This thesis proposes a conceptual framework for the discussion of concepts of academic freedom and institutional autonomy in a South African higher education context. A four-cell matrix is presented at the start of the thesis that distinguishes four types of understandings of these concepts. Having discussed these concepts-in-use in different contexts, the grid is used as a framework to explicate local debates on academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Beyond the conceptual exploration, the thesis traces a variety of broader debates in higher education in an attempt to add a richness to the South African conversations relating to academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Postmodernism and its implications for higher education in South Africa is explored, as is the more recent phenomenon (or ideology) of globalisation. Finally, the advent of external quality assurance in South Africa is considered and its role in changing perceptions of academic work and academic identity through the potential circumscribing of the academic domain is explored. My hope is that this thesis will contribute to a broadening and deepening of the current South African debates, and at the same time, offer a uniquely South African perspective on global conversations on academic freedom and institutional autonomy. / Thesis (Ph.D.) - University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2008.

Globalization has had an impact on higher education in South Africa. There is a growing emphasis on public accountability. Consequently there is a rise in quality assurance interventions like the national review of the M.Ed programme. Sometimes these quality assurance interventions are perceived as infringing on academic freedom and institutional autonomy. In this research report, I examine how academics at the University of X (UX), experience the relationship which is emerging by current policy in higher education between ―academic freedom‖, ―institutional autonomy‖ and ―public accountability‖. This research report followed a case study design that used a qualitative approach. I used a phenomenological research methodology with specifically semi-structured interviews to understand the phenomenon of the review and to ascertain academics‘ and managers‘ perceptions thereof. I used non-probability purposive sampling to interview seven academics and five management staff. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The findings were analysed and separated into three themes, viz. the value of the national review process; management versus teaching and learning as areas of focus with the review; and the programme review methodology. The staff found the review to be useful because of the programme focus of the review. It was most useful for management of the programme and for developing collegiality in the sector. Whilst the review criteria tended to focus on management instead of teaching and learning, some participants were comfortable with the review exploring their teaching and learning via direct classroom observations. There was a wide spectrum of views on what makes a good programme, with some participants believing that both teaching and learning and management are important for a successful programme. There are pros and cons to the national M.Ed review methodology. The commendations can be summed up as being fair, using standard programme review methodologies. The criticisms of the methodology includes criticism of the process as being archival, concern over the panel selection, dissatisfaction at the panel‘s report and criticism that the criteria are checklist and that institutions need to go beyond them in order to achieve excellence.

Thesis (MBA)--Stellenbosch University, 2002. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Quality assurance has become a prominent and permanent feature of Higher Education in many countries, and South Africa has been no exception in this regard. The pressing need for social and economic development and the competition for scarce resources has spearheaded the demands for accountability in Higher Education and given rise to the promulgation of a series of Acts and regulations aimed at the transformation of the sector. The most important legislation introduced was the SAQA Act No 58 of 1995. It provides the legal framework for the transformation of the entire educational system in South Africa, and in particular for the evaluation of the quality of Education and Training by establishing structures such as National Standards Bodies (NSB's), Standard Generating Bodies (SGB's) and Education and Training Quality Assurance Bodies (ETQA's). A significant development in South African Higher Education was the publishing of the Education White Paper 3 and the promulgation of the South African Higher Education Bill in 1997. One of the outstanding features of this legislation is that the evaluation of the quality of Higher Education is compulsory, and will be done by the Council on Higher Education (CHE), co-ordinated by its permanent committee, the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC). There is a concern that rigidly enforced quality assurance systems could have a negative impact on the academic freedom of institutions. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to determine the most likely impact of quality assurance on academic freedom. In order to achieve this objective, quality assurance and academic freedom frameworks were developed respectively, and the interaction of the various elements in this framework explored. In most instances it was found that quality assurance could have a negative impact on academic freedom. One particular aspect that is of serious concern at the tertiary level is the programme-based as opposed to discipline-based approach to qualifications. This poses a serious threat to academic freedom as it effectively diminishes the space within which academic freedom is practised. However, this conclusion is based on a meta-physical study, and needs to be confirmed by appropriate empirical studies. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Kwaliteitsversekering is reeds in baie lande 'n vername en blywende kenmerk van Hoër Onderwys, en Suid-Afrika het in hierdie verband nie agtergebly nie. Die dringende behoefte aan sosiale en ekonomiese ontwikkeling en die mededinging om skaars hulpbronne was aan die spits van die eise om aanspreeklikheid in Hoër Onderwys en het aanleiding gegee tot die promulgering van 'n reeks wette en regulasies wat op die transformasie van die sektor gerig is. Die belangrikste wetgewing wat ingevoer is, is die Wet op die Suid-Afrikaanse Kwalifikasieowerheid 58 van 1995. Dit maak voorsiening vir die wetlike raamwerk vir die transformasie van die hele onderwysstelsel in Suid-Afrika, en veral vir die evaluering van die kwaliteit van Onderwys en Opleiding deur strukture soos Nasionale Standaardeliggame (NSL'e), Standaarde-ontwikkelingsliggame (SOL'e ) en Onderwys-en-Opleidingskwaliteitversekeringsliggame (OOKVL's). 'n Betekenisvolle ontwikkeling in Suid-Afrikaanse Hoër Onderwys was die afkondiging van die Onderwys Witskrif 3 en die promulgering van die Wet op Hoër Onderwys in 1997. Een van die besondere kenmerke van hierdie wetgewing is dat die evaluering van die kwaliteit van Hoër Onderwys verpligtend is en deur die Raad vir Hoër Onderwys (RHO) uitgevoer en deur sy permanente komitee, die Hoër Onderwyskwaliteitskomitee (HOKK), gekoordineer word. Daar bestaan kommer dat streng toegepaste kwaliteitsversekeringstelsels 'n negatiewe uitwerking op die akademiese vryheid van instellings kan hê. Die doel van hierdie studie was dus om die waarskynlikste uitwerking van kwaliteitsversekering op akademiese vryheid te bepaal. Ten einde hierdie doelwit te bereik, is kwaliteitsversekerings- en akademiesevryheidsraamwerke onderskeidelik ontwikkel en is die wisselwerking van die onderskeie elemente in hierdie raamwerk verken. Daar is in die meeste gevalle bevind dat kwaliteitsversekering 'n negatiewe uitwerking op akademiese vryheid kan hê. Een besondere aspek wat ernstige kommer op tersiêre vlak wek, is die programgegronde benadering tot kwalifikasies in teenstelling met die dissiplinegegronde benadering daartoe. Dit hou 'n ernstige bedreiging vir akademiese vryheid in aangesien dit die ruimte waarbinne akademiese vryheid beoefen word, effektief inkort. Hierdie gevolgtrekking is egter op 'n metafisiese studie gegrond en moet deur toepaslike empiriese studies bevestig word.

Throughout the history of universities, university autonomy and academic freedom have come ~o be regardeci as indispensable if the university has to fulfill its function of generating and disseminating knowledge and information for the benefit of society. Al though these are often conflated, they are distinguishable though interdependent. Autonomy relates to the self-governance of the university without external interference. Academic freedom entails the freedom of an individual academic to hold whatever views, orthodox or unorthodox, without censure or other penalty. critical inquiry. It also entails Although academic autonomy and freedom are critical to the academic function, they are not beyond dispute. There is always a continuous debate on what are the proper boundaries of legitimate academic autonomy and freedom. These boundaries are not fixed and keep on shifting. The shifting is often caused by government intervention into university education by way of subsidising it. As a quid pro quo for subsidizing university education, the government often feels entitled to stipulate conditions for the granting of such subsidies. Various governments follow different ways of doing this. There is a general trend in terms of which the government is defining the degree of academic autonomy. With autonomy it emphasizes accountability and with academic freedom it emphasizes responsibility. These are not mutually in conflict. iii Al though universities cherish their autonomy and academic freedom, these are always subject to threat. These cannot flourish in an authoritarian culture, but can only thrive in a democratic culture where other civil liberties are respected. The reason for this is that human freedom is indivisible and academic freedom cannot survive when other rights ar-e violated. The South African Constitution protects academic freedom. This is not generally done in most constitutions of the world. The reason why the South African Cons ti tut ion expressly protects academic freedom is because academic autonomy and freedom were severely violated in the past. Al though the protection of academic freedom in the Constitution does not provide indefeasible security, it makes the way of a transgressing government difficult. This is important because even a democratic government can violate academic freedom. / Constitutional, International & Indigenous Law / LL.D. (Constitutional, International & Indigenous Law)

Throughout the history of universities, university autonomy and academic freedom have come ~o be regardeci as indispensable if the university has to fulfill its function of generating and disseminating knowledge and information for the benefit of society. Al though these are often conflated, they are distinguishable though interdependent. Autonomy relates to the self-governance of the university without external interference. Academic freedom entails the freedom of an individual academic to hold whatever views, orthodox or unorthodox, without censure or other penalty. critical inquiry. It also entails Although academic autonomy and freedom are critical to the academic function, they are not beyond dispute. There is always a continuous debate on what are the proper boundaries of legitimate academic autonomy and freedom. These boundaries are not fixed and keep on shifting. The shifting is often caused by government intervention into university education by way of subsidising it. As a quid pro quo for subsidizing university education, the government often feels entitled to stipulate conditions for the granting of such subsidies. Various governments follow different ways of doing this. There is a general trend in terms of which the government is defining the degree of academic autonomy. With autonomy it emphasizes accountability and with academic freedom it emphasizes responsibility. These are not mutually in conflict. iii Al though universities cherish their autonomy and academic freedom, these are always subject to threat. These cannot flourish in an authoritarian culture, but can only thrive in a democratic culture where other civil liberties are respected. The reason for this is that human freedom is indivisible and academic freedom cannot survive when other rights ar-e violated. The South African Constitution protects academic freedom. This is not generally done in most constitutions of the world. The reason why the South African Cons ti tut ion expressly protects academic freedom is because academic autonomy and freedom were severely violated in the past. Al though the protection of academic freedom in the Constitution does not provide indefeasible security, it makes the way of a transgressing government difficult. This is important because even a democratic government can violate academic freedom. / Constitutional, International and Indigenous Law / LL.D. (Constitutional, International & Indigenous Law)