**6.2 Data collection approach**

The study population was 23 South African universities, appearing on the 2021 university ranking list [WUR], from which four (n = 4) were selected for the study. The WUR 2021–2022 ranking list was used to identify the four universities as indicated in the inclusion criteria below. The first step was to establish the corpus [52], by analysing the university ranking table to identify the four universities to be included in the document analysis. This was followed by visiting each university website to access the documents. These documents are all ready for public consumption as they have been placed on public platforms such as the websites of these universities. The search keywords at the respective university websites were the annual reports and strategic

*Advancing Community Engagement in Higher Education Institutions in South Africa… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108150*

plans. The inclusion criteria were that universities should be historically advantaged or disadvantaged, 40 years and above, and at the top rank locally or at the bottom of the rank. The top-ranked Universities included are the University of Cape Town, 193 years old, at the first position and WITS 100 years old, at the second position, the University of Venda (UNIVEN) 40 years old, and at number 15, and the University of Zululand (UNIZULU) 60 years old, at number 22 in the 2021 RSA university ranking. Respective university strategic plans and annual reports were downloaded from the university websites. A checklist with variables was designed to ensure objective, fair and consistent analysis. The items identified were extracted from the DHET reporting framework [37]. The items are a five-year-old strategic plan, 2) the strategic plan has strategic goals and objectives, and a financial plan on community engagement, 3) an annual report aligned to the strategic plan and 4) evidence of a core set of indicators to monitor institutional performance on community engagement.

#### **6.3 Data analysis approach**

For this chapter, QDA was adopted following the described by Bowen [53]. The method was initiated by a material search of the local university ranking to identify the top one among the historically advantaged and the historically disadvantaged ones in RSA. The searching keywords were reports and strategic plan. The second phase was an in-depth reflection and descriptive analysis of the most recent strategic and annual reports 2020 to check for items listed on the study checklist. The researchers checked the strategic objective related to community engagements, its performance indicators, related funding, time frames, and monitoring and evaluation measures. This was then checked if the same activities were reported on the annual plan. The researchers read and re-read the report to check for variables tabled on the checklist.

#### **6.4 Findings and discussions**

Thematic content analysis revealed findings categorised such as 1) the content of the strategic plan, 2) alignment of the annual report with the strategic plan and 3) evidence of a core set of indicators to monitor institutional performance on community engagement. Details are presented below.

#### *6.4.1 Content analysis and discussion of findings*

The authors analysed the strategic planning content per university based on the items on the checklist.


#### *6.4.2 Content of the strategic plan*

The strategic plan was checked for its ability to prescribe the university's community engagement strategic goals and objectives, which are supported by a financial plan. UNIZULU has tabled its community engagement mission with related subobjectives. From the strategic plan, it comes out that the university faces challenges

of limited management support through funding and provision of human resources. The lack of leadership support is highlighted on the SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis as evidenced by poor alignment of community engagement activities within the university core business since community engagement is a once-off visit. The stated weakness concurs with poor income generation from the third stream as reported in the Statssa [41] where UNIZULU received only 8%. Such leadership oversight presents a double-sword in that leadership failed the support, which could have indirectly supported their revenue. On a positive note, in the 2021 strategic plan [26] the university ensured a clear definition of community engagement to avoid confusion in the implementation. Additionally, the performance indicators and funding needs were tabled, which include bringing hope in the next strategic years. Wits University's long-term strategic goal (2030) [54] paved community engagement broad statement on what is intended to be achieved on social responsibility and its sustainability approach across disciplines. Specific community engagement achievements were narrated across various faculties.

The University of Forte Hare is among the oldest universities in RSA, which was founded in 1916 and currently is 106 years old [25]. Its strategic goal two speaks of building the University's Research and Innovation Profile, which ensures the sustainability and multi-disciplinary identification of the rural- and urban-relevant research niche areas. However, the balanced scorecard as a yardstick to monitor performance lacks direction in this regard. This defeats the strategic intention to build the institutional culture of the core principle of community engagement through the scholarship of application and integration [25]. As Mallon [21] asserted lack of strategic goals leads to failure. The strategic plan alignment demonstrates the university management's willingness and support to achieve the set objectives.

#### *6.4.3 Alignment of the annual report with the strategic plan*

Lack of funding related to community engagement has been reported for decades across various universities. It is concerning that university leadership seems to know how to allocate funds for classroom teaching and learning and research but not for community engagement. The Makerere University in Uganda has demonstrated achieving the most with what they have by ensuring that the teaching and learning policy includes activities, roles and responsibilities for students, academics and the community partners during the field attachment (which is a Makerere contextual concept for service learning in other universities) [2]. The policy clearly spelt the funded activities for students' field visits. The Makerere University management demonstrated that it is a matter of leadership and not only a shortage of resources to bring the much-needed collaborations leading to transformation through innovative knowledge exchange [41]. The UNIZULU 2018–2019 facts and figures report [26] clearly quantifies the teaching and learning, and research output but the same is not done for community engagement. This reveals the poor alignment of the strategic plan with the annual reports. The 2020 annual reports had no clear achievement on community engagement, but a wishful indication to improve funding for community engagement. At the two top universities, that is WITS and the University of Cape Town, there is a clear alignment of engagement with society service learning, professional services, global engagement, public engagement, partnerships and international academic collaboration/cooperation.

Although there are critics such as one by William Herbert, the executive director of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and

### *Advancing Community Engagement in Higher Education Institutions in South Africa… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108150*

the Professions, from the City University of New York's Hunter College, that '…So many forces are pushing for education [to be] viewed as a commodity, as an expectation with a return. It's devaluing education' [53], in community engagement indigenous and local knowledge, and education of both the communities and the university scholars are appreciated, valued and promoted, while at the same breath/time stakeholders are capacitated socially and economically [43]. There should synergy between the strategic objectives and the measuring tools to monitor progress towards the intended vision. Such synergy is demonstrated through all the levels of the curriculum, the intended, the implemented through teaching and learning and community services or outreach by students, and the achieved curriculum reflected on various reports.

In the University of Cape Town and Wits [54, 55] the set targets are clear and there are dedicated leaders to oversee the implementation of the community engagement activities in the university. In comparing all four universities, the management structure is such that community engagement at the University of Cape Town and WITS is led by the DVC, while the other universities are led by the director. One may assume that the good results are due to the type of leadership. This is because, at Makerere University, the senior management has ensured that community engagement is part of each programme. At Makerere University, academics are required to ensure that their teaching and learning are tied to communities with students engaged in wellplanned and funded field visits [2]. The same alignment is noted on the 2021 WITS university annual report where social responsibility achievements such as transformative engagement with society through students' service learning, professional services, global engagement, public engagement, partnerships and international academic collaboration/cooperation enlisted are the focus within the university.
