Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
25 May 2020 | Story Keamogetswe Juries, Dimakatšo Veronica Masenya, Mamokoena Mokoena, and Joy Owen | Photo Photo by Magda Ehlers from Pexels

At the start of our democracy, four years into her existence, President Mbeki offered a new hopeful vision that was inclusive of our African compatriots to the north. In her rebirth, South Africa masqueraded as the land of milk and honey; a land to which the destitute, hopeless, and impoverished citizens of the rest of Africa would flee as they escaped hunger, failed states, failing healthcare systems, and certain death in the countries of their birth. In response, we treated our African neighbours variably, but most notably (and newsworthy) as pariahs of the South African state and its citizens. In short, we treated them as outsiders, akin to waste, to be erased from the South African psyche and landscape.

Yet, these African others have a history that is mired in the depths of our South African soil – they have been digging into the richness of our land, excavating diamonds, gold, and copper for decades. Mozambican. Basotho. Zimbabwean. Since the late 1970s and 1980s, Congolese, predominantly from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, first arrived in South Africa as highly educated professionals – doctors, dentists, mathematicians, and lecturers – and were employed by the South African state; then as entrepreneurs, educated refugees, and working-class asylum seekers. Soon other Africans arrived from Nigeria, Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia, Senegal, and Somalia. So too, our South Asian compatriots from Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. 

If we are to believe headline reports over the past 15 years, acceptance of those African migrants living in South African townships has been predominantly negative, with widespread xenophobic attacks against particularly working-class black African ‘foreigners’. They have been maimed, killed, and robbed of their dignity in various ways, because their citizenship was not secured within the foothills of South African soil. They have been harangued, harassed, and brutalised, because they could not speak a South African language (or so we are led to believe); they have been questioned, humiliated, and shot at by police in random raids or random searches in the streets of Johannesburg. They have been harassed in hair salons and threatened with kidnapping; they have been thrown from moving trains, necklaced and killed in Bloemfontein, Masiphumelele, Bellville, Pretoria, Philippi, Katlehong and elsewhere in South Africa. The horror of these events, these experiences, should lead to outcries. Provide a moment of pause. And yet, they have not. 

Some commentators argue that the violence meted out against our African brothers and sisters is indicative of a violent South Africa. Xenophobia is thus subsumed under the aberrant reality of a violent South African population, as embodied and expressed through a virulent, oppressive, and toxic hyper-masculinity. To subsume xenophobic or Afrophobic violence in this way ironically captures African nationals as part of the contemporary South African story, enmeshed within our collective present of high unemployment, and continuing racial, gendered, and deep social inequalities. However, we are not encouraged to perceive this subtlety and nuance. Rather, prior to the arrival of  COVID-19 in South Africa, xenophobia were commonplace on the streets, in taxis, in supermarkets, in Home Affairs offices, at schools, at universities, at local clinics, in townships, and in barbershops; if not in deed, then in thought and in word. The psychological distancing created by the word makwerekwere – a reference to African migrants among us – still stings. 
Yet other stories exist too. For example, as xenophobia made headlines in South Africa in 2008, residents in Makhanda (then Grahamstown) protected immigrant spaza-shop owners. Women, in particular, discouraged looting of spaza shops, arguing – as elsewhere in South African lokshins – that foreing nationals fed the hungry and protected the destitute from complete and utter ruin. They allowed umama to purchase essentials such as maize meal, oil, sugar, and tea on credit. Child-headed households, old-age pensioners, and other destitute households were also assisted.

Some residents begrudgingly commented that ‘these foreigners’ worked together, combining their money and buying in bulk. By buying in bulk, they were able to purchase more products, and offer these to consumers at lower prices than their South African counterparts. The land of milk and honey had become competitive, and rather than respond to competition proactively by creating solidarity networks among themselves, many South African spaza shop owners fell into ruin.

As government’s plans for its citizens are shared during COVID-19, the silence on serving the needs of the African migrant population is deafening. Small business owners, students, barbers, cooks, hairstylists, car park attendants, pastors, traders, and entrepreneurs – they too are affected, with no recourse to government’s coffers as non-citizens. As non-citizens, government does not perceive them as bona fide beneficiaries of the state; their assumed rootlessness and statelessness leave them in a precarious quagmire, reliant on handouts from local South African and other diasporic organisations. Yet, their labour too contributes to the ticking over of South Africa’s economy. Just like you and me, they purchase food in supermarkets or vegetables from hawkers on the street; they pay taxi fares, pay university fees (much higher than South Africans), need medical care and attention, participate in illicit undertakings, fall in love, marry, live and die. More pertinently, in the time of COVID-19, they – like South Africans – also shared what they have and more with South Africans in need.


Educational migrants
From the suspension of academic activities to the total shutdown of the country, little has been noted about the experiences of African educational migrants. The suspension of academic activities on 16 March led to the closure of South African universities in an attempt to limit movement and gatherings on campuses. This reality forced students to head home. Those educational migrants who could not return home for various reasons, were accommodated by certain higher education institutions and remain in lockdown on campuses, separated from immediate family and the familiarity of ‘home’.  These are anxious times.

Stop for a moment and conjure up the feelings, smells, experiences, and attachments related to home. Imagine the smile of your grandmother, the sound of your siblings’ laughter, the earthy, homely smell of your mother’s cooking; the heat of the day, the shade sought under the tree in the backyard, gossiping with favourite cousins, your grandmother, or aunt. Get lost in the stoicism of your father, and the familiar sounds of home. The sound of padded feet moving down the passage; the click of the kettle as it boils water for the day’s morning beverage. The radio or TV tuned in to the news. All of this and more provide the backdrop of familiarity, comfort, and casual belonging, ‘back home’. All of this, gone with the stroke of an ordinary ballpoint pen held by the hand of President Ramaphosa, ratifying the closure of South Africa’s borders. Gone.

Access to medical care and attention
Hard lockdown rules, including physical distancing, curtailed movement via taxis within provinces, no interprovincial travel, and a ban on street vendors and entrepreneurs limited the movement of vectors of transmission – human beings – irrespective of nationality, race, gender, age, and profession. An early attempt at curtailing movement included the closure of South Africa’s borders, which left numerous circular and economic migrants from Zimbabwe, Malawi, and Mozambique in limbo. Provision was made for African migrants whose visas expired before or during lockdown. However, asylum seekers whose request for asylum has been denied, as well as undocumented migrants, have not been provided for. 

On 15 April 2020, the Centre for Human Rights and the Centre for Applied Legal Studies issued a plea to government to ensure the inclusion of African migrants in updated frameworks for healthcare during COVID-19. This plea was not without reason. Research shows that undocumented and legal migrants have met with disdain from various medical personnel when seeking urgent medical care in South Africa. Yet, the nature of the virus knows no borders. It doesn’t check your legality or illegality, nor does it ask to see your bar-coded South African identification document or identity card. 

The situation we find ourselves in demands that every individual resident in South Africa be screened, tested for, and treated for COVID-19. There is no room for medical discrimination, as the efforts to curb the exponential increase in the infection rate could be nullified by this act. The vulnerable among us, irrespective of nationality, should be assisted with the promise of amnesty from prosecution and persecution. The failure to include African migrants, however categorised, threatens every other individual in her environment; and as the virus is non-discriminatory, it behoves South Africans to follow suit.

At death’s door
The government gazette dated 2 April 2020 prohibits all forms of social gatherings, with the exception of funerals. As per the rules, the number of mourners attending a funeral or cremation service should not exceed fifty.  A permit for attending funerals or cremation services is obtained from the nearest magistrate’s office or police station.  The applicant must produce documents such as the death certificate, and in cases where the death certificate has not yet been issued, a sworn affidavit must be submitted. The regulation further stipulates those who are eligible to attend funeral or cremation services. Relatedness to the deceased is defined as ‘close’ and is measured by blood, marriage, and/or caregiving bonds/responsibility.

These strict measures are meant to safeguard and protect the living from infection with COVID-19.  As President Ramaphosa said, “we have decided to take the urgent and drastic measures to manage the disease, to protect the people of our country, and reduce the impact of the virus on our society and on our economy”, when addressing the nation on 15 March 2020. 

The reference to ‘people of our country’ highlights the elephant in the room – who are the people of our country? Is the reference specific to those born in South Africa, and who thus enjoy citizenship?  Or is it inclusive of migrants from the African continent, however defined? If the President’s protection extends to include migrants, how will migrant deaths be managed? The closure of our international borders have scuppered attempts to repatriate the mortal remains of the deceased; and as fears rise that COVID-19 can still be spread by the dead, will the body of an African migrant be buried or cremated in South Africa?  Health authorities advised that cremation is the best method for dealing with a COVID-19 death. Yet, in the African context, cremation is complicated as it opposes certain belief systems. Further, mortuary facilities in South Africa are scarce and hardly able to respond to the potential need created by South African deaths, whether from COVID-19 or something else. Given this context, will African migrants finally be treated with dignity and respect in death?

Not every black African migrant crossing into South Africa is illegal or disempowered. There are middle-class nurses, dentists, doctors, university professors, mechanical engineers, businessmen, and researchers. However, they are not newsworthy, as their class status often removes them from physically violent persecution in local townships. In this extended COVID-19 moment, race and class are interlinked, as during segregation and apartheid in South Africa. So is nationality, gender, and health status. Depending on the social configuration of your identity, further confirmed by the national documents you carry, your chance of surviving COVID-19 in South Africa waxes or wanes.  Your access to healthcare, to state assistance in the form of food aid or a social grant, depends on your citizenship status; and your health and/or death is mediated through your predefined status, inclusive of your citizenship. 
The South African government will have numerous obstacles to remedy the further devastation and destitution of its citizens. We hope that the idea and characterisation of South African citizens will be inclusive of our African brothers, our African sisters, and their children. Born in South Africa, these South African children have a right to safety and security, healthcare, food, and education. Their parents too. 

In the next few weeks and months, as we move through various stages of lockdown, we should not erase ‘other Africans’ in our midst. Our humanity and our collective health are intimately interwoven with the healthy existence and humanity of others – whether South African or other African – resident in South Africa. The disease does not discriminate. Neither should we.  As James Baldwin said, “Where all human connections are distrusted, the human being is very quickly lost”. And as we as South Africans often say, ‘I am because you are’. Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu.

News Archive

Former top politician talks at UFS School of Management
2007-04-25

Dr Matthews Phosa, the non-executive chairman of EOH and former politician, presented a guest lecture to a group of MBA students at the University of the Free State's (UFS) School of Management. At the lecture were from the left: Mr Tate Makgoe (Free State MEC for Finance), Ms Nontobeko Scheppers (MBA student), Dr Phosa, Prof. Helena van Zyl (Director: UFS School of Management) and Mr Setjhaba Tlhatlogi (MBA student).
Photo: Stephen Collett

Exploring some of the myths and opportunities cyber space offers

Mathews Phosa

Introduction

It is no longer business as usual. Globalisation poses new challenges as well as opportunities to business, education and society in general. Many of these new opportunities are alive with paradoxes and tensions between local sustainability and global market opportunities. The growth in new communication technologies challenges us to critically explore some popular myths, opportunities and define possible responses.

Cyberspace is often described as the new frontier – not only in the race for newer and faster technologies, but also in education. Any user or provider of services who does not explore this new frontier will soon be considered using “outdated” and will be accused of using obsolete methodologies. Cyberspace, like the spaces embodied in continents, is something that should be claimed and conquered.

Cyberspace and specifically access to information, including online education is hailed as the great equaliser. It is now claimed that everyone will have equal access to “Knowledge”. Cyber education  for example is celebrated as “education-without-borders”, but as Bauman states, while it does change borders and access, it creates new “haves” and “have-nots”.

 

To put it in a nutshell:  rather than homogenizing the human     condition, the technological annulment of temporal/spatial distance tends to polarize it.  It emancipates certain humans from territorial constraints and renders certain community-generating meanings     exterritorial – while denuding the territory, to which other people go on being confined, of its meaning and its identity-endowing capacity.
(Bauman 1989:18; emphasis mine).

Virtual environments and the possibilities offered by the World Wide Web are new spaces that are being colonised and occupied by those who have capital (whether economic or academic) and who are looking for new labour or markets.  While the new mediums include and conquer new spaces, it also excludes and “otherises” communities and segments of society (Prinsloo 2005).  Cyberspace provides institutions and corporations with a space to operate without the responsibilities and obligations of locality – as long as you can afford the privilege of operating in cyberspace.

Cyberspace is therefore not neutral.  Spaces are occupied, reoccupied, abandoned, claimed, fortified, secured – contested.  Those with mobility define and map spaces continuously according to their claims.  Those without capital and the mobility it brings, contest these claims, contest the spaces and hack into the space.  Reclaim it.  Recolonise it.

 

Re-Appropriating Cyberspace

A number of authors explores such a re-appropriation of cyberspace.  Instead of seeing the Internet and related functions like online teaching as just accessing and transferring information, cyberspace is explored as political, social, personal and economic space.  Institutions across the spectrum including higher education institutions venturing into cyberspace often think that it offers them a space without the usual socio-cultural complexities. Gunn, McSporran, Macleod and French (2003:14) however indicate that online “interactions that take place through electronic channels lose none of the socio-cultural complexity or gender imbalance that exists within society”.

Instead of cyberspace being a new space where the differences and disparities of non-virtual life on earth cease to exist, “cyberspace is an imagined network layer sitting on top of the physical infrastructure of cities. Cyberspace is an imagined, continuous, worldwide, networked city; the global city that never sleeps, always experienced in real time” (Irvine 1999, Online). Cyberspace therefore not only sits on top of the physical infrastructure, but is also a mirror image of the power structures and disparities of non-virtual life on earth.

Cyberspace is also much more than just a replication of non-virtual reality. New subcultures and new self-defined communities are coming into existence (Irvine 1999, Online).  These new communities in cyberspace resemble communities in non-virtual format, but they are also vastly different.  For example, Grierson (Online) explores the similarities between cemeteries and the communities in cyberspace.  She finds that, although both “communities” are constituted in space, it is a “placeless place” which “links and mirrors society, with all its alter-egos and hidden desires … a virtual site holding up a mirror to physical reality where subjective presence is delineated in imaginary absence”.

The Internet as “sites for power and knowledge” is further explored by a number of authors, amongst othersNewman and Johnson (1999), Usher (2002), Walmsley (2000) and Borer (Online). Jordan (1999, Online) investigates culture and politics in cyberspace.  He explores three “intertwined levels”, namely cyberspace as “playground of the individual”, as “social space, a place where communities exist” and as “being a society or even a digital nation”.  In each of these three levels, power is played out and claimed in a “sociological, cultural, economic and political battle between the individual and a technopower elite”.

The so-called impact of the Internet on society is discounted by Bennet (2001:197).  He suggests rather that the Internet “should be regarded as a “form of life – whose evolving structure becomes embedded in human consciousness and social practice, and whose architecture embodies an inherent valence that is gradually shifting away from the assumptions of anonymity upon which the Internet was originally designed” (2001:197).

We started by stating that it is no longer business as usual. We can no longer afford epistemologies of ignorance and politeness. Cyberspace and the opportunities it offers for business, society and education in particular need to be interrogated using a hermeneutics of suspicion, confronting certain myths, exploring opportunities and defining appropriate responses.

It is evident that the impact of the cyberspace stretches across the total spectrum of the human experience and condition.  Due to the complexity of discussing the total spectrum of options this discussion focuses on Higher Education as one entity to demonstrate the implications and level of reflection required.
To come to terms with some of theses realities it is necessary to address some of the typical myths. The following aspects provide an indication of some of the myths:

  • Myth 1 - Access. The Internet and online education is not the great equaliser. Access to the Internet on a sustainable and affordable basis is still for the rich and the privileged. There is good reason to celebrate the widening access citizens have to the Internet. In the last number of years the so-called “digital-divide” has indeed decreased. It is however still disputable that having access to the World Wide Web changes lives for the better. For the World Wide Web to deliver on its promise of changing society into more just and compassionate communities, the other divides in society have to be addressed as well.
  • Myth 2 - Quality of information available. Even when/if sustainable and affordable access to the Internet would be available to all; the overwhelming quantity of information on the Internet would require participants to have critical information literacies. Such literacies will be crucial in allowing the “having access to more information” to really allow participants to live differently. Bauman (1989) and others warn of the increasing commodification and consumerisation of knowledge; the immense amounts of information available on the Web, results in information and knowledge becoming “cheap”, and un-validated.  
  • Myth 3 – The role of race and gender. Current research indicates that the unequal socio-economic gender relations are perpetuated in cyberspace. Females have less access and often less frequent access due to prescribed and patriarchally perpetuated life-roles. Research also indicates that males frequently dominate online discussions, often relegating female participants to roles of quiet observer. In this “neutrality” of cyberspace the assumption often is that gender should not matter in a space where identity is often just a name and a short introduction. There is however enough research to validate the role identity and specifically race and gender play in online learning environments.
  • Myth 4 – Guaranteed success as learning platform. International research indicates that very few students opt for fully online learning. Even in countries where access to online environments are either state-sponsored or very cheap, learners do not prefer online learning to more face-to-face learning environments. Students seem to prefer a range of blended learning experiences, rather than fully online. This has impacted on several world-class universities forcing them to cancel fully online offerings. Fully online learning and interaction require specific literacies and personality traits of participants. Online learning is not a “one size fits all”.

 

Research in South Africa indicates that many learners use computers at work to access their learning environments. Not only does this impact on productivity, but learners therefore do not have access to their online learning environments over weekends and when they prepare for the examination. Employers also increasingly block mass-generated electronic correspondence from universities and limit learners’ access to the Internet. This results in learners experiencing growing frustrations with “fire-walls” that do not allow an effective learning environment.

Very few learners are sufficiently prepared to engage and sustain their own learning in a fully online environment. Institutions offering online learning are often inundated with requests for more support, often face-to-face.

  • Myth 5 - Quality in an online learning environment. At present there are no quality indicators specifically focused on online learning environments in higher education. The quality of the current offerings  range from “drop-off and go” experiences where students carry the cost of printing materials with very little continued support and interaction from the side of the institution, to very intensive online teaching which overestimates the time and resources that students have for such learning.
  • Myth 6 - Accountability.  Many overseas institutions offer online qualifications in other countries without any guarantee that the qualifications will be accredited by local institutions of learning or employers. Many students wrongfully belief that because it is offered by an international provider using online, that the learning experience will be of a high quality and that it will be accredited by local education institutions and employers.
  • Myth 7 - Global is better. Though there is a legitimate trend to ensure internationalisation in education, the need for contextual, local and authentic learning remains equally important. The challenges learners face are often context-specific and international tutors in online environments often have very little understanding for the cultural and socio-economic specificities of local contexts. Some metaphors and examples often used in online environments exclude participants from non –western cultures to fully comprehend and apply the learning to their own contexts.
  • Myth 8 - Online teaching and learning is ideologically neutral. All curricula arise from context specific ideological and socio-economic relations and epistemologies. Very few institutions foreground their specific beliefs and assumptions about knowledge and learning. This is even more so applicable in online learning environments where the “designers” of the learning are often even more hidden than in face-to-face contexts.

Opportunities

The Internet does however offer scores of opportunities for institutions of higher learning to seriously consider. The following is but a few of the opportunities that await careful and critical consideration.

  • Opportunity 1 - Reaching the un-reached. Yes, online teaching and learning bring opportunities to many learners who have been previously excluded from training, development and higher education. The reach of higher education does not only entail those who were previously excluded, but also brings into reach qualifications at internationally renowned institutions.
  • Opportunity 2 - Access to information. With the Internet, students have access to the most recent, cutting-edge information. Students will increasingly be able to compile their own curricula and have it validated by institutions of higher learning. Students now have access to the international discourses in the different disciplines at the click of a mouse. While there is a real danger that not all students have (yet) the critical literacies required by the Information age and secondly that they may be overwhelmed and become lost in cyberspace.
  • Opportunity 3 - Communication. With the Internet and other mobile communication technologies, learners can increasingly be in touch with institutions of learning and educators and peers. Learning experiences can be enriched by synchronous and asynchronous communication, between the institution and tutors, tutors among themselves, between tutors and learners and among learners themselves. Online learning really open up a Habermasian “public sphere” for “communicative action”.
  • Opportunity 4 - Mode 3 knowledge-production. Traditionally knowledge production in higher education focused on discipline specific transfer of knowledge, called mode 1 knowledge production. Paulo Freire called this “banking education” (1989). Recent years saw the development of Mode 2 knowledge production where knowledge was applied and arose from practical application to appropriate problem-spaces. Online learning environments make it increasingly possible to move to Mode 3 knowledge production where learners address problem-space from the foundations of a specific discipline but then continue to explore contributions from a range of other disciplines Knowledge production has moved form “knowing-how” to “knowing-in-the-world”. Barnett refers to this change as an “ontological turn” (2005).

The changing role of higher education

It will be naïve and irresponsible for higher education not to interrogate popular notions and epistemologies of online education and the role of the Internet. We have explored a number of myths and (hopefully) created sufficient suspicion to invite further discourse. We have also explored a number of opportunities an online environment offers to business, higher education and society in general.

Higher education has to indeed decrease the “digital divide” not only in the form of broadening access, but also by seriously interrogating the accompanying epistemologies. From the above it would seem as if a responsible and robust response would entail the following:

  • Response 1 - Empower learners with critical literacies for the information age. having access to the information the Internet offers will challenge higher education institutions and learners alike to be able to critically evaluate information and its sources. While addressing access may in fact decrease the digital divide but it is worthless if the decrease in the digital divide does not and cannot result in students’ critical engagement with information and with one-another.
  • Response 2 - Increase access to the Internet through collaborative agreements. Higher education institutions have much more bargaining power than individual learners. It is almost unbelievable that with the “captive audiences” higher education institutions have, that they have not been successful to negotiate more affordable and sustainable access to online environments.
  • Response 3 – Develop quality online learning. Higher education should be very clear about the minimum standards for learning platforms, opportunities for peer and tutor interaction and the sustaining of a teacher presence in Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs).
  • Response 4 – Maintain scholarly online teaching. Higher education should encourage research, individual and collaborative projects to determine the indicators of success of online learning in specific contexts for specific audiences.
  • Response 5 – Higher education as critical praxis.  Higher education traditionally has validated all claims to knowledge and expertise. As Barnett (2000, 2005) has indicated, higher education is no longer the only “producers of knowledge”. However, higher education still has the mandate to validate knowledge, whether claimed or made available in cyberspace. Higher education has the unique opportunity to rise to the occasion and to interrogate knowledge claims. The opportunities should be considered in the context of the realities of cyberspace as discussed.  Fundamental to this is the fact that it requires higher education to increase the capacity of students for critical and compassionate action to assist in the formation and utilisation of the challenges and new opportunities.  Essentially the challenge is to create opportunities and empower students and the broader society to utilise the potential cyberspace towards a more just and equitable society.

In Conclusion

There are a number of myths surrounding online education and the impact of the Internet on business, education and development. Only once cyber space has been demythologised, it is then that our eyes open to the opportunities that it offers. Higher education is therefore called upon to reflexively exploit the opportunities online learning and the Internet offer to engaging one another in learning experiences. Higher education will do well to take both the myths and the opportunities seriously and courageously.

Cyberspace is a new frontier. As previously done with colonial frontiers, this frontier can be exploited ruthlessly. There is however also an opportunity for business and higher education to engage with cyberspace – and use cyberspace to create hospitable, nourishing environments for active learning and a more just and equitable society for all.

References

  • Barnett, R. 2000. University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher Education 40:409-422.
  • Barnett, R. 2005. Recapturing the universal in the university. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37(6):785-797.
  • Bauman, Z.1998. Globalization. The human consequences. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Bennet, CJ. 2001. Cookies, web bugs, webcams and cue cats: patterns of surveillance on the World Wide Web. Ethics and Information Technology 3:197-210.
  • Borer, MI. The Cyborgian self: toward a critical social theory of cyberspace. Available URL:
  • http://reconstruction.eserver.org/023/borer.htm (accessed on 10/04/2007).
  • Freire, P. 1989. Learning to question: a pedagogy of liberation. Geneva: World Council of Churches.
  • Gunn, C, McSporran, M, Macleod, H & French, S. 2003. Dominant or different? Gender issues in computer support learning. JALN 7(1):14-30.
  • Grierson, EM. From cemeteries to cyberspace: identity and a globally technologised age. Available URL: Click here!
  • (accessed on 10/04/2007).
  • Irvine, M. 1999. Global cyber culture reconsidered: cyberspace, identity and the global informational city. Available URL: http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/articles/globalculture.html
  • (accessed on 10/04/2007).
  • Jordan, T. 1999. Cyberpower: the culture and politics of cyberspace. Available URL:
  • http://www.isoc.org/inet99/proceedings/3i/3i_1.htm (accessed on 10/04/2007).
  • Newman, R & Johnson, F. 1999. Sites of power and knowledge? Towards a critique of the virtual university. British Journal of Sociology of Education 20(1):79-88.
  • Prinsloo, P. 2005. Don Quixote in cyberspace – charging at the invisible. Open and Distance learning in Africa Number 1, 2006: 78-94.
  • Usher, R. 2002. Putting space back on the map: globalisation, place and identity. Educational Philosophy and Theory 43(1):2002.
  • Walmsley, DJ. 2000. Community, place and cyberspace. Australian Geographer 31(1):5-19.

 

 

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