Section 2: Research, Innovation and Creative Scholarship

In a socially just world, every researcher has the responsibility of distinguishing between powerful knowledge and the knowledge of the powerful. While powerful knowledge has the potential to empower individuals and transform societies, the knowledge of the powerful often serves to maintain existing social hierarchies and inequalities. My role, as I see it, is to break down these hierarchies - to advance knowledge, not as a means of exclusion, but as a tool for inclusion and development. Against this backdrop, I present my insight into research in this section of the portfolio.

Being a researcher demands a systematic and methodical approach to inquiry. This drives us to discover new information, confirm existing knowledge, and challenge conventional beliefs. Throughout my journey in the landscape of engineering education, this awareness has been a guiding principle, leading me from industry-specific investigations to explorations of engineering pedagogy, all aimed at democratizing access to powerful knowledge.

I am a researcher in DISE, a research supervisor and formerly the department postgraduate research coordinator, my work spans two main areas: Engineering Education and Operational Excellence in Quality Management. Within Engineering Education, I focus on Staff Development, Educational Technology, AI and ethics, while my Operational Excellence research covers Risk Management, Systems Design and Quality Culture.

Currently, I supervise one MEng Quality student, four MEng Engineering Management students and a DEd student. My experience as a CPUT alumna, former part-time postgraduate student, full-time employee, and single parent from a historically disadvantaged background allows me to empathize with my students' challenges. I vividly recall feeling like an imposter in research circles when I began in 2014. I was fortunate to have mentors (giants), who were not formally appointed as my supervisors, yet they empowered me to find my own voice, and this allowed me an insight into the world of academia and research from a humanising perspective. Their kindness and support left an impression on me, centred on the development of the student and emerging researcher (me) rather than on the ultimate product (the thesis report or journal article). This experience is one that I want to also give to my own students.

My journey as a research supervisor began with undergraduate BTech students (2014-2019), guiding them through yearlong research projects culminating in mini-dissertations. This experience, along with teaching Research Methodology, provided excellent preparation for my current role supervising postgraduate students. Through all these experiences, my goal remains consistent: to deonstruct hierarchies by advancing knowledge not as a means of exclusion, but as a powerful tool for inclusion and development.

References

Gardina, J. 2021. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reimagining-higher-education-knowledge-economy-jackie-gardina/

2.2 Research philosophy and purpose statement

2.2.1 Research philosophy

At the heart of research is a deep curiosity about the world, a specific phenomenon, or a particular theoretical approach. Researchers pose questions that address gaps in knowledge or explore new ideas. Against this backdrop, I recognise my obligations to our university and to my students to remain current and continuously contribute to the development of new knowledge to solve problems or make practical improvements. To my advantage, I am driven by a natural curiosity which aids me in my pursuit of high quality research. I strive to develop and identify theory-based links between practices and relevant work outcomes taking ethics, regulations and rapidly changing global environments into consideration; identify opportunities to integrate theoretical and methodological issues across disciplines, promote collaboration with others not only to enhance my own development but also develop others; share my research findings widely, including presenting at conferences and in academic journals.

2.2.2 Purpose statement

My purpose as a researcher is multifaceted. I strive to produce research that is rigorously conducted with integrity, ensuring transparency and academic soundness throughout the process. My approach cultivates an analytical and systematic mindset, allowing me to grasp the 'big picture', while also paying careful attention to details in every phase of the research lifecycle. From the literature review to data analysis and the communication of my research findings, I prioritize transparency, validity and reliability in my methodologies - because a rigorous approach not only advances the field, but it also contributes to practical improvements in the world around us.

I believe in the power of interdisciplinary collaboration and remain open-minded to diverse perspectives, recognizing that such interactions often lead to more profound insights and inspire more significant research questions. Critical thinking is at the core of my research philosophy; I encourage this not only in myself but also in my students and collaborators. By fostering an environment where ideas are openly shared and constructively challenged, I aim to push the boundaries of our field. I value the input of co-authors, colleagues, and other scholars, seeing their suggestions and criticisms as opportunities for growth and improvement. Ultimately, my purpose as a researcher is deeply intertwined with my commitment to lifelong learning, constantly seeking to expand my knowledge and contribute meaningfully to my field of study.

2.3 Research supervision

2.3.1 Undergraduate research supervision

From 2014 to 2019, teaching research to final-year BTech students was one of my greatest passions, reflecting my deep enthusiasm for research in general. During this period, I supervised a group of approximately 15 BTech research students annually in the subject QPR400S, in addition to my MEng supervision duties. While QPR400S is no longer offered due to curriculum restructuring, the experience and insights gained from this course continue to inform my approach to research supervision. To explore this further, please view the folder with the comprehensive set of class notes I developed here.

For most of these students, QPR400S represented their first encounter with formal academic research. This provided me with the very rewarding opportunity to introduce them to the principles of academic research and research methodology. The process of guiding students through their first research experience was incredibly fulfilling. While students often found the initial stages challenging, there was no greater reward as a supervisor than witnessing their "Ah Ha!! moment" - that instant when, typically around Chapters 4 or 5, their eyes would light up as they suddenly grasped how all elements of their work interconnected.

The QPR400S subject primarily focused on developing students' academic writing skills and critical thinking abilities. Throughout the year, students progressed from selecting a problem (usually based in their workplaces) to writing a proposal, conducting a literature review, planning their research study, gathering and analyzing data, and finally composing a mini-dissertation. Given the diverse nature of students' research topics, my supervision approach has to be flexible, adapting to individual student requirements. I found success in employing a variety of techniques to create effective learning experiences, including formal lectures to introduce key concepts, some one-on-one consultation sessions for personalised guidance, mini-group work (maximum three students) for collaborative learning, larger group work and workshops on a particular topic. Significantly however, my approach to supervision is characterized by personalized support and understanding of each student's unique circumstances. For instance, when faced with a student struggling to balance work commitments with their research project, I maintained open lines of communication, offering encouragement and flexibility while still emphasizing the importance of progress. This empathetic yet structured approach helps students navigate challenges without compromising academic standards. As evidenced in my correspondence with students (see email correspondence between Mr Darren Booysen and I), I strive to create a supportive environment that acknowledges their difficulties while motivating them to persist and succeed in their research endeavours. Thus, having an adaptable approach allowed me to cater to different learning styles and research needs, ensuring each student received the support necessary to successfully navigate their research journey. Although QPR400S is no longer offered, the experience of guiding these undergraduate students has significantly informed my approach to postgraduate supervision and continues to influence my teaching and mentoring strategies.

Figure 15 (three pictures) contains some pictures of students which were taken during a workshop that I prepared for them with my personal resources, on a Saturday outside of official class time.

Figure 15 Undergraduate Research Methodology Workshop 2015

2.3.2 Postgraduate research supervision

As I reflect on my practice of postgraduate supervision Fataar’s (2016) description of humanising pedagogy in the context of postgraduate supervision as a "practice that makes it possible to engage the full and ever-evolving humanity of people" particularly resonates with me. Moreover, Fataar’s (2016) description is aligned with Khene’s (2014) view, citing Friere (2005), who depicted ‘humanising pedagogy’ as an approach where the teacher is a revolutionary leader in establishing a permanent relationship of dialogue with her/his students in an effort to build confidence in students who may be alienated in general or feel alienated by the process of supervision or research development.

The foregoing discussion underscores the impact of power relations in the postgraduate context. I was able to thrive and develop as a newbie researcher and postgraduate student in the when I started out as a researcher my giants did not impose their power over me. A number of researchers (Jones and Blass 2019; Hemer 2012; Schultz 2012) suggest that postgraduate supervision inherently brings undertones of ‘overseeing’ and this implies looking over someone during the production and development of academic knowledge. The process of supervision is therefore characterised by subtleties of power and power differentials. In general, the perception is that the supervisor is the ‘institutional gatekeeper’ who is regarded to be both the holder and broker of discipline knowledge. These authors believe that this impacts on the students’ ability to transition towards successful completion.

Jones and Blass (2019) and Schultz (2012) advance that different models of supervision could ameliorate the problem of high postgrad dropouts. Significantly, research by Schultz (2012) found that despite the best intentions of supervisors, students were not always empowered through sustained two-way communication in a supportive environment with only a supervisor. In order to empower students, supervisory styles need to change from power-centred dyadic to facilitation-centred supervision. This corresponds with the argument of Bitzer and Albertyn (2011) stating that the traditional apprenticeship model of supervision, which is favoured in South Africa, is increasingly seen as inappropriate to meet the needs of postgraduate students in contemporary times. They propose evaluating a particular context and the needs of students in that context, and consider the adoption of a group or team approach, if this is more appropriate than the traditional one on one approach.

Although I was acutely aware of the power dynamic from a student perspective, admittedly, I did not reflect on this in terms of my own supervision practice until I attended a Strengthening Postgraduate Supervision short course offered by Rhodes University (see certificate). I now believe that it is prudent to move away from the predominantly one-on-one supervision approach, which was modelled for me and which I have been using until now. My experience and success with my giants substantiate this for me. Equally significant to supervision context, Jones and Blass (2019) highlight that institutional influences can distort the power relationship between supervisor and supervisee. The practice of supervising postgraduate students is heavily influenced by institution-specific, discipline-specific and project-specific requirements, in addition to personal the expectations and perceptions of the supervisor. Thus intrinsically, institutional and discipline requirements have a direct impact on supervision with reference to factors such as academic workloads, research output expectations and desired completion times, as these are usually tied to funding and promotion models. These are all factors that are relevant in context in which my students and I find ourselves. Therefore, guided by the example as well as the ideas and principles advanced by my giants, I hope that supervisory style reflects my endevour to constantly improve my own practice. With reference to the power relations, I know that I need to attempt to identify particular elements or aspects of my practice that are likely to alienate or marginalise my postgraduate students as I engage with reviewing their work and supervising them.

For this reflection, I have opted to employ Khene’s (2014) three phase characterisation of the postgraduate journey. The phases are

Induction,
Development, and
Launch.

Reflection on induction phase

Every postgraduate research journey starts with induction. To facilitate this crucial stage, I developed a detailed guide for the DISE postgraduate students - a 'one stop shop' that outlines the various stages of their postgraduate journey. This guide includes links to essential documents and resources, providing students with a clear roadmap from registration to graduation. It covers key aspects such as student registration, ethics, proposal submission, examination procedures and post-examination process. By offering this resource (click here to see it or click here to view the video where I welcome all DISE students and discuss the document with them), I empower students with a holistic understanding of their academic journey before they embark upon it.

Following this overview, the introductory period of the relationship between my student and I involves discussing the envisaged details of our partnership. We document our expectations in a memorandum of understanding which is referred to as a Student Supervisor Agreement (SSA) at CPUT. Before drafting this agreement, we have one (but often more than just one) one-on-one discussion on our anticipated roles in the project and what we consider our respective responsibilities to be for those roles. We negotiate terms if our expectations are not aligned. Examples of topics that form part of our discussion/s are milestones (with a timeline), deadlines, resources and potential funding opportunities, progress reports and how records of our interactions will be made and stored. In this regard our discussion/s are a collaboration. The discussion/s provide a foundation for our relationship. It is important for both parties to realise that the SSA is not a static document, and this is something that I will emphasize with my student (see an example of a draft SSA https://drive.google.com/file/d/11Z4GvadeHTkHFDSyG1QoYidI2hjR0Zrh/view?usp=sharing). As we both evolve during the journey, as a result of our relationship and the research experience, it is in our best interest to periodically review our agreement as many times as is needed.

Induction is however more than just developing a SSA. Guided by the view of Bitzer and Albertyn (2011) I believe my fundamental duty as postgraduate supervisor is to induct my students into the ‘discipline of research’. This is a complex role as it entails supporting my student with cognitive aspects of his/her research project, organisational aspects, the social aspects of being a postgraduate student and also emotional aspects of the research journey, keeping in mind that I only have part-time students and they come from different disciplines in science and engineering. This confirms my belief that ‘supervision’ is a partnership where, although my student consults with me, both student and I travel the research journey side by side. The supervisor role is a melange of mentor and coach with expertise in the field of research being undertaken, facilitator, soundboard and sponsor. This emphasises the view that supervision is an interactive collaborative process where both the supervisor and student grow throughout the research process.

Khene (2014) opines that the induction phase typically lasts about six months during which the supervisor plays a very hands-on role and frequent meetings take place. Reflecting on my own practice, I find that group work is not only useful, but essential in this phase as on average I have seven postgraduate students at a time. I don’t only encourage them to work in groups, I also facilitate the formation of groups on Google Drive if students have similar topics. As part of the ‘induction of new students’ process, much time is spent in groups on developing and framing research questions/hypotheses and associated objectives. I believe that this lays a foundation for the development of supportive relationships among my students which may add tremendous value to them (and to me), as we progress along our research journey. See a screenshot of a shared google drive folder that I created for two of my students doing laboratory research.

An example of something I did to further support students in the early stages of their research journey, was to initiate a writing weekend for postgraduate students in May 2022. This intensive three-day event (Friday to Sunday) was modelled on a similar initiative I had implemented for undergraduate students, but extended to accommodate the more complex needs of postgraduate research (view the programme here). The weekend provided a focused environment for students to develop their writing skills, engage with peers, and receive targeted guidance. I presented several sessions myself, and also engaged with colleagues from my department (Dr Lucrecia Valentine and Mr Dennit Adams), and the Faculty of Applied Sciences (FAS) (Dr Anthony Obilana) to contribute expertise (click here to view a short video clip of Lucrecia and I engaging with student questions - confirming earlier mentioned views of the SSA). Beyond the technical aspects of the writing process, I incorporated reflective and creative activities to enhance the learning experience. At the start of the workshop, students drew a colour image representing their research journey. At the end of the three-day workshop, after presenting their draft research proposals to the group, they reflected on how their perception had changed. In addition, on Day 2, I introduced an activity about research design where students used plasticine to build a chair. This exercise served as an analogy for research design: despite differences in appearance (some had couches, others had thrones or stools and one had a sleeper bed), all research serves the function of contributing to the body of knowledge - like all chair are ultimately intended to be sat on. It's perfectly fine to have different-looking chairs, with different features (See Figure 16 to view a collage of students' drawings of their research journey and sculpting their chairs), like it's ok to have different research designs.

Then notably, this workshop took place in Lockdown, so despite the challenges posed by Lockdown restrictions, I obtained special permission from the CPUT Covid Cluster and implemented rigorous controls to ensure the event's safety. I physically set the venue up myself and bought workshop materials (e.g. plasticine, colour pencils and stickers) using my own resources for the various activities. There were initial plans for a follow-up event in September 2022, however my secondment to the role of Faculty L&T coordinator in addition to my health in late part of 2022 prevented this from materialising. Regardless, the success of this initial weekend demonstrated the value of such intensive, immersive experiences in supporting postgraduate research development. See the example of Day 2 Feedback by clicking here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aN7olh32IRGfSCa_OmtR1yu5xqk4DeMy/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=112867555058245921842&rtpof=true&sd=true

Figure 16 Collage of student drawings and sculpting chairs (Own source)

Regarding feedback from supervisor to student in the induction phase, Khene (2014) recommends that when feedback is given, it is very detailed with a focus on introducing the ‘doing’ of research. I am simpatico with this view however, admittedly here I feel the institutional pressure related to throughput and research output. While I always do my best to provide very detailed feedback (see feedback that I gave a student on her proposal https://drive.google.com/file/d/11tQzh0Ic-4GP7XW097lZCgisgs9-EqcD/view?usp=sharing ), I also rely on the student group work aspect to assist in this regard at this stage of our research journey.

Reflection on the developmental phase

The developmental phase only commences once the proposal has been approved (Khene 2014), however this has not been my experience since official proposal approval only takes place at quarterly Faculty Higher Degrees Committee (FHDC) meetings at CPUT. Thus, the time period from between when the proposal was reviewed and approved in the department until when it is approved at FHDC could be as long as three months, or even a year if the process is delayed due to administrative issues. The development phase in my context starts after internal proposal review.

During the developmental phase my student’s research skills (as well as my own) are further developed and refined as he/she becomes more immersed in the research literature to familiarise his/herself with aspects of their research. My approach as supervisor is still predominantly hands-on, however it is less hands-on than in the induction phase. At this stage, before the literature review is complete, I recommend that my student begins to collect preliminary data in the field to help them reflect on what they are finding in literature. This advice is based on useful guidance that I got as a PhD student from one of my giants. I therefore recommend a pilot study be performed early on in the research process to help the student conceptualise the research design (click here to view a recording of a consultation between my M student and I), but simultaneously make the connection between research design and literature. I believe it is important because going through the practical steps and comparing the praxis to literature is the best way to highlight flaws in the intended research design (the research design that was proposed in the proposal), and give the student the best insight into practicalities of the research that can easily be overlooked when the focus was previously on theory.

Schulze (2012) argues that the task of supervisors is ‘to encourage learners to become critical and creative thinkers on their path to self-discovery and empowerment’. I believe that a pilot study is a valuable tool to do this because when the student does the pilot study early in the research process it creates a safe space for the student to critically and practically engage with their own research. The consequence of failure at this stage in the research process is not severe, and my experience is that my student becomes more comfortable taking the lead and assuming fuller responsibility for his/her research. I always ensure to strongly emphasize that the student may not request any data from his/her real target population but must find a pilot sample that is similar to the real target population. The creation of this ‘safe space’ for my students is a mechanism to humanise pedagogy in postgraduate education.

Although I encourage my students to start planning a pilot study, I simultaneously have to act as a gatekeeper and remind my student not to deploy the pilot until after the project has received ethical clearance. Facilitated by the mandatory institutional ethical clearance submission required by FHDC, (prior to proposal submission) my student and I would have engaged at length around the ethical aspects of their respective research projects in the induction phase when they submit a Faculty Research Ethics Clearance (FREC) form (see example of a draft FREC 1.1 form: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19SvucPWalENn57Jp5qwIs6x00-kktL1v/view?usp=sharing ) on the digital Higher Degrees Committee (HDC Digital) system with the their proposal submission, however it is in this developmental phase of the research journey where abstract thoughts and intentions of ethical conduct during research becomes a reality.

HDC Digital is the digital postgraduate student management and tracking system used by CPUT’s Centre for Postgraduate Studies (CPGS) to monitor and record student progress, as well as facilitate all administrative procedures which are part of the postgraduate journey at CPUT. At this point it is worth noting that a significant and influential aspect of being a postgraduate supervisor (or student) at CPUT is the delicate process of maintaining the balance between student progress and university administrative procedures.

A 2023 research study that I led, collaborating with colleagues from FEBE, FAS and the Faculty of Business and Management Science (FBMS), (the findings were presented at the CHE Conference of Postgraduate Education) highlighted the critical role that institutional support and streamlined administrative processes play in creating a humanizing supervisory environment. Students reported significant challenges in making progress and staying motivated due to exceptionally long lead times they experienced in the postgraduate process. One student participant noted "These lead times when we ask for certain information, whether it's login details, whatever it can be, those long lead times affect our lead times and therefore we cannot meet our deadlines and that also needs to be taken into consideration" (see the manuscript here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1czMUKarBU2d2ORw3SMJ1NY8pYKZHsdfX/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=112867555058245921842&rtpof=true&sd=true)

While recent institutional improvements, such as more frequent FEBE FREC meetings have addressed some of the concerns, our research findings emphasize that administrative systems designed to meet institutional goals related to throughput and cope with heavy workloads can inadvertently dehumanise postgraduate education. One student participant articulated this frustration stating "the administration system is not working...almost like Telkom, each one's got a different department, and no two people could give you the same answer. SO if you stuck here, it causes a lot of frustration". For me, these insights underscore the importance of identifying and addressing the varying needs and requirements of postgraduate students early in their interactions with supervisors and the institution. This is vital to mitigate the negative impacts of trying to treat all postgraduate students the same and speaks directly to the need to humanise the postgraduate supervision process. As supervisors, we must remain the custodians of the human aspect of postgraduate research. It should be at the heart of our practices - to not forget the human we need to serve.

A fundamentally critical constituent for a postgraduate student’s development is engagement with feedback. Postgraduate research is a complex task and cyclical process entailing deep learning (de Kleijn Mainhard, Meijer, Brekelmans and Pilot 2013), thus feedback plays a critical role in identifying areas to improve, ultimately enhancing and supporting the learning process. In a research masters project the importance of feedback is magnified since feedback represents the primary, sometimes the only form of formative assessment for Master students before final assessment takes place.

Aside from face-to-face feedback and textual feedback, I have used screencasts to give my student’s feedback. Findings of research by Hoepner, Hemmerich and Sterling-Orth (2016) has been that engaging a student’s visual and auditory senses through screencasts enhances learning. The personalised and conversational nature of audio-visual feedback support students’ comprehension of, and engagement with feedback. Screencasts enable ‘meaning’ that is frequently lost in written feedback to be transmitted and retained, thus supporting students to better understand (Marriot and Teoh 2012). Research I performed in 2018 (Swartz and Gachago 2018 see: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cluster=14735763080443318863) confirmed these findings and my students have responded positively to getting this kind of feedback. One student said “In your [the supervisor] voice I can hear what you [the supervisor] mean, the parts you want me to fix. You [the supervisor] sound so enthusiastic it’s less painful to listen to negative feedback than when I have to read it”.

I believe that, in general, my practice in the developmental phase as explained above is consistent with the view of Khene (2014) who depicts this phase as less ‘hands-on’, allowing the student to make mistakes, however, mentoring them into identifying and reflecting on mistakes. I attempt to help build my student’s confidence by creating a safe space for them to question aspects in literature and about research design while they perform a pilot study, but also explicitly give them permission to respectfully question me when any of suggestions are not clear to them or seem questionable. I attempt to refine the student’s ability to develop a critical eye for their research by critiquing their work, however when I critique their work in my feedback, I endeavour to do so as empathetically as possible, sometimes with the use of screencasts to make my feedback more personal. As with the induction phase, I encourage peer-review and facilitate regular group sessions. Thus, when Lockdown prevented us from physically meeting, my students and I resorted to Blackboard Collaborate to continue our work. (See screenshots with lists of recordings our online session in our designated MEng meeting room: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v7cNjXUrilh5Jb6bKlPTcywcgiFUJ9ru/view?usp=sharing ) Anonymous student feedback that I solicited in 2020 (see spreadsheet with feedback https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e5CJf95H6aFAp6hqIoZdOf_hRqmu8rbh/view?usp=sharing ) confirm my belief that students benefit and enjoy these as students said this about group sessions "The group gatherings that you developed is an excellent platform for the students to learn from each other while guiding them towards the right direction. And in future if you have not yet started with the idea, you can allow your students to present the dry runs in preparation for their proposal presentations in front of the group to improve on the quality of the content as well as presenting skills." and "The group meetings, where we discuss each others research thesis. It excites me to hear and learn new things about various industries."

Reflection on the launch phase

In this final phase of the research journey, the student starts to develop his/her own academic identity and I am aware of a power shift that takes place. This is truthfully the most gratifying and exciting phase of being a postgraduate supervisor as the student now becomes the expert in the field and more confident in his/her ability as a researcher. My student starts to find his/her voice and this becomes evident in his/her writing and confidence when engaging with me. My facilitation in this stage is hands-on and hands-off in approximately equal proportions, as the student is now firmly in the driving seat and in general, only needs to refer to me for a second opinion and ultimate approval, as opposed to assistance with the development and management of features of the project. Consistent with the experience of Khene (2014), in this phase the discussions between my student and I are predominantly about student progress.

It is worth noting however that in this phase, while I am no longer facilitating in terms of discipline specific content, I am still facilitating in terms of technical issues and with regard to administrative matters pertaining to the research study. Our focus shifts towards publication and I would typically assist my student with identifying opportunities to showcase his/her work and try to find funding to present at conferences or perform additional research activities. A good example of this is an MEng student who graduated in June 2021. She had completed her research and also wrote a journal paper, however we were still awaiting her results and she was still attending and participating in group sessions, supporting other students. A recording I made of her presenting in December 2020 on how she wrote her journal article serves as evidence of this. To view this video click https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TjzBUCgvqem9Wg1IoZ9eRQ2zgOT9H6y8/view?usp=sharing

(To the reviewer please note: As a relationship of trust developed between this student and I, she started referring to me as Prof somewhere along the research journey. Initially I corrected her several times and explained that I am not yet a Professor, and also explained what it entails to earn that title, however she insisted it is her personal choice. Eventually I got tired of correcting her and I just stopped. Thus, in the recording she refers to me as Prof. I would like the reviewer to know that it is only this student. The rest of my students refer to me by my first name, Bronwyn, which is my personal choice or occasionally Dr B. A further point I would like to draw the reviewer's attention to is, in the video recording from 1min20sec to 1min30secs, the student presenting refers to previous group sessions that we had, which serves as evidence of group sessions - which I mentioned above)

The success of this approach is evidenced by the achievements of my students. Notably, two of my postgraduate students won awards at the 5th African International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM), They secured second and third place respectively in the IEOM Master Thesis Presentation Award which recognizes outstanding research in industrial engineering, manufacturing engineering, systems engineering, operations research, engineering management, operations management and related areas. These accolades not only recognize the quality of their research but also affirm the effectiveness of the supervisory support provided throughout their research journey. Such achievements highlight the importance of nurturing a robust research culture and providing comprehensive support to postgraduate students.

Reflecting on my personal identity and agency as a researcher and a postgraduate supervisor, I recognize the evolution that took place, particularly after assuming the role of departmental postgraduate research coordinator from 2019, a position I held until 2022 when I was seconded to the role of Faculty L&T coordinator. When I was approached by management to take on this role, I was initially apprehensive due to my relative lack of experience, However, I was excited about the prospect of making a meaningful difference in the department's research landscape.

Thus, my goal in the role was, and continues to be - even though I am in a different role now - to contribute and enhance the department's research culture. To this end, I started hosting regular postgraduate group sessions with all postgraduate students in the department and encouraged them to present their work (see example of email invitation). I also started sending regular notifications to all students (including my own) of institutional training opportunities such as writing support, data analysis, publishing, as well as notifications of funding opportunities and opportunities to present. (See an example of one of my emails) It is important to me that all our students become aware of being part of the greater CPUT research community. At the same time, I realise that a barrier for our students is finding time to partake in these activities, since they are part-time students with conflicting priorities.

As I grew into this leadership role, I found that the skills I developed were not only beneficial for coordination but enhanced my ability to support colleagues more effectively in their research journeys (See letter from colleague here and also see more about Leadership in Section 4 of this portfolio). This support extended beyond supervision guidance to active collaboration, resulting in publications. Notably, I initiated and led two departmental research projects with colleagues, where I developed ideas, secured ethical approval and provided the overall structure for manuscripts. Throughout the writing process, I guided the colleagues, and when we received feedback, I took the lead in addressing the initial round of corrections, using this as an opportunity to model and explain the revision process to my co-authors. This hands-on approach not only resulted in two successful publications with my colleague Lucrecia Valentine and one with Desiree Jaftha. It also served as a practical mentorship in the scholarship of learning and teaching for my colleagues, fostering the research culture within our department.

As a learning and teaching researcher, it is increasingly important to have good administration skills. Coordination and planning are essential requirements to support students. With the use of Google Drive, I developed an elementary digital support system to help my students track their own progress and thereby in a very transparent manner make them accountable for their own progress. The system not only allows us to adjust milestones that we previously agreed on in the SSA when necessary, but also serves as a guideline for the student. Moreover, it fostered a more collaborative environment, enabling students to feel more engaged and supported throughout their research process. Click to view a copy of the shared document that I use with students' permission (personal information such as names, emails and telephone numbers were removed in light of POPIA)

Conclusion

The preceding reflection on three phases of the postgraduate journey emphasises the importance of self-awareness and metacognition in supervision practice. I have deduced that these are two most fundamentally important ingredients for success if humanising pedagogy in postgraduate education is one’s goal. Humanising pedagogy in postgraduate education in my context at CPUT is not an attempt to integrate, accommodate, or assimilate of all my postgraduate students within the institutional structures at CPUT or even into social practices that could leave them feeling marginalised or discriminated against, but rather our practices (both mine and that of my students) should facilitate the transformation of the very structures and practices that cause potential lead to exclusion.

Essentially, it is only when the supervisor becomes conscientious (self-aware and aware of student needs) and sensitive to the student that they are supervising, that they are able to adequately guide them into conversing in the language of research and practicing the skill of research in their respective disciplines. Ultimately, I feel and I hope that the focus of my practice as a postgraduate supervisor (see faculty recognition) is centred on the development of the postgraduate student, rather than on the ultimate thesis product.

References

Bitzer, E. and Albertyn, R. (2011) Alternative approaches to postgraduate supervision: a planning tool to facilitate supervisory processes. South African Journal for Higher Education 25(5) pp 875-888

de Kleijn, R, Mainhard, M., Meijer, P., Brekelmans, M and Pilot, A. (2013) “Master’s Thesis Projects: Student Perceptions of Supervisor Feedback”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 38(8), pp 1012 – 1026

Fataar, A. (2016). Towards a Humanising Pedagogy through an Engagement with the Social–Subjective in Educational Theorising in South Africa. Educational Research for Social Change 5(1) April 2016 pp. 10-21

Hemer, S. (2012). Informality, power and relationships in postgraduate supervision: supervising PhD candidates over coffee. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), pp 827-839,

Hoepner, J. Hemmerich, A. and Sterling-Orth A. (2016) “Use of screencasting for instructional purposes: Ingredients for success”, Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology 5(1), pp 100 - 104.

Jones, A. and Blass, E. (2019). The Impact of Institutional Power on Higher Degree Research Supervision: Implications for the Quality of Doctoral Outcomes. Universal Journal of Educational Research 7(7): 1485-1494,

Khene, C. P. (2014). Supporting a humanizing pedagogy in the supervision relationship and process: A reflection in a developing country. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 9, pp 73-83. Retrieved from http://ijds.org/Volume9/IJDSv9p073-083Khene0545.pdf

Lilley, M., Pyper, A. and Attwood, S (2012) Understanding the Student Experience through the Use of Personas, Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 11:1, pp 4-13,

Maistry, S. (2015). Towards a humanising pedagogy: an autoethnographic reflection of my emerging postgraduate research supervision practice. Journal of Education 62 (2015) pp 85-102

Roux, C and Becker, A. (2016). Humanising Higher Education in South Africa through Dialogue as Praxis. Educational Research for Social Change 5 (1), April 2016 pp. 131-143

Schulze, S. (2012). Empowering and disempowering students in student-supervisor relationships. Koers – Bulletin for Christian Scholarship 77(2), Art. #47, 8 pages.

Swartz, B and Gachago, D. 2018 Students’ perceptions on screencast feedback in postgraduate research supervision. Conference proceedings of the International Conference on e-Learning held in Cape Town, South Africa 5-7 July 2018

2.4 Postgraduate student feedback and reflection

Continuous improvement in my supervision practice is primarily driven by student feedback. From 2014 to 2019, as I co-supervised only two students at a time, I relied on informal feedback. However, after obtaining my doctoral degree in 2019, my supervision load increased significantly to seven M students. As of 2024, I am supervising four M students and one D student. (While my department does not offer a doctoral degree, my expertise in Engineering Education has led to invitations to co-supervise D students at CPUT and UFS.)

The journey of postgraduate supervision is not without its challenges. Sometimes, for reasons beyond our control, students discontinue their studies. For instance, one of my D students, an HoD facing tremendous work pressure, had to drop out. Similarly, an M student who had completed 80% of his work, including a final draft of his dissertation, decided not to continue due to work and family responsibilities. While these situations are beyond my control, they underscore the importance of regular feedback in maintaining effective supervision practices.

Recognizing the need for more structured input, I initiated a formal feedback process in 2020 using an anonymous Google Forms survey. The initial feedback was encouraging, with students noting, "My Supervisor goes the extra mile, although her responses are dead straight to the point, it does add value" and "My supervisor is very proactive and present. She is always available to assist." (See the older student feedback here)

The most recent feedback, obtained in 2024, further reinforces the effectiveness of my supervision approach. (See 2024 feedback here: (See 2024 feedback here) One student commented, "Dr Swartz wants you to put your A game and she helps you every step of the way where you need help so for me she is supervisor that made me not to regret doing Master's."

However, I have also identified areas for improvement, particularly in co-supervision scenarios. Two students highlighted challenges: "I have a good relationship with both my supervisors but as previously mentioned the difference in style (writing etc) often cause glitches" and "Supervisors change thoughts about a student's research very often due to forgetting previous discussions and agreements. As a result, a lot of time is wasted." While the anonymity of the survey prevents me from identifying specific supervisory relationships, I have taken these comments seriously and am working to improve coordination with co-supervisors.

Significantly, from an institutional perspective students appreciate the workshops and library resources, but some noted challenges with IT systems and support. This feedback provides me with insight for institutional improvement. My intention is to continue with the practice of soliciting feedback every year. The next round of postgraduate feedback is due to be collected in May 2025.

2.5 Research in my discipline

Even though my primary research focus has shifted towards SoLT in Engineering Education, I maintain an active interest in research within my discipline of Quality Management, particularly in the area of Operational Excellence and Risk Management. My engagement with disciplinary research began with a publication in 2012 stemming from my Master's work. More recently, in 2022, I revisited disciplinary research, resulting in another publication. Notably, I've found a synergistic approach by collaborating with my students on research projects, leading to three recent publications. This collaborative approach not only contributes to the field but also serves as a powerful teaching tool, allowing students to engage with cutting-edge research in our discipline.

What I find particularly exciting about my disciplinary research is how it informs and enriches my teaching practice. The university environment constantly exposes me to new developments in Industrial Engineering and Quality Management, and I've made it a priority to translate these insights into effective teaching methodologies. This approach allows me to bridge the gap between current research and classroom instruction, ensuring that my students benefit from the latest advancements in the field. By integrating my disciplinary research with my focus on engineering education, I'm able to create a dynamic learning environment that prepares students not just with theoretical knowledge, but also with practical insights into how this knowledge is applied and advanced in real-world contexts.

2.5.1 Output in my discipline

Swartz, B. and Ah Shene, L. 2024. Performance management at Air Force Base Ysterplaat. 5th African International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operation Management. Pretoria, 23-25 April 2024.
Singh, N. and Swartz, B. 2024. Analysis of Risks Associated with Laboratory Error Rates of COVID-19 Testing at The NHLS Paarl Laboratory. 5th African International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operation Management. Pretoria, 23-25 April 2024.
Mbita, T. and Swartz, B. 2024. Review of Risks Associated with Six Sigma Deployment in South Africa: A Laboratory Perspective 5th African International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operation Management. Pretoria, 23-25 April 2024.
Swartz, B. and Singh, S. 2022. A tale of three regions: Quality Culture and its impact on pharmaceutical production. The South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 33(3), p.137-149.
Cloete, B and Bester, A. 2012. A Lean Six Sigma Approach to the Improvement of the Selenium Analysis Method. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research 79 (1) 1-13.

2.6 Research on Learning and Teaching

My professional growth and development as an educator in Engineering has been marked by a continuous evolution from good teaching practices to 'scholarly learning and teaching', and ultimately to a deep engagement with the 'Scholarship of Teaching and Learning' (SoTL). This progression reflects my commitment to not only improving my own teaching but also contributing to the broader understanding of effective pedagogical approaches in engineering education - and wanting to share this with others.

Initially inspired by the work of Case (2014), who explored how engineering students approach problem-solving, I became acutely aware of the challenges faced by South African students. Her research revealed that many students adopted superficial learning approaches, largely due to contextual factors. This resonated with my observations of assessment-driven learning environments, particularly in large classes such as my SQT300S class, where students often prioritized rote memorization and pattern recognition over deep understanding.

Recognizing these challenges, I began to convert my teaching practices into SoTL projects, systematically investigating and improving my pedagogical approaches. More recently, my exploration has extended to the structural dimensions of knowledge itself, examining the epistemic plane and semantic curves (gravity and density) within educational contexts. This deeper understanding of how knowledge can be deconstructed and reconstructed in specific contexts has enabled me to tailor learning and assessment experiences more effectively, ensuring that all my students can access and engage meaningfully with the curriculum. This journey has not only enhanced my own practice but has also contributed to the broader field of engineering education. Through my research, I strive to address the unique challenges faced by South African engineering students and develop innovative approaches that foster deeper learning and understanding.

Reference

Case, J.M., 2014. Problematizing curriculum: Contemporary debates in engineering education 1. In Knowledge, expertise and the professions (pp. 143-156). Routledge.

2.6.1 Output in education

Although I do not have a formal qualification in education, since I started lecturing, I found myself gravitating toward educational research as it empowered me. I have always enjoyed working with students has always been fascinating to me to try and understand how human beings learn. Initially, I would often think back on my own experiences as a student as a guide, to help me in my practice to ensure that my students are successful, and by implication, I would be successful. I soon realised however that this was not enough, and that having an empirical base of information was a much better option to ensure success. Thus, quite unintentionally I started doing research on my practice. Looking back, I am able to say that conducting educational research has improved my teaching practice by empowering me with data to help me teach in a more strategic and effective manner. Admittedly, it is also quite addictive!

Thus over the past six years I have published (authored and co-authored) fourteen manuscripts - an average of 1.1 units per year - in education, specifically Engineering Education. These are:

Cronje, J., Swartz, B and Valentine, L. 2023, Assessing the potential of chatbots as tutoring tools in engineering education: A South African case study. digiTAL 2023 International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning in the Digital Age. Cape Town, 6-7 December 2023, p.342
Swartz, B.C. and Patnaik, S., 2023. Guidelines for Sustainable Use of Mobile Instant Messaging Apps in Higher Education: A South African Case Study. Higher Learning Research Communications, 13(2), p.6.
Swartz, B. and Patnaik, S. 2023. Meeting the demands of industry: A study on identifying and teaching emerging technologies in Engineering Education. European Conference on e-Learning 22 (1), p.305
Patnaik, S. and Swartz, B. 2022. Digital Transformation–How are we reshaping post COVID in Engineering? digiTAL 2022 International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning in the Digital Age. Durban, 1-2 December 2022. p 181
Swartz, B., Valentine, L. and Jaftha, D. 2022. Participatory parity through teaching with Telegram. Perspectives in Education. 40(1)
Gachago, D., Cruz, L., Belford, C., Livingston, C., Morkel, J., Patnaik S. and Swartz B. 2021. Third places: cultivating mobile communities of practice in the global south, International Journal for Academic Development, vol 26, no. 3, pp. 335-346, DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2021.1955363
Swartz, B. 2021. Ethics in engineering education 4.0: The educator's perspective. In SAIEE Africa Research Journal, vol. 112, no. 4, pp. 181-188, Dec. 2021.
Swartz, B. 2020. Ethics in Engineering Education 4.0. World Engineering Education Forum (WEEF) and Global Engineering Deans Council (GEDC) virtual conference from 16 – 19 November 2020.
Swartz, B. 2020. "Assessment as Learning” as a tool to prepare engineering students to manage ill-defined problems in industry. World Engineering Education Forum (WEEF) and Global Engineering Deans Council (GEDC) virtual conference from 16 – 19 November 2020.
Patnaik, S. and Swartz, B. Mobile Instant Messaging Applications – Online teaching during COVID19. digiTAL2020 International Conference on teaching, assessment and learning in the digital age. Virtual conference from 3 – 4 December 2020.
Swartz, B. and Belford, C. 2020. Webtools and Student Generated Content: An indicator of Engineering Student Graduate Attributes. Conference proceedings of the World Conference on Online Learning (WCOL) held in Dublin, Ireland 3-7 November 2019.
Belford C. and Swartz, B. 2019. Webtools for Curriculum Co-Design: An indicator of Engineering Student Graduate Attributes. Conference proceedings of Research in Engineering Education Symposium (REES) held in Cape Town, South Africa 10-12 July 2019.
Swartz, B and Gachago, D. 2018 Students’ perceptions on screencast feedback in postgraduate research supervision. Conference proceedings of the International Conference on e-Learning held in Cape Town, South Africa 5-7 July 2018.
Swartz, B, Gachago, D. and Belford. C. 2018. To care or not to care – reflections on ethics on blended learning in times of disruptions. South African Journal of Higher Education Special Issue on Care Ethics 32(6) 49-64.

In addition, another two conference papers have been accepted for publication in December 2024 (see acceptance letters) and a further journal accepted and the manuscript is currently under review (see: acceptance and submission receipt)

A core tenet of my research philosophy is the active dissemination of findings, both within my institution and beyond. While the research output subsidy from DHET is undoubtedly important, I place significant emphasis on sharing knowledge and insights gained through my research on platforms other than publication. This commitment to 'spreading the word' drives my participation in various academic forums and events including those that do not qualify for subsidy. For instance, my work was presented at e/Merge Africa (see recording here) in 2017, I've contributed to CPUT's annual Teaching and Learning with Technology Day in 2018 (click here to view recording) and 2020, events that highlight innovative approaches to integrating technology in education, (See 2018 Teaching with Technology Day Book of Abstracts and 2020 Teaching and Learning with Technology Day program) and the CPUT's annual RITAL conference (See program in 2020, 2021 and 2022). As a member of the Higher Education Learning and Teaching Association of Southern Africa (HELTASA) (see membership certificate here), I participated in their conferences in 2020 and 2021, even though there are no published proceedings. The value in these events are they provide a platform for exchanging ideas and showcasing research in HE pedagogy. (References: 2021 HELTASA Participant Bios and HELTASA Day 2 Discussions and slides).

My involvement in multidisciplinary research teams is another example of my commitment to knowledge sharing. During the lockdown period, I collaborated with colleagues to explore 'third places' communities of practice presenting our findings on various platforms, including making these two showcase videos for social media (showcase video 1 and showcase video 2). Moreover, this work was also featured in CPUT's COVID-19 symposium, demonstrating the relevance of our research to current challenges in higher education. (See: CPUT Hosts Successful COVID Symposium). Another multidisciplinary project, with completely different collaborators examined the implications of AI for HE, and was presented at the FUNDANI-hosted CPUT Academic Collab on the 3rd August 2023 (see screenshot of the group's discussion on this). Importantly, in the presentation, we shared a repository of open-source AI tools that we compiled, with all other CPUT colleagues and attendees of the Collab (see: repository). I discuss these partnerships in greater detail in the section below on research collaborations.

With regard to the dissemination of findings of specific engineering education projects, I am currently part of a faculty FYE project group (as mentioned in Section 1 of this portfolio) in addition to being part of the Innovative Engineering Curricula (IEC) project. Findings of the research of these groups have also been presented on platforms that do not attract a DHET subsidy, but have impact on our engineering education community. Preliminary findings of the FYE project in 2023 and 2024 was showcased at a South African National Resource Centre (SANRC) conference (see FYE conference booklet, pages 21 and 58) and will be presented at the upcoming U6+ seminar. In terms IEC, the findings of research inform workshops that are offered nationally. See the website as evidence of the workshops. These diverse presentation opportunities not only allow me to share my research findings but also to engage with peers, gather feedback, and stay abreast of developments in the field. This active participation in the academic community ensures that my research remains relevant, impactful, and connected to broader conversations in higher education and engineering pedagogy.

2.7 Research funding

Despite the primarily qualitative nature of my social science research in education, which typically requires less financial investment than laboratory-based studies, I have been fortunate to secure funding to support various research projects. This funding has been instrumental in facilitating my participation in the following initiatives:

2016: R10 000 RIFTAL OER grant

2017: R200 000 DHET Improvement of Qualifications (IQ) grant

2018: R10 000 RIFTAL OER grant

2020: R50 000 RIFTAL ('Assessment as learning' for Engineering students project)

2021: R50 000 RIFTAL (Mobile Instant Messaging for T&L with Dr Sweta Patnaik)

2022: R25 000 UCDG Advancement of Black Academic Grant (Humanising Postgraduate Education)

2022: R50 000 RIFTAL (Sustainable digital transformation of HE with Dr Sweta Patnaik)

2024: £50 000 Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) (UK) (Transforming systems through partnership with IEC)

2024: R20 000 SASEE Grant (Crafting Resourceful Engineering Artistic Transformations for Education)

I was very grateful for this funding as it assisted me with completing various research projects. Furthermore, I am awaiting the outcome of three funding applications I submitted to the NRF from March to May 2024. These are:

u'GOOD application (project title: Sustainability, Art, and Global Education in the South (SAGE) - collaborative project with Sibiu University)
Competitive Support for Unrated Researchers (CSUR) application (project title: The First Year Experience: Engineering for Social Change)
Thuthuka application (project title: Integrated Education for Future Engineers: Developing Engineering Educators to Transform Curricula - a collaborative project with UJ and SU)

Figure 17 Communities of Practice (Wenger, 2024)

2.8 Research community engagement

2.8.1 Research Unit for Engineering and the Built Environment Education (RUEBEE)

I feel that, as a researcher, being part of a Community of Practice (CoP) is critical, yet it is often an underrated aspect of professional development. My experiences have reinforced the significant benefits of active participation in such communities. I view CoPs as safe spaces where informal learning flourishes, tacit knowledge is shared, and new insights are generated. As Wenger (2024) aptly defines, CoPs are "groups of people who share a concern, or a passion for something they do, and learn how to do it better, because they interact regularly."

These communities often focus on sharing best practices and creating new knowledge to advance professional practice through regular interaction.

Drawing on this understanding of CoPs, I am proud to have been an integral part of the Research Unit for Engineering and the Built Environment Education (RUEBEE) CoP within my faculty. From 2021 to 2024, I had the privilege of heading this group, building upon the foundational work of Prof Tiyamike Ngonda. Under my leadership, we successfully established and gained recognition for RUEBEE as an official Engineering Education Research Unit. The unit's core objectives are:

A significant achievement during my tenure as head of RUEBEE was the successful organization and execution of the RUEBEE symposium. This event served as a platform for knowledge exchange and collaboration within our faculty (See CPUT article on the RUEBEE symposium). As chair of the symposium, I oversaw its planning and implementation, ensuring its alignment with our unit's objectives. Additionally, I compiled a book of abstracts, which was circulated throughout the faculty, further disseminating the valuable research presented at the symposium. This leadership experience not only contributed to the growth of RUEBEE but also reinforced my belief in the power of CoPs to drive innovation and excellence in research and education.

Reference

Wenger, E. 2024. Creating Communities of Practice (Online). Available: https://www.communityofpractice.ca/background/what-is-a-community-of-practice/ (Accessed 19 July 2024)

2.8.2 Collaborative research projects

Another CoP that I had the privilege of being part of, comprising six other female researchers from various disciplines was an international collaboration around a common interest in e-learning, coupled with the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. This led to the formation of this group and subsequent research publication. The publication was awarded second place for Best Paper in The International Journal for Academic Development (IJAD), a publication of the International Consortium for Educational Development (ICED). The members of this CoP represented four different institutions, including one from Pennsylvania State University in the United States. Although some members are no longer at CPUT, where we initially formed the group, the experience was highly valued by all participants. The impact of this collaboration is evident in the heartfelt closing message from one of the members (see email: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y25o_W-iWVCaHeqXnrCSXsYGKJbWxfts/view?usp=sharing).

Due to a set of happy coincidences, a common passion for SoLT and technology, I ended up being part of a research group responding to the emergence of generative AI, particularly ChatGPT. This collaboration between myself and nine other researchers from three different faculties at CPUT explored the use of AI in Higher Education. Our primary goal was to develop a repository of resources for staff members, and this was presented to the institution at Fundani's Academic Collab Seminar on the 3rd August 2023. However, we also produced a research paper. The abstract has been accepted by the African Journal of Inter/Multidisciplinary Studies. Subsequently, the full paper has been returned for revisions, which are currently underway. Closer to home, I also initiated an informal research group within my department DISE - focused on AI applications. We successfully obtained ethical clearance and conducted research on two critical topics: Assessment and AI, and Using Chatbots as Tutors. Both studies were presented at the digiTAL 2023 conference (certificate 1 and certificate 2), demonstrating our commitment to staying at the forefront of technological advancements in education.

Another valuable research collaboration emerged from my participation in the Sisonke Supervision Mentoring programme. This institutional initiative aims to build capacity among CPUT's staff, developing skilled PhD-qualified individuals capable of supervising and mentoring novice researchers. Upon completing the programme (see certificate here), I collaborated with fellow participants to expand on my research in humanizing postgraduate education. This collaborative effort culminated in a paper presented at the CHE conference on postgraduate education. A further significant outcome of my involvement with Sisonke was an invitation from Prof Bongani Ncube, SARChI research chair, to join her research group at the Centre for Water and Sanitation Research. In this capacity, I attend meetings, provide input on student proposal presentations, and was invited to co-supervise a doctoral student whose research focuses on engineering education.

One of my most valued current collaborations is my involvement with the Innovative Engineering Curriculum (IEC) team. Our project, titled "Bringing Life to our Engineering Curricula," is a collaboration between nine South African academic institutions (UP, VUT, Wits, UJ, NMU, UCT, Stellenbosch, UKZN, and CPUT) and UCL UK, funded by the Royal Academy of Engineering through a Transforming Systems through Partnerships (TSP). This project has three primary objectives:

Implement SA-developed contextual frameworks for an integrated curriculum in engineering programs. This objective aims to address the isolation and disconnection of students which contribute to low throughput numbers. Activities related to this objective include regional hybrid workshops and work sessions and national online workshops. (See email invitation to national IEC workshops)
Mentor and grow engineering academic staff to become expert facilitators of active integrated learning and other pedagogies. Activities involve 'Change Makers' training sessions and efforts to strengthen the regional Change Makers' footprint. At present a pilot Teacher's training session to enhance pedagogical skills in engineering education is being developed (see research outline/plan and data collection instrument for this objective).
Strengthen collaboration between academic staff and industry partners. This objective focuses on working with ECSA support structures to co-design effective curricula and projects and build stronger accreditation partnerships. An example of the work I do for this is my involvement in Babasonke (see more about this in Section 3 Community Engagement). Babasonke is the name of a project (isiZulu means 'take hold together'), conceived by the IEC, and working with Engineers without Borders, developing a local case study on improving Cape Town townships. While this project is primarily a practical endevour, it is relevant to this section of the portfolio because we are doing research on it (See our meeting agenda - research item on Day 2).

Figure 18 IEC goes to Aalborg

Figure 19: IEC Day 1 in Aalborg

Figure 20: IEC Day 2 in Aalborg

Figure 21: IEC Day 3 in Aalborg

As a core team member, I participate in bi-weekly meetings and contribute to various project initiatives. Figures 18 -21 are picture collages of a recent IEC-funded trip to Aalborg University for PBL training. This ongoing collaboration has been pivotal in my development as a scholarly teacher, helping me clearly frame my Learning and Teaching work as research. The project's working notes demonstrate my active involvement in several key areas (see notes here), which align closely with my current role as L&T coordinator (further detailed in Sections 3 and 4 of this portfolio). The notes serve as an agenda, however also a to-do list, with names and responsibilities that we tick off as we go along. As part of the IEC core team, I have been responsible for facilitating national workshops, in particular one national workshop on Assessment that I led with Prof Teresa Hatting and Prof Anne Starke, and this has directly led to a paper I wrote with my supervisor Prof Suresh Ramsuroop, being accepted for publication at digiTAL 2024.

Significantly, the IEC collaborates closely with the South African Society of Engineering Educators (SASEE) who is funding another one of my collaborative research projects with Sibiu University - see email correspondence with partners from Sibiu. Related to my work with EWB, this project (called the Crafting Resourceful Engineering and Artisitic Transformation for Education (CREATE) project), is focused on upcycling waste and developing GAs, while encouraging students to express themselves artistically. All research partners attended a meeting on the 23rd February 2024, where we explored and clarified the details of the project. It is very useful that Sibiu have done a project like this previously. We have applied for NRF funding to support this initiative further, and the project is ongoing while we await the funding decision. In the interim, the project continues with my first year students in their communications course. We will connect with the Sibiu students in the final quarter of this year (see video I made for the student's of the project objectives here).

Finally, I am also part of another transdisciplinary research project - project title: Development of a community-centred cannabis value chain in the Western Cape (see proposal and project plan), where to date, my primary contribution to date has been the design of a very comprehensive data collection instrument for our ethics application (see more in the section below on Ethics contributions), and providing operational support for an indaba to engage the community on the project (see program here).

Beyond providing research support, my involvement is closely aligned with my expertise in GMP and ISO standards - a direct extension of my doctoral research on GMP for pharmaceutical manufacturers. This experience is particularly relevant as the production of cannabis for medicinal purposes requires such specialized knowledge. Figure 22 depicts a Saturday meeting when myself and other some project team members met with Sr Vee Nomabuhle, a local traditional healer with extensive knowledge of cannabis use. This interaction exemplifies the project's commitment to integrating traditional wisdom with modern scientific approaches. Although the project is currently on hold due to personnel changes, it demonstrates my ability to engage in diverse research areas and contribute to complex, multidisciplinary studies. These collaborative experiences have been instrumental in my development as a researcher and educator. They have broadened my perspective, enhanced my research skills, and reinforced my commitment to interdisciplinary work and the practical application of research in engineering education.

Figure 22: Coffee date with Sr Vee (Own Source)

2.8.3 Research ethics contributions

Throughout my development as a researcher, ethics has been a constant source of fascination, and thus, an area of special interest in my work. This interest is deeply rooted in my commitment to social justice. It reflects my personal belief that ethical considerations are fundamental to equitable and impactful research. My engagement with research ethics has manifested in various ways several ways, for example while based in DISE, I served on the FREC, collaborating with Prof Fester to update the Faculty's ethics guidelines for NQF Level 8 qualifications. I also played a role in disseminating these guidelines, presenting them to HoDs and research coordinators (see evidence of this here). Moreover, I volunteered to represent FEBE, as part of the institutional (Human) Research Ethics Committee task team, an initiative towards the development of comprehensive guidelines for the institution. This experience is further detailed in Section 4: Leadership of this portfolio.

I think it is significant that my scholarly interest in ethics led to two published papers examining ethical protocols in digital learning and teaching within the context of Engineering Education 4.0. This research explores the ethical implications of our transition to digital pedagogies from both lecturer and student perspectives. In addition to this, from 2021 to 2024 (with the exception of 2023 due to scheduling conflicts), I have conducted the ethics section of the annual FEBE Postgraduate Welcome, introducing students to the FREC 1.1 form. In 2022, I extended this initiative by inviting all PG welcome attendees to join a more detailed work session originally designed for my department. Aside from the students in my department, this session attracted 15 students and one staff member from various other engineering departments (link to slides).

Finally, in referring to the practical application of my knowledge of research ethics at an institutional level, in the transdisciplinary cannabis project discussed above, I applied my ethical expertise to draft a protocol and comprehensive research instrument as part of the project's ethics application (see instrument here). This application demonstrates the high level of complexity I've applied in my work, illustrating the expertise and adaptability needed in research ethics across various contexts and stakeholder groups. These diverse engagements with research ethics reflect my ongoing commitment to fostering ethical research practices, both within my discipline and across the broader academic community. They underscore my belief that robust ethical frameworks are essential for conducting research that is not only academically rigorous but also socially responsible and impactful.

2.8.4 Conference organisation, reviewer and editorial roles

The academic community thrives on the active participation of researchers in manuscript reviewing, editorial work, and conference organization. These activities are crucial for professional development, enhancing critical evaluation skills, and staying current with field advancements. They also offer researchers opportunities to expand professional networks and contribute to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. Recognizing the importance of these roles in my career growth and academic contribution, I have actively engaged in various capacities.

In 2021, I undertook reviewer training and was selected to join the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) —an internationally recognised journal with a 2023 CiteScore of 12.2 (Scopus), a Journal Citation Indicator of 1.36, and a Journal Impact Factor of 3.9 (Clarivate). I completed this specialised training (see my certificate of completion) which involved a collaborative process where I, along with a mentor and another mentee, formed a triad to review three manuscripts. Our method involved initial discussions based solely on the abstract, followed by independent readings and collective analysis in subsequent meetings. Each of us took turns leading the review process, culminating in my leading the final manuscript review. Initially hesitant, I grew increasingly confident, enhancing my analytical skills and gaining a deeper sense of authority in my field.

Aside from reviewing articles for the JEE, I expanded my review activities to include manuscripts in general education journals. I reviewed six articles for Perspectives in Education (PiE) and another two for Higher Learning Research Communication (HLRC). This broad exposure not only sharpened my skills as an educator, but inspired research projects, including a study on the role of belonging in identity formation among first-year engineering students - a project that was selected for presentation at an international conference.

In addition to being a journal reviewer, I also served as a reviewer for several conferences, including the World Engineering Education Forum (WEEF)/ Global Engineering Deans Council (GEDC) 2020 WEEF/GEDC (2020), the International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning in the Digital Age from 2021 to 2024 digiTAL (2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024), the SASEE (2023) Conference and the IEOM 2024 Conference.

Beyond my role as reviewer, I have been actively involved in ensuring the success of both the digiTAL and IEOM conferences. My engagement with digiTAL began at its inception in 2020 when I present my research. Recognizing the conference's value in advancing digital learning and teaching practices, I continued to support it in various roles. Every year from 2021 to 2023 I served as session chair for digiTAL (see certificates 2021, 2022 and 2023), facilitating discussions and fostering academic exchange among presenters and attendees. This role allowed me to contribute to the conference's smooth operation while gaining insights into a wide range of research on e-Learning. In 2022 and 2023, my involvement deepened as I joined the Editorial Board (see evidence of being part of editorial board 2022 and editorial board and organising committee 2023). In this capacity, I drew on the skills I developed as an academic editor and played a crucial role in maintaining the high quality conference proceedings (2022 and 2023) - quality checking the submissions and ensuring they met the rigorous standards expected of academic work in this field

My commitment to the digiTAL Conference was further expanded when I took on the role of conference secretariat (see certificate), and organising committee, a position I will continue to hold for the upcoming 2024 conference. This role has given me a comprehensive understanding of conference organisation, from managing submissions to coordinating with presenters. Additionally, I have joined the marketing team for the 2024 conference, working to increase its visibility and attract a diverse range of participants. Figures 23 and 24 were taken at the conference in 2023.

Similarly, my involvement with the IEOM Conference has been multifaceted. I served as a session chair for IEOM 2024, drawing on my experience from the digiTAL conferences to facilitate engaging and productive sessions. Moreover, I was honoured to be part of the organising committee, contributing to the conferences's overall planning and execution (see programme and letter from conference chair). I am currently also assisting with editing the conference proceedings.

Figure 24: Prof Karen Ferreira-Meyers and I packing conference bags (Own source)

Figure 23 Conference co-chair with secretariats (Own source)

These experiences in conference organization and management have not only enhanced my professional skills but also broadened my network within the academic community. They have provided me with a holistic view of academic dissemination, from the initial stages of research presentation to the final steps of publication. This comprehensive involvement has deepened my appreciation for the collaborative nature of academic work and reinforced my commitment to contributing to the advancement of knowledge in my field.

2.9 External examination and evaluation

2.9.1 Postgraduate examination

Since 2020, I have been invited to serve as an external examiner for numerous postgraduate theses and dissertations, demonstrating recognition of my expertise in the field. These include 14 Master's level studies (MTech and Masters in Operations Management) from UJ, three doctoral theses (two PhD Operations Management and one PhD Quality Engineering), as well as one MEng Industrial Engineering from DUT. Currently, I am also marking a PhD thesis in Metallurgical Engineering, further broadening the scope of my external examination experience. Thus, this experience in external examination (totalling 19 postgraduate works) showcases my ability to critically evaluate advanced research across more than one discipline within engineering and management. It reflects the trust placed in my academic judgment by peer institutions and contributes significantly to maintaining high academic standards in postgraduate education. Kindly click on the names below to see the appointment letters.

In 2020

Mahlaha, M. MTech Operations Management - student number 2007282116

In 2021

Magwaza, N. MTech Operations Management - student number 219114222

Mabuza, S. MTech Operations Management - student number 201597216

Makhado, M. MTech Operations Management - student number 201602261

Jiyane, M. MTech Operations Management - student number 216067754

Faltien, S. MTech Operations Management - student number 217083193

In 2022

Ramaboea, M. MTech Operations Management - student number 201036621

Nkosi, N. MTech Operations Management - student number 2014320093

Ndlovu, N. MTech Operations Management - student number 217030255

Shibe, S. MTech Operations Management - student number 201405573

Budeli, Z. MTech Operations Management - student number 920309986

Ndlovu, S. MTech Operations Management - student number 201408411

In 2023

Akillimalissiga, S. PhD Operations Management - student number 201314137

Bakama, E. PhD Quality Engineering - student number 201406623

Kabamba, O. MIng Operation Management - student number 201314137

Makua, E. MEng Industrial Engineering - student number 21300904

Thaba, S. PhD Operations Management - student number 200728151

In 2024

Maepa, M. MIng Operations Management - student number 201512932

Currently marking Karimulla, U. PhD Metallurgical Engineering - student number 216088646

2.9.2 Reflection on NRF rating review

When I was approached to review an NRF rating application, I felt both honoured and slightly apprehensive. As an academic, I understand the significance of these ratings for career progression and research funding, which made me aware of the responsibility I was undertaking. My first step was to thoroughly review Dr. Pradhan's application and his five best research outputs. I was immediately struck by the diversity and interdisciplinary nature of his work, spanning areas such as renewable energy, life cycle assessment, and optimization. To ensure a comprehensive review, I conducted additional research, cross-referencing his publications and citations across various academic databases.

The review process itself was enlightening. It challenged me to step outside my immediate area of expertise and critically evaluate research in an adjacent field. This experience highlighted the importance of maintaining a broad understanding of developments across various disciplines, especially given the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of contemporary research. One of the most significant challenges I faced was ensuring objectivity and fairness in my assessment. Although I had no prior association with Dr. Pradhan, he was previously an external moderator for one of my subjects (LSS470S). I was conscious of potential unconscious biases. To mitigate this, I focused rigorously on the quantifiable aspects of his research output and impact, while also considering the broader context and relevance of his work.

This experience has deepened my appreciation for the peer review process in academic advancement. I believe it is a critical mechanism for maintaining standards and recognizing excellence, but it also comes with significant responsibility. Reviewers play a vital role in shaping academic careers and, by extension, the direction of research in their fields. Personally, this experience has enhanced my critical evaluation skills and broadened my perspective on interdisciplinary research. It has also prompted me to reflect on my own research practices and how they might be perceived by peers in a similar review process.

In conclusion, reviewing this NRF rating application was a valuable learning experience. It has provided me with invaluable insights into the NRF rating process, giving me a clear understanding of what would be required for my own future rating application. Moving forward, I feel better equipped not only to engage in similar evaluative processes but also to strategically approach my own academic career development and potential NRF rating application.

2.10 Professional development in research

My selection for two highly competitive fellowships, the Writing for International Research Excellence in South Africa (WIRE-SA) and the Teaching Advancement at University (TAU) Fellowship, mark significant milestones in my academic journey. I am deeply grateful for these opportunities, recognizing their potential to propel my career and underscores my capabilities as both a researcher and educator.

The WIRE-SA fellowship, funded by the British Academy, came as a pleasant surprise. Despite its focus on health sciences, I was drawn to apply by the prospect of developing international-standard research publication skills. A letter from the WIRE-SA PI Prof Lindsay O'Dell, confirmed the highly selective nature of the fellowship when she highlighted the large number of applicants (number of applications far exceeding the number of positions available). In light of this, securing a place in the program felt like a significant accomplishment, affirming the merit of my research proposal (see the letter here). This achievement not only validates the quality of my work, but also exemplifies how my teaching intersects with my research interests. The fellowships's offerings - workshops, monthly mentoring sessions and collaborative work with international experts will enhance my ability to contribute meaningfully to South Africa's pressing educational challenges. The fully-funded face-to-face contact week in the Eastern Cape further demonstrates the substantial investment in my development.

Complementing this, the TAU Fellowship, endorsed by DHET, focuses on advancing teaching quality and the professionalization of teaching and learning in higher education. As a TAU Fellow, I am part of a select cohort of academics from across South Africa, working to become a scholar, leader, and change agent in teaching and learning. This fellowship is deepening my engagement in SoLT, positioning me to lead transformative changes in teaching practices at my institution and beyond. This fellowship also includes three fully-funded face-to-face contact sessions (one took place in Gqeberha in July 2024, another will be in Gauteng in January 2025 and Durban in June 2025).

While these fellowships may not be typical research grants in terms of direct funding, they represent significant investments in my potential. The WIRE-SA program will sharpen my research skills and international publication profile and the TAU fellowship will enhance my capacity to integrate research and teaching, fostering a more engaged and responsive approach to pedagogy.

Being selected for both, a research-focused (WIRE-SA) and a teaching focused (TAU) fellowship underscores my commitment to excellence in both areas. I'm excited about the opportunities these present for professional growth, networking and making meaningful contributions in my field and at CPUT. These experiences will undoubtedly shape my approach to research and position me to play a role in advancing HE in South Africa.

2.11 Final reflection on research and scholarship

My closing thoughts on this reflection of a researcher is, as I continue to grow as a researcher, supervisor, and educator, I remain committed to producing rigorous, ethical research that contributes meaningfully to my field and society. Whether through interdisciplinary collaborations, engagement with ethics committees, or mentoring students, my goal is to foster an inclusive research environment that empowers others to find their voice and make their own contributions.

Looking ahead, I am energized by the opportunities presented by fellowships like WIRE-SA and TAU, which will further enhance my ability to conduct impactful research and integrate it effectively into my teaching practice. These experiences, combined with my ongoing work in engineering education and operational excellence, position me to continue breaking down barriers and advancing knowledge in ways that serve both the academic community and broader society.

Ultimately, my research journey reflects a commitment to lifelong learning and a belief in the transformative power of education. By continuing to question, explore, and innovate, I hope to contribute to a more equitable and empowering educational landscape for future generations of engineers and researchers.

Google Sites

Report abuse