Strategy Tactics
Same river,
different boats
Report on 13 focus Groups with UCT students
December 2004
Prepared for UCT
By Matthew J. Smith, Nobi Dube, Sihaam Gasnola & Musa Myeza
Strategy & Tactics
[1]
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
background
Introduction
Institutional Climate
Methodology
Ethical Considerations
Main themes
Introduction
Why UCT?
Achieving its Mission?
“An outstanding teaching & research institution”
“Educating for life”
“Addressing the challenges facing our society”
Relationships with other students
Residences
Student Empowerment
Transformation
Service Delivery on Campus
Suggestions from Students
Discussion
Choosing UCT
Teaching and learning experience
Academic Development Programmes
The curriculum
Residence
Governance issues
Relationships with other Students
Transformation
Conclusion
References
Appendix A: Profile of Focus Group Participants
Appendix B: Focus Group Guidelines
Acknowledgements
A study of this nature would not have been possible without the students, who willingly took the time and trouble to take part in the 13 Focus Groups. Special mention must be made of the Student Research Forum who played a significant role in recruiting students for the groups. We would also like to acknowledge the help of the Disability Unit and members of CHED in the recruitment of students for the groups and SDSD for providing a venue on Upper Campus.
In the spirit of building successful research partnerships, and thereby empowering those who work in this sector to ensure that initiatives of this nature remain sustainable, we would like to thank members of the Advisory Group who during the course of the research played a key role in
- The design and development of the focus group guidelines,
- Discussing the findings, and
- Commenting on the Final Report.
.
Executive Summary
[1]
For the past ten years the University of Cape Town has implemented a variety of different interventions in order to reorientate and reposition the institution both locally and globally. The primary aim of these initiatives has been to transform the institution into “an outstanding teaching and research institution that addresses the challenges facing our society” (UCT’s mission). As part of a self-evaluation exercise to measure the progress UCT is making towards achieving its mission, and in part as a response to the forthcoming Quality Assurance audit, the institution has embarked on a process to assess different aspects of the university particularly in terms of equity, efficiency and effectiveness. A key component of this assessment is to gauge the institutional climate. In 2003 UCT commissioned a survey of staff to assist with this process. It is envisaged that the findings from the staff survey will be complemented by the findings of this student study, which was commissioned by the Institutional Planning Department. Together these two studies will contribute to a comprehensive report on the institutional climate at UCT.
Through an interactive process with the Advisory Group (AG) the research team first developed a focus group guideline and then conducted 13 focus groups with approximately 130 undergraduates at UCT. In order to ensure that all voices were heard the groups were constructed to reflect the diverse nature of the UCT student body. The study aimed to capture the perceptions and perspectives of students with regards to the institutional climate. In particular the study focused on why students chose to study at UCT, whether the institution is fulfilling its mission (with emphasis on teaching and learning, the relevancy of the curriculum, and the responsiveness of the institution to the needs of society), students’ views of the residences, the factors which shape relations with other students, whether students felt empowered to change their world, and whether they felt the institution has transformed.
Selecting UCT
Focus group members chose UCT as a result of its reputation, location, and because it allowed students “to get away from home”. Few of the participants had considered leaving the institution before they graduated, but. “home sickness” and “workload” were the feelings most likely to make them consider leaving UCT. However, substantially more Black and Coloured students had thought about leaving, especially in the earlier years than White students.
UCT’s Mission
Mixed responses were given with respect to whether UCT was fulfilling its mission to deliver high quality teaching and research, the relevancy of the curriculum, and whether the institution was being responsive to the needs of society. In terms of UCT delivering “Outstanding Teaching & Research”:
Participants were of the opinion that teaching was not always outstanding, in particular they noted that lecturers were seldom accessible, they were poorly prepared, and often it appeared that lecturers were simply “going through the motions”..
A number of Black participants reported having difficulty with English. Whilst there was a general agreement across all groups that there has to be a common language of instruction, and acceptance of English as the language of instruction, Black students in particular felt that English was a significant barrier to learning. Tutors on the other hand were seen to be fairly helpful, but some participants reported they had been sexually harassed by their tutors.
In addition, most focus group members felt they were not able to ask questions in class. The biggest barrier related to size of the class, but the fact that lecturers made them “look stupid” when they asked questions was also mentioned. This problem was more severe among Black participants, who were embarrassed at being laughed at on account of their accents. These students pointed out that it was not the White students who would laugh at them but the “coconuts” (apparently these are Black students who “because they had gone to ex-Model C or private schools spoke English well”).
Academic development programmes were seen by Coloured and Indian participants as helpful, whereas some Black members of the focus groups deeply resented being placed in these programmes. White participants were largely unaware of the purpose of these programmes.
While White respondents felt that the race of the lecturers is not and should not be an issue, Black respondents were divided on this question. Some took the view of their White counterparts in not seeing the race of the lecturer as an issue, others objected to the dominance of White and male lecturers. These students also expressed the view that because Black/women lecturers were in the minority, they were under pressure to perform and acted “White” to gain acceptance among their peers.
In terms of “Educating for Life:
Students registered for “professional” degrees, such as those offered by Health Sciences and Engineering, were largely pleased with the practical nature of their degrees. However, students studying in the Humanities and Commerce Faculties were concerned about the theoretical nature of their courses and their applicability to “the real world”.
The “relevancy” of their degree was interpreted by participants in many different ways. Some were pleased that because their coursework had such a strong “international” flavour this effectively meant that they could work anywhere in the world. Others felt that their courses were not grounded sufficiently in Africa and asked “what was the point of their being based in Africa”.
In terms of “Addressing the challenges facing our society”:
Certain groups, particularly those from an ex-HOR or DET school, felt that while UCT was providing an outstanding education, it was certainly not addressing broader societal challenges. Others cited examples, such as SHAWCO, to argue that indeed UCT was addressing these challenges.
Relationships with other students
Peer influence was seen by some respondents as a strong influence in shaping student behaviour, others felt students did their own thing. White participants saw peer influence being exerted differently across faculties; people in different departments and faculties behaved differently, while Black members of the focus groups saw the influence more in racial terms. Among Black participants there was a feeling that there was strong peer pressure to act “White” (so that they can “fit in” better) especially among students from township schools. Black students expressed the view that Black students wanted to be “cool” (adopt White culture). Some saw this as a problem in that these students were forgetting their own culture and it created problems when they returned home because they spoke/acted differently from the people at home.
Race continues to influence how students relate to each other at UCT. The overwhelming majority of respondents agreed that the students socialized within their own race groups, as one student noted “we might be on the same river, but we are definitely in different boats”. None of the students saw this as problematic, and attributed the separation to differences in “culture”, “language”, “tastes”, and “ease of relating with people from the same background”. Some of the students expressed the view that in some respects the University encouraged separation, e.g. in the Residence structures. To some extent there was also peer pressure among Black students to socialize with Black students (because they are seen as “coconuts” if they socialized with White students).
White participants strongly expressed the view that wanting to socialize with other White students should not be perceived as being racist and that mixing across the racial divides should be done naturally rather than be forced. Among Black students there were divergent views as to whether Black students from different ethnic backgrounds mixed. While some felt that Black students mixed amongst each other regardless of ethnic group, others felt that there were tensions within Black ethnic groups. There were also clearly class divisions within Black students; students from private and ex-Model C schools were seen to be “very different” to students from “township” or rural schools.
Black participants also recognized that for “historical reasons” they were more sensitive to race issues, and in fact were the only groups that reported being discriminated against. Students, primarily those who participated in the Black, Indian and Coloured focus groups, reported being treated “unfairly” by security staff, administrative staff (especially “Coloured secretaries”), and in one case by a lecturer.
Residences
Relationships within residences continue to be “problematic”. White participants generally were reluctant to apply to stay in residences, whilst Black members of the focus groups feel that many White students do not participate in the residence activities. Students are also very critical of the manner in which students are assigned to residences and the wide disparity in allocation of resources to different residences. There was widespread belief that this was done on a racial basis, and there was strong resentment among these students that Black students were allocated to residences with poorer resources.
Governance
Generally all participants appeared to have little belief in the existing channels for airing grievances. Members of the focus groups believed that they would be victimized if they complained. If they did complain “very little is done, and if anything is done it would take very long before it is done”. Black students felt that their grievances are not heard, whereas they believe that White students are heard. White students are convinced that UCT only listens to students with money.
Transformation
Participants viewed transformation very differently. Many White, Coloured and Indian students, for instance, spoke of how institutional practices have changed to reflect “the new South Africa” and that historical names and statues on campus reflect the institution’s historical past. However, many Black students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, point to the very existence of these symbols as evidence that UCT has not transformed sufficiently. A second concern expressed by Black students with regards to transformation was that whilst the institution has adopted a range of policies relating to transformation and have implemented put in place appropriate structures to oversee transformation there is a strong sense that “policies are not being implemented”. Thirdly, Black students were of the opinion that “UCT is very selective with regard to the schools it visits” which suggested to these students that there was a “certain type of student” UCT preferred. Fourthly, the current staff profile was yet another example, according to Black participants, of the fact that UCT has not transformed.
In conclusion, the study found that participants:
Like UCT because of the people, freedom, orientation program, support structures, status, laid back environment, strong financial support, diversity of cultures, flexibility, freedom, atmosphere, the links with the business world, and the higher probability of getting employment on completion of one’s studies.
Dislike UCT because the Administration is seen to be unresponsive, the varied quality of the lecturing, and poor security on campus. Black students in particular resent the manner in which they are allocated to residences and the uneven distribution of resources across the residence system. Black students also feel that the entertainment on campus is geared largely towards “White tastes”.
Who classified themselves as poor, feel particularly marginalized and are convinced that no one at UCT listens to them
Feel completely excluded from governance structures at UCT and have very little understanding of how the structures work at UCT and to whom they would turn for help other than their lecturers and/or tutors.
The study brings to light a substantial disjuncture between the objectives of UCT’s mission statement and the image that students have of it, a place that should teach them basic skills, prepare them for the workplace and be either “African” or at least “South African”. Many of the comments from students could be judged by UCT as simply ignorant or at worst unacceptable and offensive. It could be argued that the comments made in this report have a lot to do with perceptions and images of the institution that are not always based on reality. Regardless, the institution will nevertheless have to work out how to engage students in a productive debate in order to a) develop a common understanding of what the role of a university is; and b) better manage the expectations that students have for this particular university.
[1]
background
Introduction
In their detailed assessment of the changes that have occurred in the higher education system in South Africa, Cloet et al. (2002) explore how the global pressures and “local realities” shaped the reform agenda. A key objective of this reform process has been to transform institutions of higher education in order to meet the goals of equity (primarily in terms of the distribution of staff and students within different disciplines by gender, race and socio economic status), effectiveness (the relevance of higher education to the needs of industry) and efficiency (aspects of quality and throughput rates).
As a consequence of both local and global pressures the University of Cape Town (UCT) embarked on a process to ensure a balance between societal and economic demand. Central to this process has been the desire to re-orientate and reposition the institution and transform it into “an outstanding teaching and research institution that addresses the challenges facing our society” (UCT’s mission). As a result of a wide variety of different initiatives since 1990, this historically White institution has changed its student profile from under 4 000 Black students to more than 10 000, the proportion of women students grew from approximately 40 to 50%, there was an improvement in pass rates for all first-time entering students, a concomitant reduction in the percentage of students excluded on academic grounds, and a rapid increase in the number African students taking up places in residence.
Whilst there is currently a preoccupation within the higher education system in South Africa to assess equity in terms of a quantitative assessment (CHE 2004), there is a growing realization that achieving equity targets is only part of the story. It is also about assessing the effect and impact of the process. Achieving racial desegregation has been relatively easy for most institutions, the real challenge has been to achieve what Jansen refers to as “social and cultural integration” (2004). Thus as part of a self-evaluation process to measure the progress UCT is making towards achieving its mission, and in part as a response to the forthcoming Quality Assurance audit, the institution has embarked on a process to assess different aspects of the university, particularly in terms of equity, efficiency and effectiveness. A key component of this assessment is to gauge the institutional climate and document transformation at UCT. In 2003 UCT commissioned a survey of staff to assist with this process. It is envisaged that the findings from the staff survey will be complemented by the findings of this student study, which was commissioned by the Institutional Planning Department. Together these two studies will contribute to a comprehensive report on the institutional climate at UCT.