The global ranking tournament: A dialectic analysis of higher education in South Africa

Abstract

The unprecedented changes in the university, to homogenizing the principle of identity in association with the dominant class (world-class universities) supports a very limited conception of higher education. The mantras of global rankings have permeated South Africa's institutions of higher education, yet the rankings' constructs are subjective, and inadequate in nature. This article uses aspects of Jurgen Habermas's 'Critical Theory of Societal Development' as its lens to account for the implications of South African universities joining the 'super-league' universities.The efforts being made to achieve a kind of iconic status are contradictory to making education a bridge to achieve equality.

World University Rankings: Reflections on Teaching and Learning as the Cinderella function in the South African Higher Education System

“…The post-apartheid HE context is complex (Dlamini, 2016) and laden with challenges such as the increasing costs of HE, the under-preparedness of students for HE, epistemological access and low graduation rates (Dlamini, 2016;Habib, 2016). Dlamini (2016) argues that most HE institutions are not in a position to be research-intensive universities.…”

“…Dlamini (2016) argues that most HE institutions are not in a position to be research-intensive universities. Limited resources and competing priorities characterise HE in South Africa (Dlamini, 2016). Students are under-prepared, tuition fees are high and calls have been made for decolonisation and free HE.…”

“…Solutions based on corporate models may worsen rather than alleviate the current student debt. Marketisation and commodification of HE have ushered in decisions which are impervious to the historical context in which South Africa finds itself (Dlamini, 2016). Ethical social change will not be achieved by policies which allow a few historically advantaged institutions to be the winners with the previously disadvantaged institutions emerging as the losers in the ranking game in South Africa.…”

“…What is not well understood is the importance given to teaching and learning in rankings as only a few international studies have focused on this (Swail, 2011;Kuh, 2011;Lane, 2011). Except for a few studies on global rankings in South Africa with relevance to this article (Dlamini, 2016;Ntshoe & Selesho, 2014;Badat, 2010a), not much attention at a systemic level has been devoted to the importance of teaching and learning in global rankings.…”

“…Methodological limitations of global rankings have been noted in the extant literature by Dlamini (2016), Goglio (2016), Enders (2014), Ntshoe and Selesho (2014), Lane (2011), and Marginson and Van der Wende (2007), and indicate that ranking systems are not entirely transparent (Lane, 2011). The three global ranking systems (ARWU, THE, QS) summatively rank universities hierarchically based on the assumption that a university's characteristics can be reduced to a single number that can be compared to another university.…”