Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
05 December 2019 | Story Valentino Ndaba | Photo Stephen Collett
Justice read more
Social justice is the promotion of just societies and treatment of individuals and communities based on the belief that we each possess an innate human dignity.

The power of research lies in the possibility to move from theory to practical outcomes that can change society for the better in some way. In essence, scholars have the ability to create the future in collaboration with government and civil society. At a recent international colloquium hosted by the University of the Free State (UFS) South African Research Chairs Initiative (SARChI) programme, researchers deliberated on social justice issues and possible resolutions.

Delegates from institutions across the UK, Zimbabwe, and Sweden presented findings from studies conducted around the world under the theme ‘Making Epistemic Justice: An international colloquium on narrative capabilities and participatory research’. The UFS SARChI Chair in Higher Education and Human Development Research Programme, under the leadership of Professor Melanie Walker hosted the colloquium from 21-22 November in Bloemfontein.

The importance of psychological liberation

In her welcoming address, Prof Walker quoted the late Black Consciousness activist, Steve Biko, who anticipated many of the current debates on epistemic power and exclusions when he wrote that “the most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed”.

Prof Walker reiterated that epistemic justice matters, as affirmed by Kenyan writer, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o who in 1981 stated that, “colonialism imposed its control over social production of wealth through military conquest and subsequent political dictatorships. But its most important area of domination was the mental universe of the colonised, the control through culture, how people perceive themselves, and their relationship to the world”.

The relationship between storytelling and social justice

Dr Holly Henderson from the University of Nottingham in the UK was the first speaker to make a presentation, titled ‘Resisting the narrative conclusion in educational research’. According to Henderson, storytelling is an essential part of the long road to social justice.  

Henderson’s keen interest in the complexity of the narrative developed when she started working in further education many years ago. A significant part of her research focuses on the concept of ‘possible self’ which requires the art of storytelling in order to come to life. A study she conducted on university students delved deeper into this concept and found that environment plays a major role in the way individuals perceive the future. 

“The more detailed you imagine something, the more likely you are to achieve it,” said Henderson. However, the correct structures enable the future to be imagined. Hence, curriculum decolonisation, equal access to quality education, and social justice become all the more important in achieving future success among students globally.
 
The art of activism and advocacy 

The joint work of Dr Faith Mkwananzi from the UFS and Dr Tendayi Marovah from the Midlands State University in Zimbabwe looked at street art, otherwise known as graffiti, as a way to foster epistemic justice and collective capabilities among marginalised youth. 

According to Marovah, storytelling using art gives a voice to the voiceless and assigns dignity to the excluded. “Narrative offers an opportunity in which the unheard and unseen are heard and seen.”

Delegates of the colloquium unanimously agreed that researchers are in the business of providing much-needed direction on how to stop discrimination, challenging unjust government policies and the abuse of power, promoting peace instead of violence, eradicating poverty, opening access to quality education among other social justice issues. Therefore unity in research diversity provides fertile ground for manifesting social justice.


News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept