Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
20 April 2020 | Story Prof Francis Petersen | Photo Sonia Small
Prof Francis Petersen.

Our world has changed.  The aspects that we have accepted as daily occurrences, and those that we have taken for granted, are no longer possible.  Anxiety and uncertainty have filled our lives.  After the first infections in China at the end of 2019, the Coronavirus (COVID-19) has continued to spread across the world.  The number of people infected and those who die is increasing daily, and no continent has been able to escape this pandemic.  In addition to the threat to public health, the economic and social disruption threatens the long-term livelihoods and well-being of millions.  It has been said that the rate and global spread of infection by COVID-19, and the impact it could have on a globalised financial, political, and social architecture, sets this particular pandemic apart from any other in modern times.

Not only have governments declared national emergencies and implemented lockdown policies to curb the spread of the disease, they have also taken unprecedented measures to lessen the impact on business, jobs, and the vulnerable communities in our society.   The COVID-19 outbreak has catalysed a crisis, which is questioning the confines of inherited structures that have perhaps lost their intellectual edge and global mandate.

How are universities as global institutions of higher learning managing COVID-19?  

Universities are complex institutions.  I will not attempt to describe the role and purpose of the modern university here – safe to say that the views of John Henry Newman (The Idea of a University) and Wilhelm von Humboldt (his recommended views led to the creation of the University of Berlin) dominated Western thinking about the functions of a university.  Sir Colin Lucas, former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, remarked “…(universities) are seen as vital sources of new knowledge and innovative thinking, as providers of skilled personnel and credible credentials, as contributors to innovation, as attractors of international talent and business investment into regions, as agents of social justice, and as contributors to social and cultural vitality”.  There is no doubt that universities, through their intellectual knowledge base, can add (and they do) enormously to the science of COVID-19, whether it is developing a new vaccine, modelling, and forecasting skills to understand the spread of the virus in specific regions or innovative methods for supplemental oxygen delivery.  The role played by universities in this context is vast and critical.  

Universities serve a large variety of functions in the delivery of the academic project, which involves teaching, learning, and research to maintain, manage, and develop the physical and digital infrastructure – the engagement with external stakeholders (to foster societal impact) such as alumni, schools, governments, industry, the private sector, commerce, donors, and philanthropic foundations. Many universities are training medical doctors and other healthcare professionals, engaging with academic hospitals and placing them at the forefront of the healthcare system – a very complex organisation to manage, even in times with no crises!

Many universities have disaster management committees that were rapidly activated during COVID-19 to prepare plans for the unexpected.  This pandemic, due to the extent of unfamiliarity and uncertainty thereof, can challenge these efforts and expose limitations in such plans.

It is important that universities have a framework approach of effective coordination, integration, and decision making that is centrally located but can act fast.  Although universities are not the same, there is a common drive for the health, well-being, and safety of staff and students. Typically, such a framework could converge in an Executive Centre (decision-making) or nerve centre, which should preferably be convened by the Vice-Chancellor, and include expertise in areas of scenario planning, project management, science (in this particular case it would be virologists and/or epidemiologists), communication, and institutional culture.  In order for the Executive Centre (EC) to be effective and fast-moving (with urgency and robust thinking), it should be organised around multi-disciplinary task teams, each with key responsibilities:

Teaching and Learning –with the suspension of classes (specifically in countries where there is a lockdown), alternative methods need to be utilised to deliver the academic project, and most universities have moved online (although not online in the purest form, rather emergency remote learning – turning a course virtual in a short period of time, and more importantly, doing it well, is nearly impossible for faculty members accustomed to lecturing in front of students). Based on the extent of the particular lockdown period, academic calendars need to be adjusted. Low-technology approaches to teaching and learning should be developed that are sensitive to the challenges of connectivity, bandwidth, and the type of devices that students use, realising the deep socio-economic inequalities and digital divide in our society. It is critically important to stay in touch with the students, and to provide online assistance with respect to counselling and mental health.

Research – focusing on how experimental research will be conducted during lockdown, how research contracts will be managed during this period and beyond, and whether research funding will be redirected or terminated;

Science – to understand epidemiological developments, verified information on COVID-19 (against the background of fake news);

Operations – mainly focusing on environmental hygiene and the business continuation of the physical and digital plant;

Staff – working remotely, essential services (as defined by government), and crucial university functions, constantly staying in touch with the staff, especially regarding their state of mind (mental health) due to social isolation;  

Students – with a focus on responsible student integration on the re-opening of the campus, where the principle of social distancing need to be adhered to;

Financial and Legal – responsible for financial scenario planning, short-term cash management and risk management, and mitigation; and

Communications – need to be centralised to ensure that it is consistent, correct, rapid and that it takes into account institutional culture when communicating – crises create anxiety, but keeping people informed helps reduce stress.

It is advisable to include a student voice or student input in the Teaching and Learning Task Team, as the living experience of students can thus be captured more accurately, which can enhance strategies.

It is clear that the world will operate differently post-COVID-19 than before the pandemic (‘new normal’); the EC will become the source of scenario planning on how universities will have to ‘re-imagine’ themselves post this pandemic.  It is thus critical to ensure that data, experiences (although a health crisis, an economic, and perhaps a social crisis – an opportunity as a thought experiment), ideas and new networks are captured with a strategic intent and reflection within the EC. Not only has this crisis questioned the neo-liberal economies that traditionally limit government intervention and prioritise market interests, it also asked universities to think differently about their models of teaching, research, and internationalisation, and how co-creation across boundaries and different sectors of the economy need to be imagined.

A crisis is never straightforward to manage, but an Executive Centre-type structure could not only assist universities during this period, but can add valuable strategies to position universities after such a crisis.



Prof Francis Petersen is Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State, South Africa. He has extensive experience in scenario planning and systems thinking in both higher education and industry.

News Archive

Government to benefit from training of interpreters
2009-03-31

 
Pictured, from the left, are: Prof Theo du Plessis (Director: Unit for Language Management, UFS), Ms Mokone Nthongoa (HOD: Sport, FS Department of Sport, Arts and Culture), Mr Khotso Sesele (MEC: FS Department of Sport, Arts and Culture) and Prof Engela Pretorius (Vice Dean: Faculty of the Humanities, UFS).
Photo: Mangaliso Radebe
Government to benefit from training of interpreters

The fourth phase of a project to train eight conference interpreters and 30 community interpreters to assist government departments at service delivery points in the Free State was launched this week.

The project is part of the Multilingualism Information Development Programme which brings together the Free State provincial government, the Province of Antwerp and the University of Antwerp in Belgium and the University of the Free State (UFS).

Speaking at the launch of the fourth phase of the project, the MEC for Sport, Arts and Culture in the Free State, Mr Khotso Sesele, said: “The fact that we have been through the first three stages of this project, and are now launching its fourth phase, is indicative of the magnificent progress that has been made. This is a sign that through partnerships we can achieve more.”

The MIDP IV consists of two pillars, namely a practical and a research component. Its aim is to generate interpreting capacity within the provincial Department of Sport, Arts and Culture. The focus is on training an interpreting team over three years which can be employed within a governmental context at various service points.

“As we approach the 2009 FIFA Confederation Cup and the 2010 FIFA World Cup tournaments, it will be important for our communities to be able to interact with millions of foreign nationals who will be in our country from different world destinations during and beyond these two important soccer events,” said the MEC.

“The focus on interpreter training by this fourth phase of MIDP is thus an important factor in ensuring better communication during and beyond these important soccer spectacles that will take place in our country.”
The focus of the first three phases of the MIDP was on the main official languages of the province. This fourth phase, which started in 2008, will run until 2010 and its focus is on the Xhariep District Municipality.

“The provision of interpreting services and its further extension to district municipalities will provide the necessary interpreting skills to our communities that will enhance better interaction amongst ourselves,” said Mr Sesele.

He said the fact that indigenous languages have been “elevated from their marginalised status to being languages of business and commerce” is an important milestone that must be cherished.

This fourth phase of MIDP will also incorporate sign language as part of its focus on interpreting services.

“In our quest to ensure a multilingual dispensation in our province, we need not neglect to remember people with disabilities,” he said. “This is a matter of principle that does not require debate.”

“We should thus ensure the realisation of the goal of MIDP IV which is to ensure smooth communication interaction within the wider public, including the deaf community.”

“This is a wonderful project,” said Ms Mathabo Monaheng, one of the students in the MIDP. “As a sign language interpreter trainee this project will empower me with the necessary skills to be able to make a meaningful contribution to the deaf community in terms of communication.”

The MIDP is funded by the Province of Antwerp and successfully implemented by the Unit for Language Management at the UFS.

Media Release
Issued by: Mangaliso Radebe
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2828
Cell: 078 460 3320
E-mail: radebemt.stg@ufs.ac.za  
31 March 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