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

You touch a woman, you strike a rock
2004-11-02

Prof. Engela Pretorius van die Departement Sosiologie in die Fakulteit Geesteswetenskappe by die Universiteit van die Vrystaat het die kwessie omtrent feminisme aangespreek tydens haar intreerede met die onderwerp, You touch a woman, you strike a rock: Feminism(s) and emancipation in South Africa .

Prof. Pretorius het gesê: “Die geskiedenis van feminisme oor die algemeen kan in drie fases verdeel word, waarna verwys word as golwe. Eerste-golf-feminisme (19de eeu) het die fokus geplaas op die beskerming van vroueregte in die openbare terrein, spesifiek die reg om te stem, die reg tot onderrig en die reg om middelklas beroepe en professies te betreë.

Vroeë tweede-golf-feminisme word onthou vir hoe dit moederskap geteoretiseer het as synde ‘n onderdrukkende instelling. Slagspreuke van die 1970s was die persoonlike is polities en susterskap is magtig. Prof. Pretorius sê beide slagspreuke bevestig die idee dat vroue universeel onderdruk en uitgebuit word en slegs deur erkenning van dié situasie kan vroue die strukture wat hul onderdruk verander.

‘n Belangrike aspek van die derde golf van die feminisme-teorie is post-moderne feminisme wat diversiteit en verskille onderstreep. Die poging van hierdie feministe is afgestem op alle vorme van onderdrukking. Vroue van kleur het ook hul ontevredenheid uitgespreek gedurende die derde-golf-feminisme. Die feminisme van vroue van kleur word gekenmerk deur verskeie kwessies en talryke intellektuele standpuntinnames wat neerslaga vind in verskillende terme, soos Afrika feminisme of ‘womanism, sê prof. Pretorius.

Afrika-feminisme dui protes aan teen die wit/westerse geskiedenis en die wit/westerse dominansie binne feminisme. Afrika-vroue het besef dat hul onderdrukking verskillend is van dié van wit vroue en daarom is ‘n ander proses van bevryding nodig. Die Westerse feministiese praktyk om swart vroue by die bestaande feministiese ontologie te voeg, is nie voldoende nie omdat hul unieke ondervindings van slawerny, kolonialisme, onderdrukking deur mans en armoede nie uitgedruk word nie.

‘Womanism’ het tot stand gekom as gevolg van ‘n eksplisiete rassekritiek teen feminisme. Dit is ten gunste van die positiewe uitbeelding van swart mense. Dit word gekenmerk deur kulturele kontekstualisasie, die sentraliteit van die gesin en die belangrikheid daarvan om mans in te sluit.

Die geskiedenis van vroue in Suid-Afrika is verwant aan hul geskiedenis van onderdrukking as gevolg van patriargie. Vroue van verskillende rasse, kulture en klasse het patriargie op verskillende wyses in en variërende mate van erns ervaar. Onder voor-koloniale patriargie het vroue min sê gehad oor huwelikskeuses omdat mans dié besluite gedomineer het.

Die Nederlandse en Britse patriargale erfenis het neerslag gevind in die ideologie van die volksmoeder. Onderwyl dit veral manlike skrywers was wat die beeld van die vrou as versorger en tuisteskepper bevorder het, het vroue self ook hieraan ‘n aandeel gehad, sodat die volksmoeder volwaardig deel geword het van die Afrikaner nasionalistiese mitologie. Alhoewel middel- en werkersklas vroue met dié beeld geïdentifiseer het, het nie alle Afrikaanse vroue die ideologie aanvaar nie.

Onder die Victoriaanse erfenis was Britse vroue beperk to die private eerder as die openbare lewe. Die skeefgetrekte onderrigsisteem wat vroue in huishoudelike loopbane gekanaliseer het, die mag van mans oor hul vroue se eiendom en ‘n tekort aan toegang tot mag en geld het verseker dat vroue by die huis gebly het.

Wit Engelssprekende-vroue het die grootste geleentheid gehad om patriargie uit te daag vanweë hul toegang tot onderwys en die blootstelling aan liberale waardes, sê prof. Pretorius. Liberale vroue soos Helen Joseph en Helen Suzman het ‘n belangrike rol gespeel om in 1930 stemreg vir wit vroue in Suid-Afrika te verseker en het voortgegaan om ‘n rol te speel in die bevryding van swart vroue gedurende die vryheidstryd.

Die feminisme wat onder swart vroue ontwikkel het, was ‘n erkenning van die gemeenskaplike stryd met swart mans om die verwydering van die juk van eksterne onderdrukking en eksploitasie. Swart vroue in aktiewe en onafhanlike politiese rolle het tegelykertyd mans se aannames omtrent hul meerderwaardigheid asook die rassewette van die staat uitgedaag. Daarom kan ons sê dat die feminisme wat hier ontwikkel het, te voorskyn gekom het as gevolg van vroue se betrokkenheid by en toewyding tot nasionale bevryding, sê prof. Pretorius.

Institusionalisering is nie herlei tot magsvoordele nie, want gelykheid is nie in beleidsprogramme geïnkorporeer nie. Die hervestiging van sleutel aktiviste van die vrouebeweging in die regering het die stryd om genderbillikheid verander na ‘n projek wat deur die regering gelei word, sê prof. Pretorius. Ongelukkig word terreine van verandering buite die grense van die regering verwaarloos. Dit kan slegs aangespreek word deur ‘n aktiewe en feministiese stem in die burgerlike samelewing.

“Dit is my oortuiging dat formele instellings vir vroue binne die staat oor die lang termyn slegs effektief kan wees indien daar ‘n effektiewe feministiese vroue-beweging buite die staat in stand gehou word wat die grondslag waarop sosiale beleid gevorm word, kan uitdaag en bevraagteken. Daarom, A luta continua (die stryd duur voort),” sê prof. Pretorius.

Mediaverklaring
Uitgereik deur: Lacea Loader
Mediaverteenwoordiger
Tel: (051) 401-2584
Sel: 083 645 2454
E-pos: loaderl.stg@mail.uovs.ac.za
2 November 2004

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