Uncategorized
Edwin Naidu
A groundbreaking research study, the first of its kind conducted on the internationalisation of higher education in South Africa, has revealed a pressing issue of xenophobia.
According to the findings of the research report ‘Exploring Internationalisation of Higher Education at Public Universities in South Africa: Intentions, Practices, Opportunities and Constraints,’ universities in the country often follow an unwritten ‘South Africa-first policy’ in their staff recruitment.
Presented during last week’s 26th annual conference themed Navigating Internationalisation in Challenging Times, the comprehensive study, jointly commissioned by the International Education Association of South Africa (IEASA) and the British Council, found that academic xenophobia is driven by local politics and staff unions in universities.
The study noted that over the years, the South Africa-first policy has significantly impeded the recruitment of international staff in universities, a concerning trend that needs to be addressed. In some universities, it said that if a South African candidate meets the threshold criteria for recruitment, the question of recruitment by quality falls away as the South Africa-first policy dictates that universities ought to only opt for non-South Africans after an exhaustive search as dictated by the labour law.
According to the study, where a South African meets the minimum requirements of a position, priority should be accorded to recruiting them. Consequently, the study found that excellent international prospects are lost.
Local party and labour union politics have a significant role in this dynamic. Although this can be considered negative for internationalisation to a larger extent, universities consider it part of transformation and employment equity legislation.
Xenophobia, however, was denounced by all deans who took part in the study and seemed to affect different universities differently due to location. Some universities had always been international as much as they had been local. Hence, xenophobia had not concerningly manifested itself in these institutions.
In universities that were now beginning to embrace internationalisation, tensions were reportedly arising concerning the acceptance of international students and staff; hence, xenophobic tendencies were reported.
The South Africa-first recruitment practice was also an issue of concern despite the changing recruiting market and the great demand for international staff. While xenophobic tendencies were acknowledged, they were strongly condemned, and some institutions committed to protecting their international staff and students.
The only limitation was the area of jurisdiction within which such institutional control could be exercised, mainly where students lived within communities susceptible to xenophobic attacks. On the effects of xenophobia and the South Africa-first recruitment practice, one of the deans said:
“I would say for [university named), we’ve not had a lot of instances of xenophobia. However, [one day], this young academic went and requested the head of the department to give him some hours to do, to teach. When he started teaching, all hell broke loose, and they say he’s bringing foreigners because the head of the department himself is foreign.”
The comment illustrated the dismissive opinion demonstrated by most deans about the occurrence and effects of xenophobia. However, by analysing such comments, one can see the subtle occurrences of xenophobia and its impact on institutions and the internationalisation project.
The effects of xenophobia and the South Africa-first practice could be seen in the response given by one of the deans: “We’re not getting the expertise coming from outside because of this, and this is a limitation (xenophobia) … It’s not an institutional issue, it’s a political issue and you, as a person, should know very well that as much as we have management, the student force is controlled by political allegiance to certain parties.”
Similarly, but without making mention of the political issues surrounding the South Africa-first practice, another dean said:
“In fields where it is difficult to attract South African academics, such as engineering, we don’t have a choice but to appoint international academics.”
The study found that xenophobia and the recruitment practice policy seemed to contradict the efforts espoused by the DHET Policy Framework. This is particularly true of the framework clauses: “It is in South Africa’s interests to appoint the best possible people in academic positions in its higher education institutions, including talented and qualified scientists and scholars from elsewhere in the world.”
This must be balanced with addressing race and gender transformation through creating opportunities for black and female South African citizens. There can be no justification for any South African institution prioritising and preferring foreign nationals to South Africans who qualify equally for the same post.
The Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) launched the DHET framework in 2019. However, many institutions have yet to adopt it fully.
The milestone study was unveiled on Thursday during a panel discussion by the esteemed Dr Samia Chasi of IEASA. The panel was composed of distinguished individuals, including George Barrett, Country Director of South Africa British Council, Prof Felix Maringe, Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Institutional Development, Research & Innovation at the University of Kigali, Dr Phethiwe Matutu, Chief Executive Officer, Universities South Africa, Dr Lavern Samuels, IEASA President and Dr Idah Makukule, University Education Branch, Department of Higher Education and Training, all of whom brought their expertise to the discussion.
The research for this project was conducted between 2022 and 2024. It examined South Africa’s 2019 policy framework on Internationalisation by the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET).
According to the study, the interpretation and understanding of internationalisation at both conceptual and policy levels in public universities are diverse, with the DHET Policy Framework itself in South Africa focused on pursuing integration, establishing regional and international connections, and incorporating intercultural and global dimensions into a university’s strategic objectives, functions, and the delivery of post-secondary education.
Since the study found that the higher education sector is not fully ready to implement the DHET Policy Framework, one recommendation was that the DHET, in conjunction with its significant partners, such as IEASA and the British Council, organise a higher education summit to kickstart the implementation of the DHET Policy Framework.
The summit would address institutional issues of awareness-raising concerning strategy development, resource mobilisation, and leadership training for internationalisation.
It was also recommended that the visa and immigration dynamics in HE be reflected and reformed both nationally and institutionally. Inadequate visa and immigration arrangements for international students are the most significant issues raised by staff and students.
The prevalence and impact of academic xenophobia at universities in South Africa should be probed further, as well as the need for cognitive justice, equality and social justice for international students.
Xenophobia remains a sick South African problem, as shown by the recent furore over Chidimma Adetshina, the Sowetan of Nigerian descent, who was subject to awful abuse before pulling out of a beauty contest.
Academia, as the study shows, is no different from South African society in displaying xenophobia. They seem to have a subtle way of pulling it off.
Edwin Naidu is a veteran journalist. He writes in his personal capacity.