Why social justice? Why quality?

This PhD project will bring together doctoral candidates, all currently employed in permanent positions at South African Universities, to design and conduct studies which address the following question:

***

What does a social justice lens reveal about higher education quality in South Africa?

***

Why focus on social justice?

Social justice is used as a significant framing of the aims of higher education in an era of massification where the student body is highly heterogenous and where throughput and retention rates are poor. Concerns are raised about the purposes of higher education in the light of increased commodification and managerialism in institutions and in line with the economic growth role accorded in the so-called knowledge economy, both of which are at times seen to be at odds with a social justice purpose.

It is necessary to distinguish between social justice and social inclusion. In teaching and learning at least, a lot of work aimed at ‘quality’ can be understood as involving acculturation of students into existing practices. As the #FeesMustFall protests in 2015 and 2016 showed, many students experience this as epistemic violence. There is therefore a need to explore the construct of social justice in relation to quality within the project itself.

Most studies on social justice and higher education are focused on the extent of equity and fairness within the system - with analyses of student and staff demographics in terms of both access and retention, and analyses of the exclusionary and often colonial aspects of our institutional cultures, our curricula choices and our pedagogical approaches. Some of the studies done within this project may well use a social justice lens to interrogate the internal processes of our institutions, but there is also scope for studies that consider the exogenous aspects of social justice and quality in higher education (McArthur and Ashwin forthcoming), that is, to ask questions about the role of higher education in society more broadly. The 1997 White Paper set 'social cohesion' as a goal of the higher education sector and the extent to which this is a feasible goal and whether or not we have made progress in achieving it require research attention.

Why focus on quality?

The focus on quality is topical given that the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) is about to begin a second cycle of institutional reviews. The first cycle was completed in 2011 and was followed by the Quality Enhancement Project, which ended prematurely. Given the history of higher education in this country and the role played by quality assurances so far, it is time for quality assurance processes to be interrogated with a social justice lens.

The HEQC Founding Document (CHE, 2000) defines quality as fitness for and of purpose whilst also drawing on notions of quality as transformation and value for money. In principle, defining quality as ‘fitness for purpose’ addresses concerns about quality and ‘standards’ (Harvey & Green, 1993). However, in South Africa at least, this move has not succeeded in practice for a number of reasons.

In the first place, problems exist in defining ‘purpose’ itself. In the years since 2000, the old ‘historically black’ / ‘historically white’ divisions have, in principle, been dismantled through the mergers and incorporations that reconfigured the system as part of the processes associated with the development of the National Plan for Higher Education (NPHE). Although three new institutional types (traditional universities, comprehensive universities and universities of technology) emerged as a result of these processes, ‘purpose’ in relation to these types has not yet been clearly delineated. For example, while the UoTs typically identify education for technology or the development of skills in their mission and vision statements this is often accompanied by references to ‘excellence’. The notion of excellence has been widely problematised in the literature (Harvey & Green, 1993; Readings, 1996; Barnett, 2004) not least because of its association with ‘standards’. Nonetheless, it continues to be used by South African universities in spite of the fact that it is even more problematic because of our history.

Although only three broad institutional types are recognised in the South African higher education system, other classifications have emerged or have continued to exist. Arguably the historically black institutions have never overcome the disadvantages of apartheid and questions need to be asked about what this means for quality in a globalised higher education landscape. At the same time, a small group of ‘research intensives’ that draw on their historical legacies to continue to produce the bulk of South African research outputs has emerged. In the context of both the HBIs and the research intensives, the juxtaposition of quality and social justice comes to the fore. In short, therefore, while the notion of excellence continues to be drawn upon, the meaning of quality as fitness for purpose at the level of the individual institution is not explored in any depth and this has obvious implications for social justice.

At the same time as understandings of fitness for purpose have not been explored in sufficient depth at institutional levels, what has emerged at a systems level has been a strong focus on the instrumental purpose of higher education. Overwhelmingly, a qualification from an institution of higher education is constructed as a means to employment in the global economy in both policy and popular discourses. The protests of 2015 and 2016 saw many students contesting this purpose and identifying others related their identities as young Africans. In more concrete terms, such contestations emerged in relation to the need for an ‘Africanised’ or ‘decolonised’ curriculum. Work is needed therefore to explore the way instrumental understandings of the purpose of the university as a private good impact on social justice. The studies contributing to this project would have the potential to do that.

The first round of institutional audits resulted in elaboration of the structures associated with managing quality (Boughey & McKenna, 2016; 2017) and, more specifically, in the introduction of practices and the appointment of key agents associated with New Public Management. This has had profound effects for understandings of academic governance and, in some instances, this has washed down to impact on the morale of academic staff.

Working in a project team

In conclusion, the research question identified as a broad focus for this project could be used to hold together a range of studies drawing on a variety of disciplines or subject areas. This sort of ‘project team’ approach to doctoral research contrasts with traditional approaches that pair a doctoral candidate with an individual supervisor in what can be a very lonely process. The project team approach is common in the sciences but not in the humanities and social sciences and research is needed in order to explore the extent to which it can result in improved retention and throughput.

The broad research question allows for a large number of specific focus areas. One candidate might look at how the emergence of managerialism in South African higher education impacts on its social justice role, another might look at the ways in which the funding model intersects with issues of quality and social justice, yet another might look at teaching and learning issues in relation to these dual concerns, and so on.

The focus on a common research question is not the only way this project could lead to benefits other than the ten doctoral theses that will result. The aim in the project is to use learning technologies as well as face-to-face meetings to ‘hold’ candidates together in the course of their doctoral journeys and to include a significant coursework component. It would thus provide support in addition to that offered by the supervisor(s) assigned to each student. Understandings of the way project support/supervision could be used to enhance the doctoral experience in South Africa are needed urgently.

Yet another 'spin-off' from the programme is the inclusion of a component focused on the development of supervisors. Academics involved in the supervision of candidates recruited to the project will be expected to engage with a course on postgraduate supervision as, indeed, will candidates themselves who, in terms of the Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework (HEQSF), are required to be ready to supervise at doctoral upon completion of the qualification. An existing course, ‘Strengthening Postgraduate Supervision’ developed under the auspices of NUFFIC and offered at all South African universities thanks to NUFFIC and DHET funding will be used for this purpose. The inclusion of a component aimed at enhancing doctoral supervision will not only contribute to the quality of the guidance that the candidates enrolled in the project receive but to supervision in the system more generally because they will go on to supervise future PhD candidates. We will make the offering of the course open to all academics at both University of Venda and Rhodes University.