**6. The social realist explanation**

In this main section, the developed insights are related to the scholarship of engagement according to the infusion model as the measure of integrated quality management system. Scholarship of engagement, as alluded to [14, 15], became elaborated over a period, from what was originally conceptualized and developed as the enabling system for a "developmental university" ([14]; pp. 3–4). Given the new WSU regime and context as the "impactful and technology-infused African university", how the concept would allow for a social realist explanation in dynamics of structure, culture, and agency would have to be the focus for the social realist researcher. In simplified and practical terms, the explanation would take the *What is (Structure), Why (Culture), and How (Agency)* dimension about the scholarship of engagement as the quality measure and therefore a representation of corporate social responsibility for the idea of university education as the public good. Corporateness, in that regard, would be about the whole issue of emergence, the emergent properties and powers of structure, culture, and agency in irreducible ways (the analysis was analytically distinct; the explanation cannot be reduced to the original component parts but in relation to them)! Complexity also counts in such a realist explanation but in nondeterministic ways. While there is the macroelement of structure (governance structures), related thereto is the microelement of agency (management). The same applies to management and academic leadership. This social realist explanation therefore calls into question what the directorates did and/or did not seem to have done as scholarship of engagement. Comparing such claims beyond the SER rankings but with the three crisis events against the backdrop of Recommendations 19 and 20 from the first phase of the National Institutional Audits, also in consideration of the key performance areas for university management and leadership, therefore allowed for understanding both the nature of complexity and the potential resolution points about its contradictory totality.


As evidence in the Crisis Events II and III, both management and governance structures are complicit in perpetuating structural and historical disadvantage. Occupying such positions of corporate responsibility can be declared to be about "pretense, grand standing, and political posturing." Such social ills inadvertently and unwittingly promote mistrust, poor reputation, and illegitimacy to such students, staff, and managers who are always on the receiving end of brutality, patronizing bullying, and condescending attitudes as demonstrated in the Crisis Events I, II, and III. Such forms of bullying and dehumanizing tendencies are antithetical to the idea of university education as a public good. They are nowhere in repositioning WSU as an "impactful and technology-infused African University." They are antithetical to the espoused values of Wisdom-Integrity-Excellence, which are ingrained as the academic crest in the certificates, diplomas, degrees, and in other accolades that students of WSU receive upon their graduation. Unless the governance structures can immediately stem the tide, there is no way that this much resourceful university to most students from working-class families in this region can ever be fully regionally and acceptably integrated into her community development projects.
