Friday, 15 November 2013, Tsogo Sun, Cape Town
Contributions by: Sunè Botha, Larry Dolley, Tony Florence, Shamiel Isaacs,
Mirriam Makosana, Joyce Nduna Doug Reeler and Jacqui Scheepers
Overview
Systems Theory
SL Partnerships
Case study:
Clothing and
Textile Technology
Defining ServiceLearning
From policy to
implementation
SL
Multidisciplinary
Sustainable
Livelihoods
projects
SL
Partnership
Summit
Closing remarks
“We belong together. We say in Africa ‘a person
is a person through other persons’. We are
bound together in a delicate network of
interdependence. We believe in ubuntu – my
humanity is caught up in your humanity.
Ubuntu speaks of generosity, of compassion, of
hospitality, of sharing. I am because you are. If I
dehumanise you then whether I like it or not I
am dehumanised”
(Desmond Tutu, 1999)
From policy to implementation
 The South African Constitution, National Development
Plan, Strategic Objectives of respective provincial
government, Integrated Development Plans and Batho Pele
principles all seek to address issues of inequality, service
delivery and redress.
 Communities still experience amongst others; lack of food
security, poor housing, lack of access to basic services and
unemployment.
 What is needed is a concerted effort on the part of all
Service-Learning stakeholders to take policy through to
implementation by pooling their skills and resources.
Definition of Service-Learning
 Bringle & Hatcher (2004) definition is the most popular
and defines Service-Learning as “a course-based, creditbearing educational experience in which students:
 Participate in an organised service activity that meets
identified community goals.
 Reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further
understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of
the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility
Bringle & Hatcher (2004, 127)
 But how do we apply SL in the South African context given
our challenges?
Service-Learning Partnerships:
A response to transformation imperatives
 Collaborative partnerships have the potential to become
effective change catalysts and sites of knowledge
production and exchange.
 Partnerships can be understood as “Knowledge based
collaborations in which all partners have things to teach
each other, things to learn from each other, and things they
will learn together” (Holland & Gelmon 1998, 5).
 To understand the system of partnerships works in ServiceLearning it is necessary to explore the theories that are
most relevant to systems of engagement with various
stakeholders
A new social contract between society and university
 Requires a shift in how knowledge creation is perceived.
 “The university now faces Mode 2 society, the agora, which is the domain






“where the university interacts with the public and where the scientific
“problems of society are deciphered, solutions are
conceptualised”(Gibbons, 2006).
“Society speaks back” - impacts on research choices and outcomes
Communities learn in a different way – by doing, by seeing, by touching
and through experience –
Knowledge and expertise needs to be translated into innovations useful and
relevant for communities to put into action rather than consuming
theoretical knowledge.
‘Training for the sake of training’ and development of materials and
products cannot be done in isolation
An integrated and sustainable approach is needed
Service-Learning projects at universities lend itself to the formation of
collaborative and mutually beneficial multi-stakeholder partnerships
which can facilitate the achievement of local, national, and global goals.
Systems theory
 A popular theory for community development and
Service-Learning practitioners
 Puts forward the argument that we are living in an
interconnected system.
 Relevant theory for understanding partnerships as a
system or network of diverse entities which are
interrelated.
 These systems although made up of individuals can
also be viewed as powerful catalysts for change
The Lifecycle of Emergence
• Discovering
shared
meaning and
purpose
Stage one: Networks
Stage two:
Communities of
practice
• Developing
new practices
together
• New practices
become the
norm
Stage three: Systems
of influence
Networks: Discovering shared meaning and purpose
 As a means to create change
 Essential for people finding like-minded others
 Based on self-interest (for their own benefit/work)
 Fluid membership – movement in and out of network
based on personal benefit
Communities of Practice (CoP):
Developing new practices together
 Many small communities can originate from a robust








network
CoP are self-organised
People share a common work and realize the benefits of
relationship
Sharing of knowledge, support and resources
Intentionally create new knowledge for field of practice
People are committed to being there for each other
People participate not only to fulfill their own needs but
also the needs of others
The focus extends beyond the needs of the group
Intentional commitment to advance the field of practice
 Members tend to learn and grow rapidly
 Good ideas move rapidly amongst members
 New knowledge and practices are implemented quickly
 Speed is crucial as knowledge and wisdom is needed now
Systems of Influence: New practices become the norm
 Sudden appearance of a system that has real power and






influence
Pioneering and peripheral efforts now become the norm
Practices developed by courageous communities become
the accepted standard
No hesitation to adopt new approaches and methods and
learning becomes easier
Policy and funding debates now include perspectives and
experiences of these pioneers
These pioneers become leaders in their field and are
acknowledged as the wisdom keepers
Past critics become chief supporters
 Emergence is fundamental scientific explanation for
how local changes can materialize as global systems of
influence
 As a change theory, it offers methods and practices to
accomplish the necessary system-wide changes
 Need to intentionally work with emergence so that our
efforts will result in a truly hopeful future
 Emergence is the only way change happens on this
planet
Reference:
Margaret Wheatley and Deborah Frieze
Case study 1: Service-Learning Multidisciplinary Sustainable Livelihoods projects
Aquaponics
Fish processing
Sandbag housing
Planning and
development of project
Circle of partnerships
River cleaning vessel
River cleaning vessel
(Initiating,
establishing and
maintaining of
partnerships based on
project needs).
Service-Learning Unit
(needs, partnerships,
curriculum)
River cleaning vessel
Recycling: Textiles and
Education Technology
The role of SL
 To coordinate the project partnership (internally and






externally)
Identify potential sources of funding and resources
(internally and externally)
Collaborate with faculties and academic departments –
identify relevant disciplines and integrate into curriculum
Coordination – Planning, Implementation and Evaluation of
project
Provide support to faculties
Manages interaction between staff, students and relevant
community organizations such that student interaction leads
to them reaching their own learning outcomes while
benefiting the community.
Media and Marketing
Why Technolgy stations?
 Fills a gap to develop final protype
 Taking the project from design and model stage to






final product
Advanced research at a post graduate level
Testing and refining of prototypes
Resources: Funding, Expertise and hi-tech. equipment
Intellectual property issues
Health and Safety and other legislative matters
Has links with academic faculties and DVC
Technology, Research Innovation and Partnerships
Where does Envirochoice fit in?
 Enterprise development: Job creation and





establishment of co-operatives in communities
Training of communities (horizontal learning
exchanges)
Training of students in collaboration with CPUT
Support and expertise
Community interface and communication
Coordination of rollout process into communities
ACCEPTED AS A SERVICE LEARNING PROJECT
25 UNIT ORDER
PHOTO W/COATS
TRAINING
REQUIRED
CPUT/TSCT SERVICE
LEARNING PROJECT
All students at CPUT have to do at least SERVICE LEARNING /
community project for which they are marked
Clothing Management students demonstrated and trained
Bambanani women to sew a waistcoat for township tour guides
SERVICE LEARNING PROJECT
OVERVIEW
Number of students 24
The class was split into four groups and each was allocated a community
group to work with.
Groups had to deliver three formative assessments, requiring them to
conduct a presentation giving an overview of the community group,
develop a business plan, develop a prototype of a product that the
community could comfortably produce taking into account resources
available and skills level. i.e.
Present the
 Business plan as a professional typed document,
 Develop a prototype(s) of a viable product for the community to
produce,
 Conduct a power presentation to an external moderator with
regards to the business plan and answer all questions from the
moderator that may be posed about the project.
Bambanani for Social Development was taken through the
complete manufacturing process from cutting to sewing to
completing the order at CPUT premises
FIRST ORDER COMPLETED
A NEW CLOTHING INDUSTRY RISES IN THE TOWNSHIP
REGISTERED CC
2009
PEP ORDER
RECEIVED
15 000 UNITS
PRODUCTION
PROCESS FOCUS
CPUT/C&TT
SERVICE PROCESS
DEVELOPMENT
BAMBANANI
15 000 units /long johns for PEP
BAMBANANI DAILY PRODUCTION OUTPUT
800
700
600
UNITS
500
400
300
200
100
180/Day To 700/day
25
/0
2/
20
08
27
/0
2/
20
08
29
/0
2/
20
08
02
/0
3/
20
08
04
/0
3/
20
08
06
/0
3/
20
08
08
/0
3/
20
08
10
/0
3/
20
08
12
/0
3/
20
08
14
/0
3/
20
08
16
/0
3/
20
08
18
/0
3/
20
08
20
/0
3/
20
08
22
/0
3/
20
08
0
DAYS
Series1
Links with other disciplines
Human
Resource
Management
Clothing and
Textiles
Technology
Architectural
Technology
Bambanani
for Social
Development
Office
Management
and
Technology
Civil
Engineering
Horticulture
Closing remarks
 This form of actualisation and sustainability can be
meaningful for Service-Learning project teams and
can move the team away from short-term ‘quick fixes’
in response to socio-economic challenges in society
towards more longer term sustainable initiatives and
partnerships.
 Tangible and sustainable outputs for community
partners
 If universities and their partners can master the spread
of community knowledge, especially around the 3
focus areas of:
 1.
 2.
 3.
Sustainable jobs
Sustainable Housing/households
Sustainable food production
 Then CPUT would be at the absolute fore-front of
social change through knowledge production with
indigent communities.
Thank you