1 Introduction
International literature positions community engagement (CE) as an essential feature of the contemporary university (e.g., Farner, 2019; Hall & Tandon, 2021; Welch & Plaxton-Moore, 2017), with many South African researchers also contributing to the debate (e.g., Musesengwa & Chimbari, 2017; Mtshali & Gwele, 2016; Smith-Tolken & Bitzer, 2017). For over twenty years, policy (Department of Education, 1997) in South Africa has stipulated community engagement
2 The Historical and Political Knowledge Environment in South Africa
In countries with a colonial history, such as South Africa, indigenous knowledge was basically eradicated through legislation and practices designed to favour the dominant minority. De Sousa Santos (2014) coined the term epistemicide to describe the process of gradual devaluation and extinction of local knowledges. The legacy of colonialism still negatively impacts on education and development in the African continent. In South Africa, however, the situation
3 Knowledge Environment of the South African Education System
Mandela (1994) is often cited as saying that “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world”, but of course it depends on what epistemological foundations that education is based. Education systems are rooted in a specific philosophy, which in turn creates a knowledge culture. A racist ideology thus creates a hegemonic knowledge culture that represses the production and dissemination of any paradigm rooted in a culture of universal human rights; it validates its own knowledge culture through indoctrination, oppressive legislation and systematic disempowering of other race-groups. Apartheid used education to promote the “strategic dehumanization” (Memmi, 2013, p. 23) of the majority of the South African population
Thus, transformation of education has been the focus of post-apartheid education policy. It is important to know this history because it has implications for how the still marginalised populations that we work with in service-learning and community-based research respond to, and behave within, a working partnership. Longstanding social and economic inequalities have not reduced despite progressive legislation. Poverty, unemployment, crime, health disparities have risen in recent years (Francis & Webster, 2019), and it is within this context that the gap between university and community knowledge cultures has also increased. Moreover, the predominant ivory tower image and paternalistic approach to knowledge sharing between higher education institutions and communities further propagates the devaluation of community/indigenous knowledge. Community engagement is one of the key approaches to bringing about change at tertiary level to shatter this ivory tower and promote collaboration for knowledge production between university and community.
For successful establishment of working partnerships for knowledge creation between the university and community, there is a need to dispel the “epistemic disjuncture” (Hall, 2010, p. 3) between how knowledge is respectively created, structured and validated in universities and communities. Policy may mandate the university to be more socially responsive and work with community partners to co-create knowledge, but as Delport (2005) has pointed out, accompanying paradigm shifts in the stakeholders implementing the policies is a slower yet essential process for real transformation to occur. Likewise, community partners have to learn to believe in their own ability to make valuable contributions to the generation of new knowledge (Wood & Zuber-Skerritt, 2021).
4 Institutional Knowledge Environments of the Universities Involved in the K4C Hub
University of the Free State and North-West University were both formerly Afrikaans institutions,1 whose curriculum and culture reflected the nationalist ideology and Calvinistic theology. Both universities have since merged with formerly Black institutions to form multi-campus organisations. The unitary culture and alignment have taken place slowly over the past few years. Both institutions are driven by the values contained in the South African constitution, especially human dignity, equity and freedom. Their constitutions promote tolerance and respect for all perspectives and belief systems to ensure
Notwithstanding the still unequal outcomes, concerted efforts over recent years indicate the commitment of higher education to adopt an engaged approach to scholarship (Beaulieu et al., 2018) to be more responsive to societal needs. Community engagement is an umbrella term that is used by universities to include engaged research in mutually beneficial partnerships with diverse communities and engaged teaching and learning which is delivered through service-learning or work integrated learning. Both universities also subscribe to contributing to the scholarship of engagement and therefore all CE activities have a strong engaged research approach. One of the recent initiatives is the creation of a Knowledge for Change (K4C) hub that spans both universities. The current mentors in our K4C hub come from the disciplines of education and health sciences, as well as from institutional directorates of community engagement, with memoranda of understanding with local community organisations. The mission of the hub is to enable the university to become more socially responsible through conducting community-based teaching, learning and research. Yet, although in theory there is a growing acceptance of the need to embrace indigenous and local knowledge to address the many societal problems that hinder attainment of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDG s), and an awareness that modern science may not have all the answers (Diaz et al., 2018), in practice traditional ‘scientific’ views of knowledge still tend to prevail, and community knowledge is not yet sufficiently valued (Wood, 2020).
Exploration of the different knowledge cultures and how they contribute to the power differentials between university and community partners is thus necessary and justified to help us understand how we can begin to change perceptions and behaviour within CURP s. This paper reports on findings from research undertaken to interrogate concepts such as the democratisation of knowledge (e.g., who has the right to create knowledge), the validation of knowledge (e.g., who decides if knowledge is valid, useful, etc.) and the dissemination of knowledge (e.g., who will have access to the knowledge and how will those in the know gain access). We also analyse complex issues such as the level of knowledge (e.g., whether knowledge is entrenched or superficial), the generality of knowledge (e.g., whether knowledge can be simplified
5 Knowledge Cultures
In the literature, knowledge culture usually refers to how knowledge is managed in organisations (Travica, 2013). In the context of this paper, we conceptualise it as the way knowledge is respectively created, validated and disseminated in and by the university and in and by community. Knowledge creation within the university has traditionally been a result of rational, cognitive and technical procedures undertaken by ‘accredited’ academics (Cetina, 2007). The validity and usefulness of this scientific knowledge was not questioned so long as peers judged it to adhere to strict academic conventions. This understanding of knowledge is on the opposite end of the continuum from practical or experiential knowledge, whose validity is tested not by some pre-determined criteria, but by how well it solves the problem at hand (Travica, 2013). The creation of so-called scientific knowledge is separate from the creator. Objectivity is key, and the foremost aim is to contribute to theory, rather than be of practical use.
In terms of public health professionals, the focus of our case study, scientific knowledge is akin to factual information, such as knowing how to avoid transmission of HIV. It does not take into consideration the life circumstances and beliefs of the target population and assumes that if people know the biomedical facts, they will adjust their behaviour accordingly. Of course, we know this is not so since cultural beliefs and practices tend to wield more influence over people’s behaviour, as the persistent high rate of HIV infection in South Africa shows (Kilburn et al., 2018). It is therefore important that health care professionals understand the cultural beliefs and knowledge systems of those they serve, since these influence the uptake and impact of health education. Although both parties may have a shared goal – improved health within the community – the various knowledges that they hold can either work for or against positive health outcomes (World Health Orgnisation, 2020). Thus,
The aim of service-learning and community-based research is to create a space where knowledge can be democratically generated for the purpose of reducing social injustices, such as health inequities, and improving life for all (Hall & Tandon, 2015; Kemmis, 2010). Knowledge democracy embraces epistemic diversity where the “intellectual colonialism” of the traditional academy is replaced by an “ecology of knowledges” (de Sousa Santos, 2017, p. 7) in which diverse types and representations of knowledge are welcomed and acknowledged as being equally valuable and valid. Unlike in traditional, theory-driven research or philanthropic approaches to service-learning, in community-based research participants reflect on power relations to reduce them so that everyone can contribute what they know and determine how they want that knowledge to be used. In other words, diverse knowledge cultures converge to form a knowledge democracy, with the aim of bringing about sustainable improvement in the lives of all. In the next section, we explain the context of the study.
6 Context of the Case Study
The University of the Free State (UFS) Trompsburg community-based IPE and rural health project, conducted in the Xhariep District of South Africa’s Free State Province, was considered as a unique context for an in-depth exploration of the participants’ subjective experiences to identify knowledge differences/gaps and recommendations to bridge them. The Trompsburg community lies just off the main N1 motorway about an hour’s drive from Bloemfontein, the capital city of the Free State. According to the 2011 census (most recent available to the public), it has a population of 1,880 (Black 37.8%; Coloured 41.3%; White, circa 18.7%; 2.2% others). The dominant language is Afrikaans (68%), with Sesotho as the other main language. Although a rural area, due to its strategic geographical location, it boasts a well-equipped hospital. Apart from the hospital, the main employment is on local farms and shops that serve the community. The unemployment rate in 2011 was 7% but one can suppose it is now higher in line with the national increase.2 Most households have running water and electricity, but many of them also live close to the poverty line (Department of Corporate Governance and Traditional Affairs, 2020).3
The engagement initiative established in the Southern Free State includes collaboration and knowledge sharing between groups of individual community members diagnosed with diabetes mellitus and IPE student groups (nursing, nutrition and dietetic, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, medicine
7 Methodology
We adopted a qualitative design (Nassaji, 2020) to understand how participants perceived the different facets of knowledge generation, use and dissemination within the community-based initiative. The co-ordinator of the project invited students, academics and community members involved in the IPE programme to participate, after explaining to them the purpose of the project and what was expected of them. The interviews with academics and students were conducted on the university campus but since some of these participants requested online sessions, we decided to conduct semi-structured interviews rather than use more participatory strategies for data generation. Semi-structured interviews meant that the six interviewers (authors of this paper) could use the same questions for all participants, with some latitude to probe (Segal et al., 2006). This would help to ensure that the data from all the interviews would be comparable and useful for answering the research questions guiding our case study. Six IPE students, five academic staff involved in the programme and ten community members who attended the LG s run by the students agreed to participate in the study in response to a general invitation to all. Due to Covid-19, the regular LG face-to-face sessions had been suspended for some time but we provided transport for the community members to come to the facility where they normally had their sessions. We provided refreshments for them as a token of gratitude for their time, in line with acceptable ethical practices in community-based research (Wood, 2020). Interviews
The questions asked are listed below and where necessary, the interviewers rephrased them to aid understanding.
- –Do you think that the knowledge you bring and create within a research partnership matters? Explain why or why not.
- –How do you think you can best partner with the university/community to ensure the democratisation of knowledge? (i.e., that all can generate knowledge, not just university researchers).
- –Who has the right to create knowledge and who should own it within the partnership?
- –What are the best methods to generate knowledge in community engaged research/education?
- –What kind of knowledge is valid and useful to you as a community member/educator?
- –How can the knowledge be generalised (made more understandable) to enable more people to access it?
- –How should knowledge be disseminated/mobilised for the greatest impact?
The audio-recorded interviews lasted between 30–60 minutes each and were transcribed verbatim by an independent person. The transcriptions were done in the language of the interview. The members of the research team then analysed the transcripts to identify themes (Creswell & Creswell, 2017) that spoke to the knowledge cultures of the respective participants and the existing power relations that guided their interaction. After individually identifying the themes, the team met to validate them and make changes where necessary. We are aware that this rather one-sided method of data generation and analysis is not in line with the principles of community-based research but, given the Covid-19 restrictions which had prohibited us from doing any research for several months, this was the most efficient and safe way to conduct the research in the limited time available. Trustworthiness of data was ensured by triangulation of data sources (three sets of participants), peer debriefing of the research team after the interviews, avoidance of inferences and generalisations, avoiding the selective use of data, as well as independent re-coding by different team members before coming together to reach consensus (Flick, 2018). The usual ethical considerations applicable to qualitative research (Neuman, 2011) were employed and the study received ethical clearance from both universities
8 Findings
We now present the findings in relation to the main questions outlined in the introduction to this paper: Who has the right to create knowledge? Who decides if knowledge is valid? Who will have access to the knowledge? The findings are supported by verbatim quotes from the participants who are identified by the following codes: An (academics); Sn (students); CMn (community members). Findings are also controlled against relevant literature. In each theme we explore the power relations within the partnership in relation to the respective knowledge cultures.
8.1 Theme 1: Knowledge Creation and Sharing
The nature of the engagement determined to a certain extent the kind and level of knowledge that was created and shared within the partnership. Since the instigator of the relationship was the university, to meet their need of providing practical experience for the students and services to the community, the knowledge shared with the community was initially pre-determined and based on biomedical science. However, as reported below, the community also created and shared knowledge with the students within the LG s. The Trompsburg project enables the university to research the changing process of engagement via a service-learning and community-based education programme, and it was thus ideal as a case study to explore the mutually beneficial partnership that has been established over recent years.
An important part of the relationship was sharing, rather than creating, knowledge with the community about how to live a healthier lifestyle and manage/reduce their level of lifestyle-related disease since this project was conceived as community education, with a focus on teaching and learning, rather than a research partnership. Students had little choice in whether they want to be part of the partnership or not, as it is an integral component of their course. As A4 indicated, the “work is outcome driven, guided by what the students need to achieve”.
Feedback from one academic indicates that the university tended to take the lead in terms of research, determining what services are rendered and who benefits from them since they control the funding. The university sourced the funds to implement the rural community initiative and has the fiduciary
So, this whole was initiated and driven by the university, which is correct. They arranged money and sponsorship, and so the university attempted to provide that service, which, which I think is great … the problem, the underlying problem is that the university is dependent on sponsorship research money. And so, they can initiate things if they give them money for that. (A1)
The above remark implies that the university is also vulnerable as it relies on outside sponsorship which could be withdrawn at any time, which may force the services they render in the community to come to an end. The institutional knowledge environment thus influences the relationship with funders, who could be seen to dictate what research is conducted and how. Universities often rely on financial investments from corporate donors (stock exchange listed companies) that have to spend corporate social investment (CSI) funding to contribute to the development of the country. These industry partners have developed various sets of rules in terms of how they wish to see return of investment of their donations in order to be able to report to their shareholders and to determine the impact that was made by their donations. Funders have to comply with the legislation and guidelines of King IV on corporate governance (King, 2016) and the Inyathelo guidelines for social investment (Next Generation, 2021). Unfortunately, pervasive corruption has dominated all spheres of public and government life in South Africa and this situation has forced private sector funders to apply very stringent controls over how and where their CSI funds are spent (Patel & Govindasamy, 2021).
In terms of the reciprocity of knowledge sharing, the perceptions of the academics were mixed, with some thinking that the students learnt a lot from the community about what life is really like in contexts of poverty and how resilient community members can be, which they would not otherwise learn from their lecturers. “Everyone learns from everyone … so yes, I think knowledge is being conveyed from one group to another, and vice versa” (A3) and others saying that it was the university who provided the information “with knowledge that we can give them” (A2). The students were aware of the need “to
The findings also indicate that both university and community can take the lead in knowledge management. As far as ownership of knowledge goes, there was agreement that it belonged to everyone, that it should be “shared and not owned” (A5) and that “the shared knowledge belongs to all of us” (CM10). One student even referred to experiential knowledge (as opposed to research-based knowledge) as “expert knowledge” created by people “who all see things differently” (S1). The academics who facilitate the programme recommended that local facilitators should be used to harness local knowledge and equalise power relations: “In my perception of primary health care, about a third of the educators of that programme should actually be local people” (A2).
There are some local educators at present, but they tend to be highly qualified people who live in that area, rather than grassroots community members who could share their experiential knowledge of living in challenging circumstances and trying to live healthily.
Even if the current knowledge cultures tend to skew power relations in favour of the university, there was acknowledgement by academics that this needed to change and that it should not be “a top down approach … for me
I think, definitely the community can be there to generate knowledge, not just that we come here and make them guinea pigs, but … they must form part you know, in terms of like, active research that they form part of the whole process and actually from the get go, that they must also give their input and that we must ensure that where they buy in that they feel part of this whole knowledge creation. (A5)
Another academic insisted that the community should be “asked what they need, or make sure that we don’t just go there and put info in their heads, which does not matter to them” (A3). These opinions indicate that the academics working on the programme realise the importance of reciprocal relationships but that perhaps the programmatic bureaucracy of the university system has not allowed them to practice true collaboration. From the perspective of true collaboration and equal power relationships, the context of the programmatic bureaucracy of the university system does limit the control over some of the community needs that are currently addressed. The obvious example is the needs that are addressed are not only influenced by the IPE, but also by the funders of the programme and what the funds are purposed for. Funders in general are from the private sector and require strict reporting and seek a good return on investment for their shareholders. Students too felt it important to involve the community in an analysis of their needs and then tailor the health intervention to suit, rather than just deciding for them (S5). Currently the students and academics do listen to the needs of the community in terms of what they want to learn and attempt to meet those needs, but to a greater extent it is still a matter of students providing the information to community, rather than community being completely involved in meeting their own needs.
It does appear that academics learn from the community about things other than just medical issues (“my knowledge broadens and I get a new perspective on life every time I go” – A3; “making food here, how I test myself, and how if I don’t have it, I can use another way” – A2). Also, what the students learn from the community members they interact with contributes to their development as professionals as they “understand the circumstances and the role that these circumstances play … their impact from a community perspective” (S1).
I could see that the people are hungry for knowledge, they crave for what we can give them. They made it clear that they need this knowledge because they don’t always get it from the clinics because the clinics don’t always have the time to pay attention to their search for knowledge. Attention is only paid to their immediate physical, medical needs, but not to what else they want to know. (S2)
In summary, although the knowledge shared with the community was mostly controlled by the university, it is also clear that the community valued this knowledge and adapted it to their own needs. University academics involved in the project appeared to value the knowledge brought by the community, but it is doubtful if this is the general attitude within the university, indicating the need for capacity building in this area. What knowledge is considered valid, is thus an important aspect to interrogate.
8.2 Theme 2: Knowledge Validation
Academics are also open to indigenous knowledge, or knowledge passed down over the generations (“and that [indigenous knowledge] is also a form of knowledge creation” – A5). Students agreed and thought this type of lay knowledge should be explored (“If they found that this was actually working much better then it might be something we need to explore” – S5). However, that knowledge could not be validated until it was then “scientifically proven” (S4) through research by the university. For example, one community member shared how they lick the molasses given to cattle, as it contains specific vitamins and minerals that help to combat against disease (CM1); another explained how they use cannabis tea to lower blood pressure (CM7). However, it was interesting that community members did not always consider this type of knowledge as valid and worth sharing with the students. As C3 said, “We licked it as children but did not know that it was medicine. Now we realised it is iron. We did not share it with the students”.
Community members also have the capacity to work out how best to treat specific illnesses, as one student was surprised to learn when a community member “figured out what to do for her diabetic foot” (S5) on her own before an appointment could be made with the physiotherapist. A novel suggestion for a “community review” (S4) stressed the need to conduct ongoing community-based research within the partnership so that both parties can learn how they
Although we did not interview the primary health care workers (PHCW) that the students work with on a daily basis due to the Covid situation (they were not available at the site), it appears that students in general respected them, unlike some specialist doctors who felt their knowledge was superior to that of the PHCW and that they had nothing to learn from them. This issue was regarded as a serious one by one of the academics, as they are also local people who hold contextual knowledge that will influence diagnosis and treatment options:
Well, he (primary health care worker) understands the context of the disease he treats. So if I’m a young person and I go straight into my speciality, I will disregard health workers in the primary care because I am a specialist and much more important. I actually know everything and the stupid community just can’t do their thing. And that gap is, is a big problem. (A1)
In other words, by excluding the knowledge of the community-based health workers, it negated its value. This highlights the importance for the principles and paradigm of community engagement to be part of the training of all health professionals so that they begin to understand the value of listening to local people to learn how the community lifestyle and circumstances affect the prevalence and treatment of disease. This would include local professionals who were seen to have valuable insights to share to guide the university team in their decision-making about what knowledge to share and how to share it (S1).
8.3 Theme 3: The Dissemination and Use of Knowledge
Students and academics thought that the language used for sharing health information should be in “layman’s terms” (S1) and “available in terms of the language of the people” (A5). Students also realised that they had to communicate on the level of the community (“I think the first thing is to … make the community feel like okay, I am not above you I am here … on your level” – S6). However, students could not always communicate in the language of the community members and this presented a barrier (S1). This speaks to the importance of having a diverse team so that interpreters can be called in if needed.
Another interesting point made by community members is that the relationship with the students enables them to access information that they would
when you maybe have a wound, then the student tells you that you must go to the clinic, they will take you. We did not work like that. We always thought we had to wash that wound with hot water and salt. (CM1)
They also perceive that the knowledge they gain enables them to control their own health, thus imbuing them with personal power (“We believe in the knowledge we get from the students. Now that is what we take and we use it” – CM1). Knowledge gained by students on home visits pertaining to specific patient’s home circumstances is shared with the health care professionals at the clinic and hospital so that they have a better idea of how the lived experiences of the patient might impact their health or treatment of ailments (“This information is shared with the local clinic, who in turn use the information to make decisions or to compile basic stats” – A2). Regarding sustainability of improved health outcomes, both students and academics thought it was important that “the community, when we are not there anymore, the community must still continue” (A4). This implies that community must be enabled to disseminate knowledge and become community educators who can run their own education sessions.
Currently, knowledge sharing is more on a one-to-one basis by community members and limited to repeating what they learned by participating in the LG (“And when I have guests that also have diabetes, I talk to them and share what we learned at the Lifestyle Group” – CM2). One community member (CM5) collated information from pamphlets supplied by the students into a book to enable her to share it with others and use it as a reference when community members needed help with a particular ailment. In general, community members reported improved physical health because of the interactions with the student groups. One aspect that hindered uptake was the fact that most of the community members live on a limited income and struggle to purchase the healthy food recommended by the students to improve their diet. For example, although peanut butter is a relatively cheap source of protein, community members found it expensive and could thus only afford to buy it once a month (CM3). The students need to be more mindful of the poor economic circumstances of the community and take this into consideration when making dietary recommendations.
An outlier finding is that the interaction with others at the LG sessions was not only beneficial for improving physical health outcomes, but also had implications for mental and social wellbeing. Several of the community members
I am glad about the students. I enjoy their company. I enjoy working with them. (CM3)
And the week that they [students] come, we come to get company. (CM1)
This finding was also validated by the students (“For them it’s much more different, they really not only want the pills that they need but they also want that emotional support as well” – S6).
Table 10.1 gives a broad summary of the findings regarding the differences in knowledge cultures of each party in the community-university relationship.
Comparison of academic versus community knowledge cultures
| Academic knowledge culture | Community knowledge culture | |
|---|---|---|
| What is knowledge? | Biopsychosocial knowledge, knowledge of specific pedagogy and community engagement, knowledge of research, ethical processes, how to access funding. | The community is knowledgeable about their living conditions and how these impact on their ability to live healthy lives and implement the knowledge provided by the university. They are also aware of some indigenous substitutes for patented medication/food supplements. |
| How is knowledge generated? | Traditional/positivistic science (extractive research). At this stage, it is mostly Mode 1 form of knowledge generation as the community is not involved in research or determining the services provided. The partnership is focused on the education of students and education of community and provision of health services. Student learning is a key focus of partnership and is mediated and assessed according to a pre-determined curriculum. Funders dictate to a certain extent what services are provided and thus what knowledge should be generated. |
Knowledge is mostly received from university. The community do generate their own understandings of how to apply it to their lives through self-reflection and discussion with peers. Some examples where community is a source of knowledge. |
| How is knowledge validated/evaluated? | Peer review process: presentation of knowledge products at conferences that leads to submission of knowledge products for publications in journal or books. Publication depends on the approval of experts in the field and indicates that the produced knowledge and the way it is produced have been accepted by the scientific community. Student knowledge assessed according to pre-determined outcomes. |
The community does not really consider the knowledge it holds to be as important as that of the health professionals from the university. However, they feel that their knowledge is validated though generational successive use. They evaluate the knowledge received by testing its usefulness in improving their health. |
| How is knowledge diffused/disseminated? | Knowledge is shared through a wide range of outlets (e.g., peer-reviewed scholarly journals and books; public media). Students acquire knowledge through a pre-determined curriculum constructed by university personnel according to requirements of statutory health bodies. Knowledge is transmitted (in most instances) by students to community by means of discussion and information pamphlets. |
The community members share their knowledge with students (some evidence found). Community members share knowledge from engagements with students with family and friends through discussion and, in some instances, the creation of booklets. |
| How is knowledge used? | Knowledge is used ‘to fill gaps’ in the field of health sciences through contribution to academic debates. Knowledge is used to develop qualified health practitioners and curricula for training them. Evaluation of programme feeds back into improved curriculum |
Knowledge is used to improve individual and collective health outcomes in community. Knowledge must be translated into behavioural change to be of use. |
9 Implications of Findings for Bridging Knowledge Cultures to Create a More Equitable Community-University Relationship
We now discuss the implications of these findings in terms of creating more equitable power relations within the project and bridging the gaps in knowledge cultures. We also make some suggestions for action that can help to democratise the way knowledge is created, validated and disseminated to bridge knowledge gaps.
The first thing to mention is that this project was not originally conceived as a community-university research partnership. The main reason for the initiation of the project was to include CE within the health science curricula, both to satisfy university requirements to integrate CE and to better equip students to work in an interprofessional manner within diverse communities. The focus was therefore more on student development through service delivery to meet student outcomes, rather than on forming equitable research partnerships. Since the inception of the project, the programme developers have evaluated it from various perspectives (e.g., Joubert et al., 2019; Preece, 2017) and are keen to develop it to be more in line with accepted community-based research principles that promote democratic knowledge cultures (Costigan, 2020). Therefore, our discussions and suggestions are made with this understanding. We focus on the various inter-related and overlapping aspects of power relations such as decision-making and leadership, funding, the evaluation, and influence and impact of research outcomes. These should be interpreted within the socio-political knowledge environment (history of social oppression in South Africa and domination of Western, scientific knowledge); the institutional
9.1 Who Makes the Decisions?
The findings clearly indicate that the university has been the main decision-maker in terms of who takes part in the programme, what knowledge and services they provide, where they are provided and how they are mediated in terms of communication, uptake and adaptation. This made sense at the start of the project as nothing would have happened if the university had not initiated the project. However, the findings also indicate that this one-sided decision-making process is not ideal for the sustainability of the project. As shown during the Covid-19 lockdowns, the university was severely hampered in continuing the programme and the community were not well enough organised to continue on their own. Although the community are consulted about what aspects of health they would like to discuss in a specific week, this
- –A core group consisting of representatives from each category of stakeholders (e.g., university lecturers, student representatives, local health professionals, community organisations, users of the programme) could be formed to meet regularly to reflect on roles, responsibilities and ways of working to find ways to constantly improve the outcomes for mutual benefit. This group could decide on evaluation processes and involve more than just the academic members in ongoing research on the project.
- –More intense use of participatory pedagogies such as storytelling, visual methods, etc. by students to convey health knowledge would also enable the LG members to learn how to use these methods to further disseminate the knowledge among the wider community. The latter could also share their indigenous methods of knowledge and skills transfer to improve the pedagogy adopted by students. Participatory pedagogies encourage engagement of community members in the creation of knowledge (Farenga, 2020).
- –The research element of the Trompsburg project, including this current research, was directed by and decided on by the university partner and they benefitted in terms of several publications by using Trompsburg as a research site. However, the research done relates to teaching and learning, and influences future engagement with the community. Although community members may think that research is of no importance to them, a community-based approach would enable them to engage in finding ways to improve their lives and this practical action would be of benefit to them. For example, lack of access to nourishing food was one concern mentioned by community and a community-based research project could help them to find sustainable ways to access good food to improve health (e.g., setting up and running of community-based vegetable gardens or cooperatives to buy food in bulk).
Closely related to decision-making is the question of funding.
9.2 Who Holds the Purse Strings?
In any partnership, money tends to dictate who is seen to be ‘in charge’ and thus has the power to make decisions. In this case, all the funding was sourced from and by the university, and thus if this partner were to lose funding, the project sustainability becomes questionable. The question here is how to make the project more sustainable by enabling the community to source or
9.3 What Knowledge Is Valued and How Is It Validated?
The findings indicate that, although some academics are open to learning from the community, there are others who still see their role as being the primary providers of knowledge to the community. There is a gradual shift in higher education towards realising the value of local knowledge in solving complex social problems (Hall & Tandon, 2021). However, to date, community-based research is still not embraced by the majority, and therefore capacity development among academics and students in this regard is important if they are to initiate and sustain CURPs. This would require that all programmes begin to integrate the idea of engaged scholarship into the curriculum, and particularly in programmes such as these where students are directly working with community (Albertyn & Daniels, 2009).
The community did not seem to value their own knowledge very much and perhaps this is because they have never engaged in research with the university and therefore view themselves more as knowledge recipients and less as knowledge producers. Community-based research has educational and emancipatory outcomes (Wood, 2020); therefore participation as co-researchers in a project would help them realise the importance and value of their lived knowledge and experiences. This is essential if they are to become community educators and disseminate the knowledge in the wider community.
9.4 What Difference Does the Knowledge Make?
Although this study did not set out to measure the impact of the Trompsburg project on the health of the community, other projects have conducted research on health outcomes in this community during the duration of the project (see, for example, Jordaan et al., 2020; Pienaar et al., 2017; Walsh et al., 2002) and postgraduate studies have been conducted on how the students view the collaboration (e.g., Mona-Dinthe, 2020). The university has therefore benefitted from using Trompsburg as a research site, but the findings of this study also indicate that the LG members think they have benefitted from the services rendered in terms of physical and mental health. Students feel better prepared for their future professions and so it appears that the knowledge generated has been of some benefit to all. However, it can be postulated
Research which involves dialogical interaction can change the way universities interact with community. As Moreno-Cely et al. (2021) argue, this should start with dialogue about knowledge and power relations within the project. Similarly, a participatory action-learning and action-research process starts with relationship building through dialogues around ethical ways of working, the respective outcomes each party desires, how best to work together and with whom in a given context, and identifying and addressing any learning needs that parties might have (Wood, 2020). Establishing such relationships promotes mutual learning and knowledge co-creation between different knowledge systems and allows for the inclusion and valuing of local/indigenous knowledge, which in turn contributes to the decolonisation of knowledge (Moreno-Cely et al., 2021) and leads to the creation of “ethical, inclusive and sustainable frameworks” (Wood, 2021, p. 3) to guide the community-university engagement.
In terms of the case study in question, adopting a more community-based research approach to the engagement would help to bridge knowledge cultures through enabling each partner to contribute their specific expertise towards attaining the research goals. However, given the unequal starting points in terms of education and resources, this would entail supporting the community to acquire the skills and knowledge needed to be able to participate on a more equal basis. In addition, one of the biggest challenges of universities is to maintain cash-flow and predictable income, and since most universities in South Africa get approximately one-third of their income from government, a consistently dimishing contribution, and the other two-thirds must be generated from fees (which is also decreasing), the application of smart partnerships in the triple or quadruple helix seems to be the best way forward. Unfortunately, the reliance on industry to fund many of the developemental challenges is becoming unrealistic and contributes to socio-economic and political tensions in the country. Inequality needs to be addressed, and we have to start by empowering and growing our communities via education at all levels of society (Cooper & Orrell, 2016).
10 Conclusion
This research set out to explore how knowledge in a community-university engagement was created, validated and disseminated by the respective parties
Notes
The term Afrikaans institution refers to those intended to serve the white Afrikaans-speaking population since it was the language of instruction. Even although Afrikaans is also the primary language spoken by many so-called “Coloureds” in South Africa, only White students (with a few exceptions) had access to them until the demise of apartheid in the 1990s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trompsburg, accessed on 3 April 2022.
The Department of Corporate Governance and Traditional Affairs provides a profile of the district. Unfortunately, recent information on Trompsburg itself was not available.
References
Beaulieu, M., Breton, M., & Brousselle, A. (2018). Conceptualizing 20 years of engaged scholarship: A scoping review. PloS One, 13(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193201
Cetina, K. (2007). Culture in global knowledge societies: Knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32(4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1179/030801807X163571
Cooper, L., & Orrell, J. (2016). University and community engagement: Towards a partnership based on deliberate reciprocity. In F. Trede & C. McEwen (Eds.), Educating the deliberate professional. Professional and practice-based learning (Vol. 17). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32958-1_8
Costigan, C. L. (2020). Adopting community-based research principles to enhance student learning. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 61(2), 111–117. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/cap0000207
Delport, A. (2005). Looking to the future with the past in mind: Confessions of an Afrikaner. Journal of Education, 37(1), 203–224. https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/AJA0259479X_161
Department of Corporate Governance and Traditional Affairs. (2020). Profile and analysis district development model. https://www.cogta.gov.za/ddm/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/District_Profile_Xhariep-1.pdf
Department of Education, South Africa. (1997). Education white paper 3: A programme for higher education transformation. Government Printers. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/18207gen11960.pdf
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martin-Lopez, B., Watson, R.T., Molnar, Z., Hill, R., Chan, K., Baste, I. A., Brauman, K. A., Polasky, S., Church, A., Lonsdale, M., Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P. W., van Oudenhoven, A. P., van der Plaat, F., Schröter, M., Lavorel, S., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bukvareva, E., Davies, K., Demissew, S., Erpul, G., Failler, P., Guerra, C. A., Hewitt, C. L., Keune, H., Lindley, S., & Shirayama, Y. (2018). An inclusive approach to assess nature’s contribution to people. Science, 359(6373), 270–272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826
Dubow, S. (1992). Afrikaner nationalism, apartheid and the conceptualization of “race.” The Journal of African History, 33(2), 209–237. http://www.jstor.org/stable/182999
Farenga, S. (2020). Participatory pedagogy and artful inquiry: Partners in researching the student experience. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (Vol. 6, pp. 81–98). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2056-375220200000006006
Farner, K. (2019). Institutionalizing community engagement in higher education: A case study of processes toward engagement. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 23(2), 147–152. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/1457/1449
Hall, B., & Tandon, R. (2015). Are we killing knowledge systems? Knowledge, democracy, and transformations. http://www.politicsofevidence.ca/349/
Hall, M. (2010). Community engagement in South African higher education: Kagisano no 6. Council on Higher Education. https://www.che.ac.za/file/6428/download?token=wAwJA2l2
Harper, S. (2012). The psychological impacts of Apartheid on black South Africans. https://www.grin.com/document/264561
Higher Education Quality Committee, South Africa. (2004). Criteria for programme accreditation. Council on Higher Education. http://nr-online.che.ac.za/html_documents/CHE_accreditation_criteria_Nov2004.pdf
Jordaan, E. M., Van den Berg, V. L., Van Rooyen, F. C., & Walsh, C. M. (2020). Obesity is associated with anaemia and iron deficiency indicators among women in the rural Free State, South Africa. South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 33(3), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/16070658.2018.1553361
Joubert, A., Botha, R. W., Morgan, H., Wilmot, M., & Hagemeister, D. T. (2019). Health professions students’ interprofessional experiences on a rural learning platform. South African Journal of Higher Education, 33(6), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.20853/33-6-2898
Kemmis, S. (2010). What is to be done? The place of action research. Educational Action Research, 18(4), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2010.524745
Kilburn, K., Ranganathan, M., Stoner, M. C., Hughes, J. P., MacPhail, C., Agyei, Y., Gómez-Olivé, F. X., Kahn, K., & Pettifor, A. (2018). Transactional sex and incident HIV infection in a cohort of young women from rural South Africa. AIDS, 32(12), 1669–1677. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097%2FQAD.0000000000001866
King, M. (2016). King IV: An outcomes-based corporate governance code fit for a changing world. https://www.pwc.co.za/en/publications/king4.html
Kressin, N. R., Elwy, A. R., Glickman, M., Orner, M. B., Fix, G. M., Borzecki, A. M., Katz, L. A., Cortes, D. E., Cohn, E. S., Barker, A., & Bokhour, B. G. (2019). Beyond medication adherence: The role of patients’ beliefs and life context in blood pressure control. Ethnicity & Disease, 29(4), 567–576. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48717979
Lumpkin, G. T., Bacq, S., & Pidduck, R. J. (2018). Where change happens: Community‐level phenomena in social entrepreneurship research. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(1), 24–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12379
Mona-Dinthe, N. L. (2020). Health sciences students’ perceptions of collaborative practice on a rural learning platform, Xhariep District [Master’s dissertation, University of the Free State, Free State, South Africa]. https://scholar.ufs.ac.za/bitstream/handle/11660/10998/MonaDintheNL.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Moreno-Cely, A., Cuajera-Nahui, D., Escobar-Vasquez, C. G., Vanwing, T., & Tapia-Ponce, N. (2021). Breaking monologues in collaborative research: Bridging knowledge systems through a listening-based dialogue of wisdom approach. Sustainability Science, 16(3), 919–931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00937-8
Mtshali, N. G., & Gwele, N. S. (2016). Community-based nursing education in South Africa: A grounded-middle range theory. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 6(2), 55–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v6n2p55
Musesengwa, R., & Chimbari, M. J. (2017). Community engagement practices in Southern Africa: Review and thematic synthesis of studies done in Botswana, Zimbabwe and South Africa. Acta Tropica, 175(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2016.03.021
Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 427–431. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362168820941288
Next Generation. (2021). Corporate social responsibility. https://nextgeneration.co.za/what-we-do/key-concepts/corporate-social-responsibility
North-West University. (2021). Community engagement policy. https://www.nwu.ac.za/gov_man/policy/index.html
Patel, J., & Govindasamy, P. (2021). South Africans see corruption as worsening during President Ramaphosa’s tenure. Afrobarometer dispatch no. 476. https://www.scribd.com/document/530714883/Ad476-South-Africans-See-Corruption-as-Worsening-Under-Ramaphosa-Afrobarometer-Dispatch-15sept21#download
Pienaar, M., van Rooyen, F. C., & Walsh, C. M. (2017). Household food security and HIV status in rural and urban communities in the Free State province, South Africa. SAHARA-J: Journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS, 14(1), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/17290376.2017.1379428
Segal, D. L., Coolidge, F. L., O’Riley, A., & Heinz, B. A. (2006). Structured and semistructured interviews. In M. Hersen (Ed.), Clinician’s handbook of adult behavioral assessment (pp. 121–144). Elsevier Academic Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/B978-012343013-7/50007-0
Smith-Tolken, A., & Bitzer, E. (2017). Reciprocal and scholarly service learning: Emergent theoretical understandings of the university–community interface in South Africa. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1008545
Travica, B. (2013). Conceptualizing knowledge culture. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management (OJAKM), 1(2), 85–104. http://www.iiakm.org/ojakm/articles/2013/volume1_2/OJAKM_Volume1_2pp85-104.pdf
Van Henyningen, C. (1980). Christian national education. Africa South, 4(3), 51–56. https://disa.ukzn.ac.za/sites/default/files/pdf_files/asapr60.9.pdf
Walsh, C. M., Dannhauser, A., & Joubert, G. (2002). The impact of a nutrition education programme on the anthropometric nutritional status of low-income children in South Africa. Public Health Nutrition, 5(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1079/PHN2001204
Welch, M., & Plaxton-Moore, S. (2017). Faculty development for advancing community engagement in higher education: Current trends and future directions. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 21(2), 131–166. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1144557.pdf
Wood, L. (2022). An ethical, inclusive and sustainable framework for community-based research in Higher Education. In L. Wood (Ed.), Community-based research with vulnerable populations: Ethical, inclusive and sustainable frameworks for knowledge generation (pp. 267–292). Palgrave Macmillan.
Wood, L., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2021). Community-based research in higher education: Research partnerships for the common good. In L. Wood (Ed.), Community-based research with vulnerable populations: Ethical, inclusive and sustainable frameworks for knowledge generation. Palgrave McMillan.