06 November 2026
|
Story Pikolomzi Qaba
|
Photo Supplied
Pikolomzi Qaba, PhD Fellow, Higher Education and Human Development Research Group at the University of the Free State.
Opinion article by Pikolomzi Qaba, PhD Fellow, Higher Education and Human Development Research Group (HEHD), University of the Free State
Scroll through the comments under almost any National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) Facebook post in allowance season and the same scene plays out. A student describes a status that hasn’t moved in weeks, explains that rent is due, and asks what she should do next. Sometimes she gets an answer. More often she gets a polite line asking her to send a direct message.
For my doctoral research, I coded 1 119 interactions across NSFAS’s Facebook page and its @myNSFAS account on X. The institutional response rate was 9.9%, and three in every four of the replies that did come pointed the student to a private inbox. This figure captures publicly visible institutional responses within the dataset; it does not establish whether unanswered queries were subsequently addressed through other communication channels.
Fairness matters here. NSFAS is not silent, and the data does not show an institution that has stopped caring. The same threads hold replies that told a student exactly what their status meant and which document was still outstanding, the very thing a worried applicant needs. NSFAS also carries a load few public bodies face, serving students across 26 public universities and 50 public TVET colleges, each feeding it data on its own timetable. What the evidence shows is inconsistency, not indifference.
A reply is not a resolution
Still, acknowledging a student is different from answering them. A redirection moves the conversation somewhere nobody else can see whether the problem was solved. Two lenses from my research explain why this matters. Information asymmetry theory describes an exchange in which one side knows far more than the other: NSFAS holds the status data, while the student holds only the word “pending”. A case-specific public reply narrows that gap for everyone reading; a private one narrows it for one person. The capabilities approach adds the human stakes. Funding is a resource, but its contribution to students’ educational capabilities is shaped partly by the information and institutional support available to them. Clear communication can help students understand their entitlements, navigate administrative requirements and make informed decisions about their education.
The policy bar is already set. Section 195(1)(g) of the Constitution requires public administration to give people information that is timely, accurate and accessible. The Batho Pele principles of information and redress go further: when a promised service falls short, citizens are owed an explanation and a speedy, effective remedy. Government Communication and Information System’s (GCIS) 2011 Social Media Policy Guidelines set out to use these platforms for transparency, participation and interaction, and the revised Government Communication Policy of October 2025 roots government communication in the public participation the Constitution guarantees. At continental level, the African Union's Digital Transformation Strategy for Africa treats digital government as a route to more transparent services and speaks of building enlightened, responsible e-citizens. That last idea matters, because it places duties on both sides of the screen.
What the evidence can and cannot tell us
These figures are one strand of a wider study that also draws on NSFAS policy documents, alumni interviews and interviews with Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) officials. Their value is a baseline: a measurable, repeatable record of how public queries are handled, which NSFAS and its oversight bodies can track over time. Their limit is just as clear. Public posts cannot show what happened inside the private inbox. In one heavily commented thread, students confirmed one resolution by DM and three queries that went unanswered there. The finding is about the public record, and that record of resolution stays thin.
Everyone holds part of the answer
NSFAS could strengthen its social media engagement by establishing clear service standards, including response times, guidance on when queries should move to private channels, and opportunities to provide publicly accessible answers to frequently raised questions without compromising students’ personal information.
Universities and TVET colleges can’t treat this as someone else’s problem. Their financial aid offices submit the registration and results data NSFAS relies on, and a late or incorrect upload shows up on a student’s phone as “pending”. DHET sets the funding guidelines and can ask NSFAS to report on communication performance, not only on rands disbursed. Student Representative Councils (SRCs), often a student’s first stop, can run verified information drives rather than passing on rumour.
In the comment threads I studied, students often helped one another interpret eligibility requirements and funding processes, sometimes providing clarity absent from official responses. This peer support is valuable, but it should complement, not replace, institutions’ responsibility to provide accurate, timely and accessible information.
A question asked in public deserves an answer the public can see. Getting there is a job for everyone in the system, not one institution alone.
Pikolomzi Qaba is a doctoral fellow in the Higher Education and Human Development Research Group (SARChI Chair: Prof Melanie Walker) at the University of the Free State. His doctoral research examines information communication practices in student funding. He writes in his personal capacity.