Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Introduction

Towards Socially Just Educators

Is it possible to teach in a socially just manner or for social justice if as an educator or academic community, we have not engaged in a measure of learning and unlearning, if we have not reflexively reconsidered our own assumptions, our views of our students, or the practices we share with students (Kumashiro 2015)? In considering the way that our collective biographies influence our current behaviour, and the ability of academics to mediate learning about transformation and social justice, Jonathan Jansen (2009) writes:

The teacher is implicated within the social and pedagogical narrative, not some empowered educator who has figured out the problems of an unequal world and stands to dispense this wisdom to receiving students.…the teachers are themselves carriers of troubled knowledge, and this has serious implications for critical education. (Jansen 2009, p. 258)

Academics from all walks of life are implicated, in a manner that influences or impedes our abilities to teach for social justice.

What are the dangers of not engaging in this work on the self? One might become defensive, unconfident (Metz 2015) or, on the contrary, one might feel too confident, ignorant of one’s own subject position, one’s own prejudices. One might maintain assumptions about the ignorance of others, unaware of how these might be influenced by our inexperience of the experience or suffering of others (Santos 2001).

An example of the danger of lack of critical reflexivity is evident in the experience of one of the authors of this chapter, who when writing about a project designed to foster social justice with colleagues, received the comments about this research from a journal editor, that the early draft of the article was one dimensional and essentialising, and that:

Author(s) could be more critical of their positioning of “marginalised students” as simply not having access to particular forms of academic discourse. Isn’t this also about certain forms (i.e. middle class) of discourse & practice being (arbitrarily) positioned as having more legitimacy as compared to those from “marginalised” groups?

How do we “come to know” or to do this kind of work on the self, as educators? Several activities are required: introspection about oneself, one’s preconceptions, one’s privilege or lack of privilege, and how these influence one’s actions; exploration about our society, in what manner it is unjust and how one as an educator can play a positive role; introspection about the role of one’s discipline. But further, one does need to theorise about society and about teaching and learning—and about social justice (Leibowitz and Bozalek 2016). This is where, we would argue, the scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL) can play a role. SOTL is defined as “where academics frame questions that they systematically investigate in relation to their teaching and their students’ learning” (Brew 2007, p. 1/2). SOTL can be transformative, provided that it is harnessed to activities of introspection, exploration, theorisation, and empirical work. The reflection inherent in SOTL is stressed by Booth and Woollacott (2015). In order to be transformative it is important that the SOTL activities are based on the activity of reflection about the premises, the processes, and the content in teaching (Kreber 2013). Perhaps equally important is our introspection and interrogation of our own values and assumptions, about ourselves and social life more generally, as this will influence how we relate to students. SOTL involves “systematic study of teaching and/or learning and the public sharing and review of such work through presentations, performances, or publication” (McKinney 2006, p. 39). SOTL for socially just pedagogy extends beyond individual concerns for social justice and individual performance with our students. It is important that socially just pedagogies are open to scrutiny and can be reviewed critically by members of an appropriate community of scholars, which allows it to be built upon and advanced by others in the field (ibid). Hence, the scholarship in socially just pedagogies becomes crucial in ensuring criticality.

In this chapter, we consider what is meant by a socially just pedagogy, and what this requires of academics in their teaching roles. It presents the workings of the UJ project: SOTL @ UJ: Towards a Socially Just Pedagogy, which attempts to support academics to teach for social justice. It reflects upon one of the first data gathering activities of the group, a series of interviews with a group of 22 academics at the University of Johannesburg (UJ), about what constitutes socially just teaching. The chapter concludes with suggestions for what a model of SOTL in order to advance a socially just pedagogy might look like.

A Socially Just Pedagogy

A socially just pedagogy is one that both teaches in a socially just manner and teaches for social justice (Kreber 2013; Leibowitz and Bozalek 2016). To teach in a socially just manner implies that the teaching is fair, encourages participation by all students, and respects their integrity. To teach for social justice goes further: it implies teaching students in such a manner that they can contribute towards generating a socially just society, and that once they have graduated they are critical, compassionate, and active citizens. These two claims are of course interrelated, such that one cannot teach for social justice, if the manner of teaching is fundamentally unjust. Similarly, if one teaches in a just manner, it would be fair to assume that graduates will learn, by experiencing justice in the lecture halls and online discussions, by seeing it modeled, and that they will want to contribute towards a socially just society.

While there might not be one clear definition of what a socially just pedagogy is, we argue that it should work towards the conditions as outlined in the following list, derived from the literature on social justice and critical pedagogy. The first set of considerations or precepts are characterised by the account of participatory parity by Nancy Fraser (2008, 2009), namely that social justice should pay adequate attention to:

  1. 1.

    Matters of distribution of resources

  2. 2.

    Matters of recognition of social status

  3. 3.

    To voice and framing

While these are outlined separately, they are in fact inseparable. Social justice cannot occur if all three of these dimensions are not attended to. These three dimensions are basic to ensuring the participatory parity of students—as peers in the classroom, but also as graduates in society. Bozalek and Leibowitz (2012) have illustrated the relevance of these dimensions in relation to teaching and learning previously: attention to matters of distribution of resources would include attention to material artefacts such as computers, textbooks, or finances to study in comfort. Matters of recognition of social status would include respect for one’s ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, or age, but in addition, respect for one’s language background, culture, and prior learning. Attention to voice and framing would include being perceived to be a legitimate member of the school community, and being able to voice needs.

Fraser, and many other authors about social justice and education, for example Badat (2009), draws attention to the distinction between ameliorative and transformative change, arguing that the former does not intentionally lead to change in existing social relations and institutions, whereas transformation should. There has been considerable debate about whether education can advance social change in a progressive direction. For example, Apple (2013) provides examples of where it can, whereas Young reminds us that Bernstein once said that “education cannot compensate for society” (2008, p. 171). Our view is that there is a continuum from more transformative to more ameliorative strategies, and that well-intentioned actions may have unintended consequences, much as Kumashiro (2015) demonstrates. One tries one’s best, but there is always potential to do harm. This is one of the reasons why critical reflection on one’s own practice and the scholarship of teaching is so important. Bozalek (forthcoming) shows with regard to the use of information technologies in teaching and learning that it is possible to teach in a more transformative manner. She concludes her study thus: “while affirmative strategies provide short term and ameliorative solutions in each of the dimensions, the preferable option would be to strive towards transformative approaches which could lead to more far reaching changes and more socially just practices in higher education pedagogies.” The examples she gives of transformative approaches are: steps to reshape power relations so that students are seen as knowledge producers rather than merely knowledge consumers; or to encourage students to learn across institutions, to counter stereotypes of these students; or to use inexpensive forms of electronic communication to enable all students to communicate outside the bounds of the classroom.

In addition to the three-dimensional account of participatory parity as outlined by Fraser, we have added several further considerations from the literature on social justice, cognitive justice, and critical pedagogy. An important consideration for us is that socially just teaching is affirming rather than disqualifying or denigrating, and that it generates in students a sense of confidence and agency. This is linked to the notion of participatory parity. To feel qualified (rather than disqualified by colonial knowledge—Santos 2014) requires recognition of one’s ability and one’s prior learning, but simultaneously it requires one to be supported or scaffolded to learn. It also requires the knowledge structures to be decolonised, such that one’s own indigenous, local, or popular knowledge (Ndebele 2016) is respected, or can be utilised to lead to the acquisition of new knowledge. This is complemented by affirmation in the sense of “hope,” which requires a measure of solidarity (Jansen 2009, p. 271), or “critical hope” (Bozalek et al. 2014) that is founded on openness, reflexivity and criticality. Hope is also an important aspect of affirmation.

A second further consideration is the need for students to become critical, of the injustices in society and of the hegemony of the dominant forms of knowledge (Kumashiro 2015) and one’s own assumptions (Anzaldua 2015) to be able to perceive injustice and to perceive the need to work against it.

A third further consideration is based on ideas about learning and coming to know. Learning and coming to know are not only cognitive, as commonly understood, but also experiential, emotional and affective (Zembylas 2010). We come to know with all our being, not solely our intellect. We come to know by experiencing, not only analysing and learning formally. Thus to rephrase the previous words, “to be able to perceive injustice and to perceive the need to work against it” could be expressed as, “to feel injustice and to feel the need to work against it.” The kinds of emotions referred to here might be anger (against the injustice) or strategic empathy (Zembylas 2012).

A fourth consideration is the notion that students and lecturers are both constrained by their structural conditions and by their “troubled knowledge” (Jansen 2009). If this is the case, the pursuit of social justice through teaching and learning involves a journey that students and teachers embark on together. This idea is important because it speaks to the relational dimension of a socially just approach to teaching; students are not the only ones who are transformed as a result of the teaching and learning interaction. Nor are the lecturers. It is only if they see themselves as related, in processes of learning, conflict or joy, that transformative learning can occur. Yuval-Davis (2010) in her theorisation of identity argues that identities are relational and that identity relations can be very different in nature. She identifies four relations between self and non-self, which have different implications for how people relate to each other and for inclusion and exclusion. These include “me” and “us”; “me/us” and “them”; “me and other”; “others”; “me”; and the transversal “us”/“them” (Yuval-Davis 2010, p. 275). The significance of this for this study is that a socially just pedagogy has to take into consideration the boundaries that are constructed between lecturers and students and how these influence the teaching and learning interaction. She argues for moving beyond the “us” and “them” dichotomy.

A fifth consideration pertains to praxis and one’s growth as an educator. One’s understanding of social justice should be accompanied by knowledge and understanding gained from a combination of practice and theory about learning, teaching approaches and about society. This is necessary in order to translate social justice considerations into practice; otherwise the concepts remain merely abstract moral precepts.

These considerations of what a socially just pedagogy implies, based on the three-dimensional account of participatory parity (distribution, recognition and voice and framing); allied with considerations for criticality; learning as affective and experiential as well as cognitive; relationality; and pedagogy as praxis, lay the basis for an enquiry into academics’ perceptions of socially just teaching. This is in the context of a project at the University of Johannesburg, which seeks to encourage socially just teach with the support of an array of SOTL activities.

About the SOTL @ UJ Project

The SOTL @ UJ project was begun approximately two years prior to the writing of this chapter, to stimulate SOTL towards social justice at UJ and to provide an interdisciplinary community of practice for academics to support each other, reflect and debate. Members are from a variety of disciplines, with a strong component from academic development. Membership is somewhat floating, with an invitation and email list of 90 members and anything from 7–50 at a seminar. The activities include:

  • Seminars by speakers from UJ as well as outside who have either theorised or conducted research into teaching and learning

  • A blog with entries about the seminars and other relevant events

  • Discussions about a conceptual framework and how we go about our research

  • An annual mini-conference where members of the group report on their research

  • A set of interviews with members and non-members on their views of socially just teaching.

For more information on the project, and discussions on the seminars, see http://sotlforsocialjustice.blogspot.com.

This Study

At a meeting of the project, it was decided that project members should conduct audio-taped interviews with each other, as well as with colleagues who are not members of the project, in order to stimulate dialogue about social justice. We were aware of similar projects to our own, at the University of the Free State (UFS) and at the University of the Western Cape (UWC). A series of questions had been drawn up at UFS and we decided to use these, rather than to draft a separate set of questions. These questions were also adopted by the UWC study, a National Research Foundation (NRF) funded project. The questions are included in Appendix A.

We decided to interview members of the project, as well as individuals within our departments, in order to simulate discussion in those settings and because we wanted to understand the implications of our questions, for how to support SOTL and teaching for social justice at the University more broadly. In all, 22 individuals were interviewed, 11 who were members of the project and 11 who were not. We interviewed members as well as non-members, thus the data does not reflect on the project or its success as such.

The following disciplines were featured: Academic Development (9), Education (4), Humanities (4), Engineering (2), Science (2) and Health Science (1). The breakdown in terms of seniority was: Professor and Associate Professor (6) and Senior Lecturer and Lecturer (16). The gender weighting was highly skewed towards women: 17 out of 22 interviewees were female. In terms of race, the breakdown was: African (5), coloured (1), Indian (4) coloured (1), and white (12). We were more interested in the range of views than numeric representativity, as we were not attempting to show causal relationships or correlations of any sort.

Three of the team members elected to analyse the interview transcripts in order to reflect on the project: what it could achieve, and how it can support the flourishing of teaching for social justice amongst members as well as non-members. For our analysis we turned to the draft conceptual framework we had outlined for the SOTL @ UJ: Towards a Socially Just Pedagogy project (see http://sotlforsocialjustice.blogspot.co.za/p/draft-conceptual-framework.html) and highlighted those elements which found the most resonance with the data that we collected, either because the data affirmed the concepts in the framework, or because they troubled them. This iterative movement between the conceptual framework of the SOTL @ UJ Project and the interview data was consolidated into the outline of what a socially just pedagogy means, presented at the beginning of this chapter.

Views on Socially Just Teaching

Many of the comments by the staff interviewed make reference to conceptions of social justice and Fraser’s three dimensions: recognition of social status, distribution of resources and voice and framing. With regards to social justice, most staff interviewed believe that the higher education context is plagued by a number of social injustices that have to be addressed in teaching and learning. When asked what he understands by social justice one of the lecturers interviewed begins by stating that social justice is hard to define despite it being a question that has concerned philosophers, like Aristotle, and one may add social scientists, for a long time:

I think about inequality, poverty, access, dignity, respect, survival of the fittest, difference between individuals and societal rights, UbuntuFootnote 1 vs liberal views, consciousness. (respondent 21)

The notion of socially just pedagogies as addressing inequalities resonates with many of the staff interviewed. Many believe that in broad terms a socially just pedagogy pays attention to inequalities, which if not addressed could hinder the progress of many students. Interviewees are most concerned about poverty, which results in students going hungry, having to travel long distances and studying under difficult circumstances and with limited resources. In addition to factors relating to the distribution of resources, some interviewees refer to the recognition of social status as a social injustice that they pay attention to in their teaching. This importance of recognising diversity results in a few interviewees arguing for a broader understanding of social justice because they believe that in order to address social injustices one must not only look at access to resources but also at the intersection of race, class, gender etc. In the words of one of the lecturers, social justice:

is mediated through different identity markers, race, culture, gender and language and ethnicity and politics; understanding how different people have been subject to various types of oppression, marginalisation, victimisation in different contexts. (respondent 16)

Understanding who the students are: their experiences, as well as the values, skills and the knowledge that they bring into the teaching and learning context is seen as crucial to the recognition dimension of participatory parity. The importance of a socially just pedagogy as recognising difference and giving consideration to student backgrounds is captured in this quote from a lecturer who believes that academics need to be aware of

what is the journey that brought each student here…their struggles, compassion and understanding of each ones humanity. (respondent 4)

Another participant agrees and contends that

being able to relate to where students come from makes a big difference. Knowing their contexts is important. (respondent 18)

Some interviewees, like respondent 15, regards students’ prior experience as a resource and sees the role of the teacher as being to recognise and affirm the prior knowledge that students have. She points out that:

individuals come into a group with different resources, skills and capabilities. In a programme on social justice you have to take difference into consideration and take individuals into consideration. (respondent 15)

In order to understand their context, the staff member quoted above interviews each student at the beginning of each year to find out about their backgrounds, their financial, family, and life circumstance and uses these insights in her teaching. She uses examples that draw on this background information to explain difficult concepts. This, she argues is particularly useful when teaching difficult scientific concepts. In this way, the recognition of students’ prior knowledge and abilities is important in that it provides the lecturer with a platform onto which further learning can be built. This strategy is valuable in providing students with access to disciplinary discourses and which in turn enhances participation parity.

All the staff interviewed are very much aware of what one respondent referred to as the “uneven playing field” (respondent 9) and stress the importance of introducing what many refer to as “fairness” in their pedagogical practices. The lengthy quote that follows captures this notion of what it means to be a fair teacher in higher education:

Students have been denied the basics…that fair is to give them quality teaching, quality access to new ideas and theories and also “fairness” for me is a lot of people almost make our students feel helpless in a sense sometimes as if they are the poor African students or they can’t really do much. Don’t expect too much. For me fairness is to also say, you know what, actually our students can deliver a lot and I see that…and one should never underestimate them. (respondent 17)

This quote also illustrates another important aspect of a socially just pedagogy, that of affirming students so that they become agents in their learning journey. Building students’ confidence and developing in them a sense of agency involves implementing strategies to help students realize their capabilities. This lecturer is not averse to challenging students in her assessments so that they can see their own potential. For her it is very rewarding when “students deliver a piece of work…and you can see the satisfaction afterwards in what they’ve done and they feel proud of what they’ve accomplished.” (respondent 17)

Another participant uses authentic learning and group work to help students to become agents in their learning. One strategy that she uses is to design the curriculum so as to allow students to make choices about the kinds of problems they want to work on in the group projects (respondent 9) which helps to develop their confidence and build agency. Providing opportunities for students to make decisions and participate and create a safe space where students are not judged is important in developing agency in students and affirming them. Academic staff employ a number of innovative strategies to encourage students to participate in class, thus paying attention to the criteria of voice and framing, which is important for participatory parity. Some of the respondents, while acknowledging the importance of encouraging participation, have expressed their frustration because they find this difficult in large classes. By contrast, this respondent maintains:

It’s interesting in even big classes students are quite happy to say something. But often when students don’t say—are not confident enough to something in class…I have an exercise where I show them how to make a little paper airplane and let them write on that and then fly it, then other people read what they say so that we get a variety of opinions but not attached to any individual’s name. (respondent 2)

Learning with technology, digital and reflective diaries and peer assessment are additional strategies that are used to encourage students to engage actively in learning and that help them become valued members of the class.

As mentioned earlier, building on students’ prior knowledge is seen as important for students’ access to disciplinary discourses and some academics see students’ prior knowledge as a resource. In contrast to those who valorise students’ prior knowledge there are those who place greater emphasis on the knowledge and skills that students do not have but are required to have in order to succeed in higher education. One of the interviewees makes reference to students’ lack of cultural capital and another speaks of students’ lack of discursive resources. She sees her role as to implement programmes that provide students with access to these:

Very specifically my work is focused on giving students access to discursive resources. Kinds of language and knowledge that they may not have. (respondent 8)

Another example of deficit provided by interviewees is students’ competence in English, which prevents them from engaging in class as the following quote illustrates: “Students have also got very poor communication skills” (respondent 19). For this staff member, poor communication skills in combination with cultural difference, further inhibits their participation:

I found, and because of the cultural differences, they often feel embarrassed to ask somebody…who is older than them certain questions. But they have to realize that they are professional, and a professional has to ask those questions, and it doesn’t matter how awkward it might be. (respondent 19)

What may be considered a deficit view of students’ prior experience, might well lead to strategies aimed at ameliorating inequalities and gaps in students’ knowledge and skills. We wonder whether the perception of some respondents that students come into higher education with deficits or gaps in their knowledge and skills, results in a “quick fix” approach to address social injustices. These approaches at best allow students to be assimilated into the higher education system. They do not, however, challenge knowledge structures in ways that allow students’ prior knowledge to be used to develop new knowledge as suggested by Ndebele (2016). This is a question we would like to investigate further.

There were examples of respondents pursuing an explicitly transformative agenda. One staff member speaks of challenging stereotypes by talking to students about “disempowering beliefs” (respondent 11). She stresses the importance of students being aware of and challenging beliefs that may perpetuate stereotypes, which result in certain groups of people being regarded as having less power than other groups. Another respondent designs tasks that enable students to learn on their own and from each other in order to challenge the notion that learning can only occur when the lecturer speaks. The approach stands in opposition to what one of the respondents refers to as “authoritarian voice and authoritarian figure” (respondent 2). Respondent 2 speaks of the importance of addressing power relations in the teaching and learning environment and argues that there is a need to challenge the notion of the lecturer as the authoritative voice. For many lecturers this is a challenge and they refer to negotiating power relations as one of the difficult and complicated aspects of teaching in a socially just way. While acknowledging that lecturers do have more power in the teaching and learning environment they do see the importance of, as one interviewee says, academics having “to use the power you have in a fair way” (respondent 17).

Developing students as critical citizens, as a task of education for social justice, is not something that many of the academics interviewed are consciously aware of doing. When asked about their understanding of critical citizenship many report that they seek to inculcate the ability to critique in their students. In some cases closer examination revealed that the process they refer to is teaching simple critique and not the process of becoming more reflexive through experiential learning opportunities. For some, however, critical citizenship relates to developing students who are aware that they have a role to play in addressing social injustices and that they have the confidence to do so. It is must be acknowledged that in order for students to be developed as critical citizens, they need to see themselves as being part of society. One of the interviewees expressed concern about the extent to which students accept this role. She argues that “students set themselves apart from broader society” (respondent 2) and this could potentially be a barrier to developing critical citizenship and transformation.

Modeling the practices and graduate attributes that embody critical citizenship is one of the strategies that lecturers employ. For one of the interviewees (respondent 22), developing students as critical compassionate citizens begins in class with difficult dialogues. She points out that “students come into the classroom with closely held beliefs which must be respected, but they need to offer that up for critique.” She points out that this creates discomfort but “we must support the discomfort and be respectful of people’s stories.” She argues that while this is challenging in a large class of 200–300 students, it is important to take the time to listen to some of the stories. This she argues is important for developing professionals.

For some of the respondents being respectful of people’s stories involves the mind as well as emotions and spirit. For respondent 18 being able to connect with students on an emotional level is one of the joys she has experienced. The importance of the affective dimension is also evident in the work of one of the lecturers who sees the process of developing a teacher as more than a cognitive process. She emphasises the importance of the experiential and affective dimensions of teaching for social justice and believes that this begins with being sensitive to how students experience what and how we teach. She sees teaching and learning being a cognitive and emotional journey, which teachers and students embark on together. She designs tasks that allow students to share their stories and hear those of others in the class. She also shares her own story and encourages students to critique it. This notion of a socially just pedagogy as being a journey that students and teachers embark on together is important because it speaks to the relational aspect of socially just pedagogies, which involves learning together. Learning together is important because it not only recognises students’ prior knowledge and experience—it also validates it by providing spaces for students to offer it alongside those of the teacher and more established disciplinary knowledge. The value of this pedagogical approach is that when the approach is made explicit to students it has the potential to instil in them a sense of hope and belonging.

In contrast with the notion of students and lecturers being on a learning journey together as outlined previously, there are a number of lecturers who see themselves as being separate from their students. This is illustrated in the quote that follows, where a lecturer who sees her identity as a white woman as creating a boundary between herself and her students:

I have to keep in mind that my students see me as somebody from a different race group. What does she know? Ja she knows everything. And I get that, I absolutely get it, but I can’t change that for them. I can give them the information, what they do with that is up to them. (respondent 11)

As educators, we are all constrained by the conditions that place us where we find ourselves to be, but it is also our own imaginations and willingness to travel with students from various social backgrounds, through experience or “strategic empathy” (Zembylas 2012) perhaps, that would facilitate our collective learning, relationally.

We end this section by examining the joys and challenges experienced by staff. Many interviewees say that their greatest reward is seeing students succeed and receiving affirmation from students. In many instances, this affirmation is received years after the student has left university. While teaching in a socially just way and teaching for social justice is very rewarding, many interviewees express frustration at the performative, managerialist and compliance culture which places greater emphasis on “quantifying outcomes” (respondent 10) and is often a constraint. In addition, structural constraints like timetabling, lack of small venues and the need to meet university deadlines (for marks) also prevents staff from implementing more innovative and engaging assessment and teaching practices. Respondents also say that the curriculum is sometimes too prescriptive and this prevents them from being creative. A few staff find the constraints and frustrations of working in an institution where the dominant culture does not value their efforts of working in a socially just manner overwhelming. This results in disengagement and in one extreme case in a resignation.

Discussion and Conclusion

In concluding, it is necessary to return to the questions asked at the outset of this article. Is it possible to teach for social justice when as a teacher one has not embarked on a journey of critical reflection about one’s own premises and social location? What are the conditions for a lecturer to be able to teach for social justice? What kind of journey does one embark upon? Does one need to possess a special set of competencies or skills? Staff members that were interviewed inferred that they attempt to teach in a socially just manner. The responses reveal that most interviewees are keenly aware of the social injustice inherent within higher education practices and that many implement a number of strategies on a continuum from the more ameliorative to the more transformative, with varying degrees of success, to address some of these injustices. Many interviewees stress the importance of recognising students’ prior knowledge and experiences. Some see these as resources that they can build on to provide students with access to disciplinary discourses and others focus more on the gaps in students’ knowledge that need to be addressed in order for students to succeed in higher education. Some lecturers are very innovative in their endeavours to provide students with opportunities to participate and fully engage in the teaching and learning environment, thus paying attention to notions of “voice” and “framing.” Many report being constrained by the managerialist, performative and syllabus-driven agendas of the university. Several issues pertaining to deficit or “us/them” views in relation to students require further attention not only by us, but by the education community more broadly.

An important distinction that emerged from the analysis of the data is between those interviewees whose approaches are more ameliorative and those who seek to work towards a more explicitly transformative agenda. For the latter group it is clear that a socially just pedagogy involves a journey of becoming which both students and lecturers embark on together. In this case, teaching and learning is relational and lecturers do not see themselves and their journeys as being separate from those of their students. A socially just pedagogy is one where lecturers learn along with students, resulting in transformation. This is more aligned with Boyer’s (1990, p. 24) understanding of SOTL when he says “good teaching means that faculty as scholars are also learners”. Our model of SOTL towards a socially just pedagogy, adapted after the interviews, is provided in Figure 5.1.

Fig. 5.1
figure 1

SOTL as a Journey Towards a Socially Just Pedagogy

Full size image

The dimensions of the journey towards socially just teaching are interrelated: our teaching should be informed by a robust conceptualisation of social justice and of how individuals and groups should relate to each other, in society and at university. This requires pedagogic praxis, as a combination of practice and theory. A reflective and introspective approach to SOTL will facilitate a socially just approach to teaching. The corollary of this is also important: one cannot be a “socially just” scholar of teaching and learning, if one’s research is not based on a socially just teaching approach. SOTL as transformative engagement is also a journey that academics embark on together with students and colleagues. The journey is relational, where students and academics learn from each other and both are transformed as a result of their interactions. These statements give the impression that there is an idea that one “arrives” at a point of being socially just. On the contrary, this is a lifelong pursuit, and the reference to social justice is about the striving, rather than the arriving.