Report on the State of the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences in South African Universities
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE ARTS, HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES IN SOUTH AFRICAN UNIVERSITIES Prepared for the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Ahmed Essop December 2015 1 1. Introduction This report on the trends in, and the size and shape of, the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (AHSS) at South African universities between 2000 and 2013, which was commissioned by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (AWMF), has the purpose of informing the Mellon Foundation’s “policy and practice on grant making” in AHSS at South African universities in line with the Foundation’s new Strategic Plan, which calls for “a bold and creative approach to grant making, responsive to promising new organisations as well as to established institutions” and which seeks “a larger family of grantees to underscore the potential contribution of the humanities and arts to social mobility”. The report is based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis, including unstructured interviews with selected academic and institutional actors in AHSS. Furthermore, in line with the Mellon Foundation’s focus, which does not include professional fields in the humanities and social sciences, the analysis focuses on the arts and non-professional humanities and social sciences (ANPH), as outlined in Appendix Two. 3. Part One: Size and Shape of AHSS in South African Universities 3.1 Background The role and status of AHSS has been the subject of public debate in the recent past as a result of two studies – the Academy of Science of South Africa’s (ASSAf) Consensus Study on the State of the Humanities in South Africa (ASSAf, 2011) and the Charter for the Humanities and Social Sciences (DHET, 2011) commissioned by the Minister of Higher Education and Training. In both cases the studies were initiated because of concerns, as stated in the ASSAf study, “over the diminishing role which the Humanities are playing in the so-called ‘knowledge chain’. These worries have pointed specifically to the weakening place of the Humanities within the academy, and, more generally, a deepening disregard of the Humanities in society” ASSAf, 2011:14). The seriousness of the concerns led ASSAf to conclude that AHSS was in crisis, as reflected in, amongst other factors, declining enrolments, falling graduation rates, declining funding, lack of weight of scholarship in terms of international standing, racial inequalities in knowledge production and intellectual stagnation. This crisis, in ASSAf’s view, is the result of government policy that has “systematically benefited Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics [STEM] to the exclusion, and even detriment of the Humanities disciplines” (Ibid:15). Although the Minister of Higher Education and Training shied away from the notion of “crisis”, suggesting that it was “debatable” whether there was a crisis, he argued that the role of AHSS in the development of society needed to be strengthened as post-1994 it was “playing a less prominent role in public discourse than (it) did during the late 2 apartheid period” (DHET, 2011:7). He goes on to argue that this is due to the fact that: “…..today’s social struggles are not as clear cut as they were when there was a single overarching aim: defeating apartheid. Today we face a whole new set of challenges as a country and, of course, also as social scientists. Even most of the progressive social scientists no longer identify with a social project or a social movement which shapes their consciousness and work. It’s disturbing to note that debate is so muted around the major problems that face our society” (Ibid:7). The findings of this report suggest that ASSAf’s contention that AHSS is in crisis is over-stated and flawed in so far as the perceived crisis is linked to declining enrolments. The latter, in the period covered by the ASSAf study, namely, 1996-2008 must be understood in the context of changes in enrolments patterns linked to broader societal changes and government policy as outlined in the National Plan for Higher Education (NPHE). In the first instance, there was a major shift in enrolments between 1993 and 1999 from AHSS, which decreased from 57% to 49%, to business, commerce and management (BCM), which increased from 19% to 26%, while science, engineering and technology (SET) remained relatively stable, increasing from 24% to 25% (DoE, 2001:20). This shift, as indicated in the NPHE, was due in the main to a decline in enrolments in education in part as a result of an over- supply of teachers and the declining status of teaching as a profession, and an increase in business and commerce programmes as a result of labour market signals, which suggested a skills shortage in management and finance. The latter, together with an increased focus on improving mathematics and science results in schools, impacted on and adversely influenced public perceptions regarding the value of a qualification in AHSS in the labour market. In the second instance, government policy in the NPHE signalled that the balance in enrolments between AHSS, BCM and SET should be shifted over a ten-year period from the then ratio of 49%; 26%: 25% to 40%; 30%; 30%. This change in policy took into account both the need to redress inequalities in access to SET qualifications by black students and to overcome the apartheid legacy in higher education, which assigned the historically black universities to focus in the main on programmes in public administration to produce graduates to fill the Bantustan bureaucracies (Ibid: 30). And importantly, the NPHE indicated that reducing the share of AHSS below 40% would not be desirable given the role of AHSS in contributing to knowledge production, as outlined in Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education, which states: The focus on science, engineering and technology programmes is necessary to correct present imbalances, in particular, the shortage of trained personnel in these fields. However, this will not diminish the importance of programmes in the social sciences and humanities which contribute to knowledge production, in particular, to the understanding of social and human development, including social transformation. They also play an important role in career-oriented training in a range of fields such as education, law, private and public sector management, social development and the arts. In addition, in the context of the communications and information revolution, the social sciences and humanities, as well as the sciences and technologies, 3 must contribute to the development of the analytic, intellectual, cultural and ethical skills and competencies necessary for participation in the knowledge society (DoE 1997:#2.25). This is echoed in the National Development Plan (NDP), which argues that the humanities provide a comparative advantage for higher education and the science and innovation systems given South Africa’s past and its commitment to building a non-racial and non-sexist society in the cradle of humankind (NDP, 2011:290). And similarly in the White Paper on Post-School Education and Training, which proposes the establishment of a National Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences (NIHSS) to “stimulate new and fresh scholarship” on “historical, and contemporary issues associated” with the challenges of post-apartheid South Africa (DHET, 2013:37-38).) However, the recognition accorded AHSS in higher education policy does not find resonance in science policy, which determines research priorities and funding. As the ASSAf study points out, and it is not necessary to rehearse the detailed argument here, in science policy the “Humanities have been given largely symbolic recognition only” (ASSAf, 2011:38). More importantly, it reflects a “handmaidenly and instrumentalist role for the social and behavioural sciences” in support of the National System of Innovation, with the focus on human dynamics reduced to “research on behavior and choice” outside of the social and political context within which such choices are made (Ibid:50-51). Although the most recent policy document of the Department of Science and Technology (DST) on a Science Engagement Framework to facilitate public engagement in science broadly defined holds promise in so far as it recognises the role of the humanities and social sciences in contributing to the “theoretical, historical and philosophical” understanding of the “science- society interface”, including “knowledge and understanding of the ‘Big Questions’ questions facing society today”, it inevitably reduces AHSS to an instrumentalist role when identifying the specific contribution it can make to implementing the framework. This includes the following: Enhancing dialogue on science in public debate; Enabling members of the public to have greater confidence in the ways in which scientific insight is applied by government and other sectors; Improving the interaction between academic researchers and public policy makers; Engaging with the public to strengthen the case for increased funding for the HSS; Stimulate greater public interest and enthusiasm for the HSS; Contributing to greater public understanding of science and the importance of evidence, and understanding uncertainty; and Engaged scholarship which produces co-created, self-reflective knowledge and new formations of community in the process (DST, 2014:11-12). 4 The main focus remains on AHSS contributing to enhancing the public understanding of the role of science. More importantly, the fact that AHSS needs to engage with the public