The search of “the Africanness” in ‘the African University in
the service of humanity’ – the UNISA challenge1.
by
Prof Shadrack Gutto
Director and Chair: CARS
14 April 2008
Posing the question
“Towards the African University in the service of humanity” is a vision
statement that the university has crafted and committed to. “Towards” is
significant as it connotes an aspiration whose achievement requires change
of a transformative nature – a movement or a journey from one point to
another. For an African university or a university in Africa to commit to
becoming “The African” university does appear on the face of it to be
superfluous at best. To become what you already are suggests no change, no
movement. This suggests that perhaps “the Africanness” in UNISA’s vision
may after all suggest a loaded meaning. Bluntly put, the critical question is
therefore from which African to which African?
The context
UNISA is a public university in South Africa. It is the oldest and largest
university in South Africa that is formally devoted to open distance learning.
Before 1994 it, like most other white-led and controlled universities in South
Africa, undertook research and taught and produced graduates within the
dictates of the colonial and apartheid regimes and the racially-divided
society. At another level they all aspired to be “Western” and European –
something they could never be or become except as being poor counterfeits
of the original.
Between 1994 and 2004 the old UNISA and the other institutions it merged
with or incorporated to create the “new” UNSA experienced limited
institutional adjustments, mainly those required by the new constitutional
1
This brief introspective and reflective conceptual document was specially
requested by Prof R Mare, VP: Tuition and Research following the one-onone monthly meeting held in April 2008.
1
and legislative regulatory regime. In essence, the demographic profile of
academic staff and the senior management remained white. The gender
profile also remained largely white and male but with notable advances for
white females. With such a profile, fundamental curricula reform could not
have been expected and did not happen.
The mergers and incorporations that gave birth to the “new” UNISA as from
2004 created another opportunity for transformation. However, it has to be
conceded that at UNISA, like in most of the former white led and controlled
or historically advantaged institutions, a lot of the old wine filled the new
bottle. In theory and policy (or on paper) there is evidence of commitment to
changes that are transformative. On the other hand there is noticeable little
willingness to transform in practice.
The few areas where some limited progress could be claimed include:
(i )
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
the establishment of CARS (even though it remains
inadequately resourced);
a few initiatives around NEPAD;
isolated infusion of IKS in research and tuition;
some ad-hoc public lectures by African leaders and luminaries;
the policy that allows students to submit M and
thesis/dissertations in any African language provided that
the supervisor/promoter has mastery of the language;
the Southern Sudan Institutions and Capacity Building
Training Project2 that is coordinated by CARS; and
2
This is a 2005 to 2011 project operating under an MOU between UNSA, DFA
(Government of South Africa) and the SPLM/A. Since its inception over 800
participants have been trained and the following areas have so far been covered:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
Leadership Orientation
Diplomacy and International Relations
Public Service and Administration
Public Finance Management
Government Communication & Information Management
Justice, Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Inter-Governmental Relations and Co-ordination, and
Local Government and public administration
2
(vii)
expanding learning centres on the continent – with the
Addis Ababa one being the biggest.
In certain areas there has been what appears as movement backwards. What
has happened to the once mighty “African languages” is a case on point. Top
Management may of course use the traditional funding and personnel points
allocation as the reason for such symbolically an “un-African” policy.
Some possible undertakings that could define and give meaning to a
progressive and developmental “Africanness” of the academy
1. Access: Here UNISA ought to re-examine its admission criteria for
undergraduate and post graduate studies. UNISA has not harmonized
its admission criteria with other African universities. An example
here is the policy for admission to the master’s programmes where
UNISA still relies on the outdated and peculiarly South African “four
years honours degree”. Many South African universities such as UP
and Wits admit and graduate many of the students with three years
undergraduate degrees that UNISA has turned down3. Most European,
American and Asian universities do the same. Most of these “rejects”
perform very well academically elsewhere. UNISA’s RPL is there in
theory but it hardly works in practice. There are also many
departments that flatly refuse to register post graduate students or who
raise the cut-off passing percentage marks in order to exclude
potential students. Many students are also denied cross-registration
and co-supervision not on academic grounds but because of the fear of
sharing personnel points among university academic structures4! In
this regard the University operates a federal system with some units
operating in a manner akin to feudal fiefdoms. The centre hardly
holds.
2. Curricula reform: What is needed here is a meaningful review of all
UNISA’s offerings in terms of content with a view to ensuring that
there is sufficient infusion of African philosophical and
3
CARS can provide names if required.
4
Ibid.
3
epistemological underpinnings as well as references. Beyond this,
course offerings should be dynamic in the sense that they should
contain some generics while allowing for specific regional and
country adaptation. This cannot happen without mindset change and
broader reading and scholarship by the academic staff. Further, there
ought to be some common introductory course for all UNISA students
on African Renaissance studies and the mainstreaming of some of the
aspects in all courses and research undertakings.
3. Production and application of new knowledge: There seems to be
some ambivalence to research and knowledge production since
UNISA was designated a “comprehensive university”. Research is
also subordinated to tuition in the funding formula used for resource
allocation to academic structures. Given that the existing “knowledge”
on and about Africa and Africans in all fields of knowledge have not
been produced from Afrocentric paradigms, failure to encourage and
prioritise research and publishing can only undermine the vision of the
university as what is taught will be devoid of substantial
“Africanness”. At another level there is deficiency of African
indigenous knowledge and knowledge systems in the existing body of
knowledge produced and used in South Africa. UNISA’s
“Africanness” must have a clear strategy and programmes on African
IKS.
4. Defining attributes of an Africanised UNISA graduate and
scholar: The final test of whether UNISA would have become truly
“African” will be the degree of its inclusiveness in attracting and
graduating a significant number of students from the rest of Africa
and the African Diaspora and, most importantly, the competitiveness
of the graduates in the world of practice. Perhaps the cutting-edge
competencies of UNISA graduates should be thinking critically and
creatively/laterally and possession of sufficient analytical, research
and writing skills. Additionally, “The Africanness” of UNISA can
only mean something of value if UNISA’s students and graduates as
well as UNISA scholars breathe, think, dream and act African. The
ghost of distorted Eurocentricism that have plagued and still plague
the South African academy and intellectual life should be banished.
5. The ODL attribute of UNISA: Being a dedicated ODL university
ought to give the university a competitive edge over the mainly
4
contact ones, at least at undergraduate level. To realize its potential in
Africa and the African Diaspora, the university would perhaps
consider some radical initiatives such as a 24-hour TV channel that
could coordinate teleconferencing and other visual modes of delivery,
etc. It could also consider contracting with various African electronic
and print media out lets.
6. Engaging other universities, the DOE, SAQA, NRF, e.t.c.:
It ought to be clear from the above that in order to transform and
become “the African” university, UNISA should first appreciate that it
is still very far from its goal. It will take fundamental paradigm shifts
and a lot of energy and resources to realize the vision. The challenges
are both internal and external. Assuming that we know the internal
challenges, some of which are identified in this concept paper, the
external challenges reside in the national regulations at the level of
policy, legislation and institutional practices. The DOE, SAQA and
NRF need to come to the party. They should be invited to dialogue
and review of national policy, legislation and institutional practices.
At least the current Minister of Education took a tentative step to
organize an international conference hosted by UNISA in 2006 on
“African Studies” and invited the South African academy come up
with suggestions on the way forward5. Sadly, we have yet to respond.
Unless we “Africanise” and do so quickly the South African academy
will continue to lag behind the state and business involvement in and
with the rest of Africa and the African Diaspora.
See N Pandor, “African studies in Africa”, in International Journal of
African Renaissance Studies, 1(2) 2006, 340-345.
5
5