This article is prompted by a book called Knowledge as Enablement: Engagement Between Higher Education and the Third Sector in South Africa (Erasmus & Albertyn, 2014). Knowledge as Enablement emphasises that purposefully directed knowledge can contribute to the generation of mutually beneficial, transformative outcomes during community-university partnerships. The book introduces the notion of complexity but provides no specific examples about how complexity influences engaged scholarship or enablement. Drawing on theory and case material that relate to complexity, this article aims to open a conversation about how complexity can contribute to engaged scholarship and enablement. It is suggested that confronting complex challenges using engaged, action-oriented research techniques requires many of the enablers identified by Erasmus and Albertyn (2014). However, some additional enabling layers associated with complexity can be considered. These layers include: (1) roles and responsibilities, focusing on leadership, participation, and praxis; (2) working with complex adaptive systems, including systemic change, sensemaking, and attractors; and (3) identifying and responding appropriately to multi-ontology knowledge contexts.

The purpose of this article is to describe the different dimensions of the community-university interactions that emanated from a Community Engagement Audit which was undertaken at the University of Limpopo (UL) in 2014. The Audit methodology followed a quantitative survey research approach. A sample of 278, out of a population of 559 academic staff at UL that included 196 with PhDs and 363 without PhDs, participated in the study. SPSS was used to compute factor analysis. The results indicated the dominant partners that faculties interact with across the spheres of engaged scholarship were multinational companies, small, medium and micro-enterprises, national regulatory and advisory and sectorial organisations. The types of relationship with external social actors were contract research, continuing education and collaborative research and development projects. Channels of information were popular publications, public conferences, seminars or workshops, oral or written testimony or advice prominent. The outputs were new or improved products/processes, scientific discoveries and community infrastructure and facilities. The outcomes and benefits were regional development, improved quality of life for individuals and communities and research focus and research projects, theoretical and methodological development in an academic field, academic and institutional reputation. The main constrains experienced during engagement are lack of academic resources and institutional support and relationships with external social partners. The results provide guiding parameters to improve the scale and reach of CE at the UL and a snapshot of the architecture and terrain of engaged scholarship at a rural-based HEI in South Africa. 5 Student voluntary outreach programmes 99 9 6 Collaborative curriculum design 99 9 7 Continuing education or professional development 99 9 8 Customised training and short courses