Keywords

Introduction

In 2015, for the first time in decades, South Africa’s university system was in turmoil. Significant groups of students, experiencing ongoing and rising inequalities, challenged the financial barriers preventing access, the successful completion of their studies, and the opportunity for upward mobility (Nkosi 2014; Makoni 2014). The #Fees Must Fall movement brought into sharp relief the widespread student experiences of exclusion, and frustration at the lack of transformation as promised by the democratic dispensation initiated in 1994 (MacGregor 2014).

This was despite the fact that, located in one of the most unequal economies, rooted in colonial exploitation, South African universities have long questioned and debated their roles and contribution to inclusive social and economic development, through their threefold missions of teaching, research and engagement. The democratic transition after 1994 provided the opportunity for a radical policy shift, to transform unequal educational, economic, social and political structures. After a decade of grappling with new policy and funding frameworks, a national process of institutional restructuring, and the needs of an underprepared student cohort, the higher education system settled and proceeded through the 2000s largely comfortable in the belief that all were doing what they could to ensure equality. This was based on evidence of massification of the system—a rapid growth of enrolments nationally, and a shift in race and gender patterns towards wider access to university study. Contributing to shift structural inequalities proved far more complex, however. The reasons are the subject of much analysis, but the evidence is incontrovertible—growing inequality, poverty and unemployment, and a surfacing of racial tension, in the context of global financial crises. The call is now for more fundamental transformation of the university, not only in terms of who it teaches, but what and how it teaches, and by extension, what, how and who benefits from its research and innovation activities.

This chapter will interrogate the ways in which the goals of addressing inequality, innovation and inclusive development have been interpreted and enacted in South African universities since 1994. The South African case highlights the dynamics faced by many higher education systems globally: navigating the complex challenges of responsiveness and accountability to scientific disciplines, to the markets, to government policy priorities, and increasingly, to the demands of citizens for inclusive and sustainable development. A new discourse, that inequality is bad for economic growth and to the disadvantage of all, and a challenge to the “one percent”, has emerged over the past 5 years on a surprisingly wide scale globally, with universities and students at the heart of new social movements. Piketty’s (2014) analysis of longitudinal data to track how inherited wealth is responsible for the growing concentration of income and inequality by elites in developed contexts is but one key instance. Global financial institutions like the World Bank and UNDP now promote the need for “inclusive growth” (Ranieri and Ramos 2013; George et al. 2012). Ramos et al. (2013) define “inclusive growth” as “both an outcome and a process”, making a critical distinction. That is, all social groups should be able to participate in the growth process and share the benefits equitably: “participation without benefit sharing will make growth unjust, and sharing benefits without participation will make it a welfare outcome” (Ramos et al. 2013:3 and 4).

However, there is a growing consensus that techno-economic growth and equality may operate in tension, rather than in tandem (Cassiolato et al. 2003; Dalum et al. 2010; Fajnzylber 1989). The analysis is thus situated within an approach of “inclusive development”, which is not “economic growth alone and economic development alone” (Cozzens and Sutz 2014), nor can it be equated with a country “catching up”. “Inclusive development” encompasses outcomes and benefits that are both by and for “marginalised groups” specifically—those communities, households and individuals excluded from circles of social and economic power. This highlights the significance of agency as the characteristic that qualifies a process as inclusive development, in contrast with top-down attempts at development that do not involve local communities or do not include them as active agents in the process. Marginalised groups should have input into and participate actively in (ideally) all stages of a collaborative project, including problem identification, idea generation, proposal evaluation, design, fabrication, evaluation and solutions to problems (Gomez-Marquez 2010). Inclusion thus extends to the process, as well as the problems addressed and the solutions provided. The normative assumption informing the analysis in this chapter is that individuals in marginalised households and communities should be active agents in all knowledge-related processes, and not only the passive beneficiaries of the actions of academic experts.

The chapter draws on a body of empirical research that focused on the ways in which academics in distinct types of university extend their knowledge to the benefit of external partners (Kruss et al. 2013; Kruss and Gastrow 2015). It conducts new analysis,Footnote 1 synthesises and abstracts from complex and detailed data analysis to highlight key trends, and provides illustrative instances. The first section shows that massification and opening up formal access to the higher education system has been achieved, but that epistemological access and success remain a challenge blocking inclusive development, in terms of who benefits from teaching and learning activities. The second section traces patterns of academics’ interaction, in relation to their teaching, research and innovation or outreach activities, investigating who are the external partners, what are the types of relationship and what are the outcomes and benefits from such direct and indirect interaction. It shows that the most common partners are other academics or communities, but that the most common forms of interaction do not involve community participation in the process: producing students with a social conscience, welfare-oriented community service and conducting research that may improve the quality of life of all. While there are well-developed mechanisms to build direct forms of interaction with firms that promote industry participation in shaping research and innovation agendas, processes and outcomes, such interaction with communities is a significant gap. The third section therefore examines emergent models of external interface mechanisms that can bridge and link communities to access university knowledge, to inform a shift towards inclusive development.

How Inclusive Are South African Universities in the Reach of Their Teaching?

The higher education landscape in South Africa has changed significantly since 1994, when there were 36 institutions operating in a binary system, of universities and technikons. Distinctions were evident between historically black and white universities/technikons, historically English and Afrikaans white universities/technikons, and between a very large distance university and a distance technikon, and the majority of contact institutions. Universities were spatially concentrated in the major metropolitan areas, with some in isolated and impoverished rural locations, originally established to serve the ethnically based Bantustan strategy. Distinct histories and unequal resourcing shaped the academic reputation, institutional cultures and disciplinary foci of these sets of university. From 2004, a process of institutional restructuring created 23 universities and three new institutional types, in an attempt to shift the systemic inequalities and reorient the system to inclusive development: 11 traditional universities (including a sub-set of the “big five” research universities with strongest academic reputations), six comprehensive universities (a new form) and six universities of technology (an evolution from technikons). Two new universities were opened in the Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape provinces for the first time in 2014/2015, to extend access to citizens in those economically undeveloped regions, as well as a new specialised medical university in Gauteng. Historical differentiation and institutional inequality within the higher education system thus continue to have a long reach into the present, shaping diverse interpretations and combinations of the complex multiple roles of universities. The analysis in this chapter therefore aggregates across the higher education system, but highlights significant differentiation.

Achieving Formal Access but Equity of Outcomes Remains a Challenge

The imperative to open up access to higher education was the main concern of new democratic policy makers and universities immediately after 1994, and in the two decades since. The agenda was set in terms of growing the participation rate, ensuring racial and spatial equity, and ensuring a spread of qualifications that could match the opportunities for employment and promote economic growth. The target set in 2001 was to attain a 20 % participation rate within 10–15 years (CHE 2006).

Total enrollment in tertiary education as a percentage of the 5-year age group after secondary school was reported as 20 % in South Africa in 2012 (World Bank 2016). The South African government used a lower estimate, of a participation rate of 16 % of 18–24-year-olds in 2011, to set new targets in line with its national development vision. The new goal is a 23 % participation rate by 2030, which would require rapid growth in university enrolments to 1.5 million (MacGregor 2012).

The data suggests that this is achievable, and that massification of a formerly elite system has occurred. Table 10.1 shows that from 1995, total enrolment was relatively stable around 500,000 but grew rapidly between 1999 and 2005, and has grown steadily since. The system is currently close to the one million mark.

Table 10.1 Enrolments in higher education by race 1995–2014
Full size table

Formal access to university study was opened in a more equitable manner than the past to all racial groups, evident in the steady shift towards a proportion of African enrolments that reflects their majority presence in the total population more closely. In 1993, just before the democratic era, 40 % of university students were African, in contrast to 77 % of the total population (CHE 2004), but by 2014, this had grown rapidly to 70 % of all university students. Despite the shift in racial composition of the total student body, the proportion of Africans who entered higher education remained significantly lower (16 %) than the participation rateFootnote 2 for whites (55 %) and Indians (47 %) in 2013 (CHE 2015). African students were also more likely to be enrolled at undergraduate level, and to be older (CHE 2015). Racial inequality in the composition of the academic staff is reflected in Fig. 10.1, with the majority of academics remaining white but African lecturers increasing between 2008 and 2013.

Fig. 10.1
figure 1

Headcount academic staff members by race 2008 to 2013 (Source: CHE 2015)

Full size image

The pattern for gender equity is unusual, in that from a majority of male students, around 1997 the balance of enrolments shifted to predominantly women students, 58.3 % in 2014 (own calculations from HEMIS). This points to a major educational and socio-economic problem, of large numbers of young men who are unemployed or not in education and training.

How well does the system meet the skills needed for economic growth and social development? A target was set in 1996 to rebalance enrolments across the system towards a 40:40:30 ratio, of Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) to Business and Commerce (B&C) to Humanities (Hum). Figure 10.2 reflects the distribution of enrolments by broad field in 2013, showing that enrolments in SET and B&C are around 29 % each, while Humanities (17 %) and Education (25 %) together still account for 42 % of enrolments. Evidently, the high-level SET qualifications and skills required for the economy are not being produced in sufficient numbers. Nor are these enrolments likely to shift unequal employment patterns significantly, as proportionately more Africans are enrolled in Humanities and Education fields (Fig. 10.2).

Fig. 10.2
figure 2

Enrolments by field and race 2013 (Source: CHE 2015)

Full size image

While formal access and expansion of the system has been facilitated, “epistemological access” (Morrow 2009) to the knowledge base of the university, is far more difficult to achieve (Boughey 2003). Universities are challenged to work in different ways with “underprepared” students coming from weak educational backgrounds, to ensure that they learn and succeed at university (CHE 2013; Essop 2015). These challenges are exacerbated by the financial constraints on students, coming from black working class families, many the first to enter higher education. The result is high drop-out rates, low graduation rates, extended periods to obtain qualifications, and a “churn” of students in and out of universities as their circumstances improve or worsen (Scott et al. 2007; Letseka et al. 2009; Murray 2014; CHE 2015). High drop-out rates of low-income students with deficiencies in basic education is a problem common to comparator countries such as Brazil (Downie 2010).

Consequently, the profile of those who remain at university and complete their qualifications reflects inequalities shaped by the intertwined characteristics of race, class and schooling background. Table 10.2 demonstrates the low total numbers graduating annually from the system, and that despite a steady increase of African graduates, white students are relatively more successful in completing their qualifications. A recent cohort study (CHE 2015) showed that African graduation rates were lower, and drop-out rates higher, than white, Indian or coloured students in many qualification types and disciplinary fields.

Table 10.2 Graduation by race 1990–2014
Full size table

Universities themselves have been preoccupied with addressing poor throughput rates and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning in general and in key fields (Jaffer et al. 2007; Pym et al. 2011; Collins 2013; Strydom et al. 2012). They have developed tuition programmes to support bright students with poor schooling backgrounds who are not sufficiently prepared for university study, such as foundation programmes and extended degrees (Mabila et al. 2006). Extensive academic support programmes and expertise has developed nationally (Boughey and Niven 2012). A national Quality Enhancement Project was initiated by the Council of Higher Education as part of its monitoring and quality assurance mandate, reflecting a shift to towards a more effective improvement-based process (Essop 2015). All of these strategies aim to enhance the “efficiency” (Boughey 2003) of higher education teaching and learning, to the benefit of black and poor students. The question that can be raised is the agency of these students—to what extent do they participate in identifying where the main blockages lie and how to design solutions?

Funding to Address Inequality

A major cause of high attrition and low graduation rates is inadequate funding of higher education, highlighted effectively by students through the #FeesMustFall protests of 2015.

The global trend towards privatisation of higher education funding (Lebeau et al. 2012) is evident in South Africa too, but here, equity and redress imperatives shape complex dynamics. Higher education is viewed as a public good and the primary responsibility of the state, but the balance between three funding sources traditionally underpinning the current cost-sharing model has shifted over time:

  1. 1.

    Government subsidy, which is determined in terms of a complex formula based on teaching and research needs and achievements (see Steyn and De Villiers 2007). Since 1994, specific earmarked funding has been allocated to promote equity and redress, but the expected large scale reprioritisation and reallocation between historically privileged and disadvantaged universities has not occurred (CHE 2007).

  2. 2.

    Student tuition and residence fees, the levels of which range widely between universities with stronger and weaker reputations.

  3. 3.

    Third stream funding, which consists of a mix of donations, bequests, alumni, industry (UILs), commercialisation, research funding. Historically advantaged universities with strong academic reputations have built up extensive reserves over time.

The relative proportion from each source is reflected in Fig. 10.3, illustrating the variability and decline of third stream income, a static state contribution and a growing proportion from tuition fees.

Fig. 10.3
figure 3

Institutional funding by source 2008–2013 (Source: CHE 2015)

Full size image

Research shows that over the past two decades, the proportion of public expenditure has declined, whether measured as a proportion of GDP, of total public expenditure or of the total education expenditure (Steyn and De Villiers 2006; De Villiers et al. 2013). Figure 10.4 illustrates how real growth is static, despite a nominal increase.

Fig. 10.4
figure 4

University funding in nominal and real terms (Source: CHE 2015)

Full size image

The national average of spending on higher education, 0.68 % of GDP in 2009, was below that of developed countries, but also below the international average of 0.82 %, the averages for South and West Asia (0.72 %), Latin America (0.81) and even Sub-Saharan Africa (0.69) (De Villiers et al. 2013). A new public funding formula introduced in 2004 was judged to be based on government priorities, rather than on the actual costs of providing education (CHE 2007). The real decline in the public subsidy per student and the variability of third steam sources thus substantially increased institutional pressures to raise fee income annually. Figure 10.5 illustrates the dramatic rise in full-costs (including residences, books and subsistence), although tuition fees on average have not increased as steeply.

Fig. 10.5
figure 5

Average fees—tuition and full cost 2008–2013 (Source: CHE 2015)

Full size image

Consequently, student debt has grown, which is a major contributor to the high drop-out and “churn” rates (Lebeau et al. 2012). The situation is particularly acute in rurally located and historically black universities that were historically under-resourced, and which enrol the largest proportions of students who cannot afford fees. Contestation around annual fee increases, financial exclusions and inadequate financial support consequently intensified, particularly in these universities (CHE 2009). Figure 10.6 illustrates the varying proportion of funding from each of the three sources, and hence the varying reliance on fee income, at the different universities. The well-established research universities with strong reputations have the highest proportion of third stream income (for example, UCT, Wits), while those with weak reputations have little third stream income and rely more heavily on the state, being eligible for limited funds earmarked for redress (for example, WSU, UL).

Fig. 10.6
figure 6

Proportion of institutional funding per source per university 2008–2013 (Source: CHE 2015)

Full size image

The beginning of the academic year has become a flashpoint, as students are required to pay a portion of their fees on registration, dubbed locally as an “upfront payment”, with amounts ranging up to R20,000 (Furlong 2015). Financial constraints thus increasingly block formal access, but even more significantly, the success of large numbers of students, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable who are likely to be the first in their families to enter higher education.

Direct State Support to Poor Students as a Means of Redress

Public efforts to redress the inequities of the past alleviate the financial constraints on some students, but are not sufficient. In 1995 government created an income contingent scheme, the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS). The intent was to support those students who could not afford higher education, and thus, to create equal opportunities and access, as well as shift the inherited skewed racial profile of higher education participation (Cooper and Subotzky 2001). The specific mechanism adopted is loans and bursaries for a first qualification, with low interest repayments coming into effect once recipients are earning above a minimum income level.Footnote 3 As an incentive, a portion of the loan may be converted to a bursary, subject to academic results.

The NSFAS system has been decentralised and is administered through the universities. The allocation per university is determined by race: based on a calculation of the total number of black (those classified African, Coloured and Indian) students and the cost of tuition and residential fees. Each university then allocates the bursary or loans directly to students, and reports to NSFAS. Selection is subject to a means test,Footnote 4 as well as a judgement that the student has the “potential to succeed”.

The NSFAS funding between 1995 and 2011 shows a growing total allocation and government portion (NSFAS also raises funds from international and national donors). Figure 10.7 breaks down the sources of NSFAS funds between 2008 and 2013, from the state (DHET ear marked) and other sources, showing that only the recovery of loans has declined.

Fig. 10.7
figure 7

Sources for NSFAS funding (Source: CHE 2015)

Full size image

The number of students supported has increased steadily, from 43,876 awards benefitting 40,002 students in 1995, to benefit 135,208 students in 2009 (De Villiers et al. 2013). This core public funding mechanism is complemented by other opportunities, such as schemes to incentivise and fund Women into Science and Technology, bursaries from parastatal companies, private sector firms, public and private foundations.

The significance of financial support for ensuring epistemological access and success in higher education is highlighted by a cohort study of NSFAS beneficiaries (De Villiers et al. 2013). Students who received financial support were more successful than the average student in completing their qualifications, fewer dropped out before qualifying, and they were more likely to complete a degree rather than a certificate or diploma.

However, there is widespread consensus that the amount per student is not sufficient to cover full costs (see Fig. 10.5), leading students to accumulate debt. Weak NSFAS administrative systems, poor debt recovery processes and potential for corruption at institutional level are a major problem in ensuring that financial support reaches the intended beneficiaries. There are reports that the scheme is not sufficient to reach all those who are eligible. In particular, there remains a problem dubbed the “missing middle”, of those whose households earn above the minimum threshold but cannot afford high fees. Moreover, students who qualify for NSFAS funding may experience obstacles at registration, because they cannot afford “upfront payments” and must wait for NSFAS funding to be allocated—a catch-22 situation that blocks access for many.

The chronic underfunding of the higher education system was recognised, and a slow government bureaucratic process initiated, in the form of a ministerial committee to review and propose a new funding model (DHET 2013). Contestation spread across the entire higher education system in 2015, with coordinated mass student protests in all centres and a direct national challenge to government that put the entire higher education system at risk. The #FeesMustFall student movement catalysed major financial concessions from the state, which appointed a presidential task team to advise on stabilising the system in the short term. The state proposed to halt fee increases for 2016, to compensate universities for the shortfall, and to increase the allocation to NSFAS by an additional R4.5 billion (US$282 million) (MacGregor 2016). NSFAS would increase the amounts available for up-front payments to universities, and also allocate funds to assist poor students who had accumulated debt, to enable them to complete their studies. The student protests are widely credited with forcing the state and university management to prioritise and address deep-rooted problems in higher education funding and access. The structural inequalities blocking transformation in the higher education system so that it increases opportunity and promotes inclusive development are not easily addressed by short-term financial solutions in isolation, however.

Access but Not Inclusive Development

The consensus is that despite the evident growth and shifts to more equitable enrolment patterns,

…graduate output has not kept pace with the country’s needs. High attrition and low graduation rates have largely neutralised important gains in access (CHE 2013:i).

Those most at risk of attrition are black and working class, and those most likely to graduate are white and middle class, reproducing inequality on an ongoing basis. This means that contestation around fees and epistemological access is likely to intensify, together with a new call for more inclusive and contextually relevant institutional cultures. The challenge remains to find more effective ways to produce the graduates required for inclusive economic and social development. Perhaps students should be more active agents in these processes, and not only the passive beneficiaries?

Community Service or Extending Knowledge and Technology to Inclusive Benefits?

“Inclusive development” clearly poses a challenge to universities: to reconsider not only to whose benefit they teach, research and innovate for, but equally, who participates in the processes of teaching, research and innovation—and how these can include the poor, the working class, the excluded and the marginalised. This section shifts focus to explore how research, innovation and outreach agendas and activity promote inclusive development. Universities may interact with government agencies, firms, communities, welfare agencies, other knowledge partners, and more. They may do so through types of relationship that are knowledge intensive to differing degrees. For example, at one university, academics reported their involvement in church charitable projects as part of their community outreach. These activities are related to their roles as citizens, and are not integral to the academic project and do not invoke their academic knowledge. Knowledge may flow through channels that require direct engagement with external partners—such as participatory research networks—or indirect—such as students with skills required by the economy, or critical citizens. Outputs and outcomes may be to the benefit of academics, or to social and economic development. An academic would typically report a range of partners and types of relationships, including but not limited to knowledge partners and the production of students. Partners other than academics, and the activities other than core academic practices of teaching, research and innovation are of most interest.

This section draws on a survey of academics at five universities representing the three main institutional types, as well as a rurally located university, to identify their patterns of academic interaction—showing the most typical partners, types of relationships, channels, outputs and outcomes (Kruss et al. 2013; Kruss and Haupt 2016). High-level conclusions are presented here, and the detailed statistical analysis underpinning these analytical descriptions can be found in Kruss et al. (2013). The analysis aimed to highlight common trends typical across the higher education system and in the main institutional types, that could support inclusive development.

A Policy Framework to Address Global Competitiveness and the Quality of Life for All

The tendency has been for innovation policy mechanisms and funding allocations to focus primarily on scientific excellence, university responsiveness to economic needs and promoting global competitiveness. For example, legislation was introduced in 2008 to promote the utilisation and commercialisation of intellectual property developed from publicly funded research to social and economic benefit, together with a centralised coordination agency to stimulate and intensify technological innovation, and the mandatory establishment of university technology transfer offices. Pressure on universities to exploit viable knowledge and technology developed through academic research and innovation has increased steadily.

In contrast, higher education policy actors focused primarily on promoting access and equity, and responsiveness in terms of social justice and the “public good”, aiming to grow “critical citizenship” (Lange 2003; Cloete et al. 2002; CHE 2003). From this perspective, it was proposed that academic engagement was required in the interests of social transformation and those most marginalised and disadvantaged in the past (Subotzky 1999; Hall 2010). From the mid-2000s, the traditional third mission of “community service” was subject to critical re-examination, and universities faced the direct policy imperative to institutionalise “community engagement” activities. A vigorous debate emerged on what “community/academic engagement” should mean, and how academic identities, the orientations, roles and structures of the university should change to promote engagement (Hall 2010). Universities operate in a complex policy space, with multiple imperatives from different government actors shaping multiple roles, being interpreted and enacted in terms of their own historical trajectories, institutional cultures and disciplinary strengths.

Surveying University and Academic Practice Across the System

Analysis of a total sample of 2159 academics revealed that the most frequent partner, reported on a moderate to wide scale, was South African universities (weighted average index WAI of 3.14, where 1 is not at all and 4 is on a wide scale). A principal component analysis (Fig. 10.8) revealed that the most frequent partners reported were academic or knowledge partners (universities and public research institutes locally and internationally). This was not the case in the rural university, where community partners (individuals and households; and a specific local community) were slightly more significant. The greatest variation between universities was in the frequency of community partners, which tended to be second most frequent, while government partners (national; provincial and local government agencies) tended to be third most frequent. Firm partners (SMMEs; large firms; multinational companies; sectoral associations), contrary to the policy attention paid to university–industry linkages, tended to be the second least frequent partner, with some variation between universities. Welfare partners (NGOs; welfare agencies; development agencies; community organisations and social movements) were less frequent, and civil society partners (trade unions; political parties and civics) were least frequent for all the universities.

Fig. 10.8
figure 8

Frequency of interaction with external partners by type of university (Source: Kruss et al. 2012)

Full size image

Academics were interacting in descending order of scale, with sets of academic or community, government, welfare, firm and civil society external partners. The most frequently reported type of relationship was part of the core academic teaching mission of the university: “education of students so that they are socially responsive” (WAI of 3.1). Alternative teaching (continuing education or professional development; customised training and short courses; collaborative curriculum design; and alternative modes of delivery to accommodate non-traditional students) and engaged teaching and outreach (service learning; student voluntary outreach programmes; community-based research projects; clinical services and patient or client care; education of students so that they are socially responsive; work-integrated learning) were the predominant types of relationship (Fig. 10.9).

Fig. 10.9
figure 9

Types of relationship per university (Source: Kruss et al. 2012)

Full size image

There were distinct differences between universities. Engaged research (collaborative R&D projects; research consultancy; contract research; participatory research networks; policy research, analysis and advice) was most frequent at research university 2, and least frequent at the comprehensive university. The two research universities differed in that relationships at research university 2 (historically English) were more frequently research related than those at research university 1 (historically Afrikaans), which had the same pattern as the other three. Technology transfer was the least frequent at all universities, but less so at the university of technology, and more so at research university 2. Of note is that it was slightly more frequent at rural university than research university 1, an institution that prided itself on technology transfer.

Teaching-related types of relationships predominated, hence “students” were reported on a moderate to wide scale as academics’ main channel of knowledge and information exchange with external partners (WAI 3.17). Although there is a great deal of congruence in the order and intensity of channels at each university (Fig. 10.10), the observed differences between the universities were statistically significant (except for the public media factor). Customised expertise (training and capacity development or workshops; oral or written testimony or advice; informal information exchange; intervention and development programmes; reports and policy briefings; cross-disciplinary networks) and public media channels (radio; television; newspapers; popular publications; interactive websites) were most frequent for all the universities. Public media channels are informal and very indirect, requiring no face to face engagement, and typically involve the traditional “public intellectual” role of the academic. Customised expertise requires direct interaction whether with communities or firms, but the degree of participation is not easily evident. The more formal, direct and knowledge-intensive technology development channels (software and technology adaptation or development; application networks and technology incubators or innovation hubs) and technology structure channels (patent applications and registration; spin-off firms from the university, commercial or not for profit; research contracts and commissions) were used on a closely similar frequency, with technology structure least frequent, except at the university of technology. These patterns suggest that the nature of interaction is most typically informal, often indirect and not strongly knowledge intensive.

Fig. 10.10
figure 10

Channels of interaction by University (Source: Kruss et al. 2012)

Full size image

Table 10.3 reflects that academic outputs were most frequently reported from interaction, rather than social and economic outputs to the benefit of external partners.

Table 10.3 Five most frequent outputs of interaction (WAI)
Full size table

Figure 10.11 presents the relative frequency of each outcome factor by type of university. Academic outcomes (theoretical and methodological development in an academic field; academic and institutional reputation; relevant research focus and new research projects; participatory curriculum development; new academic programmes and materials; training and skills development and improved teaching and learning) were reported most frequently, with high means, but of note, the university of technology, the rural university, and research university 1 reported the highest frequencies, while the comprehensive university and research university 2 reported the lowest frequencies. The rural university reported the highest frequency for community- and social development-related benefits (community empowerment and agency, community-based campaigns, public awareness and advocacy, improved quality of life for individuals and communities, incorporation of indigenous knowledge, regional development, intervention plans and guidelines and policy interventions), while academics at the university of technology reported the highest productivity and employment generation outcomes (firm productivity and competitiveness; firm employment generation; novel uses of technology; and community employment generation).

Fig. 10.11
figure 11

Outcomes of interaction by University (Source: Kruss et al. 2012)

Full size image

Academics at Research University 2, with the strongest reputation, reported the lowest frequency for all three outcomes, suggesting that they do not place a high value on the benefits of interaction. In contrast, at the university of technology, academics reported the highest productivity and employment generation benefits and the highest social development benefits, more frequently than the other four universities.

Diverse Institutional Patterns

Clearly, there are complex patterns of groups of academics interacting in different ways. Concentrations of these groups differed by knowledge field and faculty, and pockets of inclusive practice were evident in a wide range of fields. Here we provide a pen sketch of the pattern at each university, based on a more in-depth analysis of the data for its academics only, rather than aggregated across the sample.

A Fragmented Service-Oriented Pattern

Research University 1 was a well-established traditionally Afrikaans research university that had promoted an agenda of innovation and commercialisation and developed strong structures for community service and teaching-oriented community engagement. Interaction was strongly shaped by the tension between the strategic institutional goals of growing international recognition and academic reputation on the one hand, and local relevance and compliance with national policy imperatives on the other hand. Academics largely continued with traditional activities of teaching, research and service, and there was evidence of a strong degree of fragmentation of distinct types of activity. Almost a quarter of academics reported that they did not engage at all (24 %), and 34 % interacted only on an isolated scale. A sizable group interpreted “engagement” very broadly and loosely, to include frequent interaction with only a single partner (28 %), primarily other academic partners—and these tended to be in relation to professional academic activities such as external examining or serving on boards.

A very small group of academics (14 %) reported that they interacted frequently with external health, firm, government and welfare social partners,Footnote 5 in that order. “Customised service” and “community service” teaching types of relationships were thus most frequent, whether for firm or community partners. A strong welfare and philanthropic orientation was evident in much of the practice.

A Socially Responsive, Research- and Teaching-Oriented Pattern

In contrast, interaction at research university 2, historically English, was shaped by the institutional promotion of responsiveness, the public good and development, linked to a devolved strategy that acknowledged the dominant institutional culture of academic freedom and the reputational priorities of academics. A widespread acceptance of “social responsiveness” was evident. For most academics, this had not changed their practice very much, and an attitude of “we have always done it” tended to prevail, as they pursued their own research agendas. A group of academics interacted more frequently, but on a limited basis with one external partner, typically other academic partners, typically in research relationships through informal and tacit channels of collaboration, and with primarily academic benefits. Much of this was related to core academic roles and responsibilities, but more explicitly oriented to the public good and development. A smaller group of academics interacted actively in networks with multiple external social partners, integrated into their research and teaching relationships and through more direct and knowledge-intensive channels, with community- and firm-related benefits as well. Socially responsive teaching relationships were an emergent trend. In this university, then, responsive research and teaching-oriented engaged and non-engaged academic activity tended to stand out as the main pattern.

A Teaching-Oriented Community and Research-Oriented Firm Engagement Pattern

“Engagement” at the comprehensive university tended to a high degree of diversity, attributed to both the challenge to create a new academic institutional type and build academic reputation, and to the delays in developing a strategic policy framework in a merging institution. An institutional policy vacuum meant that engagement was driven in a decentralised and diverse way by deans, by heads of development or research or technology transfer “entities” funded by external donors or clients, and by individual champions, on the base of a long-standing commitment to engagement with the region and regional development. The heightened internal contestation of the merger process manifested in relation to reputation enhancing academic activities, cutting along old institutional fault lines.

The pattern was thus of a group of academics that did not engage at all because they did not perceive engagement as part of their academic identity, or because of resource constraints, concentrated in specific fields. A large group of academics had a generalised commitment to engagement but had not changed their practice significantly. A group of academics engaged frequently, mostly with communities, firms or other academics, and a small group were involved in networks in a limited range of knowledge fields. There was a strong institutional focus on the local and regional levels, rather than engagement at the national or international levels. Indications were a shift to new forms of teaching- and learning-oriented types of relationship, evident in the predominance of student learning and alternative teaching types of relationships, and indirect channels of interaction. Little of the engaged activity was oriented to research and innovation. Two distinct clusters of active “engagement” stood out at this university—community partners associated with teaching-oriented interaction, and firm and academic partners associated with research-oriented interaction.

A Development-Oriented Service Pattern

A more active development orientation was evident at the rural university, in line with its institutional mission, shaped by its historical location in an impoverished rural region and recently, an urban campus, its strong political but relatively weak research reputation, and catalysed by academic champions directly reporting to senior institutional leadership. The most actively engaged academics tended to be those based in “boundary spanning” centres and institutes reporting directly to the vice chancellor, not well inserted into formal institutional structures. The pattern here too, was of passive awareness of community engagement on the part of many academics. There were two similar sized groups of academics that actively engaged with a single partner, or networked with multiple partners. The academics who engaged actively did so primarily with other academics, but with community and rural partners almost equally significant. The forms of interaction were distinctly development oriented, at the local and regional level, with service types of relationships and direct channels of interaction with these partners prevailing. Outputs were similar to the other universities, primarily academic, but the outcomes and benefits reported were more strongly local development and community oriented. A development-oriented service pattern thus prevailed at this university.

A Firm and User Teaching- and Research-Oriented Pattern

Interaction at the university of technology reflects its distinctive strategic focus on technology and workplace learning, and its battle to forge a new identity and build a distinctive academic reputation. The institutional framework that aimed to promote “community engagement” was defined primarily in relation to teaching and learning, in terms of work-integrated learning and service learning, requiring a paradigm shift on the part of many academics.

Many academics did not see themselves as interacting at all. A small group engaged in a very limited way, in isolated instances. A larger group tended to engage quite frequently and quite intensely with multiple partners, primarily firm and government, and then, community development, partners. Education of responsive students and work-integrated learning were the most frequently reported type of relationship, but analysis showed that these had low importance for academics. Community-based research, customised training and various firm-oriented types of relationships were more important, and the channels of interaction tended to be tacit, more strongly related to technology transfer or user-oriented than to community-based interaction. A range of outcomes were primarily to the benefit of academics, but also, more significant for firms than for other social partners. A firm- and user-oriented, teaching and research pattern tended to prevail at this university.

How Do These Patterns of Interaction Promote Inclusive Development?

The pattern in each university is complex and multi-faceted, diverse in each knowledge field, and cannot be easily and neatly categorised. Nevertheless, there are clear differences between the universities that for the most part are consistent with the strategic challenges faced by distinct institutional types, intersecting with the historical trajectories and institutional cultures of specific universities. The patterns provide an empirical base to understand how academics in different types of university enact multiple roles, and contribute to inclusive social and economic development.

The general awareness of and commitment to interaction and socio-economic development on the part of most academics is incontrovertible. However, there is evidence of conceptual slippage and confusion: core academic activities were reported as engaged activities, evident in the large number of academics who interacted with a single, academic partner, for example.

Academics interacted in descending order of scale, with sets of academic or community, government, welfare, firm and civil society external partners. The tendency for engagement to be oriented to teaching and learning, or to outreach and service was notable. Alternative teaching-related types of relationships predominated. There is less activity that is oriented to research. There is very little activity that is oriented to innovation and technology transfer, whether social innovation or economic innovation, whether in relation to firms or to communities. The channels of interaction were most typically informal, often indirect and not strongly knowledge intensive. The outputs and outcomes were primarily to academic benefit. Few outputs or outcomes of direct benefit to marginalised communities were reported.

Academics were more likely to conduct scientific research that could impact on the quality of life of communities, in relation to alternative energy, water, sanitation or health, but in an indirect manner. For example, university scientists research new treatments for HIV/Aids or tuberculosis that could potentially have a wide health impact. Or nanotechnology research designed low-cost water filters but without the participation of potential users, nor the commercialisation to diffuse this new technology to those who could benefit. The challenge for inclusive development is to strengthen linkages and find ways for marginalised groups to be part of research processes and to directly access university research and innovation.

Facilitating Knowledge Flows: External Interface Mechanisms

Qualitative research in the five universities revealed that emergent trends are evident, in the form of new external interface mechanisms to facilitate knowledge flows between universities and marginalised communities. Some are experimenting with new organisational forms to harness academic and scientific knowledge in more direct forms of partnership with community actors. This section draws on case studies to illustrate the kinds of external interface mechanisms universities are designing to promote the participation required for inclusive development. Universities and academics are more comfortable in teaching and research related to improving the quality of life, in fields such as health, water, energy or education, but grapple to find mechanisms to interact around livelihoods and entrepreneurship. Here we first consider some of the traditional and most widely found interface mechanisms to enhance the quality of life, and then, outline emergent trends towards social entrepreneurship, such as science shops to support community innovation, technology platforms to support SMMEs and community-based innovation hubs and incubators.

Traditional and Evolving Mechanisms to Link Teaching Students and Communities

Students are a frequent channel of interaction, and one of the most frequently reported outputs was students with a developed social conscience, critical citizens who are better equipped to work in an inclusive manner recognising diversity. In this regard, there are a number of traditional interface mechanisms that are evolving into new forms, in line with interpretations of the community engagement mandate.

There have been significant shifts from the past philanthropic and welfare-oriented practices of “community service”, but these may be reproduced in new forms in some universities’ community engagement activities. Dedicated university centres or departments coordinate students’ civic involvement in social and community projects, through community service and volunteerism, playing a brokerage role linking community partners and students seeking opportunities to engage. Long-established student welfare structures also play an intermediary role linking students with external community structures. Such student volunteering, community service and activities to promote the development of critical citizens largely take place outside the formal curriculum, and have a welfare or service orientation. Typical activities include tutoring school students, upgrading or repairing facilities at schools, community centres, NGOs, collecting funds or resources and so on.

A more recent student-oriented external interface mechanism is the growth of service learning programmes. Traditionally, professionally oriented programmes such as law and medicine hosted free or low-cost clinics that are used to train students, and these continue to provide a community service. A new to South Africa tradition of service learning (McMillan et al. 2013) was stimulated initially by a Community-Higher Education-Service Partnership programme with donor funding (Lazarus 1999; Bender et al. 2006; Lazarus et al. 2008). Pilot programmes were supported in partner universities, aimed to inform national and institutional policies and implementation of community service learning programmes across the higher education system. Here too, a differentiated institutional response was evident. An evaluation study found that the institutionalisation of service learning in academic practice was very uneven, with institutions interpreting the concept and devising programmes in their own ways (Mouton and Wildschut 2005). In some cases, these initiatives were underpinned by a philanthropic position of social welfare services to the disadvantaged, a notion that entailed little change to the university or to the academic project. In others, it was recognised that rather than “any add-on bit of welfarism”, service learning should be entrenched in core academic activities, articulated in a concept of “integrated community service” (Fourie 2006:10). Some universities have begun to integrate a service learning component into all their degree programmes, changing the way they teach.

Township-based satellite campuses, typically inherited by formerly white research universities through the national institutional restructuring process, are used as a dedicated platform for community service and engagement programmes in some universities. Some universities had long established facilities in rural areas for outreach programmes in health and education, for example, offering professional education and conducting research with a more grounded exposure to the realities of the daily life of many South Africans. The new campuses typically have a niche area of focus, such as science and mathematics. Professional community-based clinics and school-based programmes are located on these campuses and used as bases for service learning, professional development and community service programmes, involving academics and students. A limited range of academic programmes may also be delivered on these campuses, to facilitate access to impoverished communities. Such a physical presence can serve as a direct channel to facilitate wider access to formal institutions on the part of the poor and the marginalised.

These service-oriented programmes may be of indirect benefit to the communities in which they are situated. They are more likely to be of benefit to the reputation of the university, and at best, they may change the way the university teaches quite fundamentally. At worst, they are likely to be of greatest benefit to individual students, and change little in the way the academic project functions.

Structured Links to Access University Knowledge

There is a wide range of external interface mechanisms that universities are putting in place to link potential knowledge users into university expertise more effectively.

One is strategic partnerships with local or provincial government, to connect university activities to respond to local economic and social development goals in a more coordinated manner. These are typically managed through formal collaboration agreements that may include all the universities in a city region or province. The agreements typically facilitate interaction with city and provincial government structures, manifest in projects in specific economic sectors or professions, involving different academics and faculties over time. Here, the channels of interaction are typically indirect, in that the projects may impact positively on the quality of life of selected groups or communities in general. Examples are engineering expertise to improve transportation, collaboration to enhance professional education and training in scarce skills fields, research into low-cost sanitation or health problems, and so on. Universities may also interface with local economic development through participation in regional or local government science and technology parks, innovation hubs or sectoral technology platforms.

A direct, brokerage interface mechanism, influenced by global trends, is to set up a “science shop” located in a local township, to connect external community demand with internal research and professional expertise, skills and resources (Penfold and Goodman 2011). Academics or students can identify research topics of relevance to communities, and communities can be assisted to access expertise to provide research, evaluation or other expertise to find solutions to their problems. These typically have a wide reach and are oriented to address issues that can impact positively on the quality of life, towards social development. The challenges of changing university practice to embed such a new model are considerable, and early evidence from one pilot was not very encouraging in its reach, outcomes and potential impact (Favish et al. 2013).

An Emergent Trend Towards Social Enterprises?

A direct channel of interaction oriented to entrepreneurship and innovation is a technology platform to promote linkages with firms and other users, an external interface mechanism that is physically located within and more tightly integrated into the higher education institutions. The Tshumisano Technology Stations Programme is an instrument of national science and technology policy to provide financial and technicalFootnote 6 support to universities of technology, to enable their interaction with technology-based SMMEs in specific industrial sectors related to regional priorities. Funding draws on multiple sources, is quite generous, and is used to support equipment, staff, interns and the development of intellectual property. The technology station is a distinctive organisational form within the South African higher education sector, operating as a “technological nursery”. It typically includes lecturers, researchers, interns and students, who benefit from a well-funded and well-equipped set of laboratories in line with current requirements of a focus industrial sector. Their mandate is to provide innovation support to SMMEs, but in practice they may engage with the full range of firms, from micro-enterprises to multinational companies. Significantly, they report engagements that are livelihood-oriented and based in informal settings, for example, with community co-operatives, NGOs and social enterprises.

An example of a clothing technology station provides some insight into their operation and potential (Kruss and Gastrow 2015). The key areas identified as lacking locally were manufacturing advisory services, and access to specialised equipment, which informed their niche focus. To provide access to equipment for SMMEs or community enterprises, they leveraged the capital equipment at their disposal. For example, an extensive product-testing facility was accredited by a large South African clothing retailer; the station owned an expensive button-hole machine; and they used a new technology to create virtual prototypes of products, using software to virtually clothe an avatar with digitally designed garments. This technology is relatively new to the industry, in South Africa. One advantage of using this software is that it saves time compared to manually creating prototypes, and it can interface with older technologies. There was evidence of multiple projects with community-based co-operatives and social enterprises to design such prototypes and patterns. The technology station also ran short courses and accredited training programmes that were mostly attended by large firms and SMMEs, cross-subsidising cooperatives and community-based enterprises.

Universities located in isolated rural areas have designed agricultural parks, using the model for an innovation hub for small businesses in urban-based universities, with the intention of replication on a larger scale across small rural towns and communities (Kruss and Gastrow 2015). One such example was highly formalised, and based at the university, underpinned by a formal memorandum of agreement with provincial government departments, to support provincial and national development plans to alleviate poverty, create jobs and promote food security. The university recognised the challenges that small-scale farmers face in accessing markets, growing quality produce that meets regulatory standards, meeting market demand with a steady and timely product, and transporting products to market. Starting from this premise, that the most important challenge is to empower small-scale farmers to participate in formal markets, the university designed the agricultural park model. Public procurement policies at provincial and local level that promote the participation of SMMEs and marginalised producers provided excellent opportunities to secure large markets for such a hub. The agricultural park houses a set of co-operatives that employ retrenched workers and provide an opportunity for student learning and staff research. The current project is based on three functionally interconnected units: a nursery for seedlings to supply plants to community farmers, a farming enterprise in close proximity, and an agro-processing unit that serves local farmers and the co-operatives farming the fields. The focus is on growing vegetables, and the agro-processing facility’s main product currently is dried processed vegetables.

However, the evidence suggests that there are gaps and misalignments in the interactions between academics, students, communities and local government, so that the full potential of the opportunities is not realised, and markets are not accessed (Kruss and Gastrow 2015). For instance, large-scale and expensive equipment such as industrial dryers in the processing unit stood idle; co-operatives produced at only a small fraction of the potential output of the facility; farmers sold to local markets on a very small scale, and were unable ensure the livelihoods of their members.

A similar example, a “social innovation hub” located in an impoverished urban township, is jointly funded by a centre for social innovation at a research university (itself funding by a private sector philanthropic foundation), and a national government programme to address unemployment. The aim is to promote entrepreneurship for micro-enterprises that at the same time, promotes socio-economic development (see Box 10.1), and creates a model for inclusive regeneration of townships. The Hub will operate as an incubator providing business support and training to start-ups and micro-enterprises. Concerns were raised about the ability of impoverished residents to afford to join the incubator, but this project was at too early a stage to assess outcomes.

Box 10.1. A Social Innovation Hub at the Core of a Township Regeneration Project

Philippi is one of the larger townships situated outside of Cape Town. It is part of the Cape Flats with a population at around 700,000 people. Philippi, like many other townships, is an underdeveloped and under-serviced area with high unemployment rates.

Philippi Village is a new development that aims to shift that by creating a space in the centre of Philippi that will nurture entrepreneurs, supporting skills development and harnessing job creation. The development aims to invigorate this area with job opportunities and recreational activities.

Philippi Village will be an entrepreneurial development with a social impact. It will be a multi-use, multi-faceted environment that will house local businesses and entrepreneurs, an event and entertainment centre, sports and conferencing facilities, and an education space.

The Hub compromises a call centre, stalls for vendors, conference spaces, reception services, an eatery, personal storage areas, cleaning and utilities, and meeting amenities. An on-site crèche is already open to accommodate working parents, and a college also operates from the premises. A City library located at Crossroads will soon relocate to the building’s ground floor.

http://futurecapetown.com/2015/09/future-cape-town-how-phillipi-village-could-become-a-model-for-inclusive-township-regeneration/#.Vr3hONgU_IU

Conclusions

What are the insights for universities globally, engaging in a world that is struggling to deal with growing inequality and social disaffection, from the experience of universities in one of the most unequal countries in the world?

South African higher education has succeeded in massification and opening formal access, but the challenges of epistemological access and ensuring success—for individuals and for social and economic development—are immense. The funding constraints on student success raise critical questions about how the state prioritises its allocation to higher education, particularly in the current political context of high levels of fraud, patronage, misallocation and wastage in public spending. Whether the state can afford a larger allocation, and whether it should make such an allocation of public funds to higher education—as opposed to early childhood development or primary education—are critical issues for economic growth and inclusive development. How the private sector can partner to contribute to third stream income, and directly to individual students’ tuition costs, in the interests of inclusive development and growth is another area for public intervention. Universities themselves are required to deepen their efforts to ensure epistemological access and success, at the core of their knowledge generation roles, and there is much to learn from the experience of South African academic educators.

Universities interact with communities primarily in relation to alternative or engaged forms of teaching and professional education, so that students are better prepared for the realities of work and diversity in South Africa. Communities are typically involved in one-directional flows of knowledge from universities, and the extent to which interaction is science and technology-intensive is limited. These forms of interaction might be to the benefit of marginalised communities, typically as passive beneficiaries, but they might equally be exploitative and primarily to the benefit of the university and the individual student.

Emergent practices of participatory processes to the benefit of communities are evident, and these need to be deepened and extended more widely across faculties and departments. External interface structures that can link marginalised communities and the poor as active agents, to academics and university facilities, in the same way that relationships with firms are built, are a critical mechanism for transformation.

Finally, the strong evidence of differentiation raises questions about the roles of different types of university—should there be differentiated roles in contributing to inclusive development, and how would these be promoted and supported by science and technology, and higher education policy?