Abstract
South African higher education has been experiencing profound and vigorous transformations in the post-apartheid era. At the same time, global trends toward competition and employment equity contribute to the complexities of the country’s higher education environment. These global and local developments combine to impact the working environment of South African academics. This qualitative study employed a phenomenological approach to explore the ‘lived’ experiences of 20 South African academics operating within this changing academic workplace at a case study institution. Although the findings pointed to several ‘pull’ factors representing positive aspects of the university’s working environment, six ‘push’ factors emerged as the study’s most salient and robust research findings: (1) lack of induction/training, (2) working with underprepared students, (3) unmanageable workloads, (4) issues of race and power, (5) challenges for female academics, and (6) frustrations regarding slow institutional change. An additional key theme centered on findings related to potential decisions to depart from the institution or academia. When combined with prior research, the findings suggest an imperative for South African higher education institutions to focus on improving the environment in which academic staff conduct their work, particularly given the post-apartheid impetus to transform institutions for both equity and global competition purposes.
Introduction
South Africa has been experiencing a period of profound and vigorous transformation since the end of the apartheid era in the early 1990s. Though organizational change in higher education is commonly characterized as gradual and prone to resistance (Bolman and Deal, 2008), the South African higher education sector is not impervious to the country’s post-apartheid transformation agenda. At the same time, global trends influence higher education in South Africa, including simultaneously driving toward globally competitive higher education institutions (HEIs) and more equitable workplaces (Portnoi and Kretz, 2010). These global developments combine with historical and contemporary factors in the post-apartheid context, which together have the potential to profoundly impact the working environment of South African academic staff.
Using a qualitative approach inspired by phenomenology, the purpose of this case study was to understand how academic staff experience the phenomenon of the changing academic workplace in the South African context. The central research question was: How do South African academics experience their working environment in the changing higher education context? A case study institution was chosen to explore the research question in depth and develop an understanding of the phenomenon from the perspective of academic staff who experience it on a daily basis. Understanding the ‘lived’ experiences of academic staff is crucial to the transformation agendas of South African universities, including the goal of altering academic staff demographics due to the Employment Equity Act (EEA) and other post-apartheid legislation. This inquiry is particularly salient as HEIs seek to make their academic staff complements more reflective of the full spectrum of South African society while they also work to improve their quality and global competitiveness (Portnoi and Kretz, 2010).
Global and local implications of the changing academic workplace
The academic workplace has undergone significant changes in recent years, especially due to developments in the worldwide higher education sector. Global higher education trends include increased emphasis on international and local competition; quality assurance mechanisms; adjunct, contract, or ‘just in time’ knowledge workers (Kimber, 2003; Stromquist et al., 2007), as well as corporatization and academic capitalism (Marginson, 2000; Rhoades and Slaughter, 2004). When combined with these changing emphases, the declining prestige of the academic profession (Altbach, 2000) and diminishing funding for HEIs in most parts of the world translates into adverse working conditions and low morale (Altbach, 2000; Bryson, 2004). These developments reflect the global march toward market-driven higher education in a time of unfavorable economic conditions, which further undermines the attractiveness of the academic profession (Altbach, 2000; Portnoi, 2009b). The arrival of the first Shanghai Jiaotong University HEI rankings in 2003 and the increasing use of such rankings by administrators in the higher education sector (Hazelkorn, 2008) are manifestations of the neoliberal influence in a challenging economic climate. Despite important questions regarding their methods and relevance, particularly for the non-English speaking world (see, for example, Marginson, 2010), rankings have added to the increasingly ‘sink or swim’ mentality of the sector and to the salience of research productivity in academic careers.
At the same time, global movements toward human and civil rights have led to employment equity (also called ‘affirmative action’ or ‘equal employment opportunity’) efforts across employment sectors in several countries, including Australia, Brazil, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Such legislation or policies often extend to HEIs as employers and tend to center on ‘minority’ populations, women, and people with disabilities. Nevertheless, research has shown that the academic workplace is not necessarily conducive to the success of many women and people of color (e.g. Aguirre, 2000; Fletcher et al., 2007; Grummell et al., 2009; Lafferty and Fleming, 2000; Wilson, 2004). In addition, researchers such as Lafferty and Fleming (2000) and Portnoi and Kretz (2010) have argued that amplified global competition impedes efforts toward employment equity by contributing to more competitive, less collegial working environments. Similarly, Aguirre (2000) found that the increased emphasis on research—on which global competition efforts and worldwide university rankings focus—impedes promotion and tenure possibilities for women and people of color because these individuals tend to be overloaded with teaching and service obligations.
Mirroring worldwide developments toward global competition and employment equity, South Africa’s academic workplace is also changing. Closely tied to rankings and global competition, South Africa has implemented quality assurance mechanisms for its universities in an effort to keep up with top-ranked HEIs from around the world (Ntshoe and Letseka, 2010). Scholars have argued that the South African higher education sector is characterized by increasing managerialism (e.g. Adams, 2006; Webster and Masoetsa, 2002), echoing the discussion on corporatization in the United States and managerialism in countries such as England and Australia. Ntshoe et al. (2008) have suggested that the emphasis on global competition and managerialism negatively impact the academic profession in South Africa. Indeed, Johnson (2006) found that academic staff members are concerned about the ‘us versus them’ mentality that pervades in this new, more hierarchical environment. In addition, research has become increasingly central, prompting Thaver (2010) to note that collegiality is under duress because subsidy formulas are now tied with research productivity, leading to competition between academics on the micro level.
Yet, the trend toward global competition is complemented by equity initiatives in South Africa (Ntshoe, 2004), as around the world. Accordingly, in 1998 South Africa enacted the EEA, which aims to eliminate unfair discrimination and increase employment opportunities for individuals from the ‘designated’ groups—Black (African, Colored, and Indian) 1 people, women, and people with disabilities. This transformation-oriented piece of legislation further decrees that people from the designated groups who have the capacity to acquire the skills for a particular job must be given full consideration (Portnoi, 2003). The EEA affects all employers with 50 or more employees, including universities.
Although developments in South African higher education parallel the global push for both competition and employment equity, the local context provides an additional layer of circumstances that distinguish it from other environments in a number of ways. First, very few countries are dealing with transformation on the scale of South Africa’s post-apartheid era, particularly after being isolated for many years through the academic and cultural boycott (Maassen and Cloete, 2002). Second, apartheid was only unseated 21 years ago, and though the country embraces transformation, enacting significant change requires considerable time and funding. Third, the inequalities of apartheid education created a pronounced imbalance in skill capacity among the races and genders that remains significant today (Soudien, 2010). Fourth, in contrast to many other national contexts, the majority of the population has historically been systematically discriminated against in South Africa. Thus, the transformation and employment equity agenda is particularly pronounced, and imperative, in this environment.
The context of South African higher education
South Africa’s history of racial segregation and discrimination has left an imprint on the country’s HEIs. Much like primary and secondary education, higher education was segregated until the dismantling of apartheid in the early 1990s. Separate HEIs were established for each of the four recognized racial groups—African, Colored, Indian, and White (Byrnes, 1996). Though HEIs no longer service one particular racial group, institutional academic staff complements tend to reflect apartheid-era demographics, despite some progress (Martin and Roodt, 2008; Soudien, 2010).
Myriad policy changes have also impacted South African HEIs since the first democratically elected government took the helm in 1994. The 1997 Higher Education Act brought all institutions into a nationally coordinated, ‘non-racial’ system, while recent government-mandated mergers have reduced the number of HEIs from 36 to 23 (Cloete, 2006). According to Jansen (2003), increasing the quality and global competitiveness of HEIs was one of the central factors in reconstituting the system. Higher education institutions have also been reclassified into three categories: traditional universities, comprehensive universities (combining academic and vocational degrees) and universities of technology. Simultaneously, the government has sought to increase higher education access for millions of people who were previously restricted from attendance due to a lack of funding, their demographic characteristics, or the poor-quality primary and secondary education they received. In addition, two new universities—Sol Plaatje University and the University of Mpumalanga—opened in 2014 in areas that formerly did not have HEIs. Given the expansion of higher education, virtually all academic staff members in South Africa—many of whom are themselves products of the unequal apartheid education system—are working with increasing numbers of ‘disadvantaged’ and ‘underprepared’ students (Fourie, 1999; Soudien, 2010).
In addition to the developments within the realm of higher education, other policy initiatives and legislation have impacted the sector in significant ways. For example, the 1995 Labour Relations Act and 1997 Basic Conditions of Employment Act affect all employers across South Africa. The aforementioned 1998 Employment Equity Act also plays an important role in reshaping staff demographics in higher education because universities are required to draft and implement employment equity plans designed to attract and retain increasing numbers of staff from the designated groups (Portnoi, 2003). Accordingly, changing the staff complement to reflect the full range of South African society has become a key component of HEIs’ transformation agendas; this objective has been addressed in key policy or legislative documents, including the 1997 Higher Education Act, the 2001 National Plan for Higher Education, and the 2012 Green Paper for Post-school Education and Training.
The working environments of South African academic staff
Given the historical and current context of higher education in South Africa, researchers have begun to investigate the working environments of academic staff. Austin (1999, 2001) found that academics are anxious about their workloads in the face of multiple new demands in the post-apartheid era. Indeed, research has shown that academic staff experience ‘change fatigue’ due to the multifaceted transformation agenda in higher education (Austin, 1999; Boyd and Fresen, 2004; Mapesela and Hay, 2006; Wolhulter et al., 2011). Research has also indicated that academic staff feel overburdened, stressed, and that sickness and weariness are common with the intense demands of the job (Austin, 1999; Barkhuizen and Rothmann, 2008; Barkhuizen et al., 2013; Boyd and Fresen, 2004). Furthermore, role management is particularly discomfiting for new academics (Pienaar and Bester, 2006).
Concerns about the working environment are exacerbated in this period of profound transformation, for which academic staff may not feel adequately prepared (Hassan, 2011). In the changing academic workplace in South Africa, academic staff have expressed apprehension about working with an increasingly diverse set of students, particularly individuals with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Austin, 1999). Moreover, Thaver (2010) found workload to be racially slanted, and Black academics are often expected to serve as role models and work closely with Black students, resulting in significant time commitment (Potgieter, 2002).
Along with workload issues and the challenges of adapting to changes in South African HEIs, several studies demonstrate that institutional environments may be unwelcoming for Black (particularly African) and female academics. Research indicates that African academic staff perceive subtle ways in which the institutional workplace is inhospitable (e.g. Austin, 2001; Daniels, 2001; Portnoi, 2003; Potgieter, 2002). Austin (1999) has suggested that many Black staff in historically White institutions are constantly concerned about feeling ‘accepted, respected and welcomed’ (p. 8). Much like the participants in the present study, many Black academics have expressed feeling as if they are anonymous or invisible (Potgieter, 2002). Echoing these sentiments, Daniels (2001) found that Black academics at a formerly White institution viewed their organization as a ‘closed’ environment limiting them from becoming insiders because White colleagues did not understand their experiences. Moreover, the predominance of White academic staff across HEIs translates into the formal knowledge base being tied to White academics while Black academics exist in a ‘gap’, causing their alienation from the academic system (Thaver, 2003). These feelings of alienation may prompt Black academic staff to leave one institutional type for another or leave academia altogether (Potgieter, 2002).
Female academic staff members also experience alienating working environments in the South African context, as in other countries. Perumal (2003) described South African universities as conservative, male-dominated environments in which women, particularly Black women, are socialized into silence. Research has indicated that women experience discrimination (Biraimah, 2000; Jano and Naidoo, 2001; Petersen and Gravett, 2000; Subotzky, 1998); do not receive training or induction (Mabokela and Mawila, 2004); are silenced in a male-dominated structure (Mabokela and Mawila, 2004; Perumal, 2003); and have dual workloads as academics and the primary caregivers in their families (Petersen and Gravett, 2000; Subotzky, 1998). Their experience is compounded by the fact that they are often facing racial discrimination simultaneously. Mabokela (2002) suggested that women’s experiences ‘emphasize the overlap of race and gender, highlighting the multiple ways in which these women continue to be encumbered’ (p.186). Indeed, Potgieter (2002) and Mabokela and Mawila (2004) have documented incidents of gender discrimination that were intertwined with racial issues for their participants, which recent research by Hemson and Singh (2010) and Rabe and Rugunanan (2012) has corroborated.
Taken together, existing studies point to some of the challenging working conditions for many academic staff in South African HEIs. Although similar themes (e.g. overburdened academic staff, role management for new academics, and raced and gendered environments) may be present in HEIs around the world to a certain degree, the local context and developments of the post-apartheid era are specific to the South African higher education landscape, resulting in distinctive experiences for South African academic staff that reflect both global and local developments in higher education.
This study sought to explore academic staff working environments within this changing academic workplace. The study joins the conversation by approaching the topic from a different angle in two main ways. First, the study is purposely more holistic. Prior studies have investigated specific aspects of the HEI working environment, such as race and/or gender (e.g. Daniels, 2001; Mabokela and Mawila, 2004; Perumal, 2003; Potgieter, 2002; Thaver, 2010). This study sought to explore all aspects of the working environment that were meaningful to the academic staff participants rather than shaping the research with a predetermined focus. In addition, the decision to include academic staff participants from all racial groups and both genders was intentional, in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the lived experience of academics at a South African institution. Second, the study sought to understand this complex issue in depth through using a qualitative approach. Most existing studies of job satisfaction in South African HEIs have employed quantitative survey methods (see Pienaar and Bester, 2006 for an exception); a qualitative study provides a complement that allows for a deeper understanding of the broad trends of survey data. In sum, the purpose of this study was to consider South African academics’ working conditions more broadly, using a qualitative approach in order to develop a complex understanding of how academic staff perceive their working environments in the changing higher education landscape.
Research design and data analysis
Methodological approach, site, sample selection, data collection procedures
South African HEIs are simultaneously experiencing global changes and post-apartheid transformations. Drawing on phenomenology, this case study sought to understand academic staff experiences of the phenomenon of the changing academic workplace in a South African university. Phenomenology involves studying individuals who share the ‘lived’ experiences of the same phenomenon, and is appropriate when studying a complex issue in depth (Creswell, 2007). To investigate academic staff members’ shared experiences regarding the working environment, a case study institution was selected. Case study designs are appropriate for understanding individuals’ perceptions of a phenomenon (Glesne, 2006; Lichtman, 2006). The selected university did not merge with other institutions during the restructuring process, making it an ideal case for studying the working environment without the complication of factors that may be connected to mergers and resulting organizational changes. The university is located in an urban area that contains other HEIs. The student body is primarily Black, while the academic staff complement retains its apartheid imprint, with the majority of academics being White and male, particularly at higher ranks.
For this phenomenological case study, three academic departments representing different types of disciplines—sciences, social sciences, and humanities—were purposely selected (Creswell, 2007; Patton, 2001) in order to generate themes that transcend departmental nuances. Within each department, all potential academic staff participants were recruited through email and phone contact. The intent was to obtain the most racially diverse sample possible and to have roughly equal numbers of male and female participants. Twenty academic staff participated in total. Table 1 displays the demographic profile of the participants2. Though qualitative research does not attempt to obtain ‘representative’ samples per se, the participants’ racial groups are indicative of academic staff demographics at the institution.
Demographics of academic staff participants by gender and racial group.
The primary data collection method involved semi-structured, in-person interviews lasting 60–90 minutes each. Following Maxwell (2004) and Merriam (2009), the interviews focused on open-ended discussions regarding the working environment in which academic staff function on a daily basis. Participants were asked to describe their jobs and what it is like to work at their institution generally, and they directed the conversation toward the particular conditions they experienced. The researcher did not introduce any specific factors (e.g. gender, race, institutional change) and did not present or discuss any of the factors that arose as positive or negative. In contrast to a survey approach in which participants are provided with a list of options, this method allowed for factors to emerge that were not anticipated or predetermined by the researcher. Interviews were conducted until theoretical saturation was reached and no new themes emerged (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).
Data analysis
With the permission of the participants, all interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed in full. Interview transcripts were coded manually using the phenomenological method of horizontalization—a line-by-line open-ended analysis (Creswell, 2007; Moustakas, 1994) followed by close-ended analysis based on the central research question. Initially, 112 meaning units, or codes, were developed for the entire range of data, including content not directly related to the focus of the study. Later, the codes were organized into 27 categories and further into 11 themes. As the data analysis progressed, the researcher performed member checks (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) by sharing drafts of the findings with the participants to improve the authenticity of the research (Glesne, 2006).
Findings and discussion
Although they were not prompted to do so, several of the academic staff members labeled the issues they discussed regarding their working environment as ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors, and most connected these factors to job satisfaction. Four main themes regarding the working environment emerged as potential ‘pull’ factors: (1) giving back to the community, (2) working with students, (3) the opportunity to conduct independent research, and (4) flexible work schedules. On the other side of the spectrum, six major themes represented ‘push’ factors: (1) lack of induction or training, (2) working with underprepared students, (3) unmanageable workloads, (4) issues of race and power, (5) challenges for female academics, and (6) frustrations regarding slow institutional change. These push factors carried across academic departments and were the most prevalent themes throughout the entire data set. Though pull factors were present, this article focuses on the push factors because their intensity and frequency throughout the data for all three departments was striking.
Although they were interconnected and often intertwined in individual academic staff members’ experiences, each push factor is presented separately below for clarity. Following the presentation of the push factors, the subsequent section focuses on a related, salient theme that emerged in the findings—the combined weight of the push factors and whether or not it may lead academic staff to consider departing the university or academia altogether. Providing an important contribution to the literature, this latter section covers potential departure decisions the participants considered as they discussed the factors that impact their working environment. Existing literature on departure decisions of South African academic staff is limited, and tends to be retrospective in nature because it is conducted with those who have already chosen to depart.
‘Push’ factors
Lack of induction or training
Academics throughout the world tend to enter their professions with limited training for the various roles they will assume in the profession. This lack of induction and training at the postgraduate level continues upon entry into HEIs as workplaces (Hassan, 2011). Accordingly, many of the newer academic staff who participated in the study spoke about their experiences after arriving at the institution and indicated that they were not inducted into their positions. For example, Nombeko
3
, a recently appointed African woman, explained that she had ‘a sense that other people don’t tolerate my mistakes. They don’t acknowledge my background, you see’. She had made it clear when interviewing that she did not have experience as an academic. Nonetheless, Nombeko recounted difficulty obtaining support from her academic staff peers:
I remember when I first arrived here I would have some problems. I would ask a senior colleague, you know, about the problems I was having. And she would say to me, ‘you have to be proactive’, as if asking questions is not being proactive. It used to hurt me so much because she wants me to do things, and she’s not prepared to help me get there.
Nombeko was expected to find her own way. In a similar vein, Charlene, a Colored academic staff member, spoke of the ‘codes’ she heard in staff meetings and did not understand when she began her job:
I always felt out of step, you know, when they discuss issues, it’s across departments, across faculties. I was just not equipped for that kind of discussion, so I wouldn’t participate. And they would say things using codes, and I wouldn’t understand a thing … And I would try to jot it down, and they would use another code, and I would lose track. So, I would just withdraw into some kind of a shell.
Charlene’s experience may have been disillusioning for any new academic; however, she came from a working-class environment, was a first-generation university student, had never worked in an HEI, and may have thus benefited significantly from induction and training. Similar to Nombeko’s and Charlene’s situations, Andre reported that he did not receive answers to questions asked and felt embarrassed to approach his colleagues about ‘basic’ questions that seemed obvious to them. Given that many emerging South African academic staff come from disadvantaged backgrounds with limited access to academic culture and, additionally, that they may not have been socialized into the academy through their postgraduate studies, the need to induct them into the academic profession takes on greater significance (Portnoi, 2009a). Induction is especially important given HEIs’ desire to attract and retain a diverse academic staff complement and improve the quality of their institutions.
Working with underprepared students
Due to the legacy of apartheid, many current university students are academically underprepared (Soudien, 2010). Academic staff often spoke of their interactions with students as a positive and rewarding aspect of their jobs, and some expressed that they felt a sense of accomplishment when their students achieved successes. Furthermore, some participants noted that working with students was one of the main reasons they chose to work at the institution. However, similar to the participants in Austin’s (1999) study, academic staff participants also highlighted significant challenges due to increased numbers of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. For instance, Thomas labeled working with this group of students ‘painful’, particularly because it is time consuming. He compared the experience to pushing a stone up a hill: ‘I mean, you get some students who actually do quite well, but there’s a sizeable group where you’re pushing a stone up a serious hill and there’s no respite from beginning to end … It’s incredibly tiring’. Academic staff repeatedly expressed this concern about the time and effort involved in working with underprepared students throughout the interviews. This push factor carried across all three academic departments and was one of the most frequently cited.
Even while acknowledging the challenges, however, Evelyn shared another point of view about how academics speak of their students:
It’s almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy. We often construct our students in a kind of situation where we believe—to some extent it’s true; I mean, they require huge amounts of support in order to achieve sort-of appropriate academic levels. I don’t know, just the way people sometimes speak about their students, being difficult, exhausting. I think it’s problematic to talk about students that way.
Evelyn was thus cognizant of the impact academic staff views may have on students. Nevertheless, according to the majority of the participants, the level of effort and dedication required of academic staff who work with underprepared students remains exceptionally high.
In addition to the effort and time involved, some participants noted that they often have trepidation about their own abilities to assist underprepared students. Michael explained this sentiment clearly:
Because they’ve just been so disadvantaged, and it seems futile, and it’s expensive for them and it’s humiliating to fail again and again … It’s kind of an unspoken sore truth … because everyone knows, that we all have this terrible sense sometimes of just not being up to the task of this huge diversity of levels of knowledge.
His statement, which resonates with other participants’ experiences, demonstrates how difficult it may be for academic staff to adjust their skills to the changing nature of the student population.
Massification of higher education has led to increasingly diverse student complements around the world; therefore, academics in many countries must adjust to teaching a wider range of students at different skill levels. In the South African context, however, the post-apartheid transformation imperative has led to especially rapid changes in student demographics (Cooper and Subotzky, 2001; Soudien, 2010). Even though many of the academic staff who participated in the study noted that they enjoyed working with underprepared students, the time and effort involved appeared to impact their work significantly, connecting to another push factor: unmanageable workloads.
Unmanageable workloads
The data revealed several layers of findings related to what academic staff described as unmanageable workloads. Echoing prior research on South African higher education, an overwhelming majority of the participants relayed challenges about their onerous workloads and being ‘tired’ or ‘exhausted’. Nashia described the institution as a ‘hardened’ place to work due what she perceived as a heavy workload, and Kurtis stated that it is a ‘24-7’ job. Michele summed up these notions about the workload very strongly: ‘We’re really asking for working conditions that mean you can be human, you know, rather than you work and work and work until you collapse’. Such comments regarding the exhausting nature of academic staff members’ work point to important issues that not only affect retention, but also one’s general well-being. Indeed, as with previous research (e.g. Austin, 2001; Boyd and Fresen, 2004; Mapesela and Hay 2006), some academics mentioned that fatigue and illness are common amongst their colleagues.
Although a sense of feeling overworked came across strongly in most cases, a few participants noted they believed the workload is indeed manageable. For instance, Herman stated:
I don’t believe our teaching load is that heavy … And we all are very, very habituated to moaning, which we can do in extremely righteous fashion with very fine discourse. Sometimes I think it’s a smokescreen for all sorts of things, not being up to scratch with one’s own career, disgruntlement about salaries, and so on and so forth.
He placed part of the burden on academic staff themselves, representing a divergent view from the general trend of the data. However, the vast majority of the participants expressed ardent feelings about their heavy workloads, indicating the significance of this issue, particularly because this finding was consistent across all three departments.
Having a heavy teaching load and working with underprepared students appears to translate into academic staff not having enough time to conduct research and pursue their scholarly interests. Though finding a balance between scholarship and teaching has become increasingly challenging for academics worldwide due to global competition and HEI rankings that favor research, the legacy of apartheid complicates this issue. Justine, a long-time academic staff member, summarized the frustration around balancing one’s time now that research has become so central: ‘So somehow lecturers were sort of put in a situation that was actually untenable, expected both to do research, to maintain standards, and somehow to miraculously undo years of apartheid education’. Furthermore, Vincent noted that not having enough time to engage with scholarly research has led him to feel like his faculties are less sharp: ‘I don’t know when last I did reading for my own satisfaction, just read a journal article that I want to read because there is no time for that. And it dumbs you’. Many of the participants expressed that they did not have enough time to devote to their scholarly work due to other responsibilities, which is especially significant in a country in which opportunities for skilled scholars to conduct research in government agencies, research institutes, and the private sector abound.
Another layer of the theme regarding overwhelming workloads involves the negative impact of the institution’s administrative inadequacies. In a familiar refrain across the interview data, Michael explained how meetings were cancelled repeatedly and then conflicted with other responsibilities: ‘I’m torn left right and center by changing plans, things that are competing demands’. In addition, Vincent poignantly compared the university’s administration to a malfunctioning car engine: ‘It’s like a car engine, you know, in other situations you don’t notice it, but here the thing sort of, it cuts out all the time. You’re very aware that I’ve got an engine here that I can’t rely on’. Such experiences resonate with Potgieter’s (2002) findings regarding academic staff departure and the negative impact an inefficient administration may have on academics’ workload.
Although academics around the world may complain of heavy workloads, South African HEIs ought to be particularly cognizant of addressing this issue that is both reflective of the global changing academic workplace and the specific South African context. Doing so is imperative if South African HEIs wish to improve their institutions and retain the (diverse) academic staff they attract, especially given the draw of positions in government and industry. Indeed, the various layers that impact academic staff workload led some of the participants to view remaining in their positions as ‘untenable’. When combined with other salient factors, such as issues of race and power, these push factors may provide academic staff with strong motivation to leave the academy.
‘Stuff you can’t quite put your finger on’: issues of race and power
Though South Africa has unseated the highly discriminatory apartheid regime and has made progress toward its transformation goals, race remains a significant factor in human relations (Jansen, 2009). Accordingly, experiences related to racial issues and power dynamics at the institution were prevalent in the data, ranging from academic staff discussing these issues in a circuitous manner to addressing them directly. The study’s findings clearly point to an unwelcoming institutional environment for academics from some racial groups, particularly Africans.
Several participants discussed race indirectly, noting that there is ‘something’ happening at an underlying level. For example, Nombeko, an African female, explained:
It’s almost stuff that you can’t quite put your finger on, and I think that’s more dangerous stuff—because if it’s overt, it’s out there and we can confront somebody, we can do something about it. But as I said part of the difficulty is you’re almost always all the time trying to make sense of why am I feeling uncomfortable in my skin; what’s going on. And having to constantly go and say ‘no, actually it’s not me, something is going on’.
In this extract, Nombeko was not able to, or chose not to, name the issue directly, though the reference to her skin reflects racial undertones.
In contrast, some labeled racial issues more strongly. Similar to the academic staff in Potgieter’s (2002) study, several African participants spoke about feeling as if they did not exist because of the way they were treated by others, especially administrative staff. This notion of invisibility was recounted over and over in interviews with the African academic staff members. For example, Sandiswe recounted her visit to a university office:
I went in there and they just look right through you. So it’s almost as if you don’t exist. Maybe it wasn’t a question of me being Black, but perhaps me being unfamiliar. That’s what I’d like to think, but at the time it felt just terrible.
This feeling of not being noticed was phrased in a very similar way by Lesego, an African male: ‘Because of this history that we come from…people see an African person and they don’t notice them…and it happens everywhere in this department’. In yet another case, Nombeko noted how a Colored cleaner suddenly greeted her one day after months of ‘ignoring’ her:
It’s almost as if she was seeing me for the very first time. It’s almost as if all along I’d been invisible and now she’s seeing me for the very first time. Isn’t that strange? It’s sad too. Very, very sad I think.
These racialized experiences resonate strongly with those of the academic staff in Hemson and Singh’s (2010) study, which indicated that African academic staff at a case study institution were more likely than their counterparts from other races to express feelings of alienation related to racism. Feelings of invisibility and not belonging due to one’s race undoubtedly significantly impact the lives of the academics who experience them. Though racially charged encounters likely occur outside the institution, the experiences of academic staff within it may taint their views of the university and/or working in academia, resulting in another key ‘push’ factor for the participants in this study and, potentially, for academic staff at other HEIs.
In addition, issues regarding race were tied to concerns of nodes of power within the institution, according to some academic staff participants. For example, Amiya, an Indian woman, stated that there are ‘mixed messages’ with regard to the transformation agenda and where the real power lies, because the ‘core’ of the institution has not changed. Connected to this unchanged node of power, Michael, a White male, expressed that White people have inherited a position of power, regardless of more recent changes after apartheid, and that they do not necessarily understand others’ situations. Similarly, Evelyn, a White female, noted that White mindsets often do not incorporate a Black viewpoint: ‘I think it’s one of the biggest barriers, because the people who have these attitudes are the ones that make the decisions at the departmental level and the dean who makes decisions at faculty level’. Vincent, a Colored male, also alluded to the continued reliance on racial categories in decision-making:
It’s a tired worry. It’s one of those things as South Africans we choose not to, I don’t know we’re kind of uncomfortable about it … I know this colleague in the department who refuses to be called an African or to be put in any kind of category. But I think we come from a history that put us into the categories. And that’s how things will get done in a way because the categories are very much alive in people’s minds.
According to several participants, power dynamics were thus tied up with racial issues in complex ways.
Moreover, the findings pointed to an uncomfortable reality—that race was still an important factor that impacted the daily working lives of many of the participants involved in the study. Addressing long-standing perceptions and mindsets regarding racial groups and improving inter-racial relations is therefore an important aspect of making the working environment of the institution, and potentially other South African HEIs, more hospitable to people from all backgrounds and racial groups.
Challenges for female academic staff
Mirroring existing research studies from South Africa and around the world, female participants highlighted additional challenges they perceived as specific to their gender. Several explained how their families question their choice of profession due to the workload and time involved. Indeed, female academic staff reported competing demands of work and family obligations as a key push factor. For example, Violet explained the conflicting priorities she faced after she became pregnant:
I then felt that I had to work extremely hard to prove to people that I could both be a woman, and a woman who has a child, and still be a valuable member of the department. And I think I did great, you know, violence to myself, actually, to do that.
She explained how she went back to work within three weeks after delivering her baby and worked harder than she had before, yet struggled with the physical and emotional demands of working and raising a child.
Others pointed to the societal view prevalent in the South African context regarding women being responsible for the household, which may conflict with academic work. For example, Sandiswe outlined the complex process she goes through to ensure that everything at home is organized prior to attending a conference, such as arranging childcare and preparing meals in advance. She further explained her view that South African men do not have to divide their priorities on a daily basis:
When I go home after four or after five, I start thinking of a new set of responsibilities. And if I have done with the other one [household responsibilities], then you know, at eight o’clock it reverts back the other way. And I don’t think men do that. If you’re at work for the moment, you’re the man, and when you go home, you’re still the man. South African society is still very strongly in that cultural mindset.
Thus, Sandiswe relayed how she must continually shift from being an academic to being a wife and mother, while men do not have to deal with these shifting roles to the same degree. Thomas echoed this view, noting the multiple, conflicting priorities women have in South African society and the resulting challenges female academic staff members face with advancing their careers.
These gendered experiences resonate with findings from research studies on female academics in other parts of the world, yet the lived experiences and perceptions of the participants also point to the particular South African context.
Frustrations regarding slow institutional change
Though South African HEIs are experiencing major transformation initiatives in the post-apartheid era, a majority of the academics who participated in this study indicated that they are frustrated with the slow process of change at the university. More specifically, several participants expressed that university administrators were not listening to their concerns, as Evelyn explained:
As a member of staff you feel completely unsupported; you feel as if you’re simply a coin to be pushed around, and no one actually cares what you think, or, at any rate, on the rare moments when you say what you think, it’s ‘oh yes’, and then we carry on with the system as it is.
The sentiment captured in Evelyn’s words points to a common theme—academic staff often acknowledged that changes needed to be made, but indicated that they did not see notable results from the university. Furthermore, they frequently commented on the ‘business as usual’ approach they felt the university was taking, which might have been heightened at this institution in particular because it was not involved in a merger, whereas amalgamating with other HEIs might have resulted in the need for greater, or more rapid, changes due to the new institutional structure.
Even when the university asked staff to provide feedback, Charlene indicated that limited progress had been made, as was her experience when asked to submit a report regarding staff departure decisions:
We can write it down until we’re blue in the face, and my own sense is nothing will happen. Nothing will happen until the top brass realize why people are leaving. And I’m perfectly sure that they don’t want to know that.
She later explained why management would not want to know about the reasons people leave: ‘I don’t have a sense that the university is really interested because then the onus is on them to do something about it’. Several other academic staff participants concurred with the view that the university is not serious about making changes, while Vincent commented, ‘We feel that so far what we’ve had is a little bit of an American style of things, advertising and slick presentations of the university, but nothing really being done inside, a real sense of lip service being paid’.
Taken together, these viewpoints demonstrate that many of the participants took issue with the way change was being managed at the institution, reflecting their disappointment with the limited progress they felt has occurred. Although academic staff around the world complain of slow institutional change, transformation objectives are a particular focus in South Africa in the post- apartheid era. Given the changing higher education environment in South Africa combined with the perceived slow progress, several participants noted that the university is not enacting procedures to stop people from leaving, which is particularly disconcerting due to the impetus to change institutional demographics. Indeed, echoing the academics in Potgieter’s (2002) study, Amiya explained how those who are committed to transformation might leave to find other venues where they could be part of a more progressive agenda.
Considering departure from the institution or academia
A complex mix of factors shaped each individual’s views about working at the institution. Although one single factor may not result in an academic staff member choosing to leave the institution or the academic profession, all of the participants spoke of the various challenges they experienced on a daily basis that impacted how they perceived their working environment. While discussing these issues, academic staff often shifted to considering departure decisions (theirs or other academics’)—a salient theme that has received limited attention in existing literature. Though many of the academics clearly enjoyed their jobs on several levels, as indicated by their discussion of ‘pull’ factors—for example, giving back to the community and the ability to conduct independent research—the saturation of ‘push’ factors throughout the data across all three departments raises concerns about the institution’s prospects for attracting and retaining academic staff, especially from the diverse spectrum of South African society.
Many of the push factors were intertwined, such as unmanageable workloads and working with underprepared students. Racial issues were also interwoven with other factors and thus not easily separated. For example, Charlene provided a window into of how concerns about racial discrimination and an unfavorable working environment are complicated: ‘People leave because they’re exhausted and because they feel that their career is grinding to a halt. I think that impinges on race and racial issues in unfortunate ways’. She further explained that
Unfortunately, in a place like this, it is going to be made into a racial issue, and I don’t think it really is. I think it’s about how concrete and practical things feed into the problem of inequity, and they’re mixed up with race. And unless we fix that, we’re not going to fix the equity problem, simply because young Black staff are going to go because they can go, and they will go to other institutions that offer them better working conditions.
Though Charlene did not appear to view race as a primary contributing factor regarding departure, she pointed out that it may complicate academics’ decisions about departure, particularly because Black academic staff are often the first to depart as they are most sought after by other institutions, government, and industry. This latter point is a very important consideration for retention because academic staff may leave for both direct (racism) and indirect (better prospects) reasons related to race. The complex connections between the factors, when combined, might lead to academic staff departure even if one single factor would not have been enough to tip the scales.
Accordingly, most participants viewed the departure of ‘good’ academic staff as inevitable. Michael summed up this point of view:
People who are unemployable elsewhere tend to stay, and good people go very quickly. I mean, people who have tremendous opportunity, and particularly good Black academics. Why would they stay and struggle through the mess when you’re being paid more money to work in a far more conducive and productive environment elsewhere?
Michael’s view was reflected in similar statements throughout the data and points to the finding that, as Martin and Roodt (2008) suggested, job departure decisions are closely tied to job satisfaction. As Evelyn indicated in another representative statement, there seemed to almost be a sense of inevitability that people at this institution would search for ‘brighter horizons’ if given the opportunity.
Interestingly, several participants had been approached about leaving and chose not to do so. Sandiswe had recently received an offer from industry and decided not to leave, commenting that the department would be too ‘White’ without her. She stated that she needed to be a role model:
I think I owe it to the Black component of the student body to make something of my life … We need more Black faces. We need more professional Black faces. Otherwise we’re sending out the wrong messages to the students.
Vincent had also been recruited several times and noted that the offers can be difficult to resist because ‘they don’t take no for an answer’. As with Sandiswe, Vincent—a Colored male from a poor background—chose to stay despite repeated attempts to draw him away, noting his commitment to working with students as his main motivation. Despite the fact that some participants had decided not to leave when offered another opportunity, the most common refrain throughout the data was that the decision to take a position with better resources would be an easy one for academic staff at the university, given the conditions of their working environment.
Although each academic’s situation is unique and connected to a variety of both push and pull factors, the question of whether the participants and their colleagues would leave their institution is key. Issues negatively impacting academics’ working environments and the combined force of multiple factors may provide a strong push towards departure, leading to attrition at the university or in academia more generally. Preventing academic staff departure is particularly salient in South Africa, due to the transformation and equity imperatives of government and individual HEIs.
Conclusions
Existing literature indicates that the academic workplace in South Africa reflects worldwide trends toward both global competition and employment equity. Academic staff around the world face similar issues to their counterparts in South Africa, such as declining funding, balancing teaching with the amplified importance of research, limited induction into the academic career, and racial and gender discrimination. Yet, the South African historical context and current post-apartheid era provide additional layers that impact the changing academic workplace for South African academic staff. The collective, lived experiences of the academics in this case study provide a qualitative understanding of the complexities of the phenomenon and highlight significant issues about the working environment at the university. The findings suggest that retention is a salient factor, particularly for Black academics, which raises concerns regarding ‘push’ factors manifested at South African HEIs such as the case study institution, as well as and the tipping point for potential departure decisions.
This study is distinctive in that it provides a multifaceted, qualitative understanding of several factors related to the working environment in a South African university, based on the experiences of academic staff members from the full range of racial groups and both genders. Moreover, the factors prevalent in the findings emanated from the academic staff participants’ lived experiences and were not shaped by a predetermined research focus or set of survey questions. In addition, this study makes a key contribution to understanding the factors that weigh into the staff members’ own explorations of departing from the university, as well as why they feel their colleagues may consider departing. These decisions are complex and impacted by personal factors and experiences, as well as variables that are institutional (e.g. an unwelcoming environment), national (e.g. the availability of research positions in government or industry), and global (e.g. the increasing emphasis on research).
When combined with prior research, the findings point to the imperative for South African HEIs to focus on improving the environment in which academic staff conduct their work. Attracting and retaining a diverse complement of academic staff is important for equity and quality concerns worldwide and particularly so in the context of South African higher education in the post-apartheid era. Although changing the culture of institutions and mindsets of individuals will take significant time, addressing issues such as workload, administrative inefficiencies, and induction and training for academic staff, including strategies for working with diverse students, would begin to address some of the concerns participants in this study expressed. Developing welcoming working environments with sustainable, diverse academic staff complements is a key component of South African universities’ transformation objectives.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Mimi Hotchkiss for her review of earlier drafts of this article.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.