Presentation to academics at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (NMMU) on initial findings from the CHET HERANA II project on engagement at African universities.

1. HERANA
From Engagement
to Interconnectedness
Preliminary findings from Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
NMMU, 4 March 2014

2. Background
›› CHET HERANA I study
»» Links between universities
and economic development
»» 8 African universities
(including NMMU)
»» small sample size (n≈6)
»» ‘projects’ selected by leadership
»» mixture of centres, programmes
and projects
»» unstructured interviews

3. Direct
articulation
HERANA I Findings
12
11
PBMR 4, 10
MD 3, 10
10
9
AP 2, 8
1. While there was evidence of
connectedness between the
university and industry, this was
generally confined to the level of units
or centres rather than institutional-level
partnerships.
ACTS 5, 11
IV 5, 10
CB 3, 9
8
7
Weakening
academic
core 0
6
1
2
3
4
5
Strengthening
academic
6 core
5
4
3
2
1
0
Indirect
articulation
Key:
Abbreviation
Project/centre
ACTS
Automotive Components Technology Station
IV
InnoVenton: NMMU Institute for Chemical Technology and Downstream Chemicals Technology Station
PBMR
Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Project
AP
Agro-Processing Study for the East London Industrial Development Zone (ELIDZ)
MD
Govan Mbeki Sasol Mathematics Development Programme
CB
IlingeLomama Cooperative Bakery Project
2. Projects/centres tended to score well
on the articulation indicators – in other
words, they reflected national priorities
(and to a lesser extent institutional
objectives), had more than one funding
source and, in some cases, plans for
financial sustainability, and may have
had a connection to an implementation
agency.
3. A number of these projects/centres also
managed to keep a strong connection
to the academic core of the university,
whilst some were more disconnected
from these core knowledge activities.
4. There were ‘exemplary’ development
projects/centres. The problem was
scale: there were simply not enough,
and some seemed overly dependent on
exceptional individuals.

4. National context
Chairperson: Professor D Lortan
Tel: (031) 3732720
Fax: (031) 3732724
Email: dlortan@dut.ac.za
Secretary: Mrs D Hornby
Tel: (046) 6037229
Fax: (046) 6038869
Email: d.hornby@ru.ac.za
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
19th February 2014
Professor Nico Cloete
Director: CHET / Extraordinary Professor of Higher Education
University of the Western Cape
Cape Town
WHITE PAPER FOR
POST-SCHOOL
EDUCATION AND
TRAINING
Dear Professor Cloete
“Given budgetary and other resource constraints
within higher education and the vastly different
ways in which universities approach community
engagement, it is likely that future funding of such
initiatives in universities will be restricted...”
(DHET, 2013: 39).
The South African Higher Education Community Engagement Forum (SAHECEF) cordially invites you to
present at its fourth seminar entitled ‘White Paper for Post-School Education, The National
Development Plan Vision 2030, and The Future of University Community Engagement’.
The Seminar will be hosted by the University of the Western Cape, 3rd – 4th April 2014.
SEMINAR 4: WHITE PAPER FOR POST-SCHOOL EDUCATION, THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN VISION
2030, AND THE FUTURE OF UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Universities in the round have potentially a pivotal role to play in the social and economic
development of their regions. They are a critical ‘asset’ of the region; even more so in less
favoured regions where the private sector may be weak or relatively small, with low levels of
research and development activity (Goddard, 2011: viii).
Given budgetary and other resource constraints within higher education and the vastly
different ways in which universities approach community engagement, it is likely that future
funding of such initiatives in universities will be restricted (DHET, 2013: 39).
Despite the challenges of national policy disconnect, institutionalisation, funding, and conceptual clarity,
the past two decades has seen an increase in the rhetoric and praxis of Community Engagement (CE) as
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Prof D Lortan (Durban University of Technology, Chairperson) Mrs D Hornby (Rhodes University, Secretary)
Prof N Mollel (University of Limpopo, Vice-Chairperson) Dr J Boughey (University of Zululand, Treasurer)
Prof V Netshandama (University of Venda) Mrs B Bouwman (North-West University, Marketing)
Ms E Meyer-Adams (University of Johannesburg) Ms J Munsamy (Central University of Technology)
“…funding will be restricted to programmes
linked directly to the academic programme
of universities, and form part of the
teaching and research function of these
institutions.”
(DHET, 2013: 39).

5. Institutional context

6. HERANA II: Research question and limitations
›› Interconnectedness:
How are academics negotiating the tension between
engaging with those external to the academy and
strengthening the core functions of the university?
›› The research project does not:
»» assess the impact of engagement projects on communities
»» assess the quality of engagement projects or their outputs

7. HERANA II: Notes on methodology
›› Two universities
»» NMMU, Port Elizabeth
»» Makerere University, Kampala
›› Larger sample sizes
»» NMMU (n=80)
»» Makerere (n=30)
›› Projects only (smallest unit of activity)
›› Projects selected across faculties
›› Structured questionnaires completed by leaders of
engagement projects and follow-up meetings for clarification
and input from participants
›› Indicators for articulation and for academic core developed;
weighted scores for each. Each project plotted according their
scores on these two dimensions

8. HERANA II: The academic core and the third mission
›› Some claim that the third mission of universities, i.e. providing
services to the communities in which they are embedded, is a
core function of universities.
›› It is both conceivable and possible for third mission activities
to be carried out by organisations external to the university.
»» Civil society, government agencies, corporate social responsibility
initiatives as well as organisational structures created at the
periphery of the university are all capable of delivering third
mission-type services to communities.
›› Not so in the case of knowledge creation and, in particular,
knowledge legitimisation and credentialling. These are unique
to the university.

9. Indicators
Articulation indicators
A1
Alignment between project and university development
objectives
A2 Initiation / agenda-setting
A3 Links to external stakeholders and implementation agencies
A4 Funding
Academic core indicators
C1
Application of existing knowledge versus creation
of new knowledge
C2 Dissemination of research findings
C3 Links with teaching and with curriculum development
C4 Academic networks

10. Weighted scores
Articulation Indicators
A1
Q
Score
Max
score
1.00
Initiation/agenda-setting
A2.1
Self-initiated = 1
1.00
Proposal more than one author = 0.5
0.50
Project plan / TOR flexible = 1
1.00
A2.7
A4
For each project objective in alignment with
university mission/vision = 0.25
A2.3
A3
A1.1
A1.2
A1.3
A2.2
A2
Alignment between project and
university development objectives
Advisory group and meets at least once p.a. = 0.5
0.50
A2.6
A3.1.2
For each link to an external stakeholder = 0.25
1.00
A3.2
A3.3
A3.4
Direct link to implementation agency = 2
OR Indirect link to implementation agency = 1
OR Self-implemented = 1
2.00
A4.1
For each source of funding = 0.25
1.00
A4.1
Long-term funding (more than 3 years) = 0.5
0.50
A4.1
Renewable funding (at least one source) = 0.5
0.50
Links to external stakeholders (nonacademic) and to implementation
agencies
Funding

11. Academic Core Indicators
C1
Max
score
1.25
A1.4
C1.2.5
Publicly available = 0.25
0.25
C2.1
C2.3.2
A1.4
Postgraduates linked to project = 0.5
0.50
C1.2.2
C1.2.3
C1.2.4
C1.2.6
C1.2.7
C1.2.8
C1.2.9
For each publication/presentation listed = 0.25
2.00
C3a Teaching/curriculum development
C2.1
C2.2
Changes to courses/modules = 1
OR New courses/modules/programmes = 2
2.00
C3b Formal teaching/learning of students
C2.3.1
C2.3.2
Students involved = 0.5
0.50
C2.4
Participation in project is course requirement = 1
1.00
C2.5
C2.6
C2.7
C2.8
Other roles for students in project = 0.25 per role
0.50
A3.1.1
Links to academics from other universities = 1
1.00
C4
Dissemination
Links to academic networks
C1.1
Score
New knowledge or product = 1.25
OR New data = 0.5
C2
Generates new knowledge or product
or data
Q

12. Interconnected
Faculty of Science
TURTLES
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
ENERGYIND
WILLARD
5
TECHBLEND
5
4
REFFARMS
4
3
MATHISP
3
MATHMXIT
2
On-going
2
Complete
1
5+
4.00–4.99
3.00–3.99
1
MATHSUP
Academic
core
0
0
PSYSCI
2.00–2.99
0–1.99
Duration of
engagement project
Disconnected
Articulation

13. Interconnected
Innoventon
9
9
8
8
7
7
DIPCHEM
6
ALGENERGY
5
CHICKLIT
BIOLIQ
5
4
BIOPLAST
4
3
3
2
On-going
6
2
Complete
1
5+
4.00–4.99
3.00–3.99
1
PRESPLANT
Academic
core
0
0
BOARDWLK
INULIN
EXCEL
2.00–2.99
0–1.99
Duration of
engagement project
Disconnected
Articulation

14. Interconnected
Faculty of Science
incl. InnoVenton
TURTLES
9
9
8
8
7
7
ALGENERGY
6
WILLARD
5
CHICKLIT
4
3
3
MATHISP
MATHMXIT
On-going
5
4
BIOPLAST
BIOLIQ
6
ENERGYIND
REFFARMS
TECHBLEND
DIPCHEM
2
PRESPLANT
2
Complete
1
5+
4.00–4.99
3.00–3.99
1
MATHSUP
Academic
core
0
0
BOARDWLK
INULIN
PSYSCI
EXCEL
2.00–2.99
0–1.99
Duration of
engagement project
Disconnected
Articulation

15. Interconnected
Faculty of Arts
9
9
8
8
ROUTE67
7
7
6
6
BIRDST
5
UNAFRICA
5
4
FATHERHOOD
4
NGOSERV
3
3
READCLUB
2
On-going
2
Complete
1
1
5+
4.00–4.99
Academic
core
0
0
3.00–3.99
2.00–2.99
0–1.99
Duration of
engagement project
Disconnected
Articulation

16. Interconnected
Development Studies
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
4
THINASINAKO
5
4
3
3
CMSLJBAY
2
On-going
Complete
2
PERSPECT
1
5+
4.00–4.99
1
HELED
Academic
core
0
0
CAPAMA
3.00–3.99
2.00–2.99
0–1.99
Duration of
engagement project
Disconnected
Articulation

17. Interconnected
Faculty of Engineering,
Built Environment IT
VWMASTERS
CHAIRHSD
9
9
8
8
GMMASTERS
7
6
6
RACE
CHAIRED
5
SIEMTRN
4
TWERLY
3
ICTFET
AIDC
4
DRMATH
WELA
3
CONTI
2
On-going
SOLARV
5
LIVLAB
FAMHLTH
7
CHAIRVW
TETRA
2
Complete
1
1
5+
4.00–4.99
Academic
core
0
0
3.00–3.99
2.00–2.99
0–1.99
Duration of
engagement project
Disconnected
Articulation

18. Interconnected
EntSA
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
LATEWLED
5
FSWTECHTRANS
UYILO
5
TURBINE
4
4
WELDCOR
3
SUPDEV
3
FSWPIPE
2
On-going
2
Complete
1
5+
4.00–4.99
Academic
core
1
STRLIGHT
0
0
SOUTHSTAR
3.00–3.99
RESTRESS
2.00–2.99
0–1.99
Duration of
engagement project
Disconnected
Articulation

19. Interconnected
Faculty of Engineering,
Built Environment IT
incl. EntSA
VWMASTERS
CHAIRHSD
9
9
8
8
GMMASTERS
7
6
6
LATEWLED
RACE
CHAIRED
LIVLAB
FSWTECHTRANS
TWERLY
UYILO
5
5
4
AIDC
FSWPIPE
4
DRMATH
WELA
SUPDEV
3
CONTI
2
On-going
SOLARV
TURBINESIEMTRN
WELDCOR
FAMHLTH
ICTFET
3
7
CHAIRVW
TETRA
2
Complete
1
5+
4.00–4.99
Academic
core
1
STRLIGHT
0
0
SOUTHSTAR
3.00–3.99
RESTRESS
2.00–2.99
0–1.99
Duration of
engagement project
Disconnected
Articulation

20. Interconnected
Faculty of Health Sciences
9
9
8
8
7
7
PASSPORT
MOBHLTHIS
6
5
5
4
MENTALILL
4
IZEOU
3
6
3
HLTHTRAIN
2
On-going
2
Complete
1
4.00–4.99
3.00–3.99
2.00–2.99
0–1.99
LCONINST
MAXHLTH
5+
Academic
core
SOKHULA
0
0
LCONTEACH
LCONTRAIN
LCONENROL
LCONMOD
1
LCONLAB
Duration of
engagement project
Disconnected
Articulation

21. Interconnected
Faculty of Education
9
9
8
8
SCILIT
7
6
6
5
5
4
DATADARK
4
3
On-going
CYBERHUNT
Complete
MANYANO
5+
4.00–4.99
Academic
core
0
1
2
7
3
INTSCHDEV
FAMMATHS
2
1
MASILANG
CHESHIRE
3.00–3.99
2.00–2.99
0–1.99
Duration of
engagement project
Disconnected
0
Articulation

22. Interconnected
NMMU
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
1
FACULTY
Science
Science: Innoventon
2
Academic
core
1
0
0
Arts
Business and Economics
Engineering, BE and IT
Engineering: Entsa
Health
Education
Disconnected
Articulation

23. Initial observations
›› Projects still score higher on articulation than on strengthening
the academic core (cf. HERANA I findings). But many projects
still in the early phases, and therefore have the potential to
score more highly on the academic core indicators as these
projects mature
›› NMMU’s Africa development mission is not integrated into the
university’s engagement project objectives
›› Engagement is mostly with regional stakeholders (particularly,
government, industry and communities). No engagement with
other universities regionally or nationally
›› Based on the current snapshot, Arts and Engineering are
doing best in managing the tension between engaging
externally and strengthening the core

24. ›› Importation of research project management capacity. Does
this reduce the likelihood of projects connecting more deeply
with teaching and research output activities?
›› Possible lack of awareness in the project planning phase of
the potential to link activities to the academic core?

25. Thank you.
Francois van Schalkwyk
CHET Researcher
francois@compressdsl.com