1. An analysis of community engagement at South African universities
by
L Snyman
MINOR DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
MAGISTER COMMERCII
in
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
in the
FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT
at the
UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG
Supervisor: Dr A Drotski
MAY 2014

2. ii
DECLARATION
I certify that the minor dissertation submitted by me for the degree Master’s of Commerce (Business
Management) at the University of Johannesburg is my independent work and has not been submitted
by me for a degree at another university.
_______________________________
(Leonardo Snyman)

3. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dedicated to all the strong women in my life.

4. iv
ABSTRACT
Community engagement (CE) has been a concept which the South African higher
education system has struggled with since it was first proposed. The purpose of this
study was to explore how community engagement has been implemented in South
African universities. A literature study, a data matrix analysis and interviews with the
respondents who met the criteria of the study were used to collect and analyse the
data. Primary data was gathered through personal in-depth interviews, and secondary
data was gathered through university websites and is shown in a data matrix. The
questions were aligned with the objectives set out in the study.
The study examined, through a literature review, the themes underpinning the
objectives of the research, namely the development of CE, CE policy, defining
community, engagement, community engagement and implementation and
monitoring. Each subject was investigated individually, after which the research
literature was evaluated to determine how CE developed and what the basic definition
of the concept entails. In the literature component a critical conceptual analysis of CE
at universities reflects a lack of a structural and functional framework for the
functioning of CE.
The analysis of the data revealed that only a few universities have a CE policy; the
majority of universities do, however, have a CE definition. The data also revealed that
most universities have a CE office, but that this is not supported by an enabling
university environment of clear monitoring and evaluation practices. Thus it can be
concluded with limitations that CE is only effectively implemented in a few universities
in South Africa, and that there is a need for a clear definition of the concept as well as
the introduction of monitoring and evaluation tools.

5. v
CONTENTS
Affidavit ii
Acknowledgements iii
Abstract iv
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Background and context 2
1.3 Problem statement 5
1.4 Purpose of the study 5
1.5 Research objectives 5
1.6 Research methodology 6
1.7 Literature review 8
1.8 Importance and benefits of the study 9
1.9 Outline of the study 9
1.10 Summary 11
Chapter 2: Literature review
2.1 Introduction 12
2.2 CE in the context of CSR 13
2.3 The development of CE within the changing environment of universities 14
2.4 The link between CE and the other core activities of the university 18
2.5 Policy on CE 20
2.6 Definition of key terms 23

6. vi
2.6.1 Community engagement 23
2.6.2 Community 26
2.6.3 Engagement 28
2.6.4 Service learning 30
2.7 Challenges for implementing and monitoring CE 31
2.8 Conclusion 36
Chapter 3: Research methodology
3.1 Introduction 37
3.2 Research approach 37
3.3 Research design 38
3.3.1 Research population 39
3.3.2 Sampling 40
3.3.3 Data collection 41
3.3.4 Data analysis 43
3.4 Ethical considerations 44
3.5 Summary 45
Chapter 4: Research results
4.1 Introduction 46
4.2 Description of respondents 46
4.3 Research results 47
4.3.1 CE policy at South African universities 48
4.3.2 CE office within universities 51
4.3.3 Definition of CE at universities 54

7. vii
4.3.4 CE environment at universities 57
4.3.5 Monitoring and evaluation 60
4.4 Summary 64
Chapter 5: Findings and conclusion
5.1 Overview of the study 65
5.2 Research objectives 65
5.3 Report on research findings 65
5.3.1 Major finding 1: There is no clear definition of CE 65
5.3.2 Major finding 2: National policy on CE is vague 66
5.3.3 Major finding 3: SA universities give sufficient
support to internal CE offices 67
5.3.4 Major finding 4: Insufficient monitoring
and evaluation of CE takes place 67
5.4 Limitations of the research 68
5.5 Recommendations 70
5.6 Suggestions for further research 71
5.7 Conclusion 72
References 74
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Guide 80
Appendix B: Transcribed Interview A 81

8. viii
List of Tables
Table 4.1: Policy 48
Table 4.2: Community engagement office 51
Table 4.3: Community engagement definitions 54
Table 4.4: Community engagement environment at institution 57

9. 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Higher learning institutions have often been catalysts for teaching, learning and
research. Investing resources into these areas has been a standard model for
universities in the 20th century. However, with the rise of information and
communication technology and the re-examination of the traditional methods of
knowledge acquisition, community engagement (CE) is now considered as
increasingly important. CE implies a less paternalistic, more reciprocal and inclusive
relationship between a community and a higher education institution (CHE, 2004).
This study sought to explore the origins of CE and how it is currently implemented
in universities in South Africa. It was anticipated that the knowledge generated from
this inquiry would afford new insights into and also inform higher education
practices on CE. A qualitative multicase study methodology was employed to
illustrate the phenomenon of CE. Participants in this study included all South African
public universities.
This chapter begins with an overview of the background and context that frames
the study. Following this are the problem statement, the statement of purpose and
accompanying research questions. Also included in the chapter are discussions
around the research approach and the researcher’s perspectives and assumptions.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of the rationale for and significance of this
research study.

10. 2
1.2 Background and context
Community engagement is one of three core responsibilities of higher education,
alongside research and teaching. It is, however, clear that in South Africa, despite
clear policy mandates originally set out in the 1997 White Paper on Education
stating that CE is an important task, it has been neglected. Universities are involved
in many activities structured around research, teaching and outreach that entail
engagement with a wide range of communities, but these activities are
uncoordinated and are the result of individual initiative, rather than of strategically
planned, systematic endeavours.
In order to understand what CE is and where it fits into the Higher Education Policy,
one needs to start by looking at the White Paper of 1997, which informed the Higher
Education Act of 1997 (Ministry of Education, 1997). This White Paper sets out an
agenda for the transformation of higher education in South Africa. CE is stated, along
with teaching and research, as one of the pillars of higher education. Universities are
called upon to “demonstrate social responsibility, and their commitment to the
common good by making available expertise and infrastructure for community service
programmes” (Ministry of Education, 1997). A key objective is to “promote and
develop social responsibility and awareness amongst students of the role of higher
education in social and economic development through community service
programmes” (ibid., p.10). This policy position regarding CE was reaffirmed three
years later in the Ministry of Education’s National Plan for Higher Education, which
confirmed the priority of enhancing “responsiveness to regional and national needs,
for academic programmes, research, and community service” (Ministry of Education,
2001).

11. 3
Adding to this, the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC), itself established in
terms of the 1997 Higher Education Act, identified “knowledge-based community
service” as a basis for programme accreditation and quality assurance (CHE, 2004).
In order to make this policy operational, the HEQC required specific reporting on CE
against Criterion 18 in institutional audits.
Unfortunately even with clear policy on CE set out in these two documents, the
outcomes have been disappointing. Lazarus (2007) notes that in 1999, while most
higher education institutions (HEIs) included the concept of CE in their mission
statements, only one out of the then 36 institutions operationalised it in their three-year
rolling plans submitted to the Department of Education. This is borne out by the
outcomes of the 13 institutional audits completed by the HEQC between 2004 and
2008. Audit reports generally show that universities are at widely varying stages in
conceptualising CE practice:
“some institutions had done no more than conduct internal audits or compile
inventories of ongoing community engagement activities. There were few
databases available and no monitoring systems. Community engagement was
sometimes driven by volunteerism, and foreign students were queuing up to
come to South Africa to involve themselves in community engagement. The
activities were generally decentralised, and it was difficult to find a Senate
committee that was responsible for community engagement. This does not
mean that there were no institutions with a more coherent and structured
approach to community engagement, but those were in the minority. Where
there were structures in place, they were trying to develop policies on, and
criteria for, community engagement. There was minimal funding for community

12. 4
engagement, and the funding that was available generally fell within the realm
of partnerships” (CHE, 2008)
The question that is starting to be asked is why, if there is clear policy on community
engagement, it is not being successfully implemented. Hall (2010) argues that the lack
of progress in implementing CE relates to a lack of conceptual clarity, and reflects a
need for better theorised understanding of CE. He refers to an “epistemological
disjuncture” between CE and the way in which knowledge is structured and organised
in the course of the more traditional work of universities, but argues that this need not
be so.
A reason for the failure of CE may be that there is no official definition of the concept.
One definition of CE is proposed by Hall (2008):
“community engagement can be understood as a cluster of activities that
includes service learning, problem-based teaching and research that
addresses specific wants and needs, the pursuit of alternative forms of
knowledge and challenges to established authorities that control and direct
research systems and the allocation of qualifications”
Therefore CE should be viewed “as part of a set of public goods emanating from higher
education” (Hall, 2008). This places CE in “that part of civil society located between
the family, the state and the market” (ibid., 2008).

13. 5
Why has the kind of work that Hall (2008) describes in his definition remained outside
academia, despite a decade of clear public policy, and why does there appear to be
resistance to its inclusion within universities despite a number of incentives that
include moral affirmation for contributing to social and economic justice? It is clear
that there is a gap between policy and practice in CE in South Africa. From the 1997
White Paper to the present very little progress has been made with regard to CE in
South African universities. Therefore this study sought to shed light on what exactly is
meant by community engagement as well as to investigate how universities in South
Africa are implementing it.
1.3 Problem statement
It is evident that despite clear policy on the importance of CE at South African
universities, very few are implementing it successfully. The aim of this study is to
investigate what universities are doing to implement CE.
1.4 Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study is to first establish what is meant by CE, and then to explore
how CE is being implemented at South African universities.
1.5 Research objectives
The purpose of the research is rooted in the above statement of the problem. The
objectives of the research are therefore the following:

14. 6
The primary objective is to explore how CE is implemented in South African
universities. The main research question is: How is community engagement currently
implemented in South African universities?
The secondary objectives are to determine the following:
 Whether the various universities’ internal definition of and policy on CE are
in line with national policy
 Whether universities have the necessary support structures for the
implementation of CE
 Whether any internal monitoring and evaluation takes place at universities
1.6 Research methodology
The nature of the research is qualitative. Thus, qualitative methods are used to identify
how CE is implemented at South African universities. The qualitative paradigm stems
from an antipositivistic, interpretative approach, is ideological and thus holistic in
nature, and aims mainly to understand social life and the meaning that people attach
to daily life (De Vos et al., 2011:64). The research is exploratory and representative of
a snapshot of the environment, and not longitudinal in nature. It aims to help
stakeholders concerned with and affected by CE to understand the requirements and
importance of CE as well as the potential benefits and solutions to challenges.
Methods used in this research study differs, ranging from primary data gathered from
semi-structured interviews to secondary data analysis in the form of a data matrix.

15. 7
This study will consider what South African public universities are currently doing to
implement and manage CE. The potential benefits of CE for all stakeholders involved
were investigated.
The research methodology used in this study is one of theoretical analysis of different
sources. The study aims to present a theoretical framework that facilitates
understanding of the topic. All public universities in South Africa, and their experience,
understanding and perceptions were examined with the aim of coming to a critical
conclusion.
The research methodology followed to fulfil the objectives of this study entails a
literature review (to gain theoretical knowledge of the topic) and a critical analysis of
the different strategies employed at universities with regard to the implementation of
CE. To understand the problem a literature study on CE will be undertaken. A matrix
was developed using university websites and annual reports to establish what is
currently being done regarding the implementation of CE in universities in South
Africa. This is supplemented by primary data gathered through semi-structured
interviews with two universities in Gauteng.
1.7 Literature review

16. 8
The literature review in this study focuses on corporate social responsibility, CE and
definitions of key terms.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become very significant for business
worldwide and even more so in South Africa. CSR is a form of corporate self-
regulation integrated into a business model. The pressures for business to behave in
an ethical manner have broadened its core functions; hence the need to embrace it in
the organisational strategy. However, universities function very differently from
corporates as they are state funded, but they too have been forced to broaden their
core functions. CE can thus be seen as the HEI version of CSR. Traditionally,
teaching and research were seen as the core functions of a university. CE is now
commonly accepted as the third core function.
CE can be described as activities that involve partnership initiatives with communities
that utilise the knowledge capital and resources of the university to meet the
development needs of communities at no cost. CE usually takes the form of service
learning, organised outreach and community-based research.
It is clear from the literature that there is growing pressure on universities to not only
be more relevant and accountable, but also to produce more engaged and socially
responsive graduates. CE could be seen as the primary method through which this
can be achieved. Bender (2008:81) summarises the changing role of universities
perfectly when she says: “The promise of community engagement lies in its potential
to rejuvenate academia, redefine scholarship and involve society in a productive
conversation about the role of higher education now and in the future.”

17. 9
Currently in South Africa CE is one of the three founding principles (together with
teaching and research) of the post-apartheid reconstruction of the South African higher
education system. Both the UNESCO World Declaration on Higher Education and the
White Paper on Education acknowledge the Council on Higher Education’s view that
CE is a “strategy in the transformation of higher education in relation to community
development priorities” (CHE, 2004:130). If CE is the tool universities should use to
become more relevant and to produce more socially responsive graduates, it needs
to be solidified as a core activity at institutions and one that is integrated with the other
activities at universities.
1.8 Importance and benefits of the study
The rationale for this study emanates from the researcher’s desire to uncover a way
in which to best implement CE in a South African university. This could enable CE to
be implemented more strategically.
1.9 Outline of the study
The outline for the other chapters in the study is given below.
Chapter 2 covers the literature review and underlying concepts that were pivotal to the
study by investigating the concept of CE, and the nature and role that it has, if any, in
universities. What is meant by CE and policy on its implementation are elaborated on.
The chapter concludes with a view of CE as the third pillar of universities.

18. 10
Chapter 3 presents an overview of the research methodology, research approach and
techniques utilised in the study. The research was qualitative in nature and the design
of the research was exploratory. Use was made of a matrix model and internet
research. The chapter ends with a brief reflection on the ethical considerations
identified in the research.
The penultimate chapter (4) presents the analysis of the data gathered in the course
of the research and interpretation of the results. The method of analysing the data
was that of individual interpretation. The results are presented in a framework that
initially identifies a problem area, states the findings and then ties them together with
integrative commentary. A statement is then provided on the results obtained.
The final chapter (5) provides a brief summary of the research objectives, the major
findings and the conclusions drawn from the research. Recommendations regarding
the potential of CE for universities are made. In conclusion, a number of suggestions
are made for further research.
1.10 Summary

19. 11
In this chapter the reader was provided with insight into the background of the research
study. The research problem was clarified and the objectives were set out. This was
followed by a brief account of the literature reviewed as well as a description of the
method of research followed in the study.
The primary objective of this research was to explore how CE is implemented in South
African universities. The main research question is: How is community engagement
currently implemented in South African universities?
The literature relevant to this study is reviewed and discussed in the following chapter.

20. 12
Chapter 2: Literature review
2.1 Introduction
CE can generally be described as activities that involve partnership initiatives with
communities that utilise the knowledge capital and resources of the university to meet
the development needs of communities at no cost. CE usually takes the form of service
learning, organised outreach and community-based research. It is argued that CE
must be a core academic function of the institution. This will have the reciprocal benefit
of enabling the community to access the university’s intellectual capital and resources.
At the same time, staff and students gain awareness of the community’s needs and
can thus assist the community in meeting them. By doing so, the university can create
areas of research for staff and students. This will, in turn, lead to increased publication
output and increased postgraduate student numbers.
CE generally comprises three components at South African universities,
namely service learning, community-based research and organised outreach:
 Community-based research entails research projects by academics and
students that make a contribution to a community in the form of services,
products and/or new knowledge and skills transfer.
 Organised outreach relates to the provision of community-determined
services and resources by students and employees, outside of academic
programmes, to meet development needs.
 Service learning entails teaching and learning that targets specific
community needs through a curriculum-based assessment that is

21. 13
accredited and that enables students to participate in as well as reflect on
contextualised structured activities that meet identified service needs.
This chapter provides a comprehensive review of the academic literature on CSR, CE,
as well as the two main topics which form the basis of this study, namely community
and engagement. The literature on each topic is critically reviewed with specific
reference to the following matters: reasons for universities to implement CE, existing
policies on CE and challenges around implementation and monitoring.
2.2 CE in the context of CSR
CSR is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model. CSR
policy functions as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby a business monitors
and ensures its active compliance with the spirit of the law, ethical standards and
international norms. According to Belu and Manescu (2013:2751), “CSR is often
associated with the notion of sustainable development”. CSR is a process with the
aim to embrace responsibility for the company's actions and encourage a positive
impact through its activities on the environment, consumers, employees,
communities, stakeholders and all other members of the public sphere who may also
be considered stakeholders. Njenga and Smit (2007:5) say that CSR “refers to the
accountability of companies, to both the shareholders and stakeholders, for their
utilisation of resources, for their means of production, for their treatment of workers
and consumers, for their impact on the social and ecological environment in which
they operate and for the way in which they exercise their legislative and fiduciary
duties”.

22. 14
In South Africa, CSR has been shaped by both the political landscape and the social
and economic challenges of society. Companies are faced with the challenge of
addressing the pressing socio-economic and environmental needs of their customers
and communities in which they operate whilst simultaneously responding to the
demands of stakeholders. According to Nickel (2010:13), most companies have come
to the conclusion that their welfare cannot be isolated from the communities of which
they are corporate citizens. CSR requires companies to develop policies and
strategies to tackle social, economic and environmental imperatives of the ‘triple
bottom line’.
Businesses are under pressure to behave ethically and this has broadened their core
functions; hence the need to embrace it in the organisational strategy. Universities
have also been forced to broaden their core functions. CE can thus be seen as the
HEI version of CSR. The following section will discuss how CE developed in
universities.
2.3 The development of CE within the changing environment of universities
Universities have an inherent role to play in the communities they are situated in as
well as to the general public. This role can be defined as social, economic, cultural,
scientific and/or political. It can be established through university research, curriculum
and choice of pedagogy. Favish (2010:90) agrees with this by explaining how the
University of Cape Town (UCT) approached and reported on their CE activities: “as a
public institution receiving considerable funding from the public purse, it was deemed

23. 15
appropriate that the university should report annually on how the university was
addressing major development challenges facing the country”. Universities do not only
have to play an active developmental role in South Africa, but they must also show
accountability as a public institution in helping achieve national goals for
transformation of higher education as outlined in the White Paper (Ministry of
Education, 1997). Hall (2006:2) insists that an examination of universities’
contributions to addressing inequality is critical to thinking about the mission of a public
university in contemporary South African society, because poverty and growing
inequalities can be regarded as the biggest challenges facing the new democracy. “A
necessary condition for the continued reproduction of the defining aspects of the public
university is addressing inequality and its consequences” (ibid., 2006).
Scott and Harding (2007:2) comment that the new competitive higher education
climate requires universities to become more relevant and to take up their role in their
communities “whether they consider themselves ‘world class’ and in possession of an
‘international reputation’ … or as essentially ‘national’ or ‘civic’ institutions with fewer
international credentials … most claim to produce eminently useful knowledge that
can be utilised by a huge range of ‘communities’, but is especially valuable to those
living, metaphorically speaking, on the university’s doorstep”. However, this sharing of
information is what universities struggle with in implementing CE.
CE is the method by which universities not only stay relevant, but also share the
knowledge generated that can serve the community. According to Muller (2010:69),
communities are “in practice, more or less anything that is in the university’s external
environment, and relevance can be anything from engaging in policy on national

24. 16
priorities, regional engagements with development projects, to local engagement with
poor communities, new links with firms, and disseminating results of research”. A more
detailed description of the terms will be provided later in the chapter.
Universities generate powerful knowledge that can influence and change
communities. Muller (2010:85) points out that successful engagements “are likely to
be those that are based on knowledge that can make a difference to technological
development, to regional or national policy development, and to solving problems of
local communities”. Communities need not only applied knowledge though; they also
require use-inspired basic knowledge and fundamental knowledge, and these
requirements of the public or community are what the university can provide.
There is also growing external pressure on universities to become relevant and to
share knowledge. University policy, commitment to promoting social justice as well
as contributions to various dimensions of development have to accord with the World
Declaration on Higher Education which states that the “relevance in (or
responsiveness of) higher education should be assessed in terms of the fit between
what society expects of institutions and what they do. This requires ethical standards,
political impartiality, critical capacities and, at the same time, a better articulation
with the problems of society and the world of work, basing long-term orientations on
societal aims and needs, including respect for cultures and environmental protection
… Higher education should reinforce its role of service to society, especially its
activities aimed at eliminating poverty, intolerance, violence, illiteracy, hunger,
environmental degradation and disease” (UNESCO, 1998:8). The World Declaration
on Higher Education can be seen as the overarching starting point for CE at

25. 17
universities and will be discussed later.
The imperative of the socio-economic development of communities requires
universities to promote students’ social and civic responsibilities through CE. Maistry
and Thakrar (2012:59) view students “both as agents and beneficiaries of community
engagement. A major implication of this view is that university students in South Africa
have to be educated and prepared for engagement with communities”. This
expectation of universities, as explained by Maistry and Thakrar, can be seen as an
addition to the UNESCO imperative and can help universities better understand what
is expected of them.
But how will this new knowledge be created in an established institution? Favish
(2010:97) maintains that it is “the collaboration between researchers, practitioners and
local communities that generates the necessary set of new and different perspectives
to create new knowledge”. Academics are necessarily involved in discourses and
research that are quite technical as a result of being influenced by particular theoretical
backgrounds and their circumstances. But, as mentioned before, the knowledge
generated has to be shared in some way with the community they serve. Universities
struggle with sharing this knowledge they create, but for CE to be successful they will
have to find a way to do this. Favish (2010:97) is also aware of this when she observes
that “there may be a need for trans-cultural interpretation”.
It can be deduced that new knowledge and more socially responsive graduates are
what is needed to assist with university CE. Favish (2010:98) states that this can be
done through “enhancing the relevance of the curriculum as a result of knowledge

26. 18
gained through engagement with external constituencies”. Engagement with the
university’s community can not only work to build an appreciation for local knowledge,
but it can also enhance more academic, university-based forms of knowledge.
“Through this, the curriculum can begin to challenge hegemonic forms of knowledge
thereby facilitating new forms of learning and understanding for students” (Favish &
McMillan, 2009:175). The importance of CE is undeniable, but how does CE fit in with
the other core functions of the university, namely teaching and research? Should it be
seen as a third core function of the university or should it be at the core of the
universities’ mission?
It is clear from the literature in this section that universities are experiencing growing
pressure to be more relevant and accountable, as well as to produce more engaged
and socially responsive graduates. CE could be seen as the primary method through
which this can be achieved.
2.4 The link between CE and the other core activities of the university
There is a common misconception that CE refers to activities that have no relationship
with research and teaching, i.e. the core processes of the university. Hall (2009:8)
suggests that the widespread marginalisation of CE, especially in research-intensive
universities, may be due to an “epistemological disjuncture in the way knowledge is
structured and organised” and “contestations about the role and location of the
authority that serves to validate the structure and content of knowledge”. Countering
this marginalisation, he suggests, entails an openness to different epistemologies and
a recognition of the value of CE in the knowledge generation project. This, as Favish

27. 19
(2010) proposes, also helps promote the idea that socially engaged research
necessitates some form of community involvement in determining the research
questions and interpreting the data. For Nyden (2006), collaborative university-
community research typically involves partnerships in all stages of the research and
dissemination of results, including conceptualisation of the issues to be studied, design
of the methodology, collection of data, data analysis, report writing and dissemination
of research results. However, this cannot be expected of all researchers and the
research they do, but if universities hope to become more relevant and comply with
the Declaration on Higher Education, a shift to what Nyden proposes needs to be
made.
Muller (2010) agrees with Hall (2010) that engagement should be integrated with
teaching and research, and not regarded as a separate category. He also concurs
with Hall that there is nothing in the ideal of engagement which is inherently contrary
to disciplinary business as usual. If the three core pillars of research, teaching and
learning are connected to CE, CE will take root in institutions, thus speaking to their
‘academic soul’ by being consistent with scholarship. CE will, however, only be
institutionalised as a core value and incorporated into key activities once it can, like
teaching and research, be measured. The question remains is how this should be
done.
In order to re-establish this link between CE and teaching and research, universities
need to reconnect with the communities in their founding, mission and vision
statements. According to Slamat (2010:111), reconnecting with the university’s
community creates several opportunities for the university “to redefine how

28. 20
practitioners interpret their task in relation to the communities referred to in those
statements; opportunities to consider how community engagement can invigorate,
enhance, deepen, contextualise and enrich pedagogy, including teaching, learning,
curriculum and assessment; opportunities to consider how community engagement
can contribute to research relevance and opportunities to consider the types of
knowledge, outside of academic knowledge and how they can benefit the university
and invigorate and excite its knowledge project”.
If CE is the tool universities should use to become more relevant and to produce more
socially responsive graduates, CE needs to be solidified as a core activity at
institutions and one that is integrated with the other activities at universities.
2.5 Policy on CE
It is very important to note that the impetus for rethinking the status of CE and its place
in South African HEIs came from the outside, and as part of legislation that initiated
the restructuring of higher education in South Africa.
It is also important to note that historically, in the practice of scholarship in South Africa,
there were already notions related to CE. “If one looks at the founding, mission and
vision statements of universities, there is bound to be a reference to the rootedness of
the universities in particular communities as well as notions of service to particular
communities” (Slamat, 2012:109). It seems as if, over time, the connectedness of
South African universities with the communities of their founding statements was lost
or became looser. It also seems as if, over time, the academic community became the

29. 21
primary community to whom universities and academics felt themselves accountable.
But in essence there is a deep interconnectedness between South African universities
and their communities.
Historically, there were also notions of outreach, community service or extension in
South African HEIs. What is important to note is that these activities did not form part
of the core business of universities. They were activities on the periphery of higher
education, performed by well-meaning people, not quite as important as the main core
functions of teaching and research. These were mostly philanthropic and voluntary
activities and were mostly unrelated or poorly related to the core academic functions.
The South African 1997 White Paper on Higher Education changed all that and
formalised CE in South African higher education. Among other things, it started a
national conversation about the status of CE in higher education. One could, however,
argue that what is called for now is not to define from scratch what CE means, but how
its meaning and role in the practice of scholarship has changed, also in the light of
expectations in the higher education legislation and international requirements. The
challenge should now be to redefine CE in such a way that it is integral to the practice
of scholarship as suggested by Favish, i.e. a view of CE as scholarship. The White
Paper in principle calls on institutions to demonstrate social responsibility (Ministry of
Education, 1997:10). It also calls on their commitment to the common good by making
expertise and infrastructure available for community service programmes. The White
Paper was preceded, as mentioned earlier, by UNESCO World Declaration on Higher
Education for the Twenty-First Century, which was published a decade ago. This
declaration refers to sustainable development and the improvement of society as a

30. 22
whole as being the core mission of higher education systems, together with education,
training and research (UNESCO, 1998).
Currently in South Africa CE is one of the three founding principles (together with
teaching and research) of the post-apartheid reconstruction of the South African
higher education system. Both the Declaration and the White Paper acknowledge the
Council of Higher Education’s view that CE is a “strategy in the transformation of
higher education in relation to community development priorities” (CHE, 2004:130).
This policy position contained in the White Paper was reaffirmed three years later in
the Ministry of Education's National Plan for Higher Education (NPHE), which
asserted the priority of enhancing “responsiveness to regional and national needs,
for academic programmes, research, and community service” (Ministry of Education,
2001).
The UNESCO World Declaration as well as the South African national policy on CE
are what should guide South African universities in establishing their own policy on
CE. The concept of CE as set out in national policy needs to be understood, and it
would therefore be wise to have a clear definition of the related concepts.
Bender (2008:83) notes that despite all the national documents and initiatives, in
practice there is still a perception that CE and service are merely add-on, nice-to-have,
philanthropic activities. There is also resistance to integrating CE as a core function in
the academic field and there is still confusion and a diversity of understandings of CE
at South African universities. Many university documents mention CE and service

31. 23
learning in the same sentence, but these two terms are not interchangeable. What is
meant by community and engagement?
2.6 Definition of key terms
In order to respond to policy imperatives, a definition and understanding of the concept
of CE are needed. A clear definition of what is meant by community and also by
engagement is also required, as well as of other related concepts such as service
learning.
2.6.1 Community engagement
The problem is not that there is no definition of community engagement in South
African HEIs. The problem is that there are different definitions in different institutions.
According to both Slamat (2010) and Nongxa (2010), CE has not been clearly defined
in South African HEIs. Current activities include outreach activities, national research
projects and service learning. Pienaar-Steyn (2012) says that academics have
difficulty defining their contribution because the concept is so vague. She also agrees
that there is no clear definition of CE, and says that despite “numerous attempts by
scholars to clarify ‘community engagement’, it remains a vague concept in South
African higher education institutions”. She also goes on to say that conceptual
frameworks are sorely lacking, which leads to a lack of standards against which the
impact of CE activities can be measured.

32. 24
Almost two decades ago, Ernest Boyer (1990) introduced the concept of an engaged
institution as an institution that is interwoven in the fabric of its community. Universities
are not merely located in a community – they are members of it too. As such, they
have a vested interest in the wellbeing of their community. Since universities are firmly
located within a community, they have certain responsibilities as members of the
community. Their responsibility is not only to create knowledge and to educate; they
also have a civic responsibility to engage and enrich their community (Bacon, 2002).
Mallory (2005) suggests that, historically, universities have sought engagement with
their community to gain access to research sites, internships, labour, or to meet other
needs. Other academics have viewed CE as knowledge or charity they bestow on the
community. This one-sided view of engagement is being replaced by a more robust
application which defines CE as mutually beneficial (Jischke, 2006). These new
partnerships build on one another’s strengths. Favish (2010) at the University of Cape
Town has developed a conceptual framework for implementing CE. This framework
“acknowledges the interconnectedness between social engagement and the other
core activities of the university” (Favish, 2010:99). The university provides a foundation
for knowledge, while the community provides insights to co-create this knowledge and
presents a platform for knowledge to be shared and utilised. Through community
collaborations, academic departments are able to engage faculty and students in
initiatives that further academic research agendas. Effective university-community
partnerships are able to address critical needs within the community they serve.
For the purpose of this mini-dissertation the HEQC definition is used. The HEQC
(2004:19 &26) gives the following definition of community engagement, and it is used

33. 25
as a basic reference in most HEIs in South Africa: Community engagement refers to
the “initiatives and processes through which the expertise of the institution in the areas
of teaching and research are applied to address issues relevant to its community.
Community engagement typically finds expression in a variety of forms, ranging from
informal and relatively unstructured activities to formal and structured academic
programmes addressed at particular community needs (for example service-learning
programmes). Some projects might be conducive towards the creation of a better
environment for community engagement and others might be directly related to
teaching, learning and research”.
2.6.2 Community
Firstly, community needs to be defined, but there can be various difficulties in
identifying a single community for a university as a whole. Members of a university
work on a very wide range of external constituencies at local, provincial, national and
sectorial level. In this regard Chatterton and Goddard (2000:478) suggest that
“territoriality is an extremely complex and problematic concept for Higher Education
Institutions [because] universities operate within multiple and overlapping territories
and usually manage a portfolio of activities ranging from the global to the local”.
In her overview of the outcome of the HEQC’s institutional-level audits on CE in South
Africa completed between 2004 and 2008, Lange (in CHE, 2008) concludes that it “is

34. 26
a vexed question as to what communities are, who they are and where they are. One
of the questions we have asked of institutions in the audits (all of which have a de
facto or de jure community attached to them) has been: ‘Who is your community?’
Some institutions defined their communities in historical terms, and remained stuck in
the community divisions of the apartheid era. Some defined their communities in
conservative terms, while others were more progressive. The question can be posed
whether it is necessary to open or broaden the concept of community, since
communities can be a form of democratisation, tolerance and pluralism. Does the
community include those living on the doorstep of the institution or those further afield?
The ‘community’ could be understood to mean everybody who is outside the institution
(in other words, all stakeholders), including industry, the labour market, provincial and
local government and NGOs. There are no clear answers to the question of who the
community is”.
Naidoo’s response (CHE, 2008) to this issue is helpful here: “Rather than looking at
a reductionist way of defining community”, he observes, “should we not engage with
a broader definition of ‘community’, or ‘communities’? We talk of differences between
institutions, but often forget that within an institution, different faculties define this
concept in a way that is expedient to them, in terms of the way in which a particular
grouping of disciplines engages with communities. We can have nice policies and
structures in place, but institutions can end up ‘playing the community engagement
game’ without contributing to reconstruction and development in the country. They
may make the right gestures and appear to meet the criteria, but fall far short of the
actual essence of reconstruction and development.”

35. 27
Hall’s comments on the notion of community illustrate the difficulties involved in
seeking to identify a university’s community: “Community can be taken as a cluster of
households or an entire region, as an organisation ranging from a provincial
government department to an NGO, as a school, clinic, hospital, church or mosque or
as a part of the university itself. This suggests a double meaning. Obviously,
communities are a loosely defined set of social organisations. But community also
functions as an adjective, as a qualifier that indicates work that is socially beneficial.
Understood in this way and in the South African context, community work contributes
to social or economic justice” (Hall, 2009:17).
Slamat (2012:107), however, argues that defining a university’s community is not such
a daunting task: “The following all shape an institution’s definition of community:
history, race, geography, repositioning statements, developed strengths and interest
areas, regional challenges and their interpretation of reconstruction and development
imperatives within the context of their own geographical areas. Every higher education
institution will be able to tell who its community is and what it regards as its community
engagement.”
Nyden (2006:16) regards communities as partners who have a full say in the
identification of service needs and development challenges.
It is clear that there is confusion not only regarding what is meant by community, but
also regarding how easily community can be defined. There is, however, a final
understanding of the concept of a community and the definition used for this mini-
dissertation is that it is a group of people who plan, work and learn together (Mtembu

36. 28
& Daniels, 2006). The latter definition means that HEIs are themselves a subset of the
broader community.
2.6.3 Engagement
Just as difficult to define as community is the concept of engagement. According to
Bender (2008:86–87), engagement suggests a different sort of relationship, one
where there is a “governance” or “university” system and a “community” system. One
can thus start by saying that two parties need be present to form an engagement.
However, the university system has to understand the dynamics of the community if
it wants to work in the community and it must be prepared to adapt and develop
structures and processes to make them accessible and relevant to these
communities. The term engagement warns against making assumptions about
communities. For CE to be successful the “university” will have to engage with
communities as well as asking communities to engage with it. It is clear from this that
engagement cannot be forced on a community. As Kaniki points out (CHE, 2008),
claims to engagement by HEIs can be very broad, embracing almost any form of
linkage: “universities become involved in engagement with communities, sometimes
without even having been invited by the communities…”
Engagement must be defined by some sort of partnership in which there is a mutual
understanding of the objectives of specific projects. There are several models that set
out specific processes for setting up such partnerships. One of these is the concept of
the learning region championed by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and
Development (Favish, 2003). A second is the asset-based community development

37. 29
approach, which works from the observation that all communities have assets, the
assessment of which by members of the community can be the basis for identifying
needs and therefore the terms of productive partnerships. Approaches such as these
will provide more concrete ways of giving shape to engagement through partnership.
These considerations and complexities of the meanings of community and
engagement make the working definition offered by the 2006 conference of the
Council on Higher Education (CHE) seem provisional, and in need of further
development. The conference’s working group concluded that “a community is a group
of people who plan, work and learn together” (CHE, 2007) and that “community
engagement is a process of creating a shared vision among the community (especially
disadvantaged) and partners (local, provincial, national government, NGOs, higher
education institutions, business, donors) in society, as equal partners, that results in a
long-term collaborative programme of action with outcomes that benefit the whole
community equitably”.
At the CHE’s 2006 conference, the then Minister of Education Naledi Pandor raised a
similar concern: “What we tend to have, and talk about, is a ‘community service’ notion,
rather than a ‘community engagement’ one. In other words, it is a ‘needy’ definition of
the community and a ‘giving’ or ‘able’ notion of the university, and I think we need to
move to a different level and character of engagement” (CHE, 2007). Defining
engagement correctly is thus key to effective implementation of CE. This definition
should take into account international and national CE policy, the need for more user-
friendly knowledge and the need for more engaged graduates.

38. 30
2.6.4 Service learning
Service learning is a form of CE which entails teaching and learning that is directed at
specific community needs and is curriculated into (and therefore also assessed as part
of) a credit-bearing academic programme. It enables students to participate in and
subsequently reflect on contextualised, structured and organised service activities that
address identified service needs in a community, it seeks to infuse students with a
sense of civic responsibility and promotes social justice.
The ethos of service learning is social justice, i.e. engagement with developing
communities in order to assist in their social and economic upliftment. It must be clear
that service learning can only be a small, if important, part of the CE role of public
HEIs. It is therefore alarming that, through the years, terms such as service learning,
community engagement, community service and the scholarship of engagement have
been used interchangeably (Lazarus et al., 2008).
This is in line with Favish (2003:7-8), who gives the following caution: “the focus on
service learning … excludes a range of other ways in which higher education
institutions can be socially responsive through other aspects of their core process of
teaching and learning. For example, institutions can demonstrate their responsiveness
through the introduction of new programmes, which may or may not include service
learning; the revision of existing programmes to accommodate changing needs; the
transfer of technology to community projects through education and training
programmes and applied research projects”. Slamat’s response (2010) to the current
developments in CE is that “those developments focused almost exclusively on

39. 31
service learning as a vehicle into community engagement and that not much serious
conceptual and other work was done to develop and advance a comprehensive notion
of community engagement in higher education”.
The inclusion of service learning as an important definition serves as a caution that
CE and service learning are not interchangeable. There are various aspects to CE,
only one of which is service learning. Others include organised outreach and
community-based research.
2.7 Challenges for implementing and monitoring CE
It is clear that there is both an international and national imperative to implement CE
at HEIs. It is also clear and understandable that there is confusion regarding what is
meant by CE and still little progress being made in implementing it. Pienaar-Steyn
(2012:44) notes that “despite clear policy mandates positioning CE as one of the
three core responsibilities of higher education alongside research and training, and
despite many attempts to clarify this notion, CE is still a vague concept with limited
application”.
But what are the hurdles? Hall (2010) says that there are no articulated standards or
objectives with clear indicators against which to monitor progress, measure impact
and evaluate effectiveness. Consequently, the contribution of HEIs to development
is not taken seriously by government and CE is left to fend for itself, with little
recognition by institutions and small budget allocations from the Department of
Higher Education.

40. 32
The key processes and criteria for evaluating the work of HEIs in South Africa
originated in the White Paper and the Higher Education Act, 1997. The HEQC (CHE,
2004) advises that “where community engagement is discharged through a range of
activities, including service learning, quality considerations for institutional
engagement with the local and broader community should be formalized within an
institution’s quality management policies and procedures. These arrangements
should be linked to teaching and learning and research, where possible, and given
effect through the allocation of adequate resources and institutional recognition”.
Between 2004 and 2008, the HEQC completed 13 institutional audits and concluded
that very few institutions had done more than conduct internal audits or compile
inventories of ongoing CE activities. Only a couple of institutions were, at the time,
trying to develop policies on and criteria for CE (CHE, 2008). Audit reports show that,
in practice, universities are at widely varying stages of implementing and measuring
CE practice.
Pienaar-Steyn (2012) notes the need for a “conceptual framework for CE
engagement”. This was also recognised at the Community Engagement in Higher
Education Conference hosted in Bantry Bay, South Africa, in 2006. At this conference
it was proposed that conceptual work be undertaken at both a national and a context-
specific level to set broad parameters for CE, establish a relationship between CE
and the other two core functions, and signal the place of CE in the social development
agenda (CHE, 2007). The following questions therefore arise: Why has this not been
implemented? Why is it not working?

41. 33
Pienaar-Steyn (2012:46) believes that so far, “scholarly work on conceptualising CE
in South Africa has centred mostly on epistemological work and conceptual models
to integrate the three core functions of CE. Although the development discourse is
prevalent in this work, no explicit attempt has been made to conceptualise CE within
the global development discourse”. This might be the reason why CE is not seen as
important in spite of international and national policy.
“The lack of a conceptual framework for CE is a major reason for the lack of
monitoring and evaluation measures, similar to those existing in the other focus areas
of teaching and research” says Pienaar-Steyn (2012:45). She suggests an alternative
for the audits currently being done by the HEQC, namely using the Millennium
Development Goals as a conceptual framework for enabling and evaluating CE. HEIs
would then be able to “position community engagement within the sustainable
development discourse. This framework would also facilitate the integration of the
activities of research, training and community engagement by directing such activities
towards the common objective of global sustainable development, thereby creating
an enabling environment for academics to articulate community engagement
activities. The Millennium Development Goals conceptual framework could be the
starting point for the development of a monitoring tool which could lead to increased
accountability when planning and evaluating community engagement activities”
(Pienaar-Steyn, 2012:40). Adapting these goals as a conceptual framework would
also position CE in the global development discourse, and this would allow CE to
become more of a priority at HEIs.
Regardless of the method of implementation and monitoring, Olowu (2012:90)
identifies a critical problem with CE implementation in HEIs: there are few incentives

42. 34
and little grounding for academics to engage in community advancement. He also
asks how engaging communities becomes recognised as “career boosting,
equivalent to the customary benchmarks of teaching and research? How can efforts
to develop communities through collaboration be sustained on a long-term basis?
How should community engagement efforts by academics be measured in real
terms?” These very valid questions might be the reason why, despite clear policy on
CE, it still has not been implemented properly. They might also show why academics
who will be the implementers of CE and university management are so reluctant to
engage with CE. For engagement to become a core faculty activity, the institution will
also need to change the way it hires, promotes or rewards faculty and administrative
staff. It will also need to “find ways to evaluate research and publication based on its
value to society” (Tapia in Watson, 2011:236). This will be key in implementation.
Olowu (2012:89), however, provides some practical directions for developing a
systematic approach to benchmarking university CE within the South African milieu:
“comparative university experiences could provide useful insights into the challenges
of evaluating university–community engagement in South Africa”. It is for this reason
that this study examined what all South African public universities are currently doing
to implement CE. This benchmarking allows for a full picture of the CE landscape in
South Africa.
Olowu (2012:95) also identifies the following criteria that could be used to measure
CE in South African HEIs: “attendance and feedback; external appraisal; peer review;
articulation of public value; securing funding for further engagement or community-
based participatory research; curriculum development; evidence of successful
relationships; evidence of successful project management; how the specific goals

43. 35
were met in terms of responding to the public/community organisations’ needs and
expectations; how the activity enhanced the public’s/ community’s understanding of
an issue and/or research; capacity development within the institution of higher
education or the community; leadership or direct contribution to building a network,
consortium or partnership; and a report of evaluation that is appropriate to the type
of activity”.
Finally, Olowu (2012:100) argues that “it would be prudent for all South African
universities to enlist in networks such as Talloires, both to include their own data as
part of international standard-setting and to learn from best practices. This will be a
veritable way of positioning South African universities as reference points in a future
continental quest for the evaluation of community engagement and its best practices”.
Doing so will assist universities with not only the implementation of CE, but also the
monitoring of CE activities. Talloires is a global alliance of HEIs that are deeply
committed to strengthening the civic roles and social responsibilities of
universities and colleges around the world.
The challenges with regard to implementation and monitoring as identified above are
the main hurdles in the success of CE at South African HEIs. A clear idea is needed
of what is currently being done at HEIs in order to identify solutions.
2.8 Conclusion
By defining the university’s community and also engagement, universities can realise
their potential ‘professional empowerment’. Slamat (2010:112) says that professional

44. 36
empowerment will allow universities to fully appreciate the power of community
engagement, that CE is the “invigoration of scholarship and, ultimately, community
engagement as scholarship”. He goes on to say that CE should not reduce the
university to a “development agency”, but it should allow the university to use its
expertise to contribute meaningfully to the development challenges of our country.
That way the university can perform its functions in a more meaningful way that will
ultimately benefit society.

45. 37
Chapter 3: Research methodology
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the primary theoretical framework of the research methodology
on which this research project is based. The basic research methods and approach
used will be described with reference to the underlying rationale as well as the
pertinent literature regarding the applicability of the method chosen for this particular
study.
The elements of the research method, that is, the research population, sampling
method, methods of data collection and analysis, are defined as discussed in relation
to the research problem. In conclusion, the essential ethical considerations and
procedures are outlined.
3.2 Research approach
An exploratory approach was used in this research. Zikmund (2013:52) explains that
exploratory research is “conducted to clarify ambiguous situations or discover ideas
that may be potential business opportunities”. It can also be described as the initial
research conducted to clarify and define the nature of a problem. He further mentions
that exploratory research provides qualitative data, and that the nature of the research
is thus qualitative.

46. 38
In this study, the research objective was to determine what is being done in South
African universities to implement CE. To do this, each university would need to be
investigated individually to determine what their experience was in implementing CE.
The researcher therefore based this study on a qualitative data collection and analysis
method of research. Kumar (2005:12) refers to this method of inquiry as an
“unstructured approach”, which aims to explore the nature of the research problem.
This method of inquiry, as highlighted by Zikmund (2013:52), provides the researcher
with a greater understanding of a concept rather than a precise measurement.
Flick (2002:48) describes qualitative research as being mainly concerned with the lived
experience and meanings of explored phenomena. Qualitative research was therefore
deemed appropriate to determine how CE is implemented. Silverman (2001:48)
supports this when he argues that qualitative research can provide a deeper
understanding of the social phenomenon, which in this case is community
engagement and how it is implemented in South African universities.
3.3 Research design
Kumar (2005:84) states that a research design is a plan, a structure and a strategy of
investigation that is developed to obtain answers to research questions and/or
problems. Furthermore, Kumar (2005:84) suggests that a research design is an
operational plan undertaken to obtain valid, objective and accurate answers to the
research questions.

47. 39
The researcher used a qualitative research design for this study in order to establish
personal contact with South African universities. Universities are aware of the policy
which expects them to implement CE but they are not sure how to implement it. This
study combined primary and secondary data to answer the research question. The
basis of the research was secondary data presented in a matrix format. This was used
as supporting information for the primary empirical data.
3.3.1 Research population
In this study, the relevant population comprised all South African public universities. A
research population, according to Zikmund (2003:369), is any complete group of
people that share some set of characteristics. Private universities were excluded as
they do not need to adhere to this guideline and in effect do not have the same
characteristics as public universities. All public universities were included for the
secondary data for the matrix model in order to show what has been done nationally.
For the primary data from which conclusions were drawn, two universities were
selected in Gauteng. Babbie (2001:110) defines a population as a group, usually of
people, about whom one wants to draw conclusions. Gauteng has five public
universities, namely the University of Johannesburg, University of the Witwatersrand,
University of Pretoria, University of South Africa and Tshwane University of
Technology. Only two of these universities could be used as the University of the
Witwatersrand and Tshwane University of Technology have no CE office and the
researcher was also unable to get an interview with the CE manager at Unisa.
3.3.2 Sampling

48. 40
Zikmund (2013:385) explains that sampling is the process of using small numbers of
items or parts of a larger population to draw conclusions about the entire population.
In order to collect the primary data it was decided to use two universities in Gauteng
(University of Johannesburg, University of Pretoria). Both have CE offices and the CE
manager was available for an interview. The sample of two universities for the primary
data was useful for supporting the secondary data used as the basis of the study and
assisted in making conclusions about the current state of CE in South African
universities.
Owing to the exploratory nature of the research, it was decided to use non-probability
sampling. Zikmund (2013:392) explains that a non-probability sample is
representative of a sample selected on the basis of personal judgement or
convenience. The sample for this research was identified based on geographical
convenience as the three universities with CE offices are situated in the Gauteng
province.
Given the time and resources available for the study, the sampling technique that was
used within the non-probability method was convenience sampling. According to
Zikmund (2013:392), “convenience sampling refers to sampling by obtaining units of
people who are conveniently available”. In addition, it is “best for exploratory research”
(Zikmund, 2013:393). In accordance with the definition of convenience sampling,
respondents who were conveniently available were selected for this study.
Therefore the sample for the primary data was the University of Johannesburg and the
University of Pretoria (two respondents).

49. 41
3.3.3 Data collection
The research is a study that attempts to describe what South African universities are
doing to implement the CE policy of national government. This called for a descriptive
investigation to be done. A descriptive investigation has a broad appeal to the policy
analyst for planning, monitoring and evaluating (Cooper & Schindler, 2001:13). An
inductive approach to research, as is generally taken in qualitative research (Thietart,
2002:15), was taken in this project. According to Cooper and Schindler (2002:35), to
induce is to draw a conclusion from one or more particular facts or pieces of evidence.
A descriptive investigation using an inductive approach allowed the researcher to
evaluate the CE strategies of the universities as well as draw conclusions based on
the evidence. As was the case in this research, an inductive approach begins with
immersion in the social process, not with hypothesis or existing theory. Evidence of
what has been done was the primary driver of the data collection process. The detail
in the evidence gathered was the basis of this study. This is in line with Cooper and
Schindler (2001:137), who state that emphasis on detail provides valuable insight for
problem solving, evaluation and strategy.
Given the topic of research, semi-structured interviews and a matrix presentation and
analysis were the appropriate means of collecting data. The research was divided into
primary and secondary data, drawing upon three semi-structured interviews and a
matrix model. The primary data was collected from personal in-depth interviews with
participants who met the criteria. Zikmund (2013:149) states that an in-depth interview
is a relatively unstructured, extensive interview, where the researcher asks the

50. 42
respondent many questions. This approach proved to be very useful given the
confusion around CE in South African universities. The in-depth interview is a
qualitative research technique which is particularly useful for exploration purposes,
and it is an appropriate technique for exploring ambiguous fields of study (De Jong &
Hartog, 2007:48) such as this one.
Mansourian (2007:281) notes how the semi-structured format will allow “both the
interviewee and the interviewer to discuss anything which they might find useful or
related to the topic”. During the interviews, all necessary aspects pertaining to the
research objective were addressed. Seeing that the primary data was only used to
support the secondary data, the primary data gave the researcher the information he
needed to clarify and elaborate on the secondary data collected. May (1993:93) states
that semi-structured interviews allow the interviewer to seek both clarification and
elaboration on the answers given, and this in turn enables the interviewer to have more
latitude to probe beyond the answers.
Semi-structured interviews were held with the CE manager at each institution to
identify what had been done to implement CE. The duration of each interview was
approximately 25-35 minutes. However, this varied depending on the discussion on
the topic.
The secondary data was gathered from the websites of all 23 South African
universities and serves as the foundation of the research. The data is presented in a
matrix model. Zikmund (2013:486) defines a data matrix as “a rectangular
arrangement of data into rows and columns”. The model indicates what each of the

51. 43
23 public universities in South Africa is currently doing to implement CE. It was
assumed that current practices were captured on their websites. The matrix model
allows for a comparative analysis between universities and also gives a full picture of
what has been done to implement CE at universities. Further data collection involved
a literature review of scholarly journals, books, dissertations, policy reports and
papers.
This report ends with recommendations, which are imaginative but also practical and
implementable within the current structures of the institutions and in accordance with
national CE policy requirements.
3.3.4 Data analysis
The data analysis was structured so that the data would be interpreted from the matrix
model drawn up from the various university websites and policy documents. The
information captured in the matrix model was supplemented by the semi-structured
interviews in order to give more detail as well as describe current practices and to help
elaborate and help with clarification. Zikmund (2003:73) suggests that “analysis is the
application of reasoning to understand and interpret the data that have been
collected”.
The technique used for the analysis of the data was determined by the information
requirements of management, the characteristics of the research design and the
nature of the data collected (Zikmund, 2013:73). The chosen methods for analysing
the data were content and descriptive analyses. Descriptive data analysis, as

52. 44
highlighted by Zikmund (2013:459), refers to the “transformation of raw data form that
will make them easy to understand and interpret”. This is done through a process of
rearranging, ordering or manipulating data in order to provide descriptive information
that answers research questions (Zikmund, 2013:459). The use of semi-structured
interviews was intended to afford the interviewer the flexibility to probe and analyse
the responses of the interviewees, and change direction if it might benefit the study,
as pointed out by Mansourian (2007:281).
The information gathered in the matrix model was used to determine how universities
are implementing CE and how this relates to national policy. A comparison could then
be made of universities’ involvement in CE and implementation of policy. The semi-
structured interviews also allowed for more information to be provided on current
practices.
Finally, the primary and secondary data were considered in relation to the literature
review so as to develop a deeper understanding of the subject of this research.
3.4 Ethical considerations
Due to the nature of this study there was no personal involvement other than
telephonic contact with the representatives of the respective institutions. The purpose
of the request was explained and the CE policy documents were forwarded
electronically. All participants providing information did so voluntarily and were fully
informed of the purpose of the research beforehand. No remuneration was offered or
given to those agreeing to provide information.

53. 45
The information is public information as it is available on the institutions’ websites and
confidentiality was therefore not a consideration.
3.5 Summary
This chapter contained a description of the research method and procedures used in
investigating the topic of the study, namely how CE is implemented in South African
universities.
Chapter 4 deals with how the data gathered was analysed according to the research
methods used in the research. A discussion and interpretation of the data as gathered
by means of the procedures set out in this chapter are also presented.

54. 46
Chapter 4: Research results
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter the analysed data obtained from the matrix study and the interviews is
presented. Individual interpretation was used to analyse the data. The data obtained
from the matrix study provides the framework for the presentation of the results and is
categorised according to pertinent topics underlying the study. The comments from
the respondents are used to support the data in the matrix study. Research cited in
the literature review is integrated where necessary to support research findings. The
matrix study as well as the responses obtained from the interviewees either support,
question or challenge the statements gathered from the literature.
4.2 Description of respondents
The researcher aimed to gather information from all 23 public universities in South
Africa. This secondary data was used for the data matrix study that formed the
structure of the research. Representatives from two universities based in Gauteng
were interviewed for the primary data that was to be used to support and help
elaborate on the matrix study.
The two respondents happened to be female. Both of them had been involved in the
university environment for more than five years and both of them held postgraduate
qualifications. Both respondents were between 40 and 45 years old.
4.3 Research results

55. 47
The research results have been structured around five topics:
 CE policy at South African universities
 CE office within universities
 Definition of CE at universities
 CE environment at universities
 Monitoring and evaluation
The topics underlying the study were analysed according to the data collected from
the data matrix, the sample and the literature cited in chapter 2. Each section will start
with a table (data matrix) supported by responses by the interviewees. The tables
present what is currently done at South African public universities to implement CE.
These areas of practice can apply as a guide for developing and measuring CE as
suggested by the national imperative to implement CE. These practices can be
applied as auditing tools to measure progress against set targets.
The following indicators were used when assessing the information on the university
websites: Y - Yes; N - No; NA - Not available on website. Websites were accessed
on 25, 26 and 27 October 2013.
The responses provided by the interviewees are presented according to the following
framework:
 Each response is obtained from the questions documented in the interview
guide (refer to Appendix A).

56. 48
 The responses from the interviews were recorded and are included in this
chapter.
 The responses are categorised according to the topics covered in the literature
review and the data matrix.
4.3.1 CE policy at South African universities
Table 4.1: Policy
Name of university
Does the
institution have
an approved CE
policy?
Is the policy in line with the
requirements contained in
national policy documents?
Is CE included in the
institution’s annual
report?
Cape Peninsula University of
Technology NA NA N
Central University of Technology NA NA Y
Durban University of Technology NA NA N
Mangosuthu University of
Technology NA NA N
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan
University Y Y N
North-West University Y Y Y
Rhodes University Y Y Y
Stellenbosch University y y Y
Tshwane University of Technology NA NA N
University of Cape Town y y Y
University of Fort Hare NA NA N
University of Johannesburg y y Y
University of KwaZulu-Natal NA NA N
University of Limpopo Y Y N
University of Pretoria Y Y Y
University of South Africa Y Y Y
University of Venda NA NA N
University of Zululand NA NA N
University of the Free State Y Y N
University of the Western Cape NA NA Y
University of the Witwatersrand NA NA N
Vaal University of Technology NA NA N
Walter Sisulu University NA NA N
Table 4.1 above refers to policy in terms of the White Paper and the guidelines by the
HEQC. To establish how South African universities are implementing CE, it had to be
determined whether they have a CE policy, if it contains the requirements stipulated
in national policy and also if CE is included in the universities’ annual reports.

57. 49
To further elaborate on policy matters the two respondents were required to expand
on the CE policy as implemented in their respective universities, and how they defined
CE at their institution. The question was asked whether they had an approved policy
and how CE was defined within the policy. The feedback from the respondents is as
follows:
Respondent 1: It started, I think sixty years ago in the archives you can pick up the
first community engagement. In the medical faculty, the medical school did it forever
and the social work department also, more than forty, fifty years.
Respondent 2: Yes, the policy was approved in 2009 and within that, from 2009 to
now, there are number of things that happened to the policy. Uh around 2010, there
was a call for a review by the faculties to say certain elements of the policy yes
although they are in line with National guidelines, there are certain elements where
buy-in was not obtained from the faculties. So there was an attempt to do a review in
2010 and it didn’t take place and then there was a call again 2012 for the review. So
we are still sitting with the review of the policies going to take place I’m sure in 2014.
The information obtained from the responses and the data matrix indicates that only a
few South African universities have an approved CE policy. These policies are
generally in line with national policy. Unexpected feedback was that only a small
number of universities include CE in their annual report. Both respondents’
universities had CE policies, but it was interesting to see the difference in inception.
Respondent 1’s institution had conducted CE activities for 40-50 years, whereas
respondent 2’s institution had only had a policy in place for four years.

58. 50
In the literature review reference was made to the importance of including CE in the
university’s core business. There is, however, still little progress being made in
implementing CE. Pienaar-Steyn (2012:44) notes that “despite clear policy mandates
positioning CE as one of the three core responsibilities of higher education alongside
research and training, and despite many attempts to clarify this notion, CE is still a
vague concept with limited application”. Based on this the respondents were asked if
they believed CE was integrated in the core business of the university.
Respondent 1: Ja. 15 000 students every year, we have voluntary workers, we have
voluntary personnel.
Respondent 2: I think there is a mandate. I mean it’s supposed to be the third core
function.
It is evident from this feedback that both felt that CE was integrated. The institutions
of both respondents 1 and 2 had a clear mandate to implement CE. Whether CE was
truly integrated is, however, difficult to assess.
Establishing clear policy in line with national policy is the first step in implementing CE
at an institution. It is clear from the matrix that there are only a few universities that
have a CE policy.

59. 51
4.3.2 CE office within universities
Table 4.2: Community
engagement office
Name of university
Does the
institution
have a
dedicated
CE office?
Does the
institution
have a
dedicated
CE
website?
Website address Comments
Cape Peninsula University
of Technology Y Y http://www.cput.ac.za/services/ccewil
Central University of
Technology Y Y http://www.cut.ac.za/community-engagement/
Durban University of
Technology N N http://foundation.dut.ac.za/about-us/
Development
project office
Mangosuthu University of
Technology Y Y http://www.mut.ac.za/communityengagement
Nelson Mandela
Metropolitan University Y Y http://caec.nmmu.ac.za/
North-West University
Y Y
http://www.nwu.ac.za/content/community-
engagement-community-engagement-office
Rhodes University
Y Y
http://www.ru.ac.za/communityengagement/q
uicklinks/feedback/
Stellenbosch University Y Y http://www.sun.ac.za/english/ci
Tshwane University of
Technology Y Y
http://www.tut.ac.za/Other/RnI/Comm/Pages/
default.aspx
University of Cape Town
Y Y
http://www.socialresponsiveness.uct.ac.za/ab
out/overview/
University of Fort Hare N N NA
University of Johannesburg
Y Y
http://www.uj.ac.za/en/Community/Pages/ho
me.aspx
University of KwaZulu-
Natal N N NA
University of Limpopo
N N NA
Policy in
place but no
office
University of Pretoria
Y Y
http://web.up.ac.za/default.asp?ipkCategoryI
D=85
University of South Africa
Y Y
http://www.unisa.ac.za/Default.asp?Cmd=Vie
wContent&ContentID=10
University of Venda
Y Y
http://www.univen.ac.za/index.php?Entity=Co
mmunity%20Engagement
University of Zululand
N Y
http://www.unizulu.ac.za/outreach-
centres/community-engagement-working-
group-about/
Only a
working
group
University of the Free State
Y Y
http://supportservices.ufs.ac.za/content.aspx
?DCode=451
University of the Western
Cape Y Y http://www.uwc.ac.za/CE/Pages/default.aspx
University of the
Witwatersrand N Y
http://www.wits.ac.za/aboutwits/governance/c
ups/3059/community_engagement.html
Vaal University of
Technology
N Y
http://www.vut.ac.za/index.php/component/co
ntent/article/41-about-the-university/651-
community-engagement
Walter Sisulu University N N NA
In the second table (4.2) the aim was to determine how the CE office operated in each
institution. This was done by determining if the universities had a dedicated CE office
and website. Respondents were asked under which division CE fell at their institution
in order to establish how the universities saw and valued CE.

60. 52
Respondent 1: Uh education innovation at the moment but if it changes all the time,
just to my department needs to be in a neutral place so before I was part of uh research
and community development so they, it depends on where it fits in at any specific time.
It’s a practical arrangement basically.
Respondent 2: I think CE is more of an academic portfolio and I would say this is
because of the service learning component because it’s clear that you know although
CE at UJ really has got three components, first is the service learning component, and
then secondly is the projects, the community based projects and then we’ve got the
community based research and if you look at the research component and also the
service learning, they are leaning closely towards academia and that space and the
community projects themselves, yes we say they are open to all; internal, academia,
support divisions and also students; but when you look at them carefully, even those
projects end up with the faculties, the placements happen there and the students will
belong to the faculties also to this project. So really it is an academia activity, it’s just
that for some reason I think UJ Senior Management has always thought that you know,
it should be separate but why it was placed under advancement, I don’t think there
has been a good reason given. We have made submissions to that effect, I’ve said
many times that you know why we are falling into problems is because half of the time,
we have service learning that belongs to the faculties and we have the community
based research belonging to the faculties and the faculty projects also, much of them
being placed in the faculties, but then the CE office does not have a mandate to really
control the faculties to sort of ensure compliance with CE policy makers around those
things so it’s always going to be a problem as to who really has a mandate to enforce

61. 53
the policy on the faculties and other UJ stakeholders so really the matter is still under
discussion.
Secondly, respondents were asked how many staff members worked in the CE office.
They also had to indicate their qualifications. The answers given by respondents
would further assist in determining how the university saw and valued CE. The
answers did not only show what human resources the university allocated to the office,
but also the quality of appointments.
The responses were as follows:
Respondent 1: Four.
Respondent 1: Yes and then at least one designated person from each faculty.
Respondent 2: Um that’s myself, (counting) five.
Respondents were asked what qualifications the CE staff had.
Respondent 1: Ja. Community engagement or social science or, it doesn’t really
matter, you don’t get a professional in community engagement um so its people who
are qualified and who might have been involved in community engagement
themselves in the academic field, that’s the kind of thing I’m looking for when I
advertise a post ja.
Respondent 2: They actually come from various backgrounds but what has happened
in the last three years that I’ve been here, we have had the recognition that much of
CE activity involves project coordination and project management so we have given

62. 54
them training and they have sort of like now, most of them have the skills now to run
CE projects and also the student volunteer program that has come in, our flagship
project, they are all now pretty much competent to run that.
For the CE office to be successful, and for that matter CE at the institution, the office
needs to be resourced with the correct and moreover capable employees. In both
respondents’ institutions the office was resourced with 4-5 people that had tertiary
qualifications. This shows that these institutions value CE and that they should be able
to implement CE successfully.
The second logical step for an institution implementing CE is to set up a CE office and
website. It is interesting to note that most universities have a CE office as well as a
website but, according to table 4.1, do not have a CE policy. This could help explain
why CE is only vaguely implemented in South Africa.
4.3.3 Definition of CE at universities
Table 4.3: Community engagement
definitions
Name of university
Does the institution
have an approved
CE definition?
Is the definition of CE the
same as/similar to the one
contained in the national
policy documents?
Comments
Cape Peninsula University of Technology Y Y
Central University of Technology Y Y
Durban University of Technology N N
Mangosuthu University of Technology Y Y
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University Y Y
North-West University Y Y
Rhodes University Y Y
Stellenbosch University
Y Y
DEFINED AS
COMMUNITY
INTERACTION
Tshwane University of Technology N N
University of Cape Town
Y Y
DEFINED AS
SOCIAL
RESPONSIVENESS
University of Fort Hare N N
University of Johannesburg Y Y
University of KwaZulu-Natal N N

63. 55
University of Limpopo N N
University of Pretoria Y Y
University of South Africa Y Y
University of Venda Y Y
University of Zululand N N
University of the Free State Y Y
University of the Western Cape Y Y
University of the Witwatersrand N N
Vaal University of Technology N N
Walter Sisulu University N N
From the data collected in table 4.1 it is evident that only a small minority of universities
have approved CE policies.
A clear definition of CE in the absence of a policy should be able to give the university
guidance in the implementation of CE. If that CE definition is in line with the national
policy definition, it will ensure that CE is implemented correctly. From the data matrix
it is evident that CE is not clearly defined at universities. Both Slamat (2010) and
Nongxa (2010) confirm that “community engagement has not been clearly defined in
South African higher education institutions. Current activities include outreach
activities, national research projects and service learning”. Pienaar-Steyn (2012)
remarks that academics have difficulty defining their contribution since the concept is
rather vague. The merits of both these statements are evident in the data matrix. Only
a few universities have a CE policy, and marginally more have a definition of CE. This
lack of a clear definition impedes the implementation of CE. There seems to be
confusion over who should implement CE and who should ultimately be responsible
for it at institutions.
Based on this information, the respondents were asked who they believed was
responsible for the implementation of CE.

64. 56
Respondent 1: It cannot be done centrally because it, if you want to link it to the
curriculum, it must be done in faculty.
Respondent 2: The community, no, I mean now prior to 2012 the CE department had
the mandate to run CE at UJ but in 2012 there was a new decision taken by senate?
That now the CE will struggle between two points. Prof Parech you know academic
section is in charge of service learning, Prof Maluleke is now in charge of the
community.
The above responses call into question how universities understand CE. In respondent
1’s institution, the CE office provided guidelines on how faculties could implement CE.
Respondent 2’s institution, however, had not established who needed to implement
CE. Pienaar-Steyn (2012:40) points out that “despite numerous attempts by scholars
to clarify ‘community engagement’, it remains a vague concept in South African higher
education institutions”. This is also clear from the answers of the respondents; their
answers differed on major conceptual levels and this can be seen as very problematic
for the successful implementation of CE.
It is clear that there is a need for a conceptual framework for CE. Hall (2010) mentions
that there are no articulated standards or objectives with clear indicators against which
to monitor progress, measure impact and evaluate effectiveness. If this conceptual
framework does not exist, as it does in the other core functions, namely teaching and
research, CE will always remain on the periphery.
The aim in section 4.3 was to see if universities had a clear definition of CE. From
section 4.1 it is clear that only a few had CE policies. A clear definition might then help

65. 57
universities implement CE in the absence of an official policy. Less than half the
universities do not have a CE definition. Those that do, have definitions that are mostly
correlated to the national CE definition. This shows a clear understanding of the
definition of CE at South African universities.
4.3.4 CE environment at universities
Table 4.4: Community engagement
environment at institution
Name of university
Does the institution have
an enabling environment
for CE?
Are there any incentives for individuals
establishing CE projects at the institution?
Cape Peninsula University of Technology Y NA
Central University of Technology N NA
Durban University of Technology Y NA
Mangosuthu University of Technology N NA
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University Y NA
North-West University Y Y
Rhodes University Y Y
Stellenbosch University Y Y
Tshwane University of Technology N NA
University of Cape Town Y Y
University of Fort Hare N NA
University of Johannesburg Y NA
University of KwaZulu-Natal Y NA
University of Limpopo N NA
University of Pretoria Y Y
University of South Africa Y Y
University of Venda Y NA
University of Zululand N NA
University of the Free State Y NA
University of the Western Cape Y NA
University of the Witwatersrand N NA
Vaal University of Technology N NA
Walter Sisulu University N NA
It is clear that universities with a CE policy or at least a clear definition of CE have a
more enabling environment. Respondents were asked if their institution had an
enabling environment. The following responses were given:

66. 58
Respondent 1: Yes and obviously as part of that environment, you need central
support from management or your MEC.
Respondent 2: Ja strangely enough we have, you know it, you know we have our
challenges but you know looking at it from Senior Management support in so far as
staffing and resources, I would say no but when I look at the will, the sheer will of staff
and students to engage in CE activity then I will say it is an enabling environment.
Both respondents felt that their university had an enabling environment to support CE.
Both were from universities with a clear CE policy. This enabling environment is crucial
to the success of CE, since the supportive environmental context will enhance the
success of CE.
To follow on this, respondents were asked what they thought were the elements of
such an enabling environment.
Respondent 1: I think the willingness um definitely passion to do it and also what
happened here I think was that it started on a small scale and the, there’s two things;
the impact that it can make in the community when it’s done in the appropriate way,
the damage that it can done to the community if it’s not happening in the appropriate
way and then also but that is something that you must be cautious about is using
community engagement as a teaching and learning tool because that can develop into
a problem because um internationally community engagement is used as a teaching
and learning tool but the environment in other countries is conducive for this. For
instance, in the USA or Australia or UK, you can get on a public bus or train and you
can get to the community and back within two hours and you can, the student can do

67. 59
work in the community for at least one and a half hours. We cannot do that in South
Africa so this means that the costs of community engagement is extremely high so
what happened here was that lecturers started to use community engagement as a
teaching and learning tool. They implement it in every module so students would
complain that they have two hundred hours of community work to do to cover for their
six modules so we had to steer the whole thing down. Community engagement cannot
be used as a teaching and learning tool, it’s only designated, registered modules that’s
allowed to do community engagement or to have a component in community
engagement otherwise everyone would use it. They want to use it. At this university,
it’s a very popular teaching and learning tool. Once you’ve done it and you’ve seen
the impact, then you want to use it as a tool and we had to steer that down. The costs
are just too high and also its time consuming. And also research has proven that the
impact you want to make through community engagement, you reach that with the
student within ten hours and the community agrees with that otherwise the student
gets bored and they just hang around.
Respondent 2: I think the ethos of UJ, the values, they have instilled in both staff and
student, something that says, “Yes we are here but we are not inward looking, we are
always outward”, that’s why UJ has become a brand. We are always looking outside
so although we are doing our work here, we are always saying, “Ok what is it that we
can do, use our intellectual capital for the development of our communities”, and that
brings in CE inevitably into the discussion and I think secondly, the calibre of staff and
students is such that they, I find that they have that integral passion for community
development just by themselves, they feel that it’s their call just to you know use the
knowledge they have for the betterment of society. So I find that you know, you don’t

68. 60
have to struggle much, it’s just that we need more of the forum to send the message
out.
An enabling environment can be seen as one of the key drivers of CE at universities.
4.3.5 Monitoring and evaluation
In table 4.4 there is no evidence of any universities monitoring and evaluating projects.
The aim was also to establish if universities incentivise the establishment of CE
projects.
Taking into account that most universities have a dedicated CE office and that most
have a clear definition of CE, respondents were asked if they monitored and evaluated
CE internally. The following responses were given:
Respondent 1: And also impact assessment but participatory impact assessment, we
don’t treat the community as we are the experts and we want to see what our students
did well or what, where the impact assessment is done in participation with the
community.
Respondent 2: Yes. If you think of, there are two ways of monitoring at UJ, you know
there’s the formative one, you know ongoing and then there’s the summative. Now the
ongoing is supposed to be taking place with the project leaders and also with the
faculties but there has been what would I call it, some communication problem here in
the sense that there is a feeling you know because when you have to assess
somebody, you have to have the mandate to assess them. I can’t just come and