Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Universities unite to discuss fragility and resilience in higher education

04 February 2020 | Story Michelle Nöthling | Photo Johan Roux

Fragility read more — The colloquium brought together students, staff and administration to work together on resolving ongoing problems within the higher education sector.

Where does resilience – or the lack thereof – in higher education come from? What does resilience and fragility even mean? These were some of the core issues examined during a recent symposium titled ‘Fragility and Resilience: Facets, Features and (Trans) Formations in Higher Education’. The Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice hosted the event from 28 to 31 January 2020 on the University of the Free State (UFS) Bloemfontein Campus. The symposium – now in its seventh year – is a collaborative endeavour between the UFS, the University of California, Los Angeless (UCLA), and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VUA) to learn and share knowledge. “The real aim of the symposium is to address diversity and transformation issues from different contexts so that we can compare and contrast and learn best practices,” said Dr Dionne van Reenen, Senior Researcher in the Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice, and convener of the event.

Against the Psychologisation of Resilience

In a keynote address, Prof Michalinos Zembylas from the Open University of Cyprus argued against the potential psychologisation of resilience. According to Prof Zembylas, the concept of resilience is often framed as the psychological capacity of the individual to thrive through vulnerability and change. Such a view inevitably places the responsibility for success or failure on the shoulders of the individual and ignores the collusion between systems of oppression and structural inequalities. “The concept of resilience has become part and parcel of neoliberal governmentality – a growing emphasis on autonomous and reflexive individuals who have the capacity to conduct their own risk assessments and pursue their own life opportunities,” Prof Zembylas said. Therefore, within this neoliberalist ideology with its emphasis on the individual, people are led to believe that they need to continually adapt to threats that are essentially out of their control. A resilient person is, in other words, someone who permanently transforms themselves to accommodate the world without the possibility of actually changing that world.

What impact does this have on higher education? Prof Zembylas noted that a neoliberalist perception of resilience discourages students “from imagining themselves as political agents who could collectively work to challenge harmful or unjust working and life practices”. Although universities use a great variety of tools and interventions to address students’ fragility, these approaches often focus on the vulnerability of the individual. Instead, Prof Zembylas proposed a shift towards an ontology that regards vulnerability as produced by conditions of oppression. A pedagogy of oppression is different from a pedagogy of vulnerability, since “instead of focusing on vulnerabilities, you would rather instil confidence in subjects to say no to abuse of power”.

The nature and role of student hope and meaning in goal setting and life satisfaction

Prof Itumeleng Khumalo, Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at the UFS, delivered the following day’s keynote address. “Many studies concerned with youth have focused on their fears, worries and anxieties, instead of positive functioning and satisfaction with life,” Prof Khumalo remarked. In contrast, he opted to look at how hope and meaning shape students’ goals for higher education. Focusing on hope and meaning, however, does not deny the fact that South African students, in particular, are faced with substantial challenges. The majority of students enrolling in higher education in South Africa are first-generation entrants. Seventy percent of students do not have a graduate parent, and 45% do not have any family members who graduated. Most of these students are burdened with fears of failing, financial problems, difficulties with accommodation, worries about family members, inadequate knowledge regarding digital technology, and lack of support.

Despite the above, a study by Prof Khumalo and Dr Angelina Wilson Fadiji showed that 85% of their student sample expected life would get better as a result of their education. The vast majority of students indicated that their main goal was to attain employment and build a career as a result of tertiary education. Students believe that getting an education will afford them opportunities to get ahead in life and enable them to become financially independent. “The perceived linear pathway from education to a better and successful life remains the dominant belief among these students, rendering education an undisputed panacea,” Prof Khumalo said. Ultimately, hope and meaning are sources of direction and motivation, and institutions of higher learning play a crucial role in human capacity development.

The colloquium was a platform to share and collaborate on complex issues in higher education.

Prof Ruad Ganzevoort, Diversity Officer and Dean of Theology and Religion at VUA

Prof Cindy Fan, Vice-Provost: International Studies and Global Engagement and Dr Gene Block, UCLA Chancellor

Prof Michalinos Zembylas, delivered the Keynote address on Tuesday 28 January 2020.

Prof Abel Valenzuela, director of the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.

Fragility and Resilience Colloquium meet-and-greet on Tuesday 28 January 2020

At the meet-and-greet on Monday are from left; Prof Ruad Ganzevoort, Prof Francis Pietersen and Dr Gene Block

Prof Puleng LenkaBula, Vice-Rector: Institutional Change, Student Affairs and Community Engagement opened the colloquium on Tuesday 28 January 2020.

News Archive

MBA Programme - Question And Answer Sheet - 27 May 2004

2004-05-27

1. WHAT MUST THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE (UFS) DO TO GET FULL ACCREDITATION FOR THE MBA PROGRAMMES?

According to the Council on Higher Education’s (CHE) evaluation, the three MBA programmes of the UFS clearly and significantly contribute to students’ knowledge and skills, are relevant for the workplace, are appropriately resourced and have an appropriate internal and external programme environment. These programmes are the MBA General, the MBA in Health Care Management and the MBA in Entrepreneurship.

What the Council on Higher Education did find, was a few technical and administrative issues that need to be addressed.

This is why the three MBA programmes of the UFS received conditional accreditation – which in itself is a major achievement for the UFS’s School of Management, which was only four years old at the time of the evaluation.

The following breakdown gives one a sense of the mostly administrative nature of the conditions that have to be met before full accreditation is granted by the CHE:

a. A formal forum of stakeholders: The UFS is required to establish a more structured, inclusive process of review of its MBA programmes. This is an administrative formality already in process.

b. A work allocation model: According to the CHE this is required to regulate the workload of the teaching staff, particularly as student numbers grow, rather than via standard management processes as currently done.

c. Contractual agreements with part-time staff: The UFS is required to enter into formal agreements with part-time and contractual staff as all agreements are currently done on an informal and claim-basis. This is an administrative formality already in process.

d. A formal curriculum committee: According to the CHE, the School of Management had realised the need for a structure – other than the current Faculty Board - where all MBA lecturers can deliberate on the MBA programmes, and serve as a channel for faculty input, consultation and decision-making.

e. A system of external moderators: This need was already identified by the UFS and the system is to be implemented as early as July 2004.

f. A compulsory research component: The UFS is required to introduce a research component which will include the development of research skills for the business environment. The UFS management identified this need and has approved such a component - it is to take effect from January 2005. This is an insufficient element lacking in virtually all MBA programmes in South Africa.

g. Support programmes for learners having problems with numeracy: The UFS identified this as a need for academic support among some learners and has already developed such a programme which will be implemented from January 2005.

The majority of these conditions have been satisfied already and few remaining steps will take effect soon. It is for this reason that the UFS is confident that its three MBA programmes will soon receive full accreditation.

2. WHAT ACCREDITATION DOES THE UFS HAVE FOR ITS MBA PROGRAMME?

The UFS’s School of Management received conditional accreditation for its three MBA programmes.

Two levels of accreditation are awarded to tertiary institutions for their MBA programmes, namely full accreditation and conditional accreditation. When a programme does not comply with the minimum requirements regarding a small number of criteria, conditional accreditation is given. This can be rectified during the short or medium term.

3. IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ACADEMIC CORE OF THE UFS’s MBA PROGRAMMES?

No. The UFS is proud of its three MBA programmes’ reputation in the market and the positive feedback it receives from graduandi and their employers.

The MBA programmes of the UFS meet most of the minimum requirements of the evaluation process.

In particular, the key element of ‘teaching and learning’, which relates to the curriculum and content of the MBA programmes, is beyond question. In other words, the core of what is being taught in our MBA programmes is sound.

4. IS THE UFS’s MBA A WORTHWHILE QUALIFICATION?

Yes. Earlier this year, the School of Management – young as it is - was rated by employers as the best smaller business school in South Africa. This was based on a survey conducted by the Professional Management Review and reported in the Sunday Times Business Times, of 25 January 2004.

The UFS is committed to maintaining these high standards of quality, not only through compliance with the requirements of the CHE, but also through implementing its own quality assurance measures.

Another way in which we benchmark the quality of our MBA programmes is through the partnerships we have formed with institutions such as the DePaul University in Chicago and Kansas State University, both in the US, as well as the Robert Schuman University in France.

For this reason the UFS appreciates and supports the work of the CHE and welcomes its specific findings regarding the three MBA programmes.

It is understandable that the MBA review has caused some nervousness – not least among current MBA students throughout the country.

However, one principle that the UFS management is committed to is this: preparing all our students for a world of challenge and change. Without any doubt the MBA programme of the UFS is a solid preparation.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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