes ‘science’ and

allegiance to it, it is not only elitist and exclusionary; its feudal academic overlordship besmirches

other ways of ‘knowing’ (Nuttal, 2003: 56-57). Its closed academic culture reinforces the notion of

‘academic tribes’ who feel threatened by a culture of change and innovation. However, the pervasive

and conservative power of the discipline as an intellectual and organizational vehicle (e.g.

departments) will be prevalent for a long time, in spite of the ‘knowledge explosion’ and its new

hybrid knowledge structures (Bridges, 2000: 52; Morrow, 2003: 3-4). Bridges (2000: 53) affirms

that departmentally-organized knowledge/curriculum (the territory of academic tribes) is still

dominant in closed intellectual systems despite the generally changing epistemological topography:

“The ‘subject’ looks set to defend its place in the university curriculum for some years to come. In

this respect the near future, at least, may not look so radically different from the past ... ‘plus ca

change, plus c’est la meme chose’ [the more things change, the more they remain the same]”.

Young (1998: 178-79) corroborates Bridges’ view above, and identifies a crucial shortcoming in the

still extant discipline-based mode of knowledge:

“... most university teaching programmes have changed little in form in the last century and still rely on the

assumption that learning is a largely individualized process of transmission. More fundamentally, in their failure

to treat their mode of teaching as a major research issue, universities have neglected the new research on learning

that has demonstrated that it is fundamentally a social process [italics mine]”. The shortcoming cited above

manifests itself threefold (p. 179).

218

Firstly, selection mechanisms for entry to HE are not equitable for all learners. Those bearing the

‘gold standard’ matriculation exemption stand better chances of admission than those without it.

Isomorphic entry requirements could in themselves become a ‘gate keeping’ and

differentiation/exclusion mechanism. Secondly, this neglect of the social conditions of the

heterogeneity of the learning population reinforces (perceived and manifest) elitism and insularity.

Thirdly, the emphasis on research (to the detriment of teaching and learning) reinforces the notion of

the ‘superiority’ of the postgraduate curriculum ipso facto, specialized professional careers), and the

‘low’ status of the undergraduate curriculum (by implication, the generalized non-professional

careers). Collectively, these problem areas relegate the learner to a position of a passive recipient of

information/data, which he/she still has to transform into intelligible knowledge, which is still

individually beneficial more as academic rather than as social currency.

4.2.2 Inter-/Trans-/Multi-disciplinarity: epistemological democratisation of the curriculum?

“The deconstruction of the subject …” (Bridges, 2000: 41) and consequent “... disassembly of

traditional patterns of learning” (p. 42), have become some of the open intellectual cultures that are

attempting to ‘liberate’ the HE curriculum from its homogenous disciplinary ‘fetters’; ushering in a

shift away from the division of (‘real’ and ‘relative’ world) knowledge into compartmentalized

subject boundaries or departments. There appears to be a thin line of ‘demarcation’ between

“interdisciplinarity” and “transdisciplinarity”:

“Interdisciplinarity, properly understood, does not commute between fields and disciplines, and it does not hover

above them like an absolute spirit. Instead, it removes disciplinary impasses where these block the development

of problems and the corresponding responses of research. Interdisciplinarity is in fact transdisciplinarity [italics

mine]” (Mittelstrass, undated, cited in Wikipedia (undated).

Interdisciplinarity has precipitated the implosion of the discipline as the academic identity and

organizational force in HE knowledge. The essential feature of interdisciplinarity as hybrid

knowledge organization (e.g. the modularity and the credit scheme revolution), is an indication of

HE’s productivity, efficiency and responsiveness to societal needs – in which the social base of

learners is not viewed as an optional curriculum extra, but an indispensable aspect of HE curriculum

development (Breier, 2001: 12). In interdisciplinary mode, a student can package a degree

‘assembled’ from various disciplines such as Economics, Politics, Languages, Law, or History. Most

crucial is the extent to which student choice is embraced, the ‘gold standard’ sine qua non of access

to HE as a ‘private garden’ becomes invalidated. Whereas Mode I (disciplinarity) premised on

‘compartmentalization’ of knowledge, Cherry and Christie (2003: 131-132) argue that “... [it] is not

219

essential that ‘traditional disciplines’ be confined to rigid departmental or disciplinary boundaries.

What is essential is that the ‘essence’ of these disciplines be retained and integrated into a

curriculum that is relevant ... We argue that the retention of subjects in strict disciplinary boundaries

is not helpful to an abstract discussion of ‘content”. In this thematically focused context, inter-

disciplinarity overcomes boundaries between, and among disciplines of disparate thematic

organization (e.g. English and Philosophy), and within subject areas with more or less the same

thematic and methodological focus (e.g. History and Anthropology) – an aberration of Mode l’s

sequential learning. Interdisciplinarily packaged knowledge is organized in schools/faculties, rather

than in departments; thus facilitating “... the goal of a coherent and integrative educational

experience [italics mine]” (MacDonald, 2001: 4). In its entirety, Mode 2 is viewed as a pragmatic

approach to real-life problems. By that very fact, the broadening of the ‘cognitive ecology’ (i.e.

academic cultures) to new stakeholders is enhanced (Scott, 1997b: 22; UNESCO, 1998: 24).

Transdisciplinarity, invariably referred to as Mode 2 knowledge by Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, et

al. (1994), is premised on thematically-focused courses deriving from one or more department-

based disciplines as major concentrations for a programme (course of study) (Naude,2003: 72).

Cherry and Christie (2003: 131) concur that: “... the weakening of disciplinary boundaries” underlies

the strength of multidisciplinary knowledge. Transdisciplinary knowledge is essentially understood

as transcending the epistemological parameters of any known discipline: “Transdisciplinarity is a principle of scientific research and intradisciplinary practice that describes the

application of scientific approaches to problems that transcend the boundaries of conventional academic

disciplines ... Transdisciplinarity can also be found in the arts and humanities. One example in art and design can

be found in the research approach of the Planetary Collegium, which seeks “the development of transdisciplinary

discourse in the convergence of art, science, technology and consciousness research” (Wikipedia, undated).

Another curriculum epistemological nuance is crossdisciplinarity,

“… [which] describes any method, project and research activity that examines a subject outside the scope of its

own discipline without cooperation or integration from other relevant disciplines. In crossdisciplinarity, topics are

studied using foreign methodologies of unrelated disciplines. Crossdisciplinarity is distinctly different than

interdisciplinarity … because of the relationship that the disciplines share … Within a crossdisciplinary

relationship disciplinary boundaries are crossed but no techniques or ideals are exchanged while Interdisciplinary

relationships blend the practices and assumptions of each discipline involved” (Wikipedia, undated).

As a result of the broadening of the ‘cognitive ecology’, epistemological stratification is

correspondingly narrowed, as solutions to real problems are sought from various subject fields by

multiple teams of both knowledge producers and practitioners from various knowledge fields. This is

220

what is conceived here as constituting a threat by adherents of Mode 1 disciplinary knowledge.

Mode 2 therefore, is more responsive and more accountable; and could easily be perceived a ‘threat’

to curriculum management. The hitherto unfettered domain of individual academics loyal to their

discipline more than their institutions or employers – let alone to society – is challenged as public

accountability has become the dictum of HE responsiveness, especially in areas of funding. The

team-work approach (at multiple knowledge sites) is advantageous in that it affords the combination

of high-level, cognitively complex knowledge; with correspondingly practical skills and knowledge

by others (e.g. NGOs, technicians, employers) in a joint effort to solve an existing problem. For

students, these problem-solving skills/competencies can be transferred from the world of learning to

the world of work, instead of confining them to ‘vertical’ knowledge organization, which is

fundamentally cognitive. The shift to the horizontal ‘cognitive ecology’ – the integration of

‘education’ and ‘training’ in the organization of knowledge – should not necessarily be viewed as a

precursor to “the end of knowledge”, as propagated by some. Rather, it should be construed as the

broadening of ‘curriculum plc’ to public unlimited company. Scott (1997b: 17) elaborately states

that “... [t]he culture of disciplined reflection and orderly rationality, which offered substitute social

arrangements and moral parameters ... is at risk ... It is the culture of Science [Mode 1?], its

universalism rather than its particularities, that is called into question”.

In a positive way, Mode 2 signifies society’s development towards democratic emancipation

(Griffin, 1997: 3), rather than a crisis in knowledge organization (Scott, 1997b: 17). What is in crisis,

what needs to be reconstituted, is the canonization of scientific values (Botha, 2003: 142). Converse

to the end of knowledge paradigm, is the view that Mode 2 is the manifestation of a revolution of

ideas premised on humanity and its (humanity’s) epistemological transition, as has happened in the

past in the scientific, political, technological, industrial, cultural and aesthetic spheres. This

reconstitution/transition signifies

“... the unbundling of cognitive values, [reflects an] ... association between epistemological volatility (all too

readily [mis] interpreted as the chaotic collapse of academic standards) [author’s emphasis] and the growth of a

mass system (again, too easily glossed as ‘over-expansion’) [and] may continue to be an influential, even

irreducible, element in debates about the future of higher education” (Scott, 1997b: 17).

The complex patterns of the social-epistemological reconstitution conform to the Kuhnian structure

of paradigms and revolutions; that is, ‘normal’ science being moved to ‘progressive’ science (Mode

2?) and consequently ‘rocking the boat’ among scientific communities a la academic tribes. The

“end of knowledge” and “the university in crisis” is the manifestation of paranoia by Mode 1

221

proponents who view Mode 2 as an ‘unscientific’ intellectual aberration.

It is the considered view here that multi-disciplinarity (and its attendant teamwork production of

problem-solving knowledge at multiple sites) becomes a precursor to the “divisionless university” –

which still reclaims university legitimacy and credibility as an institution in society, and of society.

Duderstadt (2000b: 279-281), illuminates on a (futuristic?) HE scenario in which the

‘hybridization’ of knowledge, the complexity of society, and HE relevance, are of primary concern

to the extent that both theoretical and empirical, cognitive and non-cognitive means, are resorted to

as creative ways to solving problems, and to the establishment of a ‘divisionless university.’ The

above author elaborates further:

“Academic disciplines tend to dominate the modern university, controlling curricula, faculty hiring and

promotion, and resources. As we have built stronger and stronger disciplinary programs [sic], however, we have

also created powerful intellectual forces that push apart our scholarly community ... Yet, from a broader

perspective, disciplinary configurations are changing so rapidly that departments have difficulty coping with new

ways of seeing. Today, those who are at the cutting edge of their fields are often those who travel across them

[disciplinary configurations]. New ideas are often birthed in the collision between disciplines ... there are many

signs, however, that the [divisionless?] university of the future will be far less specialized and far more integrated

through a web of structures, some real and some virtual, that provide both horizontal and vertical integration

among the disciplines. We have witnessed the blurring of the distinction between basic and applied research,

between science and engineering, and between the various scientific disciplines. So too, we are seeing a far more

intimate relationship between basic academic disciplines and the professions. For example, much of the most

important basic biological research is now conducted by clinical departments in medicine, for example, human

gene therapy... And the performing arts are continually energized and nourished by the humanities – and vice

versa [italics mine]” (Duderstadt, 2000b: 281).

The ‘divisionless university’ then, would be one in which the ‘confinements’ of time, place,

personnel, disciplinary status and knowledge content are insignificant to the innovative and creative

means for obtaining quality products. By linking Mode 2 with the notion of a divisionless university

in this context, it is therefore derived that an eclectic approach forms the basic premises of

interdisciplinary knowledge construction (Naude, 2003: 73); the previously ‘autonomous’ and

‘impermeable’ subject boundaries are exploded rather than imploded. (‘Exploded’ implies that

knowledge creation has multiplied into new subject areas; ‘imploded’ suggests that the same

learning areas are developing other ‘branches’ within themselves). That is to say, knowledge-as-

product would transcend knowledge-as-process. The divisionless university is thus not only trans-

disciplinary, but trans-institutional and tolerant of difference of ideas as well:

“Diversity is essential to any university as we approach the new century. Unless we draw upon a vast range of

222

people and ideas, we cannot hope to generate the intellectual and social vitality we need to respond to a world

characterized by great change. For universities to thrive in this age of complexity and change, it is vital that we

resist any tendency to eliminate options. Only with a multiplicity of approaches, opinions, and ways of seeing can

we hope to solve the problems we face [italics mine]” (Duderstadt, 2000b: 279).

For all of the disdain against it, multi-disciplinary teamwork does not only broaden the

epistemological base of the curriculum field; in its incorporation of new stakeholders, it empowers

‘para-academic’ staff as well. While academic staff might mourn the loss of ‘exclusive’ rights to

the management, design and delivery of courses/curriculum, more and more personnel –such as

librarians, computing officers, technicians and counsellors – collectively help to improve quality

and productivity within HEIs. Externally, the heterogeneity of Mode 2 knowledge is useful for

socioeconomic purposes as well, providing a viable platform for HE-industry collaboration. For

that reason, socially distributed and useful knowledge is produced at multiple sites. Knowledge-

workers from various disciplinary and academic ‘territories’ seek solutions to socially and

economically problematic matters. This is clearly socially accountable knowledge (Kraak, 2000:

15), which is not only inter-disciplinary, but trans-institutional as well, as team members come

from e.g. HEIs, NGOs, parastatals, R&D laboratories, Science and Technology Institutes, among

others. Such collaborations strengthen partnerships and enhance networking, thus pushing back the

‘frontiers’ of knowledge.

4.2.3 From courses to credits: involving student choice in programme construction

Scott (1998: 157) identifies the curriculum shift from courses (qualifications) to credits (outcomes)

as demonstrating the reconfiguration of the HE epistemological ecology from closed (elitist) to open

(mass) epistemological cultures. Post-secondary achievement (qualification) has been embedded by

the traditional assumption of

“... the need for structured and sequential learning, which demand sustained commitment by the students;

intellectual assumptions about the organization; and so the nature, of knowledge; and social assumptions about

the need to initiate students into particular disciplinary and professional cultures”. The assumption of sequential

courses as the fundamental currency for a qualification is construed here as reinforcing “... the deification of the

disciplines [which] to some degree ... is a reflection of the reductionist orientation to teaching and scholarship

over the past several decades” (Duderstadt, 2000b: 120).

As the ‘credit and modular revolution’ gathers momentum, when competency and non-cognitive

skills are a significant trajectory of the HE curriculum, credits/outcomes have been incorporated to

broaden access and consequently to make learning congenial to work and to life experiences

(Duderstadt, 2000b: 120). The credit architecture, which is not only an epistemological and

223

curriculum innovation but is of assessment value as well, enables students to register at different

times of the year. The ‘lockstep’ culture is obviated, by which students in any particular field of

study progress to the next level of study simultaneously. Instead of the sequential ‘demarcation’ of

course content, credits facilitate” ... a pattern of academic progression ... in which connections,

between topics and levels, are pragmatically derived rather than cognitively prescribed” (Scott,

1998: 158). This pragmatic derivation of a programme of study is trans-disciplinary in that students

focus on topics that are both socio-economically compatible, as well as academically challenging

across disciplines. By applying flexible entry requirements and offering pluralistic (horizontal)

learning areas between topics (fields) and levels, outcomes offer greater student involvement in their

career paths. Furthermore, “[s]tudents are less likely to be trapped in academic programmers for

which they have limited aptitude or in which they have lost interest than if they are following

conventional courses. It also enables students to ‘grow’ their own academic interest during their

higher education” (Scott, 1998: 158).

4.2.4 From departments to programmes: thematic integration of subject fields

The metamorphosis from discipline-based departments to learning areas (programmes) evinces

another example of the opening up of the epistemological ‘ecology’. HE departments have

classically been associated with the provenance of both academic/intellectual and organizational/

administrative centres of knowledge fields (Dickeson, 1999: 45). Depending on the size of the HEI,

a single department could manage the resources and programmes associated with a single discipline

or subject (in large HEIs); or several thematically connected programmes (e.g. psychology and

sociology) could be reined in a single department (department of social sciences). A programme

then, is a narrower and discrete unit of a discipline (p. 45). Due to the disciplinary relics still extant

in modem HE, departments have also become “... the embodiment of the disciplinary codes and

values around which academics sort their identity” (Duderstadt, 2000b: 132) (see also Kraak, 2000:

11). The organizational impact of departmental structures has been that their ‘inner circles’ (e.g.

deans and heads) – invariably known also as “… the academic heartland” (Clark 1998) – are

traditionally the steering-pore for curriculum policy that is to be eventually emblazoned in university

mission statements. These ‘invisible colleges’ within the physically visible colleges, are “...

providing a structured context within which disciplinary expertise is nurtured ...” (Scott, 1998: 160).

Departments are therefore, strongly and closely associated with the basic building blocks along

which fundamental academic trajectories (and canonization?) are established – where the ‘private’

world of traditional HE and the ‘public’ world of multiple stakeholder expectations either converge

or collide (p. 160).

224

Programmes on the other hand, are looser frameworks around which interdisciplinary themes are

identified; with ‘schools’ becoming the organizational, teaching and learning unit. In such a structure

for instance, one would have a ‘School of Medicine’, in which not only human anatomy is studied;

but also other related learning areas such as virology and etiology, and a host of other learning areas

cognate to the field of human health. In the typical departmental mode, one would find a reductionist

archetype, such as ‘Department of Chemistry/Biology’. The organization of transdisciplinary

learning areas into loosely-structured theme categories is further exemplified in the ‘Studies’ variety;

for instance, ‘Gender Studies,’ ‘Environmental Studies’. In curriculum terms, ‘departments’ are

more ‘private’ (centripetal), whereas programmatic course structures are ‘public’ (centrifugal,

permeable to a transdisciplinary programme organization).

4.2.5 From subject-based teaching to student-based learning

The shift towards more open knowledge structures is further manifested by the emphasis on student-

centred learning, as opposed to the traditional teacher-centredness. Scott (1998: 160) contends that

the didactic aspect of this shift is in fact classically intrinsic to education, not an invention of either

socio-economically-, or scientifically-induced factors. He argues that it had been in existence during

the Socratic and Platonic era. In the (post?) modern era, technology has ushered in virtual reality

environments that have precipitated a youth culture, which makes student-centred learning more of a

challenge for teachers. The changing nature of the (HE) learner makes it imperative for the

pedagogic role of the teacher to change correspondingly.

The “deconstruction of the subject” is conceived here as being closely related to the dissolution of

the subject’s rigidity; or, the ‘deposition’ of the subject of its epistemological authority (Bridges,

2000: 42). The complexity of student needs, backgrounds, and expectations; socio-economic

changes in the work environment; as well as the preponderance of technology-driven knowledge and

information; all have ushered in changes in the nature of the relationship between learner, ‘content’,

and methods of knowledge’s delivery. The latter is most notable for engendering ubiquitous

learning; thus enabling students to learn anywhere and at any time (Green, 1999: 11-12). The teacher

acts the role of a facilitator of academic services to members of a ‘cyberspace generation’

‘addicted’ to sound byte. In addition, the expansion of the HE curriculum to modular and credit

schemes and other systems and procedural models, enables students to participate more fully in their

learning environment. Despite innovative gains made in transforming the (epistemological base of)

the HE curriculum, Scott (1998: 161) reflects that the quality assurance and assessment of

particularly procedural innovations (e.g. credits and modules), becomes problematic:

225

“There may also [in addition to control mechanisms within systems approaches] be an intriguing sub-text.

Students in a mass system, although formally empowered as customers, are seen as lacking the cultural attributes

to make genuinely autonomous intellectual decisions. Hence the increasing preoccupation with guidance and

counselling, which can empower students but can also be used as a discreet means of academic surveillance

[italics mine]”.

4.2.6 From knowledge to competence: cognition vis-à-vis applied skills development

Training in ‘high’/cognitive skills, cognate from various disciplinary fields, has traditionally been

considered the supreme function of university knowledge. The ability to think abstractly is

considered commensurate with critical thinking – the high-level mental property necessary to

approach the ontologically ‘incomplete’ and ‘problematic’ state of knowledge (Duderstadt, 2000b:

296, Kraak, 2000: 11; Scott, 1998: 162). The ‘academisation’ of knowledge explicitly acknowledges

the complete and sequential mastery of the problematic and incomplete nature of knowledge and

learning – from undergraduate education through to postgraduate level. This view then validates the

proposition that disciplinary/cognitive knowledge is not necessarily generated “in the context of

application” as is the case with Mode 2 transdisciplinary knowledge. By implication then, “areas of

contextual imperative” and “areas of contextual association” (Becher, 1984: 190, quoted in Scott,

1998: 164), which construct different patterns of the ‘assimilation’ of knowledge, are not

immediately operationalised – as is the case in the context of competence/skills. “Areas of

contextual imperative” refers to closely associated patterns and sequences which form the basis of

explanations for various parts of emergent problems; whereas “areas of contextual association”

refers to a “loosely knit cluster of ideas with no clearly articulated framework of

development” (Scott, 1998: 164). ‘Critical thinking’, the grand domain of cognitive knowledge,

becomes essential, nay sine qua non, as a framework for dealing with ‘problematic’, ‘contested’ and

‘incomplete’ knowledge in the ‘imperative’ and ‘association’ contexts. (Does it mean then, by

logical extension, that the academic notion of ‘knowledge’ is heuristically generated in the context

of more and more investigation, therefore indeterminate application/operationalisation?)

Duderstadt (2000b: 326) and Barnett (1997: 159) assert that ‘competence’ on the other hand, is more

oriented towards vocationalism; which is itself not esoteric to traditional HE. Scott (1998: 163)

corroborates the extant state of vocationalism within HE: “Historically, the higher education system

has been permeated by vocationalism, even in ‘elite institutions”. Barnett (1997: 159) distinguishes

between academic and operational competence, both of which have divergent goals. Academic

competence, intrinsic to HE, is “... built around a sense of the student’s mastery within a discipline

[italics mine]”. In a sense, this form of competence is consonant with the inculcation of critical

cognitive skills. Operational competence (an HRD strategy?) applies to market-driven imperatives

226

towards which the wider society is steered for high economic performance/productivity. This latter

form of competency, well suited for vocationalism, reflects the welfare state’s ‘collusion’ with

market forces for resolving economic crises (Scott, 1995: 69). Through its ‘abdication’ of its

fiduciary responsibility, the state then sponsors higher education-driven curriculum geared towards

better organizational efficiency. As opposed to academic competence, which is confronted with

problematic, contested, and incomplete (provisional) discipline-based knowledge, vocational

competence “implies that the relevant knowledge can be sufficiently complete to be operationalised

into identifiable skills, which is difficult to reconcile with permanent problematization [which is

highly graded]” (Barnett, 1997: 162). For quality assurance purposes, the criteria for skills to be

assessed are unproblematic, and technically job-related.

4.3 HIGHER EDUCATION STRATEGIC RESPONSES TO CURRICULUM REFORM

HE’s strategic responses to curriculum reform are an internal means towards the attainment of

relevance and responsiveness to changes induced by the external environment. The ‘strategic-ness’

of such responses is a determinant of the extent of survival in an increasingly globalised and

competitive world (Larsen & Langfeldt, 2005: 343). In fulfilling its knowledge mandate, HE

therefore, has to embrace diversity and openness as its strategic forte. In their totality, HE’s

“strategic” responses should embrace, among others, elements of both a “ploy” and a “perspective”.

As “ploy”, such responses become “a manoeuvre [sic] intended to outwit an opponent or

competitor” (p. 344). As “perspective”, these responses become “an integrated way of perceiving the

world; like culture, ideology or a paradigm” (Larsen & Langfeldt, 2005: 344). (All of the above

should be read in conjunction with the first sentence in the third paragraph of sub-section 4.1.2, p.

196 in this study). By assuming a “strategic” character, HE then confronts its traditional and

stereotypical slowness to change (Swenk, 2001: 45). In discussing the opening up of the HE

curriculum – ipso-facto, the flexible enhancement of learning to broader sections of society – the

various innovative models will severally and collectively be located within an overview of the

below-stated broad frameworks. It is to be noted, however, that the following are mainly conceptual

nuances, rather than innovative curriculum models per se; the latter follows in section 4.4.

4.3.1 “Deconstructing the university”

Bridges (2000: 44), Pister (1999: 233) and other academic analysts posit that identity of a university,

as the physical location of the place of learning, is insignificant. New scientific and technological

developments, in addition to new workplace (skills) requirements, have ushered in ‘non-traditional’

students for whom asynchronous ways of learning are most suited (Pister, 1999: 233); with

distance from the place of learning (which had been the traditional mode of residential campuses)

227

having minimum impact on the time of learning. Technology has made it possible for learning to

occur at any time and anywhere. The identity of time is diminished as the heterogeneity of student

needs and expectations necessitate different learning schedules, e.g. for full-timers, part-time

working adults, and continuing education. The emergent and diverse student community

correspondingly requires a ‘new-look’ academic community; for instance, teachers for full-timers

and part-timers and at non-formal sites such as the ‘corporate’ classrooms. The advent of previously

non-traditional modes of learning and curriculum delivery (as products of seamless and lifelong

learning), as well as the opening up of intellectual cultures (e.g. Mode 2 knowledge); has ushered in

the production of knowledge at multiple sites. The “deconstruction of the university” (Bridges,

2000: 44) then, explicitly refers to the extent to which the opening up of new intellectual cultures (as

HE’s strategic reform to curriculum reform) has attenuated the one-dimensional approach to

epistemological hegemony.

4.3.2 “Deconstructing the subject”

The “deconstruction of the subject” (Bridges, 2000: 42) implies that the disassembly/disjuncture of

the traditional subject diminishes disciplinarity as a major cohesive unit of knowledge organization.

This disciplinary disjuncture is well encapsulated in the following excerpt:

“The creation of small units of knowledge and the almost infinite number of ways in which they can be assembled

encourage analysis of the scope and nature of knowledge in any discipline, its relationship to other disciplines and

sub-disciplines, and the way in which this knowledge can best be acquired and its levels of attainment assessed.

However, once knowledge has been deconstructed in this way the essential arbitrariness of the degree becomes

apparent. Three implications arise from the disassembly of the traditional subject organization. Firstly, the

epistemological authority of the discipline is taken apart. Secondly, a single university as the primary site of

learning is topographically invalidated. Thirdly, the chronological identity of the under-graduate curriculum and

its emphasis in latter stages, on critical thinking and sequential learning, is dislodged” (Bridges, 2000: 42).

In “deconstructing the subject”, curriculum becomes ‘de-regulated’ from its (mono?) disciplinary

rootedness. Epistemological openness leading to inter-/multi-/trans-disciplinary models of

curriculum reform particularly demonstrates a “deconstruction” of knowledge boundaries. In other

words, learning-across-knowledge-boundaries (e.g. integration of cognitive skills and applied

competence) would enhance cross-disciplinary curriculum development and course/programme

coherence, consistency and coordination (Donald, 1999: 41).

4.3.3 The key skills approach

The focus on skills development links knowledge with employment and employability (Muller,

228

2003). On the other hand, Bridges (2000: 44) interrogates the ‘precise’ nature of skills that could be

regarded for economic participation:

“What are the skills that a modernizing economy requires? The phalanx of terminology used for skills

development ranges from ‘transferable’, ‘core’, and ‘cross-curricular’; all of which depict “... a groping after

language which reflects the conceptual mud in which the [curriculum] debate has been bogged down for over a

decade” (Bridges, 2000: 44).

Arising from the focus on key skills is firstly, a change of emphasis from understanding/education to

competence (performativity/ training); that is, from knowing what (cognition and content), to

knowing how (application/operational). Secondly, the question arises whether there is philosophical

justification for the compatibility of skills as instruments for employment and employability; or

whether employment and employability can best be attained in the paradigm of the traditional

subject departments. Are economically productive skills best located in the disciplines, offered by

the same teachers, or in the realm of multi-faceted programmes and by specialist trainers? If these

skills are to be developed outside of the university, then resource allocation will be affected for

those departments, “... and a new type of university teacher will emerge more akin to those who

operate in the field of skills training than to traditional research-based teaching” (Bridges, 2000: 46).

If such skills are to be developed within the university, by the same traditional teachers, then

integrated programmes are necessary for the development of new capacities aimed at their

(traditional teachers’) training and re-training. Thirdly, the focus on key skills results in tensions

between the earlier cited “nations at risk” imperative – the philosophical and epistemological

justification of education-for-economic performance – and the mission of HE’s liberating notion of

individual and social inclusion. Invariably, these tensions accentuate the values of the upper-middle

classes – to whom unemployment is a very high risk (Beck, 1992) – against the expectations of other

social groupings.

Different ‘clans’ within the academic ‘tribal’ networks differently interpret the skills approach as a

means towards the widening of the ‘curriculum frontiers’, and provision of equal opportunities for

both employment and educational purposes. While others view the skills approach as a new

development of HE’s responsiveness to society and the economy in the (post) modern era, others

defensively argue that the focus on skills has long been on higher education’s agenda:

“It was part of the function of the medieval university to provide the callings of church, bureaucracy and medicine

with the skills they required. On this view, the current demand for transferable skills is a reminder to HE of its

wider social mission, a mission that is lost as the knowledge functions of the university were hijacked internally

229

by the academic class of the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century. Skills and vocationalism, far

from being imposters from a new and external agenda, speak directly to the traditional idea of a university. They

remind it of its origins and so rescue it from an unfortunate amnesia [italics mine]” (Barnett, 1994: 55).

The argument about skills brings with it the dualistic distinction between ‘education’ and ‘training’,

which is traced back to an exegesis (Ethics and Education) by Peters in 1966 (Assiter, 1995: 12-14;

Barnett, 1994: 61). In this treatise, “education” is presented as focusing on intellectual (cognitive and

theoretical) enquiry. In this context, ‘educational’ skills are entirely mental activities. “Training” on

the other hand, becomes associated with vocationally-focused, mechanical (routine), ‘low’-level,

narrow, manual, and application-oriented ability. ‘Education’ therefore, is associated with

‘knowledge’, and ‘skills’ with performativity. The question then arises: Can a skill be performed

on the basis of no knowledge? It is therefore the view here that skills are developed, rather than

taught (Corrigan et al., 1995: 35). As Barnett suggests, HE is now “reminded” to refocus the

development of skills to the needs of society in general, and industry and commerce in particular. In

this regard then, skills development is related to HE curriculum methods of delivery, rather than as

content itself That is, ‘skills’ become the product of the curriculum – its output – rather than its

input.

In illustrating various aspects of both the general and liberal education curriculum, Macdonald

(2001: 2-5) cites the influential 1978 Harvard Task Force Report on core curriculum; which amongst

others, stipulates that the goals of curriculum should be based on answering three vital questions:

What should graduating students know? The content should be explicit. Secondly: What values

should be inculcated? Lastly, and most specifically relating to this section of discussion: What skills

should students have? In the past, most HE systems separated skills from content. The two have, in

recent times, been treated complementarily, because “[k]eeping them [skills and content] separate

amounts to making a false distinction between content and process [teaching and learning] not to

mention thinking of knowledge in terms of mere information” (Macdonald, 2001: 5). Doherty et al.

(quoted in Macdonald 2001: 5) supports the view posited above: “Knowledge cannot be opposed to

skills because knowledge does not exist apart from the mental operations that transform information

into knowledge”.

Those opposed to the integration of skills in HE’s teaching mission clearly opt for the separation, in

support of non-vocationalism. Like Barnett (1994: 68) they would argue that “[v]ocationalism ... is

an ideology representing the interests of corporatism, of economy and of profit. The spirit of

vocationalism stands for temporariness, and a shallowness of commitment”. This obvious

230

intellectual disparagement and condescension reflects the focus on skills as ‘un-academic’,

unimaginative, and devoid of commitment on the part of students’ abilities. Furthermore, the

detractors of the incorporation of skills into the HE curriculum propound that “... even if such skills

were required by employers, it does not follow that universities should help students to develop them

and assess students in respect of them” (Holmes, 1995: 21). Notwithstanding the divergence of

views in respect of the currency, or lack thereof; a range of skills are instrumentally defined or

demonstrated by the relevant context of their application and performativity. Against this

background then, skill is construed as “... a property of a person; it is a person’s ability to

demonstrate a system and a sequence of behaviour that are functionally related to attaining a

performance goal [italics mine]” (Corrigan et al., 1995: 35).

The ‘core’ skills – those that are basic and necessary, and upon which others are catalytically acted

upon – are essentially the nucleus of the skills ‘inventory’, and around which a ‘core’ curriculum is

usually framed (Macdonald, 2001: 5). The range of skills includes those that foster communication

(reading, writing, listening, speaking), interpersonal interaction, teamwork, social adaptation,

reasoning (problem-solving, incisive thinking, and decision-making), as well as numerical aptitude

(p. 5). There appears to be a lack of unanimity on what actually constitutes the range of core skills:

“The lists of supposed skills tend to consist of a varied mix of different sorts of things, including ‘personal

qualities’, ‘values,’ particular ‘skills’ as well as the ability to ‘apply knowledge and understanding’. Quite how

these differ from each other, and how they can, if different sorts of things, be linked together as similar, is not

explained. Nor is explanation provided on how these ‘transferable skills’ give rise to performance. Nor is there an

explanatory theory of the contexts or domains within which ‘transfer’ supposedly takes place ... There are, then,

serious problems with current formulations [italics mine]” (Holmes, 2000: 2).

‘Transferable skills’ are those that are supposedly applicable across various situations. Within HE,

cross-curricular skills apply across different subjects and forms of knowledge. To the world outside

higher education and its cognitive demands, skills to be transferred enable the individual to ‘fit’ in

the social world, and for occupational purposes, to add value to the general requirements of ones’

employment. Holmes’s interpretation of ‘transferable’ skills stresses on the social dimension and

relevance of knowledge/education to an individual’s surroundings. In this context, skills become

instrumentally liberatory (Assiter, 1995: 17; 18; Barnett, 1994:57). The ‘skills agenda’ (as

propounded in the early 1980s) has ushered into the HE curriculum (or “reminded” HE, as Barnett

argues) a focus on the relationship between learning and employment. Although higher education

provides no content for skills teaching per se (Holmes argues they are developed), it provides a

context within which an individual’s already possessed abilities are developed non-disciplinarily;

231

that is, in a way that is detached from any disciplinary identity, save if these skills are only meant for

a cognitive, cross-curricular purpose.

4.3.4 Learning from experience

The notion of ‘experiential learning’ has been found to have a dualistic application. On the one hand,

and for work preparation, it is applied to refer to formal on-the-job experiences that students acquire

as part of the integration of theory and practice. In that context it would constitute a practicum for

that particular field of study. Another perspective denotes ‘experiential learning’ as depicting forms

of knowledge transactions obtained in non-formal or informal settings, such as work and life

environments. It is in this context that RAPEL-based curriculum models (Recognition and

Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning) would be construed. The topographical

deconstruction of the place of learning, and the attendant accentuation of Mode 2 knowledge

production, has an organizational impact on HE; due to a different set of people involved in the

curriculum outside of conventional university buildings, where experiential learning occurs tacitly.

On the other hand, there is the tension based on the notion of higher education-obtained knowledge,

which is thus ‘assessable’ by its (I-IE’s) standards of quality assurance.

Not only is the epistemological authority of traditional higher learning challenged by experience-

based learning, the role of academics – and implicitly, that of curriculum managers – is also

threatened (Bridges, 2000: 47; Scott, 1997a: 42). There are other constructors and guardians of

informal or non-formal knowledge that are not necessarily derived from books. Experience- and

work-based knowledge poses epistemological and organizational contradictions for HE (Bridges,

2000: 47). Furthermore, the tension between formally acquired and experience-based learning (in the

RAPEL mould) manifests itself in the following terrain (Bridges, 2000: 48): How is it separate from,

or integral to mainstream HE curriculum (e.g. location on time-table)? How is off-campus quality

assurance to be achieved? What is the (professional) status of the off-campus teachers and their

reward system?

4.3.5 The Web-based curriculum

The copious expansion and availability of knowledge through the Internet presents inordinate

opportunities and challenges for the HE sector (Nedwek, 1999: 171). Not only is the place of

learning reconceptualised from the traditional idea of the campus (Pister, 1999: 232-33); so is the

‘scholarly community’, as manifested by the prevalence of a plethora of ‘invisible colleges’ and their

‘invisible academics’; all of whom “ ... are competing for the attention of the learner’s attention” (p.

232

171). The identity of ‘the student community’ has also been reconceptualised due to the

heterogeneity of students increasingly demanding access to higher learning. Duderstadt (2000b: 281)

avers on the collective impact of expansion of, and access to knowledge (as factors accentuating

Web-based learning):

“As distributed virtual environments become more common, one might even conceive of time when the

classroom experience itself becomes a “commodity,” provided to anyone, anywhere, at any time – for a price ...

Many people cannot put their lives on “pause,” moving perhaps hundreds of miles from home to attend a degree

on campus. They have families, jobs, and other commitments – barriers that prevent many qualified students,

often women and people from low-income areas —from pursuing their dreams [italics mine]”.

The roles of the teacher, the textbook, the classroom, and the library are subsumed by the

voluminous and limitless availability of information and data on the Web; thus placing the onus of

Internet subject matter quality assurance on the student. ICT has become the standard means of

curriculum delivery (Green, 1999: 11-14; Nedwek, 1999: 171). However, if not subjected to

scholarly scrutiny, the veracity of Web-derived knowledge can be anarchic and become the rallying

slogan for those calling for the higher education curriculum status quo ante. The multimedia (sound

and imaging), with its multi-dimensional and multi-formatted environment (virtual reality), replaces

the conventional sequencing of information; that is, “... the patterns of linearity ... driven hitherto by

the technology and sequence of the book and miniaturized in the forms of the essay” (Duderstadt,

2000b: 40).

4.3.5.1 Implications for the higher education curriculum

The ICT revolution has engendered a challenge for the personal identities of HE educators:

“... for faculty, technology is clearly the most personal of these issues [other than lifelong learning and access] –

the one that involves us, indeed engages us, directly and individually. Technology also poses a significant

challenge to the personal identities of professors – identities that we as academics and professionals have worked

long and hard to develop and to sustain for our colleagues, for our students, and for ourselves [italics

mine]” (Green, 1999: 11-12).

The personal identities of Internet knowledge producers and practitioners have made communication

with them a possibility. Could this become an external academic threat to internal management of

the curriculum? Their published work sometimes becomes part of a course or curriculum. In

illustrating how this state of affairs has exerted pressure on the traditional role of the university

educator, Green (1999: 11-12) writes:

233

“Many undergraduates [the level of study where lifelong learning is most likely to make a profound effect]

entering college today have an envied level of comfort with the keyboard, the computer, and the Internet. But

what .becomes truly challenging for faculty, what raises the level of faculty discomfort and Oedipal aggression in

the classroom, is when students begin to confront professors on content — on what we know ... Anecdotal stories

from many campuses confirm that growing numbers of undergraduate and graduate students are using the Internet

to make direct contact with the scholars whose work appears on their course syllabi. And in some instances, this

means that students have approached their professors, copies of e-mail correspondence in hand, to report that

“Professor Jones at Acme University says you, Professor Smith, completely misrepresented her research and the

significance of her work in your summary discussion and comments in class last week”.

The “electronic classroom” (Nedwek, 1999: 178), or “virtual university” (Tschang, 2001: 21), in

addition to the diversification of the place of learning, has become a variant of a ‘type’ of HE

learning – by affording flexibility and openness of learning (p.21). The ‘virtualisation’ of HE is

identified as the “... third type of educational system ... a campus-less university that uses Internet

technology for its main delivery mode” (Tschang & Della-Senta, 2001: 3). (The first type is the

conventional campus-based institution; the second type has been attributed to “… the open-

learning environment that serves off-campus or part-time students ... often manifested as open

universities or distance education [sometimes called distance learning or tele-learning institutions]”

(p.3). These two authors contend that VUs (virtual universities) in the purest sense are very few;

since they still base some of their functions – such as human resource operations – on existing

institutional boundaries. ‘Virtualization’ of higher learning could to some extent, be characterized

here as taking the university to the student, wherever he/she may be. Although deficient in real

student socialization that is to be found on campus, the Internet – as a cyberspace-based ‘site’ of

learning – reinforces student-centric learning and ‘socialization’ among students, as well as

‘communication’ between students and their professors (lecturers). Internet ‘connectivity’ serves to

expand the VU to merge virtually with other HE service providers, thus making the occurrence of

‘mega virtual universities’ possible; where connectivity becomes a crucial aspect of cyber space

knowledge distribution. This form of knowledge distribution is largely reliant on “...

interoperability of technologies ... an environment where programs [sic] cooperate with each other,

sharing interchangeable data and software to facilitate the deciphering and use of the information

returned by a search operation or a user selection” (Chong, 2001: 162).

The opening-up of knowledge frontiers has ushered-in different learning needs for different

categories of learners in higher education. Traditional HE curriculum and its modes of delivery are

confronted with the challenge of accommodating (nay, recognizing) the off-campus learner – the

‘pay as you learn’ category; which King (1995: 117) characterizes by the following features:

234

“What students need and want from a university and what they bring to it, from school, employment or life

experiences is also changing .... Tomorrow’s students will be more likely to be self-financing, studying part-time

or in mixed mode. A high percentage will be registered at their local university and will expect to use distance-

learning packages ... They will expect to be able to undertake a large proportion of their work at home, by means

of distance-learning packages and may need local access to computers, phones and faxes. A proportion of

students will be in employment and will study in-company with university staff working with them in their place of

employment [my emphasis]”.

The above excerpt does not only recognize the emergence of a new generation of students, it also

emphasizes the link between the new ICT-driven environment, and the preponderance of off-campus

ways and means of HE provision and acquisition. The advent of the VU challenges the ways in

which traditional course construction, teaching and content, are commonly understood. That

challenge has transformed HE into an ‘industry’ where the content, quality, and ‘life-span’ of

knowledge have become tradable currency on the basis of its ICT value, with poorer students

becoming more disempowered, due to lack of resources or capital. Some view the “electronic

university” – like its open-distance learning predecessor – as having the potential to increase the gap

between the ‘information rich’ and the ‘information poor’ individuals and societies, thereby posing a

challenge to equitable access to education:

“While it is certain that many learners will learn more, and more learners will be reached by new forms of virtual

education, other less privileged learners, such as poorer people, could also continue to be shut out because they

cannot connect to the new technological infrastructure for financial or other reasons. Rural populations in

developing countries are one such group. The irony is that many distance education programs [sic] that were set

up on the ideal of increasing access to the working class – such as the British Open University – actually only

increased opportunities for the middle class, whereas the lower classes have not shared in this [italics

mine]” (Tschang & Della-Senta, 200l: 6).

For the learning needs of knowledge-based economies and societies, virtualized knowledge is

making inroads that lead to Internet-friendly and IT-related transmission and delivery of curricula

for workplace compliance. In terms of innovative learning processes, IT (the backbone of the VU),

enables more participative learning and interaction by students in a way that is not constrained by

distance or institutional ‘territories’. Student-centeredness is further enhanced by limitless access to

vast information obtained by the student anywhere and at any time. Self-paced learning occurs on

the basis of the student’s circumstances (e.g. domestic, occupational). Multi-media resources

‘replacing’ the teacher are ushering in techno-thinking; that is, technology-integrated strategies and

patterns of knowing, content determination, and quality assurance (Tschang & Della-Senta, 200l: 7).

At the initial phases of implementation, the orientation towards incremental or total technology-

235

based means of course construction and delivery impacts on the design of programmes and materials

in a costly way. Internet-based higher learning is generally viewed as cost-effective for the learners

and the institutions. However, this cost structure gradually becomes a positive turnover initiative as

courseware is re-usable and other HE providers (depending on marketing strategy) are likely to use

them. To the extent that the numbers of non-traditional learners are increasing, indications are that

HE’s ‘autonomous space’ has been ‘invaded’ by the VU trend (Gibbons, 1998a: 48-49; Orr, 1997:

53; Tschang, 2001: 21). While it is expensive to develop and to codify courseware for the

distribution of both explicit knowledge (e.g. text books) and tacit knowledge (e.g. skills) to end-

users, “… the [scalar] economics of knowledge creation” (Tschang, 2001: 25) suggest that the

supply side (high course cost-structure (for production and development)) is ‘absorbed’ into the

demand side (e.g. distribution and marketing) of the courseware market. Three dimensions and

advantages of the economics of knowledge creation, for virtual institutional and electronically

developed course learning materials, have been identified by Tschang (2001: 25) as:

scalability: large numbers of students from anywhere in the world are ‘accommodated’ in

the virtual campus(es);

economies of scale: quantitative increase of student enrollments translate into less costs for

the production of courseware units; i.e. the higher the number of students, the lower the cost

per production unit; and

diversities of scale: quantitative student growth with heterogeneous backgrounds,

expectations and needs, ushers in limitless access to, and interaction of diverse forms and

sources of knowledge, as well as diverse social and cultural backgrounds.

The ‘line of discussion’/narrative logic being pursued here attempts to illustrate the symbiotic

interaction between intellectual turbulence and the quantifiable increase in knowledge fields, which

contributed to new knowledge and information doubling every four to five years (Salomon, et al.

1994: 22). More information has been produced in the last three decades than in the previous five

thousand years (p. 22). The new generation of knowledge through technology has put pressure on

the previous ‘autonomous space’ of HE knowledge provision and acquisition. According to

Salomon et al. (p. 22), the place and time of learning, the nature and background of the learner, the

‘type’ of teacher, the content of what is learnt, the technology of text and the textbook, the

complementarity of the library as resource centre; these variables have collectively propelled a new

environment for knowledge/education. De Castell (1999: 398) amplifies this changed environment

(which distinguishes literate, from post-literate society) thus: “... [the] textual location [and] ...

education as we have come to know it is about to become, indeed is becoming, obsolete. In literate

236

society, “literate space” was occupied by text, and the textbook itself [became] a kind of place. In

post-literate culture then, the computational resourcefulness of IT has altered the ‘place’ of ‘text’,

which, by extension, implies that learning/knowledge is ubiquitously and asynchronously available”.

Furthermore,

“[u]ntil just a few decades ago, the book was literate culture’s central vehicle for self-preservation and self-

renewal. Nowadays, the book is increasingly regarded as an obsolete technology, a technology that ... has outlived

its usefulness. ... reading, writing, listening and speaking [have become subordinate] to ... viewing and

representing” (De Castell, 399-400).

It has therefore become axiomatic that for traditional higher education to survive in the “post-

literate” era, an alternative base of initiatives (especially for curriculum) has to be developed and

adhered to, in order to cultivate a competitive edge over host competitors. Such a repertoire of

alternatives will by all means, have to include a diversification in the culture of HE knowledge

production and dissemination (Pretorius, 2003: 13); that is to say, embracing “… a scholarship of

engagement ... a praxis that connects university-based classrooms and research projects with off

campus sites of knowledge generation and creation” (Nuttall, 2003: 57), as well as adopting a

transformation of the university’s epistemic values (Morrow, 2003: 2).

While there is a compelling case for HE’s strategic response to curriculum reform, there are forces

that are still nostalgic to the halcyon days of the “donnish dominion” and the pre-eminence of

inflexible and closed intellectual/epistemic cultures which are marked by the traditional subject

(discipline) as the intellectual and organizational identity of the university. This invokes a sense of

déjà vu, that the more things change, the more they remain the same – plus ça change, plus c’est la

meme chose. Conservative elements in the form of agencies, committees, commissions, etc., both

within and without the academy, are striving for the epistemological pre-eminence of the disciplines.

The dyed-in-the-wool apologists of discipline-based education either conceive of innovation as a

transitory phantom, to which they can adapt rather than be responsive; or view these curriculum

reforms as mere “administrative re-organization”, than as actual “epistemological

reconfiguration” (Scott, 1995: 45). The insistence by professional bodies, for instance, in Law,

Medicine, Engineering, and accreditation bodies, indicates academic territoriality by the various

academic tribes. In this regard, Bridges (2000: 53) makes the ominous portent that: “The ‘subject’

looks set to defend its place in the university curriculum for some years to come. In this respect the

near future, at least, may not look so radically different from the past”. Cast in this mould, “the

reaffirmation of the traditional subject” (p. 50) – the unwavering clamouring to epistemic values of

single disciplines – seems to become the adaptive mode (compelled conformity), rather than

237

responsive trajectory (voluntary) to rapid change occurring outside of the traditional campus.

4.4 INNOVATIVE CURRICULUM MODELS IN A RECONSTITUTED ENVIRONMENT

From this study’s perspective, it is inevitable that any curriculum reform measures will take any of

the following three philosophical trajectories. An explicit path of reform will openly and publicly

state the manifest purposes of the desired outcomes of education (Joseph, 2000: 3). The aims would

appear for instance, in official curriculum statements. The implicit curriculum would be focused on

goals and outcomes that are “hidden”; that is, officially expected, but not openly stated (p. 3). Lastly,

the null curriculum, “… deals with what is systematically excluded, neglected, or not considered.

Thus, teachers [may] create a null curriculum when they teach history as “the true story” but do not

present the perspectives of peoples from non-dominant cultures – or choose as “the greatest

literature” only works written by European males”. (The explication of the study’s perspective is

necessitated by the salience of the study’s contribution and significance appearing later in this

chapter.) The contribution (which is explored in more detail in chapter 6) unavoidably derives its

premise from the above-cited “cultures of curriculum” (Joseph, 2000: 9), irrespective of whether or

not it (curriculum) is designed to fulfill a personal academic/cognitive, vocational/professional, or

social/civic function (p. 10).

Institutional cultures could either positively contribute and conform to the development of

innovative curriculum models, or react against such changes (Muller, 2003: 5). In the context of HE

curriculum reform, the nature of innovation should be clearly understood. What are the compelling

reasons for innovating the curriculum? Is it merely for receiving continued government funding,

ergo, involuntary on the part of the particular HEI? Is it for competitive survival, ergo, maintaining

prestige and reputation? Is it for contribution to society, the economy, or both? These and many

more questions of the same verisimilitude would require unambiguous articulation and

implementation, so that the desired outcomes of innovating the curriculum are appreciated. While

innovative curriculum models are international in scope and scale (Scott, 1995: 156-157), they also

form a very integral part of the access, equity and redress paradigm currently forming the crux of the

transformation agenda in South Africa (CHE, 2002: 15, 32).

Scott (1995: 156-157) offers a multi-dimensional perspective of the reconstruction of HE curriculum

(which adopts either a systems or managerial approach):

“Some of these innovations are procedural and structural. They include the development of access courses

designed to increase the flow of nontraditional students into universities and colleges; a greater willingness to

238

accept non-standard entry qualifications, including the assessment of prior learning; the growth of

university/college partnerships which allow students to study the early years of degree courses in local colleges

on franchised courses; the increasing popularity of modular degree schemes which enable students to choose

more imaginative combinations of units; … the transformation of continuing education, with a new emphasis on

continuing professional development; and the provision of higher education in non-academic settings, most

prominently in the so-called ‘corporate classroom’. Nearly all these innovations indirectly influence the university

curriculum in its widest sense – not only new approaches to teaching and learning but also … implicit

interpretations of the validity of different forms of knowledge and skills ... The cumulative effect of these

innovations explains their radical impact ... Other shifts are at work as part of this transition ... which is an

expression of the socio-economic changes ... and reflects the intellectual and cultural shifts although it is doubtful

whether this demarcation between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ is any longer valid”.

This excerpt is cited at such length for the clarity with which it denotes the radical nature of HE

curriculum innovation, and relates the openness of innovative epistemological/curriculum

orientations as a factor of the implications of the diverse backgrounds of students-as-clients. It is in

this latter context that the methods and objectives (systems and procedures) of enhancing curriculum

flexibility (attempting to dislodge knowledge from extant disciplinary relics) could engender internal

‘conflict’ over the management of the curriculum. Scott and Watson (1994b: 15) illuminate that

these curriculum innovative models are more “... of an administrative reorganization rather than an

academic [epistemological] reconfiguration of traditional courses”. In other words, the

deconstruction of the subject is not entirely effected by these systems/procedural and

managerial/administrative approaches to HE curriculum reform. On the one hand, the re-

organization links management culture to the nuances of curriculum reform; while on the other, the

dc-emphasis on full-time/part-time student exemplifies a radical departure from the isomorphic and

‘lock-step’ nature of the curriculum of the past. As could be expected in any academic discourse, not

all; academics and intellectual commentators are of the same views on many issues. Goodson (1994:

27), for instance, recants systems analyses and techniques as “technocratic ideology” blended into

curriculum theory as a means of promoting socioeconomic efficiency. The technocratic ideology is

compared to the factory model being incorporated into higher education, with educational

bureaucrats becoming chief policymakers; all levels of the educational system becoming factories,

and teachers becoming workers in the ‘manufacturing’ of a pre-determined policy product; viz,

education.

4.4.1 Modularisation of the higher education curriculum

The structure of a modular programme is incumbent on the organizational character of an institution,

administratively and managerially. As opposed to the accumulation and transfer of credits,

239

“[m]odularity, in its most general sense.... makes an assumption that formal learning, most within educational

institutions, can be broken into self-contained blocks (units or modules) in which students can learn and then

show, through assessment, that they have satisfactorily done so. These blocks, ... can then be built up by the

student into appropriate academic awards ... Importantly, the general principle does not make any assumptions

about size of modules or the need for standardization, through it is often assumed so [author’s italics and

parentheses]” (Allen & Layer, 1995: 26).

Sometimes referred to as unitization, modularity allows for student-centered learning and flexibility

in respect of students’ particular needs and circumstances (Bridges, 2000: 43). Whereas the linearity

of course structures “... allow[s] no [student] options whatsoever, because of disciplinary

logic” (Squires, 1990: 104), modularity; allows for the aggregation (cashing in) of credits at the

completion of a (free-standing or packaged) unit or units of study, after which a recognized formal

qualification is granted (Duke, 1992: 52). A student can assemble a cross-disciplinary package of

unit standards and structure a qualification, thus enhancing inter-,/ trans-, or multi-disciplinarity. For

instance, a Law degree programme could be assembled through units of study from fields such as

Politics, History, Economics, and Sociology (Bridges, 2000: 43).

Modularised courses are viewed as easing the pressure on staff-student ratios. The wide variety of

modular choices and the extent of their freestanding ‘packageability’ increase the probability of

smaller student groups, especially for students at advanced levels of study. Contrasting this view

however, is the perception that the “… economics of class size” is an assumption rather than a reality

(Duke, 1992: 5); and therefore, the teaching side is adversely affected due to the plethora of

modularized courses exacting demanding administrative complexities, as well as the onerous

assessment and examination duties for staff.

Another factor cited for the advantages of a modularized programme of study is that multiple entry

and exit routes allow for student choice of their own course structures and they can adjust these in

ways that are commensurate with their abilities, interests, and life and work circumstances. This

form of flexibility, apart from enhancing student ‘autonomy’ insofar as module selection is

concerned, pre-empts the ‘lockstep’ march to the point of exit (by which students in a particular

year, group or programme level are all awarded qualification at the same pre-determined time of the

academic year). Depending on institutional arrangements, especially for unattached’ modules,

students can register at different times of the year and obtain qualification correspondingly. The

modules, packaged inter-disciplinarily (within thematically convergent fields of study) or multi-

disciplinarily (across different subjects), are also trans-institutionally portable. Free-standing

(unattached) modules can be made available in different combinations to individual students or

240

groups of students working towards their various final qualifications. Modularity then, becomes the

indispensable requirement for credit accumulation and therefore, becomes the common tariff across

disciplines and institutions (Duke, 1992: 52).

(For purposes of clarity here, mention is made that this ensuing part on modularity is only referred

to for comparative purposes; that is, to illustrate the state of flux currently occurring within HEQF

thinking and construction. In Chapter 3, sub-section 3.3.2.4 (page 175 in the study): Challenges

posed by instability within the HEQF environment, specific reference has already been made to the

October 5, 2007 HEQF document. Among others, threats to student mobility and progression posed

by the erstwhile 2006 HEQF document were cited. The rationale for this continued comparison is

mainly for comparative purposes.)

CHE’s (2000b: 41 ff) recommendations for South Africa’s qualifications framework was based on a

credit rating system requiring that at least 60% of the total credits be achieved before mobility to the

next level of a course could be recognized. At present, the Department of Education’s HEQF

(Higher Education Qualifications Framework, “an integral part of the NQF” (p. 5)) stipulation of

October 5, 2007 is the recognised authority on (HE) qualifications structuring and programme

articulation. In terms of the current HEQF stipulation, only 50% credits are required for a student’s

mobility to the next level of study to be recognized (DoE, 2006: 8). The HEQF defines a

“qualification” as “the formal recognition and certification of learning achievement awarded by an

accredited institution” (p. 5). It is worth noting that the nature or form of the learning is not

prioritised in this definition. A “programme” on the other hand, is defined as “… a purposeful and

structured set of learning experiences that leads to a qualification” (DoE, 2006: 5). From 01 January

2009, the National Senior Certificate will become “… the minimum admission requirement for entry

to new programmes” (p. 16). A “credit” is construed “… as a measure of the volume of learning

required for a qualification, quantified as the number of notional study hours [10 notional study

hours is equivalent to a single credit] required for achieving the learning outcomes specified for the

qualification” (p. 7). The following is a summary depiction of the latest HEQF’s (October 5, 2007)

qualification structure reflecting the following compulsory NQF exit level credit requirements (DoE,

2006: 10, 18-27):

Undergraduate Level of Study: Level 5: Higher Certificate, 120 minimum credits; Level 6:

Advanced Certificate, 120 minimum credits; Level 6: Diploma, 360 minimum credits; Level 7:

Advanced Diploma, 120 minimum credits; Level 7: Bachelor’s Degree, 360 minimum credits.

241

Postgraduate Level of Study: Level 8: Bachelor Honours Degree, 120 minimum credits; Level 8:

Postgraduate Diploma, 120 minimum credits; Level 9: Master’s Degree, l80 minimum credits; Level

10: Doctoral Degree, 360 minimum credits.

4.4.2 Credit Accumulation and Transfer Schemes/CATS

Modular and credit-based learning schemes are inter-related (CHE, 2002: 110, 119) in that,

packaged or free-standing modules (acquired through formal learning) have to be weighted and

accorded a value (credit) within the same institution or inter-institutionally (Allen & Layer, 1995:

25-28). CHE (2002: 110) goes as far as linking “credit-rating” and “experiential learning” on the

one hand; and on the other, “community-based or service learning” as well as “[industry-based] co-

operative education”. This linkage is viewed as pivotal to transformation strategies for the South

African HE system. CAT encompasses the accreditation of learning acquired formally, informally,

or non-formally (DoE, 2006: 8). To this extent, reference is made to general and specific credits.

Learning obtained for instance through work, life, or community experience, would have to be

accorded specific credit towards a qualification by a recognized institution of higher learning. Allen

& Layer 1995: 25-26) highlight this point writ large:

“Credit ... works at the broadest level by suggesting that learning can take place anywhere; that any learning can

be measured and given a credit value ... and that a tariff with a wide acceptability is required to act as a currency

to ensure the maximum portability of credits. It makes no assumption that learning must take place in an

educational institution, or that it need be formal. Nor does it make any assumptions about what ‘size’ learning

should be. It simply says that learning can be measured, accumulated and transferred ... the ability to give value

to, and transfer credit, has opened up areas of higher education which would have been impossible over a decade

ago [italics mine]”.

For its generic implications, some (elitist?) institutions may recognize CAT only in principle,

without actually applying it; seeing it more as an educational misnomer and anachronism, rather than

an innovative curriculum development. It is therefore imperative to have a clearly articulated CAT

lexicon that also explicates institutional and managerial imperatives, since

“... the term CAT never provided sufficient consensus to bring together the underlying flexibility and the diverse

forms of practice that might emerge ... the importance of these issues of terminology and language have been

underestimated in discussions about the implementation of change. Higher education managers, as perhaps with

managers in any other section, have often neglected this aspect of change. The arrival in institutions, often

unannounced, of terms such as CAT, modularity and APL, without sufficient support and explanation, makes

resistance almost inevitable” (Allen & Layer 1995: 29).

242

In realizing the importance of mainstreaming CATS across European universities, the International

Seminar on CATS of 2000 added a notable dimension to this curriculum phenomenon, after having

established that, “European education needs to improve its international competitiveness and the

employability of its citizens” (International Seminar on CATS, 2000: 1). The first step towards such

improvement was to realize that CATS is not to be treated in isolation. Rather, it should be inclusive

of adult education, vocational and professional training, higher and lifelong learning. That is to say,

it should seamlessly be an integral part of the broader educational system. Problems inherent in

CATS can be alleviated by among others, desisting from misusing credits for instance, as an

instrument for ‘academic surveillance’ of non-standard HE entrants. Furthermore, proper allocation

and portability mechanisms and learning agreements between ‘host’ and ‘home’ HEIs, as well as

between conventional and alternative higher education providers, should be instituted. In summing

the significance of CATS as a curriculum innovation, the International Seminar on CATS of 2000, at

its first plenary session, reflected that:

“... A credit accumulation system goes beyond a credit transfer system in that a student’s entire study programme

is expressed in credits ... Such a system would have learning accounts ... It would be capable of linking all levels

of training and education. Modules and [credit] units would have defined levels and approved syllabi and module

combinations. There would be many problems to be overcome such as defining the relationship between credits

obtained in vocational training and academic credits. In continuing education the relationship between

competencies and credits would have to be established as would the age and validity of credits. This vision of the

future would require top-down and bottom-up action to make it a reality” (Gehmlich, 2000: 2).

It is significant to note that education for work – “the expectation that university programmes might

serve more directly the needs of employers” (Bridges, 2000: 43) – is still conceptually affirmed

within the ECTS (European Credit Transfer System). The consensus at this forum was of such

massive scale, indicating that in the shift from academic knowledge to work-based learning, CATS

will become a permanent feature of the HE curriculum sphere.

4.4.3 Recognition and Accreditation of Prior (formal) Learning/RAPL vis-à-vis Recognition

and Accreditation of Prior (experiential) Learning /RAPEL

In South Africa, “... RPL was put on the [HE curriculum] reform agenda by the trade union

movement and the industrial training sector ...” (Breier, 2001b: 16). Furthermore, CHE (2002: 105)

articulates that the notions of formally accredited prior learning (RAPL) and informally acquired

experiential learning (RAPEL) are premised on two general assumptions. Firstly, the experiences

and abilities that people obtain throughout their lives in a variety of contexts, “... are equivalent, or

at least comparable, to those achieved by learners in formal education systems” (p. 105). Secondly,

243

despite the place and methods of its acquisition, “... non-accredited learning has the potential to be

recognized and accredited in relation to formal qualifications in an outcomes-based education

system [italics mine]” (CHE, 2002: 105).

From the afore-said distinction, the fundamental feature separating the two curriculum nuances (of

formally accredited and informally acquired learning) is the nature (content) of the learning and the

method of its acquisition (which is symbiotic to where the learning took place). In the same mould

that modularity and CAT(S) are dissimilar but complementary, RPL/APL, as well as RPEL/APEL

are also dissimilar but complementary. In particular reference to the UK context, Challis (I998: xiii)

mentions that RPL/APL preceded RPEL/APEL. Firstly, the knowledge or learning area acquired

has to be recognized and subsequently accredited. In illustrating some salient distinctions, Challis

(1993: xi) states: “... APEL refers specifically to uncertified learning, APL refers to that as well as

to previous learning that has been formally certified through some recognized examining body

[emphasis mine]”.

The application of learning from experience has its provenance in the USA in the 1970s, prompted

by theories from educational philosophy and psychology in respect of the learning needs of adults

(Haldane, 1997: 55; Becher & Trowler, 2001: 3; Kraak, 2000: 36). Its introduction to the British HE

system began in the early I980s, where the NCVQ (National Council for Vocational Qualification)

was statutorily established in 1986 and became the body overseeing the standardisation of vocational

education as a recognizable feature of employment and continuing adult higher education. RPL/APL

and RPEL/APEL are aimed at formally recognising and accrediting those forms of learning having

taken, and still taking place, outside formal higher education; and thus offers flexibility of entry and

exit as a means to accord equality of opportunity to all learners (CHE, 2002: 102).

RAPL is intended to facilitate differentiated student access to higher learning and mobility within

learning programmes and between institutions (CHE, 2002: 102-103). Referred to as RPAL

(Recognition of Prior Accredited Learning) by CHE (p. 104), this curriculum model “… is a way of

recognizing what individuals already know and can do ... both inside and outside formal learning

structures ...“ (p. 104). The recognition and accreditation of prior formal learning is mostly

beneficial to those who need entry or “advanced standing” (p. 104) for a course or credits for

admission to a programme of study. For adult or working students, RAPL/RAPEL is most suited for

entry into a particular field of employment, promotion purposes, or even self-development and self-

employment (Harris et al., 1994: 2, cited in CHE, 2002: 104). The value of the learning is

determined by SAQA’s levels and credit mechanisms (CHE, 2002: 104).

244

It has to be pointed out that the notion of “experiential learning”, as applied in this text, is not used in

the reductionist view of “...co-operative education and experiential learning [as] terms used by the

[erstwhile] technikon sector to describe the integration of ‘productive work’ into the career-focused

curriculum [authors’ italics]” (CHE, 2002: 10). In this text, “experiential learning” has been

broadened to encompass ‘productive work’ as any form of experience and informally-acquired

learning (Bartkus, 2001: 17-19) which, on the basis of its equivalence and comparability or ‘weight’

to that of formal HE knowledge, has the potential to be recognized, assessed, and accredited. The

form of learning previously acquired could be work-based (with the consequent problem of how it is

to be ‘measured’); obtained through the partial completion of a course of study; could have been

obtained through voluntary community service; or unpaid work – all of which have not been

previously recognized or certificated on the basis that such learning is of ‘non-traditional’

provenance. It could be argued that, like formal learning, experience constitutes a form of learning

and knowledge, as it involves reflection (Pretorius, 2003: 23). Reflection itself is constituted by

perceiving and processing, which are “... two separate learning activities” (p. 23). In integrating

theory and practice, therefore, experience could be viewed as an interstitial sphere providing

cohesion between “episteme” (normal science), “techne”, “context-dependent” (p. 22), art/craft, and

“phronesis”/“practical common sense” (pp. 22). CHE (2002: 102, 104) also emphasizes that the

implementation of RPL is a difficult process. It is paradoxical however, that both APL and RAPEL

are marginalized, given the background of intense socio-economic pressures for the integration of

skills/competencies; the challenge posed by non-traditional HE providers; and when HE itself

proclaims responsiveness and accountability on the one hand; and fulfilling the goals of equity and

redress on the other.

The assessment of prior experiential learning is the one contentious area in the ‘learning from

experience’ paradigm that has not been significantly incorporated in the mainstream curriculum

(CHE, 2002: 103). Additionally, the assessment of students’ eligibility for RAPEL should consider

the size of the non-formal or informal learning and the level at which it is acquired; the time taken

for the completion of such learning, as well as the student’s demonstrated competence of what is

already known. Compounding the credibility, validity and reliability of APEL (Assessment of Prior

Experiential Learning) is the fact that “… it involves designing instruments which will capture,

measure and evaluate learning ... in a range of differing contexts [italics mine]” (p. 104). However,

this aspect of APEL has been criticized as being analogous with a wholesale giving-away of degrees,

diplomas, or certificates. Furthermore,

245

“... there is ... an increasing emphasis on the idea of ‘competence’ and therefore a very strong pressure to devise

ways of assessing and valuing experience. Educational ideology, political imperative, and commercial

opportunity therefore come into strong juxtaposition. Some people might well consider this an unholy and

unhealthy alliance but it also opens up for others opportunities to break down some of the walls surrounding

higher education [my emphasis]” (Allan & Layer, 1995: 90) (see also Naude & Cloete, 2003: 244).

To some, the term RAPEL becomes somewhat ‘distasteful’ and preference is given to the alternative

‘prior uncertificated learning’. To them, book learning is the most reliable and valid source of

knowledge acquisition and a “recognized” body or authority has to award some form of

documentary recognition and credential the status for such learning. Evaluators might experience

difficulties in judging ‘experience’, for instance, and rely on their ‘intuition’, which is not a valid

and reliable criterion as subjectivity might prevail; depending on evaluators’ own experience and

knowledge in the particular field to be assessed. In the absence of a national rating system for

experiential learning, consensus regarding credit points or hours of study necessary for the value of

learning could still become elusive. The translation of acquired (experiential) learning into a

recognised and accepted academic level (degree value), poses another challenge for APEL’s

assessment.

Assessors with entirely academic credentials and no off-campus (e.g. in-house, employment-based)

experience might not agree with off-campus trainers and evaluators (who might lack the ‘academic

touch’ themselves) on evaluation criteria for the placement of learning into a particular

undergraduate or postgraduate level. If not determined cautiously, the instruments for assessing

“experience” could be construed as encouraging a wholesale awarding of certificates, diplomas, or

degrees. A mix of theory and experience has to be striven for, if APL is to be accorded a role as

contributing to widening access, enhancing equality of opportunity, and contributing to curriculum

transformation (Allan & Layer, 1995: 91). It is the expressed view of this study that the non-

recognition or partial recognition, as well as the marginalization of prior experiential learning,

constitutes not only the preferential embracing of dominant epistemological cultures; it also

presupposes a curriculum reform trajectory premised on the logic of a ‘mainstream’ monolithic

socio-economic environment according to which class stratification becomes an extant feature of

society. It is as though HE (acting mainly in the service of ‘the market’) only recognizes and credits

learning for which it took part in its construction and organization. Anything to the contrary appears

to be tantamount to ‘deposing’ HE of its academic freedom on curriculum management, ipso-facto,

its epistemological authority, is ‘undermined’.

In respect of curriculum reform measures, the recognition and accreditation of both prior and

246

experiential forms of learning, particularly for the South African context, would justifiably conform

to the notion of “differentiated access”, that is: “... it is designed to facilitate the judicious placement

of learners in a variety of curriculum options, depending on the goodness of fit between learners’

past learning experiences and achievements and the entry requirements of their target

programmes” (CHE, 2002: 103). The RAPL/RAPEL modes of curriculum models are still largely

referred to as nontraditional and not yet fully incorporated into the ‘mainstream’ curriculum (Breier,

2001b: 18). This state of affairs reflects the epistemological and ontological debates on the nature of

knowledge — what counts as “knowledge” and who validates that “knowledge” status (CHE, 2002:

109). Breier (2001b: 18) illuminates further that: “A survey of South Africa’s higher education

institutions conducted for CHE and the Joint Education Trust (JET) showed that the dominant form

of RPL being implemented could be described as ‘RPL for access’ [for bridging, rather than for

substantive ‘RPL for credit rating and mobility’]”.

4.4.4 Competence and Competence-Based Education and Training (CBET)

247

The shift from ‘knowledge’ to ‘competence’ has engendered a curriculum shift from cognitive

generalities to task/performance-oriented specifics, as embraced by the systems and procedural

approaches. Barnett (1997: 169) however, decries the reductionist nature of such innovation: “The

university is not free to determine the nature of the knowledge projects in which it is engaged ... the

knowledge projects are encouraged in the direction of competence ... knowledge becomes reduced to

information; wisdom ... becomes reduced and altered into mere competence”. The parlance of the

skills/competence domain (Barnett, 1997: 162-163) is therefore suggestive of an aberration (rather

than a norm) from the cognitive area of higher education, “... on which more specialized skills

ultimately depend” (Scott, 1995: 163). Competence and performance could have derivatives of a

synonymous nature if the contexts of their application are not specified or categorized (Hyland,

1994: 10). The prevalence of (new and ‘un-academic’?) terms such as competence, is indicative of

the convergence of access, lifelong learning, and technology in traditional HE, and is reflective of

the extent to which the sentiments and culture of the wider society have permeated the academy

(Green, 1999: 11-12; Maehl, 2000: 15-16).

The focus on ‘competence’ is variously referred to as “the ‘new vocationalism” (Usher, 1997: 99).

Integral to various ‘definitions’ of competence is the idea of a performance that can be directly

observed (Eraut, 1994: 64; Usher, 1997: 99). In this regard, competence becomes the acquired

ability (output) to demonstrate a task; whereas ‘skill’ becomes associated with the technique of

demonstrating the acquired ability (Barnett, 1997: 169-170). CBET (competency-based education

and training) – derived from ‘competency’ as a job-specific output – is the orientation towards the

certification of performance-based knowledge irrespective of where it was obtained, for the

occupational relevance of the ‘competent’ individual. Usher then (1997: 99), views the “new

vocationalism” (the ‘old vocationalism’ having been dominant during the Industrial Revolution?) as

evidence of the shift of the socio-economic modes of production from Fordism to post-Fordism; as

well as “... [evidence of] a wide-spread belief that the education system has failed at all levels to

produce a flexible, adaptable workforce motivated to learn throughout life”. Actual, rather than

potential competence in a pre-set context, becomes the referential context within which

performance is determined. National vocational qualification frameworks have become the standard

bodies through which competence/performance is attributed an occupational value and function; thus

not only signifying the state’s demand for curriculum efficiency, but also illustrating the serious

competition HE faces from a host of non-traditional providers vying for recognition and

accreditation of their own performance-based curricula. A distinction is drawn between academic

and operational competence (Barnett, 1994: 159; Scott, 1995: 162). Academic (internal)

competence applies when the student has mastered cognitive skills (critical thinking) associated with

248

hierarchically determined disciplinary ability. Operational (external) competence relates to the job-

relevant skills necessary for socioeconomic output. The distinction between the two forms of

competence shows the affinity between ‘education’ and ‘training,’ with CBET becoming a (post-

modern?) derivative. In extolling the virtues of ‘academic’ competence (while advertently or

inadvertently sanctifying the relics of elitist higher education) above its ‘operational’ opposite,

Barnet (1997: 169-170) unequivocally declares:

“All forms of competence arc a matter of technique ... In the domain of academic competence, technique is a

necessary but quite insufficient condition of being recognized as ‘one of us’. A number of other attributes are

called for, including a determination to get to the bottom of things ... a willingness to give oneself to the demands

of the discipline ... an ability to put an individual’s stamp on things. In short, academic competence calls for

ethical qualities, for certain kinds of human beings. Technique, in contrast can be evident without such human

qualities ... Competence, skill, knowing-how, getting things done, technique, effectiveness, operation: all these

are coming to form a constellation of concepts marking out a discourse and a set of interest. ... Admittedly,

academic discourse often falls into this same trap; but that reflection only underlines the general point, that

operational competence and disciplinary competence are both ideologies”.

The following table illustrates two variants of competence, with the third column depicting a non-

ideological, value-free, “... total world experience of human beings” (Barnett, 1997: 178). The

enumerated variables depict the areas (contexts) by which the competence mode is differentiated:

TABLE 4.4.4.1: Forms and areas/contexts of competence

ACADEMIC

COMPETENCE (A)

OPERATIONAL

COMETENCE (B)

LIFE-WORLD

BECOMING (C)

Epistemology Know what Know how Reflective knowingSituations Intellectually defined Pragmatically defined Multiple (open) approaches

to definitions

Focus Propositions Outcomes Dialogical and argumentativeTransferability Meta-cognition Meta-operations Meta-critiqueLearning Propositional Experiential Meta-learningCommunication Disciplinary Strategic DialogicalEvaluation Truthfulness Economic ConsensusValue orientation Relative strength of

discipline

Economic survival Consensually defined by

the ‘common’ good

Boundary

conditions

Norms of intellectual

field

Organizational

norms

Practicalities of discourse

Critique

Critique

For better cognitive

understanding

For better practical

effectiveness

For better practical

understanding

249

Source: Barnett (1994: 179)

The significance of the above table lies not only in ‘defining’ the two forms of competence; it also

provides a better understanding of their differences, as “... there is some evidence to suggest that

there are relevant differences between the pairs of concepts, and that the failure to make the

necessary distinctions has fuelled the appalling confusion and opacity which has characterized

much of the discourse in this sphere [my emphasis]” (Hyland, 1994: 21). Additionally,

“[t]hese questions of meaning and definition are neither trivial nor purely academic. After all, how can a system

[e.g. NVQ] which claims to be based on precise standards and explicit outcomes ... be allowed to get away with

such confusion about the basic terms which are at the heart and foundation of the whole process … the nature of

the particular concepts and categories that are used picks out concrete items and properties in the real world

which educators and trainers wish to emphasize in relation to particular programmes ... questions of status and

value are inextricably bound up with questions of meaning and application [my emphasis]” (Hyland, 1994: 21).

Clarity of parlance, in respect of the skills/competence/vocationalism terrain, becomes an essential

consideration, given that the proponents of critical/cognitive skills status quo ante have viewed the

new and ‘non-traditional’ curriculum orientations as ‘un-academic’. Accordingly, a distinction is to

be made between competency/competencies and competence/competences. Competence(s)

encompass(es) both a broad and a narrower scope. In the narrower sense, competence refers to the

individual’s capacity/potential to perform in accordance with the expectations (standards) of a

particular context. According to Bernstein (1996: 56), the: academic variant of competence would

encompass elements such as Chomsky’ s linguistic competence; Piaget’ s cognitive competence;

Levi-Strauss’s social competence; Garfinkel’s sociological/group membership competence, Dell

Hymes’s communicative/sociolinguistic competence; and Thorndike’s behaviourist competence –

to which Barnett (1994) ascribes the “habit psychology” label insofar as he views competence as

inculcating specific behavior that can be “controlled” in a work environment. This capacity can be

extended in the generalistic sense to refer to e.g. a competent doctor, mechanic, and so forth — thus

illustrating the context under which the particular capacity (ability/potential) to perform, could be

evaluated (Bernstein, 1994: 56; Eraut, 1994: 164). In its dispositional sense, competence implies the

context under which particular activities are ‘measurable’. In other words, “... ‘competences’ would

presumably be used to pick out broad groups of general capacities, and ‘competencies’ would be a

label for specific performances or aspects of activities” (Hyland, 1994: 21). CBET is therefore

concerned with the development of competences and competencies in conformity with the range of

NVQ-determined competence levels, from the lowest to the highest job-specific levels.

250

The criticism leveled at the competence-based model includes the view that the skills/competency

or performance/outcomes sloganeering is enticing “... not because [it has a precise and definite

meaning, but because of [its] very vagueness and ambiguity which is able to suggest something

broadly positive and honorific without actually having to say what this is” (Hyland, 1994: 27). For

instance, generic and core skills are broadly used, as both are applicable in school, life, and work

situations. They become only meaningful to the extent that their context-relevant application is made

explicit. Such notions as “knowledge” and “understanding” are not precisely located in the content

and application of what is job relevant and what constitutes the opposite thereof. Skills,

competences, competencies and other related nomenclature, therefore become subject to any

interpretation; and as such, “[a] common error in this sphere involves making the false move from

identifying features common to certain skills and, from this, inferring the existence of a common

skill” (p. 25). Barnett (1994: 74) argues vehemently that basing competence(s) strictly on skills is an

educational aberration, as it makes competence/performance the fundamental educational goal; and

such a tendency enhances proclivity towards over-elaboration of the very, skill. In addition, the

hierarchically structured levels of competence in the national qualification frameworks suggests that

the contexts of performance and achievement are pre-determined; and consequently, the predictable

performance on the part of the learner/employee accentuates behaviourism or conformity, rather

than emancipatory interaction with the context in which work is to be performed. From the

perspective of this study, a conclusion is drawn that the viewpoints in support of, or opposed to

competence-based models of HE curriculum innovation, gravitate on the particular

‘territoriality’ (ideology?) of the particular academic tribe – between curriculum reformists and

curriculum traditionalists.

In attempting to unravel the lexical opacity of ‘competence’ and ‘performance’, Muller (2000: 104)

provides the following schema, based on the pedagogic ramifications of both ‘competence’ and

‘performance’:

TABLE 4.4.4.2: A pedagogy-based variation of ‘competence’ and ‘performance’

COMPETENCE/PEDAGOGIC

ACQUISITION

PERFORMANCE/PEDAGOGIC

TRANSMISSIONLearner Control over selection, pace and

sequence of learning.

Performance/pedagogic transmission.

Teacher Personal contact; Implicit rules;

Unregulated acquisition.

Positional contact; Explicit rules;

Regulated transmission.

Learning sites Anywhere. Clearly identifiable; Specifically

located.

251

COMPETENCE/PEDAGOGIC

ACQUISITION

PERFORMANCE/PEDAGOGIC

TRANSMISSIONPedagogic text Ungraded & unstratified competence

read through a performance.

Graded and stratified; The

performance itself constitutes text.Assessment General competence criteria;

‘Presence’ in terms of differences.

Specific performance criteria;

‘Absences’ in terms of deficit.Class sponsors Professional and educational

middle class.

The new information/knowledge

middle class.Costs Higher teacher-training costs;

Hidden time-based costs; Less

efficient with large classes.

Lower teacher-training costs;

Economics of external control; Can

deal with large class numbers.Source: Muller (2000: 104)

The above author argues further that a lack of clarity on the two above-cited concepts results in

policy confusion on the part of policy makers and their bureaucratic functionaries. The afore-stated

framework – the ‘curriculum technology’ – amalgamates the repertoire of (school and tertiary)

subjects with market-oriented performance models, in which “... skilling [is] tailored to specific

needs, tasks and slots in the increasing labile occupational hierarchy” (Muller, 2000: 105).

4.4.5 OBE as curriculum model – a view from the south

In this brief overview of OBE, the emphasis is on its critique. As a curriculum model, OBE has been

severely criticized as accentuating non-cognitive skills and competences (training) at the expense of

critical and cognitive skills. In indicating a devaluation of OBE’s purported goals, McKernan (1998:

346) points out at the epistemological and philosophical ineptitude attendant to the OBE’s ‘success

for all’ premise “... reduces education, teaching, and learning to forms of human engineering and

quasi-scientific planning procedures ... that view education as an instrumental means to specific ends

... [and it] amounts to molding students through behaviour modification”. In its broader perspective,

the ‘success for all’ notion asserts that:

all students can learn and succeed at their own pace;

success at school breeds even more success in life, and

conditions for success are determined and controlled.

The above author further posits that the OBE’s emphasis on training, rather than on education – the

latter being construed as “induction into knowledge and understanding [which] represents initiation

into culture and worthwhile episodes of learning” (McKernan, 1998: 344) – ascribes OBE to a

technocratic system with inordinate administrative procedures. Additionally, OBE is negated for its

252

epistemological paucity and impermeability across forms of knowledge that illuminate on a range of

life experiences.

In respect of OBE, the South African scenario and its idiosyncratic past has sparked so much

controversy and debate hitherto unknown since the De Lange Commission Report of the 1980s

(Jansen, 1999: 3). The above author (p. 3) further elaborates that, “This single most important

curriculum controversy in the history of South African education [has generated debate] not only on

the modalities of change implied by OBE, but on the very philosophical vision and political claims

upon which this model of education is based [italics mine]”. CHE (2002: 34) makes the following

declaration in articulating the vision for an appropriately South African OBE model:

“In an outcomes- and programmes-based approach to curriculum design the traditional approach to the higher

education curriculum, namely apprenticeship in a single discipline, is not assumed. Instead, disciplinary

knowledge and skills are to be selected to serve the purpose of the programme and to provide the knowledge and

skills required for the development of applied competence (SAQA’s ideal output which integrates education and

training) and/or of an institution’s particular definition of ‘graduateness’ [italics mine, parentheses CHE’s]”.

It is noteworthy that CHE (2002) through its New Academic Policy, vividly makes the point that:

“The New Academic Policy [for Programmes And Qualifications in Higher Education] is based on the

assumption that, for the time being at least, SAQA ‘5 model of outcomes-based education is the dominant

paradigm of curriculum development in South Africa. [Ipso facto] If one adopts an outcomes-based approach to

assessment (as required by SAQA’s format for the registration of qualifications), then one is obliged to state quite

explicitly to all stakeholders concerned what knowledge and skills (learning outcomes) one is assessing [author’s

parentheses]” (CHE, 2002: 112).

The aforesaid statements outline a curriculum design policy framework in which ‘applied

competence’ is pivotal to the formulation of ‘learning outcomes’. The curriculum content is

therefore ‘tilted’ towards performativity. Even if an institution adopts the ‘process’ model, the

‘product’ component is still required for NQF/SAQA compliance, which is directed at amongst

others, facilitating lifelong learning. The ‘origins’ of OBE in South Africa is attributed to five factors

(De Clercq, 1997b; Jansen, 1999; Muller, 2000). It is significant that this ‘provenance’ be indicated

here, for purposes of determining the centripetality (internalization?) and/or centrifugality

(externalization?) of the environment under which OBE is/was expected to function in South Africa.

An indication of this provenance is necessary also, considering that this curriculum model is

premised largely on theoretical, philosophical, and epistemological notions ‘imported’ from

technologically advanced countries such as the US, the UK, and the OECD member states. This

253

‘provenance’ will also provide a comparative context for determining the interaction between local

educational, social, and economic conditions and the broader, global corollaries (De Clercq, 1997b:

144, 156).

Firstly, the extra-parliamentary social democratic movement in the 1990s is credited with

providing an academic framework for democratic curriculum change. NEPI (National Educational

Policy Initiative) became the home of divergent intellectual thinking regarding ‘equity’ and

‘development’ in a future democratic educational dispensation. For instance, one school of thought

within NEPI (the ‘intellectual activists’) regarded ‘equity’ as the, fulcrum of all curriculum

democratization; whereas another (the ‘reconstructionists’) viewed broader national development as

being fundamental to curriculum change. This “… [extra-parliamentary] phase of teeth-gritting

accommodation” (Muller, 2000: 123-124) is not only significant as an intellectual curriculum

developmental phase; to the extent that this marks the first time in South Africa educational history

that curriculum discourse became shaped within academic frameworks rather than political contexts,

OBE thus becomes one of the curriculum features by which economic development is ‘measured’.

The second factor, private sector input through e.g. PRISEC (Private Sector Educational Council)

staked its claim in the ‘curriculum industry’ by propositioning that national economic development

would best be served not by formal academic training alone, but combining vocational and

entrepreneurial education as well (Jansen, 1999: 5). The significance here lies in the observation that

economic productivity was not isolated from concomitant curriculum reconfiguration. For instance,

De Clercq (1997b: 156) cites that:

“The education system [in post-apartheid South Africa] has therefore to shift from a system that differentiates and

socializes students from the rigid hierarchical division of labour of modem industrial societies, to a system

producing high ability – high quality products with the ability to solve problems, think critically and apply new

skills and techniques to different situations”.

The third factor is attributed to the roles played by the non-governmental and foreign donor

sectors (Jansen, 1999:5). The USAID (United States Agency for International Development) and the

IEB (Independent Examinations Board) respectively evince the magnitude of interaction between the

afore-said sectors. Although such interaction did not have a sizable impact then (early 1990s) in

articulating a coherent approach to OBE as an alternative curriculum option, these sectors were

remarkably supportive of curriculum reform initiatives. Despite the prevalence of “teeth-gritting”

tensions that characterized this era (due to a motley of conflicting ideological, conceptual, and

political factors) the IEB however, became the ‘flagship’ and ‘success story’ of the emergent OBE

movement by developing an adult education curriculum that was in consonance with the objectives

254

of the NTSI (National Training Strategy Initiative). Nonetheless, such attempts were by themselves

insufficient, precisely as a result of not focusing in the areas of formal education where the majority

of school children/students were located (Jansen, 1999:5). Fourthly, some pre-1994 state initiatives

are cited as being the inadvertent precursors to an alternative (de-racialized?) curriculum proposal.

With its modicum of reform, the Education Renewal Strategy (ERS) for example, became the policy

framework within which CUMSA (A New Curriculum Model for South Africa) – which was not

necessarily OBE-specific – stipulated the development of economy-directed learning areas. The

prevalence of a plethora of racially diversified education ‘departments’ (eight in total) however,

became self-defeating. For instance, the social and economic empowerment factors of OBE were not

aimed at, because the restrictive and inhibitive factors inimical to access, equity and redress, were

not the primary objectives of the apartheid state (Muller, 2000: 96).

Fifthly, the ‘high ability-high quality product’ integrative approach, manifested by (but not limited

to) the 1995 White Paper on Education and Training, marks a post-1994 era characterized by

attempts to transform and restructure all levels of the education system in a manner befitting our

inchoate democracy (De Clercq, 1997b: 155). This transformative and democratization era is

profoundly characterized by (Education White Paper) policy documents, the aim of which is “...to

restructure the existing divided and fragmented education system, known for its poor access, poor

progression, low participation and separate systems of poor provision, curricula, examination and

certification structures [italics my emphasis]” (De Clercq, 1997b: 55-56). In this context, OBE

becomes the via-media contributing to an integrated human resources developmental strategy, “... to

answer both the needs of a changing economy [which, as cited earlier in this chapter, are changing

4-5 times faster than the curriculum is adapting] and the socio-political demands of the poor

majority” (p. 156).

OBE’s emergence in late 1996 was ‘afflicted’ more by controversy, confusion and continuous debate

than by (post-1994) euphoria (De Clercq, 1997b: 157-158; Jansen, 1999: 7-10). The rationale for its

‘importation’ from the industrially and technologically advanced countries of the world is rooted in

the need for understanding the workings of the global economy (Muller, 2000: 96). In reinforcing

equality of opportunities, OBE is also viewed by the above author as achieving the development of

generic and flexible skills that are regularly updated; and thus boost: the national economy’s

capacity to participate in the ‘high skill-high ability’ requirements of the post-Fordist economy (De

Clercq, 1997b: 156). Furthermore, “...changes in the global post-modem informational economy

require the education and training system to promote high quality-high skill human resources to give

countries a leading competitive edge in the global economy ... this requires a shift from a low trust-

255

low ability society with bureaucratic and rigid forms of organizations to a high trust-high ability

society with learning forms of organizations” (p.156). To the extent of its ‘integratedness’, OBE

could be viewed in its complementing ‘acquired’ skills with ‘required’ skills, a view succinctly

presented thus:

“What does an integrated system entail? It relies on a new outcomes-based approach to learning in order to

facilitate equivalence, articulation, flexibility, progression across different learning institutions and contexts.

‘Outcomes’ provide the foundation for the formal equivalence of certifications. The South African policy experts

decided to define outcomes broadly in a non-behaviouristic way, in terms of key generic skills and knowledge,

such as the ability to understand a task theoretically, apply skills and knowledge to it and transfer them to

another context. Outcomes become then, an integral component of learning by complementing curricular content

and learning methods. This integration of content, skills and competencies/outcomes in each course/diploma

makes portability and articulation between learning contexts and institutions more meaningful and realistic.

Existing academic and vocational courses and educational practices in South Africa could benefit from such

changes as they have suffered in the past from curricula whic1~ have been mainly content-oriented with exams

having detrimental backwash effects on the whole school academic or vocational curriculum. The new [OBE]

system encourages courses, diplomas or degrees to combine, different degrees, theoretical and practical

knowledge and competencies. It challenges the polarization between different orders of learning and knowledge,

between theory and practice, between the ability to think abstractly and through concrete applications [italics

mine]” (De Clercq, 1997b: 156).

Muller (2000: 96) concurs with this integrative approach – to the extent that it empowers learners to

master their own destiny, and to the extent of systematizing all levels and forms of learning; from

general education to further education and to higher education, and its infusion into the NQF. He

cautions however – on the basis of such learner empowerment – that: “Critics may well leap into the

conclusion that the NQF is a scheme to empower learners by deskilling teachers”. From this study’s

viewpoint, such criticism is unfortunate. It is inconceivable that there is a curriculum model that has

ever been perfect to the hilt. While OBE may have snagged initially (as evinced in the 1997

catastrophic launch of Curriculum 2005), it is from such heuristic premises that improvement could

always be striven for. The most plausible way of remedying OBE’s “… deskilling of teachers”

would be the application of protracted and continuous teacher reskilling programmes. The majority

of those teachers who would become ‘casualties’ are so precisely due to being products of a racially-

divided education system whose training bore no consequence to the skills development of their

learners. (Thus giving credence to the notion that teachers teach as they were taught?) The following

forms part of the barrage of criticism leveled at OBE (Jansen, 1999: 7):

The truism that teachers were disenfranchised from the conceptualisation and

256

implementation process. As the pool of the human resources ‘muscle’ on whose shoulders

rested the day to day execution of OBE’s intended objectives, not only were they ill-

equipped; they were not consulted in its conceptualization, which lacked a South African

context and thus projecting an amorphous distinction between traditional, transitional and

transformational OBE variants (Jansen, 1999: 7);

The methodological articulation was complicated by an unprecedented phalanx of a new

terminology. The nomenclature in South African OBE is so intricate and superfluous “...that

it has possibly generated the most extensive vocabulary to accompany a curriculum reform

initiative in the twentieth century. More than 100 new words were introduced onto the

curriculum landscape, thereby constituting perhaps the single most important threat to the

success of OBE as a curriculum innovation” (p. 9). Most teachers were therefore not only

incapacitated by poor preparation, they were also ‘intimidated’ by the formidable lexical

arsenal envisaged to become the very tools of OBE’s implementation (Jansen, 1999: 9);

The social objective of OBE is difficult to determine. In other words, “How do we know

when or whether noble social goals are met by pedagogical arrangements [proposed by the

OBE model]?” (Muller, 2000: 100). This calls into question the balance between “acquired”

and “required” skills. For a “self-regulated millennial citizen”, originality and creativity of

learning should not be sacrificed at the expedience of job-compliance, otherwise OBE

rarefies into a behaviouristic system promoting the “governmentality” of particular kind of

learners as productive recipients concerned with performance rather than competence (p.1

03); and teachers projected as dispensers of pre-designed knowledge, rather than as the

education and training development practitioner (ETDP), where the ETDP is “... the

individual engaged in the practice of organizing systematic learning [outcomes?]” (National

Curriculum Development Committee, 1996: 14 in Jansen, 1999: 9);

‘Training’ is emphasized more than ‘education’. It means that ‘outcomes’, as the basic unit

of competence, focus more on the specificity of those learning aspects relating to actual

things that a learner must be able to do (ergo, not difficult to assess) in relation to the

specificity of levels (unit standards), learning area (content), and learning programme

(curriculum, courses) (Muller, 2000: 97); than on the generality of those critical outcomes

relating to “... generic trans-disciplinary competencies which ... underlie all integrative

skills ... [ergo,] difficult to assess” (p. 97).

Despite the array of OBE-specific criticism, it is the view of this study that the OBE ‘movement’ has

to be credited for its proactive approach of enhancing diversity – the recognition that all learning is,

and all learners are, not isomorphic. In that regard, OBE is construed here as contributing effectively

257

to both the diverse and divisionless universities in the de-homogenization of approaches, opinions,

and ways of knowing (Duderstadt, 2000b: 86); while also facilitating permeability within

knowledge boundaries and enhancing learning throughout life, in work, and in school (pp. 86-87).

4.4.6 The NQF and HEQF – establishing an equitable curriculum framework

It is worth noting that the October 5, 2007 HEQF document is presently the authoritative text in the

construction of qualifications and programmes. This point has not been overlooked in the previous

relevant discussions. This sub-section begins with the nascent SAQA/NQF perspective of HE

programmes and qualifications articulation, and culminates with the latest HEQF perspective of

these programmes and qualifications requirements. The NQF (National Qualifications Framework)

was established through the SAQA (South African Qualifications Authority) Act of 1995, and

currently premises its curriculum model on the stipulation that:

“... the learning outcomes of all South African qualifications should include critical cross-fields or generic skills

to promote lifelong learning as well as discipline, domain-specific or specialised knowledge, skills and reflexivity.

The format for qualification specification, where appropriate, should include the title and purpose of the

qualification, its NQF level, credits, rules of combination for its learning components, exit-level outcomes and

associated assessment criteria, entry requirements, forms of integrated assessment and arrangements for the

recognition of prior learning and for moderation of assessment [italics my own emphasis]” (DoE, 2007b: 5).

The NQF logic is itself also based on imported models. A lot of local HE research is actually

focused on the instructional aspect in the curriculum. The NQF model stresses on qualitative

(programmatic) output, rather than on quantitative (learner) input (CHE, 2002: 35). To the extent

that the NQF embraces generic/critical cross-field outcomes, it could be viewed as adopting a trans-

disciplinary mode of education provision and acquisition (Breier, 2001b: 13). Learning outcomes are

categorized into unit standards in eight levels (levels 5-8 for the HE stream) in twelve fields of

learning (CHE, 2002: 23). Course designers, educators, assessors and evaluators have to infuse the

unit standards as the critical component of the mainstream field of learning. The NQF model

advocates for “decentralized assessment”, and it presents outcomes as the cohesive element of the

standard of the unit (s) of learning (DoE, 2007b: 4). With specific reference to the general (GET)

and further education and training (FET) Umalusi has criticized the NQF system of severe

assessment limitations. Among others, SGBs (standard generating bodies) – which can act in more

than one sub-field (CHE, 2002: 25) – acting outside of formal education institutions are not

necessarily competent in quality assurance processes. A study by Umalusi indicated that out of 74

providers (SETAs/Sector Education and Training Authorities) registered with, and accredited by

SGBs to provide specialized occupational and industrial training, a significant number (45) did not

258

adhere to required quality assurance measures, and did not submit courses and course materials —

irrespective of such providers’ registration status with SAQA (CHE, 2002: 13, 15-16; 24-25; 29).

Furthermore, the idea of “fundamental” or core requirements for a “planned combination of learning

outcomes [qualification]” (DoE, 2007b: 3) is regarded as conceptually nebulous and subject to

various context-specific interpretations. In other words: “What is the standard of all the courses that

have been developed and are being offered against fundamental unit standards? [italics

mine]” (CHE, 2002: 19).

The NQF is construed here as the infrastructural methodological wherewithal of the superstructural

(outcomes-/competence-based) philosophy of SAQA, which is fused into actual curriculum.

programmatic restructuring (Kraak & Mahomed, 2001: 142); the focus of which “...was intended to

provide coherence to this far-reaching shift in teaching and learning [italics mine]” (Nuttall, 2003:

59) (see also Donn, 1998: 73). The NQF stipulates the contexts for “... the formal recognition and

certification of learning achievement ...” (CHE, 2002: 33). As opposed to the traditional and

disciplinaristic HE mode, the NQF curriculum mode is based on applied competence as pivotal to

determining a student’s ‘graduateness’ (p. 34); that is, coherent integration of sequential learning in

career-focused areas of learning, and is used by employers to determine job competence (Breier,

2001b: 15, 22). Outcomes then, become the indispensable elements by which the diversification of

the curriculum materializes:

“In the outcomes-based approach intrinsic to the NQF, a qualification signifies and formally certifies the

demonstrated achievement by a learner of a planned and purposeful combination of learning outcomes, at a

specified level of performance ... SAQA has stipulated that the learning outcomes of all South African

qualifications should include critical cross-field or generic skills as well as discipline, domain-specific or

specialized knowledge, skills and reflexivity. SAQA’s format for qualification specification minimally includes

the title and purpose of the qualification, its NQF level, credits, rules pf combination for its learning components,

modules or unit standards, exit-level outcomes and associated assessment criteria, entry requirements, forms of

integrated assessment (to ensure that learners synthesize the learning from the various modules) and recognition

of prior learning and moderation arrangements [italics mine, author’s parenthesis]” (CHE, 2002: 33).

SAQA (South African Qualifications Authority) was established by the SAQA Act (No. 58) in 1995

to, among others, develop NQF rules and oversee their implementation by registered bodies (Breier,

2001b: 36-37). SAQA’s role then, goes far beyond the microcosmic sphere of providing

organizational and structural meaning to the NQF:

“The dominant view of SAQA is that their organization’s role is to go beyond the structural and bureaucratic

requirements ... they regard standard setting and qualification formation as a socially determined process

259

conditioned by the dominant power relations that characterize society ... they believe the inequalities that pervade

South African society have also penetrated ET institutions and the construction of knowledge” (Kraak &

Mahomed, 2001: 142).

As the NQF’s ‘governing body’, SAQA sets out a regulatory framework for curriculum

restructuring by establishing transparency and accountability to society (p. 142). As a premise for

improving quality and agreed-upon standards, curriculum restructuring is therefore directed at social

development and economic reconstruction (Cheng, 2003: 202); rather than at increasing social

stratification by providing and supporting ‘pockets’ and ‘enclaves’ of curriculum programmes that

benefit and perpetuate elitism (Donn, 1998: 70, 73). It is for this latter reason that CHE (2002:

32-33) states the following as some features which a new qualifications framework should have:

compliance with all the regulatory and legislative frameworks under which HE falls;

innovative curriculum programmes that produce knowledgeable and globally competent

graduates;

recognition of multi-sectoral interests and participation in HE — staff, students,

government, industry and commerce, private providers, employers and professional

organizations;

lifelong learning should be an integral mainstream component, allowing for multiple entry

and exit points, intermediate qualifications, flexible, open and diverse modes of delivery; and

articulation of various qualifications and their relationships in terms of level descriptors,

developing qualification types and their exit routes in an uncomplicated common rating

system that makes standards setting an enabling goal for students planning their educational

course of action.

The NTB (National Training Board) through its National Training Strategy Initiative (NTSI) is

variously credited with being the forerunner to the NQF initiative (Muller 2000: 96; Breier 2001b:

23). The latter author makes a very enlightening observation though, namely that,

“The National Qualifications Framework, which is impacting on every aspect of the formal education sector, is

primarily the product of the industrial training sector and the labour movement ... the university sector did not

play a significant role in these early discussions and generally kept its distance from the whole NQF development

until recently when it became clear that the sector was not to be exempted from its authority [italics all

mine]” (Breier, 2001b: 23).

This observation is also corroborated by Cooke and Naidoo (1998: 2). The mentioned worthiness of

this observation is underlined writ large by the study’s hypothesis; according to which some South

260

African HEIs are pessimistically viewed as ‘re-active’ (as opposed to ‘reactionary’), and• thus still

cling to elitist curriculum practices that subliminally entrench social stratification. It is for this

reason that legislative means have had Lo be applied (Portnoi, 2003: 79-80, 82-83) in dealing with

this ‘stance’ that diminishes the responsiveness or adaptiveness of HE curriculum to societal

demands on a voluntary and protracted basis. To this extent, it is questionable whether NQF

compliance is merely done for institutional budgetary exigency. An aspersion is not cast here for

those HEIs seriously committed to non-cosmetic curriculum innovation; an emphasis is only being

made here that epistemological tensions in ‘the curriculum wars’ – that is, “...the politics of

curriculum reform” (Wilson, 1999: 443) – characterize this pervasive ontological question. In other

words, HE curriculum transformation has become the epistemological ‘battlefield’ on which

‘democratization’ or ‘blue collarisation’ of the curriculum is perceived to have ‘encroached’ the

‘white collarisation’ terrain.

The NQF model, while attempting to remedy past socio-economic injustices that stymied access,

mobility and progression (Breier, 2001b: 24), has had to navigate the difficult path between ‘equity’

and ‘growth’/‘development’ (De Clercq, 1997b: 153; Muller, 2000: 96). On the egalitarian/equity

premises, it recognizes the diversification of learning programmes and standardization of

qualifications as the means towards the educational enfranchisement of all citizens, hence the

inclusion of a range of models from CATS to RPL; from lifelong learning to skills and

competencies. De Clercq (1997b: 153) argues that the developmental/growth aspects of the NQF are

at odds with the egalitarian perspective. The former focuses on economic competence, which is still

like a mirage to the majority of the poorly educated and scantily trained workforce. The latter author

(p. 155) decries the weaknesses of the ISP (Industrial Strategy Project), an ANC-aligned economic

strategy intended to “consummate” the objectives of socio-economic development and (higher)

education restructuring:

“The main flaw of the ISP policy is that it is informed by one main priority: how to make capital work more

efficiently and democratically with labour. While this is an important objective, there are also other important

issues to address, namely, how to break the white monopoly over economic and financial resources in Sough

Africa ... it is argued that, because the ISP does not adequately conceptualise the policy problem, its economic

restructuring proposals are problematic. They will not help, at least in the short term, to address the root causes

of the economic problems but they are also biased in favour of the interests of organized capital and labour in the

core economy and address only superficially the needs of the traditionally excluded [italics mine]”.

Furthermore, the author calls for a more diverse mode of economic restructuring as the most viable

option “...which caters for the widely different economic and geographic contexts ... [so as] to

261

reconcile the tensions between the strategic objectives of economic growth, redress and equity” (De

Clercq, 1997b: 155). This reconciliation is a moral obligation (Luckett, 2000: 62). In light of the

deluge of critical antagonism (nay, contradictions) towards the NQF, it is the considered view of this

study that apologists of “traditional higher education” (read: elitism) are trying to clutch at straws in

an attempt to obfuscate their insidious reactionary motives. While this study is not a political treatise

(nor premised on any “political correctness’ discourse), it has to be mentioned that these

‘experts’ (and quasi ‘experts’) have to draw a line between the ruling party elite; and educational

policies as emanating from the state (the formulation of which has drawn input from the expertise of

international policymakers and curriculum practitioners of note). It is understandable that

educators have to be well prepared as they are the main drivers of curriculum change; one finds it

self-flagellating and grossly contradictory to state that the NQF is ambitious and conceptually vague

(De Clercq, 1997b: 159). The following observation is considered here as a demonstration of critical

antagonism towards the continuously-developed variant of the NQF in South Africa:

“The NQF goes against the commonly accepted belief that the socio-economic role of education is to differentiate

and allocate students for the world of work. One of the main ways used to differentiate is through a fragmented

and divided system made up of different learning institutions with unequal grades and status [as in the past]. The

NQF attempts to undermine this differentiation by promoting greater articulation, between different learning

institutions and contexts … [that] the NQF system will contribute to national economic development may also be

wishful thinking [italics mine]” (Luckett, 2000: 63).

In the final analysis, it can only be posited here that some politically loaded claims are fraught with

absolutistic undercurrents that seek to protect the economic interests and capital monopoly of the

already-privileged sectors of society. Ideologically loaded nuances (such as Luckett’s “commonly

accepted belief’) only divert much-needed attention from rectifying whatever shortcomings may be

prevalent in the NQF – the most severely criticized curriculum proposition after the OBE – rather

than hoping that relentless attacks on it will make it disappear. Jansen (1999: 3) makes even a more

radical declaration that “[t]here is not a shred of evidence in almost 80 years of curriculum change

literature to suggest that altering the curriculum of schools leads to, or is associated with, changes in

national economics”. Gokulsing et al. (1996: 9) support Jansen’s view, stating that: “There is no

empirically proven connection between economic performance and the levels of education in any

given country. Education among the workforce of an enterprise is often irrelevant to on-the-job

productivity and is sometimes counter-productive”.

If there is indeed no connection between economic productivity and career-focused levels of

education, how does one then account for the skills and knowledge levels of the workforce in the

262

industrialized countries? Contrarily, the NQF makes a contribution towards the educational and

skills development of society as well as uplifting the still racially unbalanced economic rat6 of

participation of the previously marginalized sectors of the economy (e.g. through diversification]

‘flexibilization’ of innovative curriculum models). By adopting an HRD-oriented trajectory as an

integral part of the entire education system, indications are that the NQF has heralded an era of

curriculum ‘democratisation’. Addressing its flaws has to be in ways that are concomitant with the

management of change in a neophyte democracy, in a spirit that embraces and entrenches a human

rights culture. It is within the realms of such a culture that the morality of transformation in

general, could be justified and defended.

The reaction to SAQA’s NQF-borne curriculum restructuring was at first different within the former

technikons and universities. On the one hand, “[Former] [technikons [had] found it easier to embrace

the concepts of the NQF since many of the principles [of developing learning programmes – their

subjects, levels and credits for qualifications, on a consensus basis] were not entirely new to

them” (Breier, 2001: 23); corroborated also by Cooke & Naidoo(1998: 1). The NQF model was

applauded by some within the former technikon sector for ‘liberating’ their curriculum from

unyielding bureaucratic control, although others feared that their trans-institutional programme

amalgamations (portability?) would be compromised. Furthermore, the HE sector displayed a rather

pessimistic attitude to the NQF model, hence it having to be ‘coerced’ into compliance through

legislation. This mode of curriculum restructuring was largely viewed as a threat to institutional

autonomy (a perception that reinforces HE as being ‘thin’ on transparency and accountability); that it

would herald an orientation towards vocationalism (a perception that their ‘academic standards’

would be lowered); that the diversified programmes already in existence would be adversely

impacted on; and that the NQF was overly reductionist and behaviouristic; therefore, “... generally

anti-thetical to the goals and ethos of universities” (Breier, 2001b: 23). The university sector’s

insistence on, and justification of exclusion from programmatic re-alignment (parity) with the

former technikon sector was further highlighted by SAUVCA (1999: 26, cited in Breier, 2001b: 23):

“... no country has succeeded in including its University qualifications in a national qualifications

framework. The only comparable attempt was made in New Zealand where after six years the

government has now published a White Paper in which the Universities will remain in a separate

system of programme approval and quality validation”.

Donn (1998: 74-75) emphasizes that the New Zealand approach to programmes and qualifications

was emblematic of “...the abandonment of welfarist economics... [in preference of] a more market-

orientated approach to education … [thus signifying that] [t]he role of education as a force for social

263

justice and equity was diminishing”. The marketisation of education is therefore viewed as an

acceptance of IMF and World Bank ‘structural adjustment programmes’ intended to maximize the

role of the market in the design and development of educational programmes in the entire education

provision of a country by limiting the role of the state. In order to obviate ‘the New Zealand

problem’ – that of subjecting all of HE qualifications to registration, in alignment with the

development of national unit standards – SAQA has made the concession of establishing the HEQC

(as CHE’s branch) to address the issue of the compatibility of all HE qualifications to NQF

stipulations. This concession accommodated SAUVCA’s view that SGBs (Standard Generating

Bodies, part of SAQA) be established (CHE, 2002: 3). This concessionary ‘nested approach’

advocates for a policy of setting standards for level and qualification descriptors by moving from the

generic to the specific, thus “... allow[ing] greater freedom and responsiveness on the part of

providers than the original SAQA model [of combining higher education qualifications with a

national programme of unit standards?] and would lighten the bureaucratic burden on

providers” (CHE, 2002: 4). Notwithstanding divergent technikon-type and HE-type intellectual

terrains, the HE sector, as evinced in the CHE’s articulation of a New Academic Policy (NAP), has

opted to work in tandem with the objectives of the NQF:

“The CHE’s (NAP) ... document is a highly-regarded and innovative contribution to the development of the NQF

and qualifications design ... the NAP discussion document has been a particularly fruitful source of ideas and

marks a major contribution by the higher education community to the development of the NQF as a whole [italics

my emphasis]” (Department of Education & Department of Labour, 2003: 17-18).

The HEQC (Higher Education Quality Committee) was established to evaluate and accredit HE

programmes, as well as ensuring provider compliance to NQF course registration requirements

(CHE, 2002: 9). In terms of the HE Act of 1997, the HEQC is further tasked with the overall

quality assurance mechanisms and certification within the HE sector. Through the HEQC working

in tandem with SAQA, a HE qualification framework has been established to ensure that

programmatic articulation and student mobility between FET and HE, as well as within HEIs,

occurs vertically, horizontally, or diagonally (CHE, 2002: 14). The principle of ‘equivalence of

learning’, in the form of RPL for instance, is also taken cognizance of in the facilitation of

progression through the HE qualification context. As a division of CHE, the HEQC necessarily

ensures best practice within the private provision of higher education and within the ETQA

‘industry’; so as to establish a quality assurance system of education and training that integrates

foundational, work-based and socio-economically relevant competencies (Strydom et al., 2001:

42-43). Prior to Umalusi’s (April 2007) criticism of the SAQA/NQF mode of programmatic

differentiation, other academic commentators had raised a range of concerns and misgivings (pp.

264

47-52). Only a few of those concerns are cited (Strydom et al.,: 42-43):

Academic: Separation of the registration of standards and qualifications from the entire curriculum

negatively impacts on coherence of the whole curriculum design initiative; which is conventionally

perceived as a bottom-up process, rather than top-down. The competitive environment of

preponderant HE providers and stakeholders threatens both institutional authority (e.g. on conferring

qualifications) and the quality of programmes offered by these providers. Their assessment systems

and procedures raise questions relating to standards (Strydom et al.,: 47).

Administrative: There is an increasing emphasis on assessment, rather than on teaching and

learning (Strydom et al.,: 47-48). This competence- and outcomes-based model, due to the plethora

of procedures and systems involved, engenders cumbersome assessment-related administrative work

and record keeping. Decentralisation of registration processes would help insofar as changes occur in

knowledge fields.

Qualifications and curriculum design: Due to international changes occurring in knowledge sub-

fields, it should be very clear what educational outcomes should be attained by any specific

programme of study. This would best be attained by institutions themselves, than by a nationally-

prescribed SAQA-NQF process, as they are the primary sites where the knowledge and skills

experiences occur (Strydom et al., : 48).

4.4.7 Lifelong learning: interfacing social and economic ‘logics’

Breier (2001b: 5) mentions that lifelong learning, specifically addresses the needs of adult learners.

In compliance with the demand for responsiveness and access, HE addresses these needs by

providing part-time modular courses, distance learning and resource-based learning. In the SA

context, RPL has been “promoted” (p. 5) to facilitate access to those whose formal education has

been disrupted or denied by apartheid. The following features characterize teaching methods

associated with lifelong learning (Breier, 2001b: 14-15):

Peer-based and self-directed learning methods are used to enhance flexibility and learner

choice;

Open learning and alternative curriculum delivery approaches are used; and

Real-world, experiential, problem-solving and resource-based learning are included to

encourage learners become lifelong graduates.

265

The provision of knowledge as strategic resource in the contemporary era requires the enhancement

of a dualistic (economic/human capital (resources) vis-à-vis the humanistic/human rights culture)

approach. The HE function of the transmission of both academic skills and applied competence is

encapsulated by UNESCO (1998: 7) thus: “… the requirements of a high quality education and training for the whole generation of students, together with

the growing implementation of lifelong learning for all, place radically different demands on all education

systems and higher education will have to play a crucial part ... to contribute both conceptually and in the

preparation of personnel. Conceptually: through the redevelopment of the school curriculum ... In personnel:

through the preparation of teachers; of specialists for the whole field of education, formal and non-formal; in the

development of continuing professional education, including its own personnel [italics mine]”.

Emanating from the excerpt are two crucial areas of HE responsibility, both of which steer it towards

innovation and enterprise in the transmission of knowledge. Firstly, terminal learning is to be

subsumed by seamless and lifelong learning, the curriculum impact of which will require the

asynchronous merging of traditional and non-traditional ways of teaching and learning. Additionally,

the incorporation of all levels of learning into a seamless structure will increase the social ‘rates of

return’ as the majority of learners in an educational context are not all isomorphically inclined to

academic knowledge. After all, seamlessness facilitates the required skills and experiences of work

and of learning, thus maximizing society’s expectations accruing from the world of work. Secondly

instituting innovative ways for teacher preparation has the potential to broaden the consciousness of

teachers-to-be on new and innovative curriculum frameworks. The absolute necessity for

transformative teacher preparation cannot be overemphasized. A proactive approach could obviate

such anomalies as the fiasco that erupted following the premature implementation of Curriculum

2005 in South Africa. Education Minister Asmal, as the then political head of his department, was

compelled to temporarily recant its implementation because many teachers complained of a lack of

adequate training on their part, for such grandiose (but necessary) innovation. Therefore, learners’

educational preparation is ‘mirrored’ through teachers’ adequate preparation – or a lack thereof.

The changing nature of knowledge (from the premises of ‘intellectual capital’ to ‘information

capital’); the changing nature of work and attendant workplace culture (embracing an HRD

dimension); as well as the pivotal role of knowledge in the educational and material wellbeing of

individuals in a learned society; these are some of the crucial curriculum-related factors that have

necessitated a re-definition of “student”. An aspect of such a ‘re-definition’ has been emphasised

by the New Zealand Ministry of Education in 1997 (quoted in Donn, 1997: 76) thus:

“As skills and knowledge grow in importance, so does the way we recognize that learning has taken place, skills

have been acquired, and a standard achieved [italics mine]”. The salience of re-defining a qualification as a

266

standard for achievement, seems to be at the heart of lifelong learning – where ‘qualification’ would become the

standard of “... the objective recognition of [any?] learning having taken place”.

Whereas young, freshly matriculated, and campus-residing students were the traditional ‘gold

standard’ of HE’s catchment area, this is now being impacted on by a radically changed environment

(Duderstadt, 2000b: 86; Walters, 1999: 576-578). The prevalence of a variegated student population

with different backgrounds, needs, experiences and expectations, is now an extant phenomenon.

McNair (1993: 45) makes this unequivocal caveat:

“Many people working in higher education, and many institutions, have yet to recognize the implications of

lifelong learning. Even among those institutions with a high proportion of mature students, institutional

structures and expectations are still primarily based around the needs of young people: adults remain “the

invisible majority ‘~ and words like “student “, “learner” and “graduate” are usually assumed to refer to young

people [italics mine]”.

Duderstadt (2000b: 86) corroborates the view that the orthodox notion of “student” is still to be

reconceptualised and disassembled from its traditional perception:

“Perhaps part of our difficulty ... [is] that we still tend to think of the baccalaureate degree as a well-defined

learning experience that prepares a student for life. But today learning has become a lifelong activity. Today’s

students will need to continue to learn, through both formal and informal methods, throughout their lives. ...a

college education was never intended to provide all of the knowledge needed for a lifetime. But in years past,

most of the additional knowledge necessary for a career could be acquired informally, through on the job learning

or self-study. Today, however, both the rapid growth of knowledge and the multiple career transitions facing

graduates, demand a more strategic approach to lifetime learning. We need to rethink educational goals from this

4fetime perspective. We should view undergraduate education as just one step down the road of a lifetime of

learning. This would allow us to better match learning content and experiences with both the intellectual

maturation and the needs of the learner. In a world driven by knowledge, learning can no longer be regarded as a

once-is-enough or on-again off-again experience. People will need to engage in continual learning in order to

keep their knowledge base and skills up to date [italics mine]”.

It is then against the afore-stated premises of lifelong learning (as providing a cohesive interface in

programme and curriculum restructuring), that the ‘type’ of learner has to be borne in mind for

various ‘types’ of HE curriculum ‘products’ (Walters, 1999: 575-576). It is almost aphoristic that a

seamless and lifelong form of learning is the recognition that all learners are not isomorphic; ergo,

their different learning needs, expectations, and experiences warrant inclusion in any learning

programme worth the paper it is written on. Client satisfaction maximizes an institution’s

competitive edge in the niche area of curriculum offerings, which, apart from compliance with the

267

legislative policy frameworks, positions institutions in the high stakes of prestige and status in the

HE curriculum ‘industry’. The post-1994 HE environment, in accordance with epistemological shifts

occurring in the industrialized world (e.g. New Zealand, Scotland), has taken into cognizance that:

“The separation of education and training has contributed significantly to the situation where most of

our people are under-educated, under-skilled, and under-prepared for full participation in social,

economic and civic life [my emphasis]” (ANC Education Department, 1994: 10). Through its system

of registration of qualifications, level and qualification descriptors, the NQF has attempted to

buttress the notion of divisionless ways of learning, assessment, and accreditation procedures.

While the South African approach to lifelong learning has some international verisimilitudes, “... an

important local addition to international debates [regarding lifelong learning] is the link drawn

between human resource development and equity policies to redress the apartheid legacy [italics

mine]” (Christie, 1997: 116). In other words, lifelong learning is viewed also in the legalistic human

rights context: “It [WPET] clearly states that education and training are basic human rights for all,

and that the ‘over-arching goal of policy must be to enable all individuals to value, have access to

and succeed in lifelong education and training of good quality” (p. 116); an ostensible reference to

Section 29, particularly sub-sections 1(a) and (b) of the Constitution of the RSA, p. 14. By accepting

the responsibility of establishing mechanisms for the provision of basic formal education and adult

basic education and training, as well as further education, the state attempts to execute its fiduciary

function by reconciling the imbalance between the acquisition of education as a private (individual)

good and as a public one. The NQF then, by ‘extension, could be viewed as manifesting both the

social and the economic aspects of lifelong learning. ‘The unitization of components of the

curriculum (e.g. CATS, RPL) into a nationally recognized grid of achievement (qualifications by

level descriptors) and attenuating the importance of the place where these were obtained, is a

significant boost for the educational profile and skills repertoire of the workforce. The human rights

dimensions, as well as the human resources potential for economic growth, are of particular

importance in a neophyte democracy such as South Africa’s, in which the interests of economic

growth do not have to transcend human dignity and development. Such an assertion may pe4iaps

appear utopian since growth and equity appear to be polemic to each other.

The OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) is credited with the

provenance of lifelong learning. Henry et al. (2001: 108) assert that lifelong learning has an affinity

with human capital and the labour market; education and age of the learner; as well as the salience

HE’s contribution to socio-economic development. Reference was made earlier in this chapter in

support of the notion that the workplace dynamics have changed so rapidly (four to five times) in the

268

past ten to fifteen years, that it is now evidently anachronistic for higher education to prepare

(through a homogenous curriculum) and to produce an ‘isomorphous’ kind of worker in an age of

techno-economic/techno-scientific production, where a kind of worker with flexible specialization

and portable skills is most relevant (Muller, 2000: 28). In a broader context, lifelong learning has

filled the void which traditional HE had (in) advertently ‘abdicated’ in order to reproduce

educationally differentiated economic functions. The broader domain of lifelong learning would

therefore encompass the following goals: educational (e.g. recurrent/continuous learning, RAPL,

RAPEL); social empowerment (e.g. incorporation of adult education as a basic human right). It is

the view of this study that lack of job experience – the ‘albatross around the neck’ of many

unemployed (and unemployable) graduates from high school to higher education – is diminished

through the lifelong learning curriculum trajectory. For instance, a full-time worker is able to choose

a study unit pertinent to his/her work and obtain a tailor-made (“just-for-you”) qualification while

studying part-time. A self-employed entrepreneur (e.g. a sub-contracted electrician with little formal

education, but abundant experience) could study part-time for a certificate qualification that would

enable him/her to obtain tenders that would flourish his/her business and thus become an employer

himself/herself. That certificate could be a short course of a few weeks’ or months’ duration, and the

incumbent did not need to register for a degree in for instance, Electrical Engineering or the like –

when he/she already had the self-acquired experience. The demand for lifelong learning is

increasing, rather than decreasing. As an avenue for unemployment relief; lifelong learning enhances

the acquisition of additional short courses and job-compliant skills that could not be fulfilled by only

academic credentials of university graduates. The rationale for the continuing unemployment and

unemployability of graduates could be located in the ‘lack of experience’ dynamic; that is, the

retardation caused by inadequate updating of skills in a manner that is commensurate with changes

in the labour environment and patterns of work (Brown & Scase, 1997: 85-88; Cloete & Bunting,

2000: 41-42; Kgaphola, 1999: 15).

In addition to the skills-employment dynamic – when viewed as a factor of lifelong learning – it has

been noted by Brown & Scase (1997: 85) that careers are no longer defined as “... a succession of

related jobs, arranged in a hierarchy of prestige through which employees move in an ordered,

predictable sequence [italics mine]”. It is becoming increasingly difficult to plan long term career

progression due to the volatility of the job market. For instance, in addition to a range of acquired

skills, required skills (those determined by employers) also include a personality repertoire, because

“[e]mployers are encouraged to view work as a way of life, rather than as a means of earning a

living [italics mine]” (p. 91). The ‘personality inventory’ includes suitability and capability for the

job; both of which make others want to work with you. Personal and social skills enhance the criteria

269

of acceptability within the workplace environment. The ‘personal’ and the ‘public’ image of

incumbent employees collectively establish a skills repertoire and ‘cultural capital’ for employment,

although the latter is severely criticized for its promotion of cultural hegemony of different social

categories. Among other considerations, the curriculum implications for the above-cited scenario

include the incorporation of a practical component in all the fields of study. That would assist in the

job-readiness of graduates prior to their entering the job market. Failure to achieve this crucial

requirement would mean that the lack of the seemingly ‘sacrosanct’ pre-requisite, “experience”, has

already relegated countless (future?) graduates to perpetual unemployability. The challenge is for

HE to accentuate the skills/competence agenda in their curriculum reform initiatives.

McNair (1997: 35) points at the economic salience of lifelong learning:

“The argument [between the humanistic and human capital perspectives], at its simplest, is that in a rapidly

changing economy the school system is incapable of renewing the human capital of society with adequate speed

[my emphasis]. Only about three percent of the workforce enters the workplace each year from schools with new

knowledge and skills and any manufacturer who renewed his capital equipment at that rate would rapidly go out

of business [italics mine]”.

In terms of supply and demand, therefore, the inference made is that higher education’s traditional

disciplinary curriculum mode is antithetical to what is actually required by the perennial workplace

dynamics; HE’s supply of employable graduates is outweighed by employers’ demands for

employee ‘graduatedness’. The OECD, with specific reference to Australia, is of particular

significance insofar as the conceptual and ‘etymological’ development of lifelong learning is

concerned. In the 1970s, concerns with staggering youth unemployment galvanized initiatives aimed

at scrutinizing “...the transition from school to work” phenomenon (Henry et al., 2001: 108). Initial

focus was directed at recurrent education, so as to diminish the generation gap of education

opportunities between the young and working adults. Within the OECD however, recurrent

education did not fare well as some saw it, alas, as a threat to the “... dominantly selective function

of education systems ... and overcoming socially-determined educational

inequalities” (Papadopoulos, 1994: 112 in Henry et al., 2001: 109); thus accentuating “...fears on the

part of the establishment that the application of recurrent education would result; in a radical

transformation of existing educational systems” (p. 109). Viewed as a challenge “...to the tenets of

meritocracy” (p. 109), recurrent education as a forerunner to lifelong learning, was shelved until the

1990s (p. 109) when the former had gained momentum in most countries, economic blocs, regional

and international educational forums and organizations, albeit with different philosophical

justifications revolving around the purpose of education (humanistic/rights culture vis-à-vis human

270

capital/skills development discourses and persuasions).

In addition to the social dimension, the ‘integrationist’ strategy inherent in lifelong education, of

incorporating formal and informal learning; education and training; institution-based learning and

work-based vocational training elements as being developed in the local NQF, augurs well for the

way forward charted by the new interdepartmental (Department of Education (DoE) & Department

of Labour (DoL) strategy for the socio-economic realisation of lifelong education (DoE & DoL,

2003: 1). That both the OECD (Henry et al., 2001: 120) and UNESCO (1998: 6) have accentuated

the significance of both the social and integrative perspectives of lifelong learning indicates the

increasing recognition of informally-acquired learning. The South African variant of lifelong

learning has international verisimilitude (Walters, 1999: 576), as depicted for instance, in NCHE’s

(1996: 119) general characterization of lifelong learning:

“A further challenge [for SA higher education] is to move the higher education system in the direction of

becoming an open learning system which is organised for use by learners at different times, in different ways and

for different purposes at various stages of their lives and careers – a system that promotes lifelong learning, not

merely at the margins for small groups of “mature” students, but in its basic shape and structure [italics mine]”.

In addition to the recognition of qualifications by de-emphasizing the place where these were

obtained, the involvement of the employment sector in providing work-based training (e.g. the

‘corporate classroom’ or recurrent learning) has further accentuated the salience for lifelong learning

as filling the inter-generational interstice between work, home, life, and learning. By also de-

emphasizing “… the dominant selective function of education” (Henry et al., 2001: 121) – therefore

emphasizing the equity/egalitarian intention of lifelong learning – the social imperative has not been

effaced. Henry et al. (2001: 121-122) further ascertain that the social imperative has created “...

contending logics... [for] the socially-divisive effects of economic globalization”. The latter effects

by themselves dilute social cohesion. These discordant ‘logics’ within the lifelong learning

framework have remained largely unresolved and become a cause for tensions; e.g. whether the

humanistic or human capital objectives should be the raison d’être for lifelong learning’s adoption

and implementation. The extant state of these discordant ‘logics’ has ramified into developmental

and equity/egalitarianism concerns for society on the one hand; and competitiveness, efficiency and

performativity concerns for economic growth on the other. As an instrument for economic

competitiveness – ipso facto, global economic participation – performativity is viewed as enhancing

and advancing particular interests in ‘the politics of globalisation’. The case for the social dimension

of lifelong learning is further motivated by Walters (1999: 576): “I argue [in his paper] that lifelong

learning needs to be qualified in relation to its social and universal purposes if it is to avoid being

271

primarily an instrument of “the market” and if it is to contribute to emancipatory social goals at

local, regional and global levels [italics mine]”.

The OECD has realized that lifelong learning, if it is to avoid being relegated as one of copious

academic clichés, has to be financially supported, as it benefits all vested interests – individuals,

families, employers, society, and the state. It has a crucial role to fulfill for the declared intentions of

a learned society. For the pessimists who do not view lifelong learning as being instrumental in

curriculum reform, and the apologists (those who ardently support the differentiation function of

HE), a ‘wake-up’ call should be derived from the observation that:

“There is a widespread perception that traditional institutions are not meeting the needs of the lifelong learning

cohort and that the field is open for new providers to meet market demands. One obvious, and problematic,

outcome of this segmentation is that traditional institutions may be left serving the less-profitable traditional

undergraduate market which is largely government-funded or family-funded, in a time when governments are

increasingly endeavouring to cut public outlays ...[italics mine]” (Henry et al., 2001: 122).

Despite some of the criticism leveled at HEIs’ responsiveness to society, the lifelong learning sphere

is the one curriculum example of a positive direction in which a range of short courses are offered,

that also serve to elevate the re-training/skilling initiative.

4.5 PERSPECTIVES ON CURRICULUM EXPERTISE BY PRIVATE HIGHER

EDUCATION PROVIDERS AND THE CORPORATE/INDUSTRY SECTOR

In sub-section 2.1.2.1 of Chapter 2 of this study (p. 22 ff), mention has variously been made of

perspectives on the knowledge generation and curriculum expertise of private HE providers and

multinational corporations and industry. Examples cited 1in that section include BAeVU (British

Aerospace Virtual University) and its configuration of (particularly lifelong) courses franchised from

conventional public HEIs; OLA (Open Learning Australia); as well as WGU (Western Governors

University), a corporate institution formed in partnership with such conglomerates as IBM, KPMG,

and AT & T. Following presently is an extended dimension of the knowledge provision capabilities

by these non-traditional stakeholders. There is little doubt that HE’s traditional client-base has

changed and expanded, thus necessitating the ‘mainstreaming’ of non-traditional forms of

knowledge and curriculum models (e.g. lifelong learning and CAT). Externally induced factors have

fundamentally enhanced a diversification and transformation of the HE knowledge base (Morrow,

2003:6; Naude, 2003: 71-72; Szczypula et al., 2001: 93). Private HE providers in South Africa are

and legally protected by the constitution and the 1977 HE Act (Cloete & Bunting, 2000: 26). As

opposed to the SAQA/NQF mandate, this legal framework however, does not provide curriculum

272

stipulations for them. It is necessary to mention that in the ensuing sub-sections (4.5.1 & 4.5.2) a

discussion ‘overleap’ is most probable in that, some corporate companies have mutated into private

HE providing agencies (e.g. Educor, as mentioned later). Also, some private HEIs have some form

of agreements with corporate education companies (Cloete & Bunting, 2000: 27).

4.5.1 Private higher education providers as curriculum competitors

Traditional HE has been associated with the primary missions of research (knowledge generation

and production), knowledge dissemination through teaching and service to the community; as well

as validation of knowledge by awarding relevant certificates, diplomas and degrees. The confluence

of amongst others, massification, ICT, and globalization, has resulted in HE’s ‘autonomous space’

being invaded by a host of alternative HE providers (Cloete & Bunting, 2000: 26). The increasing

demand for HE qualifications by diverse needs of non-traditional students, coupled with changes

occurring in the labour market, have contributed to the proliferation of private HE ‘suppliers’ – ipso

facto – competition for more students. So preponderant is this invasion of HE course offerings that

the sector has variously been referred to as the HE ‘curriculum industry’. No longer is traditional HE

‘sovereign’ in determining who it will admit, what will be taught, and how it will be taught; even the

degree-awarding prerogative is challenged in the post-literate era by variants of ‘the curriculum

industry’. Private providers’ forte has been in responding quicker to the training needs of the ‘new’

learners; while affording them independence, quality, efficiency, and innovative ways of learning

through ICT (Cloete & Bunting, 2000: 26). Traditional HE is therefore compelled to navigate the

conflicting and dichotomous path between economic and academic interests (Henry et al., 2001:

135). In other quarters, it is already mooted that “supranational bodies” (e.g. the World Trade

Organization and the European Union) be empowered with “... the question of control of [higher

education] curriculum...” (p. 136). It is the considered opinion of this study that, were this to happen,

the capitalistic interests of the dominant multi-national corporations, their countries and the HE

enterprise; would then prevail over those of economically and technologically under-developed

countries. The latter’s R&D capacity, a capital-intensive enterprise which is in stasis already –

barring donor funding – will be severely confined to a role of perpetual ‘catching up’. Expressing

this view, of the might of transnational corporations in controlling technology and information

systems (both being knowledge-dependent factors of R&D), Martin (1993 unpaged, cited in Orr,

1997: 44-45) states that:

“Eighty percent of foreign investment and 70 percent of world trade are controlled by 500 corporations that,

between them, own 30 percent of the world’s gross domestic product. They are mainly run from North America,

Western Europe and Japan, and their profits return to those places. The privatization of key utility services

transfers power away from the political control of the state to transnational corporations and financial institutions

273

and reduces the effectiveness of delivery. The declining influence of the nation-state has [adverse] implications

for universities as part of the public services sector [my emphasis]”.

In Chapter 2 of this study (pp. 18-121), various university ‘off-shoots’ were overviewed. Of these,

the ‘corporate’ and the ‘virtual’ variants appear to be the ones from which the broad thrust of host

competition emanates. They have penetrated s ‘autonomous space’ by reaching more and more

students of heterogeneous backgrounds in virtually all corners of the planet (thus facilitating lifelong

learning and enhancing open distance modes of curriculum delivery), and commercialized subjects

that enhance graduate employability. In this contested terrain for student numbers, “... [traditional]

higher education policies increasingly emphasize institutional competition and

entrepreneurialism” (Orr, 1997: 46), thus instilling a new ethos in higher education-corporate links

for R&D and techno-economic cooperation (Muller, 2000: 98; Orr, 1997: 46). In the wake of the

Mode 2 paradigm of applied and “... socially distributed knowledge production system” (Gibbons,

1998a: 33) – where knowledge is produced “in the context of application” (p. 33) at multiple sites

by teams of extra-university knowledge workers and practitioners from various academic and

intellectual persuasions – such strategic and entrepreneurial engagements have included

NPOs/NGOs, professional bodies/learned fraternities and societies, as well as para-statal

organizations with expert capacity in niche research fields of knowledge. In this context, a nexus of

licensing fees arrangements and intellectual property agreements act as cohesive mechanisms for

safeguarding ownership of knowledge, as in franchised courses and corporate learning. Against this

competitive background however, traditional HE still possesses ‘autonomous space’ in the area of

basic (pure) research. Partnerships and networking between HE and other role players mentioned

above, signify the magnitude of competition in a post-Fordist climate (Bunting, 2002: 27; Gibbons,

1998a: 22) which is characterized by the production of knowledge in-the-context-of-application, by

multiple teams and at multiple sites. It is in this kind of context (of ‘application’) that a most

befitting ‘definition’ of ‘knowledge’ would be posited as “... the innate ability of one to make sense

of information, or to cater, information to specific situations [italics mine]” (Szczypula, Tschang &

Vikas, 2001: 93). Du Plessis (2003: 1) indicates just how serious and extant this “threat” is, even for

the South African higher education ecology – and thus signifying the geographically indiscriminate

‘sovereignty’ of globalization and its concomitant marketization of knowledge. Citing the SDA

(Skills Development Act (Act 97 of 1998)) and the SDLA (Skills Development Levies Act (Act 9 of

1999)) as his point of departure, he makes this starkly awakening remark:

“Both the landscape and the market for education and training in South Africa have changed dramatically in the

last few years, [and yet] HEIs have been slow to respond to the opportunities that flowed from these changes in

their environments. This is reflected in the fact that less than 12% of skills levies and grants that were claimed

274

from the ETDP [Education and Training Development Programme] SETA [Sector Education and Training

Authority] in 2002 went for training conducted by HEIs. The rest of these payments [from the state] went to

private providers. This is ironic in view of the fact that HEIs have been around for decades while private

providers of training are relatively new to the [higher] education and training industry. A further irony lies in the

fact that HEIs enjoy blanket interim accreditation as training providers at present [italics my own

emphasis]” (Du Plessis, 2003: 1).

In the same exegesis, Du Plessis further ‘indicts’ those South African HEIs that seem impervious to

these challenges already being diligently absorbed by their private counterparts; who, in compliance

with the NQF and SDA, are exploiting the corporate sector to provide amongst others, “just-in-time”

management training. They are exploiting the corporate sector, because “… [employers] can no

longer afford to send employees away from work for extended periods of time to obtain formal

qualifications ... they also want to know what further training their employees need to receive to

obtain full qualifications” (Du Plessis, 2003: 1). In addition, concern is raised as to:

“... why, in spite of HEI’s being well established with well-known and trusted names and having been granted

interim accreditation as training providers [but still], ... perform so dismally when it comes to the actual delivery

of the kind of training required in the world of work and tapping into the opportunities they are presented with by

this changed environment ... HEIs, on the other hand, have registered whole qualifications with SAQA and lack

the flexibility to respond to this, new training need. Unless these [training] needs can be satisfactorily addressed,

HEIs are not client focused in their approach to this new market [italics mine]” (Du Plessis, 2003: 1).

The perceived lack of delivery in skills training by HEIs is in stark contrast to the 1997 EWP3,

which – while calling for “... the graduate outputs of the higher education system [to] match the

needs of a modernizing economy” (Cloete & Bunting, 2000: 41) – was criticized “... for being silent

on [the actual] curriculum transformation” (p. 44). The above two authors estimate that the growth

of private HE providers in South Africa is illustrated by the annual enrollment of about 500 000 of

post-grade 12 learners in those private HEIs. Furthermore, “[i]ndications of the growth of this

[private HE provision] sector are that several private education companies have listed on the

Johannesburg Stock Exchange ... with the exclusive aim of obtaining more capital for extending

their operations” (Cloete & Bunting, 2000: 26). Such companies include Educor – which controls

and/or owns such private HEIs as Damelin College, Midrand Campus and Intec College. Courses in

accounting, computer science and economics are offered to students who are also registered with

Unisa (p. 26), meaning that course recognition, curriculum-related and other mutual agreements

exist between the company and Unisa. In this regard, it evinces the fact that networking and

partnerships with conventional HEIs (locally and internationally) strengthen the course of private

companies becoming HE providers.

275

The fact that such companies and their subsidiary colleges facilitate training and employment is

reason enough for increasingly attracting more student enrolments (Cloete & Bunting, 2000: 77) –

given the vagaries of the labour market, particularly for graduates who become job-seekers with no

related experience! The kind of agreements existing between Unisa and Advtech illustrates a broader

scenario in which public HEIs agree to provide certain services to private providers. These could

include the latter acting as ‘conduits’ for the former to students who do not have direct access to the

former’s home campus. Signatory institutions share learning centres and other related resources.

Other JSE-listed private education companies include Advtech – which has Crawford College as one

of its subsidiaries, and has a cooperation ‘deal’ with Boston University in Australia. That has

enabled Advtech to offer a range of MBA programmes to its students. Private education companies

have also formed unlisted conglomerates, such as APCSA (Association of Private Colleges of

South Africa) and ADEC (Association of Distance Education Colleges). APCSA and ADEC jointly

have more than 300 000 students “… of which probably 150 000 are higher education students” (p.

27).

Cloete and Bunting, furthermore (Cloete & Bunting, 2000: 28-29), ascribe various reasons for the

momentous increase in the private provision of higher education. Firstly, public HEIs have

responded slowly to new opportunities presented by HE legislation. Such opportunities exist in the

realms of flexible learning, recognition and accreditation of various qualifications and forms of

learning obtained at multiple sites – including the workplace. Secondly, in orthodox public HE, both

undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications take longer to complete, whereas private providers

shorten the study period while including a work-related practical component — in some instances,

even guaranteeing employment for their students. While others have argued against the

vocationalisation of the HE curriculum, Winch (2002: 102) and others would argue that work

preparation is one of the principal and intrinsic aims of education in the “modern liberalism” sense.

The proliferation of private providers, while presenting opportunities for various student

backgrounds and needs, also increases the threat of a significant decline in academic standards. The

advent of international competitors has necessitated that commonly agreed-upon standards be

adhered to. SAQA has become the education and training qualifications authority (ETQA) under

whose jurisdiction falls the registration and quality assurance mechanisms of private HEIs (Cloete &

Bunting, 2000: 44).

4.5.2 The corporate/industrial sector as curriculum competitors

It appears that market forces significantly dictate to the way forward for HE’s adaptation to its

external environment. Orr (1997: 51-52), examined “... the influence of corporate ideology [italics

276

mine]” on higher education, and finds that HE’s present organizational and functional formation is

inept to challenge the more unified corporate sector in facing global competition. The author cites

the Business-Higher Education Forum (BHEF) of the USA as an example of the corporate sector’s

protracted influence on educational policy. Amongst others, the BHEF’s advocacy for high

technology as a source for growth and prosperity, calls for tax rebates for capital invested in

industrial research; advocates, for changes in intellectual property laws, so as to“... increase private ownership of knowledge in order to maintain profit and a competitive edge within the

market ... Essentially, the recommendations coming from the forum assert the primacy of the private sector and

subordinate all policy decisions to global economic issues ... One of the results of the sponsorship of research by

industry is that the ownership of the results becomes the property of industry, and not the public [italics

mine]” (Orr, 1997: 52).

It would appear from this assertion that HE-corporate relations are most likely to be swayed in the

direction of the corporate world’s ideology of privatisation – thus prompting notions of “academic

capitalism” by Slaughter and Leslie (1997), albeit the governments’ decreasing financial support of

public HEIs is necessitating that. It is evident from the aforesaid that the South African traditional

HE sector, like the rest of the world, is confronted with an ‘emergency response-time’ factor;

considering that work and corporate requirements are changing at a corresponding time (four to five

times) to the rate at which knowledge is expanding in the Digital Age. The corporate sector,

including its corporate university variant, has the financial and organizational advantage to initiate

change quicker, and attract traditional HE experts into their curriculum design and instruction

mould. Partnerships and networking seem to be the most viable options for those traditional HEIs

still (partly or fully) ‘trapped’ in non-virtual and non-competitive curriculum constructions, delivery,

and assessment modes (Nedwek 1999: 174). In emphasizing the need for adopting innovative

approaches for HE survival, Mohlala (2003: 1) states that:

“[o]rganisations are fast realizing that they need to do things differently but in ways that are smart and value

adding. This means thinking outside their traditional boxes [‘autonomous spaces’?] in the quest to survive or

grow. Institutions of higher learning [however,] generally seem to lag behind in catching up with these changes.

This results in a delayed response to their market demands and expectations — i.e. development of, among others,

responsive curricula [and] credible data supply [italics mine]”.

Mohlala further illuminates that the situation for orthodox HEIs is compounded by the fact that a

new ‘entrant’ to the fray has emerged in the form of the SETAs (Sector Education and Training

Authorities) who are now offering NQF-approved training equivalents of university degrees. He

cites the envisaged MERSETA’s (Manufacturing, Engineering and Related Services Seta(s) — of

which he is Divisional Manager for Planning, Reporting, and Evaluation) — development of

277

qualifications up to level 8, pending SAQA’s approval. Such developments (in addition to those

cited by Tschang (2001: 29-30) later), portend a ‘shape up or perish’ message for the tradition HEIs.

It is now an aphorism that ICT has broken the knowledge-dispensing monopoly previously enjoyed

by the traditional public HEIs (Nedwek, 1999: 175). “Knowledge age technology” (Scholte, 2000:

195) has attenuated the time and place of learning, instilling a sense of “communities of practice”

among clients and users of asynchronous on-line provision and acquisition of curriculum (Nedwek,

1999: 175, 176). The use of technology is perhaps the single most contributory factor separating

public HE providers and their private counterparts. The classroom as a factor of ‘textual

location’ (site of learning) becomes greatly impacted on for offering varieties of knowledge, de-

emphasising distance and cultural boundaries, due to the ‘epistemological authority’ of the Internet

and the Web-based curriculum. The “knowledge age technology” has radically changed the HE

enterprise from “production-centered” to “learner-centred” methods of teaching and learning

(Nedwek, 1999: 176). Software companies are designing a range of ‘curriculum ware’ that enhance

interactive, multimedia instructional support for the technological compatibility of the ‘content’ of

learning and use units of study. Licensing agreements allow private providers to franchise courses

from public HEIs, so as to strengthen the former’s growing adult learning base (p. 175). Rapid

advancements in technology have ushered in knowledge explosion and its resultant “...

fragmentation of knowledge ... into ever smaller pieces [facilitated by] learning through short “bite-

sized” and “navigatable” video clips on the Internet ...” (Tschang, 2001: 23). The preponderance, of

knowledge fields and subjects makes it possible for HE students to construct a learning programme

from a myriad of loosely structured but thematic courses. Availability of websites to anyone adds

pressure on traditional HE to offer competitive learning programmes. Some, like the Western

Governor’s University (WGU) and California Virtual University (CVU), are conglomerates of

private companies and networks of HEIs offering on-line study programmes (as unified curricula)

from traditional universities who are their network members. In addition, “[n]on-traditional actors

such as corporate universities, professional associations and textbook publishers are starting to offer

courses, ranging from the upgrading of employee skills to frill university degrees. The number of

corporate universities grew from 400 in 1988 to about 1 600 in 1998, and they could threaten

traditional educational providers should they leave the confines of companies, seek accreditation,

and actively solicit students” (Tschang, 2001: 29-30).

What kind of skills do employers need? This question is necessary, in view of the fact that an

overwhelming majority of university students are studying in order to work thereafter. Indications

are that knowledge-as-process is being superseded by knowledge-as-product. Naude (2003: 78)

278

clearly articulates this perspective (as a dimension of curriculum reform/transformation): “The

question of what skills are relevant for the knowledge economy is a crucial one for curriculum

reform. The answer ... lies in consulting prospective employers ... This results in an emphasis on

work-related skills linked to specialized competencies”. The general employer view is that they

require “relevant” job-specific skills (Cloete & Bunting, 2000: 46). However, in the knowledge

economy, the continuously changing nature and availability of knowledge and information, place an

emphasis on the acquisition of not only specific forms of skills, because “[t]he more specific the

skill, the less adaptable it is [italics mine]” (p. 46). Especially for postgraduates, problem solving,

data gathering and reconfiguration skills are necessary for an innovative contribution to the

economy. The above authors also advocate for the configuration of the national system of innovation

with curriculum expectations. While there appears to be no “threat” for HE management adopting

corporate and entrepreneurial methods of governance, and also strengthening alliances and

partnerships with industry for funding and commercialization of education research output; it is

therefore self-fulfilling logic that the curriculum – as the product of HE – should necessarily be

accorded the self-same market-oriented competitive edge and status. Such an orientation would

ensure that HE graduates become equally competitive as ‘agents’ of knowledge transfer and thus

reduce the skills gap between HE and the workplace. In an effort to align the supply of skills to the

economic demands, the DoE has urged universities to cut back on the Humanities and offer more

courses in Science, Engineering, Business and Management (Govender, 2007b: 8). While providing

training in skills to meet the needs of the national economy is a pressing requirement, Barney

Pityana, Unisa’s Vice-Chancellor acknowledges that “… the question of whether a university’s role

was to educate or provide job skills [at the expense of “attitudes”] was a “hot debate” in education

circles” (Govender, 2007b: 8).

Some academic analysts, like Holmes (2000: 2), maintain that skills-for-work-compliance is an idea

that did not originate from the world of work: “Such an assertion [of higher education conformity to

the skills agenda] appears to have arisen within the arena of policy-advocacy, as there is certainly

no indication that ... employers themselves framed their own requirements and expectations in terms

of skills [italics my own emphasis]”. Employers had previously used words such as ‘ability’, to refer

to work-compliant performativity. Holmes (1995 & 2000) further argues that there appears to be a

methodological flux in the way that skills are to become conceptualized and validated. Bunting &

Cloete (2000: 41) and Kgaphola (1999: 15) assert that a developing economy like South Africa’s,

also has to conform to shifts occurring worldwide from labour-intensive to capital-intensive

production. In the latter mode, there has been an increase in the demand for skilled professionals,

technicians and managers who will drive the new “technological-capital” system. Low-skilled

279

workers are thus becoming “replaced” and “displaced” as the SA economy profoundly shifts from

manufacturing and production to more emphasis on the services sector (Bunting & Cloete, 2000:

42). The overall impression is that “... the higher education system [in South Africa] is not

producing the numbers and types of graduates required by the labour market. It may either be

producing too few graduates overall or be producing graduates who cannot find jobs in a modern

economy [italics mine]” (p. 42).

The rise of IT-related sectors of employment has increased the need for trained professionals in this

sphere. For instance, the ITAA (Information Technology Association of America) indicated in 1998

that companies with more than 100 employees had a manpower shortage of 346,000 positions for

programmers, systems analysts, and computer scientists/engineers (Szczypula et al., 2001: 96). In all

IT-related sectors, the number as a whole was 606,000. The need for IT professionals, accentuated

by IT’s creation and reclassification of business and occupational types, is underlined in the

statement:

“The overall continuation of employment growth will depend critically upon the existence of a new workforce

skilled in IT and possessing interdisciplinary knowledge of how the Internet creates new work environments, as

well as [influencing] change [in] traditional work settings ... workers will need to have some knowledge of IT and

the mechanics of using the Internet and manipulating the information on it, as well as knowledge of the new

economic, legal and other structures that affect the characteristics of information [italics mine]” (Szczypula et

al., 2001: 96).

The expansion of occupations emanating from these new work environments is occasioned by the

evolvement of “Internet inhabitants” such as traditional and entrepreneurial business seeking to

reach a wider market for their products; technocrats who are the Internet’s policy makers; media

professionals who present their work in virtual settings by using sophisticated multi-media tools, and

information specialists who excel in information retrieval, manipulation, and distribution. New

occupations will also be created by networks of virtual organizations, and companies who rely on

competent individuals to deal with their worldwide business operations. Such occupational trends

will ostensibly require IT competency primarily, complemented by a range of thinking abilities and

skills. In illustrating the context of the current labour market, which makes it imperative for the

development of human capital, Kearney (2000: 130) makes the following distinctive features of the

labour market: “… deregulated economies with flexible job markets.., reduced public sector

employment ... increased contract, part-time .and seasonal work ... greater worker mobility phasing

out of ‘lobs for life” ... portfolio career paths ... enhanced need for re-training for the job market ...

shorter working lives ... dual income families ... promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises..,

increased self-employment”.

280

The above scenario poses problems for HE’s traditional curriculum content, pedagogic models, and

assessment techniques. First-time job-seekers (qualified, but lacking skills and/or experience),

particularly the young, are wont to feel ‘discriminated against’ in the turbulent job market.

Education and training should take cognizance of these market realities and configure curriculum

content and delivery methods accordingly. Kearney (2000: 130) contends that the role of education

should therefore be to enhance self-reliance in this knowledge-intensive environment, which

invalidates previously held perceptions that education produces differentiated social participation in

the economy. Possession of knowledge, rather than of education, has become a crucial determinant

of one’s ‘station’ in life. Examples abound of self-made ‘knowledge magnates/billionaires’, e.g.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates. (In a Forbes magazine survey of early 2005, it was established that of

the world’s top 100 wealthiest people, seven of the top ten had no university degree). All of the

distinctive features identified by Kearney have collectively contributed to the “destandardisation of

work” (Beck, 1992: 142), challenging the one-dimensionality of full-time, and lifelong employment.

Labour law, place of work, and working hours (‘time’ of work), have become the three focal areas in

which new ways of doing work have been reformulated – “flexibilisations” have become a standard

feature of work and how it is done (p. 142). A compelling argument of the relationship between HE

curriculum/knowledge and employment in post-industrial society is one that definitely cannot be

overlooked. In the shift from elite to the mass HE systems,

“... both private and public sector organizations are being structured in ways that challenge conventional

assumptions about managerial and professional careers, for instance. Bureaucratic forms of organization which in

the past offered careers through personal promotion and security of employment are being replaced by alternative

organizational structures which are often described as flexible post-bureaucratic, or postmodern” (Brown &

Scase, 1997: 85).

A new HE curriculum vision has emerged as an attempt to narrow the gap between school and work

by providing work-based learning opportunities; not only for qualification appraisal, but also to

increase the application of work-relevant knowledge. It is now an incontrovertible fact that

knowledge has become the backbone of post-industrial society (Drucker, 1993: 42) on which resides

the wealth of individuals, organizations, and nations. ‘Ownership’ of knowledge provides a

competitive edge in the new informational and global economy. Knowledge is thus a strategic

resource and imposes an economic variable in the spheres of high-quality productivity (Castells,

2001: 2). Information (and communication) technologies have become the engines through which

knowledge is generated, processed, and disseminated (Muller, 2000: 26). Continuous innovation and

a highly skilled and knowledgeable workforce are indispensable components for IT-generated

281

techno-economic development; accentuated by the internationalization of science, technology, and

research on the one hand; and internationalization of production and networking among

multinational corporations on the other.

The techno-scientific mode of production (heavily dependent on knowledge-based development and

high volume of capital in science and research – the output of which is necessarily commercialized)

– apart from being a variable in post-industrial transformation of society and the economy – is also a

factor of the competitive environment in that it points at the directions (niche areas) which warrant

crucial exploitation by HE research (for its academics and scientists) and for curriculum re-

organization (for its graduates to cope in the world outside of the academe). Castells (2001: 153) and

Carnoy (2001: 85-86) cite the Silicon Valley in California – “[p]robably the most inter-linked

research-training system in the world ...” (Carnoy, 2001: 85) – as a techno-industrial site of

development where networking has become a crucial component of the techno-scientific chain.

Stanford University and the University of California at Berkeley (UCLA), “... [t]wo of the best

engineering and science universities in the country [USA] ...” (p. 85), provided the knowledge

infrastructure for ICT development through their cutting-edge research in knowledge fields such as

physics, geology, materials science and chemistry (p. 85). About 3000 high-technology firms and

companies are physically located within fifty miles from Stanford and UCLA, thus ‘pragmatising’

their benefiting in the research and design enterprise through R&D partnerships and networking.

The province of Bangalore, India, is the centre of IT software and electronics. Firms steeped in

techno-scientific research and development in software and electronics in the Silicon Valley have

become the nerve centres of “the value chain”/network process by eliminating competition from

other regions and countries with less technological architecture around which R&D is centred

(Castells, 2001: 153). The networking of shared information between the electronic software

producers and suppliers, and Silicon Valley, toughens competition from those outside “the value

chain.” Collaboratively networked products (e.g. computer hardware for course development)

become the sole monopoly of the techno-scientific ‘members’ of the network process. Carnoy

(2001:86) equates the centres of networked techno-scientific knowledge (whose R&D value requires

high capital infrastructure), to the new ‘owners’ of knowledge. Whereas ‘knowledge’ has historically

vacillated its ‘ownership’ status between higher education (as its producers) and the state (as higher

education’s custodians); the centres have become the nodes ‘of R&D export, re-directing its

production capacities to mainly industrialized countries. The ubiquitous availability of borderless on-

line learning opportunities has eroded the centrality of the state in knowledge provision. Carnoy

(2001, 86-87) states:

282

“Since the nation-state’s monopoly of knowledge was at least partly determined by its ability to interpret and

transmit bourgeois behavioral [sic] norms, including language and culture, this shift to greater valuation of profit-

producing skills [ushered in by science, technology and commodification of knowledge, supported by networked

knowledge and capital] again means the reduction of the nation-state’s control over knowledge”.

The significance of Silicon Valley, as a ‘techno-economic hub’ lies in the extent to which it puts an

implicit caveat for higher education: that it cannot afford to minimize the importance of science and

technology (and the concomitant high skills) in knowledge for the 2lst century, which revolves

around all forms of IT-inclined processes of ‘knowing’. That scientific excellence is now tending to

be in the domain of private and networked partnerships is ironic, considering that (basic/pure)

science is the one epistemic sphere of knowledge in which HE has historically been known to excel.

4.6 AFRICANISATION IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION CURRICULUM SPHERE

This section fulfills a juxtapositional function between the sphere of HE curriculum development in

general, and the extent of its actual epistemological functionality and relevance in the specific local

context. As being on the African continent, SA higher education institutions have to be identified as

such. Taking the matter further, Makgoba (1996: 173) declares:

“South African universities should accept as a matter of priority and for the sake of the majority population, the

principle of Africanisation. Eurocentric education has failed this nation for over 345 years and has become a tool

for continuing domination, alienation and racial tensions. Nobody in Europe, America or Asia argues anymore

about the relations between civilization, culture and education but only in Africa. But why? [bold italics

mine]”.

The fact that “… Africa cannot move into the 21st century via the 19th century” (Adedeji, 1998: 67)

suggests that the gap between the HE systems of the industrialised nations and those of the least

industrialised is so huge that Africa has “… to leapfrog the 19th century into the 21st” (p. 64). The

hegemonic role of Euro-American knowledge systems has generally perpetrated an ‘inferiority’

syndrome and self-flagellation by HE systems in Africa. The re-introduction of the African

Renaissance makes it axiomatic for HE to take the lead in such a momentous enterprise. But with

extant racial predilections and ‘deviant’ institutional cultures, how are we to Africanise South

African HE? The ‘contest’ then is between those propounding for the integration of SA (the last

colonial bastion) into the African body politic, on the one hand; and those aspiring for SA to become

an extension of Europe in Africa (academically, intellectually, culturally, and otherwise). The latter

283

view projects South Africa as a First World country with pockets of Third World under-

development.

Africanisation then, implies the intellectual demystification that indigenous knowledge systems

(patterns of knowledge production, assimilation and diffusion) have had little, or insignificant

contribution to the development of humankind (Nekhwevha, 2000: 125). Furthermore,

Africanisation of HE in South Africa implies the prioritisation of African culture and identity as

determinants of a philosophy of education, the explication of what societal function it purports to

fulfil. Africanisation of HE therefore, means the encapsulation of an African paradigm in all

spheres of HE functioning: teaching, research, community service; and collaboration with other

private and public organizations both locally, regionally, and internationally. It has no bearing on

race, as civilizations have been the product of cultural miscegenation and inter-racial exchanges of

knowledge. SA higher education is an express failure to the extent that it has ignored the

environment (regional and continental) in which it is located (Makgoba, 1996: 178). The scholarship

and excellence that abounds here are developed and located within the intellectual context of

Western nations and their HEIs:

“Our institutions are basically and primarily institutions of and for the benefit of the West. Largely copycat and

imitative in character, they tend primarily to reflect, reproduce and service a dominant western ethos which is

also partly class-based. The predisposition towards imitation rather than originality stems largely from the history

of discovery, annexations, imperialism and a romance with the motherland. Originality would promote a more

dedicatedly innovative approach to the contemporary challenges and promote independence [italics

mine]” (Makgoba, 1996: 178).

Notwithstanding the impact of globalisation on HE, the pursuit of innovation and excellence in

knowledge for African interests should be the sine qua non to SA higher education. Africanisation is

problematic to others because a politically condescending stigma has been attached to it; depicting

‘dark Africa’ as the continent of inferior homo sapiens, fraught with poverty, disease, illiteracy,

political and economic instability – to mention a few of the innuendo attached to the continent’s

developmental capacity, let alone its intellectual pedigree. Mazrui (1976: 204) suggests that a

strategy of ‘domestication’ is necessary for a development approach towards redefining the role for

African HE. This (‘domestication’) is “… a bid to relate modernization more firmly to local cultural

and economic needs” (p. 204). This view concurs with the one expressed earlier by Makgoba that

South African HE’s failure relates to its relegating local contexts to the periphery, in preference of

Western intellectual norms, values, and ethos. Africanisation of HE in South Africa not only aims at

intellectual equality between Western and African knowledge systems and paradigms, but also at

284

elevating the social responsibility of the HEIs in promoting an African-oriented leadership cadre; as

well as a pragmatic, but an innovative organization and content of curriculum. From an

epistemological point of view, Africanisation enhances an African intellectual statement by

Africans, for Africa. This obviously becomes problematic to those blacks and whites who are

psychologically imbued with the primacy of Western culture as sole contributor to humankind’s

development. Rather than this study being a political treatise, it is an argument for the unconditional

recognition and acceptance by SA institutions of higher learning – especially those that were

privileged – of the contribution made (and still being made, and waiting to be explored further) by

African scholars, academics, and intellectuals, to the field of knowledge for South Africa, Africa and

the world. Examples of such individuals abound, some still remain in the ‘greener pastures’ abroad.

The notion of Africanisation then, is an ideological-intellectual deviation from the Euro-American

techno-scientific paradigms, a paradigmatic revolution which is an antithesis to

“… a scientific edifice whose structures were predetermined exclusively by the West. So the continual erection of

the pyramid of knowledge and science according to the prescription of the West effectively reduced the African to

the position of a mere practitioner rather than the theoriser about knowledge. Any embellishment of the pyramid

of knowledge was acceptable and even sustainable for as long as it did not question the foundation …. Clearly

Africanisation rejects this view [of intellectual quiescence]. It [Africanisation] holds that different foundations

exist for the construction of pyramids of knowledge. It holds further that communication is possible between the

various pyramids [of knowledge construction, validation, and dissemination]. It disclaims the view that any

pyramid of knowledge is by its very nature eminently superior to all the others. For example, it is naïve to claim

that in order to claim “civilisation”, a particular human community must have a “culture of writing”. This claim is

naïve … [in that] it implies the equation between writing and thinking. Where there is no writing there can be no

thinking. This equation is manifestly false as all human beings acquire the power of speech before they can master

the art of writing [bold italics mine]” (Ramose, 1998: vii).

Africanisation of the SA higher education knowledge paradigms is vehemently defended, on account

of the realisation that:

“… the new South Africa has ushered in the most difficult phase of the struggle, the struggle for ideas. The

challenge is that of giving prominence to the African input in the world of ideas. In this intoxicating era of

rainbow-ism, the response indicates a frustration with the continued marginalisation of Africans in strategic areas

of policy formulation, and the almost vulgar reliance of the present dispensation on ‘experts’, a euphemistic way

of referring to white intellectuals” (Seepe, 1998: 1-2).

The reference to “experts” in the latter part of the above excerpt is not meant to underpin or

perpetuate a racial connotation. The understanding here is that the author (Seepe) makes a writ large

exemplification of the deleterious effects which the continued epistemological/intellectual

285

polarization tends to engender. Breier (2001b: 8, 10-11) variously alludes to the same perspective

that the racialisation of knowledge (from a white male’s cultural perspective) has long been in the

curriculum debate(s). African intellectuals supporting Africanisation view it as a bulwark against the

re-colonization of the African mind. A responsible positioning of ‘transformation’ manifests itself

in the ownership of processes of re-defining and re-orienting the HE system from being transferred

to those whose intellectual paradigms are rooted in Western hegemony – as if experiences are

transferable, rather than communicable (Ramose, 1998: pp. v-vi).

Transformation should be conceived as a South African reality; Eckel (2001) and Segal (2000,

quoted in Eckel, 2001) have noted the urgency and comprehensiveness with which it has to be

treated. It is not to be misconstrued for ‘trans-formation’ – “… a change in form … [rather than] a

change of substance” (Seepe & Lebakeng, 1998: 6). The “transformation industry”, of which ‘trans-

formation’ is but one component, is bereft with conceptions of portraying HE change only in the

racial composition of staff, students, and management (p. 6). On the contrary, “transformation” (of

which Africanisation forms the most integral component),

“… is an act or process whereby the form, shape or nature of something is completely changed or altered i.e. a

blue print for change. It should be distinguished from reformation (trans- formation), a process of

modification without fundamental change i.e. a cosmetic change. The transformation process is underlined by

race, gender and the cultural dimensions. We can delay but not stop or avoid it … We should forge a vision of

university education that recognises and embraces diversity of which Africanisation is a critical component. In a

democratic South Africa the old images are not only redundant, colonial or alienating … They continue to create

major barriers for reconciliation and transformation [bold italics mine]” (Makgoba ,1996: 183-184).

4.7 CONCLUSION

In this chapter, the epistemological dislocation of disciplines has been explored and identified as the

primary sphere in which HE curriculum changes are most likely to manifest themselves. The

growing demand for higher education learning opportunities by the ‘non traditional’ student sectors

(e.g. non-resident, adult part-timers) has ushered-in an era of various modes of the ‘deconstruction’

of the subject to incorporate both an academic and a career-focused content in the curriculum. While

the world of work shapes and influences what is taught in higher education, resistance is continuing

by those who regard discipline-based construction of knowledge as the sacrosanct and primordial

way of knowing.

286

CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, DATA COLLECTION, AND DATA

PRESENTATION

5.1 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

Whereas the previous chapters macrocosmically focused on the ‘theoretical’ aspects of HE

curriculum reform, design, and management – as derived largely from secondary sources (what

others have said), as well as some relevant South African policy documents – the present chapter,

contrarily, is based on actual HE institutional practices; and in that context, constitutes the primary

evidence of the entire empirical phase in respect of its curriculum reform, design, and management

focus. Mention, however, needs to be made that the limited number of institutions consulted does not

necessarily render the observational aspect fruitless or insignificant. The experiential component,

therefore, becomes a case study to a large extent; by virtue of the three HE curriculum aspects (viz.

reform, design, and management) becoming constant factors of variability that apply in any HEI.

Deductive logic becomes the via media on which the generalisability and inferential basis of

data/evidence is applied (Mouton, 2001: 114). In essence, this chapter (and the subsequent ones)

facilitates and interweaves the elements of “the logic of research” (p. 114), which is supported by the

body, nature and quality of the evidence procured in the course of the fieldwork exercise. The

“logic” entails the interrelatedness of the research problem, the research design/method and

evidence/data collection accruing from the research.

The conceptual framework and analytic path of interrelatedness cited above are particularly salient

insofar as they chart the path for how the proceedings (course of related activities) and ultimate

findings were arrived at. In placing these proceedings in their proper perspective, a very brief re-

visitation of Chapter 1 (the level of the conceptualization of the study) is opportune at this juncture,

and is justified by the assertion that:

“It is specifically at the level of conceptualization that it must be possible to apply logical and conceptual

reasoning to demonstrate tenability or untenability of a hypothesis. For purposes of empirical testing of research

287

hypotheses, however, a further stop, namely operationalisation, must be introduced. Operationalisation – which

may be defined as “making concepts measurable” – involves identification of indicators for concepts [italics

mine]” (Garbers, 1996: 290).

It is these “indicators” referred to in Chapter 1, which serve as ‘landmarks’ for the conceptual

framework and analytic path along which the research methodology/design and the data-gathering

process traverse. The interrelatedness referred to earlier, is aimed at linking the higher education

curriculum abstracts to the concrete, and the nuances of theory to the vagaries of practice. With this

latter statement in mind, reference is made to Kaneko (2000: 47-49), who cautions that:

“[e]mpirical research projects may be undertaken for purely academic interests independent of any direct relation

with practical issues … Yet, many critiques or proposals for reform are made without direct support of concrete

empirical evidence. Some empirical studies are [either] undertaken to support a particular proposal or [to] critique.

In many cases, the set of an empirical study and a discourse is concerned with a limited and particular [policy?]

issue”.

Consistent with the objectives of the study and of the research design in particular, the research

problem, together with the stated hypothesis, informs the rationale for this study’s ‘paradigmatic’

basis (Holosko, 2001: 266; Hult, 1996: 62). The problem statement of this study is based on the

interrogation of the pace and direction of local HE curriculum transformation. In the light of the

post-apartheid dispensation and resultant changing student demographics, is the pace of reform

consonant with this specific change? Are those changes occurring in the HE curriculum realm

consonant with local needs, or – in the light of the co-existing First World and Third World

characteristics of the country – do they merely serve the international imperative and its discordant

and hegemonic globalisation? The formulation of the problem statement in this way, ‘conforms’ to

the centrality of the study’s hypothesis, that both the pace and direction are inconsistent with the

socio-economic needs and interests of the majority of the South African population – which had

experienced the wrath of apartheid for decades. The empirical phase of the study then, is a

determinant of whether or not the means (research process) justify the end (the final product as

evidenced by the findings) (Fouche, 2002: 106).

5.2 RESEARCH DESIGN, METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES

As stated in Chapter 1, the research design here relates to the broader ‘plan’ of how the study was to

be executed in order to achieve the desired results. This study is essentially qualitative in nature,

albeit some elements of quantitative analysis being manifested in the numerical ‘measurability’

materializing in interpretation of the Pinpoint-generated tabular information. The qualitative aspect

288

of the study implied that a triangulated approach was utilised to describe, explain, and ultimately to

gain multiple perspectives and insights into the complexity of the HE curriculum reform-related

phenomenon and its related variables. To that extent, an explorative element of research was

introduced in that the phenomena under investigation could not be ‘judged’ in advance (Adler &

Adler, 1998: 80-82). By utilising judgement sampling, the researcher was able to select two HEIs

from ‘the universe of universities’. The survey attempted to determine the extent to which local HEIs

(with the sampled institutions regarded as case studies and the basis for key findings) ‘conformed’ or

‘deviated’ from international curriculum practices and trends. At the same time, it was of critical

importance to the researcher to ‘find out’ how the local-global (glocal) tensions mediated themselves

in the actual curriculum design and management practices/processes. The questionnaire and the two

tape-recorded interviews (both the questionnaire and the transcribed interviews appear in the List of

Appendices, immediately after the Bibliography) were fundamentally the “… instrument[s] of

observation” (Henning, 2005: 81) deployed during the experiential stages of the study.

As elements of enhancing multiple approaches and perspectives to data collection and data analysis,

the questionnaires and interviews provided an integrated understanding on the complexity of HE

curriculum reform/transformation in a developing country such as South Africa. Both data

triangulation and method triangulation complemented each other and increased (maximised) the

probability and ‘truth value’ of the findings (Dick, 1998). Data triangulation per se refers to the

validity, reliability, and credibility of data or information as accruing from a variety of (both primary

and secondary) sources. Method triangulation on the other hand, was utilised through the exploratory

(questionnaires-related) and participatory (interviews-related) approaches, both in turn informed by

the extensive literature review incorporated in the different chapters.

The research methodology refers to the specific means (processes) by which the implementation of

the study was actuated. Both the research design and methodology were useful in enhancing both the

objectives of the study, as well as generating the evidence on which the findings would be acted. The

questionnaires and (semi) structured interviews were the primary mode of obtaining the evidence

with which to ‘test’ the validity, reliability, and credibility of the findings. The questionnaires

themselves were completed in the absence of the researcher, whereas the interviews provided a more

‘personal’ interaction with the interviewees. Sections 5.2.1 to 5.3.2) collectively have a bearing on

the elements of the methods employed in the research.

The observational phase of the study seeks to explicate how the research design was developed, and

finally executed as an instrument of creating “the social reality” of fieldwork (De Laine, 2000:

289

11-12, 148). The social reality referred to determines ‘first-hand involvement’ (experience-

gathering); where “... “firsthand” implies the context of investigation or the immediate on-site setting

in which qualitative methods are employed, and “involvement” refers to the actual participation of

the research in the social world that is being studied [italics mine]” (Holosko, 2001: 265). The

modus operandi employed in the rest of the chapter is centripetal – from the general nuances of

research design and research methodology, to the relevant application and the specific context of the

empirical stages of the study. It is therefore pertinent, that a distinction be drawn between research

design and research methodology (Mouton, 2001: 56-57). The former relates to the type of study

undertaken to address the problem statement or questions; whereas the latter addresses the

qualitative wherewithal to be employed in addressing the general objectives of the study. In other

words, the research design is logically the end product or result-oriented plan to be executed, and

the research methodology relates to a process-oriented course of action encompassing the ‘tools’ to

be used in the ‘excavation’ of evidence. This distinction is necessitated by the centripetality of

discussion adopted here, also in tandem with the reality of fieldwork as it unfolded; where it would

be fitting to speak of the actual situation as having necessitated a re-configuration and flexibility of

approaches, rather than a hoped-for situation in which the ‘unexpected’ is peripheral to the stoic

inflexibility of a pre-arranged state of affairs.

5.2.1 The place/context of the empirical phase in the research/thesis

In general, an empirical phase encompasses observation, experimentation and/or experience-

gathering. A researcher could decide to be an indirect/detached observer or become a participant

observer of a phenomenon/phenomena (s)he is researching. (S)he could decide to experiment and

see how some of the known/unknown attributes of a phenomenon or phenomena manifest

themselves. By conducting on-site visits to the places where the phenomenon’s known/unknown

attributes are most researchable – the on-site visits themselves provide ‘first-hand’ experience.

Unlike the laboratory settings where phenomena are controlled, manipulated, and variables

‘imposed’; in the qualitative context of this study, the social-world reality is neither controlled nor is

it controllable – human behaviour is spontaneous. Even though HE curriculum reform is a ‘silent’

variable, it is however subjected to various stages of control by human beings – the curriculum

developers and producers, the ‘intermediaries’ (e.g. lecturers), and the consumers (e.g. students).

Mouton (2001: 113) makes the assertion that the empirical phase enhances the ultimate findings of

an investigation in a logical manner. To this end, the findings could follow any single, or

combination of the following: empirical (based on observation); descriptive (to explicate trends or

patterns of phenomena); causal (showing a link between variables); theoretical (based on new

290

evidence to account for existing or new theory); interpretive (based on researcher’s view of existing

or new phenomena); or evaluative, based on the assessment “... of outcomes, benefits or impact of

certain interventions …” (p. 113). In further contextualizing empirical studies in research, ipso

facto, locating the role of objectivity vis-à-vis subjectivity, Solomon and Draine (2001:31), state

that,

“[q]uantitative researchers recognize that individuals have their own subjective views and understandings about

any given phenomenon that is based on their own experiences. Through the process of conceptualizing the

phenomenon, an objective (or, more precisely, an intersubjective) reality can be created. Without accepting this

assumption, we would be studying an individual phenomenon that would have little or no meaning to anyone

other than the individual person or the situation being studied … subjectivity is individualist, but objectivity is

socially derived. Another assumption [underlying the scientific method] is that this objective reality is empirical

and therefore, can be known through perceptions, experiences, and observation s [authors’ parentheses, italics

mine]”.

Corroborating this view, Adler and Adler (1998: 79-80), comment that,

“[f]or as long as people have been interested in studying the social and natural world around them, observation

has served as the bedrock source of human knowledge…Not only is observation one of the earliest and most basic

forms of research, but it is the most likely to be used in conjunction with others, such as participant observation,

experimental design, and interviewing [italics my own emphasis]”.

The aspect of “… non-interventionism” (Adler and Adler, 1998: 80-81) has been applied as much as

possible, in order to facilitate first-hand observation and experience-gathering of the phenomenon

under investigation. “Non-interventionism” per se applies when:

“Observers neither manipulate nor stimulate their subjects. They do not ask the subjects research questions,

pose tasks for them, or deliberately create new provocations. This stands in marked contrast to researchers

using interview questionnaires, who direct the interaction and introduce potentially new ideas into the arena

[such as the case for Interview B in sub-section 5.3.3.2], and to experimental researchers, who often set up

structured situations where they can alter certain conditions to measure the covariance [degree of variability]

of others … Qualitative observers are not bound, thus, by predetermined categories of measurement or

response but are free to search for concepts or categories that appear meaningful to subjects … Naturalistic

[qualitative] observers thus often differ from quantitative observers in the scope of their observations:

Whereas the latter focus on minute particles of the world that can be agglomerated into a variable, the former

look for much larger trends, patterns, and styles of behavior [sic]. These differences are rooted not only in

variations between the ways the two groups observe, but in the types of questions they pose”.

291

In the light of the aforementioned therefore, and in the specific context of this study, the empirical

phase undertaken, apart from its symbiotic connection to the rationale, hypothesis, problem

statement, and research design (not necessarily in that chronological sequence); serves to fulfill and

to actualize the objectives of the study. Fouche (2002:107-109), illuminates that the explicit nature

of objectives impacts on the type of research to be executed. Although the distinction (between the

nature of objectives and type of research) is blurred, it is mention-worthy here; since the

nomenclature of meaning the researcher attaches to “objective,” “aim”, “goal” and “purpose,”

inevitably characterizes the form the research will take. Fouche (2002: 108), contends that these

terms or concepts (although used interchangeably by others) are a yardstick “… for the first- and

second-order thinking that takes place to indicate the intended result of the study [my emphasis]”.

“Objective,” he declares, “denotes the more concrete, measurable and more speedily attainable

conception [of the means expended to achieve or to obtain desirable results]” (p.107); whereas

“aim,” “goal,” and “purpose” signify “the broader, more abstract conception [of the means expended

to achieve the intended consequences]” (p. 107). He further asserts:

“However, confusion exists among … authors as to whether exploration, description and explanation are the

purpose/goals of the research, objectives of the research or in some instances, even types of research. Authors thus

differ on the level of conceptualisation on which the typology is placed and, therefore used. Arkova & Lane

(1983:11-13) were, however, among the first authors in the field of social work research to explicitly state that any

fully scientific endeavours in social work should have at least one of three primary objectives: to explore, to

describe, or to explain” (Fouche, 2002: 107).

With the benefit of the above illumination, “objective” is opted for here, since the empirical phase

concretely analyses the findings on the basis of their measurability. The nature of the research

instrument(s) used lends the objectives to varying degrees of the exploratory, descriptive, or

explanatory levels. Section 1.5 of Chapter 1, outlines the four objectives of the study. What needs to

be emphasized here is that the local (South African) component of HE curriculum reform, design,

and management, forms the common denominator of these four objectives; with the first two being

combined with an international/global comparative dimension. Objective (c) of Section 1.5 most

explicitly translates into “the general aims of this research instrument” (paragraph 2 of Letter of

Introduction which, together with the research instrument(s), appears in the Appendices section of

this study). The on-site visits themselves, in addition to the research instrument(s), add a ‘personal’

aura to the entire context of experiencing first-hand “the social reality” under which the mentioned

three variables of HE curriculum reform are to be observed and examined. The three “general aims”

therefore, have an overall and indispensable link with the originally intended objectives of the study.

The on-site visits have the advantage of enabling the researcher to establish an acquaintanceship

292

with the respondents (in this case, academics), and the environment under which they do their work.

Notwithstanding the fact that a more detailed ‘verbalization’ of the research instrument(s) follows in

sub-section 5.1.3, mention has to be made that the objectives of the study, in alignment with the

objectives of the empirical stage, are intended to explore, to explain, and describe at various stages

and in varying degrees, the link between local HE curriculum reform, design, and management on

one hand; and ‘interface’ that link between the globalisation-massification-ICT nexus, on the other.

Of the three levels of ‘objectivisation’ (exploration, explanation, and description), the explanatory

tenet is the one considered here to be more aptly suited for the next chapter(s) in which the findings

are made and interpolated on the basis of existing evidence/data. The place of the empirical phase in

this study, therefore, is to actualize and de-contextualise the abstract and the theoretical. In this way,

the extent to which the objectives qualify or disqualify the problem statement, hypothesis, and

rationale of the study, is enhanced.

5.2.2 Procedures undertaken to execute the fieldwork

The most important step in this regard relates to the continuous process of refining the questionnaire

– a venture that took no less than four weeks. During this stage, my Supervisor reassured that “...

there was hardly a perfect questionnaire” (Conversations with Prof. A. Muller, 2004). The

questionnaire itself appears under the List of Appendices. Despite perhaps the date of her exegesis

(the issue of literature dating is discussed further in section 6.2 of Chapter 6), Finch (1986: 113)

makes the assertion that “… the aim of science (and the art of scholarship) is to minimize error as far

as possible … [author’s parentheses]”. It was with this justification in mind, that continuous

refinement became the guiding principle towards the attainment of a finished product; which, even

though not above objective scrutiny, should however reflect a modicum of acceptable quality and

standards. Weekly meetings were in place, during which the Supervisor subjected the presented draft

questionnaire to robust scrutiny, one question after the other. The benefits of group work during this

refinement period’ paid off’ magnanimous dividends. Three of us (the other two being colleagues in

the same doctoral programme) met under the tutelage of the Supervisor. After he had presented a

formal lecture session on questionnaire design, we each took turns in presenting our drafted

questionnaires. In the end, three questionnaire formats had been subjected to a stringent ‘quality

assurance’ process. This experience provided a ‘learning curve’, due to a plethora of items (factual,

linguistic, logistic, etc) we identified as needing immediate correction. In addition, an atmosphere

equivalent to a student peer-review mechanism had been established. As this preceded the actual

delivery of questionnaires, it ensured that the finished product was not of sub-standard quality. What

this researcher can truthfully and honestly amplify here is that the research instrument is a genuine

reflection of his, original work. The ideas, format, conceptual ‘paradigm’, and logic, are not a

293

copycat regurgitation of some previously-seen model. Any other ‘contributor’ could perhaps be the

Supervisor, and to a very minimal extent, my other two colleagues. Far from developing a ‘big-bang’

theory, a la rocket science; or exploring the formulation of a hitherto unknown scientific revolution/

paradigm, the design of the research instrument was largely guided and influenced by the research

topic itself – so as to determine the actual pace and direction of local HE institutional trends and

practices.

It was during this embryonic stage of research instrument refinement that contact was made with the

two HEIs chosen through judgement sampling, for purposes of advancing the study’s objectives.

For reasons of professional research etiquette and due observance of ethical considerations

guaranteed to the respondents, the anonymity of these institutions will be protected as mutually

promised, and as ethically binding. This commitment (to professional etiquette) appears on the last

paragraph of the Letter of Introduction by the researcher, and is fully and unambiguously enunciated

in various TWR research policy documents. For instance, the Letter of Introduction drafted by the

Supervisor, and Section 4 of the Agreement of Enrolment for an M Tech or a D Tech Degree

Between the Technikon Witwatersrand (TWR) and the Student (p. 3); stating inter alia, that the

student undertakes “... to comply with all the following requirements … [amongst which] ethics

clearance [is included]”. 1This Agreement itself forms part of the TWR Postgraduate Research

Manual of April 2002.

It was important that the respondents’ confidence be gained beforehand, all of whom are academics

and some are experts in the HE curriculum field. It warranted therefore, that they recognize in

advance that their professional integrity and individual rights were not only recognised, but

safeguarded as well. The stages of contact-making were rather arduous, sometimes almost

bordering on non-compliance, as posturing on the part of the respondent’s gate-keeping secretaries

nearly rendered the fieldwork impossible. A bird’s eye view of the actual institutional profiles was

made feasible by the usage of the Internet – a necessary step in the context of determining the

“fitness of purpose” of their curricula, especially in the light of the mergers of which both

institutions became part. Getting the relevant respondents and their departments to participate had to

be ‘authorized’ by the relevant secretaries after they had been telephonically contacted. This step-

by-step process is highlighted, because it has been noticed (through conversations I have had with

my two colleagues) that some HEIs are inflexible, as they still fervently and ‘jealously’ cling to the

1The research commenced in the TWR and was subject to its research policy and rules. Funding for the project was

also received from both the NRF and the TWR.

294

idea of a prospective researcher obtaining ethical clearance as a pre-requisite for gaining access to

their academic territories. The whole question of ethical etiquette warrants mentioning here, albeit

briefly (but not cursorily or peremptorily); not only for confidence and trust enhancement between

researcher and institution, but also to illustrate the extent to which institutional peculiarities and

idiosyncrasies could either enhance or stall the researcher’s progress. In explicating the extant

ethical problems, De Laine (2000: 2-5), states that:“Ethical and moral dilemmas are an unavoidable consequence, or an occupational hazard of fieldwork. Dilemmas

and ambivalences do not always reveal themselves clearly and are virtually impossible to plan for in advance …

An ethical dilemma may be described as a problem for which no course of action seems satisfactory; it exists

because there are ‘good’ but contradictory ethical reasons to take conflicting and contradictory courses of action

[such as abandon the choice of respondent institution due to ‘gatekeeper’ problems, or to continue haranguing the

‘problematic’ gatekeeper] … Ethical decision making [however] includes being consciously aware of one’s

values, principles and allegiance to ethical codes … within a context that is characterized by professional and

power relations … Students may be attuned to ethical issues in research but still find themselves enmeshed in

dilemmas because they had not foreseen how research may impact on the participant’s privacy, or adequately

anticipated the risk of harm arising from research for participants and for the self. On the other hand, an ethical

problem may be foreseen but there may be no apparent way to avoid the problem … the researcher may ‘assume’

disclosure of information will cause participants to consider they have been ‘wronged’ and this may lead to

attempts to reduce harm through partial self-censorship … the tradition in ethics committees has been to see ethics

in terms of what we do to subjects … the traditional impersonal and objective ethical model assumed the

separation of researcher and researched, but the new fieldwork being practiced suggests less distance or

detachment between researchers and researched; and a new ethic or moral imperative that is not yet codified

[italics mine]”.

After every relevant detail about the research project was at explained at Institution A, a previously

Afrikaans-speaking university, the secretary to the Dean of the Faculty of Education cordially

obliged and gave the Dean’s e-mail address for direct communication with him. From then onwards

the process appeared to be obstacle-free. The researcher’s first person-to-person meeting with the

Dean materialized in March 2004. The atmosphere in which the meeting took place was to go a

long way in creating future cordial interaction by telephone. Despite this cordiality, relentless

follow-up had to be made between the potential academic respondents and the researcher. The Letter

of Introduction attached to the questionnaire and written by the researcher, as well as another letter

from the Supervisor (see List of Appendices), the Questionnaire and the Interview Schedule

(referred to as ‘Plan B’ in anticipation of any sudden development – such as the interviewee deciding

to offer shorter time for the interview) were all personally presented and submitted to the Dean of

the Faculty of Education at Institution A. The Letter of Introduction by the Supervisor assuringly

read in part: “I [the student’s Supervisor] do realize that the chosen topic may at times deal with

potentially sensitive issues, but I would like to confirm that the data reporting would not be

295

connected to the name of a particular institution. I should furthermore like to state that this project is

nothing more than a doctoral research project …”. The Dean of the Faculty of Education then

offered to personally distribute the 30 questionnaires to hand-pick the respondents from various

disciplines within the Faculty.

At Institution B – a previously Afrikaans-speaking technikon, a fortuitous, near-verisimilitude of

contact-making as at Institution A, took place. Initial contact with the Head of School Y was made

through her secretary. After more or less the same secretarial procedure that transpired at Institution

A, the Head was eventually ‘found’. She altruistically went the extra mile of photocopying 34

questionnaires to send to respondents (handpicked at her own discretion) in various disciplines

across the institution. Although a tentative date was mentioned for the submission of completed

questionnaires, various reasons are ascribed later as to why the response rate became so

unexpectedly poor at both institutions. This narratively-presented account of steps that were taken to

actuate the fieldwork experience, is an attempt at illustrating the painstaking efforts and means that

were expended to establish a harmonious and working relationship between respondent and

researcher; between un-premeditated social reality and hypothetical assumptions.

The inclusion criteria of local HEIs to be involved in the survey/sampling presented perhaps the

most ‘unassailable’ segment of the empirical phase; considering that at the very beginning of the

study (in 2002) there were 36 HEIs in the country – all of which were loaded with a range of

‘historically’-steeped descriptive parlance. The situation was further complicated by their reduction

to the current twenty-one HEIs. In the first instance (of 36 HEIs), for purposes of this study, their

numerical preponderance would have ‘uncomplicated’ effects on the study’s findings as the

ostensible racial past still had ‘structural’ and ‘conjectural’ ramifications in the post-1994 period;

and for that reason alone, the curriculum has still to de-contextualise itself from the dominant power

relations evinced in society. Albeit a premature observation to be made at this stage, this state of

affairs illuminates the complexities associated with the new reconfiguration of the HE landscape.

Therefore, HE curriculum reform, design, and management would have to disentangle, or ‘come out

clean’ on, among others, how it contributes to the cultural development of the majority of the

populace. In the second instance (of the reduction of HEIs) and for sampling purposes, the choice of

HEI is still ‘uncomplicated’ by the numbers; but rather, by the development and creation of new

university typology. The typology involves former technikons merging to form ‘universities of

technology’ (e.g. Tshwane University of Technology and the Durban Institute of Technology); a

combination of a former technikon and a long–standing traditional contact university to form

‘comprehensive universities’ (e.g. University of Johannesburg; Nelson Mandela Metropolitan

296

University); and ‘unmerged’ stand-alone universities (e.g. Witwatersrand University and University

of Cape Town).

It is the contention here that university ‘type’ is inextricably linked to the form of curriculum, its

ideological and epistemological underpinnings, its instructional and administrative mechanisms, as

well as its philosophical and socio-economic predilections (White, 1997: 8-10). Although the

foregoing statement appears to be a premature conclusion, the significance lies in the observations

already made in the Questionnaire responses from the concerned institutions. By logical extension

(of this contention), the envisaged ‘research university’ model would have a curriculum structure

heavily based towards post-graduate pursuit of knowledge production; the ‘comprehensive

university’ model would be pre-disposed towards a curriculum that embraces ‘academic’ and

‘technological’ fields of study – this being modeled by the current incorporation/amalgamation of

‘university’ and ‘technikon’; and the ‘institute of technology’ model, whose curriculum construction

is ostensibly based on predominant technological application of subject matter. This

conglomeration of ‘homogenous’ and ‘heterogeneous’ higher education types accentuated the

difficulty of establishing a numerically representative choice. While an initial choice of four HEIs

was proposed, financial constraints saw these reduced to two. Although the merger process per se is

not in the ambit of this research, it is not necessarily peripheral to both the theoretical and

empirical proceedings in the study. With the possible exception of the dedicated open and long

distance education model (some conventional HEIs are offering long-distance education as well),

programme mix remains the constant variable now intersecting different HEI ‘types’.

In the ‘universe of universities’, in order to eliminate sampling error (thus enhance probability

sampling), and as reduced as the sample size obtains (one technikon and one university from a total

of 21 HEIs in the country), optimum consideration was entailed in structuring the research

instrument such that the majority of items (population parameters) interrogated issues that were

more than likely to be extant in the broader research population (Nugent, 2001: 41; Strydom &

Venter, 2002: 201). Despite ‘historical’ similarities (of both having been exclusively designated for a

particular racial group (white), the two HEIs are presently two different organizational types, as

previously stated. However, in the light of “curriculum restructuring” being a perennial trend across

all institutions of higher learning presently, it thus becomes the common denominator that is

‘investigable’ in all institutions. This is what forms the representativity of the sample size; that is to

say, the core of possible generalisability/transferability or applicability of findings to different HE

contexts with more or less similar variables. It is this core (based on the researcher’s judgement, in

respect of the objectives of the study), which has become crucial to the sample size; that is to say,

297

the specific variability inherent in actual institutional curriculum practices, forms the nucleus and

thrust of this empirical component of the study. In this latter context then, the study becomes a case

study.

The generalisability of the findings hinges largely on the case study model of investigation, rather

than on the quantitative ‘representativeness’. Considering that two out of twenty-one HEIs

constitutes about 10% of the entire ‘universe’ of universities in the country, it is not inconsistent

with conventional practice (Strydom & Venter, 2002: 200). The selection of two ‘disparate’ higher

education institutional types is what lends the selection criteria to becoming a factor of

purposive/judgement sampling. Bles and Higson-Smith (1999: 95), Sarantakos (1998: 141, 151),

and Strydom and Delport (2002: 333-338), emphasise that the core function and effect of this kind of

sampling lie in the researcher’s critical judgement of the purpose to be served by a particular sample:

“[Purposive or judgement sampling] … is based on the judgement of the researcher regarding the characteristics

of a representative sample. A sample is chosen on the basis of what the researcher thinks to be an average … The

strategy is to select units that are judged to be typical of the population under investigation” (Bles & Higson-

Smith, 1999: 95).

Furthermore: “[In judgement sampling] … the researchers purposely choose subjects who, in their

opinion, are thought to be relevant to the research topic. In this case, the judgement of the

investigator is more important than obtaining a probability sample” (Sarantakos, 1998: 152). To the

extent that sample size (two HEIs out of a total of twenty one in the country) did not constitute a

quantitative sine qua non for the empirical component – but accounted for a reasonably wide range

and number of variables in the data, the method of data collection lends itself to the case study

model. Accordingly, the length of the questionnaire justifies the need to include as many variables

in the data as to be sufficient for establishing comparative (and inference-based) analysis (Huberman

& Miles, 1998: 195). This justification is further attested to by the same authors:

“[Whereas] variable-oriented analysis is good for finding probabilistic relationships among variables in a large

population, but has difficulties with causal complexities, or dealing with sub-samples. Case-oriented analysis [on

the other hand] is good at finding specific, concrete, historically-grounded patterns common to all sets of cases

[my emphasis], but its findings remain particularistic, although several case writers speciously claim greater

generality” (Huberman & Miles, 1998: 195).

Observed in their contexts of social reality, each institutional curriculum practice and orientation is

examined in a phenomenological relationship to the broader population (‘universe of universities’)

298

in the country, so as to determine whether the probability of a pattern or inference exists. In other

words, the findings are viewed in a manner that is not exclusive to the theoretical knowledge of the

phenomenon (Fouche & Delport, 2002: 268) – in this case the phenomenon (higher education

curriculum reform, design, and management) as it relates to the specific objectives of the fieldwork.

5.2.3 Data collection and instrumentation

The collection of data/information from the two selected HEIs was facilitated mainly through the

questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire option was referred to as “plan

A” as the essential/fundamental mechanism by which respondents could provide insights into actual

HE curriculum practices. The questions varied from open-ended to close-ended types, with instances

of own input and opinions by respondents. The respondents could also complete these at their own

time, but within the required time frame. The interviews were referred to as “plan B”, and were

accompanied by an Interview Schedule (appearing in the List of Appendices) for the researcher’s

own benefit – in the event that an interviewee could not adhere to the intended scope of the

interview.

5.2.3.1 Instrumentation for data collection and data realisation

The ‘instrumentalisation’ of data collection is concerned with the selection or application of

techniques that help or reinforce the understanding of the phenomenon’s wider investigation. These

‘tools’ (instruments) are therefore, not the data itself. The types of instruments used will increase the

degree to which such phenomenon or phenomena could be understood from various perspectives.

Viewed against this background then, instruments for data collection are influential in shaping the

outcome of research – in respect of data analysis and its interpretation. That is to say, the ‘tools’

assist in ‘answering’ the fundamental research questions/problem. To this end, Babbie and Mouton

(2001: 563) state that “[t]he worth of all scientific findings depends heavily on the manner in which

the data was collected and analysed [my emphasis]”.

While the instruments used in this study were developed prior to the study, some authors (e.g.

Mouton, 2001) contest that especially in qualitative studies, this could be, among others, “… a

misnomer for fieldwork where everything unfolds during the study” (Sarantakos, 1998: 167); on the

other hand, other analysts justify the development of research instruments prior to fieldwork as

appropriate, because, amongst others, it “… helps to avoid collection of too much superfluous

information” (p. 168) (see also Huberman & Miles, 1998: 205). From the observation gathered

during the execution of the fieldwork in this study, it could be stated that the prior development of

this research’s instruments (the questionnaire and the interview), had the added advantage of the

299

standardisation of the data collection procedures. Standardisation itself became a factor of applying

consistency in the measurability of data/evidence. In short, measurement/instrumentation is

perceived here as being “… one of the best means to create objective scientific knowledge that can

enhance the professional knowledge base with the empirical evidence that is needed” (Delport, 2002:

166). In addition to enhancing consistency in measuring the collection of data, triangulation was

adopted as a technique of maximizing the validity and reliability of the data (Sarantakos, 1998:

168-169; Delport, 2002: 166-168). A combined approach of using the questionnaire and interview

methods in this study is intended to elicit as much information as possible from the respondents;

hence it is referred to as Plan A (for the questionnaire) and Plan B (for the interview). In this context,

it becomes an inter-method (as opposed to intra-method) kind of triangulation (Sarantakos, 1998:

168).

In the design of the research instruments, attention was given to the essential features of judgement

sampling (survey), validity, and reliability. It is for this particular reason that inter-method

triangulation became a factor of maximizing data collection. The rationale and choice of the sample

population in “the universe of universities” has been mentioned already in this chapter. In view of

the fact that both the questionnaire and the interview (units of study?) are attached in the Appendix

section, a verbalization of the two, will suffice at this stage. Despite the assertion that “… a

coherent theory of questionnaire design remains elusive [which has been argued since the

1980s]” (Gendall, 1998: 1), maximum effort has been expended in ensuring that the fundamental

units of study (curriculum reform design, and management) were located in respect of actual

practices in the local higher education domain. The general framework of designing this

questionnaire was based on the following principles (Delport, 2002: 175-176):

arrangement in a preferred (imposed?) sequence intended to establish logic (e.g. from

biographic to points of departure, from student-related to curriculum-related issues;

wording of questions such that specific response is identified (e.g. bolding words in

sentences); and

diversification of question types to proliferate variety of responses (e.g. True/False, Yes/No,

and opinioned questions – sometimes even assessing respondent attitudes or own opinions

(Gendall, 1998: 1).

Referred to as “Plan A”, the questionnaire formed the crux of the measurement instruments, and was

to be responded to within a specified period after they had been hand-delivered to the respective

survey sites. The Interview Schedule, referred to as “Plan B” was designed to elicit responses from

300

those respondents who could not be accessed for questionnaire responses, due to a variety of reasons

– ranging from tight schedules on their part, to difficulties of researcher personally delivering the

questionnaires to them. The “Plan B” questions are very few, in comparison to those of “Plan A”.

However, they delve on the core issues covered in the questionnaire (e.g. epistemological principles,

curriculum management, and institutional links with the private sector).

Both instruments have been constructed to achieve reasonable validity for the purpose of research.

To the extent that the unit standards (items) to be ‘measured’ are representative of institutional

curriculum challenges, they are samples whose commonality (prevalence) is pervasive in all HEIs.

Because of the inter-method of triangulation, various means of the instruments’ accuracy was not

confined to only a singular approach of validity. Because of the comparative basis of the global-

local nexus (i.e. the extent to which the actual local practices and trends relate with the international

nuances, norms and trends), criterion-related validity is established as well (Delport, 2002: 167).

This latter issue (of comparing empirically-derived knowledge to professionally-established

knowledge), is more pertinent for the analysis and interpretation of data. The degree of consistency

or reliability (p. 168) is envisaged at this level of the categorization of data in respect of its analysis

and interpretation. Since the curriculum variables (i.e. transformation/reform, design, and

management) are a constant factor, the ‘similarity’ of results, or a minimum margin of error, is

anticipated.

5.2.3.2 Some basic theoretical/conceptual interview assumptions

Miller and Brewer (2003: 166) assert that, “Interviews are not just conversations. They are

conversations with a purpose – to collect information about a certain topic or research question.

These ‘conversations’ do not just happen by chance, rather they are deliberately set up and follow

certain rules and procedures [italics my emphasis]”. It was therefore, with this in mind that the

Questionnaire and the Interview Schedule were meant to complement each other, although in

different ways – the contexts for their respective applications did not apply equally, as their

structure makes this axiomatic. The implication is that, while the questionnaire is more elaborate on

curriculum issues, the interviews tended to be more focused and contained. The two research

instruments were however, designed such that they both collect information (purpose/objective) via

various routes. It is for this reason that they both adopt features of structured (used mainly in

quantitative studies) and/or semi-structured (as opposed to unstructured) interviews. In particular,

the first interview (hereinafter referred to as Interview A), exhibits this feature more than the second

one (Interview B, which is to a large extent more semi-structured). Sarantakos (1998: 247) states

that:

301

“Structured interviews [author’s emphasis] are based on a strict procedure and a highly structured interview guide,

which is no different from a questionnaire. A structured interview is in reality a questionnaire read by the

interviewer as prescribed by the researcher [my own emphasis]”.

This statement aptly describes the first interview’s context, in which the questionnaire became the

verbalized variant of what other respondents attended to in the absence of the researcher. The ‘semi-

structuredness’ manifested itself among others, in the way that the researcher and respondent could

make ‘adjustments’ to, or ‘digress’ from, the main topic (Miller & Brewer, 2003: 167, 169).

The second interview is more a collective of semi- and unstructured variation in that, in keeping with

the interviewee’s academic and professional repertoire, the topic was decided on the very instance of

the interview, and questions developed in the process of the interview – thus causing the interviewer

to proverbially think on his feet. Sarantakos (1998: 247) states that unstructured interviews, among

others, have “… [n]o restrictions in the wording of the questions, the order of the questions or the

interview schedule …”. This flexibility, to some extent featured in semi-structured interviews, is

what informs on the structuredness, semi-structuredness, or unstructuredness of face-to-face

information-gathering between the researcher and the respondent/interviewee.

Apart from the nature of the interview itself, the second salient feature concerns the use of the tape

recorder, as a ‘contraption’ that may be used by itself, or together with the field notes. Unlike the

latter, the former has the added advantage of capturing the details of the interview ‘live’ (Greeff,

2002: 304). Fortunately for this researcher, permission was sought and granted for the usage of the

tape recorder. Unlike field notes, which are more researcher-dependent, taped recordings offer a

personalized account of the respondent’s non-verbal communication. A skill that is enhanced by the

use of the tape recorder is that of balancing listening, talking, and writing (Miller & Brewer, 2003:

167), which helps to ‘direct’ the course of deliberations. The problem for the interviewer using this

method, lies in having to vouchsafe to the respondents that absolute consideration has been/will be

given to their right to privacy and anonymity, and that all ethical norms and nuances will be

observed in seeing to it that the tape will not be used for ‘subversive’ intents.

5.3 REALISATION OF DATA

The realisation of data in this sub-section relates to the extent to which data obtained during the

empirical phase helps to advance the general and specific intentions of the study (as outlined in

Chapter 1); that is, determining the degree of correlation between theory and actual institutional

curriculum practices. As outlined in Chapter 1, objective (c) succinctly states the intended outcomes

302

of the empirical phase of the study: To survey a sample of local HE institutions’ management of

curriculum and material development process, structures and outputs.

5.3.1 Realisation of data – the questionnaires (Plan A)

The fieldwork experience was not always as ‘smooth’ as originally anticipated. The nature of

problems encountered in the administration of the questionnaires was not completely conducive to

the overall efficacy of the empirical exercise. A total of 16 (53.3%) of the 30 questionnaires

administered at Institution A were completed. The researcher personally collected 13 of the 30

questionnaires (43.3%) from the office of the Dean of the Education Faculty; while one of the

remaining three was mailed to the researcher via the Supervisor’s office, and the other two were

mailed directly to the researcher. No interview was secured at institution A, as all those approached

cited reasons of being “very busy.” On the positive side, both the Dean of the Faculty of Education

at Institution A and Head of School Y at Institution B have to be lauded respectively for taking

personal responsibility in distributing the questionnaires to academics within and without their

respective faculty and school. It is, however, on the ‘negative’ side of the equation that a sobering

awakening dawned on this researcher. Common to both HEIs was the factor of disappointing

response rates, in spite of an extension of the due dates – more than twice at both institutions. It was

during this time that the role of ‘devil’s advocate’ played by respondents’ secretaries was realized; it

was an energy-sapping, frustrating, and costly experience, given the incessant telephone calls and

regular travelling involved. On the part of the researcher, professional etiquette and perseverance

were extremely tested. Some of the reasons given at the same institution (A) for this poor response

rate were creditable, some not. It was stated the questionnaire was “too long”, “difficult”, or that the

respondent “had been on leave” – a popular one. Credit, however, goes to the secretary of the Dean

of the Faculty of Education at Institution A for forwarding, after normal rapport had been

established between ourselves, the telephone numbers of all respondents (excluding the seven who

responded promptly, and obviously did not have to be “reminded”). Although this was not supposed

to happen, as it constituted a breach of (respondent’s) anonymity, necessity became the mother of

invention, and this maxim became the basis on which persistent follow-up calls were made to try and

obtain some modicum of acceptable responses.

For institution B, the non-completion of questionnaires was particularly enlightening – where the

culture of research is supposed to be vehemently pursued, as it is still very nascent! Only ten

(29.4%) of the 34 questionnaires were completed and returned – after a lot of ‘pleading’, which

included a formal ‘Letter of Reminder’ by the HoD who had altruistically handpicked the

respondents across different disciplines in the institution. A sense of exasperation jolted this

303

researcher, on realizing that the fact that he as a student at the particular institution could not even

invoke some ‘sympathy’ or ‘belongingness’ from the respondents. The only form of solace was

derived from the fact that institution B became the only research site where an interview was secured

– thanks to the sense of ‘allegiance’ of the very selfsame Head of School Y. These are all the

experiences that collectively resulted in this shocking discovery (characteristic of?) the culture of

research, especially for aspirant researchers. On collating the data from all the questionnaires (from

both Institution A and Institution B), it emerged that (the major findings are variously presented in

the remaining two chapters of the study):

some questions were not understood in the same context the researcher had initially

envisaged;

general numerical data on students should have been sought personally from the central

administrations of institutions, while non-responses could perhaps be ‘justified’ for

institution- or campus-based numbers, the same cannot be said of faculty- or department-

based numbers. If departments/faculties do provide them, then it is absolutely inexplicable

how individual academics in those areas are unable to provide them. Such a scenario

contributes inimically to the realization of data;

some contradictions (tensions?) exist between conceptual rhetoric and actual practices; and

there is a sense of ‘preoccupation’ with the global imperatives/concerns (e.g.

‘mainstreaming’ the curriculum) to reflect the entrepreneurial and economy-directed

orientation of HEIs.

To a very large extent, the questionnaires were very illuminating insofar as comparing the global

and local premises of curriculum reform/transformation, as well as the rhetoric/conceptual

environment against the actual/practical terrain. The scope of the questionnaire was envisaged to

capture as much of the curriculum design and management issues as possible. Where issues of

interpretive clarity became ‘controversial’, the researcher takes full responsibility; and no aspersions

in this regard would be justifiably cast on the academic integrity of the respondents themselves.

5.3.2 Realisation of data – the interviews (Plan B)

(The two academic interviewees were not asked to complete any questionnaire.) As indicated earlier

in this chapter (sub-section 5.2.3) and in the preceding sub-section (5.3.1), the two interviews were

also an aspect of triangulation; and served the purpose of maximizing the objectives of the empirical

phase of the research. They complemented the questionnaires by contextualizing the pivotal

curriculum issues addressed. The research design and methodology necessarily became the means

304

by which the curriculum-related issues could be addressed in tandem with both the questionnaires

and interviews (Henning, 2005: 1, 6 ) as the instrumentation methods the of executing these

objectives (Mouton, 2001: 102-104; 122). While the first interview focused mainly on the units of

study selected for the Interview Schedule, the second one – in which the interviewee was then in a

senior management position, focused on the issue of mergers; and was mutually agreed upon on the

day of the interview so as to make the respondent feel at ease. The rationale for this ‘deviation’ was

occasioned by the fact that the interviewee was also in the committee overseeing the merging of the

technikon with a local university. The difference in the content and scope of both interviews is more

reflective of the convergence of quality higher education (assessed through programme offerings)

and efficiency (intended to be achieved through the mergers) – than a reflection on the different

academic backgrounds of the interviewees. Both interviews – many days and venues apart, were

held in a relaxed atmosphere, allowing for maximum participation by both interviewer and

interviewee. An inference could perhaps be made that more ‘personable’ interviewees are the ones

from whom the interviewer is more likely to elicit more protracted responses than from those with

‘inflexible’ personalities – the former being a factor that is, more than any other, attributed to the

not-so-short duration of both interviews.

5.4 DATA PRESENTATION

The presentation of data, in this context, refers to making sense of responses on the basis of

statistical evaluations, analyses, and interpretations. The usage of the Pin Point computer programme

became of vital importance. For compliance with this programme, questions had to be formatted in a

specific manner, without distorting the essence of the envisaged responses. It is necessary to further

point out that for those copious instances of distracters not responded to, the Pinpoint programme

could/did not generate any form of intelligible value to the concerned distractors. Such cases are

indicated by the NV (no value) notation in the tables (Cole, 1995: 164). The percentage figures were

also generated by the programme, and do not always add up to 100% due to the numbers being

rounded. The table headings (outside of the tables themselves, thematically constructed), and column

headings (inside the table, closely replicating the question, but separate from the distractors) are

intended to make an ‘easy’ reading without the reader having to resort to the questionnaire

frequently. This ‘communication’ enhances a better understanding of what exactly the respondents

had to ‘react’ to.

5.4.1 Pinpoint-generated tabular presentation of questionnaire data: Institution A

This section of the study is mainly based on computer-generated synthesis of the data derived from

the questionnaire responses. Pinpoint is the name of the computer programme used to generate a

305

quantitative (statistical) evaluation of the actual responses by the respondents. In highlighting the

advantages of computer-assisted data presentation and analysis, Franklin and Ballan (2001: 279)

maintain that such computer programmes “… have the potential for helping researchers to develop a

consistent method for handling data”. Additionally, such software (as Pinpoint) becomes a database

for the voluminous data the researcher has to contend with, and amongst others, provide technical

know-how for applying different systems of logic in concept formulation and development. In an

attempt to construct some logic, relevance and meaning to this quantitative data, a brief descriptive

and/or explanatory (prosaic) narrative ensues underneath each table. For purposes of obviating

numeric confusion, each table retains its original label as in the questionnaire itself. It needs to be

pointed out, however, that of all the sections of the computer-generated tables, those relating to

Biographic Information (Section A), without nullifying their significance, do not have as much

prominence and profound impact as the rest of the other tables – which have the most fundamental

impetus on curriculum. This suggested modus operandi also does not imply that the tabular

narratives are devoid of any critical input. Rather, the focus is on highlighting salient aspects (e.g.

patterns and frequencies), that bear directly on actual curriculum practices and related issues. It is

significant to point out at this stage – so as to obviate numerical confusion – that two numbering

systems are applied in the ensuing sub-sections. The question numbers inside the tables correspond

with the sequence of items in the Questionnaire itself (as it appears in the Appendices section). The

numbering sequence outside of the tables (i.e. at the top of each table) is germane in the context of

the chapter; the two numbering systems are therefore not mutually exclusive of each other.

TABLE 5.1.1: Type of respondent’s institution

Q 1.1 Institution type N %University (predominantly teaching, undergraduate &

postgraduate levels)

Comprehensive University (teaching and research at

all levels)

10

6

62%

38%

TOTAL 16 100%

Whereas a 100% unanimous response was anticipated on any applicable option, it was somewhat

ironic that the respondents, all employed by the same HEI, did not provide an unambiguous (100%)

response relating to the ‘type’ of HEI they were involved with. This is particularly crucial, in the

light of the reconfiguration of the HE landscape. Whether or not an HEI is affected by the merger

process, its organizational ‘type’ is inevitably related to its curriculum ‘type’. Apart from it being an

aberration, this type of response could reveal also, that the ‘borders’ between ‘university’ and

306

‘comprehensive university’ are yet to be clearly defined. These nuances of difference are elaborated

in Chapter 2 (Section 2.8).

TABLE 5.1.2: Sex of respondent

Q 1.2 Respondent’s sex N %Male

Female

9

7

56%

44%

TOTAL 16 100%As in the previous table, this table also conforms to the construction and determination of the

institutional profile (contours), especially since the case study approach has been adopted as the

basic research design of the empirical study. That the gender distribution between difference

between males and females is 8% is perhaps (generalististic base), that male domination in the

academy is gradually dissipating. However, the veracity of the latter statement – or claims to be

contrary – could only be established if this question was cross-tabulated with Q 1.4 (highest

qualifications of respondents). (Mouton, 2003 (unpaged PowerPoint presentation) indicates that

“[t]he percentage of permanent female instructional/research staff grew from 33% in 1995 to 38% in

2000 [italics mine]”.)

TABLE 5.1.3: Academic title of respondent

Q 1.3 Respondents’ academic title N %Professor

Doctor

Other

9

4

3

56%

25%

19%

Total 16 100%

That the total of post-Masters academic titles (81%) far outnumbers the others (19%), indicates,

amongst others, the quality of staff (the majority of whom are in Senior Level Management), as

indicated in Q 1.6, as well as the probability of a vibrant research environment in the institution. It is

therefore no coincidence that this particular HEI rates among the bedrock research institutions in the

country.

TABLE 5.1.4: Respondent’s highest academic qualifications

Q 1.4 Respondent’s highest academic qualifications N %PhD, D Ed, D Phil

Masters

Other

12

2

2

75%

12%

12%

Total 16 100%

307

This table is writ large a confirmation of the link between titles and actual academic qualifications

bearing in mind that professorship is not sometimes conferred on merit and sometimes acquired

without doctoral qualifications. However, the fact that 75% of the respondents have doctoral

degrees, still confirms that academic and management staff with post-Master’s qualifications are in

the majority. On an inferential basis, it could then be stated that the undergraduate degree no longer

holds any significant currency with regard to guaranteed employment at a university.

TABLE 5.1.5 (a): Respondent’s subject fields in respect of academic qualifications

Q 1.5(a) Respondent’s subject fields in respect of

academic qualifications N %Animal Sciences

Humanities (Languages, Arts, Education, Social Sciences)

Natural Science

Law or Public Administration

Other

1

7

1

1

6

6%

44%

6%

6%

38%

Total 16 100%

Due to the fact that the questionnaires were distributed in various academic departments (therefore,

disciplines), the Humanities constitute the field of study in which the respondents were located in the

majority of cases (44%). However, the 38%, which is the second highest subject field (other),

illustrates the spread of subject fields in which the respondents are located. The spread or

distribution of subject fields is particularly crucial to garner varied perspectives in curriculum issues.

Another possible reason for the concentration of respondents’ subject fields in the Humanities could

be that the research topic itself is located in this knowledge domain (field). It was found very

necessary here to find out whether there was a correlation between academic qualification and

actual area of responsibility; i.e. whether an academic was occupationally located in what s/he was

academically adept at.

TABLE 5.1.5 (b): Respondent’s subject fields in respect of institutional curriculum development

Q 1.5 (b) Respondent’s curriculum development role N %Curriculum planner

Curriculum developer

Curriculum coordinator

Quality assurance

No answer

2

1

2

2

9

12%

6%

12%

12%

56%

308

Q 1.5 (b) Respondent’s curriculum development role N %Total 16 100%

The fact that 56% (9 of 16) of the respondents did not respond to the question is not an illustration of

it being “difficult”. What is essentially being asked is for the respondents to indicate whether or not

they are involved in any curriculum-related activity within their respective departments, facilities or

schools. The impression then is that the 56% is not actively involved in any curriculum development

capacity. If that is so then, it means that such a crucial activity is in the hands of the approximate

42% that constitutes some form of a curriculum management ‘organ’ of the department, faculty, or

school.

TABLE 5.1.6: Respondent’s position/post level in the institution

Q 1.6 Respondent’s position in institution N %Senior Level Management

Middle Level Management

Lower Level Management

Line Function Academic

Other

7

2

1

5

1

44%

12%

6%

31%

6%

Total 16 100%

Ironically, 44% of respondents in Q 1.5 (b) are engaged in some form of curriculum development

capacity, and the same figure (44%) is at senior level management positions. This does not mean that

this is the same group of respondents. It could still be a mere statistical coincidence since the

respondents are obviously unknown to the researcher.

TABLE 5.1.7: School/Faculty in which position/post-level is located

Q 1.7 Location of position in the school/faculty N %Built Environment or Engineering

Animal or Veterinary Sciences

Humanities (Languages, Arts, Education, Social Sciences)

Natural Science

Law or Public Administration

Other

2

1

7

1

1

4

12%

6%

44%

6%

6%

25%Total 16 100%

Whereas Q 1.5 (a) specifically relates to respondents’ academic qualifications vis-à-vis their actual

areas of expertise, this question (Q 1.7) incorporates the faculties, departments or schools within

309

which the areas of expertise are executed. An attempt is hereby being made to establish for instance,

whether a respondent’s academic knowledge translates into any meaningful curriculum development

for a particular school, faculty or department. From the ensuing figures here, the respondents in the

Humanities are ostensibly in the majority, as in Q 1.5 (a). Unlike Q 1.5 (a), however, the

distribution of departments in Q 1.7 has increased by 2% for (a), thus reducing the other category

from 38% (6) to 25% (4). The Humanities, then appear to be still the most ‘populous’ in the

academic disciplines – in respect of staffing.

TABLE 5.1.8: Respondent’s number of years in the same position

Q 1.8 Respondent’s number of years in the same position N %Less than five years

More than five years, but less than ten years

More than ten years

5

8

3

31%

50%

19%

Total 16 100%

The respondents employed for more than ten years are the fewest (19%), followed by those with less

than five years (31%) and lastly those with more than five but less than ten years (50%). Viewed

against this background (from the minority to the majority), and notwithstanding the prevalence of

such factors as age and attraction to ‘greener pastures’ outside of the academy, it appears that five to

ten years is the ‘median’ period of employment for most academics.

TABLE 5.1.9 (a): Number of academic staff members in the department/faculty

Q 1.9 (a) Number of academic staff in the department N %0-4

10-14

15-19

20-24

40-44

50-54

4

2

5

2

1

2

25%

12%

31%

12

6%

12%

Total 16 100%

The average number of academic staff in each respondent’s department/faculty has been calculated.

The problem with the whole of Q 1.9 (a-d) is that the respondents did not supply information for all

the various staff categories. Consequently, the validity and the reliability of the entire question are

severely compromised. Consequently, the size of the department, school or faculty becomes

speculative. These figures could help in establishing or forming a correlation between personnel and

310

range of programmes and services offered to students, and by whom these are offered. From what is

statistically observable, the number of academic staff in the majority (31%) ranges from 15-19, and

the minority is 1% (40 to 44) academic staff members. Additionally, the prevalence of huge

academic staff numbers, such as in the rages 40-44 and 50-54, suggests that these are big

faculties/departments; or alternatively, that understanding of “school”, “faculty”, and “department”

is subject to various interpretations. This latter observation has been made for the entire Q 1.9 (a) to

Q 1.9 (d).

TABLE 5.1.9 (b): Number of academic support staff members in the department/faculty

Q 1.9 (b) Number of academic support staff in the

department N %0-4

10-14

15-19

20-24

40-44

50-54

4

2

5

2

1

2

25%

12%

31%

12%

6%

12%

Total 16 100%

Academic staff members per respondent’s department/faculty (notwithstanding, as earlier stated,

lack of satisfactory responsibility, in the majority (44%) ranges from 0-4, and the minority (6%) are

between 45-59, and 50-54 in number. The ranges of 45-49 and 50-54 academic support staff

members, which appear to be huge, could imply that the department/faculty/school itself is rather

huge; or that there was no clarity on the part of the respondent(s) as to who fitted this category.

TABLE 5.1.9 (c): Number of professional support staff members in the department/faculty

Q 1.9 (c) Number of professional support staff in the

department N %0-1

2-3

4-5

6-7

12-13

14-15

20-21

6

4

1

2

1

1

1

38%

25%

6%

12%

6%

6%

6%

Total 16 100%

311

Of all staff categories in the whole of Q 1.9, professional learner support staff is the only category

that does not have members exceeding 21. In this category (Q 1.9(c)), the majority percentage (38%)

is constituted by 0-1 members in six departments (fields of study).That it is only one respondent’s

department that has 20-21 professional learner support staff members, and if the question was well

understood here, implies that this is a huge department/faculty.

TABLE 5.1.9 (d): Number of other staff members in the department/faculty

Q 1.9 (d) Number of other staff members in the

department/faculty N %0-4

5-9

10-14

30-34

45-49

12

1

1

1

1

75%

6%

6%

6%

6%

Total 16 100%

Other staff members who are neither of the selected categories (a-c), are in the majority at (75%)

and range from 0-4 members in 12 of the respondents’ subject areas (fields of study). For a more

informed view of other personnel employed in various departments/faculties, it would have been

advantageous for respondents to provide their own data for such a category.

TABLE 5.1.10 (a): Number of undergraduate students in the institution/campus: 2003

Q 1.10 (a) 2003 Number of undergraduate in the

institution/campus N %NV (No Value)

0-999

1000-1999

2000-2999

3000-3999

5000-5999

8000-8999

9000-9999

6

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

38%

12%

12%

12%

6%

6%

6%

6%

Total 16 100%

312

As indicated earlier in the case of Q 1.9 (a-d), no single respondent provided satisfactory data for

all the questions requiring numerical information. For instance, the number of students

(undergraduate and postgraduate) in the same institution should be consistent for all respondents. As

the table now stands, all 16 respondents have various responses (from 0 to 9999 students) in the

same institution. Six of them did not respond at all. A great possibility also exists that respondents

(in the case of ‘small’ numbers such as from 0-999) looked at all undergraduates in only a specific

school/faculty/department; or (in the case of ‘big’ numbers such as 8000to 9999) they only looked at

all undergraduates, irrespective of school/faculty/department ‘affiliation’.

TABLE 5.1.10 (b): Number of undergraduates in the school/faculty: 2003

Q 1.10 (b) 2003 Number of undergraduates in the

school/faculty N %NV

0-999

1000-1999

3000-3999

6000-6999

8

4

2

1

1

50%

25%

12%

6%

6%

Total 16 100%

Half of the respondents (50%) did not provide the required data. For the other half, the highest

number of students (6000-6999) was to be found in only one respondent’s school/

faculty/department or school. The prevalence of these huge numbers suggests that the question was

either misunderstood (in which case, other students from other faculties were included); or, if these

are correct figures implying that the question was not misconstrued, then these are huge faculties.

TABLE 5.1.10 (c): Number of undergraduates in the department: 2003

Q 1.10 (c) 2003 Number of undergraduates in the

department N %NV

0-499

500-999

3500-3999

8

6

1

1

50%

38%

6%

6%

Total 16 100%

In characteristic déjà vu, eight respondents did not provide the required data. From the remaining

eight, the highest concentration of undergraduate students in 2003 is between 3 500 and 3 999,

313

which is still discrepant considering that the distribution of the other eight non-respondents (in

respect of departments/faculties) is unknown.

TABLE 5.1.10 (d): Number of postgraduate students in the institution/campus: 2003

Q 1.10 (d) 2003 Number of postgraduate students in

the institution/campus N %NV

0-999

1000-1999

2000-2999

3000-3999

5000-5999

9000-9999

6

5

1

1

1

1

1

38%

31%

6%

6%

6%

6%

6%

Total 16 100%

Six respondents (38%) did not provide figures, and considering that the data is for the

institution/campus, the figure indicated by the responding ten respondents (62%) would be expected

to be the same. In relation to the rest of the questions, Q 1.9 (a-d) and Q 1.10 (a-l) constitute some of

the ‘aberrant questions’ of the entire research instrument. The difference between this question and

Q 1.10 (a) is that , apart from focusing on different levels of study (undergraduate and

postgraduate) for the same year (2003) for the whole institution/campus; the range of frequencies

is starkly contrasted (right hand column), and Q1.10 (a) has one more rate of occurrence

(8000-8999) than Q 1.10 (d).

TABLE 5.1.10 (e): Number of postgraduate students in the faculty: 2003

Q 1.10 (e) 2003 Number of postgraduates in the faculty N %NV

0-999

1000-1999

2000-2999

3000-3999

5000-5999

9000-9999

6

5

1

1

1

1

1

38%

31%

6%

6%

6%

6%

6%

Total 16 100%

Of the seven respondents (41%), the highest concentration of post-Bachelor’s degree students, is

0-499 from 4 respondent’s school/faculty. These huge numbers, if correct, suggest that this is a big

314

school/faculty, considering that included in this category is any level of study above the Bachelors

degree.

TABLE 5.1.10 (f): Number of postgraduates in the department: 2003

Q 1.10 (f) 2003 Number of postgraduates in the

department N %NV

0-499

2000-2499

8

7

1

50%

44%

6%Total 16 100%

From the responding 8 academics, the highest concentration of postgraduate students is collectively

0-499 students in the departments of seven respondents. Interestingly, eight respondents also did not

provide data for Q 1.10 (c) which is also department-based. However, the prevalence of 2000 to

2499 students studying in different levels above the first degree in the same department, if correct,

raises the interesting question of the size of student-lecturer ratio.

TABLE 5.1.10 (g): Number of undergraduates in the institution/campus: 2004

Q 1.10 (g) 2004 Number of undergraduates in the

institution/campus N %NV

0-999

1000-1999

2000-2999

3000-3999

4000-4999

7000-7999

8000-8999

6

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

38%

12%

12%

12%

6%

6%

6%

12%

Total 16 100%

The response is almost a replica of Q 1.10 (a). The difficulty with non-responses is that the basis for

making any meaningful inference becomes absolutely impaired. Establishment of a trend or pattern

then becomes a question of speculation, especially when the numbers appear to be ‘unusual’.

TABLE 5.1.10 (h): Number of undergraduates in the school/faculty: 2004

315

Q 1.10 (h) 2004 Number of undergraduates in the

school/faculty N %NV

0-999

1000-1999

2000-2999

3000-3999

8000-8999

8

3

2

1

1

1

50%

19%

12%

6%

6%

6%

Total 16 100%

In comparison with Q 1.10 (a), it would seem that there is a general shrinking in that there is no

distribution (in Q 1.10 (h) of numbers between 9000 and 9999, which by other standards, are huge.

If departments cited above attract such numbers, it then means that they have a very effective

‘catchment’ strategy.

TABLE 5.1.10 (i): Number of undergraduates in the department: 2004

Q 1.10 (i) 2004 Number of undergraduates in the

department N %NV

0-499

500-999

1000-1499

1500-1999

4500-4999

6

6

1

1

1

1

38%

38%

6%

6%

6%

6%

Total 16 100%

The response rate for this question appears better than for Q 1.10 (c), two more respondents gave

some semblance of respectability to the table.

TABLE 5.1.10 (j): Number of postgraduate students in the institution/campus: 2004

316

Q 1.10 (j) 2004 Number of postgraduate students in the

institution/campus N %NV

0-999

2000-2999

3000-3999

5000-5999

9000-9999

6

6

1

1

1

1

38%

38%

6%

6%

6%

6%

Total 16 100%

Whereas eight respondents did not provide data for Q 1.10 (c) – which improved to six for this

question – the resultant is two more distribution ranges than in the former question. Once more,

however, this betterment of response still does not translate into a cogent trend or pattern for validity

and reliability.

TABLE 5.1.10 (k): Number of postgraduates in the school/faculty: 2004

Q 1.10 (k) 2004 Number of postgraduates in the school/

faculty N %NV

0-499

500-999

1000-1499

3000-3499

9

4

1

1

1

56%

25%

6%

6%

6%

Total 16 100%

Of all the questions in 1.10, this one lends itself to a worst-case scenario, since a staggering 56% (9

respondents) offered no data. With regard to raw numbers, accuracy is extremely compromised in

the absence of data from which to develop accuracy of frequency, a pattern, or a trend

TABLE 5.1.10 (l): Number of postgraduates in the department: 2004

317

Q1.10(l) 2004 Number of postgraduates in the

department N %NV

0-499

500-999

1000-1499

1500-1999

4500-4999

6

6

1

1

1

1

38%

38%

6%

6%

6%

6%

Total 16 100%

With seven (44%) non-responses, departmental statistics become difficult to rely on for any

reasonable assessment of trends or patterns. On the whole, 2004 statistical data seems to have been

provided, although the lacunae created by the discrepancies unaccounted for has contributed to an

irrationality in the way that the tabular data has been presented. Hindsight dictates that the researcher

would have done better to obtain numbers relating to Q 1.9 (a-d) and Q 1.10 (a-l) from the student

registration office directly. In the end, all the intended results become unobtainable due to the

prevalence of such aberrant responses. The point could be made that the numerical data in the whole

of Q 1.9 is of tangential relevance to the curriculum issues which constitute the major focus.

TABLE 5.2.1: Epistemological base of the institution’s curriculum model(s)

Q 2.1 Epistemological base of curriculum N %Entirely discipline based

Inter-/multi-disciplinary

Trans-disciplinary

Career-oriented/vocational

Profession-oriented

Other

4

3

2

1

3

3

25%

19%

12%

6%

19%

19%

Total 16 100%

Despite claims to the contrary, Q 2.1 – which is closely-related to Q 2.2 – illustrates that

disciplinarity still constitutes the organizational and instructional framework within which

knowledge is produced, disseminated, and validated. Inter-disciplinary/multi-disciplinary and

profession-oriented curricula follow closely at 19% each. Depicted here is that work-integrated

learning (WIL) does not constitute a significant aspect of the culture HE teaching and learning.

TABLE 5.2.2: Characterization of intellectual culture in curriculum organization

318

With each half

of respondents

equally

adopting

polemic ‘positions’, it is unclear as to which intellectual culture is dominant. The distinction

between Q 2.1 and Q 2.2 lies in the fact that the former specifically draws correspondence between

academic mission(s) and epistemological justification of curriculum, whereas the latter informs

specifically on the underlying principles of curriculum organization – whether it’s knowledge-as-a

product or knowledge-as-a process; i.e. knowledge for utilitarian purposes or knowledge for

knowledge’s sake. The extent of the (non)application of innovative approaches (e.g. modularity,

RPL) would be ‘detectable’ on the basis of a clear or unanimous majority response to the above

question.

TABLE 5.2.3: The relationship between institutional mission(s) and curriculum

Q 2.3 Curriculum in the context of institutional

mission(s) N %Teaching

Research

Community service

Teaching, research, community service

0

1

0

15

0%

6%

0%

94%

Total 16 100%

It is illuminating that only one (6%) of the 16 respondents views research as least advancing the

institution’s mission. It would be interesting to have gone further in finding out in which order of

importance the other options were rated. If a correlation is drawn between this question and Q 1.1, it

would seem to confirm that the institution is perceived by a majority of the respondents as one

whose function is to teach more than research (which does not necessarily mean that there is No

research activity at all). It is self-evident that a teaching-only HE institutional model has not yet

evolved in the local context, neither could community service occur on the basis of no teaching and

research. The relationship between the teaching and research missions of HEIs has been addressed in

more detail in Chapter 2.

TABLE 5.2.4: The curriculum impact of mergers in the department/faculty

Q 2.2 Intellectual culture of the curriculum N %Openness (more accountability to external stakeholder

interests)

Closeness (more accountability to internal stakeholder

interests)

8

8

50%

50%Total 16 100%

319

Q 2.4 Mergers have impact on curriculum

organization in the department/faculty N %Yes

No

6

10

38%

62%

Total 16 100%

The majority response here (10 of 16 respondents) is that no major curriculum impact is envisaged

as a result of the merger process for the affected institution. By implication then, there would be no

major shift in either the intellectual culture or epistemological base in practice at the institution. On

the other hand, indications are that major articulation activities have occurred, especially where the

mergers have been from two previously disparate intellectual cultures (e.g. a traditional university

and a technikon), such as the programmes and qualifications articulation trajectories currently being

explored by UJ (the University of Johannesburg) and the NMMU (the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan

University) in their respective quest for “comprehensive university” status.

TABLE 5.2.5: Level of curriculum re-organization between Programme Qualification Mix

It is not far-fetched to infer that the 10 No responses in the previous question are obviously still the

same ten (62%) as in this table. The 62% No responses could be perceived as emphasizing the notion

that the ‘dominant’ institution in the merger process retains its programmes in toto (i.e. ‘submerges’

those of the less dominant merger partner). However, the 25% YES responses could not be ignored;

and the fact that a high PQM (Programme Qualification Mix) is the most opted for, suggests that

irrespective of the varying intellectual and epistemological cultures of the merging partners, a high

degree of programmatic confluence would be preferred. It means that the degree of integration (in

respect of subject ‘boundaries’), encompasses substantial parts of core fields in a particular field of

study. Consequently boundaries between, and among, subjects/courses, appear to be extremely

blurred (Diversity/Integration).

TABLE 5.2.6: Epistemological rationale of course content/knowledge organization

in the faculty/department

Q 2.5 PQM (Programme Qualification Mix) re-

organization level N %Not answered

High correspondence

Partial correspondence

10

4

2

62%

25%

12%Total 16 100%

320

The prevalence

of the ‘more’

than the actual

number of

respondents

(16), and ‘more’

than 100%

response,

indicates that it was permissible for the respondents to answer more than one option. It is axiomatic

here that responsiveness is the principle viewed as supreme (81%). It would have been more

beneficial (for the researcher) to fragment local and international needs and assess which of the two

would be prioritised. The 81% is also an indication that course/subject content is envisaged to have a

pragmatic relevance for the country. If this were to happen, higher education would be a great agent

in the socio-economic development – a factor that would diminish the elitist perceptions associated

with it.

TABLE 5.2.7: Extent of enhancement of the curriculum’s cultural compatibility through

the incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS)

Q 2.7 Indigenous Knowledge Systems’ cultural

compatibility N %True

False

14

2

88%

12%Total 16 100%

The 88% affirmation reinforces the view that culture is an indelible aspect of curriculum. This is

also corroborated by the second highest percentage (62%) in Q 2.8. Cultural compatibility of the

curriculum corresponds with the local (national) dimension as well. In a multicultural society like

South Africa, it is imperative that ‘cultural representativity’ in the curriculum be recognised, which

will also contribute towards democratic citizenship, nation building and tolerance. The major

problem, however, materialises when cultural ‘superiority’ becomes the (unstated/hidden) and

‘unofficial’ text of the curriculum. Whether or not economic and/or global interests supersede the

cultural compatibility of the curriculum, is another matter.

TABLE 5.2.8: Perceptions of the Africanisation of higher education curriculum

Q 2.6 Epistemological rationale of course content

organization in the faculty/department N %Accessibility: providing multiple entry and exit points

Flexibility: inclusive multiple stakeholder interests

Responsiveness: relevant educational programmes for

both local and national needs

Horizontal articulation/Diversity: integration of both

academic and vocational programmes

Vertical articulation

7

8

13

10

6

44%

50%

81%

62%

38%Total 16

321

Q 2.8 Africanisation perceptions N %Inferiority of standards

Relevance to local needs

Less scientific modes of knowledge production

The curriculum as culturally responsive (compatible)

The curriculum as political prescription

None of the above

2

11

4

10

3

1

12%

69%

25%

62%

19%

6%

Total 16

As in Q 2.7 above, the respondents could also respond to more than one option, which accounts for

‘more’ than the actual number of 16 or 100%. The purpose of the question is to determine what

value or currency is attached to (associated with) the notion of Africanisation in the HE curriculum;

whether the currency and understanding is only limited to a cultural context, or whether a broader

range of its understanding could be found. In doing so, cross-tabulation with other related

questions/responses has been applied. Collectively, the responses of Q 2.6 to Q 2.8 affirm the place

of this concept in the higher education curriculum. For instance, a majority of 81% in Q 2.6 confirms

that responsiveness (relevant educational programmes for both local and international needs) is the

epistemological rationale for course content/knowledge organization in their respective department/

faculty; by the same token (of inclination towards acceptance), a majority of 88% in Q 2.7 affirms

the value of IKS (an integral part of Africanisation) as enhancing cultural compatibility in the

curriculum. Lastly, the 69% majority response in Q 2.8 – whose perception of Africanisation is

associated with relevance to local needs – confirms a trend by which epistemological space for

Africanisation in the curriculum has been affirmed.

For Q 2.9 (a) to Q 2.9 (m), the initial intention was to obtain a collective degree of application or

non-application of the entire compendium of questions as reflective of the systems/procedural and

managerial modes of curriculum design/delivery. (see p. 4 of the questionnaire). However, the

respondents focused on the individual perspective of the questions. The collective perspective –

which directly addresses the question – is illustrated immediately after the individual responses. The

latter option has been applied here to determine whether or not a pattern or trend could be

established on the basis of the extent of (non)application of the stated curriculum options.

322

This approach is best suited for the generation of a pattern/trend, which is a best reflection of

addressing issues raised so far, among others in Q 2.1 – Q 2.6. With the above in mind then, all the

questions are listed in a tabular and sequential format and briefly explicated in the mode: from ‘fully

applied’ (option A) to ‘still to be applied’ (option D) – concurrent with highest to lowest response. In

responding to the whole range of questions in Q 2.9/5.2.9 (a)-(l), and in terms of the researcher’s

judgement, a collective review, as opposed to an individual question-by-question review, is opted

for. The rationale for that approach is based on determining the ‘collectiveness’ of innovation, if

any, to the curriculum models applied. It would be difficult to determine the above on a selective

basis. This ‘collectivization’ is applied at the end of TABLE 5.2.9 (m).

TABLE 5.2.9 (a): Degree of application of access/bridging courses for students

who do not meet higher education requirements

Q 2.9 (a) Application of access/bridging courses N %Not answered

Fully applied

Partially applied

Not applied

Still to be applied

1

7

5

2

1

6%

44%

31%

12%

6%Total 16 100%

That majority response of 44% application of access courses indicates that students experiencing

difficulties in obtaining normal entry requirements are being accommodated. That would be in

alignment with the institutional efforts of expanding participation from students whose matriculation

background is not adequate enough for straight entry into the mainstream courses being offered.

TABLE 5.2.9 (b): Degree of application of franchised courses in the department/faculty

The 62%

majority

response for

the non-application of franchised courses implies that using courses supplied by other HE providers

is not in the interests of the institution, which means that curriculum design and course content are

determined internally. This could further indicate that traditional HEIs ‘fear’ loss of authority in the

construction and management of curriculum.

Q 2.9 (b) Application of franchised courses N %Partially applied

Not applied

Still to be applied

5

10

1

31%

62%

6%Total 16 100%

323

TABLE 5.2.9 (c): Degree of application of modularised programmes in the department/

faculty

Q 2.9 (c) Application of modularised programmes N %Fully applied

Partially applied

Still to be applied

11

4

1

69%

25%

6%Total 16 100%

Q 2.9 (d) Application of CAT N %Not answered

Fully applied

Partially applied

Not applied

Still to be applied

2

2

6

5

1

12%

12%

38%

31%

6%Total 16 100%

The majority response of 38% of partial application (followed by 31% of non-application), indicates

that this mode of curriculum practice is not a preferred choice. On the other hand, a CAT

architecture helps with the transfer of credits both within courses and institutions, and facilitates the

articulation of a study programme by the student (i.e. student choice and mobility). The finalization

of the HEQF might be able to offer a more complete perspective regarding CATS in the HE

curriculum, although initial impressions from October 5, 2007 HEQF document are not all positive.

TABLE 5.2.9 (e): Degree of application of unit standards/unitized curriculum in the

department/faculty

Q 2.9(e) Application of unit standards/unitization N %Not answered

Fully applied

Partially applied

Not applied

Still to be applied

6

4

1

3

2

38%

25%

6%

19%

12%Total 16 100%

That 38% constitutes the majority of responses which did not answer, would seem to suggest that

the separation of sections of the curriculum into ‘stand alone’ components is not preferred, or the

question was misunderstood. On the other hand, unit standards do not ‘fit’ into all HE programmatic

offerings. Unit standards are more suited to career-focused courses, and would be difficult to apply

in disciplines in the Humanities in general.

324

TABLE 5.2.9 (f): Degree of application of a whole course curriculum in the department/

faculty

Q 2.9 (f) Application of whole course curriculum N %Not answered

Fully applied

Partially applied

Not applied

Still to be applied

2

7

4

2

1

12%

44%

25%

12%

6%Total 16 100%

The majority 69% (44% and 25%) of various degrees of application indicates that the shorter

variant of curriculum offering is a more preferred choice. Full application of this curriculum mode at

a 44% implies that like access courses (but unlike franchised courses), this option is highly ‘ranked’

among those preferred. An inference is therefore drawn that sequential/vertical transmission of

learning is dominant, engendering the ‘lockstep’ progression of students from one level of study to

the next.

TABLE 5.2.9 (g): Degree of application of learning credits to courses and modules

Q 2.9 (g) Awarding of learning credits N %Not answered

Fully applied

Partially applied

Not applied

2

8

5

1

12%

50%

31%

6%Total 16 100%

Although being 19% less than the 69% majority of Q 2.9 (c), the 50% majority response here

contrasts with the response indicated in Q 2.9 (d), in which a credit accumulation architecture is

fully applied at a mere 12% frequency. Another explanation could be that assigning credits as per

SAQA requirements does not yet seem to inform any access or transfer and articulation challenges to

a great extent.

TABLE 5.2.9 (h): Degree of application of RAPL (Recognition and Accreditation of Prior

Learning) in the department/faculty

325

Q 2.9 (h) Application of RAPL N %Not answered

Fully applied

Partially applied

Not applied

3

1

10

2

19%

6%

62%

12%

Total 16 100%

RAPL: The recognition and accreditation of prior (formal) learning; this ‘definition’ applies

throughout this text where the acronym appears. It is learning obtained during formal learning, but

disrupted due to some reasons pertaining to the learner’s, personal or occupational circumstances.

The majority response of a 62% partial application above implies that, as opposed to the 19% non-

application of RAPEL in Q 2.9 (i), formal learning is still a preferred mode of knowledge

acquisition. That the latter is partially applied, suggests that conditional exemption (for first entrants

whose schooling had been disrupted) would apply. Due to some difficulties associated with its

assessment, RPL may still not be a pervasive practice in granting access to students.

TABLE 5.2.9 (i): Application of RAPEL (Recognition and Accreditation of Prior

Experiential Learning)

Q 2.9 (i) Application of RAPEL N %Not answered

Partially applied

Not applied

Still to be applied

2

7

3

4

12%

44%

19%

25%Total 16 100%

** RAPEL: The recognition and accreditation of prior (experiential) learning; this ‘definition

appears throughout the text where this acronym appears. It is learning acquired informally or non-

formally by experience, placing no primacy on a site of learning.

As opposed to Q 2.9 (h), this particular question refers to experience-based learning which has not

been obtained in a formalized context. That it is 18% less than Q 2.9(h) in the context of ‘partially

applied’, would seem to suggest that knowledge acquired outside the context of higher education is

not fully recognized; i.e. higher education institutions monopolise the credentialing of knowledge,

326

and are skeptical of the standards and the quality of learning obtained outside their curriculum

management domain.

TABLE 5.2.9 (j): Degree of application of Outcomes-Based Education (OBE)

Q 2.9 (j) Application of Outcomes-Based Education N %Not answered

Fully applied

Partially applied

Not applied

Still to be applied

1

7

6

1

1

6%

44%

38%

6%

6%Total 16 100%

The full application of OBE at a 44% majority response, implies that, while processes and outcomes

of any learning activity are the intended purposes of learning, academic content is still dominant

(this based on the assumption that the 44% of full application above has not significantly exceeded

the 50% median point). Yet SAQA formats and submissions require that (critical cross-field)

outcomes be defined in all course offerings.

TABLE 5.2.9 (k): Degree of application of skill- and competence-based education and

training (CBET) in the department/faculty

Q 2.9 (k) Application of CBET N %Not answered

Fully applied

Partially applied

Not applied

Still to be applied

2

4

7

2

1

12%

25%

44%

12%

6%Total 16 100%

The similarity (i.r.o. same percentage of responses) between the 44% of the preceding Q 2.9 (j) and

the 25% of full application in Q 2.9 (k) above) corroborates the view that academic content and

processes in knowledge acquisition are still dominant modes of teaching and learning; which could

probably account for HEIs not placing too much emphasis on work-integrated learning (WIL).

TABLE 5.2.9 (l): Degree of compliance with NQF requirements in the department/

faculty

327

Q 2.9 (l) NQF compliance in the department/faculty N %Fully applied

Partially applied

Still to be applied

13

2

1

81%

12%

6%

Total 16 100%

The 81% majority response for NQF compliance indicates (rather than suggests) that training in

skills/competencies (a key NQF requirement), is fused into (or alongside) academic content of

knowledge. Whether such compliance is done for course accreditation purposes or for financial

support is another matter. However, a 100% compliance, which was anticipated, would be

decisively indicative of institutional concurrence with the notion of skills/competence provision. A

100% compliance was anticipated on the basis that HEIs cannot offer courses or programmes of

study and qualifications not approved by SAQA and the DoE in their PQM.

TABLE 5.2.9 (m): Degree of application of notional instructional hours in the

department/ faculty

Q 2.9 (m) Application of notional instructional hours N %Not answered

Fully applied

Partially applied

Still to be applied

2

8

4

2

12%

50%

25%

12%

Total 16 100%

The 50% majority response for option A above (fully applied), indicates that the assumed duration of

a course of study, based on an aggregated/accumulated period of attendance (calculated on a pre-

determined number of hours), is more applied than for instance, 44% of full application in Q 2.9 (j),

and the 25% full application of skills and competence in Q 2.9. The full application of notional

instructional hours should be higher than above; all courses submitted to SAQA should indicate this

compliance, as it also determines the accumulation or acquisition of learning credits.

The following tabular explication is meant to present a collective presentation of all the curriculum

options appearing from Q 2.9 (a) to Q 2.9 (m), but in terms of their varying degrees of application

(‘fully applied’ and ‘partially applied’) or non-application (‘still to be applied’ or ‘not applied’).

328

The rationale for this is to indicate an unfolding pattern of both preferred and less preferred

curriculum practices.

A: Fully applied B: Partially appliedNQ F compliant

Modularity

Awarding of learning credits

Notional instructional hours

Access/bridging courses

Whole course learning

OBE

Unit standards

Skills-/competence-based

CAT architecture

RAPL

81%

69%

50%

50%

44%

44%

44%

25%

25%

12%

6%

*RAPL

**RAPEL

Skills-/competence-based

CAT architecture

OBE

Access/bridging courses

Franchised courses

Awarding of learning credits

Modularity

Whole course curriculum

Notional instructional hours

NQF compliance

Unit standards

62%

44%

44%

38%

38%

31%

31%

31%

25%

25%

25%

12%

6%

* RAPL: the integration of formally acquired knowledge that was disrupted (i.e. student did not

study continuously until awarding of a qualification), into a course of study.

** RAPEL: as opposed to the above, the knowledge obtained de-emphasises the site/place where it

was obtained as the individual’s own experience has become the methodology of how such

experience was obtained.

Columns A and B above are viewed concurrently as they both refer to curriculum practices that are

already in varying degrees of application – either fully or partially. From Column A, franchised

courses and RAPEL are conspicuously not rated; which is a result of either not being fully

answered, or that a low premium or currency is placed on them. Significantly, both rate below 50%

on the B list. Amongst a host of observations to be made from this very crucial part of the

questionnaire is that:

Whereas the NQF/SAQA stipulates the registration of all courses, a 100% compliance was

not achieved in Column A. It is the contention of the researcher here that SAQA/NQF

compliance refers to all courses, not some courses. Furthermore, it is on the basis of such

indications as the 12% of non-application on the B list that further questions are posed as to

329

whether HEIs voluntarily became part of the merger processes, or whether they viewed this

as an imposed form of institutional reconfiguration;

The fact that access/bridging courses are fully applied at 44% on the A list (5th spot), and a

meager 31% on the ‘partially applied’ list (6th spot), could be indicative of a moderate pace

of reform (‘moderate’ arbitrarily determined on a percentage basis), when considering the

implications of both the mergers (the designated HDIs (historically disadvantaged

institutions) partnering with the designated HAIs (historically advantaged institutions)); and

the collective principles of access, equity, and redress. However, ‘compensation’ for this

‘deficiency’ could be derived from the observation that the first five highest responses from

the B list do not focus only on academic achievement – thus helping to address previously

experienced learning problems that have not yet been thoroughly (read: successfully)

addressed at the majority of the country’s secondary schools; and

As is the case with NQF compliance in the A list, OBE (44%, 7th spot) – like skills and

competence-based education and training, would have been expected to register high

percentages; considering that programme mix is a feature of the curriculum that could no

longer be ignored. The logic is that since skills and competence training are some of the main

thrusts of OBE, and against the background that such training provision is now one of the

main NQF requirements, a rate of occurrence (frequency) much higher than 44% would be

a more relevant yardstick of such a trend.

As opposed to the logic of Columns A and B above, Columns C and D below follow a pattern of

varying degrees of non-application.

It needs mentioning forthwith that ‘not applied’ in Column C, does not necessarily mean ‘will not be

applied’. It only states that at the time of the empirical survey, these curriculum initiatives had not

been in effect. On the other hand, ‘still to be applied’ has no time frame and could perilously become

indefinite. The institutional curriculum profile – on the basis of Columns A/B, and Columns C/D –

forms some reasonable basis of assumption on the pace and direction of reform, upon which a

repertoire of findings could be made. Whereas only two curriculum items (each from both A and B)

recorded the lowest percentage (6%), six items (four from the C list, and two from the D list),

recorded an equal percentage (12). Strikingly reform-oriented initiatives, except franchised courses

on C and RAPL on D, all registered a below 50 % mark-signifying that their degree of non-

application was rather distant, including NQF compliance! Despite the ‘pessimism’ that may seem to

appear, it is also worth noting that questionnaire items/distractors that serve learner mobility are

330

perhaps more difficult to achieve and will require time, experience and practice to implement by

HEIs.

C: Not applied D: Still to be appliedFranchised courses

CAT architecture

Unit standards

RAPEL

Access/bridging courses

Whole course learning

RAPL

Skills-/competence-based learning

OBE

62%

31%

19%

19%

12%

12%

12%

12%

6%

RAPEL

Unit standards

Notional instructional hours

Access courses, CATS, OBE,

Franchised courses, Modules, Whole

course learning, NQF compliance,

Skills-/competence-based learning

25%

12%

12%

6%

TABLE 5.2.10: Registration of all courses in the faculty/department with SAQA

Contrary to observations made from Columns A to D above in respect of Q 2.9 (l), viz. –

compliance with NQF requirements, the 100% response in Q 2.10 is both logical and realistic,

considering that programme funding and recognition are incumbent on this requirement. Such a

unanimous response deviates from the notion held that SAQA compliance ‘removes’ the academic

and encourages skilling/industrialization of the higher education curriculum, by its insistence on the

application of critical cross-field outcomes – which does not apply equally in various learning areas,

e.g. computer literacy and philosophy. The above response also addresses the concern expressed

earlier, viz. HEIs’ engagement in the reconfiguration process as voluntary or imposed/ ‘coerced’.

TABLE 5.2.11 (a): Extent of (dis)agreeability on separation of ‘education’ and ‘training’

as ‘types’ of knowledge that enhance effective student assessment

Q 2.10 Are all courses in the faculty/department

SAQA-registered? N %Yes 16 100%Total 16 100%

331

Q 2.11 (a) Separation of ‘education’ and ‘training’

enhances effective student assessment N %Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

5

2

7

2

31%

12%

44%

12%

Total 16 100%

That a collective 56% majority (44% and 12%) indicates varying degrees of agreeability/affirmation,

is an indication of the view that the academic/theoretical are being kept separate from the

vocational, technological application and skills-oriented aspects of knowledge. If that is so, does it

then mean that merging institutions from two disparate intellectual cultures will experience a

programmes and qualifications articulation trajectory that exhibits partial, little, or no

correspondence between courses that are strongly academic and those that are not? Would that also

mean that the separation of academic and vocational knowledge (rather than integration), is

indicative of traditional HE’s ‘disdain’ for work-integrated learning?

TABLE 5.2.11 (b): Extent of (dis)agreeability on outside trainers’ suitability for evaluation

of work-compliant skills/competencies

Q 2.11 (b) Outside trainers are suitable for skills/

competence evaluation N %Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

2

10

3

1

12%

62%

19%

6%

Total 16 100%

332

A collective 74% for Q 2.11 (b) above, (12 for option A, and 62 for option B) showing various

degrees of disagreement, confirms that academics in general are fiercely protective of their academic

territory, ipso facto, the involvement of ‘outsiders’ in curriculum management and other curriculum-

related issues, becomes the subject of a loss of power or authority in a domain, whose

epistemological, intellectual, or academic jurisdiction is presided over by them.

TABLE 5.2.12: Choice of assessment techniques applicable in the department/faculty

Q 2.12 Application of assessment techniques N %Written tests

Written examination

Continuous assessment

Assignments

Oral tests

Group work

Student assessment of lecturers/professors

Oral examinations

Class presentations (by students)

Portfolio and evidence

Simulations

Practicum and work shadowing

Criterion-referenced assessment

Peer assessment

Norm-referenced assessment

Self-referenced assessment

16

16

15

15

14

14

14

13

13

11

11

11

10

10

8

7

100%

100%

94%

94%

88%

88%

88%

81%

81%

69%

69%

69%

62%

62%

50%

44%Total 16

333

The assessment techniques are listed in a sequence from highest to lowest, so as to determine what

form of pattern/trend emerges in respect of preferred techniques against the less preferred ones. In

order of highest percentages recorded, the first eight are selected here, being the halt of all the

options (16) in this question. The reason for this, rather than being arbitrary, is to determine the most

dominant assessment practices. That the predominant mode of written assessment is highest (at 100

%) is perhaps revealing. The traditional modes – such as teacher-centredness (especially in contact

institutions), are still predominant forms of instructional delivery and assessment. Significantly

observable is the fact that innovative practices such as portfolio and evidence, simulations,

practicum and work shadowing, as well as criterion-referenced learning, occupy the last half of the

list. The single most significant observation is that traditionally dominant forms of assessment

(which are presided over by campus-based academics), are writ large the premium of (content)

evaluation. If practice-based experiences are relegated to the periphery, the combined responses

(43%) of disagreeability in Q 2.11 (a), become confirmed.

In the following question (2.13.1 (a)-Q 2.13.1 (g)), a modus operandi similar to that of Q 2.9 (a)-Q

2.9 (m), is operationalised, with the same rationale applicable here. That is to say, while each table is

briefly explicated, it is in the collective degrees of agreeability/disagreeability that a more

meaningful ‘picture’ emerges.

TABLE 5.2.13.1 (a): Degree of (dis)agreement on application of lecture notes in the

faculty/department

A total of

81%

(combined

degree of

disagreeability, 31% and 50%), implies that this variable (lecture notes) is really not a preferred

Q 2.13.1 (a) Degree of (dis)agreement on lecture notes N %Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

5

8

2

1

31%

50%

12%

6%Total 16 100%

334

mode of instruction delivery – perhaps also an indication of moving away from lecture-centredness.

This state of affairs could perhaps be in agreement with the view that HE educators are gradually

functioning more as facilitators, than as sole providers of knowledge.

TABLE 5.2.13.1 (b): Degree of (dis)agreement on application of study letters in the

faculty/department

Q 2.13.1 (b) Degree of (dis)agreement on study letters N %Not answered

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

2

3

3

1

7

12%

19%

19%

6%

44%Total 16 100%

The collective degrees of agreeability (50%: 44% and 6%) and disagreeability (38%: 19% and 19%)

suggest that study letters – in contrast with the lecture notes above – are more preferred. It is

encouraging that in addition to formal lectures, the lecturers do augment to the students’ learning

needs by sending them study letters.

TABLE 2.13.1(c): Degree of (dis)agreement on application of copies of additional reading

in the faculty/department

Q 2.13.1 (c) Degree of (dis)agreement on copies of

additional reading N %Not answered

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

1

2

6

7

6%

12%

38%

44%Total 16 100%

Bearing in mind that one respondent (6% of the sample) did not answer, the collective degree of

disagreeability (50%: 12% and 38%) suggests that the provision of copies of additional reading to

students is not a norm – it depends on the individual lecturer. The majority view could possibly be

premised on the understanding that it is the students’ responsibility to compile own additional

reading materials.

335

TABLE 5.2.13.1(d): Degree of (dis)agreement on application of case study in the faculty/

department

Q 2.13.1 (d) Degree of (dis)agreement on case study usage N %Not answered

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

1

2

5

6

2

6%

12%

31%

38%

12%Total 16 100%

Considering that one respondent did not answer, the combined degrees of agreeability(50%: 38%

and 12%), places simulation at a slightly higher position as a learning tool, compared to e.g. lecture

notes and provision of additional reading copies. Case study/simulation facilitates the acquisition of

problem-solving skills that would be helpful to the student in a realistic (work-compliant?)

environment.

TABLE 5.2.13.1 (e): Degree of (dis)agreement on application of learner guides

Q 2.13.1 (e) Degree of (dis)agreement on learner guides N %Not answered

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

1

8

6

1

6%

50%

38%

6%Total 16 100%

The majority response of 50%, in addition to the fact that one respondent did not answer, suggests

that learner guides are not a core function of instruction delivery, perhaps dependent on the

individual lecturer as in the case of additional reading material.

TABLE 5.2.13.1 (f): Degree of (dis)agreement on usage of computer-based

learning materials

Q 2.13.1 (f) Degree of (dis)agreement on usage of computer–based learning materials N %

Not answered

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

2

4

7

3

12%

25%

44%

19%

336

Total 16 100%Against the background that two respondents (12% of the sample) did not answer, the collective

affirmative responses of (63%: 44% and 19%), implies that there is a recognition that computer-

based learning (the student’s responsibility?) constitutes a significant aspect of the learning process.

With regard to the nature of the content or type of course, the application of computer-based learning

materials could apply differently within, and between subjects/disciplines.

TABLE 5.2.13.1 (g): Degree of (dis)agreement on usage of use of other learning materials

Q 2.13.1 (g) Degree of (dis)agreement on usage of other

learning materials N %Not answered

Strongly agree

15

1

94%

6%Total 16 100%

That 94% did not respond could mean that the question was unclear. Since the intended purpose was

to find out if there were other ways of enhancing student learning, it would have become clearer if

respondents were asked to specify those other choices. As in Q 2.9 (a-m), where the collective

degree of agreeability and disagreeability is the primary focus, a similar modus operandi is opted for

here.

A: Strongly disagree B: DisagreeLearner guides

Lecture notes

Study letters

Additional reading copies

Case study/simulation

50%

31%

19%

12%

12%

Lecture notes

Copies of additional reading

Learner guides

Case study/simulation

Computer-based

Study letters

50%

38%

38%

31%

25%

19%

Viewed collectively, and on a comparative scale of non-agreement, learner guides and lecture notes

are the learning technology materials about which there is strong disagreement, i.e. the chances of

being applied are very limited. On this basis, it is assumed that the predominant form of teaching and

learning is one in which the lecturer/professor is the main character in class, and students become

(passive) audience. If that is the case, student-centred learning becomes limited.

As opposed to the A and B lists above, the following tabular presentation reflects the collective

degree of affirmation with regard to all the distractors in question 2.13.1.

337

TABLE 2.13.2: Integration of computer-based learning resources in teaching

Q 2.13.2 Computer-based integration of teaching N %Access provided during contact classes

Access provided after class hours

Some topics are computer-based

All subject-based learning materials are available electronically

Web access is possible to all the students

Learner guides, study letters, and assignments can be accessed

via the computer

5

13

14

5

13

10

31%

81%

88%

31%

81%

62%Total 16

Considering the mammoth importance of computers in this information age (where informational

knowledge is of premium currency), the state of affairs above – and with specific reference to the

majority responses of 88% (for some topics being computer-based) and 31% (for the electronic

availability of all subject-based learning) respectively – indications that not all learning is

computer-based; students independently augment to their knowledge by acquiring this kind of

knowledge.

TABLE 5.2.14 (a): Extent of Web-based self-study experiences for students in the

faculty/department

Q 2.14 (a) Usage of the Web for self-study experiences N %Not answered

Effective

Partially effective

Not effective

2

6

6

2

12%

38%

38%

12%Total 16 100%

The collective responses of various degrees of effectiveness (76%: 38% and 38%), seems to concur

with the response in Q 2.13.2 (b), which then implies that both computer-based and Web-assisted

C: Agree D: Strongly disagreeComputer-based

Copies of additional reading

Case study/simulation

Lecture notes

Study letters

Learner guides

44%

38%

38%

12%

6%

1%

Computer-based

Case studies/simulation

Study letters

Lecture notes

Other

19%

12%

7%

6%

6%

338

learning are encouraged, but are largely the student’s own responsibility; and these Web- and

computer-based learning activities are only carried out after class.

TABLE 5.2.14 (b): Effect of the Web’s enhancement of *asynchronous learning

Q 2.14 (b) Effect of the Web on asynchronous learning N %Not answered

Very effective

Effective

Partially effective

Not Effective

Totally ineffective

2

2

5

3

3

1

12%

12%

31%

19%

19%

6%Total 16 100%

*Asynchronous learning refers to different learning schedules of attendance for different learners,

e.g. full-timers and part-timers.

The 62% collective degree of effectiveness (12%, 31% and 19%) implies that as a core function of

the curriculum, the Web’s utility in helping students asynchronously is not completely peripheral to

students’ learning needs. Access to the Web is mainly provided for the students to utilize at their

own time irrespective of their different learning schedules. Despite the apparent lack of Web-based

learning as part of the lecture, the total degree of effectiveness reflects the extent to which

instructional and administrative functions are augmented via the Web to meet the asynchronous

needs of all students.

TABLE 5.2.15: Frequency of students’ Web access

Q 2.15 Web access by students N %Very often

Always

Sometime

Rarely/Seldom

5

2

8

1

31%

12%

50%

6%Total 16 100%

The 50% response, which is comparatively the highest, seems to suggest that the Web is only an

occasional (Sometimes’) curriculum tool. (Compare with the ‘computer-based’ response of Q 2.13.1;

Q 2.14 (a) and (b), and the response of ‘some topics are computer-based’ in Q 2.13.2). The pattern

emerging reinforces the view that the student, as client, rather than the lecturer/professor, as

curriculum/ ‘knowledge broker’, is pivotal to accessing the Web – as a way of complementing

his/her ‘public knowledge’ with the ‘private knowledge’ obtained in class.

339

TABLE 5.2.16: Students’ Web exposure in the construction of own learning experiences

Q 2.16 Are students encouraged to source Web-based

information in constructing own study experiences? N %Yes 16 100%Total 16 100%

It is quite informative, as noted earlier (e.g. the 50% response in Q 2.15), that the student is the

prime mover in the 100% response. To their credit, the respondents admit that they do encourage

students to access the Web in the construction of their own learning experiences, so that they could

broaden their knowledge base.

TABLE 5.2.17: Extent of Web-based organization of curriculum in the faculty/department

Q 2.17 Is Web-based curriculum organization

prevalent in the faculty/department? N %Yes

No

1

15

6%

94%Total 16 100%

The almost 100% no-response is reflective of the assumption previously expressed that while Web-

based knowledge is encouraged, it really does not constitute a pivotal curriculum component. While

student-centric learning is encouraged, it still remains to be seen whether or not ‘ownership’ of

knowledge is still in ‘private’ lecture room-based hands, or ‘publicly’ available via such means as

the Web.

TABLE 5.3.1: Predominant student categories in the institution

Q 3.1 Predominant student categories in the institution N %Homogenous (from the age cohort meeting standard entry

requirements;

Heterogeneous (incorporates homogenous category and

those granted non-standard admissions status)

6

10

38%

62%Total 16 100%

The majority 62% heterogeneity of the student population indicates a general pattern by which age

is no longer a determinant for higher education entry. The emphasis on lifelong learning warrants

that all age cohorts be accorded equal learning opportunities. Adherence to this trend augurs well for

an institution of higher learning, especially in the light of the changing nature of student categories.

TABLE 5.3.2: Epistemological focus of the undergraduate curriculum in the institution

340

Q 3.2 Undergraduate curriculum: epistemological focus N %General education

Liberal education

Market-oriented education

Information and communication technologies

9

3

9

2

56%

19%

56%

12%Total 16

The respondents could indicate more than one option in this regard, since HE knowledge

construction has more than one element from among the indicated distractors. That both general and

market-oriented education are recorded at a high 56%, is indicative of preparation of undergraduates

for the professions and for participation in socio-economic development. The ‘cultivationist’

orientation of liberal education, on account of its lower (19%) spot, underlines the ‘outmoding’ of

moral, aesthetic, and spiritual upliftment as priority objectives (Altbach et al., 1998: 8; Duderstadt,

2003: 75-78). Participation in the economy and personal mobility seem to be primary concerns.

Ironically, ICT’s very low percentage (12%) gainsays the perception that ICT, in view of its salience

in socio-economic development, would have at least been rated alongside market-oriented

education. ICT was expected to attract large student numbers in courses that provide such

knowledge, since it has made tremendous inroads into HE knowledge acquisition; and its growing

demand for employment purposes would presumably rate it the highest.

TABLE 5.3.3: Extent of curriculum provision fo0r mature (adult) learners in theinstitution/faculty/department

Q 3.3 Does curriculum provide for adult learners? N %Yes

No

14

2

88%

12%Total 16 100%

The affirmative response, especially at a high 88%, is a manifestation of the significance of lifelong

learning opportunities by adults, whose first route may have been disrupted by personal, family, or

work-related circumstances. By making higher education entry requirements that allow them to work

and study at the same time, the curriculum’s openness/flexibility caters for the needs, concerns and

aspirations of this ‘non-standard’ segment of the student population.

TABLE 5.3.4 (a): Percentage of full-time students in the institution/faculty/department

Q 3.4 (a) Full-time students: percentile rate of

participation N %0-9

20-29

4

2

25%

12%

341

Q 3.4 (a) Full-time students: percentile rate of

participation N %60-69

70-79

80-89

90-99

100-109

2

2

3

2

1

12%

12%

19%

12%

6%Total 16 100%

It is axiomatic that the student distribution ranges are faculty/department based. They are very low to

be regarded as institution-based. From the above, the highest number of respondents (4, or 25% of

the sample size), has the lowest number of students (0-9) in their faculties/departments. Conversely,

the lowest respondent number (1, or 6% of the sample size), has the highest number of students

(100-109). These student numbers are indiscriminate of level of study; i.e. they include both

undergraduate and postgraduate students.

TABLE 5.3.4 (b): Percentage of mature/adult/part-time students in the faculty/department

Q 3.4 (b) Mature/Adult/Part-time students: percentile

rate of participation N %0-9

10-19

20-29

30-39

40-49

80-89

100-109

4

3

3

1

2

2

1

25%

19%

19%

6%

12%

12%

6%Total 16 100%

The distribution of students above, like that of full-time students in Q 3.4 (a), is more (100-109) in

only one respondent’s faculty/department. It has to be pointed out, however, that the responses to

both Q 3.4 (a) and Q 3.4 (b) do not provide a clear picture of the actual proportion of all full-time

students vis-à-vis mature/part-timers (such as e.g. 40:60, or any other applicable ratio). Some

respondents left blank spaces in their questionnaires; consequently, the computer-generated data

provided numerical student distribution ranges per respondent faculty/department rather than an

actual percentile basis for comparison. In a broader context, the responses may be tangentially

related to curriculum issues.

TABLE 5.3.5: Percentage of adult part-time learners’ professions (backgrounds)

342

Q 3.5 Adult part-time professional backgrounds N %Self-employed

Education

Management

Other

Don’t know

1

4

1

5

8

6%

25%

6%

31%

50%Total 16 100%

Half of the respondents (50%) don’t know their part-time students’ backgrounds. Whether this is

also the case for full-timers, would be an interesting observation. Of the half that knows their part-

timers’ background, 31% state they (students) are from backgrounds other than those stated.

Education as a field of study seems to be also the background from which a significant portion of

part-timers come. This seems to be the trend in most other institutions country-wide.

TABLE 5.3.6: The institution’s epistemological base, in terms of curriculum delivery

to all students at all levels of study

Q 3.6 Epistemological base of curriculum N %Knowledge-as-product (training for utilitarian, practical/

vocational skills)

Knowledge-as-process (training for cognitive, critical thinking

skills)

All of the above

2

11

3

12%

69%

19%

Total 16 100%

The 69% majority for the ‘knowledge-as-process’ option translates into an academic orientation for

the institution’s curriculum orientation, which is in alignment with the response to Q 2.1 (a), but

contradictory tot the 81% majority response to Q 2.6(c). An entirely academic curriculum diminishes

vocational and skills development. The latter is what best suits the majority of the local population

and employers as well. Furthermore, the ‘knowledge-as-process’ option is not in concord with the

majority response (56%) of the ‘market-oriented education’ option in Q 3.2.

TABLE 5.3.7: Availability/existence of learner support mechanisms to facilitate access

to learning resources after hours

Q 3.7 Do learner support mechanisms exist after hours? N %Yes

No

14

2

88%

12%Total 16 100%

343

The overwhelming affirmative response (88%) seems to suggest that after-class infrastructural

support for learning takes place on a very convincing scale. If also encourages students to construct

their own learning experiences to augment those (formal) experiences encountered in class. After-

hours learner support (e.g. the institution’s multi-media) becomes a medium by which direct and

indirect communication is facilitated between learners and their lecturers, professors, etc.

TABLE 5.3.8: Basis for course construction in enhancing students’ experiences

Q 3.8 Basis for course construction in enhancing students’

experiences N %

Core-subjects for course construction

Development of a programme by combining core courses and

electives

Tailor-made short courses to meet student needs/unit standards

Other

1

12

1

2

6%

75%

6%

12%Total 16 100%

The 75% majority accorded the ‘development of a programme by combining core courses and

electives’ option would seem to suggest that the primary mode of programme construction is the

valuing of thematically-related courses according to the ‘core’ and ‘elective’ mode. As opposed to

the ‘core-subjects for course construction’ option, student choice is facilitated in this context.

TABLE 5.3.9: Matching student ‘type’ (1-3) to most likely course ‘type’ (A-C)

Q 3.9 Matching student types and course types Student ‘types’Course ‘types’ 1 2 3 TOTALA: “Just-in-time” 7 0 5 12 (75%)B: “Just-in-case” 3 11 0 14 (87%)C: “Just-for-you” 8 2 4 14 (87%)

• Student ‘types ’: 1 = Part-time, mature working adults; 2 = Freshly matriculated students;

3 = Self-employed students

• Course ‘types’ : A = Non-degree courses to formalize skills and experience; B =

Uninterrupted study through a learning programme by a young student; C = For specific

lifelong learning needs

Although the initial intention of the question was to determine the respondent’s own understanding

of these three concepts, the respondents inadvertently analysed the pro-rata prevalence of learners in

a department, facility, or school. That is to say, they provided a range of student distribution, rather

than the most likely course provision of these student categories. Consequently, the 81%

344

majority response ascribed to B2 means that there are more students in this category than in options

A and C, for instance. That being the case then, it would mean that there are more young learners,

freshly-matriculated, and meeting the standard entry requirements. Since the original intention of the

question was to determine respondent’s own factual understanding of the three concepts (in which

case, the matching pattern would be A and 3; B and 2; C and 1), the actual responses suggest (as

they are in fact incorrectly matched) a pro rata prevalence of these student ‘types’ in respective

faculties/departments. Accordingly, they are presented as: (from highest to lowest) B and C = 87%;

A = 70%. By implication, freshly matriculated learners, followed by self-employed learners, and

followed by mature working adults, respectively constitute the student population in the

faculty/school/department.

TABLE 5.3.10: Most practicable level of student-centredness

Q 3.10 Level of study at which student-centred teaching and

learning is most practicable N %The undergraduate level

The postgraduate level

All of the above

3

5

8

19%

31%

50%Total 16 100%

That both the undergraduate and postgraduate levels are collectively (50%) the equal sum of (19%

and 31%), indicates that student-centredness is not confirmed to a particular level of study, but a

mode of curriculum delivery for all students irrespective of their level and field of study. Such

innovativeness bodes well for curriculum reform and in encouraging students to construct their own

learning experiences.

TABLE 5.3.11: Crediting of non-formally-/informally-acquired knowledge/experience

in the faculty/department

Q 3.11 Is non-/informally-acquired knowledge/experience credited? N %Yes

No

5

11

31%

69%Total 16 100%

The 69% No-response would seem to reinforce the argument that HEIs fiercely (and jealously) exert

custodianship of their curriculum integrity and authority. Therefore, standards set by themselves

safeguard their academic (and programmatic?) territoriality. The 31% for the Yes-response is

discrepant to the 44% ‘partial application’ of RAPEL in Q 2.9 (i), and the emerging picture is that:

whereas previously acquired formal learning (Q 2.9 (h)) is partially applied, experientially

acquired learning (synonymous with Q 3.11), is partially applied to a greater degree. (see Q 2.9(i)).

345

The bottom line then, is that HEIs are more at ease accrediting experiences formally constructed by

them and their recognised affiliates, than those whose acquisition were personally obtained, with the

individual acting as own evaluator, standards bearer, and norms and values creator – according to

which all of ‘experience’ weighted.

TABLE 5.3.11.1: Level at which non-formal/informal knowledge/experience is credited

3.11.1 Level of non-formal/informal knowledge/experience

crediting N %Both undergraduate and postgraduate study

Not answered

6

10

38%

62%Total 16 100%

The general tone here is that the notion of informally acquired learning (experience), is

disconcerting. That 62% (10 of the 16 respondents) did not answer, is translated here as indicative of

the threat of loss of power/authority over curriculum management on institution-based learning.

TABLE 5.3.11.2: ‘Classification’ of university ‘type’ in respect of curriculum offered

Q 3.11.2 University ‘type’ in respect of curriculum offered N %Diverse university (tolerates different opinions and

approaches)

Divisionless university (permeable relationships in all

knowledge boundaries

Lifelong university (less distinction between student,

graduate, and alumni

Creative university (stresses knowledge creation, rather than

knowledge production)

Entrepreneurial university (high capacity to generate funds

for self sufficiency)

Some of the above (please specify by ticking those)

13

1

5

9

4

4

81%

6%

31%

56%

25%

25%Total 16 100%

The total number of recorded responses (36) exceeds the actual number of respondents (16),

because allowance was made for more than one response per respondent. The 81% majority

response for the ‘diverse university’ option ostensibly implies that diversity is pivotal in both

346

curriculum delivery and epistemological approaches. If that is so, an assumption is made an open

intellectual culture is fundamental to the organization of knowledge for student consumption.

However, this latter view militates against the % result obtained in the ‘entirely discipline-based’

epistemological base in Q 2.1, and the option of ‘responsiveness’ in Q 2.6.

TABLE 5.3.12 (a): Is comprehensive preliminary/candidacy examination required for

any graduate course of study in the faculty/department?

Q 3.12 (a) Is comprehensive preliminary/candidacy

examination a requirement for graduate study? N %Yes 16 100%Total 16 100%

Unanimous agreement (100%) affirming eligibility to any postgraduate course of study, is indicative

of, among other factors, induction into the disciplinary roots of the field of study is dominant. That

the examination is comprehensive, presupposes that not only is research potential on the part of the

candidate evaluated. Allegiance to the discipline and its methods, as well as familiarity with

prevalent or dominant schools of thought for instance, become some of the factors that ‘diagnose’

candidacy fitness. The view being postulated here is that faculty or departmental authority still

dictates what form of research independence will prevail between student and supervisor.

TABLE 5.3.12 (b): Understanding of ‘apprenticeship’ as description of induction into

graduate education

Q 3.12 (b) Is ‘apprenticeship’ a description of induction

into graduate education? N %

Not answered

Yes

No

2

3

11

12%

19%

69%Total 16 100%

The 69% No-response is in stark contradiction to Q3.12 (a). If 100% confirms eligibility to

graduate education on the basis of a comprehensive candidacy examination, that is already

induction into the norms and values (canons) held in esteem within that field of study. If student

supervision presupposes negotiation with the concerned supervisor (as in loco representative of the

relevant graduate education bodies within the institution), that is already an apprenticeship

relationship (in a positive way), as the student is being trained to become an artisan in that field,

following which certification will confirm his/her adherence to all the requirements underlying the

apprenticeship-to-artisanship process. However, the 69% recorded in this question, could imply that

347

induction into graduate education could be described in other ways than ‘induction’; and that a

comprehensive candidacy examination is not necessarily synonymous with ‘induction’.

TABLE 5.3.12 (c): Departmental postgraduate funding capacity

Q 3.12 (c) Is funding of postgraduates a problem? N %Not answered

Yes

No

2

1

13

12%

6%

81%Total 16 100%

That a majority 81% states that funding for postgraduate study in their respective faculties/

departments is not a problem, sounds like a breath of fresh air, considering the dwindling funding

base of HEIs as the state institutes competitive funding mechanisms. This response implies that the

graduate education capacity at this institution is unfettered, and that the institution’s alternative

funding base is entrepreneurial in outlook. For graduate education – therefore, research capacity and

potential – such a response augurs well for the future of research-oriented studies.

TABLE 5.3.12 (d): Status of undergraduates’ and postgraduates’ ‘exit velocity’

in the faculty/department

Notwithstanding the fact that one respondent did not answer (a response which could have been

decisive in either of the two recorded responses above), the almost equal responses (44% and 50%)

suggest that the ‘exit velocity’ – the rate at which students complete the fields of study or

programmes for which they had registered – is constant for both undergraduate and postgraduate

students. In other words, emphasis is equally put on both categories doing well, which could be a

factor for attracting more funding for postgraduate study.

TABLE 5.3.12 (e): Institution’s capacity to offer doctoral degrees

Q 3.12 (e) Does the institution offer doctoral degrees? N %Not answered

Yes

3

7

19%

44%

Q 3.12 (d) Is undergraduates’ ‘exit velocity’ equal to that

of postgraduates? N %

Not answered

Yes

No

1

7

8

6%

44%

50%Total 16 100%

348

Q 3.12 (e) Does the institution offer doctoral degrees? N %No 6 38%Total 16 100%

The three unanswered responses are totally unjustifiable. Any respondent obviously knows (or

should know!) whether or not doctoral programmes exist within his/her faculty or department,

irrespective of the position he/she holds within that faculty/department. However, the majority

(44%) indicates that postgraduate study is prevalent; which should in fact occur, considering that

funding at this level was stated in Q 3.13 (c) by a majority 81% as posing no obstacle.

TABLE 5.3.12 (f): Intellectual and academic weight/value of postgraduate programmes

across all subject fields in the institution

Q 3.12 (f) Are all postgraduate programmes accorded equal

academic value across all subject fields? N %

Not answered

Yes

No

2

8

6

12%

50%

38%Total 16 100%

Closely linked to Q 3.12 (d) – in which both undergraduates and postgraduates perform or progress

at a comparatively equal rate – the notion of equality of postgraduate programmes (status) is

commensurate within all faculties/departments, as reported by 50% of the respondents. It means

among the postgraduate programmes themselves, none is overlooked in preference of the other or

others.

TABLE 5.3.12 (g): Postgraduate students’ motives for further study

Q 3.12 (g) Are postgraduates motivated more by material

considerations than by intellectual imperatives? N %Not answered

Yes

No

1

6

9

6%

38%

56%Total 16 100%

The view of the majority (56%) is that students undertake further study in their chosen fields of

study, prompted more by intellectual enquiry than by the lure of financial gain. The impression then

349

is that financial gain is not and end, but ‘comes with the territory’ in the process of intellectual

enquiry and dependent also on the input being made in the particular body of knowledge – a

recognition bestowed by peers and other observers interested in that field of knowledge.

TABLE 5.4.1: Categorization of HE links with industry and society

Q 4.1 HE-industry links are more important than society N %Not answered

True

False

1

7

8

6%

44%

50%Total 16 100%

Despite the unjustifiable six percent response, the other eight respondents (50%) project the view

that HE-industry links are more important than HE-society links, which is in stark contrast to the

81% accorded to responsiveness in Q 2.6. It is perhaps mention worthy at this juncture that the

observation being made reflects ‘a particular way’ in which respondents ‘react’ to the questions

being posed. It appears those in (senior, middle, or lower) management positions respond

differently to certain management-related questions and issues, than those in academic function.

This observation is made on the basis of certain contradictory results. For instance, maintaining links

with industry (a management area of jurisdiction), is not in alignment with the way in which

‘outsiders’ are perceived in relation to curriculum-related and instructional functions and issues (e.g.

evaluation). This, however, does not imply that the responses throughout are based on the

perception that all management categories within the institution or departments/faculties ‘coalesce’

against line function academics and other non-academic professional staff. The point being made

here is that if links with the private sector (for alternative funding purposes) are conceived and

executed at the upper echelons of management, this should translate into some form of instructional

benefit.

TABLE 5.4.2: Comparability of HE standards and work-based learning

Q 4.2 HE standards cannot be compared to work-based

learning N %Not answered

True

False

2

2

12

12%

12%

75%Total 16 100%

The 75% majority response translates itself into an affirmation that work-based learning should be

accorded some recognition within higher education. Accordingly, employer’s input in the formal

training of their employees is recognised, and for that reason, the ‘corporate’ classroom is accorded

some value. The logical conclusion would then be that a mechanism of standards has to materialize,

350

so as to obviate a ‘conflict of interests’ between work-based instructors and campus-based

academics.

TABLE 5.4.3: State of HE graduates’ work preparation

Q 4.3 Higher education graduates’ skills preparation for

work requirements is generally poor N %Not answered

True

False

2

7

7

12%

44%

44%Total 16 100%

Both True and False responses (at 44% each) give the impression of irresoluteness in respect of the

skills readiness and job preparation of higher education graduates. Compared to Q 4.5, however, the

impression would be that the respondents overwhelmingly negate the statement in Q 4.3; that is, they

refute that graduates are unprepared for the world of work.

TABLE 5.4.4: The corporate classroom and HE’s epistemological authority

Q 4.4 The ‘corporate classroom’ diminishes HE’s

epistemological authority N %

Not answered

True

False

1

13

2

6%

81%

12%Total 16 100%

The 81% response seems to confirm the general view that HEIs believe in their epistemological

hegemony, and any ‘intrusion’ into their curriculum management policies also ‘infringes’ on their

academic freedom. By extension, any programme(s) not sanctioned by them is viewed with disdain

and skepticism. In addition to the second sentence and onwards in Q 4.1, it is further noted here that

HEIs are organizationally complex structures. For this reason alone, it is to be expected that

monolithic or isomorphic ‘behaviour’ in its organic features cannot prevail. Consequently, the

general degrees of contradiction in these questionnaire responses are a reflection of that complexity,

rather than an aberration.

TABLE 5.4.5: Guarantees of graduates’ employability through work-based practicum

Q 4.5 Work-based practicum does not guarantee

graduates’ employment N %True

False

3

13

19%

81%

351

Q 4.5 Work-based practicum does not guarantee

graduates’ employment N %Total 16 100%

The majority (81%) is of the view that work based practicum or preceptorships maximise the

chances of graduates to be employed. This could be further enhanced by the fact that the on-the-job-

training while they are still studying, reduces costs for employers to provide job training skills for

full-time employers. Since traditional HEIs are still ‘academic’ in their programmatic offerings and

delivery mechanisms, work-integrated learning is not yet developed to become an independent

means to instill graduates’ confidence of being immediately employed after completion of their

studies.

TABLE 5.4.6 (a): Coordinating structure/body for links with the state

Q 4.6 (a) Does a structure/body exist to coordinate links

with the state? N %Not answered

Yes

No

2

9

5

12%

56%

31%Total 16 100%

As the whole of Q 4.6 (a to d) is based on the institution, rather than a faculty or department, the

impression was that the individual respondent should know, or not know, rather not answer at all –

this based on the institution as employer, and also in the same way that a respondent would know

whether or not there is a body in the institution that represents the interests of academics. Despite all

that, the fact that there is no consensus here, casts aspersions on the lack of interest displayed, to

anything that is non-academic and outside of the department/faculty. The 56% majority response

indicates firstly that the nine respondents display knowledge of, and interest in,

bureaucratic/management issues outside of departments/faculties. On the whole, links with the state,

follow links with industry in importance.

TABLE 5.4.6 (b): Coordinating structure/body for links with civil society

Q 4.6 (b) Does a structure/body exist to coordinate links

with civil society? N %Not answered

Yes

No

3

7

6

19%

44%

38%Total 16 100%

352

The majority (44%) confirm that there is a formerly constituted body to co-ordinate links with

society. However, when comparing this response with that of Q 4.1, the researcher’s own view is

that of a tentative scenario for formerly constituted mechanisms (other than some nominal

representation in august structures like the Senate/Council) of links with society. (Rhetoric and

actual practice are totally different issues. ‘Cooperative governance’ warrants some re-visitation.

When for instance, student fees are to be increased, are their parents formerly consulted – let alone

student bodies?)

TABLE 5.4.6 (c): Coordinating structure/body for links with the private sector

Q 4.6 (c) Does an institutional structure/body exist to

coordinate links with the private sector? N %Not answered

Yes

No

1

10

5

6%

62%

31%Total 16 100%

The percentage of agreement (62%) is the highest here than in the other two sections. However, two

points of clarification warrant some mentioning. Firstly, the collective response to all the questions

in Q 4.6 (a-c) gives the impression that a ratio of institutional links with these three sectors was

asked for; in which case the picture unfolding is that of the private sector, (62%), the state (56%) and

civil society (44%) respectively becoming factors of higher education external links. Secondly, the

intended spirit of the entire question was to find out whether or not formally-constituted bodies

existed for the purposes of external links stated above; in which case the assumption would have

been an entirely negative or affirmative response. This clarification is necessary as the stated

responses have become aberrant to the intended response outcome. However, in the ‘ratio’ mode of

external links outlined above, it is a contradiction that civil society – to which an 81% majority of

responsiveness has been accorded in Q 2.6, and constituting a significant funding base – appears to

be subsumed by private sector and state considerations when it comes to stakeholder interests.

TABLE 5.4.6 (d): Coordinating structure/body for links with any other external

agencies/organizations

Q 4.6 (d) Does an institutional structure/body exist to

coordinate links with any other external agencies? N %

Not answered

Yes

No

7

7

2

44%

44%

12%Total 16 100%

353

Links with other stakeholders refers to, for instance, international and local HEI’s, students, research

institutes, and so forth. That 44% (seven respondents) did not answer, already defeats the intended

outcome. From the remaining nine respondents (56%) seven respondents (44%) affirm the existence

of such a structure. However, the comments made for questions 4.6 (b) and (c) above apply writ

large here as well.

TABLE 5.4.7(a): HE-private sector structure/body, composition and frequency of its

meetings

Q 4.7 (a) Frequency of meetings in the HE-private sector

structure/body N %

Not answered

Regularly

Sometimes

12

3

1

75%

19%

6%Total 16 100%

For the whole of Q 4.7 (a-d), respondents are asked on both the composition of the body/structure,

and frequency of meetings of such a structure, by these respective bodies. If the Yes-responses in the

previous question were to be interpreted as implying the existence of such bodies within the

institution, the collective manner in which Q 4.7 has been responded to, would completely nullify

the veracity of such claims as those of the Yes-responses. That 75% did not answer completely

mollifies the 62% Yes-response in Q 4.6.c (if interpreted at the level of rating the different sectors,

rather than confirming or negating their formal existence). The responses to this question are

ineffectual, as no logic can be derived from the frequency of meetings of a body whose membership

is unknown and worse still, a body whose existence or non-existence is unsubstantiated.

TABLE 5.4.7 (b): HE-state structure/body, composition and frequency of its meetings

Q 4.7 (b) Frequency of meetings in the HE-state sector

structure/body N %Not answered 16 100%Total 16 100%

The state of affairs reflected above is yet another aberration, considering that 88% for perception of

the curriculum was obtained in Q 4, with nine respondents (56% of sample) affirming the existence

of such a structure in that selfsame question.

TABLE 5.4.7 (c): HE-society structure/body, composition and frequency of its meetings

Q 4.7 (c) Frequency of meetings in the HE-civil society

structure/body N %

Not answered 15 94%

354

None of the above/No representation 1 6%Total 16 100%

Difficulty of logic arises, once more. If 15 of the 16 respondents have not answered, it becomes

somewhat difficult to account for the responses recorded in Q 4.6 (b), where a 44% majority

affirmed the existence of such a structure.

TABLE 5.4.7 (d): HE and other structure/body, composition and frequency of its meetings

Q 4.7 (d) Frequency of meetings in HE and any

other structure/body N %Not answered 16 100%Total 16 100%

These questions also conform to the aberration ascribed to (a), (b), (c) above, where the existence of

a structure, in varying degrees, is affirmed; and only to be contradicted when it relates to both its

composite elements and the frequency of meetings. This contradiction permeates irrespective of

whether it is at the institutional, faculty, or departmental level.

TABLE 5.5.1: Structure/Body responsible for curriculum development/management in

the institution

Q 5.1 Curriculum development/management body:

institutional N %Academic Support Unit (for the whole institution)

Faculty-/Department-based

Other

3

11

2

19%

69%

12%Total 16 100%

Faculty- or department-based structures (reflected by the majority of 69%) are reflected as the

dominant organizational structures around which curriculum development and management occurs.

On an institution-wide level, faculties/departments wield the power in structuring and monitoring

their own curricula.

TABLE 5.5.2: Structure/Body responsible for curriculum development/management in the

faculty/department

Q 5.2 Curriculum implementation in the faculty/

department N %Faculty/Department Advisory Board

Programme Coordinators

Curriculum Committees

Individual HODs, for own departments /faculties

2

1

7

3

12%

6%

44%

19%

355

Q 5.2 Curriculum implementation in the faculty/

department N %Individual lecturers, for own subjects /courses

Other

2

1

12%

6%Total 16 100%

At 44%, Curriculum Committees (with an emphasis on their plurality) are by far the most widely

accepted mode of curriculum development and management within departments/faculties. It would

seem that an inter-disciplinary or inter-departmental mode of curriculum management is the

applicable trend. The inference is that disciplines/subjects are collectively developed and/or

managed as a group or programme of study, the common denominator being their (courses’)

thematic confluence in respect of fields of study. By further extension then, each Curriculum

Committee from a respective individual subject jointly sets common development/management

standards and procedures for the group of subjects (programmes) in the entire faculty or

department. The alternative mode would be one in which each subject is individually developed/

managed, each on its own merit(s) by its own subject-specific structure.

TABLE 5.6: Students’ perception of predominant curriculum organization in the faculty/

department

Q 6 Students’ perceptions of curriculum organization in the

faculty/department N %Academic (sequential, cognitive and discipline-based/

scientific)

Vocational (practical, industry-oriented, multi-disciplinary or

trans-disciplinary)

13

3

81%

19%Total 16 100%

The question is basically centered on perceptions by students themselves. However, since the

respondents are perceived to have a working understanding of their student’s views in this regard,

their (respondents’) recorded views are construed here as veritable information reflecting the

students’ perceptions. Since the ‘type’ of institution used here is a university (see Q 1.1, Q 2.3, and

most importantly Q 3.6), it is rather not unexpected that curriculum organization is academically-

inclined, notwithstanding the implications of a merger between a university and a technikon, in

which case the ‘Vocational’ option above has to be infused into the new curriculum structure.

TABLE 5.7.1: Curriculum implementation in the faculty/department

356

Q 7.1 Is there a dedicated structure overseeing curriculum

implementation? N %Yes

No

13

3

81%

19%Total 16 100%

Curriculum management is ostensibly a high priority here, to the extent that a high 81% Yes-

response is recorded (compare with the 69% majority response for faculty- or department-based

structure for curriculum development in Q 5.1, and the 44% majority response for curriculum/

programme committees for curriculum development body in Q 5.2).

TABLE 5.7.2: Frequency of curriculum quality assurance mechanisms in the faculty/

department

Q 7.2 Frequency of curriculum quality assurance

mechanisms: faculty N %Semesterly

Yearly

Other (include own applicable method)

2

6

8

12%

38%

50%

Total 16 100%

That some form of curriculum revision does occur is very encouraging, even though it is by some

other mechanism(s) than those provided in the options. This is in alignment with the realisation that

the knowledge explosion is so rampant (increasing every five years); HEIs, in keeping with their

knowledge credibility, have to keep abreast of developments in this sphere. Unfortunately, Other

options were not specified for the respondents. For purposes of affording flexibility to the

respondents, it was envisaged that as educational practitioners, they would provide their own/Other

choices. However, as the second preferred mode of assessment (as a quality assurance mechanism),

the yearly mode (at 38%) seems to suggest that the whole course curriculum is dominant at this

institution.

TABLE 5.7.3: State of innovative curriculum development procedures in the

faculty/department

Q 7.3 Are curriculum development procedures emphasised

more than lecturers’ own initiatives? N %

Yes

No

11

5

69%

31%Total 16 100%

357

That lecturers’ innovative awareness is pivotal in this regard, is an indication of (internal) flexibility,

rather than rigidity in curriculum management (compare with Q 2.2, the 50% response for

epistemological rationale in Q 2.6, and the collective 74% degree of disagreeability for ‘outsiders’’

involvement in Q 2.11 (b)). That the development of curriculum, as well as its management, is

horizontally organised (with more input not designated to only those in high positions); and that the

review and updating of curriculum occurs within the ambit of a properly structured body that allows

for flexibility and (internal) multiple stakeholder (excluding students) input, is a sign of reform in

action. Traditional HEIs have to keep up with all of the elements underlined in Q 7 as a whole, if

they are to maintain an epistemological edge over its rivals. It is in quality assurance that more and

more students could be attracted to higher education ‘products’ as embodied in the

programme/curriculum offerings.

5.4.2 Pinpoint-generated tabular presentation of questionnaire data: Institution B

Despite the total of ten respondents reflected throughout this sub-section, it should also be borne in

mind that a total of 34 questionnaires were distributed at this institution.

TABLE 5.1.1: Type of respondent’s institution

Q 1.1 Institution type N %Technikon/Institute (University) of Technology

Comprehensive University (teaching and research at

all levels)

9

1

90%

10%

TOTAL 10 100%

A 100% response was envisaged for the ‘Technikon/Institute (University) of Technology’ option, a

rather axiomatic choice for this type of institution, especially since all the respondents were located

at the same institution. However, another interpretation could be that other respondents (especially

those who adhere to the American version of ‘comprehensive university’, where many fields of

study are pursued up to the doctoral levels), are already anticipating such a scenario (which is

different from the South African version, where ‘comprehensive university’ refers to an

‘amalgamation’ of dual epistemological modes – academic and vocational).

358

TABLE 5.1.2: Sex of respondent

Q 1.2 Respondent’s sex N %Male

Female

4

6

40%

60%

TOTAL 10 100%

For a change, the majority of respondents (60%) outnumber males by 20%. At institution A

(university), the majority of respondents (56%) were male. This change could perhaps be an

affirmation of the dissipating hegemony of (predominantly white) males in all spheres of HE’s

academic functioning.

TABLE 5.1.3: Academic title of respondent

Q 1.3 Respondents’ academic title N %Professor

Doctor

Other

2

2

6

20%

20%

60%

Total 10 100%Post-Master’s degree personnel are fewer (40%) than those below. Respondents’ titles almost

correspond with their academic credentials, as exemplified in Q1.4.

TABLE 5.1.4: Respondent’s highest academic qualifications

Q 1.4 Respondent’s highest academic qualifications N %PhD, D Ed, D Phil

Masters

Other

4

5

1

40%

50%

10%

Total 16 100%

Almost replicas of Q 1.3, the post-Master’s respondents are still the same number. The median

concentration of academic qualification is at Master’s level. That the response for Q1.3 at University

A was 75% doctoral level qualifications, compared with 40% for the Technikon, is perhaps

indicative of, and attributes to, an institution’s academic profile and reputation.

TABLE 5.1.5 (a): Respondent’s subject fields in respect of academic qualifications

Q 1.5 (a) Respondent’s subject fields in respect of

academic qualifications N %Medicine or Health Sciences

Humanities (Languages, Arts, Education, Social Sciences)

Natural Sciences

5

1

4

50%

10%

40%

359

Q 1.5 (a) Respondent’s subject fields in respect of

academic qualifications N %Total 16 100%

That the majority of respondents (50%) in Medicine or Health Sciences, followed by 40% in Natural

Sciences, are respectively from the stated subject fields, could imply that these are the departments

within which a majority of questionnaires were distributed. (A total of 34 questionnaires were

distributed at this institution).

TABLE 5.1.5 (b): Respondent’s subject fields in respect of institutional curriculum

development

Q 1.5 (b) Respondent’s curriculum development role N %Curriculum Coordinator

Quality Assurance

No answer

2

1

7

20%

10%

70%Total 16 100%

That the majority of the respondents (70%) have not answered, which might imply that they are

ostensibly not involved in any curriculum developmental framework, is ironical, considering that

Interview B (see Appendix List) projects a picture of staff involvement in some kind of curriculum

developmental capacity. It was envisaged (despite the fact that the interview was conducted after the

questionnaires had been filled in) that option F would be so minimal as to be inconsequential. The

latter assumption is based on the impression derived from this interview, that all staff members are

involved in curriculum development at rudimentary department levels.

TABLE 5.1.6: Respondent’s position/post level in the institution

Q 1.6 Respondent’s position in the institution N %Senior Level Management

Middle Level Management

Lower Level Management

Line Function Academic

1

5

3

1

10%

50%

30%

10%Total 10 100%

The majority of respondents (90%) are collectively in management positions. Postulating that

academic credentials lend weight, i.r.o. of staff positioning, is the single (10%) respondent in Q 1.4,

still the same as in Q 1.6 (academic line function)? The basis of such postulation (in relation to Q

1.4) is that academic qualifications/credentials are construed as being also a determinant of positions

occupied in any organization.

360

TABLE 5.1.7: School/Faculty in which position/post level is located

Q 1.7 Location of position in the school/faculty N %Built Environment or Engineering

Commerce or Business

Medicine or Health Sciences

Humanities (Languages, Arts, Education, Social Sciences)

Natural Sciences

Other

1

1

3

1

3

1

10%

10%

30%

10%

30%

10%Total 10 100%

A further distribution range of respondents (in respect of. departments/faculties) is depicted. As

opposed to the distribution range depicted in Q1.5, a wider and more diverse range of respondents’

academic and occupational profile is emerging.

TABLE 5.1.8: Respondent’s number of years in the same position

Q 1.8 Respondent’s number of years in the same position N %Less than five years

More than five years, but less than ten years

More than ten years

6

3

1

60%

30%

10%

Total 10 100%

As was the case in Institution A, those employed for more than 10 years are fewer in number (19%

in this specific case). On this basis, it could be postulated that if permanent employment is a factor of

employment based on number of years employed, then few would be permanently employed at any

given moment. On the other hand, this could mean that higher education’s retention power/capacity

of its academic personnel is diminished by the lure of ‘greener pastures’ in the private, non-

governmental, and consultancy sectors. The majority of those consulted (60%) are less than five

years in employment, which could either support the view just expressed (diminishing retention), or

that the institution is at a nascent stage of a staff recruitment drive.

TABLE 5.1.9(a): Number of academic staff members in the department/faculty

361

Q 1.9 (a) Number of academic staff in the department/

faculty N %0-4

5-9

10-14

25-29

30-34

40-44

3

3

1

1

1

1

30%

30%

10%

10

10%

10%

Total 10 100%

Academic staff that is in the majority collectively (both 30%) are less than ten in a

department/faculty. Judging by the sizes of the other respondents’ figures (25-44), it can only be

hoped that the respondents did not misconstrue the entire sub-questions of Q 1.9. This is based on

the improbable responses to some of these questions, which categorises some of such responses as

aberrations rather than a reasonable base for assumptions. The huge numbers, such as the range

between 25 and 44, could imply that this is a rather huge department.

TABLE 5.1.9 (b): Number of academic support staff members in the department/faculty

Q 1.9 (b) Number of academic support staff in the

department/faculty N %0

1

3

4

5

7

10

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

40%

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%Total 10 100%

That four respondents (40%) claim to have no academic support staff whatsoever in their

department(s)/faculty, is assumed here to be deviant from the norm, or this zero could indicate that

there was No response at all. Verification from the questionnaires corroborates the latter fact; blank

spaces were just left unfilled. Alternatively, this could either mean that the question was

misunderstood, or there was the difficulty of categorizing who falls into this category.

TABLE 5.1.9 (c): Number of professional support staff members in the department/faculty

362

Q 1.9 (c) Number of professional support staff in the

department/faculty N %0

16

9

1

90%

10%Total 10 100%

The zero for professional learner support staff is also ascribed the same ‘status’ as the previous

question. If true, then it does not augur well for a learner-centred base in these departments/faculties.

There is also a possibility that the difficulty arose as to who is actually meant as composing this staff

category.

TABLE 5.1.9 (d): Number of other staff members in the department/faculty

Q 1.9 (d) Number of other staff in the department/

faculty N %0

2

4

10

7

1

1

1

70%

10%

10%

6%Total 10 100%

That seven of the respondents (70%) have recorded zero (which appears to be a trend for question

1.9) is symptomatic of a lack of response; or if true, that academic staff are perceived to be the only

engineers steering these departments/faculties to the desired directions. The general response for the

entire question therefore, is posited here as not being genuinely reflective of the actual situation

within these departments/faculties; or, once more, the majority 70% zero response means that

respondents were not able to provide their own options – which was intended to enhance flexibility.

TABLE 5.1.10 (a): Number of undergraduate students in the institution/campus: 2003

363

Q 1.10 (a) 2003 Number of undergraduates in the

institution/campus N %NV (No Value)

0-999

9000-9999

5

4

1

50%

40%

10%Total 10 100%

With half of the respondents not stating figures, and with the other half stating broken down figures,

reasonable grounds for a semblance of analysis becomes difficult. The non-response rate has thus

far fluctuated between 60% and 90%, which makes an absurdity of any attempt at rational

observation. It is important to make note of this fact, which has become a norm throughout Q 1.10

(a)-(k). However, a possibility exists that these huge figures are reflective of a huge

department/faculty, ipso facto, a huge student-lecturer ratio. On the other hand, interpretation

difficulties in such a scenario could mean that staff do not necessarily have such statistical

information readily available; and this would apply in all the questions relating to statistical data

assumed to be known by academic staff.

TABLE 5.1.10 (b): Number of undergraduates in the school/faculty: 2003

Q 1.10 (b) 2003 Number of undergraduates in the

school/faculty N %NV

0-999

9000-9999

6

3

1

60%

30%

10%Total 10 100%

With 60% of the respondents having attached no value to the question, the other responses yield a

state of affairs that is very difficult to decode, in terms of getting to know an approximate figure for

all undergraduates in that school/faculty for 2003.

TABLE 5.1.10 (c): Number of undergraduates in the department: 2003

Q 1.10 (c) 2003 Number of undergraduates in the

department N %NV

0-199

200-399

1200-13999

4

4

1

1

40%

40%

10%

10%

364

Q 1.10 (c) 2003 Number of undergraduates in the

department N %Total 10 100%

With another 40% of respondents providing no answers (NV), decoding a reasonable figure becomes

merely speculative.

TABLE 5.1.10 (d): Number of postgraduate students in the institution/campus: 2003

Q 1.10 (d) 2003 Number of postgraduate students in

the institution/campus N %NV

0-49

200-249

350-399

7

1

1

1

70%

10%

10%

10%Total 10 100%

The NV (non value) responses vacillate between 40% and 70%, and any degree of probability is

greatly nullified. The impression here is that the researcher could have personally obtained the

student-related numbers from the central office of student records.

TABLE 5.1.10 (e): Number of postgraduate students in the faculty: 2003

Q 1.10 (e) 2003 Number of postgraduates in the faculty N %NV

0

9

1

90%

10%Total 10 100%

The above scenario is a complete absurdity. On the whole, it implies that there were no

postgraduates at all in 2003 at the stated faculty – a rather unusual development; or it could mean

that the question was not well understood. At the former technikons in particular, academics did not

always recruit postgraduate students; partly because of a lack of supervisory capacity. Academic

staff were not adequately qualified for such (research-oriented) tasks, or the DoE did not accredit

such departments to offer doctoral degrees.

TABLE 5.1.10 (f): Number of postgraduates in the department: 2003

Q 1. 10 (f) 2003 Number of postgraduates in the department N %NV

0-199

200-399

1200-1399

4

4

1

1

40%

40%

10%

10%

365

Q 1. 10 (f) 2003 Number of postgraduates in the department N %Total 10 100%

Apart from the 40% responses adding no value to the question, the next 40% response indicates that

it is in four respondents’ department(s) where the lowest number of postgraduates is to be found.

These figures should be considered against the background that ‘postgraduate’ is inclusive of all

levels of study above the first degree.

TABLE 5.1.10 (g): Number of undergraduates in the institution/campus: 2004

Q 1.10 (g) 2004 Number of undergraduates in the

institution/campus N %NV

0-999

9000-9999

7

2

1

70%

20%

10%Total 10 100%

The above figures, compounded by the 70% of no responses, are reflective of either the prevalence

of a very huge margin of error; especially on something as factual and basic as student-related

numbers; or the inclusivity of ‘postgraduate’ accounts for the big numbers.

TABLE 5.1.10 (h): Number of undergraduates in the school/faculty: 2004

Q 1.10 (h) 2004 Number of undergraduates in the

school/faculty N %NV

0

9

1

90%

10%Total 10 100%

A sense of déja vu characterizes the above. Superficially, it could be construed as implying that there

were no undergraduate students at all. The fact is that 90% of the respondents provided no answer at

all, thus lending a baseless frame of reference. That there are zero students at faculty level makes

any meaningful understanding very difficult. On the other hand, further questions arise as to whether

or not there is an isomorphic way of viewing “school”, “faculty”, or “department”.

TABLE 5.1.10 (i): Number of undergraduates in the department: 2004

Q 1.10 (i) 2004 Number of undergraduates in the

department N %NV

0-199

200-399

1200-1399

6

2

1

1

60%

20%

10%

10%

366

Q 1.10 (i) 2004 Number of undergraduates in the

department N %Total 10 100%

The ‘absurdity’ of the 1200-1399 figure could only be justified on the grounds that such a

possibility, at a departmental level, and when a number of subjects/courses within it are allocated a

student value; i.e. the number of those students taking different courses throughout the department;

implies that the notion of “department” could have various explanations. However, some

departments will have these numbers of undergraduate students.

TABLE 5.1.10 (j): Number of postgraduates in the institution/campus: 2004

Q 1.10 (j) 2004 Number of postgraduate students in the

institution/campus N %NV

150-199

400-449

8

1

1

80%

10%

10%Total 10 100%

The non-response rate of 80% has once more made an absurdity of any attempt at rational

observation. The 400-449 distribution range could be ascribed to the particular respondent not

having understood the question; or that the inclusivity of ‘postgraduate’, and the fact that this an

institution-wide number, accounts for this figure. The inclusivity could be premised on the notion of

former technikons categorizing for instance, the B Tech degree, which was considered the equivalent

of an Honours degree (though numbers are seldom this high).

TABLE 5.1.10 (k): Number of postgraduates in the school/faculty: 2004

Q 1.10 (k) 2004 Number of postgraduates in the school/

faculty N %NV 10 100%Total 10 100%

For reasons already variously cited above, no logical analysis could be formed here. The growing

observation made at this institution is that, other than at the level of the research department, support

for student-based research initiatives is appalling. This trend manifests itself in only ten of the 34

questionnaires being filled in. From the ten filled in, responses on Q 1.9 through to Q 1.10 speak for

themselves. With specific reference to this question, absolutely no value was added for any

meaningful analysis!

367

TABLE 5.1.10 (l) Number of postgraduates in the department: 2004

Q 1.10 (l) 2004 Number of postgraduates in the

department N %NV

0-4

40-44

45-49

6

1

2

1

60%

10%

20%

10%Total 10 100%

The impression drawn from the above scenario (on the basis of the 60% NV) suggests that

postgraduate studies is not a strong aspect of the department(s); which might be consistent with the

state of affairs in Q 1.10 (l) above – where the NV is 100% for the same year in the entire faculty

TABLE 5.2.1: Epistemological base of the institution’s curriculum model(s)

Q 2.1 Epistemological base of curriculum N %Entirely discipline based

Career-oriented/vocational

Profession-oriented

1

7

2

10%

70%

20%Total 10 100%

The 70% response for the vocational base of the curriculum, even though a higher percentage was

envisaged, is in tandem with this institutional ‘type’. As a technikon, a whole vocational curriculum

is pursued (confirmed in Interview A). It could mean that 20% accounts for the undergraduate

curriculum taking a more profession-oriented direction in some disciplines/courses, as it proceeds to

the postgraduate levels.

TABLE 5.2.2: Characterization of intellectual culture in curriculum organization

The overwhelming 90% response is an indication of the character of technikon education, namely

that, the technological application of knowledge warrants close links with industry as an external

stakeholder. As opposed to university-type education (where internal curriculum management,

academic freedom, and institutional autonomy are some of the fundamental tenets underlying

Q 2.2 Intellectual culture of the curriculum N %Openness (more accountability to external stakeholder

interests)

Closeness (more accountability to internal stakeholder

interests)

9

1

90%

10%Total 10 100%

368

closely-guarded intellectual cultures), technikon openness to external (read private sector)

stakeholders lends curriculum organization more flexibility and diversity.

TABLE 5.2.3: The relationship between institutional mission(s) and curriculum

Q 2.3 Curriculum in the context of institutional

mission(s) N %Teaching

Research

Community service

Teaching, research, community service

Other

7

1

0

1

1

70%

10%

0%

10%

10%Total 10 100%

The majority 70% response for the teaching option is a manifestation of the fact that former

technikons were not designed to become institutions which undertook research. The binary mode of

‘allocating’ basic research to universities and ‘applied’ knowledge to technikons (as Further

Education and Training (FET) institutions) overlooked the research potential of this sector, and

assumed a ‘division’ between academic knowledge and applied knowledge/technology.

TABLE 5.2.4: The curriculum impact of mergers in the department/faculty

Q 2.4 Mergers have impact on curriculum

organization in the department/faculty N %Yes

No

3

7

30%

70%

Total 10 100%

It is coincidental that this technikon was affected by the merger process. The questionnaire was

drafted for no particular technikon. However, the 70% No-response corroborates the information

accruing from Interview B. Although articulation mechanisms are still to be implemented for the

blending of ‘university type’ and ‘technikon type’ education, this institution’s core vocational

curriculum or programmes will remain more or less in their current shape.

TABLE 5.2.5: Level of curriculum re-organization between Programme Qualification Mix Q 2.5 PQM (Programme Qualification Mix) re-

organization level N %Not answered

High correspondence

Partial correspondence

7

1

2

70%

10%

20%Total 10 100%

369

Although this question was intended to be answered for those who answered Yes in Q 2.4, the 70%

non-response above corresponds with the same percentage (70%) in Q 2.4. Inversely, the 30% Yes-

response in Q 2.4 corresponds with the high (10%), and the partial 20% correspondence between

PQM. Translated in another (actual) way, since this institution is now legally merged with (rather

than to) a university, this already necessitates some kind of PQM, so as to identify with the new and

unique status and missions of the new institution whose curriculum organization has to reflect both

the academic and the technological components of knowledge, which is something that has

happened to some extent already.

TABLE 5.2.6: Epistemological rationale of course content/knowledge organization

in the faculty/department

Q 2.6 Epistemological rationale of course content N %Accessibility: providing multiple entry and exit points

Flexibility: inclusive multiple stakeholder interests

Responsiveness: relevant educational programmes for

both local and national needs

Horizontal articulation/Diversity: integration of both

academic and vocational programmes

Vertical articulation

3

4

3

5

1

30%%

40%

30%

50%

10%Total 10 100%

(Respondents had the option to answer more than once per distractor.) That horizontal articulation

obtained a majority response of 50%, could relate to the unique institution in status nascendi to be

formed by the current merging process; in that, as stated in Q2.5 above, a curriculum integration –

rather than separation – is to materialize. On the other hand, it means that technikon knowledge is

not necessarily ‘un-academic’. The very practical component derives from an academic/theoretical

foundation. That this view is affirmed by 50% (considering that the other 50% is dispersed among

the other 4 options), is considered here a cogent reflection of the state of affairs.

TABLE 5.2.7: Extent of enhancement of the curriculum’s cultural compatibility through

the incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge System (IKS)

Q 2.7 Indigenous Knowledge Systems’ cultural compatibility N %True 7 70%

370

False 3 30%Total 10 100%

As at Institution A (88%), cultural compatibility is also affirmed here (70%) as being crucial to IKS,

understood by the researcher as being ‘subservient’ to Africanisation of the higher education

curriculum. This emphasis is necessary, as debates on Africanisation de-emphasise the socio-

economic and other components of Africanisation.

TABLE 5.2.8: Perceptions of the Africanisation of the higher education curriculum

Q 2.8 Africanisation perceptions N %Inferiority of standards

Relevance to local needs

Less scientific modes of knowledge production

The curriculum as culturally responsive (compatible)

The curriculum as political prescription

2

6

2

5

3

20%

60%

20%

50%

30%

Total 10

That relevance to local needs, at a 60% majority response conveys a sense of de javu – a

contradiction of policy and practice (implementation). While expectations dictate the prominence of

relevance to local needs, factors such as globalisation/internationalization have tended to ‘tilt’ higher

education towards ‘growth’ policies at the expense of ‘development’ goals; i.e. global

competitiveness at the expense of home-grown realities and expectations.

TABLE 5.2.9 (a): Degree of application of access/bridging courses for students who do

not meet conventional higher education admission requirements

Q 2.9 (a) Application of access/bridging courses N %Fully applied

Partially applied

4

6

40%

60%Total 10 100%

In Q 2.9 (a) to Q 2.9 (b) the rationale for the distributed range of the selected distractors was

focused on the determination of emergent trends/patterns pertaining to the collective degree of

(non)application of various curriculum-related options. The individual responses per curriculum item

made the determination of a pattern virtually unrealizable. It was mainly for this reason that the same

approach used for Institution A is also applied here; that is, rating the degrees of application

(sections A & B) and non-application (C & D) in accordance with their highest-to-lowest percentile

scores. This approach is considered as better illuminating (on the basis of respondents’ views, and

also mindful of their faculty’s/department’s distribution) on the actual practices in respect of these

curriculum choices.

371

A: Fully Applied B: Partially AppliedNQF compliance

Access courses

Awarding credits

Skill- and competence-based

education and training

Whole course curriculum

Modularity

CAT

Unit standards

Franchised courses

*RAPL

**RAPEL

OBE

Notional instructional hours

80%

40%

40%

30%

20%

10%

10%

10%

-

-

-

-

-

Modularity

Unit standards

**RAPEL

OBE

Access courses

*RAPL

Skill- and competence-based

education and training

Notional instructional hours

CAT

Awarding learning credits

Whole course curriculum

NQF compliance

Franchised courses

80%

80%

80%

80%

60%

60%

60%

60%

50%

30%

10%

10%

-**RAPEL focuses on experience;

*RAPL focuses on formally obtained knowledge.

The empty spaces (-) signify No response (as opposed to 0%). From the A-list, it seems logical and

rational enough that option (l) is first at 80%, since this is a fundamental policy requirement upon

which course/programme recognition, funding, or accreditation depends. It is, however, difficult to

explain the location of skills- and competence-based education and training at such a low rating,

especially for this institutional type. A huge gap exists between fully applied choices above and

below 50%, which creates a picture of disjuncture at instructional/methodological level. As for the

B-list, the picture unfolding is that of a continuum in the above 50% choices. For this category, a

gradual (signifying direction) of reform is observed. The overall impression from Sections A and B

is that concerted and protracted curriculum co-ordination, whether at departmental or faculty level

could provide clearly articulated objectives. The polarized location of franchised courses and both A

and B (as an example) informs on this view.

372

C: Not applied D: Still to be appliedFranchise courses

Whole course curriculum

CAT

RAPL

Notional instructional hours

Awarding learning credits

RAPEL

OBE

Modularisation

Skill- and competence-based

education and training

Unit standards

Access/bridging courses

NQF compliance

90%

50%

40%

30%

30%

20%

20%

20%

10%

10%

-

-

-

Whole course curriculum

Franchised courses

Unit standards

RAPL

Notional instructional hours

Access/bridging courses

Modularisation

CAT

Awarding of learning credits

RAPEL

OBE

Skill- and competence-based

education and training

NQF compliance

20%

10%

10%

10%

10%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

The large incidence of non-responses (-) in both sections C and D presupposes that these items

feature prominently on the A and B categories. For instance, NQF compliance is 80% in section A;

and just 10% in section B; and all of the non-responses(-) in D variously scored high in either A or

B. However, considering the collective degree of application (high), against non-application (low),

there is an indication of a trend towards innovative curriculum practices, rather than the opposite.

TABLE 5.2.10: SAQA registration of all courses/qualifications in the faculty/department

The 100% Yes response (as in Institution A) affirms higher education institutional compliance with

this state requirement. It still remains to be seen, however, how this generally translates into an

epistemological reconfiguration of curriculum.

TABLE 5.2.11 (a): Extent of (dis)agreeability on separation of ‘education’ and ‘training’

Q 2.10 Are all courses in the faculty/department

SAQA-registered? N %Yes 10 100%Total 10 100%

373

as ‘types’ of knowledge that enhance effective student assessment

Q 2.11 (a) Separation of ‘education’ and ‘training’

enhances effective student assessment N %Strongly disagree

Disagree

Strongly agree

2

6

2

20%

60%

20%Total 10 100%

That 60% disagrees, is in alignment with the 50% majority response for diversity in Q2.6, where

integration becomes a key factor. It is axiomatic here that academic and vocational knowledge are

taken as complementary parts of the curriculum, rather than separate entities.

TABLE 5.2.11(b): Extent of (dis)agreeability on outside trainers’ suitability for evaluation of

work-compliant skills/competencies

Q2.11(b) Outside trainers are suitable for skills/

competence evaluation N %Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

1

6

3

10%

60%

30%Total 10 100%

The collective degrees of disagreeability (70%) contrasts the previously expressed view of the

90% majority affirmation for openness of intellectual culture in Q 2.2, which suggests that as a

vocationally-oriented institution, ‘outside’ trainers and practitioners would be welcome for work-

related experiential learning.

TABLE 5.2.12: Choice of assessment technique(s) applicable in the department/faculty

374

(The assessment techniques are listed in a sequence from highest to lowest, so as to determine what

form of pattern/trend emerges in respect of preferred techniques against the less preferred ones)

The emerging pattern in this case is that – on the basis of those assessment techniques between the

100% and the 70% score – traditional modes are still preferred. Innovative techniques above the

Q 2.12 Application of assessment technique(s) N %Written tests

Continuous assessment

Assignments

Oral tests

Group work

Student assessment of lecturers/professors

Class presentations (by students)

Peer assessment

Written examination

Portfolio and evidence

Criterion-referenced assessment

Self-referenced assessment

Norm-referenced assessment

Simulations

Oral examinations

Other

10

10

9

8

8

8

7

6

6

6

4

3

3

3

2

2

100%

100%

90%

80%

80%

80%

70%

60%

60%

60%

40%

30%

30%

30%

20%

20%Total 10

375

50% range (e.g. referenced forms of assessment) are few, or non-existent. However, it has to be

mentioned that referenced modes of assessment are problematic and difficult to apply.

TABLE 5.2.13.1 (a): Degree of (dis)agreement on application of lecture notes in the

faculty/department

The collective degree of agreeability (10% and 30%) suggests that lecture notes (by the lecturer) are

moderately used. Otherwise, the onus is on the student to compile own notes.

TABLE 5.2.13.1 (b): Degree of (dis)agreement on application of study letters in the

faculty/department

Q 2.13.1 (b) Degree of (dis)agreement on study letters N %Not answered

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

2

1

2

3

2

20%

10%

20%

30%

20%Total 10 100%

The collective degree of agreeability (20% and 30%) ‘outweighs’ that of disagreeability (10% and

20%). The implication is that it is the students’ responsibility to augment to the formal lessons

Q 2.13.1 (a) Degree of (dis)agreement on use of lecture notes N %Not answered

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

3

1

2

3

1

30%

10%

20%

30%

10%Total 10 100%

376

offered during lectures. To some extent, the students become responsible for the construction of their

own learning experiences.

TABLE 5.2.13.1 (c): Degree of (dis)agreement on application of copies of additional

reading in the faculty/department

Q 2.13.1 (c) Degree of (dis)agreement on copies of

additional reading N %Not answered

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

1

1

1

6

1

10%

10%

10%

60%

10%Total 10 100%

The fact that 70% (60% and 10%) collectively agree, illustrates that the degree of ‘favourability’ of

the usage of copies of additional reading as a method of instruction and curriculum delivery. It

appears that while lecturer-facilitated knowledge acquisition is the dominant mode of curriculum

delivery, lecturers do make time for supplementary knowledge acquisition to guide students

through their learning programmes. Still, it is up to the student to use facilities such as library

resources to augment to the formal lectures.

TABLE 5.2.13.1 (d): Degree of (dis)agreement on application of case study in the faculty/

department

Q 2.13.1 (d) Degree of (dis)agreement on case study N %Not answered

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

2

1

3

3

1

20%

10%

30%

30%

10%Total 10 100%

With no outright majority, this option is ostensibly not a preferred choice. Could this then mean

problem-solving is not accorded a pivotal role in the learning process?

377

TABLE 5.2.13.1 (e): Degree of (dis)agreement on application of learner guides in the

faculty/department

Q 2.13.1 (e) Degree of (dis)agreement on learner guides N %Strongly disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

8

1

1

80%

10%

10%Total 10 100%

Q 2.13.1 (f) Degree of (dis)agreement on usage of

computer-based learning materials N %Not answered

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

2

1

1

5

1

20%

10%

10%

50%

10%Total 10 100%

378

The 60% collective degree of agreeability is an encouraging sign of the linking of the knowledge

acquisition process to the informational age. However, it is uncertain whether or not this is an

activity which constitutes formal learning, or if it is the students’ responsibility to do so at own time

after class. Since the question is more lecturer-directed than student-directed, it seems that the

former do engage in the construction of computer-based learning. This would also depend on the

subject itself, since content determines the extent of computer ‘compliance’. Learning channels such

as Web-CT and Edulink are expected to be extensively relevant in this regard, especially with the

merging of the two institutions.

TABLE 5.2.13.1 (g): Degree of (dis)agreement on application of other learning materials

Q 2.13.1 (g) Degree of (dis)agreement on usage of other

learning materials N %Not answered

Strongly disagree

8

2

80%

20%Total 10 100%

The poor response here could possibly be ascribed to the researcher not providing those other

options; it was assumed that the respondents would use their own discretion. The collective degree

of agreeability of disagreeability is compiled here from the highest to the lowest score, so as to

determine a pattern for the application or non-application of these learning material types

A: Strongly disagree B: DisagreeLearner guides

Other

Lecture notes

Study letters

Copies of additional reading

Case study/simulation

Computer-based

80%

20%

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%

Case study/simulation

Lecture notes

Study letters

Additional reading

Computer-based

Learner guides

Other

30%

20%

20%

10%

10%

-

-

If learner-centred teaching and learning is brought into the equation here, the perception is that (co-

related to responses for C and D in the next paragraph) teacher-centredness still reigns supreme. For

instance, the ‘positioning’ of learner guides in both the A and B categories, reinforces this

perception. If 80% in Column A strongly disagree, and no likewise response in Column B, it

becomes axiomatic that class-based learning is focused on the lecturer. (Interview B reveals that a

379

move away from the above trend is being emphasised). The use of information and communication

technologies (e.g. Edulink & Web-CT) will further accelerate this trend.

A: Agree B: Strongly AgreeAdditional reading

Computer-based

Lecture notes

Study letters

Case study

Learner guides

Other (include own choices)

60%

50%

30%

30%

30%

10%

-

Study letters

Lecture notes

Additional reading

Case study

Learner guides

Computer-based

Other (include own choices)

20%

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%

-

The situation above, not very different from the preceding context of A and B, casts aspersions on

the application of learner-centredness in teaching, assessment, and usage of learning materials.

Additional reading and computer-based materials are the only two tools selected from 50% upwards,

from an array or more than five options. Even the provision of the ‘Other’ option could not

galvanize some kind of intelligible response.

TABLE 5.2.13.2: Integration of computer-based learning resources in teaching

Q 2.13.2 Computer-based integration of teaching N %Access provided during contact classes

Access provided after class hours

Some topics are computer-based

All subject-based learning materials are available

electronically

Web access is possible to all the students

Learner guides, study letters, and assignments can be accessed

via the computer

Other

5

5

5

1

3

1

2

50%

50%

50%

10%

30%

10%

20%Total 10

Respondents were allowed more than one response to all the distractors. The first three 50%

responses indicate that computer-based learning is not completely peripheral to the teaching and

learning process. Therefore, the assumption here is that subject teaching and learning are not

completely dislodged from developing learners’ computer literacy skills, as well as enhancing

complementation of knowledge and understanding through access to the Web.

380

TABLE 5.2.14 (a): Extent of Web-based self-study experiences for students in the

faculty/department

Q 2.14 (a) Usage of the Web for self-study experiences N %Not answered

Effective

Partially effective

Not effective

Totally ineffective

1

3

3

2

1

10%

30%

30%

20%

10%Total 10 100%

The 60% overall level of effectiveness (30% for ‘effective’ and another 30% for ‘partially effective’)

corresponds with the notion just expressed in Q2.13.2. The impression then is that students are

provided with opportunities to create their own learning experiences through the Web.

TABLE 5.2.14 (b): Effect of the Web’s enhancement of *asynchronous learning

Q 2.14 (b) Effect of the Web on *asynchronous learning N %Not answered

Partially effective

Not effective

Totally ineffective

1

4

4

1

10%

40%

40%

10%Total 10 100%

*Asynchronous learning refers to different learning schedules of attendance for different learners,

e.g. full-time or part-time.

The 80% collective implication for the various degrees of effectiveness implies that the state of total

ineffectiveness (at 10%) does not have much significance in the incidence of different learning

schedules for different ‘types’ of learners. By implication, access to the Web does not become a

determinant of what type of learning programme(s) a learner could participate in.

TABLE 5.2.15: Frequency of students’ Web access

Q 2.15 Web access by students N %Very often

Always

Sometimes

Rarely/Seldom

1

1

4

3

10%

10%

40%

30%

381

Q 2.15 Web access by students N %Never 1 10%Total 10 100%

It is presupposed here that the 40% response is more a course-related function, rather than an

institutional norm. That is to say, whereas the technikon has open access to the Web for all students,

the course or subject idiosyncrasies will determine the degree of regularity or irregularity of access

to the Web itself.

TABLE 5.2.16: Students’ Web experience in the construction of own learning experience

Q 2.16 Are students encouraged to source Web-based

information in constructing own study experiences? N %Yes

No

7

3

70%

30%Total 10 100%

The 70% affirmation corroborates the view just expressed above. Whereas Web access appears not

to be a pivotal curriculum requirement, students are encouraged to utilize this facility.

TABLE 5.3.1: Predominant student categories in the institution

Q 3.1 Predominant student categories N %Homogenous (from the age cohort meeting standard entry

requirements

Heterogeneous (incorporates homogenous category and those

granted non-standard admissions status)

7

3

70%

30%Total 10 100%

The majority response for the homogenous student categories suggests that ‘non-standard’/adult or

continuing students are in the minority. Among other implications, learning programmes would be

construed here as fitting the traditional system – when the heterogeneous student composition is

mostly ‘unavailable’ due to such factors as work or family obligations. Part of the minority presence

could be attributed to immature culture of research and a lack of priority placed on the recruitment of

postgraduate students.

TABLE 5.3.2: Epistemological focus of the undergraduate curriculum in the institution

Q 3.2 Undergraduate curriculum: epistemological focus N %General education

Market-oriented education

Information and communication technologies

2

7

1

20%

70%

10%Total 10 100%

382

The high percentage (70%) is in alignment with both the declared mission of an institution of this

type (former technikon), as confirmed by both Interview A and Interview B. The implication then

is that the undergraduate curriculum is steered at advancing the needs of the economy/industry

(knowledge-as-product), rather than at the academic, knowledge-as-process inclination.

TABLE 5.3.3: Extent of curriculum provision for mature (adult) learners in the

institution/faculty/ department

Q 3.3 Does curriculum provide for adult learners? NYes

No

9

1

90%

10%Total 10 100%

The 90% Yes-response is in stark contrast to the 70% homogenous student composition in Q3.1.

The general observation is that both institutionally and departmentally, the curriculum does cater for

the learning needs, circumstances, and interest of ‘non-traditional’ learners. For instance, evening

classes tend to be dominated by students already in the world of work who are furthering their

studies.

TABLE 5.3.4 (a): Percentage of mature/adult/full-time students in the institution/

faculty/department

Q 3.4(a) Full-time students: percentile rate of participation N %0-9

10-19

20-29

60-69

100-109

6

1

1

1

1

60%

10%

10%

10%

10%Total 10 100%

The impression created here is that it is in only one department/faculty where the number of mature

learners ranges from 100 to 109. In only 60% of the departments/faculties (as represented by the

distribution of respondents), are there mature learners whose numbers do not exceed ten.

TABLE 5.3.4 (b): Percentage of mature/adult/full-time learners in the institution/

faculty/department

Q 3.4 (b) Mature/Adult/Part-time students: percentile

rate of participation N %0-9

40-49

1

1

10%

10%

383

Q 3.4 (b) Mature/Adult/Part-time students: percentile

rate of participation N %80-89

90-99

100-109

2

1

5

20%

10%

50%Total 10 100%

With comparison to the adult/part-time learners, full-time learners are in the majority. This is

actuated by 50% respondents in whose departments/faculties (as opposed to 10% in Q 3.4 (a)) the

numbers of full-timers range from 100-109.

TABLE 5.3.5: Percentage of mature/adult part-time learners’ professions (backgrounds)

Q 3.5 Adult part-time professional backgrounds N %Medicine

Education

Management

Banking

Other

Don’t’ know

1

2

2

1

3

4

10%

20%

20%

10%

30%

40%Total 10 100%

That 40% of the respondents (compared to 50% at Institution A) do not know, is an indication of a

trend in which student backgrounds (especially for returning students) appear to be immaterial. If the

percentage of those who do not know is the highest (at 40%), then the significance of other students’

(professional) backgrounds does not seem to be logical, despite the respondents having the choice of

more than one response per distractor.

TABLE 5.3.6: The institution’s epistemological base, in terms of curriculum delivery to

all students at all levels and fields of study

Q 3.6 Epistemological base of curriculum N %Knowledge-as-product (training for utilitarian, practical/

vocational skills)

Knowledge-as-process (training for cognitive, critical thinking

skills)

7

3

70%

30%Total 10 100%

384

The 70% majority response is an expected development for this institutional type (technikon), and is

complementary to the 70% response to Q 2.3 (curriculum mission), as well as the 50% majority

response for the epistemological inclination (rationale) of the curriculum illustrated in Q 2.6.

TABLE 5.3.7: Availability/existence of learner support mechanisms to facilitate access

to learning resources after hours

Q 3.7 Do learner support mechanisms exist after hours? N %Yes

No

6

4

60%

40%Total 10 100%

385

TABLE 5.3.8: Basis for course construction in enhancing students’ experiences

Q 3.8 Basis for course construction in enhancing students’

experiences N %Core-subjects for course construction

Development of a programme by combining core courses and

electives

6

4

60%

40%Total 10 100%

The majority view here is that only subjects that are vertically-articulated and thematically focused,

constitute the core of a learner’s course of study/programme. Those that only serve an additional

(elective/ancillary) function to the number required to complete a course of study, are regarded as

peripheral and add no value.

TABLE 5.3.9: Matching student ‘type’ (1-3) to the most likely course ‘type’ (A-C)

Q 3.9 Match student types and course types Student ‘types’Course ‘types’ 1 2 3 TOTALA: “Just-in-time” 7 0 5 12 (75%)B: “Just-in-case” 3 11 0 14 (87%)C: “Just-for-you” 8 2 4 14 (87%)

*Student types: 1 = Part-time, mature working adults; 2 = Freshly-matriculated learners; 3 = Self-

employed learners

**Course ‘types’: A = Non-degree courses to formalize skills and experience; B = Uninterrupted

study through a learning programme by a young student; C = For specific lifelong learning needs

Though the initial intention of the question was to determine the respondent’s own understanding

of these three concepts, the respondents inadvertently analysed the pro rata prevalence of these

student categories. That is to say, they provided a range of student distribution, rather than the

most likely course provision of these student categories. Consequently, the 90% majority

response ascribed to B2 means that there are more students in this category than in options (a) and

(c), for instance. That being the case then, it would mean that there are more young learners, freshly-

matriculated, and meeting the standard entry requirements. Since the original intention of the

question was to determine respondent’s own factual understanding of the three concepts (in which

case, the matching pattern would be: option (a) and 3; option (b) and 2; option (c) and 1), the actual

responses suggest (as they are in fact incorrectly matched) a pro rata prevalence of these student

‘types’ in respective faculties/departments. Accordingly, they are presented as: (from highest to

lowest) option (a) = 90%; option (b) = 70%; and option (c) = 70%. By implication then, freshly

matriculated learners, followed by self-employed learners, and followed by mature working adults,

respectively constitute the student population in the faculty/school/department.

386

TABLE 5.3.10: Most practicable level of student-centredness

Q 3.10 Level of study at which student-centred teaching and

learning is most practicable N %The undergraduate level

The postgraduate level

Both of the above

2

4

4

20%

40%

40%Total 10 100%

The equal 40% responses suggest that student-centredness is applied across all levels of learning.

Based on the above statistical inference, it seems that both undergraduate and postgraduate studies

are accorded equal ‘status’.

TABLE 5.3.11: Crediting of non-formally-/informally-acquired knowledge/experience in

the faculty/department

Q 3.11 Is non-/informally-acquired knowledge/experience credited? N %Yes

No

2

8

20%

80%Total 10 100%

The 80% No-response, when viewed in conjunction with the 69% No-response of Institution A,

suggests a general trend by which the crediting of informal knowledge is viewed as being below par

to higher education standards, since it is acquired outside of HE institutional supervision. By

comparing the above scenario to those of among others, Q2.9 (b), and Q2.11 (b), the unfolding

scenario presents a state of conflict/tension between reform/innovation, and traditional curriculum

practices.

TABLE 5.3.11.1: Level at which non-formal/informal knowledge/experience is credited

3.11.1 Level of non-formal/informal knowledge/experience

crediting N %Undergraduate level only

Postgraduate level only

Not answered

1

2

7

10%

20%

70Total 10 100%

The 70% ‘not answered’ responses, which corresponds to the 90% No-response in Q 3.11, becomes

a writ large manifestation of the view expressed in Q 3.11; that, RAPEL – the basis of this question

– is a phenomenon whose place in the curriculum is still distant, peripheral, and occasional. If its

387

implementation is considered as an affront to the whole notion of ‘standards’, would that imply the

prevalence of ‘mainstream standards’ and non-mainstream standards?

TABLE 5.3.11.2: ‘Classification’ of university type in the context of curriculum offered

Q 3.11.2 University ‘type’ in the context of

curriculum offered N %Diverse university (tolerates different opinions and

approaches)

Creative university (stresses knowledge creation,

rather than knowledge production)

Entrepreneurial university (high capacity to

generate funds for self sufficiency)

None of the above

5

1

3

1

50%

10%

30%

10%Total 10 100%

That diversity (at 50%) constitutes a pivotal component of the curriculum objectives, suggests an

inclination towards relevance in the institution’s missions. The only question is still: to what extent

is this diversity applicable to all the curriculum needs of all types of learners – such as the

informally acquired experience of individuals who only need certification to formalize this

knowledge?

TABLE 5.3.12 (a): The comprehensive preliminary/candidacy examination as a

requirement for any graduate programme(s) in your faculty/department

Q 3.12 (a) Is comprehensive candidacy/preliminary

examination a requirement for graduate study? N %Not answered

Yes

No

1

7

2

10%

70%

20%Total 10 100%

The majority 70% response indicates that maintenance of disciplinary norms, and values (initiation

to a ‘code of conduct’) are a ‘measure’ of determining ‘fitness’ of entry into the chosen profession.

It would have been very insightful for this very question to be expanded, to establish what actually

would be examined in such a preliminary context.

388

Table 5.3.12 (b): Understanding of ‘apprenticeship’ as description of induction into

graduate education

Q 3.12 (b) Is ‘apprenticeship’ a description of induction

into graduate education? N %

Not answered

Yes

No

1

2

7

10%

20%

70%Total 10 100%

The 70% No-response suggests that induction into graduate education, which is expressed by the

statement of Q 3.12 (a), is not aptly described by ‘apprenticeship’, but some other terms/concept.

That an entry/candidacy examination is prevalent as a form of ‘socialization’ into the norms and

values of the particular profession, is beyond dispute.

TABLE 5.3.12 (c): Departmental postgraduate funding capacity

Q 3.12 (c) Is funding of postgraduates a problem? N %Not answered

No

2

8

20%

80%Total 10 100%

The overwhelming 80% affirmation that funding is not a problem, suggests that studying beyond the

undergraduate (national diploma) is not a constraint to students. What needed to have been

established here is whether these funds are generated from within the departments/faculties,

provided by the institution or external agencies/organizations. Establishing this would also give an

indication of the entrepreneurial acumen of the institution its faculties, or its departments.

TABLE 5.3.12 (d): Status of undergraduates’ and postgraduates’ ‘exit velocity’ in the

faculty/department

Q 3.12 (d) Is undergraduates’ ‘exit velocity’ equal to that

of postgraduates? N %

Not answered 1 10%Yes 4 40%No 5 50%Total 10 100%

389

The question required that respondents compare the ‘exit velocity’ of undergraduates and

postgraduates; that is, the rate at which these students progress to their next levels of study (see Q

3.12 (a) – (g) in questionnaire. To the extent that the institution’s retention capacity is being

determined, a Yes/No interrogative framework is absolutely justified. The indication here is that

undergraduates do not complete their programmes at a rate that far surpasses that of postgraduates.

This, furthermore, indicates that the rate of performance by students at both levels of study is

numerically representative of their total enrolment in the institution.

TABLE 3.12 (e): Institution’s capacity to offer doctoral degrees

Q 3.12 (e) Does the institution offer doctoral degrees? N %Yes

No

7

3

70%

30%Total 10 100%

That 70% affirm the statement, illustrates the gigantic strides the technikon is making in the sphere

of establishing its own research profile. Unfortunately, this will be disrupted by the merger process.

However, it would have been very illuminating had this question been broadened to determine how

many doctorate degrees have been awarded since this initiative had been undertaken. It still remains

to be seen whether or not the ‘technikon type’ of education will continue up to the awarding of

doctoral programmes. The latest (5 October 2007) HEQF document suggests that this is not so

without migrating to the “traditional” postgraduate university qualifications.

TABLE 5.3.12 (f): Intellectual and academic weight/value of postgraduate programmes

across all subject fields in the institution

Q 3.12 (f) Are all postgraduate programmes accorded equal

academic value across all subject fields? N %

Not answered

Yes

No

1

5

4

10%

50%

40%Total 10 100%

The 50% majority response here could be related to Q3.13 (d). That is to say, not only are

undergraduate and postgraduate subjects accorded equal performance value/weight, but

postgraduate programmes are themselves accorded the same value, irrespective of disciplinary status

390

– as depicted by the majority 50% Yes-response above. (For a better understanding of the question’s

rationale, see Q 3.13 (a) – (g)).

TABLE 5.3.12 (g): Postgraduate students’ motives for further study

Q 3.12 (g) Are postgraduates motivated more by material

considerations than by intellectual imperatives? N %Not answered

Yes

No

1

6

3

10%

60%

30%Total 10 100%

As opposed to the majority 56% No-response to this question at Institution A, the 60% Yes-response

at the technikon suggests that pecuniary considerations supersede academic interest in the decision

to pursue postgraduate studies. Assuming this to be correct, it would be postulated that students,

because of the vocational inclination of their courses of study, are imbued with the notion that: the

more you study, the better the chances of employment, promotion, and better remuneration. This

state of affairs (the students’ views as represented by the respondents here) perhaps derives from the

perception that they have an ‘upper hand’ to their university counterparts, whose academic

programmes do not necessarily translate into ready employment.

TABLE 5.4.1: Categorization of HE links with industry and society

Q 4.1 HE-industry links are more important than society N %True 10 100%Total 10 100%

True to the institution type (due to its vocational ‘character’), as also confirmed in the two

interviews, the technological application of knowledge (as one of the factors) benefits the technikon

for curriculum development that is geared towards elevating the skills/competence profile of

students so as to conform to the requirements of the world of work.

TABLE 5.4.2: Comparability of HE standards and work-based learning

Q 4.2 HE standards cannot be compared to work-based

learning N %True

False

4

6

40%

60%Total 10 100%

By comparing Institution A (with a 75% majority False-response), and the technikon (with a 60%

majority False-response), it would then appear that work-based learning is being recognised as

enhancing the format skills-base within a system in tandem with NQF/SAQA stipulations.

391

TABLE 5.4.3: State of higher education graduates’ work preparation

Q 4.3 Higher education graduates’ skills preparation for

work requirements is generally poor N %True

False

1

9

10%

90%Total 10 100%

The 90% majority response signifies the extent to which technikon-industry links strengthen

employment chances for graduates, especially when initiatives such as experiential learning

(practicum or preceptorships) are undertaken not only for curriculum convenience. These innovative

curriculums ‘deliverables’ also expose learners to what employers expect, and therefore these

initiatives become ‘conducts’ for transferable skills. Against the background that experiential

learning provides ‘entry’ to the world of work, it would then be inconceivable that they are totally

unprepared for work requirements.

TABLE 5.4.4: The corporate classroom and HE’s epistemological authority

Q 4.4 The ‘corporate classroom’ diminishes HE’s

epistemological authority N %

True

False

3

7

30%

70%Total 10 100%

Technikon-industry links might have influenced the prevalence of the 70% ‘False’ response. (For

Institution A the majority response was 81% True). For the technikon then, it could be assumed that

this response relates to that of Q 4.2 (False). On this basis, work-and campus-based learning would

be viewed as complementary rather than polarized.

TABLE 5.4.5: Guarantees of graduates’ employability through work-based practicum

Q 4.5 Work-based practicum does not guarantee

graduates’ employment N %Not answered

True

False

1

8

1

10%

80%

10%Total 10 100%

While the 80% response here contradicts the 90% response of Q 4.3, and nullifies the assumption

made in Q 4.4, it does, however, not indicate that practicum does not enhance graduate employment.

392

All it means is that other factors (such as the general transferable skills base) collectively play a role

in the decision of who is to be employed.

TABLE 5.4.6 (a): Coordinating structure/body for links with the state

Q 4.6 (a) Does a structure/body exist to coordinate links

with the state? N %Not answered

Yes

2

8

20%

80%Total 10 100%

The 80% majority response at this institution contradicts what was gathered in the Interview (B),

which was that the only form of link in this category was not physical (unstructured), but the state

made its presence through policy documents which had to be implemented institutionally.

TABLE 5.4.6 (b): Coordinating structure/body for links with civil society

Q 4.6 (b) Does a structure/body exist to coordinate links

with civil society? N %Not answered 10 100%Total 10 100%

Emanating from both interviews is that no such structure exists, except that civil society

representatives are elected into statutory bodies (e.g. Senate/Council) within the institution. That

100% of the respondents did not answer, could perhaps imply that they are not aware of such

development.

TABLE 5.4.6 (c): Coordinating structure/body for links with the private sector

Q4.6 (c) Does a structure/body exist to coordinate links

with the private sector? N %Not answered

Sometimes

9

1

90%

10%Total 10 100%

In this question, the prevalence or non-prevalence of a HE-private sector structure was required. For

this institutional type – which places a high priority on maintaining links with the private sector –

393

the general response here is unhelpful. The (aberrant) ‘sometimes’ response only refers to the

frequency of the meetings of such a body.

TABLE 5.4.6 (d) Coordinating structure/body for links with any other external

organization

Q 4.6 (d) Does a structure/body exist to coordinate links

with any other external organization? N %

Not answered 10 100%Total 10 100%

The response here simply conforms to the aberrant category, and therefore, defies logical

commentary.

TABLE 5.4.7 (a): HE-private sector structure/body, composition and frequency of its

meetings

Q 4.7 (a) Frequency of meetings in the HE-private sector

structure/body N %Not answered

Yes

2

8

20%

80%Total 10 100%

The majority Yes response above is only for the rate at which meetings are held (frequency). The

composition (membership) of the body was not responded to. This being a trend throughout this

question, suffice it to suggest that this could be ascribed to insufficient understanding of the

question, or its intended outcome.

TABLE 5.4.7 (b): HE-private sector structure/body, composition and frequency

of its meetings

Q 4.7 (b) Frequency of meetings in the HE-state sector

structure/body N %Not answered

Regularly

9

1

90%

10%Total 10 100%

The composition (membership) of such a structure, if it does exist, was not responded to.

TABLE 5.4.7 (c): HE-civil society structure/body composition and frequency of

its meetings

394

Q4.7(c) Frequency of meetings in the HE-civil society

structure/body N %Not answered 10 100%Total 10 100%

That the question was unanswered with such an overwhelming 100% response, could suggest

among others, that the notion of such a body is totally not applicable in the higher education sector

in general; or the question was misunderstood.

TABLE 5.4.7 (d): HE and other structure/body, composition and frequency of its meetings

Q 4.7 (d) Frequency of meetings in HE and any other

structure/body N %Not answered 10 100%Total 10 100%

Most of the responses are deviant as they do not refer to membership or frequency of meetings.

These discordant responses, however, are symptomatic of a trend in which the questions were

perhaps unclear to the respondents. (The same 100% response was also obtained from Institution A

relating to this question.)

TABLE 5.5.1: Structure/Body responsible for curriculum development/management

in the institution

Q 5.1 Is there a dedicated structure/body overseeing

curriculum implementation? N %Academic Support Unit (for the whole institution)

Faculty-/Department-based

Other

3

6

1

30%

60%

10%Total 10 100%

As confirmed by the two interviews, department-/faculty-based committees are responsible for their

own curriculum development. There is no institution-wide structure for this particular purpose. This

could be due to the fact that technikons all followed the same nationally prescribed curriculum.

Curriculum development, development and revision in each subject was led and coordinated by a

convening technikon.

TABLE 5.5.2: Structure/Body responsible for curriculum development/management in the

395

faculty/department

Q 5.2 Curriculum implementation in the faculty/

department N %

Curriculum/Programme Coordinators

Individual HODs, for own departments /faculties

4

6

40%

60%Total 10 100%

The ‘individual HODs’ option, in tandem with the ‘faculty-/department-based’ option in Q 5.1,

emphasises the autonomy of departments/faculties in this specific regard. It would have been more

insightful to broaden the scope of the question to find out whether an inter-departmental/inter-faculty

structure existed to establish common curriculum objectives that align themselves to the vision and

mission of the institution. On the other hand, the convener technikon mode of curriculum structuring

is still borne in mind.

TABLE 5.6: Students’ perceptions of predominant curriculum organization in the

faculty/department

Q 6 Students’ perceptions of curriculum organization in the

faculty/department N %Academic (sequential, cognitive and discipline-based/scientific)

Vocational (practical, industry-oriented, multi-disciplinary or

trans-disciplinary)

3

7

30%

70%Total 10 100%

That the ‘vocational’ perception has been scored at a 70% majority response, is much in tandem with

the technikon ‘type’ of the institution. The response itself underlines the orientation and stated

mission of the institution, viz, the technological application of knowledge for socio-economic

development. To that extent, curriculum organization is predominantly vocational.

TABLE 5.7.1: Curriculum implementation in the faculty/department

Q 7.1 Is there a dedicated structure overseeing curriculum

implementation? N %Yes

No

6

4

60%

40%Total 10 100%

The 60% Yes-response is an affirmation of a segment of Interview A, where a Faculty Board

executes the tasks outlined in this question. Each faculty/department, through this structure oversees

curriculum management by involving staff in the process of decision making.

396

TABLE 5.7.2: Frequency of curriculum quality assurance mechanisms in the faculty/

department

Interview A also reveals that, apart from exercising option (d) in reinforcing student-centred

teaching among those academic staff members who still find difficult to conform to this innovative

instructional methodology; it is mandatory that the curriculum (institution-wide) be revised every

two years. As for the ‘Other’ option, it was left to the discretion of the respondents to fill-in own

choices.

TABLE 5.7.3: State of innovative curriculum development procedures in the faculty/

department

Q 7.3 Are curriculum development procedures emphasised

more than lecturers’ own initiatives? N %

Yes

No

7

3

70%

30%Total 10 100%

The 70% Yes-response confirms the perennial view in this section of the questionnaire that academic

staff (and not only management) plays a significant role in the development, implementation and

evaluation of curriculum.

Some brief commentary on the questionnaire survey is necessary here, in order to juxtapose the

relevance and extent of efficacy of the questionnaire survey as a data collection mechanism. In

addition to its quantitative function (of yielding statistically intelligible data), and in tandem with

objective (c) in sub-section 1.5 (p. 12 of this study); the most fundamental purpose of the

questionnaire survey was to “… obtain facts and opinions about a phenomenon [HE curriculum

transformation] from people who are informed [respondents] on the particular issue” (Delport,

2002:172). Given the number of pre- and post-merger HEIs in the post-1994 dispensation, the actual

number of institutions surveyed in this study warranted that judgement sampling be utilised by the

Q 7.2 Frequency of curriculum quality assurance

mechanisms in the faculty/department N %Yearly

Other (include own applicable method)

6

4

60%

40%Total 10 100%

397

researcher. The merits of judgement sampling have been variously explicated in the preceding (sub)

sections of this chapter. Despite the two surveyed HEIs being of different intellectual and academic

cultures, the questionnaire items were as inclusive of a broad range of curriculum-related issues as

possible. Furthermore, sub-section 7.5.2 (p. 470 of this study) complements the range of

commentary on the questionnaire survey.

5.5 SOME COMMENTARY BASED ON THE INTERVIEWS

The focus of discussion in this section is mainly on emergent trends, as the full transcripts

themselves can be found in the Appendix section (following the Bibliography of the study). An

additional context of the interviews was also stated prior to the data presentation earlier in the

chapter. In the interest of developing a trend or trends, both interviews are dealt with

simultaneously, but under specific themes. It should be noted that both interviews took place at

Institution B, a former technikon, as no interview could be scheduled for Institution A; (potential)

respondents cited a variety of reasons that could possibly not be mitigated by the researcher.

Although the contexts of both interviews are slightly dissimilar, an attempt has been made to

locate them within the same thematic framework. The first interviewee was the Head of

Department in one of the faculties at the technikon, and strict adherence was made to the Interview

Schedule, also appearing in the List of Appendices. The second interviewee held a senior level

management position (Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Academic), and was instrumental in the merger

process between the technikon and its university partner. For that reason, mergers became the

focal point of the interview, but curriculum was absolutely not overlooked. The taped

conversation (as well as the transcribed prosaic version), reveals that the individual is very

knowledgeable on these (curriculum-related) matters. It is unfortunate that only a technikon-related

conversation is reflected at times. However, the university respondents could not be coerced to

participate in this enterprise as well. (The two recorded interviewees were not asked to fill-in the

questionnaires).

The first interview critically highlighted ‘new frontiers’ to the interviewer. Amongst a host of

previously unknown facts, is the issue of (former) technikons’ adherence to a nationally prescribed

curriculum that was subject to periodic review. This is of particular importance here for a variety of

reasons. The most important of these is the epistemological orientation to knowledge’s use. While

the elaborate explication could not be expected in a questionnaire format, Dr G (not her real name)

provided (according to this researcher) cogent understanding regarding disparate academic and

intellectual cultures from which a curriculum draws its developmental base. By sharing core

elements of curriculum features (e.g. content and assessment) former technikons could be said to

398

be more open and ‘democratic’ in their administration of academic freedom and institutional

autonomy. ‘The fear of outsiders’ is thus not accentuated here as an element of ‘loss of

power/control’. By involving ‘non–university’ practitioners, especially from ‘the world of work’

these institutions could arguably be said to be more responsive and entrepreneurial in the practical

creation and dissemination of knowledge. As opposed to rhetoric, students are more able to

participate in the development of their own learning experiences. It is in this context that it would

have been more informative if the employment ratios and chances of employability between

‘technikon type’ and ‘university type’ graduates were investigated. In the second interview

however, (when responding to the question: what will the technikon pride itself as having brought

to the mergers) the interviewer categorically mentioned: “… plus/minus 70% of our [technikon]

students are employed …”.

The second interview with an academic in a senior management position was thematically focused

on the reconfiguration of the HE institutional environment. As opposed to the first interview

(which gravitated more on instruction and curriculum delivery mechanisms), this interview

embraced a broader range of merger-related issues – organizational, instructional, and changes that

the new HE environment has impacted on the university sector as a whole. The interviewee viewed

the mergers mainly as a restructuring process intended to enhance quality higher education, while

redressing past racially-inspired HE practices. While the entire interview transcript is presented in

the Appendices List, certain aspects warrant direct reference. For instance, in response to the

projected purpose and direction of the mergers, the interviewee stated: “I think at the end of the

day, this merger is about moving away from structuring that was on the basis of race … So, I think

it’s a redistribution process … Redistribution not only in terms of resources, but also in terms of

the population dynamics [italics mine]”. From the perspective of this study, any redistribution

process obviously entails some degree of sharing.

Arising from the sharing of resources, is the issue of how that is to happen? A further related

question would be: in the process of merging, are there ‘junior’ and ‘senior’ partners? In other

words, is the merger between the ‘technikon’ and the ‘university’ an amalgamation (equal

partners) or absorption (of the ‘junior’ partner by the ‘senior’ partner)? The nature of responses to

these issues will necessarily determine whether or not HEIs from two distinctively dissimilar

intellectual/ epistemological cultures will function “in a parallel way” (as posed – rather than stated

by the interviewee); or will they function in an organizationally- and instructionally-integrated

manner? The issues arising from the ‘sharing of resources’ perspective are of pragmatic

importance, delineating rhetoric from actual practice. While the study concurs with the ongoing

399

process of (academic and vocational) programmes and qualifications articulation

(mix?/harmonization?), the new organizational shape and size of the established comprehensive

university accentuates the need for the re-visitation of student “population dynamics” (as phrased

by the interviewee) as an integral component and ‘beneficiary’ of the ‘sharing of resources’

perspective. It is interesting that with a five-campus capacity (two of which are in the township

metropoles), there is little, if any, diffusion/migration of students from the suburban campuses to

those in the townships; implying that the main campus is resource-sufficient on its own. It is

therefore axiomatic that resource sharing cast in this mode, is still in status nascendi, or there are

unstated ‘junior’ and ‘senior’ partners in the merger processes as a whole.

5.5.1 Current thinking on curriculum

One of the irrefutable comments made is that the former technikons’ general organizational

framework of the curriculum was determined by a national body. It is on the basis of that fact that

some degree of isomorphism is most likely to prevail. Although the core curriculum is left for each

institution to determine, service to industry remains the unfettered objective of curriculum design.

The implication here is that ‘ownership’ of knowledge is not the monolithic preserve of technikons,

as traditional universities would aspire for. In this specific regard the new universities of

technology sector could be viewed as having the potential for massive development of skills

needed for the economy, as well as a niche in the area of applied knowledge. The universities of

technology could entrepreneurially ‘exploit’ skills development for applied research to generate

an alternative funding base. To the extent that the external involvement of industrial stakeholders

broadens the epistemological base for the new university of technology sector; it places the latter in

a more strategic position, insofar as reverence is concerned. That has also raised the stakes for this

sector to progress from a predominantly FET (Further Education and Training) sector, to FHET

(Further Higher Education and Training) sector. Current thinking then, is viewed here as locating

skills development as a central factor in the production of knowledge. That is to say, training

students for work-compliant knowledge, and also developing that training within an enabling

framework for students to create their own learning experiences that enhance practical knowledge.

5.5.2 Challenges that remain

From the perspective of the reconfiguration of HEIs, the biggest, single challenge is that of

synergizing two disparate academic cultures to reflect the mission(s) of a single and unified

institution. The academic and vocational contexts will need to be reigned in a manner that emphasise

400

similarities rather than differences. Quoted in 2Across Campus (2004: 2), ‘Prof T’ (then Deputy

Vice-Chancellor, Academic at the former TWR) stated: “In 2005 the development of articulation

mechanisms to facilitate the transfer between academic and vocational programmes will also receive

attention [italics my own emphasis]”. It is these articulation mechanisms that remain to be an

enormous challenge. Successfully responding to this challenge would completely demystify the view

that these two epistemological orientations are not symbiotically beneficial to each other, as

articulation is more meaningfully facilitated by curriculum harmonization mechanisms.

5.5.3 Possible future trends

Both research instruments (questionnaires and interviews) indicate that, despite some instances of

curriculum conservatism, innovation is the best option. This would not only enhance the nuances

of relevance and responsiveness to pressing socio-economic imperatives, but also strategically

locate traditional HEIs in a position to ward off competition by unyielding alternative higher

education providers. The only disturbing factor in this regard, as revealed in Interview B, is that the

state, in spite of its calls for massification/growth, is now urging HEIs to ‘contain’ numbers; that is

to say, revert to the limiting of student numbers exponentially growing beyond a certain point.

5.6 CONCLUSION

The overall impression here is that institutional progress in curriculum organization and

development is yet to reach its optimum potential. In other words, the direction of curriculum

reform (based on epistemological questions in the questionnaire), and the pace (based on actual

practices derived from the questionnaire), as factors of this research’s hypothesis, are ideally

commensurate with rational policy declarations. At the implementation phase, however, lacunae

exist within the domain of innovative practices. The only proverbial fly in the ointment in

developing this chapter, has been the apparent lackluster attitude displayed by the non-respondents

to both research instruments, as well as by some respondents in their answering of questions. This

posed the difficulty of establishing a reasonable basis for comment on the affected questions. On

the whole, the entire exercise had been an indelible experience to this researcher. In particular, this

fieldwork experience became an opportunity for realizing ‘curriculum in action’, i.e.

assessing/observing reconciling what has been studied on curriculum theory and the extent to

which it relates to a real context.

22Across Campus was a pre-merger campus-based magazine for the technikon community. ‘Prof T’ has been used as

a pseudonym to protect the his identity; this academic is also a respondent in one of this study’s major two semi-

structured interviews, as reflected in the List of Appendices.

401

CHAPTER 6: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The fundamental purpose of this chapter is to consolidate and integrate the thematically and

topically resonant trends, issues and debates that have been found and identified to have had a major

impact in the conceptualisation, development, implementation and evaluation of the content,

organization and delivery of the HE curriculum (Muller, 2000: 1-2; 6-7). The complexity, inter-

relatedness and contradictory nature of the relevantly identified HE curriculum variables in

Chapters 2-5, necessitated that a centripetally directed and thematically focused approach to the

narrational logic be adhered to (Mouton, 2001: 89-91; 113). To that extent, the international-local

and external-internal domains of HE curriculum policy development have been afforded and

accorded a holistic-eclectic, rather than a linear or sequential ‘concatenation’. Such an approach is

intended to translate the literature-based and empirically engendered data into some syllogistic logic

and meaning, so as to collate points of agreement and disagreement pertinent to the development of

the study. As opposed to previous chapters – in which various authors’ perspectives (in the case of

primary and secondary literature-based sources) and respondents’ views (in the case of empirical

data) constituted the pivotal thrust of discussion; in the current chapter, the researcher’s own analytic

and interpretative perspective has been incorporated.

402

The latter dimension however, is not wholly new; in that the researcher’s own perspective has

continuously been derived from what other academic experts, analysts and commentators have

already articulated within the scope of the research topic itself. What is ‘new’ then, is that the

researcher’s own evaluative and analytic framework is cast against the evaluative and analytic

framework derived from the literature-based and empirically-engendered data and information. To

the extent that the current discussion is not a synoptic re-visitation of the previous chapters, a

concerted effort has been expended in attempting to critically and logically discuss the thematically

and topically focused issues such that the researcher’s perspective becomes integral to the

evaluative and analytic framework of the findings. The researcher’s own analytic, evaluative and

interpretational framework then, are the gravitational elements around which this discussion

revolves. In an attempt to facilitate and to maximize affinity between the logic of the thesis and “…

the weight [support] of evidence” (Mouton, 2001: 14), an analytic framework has been ‘imposed’ to

consolidate and integrate the findings and concomitant discussion within a context of varying

degrees of theoretical, causal, descriptive, empirical, interpretive, or evaluative analysis (p. 113).

6.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

A distinction has been noted to exist between “literature review” and “scholarship review” (Babbie

& Mouton, 2001: 565-566; Mouton, 2001: 4-6, 90-91). Literature review is concerned with the

bibliographic listing of consulted sources. This section (6.2) however, does not serve to provide a

comprehensive bibliography of the literature consulted for the entire study; that belongs to the

general function of literature review (listing). In other words, the comprehensive listing of (primary

and secondary) sources of information/data, mainly locates the study “... in the context of the

general body of scientific knowledge … [my emphasis]” (Babbie & Mouton, 2001: 565). It is for

this particular reason (of the general function) that the list has been provided immediately after the

last chapter of this study, i.e. before the List of Appendices. The comprehensive list of references

itself was continuously pared – increasing or decreasing as “the weight of evidence” (Mouton, 2001:

114) – that is, the conceptual and analytic logic of the study – unfolded according to sources and

references that respectively had direct or peripheral bearing on specific and general aspects of the

study. The literature featuring in this category included both data and information from which direct

reference was made (indicated by quotation marks), as well as data from which indirect reference

was made – all of which contributed in varying degrees, to the development of the research topic, the

method(s) of enquiry, and the resultant episodes of analysis and interpretation.

403

Mouton (2001: 6) accentuates the usage of “scholarship review”. He contends that unlike the

ordinary listing of consulted sources, “scholarship review” is more insightful since it is grounded on:

“… a review of the existing scholarship or available body of knowledge to see how other scholars have

investigated the research problem that you [the researcher] are interested in. Your interest is, therefore, not merely

in literature (which sounds as if it refers merely to a collection of texts) [author’s parentheses], but in a body of

accumulated scholarship. You want to learn from other scholars: how they have theorized and conceptualized on

issues, what they have found empirically, and what instrumentation they have used and to what effect. In short,

you are interested in the most recent, credible and relevant scholarship in your area of interest [italics

mine]” (Mouton, 2001: 6).

The salience of this excerpt lies specifically in the extent to which it relates the organization of

sources to the researcher’s analysis, interpretation, and integration of authors’ perspectives from the

collected and listed literature. The most crucial aspect of the accumulated and consulted body of

literature is the extent to which ‘specific functionality’ (purpose and relevance) was advanced

(Babbie & Mouton, 2001: 566; Mouton, 2001: 6). As opposed to the general function of the

comprehensive compilation and listing of literature, specific functionality was achieved through the

thematic organization of linking particular sources of information (whether primary and/or

secondary) to particular units of study, irrespective of whether these units are theory-driven or

empirically derived (Mouton, 2001: 93).

The approach adopted here has been ‘shaped’ by the “scholarship review” perspective, according to

which emerging themes and trends (rather than a content-based description of input by others in this

field) in HE curriculum policy development are reviewed and analysed. A significant portion of the

body of scholarship in HE curriculum reform is more conceptual and theory-steeped, an orientation

that has (in)advertently impacted on the empirical and case study focus of the actual curriculum

practices in higher education (Stuurman, 1999; Walker & Evers, 1999). Consequently, some scholars

have questioned whether “educational research” is indeed a science (Keeves & Lakomski, 1999;

Lagemann & Shulman, 1999). On the other hand, the pre-university levels of the education system

(i.e. primary and secondary) are replete with curriculum modeling (in area such as curriculum

traditions, classroom management, and teaching methods). Even then, teachers themselves mainly

convey what has been pre-designed for them by academics and other intellectual practitioners

(Apple, 2003). What is being highlighted writ large here is that, the extent of the efficacy of actual

HE curriculum innovations is not as profusely explored and documented as the conceptual/theoretic

domains. For the reconfigured South African HE ecology, the orientation towards the empirical-case

study domain would be helpful; particularly in the articulation of programmes of mergers of HEIs

404

from distinctively disparate intellectual cultures. Merger modeling, for instance, could only be

helpful as far as the organizational aspect of new institutional forms is concerned; empirical and

case study exploration of actual programmatic articulation would be more congenial in this case.

The compilation and organization of literature – which is the pivotal focus of this section of the

current chapter, and consonant with the aims of the study – collates with the international-local and

internal-external environments of HE functioning in general, and curriculum development in

particular. The conceptual level of the themes, issues, and trends derived from the international

environment of HE curriculum reform, design, and management practices are more conspicuously

illuminated in chapters 2 and 4. The perspectives emanating from the international environment have

therefore, prominently become the major conceptual ‘research site’, especially in view of South

Africa’s historically nascent curriculum development profile (Breier, 2001; Jansen, 1999). In short,

emerging HE curriculum trends, issues and practices at the international level (all of which are

mostly prominent in chapter 4), acted as precursors to the local South African context. The ‘division’

of the consulted and accumulated literature in this way, rather than isolating the units of study, is

designed to create thematic unity and logic between literature-based HE curriculum policy

development on the one hand; and actual curriculum practices and policy implementation

(prominent in chapter 5), on the other.

The organization and review of scholarship are considered here as optimally advantageous as it

‘frees’ the study from allegiance to any particular intellectual paradigm or ‘school of thought’. Most

importantly, the organization of scholarship review by theme or construct (Mouton, 2001: 93)

facilitates synthetic and analytic equilibrium – in which argumentation balance is integrated into the

discussion by referring to international and local authors who posited multi-variegated intellectual

positions/stances. An orientation towards ‘allegiance’ would confine the study to pre-occupations

with ‘positions’ or stances – ipso facto, methodological defensiveness. Such an orientation would

also devalue the thematic essence upon which the findings are contextualised and arrived at. The

interpretative process, therefore, became the product of various ‘positions’ and ‘schools of thought’.

Consequently, cross-referencing became pivotal to guiding the integration process of “relating

resonating trends with literature ... casting data against literature” (Muller, 2004); that is to say,

points of agreement and/or disagreement on the main issues are corroborated or contested (Babbie &

Mouton, 2001: 566; Mouton, 2001: 90).

The ‘problem’ of literature dating warrants some mentioning, as overlooking it could create an

impression of qualitative and quantitative paucity on the part of the accumulated and consulted

405

literature (Mouton, 2001: 87, 92). Some few cited references do not conform to the chronology-

driven notion of ‘recency of information/research’. For instance,3Dupree (1993: 23, cited in 4Marco

(2000: 5)). This state of affairs has prevailed in a situation where the researcher refers to a second

author (Marco 2000), who has also cited the first or original author (‘Dupree’) in an earlier (1993)

text. To prevent authorship confusion (Muller, 2004: 12-13), and to facilitate authenticity of sources

(as well as establishing validity of ‘argument’), the original /first author (and consequently, the

original/seminal text) has had to be relied upon. In the process, this could inadvertently have created

perceptions of inadequacy or an affront to scholarship. In such instances, this researcher was guided

by a sense of relative textual authenticity, as the particular first author might have been

contemporaneous to the phenomenon (issue) under discussion, therefore, original, as in cases of

classical/ seminal references and studies – notwithstanding the attendant problem of defining what

constitutes ‘classical’ or ‘seminal’. All of the preceding discussion on the review of

literature/scholarship above has focused on, and provided the superstructural framework of the

study per se. The literature on research methodology established and developed an ‘interstitial’ link

between the theoretic execution and practical understanding of the multiple phenomena entailed in

the study (Henning, 2001: 12-13). To the extent that the empirical phase of the study and its data

analysis (Chapter 5) relied on judgement (purposive) sampling, adequate understanding of research

methodological nuances were sine qua non to fulfilling the stated objectives in chapter 1. The

universalism of scientific research collated well with the international nature and aspect of HE

curriculum challenges in the 21st century. The debatable nature of the validity of educational

research necessitated that (HE) curriculum as an aspect of educational research – be subjected to the

very debatable issues themselves (e.g.: Is “education” a science or field of study with research

principles and norms that are sui generis to itself?) It is worth mentioning that some of the themes

and perspectives emanating from other scholars are cast in what officialdom would regard as

‘radical’, ‘non-conformist’ or ‘dissentient’. This is particularly mentioned to indicate the range of

academic and intellectual paradigms that the research has had to explore. Failure to have done so

would deny the research an objective range from which to assimilate disparate views on the “hidden/

unstated” curriculum and its “official/stated” variant.

The review of literature relating to the South African context of HE curriculum development (in

Chapter 3) is somewhat symptomatic of the embryonic state of this field, compounded by

difficulties posed by vestiges of the erstwhile educational dispensation (CHE, 2000: 21-25). A

striking observation has been that the post-1994 democratic dispensation has not yet translated itself

into a concomitant democratization/liberalization of certain tenets of HE knowledge generation, 3 and 2: Dupree and Marco are mere fictitious representations.4

406

dissemination and validation. Knowledge from the white male’s cultural and ideological

perspectives is still dominant (Breier, 2001b: 9-11). What looms large, especially in the sphere of

HE curriculum development as a field of study, is that a small pool of the same white authors’

names feature writ large in influential local and international journals. The researcher can attest to

one instance of very mediocre contribution in an acclaimed international journal by a ‘reputable’

white South African male academic. Except in the sphere of Africanisation and indigenous

knowledge systems, the contribution by black intellectuals and academics in HE curriculum

development was relatively very low. They seem to be enmeshed by a state of ennui and lethargy.

Mouton (2003: unpaged) uncompromisingly illustrated that in the context of the academic and

intellectual transformation of South African HEIs, the contributions by blacks is minimal: “Black

academics now constitute approximately 30% of the HE workforce, but still produced less than 10%

of all peer-reviewed articles in the latter part of the previous decade [italics mine]”. The very

conspicuous contribution of field of study per author’s nationality could solidify into the

politicization of academic writing; for instance white scholars excelling in many ‘high order’ fields

of study, and blacks in few ‘low order’ areas, or (statistically-speaking) 98% of the country’s

research output is produced by 8% of the population (Ngobeni, 2006: 48). The most pronounced

feature of South African literature in chapter 3 is that it could be said to be in status nascendi (in the

nascent state of becoming). This state has been partly occasioned by the legacy of apartheid

educational policy (p. 48); and partly also due to occasional concerted debate on HE curriculum

transformation (Welsh & Savage, 1997). In the main, HE curriculum literature is “a copycat” of

Western epistemic values (Makgoba, 1996; Moja et al., 1996).

6.3 HIGHER EDUCATION KNOWLEDGE AS CONTESTED STRATEGIC RESOURCE

As a concept to which all internal and external academic HE functions are cognate, “knowledge”

has been found in this study to be the most fundamental and critical tenet of any discussion or debate

on all aspects of HE curriculum transformation. It is also profoundly perennial to the notions of

“education” and “curriculum” in their broader domain. Education, as a system and process of

disseminating (pre-determined?) knowledge (Apple, 2003:1), is susceptible to manipulation and to

servicing the interests of one group against those of others (Apple, 2003: 1; Jansen, 1999: 6).

Knowledge has become the most essential form of wealth generation both for individuals and for

communities (Drucker, 1993: 40); and its proliferation and explosion has challenged, if not rivaled

traditional HE’s legitimacy and hegemony over its (knowledge’s) production, validation, and

dissemination (Barnett, 1997: 29). By whom, and for whom it is produced, has become writ large the

determinant of the purpose(s) for which knowledge is meant (Apple, 2003: 1; Jansen, 1999: 6). The

407

HE-society-knowledge nexus has been reconfigured from a one-dimensional to a multi-dimensional

axis (Barnett, 1997: 29; Coffield & Williamson, 1997: 5). The collective ramifications of

globalisation, ICT, knowledge explosion and massification (among others), have shifted the focus

away from traditional HE’s monopoly as the primary site of knowledge generation. The Mode 2

knowledge-production thesis by Gibbons et al. (1994) is further testimony to this shift. No longer do

traditional HE lecturers and professors possess the sole prerogative and monopoly in the sphere of

knowledge provision and dissemination. New roles and responsibilities now define the instructional

and managerial landscape (Nedwek, 1999: 177; Elbaz, 2000: 94). The design and delivery of HE

curriculum is now engaged by teams of academics (curriculum specialists), technological

professionals (courseware designers), as well as others not directly linked with content (the

knowledge to be learned). To the extent that there are increasing demands for more accountability

and efficiency, academics’ fear of loss of power and autonomy in respect of curriculum

management, has become extant realities. Due to the affinity between “knowledge” and “power”,

HE could be viewed as facing loss of epistemological power/domination. That is to say, “… the

exteriorization of knowledge” (Lyotard, 1994: 4) – the involvement of the non-university sector in

‘the knowledge chain’ – has re-demarcated and broadened the sites of knowledge production.

Furthermore, scientific knowledge, the pristine domain of HE’s knowledge ‘fabric’, is not

necessarily representative of the entire spectrum of knowledge: “... scientific knowledge does not

represent the totality of knowledge” (Lyotard, 1994: 4) (see also Barnett, 1994: 14).

In the life of higher education, “… the university and its various disciplines have been the main

authority for developing and evaluating knowledge. Disciplines have traditionally had this

[monopolistic] responsibility because by definition they determine the parameters of knowledge and

the mode of inquiry that guide learning in a field of studies [italics my own emphasis]” (Donald,

1999: 36). Outlined and poignantly emphasized above, is the extent to which disciplinarity (as an

epistemological factor) had been a significant, nay omnipotent factor, in the conceptualization,

development, and implementation (management?) of the HEI curriculum. The view that HE – as a

result of the epistemological shift – is in a state of epistemological crisis/disjuncture is refuted by

some who state that it is only some subjects that may be facing some temporary intellectual and

epistemic inertia (Haldane, 1997: 65; Scott, 1998: 113-115). Albeit changes occurring in the

epistemological domain of HE curriculum, some argue that the discipline’s/subject’s organizational

power and authority is still dominant (Bridges, 2000: 53; Young, 1998: 178-179). The

“deconstruction of the subject” (Bridges, 2000: 42) is linked with ways of weakening the rigidity of

the discipline as the traditional mode of academic (and administrative) organization. The shift from

the traditional to the contemporary epistemological base of disciplinary organization is manifested

408

by knowledge structured around inter-/multi- or trans-disciplinarity, at the level of epistemological

organization; while modules, credits, programmes, competence and student-based learning manifest

the ‘disassembling’ of the subject/discipline, at the level of curriculum/knowledge implementation

and offering (Donald, 1999: 36; Kraak, 2000: 11). Organization/structure and coherence /integration

of knowledge are here construed as operational themes in the systems/process of education provision

(Donald, 1999: 40).

The following diagram is intended to illustrate the dissipation of one-dimensionality of HE’s

erstwhile epistemological and intellectual monopoly. The central location of “knowledge” as a

concept illustrates the new competitive terrain of knowledge’s utility as well as its (knowledge’s)

cognate affinity with multiple stakeholder interests. The advent of technology and the concomitant

innovative competitiveness ushered in by globalisation has collectively broadened the HE

stakeholder constituency. The state calls for delivery and more HE accountability, while reducing its

funding; society is calling for more access, quality, cost effective HE ‘products’, as well as

efficacious rates of return on investment consonant with the money they (the public) are paying; the

economy requires more work-compliant skills and shareholder value for private sector partnerships

with HEIs; and HEIs themselves face the task of curriculum responsiveness and differentiation

through its missions.

FIGURE 6.1: The multiple stakeholder environment of higher education knowledge

409

StateAffordability; Legislation; Reform; Quality

Reduced Funding;

Knowledge Power Relations; Codification; Control &

Marketisation; Competing

HE CurriculumConceptualisation; Diversity;Responsiveness;Marketization;NQF

Society Access; Relevance; (E)quality; Cultural

Participation/

Source: Researcher’s own eclectically derived adaptation from various sources.

The ‘two-way’ arrows indicate the feedback or reciprocal effect occasioned by the range of

expectations, interests and needs existing between knowledge as both the centripetal and centrifugal

domain of the fiver multiple stakeholder internal-external environments and their attendant

variables; some of which are stated in the respective circles/domains. The multiple stakeholder

environments are replete with contradictions within and among themselves (Bocock & Watson,

1994: 4; Coffield & Williamson, 1997: 4-5).

6.3.1 The ‘de-canonization’ of epistemological/disciplinary cultures

Whereas the observations made in section 6.3 above are premised on both the internal and external

environments of HE’s functioning, the current sub-section is a further ‘breaking down’ of

“knowledge” as the superstructural HE sphere, and focuses on the internal and foundational tenets of

HE’s knowledge base. The destabilization/deconstruction of the subjects into non-disciplinary

coherences/structures has been noted here as a very dramatic and far-reaching intellectual shift

(Young, 1998: 168, 171). The subject has been ‘fragmented’ into smaller units of knowledge that

also incorporate competence, experience, and non-cognitive skills. The acceptance (albeit

conditionally) into the academic ‘family of knowledge’ of non-traditional ways and forms of

knowing, has been the most ground-breaking experience in the life of HE curriculum’s

epistemological evolution from the days of the trivium and quadrivium. The unbundling/de-

canonization of the subject in this way, or “... the dislocation of intellectual culture” (Scott, l997b:

19), has presented HE with a profound and continuous challenge. In the light of the shift from closed

(traditional) intellectual cultures to open ones, coherence, or “… connectedness with other

disciplines...” (Donald, 1999: 41), has necessitated the re-evaluation of the sociological and

epistemological base of disciplines. Sociologically, “… loyalty to the norms of the particular

410

Student Flexibility; Communication; Sociability; Team member; Numeracy; IT Ability.

Economy Globalisation; Skills/HRD; Partnerships; Privatization; Equity/Growth.

scholarly group” (p. 41) – rather than to society’s concerns – is considered here as an ‘affront’ to

both multiple stakeholder representativity and other ways of knowing. Society’s concerns should

not be a mere academic option or appendage. Culture, as a factor of society’s norms and values –

and therefore a reflection of a curriculum’s social adaptation – is ontologically an influential force in

shaping the content of what is to be learned. By that very fact, cultural conscientisation becomes

indicative of HE’s mission to society (Ball, 1994: 3-5). Epistemologically, the construction of

knowledge is locally structured from both specifics and generalizations; and as such, specialized and

differentiated knowledge domains are not necessarily restricted to a one-dimensional logic in the

interests of a discipline’s core methods. Coherence then, is viewed as student-centred organization of

knowledge:

“For an academic curriculum to be offered by the university, it must seek to provide a coherent, academic

experience for its students. To meet the rule of coherence, an academic curriculum must be able to provide a

tangible measure of coherence – ongoing, summative, evidence – that its students have had a coherent learning

experience.’ The clear intent of this rule is to assert the value of student learning as a primary criterion in

choosing among the various curricula [academic and/or vocational] that may be proposed within a university. The

required measure of coherence would provide public evidence ... and ... a basis for collective efforts at curriculum

improvement [and integration], a condition that does not now exist in many academic curricula [my

emphasis]” (Dill, 1999: 63).

In essence therefore, disciplinarity (as an arcane and esoteric epistemological construct of only one

way of ‘knowing’), is increasingly becoming anachronistic (rather than obsolete), when viewed

against the background of the “deconstruction of the subject” analytic mode and its coherence value

is being eroded by forces that compel a shift in HE’s intellectual base.

6.3.2 Development and transformation of epistemological/intellectual diversity and equality

The South African context of higher education curriculum reform exhibits a largely dissimilar

trajectory from that noted in the international environment, mainly due to the political vestiges of

the past. The argument being propounded here is that political and economic development and

stability are a conducive milieu for a ‘high culture’ of intellectual/academic development, or the

parameter within which an “age of knowledge” (Duderstadt, 2000b: 35) materializes and matures.

HE transformation is ostensibly a worldwide phenomenon, the magnitude, pace and direction of

which could not be ignored or underestimated. These three factors of reform are critical and

indispensable variables in this study’s attempt to examine how institutional curriculum practices and

trends relate to international ones. The SA context provides a classical, or rather unique situation

411

where politics, rather than the intellectual/academic or socio-economic environment, determines the

pace of higher education curriculum reform. The ‘negotiated settlement’ stunted the radical

transformation of society in general; consequently, the global-local balance is severely

compromised. By negotiating that ascendancy to power by the majority black population did not

have to ‘ruffle’ the rights of the minority white population; the monopoly on big business led to the

higher education curriculum policy environment being contested between ‘equity’ and

‘development’. The ‘equity’ mode of reform focused on individual and institutional redress as a way

of reversing past inequities. ‘Development’ focused on economic growth as the way to effecting the

necessary reconstruction of society. The ‘negotiated settlement’ created a ‘rainbow-nation’ in

principle, but has yet to develop a ‘rainbow curriculum’. It is precisely this state of affairs that still

locates HE curriculum reform in particular, in the realm of state intervention. That the global-local

balance is in turmoil could be ascribed to, among others, the commitment to political and economic

investor confidence seen to be a benchmark of good governance. In reality, the absence of ‘home

grown’ curriculum innovations has led to ‘policy-borrowing’ becoming the modus operandi for

innovations.

As the highest centres of knowledge, HEIs are also expected (especially in a developing democracy

like South Africa’s) to contribute towards national development (Cloete et al., 1999: 20). In a

culturally diverse country therefore, the pursuit of so-called “official” ideological, epistemological

or intellectual persuasions (such as the formation of the Native Club by President Mbeki) is

tantamount to patronizing and paying homage to officialdom (Seepe, 2004: 23-24). In denouncing

conformism, White (1997: 7) states:

“In [Ronald] Barnett’s view higher education is ‘emancipatory’. It liberates students from the narrow intellectual

perspectives which would constrain and keep them confined to their specialism, enabling them to think critically

about its assumptions and to see it in relation to other areas of thought. Since knowledge is culturally situated,

this process gives students insights into the nature of their own society and therewith into themselves, thus

making them better capable of acting in the world [italics mine]”.

The argument for Africanisation is specifically located in the epistemological and philosophical

terrains of HE curriculum development, nay, HE’s knowledge generation base. This argument is

viewed against the background that, despite the ontologically acclaimed borderlessness of

knowledge (occasioned by among others, globalisation, ICT and knowledge explosion), HEI’s

throughout the world have a national character. The principle of “… policy borrowing” (Phillips &

Ochs, 2000: 456) alludes that even if some aspect(s) of an educational system of a country are

derived from those of another, the borrowing country still has to indigenize them, thus fusing-in its

412

national character. In this way, a local-global (rather than global-local) disequilibrium is attenuated.

If the idea of HE knowledge is best expressed through HE’s emancipatory character as argued by

Habermas (1990 in White, 1997), Africanisation, as both an educational philosophy and intellectual

ideology, complements the emancipatory path that SA HEIs have to undertake seriously. In the

interests of a common national agenda (which so far is in a state of hiatus) and inclusive

transformational objectives (which so far appear to be sectarian), the “negotiated settlement” is

denounced in this study. Firstly, it is the fulcrum around which hinges the total transformation of

society and all its institutions (of which HE in this ‘age of knowledge’ is a crucial constituent). Its

‘lockstep effect’ has translated itself into a callous disregard of centuries of unequal development.

Secondly, its ‘hemlock effect’ has given rise to the sudden appearance of a captivating miracle —

while the inherently pervasive and harmful effects of the erstwhile education policies are being

resolved cosmetically (Nekhwevha, 2000: 119-122). A ‘buy-in’ into an African perspective of HE

knowledge is diluted by intellectual cultures which, while acknowledging the multi-cultural state of

South African society, nonetheless simultaneously eulogize and buttress Western intellectual and

epistemological hegemony. In that context, the cultural situatedness and rootedness of

Africanisation (as an embodiment of IKS) is being systematically dislocated from mainstream HE

knowledge practices (Nekhwevha, 2000: 119-122).

It is in the above context, therefore, that Africanizing the philosophical and epistemological tenets of

higher education in particular, is not about denying the contributions of Western intellectual and

scientific cultures to world civilization and human development, but rather about demystifying the

notion that the “Newtonian-Cartesian epistemologies” are the only supreme basis for rational

thought (Goduka, 1999: 26) – according to which knowledge is the product of disconnectedness

from Nature. Higgs et al. (2003: 40) significantly and aptly point out in their article abstract that:

“Innovation is regarded as the key to knowledge production and processing, while the future of any nation is seen

to be determined by its ability to convert knowledge into wealth and the social or public good, we want to argue

that innovation in higher education goes beyond the formal systems of innovation done in universities and

industrial research and development laboratories. For proper development to occur in the South African context,

we would maintain that indigenized African innovations and knowledge systems [author’s italics] would also have

to be taken into account in higher education curricula”.

The ‘problem’ with Africanisation as both an ideology and mode of thought is that its detractors are

steeped in perceptions of their own Eurocentric ‘superiority’:

413

“One of the consequences of this hegemonic display of power on the part of the Eurocentric episteme [author’s

italics] for indigenous African knowledge systems, was the fundamental erasure of the rich knowledge legacy of

the African people. Eurocentric sentiment often locates innovative ideas and authentic knowledge only [my

emphasis] within its own political and cultural boundaries, while at the same time concluding that the ideas and

knowledge derived from African people are non-scientific. The West uses this hegemonic discourse as an

apparatus of control, to sustain an unequal relationship between what they would call “developed” and

“underdeveloped” countries. Central to the Western development model stand the notions of “progress” and

“science”. The resulting Western discourse essentialises the material and economic aspects of human life” (Higgs

et al. (2003: 41-42).

If the total transformation of society and its institutions is still tied to the political agenda of

government, then the HE Africanisation (with specific reference to the philosophical and

epistemological tenets of the purposes of knowledge), would be complementary to the process of

socio-economic transformation of society. Otherwise, the ‘African university’ will continue on one

of its greatest weaknesses: “... reduced to a sort of “factory” churning out products called graduates

with labels called “degrees”, of dubious relevance to society [italics mine]” (Adedeji, 1998: 65). The

continued marginalization of African perspectives in HE knowledge is to cling to the belief that

Eurocentric knowledge is eternally dominant. In their exegesis on “New Struggles Over the

Legitimation of Ideas”, MaRhea and Teasdale (2000: 12) state: “... the western university system is

experiencing its own processes of [epistemological] disorientation”. They cite the Mode 2 analyses

of Gibbons et al. as an example of this epistemological crisis. The generation of knowledge “… in

the context of application” (Gibbons, 1998a) attests that local knowledge (or indigenization of

knowledge to local needs and conditions), does not have to be sacrificed in the interests of Western

models.

6.4 THE CHALLENGE OF GLOBALISATION ON HIGHER EDUCATION

CURRICULUM REFORM

Globalisation is the single most important factor posing the most serious challenge that HE has had

to contend with (Neave, 2002: 1; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). This phenomenon is contestable in the

context of definition; whether it is political, economic, social, and so forth (Currie, 2003: 17; Deem,

2001: 8; Neave, 2000: 16-17). Globalisation is even viewed in ideological terms as a neo-liberal

instrument by which social welfare and democracy have been replaced by market democracy, nay,

market sovereignty, with state services subsumed by market forces (Nekhwevha, 2000: 121, 122).

The orientation towards “academic capitalism” (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997: 17) – the

marketization/commercialization of HE services – has inevitably engendered divergent responses,

with some viewing globalisation as a necessary occurrence, while some regard it as diminishing or

eroding the very values and tenants on which HE is founded (Altbach, 2002: 1; Neave, 2000: 16;

414

Slaughter & Leslie, 1007: 11). For analytic purposes of this study, the political paradigm of

globalization/internationalization is construed as secondary. Of paramount importance is the direct

and accumulated impact on HE education itself, which, for all its complexity, has been narrowed to

the curriculum field. Globalisation has been glorified to almost ‘sacrosanct’ status by its neo-liberal

proponents. Nekhwevha (2000: 121-22) repudiates such sanctimonious viewpoints, arguing that “...

globalisation is Western cultural hegemony in other forms … Africa has fallen deeply into the [neo]

liberal-inspired propaganda that ‘there is no alternative to globalisation’, hence the tendency to seek

to position Africa within this process rather than questioning its relevance to Africa”.

The argument being advanced here is that HE curriculum is not, and should not, become a

monolithic enterprise – politically, culturally, ideologically, socially, economically, or in any other

way. Even if cultural influences were instrumental in its shaping and conceptualization, the HE

curriculum will be strongly viewed as “foreign” if the local context and influences are undermined

(Higgs et al., 2003: 40). Despite the ‘sacrosanct’ status accorded to globalisation, some have

denounced it as a neo-imperialistic agenda designed to instill and dominate in a new world

economic order (Petras & Veltmeyer, 2001: 11; Nekhwevha, 2000: 123).

If innovation and competitiveness are pivotal to the materialization of globalisation, science and

technology (techno-science) then, have become the primary materials for innovation and invention

(Gibbons, 1998: 20; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997: 39). In the market context, organizational

competitiveness is also enhanced by the organization’s capacity to network and to communicate. For

higher education, a serious threat has been ushered-in by non-traditional (alternative) HE providers,

who have proliferated as deregulation/privatization (a tenet of economic globalisation) has unleashed

a survival-mode for higher education provision. The explosion in the availability of knowledge has

opened a market for multiple producers – including information ‘brokers’, providers, and consumers.

HE’s epistemological monopoly has become invalidated as a collective consequence of these factors.

The proliferation of higher education providers has affected the organizational state of HEIs as they

spread into multiple sites locally, regionally and internationally. The state of borderlessness has

translated itself into new ‘catchment’ areas; thus, necessitating the provision of different

programmes for a new generation of students/clients whose composition defy national origin, class

background, age, and so on. The packaging of curriculum has assumed a variety of structures,

ranging from curriculum plc (‘sold’ to the public but wholly ‘owned’ by the provider). Will we then

see other variants such as “curriculum pty/ltd” or “curriculum cc”; in which HE provision becomes

the exclusive preserve of those who are able to pay for its prohibitive cost structure?

415

Internationalization, in the form of foreign direct investment (FDI), has become a source of capital

generation through, amongst others, enrolment of foreign students (Currie, 2001: 19). In Australia

for instance, “... the growth in international students doubled in five years from 1994 to 1998 [from

41 244 to 84 304]” (p. 19). This worldwide trend, apart from illustrating HE commodification, also

indicates the magnitude of the threat posed by (private and public) alternative providers of higher

education to their offshore clients/students. While internationalization (e.g. of staff, students,

curricula) remains the global imperative of higher education, national and local imperatives

influence the agenda and share value of higher education’s FDI (Curie, 2003: 20; Henry et al., 2001:

129). The latter authors also state that in Europe for instance the success of programmes such as

Erasmus and Socrates amongst EU member states has defined internationalization mainly in terms of

student and staff mobility as well as the curriculum itself; whereas in countries like Australia, the

UK, and Canada, “... policies of internationalization emerged from a range of commercial concerns,

designed to secure a deteriorating financial base” (Henry et al., 2001: 120). The profit motive also

engulfed the internationalization of higher education by for-profit private and public HEIs and

multinational conglomerates in the USA (Altbach, 2000: 1; Eggins, 1998: 25-26). If profit and the

national interests of host providers, rather than educational and academic need, are the primary

concerns, then the quality and standards of degrees and programmes offered to off-shore clients

raises another matter (Altbach, 2000: 2); taking into cognizance that programmatic relevance is

determined by students’ local needs and immediate expectations (e.g. work compliance). In addition

to FDI as an example of the privatization and corporatization of higher education, world best

practice (WBP) has added another dimension to the globalisation of higher education. WBP has

become a performance-based benchmark derived from the business sector through which quality and

standards are to be improved through accountability (Currie, 2003: 20). HEIs are adopting almost the

same quality assessment procedures and standards applied in transnational corporations to boost

their productivity. While corporatisation of higher education appears to have made inroads in the

re-definition of the functions of the university, complete internationalization of the higher education

curriculum is still to be realized (Henry et al. 2001:), thus indicative of the inherent disequilibrium

the global-local axis.

6.4.1 ICT and the proliferation of alternative higher education curriculum providers

Technological development has become a primary catalyst in the way that knowledge and

information are generated and disseminated (Urry, 1998: 2). Science being the prime factor of

technological development, the gap between universities of the developed countries and those of

developing or least developed countries has increased (Altbach, 2000: 1; Castells, 2000: 10;

Slaughter & Leslie, 1997: 23). Research, which is capital-intensive and expensive to undertake, has

416

been afforded in the developed countries by the link between HE and the transnational corporations

for mutual economic benefit (e.g. intellectual property rights and licensing fees). ICT has radically

transformed the place, the time, and the methods of learning, while at the same time accelerating the

challenge on traditional higher education’s epistemological legitimacy (Bates, l999: 207; Nedwek,

1999: 175; Pister, 1999: 230). The book, the classroom, the library, and the teacher, are being

reinvented, albeit in different ways. Software companies compete among themselves and with

traditional HEIs, in the provision of affordable learning products. Learning takes place anywhere,

unrestricted by the physical location of the campus and its geographic distance to the

learners/clients. Interactive (multimedia) learning resources and audiovisual techniques help learners

learn asynchronously and ubiquitously. The growing market of adult learners has been ‘invaded’ by

network and licensing agreements between corporate and private producers of learning materials.

The Internet, which is awash with cyber-based academics, collaborative sharing of knowledge

between and among knowledge practitioners, has diminished distance and geography as

impediments to learning. Most importantly, the traditional nuances of the relationship between

professors/lecturers/instructors (as teaching service providers) and learners/students (as customers

and consumers of knowledge), have been redefined – ushering in a learner-focused environment of

higher education provision.

6.4.2 Is the higher education curriculum a means of instrumentalism?

Bunting (2002: 66-67) contextualises the role and function of an instrumentalist HE system as

“…one which takes its core business to be the dissemination and generation of knowledge for a purpose defined

or determined by a socio-political agenda. Knowledge is not regarded as something which is good in itself and

hence worth pursuing for its own sake. It follows that knowledge which could be used for a specific social,

economic or political purpose would be the primary form pursued … [bold italics mine]”.

Shaull (quoted in Freire, 1993: 16) refutes the idea of neutrality in the domain of “knowledge”:

“There is no such thing as a neutral educational process. Education either functions as an instrument to facilitate

the integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system, or it becomes the practice of

freedom, the means by which men and women participate in the transformation of their world [italics my own

emphasis]”.

Instrumentalisation here refers to objectification processes and mechanisms by which organization

of knowledge is utilized to validate power relations in society (Apple, 2003: 1). Knowledge could

easily become the object/instrument for social exclusion driven by motives of a political, economic,

cultural, or other, nature. Critical curriculum theorists question the reproductive function vis-à-vis

417

the social functioning of higher education (Margolis et al., 200l: 4) that is, questioning the

fundamental premise of the notion of ‘the hidden curriculum’ in higher education. Mention

worthiness of ‘the hidden curriculum’ here is necessitated by the prevalence of perceptions that

certain modes or philosophies of knowledge are irrefutable, nay, sacrosanct, and are to be eternally

cast in stone as forms of education and learning. Such perceptions are not only detrimental to the

value of knowledge and education, but an affront to the cultural component in human development.

A case in point relates to the pervasive arguments in support of, or opposition to IKS (which in this

case, forms part of the Africanisation philosophy). Furthermore (in respect of determining

association(s) between “instrumentalisation” and the notion of “political correctness”, reference is

made to the notion of “… the social-epistemological dimension” elaborated on by Babbie and

Mouton (2001: 537 ff). This ‘line’ of argument is adopted here firstly, to emphasize one of the key

findings that the knowledge-education-curriculum continuum is not peripheral to the ideological

function inherent (overtly or covertly) in these three related variables. Secondly, this approach of

reasoning further accentuates one of the epistemological and intellectual challenges confronting

HE, viz, the purpose to which knowledge is to be “exteriorized” in the university’s public and social

space. The social-epistemological dimension then, is regarded here as utterly relevant in that it

highlights one of the difficulties associated with HE’ s multiple stakeholder responsibilities; ergo,

whether community or conflict of interests exists, especially insofar as HE’s knowledge function is

concerned.

In their social-epistemological mode of analysis of instrumentalisation (i.e. purposes to which

academic/intellectual knowledge, as represented for instance, by a scientific community, could be

used to justify and perpetuate a political status quo, or challenge it), Babbie and Mouton (2001:

537) posit two theoretical perspectives; both of which also are fundamentally significant in the

conceptualization of knowledge. The first – a “spectator” view – depicts knowledge as purely and

“exclusively” theoretical and contemplative; or a “... speculative pursuit, [according to which] one

will most likely choose not to become involved in social or political issues”. In this view, knowledge

is seen as projecting a “… weak interventionism” (Babbie & Mouton, 2001: 537) function; that is,

knowledge would be advanced to

“... serve a certain cause, either by means of a critique of the existing order or by means of legitimizing an

incipient alternative to that order ... A weak interventionist approach would imply a stance of support and

sympathy, but a form of support conducted from within the domain of an accepted intellectual discipline [my

emphasis]” (Babbie & Mouton, 2001: 537)

418

Alternatively, knowledge could be viewed as serving the “actor” function; that is, projecting

action/praxis in the socio-politico environment – thus fulfilling “strong interventionism” or

“activism” in that domain. “Strong interventionism goes beyond producing knowledge to serve

certain ends: it also involves actively taking steps to promote the implementation and utilization of

such knowledge to the point of lobbying and organising on the behalf of certain political causes” (p.

537). To illustrate this point more lucidly – in relation to knowledge/science and instrumentalisation

of some (political) causes in the South African context – the two authors (Babbie & Mouton, 2001:

538) cite the case of (conservative) Afrikaner intellectuals who, with the political entrenchment of

apartheid, provided the intellectual backbone for its justification and sustenance (strong

interventionism?); while the (liberal) English intellectuals (projecting weak interventionism?),

arguing from sociological perspectives, condemned apartheid as a violation of human rights. This

issue (of the various roles of Afrikaans, English, and African/Black HEIs) has been derived from the

South African context of this study (outlined in more detail in Chapter 4). By poignantly discussing

“the social-epistemological” sphere (which is not peripheral from the organizational culture

pervasive in any multipurpose service-providing context), a projection or sensitivisation is made of

“… science [knowledge] as social practice and [not peripheral to] the spectre of ideology [bold

italics my own emphasis]” (Babbie & Mouton, 2001: 543).

Because it rests on both the internal and the external operational mechanisms, the ideological

framework is the domain within which all other forms of responses hinge. For instance, globalisation

(as an economic manifestation of the neo-liberal ideology, to which HE has been compelled to

respond through programmes that conform to the world of work and prepare learners with the

necessary skills/competencies), has been bandied about as both inevitable and indispensable.

Ideology (or is it ‘economic and financial convenience’?) then, is another factor influencing and

shaping the HE curriculum. Globalization’s success rests on innovation, and “[t]he source of

innovation is knowledge” (Dowling & Seepe, 2004: 190). In this context, and considering that the

ever increasing gap between “the information rich” and “the information poor” among nations,

communities, and individuals is not abating (Eggins, 1998), the HE curriculum is now itself a source

of wealth generation for those who are able to pay for its acquisition. Since it is not just any

knowledge that is required, those who own the ‘commodifiable’ knowledge inadvertently possess

the power over what is to be ‘known’. The glorification and sanctification of globalisation, for

instance, has increasingly devalued the significance of non-economic virtues of higher education’s

functions – such as moral and ethical cultivation (Altbach, 2002: 1). The embeddedness and

naturalisation (Gair & Mullins, 2001: 23) of a value system (whether overtly or covertly

operationalised), determines the efficacy of a hidden HE curriculum., which is distinct from “hidden

419

agenda”; the former focuses on intentions read into the instructional process; the latter focuses on

motives pursued for decision making to the extent of pursuing (and legitimating) social stratification

through capitalistic global interests, and justifying this as consent to a globally applied value system,

e.g. preparing students to become better multi-skilled workers for global competitiveness, and white

collar workers and managers who identify themselves “... as organizational agents for

capital” (Ehrensal, 2001: 97), rather than identifying their interests with those of the broader working

class. Business education, as a curriculum example, translates the intentions of the ‘hidden’

curriculum by becoming the arena for “... training capitalism’s foot soldiers” (p. 99). The same

sentiment is by extension, propounded as “… the (re)production of social stratification in a

professional school setting” (Costello, 1997: 43). The destabilization of the traditional forms and

organization of ‘knowing’ has not been a singular, monolithic, or linear process. An interaction of

factors has influenced this trajectory to organizational and intellectual/epistemological

metamorphosis.

If instrumentalisation presupposes, as outlined earlier, the objectification of processes and

mechanisms by which organization of knowledge is utilised to validate and legitimate power

relations in society; then the socio-economic function and orientation of the HE curriculum (as

ushered-in by globalisation and the concomitant ‘sovereignty’ of the market) has become the one

area in which the curriculum is most interrogated. That is to say, the socio-economic function of the

HE curriculum has become crucial in discussions ranging from quality, access, cost of learning and

curriculum provision, and so on. Academic analysts, such as Taylor (1993: 4), argue that the ‘new’

curriculum – of conforming HE knowledge to the changing nature of work and technology, is HE’s

attempt to become more responsive and relevant to societal needs while simultaneously

accommodating the needs and interests of the new world economic order. HEIs are then faced with a

legitimacy and credibility crisis in the wake of reconciling competing societal needs (e.g. access,

poverty alleviation, high cost of HE learning, cultural development, etc.) on the one hand; and the

interests of the economy/industry (e.g. profit and the attendant ‘downsizing’ of labour, graduate

preparation and readiness for the changing nature of work and its attendant requirement of flexible

specialization, etc.) on the other (Dowling & Seepe, 2004: 187).

6.5 THE ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION’S

FUNCTIONING

The motivation and impetus for HE has been propelled from outside the university (Duderstadt,

2000b: 199; Coffield & Williamson, 1997: 4-5). That traditional HEIs in general, and curriculum in

particular, are undergoing prolific and multi-faceted change, is the perennial factor identified

420

throughout this study. That this change is occurring at a fast pace and has affected both the external

and internal ways of doing “business as usual”, is irreversible. It is for this reason that HE

curriculum reform has to be viewed against a wholesome, rather than a fragmented, context. That is

to say, curriculum reform – rhetorically labeled by others as “the curriculum industry” (Duderstadt,

1999: 45), is not to be confined only to the epistemological-didactic-pedagogic domain. Other

dynamically significant and closely associated factors are to be noted as well. These factors include:

the organizational disposition of higher education towards change;

emergence of alternative HE providers as factored-in by globalization;

the changing nature of students, work, and the academic profession; and

socio-economic realities between most developed, developing, and least developed

economies.

A review of international higher education reform/transformation trends locates this process of

change in a historical context (Altbach, 1999: 1-2; Neave & Van Vught, 1994: 265-267). It is this

context that, to a large extent, defines the symbiotic affinity between, and among HE organizational

structures:

“There is only one academic model worldwide. The basic European University model has been significantly

modified but remains the universal pattern of higher education. The world’s universities follow institutional

patterns that are basically derivative of these Western models, with virtually no exceptions” (Altbach, 1999: 1-2).

It is this Western provenance therefore, against which different patterns of organizational

reform/transformation hinge. That is to say, the historical context of the university’s development

became the locus from which various forms of higher education organization transpired. The

organizational character is cited here emphatically as the super-structural sine qua non on which

rests the imperatives of the pace and the direction of reform. In corroborating and amplifying “the

historic dimension” of HE organizational evolution – from antiquity to modernity, from systems

control (“legal homogeneity”) to systems change (“strategic modernization”) (Neave & Van Vught,

1994: 265).

Why the disposition towards the organizational orbit? This is a factor that has been noted to be the

superstructural theme and terrain in which are located the pace and the direction of reform, as well

as higher education’s relevance to society’s needs. The organizational character of HE, as well as

HE’s vision and missions, is noted as inextricable from its commitment to society’s needs. HE

missions are regarded here as a primordial embodiment of its relevance to society’s needs. It is

421

precisely for this very reason that whereas in the past “... universities were protected enclaves,

respected well enough, but mostly unnoticed and allowed to carry on unchallenged and generally

unfettered, ... the university [now] finds itself defined as a key economic, political, social, and

cultural institution ... expected to provide the intellectual capacity necessary to build and sustain the

strength and prosperity of our society” (Duderstadt, 1999: 33). Higher education curriculum reform,

or lack thereof, is identified as a factor of whether or not higher education is (mis) construed as an

“exported” or “imposed” institution” (Neave & Van Vught, 1994: 266); that is to say whether or not

it is “... in the world, but not part of it” (Frackmann, 1997: 108). The argument for declaring the

organizational sphere as the point of departure, is consonant with the contention raised by Dill and

Sporn (1995); in which (higher education) organizational reform/transformation defines forms of

policy (ir)relevance, and therefore, curriculum reform or lack thereof. For instance, in their

“contingency model” of organization, differentiation and integration processes are examples of

efficient and quick response to an externally-imposed changing environment (p. 213). They state:

“All organizations must also integrate the work of differentiated units in order to produce effective and efficient

programs [sic] and products. The importance of achieving collaboration is intensified as competition forces

organizations to increase the pace of innovation and change [my emphasis], to improve quality, and to lower

costs. In the university, traditional disciplinary structures have proved inadequate for competing with other

research organizations in rapidly developing trans-disciplinary fields and concerns about the quality of university

graduates have created public pressures for more systematic coordination and integration of academic curricula

[my emphasis]. The relationship between the new transformational environment of higher education and

emerging reforms of university organization can also be understood in terms of the contingency model [which

allows for greater flexibility and adaptability]” (Dill & Sporn, 1995: 215).

The network model of organization, which is “... new in business and industry, but old to the

university” (p. 213), helps align HE to a quicker response rate, in the context of rapid knowledge-

based, technological advancements. Hierarchical organization impedes adaptability to the pace and

direction of change (Castells, 2000: 6-8; Dill & Sporn, 1995: 218-219; Gibbons, 1998a: 16, 44-45).

While historically adaptive to change through its bureaucratic designs, HE is now compelled to

embrace not only contingency models, but also organizational features that defy ‘structure’; i.e.

network features in which differentiation and complexities are integrated into multiple ‘flattened’

locations, in which “assets, knowledge competence, shared values, common standards “ (Dill &

Sporn, 1995: 218), become some of the features and processes distributed among the essential and

supportive units throughout the institution. Networked formation thus enhances adaptation to the

rapidity and complexity with which competitive knowledge and information are communicated. In

short, organizational character defines the magnitude of change, the latter being a significant factor

422

of relevance, in which HE ‘relevance’ has also been impacted upon by demands and influences of

globalization.

6.5.1 Higher education curriculum development in the context of institutional differentiation

The South African context, for purposes of this study and the ensuing discussion, serves as the

fundamental point of reference. The Education White Paper 3 (DoE, 1997c), the National Plan for

Higher Education (DoE, 2001), and the National Working Group Report (2002) are some of the

policy documents laying the groundwork for the reconfiguration (in respect of. size and shape) of

the HE system in the country, in order that the HE system demonstrates competitive parity with the

rest of the world; while also addressing among others, “… the equity imperative” (DoE, 2001: 35).

Jansen (2002b: 159) refers to this dual approach as “… the twin logics” of integrating the HE system

into the technology-driven informational era while addressing past inequities through state

intervention. It is worth noting that political decision-making and legal frameworks have had to be

applied in order to effect the HE reconfiguration process. It is a moot point that some institutions

actually attempted some legal means to block these mergers from affecting them. Does this mean

that South African HEIs are both unwilling and incapable of reforming themselves voluntarily?

Whereas international trends appear to be driven by financial and economic imperatives to adopt

mergers, the process in South Africa has had to be politically directed from outside the university.

Jansen (2002b: vi, 3) illuminates that while organizational systems theory does not adequately

explain why mergers take place, it is in the macro-political domain (as opposed to the micro-

institutional politics) where plausible explanations for this trend could be located.

The National Plan for Higher Education identifies institutional missions and programmatic

differentiation as determinants of “… the fitness of purpose” (DoE, 2001: 47) of HEIs to contribute

to the socio-economic development of the country in a systematized (rather than fragmented)

manner. It is important to note that diversity is more directed to the institutional level – facilitating

curriculum innovation and competitiveness through a mix of missions and programmes (curriculum

offerings). Institutional differentiation (achieved in this case through the merger processes) is

directed more to the systemic level; hence the notion of a single, co-coordinated, but differentiated

HE system. The merger process brought institutions together from either the same academic culture

(e.g. university and university), or from different cultures (e.g. university and technikon). These

resulted in the formation of institutional ‘types’ distinguishable in respect of their

strength(s)/niche(s) in either teaching, research or community service. This approach, of diversity

and differentiation, links with the notions of the “… deconstruction of the subject” (Bridges, 2000:

42) and the “… deconstruction of the university” (p. 44).

423

In the broader context of institutional transformation, the merging of HEIs is another opportunity to

reconceptualise and enhance curriculum offerings (DoE, 2004: 5). The ongoing engagement between

the University of Johannesburg (UJ) and the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (NMMU) on

programmes and qualifications structures for their respective comprehensive institutions is an

example of new programmatic opportunities occasioned by the mergers. Both institutions are the

products of the merger between a former technikon and a traditional contact university. Due to the

academically and intellectually disparate cultures of the erstwhile HE organizational forms, the new

institutional structures are jointly establishing mechanisms to articulate new programmes and

qualifications trajectories along the following guidelines (SANTED Project Business Plan, 2006: 8):

determining which programmes and/or qualifications should be retained;

determining curriculum offerings and/or qualifications that are to be re-designed;

determining which learning areas and/or qualifications needed to be completely

overhauled, and replaced by new ones;

examining which programmes and/or qualifications were to be consolidated;

establishing which programmes and/or qualifications were to be completely discontinued;

and

articulating a programme qualifications structure or mix between and within fields of

study or learning areas.

6.6 THE POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION CURRICULUM

POLICY DEVELOPMENT“Behind all knowledge (savoir), behind all attainment of knowledge (connaissance) [author’s parentheses], what

is involved is a struggle for power. Political power is not absent from knowledge, it is woven together with it

[italics mine]” (Foucault in Lansink, 2004: 132).

The South African higher education context in general is inextricably linked to the country’s past

apartheid system (CHE, 2000b: 9, 13; Do E, 1997c: 11; Kgaphola, 1999: 44), as well as to the

present democratic order (Babbie & Mouton, 2001: 536; Jansen, 2002: 159). Consequently, and

unlike most of the developed world (where higher education curriculum is already a fundamental

and progressive point of reference in addressing profound socio-economic priorities and concerns),

HE curriculum development in South Africa is at the nascent stages of international competitiveness.

Therefore, the process of higher education reform is observed as being politically driven to become

catalytic in addressing concerns about the total restructuring of society. To this extent, official DoE

policy documents have inevitably become catalysts in developing the principles of equity, access,

424

and redress as mechanisms for reversing the vestiges of apartheid education in general. The legacy

of apartheid education then, becomes the point of departure manifested in two spheres; namely, the

sphere of HE curriculum as a research enterprise, as well as the post-apartheid restructuring

framework orchestrated largely in the political arena. This latter statement forms the dialectic

premise upon which these observations were made.

6.6.1 The sphere of ‘curriculum correctness’ in the context of ‘political correctness’

Why is this specific finding sine qua non to the study? The ‘answer’ derives from the well-

documented observation that the political realm had been optimally instrumentalised in the

perpetuation of apartheid ideology as a frame of reference for racist education policies. To that

extent, the present political-democratic order is viewed as having ‘inherited’ an educational burden

whose skewed, fragmentary, and duplicatory characteristics have had to be addressed through a

multiplicity of enabling instruments. The latter involved a combination of legal means (advocated

by the state, but enforceable judicially, such as the Higher Education Act (1997) and other related

laws) and educational policy-driven initiatives (such as the Education White Paper 3, 1997); all of

which collaborated as frameworks and determinants of systemic HE reform, as well as institutional

curriculum “correctness” or appropriateness to the objectives of transformation in general.

Curriculum “correctness” per se, is then viewed here as, among others, the extent to which any given

field of study relates to (rather than conforms to, as this would place that particular field of study in

an ideological terrain) both the academic values and the kind of society that is expected to be

through HE-derived knowledge. In the South African context, the organizational and curriculum

transformation of the HE ‘ecology’ (i.e. local institutional “micro-politics”) has had to be shaped and

influenced by external “macro-politics” manifested by direct (e.g. relevant law-making) or indirect

(e.g. linking course/subject “fitness of purpose” to funding) state intervention (Jansen, 2002b: vi, 3).

That is to say, curriculum “correctness” or its “fitness of purpose” (DoE, 2001: 47) – determined

through programmatic differentiation entailed in institutional missions – has largely been an external

political factor, rather than an internal academic/intellectual function. Does this then imply that

curriculum “correctness” is an entirely politically determined factor? Given the fact that HE is a

multiple service organization, is it to be concluded that HE is incapable of reforming itself from

within? In the myriad of interests expected to be fulfilled by multiple stakeholders, are the interests

of other sectors sacrificed for political expediency? Illuminating more on the fundamental tenets of

the curriculum correctness debate – whether HE curriculum in particular, should concern itself

with the narrow or the broader domains of knowledge – Duderstadt (2000b: 216) states that:

425

“Universities are [being] assailed from the right and left by radical traditionalists and by radical radicals about

curriculum reform. Some would confine our curriculum to a fixed and narrow set of “great books” that represent

the great traditions of western civilization. Others would discount any work by “DWEMs” – dead white European

males. Is it wrong to adapt our teaching a broader range of experience and expression from across time and

around the world? [my emphasis] Clearly, we must prepare our students to live in a world in which the majority

of people come from very different backgrounds and beliefs”.

A very serious problem arising from the above (albeit its precise analysis of curriculum

“correctness”), is whether curriculum “correctness” is synonymous with intellectual or

epistemological “correctness”? (Would we then, in the interests of “reconciliation”, have a “rainbow

curriculum” in South Africa? Would there be different sets of academic standards to accommodate

the victims and the benefactors of apartheid education in an equitable manner?) In the view of this

study, curriculum “correctness” is associated with the organization of knowledge in any particular

field of study such that it (the knowledge) responds to (acts in accordance with) the needs,

aspirations, and actual socio-economic status and conditions of HE’s vital constituency, its students.

Intellectual or epistemological “correctness” is problematic in that it has generally been associated

with the collation of science, knowledge, rationality, etc., as being cognately a derivative of only

western civilization. By implication then, other ways of “knowing” and enquiry are automatically

ascribed inferior scientific and intellectual value. Based on the problem of curriculum “correctness”,

a further concern arises: Given that curriculum models, such as the NQF requires, make non-

compliance financially unproductive for HEIs, are institutions of higher learning – particularly in the

still-fragile new dispensation – able to desist from being the intellectual/epistemological organs of

their political benefactors and thus compromise their academic freedoms and institutional autonomy

(if any)?

Political “correctness” is an ideological stance from which “… assaults on the ethos of the

academy” (Duderstadt, 2000b: 212) have been launched over centuries. This term signifies “... an

effort to impose a new brand of orthodoxy on our [HE’s] teaching, our scholarship, and even our

speech” (p. 2l2). While the academy does not need to differ with the ruling elite just for argument’s

sake, adopting ‘neutral’ or indifferent positions – especially on controversial matters – would not

augur well for its ethos as enshrined in academic freedom of expression and enquiry; as well as in

institutional autonomy (self-government). An environment of political intolerance has given rise to a

situation where “[p]roponents of politically correct views have taken strongly ideological stances

and in some cases have attempted to constrain or eliminate entirely the expression of opposing

viewpoints [my emphasis]” (Duderstadt, 2000b: 214). The South African scenario offers an

interesting view in which the academy appears to exhibit some degree of acquiescence to the

426

present political order. Most interestingly, even those academics and intellectuals who were very

vocal against apartheid education in particular, have suddenly found it unnecessary or even

irrelevant to vent that selfsame ire against the educational ‘misdemeanors’ of the present ruling elite.

Discussion on both curriculum and political “correctness” is not inappropriate here. In a country

with a fledgling democracy as ours, HE as a social institution, and therefore defender and protector

of democratic values – including the right to free intellectual enquiry and expression – is looked at

for providing leadership in the event that these values are undermined. This leadership demands

vigorous execution especially when aberrant and controversial educational policies are designed and

adopted to foster acquiescence to political correctness. It is also in the sphere of curriculum

development that conformism to a particular political cause may overtly or covertly be implemented.

A culture of vigorous and vibrant intellectual enquiry is therefore an absolute necessity, and it is

within the domain of such a culture that HE’s vigilance against both curriculum and political

“correctness’ is to be exercised. The apparent intellectual stasis that has paradoxically emerged after

1994 is a cause for serious concern (Seepe, 2004c: 25-27). Remarking on this state of affairs (of

intellectual stasis), the above author states:

“Interestingly, the greatest discomfort [to criticism of the present ruling class] has come from those that boast

struggle credentials. This is to be expected since my [author’s] commentary points to their intellectual deficiency

and lack of integrity. It exposes their collusion in the idiocy and madness of the ruling elite. These concerned

individuals were brave enough to stand against the lunacy of the racist regime but are unwilling to do the same in

the new dispensation. In the not-so-distant past, these individuals were quick to extol the characteristics and

virtues of intellectual life ... They embodied the critical function of speaking truth to power. Both the material

comforts and social privileges they now enjoy have successfully tampered with and replaced this reading of

intellectual life … They have expressed their disquiet in the privacy of their offices. They have preferred the most

cowardly form of armchair engagement. In those areas where any form of engagement could be discerned, it has

been limited to either singing praises to the powers that be, or tackling only issues acceptable to them – issues

unlikely to incur the ire of the ruling elite. Understandably, the ruling elite has been quick to reward these

individuals by calling them the country’s only true intellectuals. What is most strange in South Africa is that it is

the politicians, a majority of whom have dubious educational and/or intellectual standing, if any, who have

usurped the role of identifying and defining what constitutes an intellectual life. Accordingly, praise singing is

paraded as an intellectual activity worth emulation [italics my own emphasis]” (Seepe, 2004: 25-26).

Intellectual and academic decisions would be more acceptable if local academics themselves (as the

“foot soldiers” of curriculum implementation) are consulted and involved in policy matters,

especially in the “minefield” of higher education matters. Diversity, the anti-thesis to imposed

orthodoxy, offers a lot of opportunities not only for curriculum innovation, but citizenship to the

427

global village as well. Consciousness of “other” perspectives is offered; sensitivity to “other”

languages, cultures, genders, religions, etc. present a window of understanding for multiculturalism

and pluralism. One of the criticisms directed at “correctness” is that it imposes a speech code that is

based on “… sententious self-righteousness … [inducing] language policing” (Duderstadt, 2000b:

214). The HE policy determination environment is unequivocally prone to political conformism,

albeit in varying degrees of overtness or covertness. It is imperative for the university as knowledge

custodian, to diverse forms of knowledge, to ensure that it is not manipulated for the material gain of

few at the expense of “the public good”. Critical attention is most desirable in paying attention to

firstly who determines what political and curricular “correctness” is; and secondly, how are the

‘ground rules’ of “correctness” determined? The point of departure would be for academics and

intellectuals to be utterly conscious of the ‘territorial wars’ involved in the (ideological?) articulation

of social needs. For organic intellectuals (sometimes acting as academic activists), life is both

solitary and turbulent (Karabel, 1996: Said, 1994: 24). The territory of ‘political correctness’ and

‘curriculum correctness’ is fraught with vested interests, and power/control dynamics. For the

current SA context in particular, how any particular course could be charted, is best left to an

individual decision. (Welsh & Savage (1977) have earlier indicated the traditional modes of

‘behaviour’ by liberal, conservative, and ‘leftist’ academics and intellectuals).

6.6.2 The nascent field of South African higher education curriculum reform

Outside of politically-laden and ideologically-framed discourse, especially prior to April 1994, “…

little has been written specifically [my emphasis] on higher education curricula [in South

Africa]” (Ensor, 2002: 272). The struggle for democracy tended to shape the intellectual culture

(Bawa & Mouton, 2002: 296), which itself exhibited the racial undertones then prevalent in the

larger society. Prevailing HE institutional cultures subsumed the vigour and resourcefulness with

which HE curriculum research needed to be pursued. The untenable, yet vigorously pursued link

between education in general, and HE in particular, was exemplified in the erstwhile government’s

insistence on the notion of higher education being the ‘legal entity’ (creature) of the state (Bunting,

2002: 61); and as such, higher education was in toto designed to serve the political machinations of

the state. Historically white institutions (HWIs) had been polarized in respect of either their support

of or opposition to, the apartheid state (Cooper & Subotzky, 2001: 7). The Afrikaans-medium higher

education institutions – speaking “… the language of government” (Bunting, 2002: 65) – supported

the state and expended their intellectual capacity (for justification of separatist curriculum, resulting

in an unequal quality of education between blacks and whites), and research enterprise (for

circumventing the effects of sanction, resulting in economic and military ‘kragdadigheid’ for the

428

state); all of which severely hampered the country’s academic and intellectual prosperity, when

compared with that of the free world.

It is argued here that, in attempting to rectify past injustices stemming from the ‘higher education as

a creature of state’ doctrine, the present reform initiatives are steeped in “… processes of policy

borrowing in education” (Phillips & Ochs, 2000: 451); according to which local (HE) policy – or

some aspects of it – are modeled according to ‘foreign’ tried-and-tested policies. (An affirmation of

Makgoba’s (1996) contention (appearing in section 6.2, p. 427 in this study) of HEIs in South Africa

becoming “copycats” of Western universities’ intellectual and epistemological cultures?) Examples

of countries whose curriculum policy modeling framework(s) have been ‘borrowed’ include OECD

(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries, New Zealand and Australia –

for Outcomes-Based Education; the USA – for lifelong learning; and the UK – for a credit

accumulation architecture.

Philips’ and Ochs’ (2000) “policy borrowing” proposition involves four phases. The first is referred

to as the “… cross-national attraction phase” (Phillips & Ochs, 2000: 452). An “attraction” between

the “borrower” and “borrowing” country exists when a “… systemic collapse … [or] … inadequacy

of some aspect of education provision” (p. 452), becomes the “impulse”/precondition for borrowing.

In the SA context, a “systemic collapse” of the (HE) system was occasioned by structural and

conjunctural deficiencies inherited from the past (CHE, 2000b); thus creating conditions for expert

knowledge to be sought, especially by the post-1994 Education Ministry from tried-and-tested

models abroad.

Secondly, the degree of decision-making among all relevant stakeholders will determine whether or

not the ‘imported’ curriculum model(s) will be accepted or rejected. One of the factors determining

the outcome of the decision is the cost of implementation (Phillips & Ochs, 2000: 453).

Thirdly, compatibility/adaptation to local conditions has to apply. The degree of adaptation will

depend on a large number of contextual factors; for example, approach to vocational education will

need to be adapted to trade unions and industry regulations if in-company experience for students is

involved; or new textbooks will have to be written to cover curricular innovations (p. 456). A

wholesale importation of curriculum policies and innovations under the misguided belief that SA is a

First World country (with ‘pockets’ of underdevelopment), and failure to recognize local conditions

(or ignoring these when recognized); this is a probable recipe for failure and accentuates tensions

between policy development and policy implementation (Teichler, 2000: 4). A lack of a coherent

429

curriculum adaptation strategy, ipso facto, a carefully calibrated global-local balance, yielded for

instance, the catastrophe experienced with the Ministry of Education’s implementation of

Curriculum 2005, which clearly showed that inadequate preparations had been made for learners,

teachers, and the teacher trainers themselves (see also Jansen, 1999).

430

Lastly, the internalization/indigenization phase has to occur. This is considered the most significant

aspect, when parts of the borrowed policy constitute the essential base of the borrower country’s

system of education (Phillips & Ochs, 2000: 453). Whereas compatibility/adaptation is focused

specifically at the different levels of the education system, internalization/indigenization involves

other factors such as the cultural dynamics of the borrowing country. The impact of internalization

on pre-existing (before the borrowing) conditions is observed in accordance with ‘cultural

relativism’ or the ‘national character’ – according to which the borrowed models or policies and

their compatibility with local culture (and not vice versa) is observed. This stage (of “policy

borrowing”) raises further questions as to the compatibility – or lack thereof – of epistemological

and philosophical considerations/principles as points of reference for knowledge/curriculum. Closely

related to the cultural compatibility of borrowed educational policy, is the extent to which “the

absorption of external features” (p. 456) has affected curriculum/knowledge content, methods of

assessment and teaching, and organizational/ institutional character. Linked to this is the almost

aphoristic observation that Africanisation (construed here as an academic construct, rather than a

political wherewithal of indigenization), has been devalued in the interests of more ‘superior’ and

scientific Eurocentric curriculum policy models. Synthesizing borrowed policy and its practice

affords the simultaneous application of different strategies for different educational needs, but is still

ineffectual.

TABLE 6.1: A “policy-borrowing” approach to curriculum development

1. Cross-national attraction: Political and economic change necessitating balance

between international competitiveness and local compatibility of curriculum.

Articulation of philosophical, educational, ideological, and epistemological aims

becomes a priority.

2. Decision-making: Practical measures taken by government and other stakeholders

to actualize the curriculum reform process. The merging of HEIs is a case in point.

3. Compatibility: Borrowed curriculum models to be subjected to local educational

conditions. This step would help prevent problems such as those prevailing with the

launch of Curriculum 2005. This would minimize the wastage of human, physical and

fiscal resources. For instance, imported vocational education might need to be

implemented in tandem with relevant trade union and labour laws insofar as

experiential learning is concerned.

431

4. Internalization: Closely relating to Step 1 above, internalization is the most

important step. The curriculum has to reflect the national character/“cultural

relativism”. The content of knowledge to be assessed according to the cultural

dynamics as well.Source: Researcher’s adaptation of Phillips & Ochs (2000: 452) and Muller (2007: 25-29).

The policy borrowing model is aptly suited for the South African situation as current curriculum

policies are virtually a replication or semblance of those already applied in various parts of the

world, particularly by the developed nations (Phillips & Ochs, 2000: 452).

To the extent that the transformation of the HE landscape has been linked to the total and

fundamental transformation (trans-formation?) of society at large, tensions have been rife regarding

the principles on which such policies were to be founded. It has been noted also that these policy

tensions represent different social movements, economic interests, political ideologies, as well as

various intellectual and academic dispositions and influences (Eckel, 2001: 3; Jansen, 2001a: 12;

Subotzky, 2000: 107). The preponderance of “the landscape of policy reviews” (Jansen, 2001a: 12),

became an unprecedented effort in laying claims to the post-1994 educational stakes. The plethora of

participants (and quasi-participants) in this race for “policy position” (Jansen, 2001a: 13),

necessitates that the implications for higher education curriculum policy be noted, rather than

focusing on a discourse that is cognate to their racial origins. The latter clouds (rather than clarifies)

the salient, nay, sacrosanct matter of curriculum reform/transformation. Paradoxically, “… much of

the influences that contributed in shaping the policy field have come from outside higher education,

from the macro economic arena, global and market forces, and broader ideological and discursive

contestation [my emphasis]” (Fataar, 2003:3 2). This serves to confirm the earlier observation that

higher education has for so long been under the clamp of the ‘creatures of the state’ doctrine, to the

detriment of vibrant and progressive HE curriculum policy development. The ‘external’ policy

discourse resulted in a political context that militated against radical higher education policy

transformation. Fataar (p. 32) succinctly states:

“The transition to a negotiated political settlement circumscribed the ability of the government to give effect to an

equity-driven policy agenda. Contrary to popular perception, the negotiated settlement facilitated the

displacement of radical transformation objectives by a narrow reform orientation [my emphasis]. The

negotiations process established broadly favourable political conditions for the development of a capitalist system

unfettered by race and apartheid legislation. Thus, the political character of the settlement impacted negatively on

432

the ability of the government to give effect to a viable agenda of transformation in education, and arguably in

other sites of public provision”.

The state’s interventionist role has therefore been a compromised one of navigating and articulating

the difficult and sometimes contradictory path between ‘equity’ and ‘development (De Clercq,

1997b: 153, 156; Soudien et al., 2001: 78). For HE curriculum, the ‘equity’ proposition attempts to

reverse the fragmentation caused by the erstwhile system of racially differentiated education

provision (De Clercq, 1997b: 155, 156), and is more people-based than economy-centred. ‘Equity’

has been translated as increasing broad HE access and expanding programme offerings (Cloete &

Muller, 1998: 1).

Two variants of access are applicable here (Akoojee, 2002: 2): “Access as participation” relates to

numerical growth by including students from previously marginalized groups and backgrounds;

“access with success” involves the programmatic participation by the expanded student

community and ensuring that their ‘exit velocity’ is not hampered (p. 2). Individual and

institutional redress, therefore, while facilitating access, are noted here as microcosmic compared

to the range of curriculum reforms in the global economy. The ‘growth’/ ‘development’

proposition, on the other hand, is influenced by the labour-economy imperatives (De Clercq,

1997b: 153,154; Fataar, 2003: 33), impacting on higher education curriculum to focus on the high-

skills requirements in the new (post-Fordist) flexible organization of work – invariably referred to

as “flexi-spec” for “flexible specialization” (Kraak, 1997; Muller, 2000). Responsive HE

curriculum is seen as the link to economic competitiveness. The outcome of such curriculum

organization is steered towards mission and programmatic differentiation, taking into account that

the gradual indistinction between cognitive and technological knowledge diminishes a

homogenous curriculum (DoE, 1997c: 12-13).

6.7 SOME CRITICAL FINDINGS DERIVING FROM THE EMPIRICAL DATA

The ensuing overview is an articulation of thematically-resonant curriculum-related findings in

accordance with the sub-headings stated below. It is absolutely imperative that this section be

accorded particular mentioning; it forms part of the judgmentally-acquired evidence upon which a

‘case’ is built either in supporting, or opposing claims prevalent in the problem being investigated;

viz, the extent of South African higher education policy reform (in respect of its pace and direction)

in meeting the socio-economically structured reconstructive and developmental needs of society in a

newly democratized society.

433

6.7.1 Some issues arising from discrepant notions of a “comprehensive” university

There seems to be no “universal” agreement on the “comprehensiveness” of a university. In the local

context, it denotes the fusion of two epistemologically different education types (academic and

vocational) into a single institutional and curriculum stream (Young, 2004:2 6-27); while in the US

for instance, this denotes HEIs that combine teaching and research at all levels and fields of study

(Duderstadt, 1999: 48). At Institution A, there was more agreement than at Institution B (a former

technikon). It is imperative to mention that epistemological/curriculum “type” is not the only

determining factor of “comprehensiveness”; the separation or combination of the teaching and/or

research functions is another crucial determinant (Dowling & Seepe, 2004: 192; Gibbons, 1998b:

15). The issue of a description of “comprehensiveness” is therefore not confined to

organizational/institutional “type” only; it also relates to “type” of knowledge/curriculum (academic

and/or vocational), and level (undergraduate/postgraduate) at which that knowledge is offered.

“Type” of student also warrants inclusion in this category of “comprehensiveness”, most notably

because

“[a]cross most higher education systems mainstream undergraduate education and postgraduate training have

become comparatively less important, as other activities such as part-time study and the continuing education of

mature professionals become more important … The total mission of higher education has become fuzzier and

more diverse, more difficult to define and defend [my emphasis]” (Gibbons, 1998b: 14).

6.7.2 ‘Signals’ from the actual application/non-application of ‘non-traditional’ curriculum

models

Innovative curriculum design, depicted in the response to the whole of Q 2.9, problematises the

whole question of HE curriculum reform. Is it mere rhetoric to reform and a programme marketing

strategy for student numbers, or merely complied with as an NQF requirement and a funding

imperative? The most salient aspect and mention worthiness of the collective responses in this

question is that, these are the responses on whose basis “judgement” is made as to whether or not the

direction and pace of institutional curriculum reform is mere rhetoric; an involuntarily undertaken

initiative only for self-preservation purposes; or genuine and sustainable commitment to the project

of curriculum reform. It is encouraging that both Institutions A & B have indicated a 100% majority

response for SAQA registration of courses, an exercise whose main purpose is to “... specify the

requirements that must be met for any particular proposed set of [critical cross-field] learning

outcomes of a programme to be accepted as a qualification...” (CHE, 2002: 24).

Paradoxically, both the university and the former technikon respectively indicated 81% and 80%

majority responses to compliance with NQF requirements. Why is it not the same 100% as reported

434

for SAQA registration of courses? Are SAQA and the NQF construed as pursuing variant

objectives? How could that be so, if “… SAQA was established ... to oversee the development and

implementation of the NQF [which itself] ... is essentially a quality assurance system in which the

development and registration of standards and qualifications is carried out ...”? (CHE, 2002: 23). Not

only is this an example of perennially contradictory responses, but a reflection of a trend – with the

respective degrees of application or non-application serving as ‘yardsticks’ for predictive purposes.

6.7.3 Conceptualisation and development of the curriculum

In respect of fulfilling its academic mission, Institution A’s curriculum models are based on

disciplinary epistemological ‘roots’; and for Institution B a predominantly vocational approach was

the norm. The implication here is that while an open intellectual culture characterises both

institutions, the university is still typically academic in its programme offerings. As mentioned

earlier in sub-section 6.5.1, the new institutional type faces an articulation challenge; in respect of

which the criteria (for programmes and qualifications re-structuring listed in that sub-section) have

to apply.

Whereas Institution A’s course content/knowledge organization is epistemologically directed

towards responsiveness, Institution B’s course content embraces diversity; the implication being that

different articulation trajectories were being followed for the curriculum’s mission. Both institutions

responses for Q 2.6 are consonant with those for Q 2.1. That is to say, a link could be established

between curriculum principles (as articulated in the institutional missions and their epistemological

base/rationale, in relation to institution ‘type’). Institution A’s responsiveness is defined by its

academic/disciplinary organization of knowledge; whereas Institution B’s horizontal articulation

(integration of academic and vocational knowledge) of knowledge defines both its institutional

mission and curriculum principles. The programme articulation architecture of the new

comprehensive university has to determine whether or not new programmes are introduced, which

old ones (if any) are to be discarded, and which ones are to be retained.

It is most significant that in their curriculum design, both institutions recognise compliance with

NQF requirements. However, this contradicts the academic inclination of Institution A’s curriculum

(Q 2.1). NQF stipulations require, among others, that evidence of integration of skills training

should be part of the HE curriculum’s (measurable) learning outcomes (CHE 2002: 23, 112-113).

For Institution A, the development of the undergraduate curriculum embraces a dualistic character; a

focus on both general and market-oriented education, albeit academic and disciplinary in content. At

435

Institution B, its (one-dimensional) service provision to its clients/students and the private sector is

generally uninterrupted.

6.7.4 Implementation of the curriculum modes of delivery

As both learning and teaching technology, the Web is irregularly used during lecture time. Web-

based learning occurs at the behest of the student, at his/her own time. The implication drawn here is

that teacher-centric learning is still the dominant modus operandi of curriculum delivery. At

Institution A for instance, only 44% agree that computer-based and/or CD Rom learning materials

constitute a significant mode of curriculum delivery; while only 50% (the other 50% distributed

among various other responses) variously disagree that lecture notes and learner guides form a

significant range of learning materials. Web-based knowledge, for students’ self-study purposes,

serves a minimal role.

The trend that is being observed thus far is that of the Web as an extra-curricular learning technology

only resorted to at the learners’ own behest, for additional knowledge and to enhance the structuring

of their own learning experiences. Some topics are computer-based, and access to the Web by

students is only after normal teaching hours. Although no specific question makes reference to this

in the questionnaire, inference is made here that the textbook is still the dominant source of

information/knowledge. This inference is posited on the basis of particularly Interview A; wherein

the interviewee remarks that no single ‘prescribed’ textbook is relied on by the lecturers; students are

therefore encouraged to augment to lecture room knowledge by utilizing other sources of

knowledge after class. The fact that this interview also highlights the problem of teacher-centred

learning (and the continuous steps being taken by the Interviewee’s Department to remedy this

trend), indicates that innovative curriculum implementation is not yet a fully realizable goal. The

traditional paradigm of the classroom/lecture hall as primary curriculum site is yet to be subsumed

by the paradigm of ubiquitous and lifelong learning, in which curriculum implementation is not

confined and restricted by time and place.

6.7.5 Monitoring/Evaluation and assessment of curriculum content and learning

The monitoring of the curriculum’s efficacy is viewed from two perspectives – the students’ and the

curriculum itself. The students’ perspective is concerned with the quantitative ‘measuring’ of their

individual and collective performance at different periods of the academic term, and as evidenced by

their ‘knowledge’ of course content as reflected for instance in test, assignment, or examination

scores. The qualitative ‘measuring’ of the curriculum itself is concerned with the identification of

the extent to which the objectives of the curriculum (as set out in its planning and development) as

the instrument of fulfilling institutional missions, and as the product of HE’s service to its clientele,

436

have been met or not met. To that extent its measurement is not easily quantifiable. For instance, it

would be difficult to ‘measure’ HE’s responsiveness in numerical terms. It is therefore reasonable to

subject the curriculum’s efficacy in cyclic terms, which are not as frequent as those for students’

individual and collective performance. The assessment/monitoring of curriculum, as a means of

quality assurance, appears to be focused only on formally acquired and creditable knowledge whose

validation has been the sole prerogative of the particular HEI. Informally-acquired (experiential)

knowledge on the other hand, seems not to be a desirable feature of the curriculum (supported by

69% at Institution A, and 80% at Institution B). A possible reason for that, apart from HEIs

reluctance to credit experience-based knowledge), is largely due to the difficulty of implementing

and evaluating it (CHE, 2002: 104). It appears, once more, that traditional means of student

assessment and curriculum monitoring are still predominant.

6.7.5.1 Student assessment

The domain of postgraduate training is embraced by both institutions. This augurs well for the

human resources and skills development initiatives advocated in various policy documents by the

Ministry of Education. For the former technikon, that it has started offering doctoral programmes

supported by the NRF (National Research Foundation) is a gigantic step. However, and despite

contrary responses (e.g. Q 13), induction (professionalization?) into the academic disciplines forms

an integral part of admission into a doctoral field of study. Would it then be far-fetched that doctoral

studies are designed to perpetuate the professionalization of academic elites in society? Which is

why (from this study’s perspective) a comprehensive preliminary/candidacy examination is required

prior to admission; as supported by a 100% YES response at Institution A, and a 70% YES response

at Institution B. An assumption is made then that, while the undergraduate curriculum may be

general and/or market-oriented, its postgraduate variant is more profession focused – but retaining

writ large the disciplinarily cognate ethos.

With responses to Q 2.15 acting as a point of reference, indications are that computer-based

knowledge acquisition and application do not constitute a significant aspect of the student

assessment process. Whatever knowledge is obtained here is at the student’s own initiative. This is a

disconcerting state of affairs. When non-traditional HE providers are so immersed in the usage of the

Internet for instance, in communicating with their students and in providing on-line curriculum; it is

a stark realisation that corresponding measures are slow (if any) in including ICT as part of a course

of study, and not as a student’s optional choice. While it is reasonable that prior experiential learning

that has been informally acquired is difficult to ‘measure’, that this kind of learning is not accredited

in such overwhelming responses, reflects that adult learners (who bring to campus experiences that

437

are different from those of their younger counterparts), could be disadvantaged. Lifelong learning

would be more relevant for some (adults pursuing formal HE purely for academic interests) and not

for others (those whose mature ages confine them to pursue formal HE only for certificate purposes)

as their experience accumulated over the years now counts for very little.

A review of Q 2. l2’s responses suggest that the top eight options conform to the traditionally ‘tried

and tested’ methods of assignment. At Institution A for instance, written tests and written

examinations, with a 100% response, are the foremost assessment techniques. At Institution B,

written tests and continuous assessment are foremost, both with a 100% response; followed by class

presentations by students at 90%, while written examinations are at a median 60%. After written

tests and examinations at Institution A, continuous assessment and assignments are next, both at

94%. Of particular interest is that none of the reference-based techniques (criterion-referenced,

norm-referenced, or self-referenced) has made it to the top eight spot (of the 16 assessment

options). The traditionally ‘tried and tested’ assessment techniques tend to focus on

cognitive/critical thinking, ergo, knowledge of subject/knowledge ‘content’. Other skills (such as

‘social’ ones tended to be overlooked (CHE, 2002: 112-113). The reference-based methods are

holistic, complementary, and they are the current trend in assessment theory (p. 113). That these

three options do not seriously constitute a significant aspect of assessing student performance,

counts as an ‘indictment’; at least in the view of this study. As such, this forms the basis against

which the study posits that the direction of reform becomes illusive, nay, inconsistent with the

‘wave upon wave’ of developments occurring outside of traditional HE. The gist of student

assessment practices should be in tandem with the perspective that:

“... new trends in higher education demand that generic and applied competencies as well as traditional

knowledge bases [should be] assessed ... Clearly, conventional ways of assessing students, such as the unseen

three-hour exam, are no longer adequate to meet these demands. The testing again and again of the same

restricted range of skills and abilities can no longer be justified; instead of simply writing about performance,

students should be required to perform in authentic or simulated real-world contexts. This demands innovative

approaches and methods, which ensure that all learning outcomes are in fact assessed, and that assessments add

value to student learning [italics my own emphasis]”(CHE, 2002: 112).

6.7.5.2 Curriculum monitoring/evaluation

At institution A, faculty-/department-based committees are tasked with the development and

implementation of curriculum. While this may be a curriculum management function, it relates to the

curriculum’s quality assurance mechanism as well. At Institution B, for instance, the same

committees are tasked with the evaluation and revision of the curriculum every two years. This was

438

more clearly articulated in Interview B, than in the questionnaire itself. At the pedagogic (instruction

delivery) level, curriculum innovation (as opposed to ‘renovation’) per se is an (assumed?) function

of the Curriculum Committees, with the collective involvement of the lecturers/academic staff.

Curriculum management (as well as its monitoring) has been observed here as a highly contestable

arena. This contestation premises on the ‘ownership’ of the curriculum between internal and

external managerial and policy stakeholders, particularly the private sector stakeholders. This is

most surprising when viewed against the notion of strengthening HE-industry links and preparing

HE graduates for the world of work. It is the expressed view here that if employers knew what was

taught, they could make input as to which aspects, particularly the skills domain, needed to be

remedied in the HE curriculum. At any rate, accountability and transparency would have been

better served.

While the registration of courses with SAQA is generally complied with, it is the responses to both

Q 2.11 (a) and Q 2.11 (b) which articulate and accentuate the contestable aspect of the management

and ‘ownership’ of the HE curriculum. ‘Outsiders’ are perceived as intruding and as being both

academically and intellectually ‘incompetent’ to evaluate the HE curriculum. Firstly, there is no

agreement on the integration of skills and critical thinking (education and training). At Institution A

for instance, there a majority 44% agreement that ‘education’ and ‘training’ should be treated as

separate education ‘types’. Ipso facto, the academic function of knowledge/curriculum is preferred

over the vocational (skills enhancement) function. The respondents at Institution A indicated (by a

62% majority response to Q 2.11 (b)) that they do not regard ‘outside’ trainers and practitioners as

best suited for the evaluation of skills and competencies required for the world of work. This

categorically outlines the disdain with which external ‘interference’ is treated, notwithstanding calls

for more accountability and transparency. On the other hand, Institution B’s response for Q 2.1 1 (a)

illustrates that 60% of the respondents disagree with the notion of separation. As opposed to

Institution A, they support the integration of ‘education’/academic and ‘training’/vocationalisation.

At the same time, the former technikon (with 60% for Q2.ll (b)) was not averse to the involvement

of ‘outsiders’ in the evaluation of work-compliant skills and competencies. This lack of fear on the

part of the former technikon could be attributable to the closer links this sector has with industry, as

evinced in the co-operative and experiential learning schemes (CHE, 2002).

6.8 AFRICANISATION: A TRILOGY OF PROPOSED MODELS

From the viewpoint of this study in general, and this chapter in particular, the contribution and

significance sphere derives from the combined elements of various (sub) sections of Chapter 1 –

such as the Background (section 1.2), the Rationale (section 1.3); the Problem Statement (section

439

1.4), and the Objectives (section 1.5). Most importantly, and linked to the Problem Statement, it is

section 3.6 (Issues in local HE transformation) of Chapter 3 that has had a more profound effect in

shaping the epistemological/philosophical sense and direction of where the study is headed for in

both its narrower/scientific and broader (socio-economic) aspects. This study renders its significance

and contribution to “the body of scholarship” (Mouton, 2001) on Africanisation as both an

epistemological and intellectual/ideological orientation with culturally- and historically-relevant

meaning for the milieu in which the post-1994 HE ecology has been shaped and defined. In

addition, a trilogy of HE curriculum-oriented models has been conceptualised as both a visual and

‘tangible’ instrument for the meaningfulness of particularly Objective (d) of the study as articulated

in Chapter 1.

It is maintained here that Africanisation as a form of curriculum orientation is not peripheral to the

nature of and processes of change in HE knowledge construction; that is, the place of Africanisation

in the HE curriculum is located within the premises of the broader changes occurring in society.

How the pace and direction of these changes are perceived, is the subject of inordinate debates. The

study’s contribution then, argues for the incorporation (and not the complete removal or

abandonment of some Eurocentric epistemic values, such as cognition as an integral part of the

process of ‘knowing’) of an African identity as part of the so-called mainstream curriculum of

higher education, which is itself a terrain fiercely contested by multiple interest groups in society

(Donn, 1997: 191). Adedeji (1998: 64) highlights the strategic salience of HE and its relationship to

the broader development of society:

“Indeed, in the increasingly competitive global economy, education holds the key to the capacity of countries to

face the next millennium and substantially improve both the standard of living and the quality of life of their

people. There is no way in which a country can transform its political economy and society without first

transforming its schools and its universities. No one now disputes the fact that education is a critical ingredient

in the transformational process [bold italics mine]”.

In their broader contexts, both HE curriculum “reform” and “transformation” have generated discord

and controversy among a motley of scholars, academics and analysts of various intellectual,

ideological, socio-economic and political-cultural inclinations (Breier, 2001: 9). Despite the lexical

and ideological contestations regarding the nature/course of change, addressing the specific

elements of the HE curriculum that are to be “reformed” or “transformed” has also become

problematic. Lansink (2004: 2l) illuminates on these concerns in more perspective:

440

“Until now, transformation of higher education in South Africa has predominantly been concerned with issues of

form, reconfiguring the landscape of institutions, and little with the content of knowledge production. Relatively

few critical questions have been asked about the curriculum and the production of knowledge ... except for those

who have critically engaged the Eurocentric perspectives in South African education ... What is produced, in

whose interests and who benefits are relevant questions to be asked? [sic] The curriculum ... is the official register

of a society’s knowledge which is linked to the type of economy and the interests and culture of the dominant

class. It includes how knowledge is organised and what legitimate knowledge is. Then the question why does our

curriculum not reflect the culture, aspirations and interests of the African majority in this country becomes a

most poignant one. If values, assumptions, ideologies and interests are reflected in the bodies of knowledge,

shouldn’t the African values be reflected in our higher education? ... [k]nowledge, its sources, conceptual

framework, methodology and theories, are sites of contestation and should continuously be interrogated [italics

my own emphasis]”.

6.8.1 The support for Africanisation in the higher education curriculum

It has been observed from the empirical data that, in the broader scheme of curriculum relevance

and responsiveness to societal needs and demands, the collective response to Africanisation

connotes a view where ‘local’ is (mis)construed as synonymous only with ‘culture’ in the

anthropological sense. Such a perception and state of affairs negates and undermines the

philosophical and epistemological complexities of this phenomenon, of which IKS (Indigenous

Knowledge Systems) forms a part (Goduka, 1999: 28-30; Seepe, 2000: 58-60). The extant nature of

Africanisation as a concept spans both the pre- and post-merger life of HE development in South

Africa. The repeatedly mentioned support for Africanisation is indicative of the casual and lackluster

manner in which it has been treated by educational policymakers in general; thus perpetrating the

view that SA is an extension of Europe/America. Breier (2001b: 10-11) succinctly demonstrates the

disdain and condescension with which Africanisation has long been viewed: “In South Africa ...

NEPI tried to put the issue of Africanisation onto the curriculum agenda in 1992 but the theme was

practically non-existent in subsequent policy documents ... [bold italics mine]”. “Practically non-

existent” even in HE policy documents such as the Education White Paper 3, 1997, and legislative

instruments in the mould of the HE Act, 1997! Africanisation, like Euro-American knowledge

structures, elevates the supremacy of knowledge as reinforcing cultural identity; in much the same

way as Euro-American culture and identity are easily recognizable throughout the history and

civilization of the world:

“The type of knowledge disseminated could be called ‘white male knowledge’ because it either reflects the

cultural heritage of white males or serves mainly their interests. In Foucaultian terms, white knowledge,

connected to European ‘universal’ knowledge has become a ‘totalising discourse’ that has silenced and

marginalized indigenous or local knowledges. The vast majority of students in PSE [post secondary education],

441

who are in the humanities and social sciences, receive this white European cultural knowledge, which in most

cases contributes to alienation and separation. The problem is thus not only the colour of the knowledge

transmitters, but also the colour and gender bias of the knowledge” (NEPI, 1992: 6 in Breier, 2001b: 9).

The post-1994 HE landscape has been fraught with policy initiatives mostly steeped in planning,

governance, funding, and improving the quality assurance of the system (Dowling & Seepe, 2004:

185; Lansink, 2004: 2l). An analysis of the discourse on curriculum development indicates a

conspicuous intellectual “privatism”, a disengagement from debate on the real issues (Welsh &

Savage, 1977: 144) – such as those issues relating to epistemological equality/diversity as the basis

for determining what constitutes “knowledge” and its utilitarian value. In addition, mainstream

curriculum modes are more concerned with the material value of education, and preparing students

to become the “foot soldiers” of capitalism (Apple, 1990; Costello, 2001); thus perpetuating a neo-

liberal ideology (Deem, 2001: 7-10; Nekhwevha, 2000: 119; Scholte, 2000: 7, 9, 34-35). Dowling

and Seepe (2004: 185) concur that an ideological transformation has to precede the infrastructural

challenges (e.g. governance, funding, access) currently being addressed by HE policy planners. The

ideological challenge per se refers to “… the theoretical underpinnings of the idea of [an African]

university ... the ideological challenge ... lies at the heart of the transformation of higher education

institutions and, by implication, the transformation of the curriculum [italics mine]” (p. 186). An

ideological opacity on the part of HE policymakers is then the fundamental flaw in the context of the

pace and direction of reform/transformation currently taking place. Apple (1990: 2) avers that: “...

the structuring of knowledge and symbols in our educational institutions is intimately related to the

principles of social and cultural control in a society [italics mine]”. While current efforts in the

restructuring of the HE curriculum by government are remarkable (e.g. programme differentiation,

human resources improvement, equity, access and redress) it is the pace and direction of such

restructuring that is viewed as problematic in this study. The epistemological/ intellectual terrain of

the restructuring conforms to a trans-formation (adapting old paradigms to new ones), rather than a

transformation (change in form and substance) (Seepe & Lebakeng, 1998: 6-8).

Kgaphola (1999: vii) alludes that “... the absence of a firm statement on curriculum reform has

created a philosophical ambiguity in the [educational] system, and that this [absence] has

fundamentally undermined the spirit of the transformation initiative”. Both the pace and direction of

curriculum reform are therefore stifled by this “philosophical ambiguity” between equity/growth and

developmental imperatives. The latter are viewed in this study as still steeped in the hegemonic

mode of acquisition of capital at the expense of culture. Fundamental to this study’s viewpoint of

its own contribution is the question that has been asked by others before: “... are South African

higher education institutions merely in the new South Africa or are they of the new South

442

Africa?” (Kgaphola, 1999: 15).

In the broader and practical pedagogic domain, the study argues in support of the formal

introduction and integration of Africanisation in the HE curriculum forms of knowledge

construction. Criticism of Africanisation in the HE curriculum fails to differentiate between the

former nuance and Africanisation of the HE curriculum. The latter assumes a radical/revolutionary

mode of the ‘take over’ of the entire HE system, with undue consideration to those aspects of Euro-

American knowledge systems that have had meaningful contribution to the general wellbeing of

humanity. The former (Africanisation in the HE curriculum), on the other hand, presupposes

epistemological and intellectual diversity on the basis of equality. That is to say, Africanisation

should be incorporated into modes of knowledge production that are congruent with advancing

knowledge – from an African perspective, rather than perpetuating the age-old perspectives of

knowledge from the white male’s cultural viewpoint (Breier, 2001b). It is interesting that a point was

made under the literature review section that, (academic) knowledge production in SA appears to be

racially generated. Those areas of knowledge that buttress European cultural domination (and

portraying the Caucasian species of the human race as supremely endowed with inordinate ‘ways of

knowing’), tend to become a territory in which mainly white Africans become experts. On the other

hand, ‘topics’ that have an African cultural ‘flavour’ (e.g. Africanisation itself) have tended to

become the almost monopolistic preserve of mainly black Africans. Welsh and Savage (1977) are

particularly critical of the manner in which Africanisation is applied in some HE contexts. Subjects

with an African ‘flavour’ such as African languages, are offered in English as a medium of

instruction!

Lebakeng (2004) and other African scholars, decry the “epistemicide” committed to African modes

of “knowing” by eroding the African cultural domain from its epistemology – while at the same time

placing supreme importance to the currency of Euro-American culture as a sacrosanct requirement

for “knowingness”. This matter-of-fact truism is corroborated further by Armstrong (2003: 27):

“For many years, educators in this country [the USA] gave little thought to educational traditions and practices

originating outside of Europe and the United States. When they were mentioned at all, they often were treated

dismissively as “primitive”, “backward” or even “barbarian”. Such descriptions marginalized the influence of

alternative educational traditions [italics mine]”.

The very belittling adjectives ascribed to non-European and non-American ‘ways of knowing’,

characterise the climate under which the call for Africanisation is viewed with condescension – even

by some black Africans. The Africanisation ‘debate’ has necessitated that its proponents become

443

academic or intellectual ‘activists’ first, before venturing into the fray of ‘scholarship’. Welsh and

Savage (1977: 144-145) contend that the long-term academic effects of apartheid HE will still take

long to be eradicated. In this regard, it could be stated that, while the “struggle” for political

emancipation is construed as “over”; the struggle for the true liberation of the entire South African

HE ecology is one that has to be fundamentally addressed through policy objectives of, for instance,

equity, redress, and access – notwithstanding the isolation of Africanisation in the HE curriculum. A

lacuna of a vigorous and robust culture of intellectual engagement within and among HEIs is still

extant (Cloete & Bunting, 2000: 60; Jansen, 2004c: 101-102; Seepe, 2004a: 179). Such a state of

affairs is an indictment on apartheid HE policies, as well as the current ideologically aberrant policy

frameworks; local knowledge systems are undermined as socially and culturally relevant

components of the mainstream curriculum in its entirety. Is South African higher education presently

in a state of intellectual denial?

As being on the African continent, SA higher education institutions have to be identified as such.

The problem (arising from the colonial past and its consequent ICT revolution in which Western

knowledge systems have bestowed upon themselves scientific hegemony) surfaces when, due to

SA’s relatively advancing technological infrastructure, local HEIs are viewed as European

“copycats” (Makgoba 1996) in their methodological and conceptual orientation to solving African

problems (Breier, 2001b: 9). The fact that “Africa cannot move into the 21st century via the 19th

century” (Adedeji, 1998: 67), suggests that the gap between the HE systems of the industrialised

nations and those of the least industrialised is so huge that Africa has “... to leapfrog the 19th century

into the 21st” (p. 64). Therein lies the problem. The hegemonic role of Western knowledge systems

has cast a ‘self-denial’ syndrome characterised by a self-flagellation by erstwhile elitist HE systems

in Africa generally, and SA specifically. The re-introduction of the concept ‘African Renaissance’

makes it axiomatic for HE to in fact, take the lead in such a momentous enterprise. But with extant

racial predilections and ‘deviant’ institutional cultures, how are we to Africanise South African HE?

The ‘contest’ then is between those propounding for the integration of SA (the last colonial bastion)

into the African body politic, on the one hand; and those aspiring for SA to become an extension of

Europe in Africa – academically, intellectually, culturally, and otherwise; the latter view projecting

South Africa as a First World country with pockets of Third World under-development. For the

university in South Africa to fulfill its role in the African context, it should have a sense of

prioritisation of the issues and tasks waiting to be addressed (Adedeji, 1998: 68). Africanisation

then, implies the intellectual demystification that indigenous knowledge systems (patterns of

knowledge production, assimilation and diffusion) have had little, or insignificant contribution to the

development of humankind (Nekhwevha, 2000: 125).

444

6.8.2 Rationale and justification for the support of Africanisation in the higher education

curriculum

By supporting the notion of Africanisation in the HE curriculum, the study is also explicitly arguing

for the essentialisation of the local dimension of ‘ways of knowing’/knowledge production (Goduka,

1999: 26-28; Higgs, 2003: 40-43; Kraak, 1999: 1-3). In that specific context, the orientation is then

towards ‘lobalisation’; that is, the elevation of the local over the global. It is the view here that

‘glocalisation’ – the (undeclared) elevation of the global over the local – is a desirable stage in the

‘epistemological value chain/ competitiveness’, but should at this stage of SA’s ‘search’ for

epistemological and intellectual self-identity, be subsumed by local imperatives first. In citing OBE

as a point of reference for Eurocentric epistemologies, and further illustrating the (unintended?)

weaknesses in globalisation and its quest for dominance over the local, Nekhwevha (2000: 122)

argues:

“In the educational sphere the idea that that ‘globalisation’ is beyond reproach is reflected in the continued

dominance of Western epistemologies in our schools ... and universities. Hence it will be difficult, if not

impossible, for South Africans to transcend the Western value basis upon which OBE stands. Essentially the point

we are making here is that while on the surface the educational reconstruction discourse utilises an emancipatory

rhetoric … under the guise of efforts to globalize education, educational prescriptions from the ... IMF and the

World Bank (WB) have been uncritically incorporated into the new ‘reconstructed’ education programmes ... the

type of globalisation and/or hybridization advanced by these programmes is cultural imperialism at its best. In

addition to the global and neo-liberal origin of OBE, the mono-cultural aspect it serves to promote Western or

European culture at the expense of local African culture and language[s]”.

The following are therefore, the superstructural parameters on which Africanisation-lobalisation is

advocated and justified.

6.8.2.1 Democratic equalization

The democratisation of South African society after the 1994 elections opened ‘the doors of

learning’ to all citizens, including the majority that had been marginalised by the erstwhile apartheid

dispensation. Forms and ways of ‘knowing’ are no longer subjected to ‘gerrymandering’ of

knowledge along such nuances as ‘communist’ and/or ‘non-communist’ knowledge or thought.

Access to different forms of ‘knowing’ is no longer the preserve of a privileged section of society.

As being on the African continent, South African HE curriculum is most suited to reflecting and

advancing democratic participation in the reconstruction and development of society as a whole.

The right to learn, academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and freedom of expression are some of

the elements of the new culture of the purpose of existence in a democratic society. The Constitution

445

of the RSA (Act 108 of 1996) and the Higher Education Act (1997) become emblematic instruments

in this regard.

6.8.2.2 The promotion of multiculturalism

South African society – despite some vestiges of the past – is a multicultural ‘melting pot’ – hence

the “rainbow nation” adage. For this reason alone, and in order to enhance the ideas of a common

citizenship, unity in diversity, and reconciliation/tolerance; isomorphic and homogenous ways of

‘knowing’ (such as the perpetration of the supremacy of knowledge from a white male’s cultural

perspective, invariably referred to by others as DWEMS – the dead white European males, in

reference to the enduring Cartesian-Newtonian premises of rationality and other ‘classical’

epistemological norms, references, values and symbols) still promote cultural ‘superiority’ as well

(see Giddens, 1990). Knowledge of all the elements of the population’s diverse cultural backgrounds

and orientations (e.g. multilingualism) can only bring real freedom (not a phantom or mirage) to all

the country’s citizens. South African HE (as both a paradigm and an idea) is morally obliged to

contribute towards the development of nation-building (Cloete et al., 1999; Cloete & Bunting 2000).

By promoting the culture of “freedom” and “equality” as enshrined in the Constitution, the right to

learn from one’s own cultural context is definitely not an affront to the right to learn, lest that

interest, power, and control (in)advertently constitute the framework for ideological,

epistemological, and intellectual stratification. Cast in the latter mode, education is then viewed as

having a differential function – preparing elites and non-elites for discrepant and incongruent

material rewards (Costello, 2001; Henry et al., 2001).

6.8.2.3 Advancing the shift from elitism to mass universal higher education

Notwithstanding the rhetoric of “transformation”, the Western model of HE development is

construed here as inherently elitist. Programmatic differentiation is expressed at subject content

level, but the knowledge organization premise is deficient in the sociological/ethnographic

construction of knowledge (Giroux, 1999; Goodson, 1994, Young, 1998). Africanisation, the

scientific embodiment of African culture and self-identity, repudiates materialistic differentiation as

a “natural” social condition. Ipso facto, communalism/cooperative living is preferred and private

accumulation and self-aggrandizement at the expense of the poor is simultaneously denounced. In

that regard, knowledge constructed to advance both social and epistemological stratification is

inimical to opening access to anyone who qualifies for HE learning opportunities. Elitism is viewed

here as advancing the disenfranchisement of students from heterogeneous and ‘non-standard’ (read:

poor socio-economic) origins.

446

Secondly, developments in ICT, globalisation, knowledge explosion and massification have

profoundly impacted on the Euro-American foundations of the universalism of science (Lyotard,

1994), as manifested in the advent of Mode 2 knowledge construction of knowledge at multiple sites

even by ‘non-university’ teams of knowledge practitioners and knowledge workers. Consequently,

the university is no longer the exclusive site of knowledge production (Barnett, 1997; Gibbons,

1998b; Scott, 1997b, 1998). Ipso facto, the legitimacy crisis of HE manifested itself in the plethora

of vested and competing interests (e.g. ‘the triple helix’) that threatened the very constituency of

higher education, society and its increasing demands for higher education ‘services’ and

‘products’ (Scott, 1995: 155-156).

6.8.2.4 The cultural compatibility of standards

Standards in higher education, for instructional, assessment or any other form of curriculum-related

efficiency and quality assurance, have been defined and determined according to entirely Euro-

American value systems. Judgement of ability, competency, performativity and skills has been

determined according to benchmarks that alienate and dislocate the majority of students from their

culturally-cognate African systems of thought. That is construed here as the foundational

construction of an identity crisis among learners whose culture is the very essence of “being”. Seepe

(2000: 60-61) has argued the point in more stentonarian terms:

“Issues that emerge with alarming monotony whenever the concept of ‘Africanisation’ is raised, include African

culture(s) and standards. Tied to the former is its relevance to the learning and teaching of science and

mathematics. The latter is often brought to create an impression that there exists a distinction between the ill-

defined concept of internationally competitive standards and ‘African standards’. It is obvious that those who raise

such questions/issues above are oblivious or deliberately forgetful of how political and social interests are tied to

the scientific enterprise ... those who fund research determine the research agenda [my emphasis]”.

6.8.2.5 The promotion of epistemological diversity

The concept of Africanisation is the realistic embodiment of the affinity existing between African

knowledge, culture, and identity (Makgoba & Seepe, 2004: 17). In other words, the argument of the

indivisibility of knowledge is accorded real manifestation (Goduka, 1999: 26; Dos Santos &

Dobbelstein, 2007: 23-26; Miller, 2000: 6-7). Knowledge is in this sphere not ‘divided into some

form of (arbitrary?) scientific ‘stature’; where ‘scientific knowledge’ refers to those form and ‘ways

of knowing’ conforming to material standards, and ‘non-scientific’ (or ‘non-knowledge’) confined to

those forms and ‘ways of knowing’ defined according to some industrial-development standard.

Western ‘scientism’ relegates spirituality/environmentalism/Nature to the periphery of ‘relevant’

447

knowledge (Goduka, 1999). In contradistinction, Makgoba and Seepe (2004: 17) articulate this view

of the symbiotic affinity between knowledge, culture, and identity:

“In a country that is in the throes of reclaiming its African identity, the struggle and striving of the university must

be to define, engage and also to respond to societal challenges. Issues of identity are paramount if institutions are

to rise to the knowledge challenges of our times and to fulfil our social compact. In as much as most universities

in Africa are products of colonial history (this is a fact of space and time) [authors’ parentheses], it should not be

difficult to fashion universities that are different in character and are consistent with a changing political, social,

cultural and global scenario [my emphasis].

Africanisation in the HE curriculum, therefore, means the encapsulation of an African paradigm in

all spheres of HE missions: teaching, research, and community development (as opposed to:

community service, which is more occasional), relationships (collaboration) with other organizations

(private and public), both locally and internationally. Africanisation has no bearing on race, as

civilizations have been the product of cultural miscegenation and inter-racial exchanges of

knowledge. SA higher education’s cultural contribution is cast in doubt, to the extent that it has

ignored the environment (regional and continental) in which it is located (Kgaphola, 1999 178). The

scholarship and excellence that abounds locally is developed and located within the intellectual

context of Western nations and their higher education institutions:

“Our institutions are basically and primarily institutions of and for the benefit of the West. Largely copycat and

imitative in character, they tend primarily to reflect, reproduce and service a dominant western ethos which is

also partly class-based. The predisposition towards imitation rather than originality stems largely from the history

of discovery, annexations, imperialism and a romance with the motherland. Originality would promote a more

dedicatedly innovative approach to the contemporary challenges and promote independence [italics

mine]” (Kgaphola, 1999: 178).

Thus, the pursuit of innovative knowledge and excellence for African interests (notwithstanding the

globalization of higher education), should be sui generis to SA higher education — as a matter of

urgency; basking in the glory and luxury of time is the very essence by which our HEIs will soon be

viewed as the institutionalisation of the widening gap (epistemological stratification) between the

information/knowledge rich and their poor counterparts.

6.8.3 Model conceptualisation

The conceptualisation and presentation of the trilogy of models is premised on the viewpoint that

“[a] conceptual model broadly explains phenomena of interest, expresses assumptions, and reflects a

philosophical stance” (Burns & Grove, 1999: 18). Some remarks/points of departure regarding

448

certain assumptions of the models need mentioning. Firstly, the centripetal or internally-focused

premises of the proposed models relate to the epistemological domain of knowledge construction,

validation, and dissemination within the HE environment. Secondly, the conceptualisation of the

models is viewed as a means, rather than the end itself. For that reason, and taking cognizance of

‘the politics of knowledge’, the model is viewed as advancing the course of epistemological

diversity.

The perspective adopted here then, is one in which Africanisation plays a mediating/modulating role

between forces of conservatism (ergo, elitism and adaptation) and progressivism (ergo,

responsiveness and relevance to the pressing needs of society) regarding the purposes of HE

curriculum as the reflection of its (HE’s) shift towards the transformation of its knowledge base.

The mediating/modulating proposition of the models makes the following assumptions:

Africanisation is a means to an end, and does not lay any claim to epistemological

hegemony;

As a mediating factor between ‘curriculum correctness’ and ‘political correctness’, it is a

potential force for change in respect of relevance and responsiveness (as opposed to

“adaptation”) in SA higher education curriculum development; and

It informs on multi-dimensional (diverse) perspectives of culture, knowledge, and identity,

which is the reason for the ‘reciprocal’ direction of the arrows in the third model of the

trilogy.

449

TABLE 6.2: A trilogy of models of Africanisation in higher education

A: THE EXTERNAL/MACRO-ENVIRONMENT OF AFRICANISATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION CURRICULUM

The Ideological DomainSphere Transformation Orientation Reform Orientation

Political

Prioritisation of Ubuntu/African Humanism;

Democratic accountability;

Power/control in respect of collective interests.

Democratic individualism and privatism;

Power/control in respect of multiple minority interests;

Equity and redress.

Intellectual

Diversity as agent for critical thinking;

Legitimation of Afrocentric and local ideas;

Indigenisation & diversity in knowledge construction;

Essentialisation of knowledge as a product;

Engagement of societal role players.

Conformity to ‘mainstream’ ideas;

Perpetration of Eurocentric scientific universalism;

Canonisation of disciplines;

Essentialisation of knowledge as a process;

Privatisation of knowledge.

Cultural

Gender, multiculturalism, multilingualism;

Human dignity and non-materialistic concerns;

Supremacy of communalism.

Idealisation of metropolitan Euro-American values as

“natural”;

Nature and the environment subject to material value.

Economic

Entrepreneurialism as communal poverty alleviation;

Virtues of collective development;

Supremacy of people-centred growth.

Entrepreneurialism as individual development;

‘Sovereignty’ of market de-regulation.

Social Socially-directed relevance and responsiveness;

Community development and ongoing social responsibility

mission.

Curriculum conformism to labour market;

Community service as occasional public relations

enterprise.

450

The Ideological DomainSphere Transformation Orientation Reform Orientation

Educational

Progressivism, responsiveness, relevance;

De-legitimation of “hidden” curriculum as true knowledge;

Incorporation of socio-economic realities into the curriculum;

Education as cultural fulfillment;

Valuing & transmission of non-materialistic human values

and dignity.

Continued elitism, adaptation;

Knowledge stratification;

“Hidden” curriculum covertly transmitted

through materialism and consumerism.

ROLE PLAYERSState/Departmental HE Institutional Societal Private SectorState: Legislative mechanisms,

e.g. HE Act; the Constitution.

Statutory Bodies: e.g. CHE;

NRF; SAQA/NQF.

DoE: Policy formulation and

Institutional coordination in

relation to socio-economic

transformation;

Departments of Science; Arts &

Culture.

Professional Bodies: e.g.

HESA; AAU; IAU;

Transformation Goals: e.g.

Massification;

Missions and programmatic

differentiation;

Continuous engagement with

African universities;

The student and student bodies.

Multicultural representative

governance in HEIs, from

professional and non-

professional social categories;

NGO sector;

Cultural organizations.

Employment organizations

promoting entrepreneurialism and

workers’ development;

Industry;

Commerce;

Industry Training Boards.

451

B: AFRICANISATION: AN INTERNALLY-FOCUSED CURRICULUM MODEL

THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL DOMAINThe Disciplinary Sphere The Instructional Sphere The Learning Materials

Sphere

The Assessment Sphere

Organization/Deconstruction of

the subject:

Module & whole course structure;

Core & electives in respect of

national imperatives;

ICT & Science as second ‘tier’

core subjects;

Inter-/multi-/trans-disciplinary

course construction in respect of.

core African subjects & elective

mode;

Key skills adaptability;

Web influences;

Lifelong learning;

Experiential/Cooperative

learning;

Forces for retention of

disciplinarity.

Content: Emphasis on African

content subjects, e.g. History,

Philosophy, Anthropology;

Curricular frameworks.

Delivery & Method:

Personal contact with learners;

Accommodation of different

learning styles;

Community-based professionals

and experts;

Outcomes/Competencies:

Literacy; Numeracy;

Multi-lingual communication;

Cross-curricular thinking.

Skills: Conceptualisation.

Attitudes/Values:

Environmental awareness;

Tolerance;

Ethics.

African textbooks;

International learning materials

in certain subject fields;

Copies of additional study

guides; Web & multimedia

sources;

Additional study materials;

Web and multimedia

presentations.

Standards:

Cultural compatibility &

nationally relevant standards.

Learning Outcomes:

Cognition, creativity, cross-

curricular skills;

Crediting of prior experiential

learning;

Teamwork & project

management.

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT ROLE PLAYERS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

452

Faculty Corporate DepartmentalFaculty Boards;

Programme Coordinators;

Faculty Officers;

Subject Committees.

Senate/Council;

Curriculum Coordination Committees.

University-based Curriculum

Committees;

Subject/Disciplinary experts (faculty).

QUALITY ASSURANCE ROLE PLAYERSInstitutional Efficiency Faculty Students

Institution-based Council;

Institution-based Senate;

Office of Institutional Effectiveness;

Academic/Learning Committee;

Academic Planning Committee.

Representatives of Quality Assurance bodies;

Faculty Management Committees;

Quality Assurance Committee;

RPL Committee;

Co-operative Learning Committee;

Research Committee;

Higher Degrees Committee;

Deans’ Committee.

Student Representative Council and Class

Representatives;

Students and recent graduates.

ALIGNMENT TO THE STUDENT

Traditional:

Communalism expressed through class-based group work;

Recognition of parental involvement as foundational contribution and educational modeling;

Extent of belief systems in ‘ways of knowing’.

Indigenous:

Local relevance and responsiveness factors/Articulation of community-based imperatives;

453

Indivisibility of ‘taught’ knowledge & experience-based learning (as opposed to work-based);

Societal involvement & participation in articulation of learning needs.

Cultural compatibility:

Benchmarks & standards of assessment;

Integration/Mainstreaming of multiculturalism;

Recognition of ‘non-standard’ and experience-based learning.

Congruity with Target Group:

Adaptability of gender studies to relevant age groups;

Heterogeneity/Identity of student community i.r.o. varying backgrounds,

needs, experiences and expectations;

Involvement of peers/class in group-based forms of assessment, or “group creativity”.ALIGNMENT TO NATIONAL POLICY AND ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENTS

DoE/SAQA/NQF;

Compliance, accountability, performativitySource: Researcher’s own development, with modifications from Muller (2007)

454

C: THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL DOMAIN AND THE MEDIATING ROLE OF AFRICANISATIONON THE CURRICULUM (PLANNED AND REALISED)

Adaptation to the learner

Mediating/Modulating Proposition

455

The socio-economic, political,intellectual, cultural and educational sphere.

Outcomes achieved:Content adaptation incurriculum development and products;Cultural fairness and compatibility;Instruction/learning andassessment interventions;Instructional guidelines for course material development;Stakeholder input;Representative faculty andStaffing.

The sphere of the state and institutional role players.

Epistemological and Disciplinary sphere:Interdisciplinarity;Multidisciplinarity;Transdisciplinarity.

Africanisation as a mediating/modulating

factor.

Institutional Management: Adaptation to transformation;

Diversity accommodation.

6.8.3.1 Brief explication of the model

The macro-systemic/external environment encompasses the contending frameworks of the nature

of change within which HEIs are expected to function. The premises for the nature of the adopted

change is fundamentally ideological, and determines the pace and direction of curriculum change

in the “reform” or “transformation” mode; the latter two aspects themselves being collective

products of the larger societal spheres and its attendant ‘power brokers; i.e. role players.

The micro-institutional environment reflects the internal epistemological means by which the

curriculum mediates and translates its essence as the product of the university (Muller, 2007). The

quality assurance domain is more complex, with each HE operational and instructional unit placed

in a mode of accountability and performativity. Every unit is characterised by different assessment

variables such as: what has to be done? by whom is it to be done? how is it to be done? and when is

it expected to be done? The various role players are expected to represent various epistemological

‘positions’. That the same structures are opted for (e.g. NRF, NQF) implies that it is not their

existence that is problematic. In the same way as the DoE, it is the inherent ideological and

intellectual cultures that have been viewed as problematic in the study.

The alignment to the student environment relates to the mechanisms by which relevance becomes

actuated at the level of the learner, rather than at only the systemic or institutional levels. In that

regard, the environment is student-focused and characterised by instruction-relevant variables.

The last (C) facet of the model largely illustrates the “mediating/modulating” effect highlighted

earlier (prior to the brief explication of the model), and proposes the ‘window of opportunity’

presented by an orientation towards Africanisation as filling an epistemological gap in South

African HE curriculum development.

6.9 CONCLUSION

From this study’s point of view, the most critical finding relates to the integration of Africanisation

into the mainstream HE curriculum. Failure or reluctance to do so by both HEIs and policy makers

would indicate the maintenance of Eurocentric knowledge systems and processes as ‘superior’ to

those enhancing local and indigenous perspectives. Epistemological parity should be ‘freed’ from

the cultural/anthropological fetters that restrict knowledge the universality of knowing to only

certain modes of knowledge construction. Due to the strategic salience of “knowledge” in the post-

industrial mode of production and consumption, it is not anticipated that epistemological equality

456

(as opposed to equity) will be voluntarily acknowledged; especially between developing and

developed economies in the 21st century.

457

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The fundamental objective of this chapter is to determine the extent of the study’s

academic/intellectual and socio-economic relevance and usefulness – or a lack thereof. In

pursuance of this critical objective, the modus operandi in the ensuing discussion focuses on both

the literature (theoretic perspectives) and the fieldwork (practical observation) framework. Such an

eclectic paradigm provides the discussion with a general-specific/international-local perspective. In

an attempt to maximize the efficacy of this chapter’s main goal, a holistic approach is embraced for

the subject matter under investigation. That is to say, higher education curriculum discussion has

not been dislodged from its concomitant variables viz. the policy reform environment; the design

of various curriculum models and the extent to which they are preferred; as well as the

management of curriculum as a factor of the efficacy (or deficit) of the preferred models of higher

education knowledge provision.

Muller (2004:3-5), Dowling and Seepe (2004:186-187) highlight the purposefulness of the research

enterprise. The rampant pace of globalization, knowledge explosion and ICT, compel that the

knowledge-for-its-own-sake approach to research (notwithstanding that funders of research

determine the research agenda), which venerates the process of knowledge acquisition, is

increasingly subsumed as pressures mount for higher education relevance and efficacy. Instead, and

especially since the traditional higher education’s epistemological hegemony and legitimacy have

been eroded, the productive/utilitarian function of higher education research i.e. knowledge-as-a-

product, is accentuated in this study. A most direct and writ large expression is averred by Dowling

& Seepe (2004: 186-187). The length of this citation succinctly signifies its poignant thematic

relevance to this chapter:

“The current policy environment in which higher education operates, with its requirements of fiscal

accountability, consumer appeal, massification, meeting societal needs, and so on means that the traditional

notion of a university and therefore its academics, is no longer viable. The traditional role – the pursuit of

knowledge for its own sake – has been found wanting. As a result, universities have to redefine themselves

(… this is in line with institutions elsewhere in the world. In South Africa this has become critical) and

academics have to acquiesce to a role that is increasingly foisted on them, namely that of professionals who

provide services that are socially relevant, and [a role] that places an emphasis on skills and vocational

training … To the dismay of many academics [fastidious Mode I adherents?] the old idea of a university has

458

been abandoned …The pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge and understanding … was regarded as valuable

in itself … Consistent with the above, research was curiosity-driven. But the kind of research undertaken

largely depended upon the predilection of the researcher. It was not subject to public scrutiny, but rather

was evaluated within the parameters of the discipline in question. It did not matter whether the research

addressed the needs of society or had any practical relevance … In general terms then, research was

regarded as being the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. … Universities have had to change from being

‘ivory tower’ institutions to multipurpose knowledge organizations … [italics my own emphasis].”

Apart from setting the tone and the direction of the current discussion, all of the above introduce

the environment within which higher education curriculum policy, design and management has had

to be operationalised.

7.2 REALISATION OF RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Broadly-put, the study’s fundamental objective is to determine – in tandem with trends worldwide

– the extent to which South African higher education curricula practices ‘navigate’ the difficult

path of reconciling local demands with imperatives of global competitiveness. To a lesser extent,

but inevitably, the current merging of HEIs formed a factor of the study’s focus.

7.2.1 Factors contributing to the articulation of research aims and objectives

In addition to the research’s objectives themselves (as outlined in Chapter 1), the

Rationale/Motivation, Background, and Problem Statement (not necessarily in that order) also

served a complementary role in the articulation of these objectives. That is to say, the objectives

themselves became a catalytic factor determining the Rationale, Background, and Problem

Statement as research variables.

South African higher education curriculum development has been marred by decades of racist

educational policies (Matos, 2000: 12-13; Jansen, 2001a:12; DoE, 2001: 3). One of the most

daunting challenges of the post-apartheid government is “… to establish a single coherent national

system of norms, rules and procedures to steer the entire educational project in directions that are

consonant with key economic, social and cultural goals, and to facilitate in an orderly fashion the

diversity and responsiveness now an intrinsic part of all modern systems of higher education

[italics my own emphasis]” (Kraak, 2000: 13). Interest in this study then, (Muller, 2004: 4;

Sarantakos, 1998: 16-17), which is closely linked to its Rationale, Motivation and Problem

Statement, was developed by the desire to examine the extent to which South African higher

459

education curriculum was responding both to exigent socio-economic demands locally and to

globally-competitive imperatives. The problem being investigated therefore, is the extent of the

pace and direction of reform/transformation in local higher education curriculum. Consonant with

the view on the utilitarian purpose of research expressed earlier, viz. knowledge-as-a-product – the

significant contribution of this research endeavour to the narrower higher education curriculum

field, and its broader socio-economic relevance – forms the overarching objective.

7.2.2 Articulation of objectives

The following objectives constitute the framework on which the study’s efficacy and usefulness are

to be determined.

7.2.2.1 Objective I: To provide an overview and analysis of HE curriculum development,

management and reform internationally and nationally. Chapters 2 and 3 are the spheres in which

this objective was located and actuated.

Intensive literature-based research became the ultimate via media by which a conceptual

framework was developed. This literature-based phase of the study provided a basic understanding

of international trends and key concepts relating to curriculum transformation. This became the

terrain from which SA higher education curriculum’s ‘compliance’ was determined. Key concepts

in this realm include (but not limited to): globalisation; massification; ICT; the “triple helix” of the

higher education-state-industry nexus; accountability; Mode 2 analysis; performativity; multi-

disciplinarity; skilling/vocationalisation; the “new managerialism”; competency; and many more. It

could be stated that this objective was optimally realized. It is the knowledge derived from the

international perspectives that provided the foundational arguments raised in different parts of this

study. The most crucial analytic framework provided by the international, literature-based

perspectives (in which the Internet played no less a role) to the researcher is the overwhelming

evidence that indicates that externally-derived challenges on higher education are irreversible. To

the extent that critical perspectives and trends in curriculum development and management as

worldwide phenomena were obtained from the consulted literature, this objective is regarded as

being fully realized.

460

Most importantly, it has emerged that Eurocentricism is epistemologically pervasive in the

construction of knowledge. Considering that local perspectives argue for epistemological diversity,

the hegemonic Eurocentric perspective is viewed as facing challenges as well.

7.2.2.2 Objective 2: To provide an overview of 21st century HE curriculum transformation

challenges both internationally and nationally. This objective was optimally met in Chapter 4.

As opposed to Objective 1 (which is mainly focused on reform/transformation trend in general),

this particular objective focuses specifically on the epistemological environment of HE curriculum

reform and transformation. The extensively consulted literature indicates that the epistemological

terrain of HE curriculum is the sphere in which knowledge creation is undergoing major changes.

The preponderance of private higher education curriculum providers has increased the competition

for students/clients. Consequently, the knowledge base of HE curriculum has been contested by

two major forces. On the one hand, is the orientation towards maintaining disciplinarity as the

predominant organizational and academic base of knowledge construction, dissemination and

validation. In the argot of proponents such as Michael Gibbons, Helga Nowotny, and others (1994),

disciplinary knowledge would be referred to as “Mode 1” knowledge. On the other hand, is the

orientation invariably referred to as inter-disciplinarity, multi-disciplinarity, and trans-

disciplinarity; all of which indicate the “unbundling” of knowledge from its erstwhile disciplinary

‘fetters’. In this “Mode 2” (Gibbon, Nowotny, et al,. 1994) framework, knowledge is no longer the

monopolistic preserve of traditional HEIs. As a result, skills/competence/vocationalism (focusing

on the application of knowledge in multiple contexts) have been embraced as integral to the

academic aspect of the ‘mainstream’ curriculum. To the extent that the literature provided adequate

coverage of the epistemological domain of curriculum trends, this objective was adequately

realized.

7.2.2.3 Objective 3: To survey a sample of local HEIs’ development and management of

curriculum, learning materials, processes, structures, and outputs. Chapter 5 is the sphere in which

this objective was largely realized.

Of the stated key objectives, this is the one which could not be satisfactorily realized. As opposed

to the first objective whose execution was fundamentally literature-based, this objective’s

execution was wholly empirical – reliant on “first-hand” observational experiences for data

461

collection (Sarantakos, 1998: 218). Whereas a minimum of four HEIs (out of 21) was initially

envisaged, two HEIs from two disparate intellectual cultures (one, a former technikon and the

other, a university) were finally opted for; due to commitment difficulties experienced at the

selected higher education institutions. However, judgment sampling ‘made up’ for these

quantitative lacunae; and the empirical phase conformed to a case study research orientation.

Furthermore, respondents’ participation seems not to have generated much enthusiasm, in respect

of ‘satisfactory’ responses to the questionnaire. Effectively, intelligible analyses to some critical

questions, including those that are statistics-based, could not be achieved. As a result, it was left to

the researcher’s own imagination whether, for instance, academic and non-academic staff and

student numbers were increasing or decreasing for any particular department/faculty/institution.

Particularly for students and academic staff, such information would be helpful in determining

those fields of study considered ‘popular’ against those which are not. Of the only two questions

relating to institutional reconfiguration in the whole questionnaire (Q 2.4, Q 2.5), responses to Q

2.5 (if the response to Q2.4 was Yes) were so ‘thin’ as to make any comprehensible analysis a

futile effort. Evaluation of the curriculum and its related activities (Part B of Questionnaire)

provided a generally ‘unsatisfactory’ aura of responses. Despite the many ‘unsatisfactory’

responses, critical curriculum-related information was yielded. For instance, it has been

unequivocally established that computer-based knowledge has not become a significant component

of teaching and learning. While the direction (i.r.o. conservative or progressive values and norms)

and pace (i.r.o. equity, access, redress, as examples) of institutional curriculum reform generally

point towards acceptance of reform/transformation. In terms of determining the pace and the

direction of curriculum reform/transformation through the questionnaires, using such variable

indicators as ‘missions’, ‘epistemological’ and ‘disciplinary’ predilections, preferred curriculum

models, and cycles of curriculum evaluation; the sample portrays a rather slow trend of reform.

Departmentally-based control and management of the curriculum (especially for University A) still

locates the organization of knowledge around disciplinary roots. while the former technikon’s

curriculum is outrightly vocational. On the whole, the implementation of this objective in the

context of the two research instruments used, combines both elements of ‘satisfactory’ and

‘unsatisfactory’ realization.

462

7.2.2.4 Objective 4: To develop an appropriate curriculum conceptual and development model for

South African HEIs that will encompass the process, content and management dimensions of

curriculum development, implementation and reform; and take the African context into account.

This objective has been largely realized in Chapter 6.

In view of the trilogy of models proposed for Africanisation in the HE curriculum (Chapter 6), this

objective is viewed as having been fully realized. The key rationale for this model’s proposition is

premised on epistemological and intellectual diversity. The Euro-American viewpoints of

“knowledge” have (in)advertently promoted homogenous/isomorphic ‘ways of knowing’.

Africanisation adequately conforms to the idea of HE being of society; therefore de-legitimation of

local HEIs as “extensions” or “copycats” of Western university models and systems. Without

belabouring this moot point, be it noted that the call for Africanisation has been deliberately

marginalized through Eurocentric ideologies:

“But the African voice emerging at the turn of the new millennium is no longer a pure voice. It is coming

into being when the concept of ‘African society’ itself has been literally expunged from mainstream

discourse … The African voice is coming through at a time when education has firmly ensconced itself as

the fourth pillar of Northern governments’ foreign policy … The project of making quality space available

within which the emerging philosophies-in-articulation are to be positioned in a grossly distorted globalized

world entails a high-precision re-examination of the techniques that have led to such successful stultification

of an entire people’s cognition [italics my own emphasis]” (Odora-Hoppers, 2000: 2).

7.3 CONCLUSIONS

Consonant with the nature of the research enterprise, what began as an idea of research interest,

namely: determining the extent of local HE curriculum reform/transformation against the backdrop

of international trends and practices, has had to reach the stage of determining its (research

interests) realization/viability – socio-economically and otherwise. The conclusions therefore, serve

as the parameters within which this idea is stated, developed, extended, and defended (Muller,

2004: 6). In an attempt to organize the reasoning and basis upon which the main conclusion were

reached, a ‘taxonomical’ format is opted here, so as to obviate among others, both “red-herring

argument” – bringing peripheral and irrelevant side issues to the main argument (Mouton, 2001:

120); as well as “non sequitur reasoning” – conclusions that have no logical connection to data or

evidence presented (Mouton, 2001: 120) (see also p. 93).

463

7.3.1 The inadequate application of diversity

In the local HE context, “diversity” has been limited to programmatic and missions differentiation

(Cloete, et al., 1999; Cloete & Bunting, 2000). In its entirety, the notion of diversity embraces all of

an institution’s operational and instructional functioning (Duderstadt, 2000b: 193); e.g. diversifying

funding streams, and diversifying the curriculum to cater for different kinds of learners. By limiting

the scope of diversity, South African higher education institutions face the threat of losing students

to alternative HE providers, while attenuating their roles in serving the multicultural population of

the country. Epistemologically, this paucity (limited diversity) encourages perceptions of the Euro-

American “copycat”/hegemonic argument.

7.3.2 Dominance of market-oriented curriculum perspectives

Many academic analysts and commentators (e.g. Apple, 1990; Barnett, 1997; Margolis, 2000)

decry the extent of HE’s curriculum orientation to the interests of the market. To that extent, the

curriculum is viewed as preparing students for the functionary role of (neo) capitalism’s “foot

soldiers”. Cast in that mould, HE becomes subservient to the private sector – thus ushering into its

terrain contending constituencies. Its independence is also likely to be threatened. By devoting

substantial resources to ‘perfecting’ the instruments of capital (in the form of job-compliant skills),

HEIs inadvertently become the terrain for competing “stakeholders” and “shareholders”. The

questionnaire responses have indicated that in the ‘triple helix’, society is the last of HE’s multiple

constituencies.

7.3.3 Epistemological contestations in higher education curriculum development

Competing epistemological interests strive for dominance within HE curriculum reform. These

range from the orientation towards the retention of the subject/discipline, to the various modes of

deconstructing the subject; as evinced in the inter-/trans-/multi-disciplinary schools of thought. In

addition there is the ‘learning from skills’ movement. Within this fray, is also the continuing

‘struggle’ for the integration of Africanisation in the curriculum.

7.3.4 Ideological ramifications in higher education curriculum development

There is contrast between rhetoric and actual curriculum practices; between the taught or stated/

official and the unstated/unofficial or “hidden” curriculum. The currently-adopted Western

university model is founded on cultural values that are diametrically opposed to African value

systems (e.g. privatism versus communalism), and propagate (at the socio-economic level)

464

liberalism. The ideological function (ergo, the link between knowledge, culture, and identity) are

not openly stated as the function of the content of learning, and the extent (and context) to which

that learning will be put to use. While the ideological-political function is not overtly stated, when

Africanisation is mentioned, it is overtly cited as being “political”. Freire (1972) and Lyotard

(1994) have repudiated the neutrality of any form of knowledge.

7.3.5 Empirical research as critical in higher education curriculum development

The experiential phase of the research, through the instrumentation of the questionnaires and the

interviews, facilitated the “first-hand” gathering of actual curriculum practices. Higher education

curriculum development is replete with literature on conceptualisation (e.g. classroom-based

instruction and behaviour modification) and curriculum modeling. Research on actual occurrences

is comparatively low. A lot of institutional curriculum case study would in real terms particularly

assist those HEIs currently undergoing different phases of “comprehensivity” (SANTED Project

Business Plan, 2006).

7.3.6 Conservation of traditional modes

Teacher-centeredness is still the predominant mode of curriculum delivery. By further extension,

the academy’s hold on curriculum management has made it (the academy) averse to ‘outside’,

influences, even to knowledge practitioners in the ‘training’ field (e.g. evaluators/assessors of

skills). “Outsiders” are viewed as being intellectually incompetent to evaluate any component of

the curriculum. Ironically, the skills capacity and work readiness of graduates need this kind of

input (Haines, 2003:193). While matriculation serves as the conventional admission and entry

requirement, therefore the predominant determinants of academic ‘readiness’, the methodology

used for determining its efficacy for learners from unequal secondary education backgrounds,

warrants scrutiny (Naude, 2003: 115). The methods of assessment (a factor of staff training) require

a distinction between knowledge content and knowledge application (skills and competence

development). To a large extent, the preferred (mainstream) curriculum models magnify the virtues

of ‘popular’ courses from the ‘unpopular’ ones.

7.4 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following propositions are neither prescriptive (authoritarian) nor proscriptive (opposed to

counter-argument). They are meant to maximise the premises on which the findings (in Chapter 6)

and conclusions (in current chapter) were arrived at.

465

7.4.1 Mediation of Africanisation into the curriculum’s epistemological base

Bringing about curriculum change should not be confined to only the productivity interests of the

capital-economy-industry nexus. Neither should Africanisation be viewed only as a cultural factor

in the labyrinthine processes of ‘knowing’. Broadening of the curriculum base should not only be

restricted to the intrusion of ‘non-academic’ models to the preferred ‘mainstream’ options.

Broadening access and diversity should be characterized by ideological,

epistemological/intellectual, and the philosophical rationale for studying. If an emancipatory

rationale does not constitute such a rationale (such as perpetuated by socially exclusionary and

stratified agendas which feed the “hidden curriculum”), the Africanisation ideology

(Eurocentricism, and its economic ramification – globalization – is itself an ideology) is the one

missing component in the total and complete democratization of the HE curriculum. The

remoteness with which the Africanisation ideology is dealt in HE discourse, warrants that it should

be asked whether SA institutions of higher learning are engaged in reform-orientated initiatives

such as mergers, voluntarily or not. In the view of this study, the mediation of Africanisation (as

an epistemological, rather than an affirmative action/employment equity exercise) is the only viable

proposition to resolving “… a clear tension between responsiveness understood as directed to social

development, and responsiveness as a necessary reaction to financial constraints and the

marketisation of higher education” (Gibbon, 2003: 229). Stunted in the “negotiated settlement”

mode of intellectual discourse, Africanisation’s viability could only be realistic in the inclusive

mode of HE curriculum transformation.

7.4.2 Cultural compatibility of the curriculum

Given the multicultural state of South African society, “culture” should translate into making

meaning of any segment of knowledge in the curriculum. Culture should not be associated with

‘backwardness’ only when it relates to anything African; but accorded a proselytizing status when

relating to Eurocentric modes of knowing. Multiculturalism should be incorporated into the

mainstream curriculum as an instrument for fostering equality, democratic citizenship, and inter-

racial understanding and tolerance.

7.4.3 Broadening social participation

While HEIs have been accorded juristic forms of self-regulation, society should not be castigated to

the role of “outsiders’ when it comes to critical issues of curriculum reform. HE’s link with society

should not be limited to the (co-opted?) members serving in Senates/Councils; or through students

466

who have a limited stake in matters such as their own fees. Broad-based forums should be

established within which members of society are elevated from being mere “stakeholders”, but

effective “shareholders” in publicly supported HEIs. Such forums, even though their influence

might minimally shape curriculum reform/transformation, would also contribute towards the

eradication of elitist perceptions of higher education. The virtues of transparency warrant that HE

education be accountable to a broad range of stakeholders. Furthermore, HE’s responsibilities to

society should not be viewed in the mode of “extension services”. Such a predilection implies that

such service is not regarded as the core “business” of higher education. Rather, “social

responsibility” should specifically relate to the very core of the epistemological function of

‘knowing’. Nuttal (2003: 55) elaborates further:

“There is a clear political and moral imperative that when a South African university engages in community-

based learning it works in black townships and under-developed peri-urban and rural districts. Having said this,

it is also important to assert wider definitions of ‘community’. The pragmatic reason for this [broadening

definition of ‘community’] is to engage as many academic disciplines and programmes as possible in

generating new forms of socialized knowledge and practice, with the intention of contributing to the vitalization

of post-apartheid civil society … community-based learning … is a process which should involve multiple and

diverse participants and partners in a mixture of on and off campus learning experiences. Outcomes of the

process included an integrated, problem solving, multifaceted learning experience for students, the production

of new forms of knowledge in relation to societal needs, and broader civic and social development [italics my

own emphasis].”

7.4.4 Incorporation of higher education as a field of study in the curriculum

The complexity of HE functioning necessitates that this not be left to researchers and policymakers

only. As institutions of society, students should be exposed to the complexities of this

multipurpose organization. As an institution of society, students will explore the kind of changes it

has undergone throughout its history. The problem of higher education (as a field of study) being a

“discipline in status nascendi” (Frackmann, 1997: 116) – in search of “disciplinary identity” –

could be ‘resolved’ by applying a multi-disciplinary approach. Such an approach would locate into

various departments, the function of structuring ‘content’, derived from among others, the policy

environment and developmental studies. The longer higher education becomes only a matter of

“special interest” to policy makers and researchers, the more the risk of the curriculum becoming

an ideologically instrumentalised domain. ‘Curriculum studies’, for instance, should not be a mere

pedagogic exercise in mitigating justification for behaviouristic theories of knowledge

467

organization. Such studies should instead become the infrastructural domain within which the

superstructural domain (higher education in general, as a field of study) is facilitated and studied by

students. This proposition is highly emphasised here as “… it underlines the need for a radical

reexamination of the role and functions of higher education systems and institutions” (Mayor,

1997: xi). In an age of student-centric learning, higher education challenges in the millennium are

so diverse that a ‘student perspective’ is necessary in the form of a formally-constructed ‘course of

study’ in this field. Why not? Wouldn’t HE be contributing to the training of public policy makers

and researchers at early stages of their lives? In addition, research into HE as a field of study would

most importantly, advance the course of empiricism and case study research, which are direly

needed skills in investigating curriculum development in practical terms.

7.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

This section of the chapter reviews the main shortcoming of the study, and how these might have

been avoided (Babbie & Mouton, 2001: 569). The limitations are related to both literature-based

and empirical phases of the study.

7.5.1 Literature-based limitations

Limitations in this category are those deriving from the conceptual environment provided by

mainly the international perspectives on higher education curriculum reform/transformation.

7.5.1.1 Scope of investigation

To the extent that the study advocates for an African perspective of knowledge generation,

curriculum-related trends in the African continent needed critical scrutiny as well. The study’s

deficiency in this regard might inadvertently promote the view that ‘intellectual xenophobia’ exists

within SA higher education discourse – the perception that the advanced higher education

infrastructure in the country denigrates the academic worth obtaining in the rest of socio-

economically impoverished Africa. However, this perception is nullified on the basis of the 1997

SADC Protocol on Education and Training, which stipulates various mechanisms of higher

education inter-institutional co-operation – especially in the field of curriculum development.

7.5.1.2 Inadequate development of organizational/systems theory

Whereas higher education in the past thrived on a liberal arts undergraduate curriculum and

reproduction of elites through postgraduate professional education, the explosion in knowledge has

468

proliferated sites of learning and the scope of knowledge fields and subfields. Higher education

has survived turbulent changes in the past. As a complex multipurpose knowledge-based

organization in the millennium, how it responds to multi-pronged challenges (administrative and

instructional) is an issue on its own. Although higher education organizational aspects such as

‘institutional cultures’ have been referred to, ‘hindsight’ dictates that system-based mechanisms

and responses to change (especially external change), would have added a profound dimension to

the curriculum as HE’s product to its ‘consumers’/’clients’. That is to say, comparing traditional

higher education as social and public organization/institution to its corporate variants in the private

sector, would have provided a broader perspective within which the pace and direction of

curriculum reform could be determined in this regard. This shortcoming could perhaps be attributed

to the ‘overview’-determined approach of the study as a whole. However, that is not meant to be a

red-herring, to any shortcoming; on the other hand, it may have escalated the scope to perhaps

unacceptable proportions.

7.5.2 Empirically-derived limitations

The category of ‘fault lines’ in this sphere is based on the two main research instruments, viz. the

Questionnaire and Interview. These refer to information/data which was not exhaustively accessed

due to among others the structure of the question(s). Such data is based on the following issues:

7.5.2.1 Quantitative information/data

The researcher could have devised alternative and more direct strategies to obtain figures/numbers

relating to students and (non) academic staff. The importance of these relates to determining

whether there was a decline or increase in those faculties, departments, or institutions – which

would not only provide a human resources dimension, but also the (‘un’) popularity or ‘curriculum

magnetism’ of courses in the applicable context. Such figures should have been obtained by the

researcher from the relevant Records Office, instead of placing the ‘onerous’ task on the

respondents (provided, of course, institutions had granted permission and access).

7.5.2.2 Exploration of post-merger process

The merger/institutional differentiation process in itself constituted a ‘work in progress’. At the

time of this study’s finalization, both Institution A and Institution B (from two diverse intellectual

cultures) had formally merged legally and administratively. In the curriculum sphere, a parallel

curriculum structure (in this study’s view) exists, as “articulation paths” are yet to be formalized. In

469

that regard, it has not been possible to mediate a post-merger analysis of how

diversity/programmatic differentiation has been achieved by this specific new university type.

7.5.2.3 The notion of comprehensiveness

‘Comprehensiveness’ as a higher education institutional ‘typology’ has not been thoroughly

explored in the study. In the American sense, for instance, it derives definition on ‘levels of study’

more than ‘type’ of curriculum. A comprehensive institution would be one offering a range of

undergraduate and postgraduate study up to the doctoral level. In the South African context a

comprehensive institution would be one offering a range of undergraduate and postgraduate studies

(academic and vocational) such as the merger of the two institutions in this study. Other reputable

HEIs, ‘freestanding’ and not ‘absorbed’ in the merger process (such as neighbouring University X),

how is their ‘comprehensiveness articulated? This is the one area whose exploration would have

illuminated more on the curriculum implications of the (post) merger process, ergo, a broader

perspective of ‘comprehensiveness’ of a higher education institution.

7.5.2.4 Africanisation in the curriculum

As opposed to the notion of ‘Africanisation of the curriculum’ – which is herein understood as

referring to a still-to-materialise philosophical and epistemological rationale for the higher

education curriculum’s protracted socio-economic (rather than ‘cultural’) responsiveness;

‘Africanisation in the curriculum’ herein refers to those meaningful and structured aspects, models,

and activities already extant in the curriculum. The latter would provide actual (therefore,

voluntary) practices that determine South African HEIs being of Africa rather than merely being in

Africa. A concerted exploration of Africanisation in higher education the curriculum/being of

Africa (as a transitory phase) would have illuminated justification or repudiation of the ideological

‘stance’ of SA higher education institutions. So far, only the ‘cultural’/ ‘museumisation’ domain of

Africanisation is convoluted (Visvanathan, 1999: 1-2, cited in Naude, 2003: 77).

470

7.6 FURTHER RESEARCH

The proposition for further research hinges mostly on the extent to which limitations occurred and,

therefore, the environment of the study’s objectives. A generalistic proposition, rather than an item-

by-item approach is that the study as a whole has been designed and approached in a thematically

centripetal manner; to that extent, a conceptual ‘overlap’ prevails.

The most observable and resonant realization has been that curriculum is at the centre of higher

education policy development and implementation, thus necessitating “… a need to distinguish

between academic rhetoric and actual practice” (Breier, 2001c: 158). Proposed for further research

in this study, is the examination of why tensions exist between policymaking and policy

implementation. Cases in point refer to the manner in which OBE and NQF requirements provoke

‘resentment’ within the academy. Closely related to the policy-making and implementation

polemic, is the conceptual environment of higher education. An amorphous space exists in which

some themes or concepts are both ambivalently explicated, and their curriculum relevance and

implications not clearly articulated. To name but a few, these would include: curriculum reform

vis-a-vis transformation and restructuring; responsiveness vis-a vis social responsibility, relevance,

and accountability; assessment techniques vis a vis behaviour modification compatible with the

needs of industry/economy. The nomenclature associated with higher education curriculum reform/

transformation in the country propagates rhetoric, aberrant ideologies, and a stasis in which

research might be construed as perpetrating sectarian interest. Proposed for further research

therefore, is the study of higher education curriculum reform as a field of study not preserved for

professional researchers only. The knowledge stakes of the 21st century are so high that training a

new generation of researchers is an absolute necessity. A corpus of texts predisposed towards

justification of capitalism and its interests, posits humanity as a struggle between the knowledge-

rich and knowledge poor.

471

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdullat, A.A. (Undated). Information oriented technology, curriculum design and development:

the need for a paradigm shift. Texas: West Texas A & M. University Computer Information

Systems Department. (Abdullat@mail.wtamu.edu). (Accessed 16 November 2003).

Adam, H. (1977). Predicaments and options of critical intellectuals at South African universities. In

Van Der Merwe, H. & Welsh, D. (Editors). The future of the university in Southern Africa

(pp. 268-279). Cape Town: David Phillip.

Adedeji, A. (1998). African renaissance, economic transformation and the role of the university.

Indicator South Africa, 15(2): 64-68.

Adelman, C. & Gibbs, I. (1980). Curriculum development and the changing constituency of

students: the case of the colleges of higher education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 12(2):

167-178.

Adler, P.A. & Adler, P. (1998). Observational techniques. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S.

(Editors). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 79-109). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Akoojee, S. (2002). Access and quality in South African higher education: the challenge for

transformation. Pretoria: HSRC.

Allen, R. & Layer, G. (1995). Credit-based systems as vehicles for change in universities and

colleges. London: Kogan Page.

Allison, B., O’Sullivan, T., Owen, A, Rice, J., Rothwell, A. & Saunders, A. (1996). Research skills

for students. London: Kogan Page Ltd.

Altbach, P.G. (1999). Patterns in higher education development. In Altbach, P.G., Berdahl, R.O. &

Gumport, P.J. (Editors). American higher education in the twenty-first century: social,

political, and economic challenges (pp. 15-37). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University

Press.

Altbach, P.G. (2000). The crisis in multinational higher education. Change, 32(6):28-32.

November/December.

Altbach, P.G. (2002). Knowledge and education as international commodities: the collapse of the

common good. International Higher Education, (28), Summer.

Available from: http://www.bc.edu./bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News28/text001.htm

(Accessed 02 November 2002).

American Association for Higher Education (AAHE). (2003). Developing an assessment plan to

learn about student learning.

472

Available from: http://www.aahe.org/assessment/assessmentplan.htm (Accessed 17 March

2004).

African National Congress Education Department. (1994). Implementation plan for education and

training. Johannesburg: ANC Education Department.

Anstey, Gillian. (24 August 2003). Shame of S.A.’s university dropouts. Sunday Times: 12.

Apple, M.W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.

Apple, M.W. (1993). Official knowledge: democratic education in a conservative age. New York:

Routledge.

Apple, M.W. (1996). Cultural politics and education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Apple, M.W. (2001). Educating the “right” way: markets, standards, God and inequality. New

York: Routledge Falmer.

Apple, M.W. (2003). The state and the politics of knowledge. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Archer, J., Cantwell, R. & Bourke, S. (1999). Coping at university: an examination of achievement,

motivation, self-regulation, confidence and method of entry. Higher Education Research and

Development, 18 (1):31-54.

Armstrong, D.G. (2003). Curriculum today. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Arsham, H. (Undated). Questionnaire design, statistical data analysis and management of surveys.

Available from: http://obelia.jde.aca.mmu.ac.uk/resdesgn/arshan/opre330Surveys.htm

(Accessed 21 October 2003).

Asmal, K. (2001). Foreword. In National plan for higher education in South Africa. Pretoria:

Government Printers.

Asmal, K. (23 January 2002a). A great deal of codswallop. The Star:16.

Asmal, K. (28 July 2002b).Their true native tongue is superiority. Sunday Times: 4.

Assiter, A. (1995). Transferable skills: a response to the skeptics. In Assister, A. (Editor).

Transferable skills in higher education (pp. 11-19). London: Kogan Page.

Auf Der Heyde, T. (2002). TWR postgraduate research manual. Doornfontein: TWR Research

Department.

Auf Der Heyde, T. (2004). Comprehensive planning: the emergence of new HEIs in South Africa?

Paper written for the Seminar on Organising the Curriculum in the New Comprehensive

Universities, held at Highlands Country House Hotel, 3-4 February.

Available from: http://www.chet.org.za/papers/heydefinal.pdf (Accessed 11 October 2005).

Babbie, E. & Mouton, J. (2001). The practice of social research. Cape Town: Oxford University

Press.

473

Badat, S. (1998). Educational politics in the transition period. In Kallaway, P., Kruss, G. & Donn,

G. (Editors). Education after apartheid: South African education in transition (pp. 9-33).

Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Badat, S. (1999). South African higher education at the beginning of the millennium: realities,

problems and challenges. Discussion paper presented at the CHE Consultative Conference,

Benoni.

Available from: http://education.pwv.gov.za/che/consultconf/beginning.htm (Accessed 12

April 2003).

Badat, S. (25 June 2005). Education explosion. Sowetan: 29.

Badat, S. Barends, Z. & Wolpe, H. (1994).The post-secondary education system: towards policy

formulation for equality and development. In Kaplan, B. (Editor). Changing by degrees:

equity issues in South African tertiary education (pp. 75-90). Cape Town: UCT Press.

Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and policy making in education. London & New York: Routledge.

Ball, S.J. (1994). Education reform: a critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham: SRHE

& Open University Press.

Baloyi, M. (12 December 2001). Tensions still rumbling. The Independent on Saturday: 2.

Barnett, R. (1990). The idea of higher education. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.

Barnett, R. (1994). The limits of competence: knowledge, higher education and society.

Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education & Open University Press.

Barnett, R. (1997). A knowledge strategy for universities. In Barnett, R. & Griffin, A. (Editors).

The end of knowledge in higher education (pp. 166-179). London: Cassell.

Barnett, R. (2001). Managing universities in a supercomplex age. In Cutright, M. (Editor). Chaos

theory and higher education (pp. 13-32). New York: Peter Lang.

Barnett, R., Parry, G. & Coate, K. (2001). Conceptualizing curriculum change. Teaching in Higher

Education, 6(4): 435-449.

Bartkus, K.R. (2001). Social skills training for co-operative education and internship students: an

empirical investigation of performance outcomes. Journal of Cooperative Education, 36(3):

17-24.

Bates, A.W. (1999). Restructuring the university for technological change. In Brennan, S.,

Fedrowitz, J., Huber, M. & Shah, T. (Editors). International perspectives on knowledge,

participation and governance (pp. 207-228). Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.

Bates, T. (2001). National strategies for e-learning in post-secondary education and training.

Paris: UNESCO.

474

Bates, R.H., Mudimbe, V.Y. & O’Barr, J. (Editors). (1993). Africa and the disciplines: the

contributions of research in Africa to the social sciences and humanities. Chicago and

London: The University of Chicago Press.

Bauman, Z. (1987). Legislators and interpreters: on modernity, post-modernity and intellectuals.

Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Bauman, Z. (1997). Universities: old, new and different. In: Smith, A. & Webster, F. (Editors). The

postmodern university: contested visions of higher education in society (pp. 17-26).

Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.

Bawa, A. & Mouton, J. (2002). Research. In Cloete, N., Fehnel, R. et al. (Editors). Transformation

in higher education: global pressures and local realities in South Africa (pp. 296-333).

Pretoria: CHET.

Becher, T. & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the

culture of disciplines. 2nd edition. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage.

Bengu, S.M. (1997). Foreword. In Draft education white paper 3: a programme for higher

education transformation. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Bennich-Bjorkmann, L. (1997). Organising innovative research: the inner life of university

departments. Oxford: IAAU & Elsevier Science Ltd.

Berdahl, R.O, Altbach, P.G., Gumport, P. (1999). The contexts of American higher education. In

Altbach, P.G., Berdahl, R.O. & Gumport, P.J. (1999). The contexts of American higher

education. In Altbach, P.G., Berdahl, R.O. & Gumport, P.J. (Editors). American higher

education in the twenty-first century: social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 1-14).

Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. London: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Publishers.

Berkhout, S.J. & Wielemans, W. (2001). Qualifications as title, symbol, emblem or code: a

currency of human qualities? Perspectives in Education, 19(3): 37-52.

Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: theory, research/critique. London:

Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Bisseker, C. (27 October 2000). Asmal needs help with uphill push. Financial Mail: 36-38.

Blasi, P. (1999). The task of institutions of higher learning. In Hirsch, W.Z. & Weber, L.E.

(Editors). Challenges facing higher education at the millennium (pp. 26-36). Phoenix: ACE &

The Oryx Press.

475

Bles, C. & Higson-Smith, C. (1998). Fundamentals of social research methods: an African

perspective. 2nd edition. Cape Town: Creda Communications.

Blunt, R.J.S. (2005). Challenges for the curriculum of a comprehensive university: a critical case

study. South African Journal of Higher Education, 19(6): 1021-1032.

Bocock, J. & Watson, D. (1994). Common cause: prospects for renewal. In Bocock, J. & Watson,

D. (Editors). Managing the university curriculum: making common cause (pp. 129-137).

Bristol, Pennsylvania: SRHE & Open University Press.

Bohler-Muller, N. (2004). Fluid identities and the possibilities inherent in transformative thought.

In Seepe, S. (Editor). Towards an African identity of higher education (pp. 145-156). Pretoria:

Vista University & Skotaville Media.

Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: the commercialization of higher education.

Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Bond, P. (1999). (17 August 1999). The black elite: history’s plaything. The Star: 15.

Botha, C. (2003). A faculty core: “bridging’ or shaping minds in light of global challenges? In

Naude, P. & Cloete, N. (Editors). A tale of three countries: social sciences curriculum

transformation in Southern Africa (pp. 139-145). Lansdowne: Juta & Co. Pty Ltd. & CHET.

Botha, H.L. & Cilliers, C.D. (1999). Preparedness for university study: designing a thinking skills

test. South African Journal of Higher Education, 13:144-151.

Breier, M. (1998). Faint hope or false promise? The recognition of the prior learning (RPL)

principle of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). In Morrow, W & King, K.

(Editors). Vision and reality (pp. 119-129). Cape Town: UCT Press.

Breier, M. (2001a). Introduction: Curriculum priorities in the new South Africa – an overview. In

Breier, M. (Editor). Curriculum restructuring in higher education in post-apartheid South

Africa (pp. x-xv). Cape Town: UWC Education Policy Unit.

Breier, M. (2001b). Higher education curriculum development: the international and local debates.

In Breier, M. (Editor). Curriculum restructuring in higher education in post-apartheid South

Africa (pp. 1-37). Cape Town: UWC Education Policy Unit.

Breier, M. (2001c). Future research. In Breier, M. (Editor). Curriculum restructuring in higher

education in post-apartheid South Africa (pp. 157-159). Cape Town: UWC Education Policy

Unit.

Brennan, J., De Vries, P. & Williams, R. (Editors). (1997). Standards and quality in higher

education. London & Bristol: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

476

Brennan, J. (1999). What kind of university? In Brennan, S., Fedrowitz, J., Huber, M. & Shah, T.

(Editors). What kind of university? International perspectives on knowledge, participation

and governance (pp. 3-17). Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.

Bridges, D. (1992). Enterprise and liberal education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 26(1):

91-98.

Bridges, D. (1993). Transferable skills: a philosophical perspective. Studies in Higher Education,

18(1):43-51.

Bridges, D. (2000). Back to the future: the higher education curriculum in the 21st century.

Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(1): 37-55.

Brookfield, S. (1995). Changing the culture of scholarship to the culture of teaching: an American

perspective. In Schuller, T. (Editor). The changing university? (pp. 128-138). Buckingham:

SRHE & Open University Press.

Brown, P. & Scase, R. (1997). Universities and employers: rhetoric and reality. In Smith, A. &

Webster, F. (Editors). The postmodern university: contested visions of higher education in

society. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.

Brown, R.H. (2000). Diversity in higher education: do we really want it? Perspectives, 4(1): 2-6.

Brown, R.H. & Kirwan, W.E. (1999). From exclusion towards inclusion: the struggle for diversity

in American higher education. In Cross, M., Cloete, N., Beckham, E., Harper, A., Indiresan,

J. & Musil, C. (Editors). Diversity and unity: the role of higher education in building

democracy (pp. 108-127). Rondebosch: Maskew Miller Longman.

Buehl, M.M. & Alexander, P.A. (2005). Motivation and performance differences in students’

domain-specific epistemological belief profiles. American Educational Research Journal,

42(1): 697-726.

Bunting, I. (2002). The higher education landscape under apartheid. In Cloete, N. et al. (Editors).

Transformation in higher education: global pressures and local realities in South Africa (pp.

55-86). Cape Town: CHET.

Bunting, I. & Cloete, N. (2004). Developing performance indicators for higher education: a South

African case study. Cape Town. CHET.

Burnham, J.B. (1997). Evaluating industry/university research linkages. Research Technology

Management, 40(1): 52-55.

Burns, N. & Grove, S.K. (1999). The practice of nursing research: conduct, critique and

utilization. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.

477

Campbell, J. (Editor). (2001). Creating our common future: educating for unity in diversity. Paris:

UNESCO Publishing.

Carlson, D. & Apple, M.W. (Editors). (1998). Power/Knowledge/Pedagogy: the meaning of

democracy in unsettling times. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Carnoy, M. (1994). Universities, technological change, and training in the informational age. In

Salmi, J. & Verspoor, A.M. (Editors). Revitalizing higher education (pp. 41-95). Oxford:

Elsevier Science.

Carnoy, M. (2000). Work, family and community in the information age. New York: Russell Sage.

Carnoy, M. (2001). Universities, technological change, ands training in the information age. In

Salmi, J. & Verspoor, A.M. (Editors). Revitalizing higher education (pp. 41-87). Oxford:

Elsevier Science Ltd.

Carroll, J. (2003). Case study research. A PowerPoint presentation.

Available from: www.dis.unimelb.edy.an/oasis/casestudy.ppt (Accessed 03 September 2004).

Castells, M. (1994). The university system: engine of development in the new world economy. Paper

presented at the World Bank Seminar on Higher Education and Development. Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia, July.

Available from: http://www.worldbank.org/publications (Accessed 10 June 2002).

Castells, M. (1997). The power of identity – the information age: economy, society, and culture.

Oxford: Blackwell.

Castells, M. (2000). Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society. Article for the

Special Millennium Issue of the British Journal of Sociology: 1-27. January.

Castells, M. (2001). The new global economy. In Muller, J., Cloete, N., & Badat, S. (Editors).

Challenges of globalization: South African debates with Manuel Castells. Cape Town:

Maskew Miller Longman.

Challis, M. (1993). Introducing APEL. London: Routledge.

Chau, T. N. (2003). Demographic aspects of educational planning. Paris: UNESCO Institute for

Educational Planning.

CHE. (2000a). Globalisation fundi outlines SA’s education challenges. CHE Newsletter 2,

November: 1-9.

Available from: http://www.che.org.za/newsletter/n12000.html (Accessed 02 August 2002).

CHE. (2000b). Towards a new higher education landscape. Pretoria: CHE.

CHE. (2002). A new academic policy for programmes and qualifications in higher education.

Pretoria: CHE.

478

Cheng, Y.C. (2003). Quality assurance in education: internal, interface, and future. Quality

Assurance in Education, 11(4): 202-213.

Cherry, J. & Christie, C. (2003). The focus of an undergraduate social sciences curriculum for

Southern Africa: a historical consciousness, human rights and social and development issues.

In Naude, P. & Cloete, N. (Editors). A tale of three countries: social sciences curriculum

transformation in Southern Africa (pp. 128-138). Rondebosch: CHET.

CHET. (Undated). Directory of higher education. Cape Town: CHET. Available from:

http://www.chet.org.za/international.html (Accessed 15 January 2005).

CHET. (2003a). Black academics on the move: how black academics account for moving between

institutions or leaving the academic profession. Overview of the CHET discussion series

hosted with the University of Pretoria; Groenkloof Campus, held on 27 February 2003.

Available from: http://www.chet.org.za/publications/bapublic.pdf (Accessed 15 January

2005).

CHET. (2003b). The changing face of R&D within South African higher education research.

Overview of the CHET session on Research at the joint CHET/SARIMA National

Conference held in Johannesburg on March 17.

CHET. (2004a). Higher education and development: reflecting on the challenges. Report on the

Seminar “Challenges Facing The New Minister in Higher Education” held in Cape Town in

September 2004.

CHET. (2004b). Organising the curriculum in the new comprehensive universities. Papers

presented at the seminar held at Highlands Country House Hotel, Cape Town, from 3-4

February.

Available from: http://www.chet.org.za/papers (Accessed 11 October 2005).

Chisholm, L. (1997). The restructuring of South African education and training in comparative

contexts. In Kallaway, P., Kruss, G. & Donn, G. (Editors). Education after apartheid (pp.

50-67). Cape Town: UCT Press.

Chisholm, L. & Peterson, T. (1999). Education policy and practice on the eve of the 1999 election:

December-March 1999.

Available from: http://www.wits.ac.za/fac/education/epu/qr99.htm (Accessed 05 October

2002).

Chong, N.G. (2001). Internet technologies: towards advanced infrastructure and learning

applications. In Tschang, F.T. & Della Senta, T. (Editors). Access to knowledge (pp.

129-166). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

479

Christie, P. (1997). Globalisation and the curriculum: proposals for the integration of education and

training in South Africa. In Kallaway, P. Kruss, G. & Donn, G. (Editors). Education after

apartheid (pp. 111-126). Cape Town: UCT Press.

Clark, B. R (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: organizational pathways of

transformation. Oxford: Pergamon.

Clark, B. R (2000). Collegial entrepreneurialism in proactive universities: lessons from Europe.

Change, 32(1): 10-19.

Cloete, N. (2001). Is the national plan for higher education for or against globalisation?

Available from: www.chet.org.za/issues (Accessed 11 February 2003).

Cloete, N. (2002). South African higher education and social transformation.

Available from: www.chet.org.za/issues (Accessed 11 February 2003).

Cloete, N. & Bunting, I. (2000). Higher education transformation: assessing performance in South

Africa. Rondebosch: CHET.

Cloete, N., Bunting, L. & Bunting, I. (2002). Transformation indicators applied to two South

African higher education institutions. Sunnyside, Pretoria: CHET.

Cloete, N., Cross, M., Muller, J. & Pillay, S. (1999). Culture, identity and the role of higher

education in building democracy in South Africa. In Cross, M., Cloete, N., Beckham, E.

Harper, A., Indiresan, J. & Musil, C. (Editors). Diversity and unity: the role of higher

education in building democracy in South Africa (pp. 20-48). Rondebosch: Maskew Miller

Longman.

Cloete, N. & Maasen, P. (2002). The limits of policy. In Cloete, N., Fehnel, R., Maasen, P., Moja,

T., Perold, H. & Gibbon, T. (Editors). Transformation in higher education: global pressures

and local realities in South Africa (pp. 447-490). Rondebosch: CHET.

Cloete, N., Maasen, P. & Muller, J. (2005). Great expectations, mixed governance approaches and

unintended outcomes: the post-1994 reform of South African higher education. In Gornitzka,

A. & Amaral, A. (Editors). Reform and change in higher education (pp. 207-225). Dordrecht,

Netherlands: Springer.

Cloete, N. & Muller, J. (1998). South African higher education reform: what comes after post-

colonialism? Pretoria: CHET.

Coats, M. (2004). New directions for academic development: innovation, quality and relevance.

Paper presented at the SAADA (South African Academic Development Association)

Conference held in Cape Town, December 2003.

480

Coffield, F. & Williamson, B. (1997). The challenges facing higher education. In Coffield, F. &

Williamson, B. (Editors). Repositioning higher education (pp. 1-56). Buckingham: SRHE &

Open University Press.

Cole, P. (1995). Pinpoint user’s guide. Borland: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.

Cooke, L. & Naidoo, D. (1998). Whole qualifications and unit standards: issues for comparability

and transferability: where should we focus our energies? Paper presented at a seminar held at

the University of Durban-Westville, 14 September.

Cooper, D. & Subotzky, G. (2001). The skewed revolution: trends in South African higher

education 1988-1998. Bellville: University of the Western Cape Education Policy Unit.

Corrigan, P., Hayes, M. & Joyce, P. (1995). A modernist perspective on changes in the higher

education curriculum. In Assiter, A. (Editor). Transferable skills in higher education (pp.

29-38). London: Kogan Page.

Coser, L.A. (1970). Men of ideas: a sociologist’s view. New York: The Free Press.

Costello, C.Y. (2001). Schooled by the classroom: the (re)production of social stratification in

professional school settings. In Margolis, E. (Editor). The hidden curriculum in higher

education (pp. 43-60). New York & London: Routledge.

Creative Research Systems. (2003). Survey design.

Available from: http://www.surveysystems.com/sdesign.htm (Accessed 21 October 2003).

Cross, M. & Cloete, N. (Editors). (1999). Avoiding closure and challenging frameworks. In Cross,

M., Cloete, N., Beckham, E. Harper, A., Indiresan, J. & Musil, C. (Editors). Diversity and

unity: the role of higher education in building democracy in South Africa (pp. 192-206).

Rondebosch: Maskew Miller Longman.

Curri, G. (2002). Reality versus perception: restructuring tertiary education and institutional

organizational change: a case study. Higher Education, 44(1): 133-151.

Currie, J. (2001). Understanding the impact of globalisation on universities. Keynote address at

SAARDE’s National Conference on the Impact of globalisation on Higher Education in South

Africa. Bloemfontein, March.

Currie, J. (2003). Understanding the impact of globalisation on universities. South African Journal

of Higher Education, 17(1): 16-23.

Cutright, M. (Editor). (2001). Chaos theory and higher education: leadership, planning, and

policy. New York: Peter Lang.

Cyber College Internet Campus. (2003). The essential curriculum: a recipe for a revolution.

Available from: http://www.cybercollege.com/plume6.htm (Accessed 09 April 2003).

481

Dale, R. (1999). Specifying globalization effects on national policy: a focus on mechanisms.

Journal of Educational Policy, 14(1):1-7.

D’Ambrosio, U. (1997). Universities and transdisciplinarity: the role of universities in modern

society.

Available from: http://nicol.club.fr/ciret/locarno/loca5c10.htm (Accessed 02 February 2006).

Davidson, A.L. (2002). Grounded theory.

Available from: http://az.essortment.com/groundedtheory-rmnf.htm (Accessed 22 February

2006).

Dawson, A. (1998). Recruiting graduates: balancing knowledge know-how. In Ronning, A.H &

Kearney, M-L. (Editors). Graduate prospects in a changing society (pp. 97-116). Paris:

UNESCO Publishing.

De Castell, S. (1999). On finding one’s place in the text: literacy as a technology of self-formation.

In Pinar, W.F. (Editor). Contemporary curriculum discourses (pp. 398-441). New York: Peter

Lang Publishing, Inc.

De Clercq, F. (1997a). Policy intervention and power shifts: an evaluation of South African

education restructuring policies. Journal of Education Policy, 12(3): 127-146.

De Clercq, F. (1997b). Effective policies and the reform process: an evaluation of the new

development and education macro policies. In Kallaway, P. et al. (Editors). Education after

apartheid: South African education in transition (pp. 143-167). Cape Town: UCT Press.

De Clercq, F. (2001). The strategic role of the implementing agents of education reforms: a case

study of the struggle foe provincial leadership and organizational alignment. Perspectives in

Education, 19(3): 37-52.

Deem, R. (1998). New managerialism and higher education: the management of performances and

cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. International Studies in Sociology of

Education, 8(1): 47-70.

Deem, R. (2001). Globalisation, new managerialism, academic capitalism and entrepreneurialism

in universities: is the local dimension still important? Comparative Education, 37(1): 7-20.

Deem, R. & Brehony, K. (2000). Doctoral students’ access to research cultures – are some more

equal than others? Studies in Higher Education, 25(2): 149-166. June.

Dei, G.J.S. (2000). Rethinking the role of indigenous knowledge in the academy. International

Journal of Inclusive Education, 4(2): 111-132.

De Laine, M. (2000). Fieldwork, participation and practice: ethics and dilemmas in qualitative

research. London: Sage Publishers Ltd.

482

Delport, C.S.L. (2002). Quantitative data collection methods. In De Vos, A.S. (Editor). Research at

grass roots. 2nd edition. (pp. 165-196). Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Denzin, N.K. (1998). The art and politics of interpretation. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S.

(Editors). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 313 -344) Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publishers.

De Paravicini, M. (31 0ctober 2004). Supervarsity is born. Sunday Times Higher Education: 1.

Department of Education. (1997a). Curriculum 2005. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Department of Education. (1997b). Draft white paper on higher education. Pretoria: Government

Printers.

Department of Education. (1997c). Education white paper 3: a programme for the transformation

of higher education. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Department of Education. (1997d). Outcomes-based education in South Africa: background

information for educators. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Department of Education. (2001). National plan for higher education. Pretoria: Government

Printers.

Department of Education. (2004). Creating comprehensive universities in South Africa: a concept

document. Commissioned Report by Trish Gibbon Pretoria: Government Printers.

Department of Education. (2006). The higher education qualifications framework. Pretoria:

Government Printers.

Department of Education. (2007). The higher education qualifications framework. Pretoria:

Government Printers.

Department of Education & Department of Labour. (2003). An interdependent national

qualifications framework system: consultative document. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Desai, Z. & Van Der Merwe, P. (1998). Accommodating diversity in an increasingly global era:

reconciling the tension between English and African languages in education policy in South

Africa. In Morrow, W. & King, K. (Editors). Vision and reality: changing education and

training in South Africa (pp. 245-254). Cape Town: UCT Press.

De Vuyst, J. (1999). Making the educational system more equal. In Brennan, J. Fedrowitz, J.

Huber, M. & Shah, T. (Editors). What kind of university? International perspectives on

knowledge, participation, and governance (pp. 94-101). Buckingham: SRHE & Open

University Press.

Dey, E.L. & Hurtado, S. (2005). College students in changing contexts. In Altbach, P.G., Berdahl,

R.O. & Gumport, P.J. (Editors). Revised edition. American higher education in the twenty-

483

first century: social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 315-338). Baltimore: The Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Dick, A. (2001). Science for ideology? P.C. Coetzee and the professionalisation of South African

librarianship. Perspectives in Education, 19(3): 85-108.

Dick, B. (1998). Convergent interviewing: a technique for qualitative data collection.

Accessed from: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/iview.html (Accessed 22 February

2006).

Dick, B. (2005). Grounded theory: a thumbnail sketch.

Available from: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html (Accessed 22

February 2006).

Dickeson, R.C. (1999). Prioritizing academic programs and services. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Inc., Publishers.

Dill, D. (1999). Student learning and academic choice: the rule of coherence. In Brennan, J.

Fedrowitz, J. Huber, M. & Shah, T. (Editors). (Editors). International perspectives on

knowledge, participation and governance (pp. 56-70). SRHE & Open University Press.

Dill, D. (2001). Reflections on US Higher education: 1994-1999. Commissioned paper as support

material for the book, Transformation in higher education: global pressures and local realities

in South Africa. Pretoria: CHET.

Dill, D. & Sporn, B. (1995). University 20001: what will the university of the twenty-first century

look like? In Dill, D. & Sporn, B. (Editors). Emerging patterns of social demand and

university reform: through a glass darkly (pp. 212-236). Oxford: Pergamon.

Dillinger, M.L. (2001). Learning environments: the virtual university and beyond. In Tschang, F.T.

& Della Senta, T. (Editors). Access to knowledge (pp. 53-92). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science

Ltd.

Donald, J.G. (1999). The link between knowledge and learning. In Brennan, J. et al. (Editors).

International perspectives on knowledge, participation and governance (pp. 36-54).

Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.

Donn, G. (1997). Higher education in South Africa: transforming the system. In Kallaway, P.,

Kruss, G. & Donn, G. (Editors). Education after apartheid: South African education in

transition (pp. 183-192). Cape Town: UCT Press.

Donn, G. (1998). Political roots of the debate about the integration of education and training. In

Morrow, W. & King, K. (Editors). Vision and reality (pp.70-85). Cape Town: UCT Press.

484

Dos Santos, M. & Dobbelstein, T. (2007). Spirituality, self-actualisation and quantum physics:

commonalities and a retail perspective. Management Insights, Volume 1: 23-46.

Dowling, D. & Seepe, S. (2004). Towards a responsive curriculum. In Seepe, S. (Editor). Towards

an African identity of higher education (pp. 185-189). Pretoria: Vista University & Skotaville

Media.

Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper Business Books.

Duderstadt, J.J. (1999). The twenty-first century university: a tale of two futures. In Hirsch, W.Z. &

Weber, L.E. (Editors). Challenges facing higher education at the millennium (pp. 37-55).

Phoenix: ACE & The Oryx Press.

Duderstadt, J.J. (2000a). A choice of transformations for the 21st century university. Chronicle of

Higher Education, B6-B7, February 6.

Duderstadt, J.J. (2000b). A university for the 21st century. Michigan: The University of Michigan

Press.

Duke, C. (1992). The learning university: towards a new paradigm?. Buckingham: SRHE & Open

University Press.

Du Plessis, M. (2003). The need for repositioning higher education institutions to meet the

changed expectations regarding management training in the world of work. Paper presented

at the TWR Conference on Management Challenges for The 21st Century. Montecasino,

Johannesburg, 26 September.

Durand-Prinborgne, C. (2002). The legal aspects of education planning and administration. Paris:

UNESCO.

Eastman, J. & Lang, D. (2001). Mergers in higher education: lessons from theory and experience.

Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Easton, P.A. (1996). Sharpening our tools: improving evaluation in adult and non-formal

education. Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO/German Foundation for International

Development.

Eckel, P.D. (2001). A world apart? Higher education transformation in the US and South Africa.

Higher Education Policy, 170:1-13.

Available from: www.elsevier.com/locate/highedepol (Accessed 17 July 2004).

Eggins, H. (1998). Universal networking: opportunities and challenges for higher education.

Address at the UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education. Paris, 5-9 October.

485

Ehrensal, K.N. (2001). Training capitalism’s foot soldiers: the hidden curriculum in higher

education. In Margolis, E. (Editor). The hidden curriculum in higher education (pp. 97-114).

New York & London: Routledge.

Ekong, D. & Cloete, N. (1997). Curriculum responses to a changing national and global environment

in an African context. In Cloete, N. Muller, J., Makgoba, M.W. & Ekong, D. (Editors).

Knowledge, identity and curriculum transformation in Africa (pp. 3-16). Cape Town: Maskew

Miller Longman.

Elbaz, E. (2000). Universities and social development: partners and stakeholders. In Neave, G.

(Editor). The universities’ responsibilities to society (pp. 89-94). Oxford: Elsevier Science

Ltd.

Ensor, P. (2001). Academic programme planning in South African higher education: three

institutional case studies. In Breier, M. (Editor). Curriculum restructuring in higher

education in post-apartheid South Africa (pp. 85-114). Cape Town: University of the Western

Cape Education Policy Unit.

Ensor, P. (2002). Curriculum. In Cloete, N. et al. (Editors). Transformation in higher education;

global pressures and local realities in South Africa (pp. 270-295). Pretoria: CHET.

Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: The Falmer Press.

Eyerman, R. (1994). Between culture and politics: intellectuals in modern society. Cambridge, UK:

Polity Press.

Fataar, A. (1998). Access to schooling in post-apartheid South Africa: linking concepts to context.

In Kallaway, P. & Kruss, G. & Donn, G. (Editors). Education after apartheid: South African

education in transition (pp. 68-85). Cape Town: Cape Town University Press.

Fataar, A. (2003). Higher education policy discourse in South Africa: a struggle for alignment with

macro development policy. South African Journal of Higher Education, 17(2): 31-39.

Fehnel, R. (2002). Transformation in higher education; global pressures and local realities.

Keynote address presented at the UNITECH Conference, held at The Wild Coast Sun on

October 16.

Available from: http://www.chet.org.za/issues (Accessed 12 November 2002).

Fielden, J. & Markham, L. (1997). Learning lessons from mergers in higher education.

Commonwealth Higher Education Management Services (CHEMS) Paper No. 17.

Filmer, P. (1997). Disinterestedness and the modern university. In Smith, A. & Webster, F.

(Editors). The postmodern university: contested visions of higher education in society.

Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.

486

Finch, J. (1986). Research and policy: the uses of qualitative methods in social and educational

research. London & Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.

Fiske, E.B. & Ladd, H.F. (2004). Equity: education reform in post-apartheid South Africa.

Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Fouche, C.B. (2002). Problem formulation. In De Vos, A.S. (Editor). Research at grass roots (pp.

104-113). Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Fouche, C.B & Delport, C.S.L. (2002). The place of theory and the literature review in the

qualitative approach to research. .In De Vos, A.S. (Editor). Research at grass roots (pp.

265-269). Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Foxcroft, C. & Stumpf, R. (2005). What is matric for? Paper presented at the CHET & UMALUSI

Seminar on Matric: what is to be done? held in Pretoria, June 23.

Frackmann, E. (1997). Research on higher education in Western Europe: from policy advice to

self-reflection. In Altbach, P.G. & Sadlak, J. (Editors). Higher education research: issues and

trends (pp. 107-36). Paris: UNECSO Publishing.

Franklin, F.S. & Ballan, M. (2001). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. In. Thyer, B.A.

(Editor). The handbook of social work research methods (pp. 273-292). Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Friedl, J.J., De Vos, A.S. & Fouche, C.B. (2002). Conceptual research. In De Vos, A.S. (Editor).

Research at grass roots (pp. 435-442). Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Frost, S. (14 June 1996). Student mobility under the microscope. New Nation: 23.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gair, M. & Mullins, G. (2001). Hiding in plain sight. In Margolis, E. (Editor). The hidden

curriculum in higher education (pp. 21-42). New York: & London: Routledge.

Galbraith, K. (2004). The dons run Cambridge – but should they? Professors say their wielding the

ultimate authority has made the university great: reformers charge that the system blocks

needed changes. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50 (22): A32, February 6.

Available from: http://www.chet.org.za/issues (Accessed 01 April 2004).

Garbers, J.G. (1996). Effective research in the human sciences: research management fir

researchers, supervisors and master’s and doctoral candidates. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Gardner, D.P. (1999). Meeting the challenges of the new millennium: the university’s role. In

Hirsch, W.Z. & Weber, L.E. (Editors). Challenges facing higher education at the millennium

(pp. 18-25). Phoenix: ACE & The Oryx Press.

487

Geertz, C. (1993). Local knowledge. New York: Basic Books.

Gehmlich, V. (2000). Credit accumulation and transfer systems: a global vision. Paper presented at

the International Seminar on Credit Accumulation and Transfer Systems. Leiria, Portugal,

24-25 November.

Gendall, P. (1998). A framework for questionnaire design: Labor revisited. Marketing Bulletin, 9:

28-39.

Available from: http://marketing-bulletin.massey.ac.nz/article9/article3/.asp (Accessed 21

October 2003).

Gibbon, T. (2003). Cracking the code of the new orthodoxy. In Naude, P. & Cloete, N. (Editors). A

tale of three countries: social sciences curriculum transformation in Southern Africa (pp.

221-233). Lansdowne: Juta &Co. Pty Ltd.

Gibbon, T. (2004). Background to curriculum issues for comprehensive universities. Paper presented

at the Seminar on Organising the Curriculum in the New Comprehensive Universities, held at

Highlands Country House Hotel, 3-4 February.

Available from: http://education.pwv.gov.za/content/documents/409.pdf (Accessed 11 October

2005).

Gibbon, T. & Parekh, A. (2001). Uncommon wisdom: making co-operation work for South African

higher education. Pretoria: CHET.

Gibbons, M. (1997). Development of science and basic research: the implications of mode 2

science. In Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. (Editors). Universities and the global knowledge

economy: a triple helix of university-industry-government relations (pp. 90-104). London:

Pinter.

Gibbons, M. (1998a). Higher education relevance in the 21st century. Paper presented at UNESCO

World Conference on Higher Education. Paris, 5-9 October.

Gibbons, M. (1998b). A commonwealth perspective on the globalization of higher education. In

Scott, P. (Editor). The globalization of higher education (pp. 70-87). Buckingham: SRHE &

Open University Press.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. (1994). The new

production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.

London: Sage.

Gibbs, G. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

488

Ginsburg, M.B. & Lindsay, B. (Editor). (1995). The political dimension in teacher education:

comparative perspectives on policy formulation, socialization and society. London: The

Falmer Press.

Giroux, H.A. (1999). Dialectics and the development of curriculum theory. In Pinar, W.F. (Editor).

Contemporary curriculum discourses. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Glennie, J. (5 December 2004). Distance education has moved into the mainstream. Sunday Times

Higher Education: 2.

Goduka, I.N. (1999). Indigenous epistemologies – ways of knowing: affirming a legacy. South

African Journal of Higher Education, 13(3): 26-35.

Gokulsing, K., Ainley, P. & Tysome, T. (1996). Beyond competence: the national council for

national qualifications and the challenge to higher education in the new millennium.

Aldershot, England: Avebury.

Goldman, I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goodson, I.F. (1994). Studying curriculum: cases and methods. Buckingham: Open University

Press.

Gordon, C. (Editor). (1980). Foucault – Power/Knowledge: selected interviews and other writings,

1972-1977. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Gornitzka, A., Kyvik, S. & Stensaker, B. (2005). Implementation analysis in higher education. In

Gornitzka, A. & Amaral, A. (Editors). Reform and change in higher education (pp 35-55).

Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Gouldner, A.W. (1979). The future of intellectuals and the rise of the new class. New York: The

Seabury Press.

Gourley, B. (2000). University and development: anticipating change. In Neave, G. (Editor). The

universities’ responsibilities to society (pp. 63-69). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Govender, P. (17 June 2007a). White students dominate engineering. Sunday Times: 5.

Govender, P. (29 July 2007b). Universities told to cut back on arts. Sunday Times: 8.

Graham, W. (8 September1997). Beacon of hope beaming from the north. The Star: 14.

Green, K.C. (1999). When wishes come true. Change, 31(2): 10-15.

Greeff, M. (2002). Information collection: interviewing. In De Vos, A.S. (Editor). Research at

grass roots. Van Schaik Publishers.

Griesel, H. (2003). Controversies of access to higher education study: the changing FE-HE

interface. Paper prepared for the 21st Annual AEAA Conference, 25-30 August, Cape Town:

SAUVCA.

489

Griffin, A. (1997). Knowledge under attack: consumption, diversity and the need for values. In.

Barnett, R & Griffin, A. (Editors). The end of knowledge in higher education (pp. 2-11).

London: Cassell.

Guedegbe, C.M. (1997). Research on higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Sadlak, J. &

Altbach, P.G. (Editors). Higher education research at the turn of the new century: structures,

issues and trends (pp. 25-47). Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

Guri-Rosenblit, S. (1999). Distance and campus universities: tensions and interactions – a

comparative study of five countries. Paris: Pergamon.

Habib, A. (6 August 2006). In search of our humanity. Sunday Times:34.

Haines, R. (2003). Curriculum reform in development studies: a case study of the postgraduate

programme at the University of Port Elizabeth. In Naude, P. & Cloete, N. (Editors). A tale of

three countries: social sciences curriculum transformation in Southern Africa (pp. 182-198).

Lansdowne: Juta & Co. Pty. Ltd.

Haldane, J. (1997). Higher education after ideology: whose crisis? What knowledge? In Barnett, R.

& Griffin, A. (Editors). The end of knowledge in higher education (pp. 53-66). London:

Cassel.

Hall, M. (2004). The importance of internationalization for higher education.

Available from: http://www.chet.org.za/issues (Accessed 09 November 2005).

Halsey, A.H. (1997). The universities and the powers: the European university in relation to

stratification. In Van der Merwe, H.W. & Welsh, D. (Editors). The future of the university in

Southern Africa (pp. 23-34). Cape Town: David Phillip.

Harcleroad, F.F. (1999). The hidden hand: external constituencies and their impact. In Altbach,

P.G., Berdahl, R.O. & Gumport, P.J. (Editors). American higher education in the twenty-first

century: social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 241-270). Baltimore: The Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Harman, K. & Meek, V. (2002). Introduction to special issues, mergers revisited: international

perspectives in higher education. Higher Education, 44(1): 1-4.

Harvey, L. (1999). New realities: the relationship between higher education and employment.

Keynote presentation at the European Association of Institutional Research Forum’s Centre

for Research into Quality. Lund, Sweden, August.

Harvey, L. (2004). Accreditation of prior learning (APEL).

Available from: http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/apel.htm (Accessed 02

February 2006).

490

Hearn, J.C. (1997). Research on higher education in a mass and diversified system: the case of the

United States. In Sadlak, J. & Altbach, P.G. (Editors). Higher education research at the turn

of the new century: structures, issues and trends (pp. 107-136). Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

Henning, E. (2005). Finding your way in academic writing. 2nd edition. Pretoria: Van Schaik

Publishers.

Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F. & Taylor, S. (2001). The OECD, globalisation and education

policy. Amsterdam: Pergamon.

Herman, H. (1998). Access and equity: major challenges to universities in South Africa. In

Morrow, W. & King, K. (Editors). Vision and reality (pp. 39-48). Cape Town: UCT Press.

Hesketh, A. (1998). Graduate employment and training towards the millennium. London: Hobson.

Higgs, P., Higgs, L.G. & Venter, E. (2003). Indigenous African knowledge systems in South

Africa. South African Journal of Higher Education, 17(2): 40-45.

Hill, S. (1997). Strategies for managing global transition in higher education and research:

UNESCO’s APHEN and mobility programmes. Paper presented at the APHEN (Asia Pacific

Higher Education Network) Regional Conference on Higher Education. Tokyo, 8-10 July.

Available from: http://www.mq.edu.au/aphen/staff/hill2.htm (Accessed 5 November 2003).

Hirsch, W.Z. (1999). Financing universities through non-traditional revenue sources: opportunities

and threats. In Hirsch, W.Z. & Weber, L.E. (Editors). Challenges facing higher education at

the millennium (pp. 75-84). Phoenix: ACE & The Oryx Press.

Hirsch, W.Z. & Weber, L.E. (1999). Preface. In Hirsch, W.Z. & Weber, L.E. (Eds). Challenges

facing higher education at the millennium (pp. vii-x). Phoenix: ACE & The Oryx Press.

Hite, S.J. (2001). Reviewing qualitative research to inform educational policy processes. Paris:

UNESCO.

Holiday, A. (1 September 2004). State tightens leash on free universities. Cape Times: 1.

Available from: http://www.chet.org.za/issues (Accessed 19 October 2005).

Holmes, L. (1995). Skills: a social perspective. In Assiter, A. Transferable skills in higher

education (pp. 20-28). London: Kogan Page.

Holmes, L. (2000). Reframing the skills agenda in higher education: graduate identity and the

double warrant. Paper presented at The Future Business of Higher Education Conference.

University of North London.

Available from: http://legacy.unl.ac.uk/relational/papers/reframe.htm (Accessed 05 November

2003).

491

Holosko, M.J. (2001). Overview of qualitative research methods. In Thyer, B.A. (Editor). The

handbook of social work research methods (pp. 263-272). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Horsthemke, K. (2004). ‘Indigenous knowledge’ truth and reconciliation in South African higher

education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 18(3): 65-81.

HSRC. (1995). Ways of seeing the National Qualifications Framework. Pretoria: Human Sciences

Research Council.

Huberman, A.M. & Miles, M.B. (1998). Data management and analysis methods. In Denzin, N.K

& Lincoln, Y.S. (Editors). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 179-210).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Hugo, A. (2003). From literacy to literacies; preparing higher education in South Africa for the

future. South African Journal of Higher Education, 17(2): 46-53.

Hult, C.A. (1996). Research and writing in the social sciences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hutchings, T. & Saunders, T. (2001). Curriculum Methodology: a case study in large-scale

curriculum development. Active Learning in Higher Education, 2(12): 143-163.

Huysamen, G.K. (2001). Marking standards and the differential predictability of the first year

university performance of different demographic groups. South African Journal of Higher

Education, 15(1):129-137.

Hyland, T. (1994). Competence, education and the NVQS: dissenting perspectives. London:

Cassell.

Ikenberry, S.O. (1999). The university and the information age. In Hirsch, W.Z. &. Weber, L.E.

(Editors). Challenges facing higher education at the millennium (pp. 56-64). Phoenix: ACE &

The Oryx Press.

International Association of Universities. (2002). Globalization and the market in higher

education: quality, accreditation and qualifications. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

Jacoby, R. (1997). Intellectuals: inside and outside the university. In Smith, A. & Webster, F.

(Editors). The postmodern university: contested visions of higher education in society.

Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.

Jackson, J.G. (1970). Introduction to African civilizations. New York: University Books.

Jansen, J.D. (Editor). (1991). Knowledge and power in South Africa: critical perspectives across

the disciplines. Braamfontein: Skotaville Publishers.

Jansen, J.D. (1999). Setting the scene: historiographies of curriculum policy in South Africa. Cape

Town: Juta & Co Ltd.

492

Jansen, J.D. (2001a). The race for education policy after apartheid. In Jansen, J.D. & Sayed, Y.

(Editors). Implementing education policies: the South African experience (pp. 12-24). Cape

Town: UCT Press.

Jansen, J.D. (2001b). O.R. Tiro, intellectuals and the future of education in South Africa. Paper

presented at The Second Onkgopotse Tiro Annual Lecture, held at Windybrow Theatre,

Johannesburg, February 1.

Available from: http://.azapo.org.za/speeches/speech2.htm (Accessed 12 January 2006).

Jansen, J.D. (2002a). The case for closing down historically black universities.

Available from: (Jdjansen@postnet.up.ac.za). (Accessed 14 January 2004).

Jansen, J.D. (2002b). Mergers in higher education: theorizing change in transitional contexts. In

Jansen, J.D. (Editor). Mergers in higher education: lessons learned in transitional contexts

(pp. 154-190). Pretoria: UNISA Press.

Jansen, J.D. (2004a). Race, education and democracy after ten years: how far have we come?

Paper presented for Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA).

Available from: http://www.chet.org.za/issues (Accessed 17 September 2004).

Jansen, J.D. (2004b). Accounting for autonomy: the 41st TB Davies memorial lecture. University of

Cape Town.

Available from: http://www.chet.org.za/issues (Accessed 16 November 2005).

Jansen, J.D. (2004c). Resist attempts to stifle criticism. In Seepe, S. (Editor). Speaking truth to

power (pp. 101-103).

Jansen, J.D. & Christie, P. (Editors). (1999). Changing curriculum: studies on outcomes-based

education in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta & Co, Ltd.

Jongeling, S.B. (1999). PhD or professional doctorate – is there a choice? In Brennan, J. et al.

(Editors). International perspectives on knowledge, participation and governance.

Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.

Joseph, P.B. (2000). Conceptualizing curriculum. In Joseph, P.B. Bravmann, S.L., Windschitl,

M.A, Mikel, A.R., and Green, N.S. (Editors). Cultures of curriculum (1-14). London:

Lawrence, Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Kallaway, P. (1998). Whatever happened to rural education as a goal for (South) African

development? In Morrow, W. & King, K. (Editors). Vision and reality (pp.20-58). Cape

Town: UCT Press.

Kallaway, P., Kruss, G., & Donn, G. (Editors). (1997). Education after apartheid: South African

education in transition. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

493

Kaplan, A. (1999). Scientific methods in educational research. In Keeves, J.P. & Lakomski, G.

(Editors). Issues in educational research (pp.79-91). Pergamon. Amsterdam.

Kaneko, M. (2000). Higher education research, policy and practice: context, conflicts and the new

horizon. In Teichler, U. & Sadlak, J. (Editors). Higher education research: its relationship to

policy and practice (pp. 47-58). Amsterdam: Pergamon.

Karabel, J. (1996). Towards a theory of intellectuals and politics. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Department of Sociology.

Available from: http://sociology.derkely.edu/public-sociology/Karabel.html (Accessed 02

September 2005).

Karabel, J. & Halsey, A.H. (Editors). (1977). Power and ideology in education. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Kearney, M.L. (2000). Higher education and graduate employment. In Neave, G. (Editor). The

universities’ responsibilities to society (pp. 127-140). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keeves, J.P. & Lakomski, G. (1999). Preface. In Keeves, J.P. & Lakomski, G. (Editors). Issues in

educational research (pp. x-xvi). Amsterdam: Pergamon.

Kennedy, P., Messner, D. & Nuscheler, F. (Editors). (2002). Global trends and global governance.

London: Pluto Press.

Kezar, A.J. (2000). Higher education trends: 1997-1999.

Available from: http://eriche.org/trends/curriculum.html (Accessed 11 October 2003).

Kezar, A.J. & Eckel, P.D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher

education: universal principles or culturally responsive concepts. The Journal of Higher

Education, 73(4): 435-460, July/August.

Available from: www.eriche.org/trends/curriculum/html (Accessed 14 February 2003).

Kgaphola, M.R. (1999). Restructuring higher education in South Africa: a case for a development-

oriented curriculum structure. Pretoria: Foundation for Research and Development.

Kgosana, C. (13 February 2005). Merger honeymoon not so sweet. City Press: 21.

Kieran, J. (2005). International education: the concept, and its relationship to intercultural

education. Journal of Research in International Education, 4(12): 313-332.

King, C. (1995). Pay as you learn? Students in the changing university. In Schuller, T. (Editor).

The changing university? Buckingham: SRHE: Open University Press.

King, J.E. (1999). Money matters: the impact of race/ethnicity and gender on how students pay for

college. Washington: American Council on Education.

494

King, K. (1998). Policy coherence in education, training and enterprise development in South

Africa: the implementation challenge of new policies. In Morrow, W. (Editor). Changing

education and training in South Africa (pp. 4-19). Cape Town: UCT Press.

Kinser, K. (2002). Faculty at private for-profit universities: the University of Phoenix as a new

model? International Higher Education, No. 28, Summer.

Available from: http://www.bc.edu/bc-org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News28/text006htm

(Accessed 14 October 2003).

Kishun, R. (2007). The internationalisation of higher education in South Africa: progress and

challenges. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(9): 455-469.

Klingner, J.K. (2005). How to publish in scholarly journals. Educational Researcher, 30(5): 14-20.

Kraak, A. (1997). Globalisation, changes in knowledge production, and the transformation of

higher education. In Cloete, N., Muller, J., Makgoba, M.W. & Ekong, D. (Editors).

Knowledge, identity and curriculum transformation in Africa (pp. 51-76). Cape Town:

Maskew Miller Longman.

Kraak, A. (1998). Competing education and training policies: a ‘systematic’ versus ‘unit

standards’ approach. Pretoria: HSRC.

Kraak, A. (1999). Western science, power and marginalization of indigenous modes of knowledge

production. Pretoria: CHET.

Kraak, A. (2000). Changing modes: a brief overview of the ‘mode 2’ knowledge debate and its

impact on South African policy formulation. In Kraak, A. (Editor). Changing modes: new

knowledge production and its implications for higher education in South Africa (pp. 1-37).

Pretoria: HSRC.

Kraak, A. & Mahomed, N. (2001). Qualifications reform in higher education: an evaluation of the

work of national standards bodies. In Breier, M. (Editor). Curriculum restructuring in higher

education in post-apartheid South Africa (pp. 139-156). Cape Town: University of the

Western Cape Education Policy Unit.

Kruss, G. (1998). Teachers, curriculum 2005 and the education policy-making process. In Morrow,

W. & King, K. (Editors). Vision and reality: changing education and training in South Africa

(pp. 96-111). Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

La Belle, T.J. (2002). More on the pseudo-university and its consequences. International Higher

Education, Summer.

Available from: http://www.bc.edu/bc-org/avp-soe-cihe/newsletter/News28/text012.htm

495

(Accessed 15 November 2002).

Lagemann, E.C. (1989). The politics of knowledge: the Carnegie Corporation, philanthropy, and

public policy. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press.

Lagemann, E.C. & Shulman, L.S. (2000). The improvement of education research: a complex,

continuing quest. In Lagemann, E.C. & Shulman, L.S. (Editors). Issues in education research

(pp. xiv-xxi). Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.

Lansink, A. (2004). The African university: contestations in the production of knowledge and

identity. In Seepe, S. (Editor). Towards an African identity of higher education (pp. 121-144).

Pretoria: Vista University & Skotaville Media.

Larsen, I.M. & Langfeldt, L. (2005). Profiling comprehensiveness? strategy formulation and effects

of strategic programmes at traditional universities. In Gornitzka, A. & Amaral, A. (Editors).

Reform and change in higher education (pp. 343-361). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking teaching for the knowledge society. EDUCAUSE Review, 37(1):

133-56), January/February.

Available from: www.bc.edu/bc-org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News28/text012htm

(Accessed 15 November 2002).

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1994). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Leask, B. (2001). Bridging the gap: internationalizing university curricula. Journal of Studies in

International Education, 5(2): 100-115.

Lebakeng, T.J. (2004). Towards a relevant higher education epistemology. In Seepe, S. (Editor).

Towards an African identity of higher education (pp. 109-120). Pretoria: Vista University &

Skotaville Media.

Lefkowitz, M.R. & Rogers, G.M. (Editors). (1996). Black Athena revisited. Chapel Hill and

London: The University of North Carolina Press.

Legume, M. (31 August 2005). Free market can’t always be the final word. The Star: 14.

Letseka, M. (2000). African philosophy and educational discourse. In Higgs, P., Vakalisa, N.C.G.

Mda, T.V. & Assie-Lumumba, N.T. (Editors). African voices in education (pp. 179-193).

Lansdowne: Juta & Co. Ltd.

Levine, A.E. (2000). Sure changes for colleges in the future. The Chronicle of Higher Education,

47: (B10-B11), 27 October.

Lindblom, C.E. (1990). Inquiry and change: the troubled attempt to understand and shape society.

New Haven: Yale University Press.

496

Liston, C. (1999). Managing quality and standards. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Lolwana, P. (2005). Where to with matric?. Paper presented at the CHET & UMALUSI Seminar

on Matric: what is to be done? held in Pretoria, June 23.

Luckett, K. (2000). Negotiating a way onto the NQF: a humanities perspective. South African

Journal of Higher Education, 14(1): 62-74.

Luke, A. (1999). Critical discourse analysis. In Keeves, J.P. & Lakomski, G. (Editors). Issues in

educational research (pp.161-173). Amsterdam: Pergamon.

Lyotard, J.F. (1994). The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. Translation from the

French by G. Bennington & B. Massumi. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Macdonald, B.W. (2001). Trends in general education and core curriculum: a survey.

Available from: www.erin.utoronto.ca/~w3asc/trends.htm (Accessed 11 November 2003).

Macfarlane, A. (1995). Future patterns of teaching and learning. In Schuller, T. (Editor). The

changing university? (pp. 52-65). Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.

Macfarlane, D. (15-21 February 2002a). Tertiary research under fire. Mail & Guardian: 3.

Macfarlane, D. (15-21 February 2002b). Needed: skilled tertiary planners. Mail & Guardian: 4.

Maehl, W.H. (2000). Lifelong learning at its best: innovative practices in adult credit programs.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers Inc.

Makele, B. (10 December 1995). All quiet on academic front – for now. City Press: 4.

Makgoba, M.W. (1996). South African universities in transformation: an opportunity to Africanise

education. Perspectives in Education, 17(1), March: 175-186.

Makgoba, M.W. & Seepe, S. (2004). Knowledge and identity: and African vision of higher

education transformation. In Seepe, S. (Editor). Towards an African identity of higher

education (pp. 13-58). Pretoria: Vista University & Skotaville Media.

Mamdani, M. (1998). When does a settler become a native? Inaugural lecture presented on May 13.

Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Marginson, S. (2000). Rethinking academic work in the global era. Journal of Higher Education

and Management, 22(1), May: 23-37.

Margolis, E., Soldatenko, M., Acker, S. & Gair, M. (2001). Hiding and outing the curriculum. In

Margolis, E (Editor). The hidden curriculum in higher education (pp. 1-4). New York &

London: Routledge.

MaRhea, Z. & Teasdale, B. (2000). A dialogue between the local and the global. In: In Teasdale, G.

& MaRhea, Z. (Editors). Local knowledge and wisdom in higher education (pp. 1-14).

Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

497

Marullo, S. & Edwards, B. (2000). From charity to justice: the potential of university

communication and collaboration for social change. The American Behavioral Scientist,

43(5): 895-912.

Masemann, V.L. (2000). Contextualising the dialogue. In Teasdale, G. & MaRhea, Z. (Editors).

Local knowledge and wisdom in higher education (pp. xvii-xxxi). Oxford: Elsevier Science

Ltd.

Matos, N. (2000). The nature of learning, teaching, and research in higher education in Africa. In

Higgs, P., Vakalisa, N.C.G., Mda, T.V., & Assie-Lumumba, N.T. (Editors). African voices in

education (pp. 12-38). Lansdowne: Juta & Co. Ltd.

Mayor, F. (1997). Foreword. In Sadlak, J. & Altbach, P.G. (Editors). Higher education research at

the turn of the century: structures, issues and trends ( p. xi). Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

Mazrui, A. (1976). The African university as a multinational corporation in Africa. Harvard

Education Review, 45(2): 191-210.

Mboya, M. (21 May 2003). Bridging the divide of have, have not. Sowetan: 12.

McGrath, S. (1998). Education and training in transition: analyzing the NQF. In Kallaway, P.

Kruss, G. & Donn, G. (Editors). Education after apartheid: South African education in

transition (pp. 169-182). Cape Town: UCT Press.

McKernan, J. (1998). Perspectives and imperatives: some limitations of outcomes-based education.

Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(4): 343-353, Summer.

McNair, S. (1993). An adult higher education: a policy discussion paper. Leicester, UK: NIACE.

McNair, S. (1997). Is there a crisis? Does it matter? In Barnett, R. & Griffin, A. (Editors). The end

of knowledge in higher education (pp. 27-38). London: Cassell.

Mecoamere, V. (1999). The Africanisation of knowledge.

Available from: http://www.afrofuturism.net/text/Manifestos/Sipho.html (Accessed 17 March

2003).

Mecoamere, V. (2 February 2002). Potch favours mergers. Sowetan: 17.

Mecoamere, V. (22 October 2003). New names of merged institutions. Sowetan: 5.

Medel-Anonuevo, C. (Editor). (2002). Integrating lifelong learning perspectives. Hamburg,

Germany: UNESCO Institute for Learning.

Meek, V.L., Goedegebuure, L. et al. (Editors). (1996). The mockers and the mocked: comparative

perspectives on differentiation, convergence and diversity in higher education. Oxford:

Pergamon.

Memela, S. (27 September1998). Great minds gather to outline Africa’s rebirth. City Press: 12.

498

Meszaros, I. (2005). The power of ideology. London: ZED Books Ltd.

Middlehurst, R. (1995). Changing leadership in universities. In Schuller, T. (Editor). The changing

university? (pp. 75-92). Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.

Middlehurst, R. & Barnett, R. (1994). Changing the subject: the organization of knowledge and

academic culture. In Bocock, J. & Watson, D. (Editors). Managing the higher education

curriculum: making common cause (pp. 48-68). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Miller, J.P. (2000). Education and the soul: toward a spiritual curriculum. Albany, NY: SUNY

Press.

Miller, R.L. & Brewer, J.D. (2003). The a-z of social research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Mohlala, M. (2003). Thinking outside traditional boxes: an imperative for institutional survival.

Paper presented at the TWR Conference on Management Challenges for the 21st Century,

Fourways, Johannesburg, 26 September.

Moja, T. & Hayward, F. (2001). Higher education policy development in contemporary South

Africa. In Sayed, Y. & Jansen, J. (Editors). Implementing education policies: the South

African experience (pp. 112-124). Cape Town: UCT Press.

Moja, T., Muller, J. & Cloete, N. (1996). Towards new forms of regulation in higher education: the

case of South Africa. Higher Education, 32: 129-155.

Monare, M. (23 January 2002). Quibbling Asmal should get his own house in order. The Star: 16.

Monare, M. (11 May 2003a). Academics quit over merger. Sunday Times Metro: 4.

Monare, M. (18 May 2003b). Wits to watch its language. Sunday Times Metro: 5.

Moodley, K. (1997). On ‘diversity education’ for South Africa: some critical reflections. In Cloete,

N., Muller, J., Makgoba, M.W. & Ekong, D. (Editors). Knowledge, identity and curriculum

transformation in Africa (pp. 133-137). Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.

Moon, J. (2002). The module and programme development handbook: a practical guide to linking

levels, learning outcomes and assessment. London: Kogan Page.

Mori, W. (2000). Foreword. In Neave, G. (Editor). The universities’ responsibilities to society:

international perspectives. Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Morrow, W. (1998). Multicultural education in South Africa. In Morrow, W. & King, K. (Editors).

Vision and reality: changing education and training in South Africa (pp. 228-231). Cape

Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Morrow, W. (2003). Epistemic values in curriculum transformation: In Naude, P. & Cloete, N.

(Editors). A tale of three countries: social sciences curriculum transformation in Southern

Africa (pp. 2-12). Rondebosch: CHET.

499

Morse, J.M. & Richards, L. (2002). Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. London:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Mosala, I. (15-21 February 2002). War has been declared. Mail & Guardian: 20.

Moulder, J. (1995). Universities and “Africanisation”. South African Journal of Higher Education,

9(1): 7-8.

Moulder, J. (1999). “Africanising” the predominantly white universities in South Africa: some

ideas for a debate. In Jansen, J.D. (Editor). Knowledge and power in South Africa: critical

perspectives across the disciplines. Braamfontein: Skotaville Publishers.

Mouton, J. (1996). Understanding social research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Mouton, J. (2001). How to succeed in your master’s and doctoral studies: a South African guide

and resource book. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Mouton, J. (2003). Transformative inertia, goal drift and blurred boundaries: higher education

research within the NSI. Paper presented at the SARIMA Conference, Kopanong.

Mthombothi, B. (15 September 2004). A country ruled by coconuts. The Star: 14.

Muller, A. (2002). Research proposal writing. A presentation session for the doctoral research

training programme in higher education management. Auckland Park, Johannesburg: TWR

Faculty of Business Management.

Muller, A. (2003). Mergers in higher education: some implications for institutions and the

institutional landscape. Inaugural lecture presented at TWR, 16 July. Johannesburg: TWR

Faculty of Business Management.

Muller, A. (2004). Resource pack for postgraduate students. Aucklandpark: TWR Faculty of

Business Management.

Muller, A. (2007). Trends in curriculum reform and the transformation of higher education.

Management Insights, Volume 2: 6-33.

Muller, J. (2000). Reclaiming knowledge: social theory, curriculum and educational policy.

London & New York: Routledge Falmer.

Muller, J. (2001). Concluding comments: connectivity, capacity and knowledge. In Muller, J.,

Cloete, N. & Badat, S. (Editors). Challenges of globalisation: South African debates with

Manuel Castells. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.

Muller, J. (2003). Higher education, curriculum differentiation and social justice in the further

education & training certificate (general) and the draft national curriculum statement. Paper

presented at the CHET/SAUVCA Seminar on The National Curriculum Statement: Tensions

500

and Challenges in the Further Education-Higher Education Articulation, held at UNISA

Sunnyside Campus, Pretoria, on February 10.

Available from: http://www.chet.org.za/papers (Accessed 15 October 2005).

Muller, J. & Cloete, N. (2004). Playing fast and loose with knowledge boundaries. Paper written in

response to some of the dangers associated with the formation of “comprehensive”

universities in South Africa. Available from: http://www.chet.org.za/issues (Accessed 15

October 2005).

Myers, M.D. (Editor). (1997). Qualitative research in information systems.

Available from: www.qual.auckland.ac.nz (Accessed 01 August 2004).

Naidoo, S. (20 August 2006). Finding a job is hard work. Sunday Times/Business Times Careers: 1.

Naidoo, D. & Cooke, L. (2001). Curriculum restructuring at three technikons in the Eastern Cape

Province. In Breier, M. (Editor). Curriculum restructuring in higher education in post-

apartheid South Africa (pp. 115-138). Cape Town: University of the Western Cape Education

Policy Unit.

National Assembly. (1996). The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996).

Cape Town: Government Printers.

National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE). (1996). A framework for transformation in

higher education. Pretoria: DoE.

National Working Group (NWG). (2002). The restructuring of the higher education system in

South Africa.

Available from:

http:///www.polity.org.za/govdocs/reports/education/universitiesconclusion.html (Accessed

15 November 2002).

Naude, P. (2003). Where has my department gone? Curriculum transformation and academic

restructuring. In Naude, P. & Cloete, N. (Editors). A tale of three countries: social sciences

curriculum transformation in Southern Africa (pp. 70-83). Lansdowne and Rondebosch: Juta

& Co. Pty Ltd. & CHET.

Ndaba, S. (2005). Halos and horns: reliving constructions of matric performance in the South

African education system. Paper presented at the CHET & UMALUSI Seminar on Matric:

what is to be done? held in Pretoria, June 23.

Ndebele, N. (2004). Higher education and political transition.

Available from: http://www.chet.org.za/issues (Accessed 17 September 2004).

501

Neave, G. (1997). Markets, higher education and social responsibility. Higher Education Policy,

10(4):161-62.

Neave, G. (Editor). (2000). The universities’ responsibilities to society: international perspectives.

Oxford: Pergamon.

Neave, G. (2002). Globalization: threat, opportunity or both? International Association of

Universities Newsletter, 8(1): 1-3, March.

Neave, G. & Van Vught, F.A. (1994). Conclusion. In Neave, G. & Van Vught, F.A. (Editors).

Government and higher education relationships across three continents: the winds of change

(pp. 264-317). New York: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Nedwek, B.P (1999). Information technology and changing roles in the academy. In Brennan, J.

Fedrowitz, J., Huber, M. & Shah, T. (Editors). What kind of university? International

perspectives on knowledge, participation and governance (pp. 171-192). Buckingham: SRHE

& Open University Press.

Nekhwevha, F. (2000). Education transformation and the African renaissance in a globalised world.

Perspectives in Education, 18(3), November: 110-131.

Newby, H. (1999). Governance. In Hirsch, W.Z. & Weber, L.E. (Editors). Challenges facing

higher education at the millennium (pp. 118-128). Phoenix: ACE & The Oryx Press.

Newman, F. (2000). Saving higher education’s soul. Change, 33(5) September/October: 16-23.

Ngobeni, S. (19 October 2003). Black intellectuals must publish or be damned. Sunday Times: 23.

Ngobeni, S. (22 October 2006). Where are all the black postgraduate students? Sunday Times: 48.

Nkondo, G.M. (Editor). (1976). Turfloop testimony: the dilemma of a black university in South

Africa. Johannesburg: Ravan Press (Pty) Ltd.

Nkondo, G.M. (14 June 1996). Defining a philosophy of education for South Africa. New Nation

Higher Education Review: 24.

Nkondo, G. M. (1998). Towards sustainable pedagogical transformation: a perspective on the

National Commission on Higher Education. In Seepe, S. (Editor). Black perspective(s) on

tertiary institutional transformation (pp. 31-41). Florida Hills: Vivlia Publishers & University

of Venda.

Nokuseria, E. (2004). Rethinking higher education transformation in terms of an African

philosophy of education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 18(3): 127-137.

Nowotny, H. (2003). The potential of transdisciplinarity.

Available from:

502

http://www.interdisciplines.org/interdisciplinarity/papers5/2/printable/discussions/.../63

(Accessed 02 February 2006).

NRF. (2002a). Education and the challenges for change.

Available from: http://www.nrf.ac.za/focusareas/educate (Accessed 15 November 2002).

NRF. (2002b). University research development programme at historically black universities.

Available from: http:///www.nrf.ac.za/programmeareas/dirchbu/ (Accessed 15 January 2002).

NRF. (2005a). Institutional review of the National Research Foundation. Pretoria: NRF.

NRF. (2005b). The NRF evaluation & rating system: facts and figures. Pretoria: NRF.

Nüesch, J. (1999). Higher education at the millennium. In Hirsch, W.Z. & Weber, L.E. (Editors).

Challenges facing higher education at the millennium (pp. 155-160). Phoenix: ACE & The

Oryx Press.

Nugent, W.R. (2001). Probability and sampling. In. Thyer, B.A. (Editor). The handbook of social

work research methods (pp. 39-52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Nuttall, T. (2003). Moving community-based learning into the mainstream university curriculum:

South African opportunities and challenges. In Naude, P. & Cloete, N. (Editors). A tale of

three countries: social sciences curriculum transformation in Southern Africa (pp. 54-69).

Lansdowne: Juta & Co. Pty Ltd.

Nzimande, B. (6 August 2006). Policies have put profit before people. Sunday Times: 34.

Odora-Hoppers, C.A. (2000). African voices in education: retrieving the past, engaging the present,

and shaping the future. In Higgs, P., Vakalisa, N.C.G., Mda, T.V., & Assie-Lumumba, N.T.

(Editors). African voices in education (pp. 1-11). Lansdowne: Juta & Co. Ltd.

Olivier, N. (2001).The relationship between the state and higher education institutions with

reference to higher education policy documentation and the legislative framework. Paper

commissioned as support material for the book, Transformation in higher education: global

pressures and local realities in South Africa. Pretoria: CHET.

Orr, L. (1997). Globalisation and universities: towards the “market university”? Social Dynamics,

23(1): 42-67.

Pallas, A.M. (2001). Preparing doctoral research students for epistemological diversity.

Educational Researcher, 30(5): 6-11. June/July.

Pandor, N. (2004). We cannot stand by and watch institutions collapse: universities and technikons

should not use the principle of institutional autonomy as a pretext for resisting democratic

change.

Available from: http://www.chet.org.za/issues (Accessed 16 May 2005).

503

Pelgrum, W.J. & Law, N. (2003). ICT in education around the world: trends, problems and

prospects. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.

Petras, J. & Veltmeyer, J. (2001). Globalization unmasked: imperialism in the 21st century.

London: ZED Books.

Phillips, D. & Ochs, K. (2000). Process of policy borrowing in education: some explanatory and

analytical devices. Comparative Education, 39(4): 451-462.

Phillips, L. & Jorgensen, M.W. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: SAGE

Publications.

Pinar, W.F. (1999). Contemporary curriculum discourse. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.

Pister, K. (1999). The university of the future – place, process or paradigm. In Brennan, S.

Fedrowitz, J., Huber, M. & Shah, T. (Editors). What kind of university? International

perspectives on knowledge, participation and governance (pp. 229-237). Buckingham: SRHE

& Open University Press.

Poetter, T.S., Goodney, T.L. & Bird, J.L. (Editors). (2004). Critical perspectives on the curriculum

of teacher education. Dallas: University Press of America, Inc.

Popkewitz, T.S. (1987a). The formation of school subjects and the political context of schooling. In

Popkewitz, T.S. (Editor). The struggle for creating an American institution (pp. 1-24).

London & New York: The Falmer Press.

Popkewitz, T.S. (Editor). (1987b). Critical studies in teacher education: its folklore, theory and

practice. London: The Falmer Press.

Portnoi, L.M. (2003). Implications of the Employment Equity Act for the higher education sector.

South African Journal of Higher Education, 17(2): 79-85.

Powell, S. & Green, P. (2003). Research degree examining: quality issues of principle and practice.

Quality Assurance in Education, 11 (2): 55-63.

Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm (Accessed 15 November

2005).

Power, C.N. (2001). UNESCO’s response to the challenge of establishing unity in diversity. In

Campbell, J. (Editor). Creating our common future: educating for unity in diversity (pp.

15-28). Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

Pretorius, D. (2003). Social engagement and the creation of knowledge. In Naude, P. & Cloete, N.

(Editors). A tale of three countries: social sciences curriculum transformation in Southern

Africa (pp. 13-40). Rondebosch: CHET.

504

Preuss, P. (1999). The research university’s potential as an area’s growth and prosperity stimulant.

Hirsch, W.Z. & Weber, L.E. (Editors). Challenges facing higher education at the millennium

(pp. 93-98). Phoenix: ACE & The Oryx Press.

Quddus, M. & Rashid, S. (2000). The worldwide movement in private universities. The American

Journal of Economics and Sociology, 59 (3): 487-516.

Radingwana, P. (15-21 February 2002). Slow poison to disadvantaged institutions. Mail &

Guardian: 6.

Ramose, M.B. (1998). Foreword. In Seepe, S. (Editor). Black perspective(s) on tertiary

institutional transformation (pp. iv-vii). Florida Hills: Vivlia Publishers & The University of

Venda.

Ramose, M.B. (2004). N search of an African philosophy of education. South African Journal of

Higher Education, 18(3): 138-159.

Republic of South Africa. (1996). The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. (Act 108 of

1996).

Republic of South Africa. (1997). Higher Education Act (Number 101 of 1997).

Rhodes, F. (1999). The Glion declaration: the university at the millennium. In Hirsch, W.Z &

Weber, L.E. (Editors). Challenges facing higher education at the end of the millennium (pp.

177-182). Phoenix: ACE & The Oryx Press.

Ronning, A. N. & Kearney, M L. (Editors). (1998). Graduate prospects in a changing society.

Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

Rossman, P. et al. (Editors). (2003). The future of higher (lifelong) education for all worldwide: a

holistic view.

Available from: http.//ecolecon.missouri.edu/globalresearch/chapters/1-10.html (Accessed 04

September 2003).

Rossouw, H. (2004). Leveling the learning field: 10 years after the end of apartheid, South Africa’s

plan to merge colleges and increase opportunities for black students faces tough challenges.

The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 16.

Available from: http://www.chet.org.za/issues (Accessed 19 October 2005).

Rupert, M. (1995). Producing hegemony: the politics of mass production and American global

power.

Available from:

www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/faculty/merupert/Research/Fordism/Crisisi.HTM (Accessed

01 February 2006).

505

Saad-Filho, A. & Johnston, D. (Editors). (2005). Neoliberalism: a critical reader. London: Pluto

Press.

Sadlak, J. & Altbach, P.G. (Editors). (1997). Higher education research at the turn of the new

century: structures, issues and trends. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

Sagasti, F. (Undated). The knowledge explosion and the knowledge divide.

Available from: Hdr.undo.org/docs/publications/background-papers/Sagasti.doc (Accessed 15

December 2004).

Said, E.W. (1994). Representations of the intellectual: the 1993 Reith lectures. New York:

Pantheon Books.

Said, E.W. (2001a). The public role of writers and intellectuals.

Available from: http:///www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20010917&s=essay (Accessed

01 February 2006).

Said, E.W. (2001b). The clash of ignorance.

Available from: http:///www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20011022&s=said (Accessed

01 February 2006).

Salmi, J. (1994). Conclusion: higher education reform in perspective. In Salmi, J. & Verspoor, A.

(Editors). (1994). Revitalizing higher education (pp. 411-420). Oxford: Pergamon.

Salmi, J. (2002). New challenges for tertiary education: the World Bank report.

Available from: www.bc.edu/bc-org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News28/text003htm (Accessed

19 October 2003).

Salmi, J. & Verspoor, A.M. (1994). Introduction: improvement and innovation in higher education.

In Salmi, J. & Verspoor, A. (Editors). Revitalizing higher education (pp. 1-11). Oxford:

Pergamon.

Salomon, J.J., Sagasti, F. & Sachs-Jeantet, C. (1994). The uncertain quest: science, technology and

development. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

SANTED Project. (2006). Business plan 2006-2009: establishing a qualifications structure and

programme profile for the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University and the University of

Johannesburg as comprehensive universities. Port Elizabeth & Johannesburg.

Sarantakos, S. (1998). Social research. 2nd edition. South Yarra, Australia: Macmillan Education

Australia Pty Ltd.

SAUVCA. (2002). A brief history of South African universities.

Available from: http://sauvca.org.za/highered/abriefhistoryofsauniversities (Accessed 17

April 2003).

506

Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-based learning in higher education: untold stories.

Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.

Sayed, Y. & Jansen, J.D. (Editors). (2001). Implementing educational policies: the South African

experience. Cape Town: UCT Press.

Schoenfeld, A.H. (1999). The core, the canon, and the development of research skills: issues in the

preparation of education researchers. In Lagemann, E.C. & Shulman, L.S. (Editors). Issues in

education research: problems and possibilities (pp.166-202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Inc., Publishers.

Scholte, J.A. (2000). Globalization: a critical introduction. New York: Palgrave.

Scott, A. & Freeman-Moir, J. (Editors). (2000). Tomorrow’s teachers: international and critical

perspectives on teacher education. Christchurch, New Zealand: Canterbury University Press.

Scott, P. (1975). Strategies for postsecondary education. London: Croom Helm.

Scott, P. (1995). The meanings of mass higher education. Bristol, PA: SRHE.

Scott, P. (1997a). The post-modern university? In Smith, A. & Webster, F. (Editors). The

postmodern university: contested visions of higher education in society (pp. 36-47). London:

Open University Press.

Scott, P. (1997b). Changes in knowledge production and dissemination in the context of

globalisation. In Cloete, N. Muller, J., Makgoba, M.W. & Ekong, D. (Editors). Knowledge,

identity, and curriculum transformation in Africa (pp. 17-41). Cape Town: Maskew Miller

Longman.

Scott, P. (1998). Massification, internationalization, and globalization. In Scott, P. (Editor). The

globalization of higher education (pp. 108-129). Buckingham: SRHE & Open University

Press.

Scott, P. (2001). Globalization and higher education: challenges for the 21st century. Journal of

Studies in International Higher Education, 4(1): 2-3.

Scott, P. & Watson, D. (1994a). Setting the scene. In Bocock, J. & Watson, D. (Editors). Managing

the university curriculum: making common cause (pp. 1-12). Bristol, PA: SRHE & Open

University Press.

Scott, P. & Watson, D. (1994b). Managing the curriculum: roles and responsibilities. In Bocock, J.

& Watson, D. (Editors). Managing the university curriculum: making common cause (pp.

13-32). Bristol, PA: SRHE & Open University Press.

507

Seepe, S. (1998). Black perspective(s) on tertiary institutional transformation. In Seepe, S. (Editor).

Black perspective(s) on tertiary institutional transformation (pp. 1-5). Florida Hills: Vivlia

Publishers & The University of Venda.

Seepe, S. (2000). Higher education and Africanisation. Perspectives in Education, 18(3): 52-71.

Seepe, S. (2004a). Language, truth and logic. In Seepe, S. Speaking truth to power: reflections on

post-1994 South Africa (pp.173-176). Pretoria: Skotaville Media.

Seepe, S. (2004b). All good things come to an end. In Seepe, S. Speaking truth to power:

reflections on post-1994 South Africa (pp. 254-256). Pretoria: Skotaville Media.

Seepe, S. (2004c). Neither a pacifier nor a consensus builder. In Seepe, S. Speaking truth to power:

reflections on post-1994 South Africa (pp. 19-32). Pretoria: Skotaville Media.

Seepe, S. & Kgaphola, M. (2004). Mbeki stifles debate. In Seepe, S. Speaking truth to power:

reflections on post-1994 South Africa. Pretoria: Skotaville Media.

Seepe, S. & Lebakeng, T.J. (1998). Taking frontline responsibility in reconceptualising the debates

on tertiary institutional transformation. In Seepe, S. (Editor). Black perspective(s) on tertiary

institutional transformation (pp. 6-13). Florida Hills: Vivlia Publishers & The University of

Venda.

Sehoole, C.T. (2004). Trade in educational services: reflections on the African and South African

higher education system. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(9): 297-316.

Short, A. (2004). Just showing up for classes won’t land you that job. Sunday Times Higher

Education: 6.

Siegel, H. (2006). Epistemological diversity and education research: Much Ado About Nothing

Much? Educational Researcher, 35(3): 3-12.

Slaughter, S. & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial

university. Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopskins University.

Slavin, R.E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: transforming educational practice and

research. Educational Researcher, 31(7): 15-21.

Smith, A. & Webster, F. (1997a). Changing ideas of the university. In Smith, A. & Webster, F.

(Editors). The post-modern university? contested visions of higher education in society (pp.

1-14). Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.

Smith, A. & Webster, F. (1997b). Conclusion: an affirming flame. In Smith, A. & Webster, F.

(Editors). The post-modern university? contested visions of higher education in society (pp.

99-113). Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.

Smith, E. (2003). RPL – a tool for transition.

508

Available from: http://www.tsa.ac.za/corp/support/pes/rpltool.htm (Accessed 11 November

2004).

Solomon, P. & Draine, J. (2001). Overview of qualitative research methods. In. Thyer, B.A.

(Editor). The handbook of social work research methods (pp. 29-38). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications Inc.

Soudien, C. (2001). Policy values: problematising equity and redress in education. In Jansen, J.D.

& Sayed, Y. (Editors). Implementing education policies: the South African experience (pp.

78-91). Cape Town: UCT Press.

South African Institute for Distance Education (SAIDE). (2001). Meaning of open and distance

learning.

Available from: http://www.saide.org.za/unesco/unit%201.htm (Accessed 11 November

2004).

Spencer, J.C. & Bernard, M. (2006). How a knowledge-based approach might illuminate the notion

of human capital and its measurement. Expert Systems with Applications, 30: 265-271.

Sporn, B. (1999). Adaptive university structures: an analysis of adaptation to socio-economic

environments of US and European universities. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Squires, G. (1990). First degree: the undergraduate curriculum. Buckingham: SRHE & Open

University Press.

Srisa-An, W. (2000). Universities and the international knowledge enterprise. In Neave, G.

(Editor). The universities’ responsibilities to society (pp. 141-152). Amsterdam: Elsevier

Science Ltd.

Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge societies. London: Sage.

Stephen, T. & Harrison, T.M. (2002). Building systems responsive to intellectual tradition and

scholarly culture. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 8(1):1-14, August.

Available from: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/08-01/stephen.html (Accessed 01 February

2006).

Strydom, H. & Delport, C.S.L. (2002). Sampling and pilot study in qualitative research. In De Vos,

A.S. (Editor). Research at grass roots (pp. 333-338). 2nd edition. Pretoria: Van Schaik

Publishers.

Strydom, H. & Venter, L. (2002). Sampling and sampling methods. In De Vos, A.S. (Editor).

Research at grass roots (pp. 197-209). 2nd edition. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Strydom, K., Hay, D. & Strydom, A. (2001). Restructuring higher education curricula: the leading

policy formulation and implementation organizations. In Breier, M. (Editor). Curriculum

509

restructuring in higher education in post-apartheid South Africa (pp. 38-58). Cape Town:

University of the Western Cape Policy Unit.

Stuurman, A. (1999). Case study methods. In Keeves, J.P. & Lakomski, G. (Editors). Issues in

educational research (pp.79-91). Pergamon. Amsterdam.

Subotzky, G. (1997). Pursuing both global competitiveness and national development: implications

and opportunities for South Africa’s historically black universities. Social Dynamics, 23(1):

102-138.

Subotzky, G. (2000). Complementing the marketisation of higher education: new modes of

knowledge production in community-higher education partnerships. In Kraak, A. (Editor).

Changing modes: new knowledge production and its implications for higher education in

South Africa (pp. 88-127). Pretoria: HSRC.

Sugrue, C. (Editor). (2004). Curriculum and ideology: Irish experiences, international

perspectives. Dublin: The Liffey Press.

Supovitz, J.A. & Taylor, B.S. (2005). Systemic education evaluation: evaluating the impact of

systemwide reform in education. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(6): 204-230.

Swanepoel, B. (Editor). (2000). South African human resources management: theory and practice.

2nd edition. Cape Town: Juta & Co Ltd.

Swenk, J. (2001). Strategic planning and chaos theory: are they compatible. In Cutright, M.

(Editor). Chaos theory and higher education (pp.33-56). New York: Peter Lang Publishing,

Inc.

Szczepanski, J. (1997). Higher education as an object of research: a reflection. In Sadlak, J. &

Altbach, P.G. (Editors). Higher education research at the turn of the new century: structures,

issues, and trends (pp. 349-358). Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

Szczypula, J., Tschang, T. & Vikas, O. (2001). Reforming the educational knowledgebase: course

content and skills in the internet age. In Tschang, F.T. &. Della Senta, T. (Editors). Access to

knowledge (pp. 93-128). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Taylor, N. (1993). Issues in the production of curriculum knowledge. In Taylor, N. (Editor).

Inventing knowledge (pp. 1-16). Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.

Teasdale, G.R. & MaRhea, Z. (2000). Local knowledge and wisdom in higher education. Oxford:

Pergamon.

Teichler, U. (2000). The relationship between higher education research and higher education

policy and practice. In Teichler, U. & Sadlak, J. (Editors). Higher education research: its

relationship to policy and practice (pp. 3-36). Oxford: Pergamon.

510

Terenzini, P. (1996). Rediscovering roots: public policy and higher education research. Review of

Higher Education, 20(1): 5-13.

The Dearing Report. (1997). The (UK) National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education.

Available from: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/docsinde.htm (Accessed 12 May 2002).

The Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 1996. 8th edition. New York: Oxford University

Press.

The Presidency. (2005). Address by the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, on receiving the

honorary doctorate from the African International University, Khartoum, Sudan.

Available from: http://www.chet.org.za/issues (Accessed 02 October 2005).

Thompson, F. (Undated). Fordism, post-fordism and the flexible system of production.

Available from: www.willamette.edu/~fthompso/MgmtCon/Fordism-&-Postfordism.html

(Accessed 01 February 1996).

Tien, C. (1999). Future challenges facing American higher education. In Hirsch, W.Z. & Weber,

L.E. (Editors). Challenges facing higher education at the end of the millennium (pp.

161-166). Phoenix: ACE & The Oryx Press.

Tierney, W.G. (Editor). (1999). The responsive university: restructuring for high performance.

Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Torres, R.M. (2002). Lifelong learning in the North, education for all in the South. In Medel-

Anonuevo, C. (Editor). Integrating lifelong learning perspectives (pp. 3-12). Hamburg,

Germany: UNESCO Institute for Learning.

Trow, M. (1972). The expansion and transformation of higher education. International Review of

Education, 18(1):61-83.

Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. Berkeley:

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.

Trow, M. (1981). Comparative perspectives on access. In Fulton, O. (Editor). Access to higher

education (pp. 89-121). Surrey, UK: SRHE & Open University Press.

Trowler, P.R. (Editor). (2002). Higher education policy and institutional changes. Buckingham:

SRHE & Open University Research.

Tschang, F.T. (2001). Virtual universities and learning environments: characterizing their

emergence and design. In Tschang, F.T. & Della Senta, T. (Editors). Access to knowledge:

new information technologies and the emergence of the virtual university (pp. 17-52).

Oxford: Pergamon.

511

Tschang, F.T. & Della Senta, T. (2001). Introduction. In Tschang, F.T. & Della Senta, T. (Editors).

Access to knowledge: new information technologies and the emergence of the virtual

university (pp. 1-16). Oxford: Pergamon.

Tsichritzis, D. (1999). Research and education: new roles, new instruments. In: W.Z. Hirsch & L.E.

Weber. (Editors). Challenges facing higher education at the millennium (pp. 99-110).

Phoenix: ACE & The Oryx Press.

TWR. (2002). TWR postgraduate research manual. Doornfontein: TWR Research Unit.

TWR. (2004). TWR research documents. Doornfontein: TWR Research Unit.

UNESCO. (1998). World conference on higher education. Paris: UNESCO Press.

UNESCO. (2000). Women, power and the academy: from rhetoric to reality. Paris: UNESCO

Publishing.

UNESCO. (2002a). Learning throughout life: challenges for the twenty-first century. Paris:

UNESCO Publishing.

UNESCO. (2002b). Globalization and the market in higher education. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

UNESCO/IAU. (2002). Globalization and the market in higher education: quality, accreditation

and qualifications. Paris: UNESCO Publishing & IAU.

Universities & Technikons Advisory Council (AUT). (1996). A qualifications structure for

universities in South Africa.

Available from: http://education.pwv.gov.za/DoE-Sites/Higher-Education/Report-116.htm

(Accessed 29 August 2003).

University of Bristol. (Undated). Modularisation guidelines for undergraduate programmes

(Circular 96/56).

Available from: http://www.bris.ac.uk/tsu/lta/mod/ugmopdguide.html (Accessed 13 July

2003).

Urry, J. (1998). Contemporary transformations of time and space. In Scott, P. (Editor). The

globalization of higher education (pp. 1-17). Buckingham: SRHE & The Open University

Press.

Usher, R. (1997). Seductive texts: competence, power and knowledge in postmodernity. In Barnett,

R. & Griffin, A. (Editors). The end of knowledge in higher education (pp. 99-112). London:

Cassell.

Uzoka, F.M.E. & Akinyokun, O.C. (2005). Factor analytic model for evaluating the effects of HR

profile on organizational productivity: case study of university academic staff. South African

Journal of Higher Education, 19(3): 119-30.

512

Van Damme, D. (2002). Higher education in the age of globalisation. In Globalisation and the

market in higher education: quality, accreditation and qualifications (pp. 21-33). Paris: IAU/

UNESCO Publishing.

Van Der Linde, C.H. (2002). The need for relevant workforce education for the 21st century.

Education, 120(4): 696-702, Summer.

Van Der Walt, L. Bolsmann, C., Johnson, B. & Martin, L. (2002). Globalisation and the

outsourced university in South Africa: the restructuring of the support services in public

sector universities in South Africa, 1994-2001. Final Report for CHET. Johannesburg: Wits

University Sociology of Work Unit.

Van Ginkel, H.J. (1999). Networks and strategic alliances within and between universities and with

the private sector. In Hirsch, W.Z. & Weber, L.E. (Editors). Challenges facing higher

education at the millennium (pp. 85-92). Phoenix: ACE & The Oryx Press.

Vorhaus, J. (2000). Lifelong learning and the new educational order? A review article. Journal of

Philosophy of Education, 36(1): 119-129.

Vilakazi, H.W. (2000). The problem of education in Africa. In Higgs, P. et al. (Editors). African

voices in education (pp. 194-212). Lansdowne: Juta & Co. Ltd.

Waghid, Y. (2001). Globalization and higher education restructuring in South Africa. Journal of

Education Policy, 16(5): 455-64.

Wagner, A. (1999). Lifelong learning in the university: a new imperative? In Hirsch, W.Z &

Weber, L.E. (Editors). Challenges facing higher education at the end of the millennium (pp.

134-152). Phoenix: ACE & The Oryx Press.

Walker, ? & Evers,? (1999). Research in education: epistemological issues. In Keeves, J.P. &

Lakomski, G. (Editors). Issues in educational research (pp. 40-56). Pergamon. Amsterdam.

Walters, S. (1999). Lifelong learning within higher education in South Africa: emancipatory

potential. International Review of Education, 45(5/6): 575-587.

Wane, N.N. (2005). African indigenous knowledge: claiming, writing, storing, and sharing the

discourse. Journal of Thought, 40(2):27-42.

Wandira, A. (1977). The African university in development. Johannesburg: Ravan Press.

Weber, L.E. (1999). Survey of the main challenges facing higher education at the millennium. In

Hirsch, W.Z. & Weber, L.E. (Editors). Challenges facing higher education at the millennium

(pp. 3-17). Phoenix: ACE & The Oryx Press.

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

513

Wellman, B. (Editor). (1999). Networks in the global village. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Welsh, D. & Savage, M. (1977). The university in divided societies: the case of South Africa. In

Van Der Merwe, H.W. & Welsh, D. (Editors). The future of the university in Southern Africa

(pp.130-147). Cape Town: David Welsh.

West, C. (1999). The Cornel West reader. New York: Basic Civitas Books.

Whiston, T.G. & Geiger, R.L. (Editors). (1992). Research and higher education: the United

Kingdom and the United States. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.

White, J. (1997). Philosophy and the aims of higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1):

7-17.

Williams, G.L. (1995). The “marketization” of higher education: reforms and potential reforms in

higher education finance. In Dill, D.D. & Sporn, B. (Editors). Emerging patterns of social

demand and university reform: through a glass darkly (pp. 170-193). Oxford: Pergamon.

Williams, H. (1999). The economics of higher education in the United States: What can other

developed countries learn from it? In Hirsch, W.Z. &. Weber, L.E. (Editors). Challenges

facing higher education at the millennium (pp. 65-72). Phoenix: ACE & The Oryx Press.

Wilson, J.K. (1999). The canon and the curriculum: multicultural revolution and traditionalist

revolt. In Altbach, P.G., Berdahl, R.O., & Gumport, P.G. (Editors). Patterns in higher

education development. In Altbach, P.G., Berdahl, R.O. & Gumport, P.J. (Editors). American

higher education in the twenty-first century: social, political, and economic challenges (pp.

427-447). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Winch, C. (2002). The economic aims of education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 36(1):

101-115.

Winkler, A.C. & McCuen, J.R. (1999). Writing the research paper. 5th edition. Fort Worth:

Harcourt Brace.

Wolpe, H. (1995). Transformation in South Africa: the case of the University of the Western Cape.

Comparative Education, 31(1): 275-291.

World Bank Task Force on Higher Education and Society. (2000). Higher education in developing

countries: peril and promise. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Young, M. (1998). The curriculum of the future: from the ‘new sociology of education’ to a critical

theory of learning. London: Falmer Press.

Young, M. (2004). Comprehensive universities for South Africa: some reflections from a European

perspective. Paper presented at the CHET Seminar on Policy Change. Highlands Country

Hotel, Cape Town, 3-4 February.

514

Ziegler, H. (1999). Higher learning as a joint venture between state and industry: the example of

the international university in Germany. In Hirsch, W.Z. &. Weber, L.E. (Editors).

Challenges facing higher education at the millennium (pp. 111-117). Phoenix: ACE & The

Oryx Press.

Zusman, A. (1999). Issues facing higher education in the twenty-first century. In Altbach, P.G.,

Berdahl, R.O. & Gumport, P.J. (Editors). (1998). American higher education in the twenty-

first century: social, political, and economic challenges (pp.109-150). Baltimore: The Johns

Hopkins University Press.

515

APPENDIX A: Supervisor’s Letter of Introduction

NB: The letter was originally written with letterheads of the university on it.

Prof. Anton Muller

2-06-2004

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Dear Colleague

DOCTORAL RESEARCH OF MR. THEMBA MKHONTO (STUDENT NUMBER

2040106)

I should like to confirm that Mr. Mkhonto is a registered full-time doctoral student at our

institution. His research has now progressed to the point where he needs to visit some institutions

of higher education to gather information on curriculum and programme issues in higher education,

his chosen topic. This will involve the distribution of a questionnaire to some selected staff

members. Some questionnaires may be followed by individual interviews.

I do realize that the chosen topic may at times deal with potentially sensitive issues, but I would

like to confirm that the data reporting will not be connected to the name of a particular institution. I

should furthermore like to state that this project is nothing more than a doctoral research project – it

has not been commissioned by any government or regulatory body in higher education locally or

abroad. We would appreciate being given permission to continue with the fieldwork, and will be

guided by any conditions you may wish to state.

Yours sincerely

A MULLER (FACULTY RESEARCH MANAGER AND SUPERVISOR)

516

APPENDIX B: Researcher’s Letter of Introduction

Sir/Madam

A request is hereby formally made to you for purposes of involving yourself and/or your institution

in the empirical phase of my research programme. I am currently a third-year, full-time D Tech

student at TWR (Technikon Witwatersrand). My topic, Challenges to Higher Education Curriculum

Reform, Design and Management, requires that on-site visits be made to those higher education

institutions meeting the selection criteria, as determined by this researcher. The research

instruments consist of the questionnaire itself and a list of interview questions for both the

structured and unstructured contexts.

The general aims of this research instrument are stated as:

1. to determine actual higher education curriculum trends and practices;

2. to determine the extent of reform implicit/explicit in these trends and practices, in respect

of higher education curriculum design and management; and

3. to utilize the results/findings for a broader evaluation of higher education- institutional

responsiveness to curriculum reform, as part of the socio-economic transformation process

currently underpinned by the changing higher education ecology.

In compliance with conventional ethical norms, due and absolute consideration is guaranteed for

your right to privacy, confidentiality and anonymity. No aspect of this research instrument will be

divulged to any unauthorized persons. No aspect of you/your institution’s participation will be

divulged without prior consent. Participation in this enterprise is voluntary, and no ulterior

intentions exist on the part of this researcher. It would be greatly appreciated if this questionnaire is

fully completed and ready for the personal collection by this researcher by 2004/06/22.

Thanking you in advance for your cordial participation.

Yours faithfully

Themba Jacob Mkhonto

517

Student ID: 802040106

Tel: (011) 942-1415

Cell: 073 378 5378

E-mail: mkhonto9039@google.com OR thembajm@yahoo.co.uk

SUPERVISOR:

Prof. Anton Muller, Senior Research Manager

Faculty of Business Management

University of Johannesburg

Bunting Road Campus

Tel: (011) 559-1178

Fax : (011) 559-1168

E-mail: amuller@uj.ac.za

518

APPENDIX C: Letter of Reminder to Respondents (Institution B)

Sir/Madam

I am a D Tech student in Education at the Technikon Witwatersrand. I recently requested you to

take part in my research, Challenges to Higher Education Curriculum Reform, Design and

Management, by completing a questionnaire which was attached to the request. This serves as a

reminder and a kind request for you to complete the questionnaire if you have not already done so.

I would like to reiterate that your participation is voluntary and that no aspect of your institution’s

responses will be divulged without your prior consent.

Thanking you again in advance for your participation.

Yours faithfully

Maretha Gous (Dr):

Department of Higher & Adult Education

Faculty of Education: University of Johannesburg

For: Themba J. Mkhonto

Tel: (011) 942-1415

Cell: 0733785378

E-mail: mkhonto9039@gmail.com OR thembajm@yahoo.co.uk

SUPERVISOR:

Prof. Anton Muller, Senior Research Manager

Faculty of Business Management

University of Johannesburg

Bunting Road Campus

Tel: (011) 559-1178

Fax : (011) 559-1168

E-mail :amuller@uj.ac.za

519

APPENDIX D: Questionnaire on Challenges Facing Higher Education Curriculum Reform,

Design, and Management in the 21st Century

BACKGROUND: Higher education in general, and curriculum in particular, is impacted on in the

21st century by the massive forces of, among others, globalisation, massification, and the advent of

information and communication technologies (ICT) – all of which have affected the internal

organizational operations of higher education, as well as its relationship with its external

environment. The curriculum, as the essential organizational product, is pivotal to shaping the new

role which higher education has to play in the changing ecology of knowledge production,

dissemination, and validation.

PART A: FACTUAL AND STATISTICAL INFORMATION SECTION A: BIOGRAPHIC

INFORMATION

SECTION A: Biographic Information

Cross with X the number that best reflects your response

1.1 Type of institution Distance Education Institution 1 Technikon/Institute (University) of Technology 2 University (predominantly teaching undergraduate and postgraduate levels) 3 Comprehensive University (teaching and research at all levels) 4 1.2 Sex of respondent Male 1 Female 2 1.3 Title of respondent Professor 1 Doctor 2 Other (please specify) 3 1.4 Respondent’s highest academic qualification Ph D/D Ed/D Phil 1 Master’s 2 Other (please specify) 3 1.5 Respondent’s subject fields In respect of academic qualification: In respect of institution’s curriculum developmental framework: 1.6 Respondent’s position/post-level in the institution Senior-level Management 1 Middle-level Management 2 Lower-level Management 3 Line-function: Academic 4 Line-function: Administrative 5

520

1.7 Location of position/post-level (e.g. Law, Medicine, Engineering, etc.)

1.8 Respondent’s number of years in the position/post-level Less than five years 1 More than five years, but less than ten years 2 More than ten years 31.9 Number of staff members in respondent’s department/faculty Academic staff, e.g. lecturers 1 Academic support staff, e.g. media production assistants 2 Professional learner support staff, e.g. guidance counsellors, tutors, mentors 3 Other (please specify) 4 1.10 Indicate the number of students in the appropriate spaces below: Year of Study 2003 2004 Level of Study Undergraduate Postgraduate Undergraduate Postgraduate In the institution 1 4 7 10 In the school/faculty 2 5 8 11 In the department 3 6 9 12

521

SECTION B: Curriculum Objectives/Points of Departure

2. Respond to the following by crossing with X next to your choice. Where applicable, you may

cross more than one choice.

2.1 In fulfilling its academic mission, your institution embraces curriculum models that are

epistemologically: Entirely discipline-based 1 Inter-/multi-disciplinary (thematically-focused frameworks within disciplines) 2 Trans-disciplinary (thematically-focused frameworks across disciplines) 3 More career-oriented and relevant to the needs of the economy 4 Profession-oriented 5 Other (please specify) 6 2.2 The organization of curriculum in your institution is characterised by an intellectual

culture that exhibit: Openness (more accountability to external stakeholder interests) 1 Closeness (more accountability to internal stakeholder interests) 2 2.3 The mission of your institution would best be served by a curriculum that is based

predominantly on: Teaching 1 Research 2 Community service 3 All of the above 4 Other (please specify) 5 2.4 Curriculum impact of mergers The merging of higher education institutions will necessitate a total overhauling

of curriculum organization in your faculty/department.

Yes No

2.5 If Yes above, the level of re-organization will be based on: Identifying areas of high correspondence between Programme Qualification

Mix (PQM) Yes No Identifying areas of partial correspondence between Programme Qualification

Mix (PQM) Yes No Identifying areas of little/no correspondence between Programme Qualification

Mix (PQM) Yes No 2.6 Underpinning the epistemological rationale of course content/knowledge organization in

in your faculty/department is/are the following principle(s): Accessibility – providing multiple points of entry and points of exit 1 Flexibility – inclusive multiple stakeholder interests 2 Responsiveness – relevant educational programmes for local and national needs 3 Diversity/Horizontal Articulation – integration of academic and vocational programmes 4 Vertical Articulation – emphasis on only one ‘type’ of knowledge (e.g. university or

technikon type) 5

522

2.7 The incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) in higher education

enhances the curriculum’s cultural compatibility True 1 False 2 2.8 Africanisation of the higher education curriculum engenders a perception/perceptions of: Inferiority of standards 1 Relevance to local needs 2 Less scientific modes of knowledge production 3 The curriculum as culturally responsive/compatible 4 None of the above (please provide own choice(s) 5 Some of the above (please specify your choices 6 2.9 For each of the following items, cross X to indicate the degree of application/non-

application of the following features of curriculum design in your institution/faculty/

department

A: Fully applied; B: Partially applied; C: Not applied; D: Still to be applied. Access/Bridging courses for students not meeting conventional higher

education admission requirements A B C D Franchised courses by other (public/private) higher education

providers A B C D Modularised programme offerings A B C D A credit accumulation and transfer (CAT) architecture A B C D Unit standards/unitised curriculum A B C D Whole-course curriculum A B C D Awarding of learning credits to courses, modules, etc. A B C D Granting of status (exemption) to students on the basis of RAPL

(Recognition and Accreditation of Prior (formal) Learning) A B C D Granting of status (exemption) to students on the basis of RAPEL

(Recognition and Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning) A B D D Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) A B D D Skills- and Competence-Based Education and Training A B D D Compliance with NQF requirements A B D D Notional instruction hours A B C D 2.10 SAQA status of course Are all courses/learning programmes in your faculty/department registered with

SAQA? Yes No 2.11 Student assessment

Mark with X for the appropriate option to your response

A: Strongly disagree; B: Disagree; C: Agree; D: Strongly agree. For an effective assessment of students’ performance to take place,

‘education’ and ‘training’ should be separated as ‘types’ of knowledge A B C D ‘Outside’ trainers and practitioners are best suited for the evaluation

523

of skills and competencies required for work. A B C D 2.12 Assessment techniques

Mark with X to indicate extent to which the type of assessment technique is applicable to

your faculty/department

A: All the time; B: Most of the time; C: Sometimes; D: Rarely Written tests A B C D Oral testing A B C D Written examination A B C D Oral examination A B C D Continuous assessment A B C D Criterion-referenced assessment A B C D Norm-referenced assessment A B C D Self-referenced assessment A B C D Portfolio of evidence A B C D Assignments A B C D Class presentations (by students) A B C D Group work A B C D Simulations A B C D Preceptorships/Practicum and work shadowing A B C D Peer assessment A B C D Student assessment of lecturers/professors A B C D Other (please specify) A B C D 2.13 Instruction delivery 2.13.1 With specific reference to the kinds of learning materials used to facilitate student

learning in your faculty/department. Cross X to indicate the degree of application for each

of the following:

A: All the time; B: Most of the time; C: Sometimes; D: Rarely Lecture notes A B C D Study letters A B C D Copies of additional reading A B C D Case study/Simulation material A B C D Learner guides A B C D Computer-based/CD ROM materials A B C D Other (please specify) A B C D 2.13.2 How are computer-based learning resources integrated into your teaching? Cross X

for the relevant responses. Access provided during contact classes. Access provided after class hours. Some topics are computer-based. All subject learning materials are available electronically. Web access is possible to all the students. Learner guides, study letters, and assignments can be accessed via the computer. Other (please specify) 2.14. How effective is Web-based knowledge in the following spheres of instruction

524

delivery?

Cross X to indicate the degree of application for each of the following:

A: Very effective; B: Effective; C: Partially effective; D: Not effective; E: Totally ineffective Serving students’ self-study purposes?? Enhancing asynchronous learning (e.g. (different schedules of

attendance for different learners, e.g. full-timers and part- timers? 2.15 How often are students required to access the Web, e.g. for assignments? Cross with X

to indicate the degree of application for each of the following: Very often Always Sometimes Rarely/Seldom Never 5.2.16 Web-based self learning:

Are students in your faculty/department encouraged to source information from

the Web in the construction of their own learning experiences? Yes No 2.17 Web-based curriculum: Your faculty’s/department’s organization of the

curriculum is entirely structured around the Web. Yes No

PART B: THE STUDENT AND THE CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTS

SECTION C: The student environment

Mark with X for the option(s) that best reflect(s) your response(s)

3.1 The student composition in your institution/department/faculty is predominantly: Homogenous: from the age cohort meeting standard admission/entry level

requirements Yes No Heterogeneous: incorporates homogenous category and those granted non-

standard status Yes No 3.2 The undergraduate curriculum in your institution is fundamentally focused on: General education 1 Liberal education 2 Market-oriented education 3 Information and communication technologies (ICT) 4 3.3 Does the curriculum in your institution/department/faculty cater for mature/

adult learners? Yes No 3.4 What proportion (as a percentage) of the student population is constituted by the

following categories of learners in your institution/faculty/department? ‘Non-standard’ learners: Mature/adult/part-timers 1 ‘Gold-standard’ learners: Young, newly matriculated, full-timers 2 3.5 Part-time learners in your department/faculty are from the following ‘encatchment

pools’/ sectors/ professions. (Indicate as a percentage in the opposite spaces provided):

525

Self-employed/Entrepreneurships 1 Law 2 Medicine 3 Education 4 Management 5 Banking 6 Accounting 7 Other (please specify) 8 3.6 Which of the following best locates your institution’s epistemological premise, in

terms of curriculum delivery to all students at all levels of study? Knowledge-as-product (training for utilitarian, practical/vocational skills) 1 Knowledge-as-process (training for cognitive, critical thinking skills) 2 3.7 Learner support:

Do learner support mechanisms exist to facilitate access after hours to

learning resources? Yes No 3.8 In enhancing the student’s experience, the construction of courses in your institution

gravitates on: Core-subjects for course/programme construction 1 Programme/course development by combining core-subjects and electives 2 Tailor-made/ “Just-for-you” courses to meet student needs 3 Unitized/Modular programmes standards 4 Other (please specify) 5 3.9 Match the student ‘types’ (1-3) to the most likely course ‘types’ (A-C) in the empty

spaces provided:

1: Self-employed learners; 2: Newly matriculated learners; 3: Part-time, working adults A “Just-in-time” (non-degree courses to formalize acquisition of skills and experience) 1 B. “Just-in-case” (uninterrupted study through a learning programme by a young

learner)

2

C: “Just-for-you” (formal learning programme designed for specific lifelong needs) 3 3.10 Student-centred learning and teaching in your faculty/department is most practicable at: The undergraduate level 1 The postgraduate level 2 Both of the above 3 3.11 Accreditation of learning experiences:

Informally-acquired experience is credited in your faculty/department Yes No 3.11.1 Such experience is credited for (Cross X for the applicable response): Undergraduate study only 1 Postgraduate study only 2 Both undergraduate and postgraduate studies 3 3.12 To the extent of catering for multi-faceted student backgrounds, needs, and interests,

your institution could be ‘classified’ as having the curriculum features of one (or more) of

the following ‘types’:

526

Diverse university: tolerates different opinions and approaches to issues 1 Divisionless university: permeable/transdisciplinary relationships in knowledge

‘boundaries’ 2 Lifelong university: less distinction between student, graduate and alumni 3 Creative university: stresses knowledge creation (invention) rather than knowledge’s

production (research) 4 Entrepreneurial university: stresses on ‘market education’ 5 None of the above (please specify by crossing those) 6 Some of the above (please specify by crossing those) 73.13 Respond to the following by crossing X for Yes (Y) or No (N) in each of these

statements: Your institution offers programmes leading to doctoral awards. Y N A comprehensive preliminary/candidacy is a pre-requisite for any postgraduate

study in your faculty/department. Y N ‘Apprenticeship’ aptly describes induction into graduate education. Y N Funding for postgraduate study is a serious problem in your department/faculty. Y N The intellectual and academic quality of postgraduate programmes is accorded

equal weight/value across all subject fields. Y N Postgraduate students are prompted more by material considerations than academic

or intellectual imperatives, as the primary reason for pursuing postgraduate studies Y N

SECTION D: Institutional links with stakeholders

Respond to the following by crossing X for True (T), or False (F) below:

4.1 For your institution, maintaining links with industry is more important than

links with society T F 4.2 Learning occurring at work cannot be compared to formal higher education

standards T F4.3 Higher education graduates are generally ill-prepared for the skills requirements

of the world of work T F4.4 The ‘corporate classroom’ diminishes higher education’s epistemological

authority T F 4.5 Work-based practicum does not guarantee graduates’ employment T F 4.6 Does your institution/faculty/department have a formal structure/body to co-ordinate

links with: a. The state? Yes No b. Civil society? Yes No c. The private sector? Yes No d. Other stakeholders (please specify)? Yes No 4.7 How is membership of each of the above constituted, and how often are meetings held? a. The private sector:

527

b. The state:

c. Civil society:

d. Other stakeholders (please specify): 5 Which body/structure is responsible for curriculum development/organization: 5.1 In your institution? 5.2 In your department/faculty? 6 Students in your faculty/department perceive the organization of curriculum as

predominantly: Academic: sequential, cognitive and scientific/discipline-based and focusing on

critical thinking 1 Vocational: practical, industry-oriented, and multidisciplinary 2 Both of the above 3

SECTION E: Curriculum management and quality assurance

7 With specific reference to your faculty/department:

7.1 Is there a dedicated structure overseeing the development, implementation

and evaluation of curricula, learning materials, etc? Yes No7.2 How often is the curriculum revised?7.3 Are curriculum development procedures and structures less formalised, with

greater reliance on the lecturer’s awareness and innovative inclination? Yes No

528

APPENDIX E: Interview Schedule

Name of Interviewee:

Interviewee’s Designation:

Interviewee’s Institution:

Interviewee’s Department/School/Faculty:

Date & Time of Interview:

Place of Interview:

Theme of Interview:

CORE ISSUES

1 Epistemological Principles

1.1 What are the core epistemological principles guiding curriculum organization in your

department/school/faculty?

1.2 How do these principles translate into innovative curriculum design in your department/school/

faculty?

2 Curriculum Structures

2.1 Do structures exist for overseeing curriculum development in your institution/

department/faculty?

2.2 What kind of resources (financial and otherwise) are allocated to these structures?

2.3 Are these structures formally organised, or is curriculum innovation in your department/school/

faculty dependent mainly on lecturers’ awareness and innovativeness?

3. Curriculum Role Players

3.1 How is membership of the curriculum development structures in your institution/department/

faculty constituted?

3.2 Are representatives from civil society, industry, and the state included in these curriculum

development structures?

3.3 Within these structures, which of the afore-said sectors is most dominant in shaping policy for

curriculum innovation?

529

4 Instructional Modes

4.1 Which are the most commonly used instructional modes in your department/school/faculty?

5 Curriculum Quality Assurance Cycles

5.1 How often is the curriculum revised in your department/school/faculty?

5.2 How often is student performance assessed in your department/school/faculty?

5.3 How often are meetings of curriculum development structures/committees held

5.3.1 institution-wide?

5.3.2 department-/faculty-wide?

5.4 How are resources allocated to the curriculum revision and maintenance endeavour?

530

APPENDIX F: Interview 1 Transcript

Interviewee’s Institution: (Former Technikon)

Name of Interviewee: Dr “G”

Interviewee’s Designation: Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education

Date of Interview: 15 September 2004.

Time of Interview: 11h00.

Place of Interview: Interviewee’s Office.

Theme of Interview: Organizational, and curriculum (design & management) issues prevailing

within the institution/department/faculty.

(Whole questions, or parts thereof, are indicated by the usage of italics. The usage of parentheses [ ],

indicates that the words enclosed within are not those of the interviewee, but the interviewer’s,

meant to create a ‘live’ account of the ensuing narrative; the usage of brackets ( ), is meant to

‘augment’ to the words ‘omitted’, or which were intended to be said by the interviewee (as assumed

by the interviewer). The usage of the dots..., indicates that some words were still going to be said by

the speaker at that particular point in time, but were interjected by the next speaker (either the

researcher or interviewee); or such words were ‘omitted’ for editorial clarity as they tended to be

repetitive. The cassettes, however, still contain the original versions. Very limited editing was done

by the researcher at this stage. In keeping with interviewee anonymity, as well as institutional

integrity, the interviewees’ identities have been protected by using their initials. In both interviews,

T.J.M. refers to the researcher/interviewer; “DR G” and “PROF T” are respectively the noms de

plume of the interviewees. For that selfsame reason (protection of identities), the names of

institutions have been ‘hidden’ as well).

DR G: Good! [indicating that she is now ready to begin]

TJM: Yeah, as I was saying earlier, [in the pre-interview phase] these questions are divided into five

key areas which are addressed in the questionnaire. So, the first one on the epistemological issue:

what would you say are the core epistemological principles guiding curriculum organization in your

faculty/department or institution… because eh… it [the question] gives options – faculty level,

department level or institution level. I suppose that Dr “G”, you might respond in a manner … in the

531

context that suits you [is applicable] in respect of the 3 options ... in terms of the position that you

hold in either the faculty, the department, or in the institution.

DR G: Yeah, [indicting a good understanding of the question]. I think I will re … s … pond …

[cautiously ‘measuring’ her words and approach to the question] from the perspective of the whole

School … [of which she is Head]

TJM: Yes …

DR G: We are a school consisting of different departments, and … there might be differences [my

emphasis] in how the different departments see the organization of knowledge … If I think of

epistemological principles, I must … just point out to you … I don’t know if there are a list of

principles, but I just had to think … what I think would be relevant …

TJM: [Interjecting to confirm agreement with that line of response by DR G] Yes … I think I agree.

DR G: Yes … if one looks at curriculum organization in our School, we have different programmes,

for instance, the Public Relations Management programme, and the Post-School Education

programme, and in the first place, whatever knowledge is included in those curricula are determined

on a national basis [my emphasis, the significance of which is to highlight divergence with

university tradition – where, unlike the technikon sector, each institution is distinct by its own

distinct ‘brand’ of curriculum]. The different technikons get together and they curriculate for a

certain programme – for instance, Education. So,… all the … technikons in the country would have

the same core curriculum [my emphasis], the same subjects, although the content might differ from

one [technikon] to the next … the broad curriculum is decided on a national basis … then in my

teaching, in Education … I would say one sees knowledge as something which the student must

assimilate and make his own … so the student must construct his own knowledge; although there is

– one can maybe call it public knowledge – that is available in the textbooks that the student reads,

or in articles that they read. The students have to find meaning for themselves in that knowledge,

and construct his own meaning [my emphasis]. Am I making sense, Themba? [giggling a little].

TJM: Very much so, very much so [emphasising the elaborate manner in which the question has

been answered].

532

DR G: Then also, at the more personal level where the student is involved … I would say that the

view of knowledge would not be one in which one sees knowledge as absolute. If I tell you this or if

you find it in the textbook, then that is absolute knowledge, it cannot be questioned. So, the student

must realize that all knowledge must be critically evaluated. The student must decide: is it true in

this context, is it true for me … before I accept it? So, one wouldn’t have a perception of knowledge

as being absolute – 100% true or 100% false, like a black and white view of … of knowledge. Then,

if we look at a wider picture where the different subject areas are combined to form one programme,

for instance, Public Relations Management, the combinations are … disciplines that would be

involved in a programme … I think in our programmes, would be … the vocational viewpoint would

be the first and foremost one; what is needed for a student to study his Public Relations Management

– for that student to develop and to equip himself or herself to become an effective public relations

practitioner when he has completed this course. So, the vocational viewpoint would be very

important [my emphasis]: What is needed in that industry? What are the industry’s needs? What is

the knowledge that has been constructed by means of the most recent research? What might be

knowledge that has been true for many decades and had stayed true? It’s not the latest knowledge,

but it’s the foundational knowledge [these being some of the epistemological questions borne in

mind when constructing courses or programmes]. In our courses, because they are vocationally

directed, they are usually multi-disciplinary [my emphasis], so that in our school, it’s seldom that

there is a programme which fits into one discipline only, [they are] usually multi-disciplinary [i.e.]

from different disciplines … knowledge is used. [after a brief pause] Is that enough?

TJM: Ehh … that is more than enough.

DR G: Good [laughing a little].

TJM: So, in other words, ehh … in every department or faculty in the institution, the foundation of

all courses or subjects is multi-disciplinary?

DR G: I would say … in this faculty that I am now involved in [which is Education] I would say

they [subjects/courses] are mostly multi-disciplinary; maybe not all, there might be some which are

based in just one discipline, but mostly it would be multi-disciplinary.

TJM: Yeah, I’m answered … I think [question] 1.1 has been responded to satisfactorily.

533

DR G: [Somewhat inaudible due to the static on the cassette] Thanks.

TJM: We can now get [proceed] to the next one [question] 1.2, which I think, you partially have

referred to [reads out the entire question (1.2)]. For instance [by referring to Dr G ’s response to

question 1.1, some of which had a bearing on 1.2] when Dr G made reference to the fact of …getting

to know what the latest … knowledge or foundational knowledge would be … I think that in a way

responds to … if I understood it well, but ehh … you …

DR G: Yes I think I have mentioned some of these in my previous response … What I can just add

… is … in outcomes-based educational approach, when we develop a curriculum, I think we start

with outcomes [i.e.]. What are the outcomes that the student must reach in this programme or in

every specific subject? And then, one has to look at: what is the [kind of] knowledge that the student

would have to come into contact with … in order to reach this outcome? Obviously there might be

skills involved and attitudes involved, but put the focus on: what will be the learning material

[content?]. I think that would be the main … ehh … guiding factor in curriculating [that is, in

constructing the curriculum]. And, on the basis of what is involved in the outcome, one would

decide what knowledge to select for the student to … [pauses to think of an appropriate word to use]

… that the student must come across … or we must guide the student to find.

TJM: That answers [the question] ... I think which now leads us to number [question] 2. I think here

what I had in mind – in the formulation of this question – or rather these sub-questions, … moving

away from the instructional part of the curriculum to the administrative processes or process. Here, I

might as well say in advance that I did not know – it was brought to my attention for the first time

during the drafting of this question by my Supervisor – that I should know that ... [mentions

technikon’s name] like all, if not most technikons, has what it is called an Advisory Council. That is

something I had not known before. I was just thinking in terms of the Senate and the Council as the

super [supreme] bodies that oversee everything. Yeah, so he mentioned the Advisory Council as

playing some part (I’m not sure how significant of a part) in the shaping of, ehh … certain … shall I

say, tenets of the curriculum. I don’t know if I understood you correctly.

DR G: Yeah. We have for every programme … or groups of programmes what we call an Advisory

Committee. That is not what you are referring to? Are you referring to an overall Council for the

534

whole technikon? Yes, [after a nod from me affirming her question] we have a Council which makes

the ultimate decisions – but it’s not an Advisory Council …

TJM: [Interjecting to seek clarification on which of these councils directly relates to question 2.1

which reads: Do structures exists for overseeing curriculum development in your institution/faculty/

department?] … I think he [my Supervisor] was referring to a body that is below the Council …

DR G: … Not an overall one?

TJM: Yeah … like a departmental or faculty level … such as you have just alluded to …

DR G: Yeah … yeah … we have an Advisory Committee for every department. So, for Public

Relations Management there is an Advisory Committee, but they are not so much involved in

structures [as integral components of, say, an organ gram] they would be involved in advising

[relevant departments] on what should be included in the curriculum – what skills should be included

in the curriculum … [italics are my own emphasis].

TJM: So, they merely advise [and] it is up to … if their role is merely advisory, who are the actual

people who determine that: [for instance] for our faculty or department, this is what we’ll teach to

our students? Is it … the Heads of Departments, the Dean[s] …?

DR G: The Heads of School[s] … the other Faculty Executive[s] … and the Heads of School[s]

serve on that body [Advisory Committee], and they decide on structures and procedures [my

emphasis], and regulations. All staff are [also] involved in making decisions about regulations … but

I wouldn’t say [for staff involvement and participation in making decisions] it’s so much on the level

of what is the knowledge that’s included – maybe it is because the Faculty Board that must make all

decisions about new courses – what the curriculum of a new course would be. So, I would say, I

think the Faculty Board is the level where decisions about the broader curriculum is decided …

TJM: … I’m sorry to interject [as Dr G was bout to continue]. In other words, the Faculty Executive

is a senior body to the Faculty Board …

535

DR G: No. The Faculty Executive is just a smaller committee of the Faculty Board. It can make

decisions on behalf of the Faculty Board. It is a smaller group of people, so they can meet more

often. The Faculty Board meets just four times or so, a year. I don’t think I have answered your

question about structures … oh, okay [remembering that she has] … I was also thinking of the

structures as the organ gram of the faculty. Do you think that is also relevant?

TJM: Yeah, I think that is also relevant.

DR G: Then there are six Schools, and the Schools consist of related departments. In our case it’s

the School of Education and Communication Management. So the four departments are: Public

Relations Management, and Communication Skills and Business Communication [the latter two] are

service departments, and then Education – which is focusing on post-school education; and for each

of those departments, there is a Head of Department who is the academic leader – provides

academic leadership [my emphasis] in that department … and the department would, if a new course

is developed for instance, would put it together and then present it to the Faculty Board. The Faculty

Board would have to make a decision – approve it or not approve it. But the curriculum development

at subject level, [i.e.] micro-level, that happens in the department itself. There would be guiding

[curriculum] principles in the department, and the lecturer or lecturers involved would do the

development of the curriculum for a specific subject.

TJM: … I am answered completely … which now leads us to the next question [2.3, which reads as

follows: Are these structures formally organized, or is curriculum innovation in your

faculty/department dependent on lecturers’ awareness and innovativeness?] My point of interest

here would be the role of the lecturer. What does the lecturer do …? Which reminds me of a

question here [in the Questionnaire itself] … the very last one [reads it out. The very purpose of

linking the questionnaire and interview devices is in itself indicative of the complementarity of the

two instruments] … I was just making a reference to it. What motivated such a question [to be

included, emanates from], in terms of some arguments [points of view] in this curriculum field; there

are analysts, for instance, when it comes to school curriculum, who regard teachers merely as

knowledge brokers – intermediaries – because there is no new knowledge that they can formulate on

their own [in a classroom context, reinforcing the curriculum-as-prescription notion]; they simply

translate [read explain] for the students what is in the textbook …

536

DR G: Oh yes, it’s already been decided …

TJM: … decided upon, and they [teachers] had no input into the author’s construction of

‘facts’ [using the index fingers from both hands to indicate the word ‘facts’ in inverted commas], or

whatever [implying, interpretation, analysis, relevance of facts, and so forth], in the [text] book. So,

they [analysts] differentiate between school [level] knowledge and higher education [level]

knowledge [which is open to scrutiny and criticism], so that now the role of the lecturer would

obviously be different from that of the teacher at school – primary or high school …

DR G: Yeah … it would be very different. As I said earlier, the national curriculum for instance,

Public Relations Management – that is decided where representatives of all technikons get together

and they make a decision about what will be the subject areas in that course; and then the lecturer

must translate those guidelines into what is curriculated for a specific subject. … I think the

responsibility is on the lecturer to make sure that, that curriculum development includes the latest

innovations … Also, the Head of Department, as the academic leader, together with the lecturer, is

the one that makes sure that, that curriculum is kept updated. There is a formal decision in the

School, [of Education and Communication Management] for instance; we made a decision that every

curriculum must be revised at least once in two years. So, even if there is a lecturer who is not in

himself or herself innovative, he would have to, after two years, revise what is in that curriculum –

he would be forced to re-look the curriculum.

TJM: Yeah, while you were saying that, it is as if you were reading my mind [she laughs]. I was

going to say, in view of the fact that there is irrefutable evidence from a number of academic

analysts that knowledge accumulates after every five years. So in terms of … [or] against that

background, I was going to want to know … [since] obviously textbooks can’t be – specially in a

field like the commerce field, where there are so many developments taking place almost everyday –

so textbooks obviously have to keep abreast of … developments …

DR G: Yes … yes [affirming the latter statement] …

TJM: So, my question was going to be: Who decides, is it the lecturer, or the lecturer in

conjunction with the Head of Department, as to which core, or shall I say, [which] prescribed

textbooks would be …?

537

DR G: Selected? [completing the question as if reading my mind]

TJM: Yea, for a particular course of study?

DR G: In our School, for instance Business Communication, those lecturers who teach more or less

the same subjects – because it’s a service to all the different programmes in the faculty – so, a

decision like that [textbook selection] would be made by the department as a whole. They [staff in

that department] would all give input and then we discuss and then decide on … the textbook [if

there is any]. Mostly, we don’t have one particular textbook for a course. It’s usually a combination

of a few textbooks and some articles. We try to give them [learners] a collection of different

approaches. That would be [for] the whole department. In Public Relations Management [for

instance], for a specific subject which is only for one lecturer, I think that kind of decision [relating

to curriculum innovation] would be made by the lecturer and the HOD.

TJM: Now, I’m fully answered. So, just by way of concluding this question – the whole of question

2 [based on curriculum management/development structures] – this is more of a comment than a

question. There is … some of the readings that I have gone through, make a suggestion that, an

institution’s ability to reform itself, either in terms of curriculum [related] activities, administratively

and otherwise … to a larger extent, depends on the extent to which its knowledge base is structured.

This particular author [Burton Clark] was relating to a case study that was conducted in five

institutions in five different European countries, and … one of the conclusions he came to was that,

institutions whose management system is – he used the word ‘entrepreneurial’ – are …

DR G: Yes … [interjecting to indicate she is aware of what I am driving at].

TJM: … are likely to be more reform-oriented in their curriculum practices …

DR G: …Yeah … I can imagine that.

TJM: And, consequently, they will move from … he uses the phrases “close academic system’’ to

“open academic systems”. So …

DR G: That would include a view of knowledge as well – as being either ‘close’ or ‘open’.

538

TJM: Yeah … so that is why this question extends further and further … up to the level of the

lecturer, as the person – I would say the front person [on a day-to-day basis], because all the

theoretically big words, and so forth, ultimately have to be translated into [the learners’] reality. So

the people who are on a day-to-day contact with the students, are the ones through whom those ideas

can be accessed. … the impression that I get in this particular context [of DR G’s response] is that

the lecturers themselves … are not merely being told [that]: this is what you’ll do … like at school-

level, where the principal is almost the jack of all trades, if I may put it that way [at this stage DR G.

repeatedly says: No, no …, to imply that lecturers’ role is more meaningful in curriculum

development, than is the case with high school teachers’ roles]. He [principal] is overseeing every

department by himself [on behalf of the local Department of Education], so obviously in this case [at

higher learning], it’s a totally different situation. Which brings us to question 3.1 [which is almost

related to ‘structures’].

DR G: [After a comment by TJM that the interview has to move much faster]. Yeah what we have

already spoken about.

TJM: [reads the question: How is membership of the curriculum development structures in your

institution/faculty/department constituted?]. I think that has already been answered [e.g. Faculty

Executives, Faculty Board]. And then 3.2, I think this would specifically relate to Advisory

Councils.

DR G: Yes … yes.

TJM: [reads out the question: Are representatives from civil society, industry, and the state,

included in these curriculum development structures?] Maybe here, I should specifically say to

Advisory Councils …

DR G: Yes, the Advisory Committee is strongly involved. I would say the state is involved,

although there might not be a representative … physically there, but one is developing in line with

whatever state policies have been stated.

TJM: Yeah, like for instance the National Qualification Framework.

539

DR G: Yeah, yeah, one would develop the curriculum in line with whatever instructions or

directives have been given by the state; so the state is included, and the Advisory Committee – those

members are physically present [in the institution] in making decisions about the curriculum, Civil

soc … iety … [taking a pause] I think where they might be related to the industry, there they might

be included Its mostly industry and state [my emphasis, where representatives are included in on-

campus curriculum development structures].

TJM: So civil society is … If I may ask, in higher education level, are there structures like

governing bodies, which one would find in schools’ governing bodies, or a body that specifically

represents parents?

DR G: Parents … I don’t think … are directly represented. It might be indirectly represented in that

a person in the Advisory Committee might also have a child who studies at …[mentions name of

technikon].

TJM: So, there is no … direct representation, or shall I say, a body that is largely formed by

parents?

DR G: No, not in our School structure. We try to involve parents by giving them information about

what their children are studying, and we invite them over to explain to them how higher education

works, because many of the parents did not study [there] themselves …

TJM: Yeah, yeah [in agreement with the last statement].

DR G: And on the Council of the technikon ... there are members of civil society – they make broad

decisions about the technikon as a whole. But at the more micro-level, we would deal with, for

instance, Public Relations Management. There wouldn’t be a parent in that body [PRM Advisory

Committee].

TJM: It is answered [referring to question 3.2]. Without any more waste of time … [ she

immediately responds to the next question, which did not need much elaboration]: Within these

structures [of curriculum development] which of the afore-said sectors (civil society, the state,

industry) is most dominant in shaping policy for curriculum innovation?]

540

DR G: The most dominant ones would be industry.

TJM: Then the teaching side of things [referring to question 4, based on Instructional Mode]. Here,

once more, I would say, is subject to … it is also a more open-ended kind of question, because there

are so many things to be said, but the few examples that you can cite will be enough. For instance,

what are the means that are being expended to make teaching more meaningful: Is it teacher-

centred? Or [do] the students participate … what kind of activities … ? There are so many things,

that is why I’m just saying one or two examples will suffice.

DR G: We definitely focus on getting the learner … or maybe one should say learning-centred [i.e.]

how do you show that the learning that’s necessary does take place. Not teacher-centred, which it

has been for a long time … I am afraid there are instances where there are lecturers who have trouble

making the change from teacher-centred to learner-centred; and they prefer to give a lecture where

there is a clear distinction between what’s the role of the lecturer, and what’s the role of the student.

But those people [lecturers] are in the minority, especially in our School where we have

Communication … [it] cannot be taught by means of lecturing to people. So, there … it has to be

interactive [my emphasis] teaching – dialogic teaching – a dialogue between the learner and the

educator; and there must be student activity, because they [students] have to practice and develop

skills. So, mostly in this particular School, the teaching is interactive, and the students are actively

learning. Much is expected from them during a lecture … in class. They have to answer questions,

they have to ask questions, they have to do work in small groups, or they have to do individual

presentations, perform some learning tasks in class. So, I think in our case, it will be mostly

interactive and active learning.

TJM: Just a brief follow-up. This seems to be a problem prevailing in many higher education

institutions; although there is an understanding that … learner-centredness is the norm – as opposed

to teacher-centredness, but … many difficulties are still being experienced from the teaching aspect

of it [education] … there are still teachers who still stuck to the old format of being the sole

generators of knowledge [at this point, DR G’s momentary interjection is inaudible] … Yeah, so in

such a situation, are there any mechanisms that are within the School … retraining programmes for

teachers?

541

DR G: Yes, yes. In the School itself we put much effort into creating an awareness [to the effect

that] old traditional methods are not effective anymore. There is also formal training that the

Academic Development Unit arranges for staff. Then in the department itself, the Head of

Department visits the lecturer’s class – and they talk about what happened in class, and if it is

teacher-centred, the Head of Department would make suggestions on how to adapt to a more learner-

centred approach … In the development of learner guides that the learners get … it is compiled in

such a way that it is learning-centred. It expects of the student to do certain preparations before he

goes to class, to take part during the class, to reflect on what happened afterwards. So a learner guide

that focuses on those things makes it more difficult for a lecturer to be ‘lecturer’ in the old sense of

the word.

TJM: I am answered … I think one-sentence answers [henceforth] will be sufficient. [At this state,

proceedings are temporarily halted as DR G’s interview schedule did not have 4.2, at which point I

indicate that this might have been due to last-minute changes between myself and my Supervisor].

Here [referring to question 4.2: How is the Web integrated into your teaching?] it still relates to the

instructional side of things, in terms of the irrefutable fact technology has taken so much … almost

very aspect of our lives [DR G hums in agreement] So, by way of trying to orient or direct students

towards that kind of thinking, how is that done. Does the curriculum take cognizance of the fact that

… how is it incorporated … are they given [for instance] work to go and do at the cyber centre?

DR G: I am afraid that except in those courses where the students have access to computers, there is

not much integrated into the learning yet; because unfortunately, the cyber centre is not big enough

for students to have enough access for long enough periods at a time, so that one can for instance,

give them a task where they have to find information on the Web. So, in some instances, in the most

senior students, that happens. In our postgraduate students, they must have access to a computer.

There one can direct them to the Web, or one can give them instruction to find something on the

Web, you can introduce them to the Web. But undergraduate students – not very much. The lecturers

use the Web, and they would get information from the Web and they could present that to the

students. But the students themselves don’t have enough access.

TJM: Eh … [How often is the curriculum revised in your faculty/department?] I think that was

answered.

542

DR G: Yes … we said at least once every two years, but most lecturers, at the end of every year,

they would re-look the curriculum, make changes that are necessary (maybe not big changes), and

then re-curriculate once every two years.

TJM: The next one [How often is student performance assessed in your faculty/department?]

DR G: In our faculty, there are basically two evaluation systems. Every course is either evaluated by

an exam-based evaluation like continuous assessment … there is an exam [or two] at the end of the

semester or the end of the year; it depends on whether it’s a semester course or a year course. And

then, there have to be at least other assessments each semester – and an exam. In our School, most of

our subjects are evaluated by means of continuous assessment, which means, especially for the

Communication students – they have to do many different assessments; write a report, do a

presentation … on a case study. So, they have [plentiful] continuous assessment opportunities. Some

of them are formative, where they get feedback and they don’t get a mark. Others are summative,

where they do get a mark, and always the marks adds up to the paper or the final mark. It usually

includes … a big summative assessment at the end, to make sure that they get the total picture as

well.

TJM: Thanks ma’am. Then [next question: How often are meetings of curriculum development

structures/committees held?]

DR G: I would say, the Senate – and that’s about once a term [referring to 5.3.2] Faculty Board at

faculty level – also about once a term. Then the Faculty Executive meets every two weeks, more or

less. The department meets at least once a week. Sometimes they meet for other [non-curriculum

purposes] purposes as well, but they have at least one meeting in a week.

TJM: The very last one [How are resources allocated to the curriculum revision and maintenance

endeavours?] Here … I think this question was motivated by the need to want to know whether

curriculum reform is not just a word-of-mouth activity. [In other words] Does the institution actually

spend money … what is … done … in terms of saying: we are changing from situation A to situation

B? What means are expended to implement the kind of curriculum changes envisaged?

543

DR G: I think in our case, we talk ‘resource’ to be an academic’s time – the academic would have to

have enough time available to curriculate or to re-curriculate. So, in making enough time available

… much work is necessary on curriculum development; then a lecturer would be freed from some

other tasks to make time available. For instance, the lecturer would have a lower class-load, so that,

that person has enough time to spend on the curriculum development. I think the biggest resource

would be time, it is money indirectly …

TJM: Yeah [agreeing with this last aphorism] …

DR G: And, one would make sure that time is available … or try to make sure that time is available.

TIME IS IN SHORT SUPPLY [emphasis is mine], as I know you also find it [to be true].

TJM: Yeah [as DR G giggles, knowing that doctoral studies are heavy and require a very strict time

management regime] I have found that out in a very unpleasant way [referring to the difficult

situation of having to navigate a course for study and family life]. I think that formally ends the

interview!

544

APPENDIX G: Interview 2 Transcript

Interviewee’s Institution: (Former Technikon)

Name of Interviewee: Professor “T”.

Interviewee’s Designation: Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Academic

Date of Interview: 22 October 2004.

Time of Interview: 10h00.

Place of Interview: Interviewee’s Office.

Theme of Interview: Curriculum implications of mergers on the institution.

(In keeping with interviewee anonymity and institutional integrity, “Professor T” refers to the

respondent, and “TJM” to researcher/interviewer)

TJM: Prof, now that the seriousness of the merger between … and … [names of the two institutions

omitted] has taken shape, what kind of changes do you think are going to be experienced in terms of

… both institutions coming from two different [academic] cultures? For instance … [name of

university] being a university … and as we know universities are mainly … in terms of the business

of knowledge [production, for instance], theirs is mainly theoretic, or academic, and technikons as

we know, come from the tradition of dealing with knowledge in a more pragmatic, vocational, skill-

orientated kind of background. So, where do you see the mergers leading the two institutions [to] …

in other words, what will be the final product [institutional type/form] is it possible to merge the two

cultures [of university type and technikon type of education]?

PROF T: Yeah … you’re asking a difficult question. But … eh … perhaps, probably more difficult

in that situation because merging institutions that have a completely different educational philosophy

and therefore … they are a bit far apart than, say, merging traditional technikons and traditional

universities. Obviously, even under those circumstances … when you’re merging similar entities

there are changes that tend to be driven by the process, but the changes that may come out from what

was the kind of philosophical driver of the merger … I think that becomes an important position. So

… yes indeed, there will be changes even when we come together with … [name of university]; but

at the same time, as we get together, some of the things might not change. Now you need to go back

to understanding the reason[s] for this merger. I think at the end of the day, this merger is about

moving away from the structuring that was on the basis of race … and therefore even distribution of

545

resources along that ... such that institutions are [in the past] differentiated according to how they are

being resourced and therefore white institutions being heavily resourced, black institutions being …

[under-resourced]. So, when you’re bringing them together [university and technikon], you’re really

beginning to try and re-distribute. So, I think it’s a redistribution process. That’s the first thing.

[secondly] Redistribution not only in terms of resources, but also in terms of the population

dynamics. Those are critical things. Just that on its own, I think that begins to create a totally

different world view within the new institution. But what changes will come from the merger itself,

is very difficult to predict … at the moment. Why [is it difficult to predict]? Because, one of the

elements of this merger is that as the two institutions come together and consolidate the management

of the [new] institution, but in terms of the curricular provisions, it accommodates that both your

technikon philosophy as well as university philosophy, be driven in a parallel way. So, we’re still

bound by law that we should provide both technikon, as well as university education; although

again, the prescriptions also say that we need to increase the technikon education side within our

merger. So, we need to keep the two streams. Now, you also need to understand how government

functions in terms of regulating institutions. One of the key drivers that government uses in order to

regulate institutions ... it’s financing. For instance, they [government] brought in the whole issue of

programme approval. So, it’s … they approve the kind of programmes [to be offered by higher

education institutions], so it’s not just going to be a simple question of: if we feel tomorrow, on

merging, we don’t like university things [such as programmes offered], we drop them – you can’t …

TJM: [interjecting] You are bound by government [programme approval] …

PROF T: So, obviously, what is likely to happen is that you’re going to be bringing these people

together [from university education type and from technikon education type] in a single management

[structure]. Now, that process allows greater interaction between university staff and technikon staff.

Now, in that process of interaction, I think the [two] systems [read philosophical backgrounds] will

get to know each other [read interact], and possibly at that [level of] interface there might be new

programmes that would come up. But I think the second thing that we need to think … and bring in,

is change. I don’t know if you have experienced it – the process of movement of students from one

institution to another within our [erstwhile] departments of education has been extremely difficult.

Now, within the new system, one of the things it [new system] is trying to do, is to bring in

flexibility and mobility [my emphasis] of students. I think the whole thing [process of merging] is

encompassed in the philosophical thrust of the Department [of Education]. It wants to create a single

546

seamless system, and therefore, within that system, anybody who comes into it should be able to

move and make choices. So, when you’ve got your vocational education … when we come together

[merge] one of the things that will be very necessary within a comprehensive institution, is to allow

that flexibility to students – if students want to move from, say, traditional university training and

also if they want to switch over to, if possible, the reversal thereof. So, articulation will be one of the

things [factors] that will be integral to, and lead to decisions taken. My sense of … and one has come

across it [that sense] in some of the European universities, is that, again perhaps this is what might

be meant … technikon education has both the theoretical basis as well as your real practical learning

in the world of work … so that you need to go out there and work. The process [of merging] is quite

integrated into the learning. Now, obviously, even if university students … what has been happening

here, many of the programmes … they [students] complete their theoretical training, and when they

go to the world of work, probably they go to some form of internship … So, its just that in the other

[technikon] system [of higher education] it’s structured [infusion of learning and work]. I tell you,

the University of Limerick, in fact … is one university that has introduced the technikon type of

[education], because key in the technikon training is your cooperative education. So, you’ve got

universities now that do corporative education.

TJM: If I may interject Prof, the University of Limerick, where would that be?

PROF T: It’s in Ireland.

TJM: Eh, I see, thank you.

PROF T: And indeed, I just visited them three weeks ago, as we were talking to them, they were

saying: … the number of universities [in our system] is beginning to pick up that concept [of

corporative education]. So, all I am trying to say … although there are these different [technikon-

university] philosophies, they are not too much apart. But I think that one of the issues that we need

to understand … when you go back to [the question of] knowledge, its knowledge generation.

Universities tended to … probably initially they were really the generators of knowledge. Things

have changed so much. I tell you, the bulk of the knowledge [now] comes from industry; and even

that, it’s not prudent to think that it’s only universities that provide [knowledge].

547

TJM: Yeah, yeah. And I have come across a lot of literature that supports what Prof has just said,

which is why universities [have] come to realize that partnerships with the private sector are very

much of an essential component [of higher education survival]; so that it’s not them only who are

holding that knowledge production monopoly, if one may put it that way.

PROF T: Absolutely, absolutely [affirming the above statement].

TJM: Prof, if I may … I am sorry to be interjecting all the time …

PROF T: No, ask … ask, you’re not interjecting. You’re the person who is [supposed to be] asking

questions.

TJM: You mentioned the issue of … you equated merging with the redistribution of resources …

physically, curriculum ... and so forth … I was wondering if this crisis in especially so-called

Historically Disadvantaged Institutions, or others refer to them as Historically Black Institutions,

which have a mammoth task of [minimizing] student debt – either students or parents not being able

to pay their higher education fees due to one reason or the other, unemployment, and so forth … I

am not saying that should be a major concern of the [merging] institutions to get rid of the student

debt. But is there hope that some mechanisms can begin to be developed, according to which the

new University … [mentions name] can rid itself of this national crisis? Or will it [the crisis] just

continue to aggravate?

PROF T: Let me talk about redistribution of resources. There particularly, what I noticed is that eh

… once the University of [mentions the new institution’s name] I think one of the obligations the

institution will have to be equitably distributed, because it would be untenable to, say, within one

system have poor campuses and rich campuses. So, down the line, the University of … will ensure

that everything that happens in say … [mentions name of another satellite campus], will be exactly

the same standard of teaching, same facilities, that would be found in any other campus. So, it’s

redistribution in that sense. Now, if the main resources have previously been coming to … [names

the merging University partner], now they can’t be held at … [that university] only. So … the same

applies to say, staffing. I mean if the staff-student ratio is one to, say, twenty five … it is in that

sense you have redistribution. But the question of student debt, I think that is going to be a problem

that we will live with as long as higher education is not free, and I don’t see higher education

548

becoming free in the next thirty years, or so. In fact what is going to happen, this is what universities

are faced with, and because government is not able to provide for higher education … they are

putting pressure to reduce the numbers of students at universities. That includes our own merging

university, because government is saying that we should take back the numbers to [those] we had in

2003. So, rather than expand, the numbers will be reduced ... dealing with that picture tells if

government cannot pump in a lot of money into higher education … and the only way to keep it

sustainable is to control numbers.

TJM: That is contradictory [on the part of government] …

PROF T: Yes …

TJM: In that, access …

PROF T: Access, increased participation, massification … I think again … I was listening to a talk

… one has to be careful when one underlines government policy. Some of the things are substantial,

others are symbolic. So, massification now has become a symbolic thing, rather than substantial. So,

I think one has to look at things [interpretation of government policy] in that light. Reality demands

that you keep numbers tight, otherwise our higher education will deteriorate and [we] have systems

that are unsustainable. So, given that, I don’t see also NSFAS [National Student Financial Aid

Scheme] growing tremendously. I think for quite some time we’ll be caught in a situation where

we’ve got, as higher education, to deal with the issue and try management to reduce debt. But from a

perspective of the University of … [name of new institution] I think that within the means that are

available from our partners – be they in industry … we will attempt to get support for students. But

that is as much as we can do, because we also as an institution depend on government!

TJM: Thanks very much for the response, Prof. Just one or two more questions. I’m happy that I am

speaking to one of the main people involved in the mergers themselves. [To which Prof T heartily

laughs at the accolade I bestow on him]. Now the issue of … obviously the [new] university is going

to be a multi-campus institution. What I’d like to find out is: Say the institution in … [mentions

location of one of the new campuses] or … [another new campus], how are they going … in terms of

the physical resources that are there [available] … student demographics, staffing … How are they

going to be … I wouldn’t say “divided”, but “allocated” in terms of faculties, student transport …?

549

PROF T: Let me say that probably the philosophy that underpins the University of … [new

institution] is to create a very student-friendly system, and therefore, you don’t want to be busing

around students from point A to B. But it’s: take the service to the people. So, given that, I think

basically under these circumstances each site will provide particular programmes, and, probably

there will be great differences in programmes provided [at all sites/campuses] … A student who

attends [at site X] will have a complete programme that [he/she] studies, but might not have as many

programmes as what, say, would obtain in [another campus]. Let me give you an example of what

might happen … Faculty of Engineering. The likelihood is that we will have one site … probably

[the technikon]. Under those circumstances, that site will service all the students of [the new

institution studying Engineering]. The reason for not [relocating] Engineering is that it is very costly.

The same [situation] would occur perhaps with the Health Science … they are capital-intensive. So

you might find those will just have a single site. Health Sciences initially will be here [at the

technikon] … maybe at a later stage we might find a place very close to … [name of nearby

hospital]. I’m just trying to give you the kind of architecture that might occur … In those

programmes that where is easy to set up a programme, then you might find we will have them across

[all campuses] … You might find the Faculty of Management running programmes on four of the

five sites; but depending on the size of the site, you might find that they are offering at smaller sites

… in terms of programmes it’s limited … As we start next year we’re introducing probably two or

three programmes to the Faculty of Management to the … [one of the campuses]. We’re also

introducing two or three programmes from the Financial and Economics Sciences. So, it’s that kind

of approach. There will also be a group of Humanities programmes taking place at different sites …

in the end I’m trying to say, each site will be different from the other.

TJM: Thank you very much. I have in front of me a question which was very … unsatisfactorily

responded to in the Questionnaire. It relates to the mergers … on page 3 [of the Questionnaire …

question on 2.4: The merging of higher education institutions will necessitate a reorganization of the

curriculum at your institution. The answer has to be YES, or NO].

PROF T: Two things. My sense [of the question] is that South African [higher education]

institutions should be engaging … really reviewing their curricula in order to ensure that the

curriculum really is in line with national objectives [as outlined in the NQF – my emphasis]. So, I

think that the merger is not necessarily a precondition for curriculum development. But I think

there’s no doubt that in our situation it will become necessary that we begin to review the

550

curriculum, because of a number of things. Some of them are not just impacting on us only, but there

will be also specific reasons. You’re fully aware that part of what is going on is the whole [issue of]

National Qualifications Framework … Basically that would definitely have an influence on

curriculum review – where all qualifications now are put into perspective. That NQF will out of

necessity require that technikons to a large extent, re-visit their curricula so that their qualifications

can fit in with the new system. It hasn’t been finalized [yet] but there’s no doubt that technikons will

need to … kind of re-look their curricula; so that in the new system diplomas might be defined

slightly different than currently, and be given slightly different NQF levels … but at the same time,

perhaps also within vocational training one could be able to do a Bachelor’s degree which has

previously been a university prerogative. So, that will necessitate curriculum development [re-

structuring?]. Then, in our specific case where we are [after merging] a comprehensive institution …

as I talk to you … you realize that one of the issues that will need to be re-visited is [that of] creating

… to make your curriculum flexible such that students can move from [Institution] A to [Institution]

B. I think that articulation process necessitates re-visiting [the] curriculum … You also know that

your curriculum, in fact … you’re talking issues of quality now. Your curriculum should be a

framework that would be used … by your staff in order to teach, such that their overall teaching …

this is what in quality terms … they talk about “fitness of purpose” … it’s whether what you’re

doing through your curriculum meets what you say … the objectives of your institution. So, in order

to relate what you’re doing to the objectives and vision and mission of the institution. Now, as a new

institution, we’ve put together a new vision and mission, and therefore, our activities should be

supportive of that … that on its own will require re-looking at [the] curriculum. But curriculum

change is an on-going thing [process], particularly for vocational programmes. Remember that one

of the criticisms of the South African [higher education] institutions is that they are not responsive to

societal needs. But technikons, by virtue of their mission … they are responsive to the needs of

industry. So, you know that in the way they operate even in terms of curriculum development – they

work very closely with industry … In that sense you’ve got constant reviewing of curriculum …

Maybe we talk about these things, whether they happen on the ground is another question. Just

lastly, you know the philosophy that is now driving our curriculum … where “outcomes” are clearly

defined. In that way, in order for one to kind of … and we’re moving away from the ordinary way of

teaching … where you’re just dishing out things …

TJM: … Like they say, [that] education is moving away from teacher-centredness to learner-

centredness …

551

PROF T: Yes … that on its own … the fact that we’ve adopted as a country this philosophy; it is

necessitating that we need to look at our structuring of curriculum so that “outcomes” become very

clearly defined … also the methodology; there are a number of things [to be re-visited].

TJM: My concluding question … in terms of postgraduate studies, like in our case, having been

granted studying opportunities … beyond the Bachelor level, through grants and bursaries from the

technikon [and the NRF]; when the two institutions merge … in terms of reinforcing the culture of

research … obviously … [mentions the merging university partner] is known to be miles ahead in

that sphere [compared to the technikon] … in terms of the culture from which the technikon comes

… Is the merger likely to increase the capacity for vocational education to be studied up to post-

graduate level?

PROF T: If there is anything … both technikon and university training really come together

[complement each other]. So, when you come to postgraduate [level] … in terms of doing research

… research is done [conducted/undertaken] more or less in the same way, whether its university or

vocational; but your area of focus might be slightly different within the continuum of research and

development. Universities tend to look at fundamental questions … technikons, by virtue of being

associated with industry, tend to focus on applied research. So, the line of demarcation is not very

broad … Also, a common phenomenon that is beginning to emerge in South African universities and

universities internationally, is the whole question of entrepreneurialism. So, under those

circumstances, you’re looking at intellectual property rights that come from research, and institutions

are concerned about using that intellectual property for commercial benefit. So … its no more just

research for the sake of research. It’s also taking research to create income. … All this simply shows

that whether its technikon research [or university research] comes together … Also government

mandates of prescription when they created these measures is actually to build research capacity …

that should not in any way threaten vocational training.

TJM: Thanks Prof. If I may ask the very last question … I think it would be unfair not to ask this

one: From a management perspective, what would you say is the one thing that this merger would

not take away from ... [mentions name of technikon]? In other words, something [mentions

technikon’s name] will always pride itself as having brought to the mergers …?

552

PROF T: So many … just the other day … our Engineering students had entered [for competition]

… the Siemens Challenge … for universities and technikons participate … TWR swept the floor. To

me, I think the merger is for looking at what is good from both sides … plus/minus 70% of our

students are employed … but there is ample room for change [and improvement] … there’s a

demand for a special area in industry … to provide skills … but more importantly, cooperative

education [should be] the treated part of vocational training … In fact we’re beginning to really

systematize it such that it goes very well, and its encouraging that technikons have doing it without it

being funded by government, and the likelihood is that government will begin to put money into

experiential learning. So, we can always strive for the best. So, to me the merger is not about …

we’re not being swallowed … We put a lot on the table … our partners … who had no clue of what

technikons do … are beginning to gain respect … I was a university person myself, and in my

university teaching I’ve been across one or two technikon graduates … I was [also] as prejudiced …

about technikons …

TJM: If I may just add. That kind of mentality still persists … When I went to [mentions the

institution concerned] … to them it was unheard of that a technikon could have students studying at

doctoral level [my emphasis] … They began to come to grips [with that fact] when I showed them

the letter of Introduction form the Supervisor … even then … [some parts of this stage of the

interview were purposefully omitted in order to protect individuals’ professional and intellectual

integrity]. Professor T I really want to say a very big “Thank You” … you restored my faith [in the

institution].

553