**2. Student activism in the context of the student voice**

### **2.1. Literature review**

fee increases and demanding free education, in line with the government's earlier promises. This nationwide student activism was dubbed by its twitter handle hashtag #FeesMustFall and was preceded by the #RhodesMustFall protest, which successfully resulted in the removal of the statue of Cecil John Rhodes at the University of Cape Town within 1 month of the pro‐ tests that occurred there. The students at the University of Cape Town were demanding the Africanization of the faculty and curriculum as well as the "decolonization" of the institution through the removal of colonial symbols of "white supremacy", which they considered offen‐ sive and oppressive, notably the statue of Cecil John Rhodes. The protest was covered exten‐ sively in newspapers, on television, and radio and sent out through electronic and social media

The #FeesMustFall protests resulted in government freezing fee increases for the year 2016 and increasing fiscal support to public universities [3]. Furthermore, university leadership made various concessions in response to other localized student concerns [4]. For example, authori‐ ties at the Rhodes University (identified by Cecil John Rhodes' name) agreed to begin the pro‐ cess of changing the name of the university in line with the students' demands. Management at the Universities of Pretoria and Stellenbosch conceded to demands for the adoption of English as the official language, replacing Afrikaans. The South African cases of student activism were characterized by violence, notably brutal clashes between student factions and clashes with security personnel and police; there was malicious destruction of property, including statues

In addition to South Africa, other African countries have had their share of student activ‐ ism. In Zimbabwe, Zeilig provided a detailed account of the impact of student activism in higher education [7]. In Kenya, 47 cases of violent student activism were reported between 1990 and 2000, characterized by clashes with police and wanton damage to property, serious injuries, and deaths [8]. In its 2000 report, the Kenyan Vice Chancellor's Committee depicts the nature of the student unrests as characterized by demonstrations, boycott of classes, closure of institutions, fierce clashes with police, stone throwing, closure of statehouses, commandeering vehicles, paralyzing the central business district, looting, and damaging buildings and equipment [9]. In Nigeria, there were 21 and 36 major cases of student unrest for periods between 1948 and 1979 and 1980 and 1996, respectively. In the latter case, riot police massacred 100 university students while 1000 others were imprisoned [9]. In Egypt, students from 18 HEIs protested against the uncertainty of the political system, resulting in

In the face of an increase in violent student protests in higher education institutions [11, 12] and the resultant destruction of infrastructure and human life, particularly in developing countries [13, 14], this chapter posits that campus environments unsupportive to student involvement and engagement can result in protests, while fostering a positive campus cli‐ mate for activism can inspire students to voice their concerns without open resistance [15]. Students, when properly engaged, can play a key role in enhancing the quality of higher edu‐ cation [16]. This concept has been dubbed "student voice," which covers the entire spectrum of initiatives that offer students a chance to participate as partners in all aspects of their higher education experience [17]. Paying attention to the "student voice" in various forms including

and artwork [5], with the damage estimated to be worth over R350 million [6].

sites, both at national and at international levels [2].

190 Global Voices in Higher Education

the arrest and expulsion of 1352 students [10].

Student activism is defined as the involvement of individual students in group activities aimed at defending their interests and bringing about changes in systems, policies, attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors regarding issues affecting university life or society at large [20–23]. Activism is a part of the spectrum of the student voice. Activism, for the most part, is no longer viewed as a radical challenge to educational hierarchies [24]. Students are viewed as consumers, producers, evaluators, partners, and critical HEI citizens. As such, their voice should be recog‐ nized, respected, and valued [25]. Literature on student activism covers many issues including the causes of the unrests, socio‐economic background of student activists, values of the institu‐ tion, and attitudes of students and leadership styles. Student activism occurs at different lev‐ els depending on the composition of the students, background of academic and non‐academic staff, the inclusion of leadership and activism issues in curriculum, and the value that students place on group work [22]. However, very little research has been dedicated to studying the posi‐ tive aspects of student activism; hence, this is the focus of this chapter. The chapter will address issues of nurturing positive student activism through paying attention to the student voice.

Activism is developmental in nature and enables students and HEIs to come up with useful solutions to problems [26]. Quaye [27] gives an account of how student activism addresses three critical learning outcomes: (a) the understanding of and respecting differences in opinions, cul‐ tures, orientations, and dispositions, (b) the ability of students to express their voice, and (c) the connection to the international community. In addition, students are often inspired to strive toward enhancing the quality of the educational experience for themselves and for their peers.

Although student activism represents an effective way of supporting critical thinking, collabo‐ ration, organizing, citizenship, identity consciousness, civic engagement, and leadership skills in students through a democratic process [22, 28–36], students are often excluded from influ‐ encing decision‐making in HEIs [23]. This results from the fact that student activists are often viewed as troublemakers who are being manipulated by political figures [37]. For example, in Sénégal, students were referred to as the major stumbling block to educational reforms [38], noting that the recurrence of disruptive and counter‐productive violent protests by students was fueled by outside political interference and concerns regarding who was supposedly fuel‐ ing the student protest? This negative perception of student activism especially in post‐colonial countries in Africa is in sharp contrast with the positive and progressive view such protests have had in the past [37]. The role that student activism, however violent, plays in bringing about reforms and transformation has been acknowledged by scholars who have argued that activism is an acceptable feature of human nature [39].

Student activists are also viewed with scorn because they occasionally use unorthodox methods of bringing about change [22, 40]. Disruptive and sometimes violent tactics, includ‐ ing placard demonstrations, protests, rallies, vandalism, hostage taking, interruption of administrative, teaching, and learning activities, and threats of inflicting physical harm, are used [22, 41–44]. HEI authorities and state officials have labeled some student activists as "destabilizing" and "agitating" [45].

Currently, student activists predominantly employ non‐violent tactics and social media plat‐ forms to organize their activities and make their voices heard. These tactics include volun‐ teerism [19, 46–48], hunger strikes, sit‐ins, parades, blockading roads and buildings, class boycotts, threats of legal action, and play‐acting [43, 49, 50]. These tactics help students practice democracy and acquire citizenship skills, which are critical in today's society [51]. Furthermore, these desirable skills have been found to positively correlate to learning [52] by stimulating students' cognitive engagement including interest in learning how to make effective decisions. When students discuss issues affecting them and the society they live in, it increases their gen‐ eral knowledge. Students feel valued, have a sense of belonging, and are willing to give back to their institutions. Satisfied and well‐adjusted students concentrate on their studies and are unlikely to engage in destructive behaviors [53, 54].

Harnessing the positive aspects of student activism has the potential to positively influence the quality of higher education by addressing issues of academic, social, political, and eco‐ nomic nature [23, 28, 55–57]. Embracing the student voice strengthens the quality of educa‐ tion students receive and has the potential to bring an end to the disruptive and violent student protests. Researchers found student protests can be a measure of the lack of respon‐ siveness of the power bearers to the concerns and interests of students, thereby prompting confrontation by those affected [58, 59]. Students resort to attacking significant figures by protesting, demonstrating, and boycotting classes as a way of attracting attention to their concerns [60]. The contributions of students to educational reform have been acknowledged as key drivers in the improvement of the desired outcomes [22, 61, 62]. The significance of the "pedagogy of voice" in engaging students empowers students to appreciate their identity as important stakeholders in the learning process [63]. Even though the student voice is an important change agent in HEIs, studies have shown that in most cases students are not lis‐ tened to; their views might be collected but is not addressed sufficiently [64, 65]. Authorities tend to concentrate on changing only those issues that are not challenging to confront.

Students who learn under optimal conditions that encourage social activism and who are given ample opportunities to make contributions that enable effective decision‐making improve the learning environment during and after graduation. In addition, they are able to address pressing social concerns [66]. This arises from the fact that, collectively, students are a force for influence and change. Students often benefit when given responsibilities and opportuni‐ ties to participate in decision‐making as it is preparation for their future leadership roles [60]. Involvement in the decision‐making process inculcates critical thinking [36], self‐direction skills, and commitment in students [29], thereby motivating them [67]. Student activism is a critical developmental aspect of the learning process [68]. Higher education managers need to understand that students become alumni the day they register at an institution and hence there is need to create conducive campus environments for them in order to cultivate a good relationship that will continue for life. Considering that many institutions rely on alumni for financial, moral, material, and other benefits, it makes sense to pay attention to student contributions, ensuring their higher education experience is enriching.

The current mechanisms used by institutions to capture the student voice involve surveys to har‐ ness the individual voice and the collective voice (through use of student representatives) [18]. The methods utilize questionnaires, focus group discussions, interviews, and other data collec‐ tion instruments for obtaining feedback, including student representatives as members of HEI committees, holding consultative and discussion fora, including students in institutional strategic planning, projects, and in program reviews [17]. In some universities, students receive training to prepare them to effectively articulate their voice [69].

Although the literature supports the power of the student voice in facilitating a better approach to higher education management and practice [16, 70], most higher education leaders only pay lip service to it [71].

### **2.2. Theoretical framework**

#### *2.2.1. Critical mass theory*

was fueled by outside political interference and concerns regarding who was supposedly fuel‐ ing the student protest? This negative perception of student activism especially in post‐colonial countries in Africa is in sharp contrast with the positive and progressive view such protests have had in the past [37]. The role that student activism, however violent, plays in bringing about reforms and transformation has been acknowledged by scholars who have argued that

Student activists are also viewed with scorn because they occasionally use unorthodox methods of bringing about change [22, 40]. Disruptive and sometimes violent tactics, includ‐ ing placard demonstrations, protests, rallies, vandalism, hostage taking, interruption of administrative, teaching, and learning activities, and threats of inflicting physical harm, are used [22, 41–44]. HEI authorities and state officials have labeled some student activists as

Currently, student activists predominantly employ non‐violent tactics and social media plat‐ forms to organize their activities and make their voices heard. These tactics include volun‐ teerism [19, 46–48], hunger strikes, sit‐ins, parades, blockading roads and buildings, class boycotts, threats of legal action, and play‐acting [43, 49, 50]. These tactics help students practice democracy and acquire citizenship skills, which are critical in today's society [51]. Furthermore, these desirable skills have been found to positively correlate to learning [52] by stimulating students' cognitive engagement including interest in learning how to make effective decisions. When students discuss issues affecting them and the society they live in, it increases their gen‐ eral knowledge. Students feel valued, have a sense of belonging, and are willing to give back to their institutions. Satisfied and well‐adjusted students concentrate on their studies and are

Harnessing the positive aspects of student activism has the potential to positively influence the quality of higher education by addressing issues of academic, social, political, and eco‐ nomic nature [23, 28, 55–57]. Embracing the student voice strengthens the quality of educa‐ tion students receive and has the potential to bring an end to the disruptive and violent student protests. Researchers found student protests can be a measure of the lack of respon‐ siveness of the power bearers to the concerns and interests of students, thereby prompting confrontation by those affected [58, 59]. Students resort to attacking significant figures by protesting, demonstrating, and boycotting classes as a way of attracting attention to their concerns [60]. The contributions of students to educational reform have been acknowledged as key drivers in the improvement of the desired outcomes [22, 61, 62]. The significance of the "pedagogy of voice" in engaging students empowers students to appreciate their identity as important stakeholders in the learning process [63]. Even though the student voice is an important change agent in HEIs, studies have shown that in most cases students are not lis‐ tened to; their views might be collected but is not addressed sufficiently [64, 65]. Authorities tend to concentrate on changing only those issues that are not challenging to confront.

Students who learn under optimal conditions that encourage social activism and who are given ample opportunities to make contributions that enable effective decision‐making improve the learning environment during and after graduation. In addition, they are able to address pressing social concerns [66]. This arises from the fact that, collectively, students are a force

activism is an acceptable feature of human nature [39].

unlikely to engage in destructive behaviors [53, 54].

"destabilizing" and "agitating" [45].

192 Global Voices in Higher Education

Student activism is better contextualized in the framework of the critical mass theory (CMT) [72]. CMT concerns itself with explaining how interdependent decisions by a suf‐ ficient number of people (critical mass) accumulate into collective action and contribute to public good (see **Figure 1**). The term "critical mass" derives its origins from nuclear physics, being the smallest quantity of fissile matter required to prop up a nuclear chain reaction [73]. Critical mass is loosely used in any context involving a group of people large enough to achieve the desired change.

A "critical mass" behaves differently from individual members of a group. It is possible for the critical mass to produce public good when some group members have not contributed anything (the "free‐rider concept"), while sometimes, the critical mass initiates and is able to ignite widespread collective action. The CMT posits that unity and solidarity is more power‐ ful in collective actions than organizational capacities [74]. The CMT theory professes that the magnitude of collective actions outcomes is dependent on two independent variables, namely marginal returns and heterogeneity. The marginal returns variable denotes the characteristics of the production function, which exemplify the way an individual's contribution/input pro‐ duces outputs of collective good. In the diminishing marginal returns scenario, the production function assumes the S‐curve wherein the efforts of the first few contributors achieve the great‐ est effects while subsequent inputs achieve progressively less as compared to the initial inputs

**Figure 1.** A graphical representation of the critical mass theory (source: [77]).

(see **Figure 1**). The accelerating marginal returns reflect a situation where successive inputs by contributors achieve more toward public good than the few initiators (see **Figure 2**). The heterogeneity variable explains how a few keen and ingenious people who contribute to the initial phase of low returns lay the platform for widespread contributions for the public good.

The fundamental notion that collective action begets public good [72] makes CMT applicable to different scenarios where collective interests occur, for example, in political activism [75] and online activism [76]. The CMT is relevant to student activism since activists engage in col‐ lective action, which results in the desired changes (public good). Activists do not have official leadership and often come together through the use of social, print, and electronic media [76].

#### *2.2.2. Student voice model*

An improved model illustrating the potential of student voice to improve research and practice in higher education was developed [78] (see **Figure 3**). In the improved model, aspects of power, identity, and context were added to the four levels already existing in literature, namely:

**Figure 2.** Production function showing decelerating and accelerating marginal returns (source: [77]).


(see **Figure 1**). The accelerating marginal returns reflect a situation where successive inputs by contributors achieve more toward public good than the few initiators (see **Figure 2**). The heterogeneity variable explains how a few keen and ingenious people who contribute to the initial phase of low returns lay the platform for widespread contributions for the public good. The fundamental notion that collective action begets public good [72] makes CMT applicable to different scenarios where collective interests occur, for example, in political activism [75] and online activism [76]. The CMT is relevant to student activism since activists engage in col‐ lective action, which results in the desired changes (public good). Activists do not have official leadership and often come together through the use of social, print, and electronic media [76].

**Figure 1.** A graphical representation of the critical mass theory (source: [77]).

An improved model illustrating the potential of student voice to improve research and practice in higher education was developed [78] (see **Figure 3**). In the improved model, aspects of power, identity, and context were added to the four levels already existing in

*2.2.2. Student voice model*

194 Global Voices in Higher Education

literature, namely:

• Students as researchers and involved in leadership (highest level of student involvement)

The revised model deliberately left room for input from new knowledge. The empirical study reported herein aimed at contributing new knowledge to the existing model by embracing aspects of student activism within the student voice context.

**Figure 3.** A model for student participation in higher education (source: [78]).

#### **2.3. Objectives of the study**

The study aimed at first establishing the issues of concern to students who are likely to par‐ ticipate in student activism. When these issues were brought to the attention of management, the ultimate aim was to investigate the university's response to the student voice and how this impacted student protests and quality of education.

#### **2.4. Methodology**

The study, performed as two consecutive surveys spanning over a period of 3 years, employed the qualitative approach premised on the use of primary data. The primary data collection utilized facilitated focus group discussions as well as undertaking interviews with top man‐ agement at HEIs. Primary data were based on a desk study on complaints and grievances of students as well as cases of student activism. The population of the study was made up of the 15 registered universities in Zimbabwe, nine were public and six were private. The study included 13 universities, eight of them public and five of them private. The other two registered universities, the Zimbabwe Open University (public) and the Reformed Church University (private), were excluded because their students were following the distance‐learn‐ ing mode and the block‐release mode respectively. They were hence not available on cam‐ pus for focus group discussions when the researchers were undertaking the study. During the first phase of the study (2011–2012), students from eight public and five private HEIs in Zimbabwe were interviewed on issues of concern to them emanating from various aspects of their experience and how these were being addressed. The second survey was performed in 2013 as a follow‐up on issues raised during the first survey and to get recommendations on best practices regarding student activism. According to [79] surveys on student views, there are additional benefits resulting from longitudinal approaches as opposed to cross‐sectional surveys that provide only a snapshot of student feedback. This view is consistent with those of other scholars [80, 81].

The stratified random samples of students were representative of gender, study discipline, year of study, and level of study (undergraduates and post‐graduates). The overall popu‐ lation of students in the 13 universities was 69,000. The focus group discussions included 15–20 students and the number of focus groups per institution depended on institutional size. The researchers asked questions using a pilot‐tested focus group discussion guide. Even though the students constituted the main target of the study, top management (pro vice chancellor, registrar, bursar, librarian, and dean of students) was interviewed in order to hear their views concerning student activism as well as to verify, seek explanations, and recommendations regarding issues raised by the students. Top management refers to peo‐ ple in top administrative positions responding officially on behalf of the HEIs and not on their own individual capacity. Hence, the focus here is not on the respondent per se but the power behind institutional speech acts [82], discourses that make claims about and on behalf of institutions and their members, and the factors which demonstrate the power of institutions to decide who and what gets legitimated.

A focus group is defined as a group discussion involving multiple participants and coordinated by a facilitator, performed to collect wide‐ranging information on a particular subject [83]. The use of focus groups is recommended as a user‐friendly way of creating an environment to dis‐ cuss ideas, facts, opinions, thoughts, beliefs, and suggestions [84]. The procedure described by Gillespie et al. [85] was used to undertake focus‐group discussions in this study. This involved researchers using a pilot‐tested guide in order to improve the quality of information collected as well as to make sure all participants were given the opportunity to contribute to the discus‐ sions. The researchers commenced the discussions by asking general open‐ended questions before delving into specific issues. As is recommended, this approach enables the collection of information that is driven by participants [85]. The facilitators would then explore deeper into the experiences of participants and probe further their perceptions. All the focus group discus‐ sions were recorded and completed within 1 h.

**2.3. Objectives of the study**

196 Global Voices in Higher Education

**2.4. Methodology**

impacted student protests and quality of education.

**Figure 3.** A model for student participation in higher education (source: [78]).

The study aimed at first establishing the issues of concern to students who are likely to par‐ ticipate in student activism. When these issues were brought to the attention of management, the ultimate aim was to investigate the university's response to the student voice and how this

The study, performed as two consecutive surveys spanning over a period of 3 years, employed the qualitative approach premised on the use of primary data. The primary data collection
