**3. Results and discussion**

The transcripts from the focus‐group discussions with students and interviews with top management from HEIs were analyzed using discourse analysis wherein the issues raised were taken to be representative of the norms, experiences, reasons, and realistic practices [86]. Emerging patterns and themes were used to interpret and deduce the findings. The reasons for engaging in activism and the views about activism from students and top management were categorized and synthesized.

Focus‐group discussions with students revealed that the key reasons for student protests in order of priority are lack of communication (presence) of administrators, "top administrators are invisible", the need for more opportunities to discuss their concerns with administrators, administrators who do not address the substantive problems motivating protests, and admin‐ istrators that do not interact with students on a routine basis in order to build better rela‐ tions and trust. The findings are similar to those obtained in Ref. [87] wherein it was reported that failure of authorities to listen to concerns of students was the major cause of protests. However, these findings differ from those of similar studies that categorize the four major causes of student protests as national politics, academic discontents, welfare issues, as well as leadership inadequacies and resource allocation [59, 88]. While students agree that their concerns stem from academic, resource, and welfare issues, their argument is that the cause of protests has more to do with the response from management (or lack of it). Students explained that they are mature enough to understand that resources are limited; however, they believe that through dialogue with administrators and academic staff, most of their concerns can be addressed. Some administrators were described as "untouchable", "pompous" while others were "fatherly" or "approachable" or had "human faces".

When asked whether students would readily engage in protests, they agreed unanimously that it was something they would do as a last resort. They were always ready to discuss their issues with colleagues and representatives who had the capacity and positions that allow them to raise the issues with responsible authorities. The students explained that their par‐ ents, guardians, or the students themselves were responsible for paying fees and for their upkeep; therefore, they were not prepared to waste their time engaging in collective action that was not "beneficial." However, students emphasized the need for management to com‐ municate and mix with them to discuss concerns as one family.

The initial survey interviews with key administrators indicated that most of them did not tol‐ erate student activism and would not hesitate to unleash punitive measures. When the advan‐ tages of encouraging student activism and students views about management attitudes and "unavailability" were put across to them by the researchers, they agreed to take heed of the student voice. The follow‐up survey revealed that top management were taking student issues seriously. As such, there were various channels through which students were engaged. Most of them indicated that activism was actually encouraged since they went out of their way to make sure that student concerns and welfare were attended to. They attributed the embracing student activism and the student voice as the major reasons as to why cases of student unrest and violence were few ever since they started paying attention to the use of student‐voice strategies. In addition to fully resourced student affairs departments covering all possible areas of welfare needs inclusive of sports, counseling, health and well‐being, accommoda‐ tion, etc. some institutions had also employed dedicated student advocates whose duties were to continuously research issues of concern to students and bring them to the attention of the relevant authorities. Most HEIs built student centers offering all kinds of assistance to students. Some services were also outsourced from friendly social organizations interested in the health and welfare of students. Other researchers found that administrators in HEIs perceived activism to be incompatible with teaching and learning [89, 90]. In fact, activism is considered as a transgression [91]. While it might appear as if this position contradicts with results of this study, the viewpoints complement each other in that in both scenarios, violence is not tolerated. The new dimension brought forward by this study is that when positive forms of activism are encouraged, students are initiated into a culture of dialogue and engagement.

The major take‐home message is that violent student protests point to a possible breakdown in university procedures for student engagement since they are usually a last resort when all other avenues have failed. HEIs should recognize that student protests are a legitimate form of communicating concerns and hence they should engage students in order to reach an agreed position.

The study used the findings to recommend a model for embracing student activism by incor‐ porating the student voice (see **Figure 4**).

#### **3.1. Dialogue with students**

**3. Results and discussion**

198 Global Voices in Higher Education

were categorized and synthesized.

were "fatherly" or "approachable" or had "human faces".

municate and mix with them to discuss concerns as one family.

The transcripts from the focus‐group discussions with students and interviews with top management from HEIs were analyzed using discourse analysis wherein the issues raised were taken to be representative of the norms, experiences, reasons, and realistic practices [86]. Emerging patterns and themes were used to interpret and deduce the findings. The reasons for engaging in activism and the views about activism from students and top management

Focus‐group discussions with students revealed that the key reasons for student protests in order of priority are lack of communication (presence) of administrators, "top administrators are invisible", the need for more opportunities to discuss their concerns with administrators, administrators who do not address the substantive problems motivating protests, and admin‐ istrators that do not interact with students on a routine basis in order to build better rela‐ tions and trust. The findings are similar to those obtained in Ref. [87] wherein it was reported that failure of authorities to listen to concerns of students was the major cause of protests. However, these findings differ from those of similar studies that categorize the four major causes of student protests as national politics, academic discontents, welfare issues, as well as leadership inadequacies and resource allocation [59, 88]. While students agree that their concerns stem from academic, resource, and welfare issues, their argument is that the cause of protests has more to do with the response from management (or lack of it). Students explained that they are mature enough to understand that resources are limited; however, they believe that through dialogue with administrators and academic staff, most of their concerns can be addressed. Some administrators were described as "untouchable", "pompous" while others

When asked whether students would readily engage in protests, they agreed unanimously that it was something they would do as a last resort. They were always ready to discuss their issues with colleagues and representatives who had the capacity and positions that allow them to raise the issues with responsible authorities. The students explained that their par‐ ents, guardians, or the students themselves were responsible for paying fees and for their upkeep; therefore, they were not prepared to waste their time engaging in collective action that was not "beneficial." However, students emphasized the need for management to com‐

The initial survey interviews with key administrators indicated that most of them did not tol‐ erate student activism and would not hesitate to unleash punitive measures. When the advan‐ tages of encouraging student activism and students views about management attitudes and "unavailability" were put across to them by the researchers, they agreed to take heed of the student voice. The follow‐up survey revealed that top management were taking student issues seriously. As such, there were various channels through which students were engaged. Most of them indicated that activism was actually encouraged since they went out of their way to make sure that student concerns and welfare were attended to. They attributed the embracing student activism and the student voice as the major reasons as to why cases of student unrest and violence were few ever since they started paying attention to the use of student‐voice The use of the go‐out‐and‐talk (GOAT) strategy, whereby staff at HEIs engage informally and often with student leaders and students in general, inculcates in students a mindset shift where they can learn to take responsibility for their actions and to understand protest‐related rules as well as appreciate the negative impact of acts of civil disobedience. Through dialogue, higher education institutions can take the lead on creating true partnerships with students. The strategy of dialoguing with students includes consultation and observation as well as relationship building.

#### *3.1.1. Consultation and observation*

This includes the go‐out‐and‐listen (GOAL) strategy whereby internal and/or external research‐ ers carry out surveys/interviews/focus‐group discussions to capture the feelings and opinions of students. This assists in building mutual trust through effective interpersonal relationships.

#### *3.1.2. Relationship building*

This involves improving understanding and trust among all the players in HEIs through the use of varying communication channels and methods. Most protests are avoidable if effective com‐ munication is practiced and there are opportunities to raise substantive concerns to administra‐ tion and receive clear responses. It is important to create strong working relationships between security, students, and administrators with the goal of minimizing protests and use of force. Staff

**Figure 4.** A model for embracing student activism by incorporating the student voice.

should shelve the "managerial/professor" persona to enable meaningful and easy interaction with students. Senior administrators ought to periodically attend students meetings and functions.

#### **3.2. Feedback from students**

HEIs need to review procedures to incorporate feedback regarding problematic issues. Using the concept of "closing the feedback loop" ensures that all the players can see and celebrate the results of engaging students. HEIs should encourage staff to accommodate the perspectives of students and ensure that students enjoy the best learning experience. The student feedback management strategy includes student representation on committees, student engagement fora, open‐door policies, and use of hotlines/mailbox/suggestion systems.

#### *3.2.1. Students' representation in committees*

The institution should incorporate a critical mass of student representatives into all commit‐ tees of the institution, including those responsible for bringing changes to systems/structures/ processes. Of note here is the finding that while most university councils have half represen‐ tation from external and internal Councilors, only one student representative sits in council. This makes it almost impossible for the student voice to be listened to in a substantive way. In addition, the system of student representation should ensure that there is representation from all the different groups in the student body, inclusive of the often forgotten groups, for example, adult, disabled, part‐time, and foreign students.

#### *3.2.2. Student engagement fora*

Students should be availed with various platforms for engagement. These include orienta‐ tion sessions, debates, clubs, student‐staff interactions, hotlines, and counseling. The use of technology facilitates the engagement process. It is worth noting that engagement does not mean destruction of the barrier between staff and students; the barrier is simply made more permeable by increasing the bi‐directional flow of information and ideas.

#### *3.2.3. Open‐door policies*

HEIs must encourage students to bring their suggestions even to top management in the univer‐ sity. Staff should be actively involved in students' union activities. There is a need to acknowledge and reward members of staff who would have exhibited high levels of commitment toward engag‐ ing students. HEIs must inculcate a culture of tolerance and understanding instead of compliance.

#### *3.2.4. Hotline/mailbox/suggestion systems*

Students should be empowered to embrace technology to provide an opportunity for them‐ selves to express their views publicly or anonymously. In addition, the curriculum can be used as the key tool for transforming student engagement.

#### **3.3. Capacity building**

should shelve the "managerial/professor" persona to enable meaningful and easy interaction with students. Senior administrators ought to periodically attend students meetings and functions.

HEIs need to review procedures to incorporate feedback regarding problematic issues. Using the concept of "closing the feedback loop" ensures that all the players can see and celebrate the results of engaging students. HEIs should encourage staff to accommodate the perspectives of students and ensure that students enjoy the best learning experience. The student feedback management strategy includes student representation on committees, student engagement

The institution should incorporate a critical mass of student representatives into all commit‐ tees of the institution, including those responsible for bringing changes to systems/structures/ processes. Of note here is the finding that while most university councils have half represen‐ tation from external and internal Councilors, only one student representative sits in council. This makes it almost impossible for the student voice to be listened to in a substantive way. In addition, the system of student representation should ensure that there is representation from all the different groups in the student body, inclusive of the often forgotten groups, for

fora, open‐door policies, and use of hotlines/mailbox/suggestion systems.

**Figure 4.** A model for embracing student activism by incorporating the student voice.

**3.2. Feedback from students**

200 Global Voices in Higher Education

*3.2.1. Students' representation in committees*

example, adult, disabled, part‐time, and foreign students.

HEIs should introduce principles of non‐violent resistance and train everyone in the insti‐ tution. Students should be provided with adequate information as well as receive training formally and informally on issues of student activism and on how to effectively make their voices heard. HEIs should also encourage the use of constitutional rights of free speech to positively enact social change. They should also communicate information on the roles and shared responsibilities of campus stakeholders indicating clearly that the head of institution is ultimately accountable for institutional security and the satisfaction of all stakeholders.

#### **3.4. Policy alignment and review**

HEIs should establish and document policies and practices regarding dissent and civil disobe‐ dience. Student partnerships and engagement should be prioritized through the alignment of favorable policies and procedures. HEIs should ensure consistent messages from senior management and staff and employ the right people exhibiting student‐centered mentality.

#### **3.5. Appoint a dedicated student advocate**

HEIs are encouraged to appoint a dedicated student advocate to continuously research issues of concern to students and bring them to the attention of the relevant authorities.

#### **3.6. Complaints management**

It is important for HEIs to dedicate specific time periods for allowing students access to top administrators in order to raise their views and concerns. Establishing a framework where students can submit their petitions and administrators can respond is important. HEIs should develop a process of mediation wherein appropriately trained staff can facilitate dialogue between students and the relevant HEI staff.

In addition to heeding the student voice, university management should:

	- foster a culture of communication, openness, and civility
	- accommodate and respect different points of view
	- have well‐documented and implemented policies on student engagement
	- respond when protests occur and see to it that intimidation, censorship, suspensions, arrests, shut down or violence are avoided.
