TRANSFORMATION AT TSHWANE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

DISCUSSION DOCUMENT

Compiled by D. J. Pieterse

Strategic Management Support

October, 2006

Final version: January 2007

AGENDA FOR TRANSFORMATION AT TSHWANE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

1.	INTRODUCTION

Transformation of the higher education system has been a long-standing priority on the Reconstruction and Development agenda of the post-1994 government. Government’s zeal to execute its intend to transform the South African education system, particularly the higher education (HE) sector, became apparent between 1995 and 2004. This era was characterized by processes of policy development and the drawing up of legislation specifically intended to transform the HE system. The myriad legislation and policy documents that have seen the light between 1995 and 2004 are evident of this phase, which for the most part, is over. However, 2004 symbolizes the dawning of the implementation phase of Government’s HE transformation agenda and kicked off with the reconstruction of the HE landscape. For many higher education institutions (HEIs), 2004 marked the beginning of an era of getting to terms with new identities as a result of the merging of institutions and to overcome the problems characteristic of the merging process and those associated with the disparities created by apartheid. .

Transformation of the HE system entailed both top-down and bottom-up processes. Much has been done in terms of the top-down process. Policies with respect to planning, funding and quality assurance (the three state-steering mechanisms) are in place and are intended to guide and give effect to the transformation process. The bottom-up process requires HEIs to respond to the policies and has become a concern for most stakeholders, particularly for the DoE and the CHE. At TUT, the Executive Management Committee (EMC) has also expressed concern about the lack of pace within the institution in responding to Government’s transformation initiatives.

2.	THE PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT

This document is intended to give background information to the all role players in order to come to a mutual understanding of concepts, principles and terminologies related to transformation, as well as of the roles, responsibilities and functions of staff relating to transformation at TUT. This discussion document also serves to stimulate thought around a number of issues related to transformation and to promote debate amongst staff. Staff members are encouraged to respond to issues contained in this document by giving their inputs, ideas and comments.

A number of inputs and comments have already been received. Some of these are included in the form of footnotes in the document, while others are included at the end of the document. All of these comments are open to debate.

3.	DISCUSSION TOPICS

Transformation:

To achieve a mutual understanding of the responsibilities relating to transformation, it is necessary to interrogate the concept “transformation” in both broad and narrow terms in relation to Government’s HE transformation agenda.

3.1	What is Transformation?

Transformation in HE means different things to different people and it is therefore necessary to look at the concept from different perspectives:

The South African Concise Oxford Dictionary (2002; 1247) defines transformation as follows: “transformation. n. 1 a marked change in nature, form or appearance (in South Africa) the post-apartheid process of social and political change to establish democracy and social equity”

The Ministry of Education, in the White Paper 3: A Programme for Higher Education Transformation (1997) defines transformation as:

“The transformation of higher education is part of the broader process of South Africa’s political, social and economic transition, which includes political democratization, economic reconstruction and development, and redistributive social policies aimed at equity. This national agenda is being pursued within a distinctive set of pressures and demands characteristic of late twentieth century, often typified as globalisation. This term refers to multiple, inter-related changes in social, cultural and economic relations, linked to the widespread impact of the information and communications revolution, the growth of trans-national scholarly and scientific networks, the accelerating integration of the world economy and intense competition among nations for markets” (DoE, 1997: 3).

Harvey and Knight (1996) describe transformation as involving institutions to enable learner transformation. This means that for many governments and intergovernmental organisations, higher education is the key in providing future change agents. Higher education should therefore provide a transformative experience for learners so that they can, in turn, play a leading role in the transformation of society. This implies a particular mindset within the institution. Harvey and Knight thus argue that higher education must be transformed in itself if it is to be successful at providing a transformative experience for learners. Harvey and Knight suggest that such transformation requires:

shifting from teaching to learning

developing explicit knowledge, skills, attitudes and abilities

developing appropriate assessment procedures

rewarding transformative teaching

encouraging pedagogy discourse

providing transformative learning for academics

fostering new collegiality

linking learning with quality improvement; and

auditing improvement. (Adapted from Minnaar, 2005).

Eckel et al. (1998) define HE institutional transformation as (Transformation) which: (1) alters the culture of the institution by changing selected underlying assumptions and institutional behaviors, processes and products; (2) is deep and pervasive (invasive, all-encompassing), affecting the whole institution; (3) is intentional; and (4) occurs over time (Adapted from Minnaar, 2005)

3.2	Why Transformation in Higher Education?

As early as 1996, the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) emphasized the need for the transformation of the South African higher education system and expressed its concern that there was an absence of any sense of ‘system’ in South African higher education.

In the Education White Paper 3 (1997), the Minister of Education argues that the face of South Africa’s transition from apartheid and minority rule to democracy requires a rethinking of all existing practices, institutions and values in terms of their fitness for the new era. The challenge after the 1994 elections would be to redress past inequities and to transform the higher education system to serve a new social order, to meet pressing national needs, and to respond to new realities and opportunities. Higher education, the Ministers says, must lay the foundation for the development of a learning society which can stimulate and mobilize the creative and intellectual energies of all the people towards meeting the challenge of reconstruction and development (DoE, 1997: 1).

Political requirement:

The reform thinking in the early years of the new democratic dispensation was that the higher education system was too fragmented and uncoordinated to be managed properly and that it was too “elitist” and did not serve the needs of the new south Africa.

The NCHE recommended a “planning and coordination” imperative which was aimed at steering the entire education system effectively. The NCHE recommendations gave rise to the Education White Paper 3, which in this regard states that “…the Ministry finds reason for concern and an imperative for transformation…” (and that) “…the present system of higher education is limited in its ability to meet the moral, political, social and economic demands of the new South Africa” (DoE, 1997: 2). The following deficiencies are then identified by the DoE:

An inequitable distribution of access and opportunity for students and staff along lines of race, gender, class and geography.

A chronic mismatch between the output of higher education and the needs of a modernizing economy.

An inadequately fulfilled obligation to help lay the foundations of a critical civil society, with a culture of public debate and tolerance which accommodates differences and competing interests.

Too many parts of the system observe teaching and research policies which favor academic insularity (narrow-mindedness) and closed-system disciplinary programmes.

The governance of higher education at a system-level is characterized by fragmentation, inefficiency and ineffectiveness, with too little co-ordination, few common goals and negligible systemic planning. At the institutional level, demographic participation and the effective representation of staff and students in governance structures is still contested on many campuses. (DoE, 1997:2)

Having made its case for transformation of the HE system, the DoE (1997:3) explains the policy challenges of transformation, reconstruction and development in terms of economic and technological changes that are necessitated by globalisation and its concomitant market-related competition on the one hand, and the challenges with which the nation is confronted, on the other hand, in terms of the inequitable patterns of ownership, wealth and social and economic practices of the past. The latter, which has resulted in “the emergence of a sophisticated urban core economy with relatively well-developed technological infrastructure and an increasingly highly educated skilled labour force, co-existing side-by-side with a peripheral rural and informal urban economy from which the majority of the population, previously denied access to education and training and restricted to unskilled labour, eke out a living” (DoE, 1997:3).

Economical Development Requirement:

Against this backdrop, the DoE sketches the obligation of the HE system to provide education and training to develop the skills and innovations necessary for national development and successful participation in the global economy, while stating that in addition, the system has to be restructured internally to face the challenges of globalisation. It goes on by stating that the economic and technological changes that are required, create the agenda for the role of higher education in reconstruction and development, which includes: human resource development in terms of mobilization of human talent and potential through lifelong learning; High-level skills training for the provision of person power to strengthen the country’s enterprises, services and infrastructure; and the production, acquisition and application of new knowledge, particularly technological improvement and innovation on which national growth and competitiveness is dependent.

Societal requirement

The society in which TUT operates is probably the most significant influence on the identity of the institution and what the institution needs to become. However, the society is not a homogeneous entity to which the institution can respond with a “one fits all” approach but that it is a complex network of values, beliefs and perceptions that is unique. This diversity is not only characteristic of a specific country or area, but also to specific generations and ethnic groups within society. It is essential to gain a better understanding of the diversity in all its dimensions of both students and staff in order to build better relationships and to truly manage the knowledge and contribution of individuals within each unique group. It is important to realize that a university, in fact, belongs to the society and community in which it operates and that society should claim ownership of initiatives and operations towards the education of its (society’s) members. Therefore, transformation should not merely be managed in compliance with government initiatives, but it should be managed from a perspective of societal requirements.

Minnaar (2005) touches on two other aspects that influence transformation in a higher education institution, namely “African Renaissance” and “globalisation”.

African Renaissance as a societal requirement:

In an address at the Centre for African Renaissance and Development Studies (University of the North), the then Deputy Minister of Education, Mr. Mangena, said the following regarding the role which (South African) HEIs has to play in terms of the African Renaissance:

“The resurgence of interest in the concept of an African renaissance in the late 20th and early 21st centuries has breathed a new life into the desire by all Africans to end the misery that appears to be our lot. The reconstruction of the OAU into the African Union and initiatives such as the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) are the new building blocks required for a meaningful co-operation to take place among the African states” (Mangena, 2002:5).

“But it will still require each one of us, especially our institutions of higher learning to translate policy into programmes that would bring about tangible change to the lives of individual Africans. Dedicating the 21st century towards Africa’s development will come to nothing unless we take cognizance of the fact that it will require greater effort and dedication from us all to restore Africa to her pristine glory” (Mangena, 2002:5)

“We need an African leadership that is capable and committed to the development of great African engineers and architects, builders of bridges and houses, scholars who will develop programmes and projects for modernizing our economies and our societies and bring science and technology into the life of every African. It is only through Africa’s people that we can address not simply poverty alleviation, but also its root causes to ensure that we also reap the benefits of technological advancement” (Mangena, 2002:6)

The Deputy Minister goes on saying that within the higher education system, the need to develop South Africa’s human resource must be a priority if HE was to make a difference to their lives and the lives of South Africa’s neighbours. He says that the creation of new jobs, development of innovative leadership and technologies, and the implementation of programmes on urban renewal and rural development, are dependent for their success and sustainability on HE’s ability to provide high quality education and training to all its students (Mangena, 2002:7).

Mangena sums up the key policy goals for realizing the transformation agenda within higher education as identified by the National Plan for Higher Education as follows:

To increase access and to produce graduates with the skills and competencies necessary to meet the human resource needs of the country

To promote equity and access and redress past inequalities through ensuring that student and staff profiles reflect the demographic composition of the South African society

To ensure diversity in the higher education institutional landscape through programme differentiation to meet national and regional skills and knowledge needs

To build high-level research capacity, including sustaining current research strength, and promote research linked to our national development needs

To restructure and consolidate the institutional landscape of the higher education system to transcend the fragmentation, inequalities and inefficiencies of the past and to enable the establishment of South African institutions consistent with the vision and values of a non-racial, non-sexist and democratic society.

It is with these objectives in mind that the restructuring of higher education is taking place while the transformation processes are also intended to promote a new national culture within the HE sector; a culture geared towards the attainment of a democratic, non-racial and non-sexist society with sensitivity for inclusiveness and shared values for all people. Mangena states that the transformation process also entails the expansion of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme in order to promote equity and that, within the study areas of science and technology, efforts should be made to expand access while at the same time institutions would be required to develop plans that will enable to meet their graduation rate targets (Mangena, 2002:8).

In terms of African Renaissance and the significance of this concept in relation to transformation, Minnaar (2005) argues that:

“There is a need to build institutions that are truly oriented towards the development of African societies and the promotion of African cultures. This will require greater efforts at producing the kinds of graduates who will not only be adaptable to the rapidly changing needs of African society but also contribute to innovation and development” (Minnaar, 2005:10).

Globalisation as a requirement:

Minnaar (2005) alludes to the effects that globalisation has had a negative effect on underdeveloped countries as “Africa should work towards the utilization of its knowledge base in order to make up for lost ground in terms of global development cycles, i.e. the agri era, the industrial era and the ICT era to become an international player in the knowledge era” (Minnaar, 2005: 10).

The President, Thabo Mbeki, in his address at the Third African Renaissance Festival (Durban, 2001), remarked that: “As Africans, we are faced with the urgent challenge of ending poverty and underdevelopment on our Continent” (Mbeki, 2001: 1). Mbeki says that it is the poor themselves that must ask the question of what should be done to end their poverty permanently and that, out of necessity as they work to get these answers, must proceed from the position that they have to place their answers within the context of the constraints and possibilities imposed on them by contemporary global reality. This reality, he argues, is the modern world of which liberal democracy, capitalism and globalisation are some of the principal defining features (Mbeki, 2002:1).

Globalisation is a complex concept and difficult to explain, which is why a single definition fails to circumscribe the extent of the intrinsic characteristics and external drivers of the globalisation process. A suitable definition may be that of Castells (2001, p. 211), where the process of globalisation comprises the collective changes in social, political, economic, cultural and technological relations on a global scale which gives rise to the information society.

It is the importance of relationships when:

“Looking even further into the future, it should be noted that the world is now moving towards a connection economy – relationship will dominate the way in which we see and do business, the way we lead and manage companies into the future, relationships will be a key economic measure and currency of the future and African institutions should not be left behind”.

The pertinent question is:

3.3	How should HEIs, and in particular, TUT respond to Government’s transformation agenda?

In answering this question it is advisable to look at the term “responsiveness” in a little more than a casual way.

The term “responsiveness” in its broader meaning and in the context of higher education transformation in South Africa, is defined by the CHE as: “Responsiveness applies to all the purposes of higher education: teaching and learning, research and community engagement, and the web of interactions between higher education and policy-makers, industry and commerce, local communities and the wider society” (CHE, 2004:157).

This definition, according to the CHE (2004), clearly indicates the concept responsiveness as being linked to the broader relationship between HE and society in the South African case:

“Higher education’s social and public value is related to the links between itself and societal needs; developing a citizenry capable of participating effectively in democratic processes; producing intellectuals who can engage the most intractable problems of society and so develop the ability of citizens to participate politically, economically and socially; and producing high-level skilled graduates and new bases of knowledge to drive economic and social development, and to enhance the overall levels of intellectual and cultural development” (CHE, 2004: 158).

The CHE warns that, although the notions of responsiveness have applications to all aspects of the core business of HE namely teaching and learning, research and community engagement, the disjuncture between broad and narrow notions of responsiveness, which has emerged in recent years, should not be overlooked. The CHE argues that the narrow notion of responsiveness in terms of the traditional knowledge responsibilities of universities (research as the production of new knowledge, teaching as the dissemination of knowledge, and community service as the applied use of knowledge) is increasingly being located within the demands of economic productivity and its requirements for particular kinds of knowledge and skills and thus, reduces the broader concept to mere market responsiveness. The danger, the CHE argues, is that “the concept of responsiveness could become emptied of most of its contents except for those factors which advance individual, organizational or national economic competitiveness. It is vital, according to the CHE that in a country such as South Africa where HE transformation is part of the broader democratic reconstruction and development process, the social responsiveness not be entirely subsumed to economic responsiveness.

4.	TRANSFORMATION IMPLICATIONS/CHALLENGES FOR TUT

The CHE indicates that the “responsiveness of higher education to the general and specific needs of the economy can only be a subset of a more complex and multi-faceted notion of responsiveness” (CHE, 2004:158). TUT therefore faces the challenge of not only be responsive to the market and economic needs of SA, but to be responsive, in the broader sense, to the social needs through its production, dissemination and application of knowledge.

4.1	Fundamental principles guiding the process of transformation

The White Paper 3: A Programme for Higher Education Transformation (1997) stipulates that the Ministry regards the following principles as fundamental in guiding the process of transformation “in the spirit of an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equity and freedom” (DoE, 1997: 5):

Equity and redress

1.18	“The principle of equity requires fair opportunities both to enter higher education programmes and to succeed in them. Applying the principle of equity implies, on the one hand, a critical identification of existing inequalities which are the product of policies, structures and practices based on racial, gender, disability and other forms of discrimination or disadvantage, and on the other a programme of transformation with a view to redress. Such transformation involves not only abolishing all existing forms of unjust differentiation, but also measures of empowerment, including financial support to bring about equal opportunity for individuals and institutions” (DoE,1997: 5).

Implications for TUT:

Transformation of an institutional and academic culture as a means to achieve staff and student equity and redress

Sustaining and consolidating processes towards student equity in enrolments (race and gender), opportunities (access), quality (support), and outcomes (throughput), while addressing significant weak points such as SET enrolment, teacher education and postgraduate enrolments.

Development and provision of student support services

Developing student support policies and strategies

Revisiting institutional policies to remove discriminating aspects, and developing policies to redress past inequalities, etc.

Improving throughput and success rates

Attending to the articulation gap between the demands of HE and the preparedness of school leavers (Foundation programmes)

Democratisation

1.19	“The principle of democratisation requires that governance of the system of higher education and of individual institutions should be democratic, representative and participatory and characterized by mutual respect, tolerance and the maintenance of a well-ordered and peaceful community life. Structures and procedures should ensure that those affected by decisions have a say in making them, either directly or through elected representatives. It requires that decision-making processes at the systemic, institutional and departmental levels are transparent, and that those taking and implementing decisions are accountable for the manner in which they perform their duties and use resources” (DoE, 1997: 6).

Implications for TUT:

Ensure equitable representation of staff, students and other stakeholders on formal forums of the institution.

Promote and develop institutional cultures, which will embody values and facilitate behavior aimed at peaceful assembly, reconciliation, respect for difference and the promotion of the common good.

Create a secure and safe campus environment and set standards of expected behavior for the entire institutional community, and

Promote a campus environment, which is sensitive to racial and cultural diversity.

Promote decision-making processes that are transparent and participative.

Development

1.20	“The principle of development means that conditions must be created to facilitate the transformation of the higher education system to enable it to contribute to the common good of society through the production, acquisition and application of knowledge, the building of human capacity, and the provision of lifelong learning opportunities” (DoE 1997:6).

Implications for TUT:

Recognise staff and students’ potential and develop them to reach full capacity

Provide developmental opportunities for all, in line with institutional priorities

“Empower people”

Quality

1.21	“The pursuit of the principle of quality means maintaining and applying academic and educational standards, both in the sense of specific expectations and requirements that should be complied with, and in the sense of ideals of excellence that should be aimed at. These expectations and ideals may differ from context to context, partly depending on the specific purposes pursued. Applying the principle entails evaluating services and products against set standards, with a view to improvement, renewal or progress” (DoE, 1997; 6).

Implications for TUT:

Focusing on quality arrangements and standards as set by the HEQC’s institutional and programme criteria with a view on development and improvement

Ensure student-centred learning through the offering of competency and outcomes based education.

Focusing on quality career education responsive to economic, development, social and global requirements.

Effectiveness and efficiency

1.22	“The principle of effectiveness and efficiency are related though distinct. An effective system or institution functions in such a way that it leads to desired outcomes or achieves desired objectives. An efficient system or institution is one which works well, without unnecessary duplication or waste, and within the bounds of affordability and sustainability. It does things correctly in terms of making optimal use of available means” (DoE, 1997: 6).

Implications for TUT:

Applying the “fitness for purpose” quality assurance principle in development of qualifications and in the delivery of education and training

Applying the “fitness of purpose” quality assurance principle in institutional governance and management

Eliminating duplication, waste and over specialization through the consolidation of faculties, departments and programmes.

Academic freedom

1.23	“The principle of academic freedom implies the absence of outside interference, censure or obstacles in the pursuit and practice of academic work. It is a precondition for critical, experimental and creative thought and therefore for the advancement of intellectual inquiry and knowledge. Academic freedom and scientific inquiry are fundamental rights protected by the Constitution (DoE, 1997: 7).

Implications for TUT:

Establish and enhance a culture of critical, experimental and creative thought.

Enhance a culture of intellectual inquiry and knowledge production

Institutional autonomy

“The principle of institutional autonomy refers to a high degree of self-regulation and administrative independence with respect to student admissions, curriculum, methods of teaching and assessment, research, establishment of academic regulations and the internal management of resources generated from private and public sources. Such autonomy is a condition of effective self-government. However, there is no moral basis for using the principle of institutional autonomy as a pretext for resisting democratic change or in defence of mismanagement. Institutional autonomy is therefore inextricably linked to the demands of public accountability.

Implications for TUT:

Implementing appropriate institutional governance structures at all levels in the institution with clear indicating of the levels of responsibility with regard to managerial and operational matters.

Re-examine governance dynamics, in particular the interrelationships of the principles of public accountability, institutional autonomy and academic freedom.

Monitor the impact of the new funding framework on the institution, in particular the effect on institutional redress, institutional autonomy, institutional behavior, enrolment patterns, multi-campus model, and institutional transformation.

Be innovative in finding and implementing new strategies and approaches.

Public accountability

“The principle of public accountability implies that institutions are answerable for their actions and decisions not only to their own governing bodies and the institutional community but also to the broader society. Firstly, it requires that institutions receiving public funds should be able to report how, and how well, money has been spent. Secondly, it requires that institutions should demonstrate the results they achieve with the resources at their disposal. Thirdly, it requires that institutions should demonstrate how they have met national policy goals and priorities” (DoE, 1997: 7).

Implications for TUT:

Monitor the public funding and increase private funding expenditure

Improve reporting on private and public funding expenditure to appropriate structures

4.2	Mechanisms of implementing transformation

At this stage, and having considered the meaning of concepts such as transformation and responsiveness as well as having considered the fundamental principles that guide HE transformation and their implications, it is perhaps appropriate to ask another critical question:

Who should manage the transformation process at TUT?

Phrased differently:

Whose responsibility is the implementation of transformation in the institution?

Any large-scale change initiative involves summoning support for the changes from across the institution. Staff may take on a number of different roles in relation to the change process. However, there are various role players and leaders steering the change process. The following are the definitions of the different role players, according to Minnaar (2005: 16-17):

Chief Executive

The ultimate source of authority behind the change is likely to be the VC, although responsibility may be passed on to a DVC or person with similar status. Thus, TUT sees the Vice-Chancellor as the ultimate authority of Transformation.

The Change Sponsor

This is someone with the necessary authority, seniority, power, enthusiasm and time to lead/carry through/oversee the change. Does not get involved in the day-to-day management of the change, but gives supports and monitors progress.

The Change Manager

This is someone with the expertise, drive and vision to lead the change process. Expertise refers to knowledge and experience of project and/or change management.

The Change Agents

These are the people that really make the difference by implementing the change process at a local level (usually middle managers).

5.	AN INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION TASK TEAM

A Task Team on Change and Transformation (TTCT) was brought to life by the DVC: Institutional Planning and Operations to determine transformation and change processes at TUT.

The task team met once early in 2006 and at that meeting it was resolved that members of the team should engage in a workshop in order to deliberate on a number of issues concerning transformation.

A workshop was scheduled and took place on 26 October 2006. A number of people from different environments were identified and invited to participate in the workshop.

Issues resolved by the workshop participants:

During the workshop, which was organised for the purpose of letting the participants debate and come to a mutual understanding of certain aspects of transformation, the following issues were resolved:

5.2.1	TUT’s definition of “Transformation”

Participant in the workshop were asked to formulate a definition of the concept transformation to be included in the Transformation Charter. After considerable debate, the following three definitions were proposed:

“TUT believes that transformation is the driving force to move the institution from the current to the desired state, including the democratization of the institution, making it responsive to the needs of its stakeholders by continuously responding to challenges it faces”.

“TUT believes that transformation is the democratization of the university and is the driving force in moving it from its current to the desired state”.

“TUT views transformation as a coordinated programme to fundamentally change the university’s strategies, structures, operating systems, capabilities, and cultures”.

It was resolved that the latter of these three definitions be accepted as a working definition since consensus could not be reached in terms of the interpretation of the term “democratization” in the other two definitions. Thus, this concept needs to be unpacked further.

As was previously stated (see pp. 8 & 9), the DoE views the principle of democratization as that (it)…“requires that governance of the system of higher education and of individual institutions should be democratic, representative and participatory and characterized by mutual respect, tolerance and the maintenance of a well-ordered and peaceful community life. Structures and procedures should ensure that those affected by decisions have a say in making them, either directly or through elected representatives. It requires that decision-making processes at the systemic, institutional and departmental levels are transparent, and that those taking and implementing decisions are accountable for the manner in which they perform their duties and use resources” (DoE, 1997: 6).

Carrim (2001) identifies and criticizes four modes of representative and participatory democracy that are implied in the National Education Policy Act of 1996 and the South African Schools Act of 1996, and their links with the politics of negotiated settlement and the new Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996). It is argued that the Constitution, which was the outcome of negotiations between the anti-apartheid movement and the apartheid regime, provides a legislative framework for notions of representation and participation in which the modes of representative and participatory democracy are embedded. These modes are “community participation”, “representative participation”, “interest participation “and” stakeholder participation.

Although the modes of “representative participation” and “interest group participation” are endorsed by the constitution, these modes only protect interest of people with specific interest. Even “representative participation”, who is democratically elected, articulates the views of a particular interest group.

However TUT believes that the recognition of specific interest groups (Unions and students) and the allowance of their expression through representation are needed to contribute to the common good in a developing democracy.

In terms of “Community participation” as a mode of representation Carrim (2001: 105) reminds us that the notion of community recognizes the particularities that characterizes different localized social settings which means that “community” differs from “interest group” in that community interests, concentrated in a particular social setting, could cut across various interest groups as they contend with the same conditions that beset their local area. In other words, the difference between community and interest group is one between geographically bound emphatic statements of identity, and those that are materially or ideologically bound.

“Stakeholder participation” on the other hand, according to Carrim (2001: 105), is the participation of those who have a direct interest in the affairs of the institution. Through the notion of stakeholder participation, Carrim says, participation at this level is circumscribed as to ensure that only those directly affected by the institution are allowed to be represented and empowered to participate. Shifts in modes of representation and participation are illustrated by the education reforms that have taken place in South Africa.

TUT recognizes the modes of representation and participation through the interests and roles of its stakeholders, community and representatives of interest groups, although it can be argued that the student body is as much a stakeholder as a representative of a group with a specific interest.

In view of the Carrim’s comments and the DoE definitions, it is suggested that the first formulated definition should be recognized, namely:

“TUT believes that transformation is the driving force to move the institution from the current to the desired state, including the democratization of the institution, making it responsive to the needs of its stakeholders by continuously responding to challenges it faces”.

Categories and areas in need of transformation

One of the outcomes of the workshop was that participants identify areas in the institution that are in need of transformation. Participants reached consensus on the following categories of transformation areas where transformation strategies are and should be applied:

CATEGORY: RESOURCES

AREAS:

Financial resources

Financial Modeling

Planning and financial costing

Turnaround strategy (TAS)

Human Resource – demographic profile

Employment Equity

Implementation of a Management Model for the Distant and Urban learning sites

Restructuring and relocation process – Scenario B

HR development

Infrastructure

Implementing an Integrated Technology Plan (ITP)

Equality of all physical facilities

Systems

PMDS

Implementation of all approved policies

Branding the institution in its new transformed state

Implementation of outcomes of Quality Audit / implementation of the QMS/ monitoring and evaluation

Implementing structured planning processes and phases.

CATEGORY: STRUCTURES

AREAS:

Consolidation of Faculties

Consolidation of Academic Departments

Consolidation of support environment

Establishment of “new” structures

Reviewing of Governance Structures

Expanded developmental periphery (Centres, Institutes Stations)

CATEGORY: CULTURE (A New TUT culture)

AREAS:

Establishing an Entrepreneurial and Innovation Ethos

Culture of line communication

CATEGORY: ACADEMIC

AREAS:

Consolidation of Academic programmes

TL and T Strategy Implementation

Faculty Business Planning

Increasing Research and Teaching Outputs

Consolidation of the Research and innovation Interventions.

Community Engagement perspectives

Alignment of Distant Learning sites to NIHE and PGDS of Mpumalanga

Access to under prepared students

CATEGORY: STUDENTS

AREAS:

Support to students from a service oriented perspective

Residences

Sport

Student life

Implications for TUT

These identified categories and areas that are in need of transformation have to be viewed as part of TUT’s agenda for transformation.

There are pockets where transformation processes are in progress.

Transformation Charter

At the workshop the following proposed formulation of a CHARTER was noted:

The common purpose of all managers in the Tshwane University of Technology is to realize and sustain the transformation programme of the institution

As managers we solemnly commit ourselves to:

Support the transformation programme of TUT and guide our staff towards change in an environment of stability, orderliness, democracy and diversity.

Nurture the evolving TUT culture of involvement, inclusiveness, participation, accountability, commitment, loyalty, integrity and progressive thinking.

Recognize and empower people on the basis of merit and their potential in order to eradicate discrepancies in employment.

Establish a climate and culture of academic endeavor, research, learning, community involvement and ethics.

Acceptance of the challenges that TUT faces.

Respecting that change is not an end in itself, but a process that will lead TUT to achieve its vision, mission and values as a learning institution.

Responsibility for transformation

Consensus was reached at the workshop that the responsibility of implementation of transformation lies with every line manager and that the DVC: Institutional Planning and Operations will be responsible for the overall monitoring of the implementation.

It was further resolved that the function of the task team has been completed and that there is no further need for such a team.

A final resolution by the workshop participants was that this discussion document be disseminated to a wider audience within the institution for their input and comments.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

In the analysis, it is recommended that:

the document “Transformation at Tshwane University of Technology” be accepted as a position paper,.

a wider debate be initiated through the Communication and Marketing division, inviting staff and student inputs and comments, and

the EMC approves the document as a departure point for the Transformation agenda of TUT.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Carrim, N. (2001). Democratic participation, decentralization and educational reform. In, Sayed, Y& Jansen J. (Eds.) Implementing Education Policies: The South African Experience. Cape town: UCT Press.

Castells, M. (2001). The New Global Economy in Muller. J., Cloete, N. and Badat, S. (Eds.), Challenges of Globalisation; South African Debates with Manual Castells. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.

Council on Higher education (CHE) (2004). South African Higher Education in the first decade of democracy. CHE. Pretoria

Department of Education. (1997). Education White Paper 3: A programme for the Transformation of Higher Education. Government Gazette No. 18207, 15 August 1997. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Eckel, P., Hill, P. and Green, M.F. (1998). En route to transformation. Washington, DC: American Council on Education

Mangena, M. (2002) Address by the Deputy Minister of Education, Mr. Mosibudi Mangena, at the Centre for African Renaissance and Development Studies. University of the North (Qwa- Qwa campus), 23 August 2002. The Office of the President

Mbeki, T. (2001) address by the President, Thabo Mbeki, at the third African Renaissance Festival. Durban, 31 March 2001. The Office of the President

Minnaar, H. (2005) Framework: Transformation task Team. Unpublished Discussion Paper. TUT

South African Concise Dictionary (2002). Oxford University Press.

COMMENTS AND INPUTS

The following comments/inputs were received from Me. Joyce Mashabela, DVC: Finance and Business Development.

In my estimation, the document illustrates the need to truly embrace the role that Student Affairs and Residence Operations should play in the development of graduates to meet the transformation needs of the nations. As such, I could not agree more with the committee’s view that there is a need for transformation of all areas within Student Affairs and Residence Operations. To achieve the changes (transformation) and have the impact on student development that it must, means a significant improvement in the financial resources provided to Student Affairs and Residence Operations. Further to achieve true transformation of in Student Affairs and Residence Operations requires sincere acknowledgement by all constituents (of the University) of the vital role that Student Affairs and Residence Operations plays, thus: a) the head of this entity needs to be involved more intimately in the various activities of the University and b) Student Affairs and Residence Operations should not be seen as the entity to place any and all matters related to student as is currently the situation. At a minimum, true recognition of the vital role Student Affairs and Residence Operations can and SHOULD play in developing students to be effective members of civil society should be a normal part of the University culture. As such, funding of should reflect the work this entity should do in developing the TUT student population.

I am unclear how the definition of transformation as accepted by the committee has been replaced in the document by one the committee disregarded at the October workshop. (see page 14 of the document)

As is typically the case at TUT, the committee presented a long laundry list of needs (that is a list of the areas that need transformation). How does the committee propose we move forward?

Inputs received in this regard suggest that this is an important aspect of transformation, which warrants debate. The question being asked is the extent to which such debate around the crucial issues suggested by Harvey and Knight will be fostered and encouraged in the institution.

“Is evidence provided for this?” (Faculty of Arts).

Comment: This is not necessarily the case in the UoTs (former Technikons) but is still a problem in some “traditional” universities where research and teaching is very much out of touch with the realities and demands of globalisation.

“There is a degree of truth in this, however, the relationship between institutions like universities and constructs like ‘society’ is exceedingly complex, and not always without its attendant set of difficulties” (Faculty of Arts)

“How are African defined in this case? Through ethnicity, race, colour? Are you including all South Africans in this debate, as per the constitutional right of all inhabitants of SA?” (Faculty of Arts)

Comment: Very intensive debate currently.

“Here is the nub of all the uncertainty among some members of in this institution. Strategies to achieve this need to be handled with due respect for the rights and concerns of all involved” (Faculty of Arts).

Comment: TUT, as all other organisations, is subject to the legislated framework of the EE Act.

“Whose cultures? Whose societies? These terms are, much like democracy, virtually meaningless unless specified and contextualized in the rigorous way” (Faculty of Arts)

Comment: The significance of the concept lies within TUT’s translation of its own institutional culture.

“Generalization without evidence” (Faculty of Arts)

“Fair discrimination?” (Faculty of Arts)

“Culture not defined” (Faculty of Arts)

Comment: TUT has to grow its own culture within the chosen role as a UoT

“Even if it begs to differ from ‘official policy’?” (Faculty of Arts)

“I just found that the word “leadership/leader” should be mentioned here. Transformation is linked to leadership through this person, when we talk transformation, we must link it to transformation. Leadership is bigger than authority”. (Employment Equity office)

“What about the role of staff themselves in this process? Otherwise it’s their (management) problem. Where do they fit in?” (Employment Equity office)

“define what we mean by desired state”. (Ms. Redelinghuys)