Response to the SOTL in the South Conference:  Why Indigenous Knowledge (IK) Systems should find a place in the academy (posting by Beatrice Akala)

Keynote speaker N'Dri Assie-Lumumba

Many are of the view that although indigenous knowledge has been with us for as long as humanity has been in existence, it has struggled to find recognition in the academy.  Besides, indigenous knowledge is synonymous with non-western communities. Its custodians are found within indigenous communities of Africa; Southern, Eastern, Pacific, Indian, Middle Eastern and Latin American communities. In as much as these communities are spread across the globe, the knowledge they poses does not occupy a significant place in academia as compared to western knowledge. It is often classified as “other” and less authentic. 
 

Western knowledge on the other hand has produced dominant theories and concepts that have been in the public domain for centuries. It has been seen as the norm and a scale upon which other knowledge systems are gauged. This is contrary to the view that the most sophisticated knowledge systems exited on the African continent and pre-date major world civilizations. In justifying this fact, the keynote speech by Prof. N’dri Therese Assi-Lumumba at the SOTL in the South Conference, 25 – 27 July 2017, UJ, showed that Africa houses the oldest medieval institutions of higher learning. They include, Al-Azhar, founded in 970 A.D or 972 A.D and the University of Karueein, founded in 859 AD in Fez, Morocco. The University of Bologna in Italy was founded in 1088 and is the oldest one in Europe. Furthermore, the manuscripts at Timbuktu provide us with a useful lens to study the kinds of knowledge that the indigenous people of Mali held. 

Due to acts of misrepresentation of indigenous knowledge, an artificial gap has been created. The gap can be attributed to a deliberate move to delegitimize it. Those who have side-lined it argue that it lacks adequate conceptualization, it is not scientific enough, it has no theoretical backing and it is based on beliefs that cannot be proven. To the contrary, the proponents of indigenous knowledge argue that misrecognizing it is an injustice and an imposition that was brought about by colonialism and religion. Indigenous people would not have survived for centuries if they had not harnessed and used this knowledge system in healing, agriculture, religion, judicial systems and conflict resolution.  Dr. Boitumelo Diale, a conference delegate, pointed out in her presentation that those who argue that indigenous knowledge is not readily available for use should look in the right places.  Dr. Boitumelo Diale viewed such a position as unfortunate and argued that it should not be used to dismiss indigenous knowledge. If people search in the wrong places they will not get the right answers. 

Dr. Dominic Griffith’s presentation at the conference, on language and poetry, showed the problematic nature of portraying other cultures or languages as being deficient just because one does not understand them or share a similar interpretation. Instead, we ought to look at languages as different houses where man dwells.  Since different language groups dwell in different houses none can claim to be better than the other.  Therefore, this is a call for to overcome our own biases against new ideas that do not conform to our belief systems, cultures or languages. By transcending these fears we will be open to learning. It is clear that there are several interpretations to a phenomenon. In encountering content that is new in art, design or poetry we should not be quick to dismiss it because our interpretation does not align with that of the author or the artist. Rather, we should be open-minded and listen to other views, carefully evaluating where they come from and what they represent. Ways of knowing are broad, multi-faceted and cannot be limited to a single interpretation or a particular civilization. 

The most important question of the discussion in the thematic area at the conference - Indigenous knowledge research was; does indigenous knowledge exist and does it have a place in higher education? By the end of the conference, it was clear that indigenous knowledge exists and it has a place in higher education today despite the distorted views that surround it. There are opportunities in all learning areas to embrace indigenous knowledge.  African poetry, languages and literature could be boosted by including indigenous content. Opportunities exist in mentorship programmes, using context and environmental examples in our classrooms to expound on scientific concepts and using the Ubuntu philosophy to encourage fairness in our practices. Dr. Boitumelo stressed the fact that we will not be able to achieve excellence if we use western examples that are irrelevant and foreign to the learners’ daily experiences. 

Whereas the indigenous movement has taken off, there is a need to have a forward looking model that will be all encompassing and inclusive. For instance, questions regarding the definitions of who is indigenous, what counts as indigenous and indigenous knowledge, whose lens should be used to arrive at conclusions, require proper grounding and understanding.  In the absence of clarity on some of these issues, the voices of those that are perceived as alien will be subverted, misrecognized and marginalized. Finally, no body of knowledge is an island and can exist in isolation. Therefore, while thinking about how to harness and include indigenous knowledge in our curricula, we ought to think about aligning ourselves with other bodies of knowledge so as to form   collaborations that will bolster a peaceful and productive co-existence.  Importantly, keynote speaker Prof. Catherine Manathunga’s advice against using approaches that are linear, universalized and idolized in research should be taken seriously.  Integrated but differentiated approaches to research processes and methodologies are likely to be more inclusive and agreeable in the academy.   

SOTL in the South Conference: Decolonization and Higher Education (Post by Hellen Ochuot)

The University of Johannesburg in collaboration with colleagues at other South African universities hosted an international conference which focused on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in the global South from 25 – 27 July 2017. One of the key themes that resonated throughout the presentation and discussions was ‘decolonization’.

Demands for the ‘decolonization’ of universities and curricula in South Africa raise important questions as to how and where to begin. A key note speech by Prof. Cheryl Hendricks highlighted the need for reflecting on the notion of decolonization in relation to transformation. She argued that the decolonization of knowledge should not be separated from the broader issues of transformation in the higher education systems.  For her the impetus of decolonization goes deeper than removing paintings, adding African courses or having more black academics.  If we deconstruct and decolonize we should ideally decenter around the local and draw on previously marginalized knowledge, but not in ways that merely seek to replace one with the other. Just as colonialism was a vast project, so should the process of decolonization; it should track the effects of colonialism and coloniality in all the crevices particularly in its institutionalized forms.

Professor Cheryl Hendricks

Prof Hendricks noted that there must be critical engagement with all forms of knowledge production, methodologies of teaching and learning and research. She argued that the quest for decolonization has to do with recognizing the complexities of Western influence and acknowledging the pain of black people. As such, the fundamental challenge of decolonization is, in addition to fighting against inequality and social injustices, ensuring academic programs that are by themselves transformative, innovative and globally competitive. She concluded by calling for a critical review and transformation of all key aspects of our universities if we are to give substantive meaning to decolonization and becoming “epi-centres of  Pan- Africanism.”

In an excellent keynote speech Prof. Yunus Ballim noted that the idea of decolonizing the curriculum has been improperly conceived. He argued that we need to be cautious not to use the term ‘decolonize’ loosely. He said we need to reflect on how to decolonize in ways that will positively contribute to different ways of knowing. He argued that content alone is not sufficient to induct students into ways of knowing. He admitted that new ways of knowing are frightening, but urged academics to reflect on how they can engage students into news ways of knowing that are otherwise inaccessible to them, but where the students still remain comfortable. He continued to argue that we cannot decolonize an institution without the involvement of the entire society. He rejected the notion that university is a microcosm of the society. Instead, he insisted that the university should be an example of what society should look like. He gave an example: “Teaching students ethics doesn’t make them ethical, but this doesn’t mean that we should not teach it.” Therefore we should take into consideration that the university has always been both a product of, and a participant in, the society of which it is a part.  We need not imagine that we are unique and that our solutions are not of interest to others. In coming up with ways to decolonize the curriculum in higher education we need to think and act in ways that will benefit society as well.

In parallel paper discussions, it was argued that the process of decolonization should not be taken as an academic project. In as much as others agreed with the fact that academic should not own the movement, it was argued that students as well are not sufficiently equipped to meaningfully engage with this idea at a deeper level. In his exact words Sean Muller argued that; “…they (students) may be able to correctly identify basic flaws and omissions in what they are taught, but they typically do not have the knowledge or training to dissect those and propose substantive solutions”. So what’s the way forward? The solution is still not clear but this does not mean it is impossible. The challenge perhaps is for academics to reflect on what ‘decolonization’ might mean in a pragmatic sense, and how this meaning, or its implications, vary across academic disciplines as a starting point.

Book Review: Transformation and Legitimation in Post-apartheid Universities

J.C. van der Merwe & D. van Reenen (2016). Transformation and Legitimation in Post-apartheid Universities: 

Reading Discourses from ‘Reitz’. Bloemfontein: Sun Press.

Reviewed by Najma Agherdien

The book titled Transformation and Legitimation in post-apartheid Universities: Reading Discourses from ‘Reitz provides a deep analysis of the Reitz incident in 2008. Historically, Reitz male residence was infamous for violating people’s rights and dignity. Through a number of conceptual frameworks (for example legitimation, Visagie’s postural theory, etc.), the book provides an insightful, contextualised account of what transpired before, during and after the introduction of the residence placement policy. By looking closely at neglected issues of the lack of (and resistance to) transformation, the authors present a “critical philosophical analysis of discourses and practices that, either explicitly or implicitly, reproduce resistance towards transformation” (p. 34).

In Chapter one, the authors (interestingly, two white Afrikaner UFS staff members) provide a contextualised description - together with a transcript - of the notorious video that rocked South African Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) specifically, and wider communities more generally. The authors present the view that the video speaks to a wider, social ill, viz, a lack of true transformation and therefore cannot be seen as a silly prank, as some made it out to be. In fact, they argue that the true motivation behind the video was to protest against the planned integration of residences.

In Chapter 2, van der Merwe and van Reenen explore the institutional UFS culture and the unwillingness of both black and white staff and students to transform. Instead, they prefer to fit into a culture that is segregated and that values white supremacy. The authors analyse a range of media articles, institutional policies and plans, institutional correspondence as well as conduct interviews with various role players (including institutional management, students, staff, and members of university governance structures). They conclude that the UFS leadership failed to drive the transformation agenda.

Chapter 3 describes residence and student life at UFS and gives an account of the student protest that erupted on campus and which resulted in extensive damage to property. The authors suggest that on close scrutiny, it appears that Black students protested against the way the Dean of Student Affairs had treated them and not against residence integration per se. They further argue that the residence culture and its associated traditions need to be questioned, especially the expectation to ‘fit in’. The call is for radically new, more progressive models. In my experience in working with student residences, the residence space is a very hierarchical, traditional space where students often uncritically accept (hegemonic) practices as ‘the way things are done here’’. The unspoken rules are often so powerful that students dare not go against tradition. Chapter 4 explores the bodies responsible for the university’s reputation and legitimacy (i.e. the congruence between the institution’s values and accepted norms). The closure of Reitz in 2009 was seen as a means to salvage the institution’s reputation, however, only to be replaced with Heimat, known as the ‘’new Reitz’’ (p. 189). To my mind, the unwavering persistence to uphold the old tradition and culture speaks volumes about an ongoing resistance to transformation.

With a focus on justice proceedings, Chapter five gives an account of the legal proceedings and Jonathan Jansen’s (the newly inaugurated VC of UFS at that time – around 2009) ­­decision to allow the four students to continue their studies and to reopen Reitz and transform it into “a model for reconciliation and social justice for all students” (p.193) The latter, however never happened. In chapter 6 (the final chapter) the authors make the case for UFS to rethink transformation. They argue that since 2007, not much has changed with regard to the transformation discourse. They acknowledge that efforts to engage in social justice issues or rights-based frameworks are seen as ‘’liberalist kumbaya’’ (p.255). Nonetheless, by way of moving forward, they suggest the following:  a changed institutional culture, UFS become political spaces for students, active inclusion of anti-racism work, establishing pre-conditions and creating guidelines for democratic behaviour and habits, i.e. a rights-based approach.

For me, this book serves as a reminder that twenty-something years into democracy, much of the injustices, discrimination and social ills remain and is reflective of wider communities and South African society. Despite transformation efforts by institutions, students are now starting to drive the process.  They have moved beyond transformation to a call for decolonisation. This call for decolonisation of curricula and pedagogies have been at the heart of some of the recent student protest action. While much remains unclear about what such curricula and pedagogies might look like, we remain hopeful that South African higher education Institutions will continue to engage in ongoing discussion and debate. After all, they should serve the public and pursue, in the words of the authors, the ultimate goal of social justice.

On a final note, I want to make the point that if HEIs are to take advantage of this “unique historical opportunity” to engage in “a relentless struggle against racism” (postulated by Samuel in the Preface of the book), it is imperative to actively include the student voice. I feel it is therefore a shame that this book is not written in more accessible, student-friendly language so that students - although not the primary targeted audience - can also benefit from such a thorough, critical account of transformation and legitimation at post-apartheid universities and the proposed invaluable lessons on how to move forward. It was quite a heavy read, but a thought-provoking one indeed.

Access and equity in higher education: An international perspective (post by Carina van Rooyen0

Lisa Lucas

On 10 May 2017 Dr Lisa Lucas of the Graduate School of Education at the University of Bristol (UK) engaged the SOTL@UJ group and some WITS guests on access and equity in higher education. Lisa brings a wealth of experience to this topic, amongst others her PhD in the Sociology of Education, previous work at University College London on projects related to widening participation in higher education, and three current international research projects related to this topic. Lisa drew on these research projects to highlight issues from those contexts related to access and equity in higher ed. 

One of these projects are the EU-funded ACCESS4ALL (A4A) project. Looking at various interventions for inclusion and success of under-represented students across six European higher education institutions, the project produced a very handy database to search for good practices within the participating institutions, as well as an institutional self-assessment tool. [A quick scan revealed that I will be returning to both these resources soon!] One of the content criteria used to evaluate any particular 'good practice' submitted for inclusion in the database, was social justice. A4A drew on Nelson and Creagh's (2013) listing of social justice principles of self-determination, rights, access, equity and participation. 

Kibbie, Carina, Beatrice and Vanessa

A word Lisa used in the context of this project was 'aspiration'. I am still wondering whilst writing this blog what this word means for our SOTL@UJ project, and whether we have thought, talked and acted enough on aspirations of students, lecturers, managers, parents / families and society. Lisa also mooted the challenge of very different terminologies, language and meanings when working on a cross-country project such as this. Our conversations over the last few years, even from within the same UJ context, have shown contestations about meanings. One such which I think we should explicitly grapple with more is how social justice and decoloniality relate.

Uj seminar 2017 from Brenda Leibowitz

A second project Lisa shared with us was the World Universities Network (WUN) research project on Challenges of equity and access: The higher education curriculum answers back. The second part of the title intrigued me! Compared to the first project's focus on interventions, this project was focused on institutional change. It explored access and equity through the curriculum in doctoral education and academic professional learning of the four participating WUN partners in Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and the UK. One unique aspect of this project is its focus on postgraduate access and equity issues, given that some much of work on access and equity in higher education is focused on undergraduate students. A lightbulb quote used by Lisa is from Gale (2014:15): the tendency in higher education is "to see equity in terms of just access, rather than to consider what is being accessed" (my emphasis). Whilst who enters higher education are crucial, this quote asks of us to seriously also look at our curriculum. This relates strongly to questions raised by the decoloniality movement and the place of various voices, knowledge systems and valuings in our curriculum. Epistemological access then is not just about what we do to open up for students 'our' knowledge systems, but how are we opening up to the knowledge systems that our students come with. It is epistemological access of student and lecturer!

Another phrased used by Lisa when talking about this project, and which resonated with me, is that of 'a living curriculum'. Quoting Keesing-Styles and colleagues (2014:498) it is to "reframe learning as a 'conversation' and develop programmes that are integrated with the world and genuine dynamic." A living curriculum will involve joint ownership of complex conversations that are curiosity- and practice-driven. And it will be "messy affective processes" (Harrison et al 2010:193). 

Whilst Lisa did not elaborate on the ESRC/Newton/NRF project on Southern African rurality in higher education in which she is involved, and what brought her out to South Africa this time, we will hear more about this project in future, given that a few SOTL@UJ'ers are part of this project. The project states its aim as contributing to "debates on widening participation, equity, social justice and post-colonial curricula in higher education across southern Africa". 

Lisa ended her presentation by raising some discussion points: 
- What are the challenges of access for underpresented groups?
- How do we develop inclusive university culture and inclusive curriculum?
- What are the role of educational and staff development, academics, managers, etc.?

The discussion that followed Lisa's presentation raised the potential value of formal courses at South African universities for PhD students to make the 'hidden curriculum' explicit. At least PhD students should be provided with spaces and resources to enhance informal learning. 

List of references

Gale T 2014 Reimagining student equity and aspiration in a global higher education field. In Zhang H, Chan PWK & Boyle C (eds) Equality in education: Fairness and inclusion. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers: 9-22

Harrison L, McKenna S & Searle R 2010 "I won't be squeezed into someone else's frame': Stories of supervisor selection. Acta Academica Supplementum 1: 175-200

Keesing-Styles L, Nash S & Ayres R 2014 Managing curriculum change and 'ontological uncertainty' in tertiary education. Higher Education Research & Development 33(3): 496-509

Nelson K & Creagh T 2013 A good practice guide: Safeguarding student learning engagement. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology      

How to identify courses or modules that need decolonising, and how to go about decolonising them? Posting by Loïse Jeannin

Seminar from Prof. Nyasha Mboti 

March 8, 2017

Prof. Nyasha Mboti shared insightful perspectives on how to identify modules, courses, and departments that need to be decolonised.

After noting students’ and lecturers’ discontent with the learning and teaching status quo in South African universities, Nyasha encouraged participants to scrutinize their courses, teaching philosophies, working environments, and departments to identify areas (content, pedagogical approaches, and student-teacher relationships) that need an overhaul to better incorporate students’ backgrounds, aptitudes, diversity and their rich and complex lives into teaching and learning.

To this purpose, Nyasha presented a list of themes used to reflect on the appropriateness of course’s content, including languages, discussions of sensitive topics, mentions of pre- and post-apartheid situations, and aspects of students’ lives such as racial experiences, living in townships and rural areas, poverty, etc. 

Have a look below, he kindly accepted to share the list of themes with us.

The presentation was framed around Nyasha’s conceptualisation of the perpetuated colonial system in education as an algorithm with input (students) and output (automatic behaviours). This algorithm was described as a black box, from which we mainly see the outcome, namely social injustice and inequalities. He explained that the inequalities shaped by the history of colonialism in Africa are and will be perpetuated in higher education if lecturers are not mindful of their teaching behaviours, and reproductive effects on students. He invited participants to become reflexive and depart from an educational system that makes products, by conditioning students to react to stimuli, instead of helping them to become independent-thinking and liberated adults.

In the context of higher education, Nyasha thoughtfully analysed the alienating relationship of students and lecturers in the “hide-and-seek game” which characterises the way teaching and assessment are performed in South Africa. Lecturers ask students to find the right answer, or more specifically, to find the answer that meet lecturers’ expectations and knowledge, and that are left “to be found” in textbooks or lecturers’ notes.

As Nyasha explained, this hide-and-seek game does not create enough space to let students learn meaningfully, engaging with content that is student-friendly and relevant to their daily lives, because, in this game, knowledge is “ring-fenced and disciplined” through textbooks and by lecturers. Hence, to promote knowledge creation, Nyasha adamantly encourages lecturers to engage in a “commitment to perpetual search”, for example by shifting roles with the students and offering them the opportunity to provide answers and explanations to their professors. In addition, pausing within the learning process is deemed crucial to let students reflect and ask difficult and sensitive questions and for the lecturers to engage in discussing them.

                          

Quoting Thomas Sankara, “You cannot carry out fundamental change without a certain amount of madness”, Nyasha encouraged participants to invent a future education that could be relevant for the majority of students, who are African, enabling them to connect their learning with the sheer complexity of their lives and of South African realities. Students cannot put their own world aside when they enter the university; Rather, they need to relate to what they learn, to make it useful for their own growth and success.

The issue of English language, as the Masters’ voice, was abundantly discussed, and Nyasha encouraged lecturers to learn another African language, or even consider writing a PhD dissertation in an indigenous language. Quoting Ghandi, “English rules without Englishmen”, he prompted the audience to reflect on the difficulties for students to learn in a foreign or second language. He also raised pedagogical questions around class management and the possibility for students to express disagreement and openly debate with their lecturers in class. He argued in favour of truly welcoming students, knowing their names, where they are coming from and their learning constraints, but also understanding the richness of their lives and family bonds in Africa.

The presentation spurred a number of questions from the audience, related to learning African languages and the external pressure exerted by businesses in recruiting students with good English language skills. Overall, Nyasha provided areas for reflection to consider reshaping university courses’ content and start including more diverse experiences, knowledge, and paradigms in the classrooms.

The A-to-O of Questions to Ask about Whether Your Course Needs Decolonising

A. Language: What language is used on the course or module?

B. Lecturers’ language: How many African languages does the course lecturer know?

C. Race: What is the racial composition of the department offering the course?

D. Black South African: How many Black South Africans are in the department that is offering the courses?

E. Race sensitivity: How often is race discussed in examples used on the course? How often does the course mention the race of people used as examples?

F. Apartheid/ Pre-1994 South Africa: How often is “apartheid” mentioned in examples? How many examples used in the course refer to apartheid/pre-1994 South Africa?

G: Post-apartheid/Post-1994 South Africa/”Rainbowism”: How many examples used in the course refer exclusively to post-apartheid/post-1994 South Africa?

H: Dissent: Does the lecture environment allow students to disagree with the lecturer? How does the lecturer deals with students who disagree with him or her?

I: Paradigm wars: How many paradigms are part of the course, other than the so-called “Western” paradigm?

J: Students: To what extent are students allowed to bring and insert their personal lives into the lecture space? Does the lecturer attempt to know the names of all or some of his or her students? Has the lecturer ever been to a township or rural area?

K: Social hierarchy/class: How often are poor people cited in examples, as people, and not just as problems?

L: Place Naming: How many indigenous place names are cited in examples?

M: “Other” Geography: How often are townships and rural areas named and consciously included in the circle of discussions? Has the lecturer ever been to a township or a rural area?

M: How, not What: To what extent does the lecturer focus on how students learn, instead of merely what they learn?

N: Critical application: Does a course allow independence of thought and critical application?

O: Course outcomes and objectives: What outcomes are expected on the course?

About Nyasha Mboti

Nyasha is currently working on a book on Apartheid Studies that will be released soon.

He is Head of Department and Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Johannesburg. He has published over twenty-five articles in prestigious peer-reviewed local and international journals.

About Loïse Jeannin

Loïse is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Johannesburg. Her topics of interest are inclusive education and professional development programs for university lecturers. She has taught in several universities in France and Thailand, and is now focusing on her research.