Ms Judy Backhouse’s (Director: Monitoring and Advice, Council on Higher Education (CHE)) presentation at the SATN Annual Conference 2009. Theme: “Technological innovation at Universities in South Africa: towards industrial and socio-economic development” 16 - 17 July 2009 Cape Peninsula University of Technology Bellville Campus.

1. The Place and Role of Universities of Technology in the Higher Education Sector
Presentation at the South African Technology Network (SATN) Second Annual
Conference, 16-17 July 2009, Cape Town, South Africa.
Judy Backhouse
I‟d like to thank the organisers of this conference for the opportunity to be here today. I‟d
also like to pass on apologies from the CEO of the CHE, Dr Cheryl de la Rey, who would
have liked to be here, but was unable to be.
As you have heard, I am responsible for Monitoring and Advice in the Council on Higher
Education. This is a little-known part of the CHE‟s work. If you work in higher education
institutions you are far more likely to have encountered the Higher Education Quality
Committee, the HEQC, who are responsible for the quality assurance activities of the
CHE. So while I am going to primarily address the matter of the place and role of
Universities of Technology in the higher education sector, I am also going to take this
opportunity to intersperse what I say with information about my directorate and the work
that we do.
For those guests who are not from South Africa, the Council on Higher Education is a
statutory body that advises on and quality assures the higher education system. The work
of the Monitoring and Advice directorate is twofold: 1) to advise the minister on matters
pertaining to the sector and 2) to promote debate about and understanding of the higher
education sector. In order to fulfil these two functions, the directorate is involved in
monitoring and research activities in order to ensure that what we do is properly
informed.
At an internal meeting of the CHE recently we were brainstorming what an ideal higher
education system might look like. We came up with the analogy of an ecological system
1

2. in which there are a number of organisms (or for our purposes, organisations) each with
their own niche. In an ecological system one has a number of organisms all concerned
with surviving and reproducing, and yet they may look different, behave differently and
employ different strategies to achieve their goals. Organisms adapt to the circumstances
in which they find themselves or find areas in which they can operate successfully
because of their particular abilities.
Analogously, we felt that the higher education system might be thought of as an ecology
with a number of organisations, all concerned with learning and research, but having
different characteristics, different modes of operating and employing different strategies
towards their goals
What becomes valuable in such a system is diversity and adaptability. Diversity has
several benefits. It lessens direct competition between organisations, allowing them to
find niches, meeting particular needs in particular ways. Diversity means that students
entering higher education have more choice in the kinds of programmes they enrol for –
both in terms of the content of the programme and the ways in which they are expected to
learn. Diversity means that a range of research is undertaken that includes the full
spectrum from blue sky to applied research. Diversity would allow room for
experimentation. Organisations would adapt themselves where necessary to take
advantage of niche opportunities and learn by copying and adapting the strategies of
others in the system. This was our vision of a lively, and innovative higher education
system.
So, framing the higher education system in this way, let‟s consider the role and place of
the Universities of Technology. I am going to begin by addressing the role, that is what
they do, and then I will go on to discuss their place, how they fit into the higher
education sector.
2

3. The role of the Universities of Technology
There are three aspects of what the Universities of Technology do in the higher education
system that I think are mandated. Firstly, like all universities, they are expected to be
knowledge organisations, to deliver learning programmes and to do research.
Secondly, the name University of Technology carries an implicit mandate to focus on
technology. What is open to debate is what contitutes technology. The Cambridge
English Dictionary defines it as “(the study and knowledge of) the practical, especially
industrial, use of scientific discoveries”. But that definition may be too narrow and I think
it is up to you, the members of the SATN, to debate what definition is most appropriate.
Thirdly, as public institutions, I would expect the work of the Universities of Technology
to be in the public interest. However the public interest is interpreted, this must at least
include addressing pressing national problems such as poverty.
Beyond that, in the spirit of academic freedom, it is up to the sub-sector, the individual
institution and to the individual academic to decide their role, to decide what they want to
understand by technology and the public interest and how best they and their institution
can fulfil that role. From what I have seen of the performance indicators project (which
will be discussed by the next speaker) the Universities of Technology are well on their
way to defining their role. The description of Universities of Technology as (and I quote
from the foreword of the final report of that project) “career oriented educational
institutions which concentrate on problem-solving in their research and engagement with
the community” is certainly not at odds with the three mandated roles that I have
described.
I also expect that within the members of the SATN, there will be diversity. Institutions
will make different choices about what learning programmes to offer and what research
areas to develop. Some institutions might need to adapt and I would expect them to
watch other institutions for approaches to teaching and innovative research programmes
that they can copy and adapt to suit their own goals. But as organisations within the
3

4. ecology of higher education, it makes sense for the Universities of Technology to focus
on their strengths.
In her address to the first SATN conference last year, Dr De la Rey identified some of
these strengths. She suggested, for example, that one of the things that Universities of
Technology do better than other universities is to produce diplomates and graduates that
are „work-ready‟ and thus highly valued by industry. She highlighted the demand for
technicians and technologists which the Universities of Technology are well positioned to
meet. She also suggested that the strong tradition of workplace learning in the sector
might result in relationships with partners in industry, business and the public sector, that
can be leveraged for innovative research and community engagement.
One of the things that I have been busy with in the past few months is compiling a report
on the State of Higher Education, which is a review of developments in the past five
years. This has meant that I have spent a lot of time examining data about the higher
education system. One of the things that the data shows is that Universities of
Technology appear to be doing something right as far as learning goes. The number of
graduates from the Universities of Technology has been increasing steadily over the past
five years, despite falling enrolments. In this respect they are doing better than the other
universities. This achievement is all the more notable because the universities of
technology attract what are perceived as the weaker students from the school system.
If the Universities of Technology do indeed have any secrets about how to improve
student learning, it will be very important to share them with the rest of the sector.
Ongoing concern about how to improve learning is a focus, not just of every South
African university and the CHE, but internationally too.
That the Universities of Technology might be better at teaching does not surprise me. I
was recently at an international Learning conference and I was struck by the gap between
what education research is showing are good ways to learn and teach and what we
4

5. continue to practice in higher education. Again and again research backs the critical role
of the good lecturer in student success, the need for learning programmes driven by what
students already know, the need for hands-on learning rather than sitting in lecture halls
and listening, and the need for varied forms of assessment. It might be that the greater
historical focus on teaching and the more practical training that students encounter in a
University of Technology provides better conditions for learning than that at other
institutions. This could well be one of the strengths of the universities of technology.
Another area in which the Universities of Technology might have an advantage is, as
already suggested, in the established relationships that they have with employers in
industry, business and the public sector. The CHE has been running a series of
investigations into community engagement in higher education. In particular, we have
been trying to understand what community engagement is, given that there are many
different interpretations. What is becoming clear is that community engagement often
includes elements of both learning and research. Many projects with community partners
begin around a learning programme and develop into research projects, and vice versa. I
think that this is an area in which universities of technology can develop innovative
projects that result in more effective learning and innovative applications of technology
that solve problems.
What I do think is important is the ongoing development of the staff at universities. One
of the papers at the conference I mentioned (at which, incidentally, the Universities of
Technology were well represented) was given by a researcher from the Central
University of Technology, Dr Vinger. He had done an evaluation of the transformational
leadership capacity in the institution which showed positive results. That was very good
news for me. Implementing the work of the higher education sector depends on the staff
at institutions and ongoing staff development is a key part of the learning and adapting
that I'm talking about. Staff development, needs to be both in developing better
understandings of teaching and learning and in developing research skills.
5

6. The place of the Universities of Technology
Now I want to turn to the question of the place of Universities of Technology in the
higher education sector. As I was preparing this presentation I found myself turning the
term over in my mind. The word place seems to suggests phrases like “know your place”
and “put in your place” that refer to a place in a hierarchy. But I think it is important that
we think of the higher education sector in terms other than hierarchies.
Another of the tasks that I am busy with at the moment is constructing a framework for
the ongoing monitoring of higher education. In putting together this framework I have
often been confronted with the expectation that what the monitoring framework will do is
rank universities. People say things to me like: “Oh, are you going to produce league
tables?” But this is not how I see monitoring and I do not think that ranking universities
is at all useful.
For a student trying to select an institution, it may not be of any use to them that a
particular institution has had more Nobel prize winners than the next, unless of course
they are planning a research career in a similar field. Far more students will be looking
for an institution that offers them a good learning experience. Indeed the problem with
rankings is that they are too one-dimensional. It seems obvious to me that an institution
might excel in one area and not in another and that rankings would obscure these
subtleties. In the ecology of higher education, it is difficult to rank organisations in a
linear fashion. All occupy places that contribute to the sector, but in different ways. I see
that this matter is to be addressed by Mr Hoving and I look forward to hearing his views.
From a monitoring perspective, the questions in my mind are: “Is the system (as a whole)
meeting the national needs?” (And I interpret needs very broadly, to include those of
employers, students and social development) and “How is the system as a whole faring?”
In order to answer this I am less interested in what is happening at the level of the
individual institution. For example in the forthcoming State of Higher Education Report,
6

7. I report aggregate information for the Universities of Technology, the Comprehensive
universities and the Universities. Of course I am also interested in answering the question
“If not, where are the problems?” and for this I may need to drill down into the data and
look at an individual institution.
There are some principles that I will be using in constructing this monitoring framework.
Firstly the intention is to look at a wide range of indicators and qualitative research.
Secondly I will draw whenever possible on existing data and research so as to avoid
burdening institutions with further reporting. In these two respects the performance
indicators project (which we are about to hear more of) will be of great assistance to me
by providing a set of indicators that I can draw on. Thirdly I believe that we have to
allow, that whatever data and research is collected, there will always be room for multiple
interpretations. So I do not consider it my role to provide any definitive interpretation of
the results of our monitoring, but to encourage debate about possible interpretations.
The question of differentiation in the South African higher education sector has produced
some discomfort and probably because it was introduced in the form of a hierarchical
distinction between institutions. But going back to the model of an ecology of higher
education, I think it is more appropriate to think of a diversified system in which
institutions have different focus areas that match their different strengths. Such a model is
more dynamic and allows for innovation and change.
What we at the CHE are noticing is increasing self-differentiation in the sector. This
process started with the Universities of Technology who have gotten together through the
SATN and this conference and begun to define a role for themselves. There is also a
group of rural universities who are working with the CHE on defining their own unique
identity and value proposition and I am aware of conversations between some of the
comprehensive universities (and indeed of their conversations with the universities of
technology). The same process is also evident among the private higher education
institutions. Institutions are seeking out those similar to themselves, creating shared
7

8. identities that enhance the identities of the individual institutions and learning from each
other. They are also becoming more assertive. Which is exactly what should be
happening in a healthy ecology of higher education.
If we are to develop and support the envisaged ecology of higher education, we are going
to need steering mechanisms that are more nuanced than the current planning, funding
and quality assurance mechanisms. And indeed, within the CHE, and in conversations
with other bodies, this is being discussed. The HEQC, is coming to the end of the first
round of institutional audits and this provides an opportunity to re-examine the criteria
for quality that are applied to institutions. The accreditation process is also being
reviewed.
Of course the cynics will say that there is still an implied hierarchy with the research
institutions at the top. But I think that depends on how you value knowledge. There are
traditional hierarchies of knowledge that place more abstract, theoretical knowledge
above practical applied knowledge, but I think that, given the society we live in, there is a
very strong case for practical knowledge to be valued above other kinds of knowledge.
All that is required is a shift in mind-set. I would prefer that there be no hierarchy, but
rather a recognition that different kinds of knowledge all have a place.
So I think that the question of place is less important. It is appropriate that there should be
ongoing debates about the value of different kinds of knowledge. And it is these kinds of
debates that I am mandated to support. Which brings me to another function of my
Directorate and that is producing publications. The CHE produces two series, the Higher
Education Monitor that reports on the results of our research and monitoring and
Kagisano which reports on debates in the sector. The next edition of Kagisano is
earmarked for the Universities of Technology and this debate about place. I know that
there are people in this audience who have been preparing contributions and I am eagerly
awaiting the copy. (Incidentally our publications are freely available from our web site or
our resource centre.)
8

9. In conclusion…
The role of the Universities of Technology in the higher education sector is the same as
that of any university. It is to develop students through learning programmes and generate
knowledge through research. Universities of Technology do this within the realm of
knowledge about technology and with the goal of addressing problems for the public
good.
The place of the Universities of Technology in the Higher Education Sector is really up
to you, the members of the South African Technology Network to decide. If you continue
to imagine and implement strong career-focused learning programmes, that deal with the
challenges of students poorly prepared by the school system, make use of innovative
approaches to teaching, and produce graduates who are highly sought after, the
Universities of Technology will indeed be the leaders in good teaching. If you are able to
develop strong research programmes that produce research that solves problems and
contributes to economic and social development, you could well become the leaders in
that kind of research.
I think that this sub-sector is one of the most exciting parts of the higher education sector
at present. The shift to being Universities of Technology, whatever the reasons and
circumstances that brought it about, became an opportunity to re-define your institutions
and your contribution to the country. I believe that the Universities of Technology have
made impressive progress in pro-actively defining their own identity and role, and I look
forward to monitoring where you go. Thank you.
9