Physical space and transformation in higher education: The case of the University of the Free State by Philippa Nyakato TUMUBWEINEE BAS ARCHITECTURE (UNIVERSITY OF WITSWATERSRAND, RSA); BHONS ARCHITECTURE (UNIVERSITY OF WITSWATERSRAND, RSA); MProf. ARCHITECTURE (UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA, RSA) Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements in respect of the Doctoral degree qualification Philosophiae Doctor in Higher Education Studies (PhD Higher Education Studies) in the School of Higher Education Studies Faculty of Education at the University of the Free State Bloemfontein September 2018 Supervisors: Professor Loyiso JITA & Professor Thierry M. LUESCHER DECLARATION I, Philippa Nyakato Tumubweinee, declare that this submission for the doctoral degree qualification of a PhD Degree in Higher Education Studies in the Faculty of Education at the University of the Free State is my independent work and that I have not previously submitted it for a qualification at another institution of higher education. I, Philippa Nyakato Tumubweinee, hereby declare that I am aware that the copyright is vested in the University of the Free State. I, Philippa Nyakato Tumubweinee, hereby declare that all royalties as regards intellectual property that was developed during the course of and/or in connection with the study at the University of the Free State will accrue to the University. …………………………………. ……………………………… Philippa Nyakato TUMUBWEINEE SEPTEMBER 2018 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are a number of people I would like to thank for their help with the development and preparation of this thesis. In general, institutional bodies, staff and students of the University of the Free State, and in particular, the staff and my fellow students in the SANRAL Chair in Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education on the Bloemfontein Campus. In particular I want to thank Ms Moitheri Molete-Mohapi for her continued logistical, technical, and emotional support and help; Prof. Nicky Morgan (ex-deputy Vice-Chancellor Operations and Finance up until 2016), the SANRAL Chair’s office in the Faculty of Higher Education Studies, and the office for Physical Estates, without whose support this thesis would never have been possible; the staff and students at the Institute for Reconciliation and Social Justice (IRSJ) – specifically JC van Merwe, Chris Rawson, and Benyam Tesfaye; Thiresh Govender (UrbanWorks), Jo Deetleefs (SilverRocket), and Esley van der Berg (Melody M Consulting) whose professional and technological know-how made up for and supported mine where it was lacking; my family, by blood and selection, for your generosity of time, hearth, and home. Special thanks go to Professor Loyiso Jita and Professor Thierry M. Luescher for your unfailing support, outstanding supervision, and for aiming to make me a scholar. This thesis is dedicated to my parents, my daddy the Hon. Ephraim Manzi Tumubweinee and my mother ‘Omubiitokati’ princess Amooti Christine Nyarubona-Tumubweinee. In loving memory of my twin sister Pheonagh Nyangoma Amooti Tumubweinee (22 March 1979 – 05 April 2005) and my ‘beste maatjie’ Abraham Pieter Bothma (25 October 1977 – 12 March 2012) NAMASTE 3 ABSTRACT The significance of space and objects in space on South African higher education campuses was brought to the fore during the 2015/16 student movements. The movements highlighted that official higher education policy and institutional practice have not adequately considered the implications of material and immaterial space for transformation. While the idea for this thesis predated the student movement campaigns, the 2015/16 student movements focused the route of enquiry on the implications of space and objects in space at a higher education institution for knowledge production aimed at transformation in higher education. The claim is that space at a higher education institution, which constructs the social and is in turn constructed by the social, provides a lens through which to focus on the ‘where’ and thereby produce knowledge for transformation in higher education. Space at a higher education institution is intimately linked to the specificities of historical and spatial context-related factors, as well as to other factors – such as race, class, and gender – that impact on the reality of the everyday in higher education. Consequently, the study focuses on organisational indicators for space at a higher education institution that underpin the development of a conceptual framework. The aim is to produce knowledge that draws attention to broader socio-spatial concerns that ground and refer the study to the mandated role of higher education institutions, as social institutions, to support development in society. In this study, the implications of organisational indicators for space at a higher education institution for transformation in higher education are investigated through the case study of the Bloemfontein campus of the University of the Free State. The investigation draws data from multiple sources, including first-person accounts, desktop reviews, and socio-spatial mapping of the Bloemfontein campus in its entirety and in relation to its context – the city of Bloemfontein. The data is analysed using qualitative techniques located in a social constructivist framework that allows for a reiterative and process-oriented research approach. The context-dependent knowledge produced in this manner and tested in the conceptual framework allows for inferences to be made about the socially constructed nature of space at a higher education institution and to gain insights into how this, in turn, constructs the social in the everyday reality of an individual in higher education. The study provides an empirical perspective from which to assess how the organisation of 4 space at a higher education institution and the implications this has for the reality of the everyday in higher education impacts on individuals’ understanding of transformation. The purpose of this assessment is to move beyond a descriptive institutionalisation of transformation in higher education towards producing knowledge for transformation in South Africa. 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION .................................................................................................................... 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... 3 ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................................10 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................11 ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................12 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................13 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................13 1.2 POSITIONING THE THESIS .........................................................................................16 1.2.1 Space and the 2015 and 2016 Student Movements ............................................................................ 16 1.3 THE THESIS STRATEGY .............................................................................................30 1.3.1 Research Aim and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 30 1.3.2 Study Area ............................................................................................................................................ 32 1.3.3 Research Approach and Methodology ................................................................................................. 33 1.3.4 Data Sources, Collection, and Analysis ................................................................................................. 34 1.3.5 Relevance and Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 35 1.3.6 Delimitations and Limitations of the Thesis ......................................................................................... 35 1.4 CONCLUSION: THESIS STRUCTURE .........................................................................37 CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ..............40 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................40 2.2 HIGHER EDUCATION ...................................................................................................42 2.2.1 The African Context .............................................................................................................................. 42 2.2.2 The South African Context .................................................................................................................... 45 2.2.3 Transformation in Higher Education and Its Institutions in South Africa ............................................. 49 2.3 THE SPACE AND CHARACTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA .......55 2.3.1 Space and Transformation ................................................................................................................... 55 6 2.3.2 Space as a Key Concept in Higher Education ........................................................................................ 59 2.4 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH .....................................................63 2.4.1 Framework............................................................................................................................................ 65 2.4.1.1 Assessing the implications of the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education ................................................................................................... 67 2.4.1.2 Space at a higher education institution ......................................................................................... 72 2.4.1.3 Space and transformation in higher education ............................................................................. 77 2.4.2 Operationalisation of the Conceptual Framework ............................................................................... 78 2.4.2.1 Analytical guidelines ...................................................................................................................... 79 2.4.2.2 A focus on the organisation of space at a higher education institution ....................................... 80 2.4.2.3 Methodological approaches .......................................................................................................... 80 2.5 CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................88 CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .........................................................90 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................90 3.2 RESEARCH PARADIGM: SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM ..............................................92 3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN: CASE STUDY ...........................................................................95 3.3.1 Case Study Selection ........................................................................................................................... 100 3.4 RESEARCH PROCESS ..............................................................................................103 3.4.1 Data Collection and Analysis .............................................................................................................. 104 3.4.1.1 Desktop review ............................................................................................................................ 105 3.4.1.2 Semi-structured interviews ......................................................................................................... 106 3.4.1.3 Socio-spatial mapping ................................................................................................................. 109 3.4.1.4 Fieldwork procedures, questions, and sampling ......................................................................... 112 3.5 RESEARCH POLITICS, TRUSTWORTHINESS, AND ETHICS ..................................115 3.6 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................117 3.6.1 Advantages of the Case Study ............................................................................................................ 117 3.6.2 Limitations of the Case Study ............................................................................................................. 118 3.6.3 Summary of Research Design and Methodology ............................................................................... 120 7 CHAPTER FOUR – SETTING THE SCENE: THE BLOEMFONTEIN CAMPUS AS RESEARCH SITE ..............................................................................................................121 4.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................121 4.2 BLOEMFONTEIN ........................................................................................................123 4.3 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BLOEMFONTEIN CAMPUS .......................................127 4.4. A SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR TRANSITION ON THE BLOEMFONTEIN CAMPUS ..131 4.5 THE BLOEMFONTEIN CAMPUS: SITE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AND FIELDWORK .....................................................................................................................134 4.5.1 Locating the Bloemfontein Campus ................................................................................................... 134 4.5.2 A Sense and Feeling of the Place: the Bloemfontein Campus Today ................................................. 141 4.5.2.1 On-campus social spaces ............................................................................................................. 144 4.5.2.2 Off-campus social spaces............................................................................................................. 155 4.5.2.3 Reflections on social spaces on and off the Bloemfontein campus ............................................ 161 4.5.3 Selected Sites for Further Fieldwork on the Bloemfontein Campus .................................................. 168 4.5.3.1 Thakaneng Bridge complex ......................................................................................................... 171 4.5.3.2 The Eduardo Villa walkway .......................................................................................................... 183 4.5.3.3 The Academic Quad ..................................................................................................................... 193 4.5.3.4 The Institute for Reconciliation and Social Justice (IRSJ) lawn .................................................... 203 4.5.3.5 The Red Square (Main Building lawn) ......................................................................................... 212 4.6 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................223 CHAPTER FIVE – SPACE ON THE BLOEMFONTEIN CAMPUS ....................................226 5.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................226 5.2 SPACE ON THE BLOEMFONTEIN CAMPUS TODAY ...............................................229 5.2.1. Spatial Types on the Bloemfontein Campus...................................................................................... 230 5.2.1.1 Movement ................................................................................................................................... 231 5.2.1.2 Living ............................................................................................................................................ 238 5.2.1.3 Architecture ................................................................................................................................. 244 5.2.1.4 Food and consumption ................................................................................................................ 254 8 5.2.1.5 Recreation ................................................................................................................................... 259 5.3 CONCLUSION: SPATIALITY AND TRANSFORMATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION ..264 CHAPTER SIX – SPACE AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: TOWARDS A HOLISTIC UNDERSTANDING OF TRANSFORMATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION ........269 6.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................269 6.2 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS ..........................................................................................270 6.3 SPACE AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: IMPLICATIONS, OVERALL CONTRIBUTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................................275 6.4 CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS ..................................................................................279 REFERENCE LIST ............................................................................................................282 APPENDIX A: FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE ..........................................................316 APPENDIX B: ETHICAL CLEARANCE LETTER ..............................................................319 9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: 2015 and 2016 Student Movement: University of the Free State (01) 22 Figure 1.2: 2015 and 2016 Student Movement: University of the Free State (02) 23 Figure 1.3: 2015 and 2016 Student Movement: University of the Free State (03) 24 Figure 1.4: 2015 and 2016 Student Movement: University of Cape Town 25 Figure 2.1: Conceptual description of the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education at a higher education institution 66 Figure 4.1: Beyond the Wilderness by Thomas Baine 126 Figure 4.2: The grand and iconic Main Building of the University 129 Figure 4.3: Aerial view of the Main Building 130 Figure 4.4: Distances between the three campuses of the University of the Free State 136 Figure 4.5: Six key signifiers of growth and development in the city region of Bloemfontein 137 Figure 4.6: The Bloemfontein Campus in the city of Bloemfontein 139 Figure 4.7: The Bloemfontein Campus in relation to the central business district (CBD) of the city of Bloemfontein 140 Figure 4.8: A mapping overview of the Bloemfontein Campus 142 Figure 4.9: A visual overview of the Bloemfontein Campus 143 Figure 4.10: Mapping social spaces on the Bloemfontein Campus 146 Figure 4.11: A visual overview of spaces on the Bloemfontein Campus 147 Figure 4.12: Mapping social spaces in the city of Bloemfontein 157 Figure 4.13: A visual overview of spaces in the city of Bloemfontein (1) 158 Figure 4.14: A visual overview of spaces in the city of Bloemfontein (2) 159 Figure 4.15: The five sites in relation to each other on the Bloemfontein Campus 169 Figure 4.16: The five sites 170 Figure 4.17: Mapping the Thakaneng Bridge complex 172 Figure 4.18: A visual overview of the Thakaneng Bridge complex 173 Figure 4.19: Site analysis – eastern edge of the Thakaneng Bridge complex 174 Figure 4.20: Site analysis – interior of the Thakaneng Bridge complex 175 Figure 4.21: Site analysis – western edge of the Thakaneng Bridge complex (1) 176 Figure 4.22: Site analysis – western edge of the Thakaneng Bridge complex (2) 177 Figure 4.23: Mapping the Eduardo Villa walkway 185 Figure 4.24: A visual overview of the Eduardo Villa walkway 186 Figure 4.25: Site analysis – Eduardo Villa walkway (1) 187 Figure 4.26: Site analysis – Eduardo Villa walkway (2) 188 Figure 4.27: Mapping the Academic Quad 194 Figure 4.28: A visual overview of the Academic Quad 195 Figure 4.29: Site analysis – Academic Quad (1) 196 Figure 4.30: Site analysis – Academic Quad (2) 197 Figure 4.31: Mapping the Institute for Reconciliation & Social Justice (IRSJ) lawn 204 Figure 4.32: A visual overview of the IRSJ lawn 205 Figure 4.33: Site analysis – IRSJ lawn (1) 206 Figure 4.34: Site analysis – IRSJ lawn (2) 207 Figure 4.35: Mapping the Red Square 214 Figure 4.36: A visual overview of the Red Square 215 Figure 4.37: Site analysis – northern view of the Red Square 216 Figure 4.38: Site analysis – eastern view of the Red Square 217 Figure 4.39: Site analysis – western view of the Red Square 218 10 Figure 5.1: Mapping movement on the Bloemfontein Campus 233 Figure 5.2: A visual overview of movement on the Bloemfontein Campus 234 Figure 5.3: Mapping living on the Bloemfontein Campus 240 Figure 5.4: A visual overview of living on the Bloemfontein Campus 241 Figure 5.5: Mapping architecture on the Bloemfontein Campus 246 Figure 5.6: A visual overview of architecture on the Bloemfontein Campus (1) 247 Figure 5.7: A visual overview of architecture on the Bloemfontein Campus (2) 248 Figure 5.8: A visual overview of architecture on the Bloemfontein Campus (3) 249 Figure 5.9: Mapping food and consumption on the Bloemfontein Campus 257 Figure 5.10: A visual overview of food and consumption on the Bloemfontein Campus 258 Figure 5.11: Mapping recreation on the Bloemfontein Campus 261 Figure 5.12: A visual overview of recreation on the Bloemfontein Campus 262 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Modifying factors in the linkages between space at higher education institution and transformation in higher education 69 Table 2.2: Assessing the organisation of space at a higher education institution 84 Table 4.1: Social and physical characteristics on the Bloemfontein Campus 167 Table 4.2: Social and physical characteristics – Thakaneng Bridge complex 182 Table 4.3: Social and physical characteristics – Eduardo Villa walkway 191 Table 4.4: Social and physical characteristics – Academic Quad 202 Table 4.5: Social and physical characteristics – Institute for Reconciliation & Social Justice (IRSJ) lawn 211 Table 4.6: Social and physical characteristics – Red Square 222 Table 4.7: Social and physical characteristics – Summary of the five sites 225 Table 5.1: Social and physical characteristics across sets of locations within the identified spatial types 227 11 ACRONYMS AU African Union CBD Central business district CHE Council on Higher Education CHET Centre for Higher Education Transformation DIRAP Directorate for Institutional Research and Academic Planning DoE Department of Education EC East Campus EFF Economic Freedom Fighters EOLSS Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems EPC Extended Public Committee GUC Grey University College HS Hoffman Square IRSJ Institute for Reconciliation and Social Justice KP King’s Park MTCHE Ministerial Committee on Transformation and Social Cohesion and the Elimination of Discrimination in Public Higher Education Institutions NH Naval Hill NP National Party SA South Africa SAHRC South African Human Rights Commission SC South Campus SDP Strategic Development Plans UCT University of Cape Town UFS University of the Free State UN United Nations VC Vice-Chancellor WC West Campus 12 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION In higher education, the richness and extensiveness of the lived everyday – its experiences, relationships, and social activity – at various levels from the quotidian, to the urban, through to the global (Schmid 2008) present a unique platform from which to investigate space. The questioning of space, structured around key concepts such as a sense of belonging, attachments, zones of contact, deal making, and lines of movement (Pieterse 2011), aims to show the relationship between space at a higher education institution and the higher education experience generally, with a focus on transformation in higher education in South Africa specifically. The contention is that space at higher education institutions – its origins, planning, rationality, and production – is constantly evolving and has implications for social constructions in higher education. The implications of space – which impacts on social constructions – at a higher education institution, it can be argued, are located both within and outside existing intellectual traditions in higher education. Thus, the impact of space on the higher education experience can be used to develop linkages between space at a higher education institution and the understanding and experience of transformation in higher education. Developing such linkages attempts to answer, in part, questions around dimensions and principles of transformation focused on social interaction and integration at the heart of social cohesion at higher education institutions (Badat 2010; DoE 1997; DoE 2008; SAHRC 2016). Through the development of linkages between space – which is socially constructed and in turn constructs the social – and the higher education experience, this thesis explores how the impact of the organisation of space at a higher education institution upon social activity can contribute meaningfully to transformation. In South Africa, higher education institutions, as social institutions (Badat 2010; DoE 1997, O’Connell 2003), play a central role in socio-cultural, economic, and political development and in the transformation of society (Castells 2009; Cloete, Bailey, Pillay, Bunting & Maassen 2011; Hackney 1986; Jansen 2016; Kerr 2001; Lowe & Yasuhara 2013; Oanda & Jowi 2012; Paphitis & Kelland 2016; Rosovsky 2002). Grounded in, and referring to the aforementioned statement, this thesis contends that the social implications of higher education in society can be shown in the manner in which an individual understands his/her/their social location and positioning in space at a higher education institution. The claim is that the location and positioning of an individual in space at a higher education 13 institution allows inferences to be made around the reality of the everyday1 in higher education and consequently how this is impacted upon by policy aimed at transformation. Taking this claim further, it can be argued that exploring the individual’s perception of their location and positioning in space at a higher education institution can provide insights that show their understanding of how policies for transformation impact upon their everyday reality in higher education. Accordingly, the material and social location and positioning of the individual in the micro-ecologies of space – the setting for everyday human praxis – at a higher education institution can illustrate the plethora of diverse experiences, perceptions, and interpretations of transformation in higher education. Thus, the answer to the question of what the implications of space are for transformation in higher education is not found in a single definition, but in a defining process that involves constant change and evolution. It is at the intersection between the perceptions and interpretations of the higher education experience that this thesis, in its consideration of human praxis (the relationship between knowledge and social action that is directly lived), focuses on the endeavours of everyday social life that are deployed in space at a higher education institution. That is to say, transformation and the experience thereof in higher education are mediated by how individuals understand and participate in institutional practice. This understanding is shown in the manner in which social activity is deployed in space at a higher education institution. This thesis suggests that it is necessary to consider how the organisation of space at higher education institutions is created, developed, and reworked in an evolving historical and spatial context. Insight into the organisation of space in turn contributes to a richer understanding of how perceptions and interpretations of the principles and dimensions of transformation in higher education create different and differentiated experiences in the reality of the everyday in higher education. This thesis investigates the spatiality of the higher education experience and its mandated transformation as reflected in the organisation of space at a higher education institution within a specific historical and spatial context. At the heart of this investigation is the notion that the organisation of space at a higher education institution shapes how we think about transformation in higher education. It is argued that the organisation of space at a higher 1 In this study, everyday life and the realities thereof are located in de Certeau’s (1988) notion of the ways in which individuals operate against the backdrop of social activity. This conceptualisation of the everyday aims to articulate theoretical questions, methods, categories, and perspectives that highlight the importance of the background against which social activity takes place. 14 education institution, in which the reality of the everyday is lived, simultaneously separates and connects the experience and understanding of transformation in higher education. Thus, the experience of transformation in higher education is not disconnected from the organisation of space at a higher education institution but is grounded in and refers to it. It is the contention of this thesis that debates focused on transformation in higher education do not adequately consider the spatiality of this concept. These debates have neglected to show what space at a higher education institution means to different individuals who are differently located – socially and spatially – in a particular context. This socio-spatial differentiation impacts upon social activity that is deployed in space and has implications for how transformation is experienced and understood. More specifically, this thesis suggests that official policy and debate focused on higher education in South Africa lack awareness and have failed to explicitly indicate that space is central and fundamental to holistic transformation. The omission of space from official policy and debate has limited the development of theoretical propositions that can respond to the material aspects of transformation as they relate to the higher education experience. The 2015 and 2016 student movements, which highlighted the continued daily indignities and injustices suffered by students and service staff in higher education, vividly demonstrated that in the reality of the everyday, the lived, material experience has not been adequately considered in policy and debate focused on the ongoing process of transformation. Drawing on examples such as the 2015 and 2016 student movements, along with research data, this thesis intends to show how the organisation of space at a higher education institution impacts on the everyday lived realities of individuals who are differentiated and differently located – socially and spatially – and the significance of this impact for the implementation and understanding of transformation in higher education. The first section of this chapter positions the thesis in its aim to investigate the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education. The investigation is conducted with reference to contemporary events in South Africa, where the transition from apartheid to a democratic state involved a concerted effort towards transforming the higher education sector generally and higher education institutions specifically. This transformation process was intended to address an unjust legacy in which 15 the notion of certain races being inferior to others and of one race having the right to dehumanise ‘others’ was legitimised institutionally. This section attempts to highlight the residual effects of the historic socio-spatial segregation that formed part of apartheid2, to show how the organisation of space at higher education institutions is a product of the ideology and thinking in society at the time. The second section of this chapter plots out the thesis strategy, namely a single case study methodology that allows for the investigation of the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education. The adopted strategy focuses on the Bloemfontein campus – one of three campuses that constitute the University of the Free State – and establishes a framework to facilitate the investigation of the organisational indicators of space on the campus. It is anticipated that the documentation of space on the Bloemfontein campus will provide insights for the development of linkages in the proposed relationship between space at a higher education and the higher education experience. These linkages can then aid in making the case for space at a higher education as important and significant for a meaningful approach to transformation in higher education in a democratic South Africa. The last section of this chapter involves a systematic exposition of the relationship between space at a specific higher education institution – the Bloemfontein campus of University of the Free State – and transformation in higher education in South Africa generally. This is presented as a summary of the chapters in the thesis. 1.2 POSITIONING THE THESIS 1.2.1 Space and the 2015 and 2016 Student Movements The focus on the necessity for transformation in higher education in a democratic South Africa post-1994 gained renewed prominence and urgency as a result of the 2015 and 2016 student movements. These movements included the #RhodesMustFall, #FeesMustFall, and #AfrikaansMustFall movements, which became known by their shortened hash tags, #RMF, #FMF, and #AMF in written and social media. These hash tags described what “collectively... became the largest student social movement since the dawn of South 2 Apartheid in South Africa, Dubow (1989:1) claims, had its “precursor in ‘segregation’” and was “an attempt to systematize relations of authority and domination in … a complex amalgam of political, ideological and administrative strategies designed to maintain and entrench white supremacy at every level”. 16 Africa’s democracy in 1994” (Habib 2016:1). The 2015 and 2016 student movements played out at nearly all higher education institutions in South Africa and showed “unprecedented [levels of] student activism” (Baloyi & Isaacs 2015:1). The movements were in response to grievances and concerns raised by predominately black students coming from historically marginalised backgrounds – some of whom form part of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS)3 – as well as by outsourced employees – predominately cleaning and garden staff. The 2015 and 2016 student movements can be seen as a response to “various yet interrelated socio-political and economic issues” (Disemelo 2015:1) – deeply entrenched forms of inequality, injustice, and hopelessness that affect the majority of young black South Africans (Baloyi & Isaacs 2015; Cloete 2016; Disemelo 2015; Habib 2016; Msimang 2016; Paphitis & Kelland 2016; Poplak 2016). The movements highlighted, among other issues, the limitations in access for predominantly black and marginalised students due to the high costs associated with higher education in South Africa, which has “the most diverse and differentiated higher education system in Africa” (Cloete 2016:1). The student movements focused attention on the inadequacy, and at times failure, of the sector’s attempts to increase inclusion and participation of students and staff from socially and economically marginalised backgrounds. The movements succeeded in placing issues and concerns regarding the accessibility of higher education for the majority of South Africans at the heart of public discourse. In this way, the 2015 and 2016 student movements “achieved in a matter of 10 days what vice-chancellors had been advocating for at least 10 years, namely bringing down the costs of higher education” (Habib 2016:2). Through their collective action during the 2015 and 2016 student movements, protesters sought to bring about social change by placing themselves in opposition to what they saw as an untransformed higher education sector generally and higher education institutions in particular. The movements called for increased representation and visibility for black and previously marginalised groups, resources and funding for students from poor and working- class families, and salaries for both out- and in-sourced staff. The stated aim was to counter the legacy of apartheid – in which economic and socio-spatial differentiation along racial lines was legislated such that non-white individuals bore the brunt of marginalisation – and 3 NSFAS is an agency of the Higher Education and Training department in South Africa that aims to provide financial aid to students from previously marginalised and/or poor families, in order to promote and improve access to tertiary education in “pursuit of South Africa’s national and human resource development goals” (NSFAS 2017:1). 17 to increase access to the financial, social, and cultural benefits of higher education. Della Porta & Diani (2006:21) argue that social movements are vocalised through “individual and organised actors”. During the 2015 and 2016 student movements, both individual and organised actors came out in protest against what was seen as inadequate levels of transformation in society in general and in higher education in particular experienced by both students and staff at higher education institutions (DoE 2008; Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2013). The claim was that the lack of transformation continued to frustrate and limit the financial, social, and cultural prospects of predominately young and black South Africans (CHE 2016; Msimang 2016; Poplak 2016), and that there was a failure to adequately address the “broad notion of social accountability and social responsiveness” (Singh 2001:9) in the higher education sector and its institutions. The frustrations and anger of the 2015 and 2016 movements – expressed in the forceful alteration, occupation, and in some instances attack of spaces and objects in space at higher education institutions – highlighted space as central and fundamental to the higher education experience. Thus, the study’s focus on space at a higher education institution aims to show how the “thematic of inside and outside, of inclusion in, and exclusion from, a positively valued modernity” (Ross 1996:149– 150) relates to the reality of everyday experiences in higher education as a driver for “profound societal and global transformation” (Cloete, Maassen, Fehnel, Moja, Gibbon & Perold 2006:v). The thesis explores space in relation to the higher education experience so as to “reconnect [the] textual space of cultural products with the historical time of social production” (Kelly 1995:418). This shows how the individual’s everyday lived reality deployed in space allows them the opportunity to develop, identify with, and orientate themselves in the image of the society in which they are located. Space – shaped by “the vast intricacies, of the interlocking and the non-interlocking, and the networks of relations at every scale from local to global” (Massey 1993:155–156) – at a higher education institution is embedded in the social relationships in society. As such, understanding space at a higher education institution can contextualise “economies, politics, cultures, and invent and inscribe places and landscapes with ethical, symbolic and aesthetic meanings” (Zeleza and Kalipeni 1999:2). That is to say, the investigation of space – which is defined by and defines “all social phenomena, activities and relations” – can contribute to “social theory, to understand social 18 phenomena” (Zeleza and Kalipeni 1999:2). Consequently, the investigation of space at a higher education institution can provide insights from which to increase levels of societal responsiveness and thereby contribute to more holistic transformation in higher education. Any such attempt to increase societal responsiveness needs to consider the processes and relationships between individuals that impact on social interaction and integration at a higher education institution. Thus, the social nature of space – which defines and is defined by the social activity deployed in it – warrants its investigation. The argument for the need to consider space at a higher education in order to increase societal responsiveness towards transformation in higher education is illustrated in Figures 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 (pages 22 to 25). These figures show the central role of space in the 2015 and 2016 student movements. Figures 1.1a and 1.1b (page 22) show the fallen bust of CR Swart in a water fountain in front of the Equitas building on the Bloemfontein campus. Swart was an apartheid stalwart and Minster of Justice who was instrumental in the formulation and implementation of the Bantu Education Act of 1958 (Giliomee 2003; Posel 1991). The symbolic appropriation of this symbol of an apartheid stalwart was done by placing an Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF)4 red beret over the face of the bust (Figure 1.1b). This act shows how “economies, politics [and] cultures” (Zeleza & Kalipeni 1999:2) can be symbolically embedded in material objects found in space. The significance and importance of space is also shown in the re- imagination and active re-naming of objects, buildings, and spaces by individuals at higher education institutions (see Figures 1.1c and 1.1e on page 22). These changes reflect a desire to include imagery and names of African and South African cultures, intellectuals, humanitarians, leaders, and freedom fighters into public spaces. It has been argued that the efforts to introduce representations of what was previously seen as the ‘other’ into spaces at several higher education institutions are grounded in and refer to calls for ‘Africanisation’ and ‘decolonisation’ of higher education (Auga 2015; Isama 2016; Kgosidintsi 2015; Wiredu 2002). On the Bloemfontein campus the ‘Africanisation’ and ‘decolonisation’ of space was shown during the 2015 and 2016 student movements in, for example, the painting of names of struggle heroes on trees, buildings, and pavements (see Figures 1.1c and 1.1e on page 22). The active re-naming of buildings and objects in space, it can be argued, was an 4 The EFF is a leftist political party – the third largest party in South Africa – that describes itself as “a radical and militant Economic Emancipation Movement which brings together revolutionary, fearless, radical, and militant activists, workers’ movements, non-governmental organisations, community based organisations, lobby-groups under the need to pursue the struggle for economic emancipation” (EFF 2014:1). 19 attempt to “invent and inscribe places and landscapes with ethical, symbolic and aesthetic meanings” (Zeleza and Kalipeni 1999:2) in a space that is seen as biased towards a singular “racial solidarity or... cultural homogeneity” (Zeleza 2006b:18). The demarcation (see Figure 1.2b on page 23) of the space in which student activists could express anger, frustration, and dissatisfaction led in part to tensions and confrontations between the South African Police and the protesters (see Figures 1.2a, 1.2c, 1.2d, and 1.2e on page 23). The tensions, in some instances, led to clashes that revealed the contested nature of space at higher education institutions (Keith & Pile 1993; Ligget 1995; Massey 1993). Figure 1.2b illustrates how “momentary and ever-shifting lines [were] drawn between inside and outside, oppressor and oppressed, the same and the other” (Keith & Pile 1993:18) on the Bloemfontein campus in particular. Figures 1.3c, 1.3d, and 1.3e (page 24) show some of the ways in which the student movements sought to gain “attention, identity and recognition by engaging in the only kind of behaviour that draws the attention of those possessed of power” (Harvey 2000:9). On the Bloemfontein campus, the methods employed to gain attention and recognition include the occupation of the “Rooi Plein” (Red Square) and the submission of memorandum at the entrance of the Main Building to university management (Luescher, Loader & Mugume 2017). At the core of the submitted memorandum were concerns around “fees, deregistration of [economically marginalised] students, the language policy, institutional statues and symbols” (Luescher et al. 2017:240). As shown by this memorandum, the 2015 and 2016 students movements revealed the perception among students that transformation in post-1994 South Africa had failed to include and respond to the social, cultural, and economic realities of millions of South Africans (Poplak 2016). Figure 1.4 (page 25) shows how space and objects or subjects in space reference a hidden language of signs, symbols, and meaning at the University of Cape Town. The image shows the Cecil John Rhodes statue in the process of being removed, juxtaposed with the black female performing artist Sethembile Msezane5, and suggests the primacy of 5 Sethembile Msezane is a performing and visual artist affiliated with, among others, Gallery MOMO in Cape Town. Much of her work responds to the marginalisation and exclusion of the black female body in public spaces in Africa generally and in South Africa in particular. On the day that the Rhodes statue fell at the University of Cape Town, she stood strategically positioned for over four hours in order to capture the image of a black female body replacing a white male body. When the statue was lifted off its podium, Msezane – dressed in a feather costume to reference the mythical golden bird claimed to have been stolen from Great 20 representations in space as “the environment of and channel for communication” (Lefebvre 1991b:25). Figures 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 (pages 22 to 25) suggest that the ownership of, access to, and occupation of space is “highly significant for human interaction [and can] either enable or constrain particular kinds of action” (Foster 2005:498). The importance and significance of space for the 2015 and 2016 student movements demonstrated the spatial logic that “interface[s] between theories of cultural difference and everyday realities of political practice” (Keith & Pile 1993:vi). In this thesis, space at a higher education institution is seen as an active component in the construction, negotiation, and contestation of past, present, and future ideas of “internal relations [and] external influences [that] get internalised in specific processes or things through time” (Harvey 2004:4). Space has a regulatory, dynamic, and active role in social and political practice (Harvey 2005; Lefebvre 1991b; Ligget 1995; Massey 1993). This role indicates the importance and significance of space for initiatives for redress and reform aimed at transformation and is revealed in the social and political praxis of the 2015 and 2016 student movements at nearly every higher education institution in South Africa. This thesis argues that transformation in higher education requires higher education institutions as social institutions to implement initiatives for epistemological change that are based on curriculum and an institutional culture concerned with social cohesion and that are grounded in a “variety of knowledge(s)” (Lange 2014:5). The study focus on the importance and significance of space at higher education institution for transformation in higher education aims to provide another perspective from which, in accordance with Lange (2014:5), “knowledge for transformation” can be produced. Zimbabwe – lifted her arms to symbolically mark the start of a new decolonised public space that recognized and accounted for black female bodies at the University of Cape Town. 21 Figure 1.1: 2015 and 2016 Student Movement: University of the Free State (01) 22 Figure 1.2: 2015 and 2016 Student Movement: University of the Free State (02) 23 Figure 1.3: 2015 and 2016 Student Movement: University of the Free State (03) 24 Figure 1.4: 2015 and 2016 Student Movement: University of Cape Town 25 In the South African context, the transition from an apartheid past towards a democratic present and future asks that higher education not only respond to global trends and pressures, but also address the local reality in order to transform (Cloete et al. 2006; DoE 1997; NCHE 1996). The local reality of transformation in higher education is “a compromise between ‘revolution’ and ‘reform’ – ‘revolution’ being a victory that only the most ardent liberation movement supporters claimed for 1994, and ‘reform’ being the outcome which many people suspected was most likely to occur” (Cloete 2006:53). Accordingly, the commitment to transformation and institutionalisation of “a new social order” (Badat 2010:2) can be seen as a response to “the inherited apartheid social and economic structure” that was “embedded and reflected in all spheres of life, as a product of the systemic exclusion of blacks and women under colonialism and apartheid” (Badat 2010:3). The concept of transformation is meant to extend beyond the definitive boundaries of the higher education sector and permeate the broader South African society (DoE 1997). This in turn means that higher education, in its commitment to transformation, is tasked with contributing to the development of a positively valued modern democratic society through processes of redress and reform (Badat 2010; DoE 1997; O’Connell 2003; SAHRC 2016; Simatupang 2009; Singh 2001). Against this background, the concept of transformation in higher education in this thesis is viewed as a compromise between revolutionary action and initiatives for redress and reform in aid of a process of change in all spheres in society to align with and pursue the aspirations in the Bill of Rights in the South African Constitution (RSA 1996). This view of transformation necessitates an understanding of space that communicates to “the revolutionary movement as it exists today” (Lefebvre 1991b:420) in the higher education sector generally and at its institutions specifically. The 2015, 2016, and the more recent 2017 student movements indicate the need for greater clarity and elaboration around how the individual, either as a student or staff member, experiences transformation in the everyday realities of higher education in South Africa. To this end, a further shift is needed from the primary focus on what and who constitute the foundations of the “production, acquisition and application of new knowledge” (CHE 2009:3) towards the reality of the everyday in space at a higher education institution and how this relates to initiatives aimed at redress and reform. It is here that the central importance of place and space – grounded in and referring to the contextual specificities in which higher education institutions are located – problematises the implementation of a plethora of transformation-oriented interventions and initiatives in any given socio-spatial 26 reality (Badat 2010; Dixon 2001; Dixon, Tredoux & Clack 2005; Foster 2005; Jansen 2003, 2016). Amidst profound and rapidly shifting local and global contexts, the abstraction of space as a “'mental thing' or 'mental place'” (Lefebvre 1991b:3) that is “subordinated to a centre or to a centralized power and advanced by a knowledge which works as power's proxy” (Lefebvre 1991b:9) does not adequately respond to the multiple, different, and differentiated realities of the higher education experience. The 2015 and 2016 student movements drew the concreteness of space – where and how higher education institutions are located – out of the abstract ideological space of “the modern field of inquiry known as epistemology” (Lefebvre 1991b:3) towards the “multidimensional... radically discontinuous realities” (Jameson 1991:413) in the higher education experience. The student movements demonstrated an understanding of space as embodying and being embodied by multiple different realities in higher education. They drew attention to the everyday lived realities of students and staff that demonstrate the active and operational role of space in the experience of an individual at a higher education institution. The student movements, in refocusing the debate around the “larger transformation process in the country as a whole” (Soudien & Baxen 1997:454) and in higher education specifically on the everyday experience, show the significance and importance of space and place in the development of “knowledge and [social] action” (Lefebvre 1991b:11). Higher education institutions, it has been argued, can be viewed as ‘ivory towers’ that are removed from society (Rosovsky 2002; Shapin 2012). It was after the Second World War – particularly in North America – that “it became natural to think of the Ivory Tower as the university or at least some version of what a university was or might be” (Shapin 2012:14). The historical positioning of higher education institutions as ivory towers of knowledge contradicts contemporary global sustainable development trends that point towards increased societal participation, accountability, and responsiveness in higher education (Badat 2010; Bundy 2006; Castells 1993; DoE 1997, 2008; Mazrui & Ajayi 1993; Simatupang 2009). Such contradiction means that higher education institutions, in their positional posturing as exclusive ivory towers of knowledge, can negate “the defence of the individual against all generalisations that seek to enclose reality in a conceptual system” (Simic, cited in Selasi 2013:2). In post-1994 South Africa, the image of higher education institutions as ivory towers does not fit with the function of higher education in being “rich, 27 almost unrivalled, in the kind of material it offers that may be used to understand the human condition and the environment in which they live” (DoE 2008:6). Consequently, in South African higher education generally and at its institutions specifically, there is a need for a nuanced understanding that is “imagined and insisted upon” (Simic, cited in Selasi 2013:2) to support the production of knowledge for transformation. The concept of transformation in higher education, it has been argued, ought to “recognise the proposed educational reform script for what it is: a text for a very particular understanding of the world” (Soudien & Baxen 1997:458). Transformation requires a “discourse of such a character that the audience, in thought and action, is so engaged that it becomes the mediator of change” (Bitzer 1992:4). In a diverse society influenced by the need to offer “a tremendous opportunity to enhance self-fulfilment for all” (DoE 2008:119), transformation in South African higher education is subject to negotiation and contestation. Accordingly, the historical view of higher education and its institutions as exceptionalist and elitist has led to the current trend of insistence upon socio-cultural, political, and economic diversity (Featherstone 1992; Ligget 1995; Massey 1993; Massey 2006; Zeleza & Kalipeni 1999). South African higher education initiatives for redress and reform thus need to respond to and be recognizant of the multiple, different, and differentiated realities that shape the context – shown in particular historical and spatial specificities – in which higher education institutions are located. Such initiatives can contribute meaningfully to a more holistic form of transformation in higher education. This thesis focuses on higher education institutions in the context of shifting and rapidly evolving understandings of the concept of transformation in higher education in South Africa. Historically seen as sites of power in service to church and state (Shapin 2012:14), contemporary higher education institutions should allow for “permeability to outside influences” (Rosovsky 2002:14) in order to be instrumental in social, cultural, and economic development in South Africa (Brennan et al. 2004; Cloete et al. 2006; DoE 1997; Luescher & Symes 2003; O’Connell 2003). South African higher education institutions are asked to be conduits for positively valued “external ideas and experiences” (Brennan et al. 2004:6) and to make a “considerable and valuable contribution” (Hughes 2011:1) to society within a specific socio-spatial context. These institutions, in “maintaining a strong pattern of knowledge exchange activities closely connected to what may be termed as ‘public space’ [in which] individuals and organisations can interact and develop relationships” (Hughes 28 2011:3), can produce “a sense of place and belonging” (Soudien 2006:103) to facilitate “conceptions of social change [through] social transformation” (Brennan et al. 2004:6). They can therefore be seen as social institutions that are tasked with taking an active participatory role in change and transformation in a society (Brennan et al. 2004; Castells 2009; DoE 1997, 2008; Jansen 2009a; O’Connell 2003; Rosovsky 2002; Simatupang 2009; Singh 2001; Soudien 2006). The investigation of social activity that is deployed in space at a higher education institution is grounded in and refers to Henri Lefebvre’s proposition of a unitary theory of space and simultaneously combines the separately apprehended fields of “the physical – nature, the Cosmos; the mental, including logical and formal abstractions; and the social” (Lefebvre 1991b:11). In Lefebvre’s view, space is “logico-epistemological” (Lefebvre 1991b:11) or ‘commonsensical’. Consequently, this thesis views social activity in space at a higher education as “social practice... including products of the imagination such as projects and projections, symbols and utopias” (Lefebvre 1991b:12). The space in which this activity is deployed is “understood in an active sense as an intricate web of relationships that is continuously produced and reproduced” (Schmid 2008:41). The argument made by Soudien (2006:104) that social reality in higher education is bound to its context – the city, the town, and the country – supports the study focus on investigating space at a higher education institution. Furthermore, this investigation can speak simultaneously to the reality of the everyday in higher education as a social, physical, and mental thing “in which the life projects of individuals and groups may in an ideal setting come to expression” (van Reenen 2013:10) and to the social experience in which the individual – the body – is engaged. Exploring the social, physical, and mental life world within space allows for the development of propositions that engage with social phenomena central to the concept of transformation in the higher education experience generally and at a higher education institution specifically. Against the backdrop of Lefebvre’s theory, this thesis contends that social activity, deployed in space at a higher education institution, is central and fundamental to developing holistic insight into the higher education experience as it undergoes an ever-evolving process of transformation in the context of post-apartheid South Africa. The consideration of space in higher education in general and at its institutions in particular considers the past, present, and future imaginings of the locatedness of the socio-spatial context. This approach 29 positions transformation in higher education within the realities and desires of the individuals in the sector and moves the understanding of this concept beyond the singular blueprint of official policy on which it is based. Thus, a focused understanding of the organisation of space at a higher education institution which aligns diverse and multiple views of different and differently located individuals can extend and strengthen transformation initiatives in higher education. 1.3 THE THESIS STRATEGY 1.3.1 Research Aim and Objectives Higher education institutions – critical for the growth and development of society – can be seen as social institutions (Lange 2014; Simatupang 2009; O’Connell 2003; Singh 2001). As social institutions they present and represent social reality as a social product. If higher education institutions are social products, then any policies and initiatives aimed at their transformation should take into consideration the social activity deployed in space at these institutions. Furthermore, if social activity is central and fundamental in policies and initiatives for transformation, then the space in which it is deployed is significant and important for reform and redress. The claim here is that understanding the impact of the organisation of space at a higher education institution upon the social activity that is deployed in it can contribute to the implementation and understanding of transformation in higher education. One role of higher education in a post-1994 South Africa, it has been argued, is to “preserve what is valuable and to address what is defective and requires transformation” (NCHE 1996:1). Upon closer examination of the understanding of transformation in South Africa, it appears that what has been addressed thus far relates predominately to different areas of policy making, ideological notions that are used to differentiate between progressive and non-progressive people, and performance indicators. The reality of transformation (or lack thereof) in the everyday of individuals in higher education has been largely overlooked. The claim here is that the status quo for transformation initiatives and policies in higher education is such that these policies and initiatives do not adequately address the everyday higher education experience and therefore fail to comprehensively address the complexities of social action, construction, and order in a post-1994 South Africa (USAf 2015; de Waal 2013; PMG 2015; Soudien 2010a; DoE 2008; Mabokela 2000). The thesis thus set out the following objectives to show how the concreteness of space at a 30 higher education institution can impact upon social activity in the everyday lived experience of higher education and consequently upon understandings of its transformation.  Research objective one: Assess the organisation of space at institutional level in higher education.  Research objective two: Assess and analyse how the organisation of space at institutional level impacts on individual understandings of transformation in higher education.  Research objective three: Provide an empirical perspective for transformation in higher education in relation to the everyday lived experience of the individual whose social activity is deployed in space at an institution. This thesis draws on a social constructivist paradigm as a framework for a case study methodology to investigate the impact of the organisation of space on social activity at a higher education institution. This in turn allows for the development of linkages in the relationship between space and principles and dimensions of transformation in higher education as set out by the Department of Education in its “Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education” (DoE 1997). The investigation was guided by the following research questions:  Research question one: How do broad-based organisational indicators of space impact on social activity deployed in that space? How do these organisational indicators differentiate experiences at a higher education institution? Can the analysis of differentiated understandings of the higher education experience show how space impacts upon social activity and is therefore central and fundamental to transformation and the understanding thereof?  Research question two: What implications do different and differentiated experiences of higher education have for principles and dimensions of transformation in higher education?  Research question three: 31 How can understanding the impact that the organisation of space at a higher education institution has on the reality of the higher education experience provide a new perspective for transformation? The investigative focus in this thesis on social activity deployed in space at a higher education institution is grounded in the conceptualisation of space as a subjective representation – real, imaginary, symbolic, a ‘metaphor-concept’, or some relationship between these (Bourdieu 1989). Space, in the context of this thesis, is viewed as systemic and shaped by “the rules and resources, or sets of transformation relations” (Hernes 2004:37–38) of human praxis. Thus, space at a higher education institution is seen as being “embedded in the concrete activities of day-to-day life” (Giddens 1984:xvi). This understanding of space being the container for social activity is premised on the concept of knowledgeable human agents as subjects who engage in “social processes …[that] construct the environments in which they live” (Elliot 2014:51). The argument is that space at a higher education institution can actively construct, maintain, and challenge the concept of transformation in higher education. Therefore, when engaging with the concept of transformation in higher education in South Africa, it is important to scrutinise how space responds to the particularities of a social context and impacts on the social order found in that context and society. The suggestion is that the investigation of the organisation of space at a higher education institution allows for the negotiation and contestation of higher education’s transformative role in society. 1.3.2 Study Area The restructuring and transformation of higher education institutions developed in different ways in different localities in post-apartheid South Africa. While this process of restructuring and transformation has been different for different higher education institutions, the non- negotiable merger process implemented by the Department of Higher Education and Training in 2004 had a significant impact on the constitution of higher education institutions. The merger process has been intensely and widely debated, and the reaction to the merger strategy by historically Afrikaans-speaking higher education institutions who viewed themselves as “servants/instruments of the [apartheid] state” (DoE 1997:9) was the most fierce (Baloyi 2015). The restructuring and transformation of higher education institutions and the merger processes in particular are of interest in this study as the processes involved were highly contested and lead to widespread debate about what a higher 32 education institution in post-apartheid South Africa should look like and who it should represent (Baloyi 2015; Badat 2010; Jansen 2003). Additionally, the merger of various previously segregated campuses under the umbrella of one university brought into play questions and concerns around geographical and socio-spatial positioning and proximity, access and accessibility, and how these concerns are interpreted by different and differently located communities. This intersection between understandings held by the public, institutions, and official policy regarding what a higher education institution in post- apartheid South Africa is and could become provides a fecund site from which to investigate the socio-spatial implications of space at a higher education institution for the implementation and understanding of transformation in higher education. This study focuses on the organisation of space at a higher education institution located in the judicial capital of South Africa, the city of Bloemfontein. The significance of the Bloemfontein campus of the University of the Free State (see discussion in Chapter Four), historically and spatially, in the city of Bloemfontein forms the basis for the investigation. The investigation of the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus provides information that forms the basis of theoretical claims around the impact of space on social activity. Furthermore, linkages are developed between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education. The conceptual framework (see Chapter Two) is utilised to frame the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education in order to respond to the research objectives and better frame and address the research questions. 1.3.3 Research Approach and Methodology The study draws on social constructivism as a research paradigm in the investigation of the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education, with a focus on a single case – the Bloemfontein campus of the University of the Free State. The social constructivist paradigm grounds the “observations and concepts about social action and social structures” (Orum, Feagin & Sjoberg 1991:6) “within a real- life context” (Yin 2009:53) to give insights into the social activity, processes, and relations between individuals that are deployed in space on the Bloemfontein campus. The single case methodology, within a social constructivist paradigm, allows for the testing of propositions related to the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education and thereby “provide[s] answers to questions being 33 investigated” (Hancock & Algozzine 2006:9). The methodology also allows for the collection and analysis of data from multiple sources of evidence utilised to document that which “does not exist in natural science” (Eckstein 1992:161–162) – the deployment of social activity in space on the Bloemfontein campus. The use of multiple evidence sources and reiteration of data collection from extensive observations on the campus makes it possible for the author, as the main research instrument positioned on the site under investigation, to be “adaptive and responsive” (Merriam 2009:160) in order to accommodate unexpected events and a possible change in study focus. 1.3.4 Data Sources, Collection, and Analysis Data was collected from three primary sources: semi-structured interviews, participatory focus groups, and a socio-spatial mapping of the city of Bloemfontein and the entire Bloemfontein campus. The socio-spatial mapping is expanded upon by means of in-depth visual and graphic documentation of five selected sites and spatial types. The transcripts for the semi-structured interviews and four participatory focus groups (consisting of seven to twelve participants, all of whom were registered students on the Bloemfontein campus) were transcribed verbatim into texts. The transcribed texts – a data repository of multiple voices and realities – provide information from which a better understanding of social activity in space on the campus can be derived (Merriam 2009; Markova, Linell, Grossen & Orvig 2007). The semi-structured interviews, conducted with students and staff (academic, administrative, and service) on the Bloemfontein campus, enriched the process of developing a narrative for the campus as a contextual and created space in its context, the city of Bloemfontein. The data collected from the semi-structured interviews forms the basis of discussion around “transformative and social justice concerns” (van der Riet 2008:546) in the participatory focus groups and informs the development of visual and graphic maps and images in the socio-spatial mapping process (Lynch 1960; Manor-Rosner, Rofé & Abu-Rabia-Queder 2013; Rofé 2004). The reiterative triangulation of data from the semi-structured interviews, participatory focus groups, and the socio-spatial mapping, enhances the researcher’s understanding of social activity deployed in space on the Bloemfontein campus. Additional data was mined from textual and documentary sources such as “written, visual, digital and physical material relevant to the study at hand” (Merriam 2009:139). 34 Participatory focus groups, as “social encounters between participants” (Pattman 2015:79) in which the individual involved can “generate his or her knowledge... as multi-faceted and multi-voiced realities” (Markova et al. 2007:17), are utilised to corroborate evidence from the semi-structured interviews and the socio-spatial mapping and thereby to show similarities and differences in the understanding of how space constructs the social and in turn is constructed by the social on the Bloemfontein campus. The reiterative correlation and corroboration of data from multiple data sources validates and triangulates the data. 1.3.5 Relevance and Significance of the Study Various forms of resistance and protest that include occupation, alteration, and even attack of space are a mark of the twenty-first century (Harvey 2009; Keith & Pile 1993; Massey 1993, 2006). The proposed relationship between social activity deployed in space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education “continues to define relationships between students”. Consequently, an investigation of space at a higher education institution in relation to transformation in higher education can provide insights that contribute to “the necessary cohesion and competence for successful social integration” (Watkins 2005:213). This investigation connects the sphere of the mental and theoretical to “the physical and social realities of lived experience” (Watkins 2005:210) and thereby aims to: (1) Provide a new perspective of transformation in the higher education experience that has the “capacity for offering more choices for social activities, as well as being a place for cultural exchanges” (Jalaladdini & Oktay 2012:665). (2) Provide insights necessary for appropriate responses to a rapidly shifting and diverse student body. (3) Provide insights for better understanding of local realities, such as the implications of the legacy of socio-spatial segregation for post-apartheid South African university spaces. 1.3.6 Delimitations and Limitations of the Thesis The thesis investigates the impact of the organisation of space at a higher education institution, the Bloemfontein campus, upon social activity in order to develop linkages in the proposed relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education. The investigation was conducted over three years – from 2014 to 2017 – and was plotted out through the observations, documentation, and analysis of social activity deployed in space on the Bloemfontein campus. The investigation took into consideration 35 four important aspects described hereafter. (1) The historic and spatial context of the higher education institution under study. The consideration of historic and spatial factors while collecting and analysing data accommodates the limitations of a singular, and at times isolated, viewpoint that is often associated with the single case study methodology. The consideration of historic and spatial factors in the single case study methodology exposes the social nature of the Bloemfontein campus in order to “expand and generalise theories” (Yin 2009:123). This consideration does not, however, claim generalisability across varied contexts; rather, it allows for transferability through analytical and theoretical generalisation. (2) The extent of the higher education institution under study should be defined. For example, a material boundary such as a fence can be used to differentiate the institution from its immediate geographical context in order to comparatively analyse the geographical extent of the institution in relation to its context. (3) The documentation of social activity at the higher education institution through the development of evaluative maps and images is an efficient methodology for demonstrating the importance of space using a visual form of recall but presents a unique set of challenges. The generation and development of evaluative maps and images depends largely on the researcher’s understanding and knowledge of visual methodologies and how to utilise these to develop a narrative that can describe and present space and place. Although this strategy of using evaluative images and maps is useful for a visual data repository, it makes quantification difficult. Consequently, the data collected from the socio- spatial mapping that mapped and documented social activity on the Bloemfontein campus is compared to and corroborated by data from the participatory focus groups, semi- structured interviews, and documentary sources. (4) To establish a narrative of the impact of space upon social activity at the higher education institution, semi-structured interviews and participatory focus groups were conducted. These triangulated data collected from the evaluative maps and images that were generated. The validity derived from the triangulation of multiple sources of data is, in part, dependent on the interviewees’ and participants’ integrity, willingness, and honesty in sharing their views, experiences, and opinions. The reiterative collection, analysis, and 36 triangulation of data from multiple sources (semi-structured interviews, participatory focus groups, socio-spatial mapping, and textual documentation) by the researcher as the primary research instrument lends trustworthiness, reliability, and validity to the study. 1.4 CONCLUSION: THESIS STRUCTURE Having laid out the general contours of this thesis in Chapter One, the chapters that follow provide a systematic exposition of the importance and significance of space for the higher education experience. This importance and significance are reflected in the impact of the organisation of space at a higher education institution on the social activity and social cohesion required for transformation. Chapter Two discusses contributions of literature in higher education studies – in Africa in general and in South Africa in particular – to the development of conceptions of transformation in higher education. The argument is that the concept of transformation in South African higher education does not adequately address the materiality of everyday experiences. That is to say, the concept of transformation is more often than not relegated to the realm of policy-driven ideology and does not interrogate social processes and relationships in the reality of the everyday for individuals at higher education institutions. The focus in this thesis on space and spatial theorisation therefore challenges the existing literature around transformation in higher education and contributes to the theoretical development of a new perspective from which to view transformation. A conceptual framework is developed to show linkages that demonstrate the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education, in order to meaningfully address concerns around the reality of the social, which is at the core of transformation. Chapter Three presents the methodology, which consists of an empirical investigation using a single case study methodology that is informed by a social constructivist paradigm. The single case study of the Bloemfontein campus plots the trajectory of social phenomena against the theoretical claims regarding linkages in the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education in South Africa. The thesis strategy aims to interrogate theoretical claims in relation to how transformation in higher education is understood in day-to-day lived experiences at a higher education institution. The study does this through a qualitative empirical investigation that is informed by semi-structured interviews, participatory focus groups, and a socio-spatial mapping of the Bloemfontein campus in its entirety and in the context of the city of Bloemfontein. 37 Chapter Three suggests that the organisation of space at a higher education institution impacts upon social activity; furthermore, it locates the higher education experience and therefore also its transformation. Chapter Four plots out the implications of historical and spatial factors for the organisation of space at a higher education institution. Historical and spatial indicators are highlighted to show the impact of space on the nuanced and obscured realities of social activity deployed at a higher education institution. A visual and graphic argument is presented to demonstrate the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus, the implications of this organisation in the context of the city of Bloemfontein, and how this is central to social activity, processes, and relations between individuals. The information derived from the investigation of social spaces on and off the Bloemfontein campus shows that the space in which social activity is deployed has implications for the everyday reality of individuals at a higher education institution and has an impact on initiatives for redress and reform aimed at transformation in higher education. Chapter Five delves into the details of the organisational indicators of space on the Bloemfontein campus. The aim is to show how these organisational indicators differentiate the higher education experience for different and differently located individuals on the Bloemfontein campus. The investigation of the organisational indicators of space seeks to develop a general understanding of the everyday reality of the individual and how this relates to initiatives for transformation in higher education. The insights presented in this chapter show how the individual’s experience and understanding of transformation are located, negotiated, and contested in the specifics of institutional practice reflected in the social activity deployed in space at a higher education institution. Chapter Six concludes the investigation into the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education. It draws together central themes from the study and the evidence presented in the preceding chapters to show how the understanding of transformation in higher education in South Africa is historically and spatially located. The chapter also shows how the impact of the organisation of space at a higher education institution on the reality of the everyday can provide a new perspective for transformation that is shaped by differentiated understandings of different and differently 38 located individuals. The chapter concludes with some implications of this thesis for future research around space and transformation in higher education and its institutions. 39 CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 INTRODUCTION One of the key objectives of this study, namely the investigation of the implications of space for social activity in higher education generally and at its institutions specifically, aims to show how space is central and fundamental for understanding the concept of transformation. As outlined in Chapter One, the question of space, “within which the social process unfolds” (Harvey 2009:10) at higher education institutions in South Africa, is under scrutiny as a result of the 2015 and 2016 student movements. This chapter shows the role of space in higher education by presenting how the historical and spatial particulars of a specific context impact on the organisation of space at a higher education. This in turn has implications for the understanding and experience of the concept of transformation by different and differently located individuals. The chapter plots out the development of a conceptual framework, premised on theoretical tools, that is utilised as a lens through which to explore the central and fundamental role of space at higher education institutions and how this relates to the transformation of higher education. The first section of this chapter reviews literature around higher education, which is seen as key for social, political, and economic development (Castells 1993, 2009; Cloete, Maasen, Fehnel, Moja, Gibbon & Perold 2006; Mazrui 2003; O’Connell 2003; Otieno Jowi, Obamba, Sehoole, Barifaijo, Oanda & Alabi n.d.; Singh 2001; Soudien 2010a; Teferra & Altbach 2004; Zeleza 2006a). The transformation of higher education, prioritised by the African Union as key in the “integration of African countries into the global economy” (Otieno Jowi et al. n.d:9), is important for the growth and development of post-colonial societies in Africa. The reviewed literature supports the argument for the importance and significance of higher education by pointing to its symbolic nature in society. Higher education, in its function as the place and space for the advancement of competencies, is seen as central to social, political, and economic development. The structural elements and historical and social frameworks that impact on the organisation of space in society at large and at a higher education institution in particular can therefore be seen as central and fundamental to the understanding of concepts such as transformation in higher education. The second section of this chapter explores the nature of the organisation of space at higher education institutions in South Africa with the understanding that these institutions 40 are social institutions. The argument for the importance and significance of the organisation of space at higher education institutions follows on from debates and literature around their social nature (Dixon, Tredoux & Clack 2005; DoE 1997; Maoyuan 2016; Ndofirepi 2015; Oanda & Jowi 2012; O’Connell 2003; Reddy 2004; Rosovsky 2002; Simatupang 2009; Tredoux, Dixon, Underwood, Nunez & Finchilescu 2005). Analysis of higher education institutions as social institutions allows for a focus on the organisational elements that influence the organisation of the spaces in which social activity, processes, and relations between individuals take place. The impact of the organisation of space – in which social activity, processes, and relations between individuals are materialised – is revealed through analysing the individual’s everyday experience; this in turn allows for the conceptualisation of space as constructing the social and in turn being constructed by the social (Lefebvre 1991b; Massey 1993). The investigation of the impact of the organisation of space on individuals’ experiences at a higher education institution can then be linked to how these individuals understand and experience initiatives and policies for transformation in higher education. The investigation of the organisational elements of space that affect the understanding of initiatives and policies that govern transformation leads to the focus of the third section of this chapter, namely the development of a conceptual framework. The proposed conceptual framework describes linkages that establish a relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education. The development of the conceptual framework focuses on historic and spatial context-related factors that impact on the organisation of space in order to describe a set of guidelines according to which the proposed relationship between space and transformation at a higher education institution can be examined. It is argued that the analysis of the organisation of space – conceptualised as an active constituent in and constitutive of materialised social activity, processes, and relations between individuals deployed in that space – shows that space is central to and fundamental for understanding the concept of transformation in higher education as set out by the Department of Education in its “Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education” (DoE 1997). 41 2.2 HIGHER EDUCATION The field of higher education studies and research cannot be viewed as “a single community of practice but, rather, a series of somewhat overlapping communities of practice” (Tight 2008:596). This view allows for “a variety of tribes” to criss-cross the territory of higher education that has, in the last two decades, grown into a discipline tasked with producing overlapping theoretical perspectives that can be applied in community of practice. Wenger argues that communities of practice are “the basic building blocks of a social learning system because they are containers of the competencies that make up such a system” (2000:229). This suggests that research in higher education is tasked with developing understandings of the specificities that have implications for social relationships in a given context. In a rapidly shifting and evolving global context, higher education and the studies within this discipline are tasked with a call to be responsive to the localised contexts in which they are located. The view of higher education as being central to the development of skills and disciplinary knowledge that are key for growth and progress in society is perhaps more pronounced in the African context in general and in the context of the post- 1994 democratic society of South Africa in particular (Cloete et al. 2011; Garraway 2009; Teferra & Altbach 2004; Waghid 2009). 2.2.1 The African Context Higher education in contemporary Africa “is recognised as a key force of modernisation and development” (Teferra & Altbach 2004:21). “[W]hile Africa can claim an ancient academic tradition, the fact is that traditional centres of higher learning in Africa have all but disappeared or were destroyed by colonialism” (Teferra & Altbach 2004:23). Contemporary African higher education has a colonial legacy in which education was designed to prepare the ‘native’ African to take up specific roles in colonial society (Mazrui 1996; Mudimbe 1988; Zeleza 2006a). Africans were assigned to limited roles and excluded from roles that did not benefit the colonial system. This was very evident at the start of Africa’s independence in the mid-twentieth century – a period “characterised by few students and graduates, with the students frequently in training for either (colonial) civil service or a few professions” (Task Force on Higher Education and Society 2000:16). The colonial legacy of the twenty-first-century higher education system in the developing world is such that at the turn of the century, Africa – a continent consisting of 54 countries – had “no more than 300 42 higher education institutions that fit the description of a university” (Teferra & Altbach 2004:22). This legacy clearly calls for processes of reform, redress, and renewal. In twenty-first-century Africa, the question that asks, “how [does one] make the African university, the ‘very own’ university of African peoples, is central to the African higher education experience” (Ajayi, Goma & Johnson 1996:1–2). Transforming the African higher education experience involves “a renewed focus on Africa and entails salvaging what has been stripped from the continent” (Letsekha 2013:5). This experience that focuses on Africans and Africa is fundamentally a social one, thus the associated definition, interpretation, promotion, and transmission of thought, philosophy, identity, and culture associated with higher education should be reflective of the context in which it is located. Consequently, contemporary African higher education needs to develop “curricula and syllabuses to ensure that teaching and learning are adapted to African realities and conditions” (Letsekha 2013:5). Higher education – central to addressing the complex realities of the African continent (Mazrui 2003; Teferra & Altbach 2004; Zeleza 2006a) and “seen by many as playing a key role in delivering the knowledge requirements for development” (Cloete, Bailey, Pillay & Maassen 2011:3) – should, it is argued, contribute to the pursuit of knowledge for the modernisation and development of the historic project of Africanisation (Teferra & Altbach 2004; Zeleza 2006a). This pursuit is seen as necessary for “Africa to compete effectively in a world increasingly dominated by knowledge and information” (Teferra & Altbach 2004:22) and positions its higher education institutions as centres for progress and development. African higher education institutions based on a European model are forerunners for twentieth-century modernisation that is argued to be alien to indigenous social structures (Amonoo-Neizer 1998; Osborne 1992). Consequently, in the face of an ever-increasing demand for access to educational institutions, the view of higher education “as a key force for modernisation and development” (Teferra & Altbach 2004:21) has come under scrutiny in the twenty-first century. Higher education is seen as key in moving away from the informal6 and traditional 6 The informal sector in Africa can be described as “the range of employment and income-generating activity outside of formal enterprises” (Heintz & Valodia 2008:1). It is based on a dual model of income that sits “between wage-earning and self-employment” (Hart 1973:68). 43 “processes and interactions and livelihood dynamics unfolding in African cities amidst... widespread prevalence of illicit and grey economic activity” (Pieterse 2011:14) towards a positively valued global conceptualisation of modernity that is argued to be a reproduction of coloniality (Osborne 1992; Ross 1996). This reproduction of coloniality through modernity, Osborne (1992:32) argues, is premised on the “non-contemporaneousness of geographically diverse but chronologically simultaneous times”. Consequently, the historical grounding of African higher education in a concept such as modernity results in a type of cultural dependency at higher education institutions. Such culturally dependent African higher education institutions are described by Mazrui (2003:141) as “colonial in origin and disproportionately European in tradition”, and they foster the acquisition, production and generation of knowledge that Pieterse (2011:14) claims is reliant on “ Western-derived theoretical frameworks”. Consequently, the majority of higher education institutions on the continent, in spite of their contribution to the progress and development of African societies in the global modernity project, have positioned themselves as being “among the major instruments and vehicles of cultural westernization” (Mazrui 2003:141). It has been argued that they are breeding grounds for a “generation of African graduates [who have grown] up despising their own ancestry, and scrambling to imitate the West” (Mazrui 2003:142). African higher education institutions could thus be seen as limiting the quest “to promote development in a post-colonial state without consolidating the structure of dependency inherited from its imperial past” (Mazrui 2003:148). In this vein, it can be argued that higher education institutions have held onto insufficiently differentiated concepts of progress and modernisation that create “pitfalls built into the dialectics of homogenisation and differentiation constitutive of the temporality of ‘modernity’, and the way in which these are tied up, inextricably, with its spatial relations” (Osborne 1992:74). As such, African higher education institutions subscribe to a perverse logic (Fanon 1961) that distorts and disfigures the societies of those who were oppressed in “the philosophical conundrum of modernity/coloniality” (Mignolo 2007:450). The development of African higher education in a colonial context thus presents a contradiction in its role of linking post-colonial African society, intellectually and otherwise, to the broader global world (Mazrui 2003). The focus of this thesis is on the organisation of space at a higher education institution as a highly pertinent but understudied area in the field of higher education studies. This investigation of the spatial dimension of higher education institutions attempts to contribute positively to the “historic project of African 44 nationalism: decolonization, development, democratization, nation-building and regional integration” (Zeleza 2006a:6). Furthermore, the thesis aims to highlight the role of organisational indicators of space in the calls to Africanise and transform higher education as an unviable “system of knowledge, beliefs, expectations, dreams, and fantasies upon which the modern/colonial world was built” (Mignolo 2000:ix) and to position higher education in an “instrumentalist or ‘service’ role” as an “engine for development” (Cloete et al. 2011:6). 2.2.2 The South African Context Higher education in apartheid7 South Africa was legislatively differentiated according to race and ethnicity (Ajayi et al. 1996; Bunting 2002; Zeleza 2005). Historically, aligned with the rest of Great Britain’s colonies, higher education in South Africa began as “essentially a mechanism for the inheritance of the western style of civilisation” (Ashby 1974:2). It developed in response to the expanding settler communities in South Africa (Ajayi et al. 1996; Zeleza 2006a) and the shifting “political changes in the colonies” (Ahmed 1989:2). As a result, higher education institutions historically were “in standard and curriculum, the thin stream of excellence and narrow specialism” (Ashby 1964:12) informed by “British conceptions, and judged by British standards, founded and administered by British academics” (Ahmed 1989:2). This created and maintained a relationship between the European settlers and the indigenous Africans in which the Europeans could regard themselves as the controlling elite – “in their minds ‘indigenous’ meant ‘inferior’” (Duff 1966:42). The function of higher education was thus to align the indigenous Africans with colonial objectives so as to produce “men and women with the standards of public service and the capacity for leadership which self-rule requires” (Asquith Commission 1945:10–11). Colonial higher education in South Africa began with the founding of the South African College in Cape Town in 1829 (which evolved into the University of Cape Town in 1918) and the Stellenbosch Gymnasium in 1866 (which became Stellenbosch University in 1918). The former was set up to accommodate English-speaking settlers, and the latter to accommodate Afrikaans-speaking settlers (Ajayi et al. 1996; Zeleza 2006a). The University of the Cape of Good Hope – which was modelled on the University of London –was 7 Apartheid literally means ‘apart-ness’ in the Afrikaans language – to be “placed or kept separately or to one side for a particular purpose, reason” (Lemanski 2004:102). 45 founded in 1873 to serve as an examining body for various constituent colleges in South Africa. It later became known as the University of South Africa. The constituent colleges catered for the white settler communities of “Bloemfontein, Pretoria and Stellenbosch being Afrikaans-speaking, while the others were English speaking” (Ajayi et al. 1996:33) and presented agreed-upon curricula and syllabuses for various university degrees. The constituent colleges were:  Rhodes University College in Grahamstown, which later became known as Rhodes University.  Huguenot University College in Wellington.  Grey University College in Bloemfontein, which later became known as the University of the Free State.  Natal University College in Durban, which later became known as the University of KwaZulu-Natal.  The Kimberley School of Mines and Technology, which later became known as the Transvaal University College. This gave rise to the University of Witwatersrand and the University of Pretoria in Johannesburg and Pretoria respectively (Ajayi et al. 1996; Zeleza 2006a). An alternate examining body that did not fall under the jurisdiction of the University of the Cape of Good Hope was established for indigenous black Africans in 1841, namely the Lovedale Missionary Institute. It was “modelled on African-American industrial and vocational colleges in the United States” (Zeleza 2006a:2), and its focus was on the “development of African languages and cultures” (Ajayi et al. 1996:31)8 with a view towards racial equality – contradictory to the colonialists’ emphasis on “basic, or fundamental, rather than applied, or practical subjects” (Ahmed 1989:3). This focus on “the social production of African intellectual capacities, communities and commitments” (Zeleza 2006a:10) at the Lovedale Missionary Institute heightened the suspicions and opposition of the colonialists and settlers towards the institution, which was associated with the dangerous and radical “modern educated African elite and their nationalist demands for equality and freedom” (Zeleza 2006a:2). The colonialists’ priority – the maintaining of colonial “law and order, not 8 Notable alumni of this institution include: Enoch Sontonga; Steve Biko; Z.K. Matthews; Govan Mbeki; Tiyo Soga; Charles Nqakula; Ellen Kuzwayo; and Gladys Mgudlandlu, among others. These are arguably some of the greatest black African cultural producers and thinkers in South African history. 46 the fostering of social change” (Ajayi et al. 1996:28) – lead to a systematic curtailing of the institute’s growth and to its eventual closure in 1979. By 1960, “often taken as the year of African independence” (Zeleza 2006a:3), South Africa boasted the second highest concentration of students in higher education on the continent (Task Force on Higher Education and Society 2000). However, despite the expansion of higher education at the time, the numbers were skewed as a result of racial segregation (Task Force on Higher Education and Society 2000; Zeleza 2006a). The racial segregation in higher education in South Africa had been consolidated in 1953 under the National Party through the Bantu Education Act, Act 47 of 1953, and followed through in the Extension University Education Act 45 of 1959. It was intended to disallow predominately black Africans to “aspire to certain positions in society” (Christopher 1994:150) and reinforce legislated “conceptions of race and the politics of race” (Bunting 2002:59) in the broader South African society. This distinguished higher education in South Africa from the rest of Africa as being mutually exclusive for different race groups predetermined by the Population Registration Act of 1950, which divided the population into three racial groups9: white, black (‘native African’ or ‘Bantu’ peoples), and coloured (further subcategorised into ‘Cape Malay’, ‘Griqua’, ‘Indian’, ‘Chinese’, and ‘Cape coloured’) (Christopher 1994). The implication of the Bantu Education Act, in combination with the Population Registration Act, is that as recently as 1985, “a total of 19 higher education institutions had been designated as being ‘for the exclusive use of whites’, two as being ‘for the exclusive use of coloureds’, two ‘for the exclusive use of Indians’, and six as being ‘for the exclusive use of Africans’” (Bunting 2002:36). Black Africans, coloureds and Indians were barred from all ‘white’ institutions and the institutions reserved for black Africans were predominately relegated to the “so-called homelands” (Zeleza 2006a:3), with a few exceptions such as Vista University and the Medical University of South Africa. Coloured and Indian institutions were typically located on the periphery of urban areas in South Africa’s primary and secondary cities (Davies 1981; Maylem 1995; Robinson 1993). 9 Although there were three basic racial classifications under the Population Act of 1950, “Indians (that is, South Asians from the former British India, and their descendants) was later added as a separate classification as they were seen as having no historical right to the country” (Herrero 2014:114). 47 Homelands – at the heart of the National Party (NP) government policy in apartheid South Africa – were designed to enforce racial and ethnic social, spatial, and geographic segregation (O’Malley n.d.; Mazrui 1996). Utilised as one of several devices for domination, the homelands were designed to promote “group autonomy, devolution of political power on a group basis and a greater degree of social segregation” (Schlemmer 1978:128) and “designation of distinction” (Butler, Rotberg & Adams 1978:24) of race and ethnicity. The relegation of higher education institutions to the homelands, where gross human rights violations and economic deprivation were the norm for millions of black South Africans, meant that the growth and development of these institutions were left to “private institutions with limited power and resources” (Butler et al. 1978:8). Furthermore, the homelands limited black South Africans’ participation and representation in policy making, funding, and development. The establishment of higher education institutions in homelands in a time where “citizenship arrangements offered to African people in South Africa’s cities … were, in general, those of exclusion from the democratic, participative rights usually accorded to citizens in modern societies” (Robinson 1993:65) ensured continued powerlessness for these institutions and the individuals in them (Butler et al. 1978). The location of black institutions in the homelands and the limitations placed on them by racial and cultural laws that claimed to maintain “harmonious relations between ethnic groups... secured only by reducing points of contact to a minimum” (Davies 1981:69) show how “the spatial dimension of state [was utilised to] control... the black underclass” (Maylem 1995:19–20). The historical utilisation of space in South Africa to enforce segregation and separation based on race and ethnicity is therefore significant and important for reform and redress in the transformation of contemporary South African society generally and in higher education specifically (Davies 1981; Maylem 1995; Rex 1974; Robinson 1993; Soudien 2006). Historically, the artificial race-based differentiation in access to and claim on urban and rural space created by the Native Urban Areas Act No 21 of 1923 (and the subsequent series of Urban Areas Acts) was “a product of South Africa’s own peculiar, bizarre brand of racism” (Maylem 1995:22). These Acts of Parliament that legislated segregation and separation of different ethnic groups controlled the mobility, influx, and social activities of black Africans in urban South Africa and “shaped social interaction on the whole” (Shin 2009:423). Aligned 48 with the ‘sanitation syndrome’10, the Acts sought to alienate predominately black African people in urban spaces. The sanitation syndrome was the basis for “moral panic and racial hysteria, as whites increasingly came to associate the black urban presence with squalor, disease and crime” (Maylem 1995:24). There existed “on the one hand, perceived threat to white health and safety and, on the other, the drive to urban segregation” (Maylem 1995:24), which produced a differentiated urban space “within a comprehensive framework of social and spatial controls overtly structured to achieve a specific social and economic design” (Davies 1981:63). Against this background, the character and magnitude of the historic socio-spatial differentiation – white, Indian, and coloured versus black; and urban (city) versus rural (homeland) – in higher education is highlighted in the present-day concerns around “social integration, social stratification and civic participation” (Shin 2009:423) that are “inseparably bound up with the social formation of … society” (Davies 1981:62). 2.2.3 Transformation in Higher Education and Its Institutions in South Africa Historically in South Africa “it was enshrined that one race was inferior to another and that one race could dehumanise another” (Okri 2012:1) – this was called apartheid. The conceptual starting point of apartheid as an ideology was “that of domination in two separate but closely linked worlds” (Van Reenen 2013:9). Racial supremacy was perceived as a value, goal, and norm that was “elevated to a hypernormative position in discourse” (Van Reenen 2013:9) so as to dominate, infiltrate, and distort other values, goals, and norms. Apartheid, introduced and legislated in 1948 by the NP in South Africa (Bond 2014; SAHO 2016), deliberately enforced “the spatial distancing of blacks to urban peripheries [which] reflected and facilitated social distancing from whites, who were allocated large central areas of land” (Lemanski 2004:102, emphasis in original). It involved a geographical and spatial structuring of society such that “lines were drawn on maps and people re- ordered accordingly” (Lemanski 2004:102). It has been argued that apartheid was no more than “a regulatory system designed to effect redistributions in favor of white workers and farmers at the expense of black workers and white capitalists” (Lowenberg 1989:57) – 10 Maylem (1995) suggests that the ‘sanitation syndrome’ in South Africa was first emphasized by M.W. Swanson in the following publications: (1) Swanson, M.W. 1976. “The Durban system”: roots of urban apartheid in colonial Natal. African Studies 35(3-4):159–176. (2) Swanson, M.W. 1977. The sanitation syndrome: bubonic plague and urban native policy in the Cape colony, 1900 – 1909. Journal of African History 18(3):387–410. 49 nothing more than an economically-motivated policy designed to expedite and improve production. However, the socio-spatial differentiation and use of the terms ‘white’ and ‘non- white’ in the policy and practices of apartheid reveal an underlying conceptualisation in which one group constructs the identity of another only in relation to itself and indicates “an almost unanimous consensus” (Said 1978:26–27) that ‘non-whites’ did not exist as separate social, economic, and political entities. In the 1990s, significant social and political changes were undergone in South Africa. The release of Nelson Mandela in 1990, and the first successful democratic elections held in 1994 – which allowed all South Africans irrespective of race to participate and be represented in policy making, funding, and development – affected all aspects of national life. The transition from apartheid to a democratic state meant that socio-spatial segregation was abolished as an official policy, and led to the start of a transformation process in South African higher education and at its institutions (Badat 2010; Cloete et al. 2006; DoE 1997, 2008; Luescher & Symes 2003; Soudien 2010b; van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016). The transformation of higher education in contemporary South Africa, and the implications thereof for society, has recently risen to the fore of national and international debate as a result of the 2015 and 2016 student movements. In accordance with Reddy’s (2004:6) assessment of the 1970 student uprisings against apartheid that “transgressed the confines of the universities and impacted upon other areas of civil society”, it can be said that the 2015 and 2016 student movements connected various key stakeholders in society and brought to the fore questions around the transformation of post-1994 South African society in general and higher education in particular. The student movements created a significant historic moment by bringing higher education institutions into the spotlight as sites of conflict, protest, and resistance in the call for greater responsiveness of higher education to the realities and conditions of society in a post-apartheid South Africa. It is worth noting that prior to the 2015 and 2016 student movements, several processes and events placed the need for transformation in higher education into the national spotlight. These included:  The formulation of the third Department of Education White Paper (DoE 1997), which aimed to “overcome an historically determined pattern of fragmentation, inequality and inefficiency... [and] increase access for black, women, disabled and mature students, and generate new curricula and flexible models of learning and teaching, 50 including modes of delivery, to accommodate a larger and more diverse student population” (DoE 1997:6).  The 2004 and 2005 merging of several higher education institutions, with the aim of implementing policies and institutional practices that reflected “the formal intentions of government planners” (Jansen 2003:27) in the new democratic state.  The release of a video taken at the Reitz residence, University of the Free State, that “showed the students forcing a group of elderly black (cleaning) workers, four women and one man, to eat food in which one of the students had apparently urinated” (DoE 2008:23). This video led to the formation of the Ministerial Committee on Transformation and Social Cohesion and Elimination of Discrimination in Public Higher Education Institutions (MCTHE)11. Of the three examples given in the context of this thesis, the Reitz residence video is significant in that it led to the formation of MCTHE by the Minister of Education, Mrs Naledi Pandor, on 31 March 2008 (van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016). The MCTHE was commissioned to broadly describe and evaluate the fundamental societal role of higher education in a post-1994 South African society (DoE 1997). In an address at the Higher Education Resource Services South Africa (HERS-SA) conference on 28 March 2008, the Minister commented on the formation of the committee stating that “the first issue to address is the university itself” (Pandor 2008:1). The committee had a much broader aim, however. The chair of the MCTHE, Prof. Crain Soudien, emphasised this point by saying that “[w]hile the inquiry was prompted by the [recent Reitz residence] events at the University of the Free State, it [was] not per se focused on the University of the Free State” (Soudien, cited in Théron 2008:1). The MCTHE, “in leading the way to realisation of the promise of full human rights for all which the Constitution so clearly spells out” (DoE 2008:6), sought to answer the question of why a disjunction still exists “between institutional policies and the real-life experiences of staff and students” (DoE 2008:14) almost 15 years (at the time of the Reitz incident) after the demise of apartheid. In its final Report to the Minister of Education, the MCTHE identified three critical factors for transformation in higher education. 11 The constituted Ministerial Committee (MCTHE), chaired by Prof. Crain Soudien, was comprised of Dr Olive Shisana, Prof. Sipho Seepe, Ms Gugu Nyanda, Mrs Sankie Mthembu-Mahanyele, Dr Charles Villa-Vicencio, Prof. Mokubung Nkomo, Ms Mohau Pheko, Mr Nkateko Nyoka, and Dr Wynoma Michaels (DBE, cited in van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016). 51 Therefore, in the broader interpretation, transformation could be reduced to three critical elements, namely policy and regulatory compliance; epistemological change, at the centre of which is the curriculum; institutional culture and the need for social inclusion in particular (DoE 2008:36). In 2011, three years after the MCTHE report, the Deputy Minister of Higher Education, Prof. Hlengiwe Mkhize, reiterated its focus in the following statement: Fifty years down the line, the legacy of colonialism and all the other apartheid architecture are still with us. The question today is whether we have achieved a single, unified, diversified education and training system where all... enjoy equal opportunities... the determinants are the usual culprits: race, class, gender, geographical location, disability and of course HIV/ Aids” (Mkhize, cited in PMG 2015:58–59). This disjunction between policy and real-life experiences in higher education and at its institutions in post-apartheid South Africa, Mkhize goes on to argue, is a result of the lack of seriousness with which “government policies and legislation aimed at the promotion of social cohesion are taken” (Mkhize, cited in PMG 2015:59). This suggests that the speed and sequencing with which progress is being made towards the mandated transformation in this sector (Badat 2010; DoE 1997), as it stands, is problematic (DoE 2008; PMG 2015; Habib 2016; Luescher & Symes 2003; Poplak 2016; van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016). The problematic of transformation, according to the MCTHE report, [e]manates from the too-close association of the university with the project of westernization – and the ever-present danger of articulating this in narrow Eurocentric terms as, to put it bluntly, a ‘white’ project – and a patent difficulty faced by the university to confront the challenge of opening itself up to different bodies and traditions of knowledge and knowledge-making in new and exploratory ways (DoE 2008:41). The report suggests that transformation in higher education and at its institutions in contemporary South Africa, though present, disappoints and stops short of translating its ideological notions from policy into real positive impact on the everyday experience of the people – those who work, teach, and learn within the system. In spite of the sector having gained ground in terms of policy making aimed at achieving the national goals of non- discrimination, dignity, equity, and transformation (Badat 2010; Cloete et al. 2006; DIRAP 2016; DoE 2008; Luescher & Symes 2003; Soudien 2010b), the reality of other factors such as funding models, institutional capacity, and racism means that “it would be naive to think that people’s real-life experiences will change because policy has changed” (DoE 2008:41). The “massive gap between transformation policy and practices” (de Waal 2017:1) in the face of a rapidly changing democratic society implies that “universities are slow to change 52 and the establishment has much to lose” (THE 1996:1). It can be said, in accordance with Macfarlane (2013:1), that the gap between policy and practice is mirrored in the “long- entrenched conflicts in South African higher education”. These conflicts indicate that, in order for initiatives for redress and reform will only have a far-reaching effect if the form part of “a comprehensive, deep-rooted and on-going social process” (USAf 2015:2) of transformation. Such a process involves the “active removal of any institutional, social, material and intellectual barriers in the way of creating a more equal, inclusive and socially just higher education system” (USAf 2015:2). Removal of aforementioned barriers could facilitate “longer-term changes in social relations” (Reddy 2004:8) that are in alignment with the “social development intentions of a post-apartheid South Africa” (CHE 2016:66). The transformation process should produce “critical, independent citizens as well as skilled and socially-committed graduates who would be capable of contributing to social and economic development” (CHE 2016:22), and address the “deeply entrenched inequalities in all spheres of society” (SAHRC 2016:vii). In order to bridge the gap between policies and practice, one could argue that the social dynamics – social activity, relations, and processes – in higher education and at its institutions need to be contested, investigated, and better understood. Such an in-depth exploration and understanding of social dynamics could be “useful in measuring the pace of transformation” (DoE 2008:37) and in bringing about the required epistemological and institutional change “often invoked by dramatic changes in the political regime” (Jansen 2003:30) – as was the case in South Africa’s change from apartheid to a democratic state12. Significant changes in education generally, and in higher education specifically, it can be argued, “have their origins in broader social changes” (Jansen 2003:30). In her maiden speech to the Extended Public Committee (EPC), the Deputy Minister for Higher Education and Training, Prof. Hlengiwe Mkhize, emphasises the importance of the social thus: I think it is appropriate to refer to the premise upon which the kind of education which has led us to this position we are in today was built, because if we do not have a deeper understanding of the systematic manner in which the destruction of the 12 Jansen (2003) argues that in South Africa’s transition from apartheid to a democratic state, three transitional conditions need to be considered in order to address the fragmentation in higher education. First, the division inherent to a “system divided by racial inequalities with white and black institutions bearing the markings (material, cultural and social) of their histories” (Jansen 2003:3). Second, the “ongoing conflict, instability and crisis” (Jansen 2003:4) experienced at historically black universities, technicons, and colleges of education and technology. Lastly, “the dramatic and unexpected decline in student enrolments” (Jansen 2003:4) that was particularly devastating for historically black tertiary institutions. 53 education system was socially constructed, our policy response would be half- hearted and full of contradictions (Mkhize, cited in PMG 2015:58). Mkhize, in her reference to the importance of social change for higher education and its institutions, calls for the scrutiny of knowledge and a reflection on the mechanisms by which “knowledge restructuring occurs and how to build a learning environment that facilitates this restructuring” (Duschl & Gitomer 1991:839). In this vein, Jansen (2009a:123) speaks of a knowledge that “appears to be embedded at the level of ‘blood knowledge’” and is representative of “what people deeply believe about race, identity and knowledge”. This knowledge, Jansen (2009a:126) argues, is in the blood and it is “not only what is formally designated for learning... but is widely understood within the institution” and distinguishes the “one university type (such as the Afrikaans universities) from the rest” in South African society. To suggest that higher education – its systems, institutions, and teaching and learning – is socially embedded in a particular context that influences it in a multiplicity of ways (Jansen 2009b; Maoyuan 2016; Reid 2009; Simatupang 2009). This social influence includes [t]he claims, silences, and assumptions about knowledge concealed in the beliefs and value systems of those who teach and learn; concealed behind the classroom door, they influence and direct the substance of what counts as the actual knowledge transactions among participants in the learning process (Jansen 2009a:132–133). The 2015 and 2016 student movements, it can be said, showed how the students, through their understanding of a particular context, revealed socially embedded blood knowledge. This understanding, revealed in their call for free, quality decolonised education (Davis, Seabe, Kamanzi 2016; Nkopo & Tselane 2016; Poho 2016), was a form of resistance against the transformation project as it exists in post-1994 South African higher education. The resistance by the students, Jansen (2009a:133) argues, is in fact against “an authoritarian and hierarchical culture, [that appears] to be following the new curriculum script, but this does not translate into transformative knowledge, in the classroom, and the students know this”. This suggests that, in part, the 2015 and 2016 student movements were a response to what Jansen (2009a) describes as ‘blood knowledge’ that allows for students to be able to recognise forms of micro-aggressions experienced as subtle forms of discrimination in the reality of their everyday. Such discriminatory, asymmetrical social relations and processes highlight the “problematic of identity and subjective formations” (van Reenen 2016:18) of social groups and class structures in higher education and at its institutions. In the context of South Africa’s unique history, social groupings and class 54 structures are predominantly, but not exclusively, based on race (DoE 2008; PMG 2015; Jansen 2009a; Letsekha 2013; Mamdani 1997; Poplak 2016; van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016; Zeleza 2006a). In higher education, the dimensions of domination such as class, gender, and race continue to be expressed in the relentless daily indignities experienced by the individuals in it (Keith & Pile 1993; Msimang 2016; Watkins 2005). Within the everyday expression of the aforementioned dimensions of domination, space is positioned as an actor that is actively constructed, negotiated, and contested (Ligget 1995). The thesis focus on the organisation of space as “one of a series of relatively autonomous worlds or fields whose complex interactions constitute society” (Maton 2005:689) stems from two important aspects of space. First, its dialectically referenced hidden language of signs, symbols, and consequences (Lefebvre 1991b); and second, the social activity that is designed to occur, is occurring, and has occurred in that space and which is not limited to physical representations of that space (Harvey 2004). A view of space that moves beyond the physical to include the interface between notions of space and place, politics and identity (Keith & Pile 1993), and provides “the capacity for offering more choices for social activities as well as being a place for cultural exchanges” (Jalaladdini & Oktay 2012:665), can facilitate recognition of “the proposed educational reform script for what it is: a text for a very particular understanding of the world” (Soudien & Baxen 1997:458). Investigating the organisation of space at higher education institution – which “makes a difference to how it works” (Massey 1993:44) – can provide an image of societal and social reality (Grix 2002) as it is represented in the “vast intricacies, the incredible complexities of the interlocking and non-interlocking, and the networks of relations at every scale from the local to the global” (Massey 1993:153). Such an investigation contributes to the transformation in higher education project as it moves beyond traditional “forms of knowledge and scholarship” (Singh 2001:5) and includes a “broad notion of social accountability and social responsiveness” (Singh 2001:9). 2.3 THE SPACE AND CHARACTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA 2.3.1 Space and Transformation The Africanisation of higher education – in Africa in general and in South Africa in particular – is “a call to adapt curricula and syllabuses to ensure that teaching and learning are adapted to African realities and conditions” (Letsekha 2013:5) with a focus on “the African 55 tradition of philosophy in our era” (Wiredu 2002:53). The Africanisation of higher education is concerned with a legitimate and plausible way to synthesise the conceptualisation and advancement of African “traditional philosophies with any we get from modern resources of knowledge and reflection” (Wiredu 2002:54). In pursuit of this synthesis, it must be kept in mind, however, “that such a system of ideas does not necessarily represent the thinking of all the members of the given society, let alone of all its thinkers, being itself a kind of informal précis of the thoughts of past and present individuals” (Wiredu 2002:64). The call for “the Africanisation of higher education forms part of the larger discourse on the restructuring and transformation of these institutions” (Letsekha 2013:5), such that higher education can interrogate its own realties and conditions directly, and in turn allow these realities and conditions to interrogate it in “an expectation of Africa’s resurgence, re- invigoration, and reclamation of its own identity” (Nkoane 2006:49). In South Africa, the knowledge and change asked for in the Africanisation discourse has been shown to be integral to a “transformation agenda... largely driven by the need to undo decades of injustice caused by apartheid” (Letsekha 2013:5), as well as to the mandated response to dimensions and principles of transformation (DoE 1997) in alignment with the Bill of Rights (RSA 1996). At the heart of Africanisation and the associated transformation of higher education and its institutions in South Africa are the “issues around curriculum reform, internationalisation, [and] the role of higher education in a newly democratic country” (Letsekha 2013:5), as well as a focus on ideologically-based ‘evidence’ that implies and “facilitates the grasping of the ‘object’ by the writing and speaking ‘subject’” (Lefebvre 1991b:28). The focus on “mental activity (invention)” (Lefebvre 1991b:28) as communication – which includes writing, discourse, and dialogue – does not adequately address “the material, historical and social realities of the communities in which universities operate” (Letsekha 2013:15). This over-emphasis neglects the “social activity (realisation)... [that] is deployed in space”, to “the detriment of social practice” (Lefebvre 1991b:28) and the material conditions within which we live with and relate to other individuals and our surroundings. In South Africa, the racialised “functional and spatial organisation of urban society” (Davies 1981:69) relegates space – material (perceived), representational, institutional, and ideological (conceived) – and the affective-symbolic (lived) to the pre- material conditions of mental activity. In the South African higher education system and its institutions, as in society, “a whole new thematic of inside and outside, of inclusion in, and exclusion from, a positively valued modernity” (Ross 1996:149–150) must therefore be 56 addressed by “reconnect[ing] space... with the historical time of social production” (Kelly 1995:418). The literature suggests that the historical inclusion of predominately white South Africans in and exclusion of predominately black South Africans from higher education institutions maintains specific social relations in the sector while there is dissolution and opposition of others (Lefebvre 1991b). The maintenance, dissolution, and opposition of social relations in higher education through “a tacit agreement” that “imposes reciprocity and communality of use” (Lefebvre 1991b:56), influences “behaviour and choice externally, through rewards and punishments” and shapes “personal convictions into a replica of prevailing norms” (Gramsci, cited in Femia 1981:24, emphasis in original). Femia (1981) argues that this is what creates “the predominance obtained by consent rather than force of one class or group over other classes” (Femia 1981:24, emphasis in original). In this way, the historical socio-spatial differentiation between higher education institutions – ‘white’ and ‘non-white’, Afrikaans and English, or black ‘bush colleges’ (Jansen 2009a) – suggests a process of organising space in order to meet “a single, predetermined objective” (Kroll 1984:167). This was shown in the “zoning laws, as the primary ordinance to fulfil government land use at the local level” (Shin 2009:431) during apartheid13. It can be argued that in contemporary South Africa the organisation of space at higher education institutions – which was previously “realised, essentially, through the coercive machinery of the state” (Femia 1981:24) – continues to differentiate between different social, racial, and class groups and perpetuates the dominance of one group over others (Lemanski 2004). In the absence of apartheid socio-spatial controls and restrictions at higher education institutions, space is increasingly undergoing a process of fortification and enclosure: the closure of public streets that run through and/or are adjacent to these institutions; the erection of electrified 13 i. The Native Land Act of 1913 limited land transactions between different racial groups. This was the first segregation legislation that deprived the majority of black South Africans the right and ability to own land. ii. The Native Urban Areas Act no. 21 of 1923 designated all urban space in South Africa as ‘white’ and legislated that all black Africans were required to carry a ‘Pass’ at all times while in urban space. The Act was designed to control the mobility of black Africans, and to limit their presence in urban space to 72 hours. iii. The Group Areas Act of 1950 covered three separate Acts of Parliament, aimed at excluding non- white South Africans from urban areas. The Group Areas Act, in its enforcement of segregation in general and exclusion in particular, lead to the humiliating forcible removal of 3.5 million people between the periods of 1960 to 1982 (Platzky & Walker 1984). Forced removals, characterised by excessive force and brutality, predominantly affected black South Africans who were removed and “dumped in barren and uninhabitable areas... reducing them to non-citizens” (Kgatla 2013:120). 57 fences and high walls; and the increased employment of private security with state-of-the- art CCTV and surveillance, intended to patrol and monitor the institutional citadel (Freund 2007; Lemanski 2004; Atkinson & Flint 2004; Rosovsky 2002). Berlin (1953) argues that the fortification of space in higher education institutions enhances the positive freedoms of those in control of the institution with the ability ‘to do’ something about the perceived “fears about private crimes both property and personal” (Atkinson & Flint 2004:178), but this fortification also hinders the freedoms of others. Furthermore, the enclosure of higher education institutions exacerbates the injustices of gross levels of disparity and inequality between the neighbourhood environments of wealthy (predominately, but not exclusively) white, and poor (predominately, but not exclusively) black communities (Lemanski 2004; Massey & Denton 1998). This restriction of space at South African higher education institutions aimed at predetermined groups in society does not contribute to the developmental of role of higher education or aid redress and reform for those to whom access to this space has been and still is denied. The claim is, therefore, that initiatives for redress and reform aimed at transformation in higher education extend beyond considering those indicators that have implications for the organisation of space at higher education institutions to transformation as a broader social good in society. Historical socio-spatial differentiation in higher education alone cannot account for the slow pace of transformation in post-apartheid higher education (Cloete et al. 2006; DoE 2008; SAHRC 2016; van der Westhuizen, Labuschagne & Kekana 2016). A combination of historical socio-spatial differentiation, the perceptions around increasing levels of crime (Lemanski 2004; Schonteich & Louw 2001; Stats SA 2017), hegemonic culture, and religious or other institutions in civil society that support “the erection of systemic barriers” (Massey & Denton 1998:11) all contribute to segregation and separation at higher education institutions. In the context of the 2015 and 2016 student movement that took place at several higher education institutions, the effects of perceived risk and fears around crime and “the daily dynamism... [of] a deeply hegemonic culture” (Van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016:81–88) was shown in its ‘habitus’14 and represented in heightened levels of security. These security measures include strict regulation of access by the general public, deployment of private security guards, and defensive fencing systems. This, it can be 14 The concept of ‘habitus’ was developed by Pierre Bourdieu (1996; 1989) to capture and encapsulate the objective (the external position) and the subjective (the “perceptual structures and embodied dispositions which organise the way individuals see the world and act in it” [King 2000:423]) moments in a practical theory of dialectic relation. 58 argued, perpetuates spatial and social immobility for those that are not predetermined as members of or stakeholders in the space (Massey & Denton 1998) and places the interests of a single preferred social, racial, or class group directly or indirectly above those of others. The positively valued group more often than not does not represent the interests of broader society (Femia 1981; van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016), and as such its ‘minority’ position and function are “imposed on social life” (Femia 1981:42) in the regulated space of higher education and at its institutions. The domination and imposition of the ‘minority’ social or class group (perceived in South African higher education to be predominately white [DoE 2008; van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016; van der Westhuizen et al. 2016]) ties the majority group (perceived in South African higher education to be predominately black) to a predetermined “expression... of intellectual and moral direction” (Tamburrano, cited in Femia 1981:42). For the individual in higher education the result is that connections emerge between the conscious thoughts and the unconscious values implicit in what is seen as acceptable “action and inter-actions, of calling and of calling back and forth, of expressiveness and power” (Lefebvre 1991a:403). The focus on the space in which what is deemed acceptable and what is not responds to pre-material and material conditions in higher education and at its institutions can, therefore, positively contribute to initiatives for reform and redress aimed at a more holistic experience of transformation. 2.3.2 Space as a Key Concept in Higher Education The contemporary conceptualisation of space “has emerged from a traditional western, Cartesian logic to produce an abstract space – a scientific space” (Watkins 2005:210) to “satisfy whatever ontological conditions have to be met by things that function as mental causes and effects” (Fodor 1998:23). In other words, “having concept X is having the ability to think about X’s (or better, that having concept X is being able to think about X’s ‘as such’)” (Fodor 1998:3). Space can thus be seen, in accordance with Bennardo, as being “an ontological universal” (2009:137). The universality of space, Foley argues, is based on “experience in the form of expressive devices for spatial information provided by the language one learns and speaks” (1998:229). It is this universal manner in which spatial information is learnt and communicated that Harvey (2004) argues requires its frequent modification as metaphorical, liminal, personal, social, and/or psychic. This modification in the telling of and writing on space, as a mental token, is in “the vast majority of mainstream considerations of space being informed by, and delimited within, the powerful ideological tendencies that inform all attempts at scientific understandings” (Watkins 2005:210). The 59 “Object opposed to Subject, as res extensa opposed to, and present to, res cogitans” (Lefebvre 1991b:1, emphasis in original) is what makes this conceptualisation of space problematic. The ambiguity in “the relationship between mathematics and reality – physical or social reality... from the philosophy of space revised and corrected by mathematics – the modern field of inquiry known as epistemology” (Lefebvre 1991b:3) problematises the conceptualisation of space as an ontological, mental thing that embodies all places and all things in “a strictly symbolic existence” (Lefebvre 1991b:236). Absolute space as “‘a thing in itself’ with an existence independent of matter” (Harvey 2009:13) renders any general consideration of it as “abstract, as impoverished, one-sided and isolated” (Stanek 2008:64) and rules out “space’s being a thing; but given that there is nothing for it to be a property of” (Bennett 2017:17, emphasis in original). One could infer from a Leibnizian conclusion that it is “therefore a relation” (Leibniz, cited in Bennett 2017:17) in “the sense that an object can be said to exist insofar as it contains and represents within itself relationships to other objects” (Harvey 2009:13). The consideration of space as relative (Alexander 1956; Goudeli 2014; Harvey 2004) asserts “the basic idea that space is a network of relations of coexisting things, which implies the relational and thus the ideal notion of space” (Goudeli 2014:124). The conceptualisation of space “as embedded in a variety of relations” (Stanek 2008:64) bridges the gap between theory – “the space of philosophers and epistemologists” (Lefebvre 1991b:6) – and practice as the foundation for the social engagement that is “fundamental to our understanding and interaction with the world” (Watkins 2005:211). In his work, The Production of Space, Lefebvre “posits space as the primary locus of lived experience” (Watkins 2005:211) and sets out to “discover or construct a theoretical unity between ‘fields’ which are apprehended separately” (Lefebvre 1991b:11). In his conceptualisation of a “unitary theory of space” (Lefebvre 1991b:11, emphasis in original) “the identification and classification of spaces within accepted parameters” (Watkins 2005:210) do not reduce the understanding of space to that which is contained within it. It moves beyond such an understanding to “terms such as spaces of fear, of play, of cosmology, of dreams, of anger, of particle physics, of capital, of geopolitical tension, of memory, or of ecological interaction” (Harvey 2004:1) in a variety of applications. These terms suggest an association with “the social and physical realities of lived experience” (Watkins 2005:210) that bridge the ‘fields’ of the physical, the social, and the mental 60 (Lefebvre 1991b), and show “the inextricable relationship between material forces, social processes and the production of knowledge” (Aronowitz 2012:3). Lefebvre (1991b:68) argues, with reference to Hegel, that the production of space as an (absolute) idea “produces the world”. In this world, “nature produces the human being” that in turn, “by dint of struggle and labour, produces at once, knowledge and self-consciousness”. Similarly, one could argue that space at a higher education institution – in which the social activities that make up the everyday experience of the individual are deployed – understood as “a part of a practical relationship” (Lefebvre 1991b:18) is produced through factors such as material forces, the physicality of place, social processes and relations, and the production of knowledge in it. All these factors are in turn also produced by that space (Aronowitz 2012; Lefebvre 1991b; Massey 1993). Space in higher education thus expresses material, social, and mental relationships in the specificities of history, traditions, customs, representations, and self-identifications (Friedman 1992) that in turn produce the space at its institutions. This motivates the claim that the spatial organisation of higher education institutions makes a difference to how they work (Massey 1993). Thus, the organisation of space – which is socially produced and in turn produces the social – can impact on transformation in higher education and at its institutions. The question of transformation in higher education in “the country in the world with the highest private returns to tertiary education” (Cloete 2016:8), and where the value of a higher education certificate can and does reverse the challenges of gross levels of social and economic inequality, is an important one. South Africa’s exceptionally high Gini coefficient of 0.58 is one of the highest in world (Bosch, Rossouw, Claassens & du Plessis 2010; May 1998). The challenges facing higher education in South Africa – including limitations in the amount and kinds of resources available, as well as an insufficiently prepared education ladder – hinder its responsiveness to entrenched levels of social and economic inequality, growth and development, and democratic social and political practices (Paphitis & Kelland 2016; Cloete et al. 2011; Badat 2010; Singh 2001; Castells 1993; Kerr 1967). Hence, transformation in higher education in South Africa is tasked with actively participating in, and providing solutions for, a myriad of concerns that go beyond “academic, democratic and political” concerns (O’Connell 2003:5). O’Connell (2003:5) argues that, at the turn of the century, most universities in South Africa were “in desperate financial difficulty and with woefully low throughput rates, many without strong student development or academic development policies and practices, and many with no real plan for 61 transformation”. Consequently, in the dawn of a new democratic South Africa post-1994, universities struggled to respond “to societal interests and needs” (DoE 1997:6) so as to facilitate “societal reconstruction and development” (Badat 2010:7) in a post-1994 South Africa. Higher education institutions are tasked with developing “quality, effectiveness and relevance” (Castells 2009:1) for knowledge “production, acquisition and application” (DoE 1997:8) and therefore need to strengthen the “basic functions that are implicit in the role that is assigned to them by society through political power or economic influence” (Castells 1993:70). These institutions constitute “a subsystem of a larger social system” (Maoyuan 2016:36) that “arranges people in space” and “arranges itself [in] the physical milieu of that society” (Hillier & Hanson 1984:27) through social processes and relationships that are “bound up... with the ways in which social formations acquire and change” (Hillier & Hanson 1984:27). The claim is that higher education institutions are social institutions (Badat 2010; Simatupang 2009; Reddy 2004; O’Connell 2003; Kerr 2001) – an institution that “maintains, reproduces, or adapts itself to implement values that have been widely held and firmly structured by the society” (Gumport 2000:73). Consequently, the investigation of space – which produces the social and in turn is produced by the social – at a higher education institution can contribute to the transformation of higher education such that it contributes to “the betterment of the human condition” (Hackney 1986:135), the equalisation of chance, and the democratisation of society (Castells 2009; DoE 1997). And “in return...[higher education] can be inspired by the opportunities and strengthened by [its] participation” (Kerr 1967:14). The idea that “(social) space is a (social) product” (Lefebvre 1991b:26, emphasis in original) does not distinguish between “mental space... and physical space” (Lefebvre 1991b:27) but rather incorporates social activity – “the actions of subjects both individual and collective” (Lefebvre 1991b:33). In terms of transformation, this conception of space as a social product can be utilised as a tool of analysis when investigating a materialised understanding and experience of this concept in higher education. The inclusion of “the person or subject doing the studying as well as the object or realm being studied” (Said 1991:36) while investigating the organisation of space at higher education institutions contributes to a “reflective capacity and willingness to review and renew prevailing ideas, policies and practices based on a commitment to the common good” (DoE 1997:4). The 62 aim is to respond meaningfully to “new realities and opportunities” (DoE 1997:2) and to “real actors in real institutions” (CHE 2007:182) in the “objective and subjective social structure” (Dirk & Gelderblom 2017:354) in higher education in a contemporary democratic society. This thesis claims that the role of space in the historic socio-spatial differentiation of differently located individuals along racial and ethnic lines has not been adequately addressed in contemporary South African higher education. Nonetheless, there have been attempts to reverse the effects of the historic socio-spatial differentiation of apartheid. One such initiative was the merging of different higher education institutions in post-1994 democratic South Africa. The outcomes of these mergers “were the product of a complex interplay between governmental macro-politics and institutional micro-politics in a context of political transition” (Jansen 2003:27)”. The outcomes of the mergers, Jansen (2003:49) argues, disturbed the assumption “that policy implementation is a rational-technical process in which official policy (the formal intentions of government) is a mirror image of institutional practice (the ways in which institutions respond to or change in relation to government intentions)”. Although intended to foster social and academic integration in higher education, the merger process has not adequately addressed the differentiated social and spatial nature of higher education institutions. The thesis responds to this inadequacy by exploring the legacy of socio-spatial differentiation in higher education through analysis of the organisation of space at a higher education institution. This analysis highlights the concerns and contentions around the perceived and real preservation and fortification of space for the benefit of predominately white and/or privileged South Africans and to the detriment of predominately black and/or under-privileged South Africans. The investigation of the organisation of space at a higher education institution seeks to provide socio-spatial insights and awareness that can contribute to addressing some of the contradictions between official policy and institutional practice in order to move towards a holistic approach to transformation in higher education. 2.4 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH Higher education and its institutions, seen as critical for the growth and development of society, can contribute to the establishment of a positive and improved socio-economic and political environment. Higher education and its institutions can thus also be viewed as a product – defined and shaped as a dialectic materialism that is “extended and made 63 manifest in and through the praxis, that is the total activity of mankind, action and thought, physical labour and knowledge” (Lefebvre 2003:20) – in a specific historic and spatial context. Transformation in higher education, in a post-1994 democratic South Africa, has not paid much attention to concerns other than the rational-technical processes and ideological aspects that constitute its foundations. These concerns mostly focus on the methods (how) and content (what) of education – curriculum, education policy, pedagogy, and teaching and learning – as well as on governance, funding, and quality assurance (CHE 2016). What is not commonly or adequately addressed when looking at transformation in higher education, however, is where it takes place. In this thesis, the view of higher education institutions as social institutions in which “the rational expression of the praxis... the actual content of life” (Lefebvre 2003:20) is deployed in space suggests that the transformation of higher education should take place through a more holistic “social practice that is conscious, coherent and free” (Lefebvre 2003:20). The investigation of space – in which “the struggles and contradictions of ‘living actuality’” (Kipfer 2009:xxi) are deployed – at a higher education institution is undertaken using a social constructivist paradigm. This approach views the reality of everyday life as being co- constructed through human praxis in which “knowledge and creative action, cannot be separated” (Lefebvre 2003:20). The study aims to address the gap in the literature caused by neglecting to investigate the socio-spatial as a “crucial setting of human desire” (Coleman 2005:40) in order to gain a better understanding of “a directly lived everyday life” (Coleman 2005:40) and to create the heightened awareness required for transformation in higher education. In the proceeding section of the chapter, a conceptual framework and a set of guidelines for examining the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education are proposed. The first part of this section presents the framework in a schematic manner in order to show the aspects of the relationship that warrant further research. The framework is used to better demonstrate the viewpoint from which the research questions presented in Chapter One were developed and suggests how these are useful for transformation. The second part of this section presents a set of guidelines for the implementation of empirical analysis designed to operationalise the framework. The primary intention of the framework and the proposed implementation thereof is not an attempt to quantify the magnitude of space and spatial theorisation; it 64 seeks to provide a mechanism that, in the investigation of the impact of the organisation of space at a higher education institution on different and differently located individuals, contributes to a more holistic understanding of transformation as it relates to the higher education experience. 2.4.1 Framework The relationship between space and transformation in higher education is broadly conceptualised in Figure 2.1, which illustrates how “simultaneously historical and spatial” (Soja 1980:209) context-related factors impact on the organisation of space at a higher education institution. The diagram shows the link between the organisational indicators of space – the social activity and spatial practice deployed in it – at a higher education institution and principles and dimensions of transformation in the higher education experience (DoE 1997). 65 Figure 2.1: Conceptual description of the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education at a higher education institution Source: Author 66 It is worth noting that because the understanding of the organisation of space in the same institution by two discrete individuals can vary, any attempt to conceptualise the relationship between space and transformation in higher education must consider related contextual conditions at a specific institution. For even if the official policy that governs the “fundamental principles that guide the process of transformation” (DoE 1997:7) in higher education in South Africa were to consider the actor-relative perspective, it does not necessarily follow that meaningful transformation in higher education would take place at higher education institutions. This is especially true if the official policy, or its potential impact, does not reflect cognizance of the structural conditions and changes – social, political, and economic – in a specific context. Therefore, the efficient and effective application of the proposed framework would have to be context- and institution-specific, so as to account for existing structural conditions and changes. In conceptualising a context- and institution-specific framework that investigates the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education, a set of parameters is proposed. The parameters are intended to allow for the examination and identification of characteristics that distinguish between (1) social spaces and physical spaces at the same higher education institution, hereafter referred to as ‘sites’; and (2) the land uses at the same institution across a set of locations whose properties are represented through different “thematic attributes” (Andrienko, Andrienko, Bak, Keim, Kisilevich & Wrobel 2011:214). The latter allows for the identification of spatial typologies that can be utilised as a lens to provide insights that can facilitate analysis of the socio-spatial at a higher education institution. This analysis relates the organisation of space at an institution to dimensions and principles of transformation to create a more holistic understanding of the concept of transformation in higher education (DoE 1997). 2.4.1.1 Assessing the implications of the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education The proposed framework incorporates significant components of the literature that detail the dialectic and relational nature of space, and the impact of this on the organisation of space as a social product (Alexander 1956; Goudeli 2014; Harvey 1996; Harvey 2005; Lefebvre 1991b; Soja 1980). It departs from what is found in the literature, however, by focusing on the relationship between space and transformation in higher education to contribute a perspective that considers the organisation of space at a higher education 67 institution in the understanding of and initiatives for transformation in higher education. A case study methodology was adopted as a detailed examination of space designed to investigate more extensively the context-specific factors that influence the direction and strength of this relationship between space and transformation. The proposed conceptual description of the framework illustrated in Figure 2.1 is further developed in Table 2.1 in order to show how the organisation of space at a higher education institution allows for the further investigation of its significance and importance for transformation in higher education. Table 2.1 presents the organisation of space – as a social construct that in turn constructs the social – at a higher education institution. This provides a basis for investigating socio-spatial characteristics of different sites and spatial typologies at a higher education institution. Social and physical characteristics of different sites and spatial typologies can be identified and categorised to illustrate the social rules that are implicit in the use of space at a higher education institution. Insights into these rules allow for the analysis of an institution’s structural environment and can create linkages to dimensions and principles of transformation. 68 Table 2.1: Modifying factors in the linkages between space at higher education institution and transformation in higher education Source: Author 69 In order to better show how the organisation of space at a higher education institution can link to dimensions and principles of transformation in higher education, Table 2.1 (page 69) is discussed in further detail. This discussion frames the parameters which questions concerning space and transformation can be based on and generated from in the proposed relationship. In column 1 of Table 2.1, space is conceptualised as "a theoretical unity between ‘fields’, which are apprehended separately” (Lefebvre 1991b:11) – the physical, social, and mental fields. The claim being made here is that conceptualised (mental/conceived) space – “the space of scientists, planners, urbanists, technocratic sub-dividers and social engineers” (Lefebvre 1991b:38) – produces the social, the “everyday social and commonsensical perception” (Shields 2004:210), and is “directly lived through its associated images and symbols [materialised in] lived space – the space of ‘inhabitants’ and ‘users’” (Lefebvre 1991b:39). The understanding of space – as a unity of the physical, social, and mental fields – and its organisation at higher education institutions thus contributes to a “coherent social objective” (Harvey 2009:50) and provides insights that can be utilised for the reconciliation of official policy and institutional practice. For example, understanding the implications of space and its organisation could give insights into how the implementation of merger processes at institutions impacted on the legacies of segregationist socio-spatial polices in higher education (Atkinson & Blandy 2005; Cloete 2006; Harvey 2009; Maylem 1995). The insights gained can better align the intentions of the merger process and the reality of institutional practice at higher education institutions so as to positively contribute to the understanding and experience of transformation in higher education. The focus in column 1 of Table 2.1 is on “the ideological content of socially created space” (Soja 1980:207). Despite this focus, it is also recognised that official policy and institutional practice can and do impact on the extent and sequencing of dimensions and principles of transformation in higher education. As such, historical and spatial factors that can give insights into both official policy and institutional practice at a specific higher education institution should be considered when looking at parameters that impact on the organisation of space as a social product (Soja 1980). In order to examine the extent to which the historical and spatial factors in a specific context impact on the organisation of space at a higher education institution, let us broadly expound on these spheres. 70 The first sphere, the historical, involves “the materialist analysis of history and society” (Soja 1980:209) that conceptually organises space as a product. For example, in South Africa, the historic race-based socio-spatial segregationist policies impacted on the organisation of contemporary civil society. The second sphere is the spatial – “differentiated characteristics in certain geographic settings, which become salient in comparison with other spatial domains and the past characteristics” (Shin 2009:430), and whose representations of growth and development can impact on access to higher education, and on its institutions’ integration with society. Cheng & Shabazz (2015) argue that uneven growth and development has an impact upon marginalised peoples in a geographic space on “multiple levels, including the body, home and neighbourhood” (2015:1). Furthermore, Shin (2009) argues that, in an unequal society, “sociodemography, physical environments, resources, services, production and consumption” (2009:430) are indicators of socio-spatial differentiation. In South Africa, the inequalities born from historical and socio-spatial differentiation mean that the majority of South Africans, most of whom are black Africans, experience daily indignities resulting from a legacy of segregation. It is argued that the inequalities that are a result of segregationist socio-spatial policies, in part, informed the 2015 and 2016 student social movements that swept across higher education institutions in South Africa. The limited and hegemonic sociodemographic representations in higher education and at its institutions are one of the issues that fuelled the #RMF and #AMF student movements. The socio-economic limitations faced by the majority of black South African students have led to the exclusion of many students from the higher education system and its associated benefits, and raised the issues of alienation and access at the heart of the 2015 and 2016 movements (Davis et al. 2016; Kamanzi 2016; Poho 2016; Poplak 2016). The investigation of historic and spatial conditions that impact on the organisation of space at a specific higher education institution thus provides insights for the positive and increased responses to the spatial dimension that are required for a broader understanding of the concept of transformation of higher education. The following broad questions – related to research question one in Section 1.3.1 (page 30) – may be posed to facilitate investigation of the historic and spatial conditions in a specific context that have implications for the organisation of space at a higher education institution:  How do historic and spatial factors relate broadly to the “absolute and relative properties” (Soja 1980:209) of space at a higher education institution as a material 71 product, and to its “character as a ‘container’ of human life” (Soja 1980:209) in a particular geographical setting?  Do historic and spatial factors differentiate the social processes and relationships between individuals at a higher education institution?  Can the differentiation in the social activity deployed in space locate the individual differently – broadly in society, and specifically in higher education and its institutions?  How does the differentiation in the location of the individual impact on social activity that is deployed in space?  How does differentiation of social activities and location of the individual in space at a higher institution impact on the social cohesion that sits at the heart of transformation of higher education? The investigation of the impact of the historical and spatial factors in a specific context on “space per se” (Soja 1980:209) and on produced space – which shows “socially based spatiality” (Soja 1980:209) and “influences individuals and societies as a whole” (Shin 2009:427) – can provide insights into the social character of space and its organisation at a higher education institution. The social character of space and its organisation, which shows how social activity – social relations, and processes between individuals – is deployed at a higher education institution, is significant and important for social cohesion. This social character and its role in social cohesion thus allows for the development of linkages between space and dimensions and principles of transformation in higher education. 2.4.1.2 Space at a higher education institution Once insights into the impact of historic and spatial factors in a specific context have been obtained, as well as an understanding of how these influence the organisation of space as a social product, a higher education institution can be identified as a case study. The selection of the case (see Chapter Three) should focus on questions that relate to how differentiated understandings of the organisation of space by different and differently located individuals impact on the social activity deployed at the higher education institution. Column 3 of Table 2.1 gives examples of the parameters that can impact on the organisation of space at a higher education institution. It proposes contextual and 72 institutional parameters that can be utilised to assess the development of linkages between the structural environment and indicators of the experience and understanding of transformation in higher education. In assessing the indicators of transformation at a higher education institution, the aim is not only to investigate the implications of the organisation of space at the institution for social activity, but also to show how this differs between institutions located in different contexts. In the pursuit of insights into differentiated understandings of the organisation of space by different and differently located individuals and the possible impact of this understanding on social activity at a higher education institution, it is important to reiteratively relate the information garnered to the principles and dimensions of official policy that governs the process of transformation in higher education. This serves to clarify the development of the linkages that describe the relationship between space at a higher education institution and the experience and understanding of transformation in higher education. The conceptual framework further investigates the following research questions to show how linkages that describe the relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education can be developed. Policy questions  Have the organisational indicators for space at higher education institution been considered in policy for transformation of higher education? How does space at a higher education institution impact on official policy and institutional practice?  How do the organisational indicators for space relate to dimensions and principles for transformation in higher education? Empirical questions  Can the organisation indicators for space at a higher education institution differentiate between individuals? How do organisation indicators for space at a higher education institution differentiate between individuals?  Can the organisation indicators for space at a higher education institution differently locate the individual? What is the impact on transformation of differently locating different individuals at a higher education institution? 73  How do organisation indicators for space differentiate the reality of the everyday for different and differently located individuals at a higher education institution? What are the implications of differentiated realities at a higher education institution for different and differently located individuals upon initiatives for redress and reform towards transformation in higher education? Conceptual questions  What are the organisational indicators that impact the organisation of space at a higher education institution?  Which dimensions and principles for transformation could be addressed by means of the proposed conceptual framework?  How can insights into the differentiated realities of different and differently located individuals at a higher education institution contribute to the development of a spatial lens through which to examine the relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education? The impact of space upon the higher education experience at a higher education institution needs to be considered at a broader level that includes “fundamental principles that should guide the process of transformation in the spirit of an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom” (DoE 1997:7). These principles, as set out in the official policy of the Department of Education, include: 1. Equity and redress 2. Democratisation 3. Development 4. Quality 5. Effectiveness and efficiency 6. Academic freedom 7. Institutional autonomy 8. Public accountability The consideration of broadly relevant processes and initiatives for transformation in higher education sets the stage for theoretical propositions that problematise the status quo. Consequently, the contention in this thesis is that although the official policy that forms the 74 basis for transformation of higher education includes the fundamental principles listed above, it does not adequately consider the implications of space and spatial theorisation for the proposition, formulation, implementation, and evaluation of transformation. For example, in the 2015 and 2016 student social movements, the issues of access and alienation at the heart of the movements were frequently addressed in terms of economics and socio-political factors such as race, language, gender, and identity (Habib 2016; Jacobs 2016; Msimang 2016; Poplak 2016; Baloyi & Isaacs 2015; Disemelo 2015). It can be argued that contentions around the organisation of space and objects in space at higher education show how “the organisation, use, and meaning of space” as “a product of social translation, transformation and experience” (Soja 1980:210) has not been adequately addressed in the transformation project in South African higher education. Given that the student resistance and protest involved acts against, in, and towards spaces and various objects in space, at these institutions, the author argues that in the discourse around the transformation of higher education and at its institutions, space should be considered. Furthermore, the proposed linkage between the organisation of space – which has an impact on social cohesion and social activity – and the implementation, experience, and understanding of transformation in higher education is significant and important for the variety of initiatives for redress and reform. Once greater insight into the organisation of space at a higher education institution has been gained, this information needs to be related back to the fundamental dimensions and principles for transformation in higher education. Transformation in higher education does not occur in isolation; contextual and institutional parameters can impact on the organisation of space at a higher education institution. Contextual and institutional factors can offset or even negate the potential impact of official policy and institutional practices that are put in place to incentivise changes that are aligned to dimensions and principles of transformation. A key point is that even if incentives and changes do occur, they will not necessarily translate directly into a more holistic understanding and more effective implementation of transformation in higher education if contextual and institutional factors are not considered. Therefore, once the influencing contextual and institutional factors at a higher education institution have been identified, it is proposed that further investigation of a campus in its entirety is conducted, with a focus on specific sites. 75 The investigation of specific sites at a higher education institution allows for the identification and categorisation of observable social and physical characteristics which are important for social action and function (Lynch 1960). The identification and categorisation of common social and physical characteristics across a set of locations at a higher education institution can be used to develop spatial types. Spatial types, in turn, can be utilised as a lens that accommodates differentiated understandings and reflects the contextual and institutional conditions at a higher education institution in the observation, analysis, and evaluation of initiatives for transformation in higher education. Utilising spatial types as a lens provides insights into differentiated understandings of the organisation of space at a higher education institution and the factors that influence this. This enables the synthesis of socio-spatial materialism (Lathouri 2011; Soja 1980; Vis 2014), which can demonstrate how the organisation of space – a constituent in and constitutive of socially embedded practice (Lathouri 2011) – makes explicit the spatial and material characteristics (Vis 2014) that affect everyday life at a higher education institution. Thus, spatial types, in revealing space use and the everyday practices at a higher education institution, can be utilised to explain the linkages between spatial organisation and differentiated understandings and experiences of transformation in higher education. At this stage of the investigation, several broad research questions may be relevant in developing linkages in the relationship between space and transformation in higher education. At institutional level:  How is space organised at the institutional level in higher education?  What context-related factors contribute to the organisation of space at institutional level?  To what extent can a direct link be made between context-related factors and the organisation of space at institutional level?  Can context-related factors form the basis upon which to identify relevant spatial types?  How can the organisational indictors for space at the institutional level be determined, and for whom (which part of society) is this organisation beneficial?  How do spatial types contribute to a better analysis of differentiated understandings of space by differently located individuals at the institutional level? 76  How do differentiated understandings of space by differently located individuals at the institutional level impact and contribute to a broader and more holistic understanding of transformation in higher education and its institutions? At site level:  How is space organised at different sites at a higher education institution?  What characteristics, both social and physical, organise space at different sites at a higher education institution, and can these characteristics be identified and categorised?  How do the characteristics that organise space at different sites at a higher education institution influence or impact on social relations between individuals in these spaces?  How do the characteristics that organise space at different sites at a higher education institution impact on, and respond to, differentiated understandings of space by differently located individuals?  How do differentiated understandings of space by differently located individuals at different sites at a higher education institution impact on, and respond to, dimensions and principles of transformation in higher education and its institutions? The answers to these questions concerning context-related differentiated understandings by differently located individuals aim to show how the organisation of space as a social product is central to the implementation and understanding of transformation in higher education. 2.4.1.3 Space and transformation in higher education Column 5 of Table 2.1 lists examples of indicators of transformation in higher education. These are examples of indicators at the context and institution level that could be impacted by a better understanding of the relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education. At the context level, examples are given of indicators that can impact on “social relations of production [that] have a social existence to the extent that they have spatial existence” (Ligget 1995:255) and “social practices [that] have continuity” (Aranda n.d:2) in space. This shows how the organisation of space, which is “architectural, urbanistic and political” (Lefebvre 1991b:7) and made 77 tangible through “codes, social relations, power relations … and rituals” (Aranda n.d:2), is understood to be a social product. At institutional level, the examples of indicators that can impact on the organisation of space as a social product at a higher education institution are based on what the MCTHE (DoE 2008:36) describes broadly as the indicators for transformation:  policy and regulatory compliance;  epistemological change, at the centre of which is the curriculum; and  institutional culture. From a research perspective, a number of general questions could arise from the proposed relationship between space at higher education institution and transformation in higher education.  How can the understanding of space be accounted for in the transformation of higher education and its institutions?  To what extent does the specific historical and spatial context of a higher education institution influence transformation and the understanding thereof in higher education?  To what extent can a direct link be made between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and the implementation and understanding of transformation at a national and institutional level? The answers to the research questions set out above can be applied across higher education, but questions of greater interest to specific institutions may vary. The most appropriate method for addressing these questions will thus be dependent on the existing levels of knowledge related to context-specific factors and the availability of data on the parameters at institutional level that impact on the organisation of space. 2.4.2 Operationalisation of the Conceptual Framework This section of the chapter details a series of guidelines that could be followed in order to provide an empirical basis for addressing some of the questions raised in the conceptual framework presented. These guidelines are developed as an aid to researchers attempting to draw insights from the relationship between the organisation of space at a higher 78 education institution and transformation in higher education ex-post analysis. The guidelines focus attention on the key aspects of the relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education institution (see Table 2.1) that require empirical information, in addition to that which is already available in the literature, for an informed discussion of the linkages in this relationship. Given the complexity of conceptualising the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education, the proposed guidelines are intended to provide a platform for critique that can create “room for philosophical elaboration, cultural critique, and historical materialist investigation all at once” (Kipfer 2009:xxvii), as identifying strong linkages in this relationship is likely to be difficult and somewhat limiting. The guidelines set out below attempt to operationalise the proposed framework and break down the linkages in it into their component parts, such that the strength of the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education may be better presented. In bringing together the component parts of the relationship, it is also important that the guidelines allow for possible inferences as to what is the likely direction of change, and what is the relative value of context-related factors. 2.4.2.1 Analytical guidelines Using Table 2.1 as a basis, the guidelines cover five main areas of investigation: 1. Descriptions of the context-related factors – historic and spatial – impacting on the organisation of space at a higher education institution. This can be operationalised by a historical and spatial mapping of the higher education institution in its urban, peri-urban, and rural context. 2. Analysis of the social and physical characteristics of different sites at a higher education institution that respond and correspond to human praxis. This can be operationalised by using data from participatory focus groups and a socio-spatial mapping of selected sites at a higher education institution. 3. Analysis of identified spatial types. This can be operationalised by using data from participatory focus groups and a socio-spatial mapping of the higher education institution in its entirety. 79 4. Analysis of the impact of the organisation of space on transformation. This can be operationalised by using data from participatory focus groups and a socio-spatial mapping of the higher education institution in its entirety. 5. Assessment of the link between (a) social relations between individuals, and (b) differentiated understandings of space by differently located individuals, at a higher education institution. This can be operationalised by using data from participatory focus groups, a socio-spatial mapping of the higher education institution in its entirety, and available literature on official policy and institutional practice. 2.4.2.2 A focus on the organisation of space at a higher education institution There are several ways in which to approach the analysis of links between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education. For example, one could start by looking at indicators for transformation and attempt to identify these throughout the higher education sector: policy and regulatory compliance, epistemological perspectives, and institutional culture. Alternatively, one could investigate the impact of the organisation of space in a specific higher education institution on incentives for transformation across the higher education sector. Given the possible influence of modifying context-related parameters, it is felt that focusing attention on the organisation of space in a specific higher education institution at a limited number of key sites that, in combination with identified spatial types, enable the tracking of human praxis, will lead to a clearer understanding of the linkages between space and transformation in higher education. Therefore, in the choice between a policy top-down and an empirical bottom-up approach, the focus on the organisation of space at a higher education institution emphasises the importance of the latter for a more holistic approach to transformation in higher education. 2.4.2.3 Methodological approaches The three-step guidelines proposed below do not set out a rigid methodological approach. The method for investigating the proposed relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education may differ from institution to institution, depending on the data and expertise available and the particular questions around transformation that need to be investigated. For example, when investigating the organisation of space in a specific higher education institution, methodologies that address the conceptual and operational analytics of space may range from the discursive to visual 80 graphical representations. Similarly, the identification of spatial types may require informant interviews and/or a socio-spatial analysis so as to classify the thematic attributes that establish land use at a higher education institution. The focus of the guidelines, as an ex- post analysis, suggests that each step set out below may be analysed separately, although more inclusive approaches that analyse a number of steps simultaneously may also be used. Step One: Description of context-related factors – historic and spatial – impacting on the organisation of space at a higher education institution. The context-related factors that impact on the organisation of space at a higher education institution should first be documented. The investigation would typically start with the situation before transformation, followed by a description of the past and/or present contextual factors that impact on the organisation of space. For example, broadly, the impact of the transition in South Africa from apartheid to a democratic government on the organisation of space at the institution should be described and analysed, in order to speak to a range of past and current dimensions and requirements recommended for transformation. There are some problems worth noting at this stage. First, deciding on the events for investigation and analysis, in particular which ‘pre-transformation’ events are to form the benchmark against which to measure the impact of space in the transformation of the institution. Second, if one looks at the transition period from an apartheid state to a democratic government in South Africa in 1994, even if data for this period are readily available, structural changes may have already occurred since the start of this transition period, making it difficult to justify the attribution of context-related factors in the organisation of space at the institution. Also, important to note for the researcher would be the sequencing of dimensions of and requirements for transformation in the institution, as they may have been implemented gradually and differently over time. For example, at a specific higher education institution, equity and redress may be implemented as series of staggered steps, or as gradual development that takes place over several years (DoE 1997). The historic and spatial conditions that impact on the organisation of space in a specific context, and thus on that space’s relationship to transformation at a higher education institution, therefore form the basis for documentation at this stage. For the description of the historic and spatial conditions, information collated to show the contextual 81 and created space should describe the objective and natural context of the higher education institution. A depiction of the social and political frameworks that inform the status of the historic and spatial conditions in a particular context should be developed as the basis for initial hypotheses relating to the impact of contextual and created space, and to give context to succeeding investigations at a higher education institution. The categories of contextual and created space can be shown in the representations and social practices highlighted in the:  understanding of space use;  additions and alterations made to the spatial form; and  evaluations of the status quo as indicated in transformation reports (for example, the MCTHE report [DoE 2008]). For social activity, processes, and relations between individuals, information should be collected on:  Changes in the social and political frameworks in terms of the socio-spatial implications of these frameworks.  Changes in the socio-spatial organisation of society. For example, in the transition from apartheid to a social democracy, the dissolution of the Group Areas Act of 1950 introduced a fifth key signifier for growth in the city of Bloemfontein, namely the regional parks of Batho, Bochabelo, and Thaba ‘Nchu (Auret & Roodt 2016).  Changes in the levels of significance of historic and spatial conditions for higher education and its institutions. For example, the digitisation of higher education could impact on the extent and strength these conditions. Of particular interest at this stage of the investigation is the impact of the contextual and created space on the everyday life of the individual at a higher education institution. Information collected would be required to show how changes in the social and political policy – for example, the regulation of access – impact on the understanding and formation of society, and the direction of transformation in the transition from apartheid to a social democracy. 82 Step Two: Description of everyday life at a higher education institution. Once an overall picture of the context-related factors has been established, the next step is to determine the extent to which historic and spatial conditions determine everyday life at a higher education institution. To understand the extent to which the historic and spatial conditions documented in Step One promote change in higher education and at its institutions, it is necessary to understand everyday life at a specific higher education institution. The impact of dimensions and principles of transformation (DoE 1997) in the everyday life of staff and students at a higher education institution are an important outcome for higher education. The challenge here is to establish the connection or linkages between dimensions and principles of transformation and everyday life. It is proposed that in an ex-post analysis the impact of dimensions and principles of transformation on an individual be investigated by exploring the understanding of the organisation of space as a social product at the institution. The investigation should typically start with the practico-logical codes and depictions found in space that could describe social and political frameworks in a specific context, and which impact on the social imaginary – “the ways people imagine their social existence, how they fit together with others, how things go on between them and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations” (Taylor 2004:23) – at a higher education institution. A description of the everyday life, which can show how the practical logic and representations of a higher education institution are significant in society, highlights the cultural freedoms and expressions of an individual which contribute to understandings of identity and “social and political practice” (Lefebvre 1991b:41) in a specific context. Information collected should describe social space, its detailed social and physical characteristics, and the different thematic attributes that inform its organisation as a practical, social, and shared ideological representation. Table 2.2 gives examples of indicators used to assess the organisation of space at a higher education institution (Lynch 1960; Rofé 2004; Vis 2014) and possible data sources for these indicators. The indicators relate the conceptualisation of space as being socially constructed, and in turn constructing the social, to its organisation at a higher education institution. 83 Table 2.2: Assessing the organisation of space at a higher education institution Source: Author The data sources (see Table 2.2) for indicators that can be used to assess the organisation of space provide insights into the social activity deployed in space at the higher education institution under study. The implications and impact of social activity at a higher education institution for social cohesion – an important component of transformation in higher education (DoE 2008) – allows for the development of the linkages between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and dimensions and principles of transformation. A range of spaces, in which social activity is deployed, should be selected 84 for further investigation to generate data that show how the organisation of space at a higher education institution is understood. The following criteria, described in Table 2.2, should be considered in the analysis (Lynch 1960; Rofé 2004; Vis 2014):  Vitality. Shows the extent and strength of the environment in supporting social activity.  Sense. Shows the extent and strength to which individuals can recognise and organise the environment in their minds – the relationship between the individual and the space in which their everyday life occurs.  Fitness. Refers to the relationship between the vitality and sense of the space.  Accessibility. Shows the ease and ability with which an individual can access their environment and all the available services in it.  Control. Describes the extent and strength to which the environment is under the control of its users and inhabitants, and/or regulation of an independent governing body.  Congruence. Shows the extent and strength to which the form – the detailed spatial characteristics of the space – relates to its function and/or land use. For example, how do the detailed spatial characteristics support social activity, processes, and relations between individuals, in the space?  Immediacy. Shows the extent and strength to which social activity, processes, and relations between individuals are visible to the users and inhabitants of the space.  Legibility. The physical and spatial characteristic of a space that can be recognised by the users and inhabitants as a coherent pattern.  Identity. The physical and spatial thematic attributes that structure different locations and differentiate one space from another.  Structure. The relation of an object – static or dynamic – to the observer and to other objects in the space meaning. The visible character of a space that relates the space to other aspects of life. Once the selected spaces have been analysed, visual and graphic representations of the collated data should be generated to show how the organisation of space at a higher education institution, in its function, is understood as a social construct that in turn constructs the spatial. Further in-depth investigation of selected sites through the visual and graphic recording of their detailed social and physical characteristics can show how these 85 characteristics, through their impact on social processes and relations between individuals, have implications for the type of social activity that is deployed in the space (Lynch 1960). The establishment of the social and physical characteristics of space allows for the development of spatial types that can be used as a lens that gives insight into the understanding of the organisation of space at a higher education institution. Next, attempts should be made to relate the insights provided through the lens of spatial types at a higher education institution to dimensions and principles of transformation in higher education. Step Three: Explaining linkages that show the relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education. The information derived from the analyses above can now be used to infer relationships between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and the implementation and understanding of transformation in higher education. Several institutions – including the Department of Education (DoE), the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), the Centre for Higher Education Transformation (CHET), and the institutional planning departments at higher education institutions such as the Directorate for Institutional Research and Academic Planning (DIRAP) at the University of the Free State – have been publishing reports on transformation in higher education on a regular basis since 1994. By using literature on the requirements for and outcomes of a variety of initiatives for redress and reform in higher education broadly, inferences can be made about the progress and understanding of transformation at a specific institution. Although the literature on initiatives for redress and reform can be used to analyse transformation at a specific institution, the methodology proposed in the framework yields insights that can show the impact of transformation in higher education on different and differently located individuals and their understanding of this concept. In the context of official policy expectations and the requirements for institutional practice, the literature (see Section 2.2.3 on page 49) suggests majority of higher education institutions in South Africa are grappling with the question of transformation in higher education. One cannot classify higher education as transformed or untransformed, but the experience and understanding of transformation in the everyday lived reality of individuals at educational institutions can be assessed. For example, one may categorise institutions on the basis of the extent of the misalignment of institutional practices with the dimensions 86 and principles set out in official policy for transformation. Thus, one could categorise an institution as having low levels of transformation when the institutional practices contradict the official policy, and high levels of transformation when the institutional practices are aligned with the official policy. The use of these types of indicators of transformation in higher education broadly to infer the experience and understanding of this concept at a specific institution must be done cautiously, however. Although correlations can be made between indicators of transformation at a specific higher education institution, the exact causal relationships involved may be difficult to determine. Thus, an increase in the indicators of transformation does not necessarily translate into a more holistic understanding and broadened experience of transformation for the individuals in a higher education space. In the context of South Africa, following the transition from apartheid to a democratic state, what happens in the higher education sector following the official policy reforms depends on the extremity of the situation before redress and reform. If the socio- spatial differentiation within and between higher education institutions resulting from apartheid segregationist policies, more recent socio-economic factors, and concerns around crime, is protected and maintained, the impact of transformation policies may not be adequately translated into an experience of transformation for the individuals at higher education institutions. It is possible that the impact of transformation processes on the individuals in higher education may be minimal in cases where the institutional practices at a higher education institution do not adequately meet the official policy expectations for redress and reform. At the context level, the broad indicators of transformation should, therefore, be cautiously applied to broad change in higher education. The main objective at this stage is to analyse the effect of context-related modifying parameters on the proposed relationship between space at a higher education institution and the experience and understanding of transformation in higher education. These parameters relate to the impact of the structural environment in which the higher education institution is located on the organisation of its space. This environment – the context within which official policy reforms in higher education are being applied – will also affect the impact of transformation on the individual at a higher education institution. Thus, in investigating the relationship between space at a higher education institution and the experience and understanding transformation in higher education, context will be especially important. 87 In the previous three steps of analysis, the organisation of space at a higher education institution was related to dimensions and principles of transformation and how they are understood in higher education. Subsequent to these steps, attempts should be made to relate the information on the implications of the organisation of space for the daily lived experience of the individuals at a higher education institution. Following on from the conceptualisation of space as being social constructed and in turn constructing the social, the analysis might characterise the proposed relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education in terms of:  differences in experiencing and perceiving the organisation of space at a higher education institution;  the implications of these differences for social activity, processes, and relations between individuals at a higher education institution; and  differences in socio-spatial contexts. The objective of this analysis is to identify whether positive shifts in the understanding of transformation in higher education have been considered in the organisation of space at a higher education institution. Taking into consideration the organisation of space, within which intended transformation initiatives aimed at social integration and cohesion are deployed, allows for identification of the impact of transformation and the understanding of this concept on the daily lived experience of individuals at a higher education institution. Although it is difficult to establish a direct link between the conceptualisation of space as a social construct and a specific aspect of transformation, the proposed conceptual framework aims to broaden the understanding of the implications of space and its organisation for initiatives aimed at reform and redress in higher education. 2.5 CONCLUSION In this chapter it was conceptualised that the organisation of space at a higher education institution involves historically and spatially located frameworks in higher education. While the conceptualisation of the organisation of space at a higher education institution shares a social constructivist nature with other spatial theories, the theoretical claims made in this thesis are grounded in and refer to differentiated understandings of different and differently located individuals in a specific context. The reviewed literature suggests that higher 88 education plays a key role in modernisation and development. In the past half a century, the initiative for the transformation of higher education, in Africa broadly and in South Africa in particular, has grown in scope and diversity. In South Africa, in the midst of the dynamic process of transition from apartheid to democracy, higher education needs to respond to the challenge of transformation. The ‘logic’ of transformation must include increased levels of social responsiveness to the reality of the majority of South Africans, new perspectives for policy, increasingly diversified higher education institutions, and an emphasis on enhancing the lived reality of the individuals at higher education institutions. These institutions, as social institutions, are tasked with addressing societal concerns in a country with a problematic history and diverse realities. Hence, the proposed framework attempts to engage with the social nature of higher education and its institutions. This is done through the development of linkages that aim to show the importance and significance of space at a higher education institution, and how space can be utilised for a more holistic transformation project in higher education. The framework focuses on the implications of space at a higher education for social activity and establishes a relationship between space and transformation in higher education through emergent theories grounded in the conceptualisation of space as a social construct that in turn constructs the social. This perspective of space as a social product, in the context of this study, is mostly located in and interpreted through the particular historical and spatial contexts in which both the theorist and the individuals, communities, or society find themselves. The possibilities of this argument in relation to the literature review and the proposed framework are illustrated in the following chapter. 89 CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to present the philosophical assumptions underpinning the research strategy and design techniques applied. The methodology employed to investigate the organisation of space at a higher education institution proposes an empirically driven route for understanding the concept of transformation in its theory and practice. This understanding of transformation is grounded in and refers to the context-specific reality of the higher education experience and seeks to illustrate linkages between (1) the literature around higher education, the higher education experience, and the conceptualisation of space as a social product; and (2) the proposed research questions that aim to show how the organisation of space at a higher education institution impacts on the everyday lived experience of an individual in higher education and has implications for their understanding of the concept of transformation. A case study methodology was adopted in order to investigate the organisation of space at a higher education institution through theories around the production of space that are mostly located in and interpreted through historical and spatial factors in a specific context. The case under study is the Bloemfontein campus of the University of the Free State (UFS). The fieldwork programme for the adopted case study methodology focused on socio-spatial mapping of the city of Bloemfontein in general and the Bloemfontein campus in particular. Although this allowed for extensive data collection and analysis from multiple sources, it was important that the fieldwork programme be preceded by an extensive desktop review of visual and textual documentation to establish the importance of the Bloemfontein campus in the history of higher education in South Africa and in the spatial development of the city of Bloemfontein. Furthermore, print and social media news focusing on the role of space and objects in space in initiatives for redress and reform in higher education revealed some of the key role players in the transformation process in post-1994 South Africa. The identification of these key role players in the transformation debate grounded the case selection of the Bloemfontein campus as a space that embodies symbolic power in the city of Bloemfontein. The extensive desktop review was also instrumental for the development of a network of informants and key contacts facilitating access to information and informants. In addition to the development of a network of information sources and informants, interviews were conducted with architectural and institutional stakeholders 90 involved in the socio-spatial development and day-to-day operation of the Bloemfontein campus. Furthermore, a list of existing facilities, planning, and maintenance personnel in the city of Bloemfontein and at the UFS was drawn up. This provided a starting point from which to establish the spatial organisation of the Bloemfontein campus in its context, the city of Bloemfontein, and assisted in developing a framework for the historic and geographic socio-spatial context of the campus. Textual, visual, and graphic representations of data around the social and physical characteristics/categories could be generated to show how organisational indicators impact upon space on the Bloemfontein campus. These representations formed a primary source of data that was tested and reiteratively evaluated using the data collected from semi-structured interviews that included four participatory focus groups consisting of seven to fifteen students registered for study on the Bloemfontein campus. The focus groups provided evidence of how and what social activity is deployed in space on the Bloemfontein campus. The reiteration between information derived from the socio-spatial mapping process and the data collected from the focus groups supported an empirically led investigation of the implications of the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus. The information derived from the socio-spatial mapping and the data collected in the focus groups provided insights into the positioning of the Bloemfontein campus in its context, the city of Bloemfontein, and allowed for the development of a research strategy and design that is described in the five sections that form this chapter. The first section presents the social constructivist paradigm wherein the everyday reality of life for an individual in space at a higher education institution is viewed as being constructed through human praxis which simultaneously encompasses knowledge and creative action. The second section presents the qualitative case study design as part of an in-depth investigation that provided insights into the implications of the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus for the understanding of the concept of transformation in higher education. The third section presents the research process and describes the rationale behind the case study, the data sources, the collection and analysis of data, and the protocols and procedures used. The fourth section of the chapter presents the politics and ethics of the research approach and design so as to show that the research did not intend to quantify the magnitude of space and spatial theorisation, but rather intended to show that analysis of and insight into spatial organisation at a higher education institution could be important for advancements in understanding the concept of transformation of higher 91 education, in South Africa specifically. The last section of this chapter concludes with a description of the advantages and limitations of the research design and a brief summary of the methodology utilised. 3.2 RESEARCH PARADIGM: SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM The social constructivist paradigm adopted in this study has a “view of social reality which stresses the importance of the subjective experience of individuals in the creation of the social world” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2011:6). This paradigm locates the analysis of the organisation of space in the subjective knowledge of social activity, processes, and relations between individuals on the Bloemfontein campus. The social constructivist paradigm, in which the subjective co-creation of the meaning and knowledge of the social world underlies social practice (Yin 2009; Zainal 2007), establishes the social nature of the organisation of space on the campus. The investigation into the organisation of space at a higher education institution intends to provide insights based upon which linkages in the proposed relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education can be plotted. The linkages developed are based on data that show how the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus impacts on social activity, processes, and relations between individuals. Furthermore, the linkages ground and reference the argument that space and the spatial are central to understanding the concept of transformation and therefore need to be significant and important considerations in the official policy and institutional practice geared towards transformation. Social constructivism, often seen as merely “representative of some ‘truth’ in the world” (Miller & Glassner 2010:133), is widely critiqued as an invention that is particular to a specific context and thus cannot be applied elsewhere. In this study, this limitation associated with social constructivism is addressed in the adopted case study design in which “data which gives an authentic insight into people’s experiences” (Silverman 2001:xx) can be collected. Such authentic data provides real-life contextual information that reveals individual understandings of the organisation of space at a higher education institution and shows how space and the spatial in any context are socially distributed in their subjective meanings (Berger & Luckmann 1966). The utilisation of a social constructivist paradigm allows for reiteration and interrelation between the research questions proposed in Chapter Two and the conversations with individuals on the Bloemfontein campus, while 92 acknowledging the researcher’s subjectivity in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data that describes human relationships and practice (Charmaz 2006; Riesman 2001). My subjectivity as a staff member and PhD student on the Bloemfontein campus is accommodated through utilising a reflexive approach to the proposed research questions, to conversations with and reflections by individuals on the campus, and to the continuous observation of and interaction with the research site in its “temporal, cultural, and structural contexts” (Charmaz 2000:524). This reflexive approach aims to provide insights into how the organisation of space, linked to the specific historical and spatial context in the city of Bloemfontein, impacts on social activity, processes, and relations between individuals (Charmaz 2000; Merriam 2009; Yin 2009) on the Bloemfontein campus. The claim is that insights into social activity at a higher education institution are important and significant for social integration and cohesion – processes that are at the core of transformation in higher education (DoE 2008) – and should be considered in official policy and institutional practice aimed at transformation. The utilisation of a case study design within a social constructivist paradigm allowed for the consideration of the implications of space for social interaction and integration between individuals at a higher education institution. Furthermore, this design grounded the investigation in its aims to show how space impacts on social interactions and integration at a higher education institution and is therefore important and significant in initiatives for redress and reform aimed at the social cohesion that sits at the heart of transformation in higher education. The importance and significance of space at higher education institutions for transformation in higher education – required to respond to a rapidly changing society (Badat 2010; DoE 1997; Simatupang 2009; Singh 2001) – is shown in the vocabulary of change that is inherent to social constructivism. The organisation of space is a product of the particularities of historic and spatial context-related factors and is therefore not static; the conceptualisation of space continually shifts in response to temporal and geographical realities and conditions. The utilisation of a social constructivist paradigm allows the changing societal context of higher education to positively contribute to the research design – a qualitative case study methodology – and shows “how people’s actions affect their local and larger worlds” (Charmaz 2006:132) to give a “plausible account” (Charmaz 2006:132). A case study methodology can “contextualise the findings in the interactive world in which they are generated” (Denzin & Lincoln 2000:19). This methodology is grounded in a social 93 constructivist theoretical framework for an amalgam of theories that act as organisational tools to relate the organisation of space at a higher education institution to dimensions and principles of transformation in higher education. Furthermore, the case study design within a social constructivist paradigm allows for triangulation of data and findings through observation of a real-life contemporary socio-spatial phenomenon and its accompanying complexities at a higher education institution. The case study methodology, within a social constructivist paradigm, shows how “theory that understands space as fundamentally bound up with social reality” (Schmid 2008:28) can address the inadequacy of debate and literature around transformation in higher education. The literature suggests that the focus of debate and discussions around transformation in higher education is on the rational mental processes of official policy (invention); this focus fails to sufficiently address the social nature of institutional practice (realisation). This study’s approach takes into consideration socially co-operative and subjectively constructed processes to show how the excessive focus on mental ideological practices of transformation (intervention) fails to account for the tangible and material aspects of the daily lived experience (realisation) in higher education. The gap between official policy and institutional practice (Jansen 2003) is where the study locates itself, suggesting that it is precisely the social nature of higher education institutions that warrants the investigation of the relationship between the organisation of space – which constructs the social and is in turn constructed by the social – at a higher education institution, and transformation in higher education. The claim is that the investigation of the organisation of space at a higher education institution can show how initiatives for transformation in higher education are understood and translated in the daily lived experiences of individuals in the sector. In order to address the gap between official policy and institutional practice, the social constructivist paradigm provides insights into how social activity deployed in space at a higher education institution supports or hinders the productive dialogue between individuals that is important for social integration and cohesion (Harrison 2006). The study focus on the organisation of space – in which the “contradictory mediation between everyday life and social order” (Kipfer, Goonewardena, Schmid & Milgrom 2008:6) occurs – at a higher education institution in relation to the complex processes of transformation in higher education shows the importance and significance of “physical space in the form of definite 94 distributional arrangements of agents and properties” (Bourdieu 1996:10–12). Physical space “as a thing, a single entity, a unit around which there are boundaries” (Merriam 1998:28) can be translated from “social positions (a relational concept), dispositions (or habitus), and stances (positions taking)” (Bourdieu 1996:10) in a subjective reality, thereby engaging with real-life phenomena in response to the shifting needs and nature of the individual. Consequently, the utilisation of a social constructivist paradigm that shows a direct relationship between space at a higher education institution and the experiences of individuals allows for the inclusion of the specificities in a particular context and the subjective associations and meanings that we, as human beings, attribute to our experience in a place and space. The understanding of space as a subjective construct that constructs the social and is in turn constructed by the social is supported by the adoption of a case study methodology grounded in a social constructivist framework. This paradigm supports a case study design that generates “intensive, holistic description and analysis of a single entity, phenomenon, or social unit” (Merriam 2009:46). The social constructivist framework and case study design thus supported the investigative focus of the study on how the organisation of space at a higher education institution relates to dimensions and principles that govern transformation in higher education in South Africa. The research strategy and design, by supporting and understanding of space as an active constituent in and constitutive of the social, allow the study to address two main concerns: the impact of the organisation of space and the subjective understanding thereof on social activity, processes, and relations between individuals on the Bloemfontein campus; and a description of how this impact relates to dimensions and principles of transformation in higher education. 3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN: CASE STUDY The case in this study is the Bloemfontein campus of the UFS and the focus of the study is how space is organised on this campus. Yin (2003:13) defines a case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not clear and the researcher has little control over the phenomenon and context”. This definition suggests that the case study as a research strategy establishes “cohesion and consistency” (Yazan 2015:138) among the various components under study so as to capture the complexity of the object under study (Stake 1995). Merriam defines a case study “in terms of the process 95 of actually carrying out the investigation, the unit of analysis (the bounded system, the case), or the end product” (2009:46). Case studies, Merriam (1998:41) further argues, “offer a means of investigating complex social units consisting of multiple variables of potential importance in understanding phenomena”. Stake (1995:3) distinguishes between three types of case study: intrinsic, instrumental, and collective. The intrinsic case study is conducted when the researcher has “an intrinsic interest in the case” and the case is unique and therefore not representative of others. An instrumental case study is when the researcher uses the case to “understand more than what is obvious to the observer” (Tellis 1997:1) so as to further develop existing theory and provide in-depth insights into the context and everyday practices within the case. Finally, the collective case study is helpful in that it extends to more than one case – “a group of cases is studied” (Tellis 1997:1). Yin (1993) also identifies specific types of case studies: exploratory, explanatory, and descriptive. The qualitative case study is an exploratory mechanism that can precede the formulation of theories and research questions in social research. The explanatory type of case study specifically investigates causal mechanisms when the definition of issues for research purposes needs to be done prior to the development of the explanatory theories of the phenomenon under study. Descriptive case studies require a descriptive theory that “should be openly stated in advance and be the subject of review and debate and later serves as the ‘design’ for the descriptive study” (Yin 1993:22). Case studies can also be single or multiple, embedded or holistic. The embedded case study is one in which the study investigates more than one unit of analysis within a single case, while the holistic case study investigates a global programme or organisation (Tellis 1997; Yin 2012). Criticism of case study research generally points to the inability of the research strategy to produce generalisable results; this leads to a lack of scientific importance due to a failure to solve macro-sociological phenomena. In this study, this shortcoming is addressed by engaging in a reiterative process of empirical investigation of data from multiple sources to ensure trustworthiness. The multiplicity of sources and the process of reiterative triangulation of the data ground the main arguments of the thesis and connect these to broader sociological issues. The qualitative case study methodology allows the researcher to “specify the phenomenon of interest and draw its boundaries or ‘fence in’ what they are 96 going to inquire” (Yazan 2015:139) and is therefore an acceptable stand-alone research strategy (Denzin & Lincoln 2000). It is worth noting that the qualitative case study, grounded in social constructivism, also allows for “a level of flexibility that is not readily offered in qualitative approaches such as grounded theory or phenomenology” (Hyett, Kenny & Dickson-Swift 2014:1). The case study methodology gives a focused understanding of the implications of the organisation of space at a higher education institution for higher education in the context of South Africa. This method contextualises questions of representation and the right to space in higher education by exploring the utilisation of space at higher education institutions – historically during apartheid and more recently during the 2015 and 2016 student. The student movement demonstrated that space and objects in space have implications for and impact upon the day-to-day experiences of individuals and groups in higher education. The everyday reality in which the experience of higher education is located, it can be argued, is materialised in social activity deployed in space at a higher education institution and has implications for initiatives for redress and reform that are aimed at the realisation of transformation. Thus, the adopted case study methodology supports the analysis of the organisation of space at a higher education institution as it allows for the investigation of multiple and complex everyday activities, practices, and experiences. This methodology can also lead to new theoretical formulations and hypotheses, put them to the test, reformulate them, and offer plausible causal explanations through the provision of rich evidence (Merriam 1998, 2009; Shields 2007; Stake 1995; Tellis 1997; Yazan 2015; Yin 2012; Zainal 2007). The combination of contingent events, deciphered from a desktop review of visual and textual documentation, a narrative investigation, semi-structured interviews, and the socio- spatial mapping, suggests that the appropriate type of a qualitative case study in which “context-dependant knowledge makes it possible to move from the lower to the higher levels of the learning process” (Flyvberg 2001:71) is an embedded single case study. The embedded single case study accommodates an understanding of the organisation of space as being dependent on multiple factors in a particular context. This methodology also carries the advantage of methodological rigour where the “analysis of evidence on processes, sequences, and conjunctures of events within a case” (Bennet & Checkel 2012:10) is grounded in and refers to an “exploratory form of analysis” (Seawright & 97 Gerring 2008:303). The exploratory analysis, which does not seek to explain causality within traditional social scientific forms (Gerring 2006; Levy 2008), is “particularly well suited for theory development, because it helps researchers understand the limits of existing theories and to develop new concepts, variables, and theories that will be able to account for what were previously considered outliers” (Flyvberg 2011:307). The adopted case study methodology provides “better explanations and understandings” (Levy 2008:4) that support the testing of the emergent theory. Illustrated in the analytical guidelines that operationalise the conceptual framework presented in Chapter Two, the research strategy shows how theoretical propositions around space in higher education can be tested to contribute to a more holistic understanding and realisation of transformation in higher education. The Bloemfontein campus, as unit of analysis, was the focal point for data collection and analysis that provided information from which internal validity could be constructed in the development of theoretical propositions (Tellis 1997:3). In this study, external validity – which is difficult to determine in a qualitative embedded single case study (Yin 1993; Yin 2012) – was achieved through a formal case study fieldwork methodology utilised “while collecting the case study data” (Yin 2012:14). In addition to the fieldwork methodology, multiple sources of evidence – supported by the case study methodology – enabled the investigation of “the flesh and bones of the everyday life world” (Orum, Feagin & Sjoberg 1991:7) of social activity deployed in space on the Bloemfontein campus. This investigation aimed to achieve the following case study outcomes:  Investigate the organisation of space – “sometimes coded, sometimes not” (Lefebvre 1991b:33) – to show how spatial codes have implications for and impact on social activity, processes, and relations between individuals on the Bloemfontein campus.  Identify specific sites on the Bloemfontein campus as embedded units “around which there are boundaries” (Merriam 1998:27) to facilitate a “more vivid, concrete and sensory [rather] than abstract” (Merriam 2009:44) documentation of organisational indicators. The documentation of these indicators – social and physical characteristics of the sites – enabled “complex action, perception and interpretation” (Merriam 2009:44) in relation to the data collected. 98  Categorise and document the social and physical characteristics of the selected sites on the Bloemfontein campus so as to develop appropriate spatial types that show “multiple perspectives or views” (Stake 1995:108) of different thematic attributes that are tied to socio-spatial production (Lefebvre 1991b:33).  Relate the understanding of the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus to social activity deployed in it to show how this understanding consists of “knowledge [that] is constructed rather than discovered” (Stake 1995:100) between individuals on the campus. Embedded in a social constructivist paradigm, the case study methodology, therefore, enabled the researcher to ground the investigation of the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus in the “social actions and structures” (Orum et al. 1991:6) of the complex and multifaceted specificities in a particular context. Consequently, the investigation illustrates how everyday social activity deployed in space is “important for what it reveals about the [social] phenomenon and what [this phenomenon] might represent” (Merriam 2009:43). This provides the researcher, as the primary instrument of data collection and analysis, with insights that were derived from understanding individuals’ “perceptions and the complexity of their interpretations” (Atieno 2009:16) around the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus. Furthermore, the findings that emerged from the qualitative case study – “an extraordinarily useful and important strategy for social analysis” (Orum et al. 1991:vii) – can be viewed as representative of the “characteristics or configurations” (Sjoberg, Williams, Vaughan & Sjoberg 1991:36) that not only exist on the Bloemfontein campus but also more broadly in higher education in South Africa. Thus, the selection of the Bloemfontein campus as a unit of analysis (Merriam 2009; Stake 1995; Yin 2009) – an “‘example’ or ‘instance’ of a broader population” (Gerring 2006:707) – “connotes a study whose analytical objective is larger than the case under intensive research” (Gerring 2006:707). That is to say, in the context of this study, the single case of the Bloemfontein campus aims to show how the organisation of space at a higher education institution relates to interventions for and the realisation of the concept of transformation in higher education. The claim is that the investigation of the organisation of space in the qualitative single case study of the Bloemfontein campus contributes to “theoretical innovation and generalisation” (Orum et al. 1991:7) for a more holistic understanding of the concept of transformation in higher education. 99 3.3.1 Case Study Selection The UFS is a multi-campus higher education institution in the Free State which is comprised of three geographically separate campuses, namely: the Bloemfontein campus, the South campus, and the Qwaqwa campus. The Bloemfontein campus is located in the heart of the urban centre of the city of Bloemfontein, the South campus is located in the periphery of the city of Bloemfontein, and the Qwaqwa campus is located in a peri- urban/rural context (the former homeland of Bophuthatswana). This socio-spatial differentiation between the contexts in which the three campuses are located suggests an irregularity in the manner in which space on the three campuses is organised. The suggested irregularity between these campuses refers to the conceptions of and lived experience in the space on each of the campuses. These conceptions and experiences are at least in part derived from perceptions around the socio-spatial status of each campus and the levels of access to infrastructural and urban development in the three different historical and spatial contexts. An argument can thus be made that although the official policy around mergers was “fuelled by new ideological positions based on perceived changes in economy, institutions and society” (Jansen 2003:29), there was an inadequate response to socio-spatial specificities of context in the merging of institutions and the “conditions for fundamental changes... [in] higher education” (Jansen 2003:30). That is to say, the merging of three different higher education institutions under one institutional banner, the UFS, fails to take into consideration the materialised socio-spatial differentiations of the contexts in which the institutions are located. For example, it can be argued that the merger between the Bloemfontein, South, and Qwaqwa campuses of the UFS has created parallel ‘invisible’ realities between the three campuses. Individuals that are the primary users of facilities on any one of the three campuses are not fully ‘legalised’ on or integrated into the other two campuses, despite the fact they all fall under the banner of the UFS. The historic and contemporary socio-spatial differentiation of the contexts in which the three campuses at the UFS are located refer to and ground the importance and significance of space for higher education in South Africa. This differentiation raises questions around the role of space in higher education and is analysed to bring into focus the relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and the implications organisational indicators for space have for transformation and the understanding thereof. 100 For example, in the context of this study, at the UFS, the Bloemfontein campus, it has been argued, is historically and spatially the most significant of the three campuses (Auret & Roodt 2016; Du Preez 2017, personal interview, 8 March [hereafter Du Preez 2017]; UFS 2006; UFS 2012). Thus, in this study that aims to show how contextual socio-spatial factors whose implications for space at higher education institution impact on initiatives for redress and reform towards social cohesion, when looking at transformation at the UFS, is asked to focus on the Bloemfontein campus. Historically, the Bloemfontein campus is the site on which the foundation stone for the Main Building was laid. The laying of the foundation stone for this building, as discussed in Chapter Four, had significant spatial social, cultural, and economic implications for the development of Bloemfontein as a city – South Africa’s judicial capital. Thus, the selection of the Bloemfontein campus as the unit of analysis, grounded in and referring to Lefebvre’s unitary theory of space, can show how the view of (social) space at a higher education institution produced as a (social) product that constructs and is in turn constructed by the social activity that is deployed in it, brings into focus:  historical and spatial contextual factors that impact on the organisation of space at higher education institutions;  social and physical characteristics/categories that show how the organisational indicators for space impact on social activity at a higher education institution;  the impact of the space on the location of the individual at a higher education institution and the implications of this for transformation and the understanding of this concept in higher education;  the impact of the organisation of space upon the reality and understanding of transformation in higher education by differently located individuals; and  linkages between social activity deployed in space at a higher education institution and social cohesion that sits at the heart of transformation in higher education in a post-1994 South Africa. The UFS, in a post-apartheid South Africa, has placed emphasis on a variety of social concerns in order to address and redress the socio-spatial segregation that was legislated during apartheid; one of these concerns is “multiculturalism and non-racialism” (Habib 2016:2). Notions of multiculturalism and non-racialism imply that transformation in higher 101 education requires a “constant intermingling and reciprocal engagement” (Habib 2016:2) with its social and cultural context that involves a “broad notion of social accountability and social responsiveness” (Singh 2001:9). For the UFS – argued to still possess the “historical racial or cultural character” (Habib 2016:2) of an Afrikaans University – these notions of multiculturalism, non-racialism, social accountability, and social responsiveness raise questions regarding the extent of the university’s reciprocal engagement with the social context in which it is located – the Free State province (Jansen 2009a; Msimang 2016; van der Merwe 2017; van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016). The UFS, two decades after the first democratic elections, is still perceived as a “federal university comprising what effectively are distinct campuses of racialised ethnic groups” (Habib 2016:3). The racialised nature of these groups is visible in the “hegemonic culture formed by the actual habitus of the institution” (van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016:88). It has been argued that on the university’s most significant campus, the Bloemfontein campus, “the idea of transformation is judged against which white traditions and cultures have been altered, or given up, as opposed to responding to any other groups’ wants and needs on campus” (van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016:88). This idea of transformation at the UFS is premised on a “system of acquired dispositions functioning on the practical level as categories of perception and assessment or as classificatory principles as well as being the organising principles of action” (Bourdieu 1990:13). Consequently, social action for transformation on the Bloemfontein campus is argued to be organised around acquired dispositions that relate to white traditions and cultures. Tradition and culture, Navarro (2006:16) argues is “enduring and transferrable from one context to another”, in reference to this argument the research focus on social action deployed in space aims to show how understanding the organisation of space can assist in identifying factors that “promote an ethnic project and undermine the emergence of non-racial and cosmopolitan institutions” (Habib 2016:3). In a context where “local spatial identities [are] encapsulated and articulated in ethnic, regional, and national terms” (Zeleza & Kalipeni 1999:18) the selection of the Bloemfontein campus provides an excellent opportunity to test the notion of (social) space as a (social) product in higher education. The campus is an ideal context for testing and exploring this understanding of space because the “very nature of its history and development [made it to be] an Afrikaans university with a Christian and culture-specific basis” (UFS 2006:264). This site of study grounds the development of theoretical propositions that argue for space and the spatial as playing a central role in the higher 102 education experience. This makes it possible to argue for the importance and significance of the organisation of space at higher education institutions for the implementation and understanding of transformation in higher education. In the case of the Bloemfontein campus, the investigation of the organisation of space aims to show how contextual socio-spatial factors that have implications for the organisation of space impact on the social activity deployed in that space; consequently, these specificities have implications for the implementation and understanding of transformation in higher education. The claim is that the investigation of social activity deployed in the space – argued in this study to be central and fundamental to social cohesion and thus necessary for transformation – on the Bloemfontein campus allows for the development of linkages between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education. This claim grounds the argument for the consideration of space as central and fundamental to official policy for higher education and institutional practice at higher education institutions. 3.4 RESEARCH PROCESS The research process – using a case study fieldwork methodology that investigates the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus through theoretical propositions – sought to align with the broad aim of the study to show how space and the spatial are related to transformation in higher education. The fieldwork methodology utilised a reiterative approach to the sources of information utilised, how and why the informants were identified, and data collected from the focus groups. This reiterative process facilitated the collection and analysis of data as an interaction “between what is known and what one needs to know” (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson & Spiers. 2002:13). The fieldwork methodology tapped into a primary data source, and the representation of this data shows how various informants think about the impact of contextual socio-spatial factors on space and the social activity deployed therein on the Bloemfontein campus. This methodology grounded the development of linkages in the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education. The research process involved the documentation of organisational indicators that show how space is produced in order to provide information around how the organisation of space impacts on social activities on the Bloemfontein campus. This documentation 103 allowed for the identification of detailed social and physical characteristics/categories that impact on social activity in space on the Bloemfontein campus. The identification of these characteristics/categories was done based on reiteratively collecting, analysing and verifying information derived from socio-spatial mapping of the Bloemfontein campus and the data collected from the focus groups. The identification strategy included the use of multiple data sources, the sequencing of data collection and analysis, and the creation of a case study database that allowed for self-correction during fieldwork. The use of multiple data sources allowed for the identification of the ‘right’ detailed social and physical characteristics/categories that could be analysed using the ‘right’ lens to provide a better understanding of how social activity is deployed in space on the Bloemfontein campus. This identification of the ‘right’ things seen through the ‘right’ lens illuminated the links between the contextual socio-spatial factors that have implications for the organisation of (social) space on and off the Bloemfontein campus and how this in turn impacts on the social activity that is deployed on the campus. The connection between social activity on the Bloemfontein campus and broader contextual specificities speaks to multiple historical and spatial conditions that have shaped conceptualisations of space in South Africa generally and in the city of Bloemfontein in particular. Thus, in the case of the Bloemfontein campus, the research process responded to: the definition of the scope and extent of the case study selected; the articulation and description of appropriate data collection and analysis processes; and formulation of a case study fieldwork methodology and a case study report guided by predetermined research questions and sampling procedures. 3.4.1 Data Collection and Analysis The case study methodology that was adopted for the purpose of conducting an in-depth and holistic investigation of the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus allowed for a mixture of data collection and analysis techniques. These techniques consisted of: 1. a desktop review of visual and textual documentation; 2. semi-structured interviews, scoping interviews with key actors in official capacities, and participatory focus groups with students; and 3. a socio-spatial mapping of the entire campus. The use of multiple data sources allowed for triangulation of information from the socio- spatial mapping with the data collected from the focus groups in order to ground the interpretation of key observations in an empirically rich and descriptive account of social 104 activity on the Bloemfontein campus. The reiterative fieldwork methodology supported continuous interaction between data and analysis and established the reliability and validity of the datasets (Morse et al. 2002). 3.4.1.1 Desktop review The visual documentation under review in this study was predominantly based on observations made in a variety of social spaces on the Bloemfontein campus and in the city of Bloemfontein, with a focus on the social activity that occurs in them. This form of documentation serves as a detailed record of various types of social space in the city and on the campus to show how the organisational indicators of space impact upon the social activity that is deployed in it. Historical photographs, geographical maps, spatial planning documents, and urban frameworks documentation for the Bloemfontein campus also forms part of the visual documentation repository. The textual documentation includes: legal and policy frameworks for transformation in higher education in South Africa; student memoranda; a review of online content for universities in South Africa generally and the UFS particularly (including the UFS Communications website, newsletters, annual reports, commissioned reports, Facebook, and website content); active participation in various university committees and forums (including the Vice-Chancellor’s Conversation 2012, The UFS Language Committee, and the UFS Institutional Forum debate on symbols and statues); online discussion forums (such as The Conversation); and newspaper articles. Secondary sources of visual and textual data includes documentation “prepared by the researcher or for the researcher by the participants after the study has begun” (Merriam 2009:144). The different types of documentation, visual and textual, provides multiple data sources that demonstrated “social action in a way that comes closest to the action as the actors themselves understand it, grounding the research claims in the claims of those who make them” (Orum et al. 1991:8). The visual and textual documentation provides an information repository that enabled “insight, discovery, and interpretation rather than hypothesis testing” (Merriam 1998:29–30). The different data sources and collection techniques allowed the researcher as the primary research instrument to show the extent and strength of the relationship between the data and the findings and ensured the trustworthiness of the findings as a reflection of the “holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events” (Yin 2009:75). 105 3.4.1.2 Semi-structured interviews In-depth semi-structured interviews were undertaken in two ways. First, scoping interviews were conducted with key actors at various levels of official capacities and in the employ of, or associated with, the city of Bloemfontein, the UFS generally, and the Bloemfontein campus specifically. Second, four participatory focus groups were held, each consisting of seven to twelve full-time registered students in their second semester of study at the UFS on the Bloemfontein campus. The semi-structured interviews were open-ended in nature so as to “yield direct quotations from people about experiences, opinions, feelings, and knowledge” (Patton 2002:4). This also allowed the researcher, as the primary research instrument, to rely on her “own instincts and abilities throughout most of this research effort” (Merriam 2009:52). The two types of semi-structured interviews were advantageous for four reasons: (1) the discussions that materialised from them gave insights that allowed for the refinement of the proposed research questions in relation to the evidence collected and examined (Merriam 2009; Patton 2002); (2) the semi-structured interviews enabled a comprehensive engagement with the study’s focus on the proposed relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and the concept of transformation in higher education; (3) the semi-structured interviews, by providing multiple viewpoints from which to validate the data collected, allowed for triangulation in the investigative and exploratory approach of the case study methodology (Hancock & Algozzine 2006; Merriam 2009; Orum et al. 1991; Shields 2007; Stake 1995; Tellis 1997; Yazan 2015; Yin 2009, 2012); and (4) the reflexivity and flexibility afforded by the semi-structured interviews allowed for the research process to accommodate responses and suggestions that could not have been foreseen prior to data collection and analysis. 3.4.1.2.1 Scoping interviews Seven scoping interviews were conducted: four with key management staff, two with academic staff, and one with the architect instrumental in the organisation of space at the UFS generally and on the Bloemfontein campus in particular. The scoping interviews focused on the historic and spatial framework within which the Bloemfontein campus was founded and on its contemporary socio-spatial realities in order to show how socio-spatial frameworks influence the conceptualisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus. The information derived from the scoping interviews was valuable for the expansion of understanding and knowledge of the organisation space on the campus. In the interviews, discussions provided invaluable insights into the organisation of space at the UFS and how 106 this aligns with the official policy on transformation in higher education. In addition, the interviews allowed the researcher to better engage with a variety of official university documents that govern the operation, vision, and intention of the spatial. These included: the UFS Annual Reports for 2015 and 2016, the UFS Transformation Audit of 2016, the spatial development plan for the Bloemfontein campus, the UFS Expanded Footprints report, and the report of the Ministerial Committee on Transformation and Social Cohesion and the Elimination of Discrimination in Public Higher Education Institutions (MTCHE). The scoping interviews provided an additional source of information that was not always adequately addressed or available in the participatory focus groups or the socio-spatial mapping. Primary scoping interviews were conducted with key representatives in the university management and operational staff who:  Oversee the operational aspects of the university, the Media and Communications Department, the Information and Communication Technology Office, and the Physical Estates Office. The Physical Estates Office is charged with the urban and building development of all campuses. All building and renovation projects are conceptualised, developed, and executed by this office.  Oversee the planning at the UFS in accordance with the Strategic Development Plans (SDPs). The SDP for the UFS includes but is not limited to the conceptualisation, design, and implementation of all SDPs on all three campuses.  Are appointed at the UFS to address social concerns such as racism, gender violence, and discrimination, and concerns around access and accessibility for differently abled persons. Secondary scoping interviews were conducted with architectural and institutional actors that specialise in architectural history and practice. These interviews provided insights into the narrative of the founding, development, and function of the city of Bloemfontein and the position of the Bloemfontein campus in it to better understand the framework for the organisation of space at the UFS in general and on the Bloemfontein campus in particular in a post-apartheid South Africa. 107 3.4.1.2.2 Participatory focus groups Four participatory focus groups of approximately 90 minutes each were conducted, and each consisted of seven to twelve participants. The focus group discussions were recorded using an “unobtrusive digital recorder” (Merriam 2009:109) and the recordings transcribed verbatim to provide “the best database for analysis” (Merriam 2009:110). The verbatim transcriptions from the focus groups collectively provided approximately 150 pages of data. Some of the recordings were not clear; therefore, the transcripts were not always complete and coherent. However, through repeatedly listening to the recordings and re-reading the transcripts to “correct errors and fill in blanks” (Merriam 2009:110), the data collected from the focus groups could be deemed reliable and trustworthy (Merriam 2009; Patton 2002). The focus groups were conducted to “get high-quality data in a social context where people can consider their own views in the context of the views of others” (Patton 2002:386) and moved the data collection and analysis “beyond the individual mind, and beyond the context, to a dialogical interaction between the two” (van der Riet 2008:549). This provided “a ‘social constructionist’ or ‘dialogic’ perspective” (Belzile & Oberg 2012:461) of the Bloemfontein campus as a space. All the focus groups were treated as confidential encounters between the participants and the researcher. The groups were hosted in a university safe space, namely the boardroom of the Office of Transformation on the Bloemfontein campus. It was made clear that the participants could leave at any time during the discussion if they wanted to. Additionally, all participants were informed of the purpose of the research and matters related to research ethics. None of the participants asked that any of the dialogue be removed from the transcripts. A comparative analysis was done with the data collected from each of the focus groups in relation to the other groups and in relation to information derived from other informants in order establish the reliability of data collected. Rather than bias the data, my location on the Bloemfontein campus heightened the need to be self-critical and suspicious of my subjectivity as an individual for whom the majority of the working week was spent in the space of the Bloemfontein campus. The data collected and analysed from the focus groups “productively generated content” (Belzile & Oberg 2012:470) to address both Level One and Level Two case study questions (discussed in greater detail in the sub-section entitled “Case study questions”, Section 3.4.2.4) and contributed “towards planning and conducting the research process” (Berg 108 2001:1). The focus group data enabled theoretical triangulation by corroborating the evidence collected from the desktop review, scoping interviews, and socio-spatial mapping. This triangulation reduced methodological and personal biases in order to validate the adopted case study methodology. This triangulation and validation located the proposed conceptual framework as a theory-building process based on the research findings (Creswell & Miller 2000; Decrop 1999; Olsen 2004; Patton 2002). 3.4.1.3 Socio-spatial mapping The Bloemfontein campus has been central in two transformation-related commissions of inquiry in higher education, namely the MTCHE (DoE 2008) and the “People, not Stones: Report to the Council of the University of the Free State” (van der Westhuizen, Labuschagne & Kekana 2016). Consequently, the selection of the Bloemfontein campus as a case study was highly appropriate for research that focused on the establishment of linkages in the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in South African higher education. Although the issue of transformation in higher education is one that has been extensively and comprehensively written on and debated about (Jansen 2016; Msimang 2016; van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016), there is very little empirical data that might elucidate how the organisation of space at a higher education institution impacts on the implementation of official policy and institutional practice and on the lived everyday experience and understanding of transformation in higher education. Consequently, in accordance with Section 2.4.2.1 in Chapter Two (page 79), the socio-spatial mapping of selected sites, as embedded units of analysis in the case study, aimed to address the inadequate evidence on how the organisation of space at a higher education impacts on social activity that is embedded in the social relationships that govern how transformation is understood in the higher education experience. The aim is to contribute to literature and debate around the concept of transformation in higher education generally and in South Africa specifically. Thus, supported by evidence and data from the desktop review and semi-structured interviews, a socio-spatial documentation of the Bloemfontein campus in its entirety and in its relationship to the city of Bloemfontein was undertaken. The socio-spatial mapping of the research site and its immediate context aimed to further the researcher’s understanding of social activity on the campus and in the city of Bloemfontein. This mapping was plotted out along three geographical scales: (1) macro scale – the campus in relation to the city of Bloemfontein; (2) meso scale – the Bloemfontein campus in its entirety; and (3) micro scale – five selected sites on the site. 109 Detailed observation, documentation, and analysis on these three scales allowed for an in- depth investigation of the impact of the organisation of space on the social activity that is deployed in it. The selection of five sites for in-depth investigation was based on two criteria. First, the site had to be an outside space positioned beyond the limits of a building and not restricted by a definite enclosure. The outside nature of the sites meant that they did not belong to a single designated group of individuals or buildings and as such allowed for a variety of social activities to occur in it. Second, the site had to fall within the definition of a public space that is accessible to any individual on the campus and to which access is not regulated through any form of material restriction (Harvey 2000; Harvey 2008; Vidler 2001). The following five sites were selected for further investigation: 1. Thakaneng Bridge complex. The most popular place for the buying, selling, and consumption of food on the Bloemfontein campus, it is also one of two pedestrian movement routes that link the east and west sides of the campus, which are separated by the DF Malherbe vehicular byway. 2. Eduardo Villa Walkway. The main pedestrian connection between the north and south parts of the campus and the only pedestrian route that links to most of the administration, faculty, and support buildings on the campus. 3. The Academic Quad. A green space that sits behind the Main Building and is flanked by the Deans Office, the Faculty of Natural Sciences to the west, the departments of Geography and Mathematics to the south, and the department of Psychology to the north. 4. The lawn west of the IRSJ. This lawn is an extension of the dialogue-driven function of the IRSJ. It acts as a forecourt for events at the IRSJ and as a gathering, pause, and resting social space located on the periphery of the heart of the Bloemfontein campus. 5. The Red Square. Located in front of the Main Building, it can described as an area on the campus that “stands for an idea of living and learning together in an intellectually free society” (Vickery 1998:11). It is flanked by the Main Building to the west, the Postgraduate School and Faculty of Law to the north, and the H. vd Merwe Scholtz Hall, the Idalia Loots building, and the Faculty of Theology to the south. 110 It is noteworthy that the Red Square, the Academic Quad, and the lawn west of the IRSJ share and are defined by the buildings around them. These three locations act as spaces in which several pedestrian routes intersect and link to the ring road that defines the heart of the Bloemfontein campus (Auret & Roodt 2016). Also significant is that the lawn west of the IRSJ – intended to facilitate dialogue and social gatherings aligned with the IRSJ mandate to bring together different voices, ideas, and practices – is in close proximity to the Red Square. The Red Square is the site where protesting students vandalised and destroyed the statue of CR Swart during the 2016 student movements (van der Westhuizen et al. 2016). The close proximity of this site, used for resistance against the meaning and symbolism of space and objects in space, to the IRSJ, an institution mandated to facilitate social redress and reforms at the university, highlights the role of space in the lived experience of institutional practice that is translated from and often juxtaposed with the rational processes of official policy for transformation. Although not included within the scope of this study, the following identified spaces are also worth noting and could be valuable for further research: The Transformation Desk office that is located in the former Reitz residence buildings and is an active component of the IRSJ; the swimming pool complex, previously utilised predominantly by students living on the Bloemfontein campus and currently a privatised space15; the UFS taxi rank16; and the ‘tiekie’. The taxi rank was commissioned, paid for, and is maintained by the UFS department of Physical Estates. It is, however, spatially disconnected from the rest of the campus due to the devil’s fork fencing17 that separates it from the campus grounds, and access to and from the taxi rank is regulated through a manned turnstile gate. The ‘tiekie’ 15 The University of the Free State is in a contractual agreement to sub-let the swimming pool facilities to Lindsay Saker – a Volkswagen dealership. Lindsay Saker has privatised the swimming facilities; therefore, university students and staff require special clearance from VW Swimming Club in order to utilise this space. 16 The minibus taxi “is a vital form of transport in South Africa’s spatially challenged cities” (Urbanworks 2011) and the main form of public transport utilised by the majority of South Africans. Most of the students and staff on the Bloemfontein campus thus utilise this mode of transport to get to and from the campus. Berg (2010:1) suggests that to be a pedestrian in a South African city is “either to be bold or to be poor”. The minibus taxi that fills in the void as the “unofficial public transit system”, he writes, is used by “predominantly black residents”. The separation of the UFS taxi rank from the Bloemfontein Campus, one could argue, contributes to the alienation and access concerns that were at the heart of the 2015 and 2016 student social movements. 17 ‘Devils fork’ is palisade steel fencing commonly used in South Africa. Architect and artist Opper (2014:1), in describing his installation ‘Uitval (2013)’, suggests that “[t]he palisade, a typological derivative of the suburban ‘white picket fence’, lends itself to Johannesburg’s and – by extension – South Africa’s continued (post- apartheid) territorialisation”. The separation of the UFS taxi rank has a wide range of impacts which, in terms of South Africa’s apartheid history, could be argued to be indicators of a hegemony that maintains the “disenfranchisement of the African majority” (Bunting 2002:58) in higher education in South Africa. 111 (once the name for the now discontinued two-and-a-half cent coin) is a traffic circle south of the main administration building which has over the years been a site of contention. It forms part of an institutional practice held by the President Steyn residence in which members of the residence may ‘punish’ anyone that stands on the tiekie, as it is reserved for their residence’s exclusive use. Punishment by the residents may take the form of being hosed down or being subjected to a cold shower while naked. The data collected from the socio-spatial mapping, enriched by an in-depth investigation of five selected sites, enabled the identification and documentation of indicators that have implications for the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus. In addition, the socio-spatial mapping informed the development of an appropriate spatial lens that showed how geographical and spatial thematic attributes across a set of locations represent and impact upon associated uses and activities in space. Thus, the socio-spatial mapping supported a focused critique of the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus in order to develop linkages that show how understanding the organisation of space can be related to the implementation and understanding of transformation in higher education. 3.4.1.4 Fieldwork procedures, questions, and sampling The case study of space on the Bloemfontein campus is not intended to be a comprehensive or exhaustive study of social spaces on and off campus; rather, it is an analytical account of the implications of organisational indicators for space for the everyday reality of the individual. The case of (social) space on the Bloemfontein campus aims to provide guidance in the development of a conceptual framework that explores the importance and significance of space for initiatives for redress and reform aimed at transformation in higher education in general and in South Africa in particular. For instance, in the review prior to the fieldwork, a cursory approach was taken to how (social) spaces are seen to operate and function and how these spaces impact on the social activity, processes, and relationships between individuals on the Bloemfontein campus. Social activity demonstrates how space is a dynamic and active constituent in the activity that is deployed in it. A focus on the implications of organisational indicators allows for the identification of social and physical characteristics/categories across different locations. These characteristics/categories facilitate the investigation of how space impacts on the activity deployed in it and the implications of this impact for initiatives aimed at 112 transformation in higher education. This investigation was conducted using the following case study procedures. First, a brief socio-spatial analysis was conducted of social spaces on the Bloemfontein campus in relation to its context, the city of Bloemfontein. The information derived from each day of mapping was tested in a focus group the following day. The iterative process of collecting data from the socio-spatial mapping and the focus groups was done to investigate if the city of Bloemfontein provided for social activities that are not present on the Bloemfontein campus. And if this were the case, what type of processes and relationships between individual formed the basis for the social activity not present on the campus. Second, an in-depth investigation was conducted in five selected sites. Information from this investigation was used to identify thematic attributes across a set of locations as social and physical characteristics/categories. The social and physical characteristics/categories that show organisational indicators for space offered an initial interpretation of ‘spatial types’; these types allowed for the development of linkages between initiatives for redress and reform aimed at transformation of institutional practices on the Bloemfontein campus and the reality of the same for the individual in their day-to-day lived experience on the campus. The case study procedures concluded with an analysis and interpretation of the implications of organisational indicators for space for transformation in higher education generally and on the Bloemfontein campus specifically. 3.4.1.4.1 Case study questions The case study questions (see Appendix A) were designed to “distinguish clearly among different types or levels of questions” (Yin 2009:367), served as a reminder of the information that needed to be collected and why, and honed the study focus during the reiterative collection and analysis process. The case study questions were set at four levels (Yin 2009). Level One questions asked about the Bloemfontein campus. These questions focused on the “self-referential worlds, or detached ideologies that then can be used instrumentally to create certain kinds of space” (Ligget 1995:248). Level One questions asked: for what purpose the campus was designed; for whom it was designed; and when, why, and how frequently it is accessible to differently located individuals. Level Two and Three questions were asked of all the participants in the study and focused on “space, difference and everyday life” (Kipfer et al. 2008:2). They were asked in order to show how the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus has implications for and impacts on 113 social activity. Level Two questions focused on how the “building typology, urban morphology and the creation of zones and regions for specific purposes” (Shields 1999:162), as well as non-verbal symbols and signs compel social action in space on the Bloemfontein campus (Lefebvre 1991b). Level Three questions facilitated the identification and documentation of indicators – social and physical characteristics – that govern the organisation of space on the campus. Level Four questions focused on official policy for transformation in higher education in South Africa to show how this is translated in space at the UFS generally and on the Bloemfontein campus specifically. Level Four questions went beyond the narrow scope of the case study in order to respond to and accommodate the broader discourse around transformation and the understanding thereof in higher education. 3.4.1.4.2 Sampling Purposeful sampling – the benefit of which “lies in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth” (Patton 2002:230, emphasis in original) – was used in the adopted case study methodology that aims to “discover, understand, and gain insight” (Merriam 2009:77) of the phenomena under study. This type of sampling requires criterion-based selection to “directly reflect the purpose of the study” and “participants are selected on the basis of common characteristics” (Kleiber 2004:91). The sampling strategy was implemented with cognisance of “the co-construction of meaning between the researcher and the participant” (Lietz, Langer & Furman 2006:443) and to establish trustworthiness in the study. Participants for scoping interviews were selected based on professional expertise and the type of information required. Focus group participants were selected based on responses to an open voluntary call to all students for participation (Kleiber 2004) that was made through the Dean of Student Affairs. The participants had to be registered for study at the UFS (first selection criterion) and had to be in a department positioned on the Bloemfontein campus (second selection criterion). This guaranteed that the participants, as registered, active students who had volunteered to participate in the study (third criterion), had a vested interest in matters concerning transformation in higher education generally and on the Bloemfontein campus specifically. Conducting the focus groups in the second semester of the university calendar year (fourth criterion) ensured that even students in their first year of study would be able to participate with a sound knowledge and experience of the Bloemfontein campus. Selection criteria based on social determinants such as race, class, 114 and gender were forgone to allow for objectivity in the data collected. The selection criteria aimed to ensure a consistent understanding of the topic under study by all participants and validated the suitability of the five selected sites. As a result, the sampling yielded data that is representative of a broad cross-section of students on the Bloemfontein campus. 3.5 RESEARCH POLITICS, TRUSTWORTHINESS, AND ETHICS As an English-speaking black person of Ugandan descent, I would not have had access to work or study at the Bloemfontein campus of the UFS during the pre-1994 apartheid era due to language- and race-based segregation. Consequently, this study has personal meaning that motivates me to address the legacy of discrimination “entrenched in the apartheid divisions in education in South Africa” (Bunting 2002:60). The personal meaning and motivation attached to this study posed the risk of unduly influencing and biasing it. However, it could also be argued that this personal interest, in combination with my positioning as a staff member (at the time of conducting the study from April 2012 to April 2017) and current PhD student on the Bloemfontein campus, located the research as a ‘being-with’ (Moustakas 1995) study. The notion of being-with grounded the study in the real-life context of social and race relations between individuals on the Bloemfontein campus. Furthermore, this supported me in making “choices toward developing a more sophisticated palette” (Patton 2002:9) and gave the study a “simple, yet elegant and insightful character” (Patton 2002:9). The embedded nature of the research and researcher in the site under study also rendered the study “economical for all resources: money, manpower, time, effort” (Eckstein 1992:160). The positioning of the researcher on the Bloemfontein campus, in combination with the use of a case study methodology, enabled a thorough, in-depth investigation of “complex collective individuals” (Eckstein 1992:161) and more efficient analysis of the bulky, often unmanageable documentation typically associated with a qualitative case study (Merriam 2009). Furthermore, as an academic staff member, I had continuous access to resources such as documentation and writing instruments; a quiet, safe workspace; and a computer to use while conducting fieldwork. In addition, I could provide on-site guidance and be flexible in the scheduling of interviews and observations. Unrestricted “access to the subjects of study” (Eckstein 1992:161) and to the site under study, combined with multiple sources of evidence and data, facilitated the establishment of correct operational measures for the concepts being studied and allowed the researcher to 115 “go more deeply into a single case than a number of them and thus compensate for loss of range by gains in depth” Eckstein (1992:162). Furthermore, the process of reiteratively “linking data, questions and methods to the research questions and propositions” (Rowley 2002:20) proved an effective way to “provide answers to questions being investigated” (Hancock & Algozzine 2006:9). Additionally, using a “holistic qualitative approach to investigate an array of possible sources” (Hancock & Algozzine 2006:8) allowed the researcher to “understand the situation under investigation primarily from the participants’ and not the researcher’s perspective” (Hancock & Algozzine 2006:8). Consequently, it was possible to “arrive at a comprehensive understanding of the group under study” (Becker 1968:233) and to form a “rounded understanding on the basis of rich, contextual and detailed data” (Mason 1996:4). The reiterative linking of data, questions, methods, and proposed research questions as an “interactive process” (Merriam 2009:440) produced empirically based findings that supported theoretical orientations and propositions and established a domain in which the study’s findings can be generalised. This rendered the evidence believable, reliable, and trustworthy (Creswell & Miller 2000; Decrop 1999; Guba & Lincoln 1981; Rowley 2002). Berg (2001:39) asserts that “researchers must ensure the rights, privacy, and welfare of the people and communities that form the focus of their studies”. Respect for privacy and individual thought and opinions was maintained throughout the research process by clearly communicating to participants the voluntary nature of participation in the study and their right to withdraw at any time without any detrimental consequences (see Appendix B). An application for ethical clearance for the study was submitted to, and clearance received from, the Faculty of Education and the Dean of Student Affairs, UFS. A written invitation to volunteer for participation in the study was sent out through the Dean of Students office to all students registered for study on the Bloemfontein campus. In line with the ethical approach of the study (Berg 2001:49), the invitation contained a declaration of the full intention of the research as well as a commitment from the researcher to answer any questions from participants seeking clarity regarding the intention of the research. In addition, the letter stated that written consent would be obtained from participants before conducting any interviews. The interviews were held in a ‘safe space’ – the Transformation Desk discussion room – and were conducted in such a manner that none of the participants could be identified. The information disclosed in the interviews was used in a way that would neither place the participants at risk of criminal or civil liability, nor damage 116 participants' educational opportunities, financial standing, employability, or reputation. Accordingly, all visual documentation of the Bloemfontein campus ensured that, as far as possible, no subjects could be identified. Positioned on the Bloemfontein campus, with a secure office and computer from which to work, I was able to further ensure confidentiality as I could securely store information collected from observations from the socio-spatial mapping and the transcripts from the focus groups. Additionally, unrestricted and continuous access to the research site facilitated flexibility with regards to fluctuating factors such as mood and motivation; changes in times and venues for interviews and focus groups; changes in the availability of relevant contact persons; obtaining additional visual and textual documentation; student availability; and weather conditions. The reiterative investigative process supported the collection of reliable, trustworthy data from various sources and allowed for a rich in-depth documentation of the Bloemfontein campus in order to investigate social activities in the space. 3.6 CONCLUSION 3.6.1 Advantages of the Case Study The adoption of a case study methodology in a social constructivist framework allowed for the expansion of theoretical propositions using a combination of existing theories and the available data (Yin 2009). This in turn enabled linkages to be developed that show the importance and significance of the relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education. The insights gained using this approach were intended to address what is argued to be an inadequate response to the implications of spatial organisation for the implementation and understanding of transformation in higher education. The aim was to creatively frame space and spatial theorisation in the specifically defined field of transformation and to test, revise, and re-think the implications of space for the higher education experience. This testing, revising, and rethinking were done in two significant ways. First, through the testing of “emergent theory... with constructs that can be readily measured” (Eisenhardt 1989:547) in the proposed relationship between the understanding the organisation of space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education, so as to increase “the likelihood of valid theory” (Eisenhardt 1989:547). This involved a reiterative and process- oriented research approach “intimately tied with the evidence” (Eisenhardt 1989:547) 117 through which the “study of social life” as “continuity and change in ‘life world patterns’” (Orum et al. 1991:7) could be conducted. Second, the semi-structured interviews were conducted in a loose and free-form way, while the socio-spatial mapping involved a reiterative and investigative process. The reiterative data collection and analysis required persistent detective work as “a necessary and sufficient method” (Flyvbjerg 2006:241) to gain insights into “context-dependent knowledge” (Flyvbjerg 2006:221) and supported cross-pollination between the defined fields of space and spatial theorisation on the one hand and transformation in higher education on the other. 3.6.2 Limitations of the Case Study The adoption of a case study methodology as a research tool, while appropriately applied in the study, was not without limitations and difficulties. In this study, four limitations were of concern and needed to be addressed. First, it has been argued that single case studies lack rigour in the absence of systematic, methodological guidelines. This, in combination with the researcher’s subjectivity, may permit “equivocal evidence or biased views to influence the direction of the findings and conclusions” (Yin 2009:41). What is important to note, however, is that a qualitative case study within a social constructivist framework is a process-oriented and process-driven form of research. Consequently, this methodology holds “a greater bias toward falsification of preconceived notions than toward verification” (Flyvbjerg 2006:237) of preconceptions and is more likely to reveal phenomena rather than verify them. Additionally, the utilisation of multiple sources of evidence and data allows for fair reporting of evidence to counteract any bias or preconceptions on the researcher’s part (Yin 2009). The second critique of case study research “is that it provides little basis for scientific generalization” (Yin 2009:43). The selection bias is a “special feature of case study research that provides the rationale of its selection [but] also presents certain limitations in its usage” (Merriam 2009:51). For example, the selection bias in focusing on the Bloemfontein campus excludes other higher education institutions in South Africa. Due to limitations of proximity, time, and funding the researcher was unable to investigate more than a single higher education institution. However, this limitation was addressed through efficient research processes that allowed for extensive, in-depth knowledge and experience (Eckstein 1992) to be gained. Thus, because “the case study, like the experiment, does not represent a ‘sample’” (Yin 2009:46), it was possible to generalise rather than particularise 118 the socially constructed nature of the spatial at a higher education institution, thereby establishing transferability and theoretical generalisability. The third critique of case study research is the length of time needed to conduct the study and the management of “massive, unreadable documents” (Yin 2009:46) from the multiple sources of evidence. Case study research generates data that “may be too lengthy, too detailed, or too involved” (Merriam 2009:51–52), and this can limit its practical application. However, the unrestricted access to the research site allowed the researcher to refine bulky data over time without needing to obtain “ethnographic or participant-observer data” (Yin 2009:47) in a laborious and time-consuming way. The day-to-day interaction with the research site also enabled systematic testing and revising of the data and evidence to avoid bulkiness and irrelevance. The final criticism of a case study methodology which was of relevance to this research is that the practicalities of qualitative research are very demanding and that “the sensitivity and integrity of the investigator” (Merriam 2009:52) are crucial. The practical demands on the researcher as the primary research instrument in this study included simultaneous engagement with literature, the context, and the discussions held with various participants. The study also had to focus on multiple social activities deployed in space on the Bloemfontein campus while bearing in mind the complexity of the broader field of higher education, the specifics of transformation in higher education, and concepts related to space and spatial theorisation. Certain professional attributes allowed me to successfully overcome the aforementioned practical challenges. Firstly, I am an architectural practitioner and therefore familiar with space and spatiality. Secondly, I have been a senior lecturer for over a decade and have taught at three higher education institutions in South Africa, therefore I am well acquainted with the mechanics of higher education and its institutions in South Africa. I continuously attempted to “account for and include difference” (Shields 2007:13) across disciplines so as not to over-simplify that which cannot be simplified – in this case, the relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education and how this in turn relates to the role of higher education in society. 119 3.6.3 Summary of Research Design and Methodology The adoption of a case study methodology positioned within a social constructivist framework provided tools and guidelines to conduct this research. The examination of the everyday real-life experiences of different people through “one or more lines of inquiry” (Yin 2012:14) aimed to derive “meaning... through the development of themes or categories from the raw data” (Thomas 2006:238). However, the research design and strategy could not allow for the analysis of all the implications of the organisation of space at a higher education institution for the understanding of the concept of transformation in higher education. Thus, the study took on a reflexive and flexible approach to allow the researcher to conduct qualitative analysis that was “particularly oriented towards exploration, discovery and inductive logic” (Patton 2002:55). The process-oriented nature of the study involved “extensive relevant readings on the topic” (Tellis 1997:4) and the construction of an “embodied, passionately engaged, and politically charged form of critical knowledge” (Kipfer et al. 2008:3) in order to test emergent theory. The detailed data and evidence in this study presented “multi-faceted and multi-voiced realities” (Markova, Linell, Grossen & Orvig 2007:17) that show “how we see, how we are able, allowed, or made to see, and how we see this seeing and the unseeing therein” (Foster 1988:ix). It was important in this study to demonstrate a firm grasp on the specifics of context (Smith 1978) and to continuously re- visit the research procedures in order to “investigate the social world” (Watkins 2005:219). This approach enabled critical and effective engagement with the proposed relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education. 120 CHAPTER FOUR – SETTING THE SCENE: THE BLOEMFONTEIN CAMPUS AS RESEARCH SITE 4.1 INTRODUCTION The importance and significance of space during the race-based segregation of South Africa’s apartheid past was shown in the “spatial policy, with markedly geographical consequences. Lines were drawn on maps at various scales and people evicted and resettled to fit the lines” (Christopher 1994:6). Access to and ownership of space in South Africa during apartheid was seen as the material, tangible marker that reinforced racial segregation and social differentiation. The city of Bloemfontein, whose spatial and geographical history is steeped in segregationist apartheid policies and frameworks (Davies 1981), sets the scene for questions around access to and ownership of space in higher education in a post-1994 South Africa. It has been argued that the urban and peri-urban spaces in the city of Bloemfontein – a place described as having “intimate nuances and hidden realities” (Auret 2016:194) – are based on a model apartheid city (Auret 2016; Davies 1981; Du Preez 2017, personal interview, 8 March [hereafter Du Preez 2017]; Maylem 1995; Schoeman 1980). The model apartheid city developed from two key concerns “within the constraints of apartheid society” (Smith 2005:10). The first concern centred on social and spatial controls that warranted legislation in order to regulate access to and ownership of space in the city. The second concern centred on the manner in which compartmentalisation of social formations would be best achieved (Davies 1981; Maylem 1995). The first section of this chapter presents some of the key historical and spatial factors relevant to the study’s focus on the relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and the implementation and understanding of transformation in higher education. This section shows how guidelines and frameworks implicit in the foundations of the organisation of space in the city of Bloemfontein sought to favour one group of people (predominately white and Afrikaans) over another group (predominately black). The legacy of segregation and separation that is still evident in the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus, grounds the selected case historically and spatially in its context – South Africa generally and the city of Bloemfontein in particular. Some of the 121 key historical and spatial context-related factors are presented to set the scene for the selected case, the Bloemfontein campus, in order to show how the context in which a higher education institution is located presents challenges for transformation and the understanding thereof in higher education. The second section of this chapter plots out how the organisation of space – as a historic and spatial construct – on the Bloemfontein campus is central and fundamental to the growth and development of the city of Bloemfontein. The investigation of social activity in the context of the city of Bloemfontein shows how context-related factors impact on the organisation of space and thus have implications for the social activity deployed on the Bloemfontein campus. These implications illustrate the social nature of higher education institutions and reinforce the view of these institutions as social institutions. The view of the Bloemfontein campus as a social institution allows the research to create links between the information derived from specific context-related factors and the broad initiatives for redress and reform in South African higher education generally. The third section in this chapter presents a key strategy implemented on the Bloemfontein campus which intended to facilitate spatial transformation in the transition from apartheid to democracy at the UFS. More than two decades after the dawn of a democratic state, the various initiatives for redress and reform in higher education are still faced with ever-shifting challenges in the transformation project. The image of the Bloemfontein campus as “an (almost) exclusively white Afrikaans establishment” (Auret & Roodt 2016:80) needed to change in order to foster increased social interaction, integration, and cohesion between individuals who had previously been socially and spatially separated and differentiated during apartheid. The spatial strategy discussed in this section shows how space and the way it is organised on the Bloemfontein campus can be utilised as a lens to analyse the strength and extent of social cohesion – central and fundamental to transformation in higher education. It is worth noting that this strategy, although designed to enhance social cohesion through increased social interaction and integration on the Bloemfontein campus, failed to adequately address certain critical aspects of redress and reform as related to the organisation of space. The same oversight is present in official education policy, as it does not adequately consider how space relates to the implementation and understanding of transformation South African higher education. 122 The fourth section of this chapter presents the case study fieldwork undertaken to show how the Bloemfontein campus, the site of qualitative research, is both a contextual and created space. The context-related historic and spatial factors that impact on the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus as a created space are presented in order to show the importance of the Bloemfontein campus as a space per se – a material product positioned in and relating to the geographic specificities of the city of Bloemfontein. Furthermore, the impact of context-related historic and spatial factors on the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus and therefore on social activity is explored within the definite geographical boundaries of the campus in relation to the broader context of the city. This exploration serves to collate and corroborate information from which to plot out and present the social character of space on the Bloemfontein. The social character of created space on the Bloemfontein campus is plotted out in two ways: (1) the visual and textual documentation of social spaces, both on and off campus, that are containers for human praxis and that influence social activity, and (2) documentation of the nature of social activity in space and the social relationships that occur between individuals who inhabit the Bloemfontein campus. 4.2 BLOEMFONTEIN The settlement that would later expand to become the city of Bloemfontein “was founded in 1846 by Major Douglas Warden on the farm of Johan Nicolaas Brits” (Auret & Roodt 2016:3). Major Warden and his troops, known as the Cape Riflemen, were tasked with securing and maintaining the weak northern frontier of the British Cape Colony (Austin 1987). The settlement was positioned between four defendable landscape features (Du Preez 2017), namely “Naval Hill, Signal Hill, Fort Hill in the south, and the Dolerite ridge extending between Signal Hill and Fort Hill” (Auret & Roodt 2016:3). Positioning himself west of the Bloemspruit18 between the four natural features, Warden set up his residence along an east-west hierarchical axis (west more important, east less important) around which the city subsequently grew (Auret 2016; Auret & Roodt 2016; Du Preez 2017). Today referred to as St Andrews Street, the main east-west hierarchical axis is historically and spatially significant in Bloemfontein for three reasons. First, the layout of the settlement 18 Bloemspruit – flowing from “an incredibly rich water fountain” (Schoeman 1980:1–3) was located on the farm of Johannes Nicolaas Brits and described by Brits to Major Warden as ‘Bloem Fontein’ (Auret 2016; Du Preez 2017). 123 along the Bloemspruit, with each erf fronting the spring, is not typically English19, but typically Dutch. Second, the location of Major Warden’s residence in the west, at the fountain from which the Bloemspruit sprung, set up a spatial hierarchy that is still in existence today, as seen in the westward development of institutional centres in the city of Bloemfontein (Auret 2016). Lastly, the location of the barracks for Warden’s soldiers further east along the Bloemspruit – later referred to as Waaihoek (loosely translated from Afrikaans as windy corner). Waaihoek20 was furthest east, at the bottom end of the hierarchical axis, and was designated for people of least social importance – first soldiers and later black African settlers in Bloemfontein. Between 1904 and 1942, long before the Group Areas Act of 1950 and in line with the then “universally accepted principle of segregation... the systemic destruction” (Auret 2016:205–206) of Waaihoek began in 1920 through a series of forced removals21. The eradication of Waaihoek from the original urban fabric of the city of Bloemfontein left “a desolate stretch of land to the southeast of the Fort” (Auret & Roodt 2016:11), revealing how city planners and authorities enforced segregationist ideals based on race through spatial differentiation even before apartheid became the official policy of the National Party after the 1948 elections (Auret 2016). This notion of socio-spatial differentiation based on race has a long history in Bloemfontein, first illustrated in Thomas Baine’s22 third and last artwork of Bloemfontein in 1851, titled Beyond the Wilderness (see Figure 4.1 on page 126). 19 Typically, the British military garrisons set out their settlements to integrate into the entirety of the natural environment and not with a singular feature (Du Preez 2017). This was primarily done to take advantage of the defence mechanisms offered by the natural landscape. The utilisation of Bloemspruit – a singular natural feature – as the basis for the spatial organisation of the settlement of Bloemfontein went against this basic principle for setting up British settler towns in the colonies. 20 Du Preez (2017) points out that Schoeman (1980:35), in his seminal work Bloemfontein, claims that the first mention of Waaihoek is to be found in The Quarterly Papers of the OFS Mission 1868–1946. A missionary described Waaihoek thus: “...what is called ‘Waayhoek’, a small native location at the south-east entrance of the town... made up of a lot of filthy huts huddled together... most of them being scanty shelters, a framework of bent canes with rags and bits of tin, in which comfort and cleanliness are impossible”. 21 During apartheid, the legislation of segregation along racial lines enabled the National Party to legitimately embark on a country-wide campaign of ‘forced removals’ in which residents – particularly black Africans – were forcibly removed from urban spaces and relocated to the peripheries of towns and cities. 22 Thomas Baine painted three artworks – currently housed at the Oliewenhuis Museum – of Bloemfontein in the mid-nineteenth century. What is notable in the progression of his depictions of Bloemfontein is the dramatised imagery of a ‘savage camp’ inhabited by black South Africans. This camp becomes more sinister and the small town nestled in the hills even more tranquil in his artworks. It is possible to infer from the progressive artworks that the dramatisation of the black African as an untamed savage was a response to and a reflection of the thinking at the time. Civilized society depicted as tranquil, picturesque, and ‘white’ was under attack and needed to be protected and removed from the dangerous, wild, and savage Africa and African. Curiously, more than a century later, in advocating for the formation and maintenance of the apartheid state, the National Party utilised the term ‘die swart gevaar’ – which translates from Afrikaans as ‘the black 124 Baine’s artwork is of historic significance as it is one of the first visual representations of socio-spatial differentiation based on race in the geographic space of the settlement that would become Bloemfontein. The artwork represents this differentiation in three important ways. First, in the background of the painting, four protective hills dot the African veld. The positioning of protective hills in the background references the reasoning behind the choice of location for the settlement by Warden and demarcates the extent and strength of the settlement. Second, the white-washed “precarious aggregation of small homesteads” (Auret & Roodt 2016:4) in the middle ground are nestled between the protective hills, sheltered from the dangers that Warden and subsequent settlers expected to find in the African hinterland. Third, in the foreground, a savage camp with scantily clad black Africans loitering around what appears to be dry, rancid meat hanging on the branches of a dead tree. A vulture is perched on the tree, and poised mid-flight, it watches the camp in readiness to feed on the death that emanates from and subsumes this camp (Du Preez 2017). The painting, it can be argued, portrays foundations in the formation of the settlement that is now Bloemfontein, which “corresponds to and substantially represents social differentiation or division of social function” (Shin 2009:430) and geographical location along racial and ethnic lines. The artwork’s representation of social and spatial differentiation between the ‘protected settlement’ that is sheltered and organised, and the dangerous ‘black’ Africa and African that co-exists side-by-side with decay and death, is important in the framing of the organisation of space in Bloemfontein. danger’ – to reinforce and remind the white populace of the perils of the wild African hinterlands and the Africans in it. 125 Figure 4.1: Beyond the Wilderness by Thomas Baine 126 The social and spatial hierarchy set up by Warden, depicted in Baine’s artwork, and evident in the “intra-urban spatial organisation in the South African city, as it is in cities generally, is inseparably bound up with the social formation of the society in which the city is embedded” (Davies 1981:62). The historical organisation of space in Bloemfontein is based upon “a comprehensive framework of social and spatial controls overtly structured to achieve a specific social and economic design... compartmentalised social formations” (Davies 1981:68). The compartmentalisation of social formations was plotted out spatially, as shown in the decision to develop “the South-Eastern quarter of the town... into a ‘hygienic Native township’” (Mayor’s minute for the year ending 31 March 1920, cited in Auret 2016:205) that positioned the ‘native’ to the east so as to define and maintain “spatial order in land use structure and... distribution of social groups” (Davies 1981:63). The historic organisation of space in Bloemfontein can thus be seen as “a created structure comparable to other social constructions resulting from the transformation of given conditions” (Soja 1980:210); this structure was expressed in the “core-periphery relationship between race-class groups” (Davies 1981:69) that differently located individuals in these groups. Given its history and original conceptualisation, the organisation of space in Bloemfontein generally and on the Bloemfontein campus specifically – inseparably bound to prevalent social constructions in a specific epoch and geographical context – should be considered in addressing the “urgent question of social change within [any] society” (Davies 1981:71). Lefebvre (1991a) argues that the relationship between how we conceive, perceive, and live in space is what allows for the understanding of space as a social product, and in higher education this understanding can aid in reconciling “policies designed to change the spatial form of the city... with policies concerned [with]... the social processes which go on in the city” (Harvey 2009:50). Furthermore, understanding the organisation of space at a higher education institution in relation to the social role of higher education in society allows linkages to be developed between official policies and institutional practices aimed at transformation in higher education. 4.3 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BLOEMFONTEIN CAMPUS After the Anglo-Boer War, in efforts to celebrate and empower the Afrikaner, the foundation stone for the Main Building of Grey University College (GUC) – now known as the University of the Free State (UFS 2006) – was laid on 19 November 1907 (Auret & Roodt 2016; Du Preez 2017; UFS 2006). The Main Building (see Figures 4.2 and 4.3 on pages 127 129 and 130) was symbolically located on “die bult” – a small hill sitting west on the east- west hierarchical axis – and is “the culmination of the St Andrews Street” (Auret & Roodt 2016:74). St. Andrews Street establishes the hierarchical east-west axis that was instrumental in the development of the city of Bloemfontein. The location of the Main Building as the culmination of this axis (see Figure 4.6 on page 139) and the point around which the campus coalesced from 1936 onwards (Auret & Roodt 2016:75) is significant within the historical and spatial context of the city. The positioning of the Main Building, it can be argued, positions the Bloemfontein campus symbolically in the city of Bloemfontein as a “space of relationships that is as real as a geographical space” (Bourdieu 1985:725, emphasis in original). The Main Building was “built to incorporate all the major architectural styles of the western world and South Africa into a harmonious architectural unity... and remain new and enthralling to everyone who sees it” (UFS 2006:20). It was, at the time, “the most ambitious result of the city and its planning” (Du Preez 2017:6), and this was shown in two key ways in the ceremony for the laying of its foundation stone. First, the symbolism of the resignation of Dr Brill as Rector of the GUC on the same day the foundation stone was laid. Dr Brill “could be viewed as the architect of the University of the Free State” (UFS 2006:8) and maintained, in the face of and in opposition to growing Afrikaner Nationalism, that the instruction of students in English should continue (UFS 2006). His resignation on this historic occasion opened the way for full-scale implementation of language-based segregation at the institution in order to cultivate exclusion in favour of a homogenous ethnic group – the Afrikaner. The second key aspect of the stone-laying ceremony was the attendance of Afrikaans language activists and Afrikaner Anglo-Boer War heroes, General Christiaan de Wet and General JBM Hertzog. Hertzog is known as one of the architects of apartheid (H’Molotsi 1983). The attendance of the ceremony by these two significant Afrikaner personalities suggests that the founding of the Bloemfontein campus was a response to the demand for and “realisation of the ideal of an indigenous, independent university college” (UFS 2006:20) for the Afrikaans language and the Afrikaner. 128 Figure 4.2: The grand and iconic Main Building of the University Source: UFS 2006:20 129 Figure 4.3: Aerial view of the Main Building Source: UFS 2006:20 130 The ceremony for the laying of the foundation stone for the Main Building shows how the symbolism associated with the starting point for the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus reflects the principles of segregation and exclusivity as “a sort of spontaneous metaphor of [its] social space” (Bourdieu 1996:1). Thus, the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus – seen at the time as a “key to success for the impoverished, exhausted Free Staters” (UFS 2006:6) – was in service of a homogenous community that was Christian Dutch Reformed and Afrikaner “in every respect” (UFS 2006:6). Accordingly, the Bloemfontein campus was designed and developed to reinforce the ideal of Afrikaners being “educated in their own language, on their own soil, and preferably by their own people” (UFS 2006:9). Given the socio-spatial history of higher education institutions such as the Bloemfontein, an investigative focus on space and its organisation is warranted in the transition from the segregationist and exclusionary policies of apartheid towards the integration and inclusionary policies of democracy. Accordingly, in this research investigation of the Bloemfontein campus – previously seen as a white higher education institution in general and an Afrikaans23 one in particular (UFS 2006:6) – space is seen as a sphere in which “nothing is experienced by itself, but is always in relation to its surroundings, the sequences of events leading up to it, the memory of past experiences” (Lynch 1960:1). 4.4. A SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR TRANSITION ON THE BLOEMFONTEIN CAMPUS In the transition from apartheid to a democratic South Africa, the character and image of the UFS needed to shift towards one that expresses the freedoms of a democratic society in which people actively participate in all aspects of their own social, cultural, economic, and political systems. During this time of transition it was proposed “that a well-planned campus could make a student blossom, both physically and psychologically” (Britz, cited in Auret & Roodt 2016:82). Britz’s proposal of a spatial strategy that was subsequently implemented24 23 The UFS came into being out of Grey College, which started as a theological seminary for the Dutch Reformed Church in 1855. It was taken over by the State – the Republic of the Free State – in 1882, and its role as an arm of the Church and State did not cease with its reconstitution in 1904 as a university – the UFS. The UFS was established as a result of a combination of three factors: a political ideal, the perception of higher education as a gateway out of dire social and economic conditions that Afrikaners found themselves in after the Anglo Boer War, and the buy-in of colonial Britain’s representatives (UFS 2006). 24 In January 2002, almost ten years after his inaugural speech, Prof. Britz designed and implemented “a network of pedestrian routes” that were commissioned by the UFS as an “important urban design project” (Fourie, cited in Auret & Roodt 2016:85) on the Bloemfontein Campus. 131 promoted a campus ideal that could be expressed in five elements: movement routes, edges, precincts, nodes, and landmarks (Auret 2016; Auret & Roodt 2016; Lynch 1960). The spatial strategy involved “the creation of pedestrian routes [which] could counter the ascendance of the motor-car” (Auret & Roodt 2016:82) and the introduction of a coherent spatial language shown in a network of pathways that represented “more than the physical reality” (Auret 2016:193). Today, this networks of pathways – consisting of red paving bricks, in accordance with Bernard Tschumi’s (1987) idea of ‘collage’– suggests places and spaces for social integration and interaction to “strengthen the existing potential links between people” (Auret & Roodt 2016:82). ‘Collage’ is a spatial tool introduced by Tschumi in his conceptualisation of the Manhattan Manuscripts and Parc La Villette. The collage, he argues, is “the superimposition of three systems – points, lines and surfaces” (Nieman 2005:8) on a ground plane to create “a series of calculated tensions which reinforce the dynamism of the place” (Nieman 2005:8). The employment of collage as a systematic and theoretical strategy for the organisation of space, within which “an architectural element only functions by colliding with a programmatic element, with the movement of bodies or whatever” (Tschumi 1987:119), is an important reference for the “university’s efforts to enhance social interaction, and to create places where students wanted to linger” (Auret & Roodt 2016:85). Britz’s spatial strategy sought to reconcile the official policy intended to undo the segregationist and exclusionary character of the campus, and to encourage integrated and inclusive social processes and relations between the individuals on the campus. Such inclusion and integration are integral to transformation, thus Britz’s walkways on the Bloemfontein campus were part of a spatial strategy intended to encourage and facilitate social cohesion in the democratic “political and social context within which the university operates as a regional university in the middle of the Free State Province” (DIRAP 2016:10). The study focus on the organisation of space at a higher education institution intends to reveal the nature of the university as a microcosm of society in the reconciliation between official policy for transformation and existing institutional practices on the Bloemfontein campus. In accordance with Reddy (2004), it is argued that the conceptualisation of Britz’s walkways shows how the organisation of space at a higher education institution can “help to reproduce inherited social relations or to help change them” (2004:34). These walkways, 132 which were intended to promote social interaction and integration, show how spatial organisation impacts on social activity; this grounds the argument of the implications of space for ways in which to reconcile official policy for transformation and institutional practice at higher education institutions with the reality of the everyday. This is particularly relevant given that official policy on institutional practice aimed at reform and redress in higher education has thus far not been very successful in achieving its stated goals and aims in higher education in general and on the Bloemfontein campus in particular (van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016; IDASA 2010; DoE 2008; Jansen 2003). The impact of official policy on institutional practice for transformation in higher education necessities questions around where social action is deployed at higher education institutions. For example, during the 2015 and 2016 student movements social action was situated in specifically targeted spaces and against objects in space across higher education institutions in protest against and as a form of resistance to the status quo (Githaiga et al. 2017; Habib 2016; Isama 2016; Msimang 2016; Poplak 2016). These spaces and objects in space brought into focus the disjointedness between official policy and the social objectives of institutional practice. Seen as indicators of a repressive cycle, spaces and objects in space at higher education institutions show how the everyday reality of higher education does not adequately respond to economic and socio-political discrepancies between those who have been privileged and those who have been marginalised. The inadequate response to the reality of the everyday for the individual in higher education, it can be argued, is a symptom of the failure of official policy to consider broad social objectives. The investigative focus on the implications of socio-spatial factors in a context still inextricably linked to differentiation based on social determinants such as race, class, and gender aims to show how factors that impact on the organisation of space at a higher education institution are important considerations in initiatives for redress and reform aimed at transformation in higher education. 133 4.5 THE BLOEMFONTEIN CAMPUS: SITE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AND FIELDWORK 4.5.1 Locating the Bloemfontein Campus The investigation into the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus, the site for qualitative research, aims to address the gaps in literature and data25 available on both the historical development of the city of Bloemfontein and on the role of spatial organisation in the transformation of higher education. The literature available on the development of Bloemfontein is predominantly written in Afrikaans, which makes any research on this topic by a non-Afrikaans speaker challenging. Thus, the in-depth study of the Bloemfontein campus generally and the organisation of its space particularly must move beyond the current hegemonic exclusivity in knowledge generation to reconstruct “the imaginary and the symbolic character of the spatial [which] is historically inscribed in social contexts” (Prigge 2008:48) and thereby contribute to the existing literature. The fieldwork focuses on the everyday social activity that is deployed in space on the Bloemfontein campus so as to develop linkages between the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus and transformation in higher education. The Bloemfontein campus, which has seen a remarkable growth in student numbers from its inception to date, is the largest of the three campuses that make up the UFS (Auret & Roodt 2016; UFS 2016, 2017). The three campuses are the Bloemfontein campus, the South campus, and the Qwaqwa campus; Figure 4.4 (see page 136) shows their location in the region of the Free State and geographical distances that separate them. The geographical distance between the three campuses shows how, in post-apartheid South Africa, the spatial differentiation that is a legacy of South Africa’s past (UFS 2012, 2016) impacts on the social positioning of a higher education institution in its geographical context. Located in the city of Bloemfontein and historically seen as a ‘white’ institution, the Bloemfontein campus was placed in an urban context that was reserved predominantly for use by white South Africans during apartheid, and it continues to be the most prominent of 25 The Bloemfontein Historical Tour and Lecture Series provides anecdotal information around the development of Bloemfontein. Furthermore, in a recent exhibition – currently located in the Architecture building of the UFS – cartographic maps of Bloemfontein during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that refer to publications such as Bloemfontein (1848-2015) are on exhibition. In a context where little information in the English language is available, these platforms are an invaluable resource from which to derive insights into the historic socio-spatial factors that have influenced the organisation of space in the city of Bloemfontein generally and on the Bloemfontein campus in particular. 134 the three campuses26 (see Figure 4.5 on page 137 and Figure 4.6 on page 139). The prominence and significance of this campus in the context of the city of Bloemfontein – the provincial and national judicial capital – can be shown in two key ways. First, the geographic and spatial culmination of the east-west hierarchical axis – St Andrews Street – in the front door of the Main Building is significant and important for the city of Bloemfontein (see Figure 4.3 on page 130). It must be noted that the “visually dramatic approach from the city” (UFS 2006:195) along the axis between the city and the Main Building was broken when the street was closed off in the mid-1970s (Auret 2016; UFS 2006). The ‘main’ entrance to the campus (see G1 [Gate One] shown in Figure 4.7 on page 140) was moved to the old Kimberley Road, now known as Nelson Mandela Drive. The move of the main entrance to Nelson Mandela Drive obscures the historical relationship between the campus and the city along the imaginary geographic east-west hierarchical axis that extends from the Main Building to the Thaba ‘Nchu Mountains. The moving of the main entrance, it can be argued, severs the Bloemfontein campus from the socio-spatial framework of the city of Bloemfontein and limits its role as a catalyst for social change in the broader societal context. The second way in which the importance of the Bloemfontein campus is shown is the manner in which the campus is centrally located in relation to the five key signifiers of growth and development in Bloemfontein (see Figure 4.5 on page 137). The Bloemfontein campus is one of the six key growth and development signifiers in Bloemfontein (Auret & Roodt 2016) and lies within a one-kilometre radius of the other five. In this respect, it is worth noting the campus’ geographical size in relation to the other five key signifiers of growth and developments. For example, the size of the campus in relation to the central business district (CBD), home to three key growth and development signifiers, illustrates its significance as a symbolic space of power in the city of Bloemfontein (see Figure 4.7 on page 140). 26 Until recently (2010) the Bloemfontein Campus was referred to as the ‘Main Campus’ of the UFS. 135 Figure 4.4: Distances between the three campuses of the University of the Free State 136 Figure 4.5: Six key signifiers of growth and development in the city region of Bloemfontein 137 Figure 4.5, on the previous page, shows the six key signifiers for growth and development in the city of Bloemfontein, namely:  The Bloemfontein campus (BS).  The Market Square currently known as Hoffman Square (HS), located centrally in the CBD of Bloemfontein. Hoffman Square was central to the urban design framework for Bloemfontein in preparation for the 2010 World Cup Soccer tournament. The redesign of Hoffman Square post-1994 also served in some ways to regenerate the Bloemfontein CBD, with the flight of capital to the western and northern suburbs, and the ‘clean up’ of informal traders and vagrants so that the CBD could serve as a public space during the World Cup (Auret & Roodt 2016).  King’s Park (KP), located on the western periphery of the CBD of Bloemfontein, serves as the main site for sports and recreation in the city. KP is home to the Free State Bus Terminal, the Free State Stadium, the Waterfront Mall, the Free State Zoo, and is the main venue for the Macufe Jazz Festival.  The new regional parks (BT) of Batho, Bochabelo, and Thaba ‘Nchu, located east of the Bloemfontein CBD, were created post-1994 “under the banner of community upliftment” (Auret & Roodt 2016:62) in what were historically designated black African areas under the Group Areas Act of 1948.  Naval Hill (NH), located north of the CBD, is an urban green space that is “the most natural feature” (Auret & Roodt 2016:72) in the city of Bloemfontein. It is widely visible and considered a “thing of incalculable beauty” (Franklin, cited in Auret & Roodt 2016:72). It is a significant landmark in the urban fabric and spatial organisation of the city in Bloemfontein.  Waaihoek (WH), located southeast of the CBD, was historically the location of a British military garrison during the formation of the settlement that is now known as Bloemfontein. It became the designated area for ‘natives’ (Schoeman 1980), and later the site for one of the earliest examples of forced removals under the Group Areas Act of 1948. 138 Figure 4.6: The Bloemfontein Campus in the city of Bloemfontein 139 Figure 4.7: The Bloemfontein Campus in relation to the central business district (CBD) of the city of Bloemfontein 140 4.5.2 A Sense and Feeling of the Place: the Bloemfontein Campus Today The UFS was home to 39 441 students in 2017, and the majority of these – approximately 26 130 students – were enrolled for on-site and/or distance learning at the Bloemfontein campus (UFS 2017). As a result, there has been an increase in infrastructure growth and development on the Bloemfontein campus that is focused on the creation of a safe and secure teaching and learning environment in response to a rapidly growing and diverse student intake (UFS 2012, 2015, 2016). This growth and development includes: additional student housing; the establishment of the Institute for Reconciliation and Social Justice (IRSJ); large-scale infrastructural development of the western quarter of the campus; reinforced security, including securing of the campus perimeter and enhanced forms of access control; the building of a visitors centre and taxi rank complex; and the establishment of a ‘dry’ campus (that is to say, no alcoholic beverages may be sold or consumed on the campus27). Increased growth and development on the Bloemfontein campus (shown in Figures 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7) as the largest defined geographical space in the city speaks of the critical role the campus should play in promoting active “citizenship in responsible and transformative ways” (Paphitis & Kelland 2016:185). The symbolism of its geographic size suggests that the campus is an active and central stakeholder in the spatial, social, and economic growth and development of the city of Bloemfontein. Its historic and spatial legacy, its symbolism as a centre of power, along with its mandated developmental social role as higher education institution, means that the Bloemfontein campus is suitably positioned to contribute to the advancement of society (Bourdieu 1989; Harvey 2009; Lefebvre 1991a; Massey 1993; Zeleza & Kalipeni 1999).The geographical extent of the Bloemfontein campus, shown in Figure 4.8 (page 142), is defined by: Nelson Mandela Drive to the north, Koos van der Walt Street to the west, DF Malherbe Street to the south, and University Road to the east. Key points and suburbs of interest that surround the campus include: to the south, the suburb of Universitas, which is home to the majority of staff and students on the Bloemfontein campus and to the Free State academic hospital, Universitas Hospital (H); to the north, Brandwag suburb (BW), which is home to a large portion of ‘less privileged’ students on the Bloemfontein campus; and to the east, the original Grey College campus. The campus is divided into five quadrants: the East Campus (EC); the South Campus (SC); the West Campus (WC); and the ‘heart’ of the campus, defined by a ring road in which the Main Building is centrally located. 27 It is worth noting that despite the establishment of a ‘dry’ campus, the Traumerei coffee shop at the Thakaneng Bridge Complex sells alcohol that can be consumed on site. 141 Figure 4.8: A mapping overview of the Bloemfontein Campus 142 Figure 4.9: A visual overview of the Bloemfontein Campus 143 Figure 4.9 (page 143) provides a visual sense of the place that forms the backdrop for the study focus on the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus. Figure 4.9a shows the low scale of buildings that line the vehicular routes on the campus and which are predominately fronted by parking lots. Figures 4.9b, c, and d show the density of vegetation with large open lawns that are a main feature in the central quadrant of the Bloemfontein campus. Figures 4.9f shows the prominent east-west axis that leads to the architecturally significant Main Building shown in Figure 4.9g. It is worth noting that in order to accurately describe the sense of place, the relationship between social activity that is deployed in space on the campus and its geographical context needs to be considered. Figure 4.9 aims to illustrate a geographical imagination of the Bloemfontein campus which can “pry open the power of assumptions and expectations associated with space and place, and to delve into how and why they are linked” (Gieseking 2017). The scene is thus set for the site of qualitative study in which social activity is deployed (Massey 2006). Social activity deployed in spaces on the Bloemfontein campus is compared to that deployed in social spaces off campus to show the relationship between the Bloemfontein campus and the city of Bloemfontein. The illustration of social activity on and off the Bloemfontein campus aims to show the impact of space on the social activity deployed in it. The impact on space on social activity on and off campus, in this study, is of great importance for providing insights that support transformative change. Such change of the “status quo... in the context of post-apartheid South Africa means the penetration of deep social, economic, racial and gender inequality” (Paphitis & Kelland 2016:186) in higher education, and in the broader context of society. 4.5.2.1 On-campus social spaces Figure 4.10 and Figure 4.11 (pages 146 and 147) provide visual representations and reference points that expand on the information derived from the focus group discussions and from the socio-spatial mapping of the Bloemfontein campus to show the nature of the spaces in which social activity is deployed on Bloemfontein campus. The descriptions of these on-campus social spaces provided by participants show how individuals’ understandings of the organisation of space impact on the social activity that is deployed in that space. Information derived from the socio-spatial mapping and the data collected in the focus groups led to the identification of the following on-campus social spaces: the Jolkol & Rag Farm (Figure 4.11d); the grass lawns between the computer labs (Figure 4.10, location pin 2); the Thakaneng Bridge Complex in general (Figures 4.11e and f) and 144 the amphitheatre in particular (Figure 4.11a); the Red Square (Figure 4.11h); Willem Boshoff’s ‘Thinking Stone’ sculpture in the Red Square (Figure 4.11i); the swimming pool complex (Figure 4.11b); the gazellies (Figure 4.11c); and intermediate or undefined spaces between buildings, such as the IRSJ lawn (Figure 4.11g). The discussion around on-campus social spaces is not intended to give an exhaustive description of these spaces; rather, it aims to ground further investigations around the implications of the organisation of space for how social activity is deployed in space. The insights derived from these investigations aided in the identification of five sites (see Section 4.5.3 on page 168) and the ‘right’ spatial types. The analysis of these types is utilised to show how space is central and fundamental to initiatives for redress and reform focused on the social cohesion at higher education institutions that is key for transformation and a broader understanding thereof in higher education. 145 Figure 4.10: Mapping social spaces on the Bloemfontein Campus 146 Figure 4.11: A visual overview of spaces on the Bloemfontein Campus 147 Swimming pool complex The swimming pool traditionally provided a space for recreational social activity, especially for those students that live on campus (see Figure 4.11b). The space was seen by the students to be racially integrated, with the small grass embankment next to the pool being the most prominent spot to relax and ‘chill’. Through a private partnership and sponsorship agreement with Lindsay Saker Volkswagen (VW) Bloemfontein, the swimming pool has been privatised, resulting in limited access for the university community (see quotes from Speakers 11 and 24 in focus group F4). No, I was a member in my second year. But it’s also stupid. There’s no point really in being a member anyways because most of the time it’s getting used by the swim team and then they won’t even let you in there. And in the off times, they don’t want to let you use it. And it gets extremely hot here, so it would be nice to actually be able to use the pool. And I think it would help [social relations] (F4 Speaker 11). The swimming pool, the swimming pool got closed suddenly when we got the VW sponsorship they got the couple of, the coaches got some bakkies, the swim team got new equipment, the pool got new lines and stuff like that and outside of it, you know. We can’t access it (F4 Speaker 24). Reflections on the swimming pool complex The privatisation of the Swimming pool complex suggests a disjointedness between the intention of official policy to formalise social spaces and the reality of everyday social activity on the Bloemfontein campus. The formalisation of what the data from the focus groups suggests is a popular recreational activity heightens perceptions of exclusion and has implications for social interaction and integration between individuals on the Bloemfontein campus. The question of exclusion from spaces at higher education institutions, it can be argued, references segregationist policies around access to and ownership of space in South Africa’s apartheid past. The reference to a problematic legacy can heighten tensions between those who have access to and those who do have access to what is seen as a desirable social space on the Bloemfontein campus (see quote from Speaker 24 in focus group F4). Policies that regulate and monitor social activity at higher education institutions can thus negatively impact on social activity by limiting the efficacy of initiatives aimed at the social cohesion required for transformation in higher education. Callie Human Although the Callie Human hall did not fall in the scope of the socio-spatial mapping of the Bloemfontein campus (see Figure 4.10 on page 146), the information from the focus 148 groups (see quotes below from Speakers 9 and 10 from focus group F2) suggests that this hall is seen as an important social space. The Callie Human provides a large protected environment for formally organised social gatherings on the Bloemfontein campus which include: graduation ceremonies, expos, and sporting and sports-viewing (on a large screen) events. For me I think that it’s not really places, especially in my interest, sports. It’s more like events, you know, the crowd pullers, events such as a rugby game or I mean I went for a hockey game. I’ve never seen so many people going for the same thing, you know. So but it’s not consistent. It’s not... it’s not training that you have a crowd there. It’s really when you have a big game, when you have the university team in the finals or things like that (F2 Speaker 9). Yes, when the [inaudible] 400 metres. So it’s actually event types, that oh there’s something happening and this is the meeting place then it gets swarmed with people sometimes, not always though, yes. So the Callie Human, you would have a big social event there, organised one (F2 Speaker 10). Reflections on the Callie Human hall The data collected from the focus groups suggest that larger social gatherings on the Bloemfontein campus are usually organised around a single activity. The singularity of function and purpose of social gatherings, it can be argued, suggests a lack of diverse social activities on the campus. The lack of diverse social activities limits the possibility for social interaction and integration between individuals who may not have similar social interests. In addition, the view of the Callie Human hall as a destination and not a space in which spontaneous social activity can be deployed impacts on the sense of commons on the campus. Nonetheless, as suggested in the focus groups, the Callie Human hall is an important social and physical space on the Bloemfontein campus. Gazellies Gazellies are the official communal social spaces found in each of the residences on campus (see Figure 4.11c). Those students that live on campus are mostly the ones who make use of these spaces. It worth noting that the creation of ‘day’ residences to accommodate students that live off the campus has meant that most students who live off campus also have access to a similar type of social space (see quote below by Speaker 3 from focus group F2). Yes, they have these organised meetings and they meet at gazellies. So it’s not like a common room where you’re watching TV. You’re hanging out. You start a 149 conversation with someone. It becomes [inaudible]. It’s like a nice event to get people to attend. And getting people to attend is also a struggle (F1 Speaker 12). For me I’ll start by last year I was an off-campus student. So I lived... I’m staying [inaudible] it’s very private. So mostly I’ll just come here and I didn’t know many places. I studied in Zimbabwe so I didn’t know many people. Most of the time was just spent alone, probably the Bridge, probably the most quiet place is probably the library computer labs. For this year I’m staying at Villa Bravado so most of the times I’m in res in my room. I don’t do gazellie things, no not at all. I only attend certain meetings where it’s compulsory, but if it’s not then I’m not there (F2 Speaker 3). Reflections on gazellies The data collected from the focus groups suggest that gazellies, as the officially designated places for interaction and integration between students on the Bloemfontein campus, are formal social spaces (see quote above from Speaker 12 in focus group F1). The location of gazellies in student residences suggests that living spaces are important and significant for social activity on the campus. The designation of gazellies as formal social spaces for predetermined individuals who have been assigned to a specific residence as a result of their gender, year of study, and whether or not they live on or off campus, limits social interaction and integration between different individuals. Policy does not appear to take into consideration the implications for social activity of residence allocations being based on criteria such as gender and location. The disjointedness between policy and the everyday reality of social activity deployed in designated social spaces shows how institutional practices can have a subversive and negative impact on initiatives for redress and reform aimed at transformation. The Red Square: Main Building lawn The Red Square spatially and physically connects the ‘horseshoe’ ring road with the Main Building and the faculty buildings adjacent to it (see Figures 4.11h and 4.11i). The east- west hierarchical axis that historically connects the campus to the city is an imaginary geographical line that symmetrically and centrally locates the Red Square. The positioning of the Red Square along this axis that culminates in the Main Building lends to it the positive valuation and symbolism associated with Thomas Jefferson’s concept of an ‘academical village’ clustered around a tree-lined lawn that would provide an ideal setting in which to pursue higher education (Vickery 1998). I’m not a sporty person. I wouldn’t voluntarily go probably watch football or rugby or anything. I’m not that kind of person. So most of the times I’m in my room, I go 150 studying at the library. I somehow developed some, a certain routine but for last semester where I would just every day for lunch I’ll go in front of the Main Building. I just love the scenery in the Main Building and it’s quiet. I like quiet places. [Inaudible] Thakaneng Bridge is a congested place so and I’m at least go to front building and yes (F2 Speaker 3). I really we call it the Rooi Plein.... in front of the Main Building, but I think I mainly love it because of the energy you get there. It doesn’t matter what time of day, in the morning or late in the evening, during the day. So I really like that area. As I was filling out this thing, there’s really no space on campus that I don’t like. It’s just silly things like on the Bridge the fact that it’s so stuffy. So, yes. No I like the fact that you can walk everywhere on campus, yes. No, I like the Main Building as well. If you drive around that circle and you just look to your right it’s beautiful to see that as well (F2 Speaker 14). The class next to HMS in the Main Building, yes there’s... I see a lot of people they love sitting there just talking to each other and everything and I think I like it. That’s one place I like on campus. And the fountains, the waterways make it more nice. And as for the rest, yes I have... I like, I really like (F2 Speaker 14). Yes, which kind of kills the mood. I used to like the Red Plein, the Red Square as well until Philippa informed me that our great state president Martinus is looking all the way to Thaba 'Nchu as a line between the Afrikaans and the black tribes at the time which kind of ruined it for me, which Philippa has a habit of doing on this campus 28 (F2 Speaker 15). Reflections on the Red Square: Main Building lawn Information derived from a socio-spatial mapping of the Bloemfontein campus and the data from the focus groups suggest that the Red Square is an important and significant social space on the campus (see quotes from Speakers 3, 14, and 15 in focus group F3). The grassed and paved lawns that are integral to the conception and functioning of the Red Square, in accordance with Jefferson (Vickery 1998), render this space as the place where students and staff across different faculties engage and connect with one another. The centrality of the Red Square (see Figure 4.10 on page 146), its scale and size (see Figure 4.10 on page 146), and its proximity to key buildings such as the Main Building (see Figure 4.11 on page 147), suggest that this space is key for any initiatives for redress and reforms aimed at transformation on the Bloemfontein campus. Although official policy for spatial 28 x As a staff member at the department of Architecture at the UFS I was asked to present a talk for TED UFS on 1 August 2015 (video available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G52R7hreCic). The talk, entitled “The city as social space”, was also presented at the UFS Institutional Forum discussion in the aftermath of #RMF. The talk was based on research conducted in preparation for the proposal that frames this thesis and sought to excavate, in accordance with Lefebvre (1991a), the conceived-perceived-lived realities of space and objects in space on the Bloemfontein Campus. It aimed to show how space and objects in space represent some of the concerns around prevalent socio-political frameworks in the broader socio-spatial context of the city of Bloemfontein. 151 development on the Bloemfontein campus takes into consideration the Red Square as a key space on the campus, this is limited to its architectural significance and function as a movement intersection for Bannie Britz’s walkways (Du Preez 2017; Auret & Roodt 2016; UFS 2015; UFS 2006). Jolkol and Rag Farm Although not specifically mentioned in the data from the focus groups, information derived from the socio-spatial mapping suggests that the Jolkol and Rag Farm is important for organised social activity such as the UFS Rag Festival (UFS 2018). The Jolkol and Rag Farm is a purpose-built industrial space located in the sports precinct in the far western quarter of the campus (see Figure 4.11d on page 147). Reflections on the Jolkol and Rag Farm Located on the periphery of the western quadrant of the Bloemfontein campus and completely fenced from the rest of the campus, the Jolkol and Rag Farm is not easily accessible by pedestrians. The inaccessibility of this facility suggests that movement to and from social spaces across the geographical expanse of the campus (see Figures 4.7 and 4.8 on pages 140 and 142) for pedestrians is limiting and limited. Furthermore, formalised social spaces on the campus that are utilised when social activity is organised around events such as UFS Rag do not support diverse social activity that is needed for interaction and integration between individuals on the campus. The Thakaneng Bridge complex The information from the socio-spatial mapping and the data from the focus groups suggest that the Thakaneng Bridge complex functions as both a bridge between the west and east quadrants of the campus, as well as a space for the buying, selling, and consumption of food (see Figures 4.11e and 4.11f on page 147 and quotes by Speaker 33 from focus group F1 and Speaker 8 from focus group F2). I think it’s too small. It’s not a mall. It’s rubbish. You can’t do anything there. It needs to grow now … I feel that when we arrived it was okay, but then the students kept increasing but the space isn’t increasing. They tried by taking Kovsie FM upstairs … It’s supposed to be a space where people can be able to interact, and also it’s supposed to be a diverse space. But students with disability, they struggle. They struggle a lot because [inaudible] would be standing right there, you know. The space is so small and Zingiswa who is blind, is coming and needs to come by the way, you know. It’s a horrible space, and there’s construction and they’re not informed (F1 Speaker 33). 152 As a social space I always find it a lot of fun to walk through the Bridge because you always get to see people that you know, but I must tell you for eating purposes I don’t think I’ve ever eaten there and I don’t really want to because it seems so stuffy and yes. But in terms of transformation I don’t think it’s a very transformed social space, yes (F2 Speaker 8). I think it was extremely badly planned when it was built initially. The varsity only got full ownership of it a couple of years ago. The kind of shops and choices the students have is in itself extremely limited. Monopolies are being created on the Bridge over things like groceries and bread and basic necessities. Very luckily now at least last year students were able to use their student cards off campus as well, but I mean before that places on the Bridge were more than able to charge exorbitant prices and students had no choice but to buy from there. I don’t find it open. I find it very closed and stuffed space like the floor vibrates (F2 Speaker 8). Yes, I think the interaction on the Bridge is extremely difficult because, as you said earlier, it’s like the N1, like, you literally have to scream at somebody for them to hear you. And, I mean, there’s somebody bumping you and knocks over your can of cool drink or knocks your bag over, messes something on your [inaudible] (F4 Speaker 3). Reflections on the Thakaneng Bridge complex The socio-spatial mapping and the data from the focus groups show that the Thakaneng Bridge complex is a space in which much social activity – specifically around the buying, selling, and consumption of food – is centred. The Bridge complex is also a main movement route between the east and west quadrants of the campus. The social and physical characteristics of the Bridge complex suggest that this space has a multiplicity of functions that support diverse social activity. Furthermore, the spatial development plan for the Bloemfontein campus, in which the conceptualisation of the Bridge complex is central, shows how the organisation of a movement route as a place for the buying and consumption of food can heighten social interaction and integration. Such social activity is important for the social cohesion needed in initiatives for redress and reform aimed at transformation in higher education generally and on the Bloemfontein campus in particular. Intermediate and/or undefined spaces Pockets of social space sit between buildings and along routes on the Bloemfontein campus and these provide the opportunity for the social processes and relations associated with pause, rest, and waiting. Some of these pockets of social space include: 153 Willem Boshoff’s ‘Thinking Stone’29 in front of the Main Building; the Eduardo Villa walkway that connects the north and south quarters of the campus; the IRSJ lawn; the Amphitheatre adjacent to the Thakaneng Bridge complex; and the lawn between the computer labs. The computer labs are important for and commonly used in support of the academic programme. The positioning of these pockets of space in relation to the Thakaneng Bridge complex concentrates social activity in the central quadrant (see Figure 4.8 on page 142) of the campus. It was observed that objects, natural and unnatural, in various intermediate spaces on the campus are of particular importance. The cutting down of trees and the introduction of spikes on balustrades and on low walls in these spaces impact negatively on social processes and relations related to pause and sitting. Yes. So there was a little gap there then they cut the trees down and put the spikes up. They could have just cut the trees down and not put the spikes up (F4 Speaker 10). Well, from my faculty's building, there's a little area where there are benches, kind of behind, like next to the Mabaleng Building, like there are little benches and what not. And students do go there for, you know, after class to do homework or just to discuss whatever the case may be. And there's also that tree thing in front of our building (F3 Speaker 3). Information from the socio-spatial mapping and focus groups also suggest that informal sporting activities take place in various undefined spaces – for example in Pellies Park, which is immediately east of the Kovsie Health building and immediately west of Villa Bravado residence. Fields of grass between buildings and the pavement are used by various groups of students as makeshift sports grounds predominantly for playing soccer (see quotes from Speaker 10 in focus group F2 and Speakers 6 and 7 from focus group F4 below). I think it’s easier to use informal spaces like those because the formal spaces they will tell you it’s only the university team that can use them and then you have to book them (F2 Speaker 10). The grass across the Maboneng, there’s a space there. People also go there and play soccer. Across the new reses. By the education building. Between the computer labs (F4 Speaker 6). 29 The ‘Thinking Stone’ sculpture by Willem Boshoff forms part of the Lotto Sculpture-on-Campus project. This project is funded by the National Lottery Distribution Trust Fund and supports the arts on various higher education campuses all over South Africa. 154 It’s more open space. People play soccer there. Some people go and [inaudible] there. [There by the] big red, the piece of art work. There’s a grass patch (F4 Speaker 7). 4.5.2.2 Off-campus social spaces Figures 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14 (see pages 157–159) show off-campus social spaces identified in the socio-spatial mapping of the city of Bloemfontein. The discussion presented around off-campus social spaces is not intended to give an exhaustive description of these spaces; rather, it aims to show the role of the city of Bloemfontein in enabling the deployment of social activity that is not made possible on the Bloemfontein campus. Although several off-campus social spaces were identified (see Figure 4.12 on page 157), only those that were specifically mentioned in the focus groups have been selected for further description. The selected off-campus spaces are: 2nd Avenue, Naval Hill, Township areas in the greater Mangaung Metropolitan, and Mimosa Mall. 2nd Avenue 2nd Avenue, less than two kilometres from the Nelson Mandela Drive gate (G1) is home to a variety of entertainment venues (see Figures 4.13d, 4.14b, and 4.14e). This street hosts the greatest concentration of social spaces – largely restaurants, coffee shops, bars, and nightclubs (see Figures 4.14b and 4.14e on page 159 and the quote by Speakers 1 and 7 from focus group F1 below). I think every place except on campus, because you’ll find the people like me who enjoy the morning. The Second Avenue Street is buzzing and it’s full of university students. Cooper and Topaz get full. Cubana gets full. Capello (F1 Speaker 7). Second Avenue, [inaudible]. That’s where me and my friends mostly socialise and Campus Key [inaudible] and, yes, all end up at [inaudible] Stoep or Mystic (F4 Speaker 1). It's the only option [Inaudible] Second Avenue and Western Saloon and there used to be Wiesbaden and that again... It's just this social like language culture barrier. And it's strange for me, because I actually live in a very like Afrikaans, predominantly Afrikaans, farming community, but I don't find that this space is conducive to my development as a person. I would love to be able to, I don't know, have a space where it's better for my development as, like, maybe a liberal, like, free thinker... Maybe it's different for some other people, but for me, personally, I don't feel this space is conducive for that (F3 Speaker 4). So, I have a couple friends who live like out Bayswater side so, either around Bayswater because I work at a bar there as well. So, it’s either there or Second Avenue (F4 Speaker 2). 155 Reflections on 2nd Avenue The information from the socio-spatial mapping and the data from the focus groups suggest that 2nd Avenue is a place in the city of Bloemfontein that has a concentration of ‘great good places’ (Oldenburg 1999). This concentration of great good places provides a fecund space in which interaction and integration around a variety of social activities can occur. It is also worth noting that the ‘dry’ status of the Bloemfontein campus – no alcohol is served or consumed on the campus – has led to students and staff having to find alternative spaces to socialise while buying and consuming alcohol. 2nd Avenue is one such off-campus social space. Naval Hill Naval Hill is a natural outcrop located in a game reserve that provides wide views of the city and on which an eight-metre-tall bronze statue of Nelson Mandela is located (see Figure 4.14d on page 159). The statue was unveiled in 2012 to mark the centennial of the founding of the African National Congress in 1912, which took place in Bloemfontein. The data from the focus groups suggest that Naval Hill is an important off-campus social space (see quote from Speaker 2 in focus group F4). My friends, look we’re actually trying to take it away from the whole nightlife every now and again. We… Sometimes we go to Naval Hill, Seven Dams… We meet up at Soetdoring Nature Reserve outside Bloemfontein every now and again but, obviously, if you are keen to interact in the evenings, most evenings you do end up somewhere in Second Avenue (F4 Speaker 2). The information from the socio-spatial mapping and the data collected from the focus groups corroborates Auret’s (Auret 2016) argument for the desirability of Naval Hill as a social space for both tourists and residents of Bloemfontein, given that it is a natural setting – a game reserve – in the middle of an urban area, with panoramic views of the city. 156 Figure 4.12: Mapping social spaces in the city of Bloemfontein 157 Figure 4.13: A visual overview of spaces in the city of Bloemfontein (1) 158 Figure 4.14: A visual overview of spaces in the city of Bloemfontein (2) 159 Townships in the greater Mangaung Metropolitan Entertainment venues that include nightclubs, bars, taverns, and other off-campus social spaces, can be found in the various townships – formal and informal – in the greater Mangaung Metropolitan area. These include Botshabelo, Batho, Phase Five, Rocklands, and Heidedal (see quotes below from Speakers 7 and 28 in focus group F1 and Speaker 4 in focus group F3). Even in the township you’ll have Sechaba [inaudible], which is always packed. And there isn’t even a dance floor. They just go there. They park their cars and just play music from their cars. So we could do that here, you understand, and save a lot of petrol, but we’d rather drive to a township and do it there. You understand? So yes, I feel like… And it’s also packed, so I feel like it’s almost everywhere except here (F1 Speaker 7). There are different townships. The one is Mangaung [inaudible] and the other will be…What’s that place? Rocklands. We meet there and then we move onto the public spaces like your Cubanas and let’s say Second Avenue, because that’s really where the… In town that is the cultural environment. And also, the township is really awesome. We have [inaudible] and Sechaba, those places (F1 Speaker 28). That's the thing, though. Like, you take these clubs here, like small [inaudible]. It's predominantly black people. When they go to Westend, you don't come out there and just walk freely. [Inaudible] a bottle flying from the roof or something. Yes, like there's now. There's extremes. There's now actually a sign there, it's like coloureds, bra [?], only. Like, you get there, you don't have… you're partying, partying, party, but then there's actually people watching you. It's like bouncers, they're not bouncers. They [inaudible], but then now, they're not only just there to [inaudible]. They're there to mark their territory as well. The moment there's… The moment you step out, there's a bottle flying up in the sky. You don't know. You go to [inaudible], it's another story again. It's all polarised (F3 Speaker 4). The data collected from the focus groups corroborate the socio-spatial mapping to show how socio-spatial differentiation in the city of Bloemfontein due to the legacy of apartheid segregationists polices still frames townships in the greater Mangaung Metropolitan as settings for social activities for students from previously marginalised groups. Socio-spatial differentiation in the city of Bloemfontein and between the city and the Bloemfontein campus negatively impacts on the social role of the campus as a higher education institution in the city. Suggesting, in part, that socio-spatial actors beyond the geographical extent of the Bloemfontein campus have an impact on social activity deployed on the campus. 160 Mimosa Mall The socio-spatial mapping of the city of Bloemfontein and the data collected from the focus groups show that Mimosa Mall, situated within a one-kilometre radius from the Bloemfontein campus and the CBD of Bloemfontein, offers a diverse range of spaces in which social activity can be deployed (see Figure 4.12 on page 157, Figure 4.13d on page 158, and quotes by Speaker 7 from focus group F1 and Speaker 2 from focus group F4). There are a lot of us in the mall. But there are also a lot of people in all these places. There are just a lot of us. It’s not a particular place where it’s all just all of us (F1 Speaker 7). Anyway, most of my friends are my classmates so, we have very limited free time so, the mall, Mimosa Mall is a great idea. I think with me it’s mostly restricted to the mall (F4 Speaker 2). Mimosa Mall is a shopping centre located close to the heart of the city, and it also functions as a stop for minibus taxis. It is a nexus for various movement routes that provides a contained space in which social activity can be deployed. The diversity of social and retail activities offered by the mall and its close proximity to the Bloemfontein campus position it as a catchment area that provides alternative spaces for social activity. 4.5.2.3 Reflections on social spaces on and off the Bloemfontein campus The analysis of the identified social spaces on and off the Bloemfontein campus shows how individuals’ understandings of the organisation of space “in both real and imagined geographical and social spaces” (Zeleza & Kalipeni 1999:2) localise “social phenomena, activities and relations” (Zeleza & Kalipeni 1999:1–2). Social spaces are “redolent with imaginary and symbolic elements, [and] they have their source in history – in the history of a people as well as in the history of each individual belonging to that people” (Lefebvre 1991a:41). The localisation of social activity in on- and off-campus social spaces reflects “complex and articulated material, cultural, symbolic and discursive formations that structure and are simultaneously structured by historical change” (Zeleza & Kalipeni 1999:2). Furthermore, these formations demonstrate how social space “subsumes things produced, and encompasses their interrelationships in their co-existence and simultaneity – their (relative) order and or (relative) disorder [and] allows social practices to have continuity and acquire historical character” (Aranda n.d:2). 161 The investigation of on and off-campus social spaces utilising information derived from the socio-spatial mapping of both the Bloemfontein campus and its context the city of Bloemfontein and data collected from the focus groups brings into focus three important points. (1) The limited extent of diverse social activity deployed on the Bloemfontein campus. For example, the ‘dryness’ of the Bloemfontein campus means that, for staff and students, any social activity that includes the buying and consumption of alcohol can only be deployed in a space that is off campus. Furthermore, there are few ‘great good places’ such as the Jolkol and Rag Farm and the gazellies – which are only accessible for those students allocated to the residence in which the gazellie is located. Thus, it can be argued that the dry status of the campus is a limiting factor in terms of encouraging diversity of social activity. (2) The insulated nature of social activity. The socio-spatial differentiation in the city of Bloemfontein and between the city and the Bloemfontein campus insulates the deployment of social activity in predetermined spaces. The insulation of social activity negatively impacts on the relationships and processes between individuals who do not have social or spatial commonalities. (3) The impact of social and physical characteristics on access to and alienation from social activity deployed in particular social spaces. For example, the privatisation of the swimming pool complex, where the regulation of access is done physically and directly affects the body, heightens perceptions of exclusion for those individuals that cannot gain access (Bourdieu 1996). With these three points of interests as the premise for lines of questioning within the context of the conceptual framework presented in Chapter Two, a further in-depth investigation of selected sites on the Bloemfontein campus was conducted. This investigation aims to show how “social relations of production have a social existence to the extent that they have spatial existence” (Ligget 1995:255). Furthermore, it grounds the argument for the importance of the organisation of space at a higher education institution as an intersection between the mental, the social, and the physical in the development of theory around the centrality of social activity for the social cohesion that is central and fundamental to transformation in higher education (Zeleza & Kalipeni 1999; Massey 1993; Lefebvre 1991b). 162 The investigation of five selected sites on the Bloemfontein campus (see Chapter Three, Section 3.4.1.3 on page 109 for the selection criteria) aims to map and document the social activity that projects and inscribes itself in the processes which produce space (Lefebvre 1991a). The mapping and documenting of social activity in five sites on the campus provides additional information that can be utilised to infer and explain linkages in the proposed relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education (see Step Two in the operationalisation of the conceptual framework proposed in Chapter Two). Furthermore, the view of higher education institutions as social institutions allows for the organisation of space at these institutions to be conceptualised as a social product. The understanding of space at a higher education institution as a social product allows for theoretical propositions around social theory to be made that can establish linkages between spatial organisation at a higher education institution and the social activity that is deployed in it. These linkages show how the totality of social activity – the processes and relations between individuals at a higher education institution– is important and significant for social cohesion. This cohesion is necessary for transformation in higher education through the reconciliation of official policy with the everyday reality of institutional practice. Although the mapping and documentation of social spaces on and off the Bloemfontein campus provides insights into the nature of the social activity that is deployed in those spaces, it is the detailed observations in the five sites that allows for triangulation of data from the focus group discussions and the socio-spatial mapping of: (1) the Bloemfontein campus in its entirety, (2) the city of Bloemfontein, and (3) the relationship between the Bloemfontein campus and city of Bloemfontein. The triangulation of data gives a more nuanced understanding of how the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus impacts on social activity on and off the campus. The mapping and documentation of selected sites allows for information to be verified and shows how the organisational indicators – detailed social and physical characteristics – of the five sites influence the reality of the everyday for the individuals who inhabit these spaces. These everyday experiences bring into focus the immaterial and material organisational indicators that impact on how space is organised (Tuan 1977). Furthermore, the “public image... which is the overlap of many individual images” (Lynch 1960:46) associated with each site is revealed through the generation of visual and graphic representations from which “information, meaning or pleasure is sought” (Mirzoeff 1998:3). This visual and graphic 163 representation of the public image in each of the sites moves the mapping and documentation of these spaces beyond the “act of measuring” to “tell the story of our appreciation of places as regions of concern” (Auret 2016:193). The in-depth investigation of the five sites provides information from which seven key social and physical characteristics or categories can be identified. The following characteristics/categories (see Table 4.1 on page 167) provide a summary of the organisational indicators that are the basis for the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus. Table 4.1 contextualises the organisational indicators for understanding space that are presented in Table 2.1 (page 69). In Table 4.1 the organisational indicators are presented as social and physical characteristics/categories for assessment in each of the selected sites on the Bloemfontein campus. This assessment aims to: (1) provide information from which to draw inferences around the impact of organisational indicators of space at a higher education institution upon the social activity that is deployed in it; (2) identify thematic attributes across a set of locations to develop the ‘right’ spatial types as a lens to identify the ‘right’ things in establishing linkages between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education; (3) establish linkages between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and dimensions and principles of transformation in higher education; and (4) focus the assessment of indicators for the organisation of space in each of the selected sites. Conducting a focused assessment aids in the management of data collection in the adopted case study methodology, since this process can be lengthy and difficult to manage. The assessment of the five sites focuses on seven characteristics:  Edge conditions. In the context of this study this refers to “linear elements not used or considered as paths by the observer”, and denote the separation between two spaces – the “linear breaks in continuity” (Lynch 1960:47). For example, the pavement that breaks the continuity of a road, which is vehicular, from the lawn, which is pedestrian.  Façade. In the context of this study, façade is concerned with physical characteristics that are visual makers in the space and/or of the built environment; it reflects indicators that highlight the shape, colour, and visibility of the space, place, built form, and/or object in space. 164  Features. Those points and landmarks that, in their dominance and singularity, allow for the individual to orientate and identify themselves in their experience of a space and place. The identified features on the Bloemfontein campus are predominately static. So, for example, the position of the sun in the sky is a moving feature, while a commemorative statue is static.  Walkways. As channels that allow for the identification, continuity, and direction of movement, walkways on the Bloemfontein campus refer to the routes and paths for pedestrian movement.  Open spaces. In accordance with Lynch (1960:72), open spaces refer to those “strategic foci into which the observer can enter, typically either junctions of paths or concentrations of some [social] characteristic”. On the Bloemfontein campus open spaces allow walkways to come together and gather different and differently located individuals. These gatherings concentrate thematic characteristics such as ‘hanging out’.  Retail. On the Bloemfontein campus, retail refers to those spaces that concentrate the buying, selling, and consumption of goods and services.  Enclosures. In the context of this study, enclosures refer to those spaces and places that have a differentiated visual identity that is reinforced through a variety of strategies such as fencing. Enclosures on the Bloemfontein campus are recognised in their singular, and at times exclusive, function as a thematic and functional unit that results from different types of boundaries that differentiate them from the rest of their context. These seven characteristics provide information from which inferences are made around how the organisation of space impacts on social activities deployed in that space. These activities include: gathering and encounters between individuals; movement of individuals across the campus broadly, and in the selected sites specifically; and the nature and manner of the occupation of space. The base findings allow for the application of the analytical guidelines in Section 2.4.2.1 in operationalisation of the conceptual framework presented in Chapter Two, Furthermore, the mapping and documentation of the seven identified category characteristics in each of the selected sites is utilised to show, through a process of observation and representation, the nuanced manner in which space as a 165 material and immaterial concern impacts on social activity deployed in space on the Bloemfontein campus. 166 Table 4.1: Social and physical charact eristics on the Bloemfo ntein Campus Source: Created by Author 167 4.5.3 Selected Sites for Further Fieldwork on the Bloemfontein Campus Figure 4.15 (page 169) shows where the selected five sites are located on the Bloemfontein campus. The following are important to note: (1) The relationship between these sites and also their relationship to a key spatial strategy for transformation on the Bloemfontein campus, namely the Bannie Britz walkways. These walkways are the primary channel for pedestrian movement on the campus and were designed to encourage and facilitate social interaction and integration. (2) Observations conducted in each of the selected five sites were carried out during the week, in between lecture times. Since these are peak times of social activity, data collected during these times is well suited to inform social theory derived from the operationalisation of the analytical guidelines (see Section 2.4.2.1 on page 79). Figure 4.16 (page 170) shows an overview of each of the selected five sites and localises each site to provide “clarity and harmony of form” (Stern, cited in Lynch 1960:10) that conveys a vivid representation of recurring organisational indicators of space on the Bloemfontein campus. The selected five sites on the campus were: 1. The Thakaneng Bridge complex 2. The Eduardo Villa Walkway 3. The Academic Quad 4. The IRSJ lawn 5. The Red Square 168 Figure 4.15: The five sites in relation to each other on the Bloemfontein Campus 169 Figure 4.16: The five sites 170 4.5.3.1 Thakaneng Bridge complex The Thakaneng Bridge complex (hereafter referred to as the Bridge), located on the eastern edge of DF Malherbe Drive (see Figure 4.10 on page 146), is one of two pedestrian routes between the eastern and western quadrants of the campus, which are separated by DF Malherbe Drive. As the largest pedestrian route between these two quadrants of the campus, the Bridge – as it is commonly referred to on campus – accommodates the UFS Student Life offices and a variety of retail spaces that offer goods and services for staff and students on the campus. The visual and graphic representations of this site are focused on the eastern interface with the heart of the campus, and the western interface with the SASOL Library and computer labs, i.e. the edges of the complex. The Bridge, as a building complex, is significant for the campus as a space that allows for function that moves beyond faculty, department, and classroom, and in which all staff, students, and visitors on the campus can gather and socialise. Figure 4.17 (page 172) shows the context of the Bridge, with a focus on how this building straddles DF Malherbe Drive as an inhabited pedestrian route. The Bridge interfaces with the departments of Biology, Economic and Management Sciences, and the Office of the Dean of the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences to the east, and with the SASOL Library and the computer labs to the west. Figure 4.18 (see page 173) is a collection of visuals that show the setting of the Bridge on the campus and that focus on the extended western overhang, eastern forecourt, and the interior of the Bridge that straddles DF Malherbe Drive. Figures 4.19, 4.20, 4.21, and 4.22 show the seven key social and physical characteristics that refer to organisational indicators of space at the Bridge. These characteristics provided information from which to infer how the organisational indicators of space, in their influence on the experience of everyday life, impact on the social activity that is deployed in this space (see Step Two in the operationalisation of the conceptual framework proposed in Chapter Two). The information derived from identified social and physical characteristics showed how organisational indicators impact on social activity and therefore on the experience of everyday life at a higher education institution. 171 Figure 4.17: Mapping the Thakaneng Bridge complex 172 Figure 4.18: A visual overview of the Thakaneng Bridge complex 173 Figure 4.19: Site analysis – eastern edge of the Thakaneng Bridge complex 174 Figure 4.20: Site analysis – interior of the Thakaneng Bridge complex 175 Figure 4.21: Site analysis – western edge of the Thakaneng Bridge complex (1) 176 Figure 4.22: Site analysis – western edge of the Thakaneng Bridge complex (2) 177 Organisational indicators identified at the Bridge (Figures 4.19–4.22, pages 174–177)  The large, shaded, open space to the east and west of the Bridge renders the space clearly legible.  The large open spaces defined by the Bridge to the east, and the SASOL Library and computer labs to the west are wide, permeable, and shaded. Adjacent buildings with an appropriate scale and in combination with the Bridge define these spaces; that is to say, the height of the buildings in relation to the breadth of space next to them is more or less similar, adding to the congruence and immediacy at the Bridge.  Clearly visible and well-demarcated building entrances, extended overhangs, and entrance lobbies add to the sense and legibility of the spaces east and west of the Bridge. These spaces are places for gathering and social activities centred on the consumption and buying of food, adding to the accessibility and social identity of the Bridge.  The red brick that denotes Bannie Britz’s network of walkways is clearly visible at the Bridge complex and adds to the legibility and structure of the space.  The termination, criss-crossing, as well as the continuation in the space of several movement channels, including the visible red brick of Bannie Britz’s walkways, suggests ease and legibility of pedestrian movement at the Bridge. It can be argued that these walkways are important for the structure of pedestrian movement in this space specifically and on the Bloemfontein campus generally.  Visible designated seating that is mostly shaded by adjacent building edges, thresholds, and trees positively contributes to the social activities of gathering, pause, and waiting, and adds to the vitality of the spaces east and west of the Bridge.  The building edges and thresholds in the space, specifically the western forecourt, provide the possibility for appropriated seating that encourage the social activities of gathering, pause, and waiting, and add to the fitness and vitality at the Bridge.  The permeability of the Bridge, that is to say, the ease of movement in and through the building edges and thresholds, makes this a highly accessible space.  The clearly defined red brick walls and the canopy that distinguishes Pimento – a coffee shop which caters exclusively for staff, senior students, and guests (in a 178 senior capacity) to the university – from the rest of the space suggest social and spatial differentiation of this space from the rest of the Bridge.  Surveillance devices such as cameras and public lighting are clearly visible and suggest that this space is actively monitored and regulated. The data showed that, for some individuals, such monitoring and regulation provides a sense of safety and security.  The concentration of the social activities of gathering, pause, and waiting, particularly in the east and west forecourts, suggests passive surveillance that adds to the vitality, safety, and security at the Bridge.  The termination of several pedestrian movement routes in the Bridge, as well as the continuation of the same through it, suggest ease of accessibility and reinforce the legibility and significance of pedestrian movement on the campus.  The identity of the Bridge as the largest space for the buying and consumption of food is shown in the signage and transparent shop fronts that display a variety of food and beverages for consumption.  The combination of hard and soft landscaping at the Bridge adds to its sense and identity as an open public space; that is to say, the space has a distinct character that allows the individuals in it to relate to the inscribed habitation that aligns to the function and purpose of the built environment.  The adjacent building edges, thresholds, and trees that provide shading for the designated seating enhance and support the social activities of pause, gathering, and rest and add to the vitality of the space. Reflections on the Thakaneng Bridge complex The large, shaded, open spaces to the east (see Figure 4.19 on page 174) and west (see Figure 4.21 on page 176) of the Bridge, in combination with the presence of a variety of retail and food outlets, suggest that this space actively encourages gathering, pause, and waiting. These social activities, it can be argued, encourage social interaction and integration on the Bloemfontein campus that is important for the social cohesion at the core of transformation in higher education. It is worth noting that although gathering, pause, and waiting are encouraged on the Bridge complex, the visible socio-spatial differentiation of Pimento from the rest of the Bridge has a negative impact on the ability of this space to promote social cohesion. 179 The provision of seating (both designated and appropriated), the presence of permeable building edges and thresholds, and the proximity to formal pedestrian routes encourage pedestrian movement on the Bloemfontein campus generally and at the Bridge specifically. This supports the key spatial strategy of Bannie Britz’s walkways, which seeks to create a built environment that supports social interaction and integration. The centrality of the Bridge in the layout of Bannie Britz’s walkways and its position as the largest point of connection between the east and west quadrants of the Bloemfontein campus suggest its significance as a social and physical space (see Figure 4.17 on page 172). As one of the largest infrastructure developments to be built on the Bloemfontein campus post-1994, the positioning of the Bridge off the hierarchical east-west axis suggests a socio-spatial shift of the campus away from its historical positioning in and relationship to the city of Bloemfontein (see Figure 4.17 on page 172). Visible lighting and surveillance devices suggest that the Bridge is a safe and secure space. It is worth noting that the visible surveillance, which suggests monitoring and control of the individuals in the space, could been seen as adversely impacting on the ability of individuals in the space to exercise their individuality and freedoms if these are not aligned to the predetermined regulations and rules set out by those in control of the monitoring devices. Table 4.2 (page 182) provides a summary of the identified detail and category characteristics – social and physical characteristics/ categories that show how organisation indicators impact on the organisation of space at the Thakaneng Bridge complex. These social and physical characteristics/categories shown in suggest a harmonious balance between the physical elements – the material, tangible built elements in the space – and the land use – the inscribed immaterial inhabitation and functioning of the space – at the Bridge. That is to say, the organisational indicators support the imageability and spatial character of the Bridge as a social and physical space that supports social activity. Table 4.2 shows an even distribution of social and physical characteristics across the characteristics/ categories for land use and physical elements and suggests that the official policies that govern the land use at the Bridge align with the social and physical 180 organisational indictors for space. Thus, it can be said that the built environment has a positive relationship to the social activity that is deployed in it. The clustering of retail and food outlets on the Bridge – a primary pedestrian movement route connecting the east and west quadrants of the campus – generates uncomfortable levels of human congestion and noise. This adversely impacts on the functioning and operation of the Bridge complex as social space and limits the social interaction and integration that are necessary for social cohesion. Nonetheless, the Bridge, which connects the east and west quadrants of the campus, is an important space for social activity focused on the consumption and buying of food and various other products. The Bridge is the largest space on the campus, outside of the classroom, in which all students and staff can interact and participate in similar social activities. Consequently, understanding the characteristics/ categories that show how organisational indicators for space impact on social activity deployed in space at the Bridge can support initiatives for redress and reform aimed at social cohesion. Based on this understanding, key social and spatial strategies can be developed to create a socio-spatial environment that translates official policy for transformation in higher education into lived experience of transformation at a higher education institution. The Thakaneng Bridge complex whose social and physical characteristics/ categories show how organisational indictors for space impact on the social activity around retail, focused on the buying and selling of food, is in part a thoroughfare and intersection that facilitates pedestrian movement between the east and west quadrants of the Bloemfontein campus. The inclusion of pedestrian movement into the function and functioning of the Bridge provides a case for analysing in more depth pedestrian movement on the Bloemfontein campus, thus, the selection of the next site for in-depth focus the Eduardo Villa walkway. 181 Table 4.2: Social and physical character istics – Thakanen g Bridge complex 182 4.5.3.2 The Eduardo Villa walkway As the main pedestrian route designed to connect the northern and southern parts of the campus, the Eduardo Villa walkway is a significant movement channel, in Bannie Britz’s master plan. The walkway links various academic and administration buildings on the campus and culminates in the Academic Quad – an open space that is symmetrically positioned behind the Main Building (see Figure 4.15 on page 169). Along this walkway is a large Eduardo Villa sculpture that is centrally located in the south quadrant of the Bloemfontein campus. The sculpture stands lifted off the ground on a built platform. This stretch of walkway along which the Eduardo Villa sculpture is centrally positioned forms a ‘mini square’. The widening of this stretch of walkway accommodates the sculpture and provides a point of intersection that allows for students and staff coming from different parts of the campus to re-orientate in order to better navigate on the campus. Figure 4.23 (see page 185) shows the context of the Eduardo Villa walkway, focusing on the mini square in the southern quadrant of the Bloemfontein campus, to show how several buildings are positioned along this walkway. These buildings are the Stabilis lecture halls, the Abraham Fischer residence, the Wekkie Saayman building, the Stef Coetzee building, the Department of Geography building, and the Department of Physics building. The figure also shows the spaces, specifically the Academic Quad, that are connected along the extent of this walkway, as well as the junctions and extension of this walkway into the rest of the campus network of walkways (see Figure 4.23 on page 185). Figure 4.24 (page 186) is a collection of visuals that shows the mini square in the context of the Eduardo Villa walkway. Figures 4.25 (page 187) and 4.26 (page 188) show the identified social and physical characteristics of the organisational indictors of space along the Eduardo Villa walkway. Again, information can be derived from these characteristics to make inferences around the impact of organisational indicators of space on pedestrian movement and the social activity deployed in this space. The analysis of social activity deployed in the space of the Eduardo Villa walkway through mapping and documentation aimed to show how individuals’ ability to access and negotiate space is enabled or constrained by organisational indicators of space. This analysis was used to triangulate data from the focus group discussion and thereby inform the development of social theory and linkages in the proposed relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education 183 institution and the implementation and understanding of transformation in higher education. 184 Figure 4.23: Mapping the Eduardo Villa walkway 185 Figure 4.24: A visual overview of the Eduardo Villa walkway 186 Figure 4.25: Site analysis – Eduardo Villa walkway (1) 187 Figure 4.26: Site analysis – Eduardo Villa walkway (2) 188 Organisational indicators identified along the Eduardo Villa walkway (Figures 4.23–4.26, pages 185–188)  The ‘mini square’ is a junction found in the southern quadrant of the campus that is defined by the Stabilis lecture halls to the west and the Abraham Fischer residence and Wekkie Saayman building to the east. This ‘mini square’ in which the Eduardo Villa sculpture is located positively contributes to a sense of place and identity and adds to the legibility of the walkway on the Bloemfontein campus.  The ‘mini square’ has several significant characteristics. It is: wide – it can accommodate relatively large groups of people; permeable – pedestrians can enter and leave the walkway in a variety of ways and at several points along the walkway; and shaded – multiple shaded areas along the walkway encourage gathering, pause, and waiting. These spatial characteristics add to the vitality of the Eduardo Villa walkway.  The buildings adjacent to the Eduardo Villa walkway are appropriate in scale; that is to say, the height of the building in relation to the breadth of space next to it is more or less similar. The scale of the buildings that define the boundaries and extent of the walkway adds to the vitality, congruence, and immediacy in and along the Eduardo Villa walkway.  Inadequate visibility and demarcation of building entrances, extended overhangs, and entrance lobbies along the Eduardo Villa walkway negatively impact on the ability of individuals to orientate themselves. This detracts from the sense of legibility in the space and negatively impacts on the ability of the Eduardo Villa walkway to function as a place for social activity.  The red brick of Bannie Britz’s network of walkways is visible along the Eduardo Villa walkway. This red brick, visible in various parts of the campus, allows for the individual to cognitively make connections across the campus and adds to the legibility and structure of the space.  The termination, criss-crossing, as well as the continuation of pedestrian movement channels in the space, including Bannie Britz’s walkways, suggest that there is an ease of pedestrian movement along the Eduardo Villa walkway. The ease of pedestrian movement along the main connection between the north and south quadrants of the Bloemfontein campus suggests a coherent organisational structure for space on the campus generally and for pedestrian movement specifically. 189  The visibility of designated seating, most shaded by trees, positively contributes to the social activities of gathering, pause, and waiting and adds to the vitality in the space.  The building edges and thresholds in the space, specifically in the ‘mini square’, do not engage with the space and do not adequately provide for the possibility to appropriate physical elements in the space as seating, thereby detracting from the fitness of the space. The podium on which the Eduardo Villa sculpture is placed is at times appropriated as seating, especially in winter.  Distinctive features located along this walkway, such as the Eduardo Villa sculpture and the post boxes, add to the identity and structure of the space.  Surveillance devices such as cameras and public lighting are clearly visible and suggest that this space is actively monitored and regulated.  The concentration of the social activities of gathering, pause, and waiting, particularly in the ‘mini square’, suggests passive surveillance along the walkway, which can add to a sense of safety and security, and to vitality in the space.  The identity of the Eduardo Villa walkway as a pedestrian movement route is shown in the clear definition of its edge conditions. This definition is achieved by the successful combination of hard and soft landscaping that allows for the individual to read the inscribed habitation intentions – the function and purpose of the walkway (see Table 4.3 on page 191).  Devil’s fork separates the buildings adjacent to the Eduardo Villa walkway from the walkway and suggests socio-spatial differentiation in the space.  The linear positioning of trees along the Eduardo Villa walkway defines the direction of movement between the north and south quadrants and visually connects a variety of buildings and spaces on the campus. 190 Table 4.3: Social and physical characteri stics – Eduardo Villa walkway 191 Reflections on the Eduardo Villa walkway The devil’s fork that separates the adjacent buildings from the Eduardo Villa walkway suggests an inadequate connection between the buildings and space of the walkway. The walkway, intended as an armature that connects the north and south quadrants of the campus, does not adequately integrate the built environment – buildings alongside it – and the social environment – pedestrian movement and associated social activity. Despite the sense of commons created by the Eduardo Villa sculpture, the inadequate integration of the physical and social environment is further shown by the isolated pockets of social activity along the walkway (see Figures 4.25, and 4.26). The separation of buildings and entrances along the walkway from the space of the walkway itself does not positively contribute to the spatial strategy that aims to encourage social interaction and integration between individuals for the purpose of social cohesion. The provision of shade by strategically located trees and seating (both designated and appropriated), the permeability of the built environment, and the location of several parking lots and ‘open’ public spaces along the walkway, encourage pedestrian movement (see Figures 4.25 and 4.26). This positively contributes to the walkway’s function as significant movement route and connection between the north and south quadrants of the Bloemfontein campus (see Figure 4.23 on page 185). The connection between quadrants on the campus supports the interaction and integration that are important for social cohesion – a key aspect of transformation. Although Table 4.3 (page 191) shows a disproportionate number of organisation indicators that point to physical elements as opposed to those that point to land use in and along the walkway, it can be argued that the function of the Eduardo Villa walkway as a pedestrian movement route makes up for the lack of a variety of land use detail and category characteristics. The social activity deployed along the Eduardo Villa walkway – an important pedestrian movement route that connects the north and south quadrants on the Bloemfontein campus – shows how the activities of gathering, pause, and rest are intimately linked to pedestrian movement at a higher education institution. The social activities of gathering, pause and rest along pedestrian movement routes support social interaction and integration, which are central to social cohesion. It is the implications of gathering, pause, and rest for social 192 cohesion, at the heart of official policy for transformation in higher education, that provide a case for further in-depth investigation of spaces such as the Academic Quad that are designed for this type of activity. 4.5.3.3 The Academic Quad The space referred to as the Academic Quad is located directly west of the Main Building. The Academic Quad is a secondary ‘open’ public space along the historic hierarchical east-west axis which functions as a green lung30. It provides the opportunity for thoroughfare, gathering, pause, and waiting in the central quadrant of the Bloemfontein campus. Designed in response to the growth explosion of student and staff numbers between the 1950s and 1970s (Auret & Roodt 2016; UFS 2006) the significance of the Academic Quad lies in its location along the imaginary line of the east-west axis and in the age and stature of the buildings that define its boundaries. It is defined by the Office of the Dean of the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences – the largest faculty on the campus – to the west; the Main Building to the east; the Women’s Memorial Gardens to the north; and the departments of Mathematics, Geography (a historically significant building), and Physics (the fastest-growing department in terms of student numbers and research outputs) to the south (see Figure 4.27 on page 194). The Eduardo Villa walkway, which connects the south and north quadrants of the campus, crosses through the Academic Quad. Figure 4.28 (page 195) is a collection of visuals that shows the setting of the Academic Quad on the Bloemfontein campus. Figures 4.29 (page 196) and 4.30 (page 197) show the identified social and physical characteristics in the Quad. This space was mapped and documented to determine its organisational indicators – social and physical detail and category characteristics – and thereby make inferences around the impact of these indicators on the social activity deployed in such an open public space. This information was furthermore used to triangulate data from the semi-structured interviews and to develop social theory and linkages in the proposed relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and transformation and the understanding thereof in higher education. 30 A green lung is a space of natural parkland that is an important natural and cultural part of any urban or built environment (Singh, Pandey & Chaudhry 2010; Tian, Jim & Wang 2014). 193 Figure 4.27: Mapping the Academic Quad 194 Figure 4.28: A visual overview of the Academic Quad 195 Figure 4.29: Site analysis – Academic Quad (1) 196 Figure 4.30: Site analysis – Academic Quad (2) 197 Organisational indicators identified in the Academic Quad (Figures 4.28–4.30, pages 195–197)  The form and detailed spatial characteristics of the buildings that define the boundaries of the Academic Quad allow individuals to read the inscribed habitation in the design of the space – its function and purpose. This adds to the sense of congruence in the space. For example, the terraced green platforms in the Quad signal that it is intended to function as a green space in which individuals can ‘chill’ in between class times.  A large, green, shaded, open space, the Academic Quad contains various artefacts that are strategically placed in it. These artefacts, some of which form part of the Lotto Sculpture-on-Campus project, heighten the sense of commons in the Academic Quad and add to its vitality as an open public space.  The buildings that define the boundaries of the Academic Quad are of appropriate scale; that is to say, the height of the building does not overwhelm the breadth of the space adjacent to it. The appropriate scale of the buildings in the Academic Quad suggests a positive congruence and immediacy in the space.  Visible, clearly demarcated building entrances and extended overhangs over these entrances define transitional spaces between inside and outside. These spaces contribute positively to the vitality in the Academic Quad and significantly improve the legibility of the space as a public space for the social activities of gathering, pause, and waiting. This is a good example of how habitation can be inscribed in space to support various academic and administrative functions in the enclosed built structures.  The visible red brick of Bannie Britz’s network of walkways suggests that the Academic Quad is in line with the spatial strategy aimed at increasing social interaction and integration between individuals. The red brick also supports the accessibility, legibility, and structure of the organisational indicators of space in the Academic Quad.  The termination, criss-crossing, as well as the continuation of several pedestrian movement channels in the space, including Bannie Britz’s walkways, suggest ease and legibility of pedestrian movement in the Academic Quad specifically and on the Bloemfontein campus generally.  The organisational indicators of space in the Academic Quad provide clues – such as designated seating, the appropriation of buildings edges as seating, and the 198 provision of seating on the terraced lawns – from which the individuals can clearly identify the function of the space, namely gathering, pause, and waiting.  The permeability of the Academic Quad – the ease with which pedestrians can move into, out of, in, and across the space – makes this a highly accessible area on the Bloemfontein campus.  Distinctive features, such as the terraced lawn and the artefacts strategically placed in the space, add to the identity and structure of the Academic Quad. The legibility of this space allows individuals to identify and orientate themselves in the space and creates a sense of commons that could positively contribute to social interaction and integration.  The lack of visible surveillance devices such as cameras suggests that this space is not actively monitored and regulated.  The presence of public lighting and the orientation of the fenestrations from the adjacent buildings towards and into the space suggest that this space is passively monitored and regulated.  The building edges, thresholds, and trees in the Academic Quad provide shading for both the designated and appropriated seating. The physical elements in the space support the land use as an open public space by encouraging the social activities of gathering, pause, and waiting, and thereby adding to the vitality and sense of commons in the space.  The Academic Quad is generously populated with mature trees, which adds to the fitness of the space. Reflections on the Academic Quad The Academic Quad is a green, shaded, open space; this actively encourages the social activities of gathering, pause, and waiting. Furthermore, its boundaries are defined by beneficial building forms such as habitable building edges, ledges, and thresholds. These characteristics, in combination with the appropriate scale of the buildings, all positively impact on social activity. Figures 4.28, 4.29, and 4.30 (pages 195 to 197) show how the organisational indicators – detail and category characteristics – in the Academic Quad support Bannie Britz’s network of walkways as a key spatial strategy for social interaction and integration between students and staff on the Bloemfontein campus. These organisational indicators include: (1) seating (both designated and appropriated); 199 (2) permeable and habitable building edges and thresholds; (3) the visible and clearly demarcated building entrance; and (4) the proximity of the Academic Quad to formal and informal pedestrian routes. The aforementioned characteristics of the Academic Quad promote social interaction and integration and thereby contribute to the social cohesion necessary for transformation in higher education. The Academic Quad has a distinct ‘academic’ air that is aligned with Jefferson’s notion of the lawn as a space of intersection in an academic village. The Academic Quad aligns with this notion due to its age – it is one of the oldest open public spaces on the campus – and the function of the buildings that define its boundaries (see Figure 4.27 on page 194). This suggests that it is significant and important as a social and physical space on the Bloemfontein campus (see Figure 4.28 on page 195). Furthermore, the positioning of the Academic Quad along the imaginary line of the historical east-west axis in the city of Bloemfontein reinforces its significance in the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus. Visible lighting and passive surveillance from the orientation of the fenestrations of the buildings that define the boundaries of the Academic Quad suggest a sense of safety and security for the inhabitants in the space. The unobtrusive nature of passive surveillance in the space adds to the sense of safety and security without adversely impacting on the ability of individuals to exercise their individuality and personal freedoms. In a city where, for example, violence against black gay women is prevalent (Lake 2017) the Academic Quad is seen as a safe space in which individuals in a marginalised group such as black lesbians can come together and interact. Table 4.4 (page 202), which provides a summary of the identified detail and category characteristics, suggests a harmonious balance between the physical elements and land use in the Academic Quad. The social and physical organisational indicators suggest that the Academic Quad as a social and physical space on the Bloemfontein campus is an example of how the official policy that governs this open public space supports the social activity deployed in it and contributes positively to social interaction and integration. The Academic Quad, as a secondary open public space for gathering, pause, and waiting, is an important and significant space for social activity that is deployed on the 200 Bloemfontein campus. The sense of commons in this space – generated by the habitable art works and building thresholds and ledges, in combination with adequate shading provided by trees and building overhangs – demonstrates how official policy for transformation in higher education can be translated into spatial strategies to create an environment that supports increased social interaction, integration, and cohesion at a higher education institution. The in-depth investigation of the Academic Quad suggests, on the Bloemfontein campus, open public spaces that facilitate a sense of commons are important and significant for social interaction and integration between different individuals. It is the importance and significance of open public spaces that provides the case for further analysing the Institute for Social Justice and Reconciliation (IRSJ) lawn and the Red Square. In the case of both the IRSJ lawns and the Red Square, the information from the socio-spatial mapping and data collected from the focus groups suggest these are open public spaces that have an unobtrusive sense of passive surveillance and a sense of commons that can encourage the expression of individual and collective freedoms on the Bloemfontein campus. 201 Table 4.4: Social and physical character istics – Academi c Quad 202 4.5.3.4 The Institute for Reconciliation and Social Justice (IRSJ) lawn The Institute for Reconciliation and Social Justice (IRSJ), housed in the DF Malherbe building, was formed in response to the infamous Reitz video (DoE 2008; SAHRC 2016; van der Merwe 2017; van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016). The DF Malherbe building, together with the Centenary Complex building – which serves as a function venue for important events on the campus and is home to the campus art collection – are located in a green lung that sits directly south of the ring road that defines the central quadrant at the heart of the campus (see Figure 4.8 on page 142). The lawn immediately west of the DF Malherbe building was the site of analysis and is hereafter referred to as the IRSJ lawn. The extent of the IRSJ lawn is defined by the DF Malherbe building to the east, the Wekkie Saayman building to the west, the campus ring road to the north, and Graduandi Avenue – a vehicular movement route – to the south (see Figure 4.31 on page 204). Figure 4.32 (page 205) is a collection of visuals that shows the setting of the IRSJ lawns on the Bloemfontein campus. Figures 4.33 (page 206) and 4.34 (page 207) show the identified social and physical characteristics in the space of the IRSJ lawns. This space was mapped and documented to identify organisational indicators – social and physical detail and category characteristics – and to determine the impact of these indicators on the social activity deployed in this open public space. This information was used to triangulate data obtained from the semi-structured interviews. The identified social and physical characteristics and their impact on the organisation of space in the IRSJ lawn also provided insights around the implications of ideological conceptions of transformation – central to the formation of the IRSJ – for the reality of human praxis in the everyday life experience of individuals on the Bloemfontein campus. The analysis of the IRSJ lawns thus contributes to the development of social theory and linkages in the proposed relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and the implementation and understanding of transformation in higher education. 203 Figure 4.31: Mapping the Institute for Reconciliation & Social Justice (IRSJ) lawn 204 Figure 4.32: A visual overview of the IRSJ lawn 205 Figure 4.33: Site analysis – IRSJ lawn (1) 206 Figure 4.34: Site analysis – IRSJ lawn (2) 207 Organisational indicators identified at the IRSJ lawn (Figures 4.32–4.34, pages 205–207)  The building edges of the DF Malherbe building which defines the eastern boundary of the IRSJ lawn allow individuals in the space to relate to its function and purpose. That is to say, the habitable ‘stoep’ (veranda / porch) and the numerous visible entrances into the building allow individuals to read this building as easily accessible. This adds to the sense of place and congruence in the space.  The IRSJ lawn is a green space that acts as a forecourt for the DF Malherbe building. It is clearly defined by low, permeable steel box planters that create a sense of commons for the IRSJ and add to its vitality as an open public space.  The buildings that define the IRSJ lawn are of appropriate scale; that is to say, the height of the building does not overwhelm the breadth of the space adjacent to it. This suggests positive congruence and immediacy in the space.  The accentuation of building thresholds, for example the stoep west of the DF Malherbe building, allows for incidental habitation of the space. This contributes positively to the vitality of the IRSJ lawn and improves the legibility of the space as a public area suited to social activities of gathering, pause, and waiting.  The criss-crossing as well as the continuation of several pedestrian routes in the IRSJ lawn suggest easy and legible movement.  The organisational indicators of space in the IRSJ lawn provide clues for the individuals in it to clearly identify the functions of the space. For example, the articulation of the designated seating area shown by the change in ground cover clearly differentiates between spaces for social activity (such as gathering, pause, and waiting) and movement routes.  Building overhangs, articulated thresholds (see the western stoep of the DF Malherbe building in Figure 4.33 on page 206), and trees that shade the designated seating all positively contribute to the social activities of gathering, pause, and waiting, and add to the fitness and vitality of the space.  The permeability of the steel box planters that define the IRSJ lawn allows for pedestrian movement in and across the space, making this a highly accessible space.  Distinct physical elements, such as the designated seating areas in the space, add to the identity of the IRSJ lawn as a space for gathering, pause, and waiting. 208  The lack of visible surveillance devices such as cameras suggests that this space is not actively monitored and regulated.  The presence of public lighting and the orientation of the fenestrations from the adjacent buildings into the space suggest that this space is passively monitored and regulated.  The IRSJ lawn is defined by two main vehicular routes that allow for street parking to the north and to the south. This space thus functions as a highly accessible connection between vehicular and pedestrian movement on the Bloemfontein campus. Reflections on the IRSJ lawn The IRSJ lawn is situated adjacent to the DF Malherbe building that is home to the IRSJ – an institute focused on the development of transformative dialogue, processes, and policies. Its location in the central quadrant of the Bloemfontein campus and accessibility to both pedestrians and vehicles suggest that this space actively encourages social interaction and integration. Further characteristics of the IRSJ lawn that contribute to social cohesion include: (1) shaded seating (both designated and appropriated); (2) permeable and habitable building edges and thresholds; and (3) ease of access by way of formal and informal pedestrian and vehicular routes (see Figures 4.31, 4.32, 4.33, and 4.34 on pages 204 to 207). Visible lighting and passive surveillance enabled by the orientation of fenestrations in the adjacent buildings that define the IRSJ lawn suggest a sense of safety and security for the inhabitants of the space. It is worth noting that the unobtrusive nature of the passive surveillance in the space adds to the of sense of safety without adversely impacting on the ability of individuals in this space to exercise their individuality and freedoms, even if these are not aligned to predetermined regulations and rules. Table 4.5 (page 211) provides a summary of the identified detail and category characteristics and suggests a harmonious balance between the physical elements and land use of the IRSJ lawn. The IRSJ lawn is thus another example of a space on the Bloemfontein campus that demonstrates how the official policy that governs the function of space is aligned with the social activity and practices that are deployed in it. The location of the IRSJ lawn as a social and physical space on the Bloemfontein campus aids the inscribed function of the IRSJ to encourage transformative dialogue, processes, 209 and policies. Thus, the IRSJ lawn, as an open public space in which social interaction and integration are supported by the organisation of the space, is important and significant for social cohesion on the Bloemfontein campus. 210 Table 4.5: Social and physical character istics – Institute for Reconcili ation & Social Justice (IRSJ) lawn 211 4.5.3.5 The Red Square (Main Building lawn) The lawn east of the Main Building on the Bloemfontein campus is commonly referred to as the “Rooi Plein”; this translates into English as the Red Square (see Figure 4.35 on page 214). The Red Square, in line with the concept of Jefferson’s lawn (Vickery 1998), is designed to promote and develop urbane life through experience of social praxis and institutional culture in an academic village (Vickery 1998). The geographical extent of the Red Square is defined by the historical and prominent Main Building to the west, the Postgraduate School and Equitas Building (formerly known as the CR Swart Law Building) to the north, and the Faculty of Theology and H vd Merwe Scholtz Hall to the south (see Figure 4.35 on page 214). The significance of the Red Square as the primary open public space for large gatherings is reinforced by its positioning on the imaginary line of the historical hierarchical east-west axis that runs through it to culminate in the front door of the Main Building on its eastern boundary. Several commemorative symbols from the apartheid era are located in the Red Square and are of importance in the context of this study: (1) The President Steyn statue that is located along the historical hierarchical east-west axis, approximately 25 metres west of the Main Building front door, is a statue in commemoration of President MT Steyn (the sixth and last president of the independent Orange Free State from 1896 to 1902). (2) A bust of CR Swart, located at the entrance of the Equitas Building, commemorates President CR Swart (the last Governor-General of the Union of South Africa from 1959 to 1961). As the Minister of Justice when the National Party came into power, CR Swart was instrumental in the formulation and implementation of the Bantu Education Act of 1958. It is worth noting that although President Steyn’s statue survived the attempted vandalism during the 2016 student movement on the Bloemfontein campus, the bust of CR Swart did not (see Figure 1.1a and 1.1b on page 22). (3) A sculpture of the wheel of an ossewa31 sunk into a stone circle is positioned left of the Main Building in the Red Square. The sculpture commemorates the ‘great trek’ undertaken by Dutch-speaking settlers (called Voortrekkers) from the Cape colony into the interior of what is now South Africa in search of land where they could live independent of British rule (SAHO 2011). 31 The ossewa, a four-wheeled wagon drawn by oxen, was the traditional form of transport used by the Voortrekkers during the ‘great trek’ between 1835 and 1846. 212 Figure 4.36 (page 215) is a collection of visuals that show the nature of thresholds – the in between spaces between inside and outside areas – and the large expanses of lawn in which junctions and extensions of Bannie Britz’s network of walkways criss-cross the Red Square. Figures 4.37, 4.38, and 4.39 (pages 216 to 218) show the organisational indicators – social and physical characteristics – of space in the Red Square that indicate the nature of urbane living in the heart of the academic village that is the Bloemfontein campus. The focused mapping and documentation of social and physical characteristics/categories in the Red Square aimed to show how the organisational indicators for space impact upon the ability of the individual to participate in social activity, processes and relations with other individuals in it. The ability of an individual to relate to others and to the space in which social processes and relations occur can constructively inform the development of social theories on which to base the development of linkages in the proposed relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education. In this way, greater insight could be gained to answer questions around the relationship between space and the realities of the human praxis that occurs in it (Lefebvre 1991a; Ligget 1995; Soja 1980; Tredoux, Dixon, Underwood, Nunez & Finchilescu 2005). An example of such a question would be: why did the close spatial proximity of the Red Square to the IRSJ – a space for dialogue, reconciliation, and transformation on the Bloemfontein campus – not deter students from hammering away at the statue of CR Swart, located in the Red Square? 213 Figure 4.35: Mapping the Red Square 214 Figure 4.36: A visual overview of the Red Square 215 Figure 4.37: Site analysis – northern view of the Red Square 216 Figure 4.38: Site analysis – eastern view of the Red Square 217 Figure 4.39: Site analysis – western view of the Red Square 218 Organisational indicators identified in the Red Square (Figures 4.36–4.39, pages 215–218)  The position of the President Steyn statue, framed by the Main Building in which the imaginary line of the historical hierarchical east-west axis culminates, is a focal point in the space of the Red Square. The centrality of this statue adds to the identity and legibility of the Red Square as an important space on the Bloemfontein campus.  The built form of the academic and administrative buildings that define the boundaries of the Red Square allows for individuals in the space to interpret the inscribed habitation – the function and purpose – of the buildings. For example, the positioning of the buildings adjacent to the Red Square on raised, habitable podiums suggests that these buildings are important on the Bloemfontein campus. This in turn adds to the identity and congruence of the Red Square as an important and significant space on the campus.  The buildings that define the boundaries of the Red Square are of an appropriate scale; that is to say, the height of the building does not overwhelm the breadth of the space adjacent to it. This beneficial building scale, along with the strategically located artefacts, creates a heightened sense of commons that adds to the vitality, congruence, and immediacy of the space.  Visible and clearly demarcated building entrances, extended overhangs, and entrance lobbies contribute positively to the social activities of gathering, waiting, and pause; this improves the legibility of the Red Square as an open public space. Although the buildings adjacent to the Red Square present themselves as important and significant in the space, the habitable nature of their edges and the articulation of thresholds between inside and outside allow individuals to informally interact with them.  The visible red brick of Bannie Britz’s network of walkways in the Red Square indicates that this space is aligned with and accommodates the key spatial strategy on the Bloemfontein campus that aims to encourage social interaction and integration among its inhabitants. The visible red brick also suggests accessibility, legibility, and structure in the space to create a sense of commons at the heart of the campus.  Designated seating, predominantly incorporated into building edges and thresholds, is shaded by building overhangs and trees. This positively contributes to the social 219 activities of gathering, pause, and waiting, and adds to the fitness and vitality of the space.  The permeability and central position of the Red Square on the campus allows frequent pedestrian movement in and across the space. This ease of movement makes it a highly accessible area.  Distinct features, such as the water fountain – located along the hierarchical east- west axis – and historical and significant artefacts – such as the President Steyn statue and Willem Boshoff’s ‘Thinking Stone’ sculpture – add to the identity and structure of the Red Square. These easily identifiable physical elements in the space also add to the sense of commons in the Red Square as an open public space.  The presence of surveillance devices such as cameras suggests that this space is actively monitored and regulated.  The presence of public lighting and the orientation of the fenestrations from the adjacent buildings into the space suggest that this space is also passively monitored and regulated.  The Red Square is populated with mature trees, adding to the fitness of the space. Reflections on the Red Square In line with Jefferson’s notion of ‘the lawn’, the Red Square as the central open public space on the Bloemfontein campus is organised to encourage academic pursuits through social interaction and integration of students and staff. The building characteristics – such as habitable building edges, ledges, and thresholds – and the scale of the buildings in relations to the large, green, open, and terraced area impact on the social activity that is deployed in the Red Square. This space is also the forecourt to the Main Building, further emphasising how the organisational indicators of space in the Red Square can have important and significant implications for social cohesion (see Figures 4.35, 4.36, 4.37, 4.38, and 4.39 on pages 214 to 218). The observed characteristics that have an impact on social interaction and integration include: (1) Adequate seating (both designated and appropriated). (2) Permeable and habitable building edges and thresholds that encourage social activity. (3) Visible, clearly demarcated building entrances that add to the identity of the space. (4) Objects in space – such as the Willem Boshoff ‘Thinking Stone’ and the water feature – that create a sense of commons and interest. 220 (5) The articulation of the connection to the city of Bloemfontein along the imaginary line of the historical hierarchical east-west axis. This is shown in the location of the Main Building, the President Steyn statue, and the water feature (see Figure 4.39 on page 218). (6) The orientation of the fenestrations and building entrances into the Red Square focuses the inscribed habitation of these buildings towards the Square to emphasise the importance and significance of this space. (7) Pedestrian movement routes that terminate and continue through the Red Square. The ease of pedestrian movement in the Red Square makes it encourages social interaction and integration. (8) Visible lighting and active and passive surveillance from the buildings adjacent to the Red Square create a sense of safety and security for the inhabitants of the space. It is worth noting that although the visible surveillance devices such as cameras could negatively impact in the ability of individuals in the space to exercise their individuality and freedoms, the scale and organisation of the Red Square mitigate the adverse impact of this form of surveillance on individual freedom. Table 4.6 (page 222), which provides a summary of the organisational indicators – identified detail and category characteristic – of space in the Red Square, suggests a harmonious balance between the physical elements and land use in this space. It can be argued that these characteristics show how the identity of the Red Square as a space for social interaction and integration on the Bloemfontein campus reconciles the official policy that governs the function and use of the space with the social activity that is deployed in it. The Red Square is a primary open public space for social interaction and integration on the Bloemfontein campus. It provides a sense of commons generated by: historic symbols and statues, significant artefacts and art works, habitable building thresholds and ledges, and adequate shading by trees and building overhangs. This sense of commons, shown in the organisational indicators of space in the Red Square, shows how official policy for transformation in higher education can be translated through spatial strategies to create an environment that encourages social cohesion at a higher education institution. 221 Table 4.6: Social and physical characteri stics – Red Square 222 4.6 CONCLUSION In this chapter, the historical and spatial factors that produce space as a social product at a specific higher education institution were plotted out based on information derived from the socio-spatial mapping that was further tested and analysed using the data collected from the focus groups. The research investigation of space as a social product attempted to demonstrate how context-related historical and spatial factors inform the organisational indicators that impact upon social activity deployed in space. Furthermore, the analysis aimed to elucidate how space at a higher education institution, in its revelation of the structural environment in which an institution is located, impacts on the social interaction and integration that is central to initiatives for redress and reform aimed at transformation in higher education. The analysis of on- and off-campus social spaces attempted to present the significance and importance of historical and spatial factors that produce space as a social product in individuals’ everyday life experience within the local context of a higher education institution. The mapping and documentation of organisational indicators in five selected sites (see Table 4.7 on page 225 which summarises identified social and physical characteristics in each of the five sites) aimed to show how the organisation of space, as an immaterial and a material thing, influences the ability of the individuals in it to negotiate and orientate themselves and impacts on the social activity that is deployed in that space. The development of linkages between historical and spatial factors, organisational indicators of space, and the reality of the everyday lived experience of individuals warrants the serious consideration of questions around the organisation of space in the design and implementation of official policy for transformation in higher education. The argument presented here is that meaningful and effective official policy needs to consider the implications of institutional practices for social activities that are deployed in space. An example of one such implication would be if the space in which the everyday experiences of an individual took place accommodated positive social interaction between that individual and others at a higher education institution; that individual would be inclined to have a more positive experience and holistic understanding of transformation in higher education. The study focuses on social activity deployed in space at a higher education institution with the aim to reconcile the shared philosophical objectives of transformation in official policy with the material tangible experiences of everyday life that result from institutional practice. 223 Table 4.7 (page 225), which summaries the social and physical characteristic/categories that show organisational indicators for space presented in Table 2.2 (page 84), facilitates further investigation into how space at a higher education institution can be used as a lens to understand the implications of space as a social construct that is central to transformative processes in higher education. Such understanding can be utilised to reconcile official policy for transformation in higher education with institutional practice is presented in the next chapter. 224 Tabl e 4.7: Soci al and phys ical char acte risti cs – Sum mar y of the five sites 225 CHAPTER FIVE – SPACE ON THE BLOEMFONTEIN CAMPUS 5.1 INTRODUCTION In this chapter, Lefebvre’s (1991a) notion of a unitary theory of (social) space as a (social) product provides the theoretical basis from which to explore the impact of space at a higher education on social activity and the implications this has for the implementation and understanding of transformation in higher education. This chapter plots the contours of engagement between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and the potential change resulting from initiatives for redress and reform in official policy for transformation in higher education. The aim is to show how space and the historical and spatial context-related factors that underpin its organisation at a higher education institution impact upon transformation. This is demonstrated by exploring the relationship between institutional practices around the organisation of space at a higher education institution and the everyday lived experiences of individuals in that space. Official policies for reform aimed at bringing about transformation are by necessity generalised in higher education. Building on the work of Lefebvre (1991a), it is argued that the utilisation of a spatial lens, in light of historic and spatial interpretations of social realities, supports the development of theoretical propositions around the relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education. The argument is that such theoretical propositions can support more effective initiatives for redress and reform that effect holistic transformation in the everyday lived experience of individuals at higher education institutions. This chapter operationalises Step Two and Three in the conceptual framework proposed in Chapter Two and contributes to the aforementioned theoretical propositions through the analysis of five key land use indicators on the Bloemfontein campus of the University of the Free State (UFS). These five indicators take into consideration geographically referenced physical and spatial entities (Dodge, Weibel & Lautenschutz 2008:240) – that “may have arbitrary geometric shapes: points, lines, areas, or volumes” (Andrienko, Andrienko, Bak, Keim, Kisilevich & Wrobel 2011:214) – and different thematic attributes based on the detailed characteristics of a set of locations (see Table 5.1 on page 227). The five land uses – movement, living, architecture, food and consumption, and recreation – are utilised as spatial types through which to investigate the organisational indicators that produce space and impact on social activity on the Bloemfontein campus. 226 Table 5.1: Social and physical character istics across sets of locations within the identified spatial types 227 The identified social and physical characteristics in each of the five spatial types (see Table 5.1 on page 227) show varying degrees of publicness across a set of locations in the socio- spatial context of the Bloemfontein campus. These spatial types illustrate how the understanding of (social) space as a (social) product can “change and appropriate” (Lefebvre 1991a:39) the imagination of the higher education experience. Accordingly, it can be argued that the logic and representation of space “in the social and political practice” (Lefebvre 1991a:41) at a higher education institution is central to the political and moral objectives underlying transformation in a democratic society, namely to affirm “the rights of all people... and... the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom” (RSA 1996:5). This view of transformation includes the complex contradictions of everyday social constraints within higher education and its institutions – social constraints that have implications for the “structural conditions that might accelerate, slow down, halt or make impossible social transformation of any depth” (Lange 2014:1). Social transformation, the MTCHE Report (DoE 2008) argues, is at the heart of the transformation project in South African higher education. According to Lefebvre (1991a), social and political practice is “directly lived through... associated images and symbols” (Lefebvre 1991a:39) of a particular space. Accordingly, the focus in this chapter is on investigating the organisation of space through five identified spatial types to show the active and multifaceted characteristics of space as embedded in social and political practice on the Bloemfontein campus. The five spatial types also allow for a revisiting of empirical accounts of the everyday reality on the Bloemfontein campus that emerged from focus groups to show how the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus is understood differently by differently located individuals. It is suggested that understandings of the organisation of space at a higher education institution and understandings and experiences of transformation in higher education are historically and spatially differentiated – not only on an individual level, but also on a societal level. Thus, not only does the higher education context in which official policies for transformation are developed influence the policies, but different historical and spatial realities in society result in different understandings of transformation in higher education. Furthermore, the identified spatial lenses facilitate a review of empirical accounts of everyday experiences in order to support the proposition that the specifics of place have implications for the organisation of space at a higher education institution. This organisation of space, in turn, 228 differently locates different individuals according to markers such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation (see Section 4.5.3 on page 168). This chapter concludes by recasting the everyday reality of individuals at a higher education institution with reference to the project for transformation in higher education to show how the organisation of space at a higher education institution and the understanding of transformation are historically and spatially located. 5.2 SPACE ON THE BLOEMFONTEIN CAMPUS TODAY The development of the Bloemfontein campus over time was not realised as a singular cohesive spatial gesture (see discussion in Chapter Four). The campus developed in response to three key factors: (1) the rise of Afrikaner Nationalism after the Anglo-Boer War, (2) the legalisation and expansion of apartheid under the National Party from the mid- twentieth century, and (3) the transition from apartheid to a modern democratic state at the turn of the twentieth century (Auret 2016; Bottomley 1987; Du Preez 2017, personal interview, 8 March; Fourie 2006; UFS 2006). Today, spatial development on the Bloemfontein campus is tied to a “spatial future [that] begins with an understanding of the status quo: the place, the people, and the social, economic, and environmental forces underlying the trends that are shaping the University’s development” (UFS 2015:3). It can be argued that the spatial growth and development that took place from the start of the transition to democracy in 1994 to date (2018), including the completion of over 24 building and infrastructural projects on the campus, can be seen as a “contradictory mediation between everyday life and social order” (Kipfer, Goonewardena, Schmid & Milgrom 2008:6) in which “‘everyday life’ equates informality and the ‘social order’ formality” (Perold, Donaldson & Devisch 2016:79). It is worth noting that, according to the 2015 Annual Report from Physical Estates (UFS 2015:74), the spatial character of the university is intended to be underpinned by “a new paradigm of adaptability and multi-functionality rather than one of extensions and newly built spaces”. Taking this claim further, it can be suggested that space on the Bloemfontein campus in the post-1994 era is intended to project an image of “wholeness – a continuity that defines its [spatial] character” (Barac 2011:25). Consequently, any attempt to investigate the spatial character of the campus needs to consider “the ‘right things’ through the ‘right lenses’, and [do so] so ethically” (Hentschel & Press 2009:6). 229 The five identified spatial types integrate pure theory and experiential empiricism to show how a critical engagement “through multiple sites and through multiple processes” (Oldfield, Parnell & Mabin 2004:295) can bridge the “existing relations – separations – between abstract processes and concrete life” (Goonewardena 2008:118). This critical engagement contributes to an inclusive practice of research in “the systems governing the immediate and direct relations between individual people” (Lefebvre 2002:210) in the grounded reality on the Bloemfontein campus. 5.2.1. Spatial Types on the Bloemfontein Campus This section of Chapter Five is a further development of the focus in Chapter Four on social activity deployed in space on and around the Bloemfontein campus. In accordance with Hentschel and Press’s (2009) assertion that the researcher needs to consider “the ‘right things’ through the ‘right lenses’, and [do so] so ethically” (p. 6), the spatial types are used as the ‘right lenses’ to “facilitate the contemplation of social, physical and mental space” (Watkins 2005:210) and thereby show how the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus impacts on the understanding and experience of transformation in higher education. In addition, the utilisation of spatial types that “strategically support the wider project of anchoring diverse approaches to shared philosophical objectives” (Barac 2011:26) accommodates different modalities of being (Hentschel & Press 2009) to address the limitations of the adopted qualitative case study methodology presented in Chapter Three. The presented spatial types provide information that forms the basis for constructive critique of the status quo around transformation in higher education. The intention is to shift the “nature of engagement... to open up our understanding” (Oldfield et al. 2004:296) to the importance of the historical and spatial specificities of the context in which a higher education institution is located. It is proposed that, in the critique of the status quo of transformation in higher education in South Africa, “space, place, mapping, and geographical imaginations... [should] become common place topics” (Warf & Arias 2009:xi). The utilisation of spatial types associated with multiple sets of locations and social processes also seeks to move the “distinct, superior, specialised, structured activity” (Lefebvre 2002:210) of debates around space, place, mapping, and geographical imagination related to transformation in higher education towards more productive 230 philosophical and theoretical debate (Barac 2011; Hentschel & Press 2009; Mchunu 2016; Oldfield et al. 2004; Perold et al. 2016; Warf & Arias 2009). Spatial types facilitate the visualisation of “what happened where [in order to] investigate resultant locational relations” (Vis 2014:46) and thereby reveal “the affective qualities and affording particulars that characterise the location and spatial situation in which something occurred” (Vis 2014:46). Furthermore, the utilisation of spatial types demonstrates how “the entanglement of living in the material spatial world over the long term” (Griffiths 2013:154) can provide “a better understanding of the experiential … developed as a social reality” (Vis 2014:47). Thus, the five identified spatial types schematically synthesise multiple social processes in multiple sites, as opposed to presenting “an image of something to be copied or imitated” (Argan 1996:243); they show how the organisation of space as “an artifice [that is] socially determined” (Lathouri 2011:24) also determines the social in a specific context (Lefebvre 1991a; Massey 1993; Zeleza & Kalipeni 1999). The utilisation of spatial types to investigate social activity deployed in space synthesises information to show how various organisational indicators of space at a higher education institution are related to transformation in higher education. The five identified spatial types of movement, living, architecture, food and consumption, and recreation are tested as ‘the right lens’ to expand on the study of ‘the right thing’ – namely social activity deployed in space on and off the Bloemfontein campus. 5.2.1.1 Movement Movement, “the ability of individuals to move in space, although highly variable between species, is a general characteristic of all organisms” (Ims 1995:85). It is universally important for the understanding of any place (Wiens, Stenseth, Van Horne & Ims 1993) and “is a key element of many processes and activities” (Dodge et al. 2008:240). The development of movement as a spatial type is intended to show a schematic understanding of the relationship between movement – pedestrian and vehicular – and the organisation of space; it is not intended to provide a complete inventory of movement routes and patterns on the Bloemfontein campus. The development of movement as a spatial type aims to ground the importance and significance of the organisation of space for initiatives for redress and reform in the reality of movement in the everyday life of individuals on the Bloemfontein campus. 231 Figure 5.1 (page 233) is a graphic representation that shows the mapping of pedestrian and vehicular movement on the Bloemfontein campus. Formal and informal movement routes are indicated in different colours and line types to show key features that generate movement on the campus. These features include: (1) entry points G1, G2, G3, G4, and G5 that service both vehicles and pedestrians; (2) the primary vehicular movement routes on the Bloemfontein campus indicated with a dark-purple colour; (3) the primary pedestrian movement route, the Bannie Britz network of walkways indicated with a mustard colour; (4) formalised pedestrian movement routes indicated with a light-blue colour; (5) the main motorways in close proximity to and cutting through the campus (Nelson Mandela Drive, Wynand Mouton Avenue, and DF Malherbe Drive); (6) arrival points for vehicles indicated by the location pins 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; and (7) arrival points for pedestrians that include bus stops indicated by location pins numbered 8, and the Visitors Centre and the Taxi Rank indicated by location pins 6 and 7. Figure 5.2 (page 234) is a graphic representation that visually documents key spatial characteristics along the vehicular and pedestrian movement routes on the campus. The focus of the documentation is on the hierarchical east-west axis, the spatial characteristics of pedestrian routes (see Figures 5.2a, 5.2b, and 5.2e), seating along pedestrian routes (see Figure 5.2d), and the pedestrian entry point at G5. 232 Figure 5.1: Mapping movement on the Bloemfontein Campus 233 Figure 5.2: A visual overview of movement on the Bloemfontein Campus 234 The following observations were made from the mapping and documentation of movement as a spatial type:  Regulation. Regulation of movement – vehicles and pedestrians that wish to access the campus – is done primarily in two ways. First, there are boom gates present at all five entrances to restrict access of unauthorised vehicles. Any individuals in a vehicle that wish to access the campus must be in possession of university identification (student or staff card), or must identify themselves and their vehicle by presenting their driver’s licence, or similar identification document, and car licence registration disc. Second, pedestrian movement is regulated through body checks, turn-style gates, and surveillance cameras. General perimeter access is regulated through fencing around the entire campus, with additional fortifications to the fencing visible along Nelson Mandela Drive and DF Malherbe Drive.  Pedestrian movement. On the campus, walking allows people to “become part of their terrain; they meet others; they become custodians of their neighbourhoods” (Oldenburg 1999:xiv), and it is the primary mode of movement. The focus group discussions (see quote below by Speaker 14 from focus group F2) revealed how the activity of walking on the Bloemfontein campus is appreciated and is seen as important in the everyday reality of individuals (also see Section 4.5.2.1 in Chapter Four). I like the fact that you can walk everywhere on campus (F2 Speaker 14). Furthermore, the mapping and documentation shows the importance of walking on the campus in three significant ways. First, some walkways are important social spaces in that they create a sense of commons through the use of curated public art works (Amin 2008). For example, the Eduardo Villa sculpture on the Eduardo Villa walkway, the ‘Bull Rider’ by Willie Bester, and the ‘Unity is Power’ sculpture by Noriah Mabasa are all located along walkways. Second, the central campus area defined by the ring road is predominantly vehicle-free. Last, the visible red brick paving that indicates Bannie Britz’s network of walkways reinforces the legibility of space on the Bloemfontein campus by providing direction and orientation for the individual.  Vehicular movement. “[T]he campus is characterized by a large road network” (Britz, cited in Auret & Roodt 2016:82) that divides rather than connects, breaking the campus spatial character. It is worth noting that Bannie Britz’s network of walkways 235 limits the access of vehicles to the core of the campus (see Figure 4.3 on page 130) in an attempt to address this splintering of the campus spatial character.  Walkways. There are both formal and informal walkways on the campus, the majority of which originate from and/or terminate in the core of the campus (see Figure 4.3 on page 130). The formalised walkways, particularly those between buildings, have designated seating for which shade is sometimes provided (see Figures 5.2c and 5.2d on page 234). As discussed in Chapter Four, the most significant formal walkways are those in immediate proximity to the Academic Quad, those in immediate proximity to the Red Square, and the Eduardo Villa walkway that connects the north and south parts of the campus. Though not a walkway, it is worth noting that the Thakaneng Bridge complex functions similarly to a walkway, as it has assumed the position of a thoroughfare between the east and the west parts of the campus (see Figure 4.17 on page 172). The loose network of formal walkways (see Figure 5.1 on page 233) over the large geographical extent of the campus weakens their ability to strengthen concentration of social activity across the campus (Auret & Roodt 2016) and has led to the development of informal walkways as ‘short-cuts’ across landscaped portions of the campus to facilitate a more efficient navigation by pedestrians (see Figure 5.2b on page 234 and the quote below from Speaker 13 in focus group F2, below). Having so many footpaths within the lawn still that is very beautiful and I’m thinking why don’t we have... if we notice that all people are crossing through this lane, maybe we need a footpath around this place so, you know, so we save the grass. … okay so our intention is to keep this grass green and, you know, let’s all walk together around it including the students, because if you don’t make it clear that, you know, you’re trying to put a lot of effort in this, you know, it will be a shortcut and students will use it as a shortcut. I find that very unfortunate (F2 Speaker 13).  Public transport. Formal and informal bus stops are present within the fenced extent of the campus. A taxi rank, owned and developed by the university, falls outside the fenced extent of the campus (see Figure 5.2f on page 234).  Shade. Shade, predominately along pedestrian routes, is provided by trees that are planted along movement routes to be found predominately in the eastern part of the campus (see Figures 5.2a, 5.2b, 5.2c, and 5.2e on page 234). 236 Reflections on movement as a spatial type Pedestrian and vehicular movement differentiates the campus spatially from its context, the city of Bloemfontein, in two main ways. The first method of spatial differentiation is the use of controlled and regulated access points that are intended to serve the interests of a predetermined group of individuals who are expected to carry and produce an acceptable form of identification. The control of access points suggests fortification of the campus boundaries so as “to insulate against perceived risk and unwanted encounters” (Atkinson & Flint 2004:875). The second form of spatial differentiation is the definition of the campus edges by primary vehicular motorways such as Nelson Mandela, Wynand Mouton, and DF Malherbe Drives. The spatial differentiation between the campus and its context – achieved through visibly controlled regulation of access and limited spatial connections, exchanges, and relations between the campus and the city – suggests that there also exists differentiation in the experience of individuals based on how they access the campus. This differentiated experience around access differently locates individuals – for example, pedestrians that access the campus on foot, or drivers and passengers in a vehicle – and influences how they engage with space on the campus. It is worth noting that although access regulation is exercised over all individuals that access the campus, the regulation and control imposed upon pedestrians is significantly greater (see quotes below by Speakers 11 and 12 from focus group F2). Well for me it wouldn’t be about creating a space, but there’s something that still bothers me about just the way the university is in terms of access and in terms of being open. So for me I would actually look at the gate, that’s one place I’m really frustrated about in terms of who can come in, who can’t come in. You forget your student card, you can’t come in [...] and I’ve always talked about this, it’s not sensible how it’s done. If you notice for instance if you’re walking you’ll face a lot more restrictions than if you’re driving, because if I walk with her right now and I have a student card and she doesn’t then that’s a problem. You know, she has to sign in [...] she won’t even be allowed to come in in most cases. You know, you have to go through a long negotiating process to allow her in (F2 Speaker 11). As a visitor or if she has no student card. Even if she’s with me, then [they] say no [...] it’s a problem. But if I’m driving and somebody in the back has [no] student card and we have a minivan of ten people with just [one] student card [...] they [all] get in. You know, ten people without [a student card can] access (F2 Speaker 12). 237 Speakers 11 and 12 from focus group F2 indicated that the control and regulation of pedestrian access points is heightened. This control is addressed directly to the body, suggesting asymmetrical power relations that alienate the body from the space in which it is located (Bourdieu 1989). Furthermore, the strict regulation of pedestrian movement and the limited number of security and access points creates a bottleneck that leads to slow-moving human traffic during peak times. The alienation and inconveniencing of pedestrians are further exacerbated when security and access points are not fully operational (see Figure 5.2f on page 234). The entrances and gateways for movement onto the Bloemfontein campus differently locate taxi commuters and pedestrians versus individuals in private cars. Differently locating different individuals in this way impacts upon their understanding of the organisation of space and consequently on the social activity that is deployed in that space. 5.2.1.2 Living Living, in the context of this study, refers to on-campus housing and accommodation. The development of living as a spatial type is intended to show a schematic understanding of the relationship between living and the organisation of space; it is not intended to provide a complete inventory of housing and accommodation on the Bloemfontein campus. The development of living as a spatial type aims to ground the importance and significance of the organisation of space for initiatives for redress and reform in the reality of habitation in the everyday life of individuals on the Bloemfontein campus. Figure 5.3 (page 240) is a graphic representation that shows the mapping of housing and accommodation on the Bloemfontein campus. Housing and accommodation on the Bloemfontein campus falls into three groupings. Firstly, there is student housing that is differentiated by gender into three categories: (a) co-ed residences that accommodate both male and female students and which predominately cater for postgraduate students, indicated by red location pins; (b) female residences that exclusively cater for female students, indicated by green location pins; and (c) male residences that cater exclusively for male students, indicated by dark-purple location pins. Secondly, there is staff housing predominately for those staff members that are appointed to oversee student residences. Lastly, there is the Kovsie Inn32, which offers short- and medium-term accommodation for 32 The Kovsie Inn offers paid guest accommodation and operates like a guesthouse for staff, students, and visitors to the campus. The facilities are independently run by service provides, although the Kovsie Inn is located on the campus grounds. 238 staff and senior students at the UFS. The Kovsie Inn also caters to individuals who are not affiliated with the UFS, but have conduct business, academic, or administrative dealings with the university. Figure 5.4 (page 241) is a graphic representation that visually documents key spatial characteristics for living on the Bloemfontein campus. The focus of the documentation is on: the gazellies (see Figures 5.4b and 5.4c); entrances to residences (see Figures 5.4e and 5.4f); and spaces outside of the residences that have been allocated for social activity – usually adjacent to a parking lot (see Figures 5.4a and 5.4g). 239 Figure 5.3: Mapping living on the Bloemfontein Campus 240 Figure 5.4: A visual overview of living on the Bloemfontein Campus 241 The following observations were made from the mapping and documentation of living as a spatial type:  The location of the individual, whether they live on campus or off campus, determines their allocation by the department of Housing and Residence Affairs to a residence.  The residences fall into two broad categories. The first category consists of full-term residences that are made up of (a) Junior residences, where “great traditions” are encouraged and developed to “make a considerable contribution to the colourful campus life” (UFS 2016b:1); and (b) Senior residences for housing predominantly postgraduate and senior students, and junior academic staff, which are “more individualistic, and much fewer activities are presented” (UFS 2016b:1) there. The second category consists of day residences “with no accommodation units” (UFS 2016b:2) that are “not a building, but consist of residents who live off campus, in private homes, student houses, townhouses, flats, rooms” (UFS 2016b:2) and any other form of privately organised housing. Day residences are aimed at students who do not live on the campus and provide them with the opportunity “to participate in organised student activities” and “to develop as total or balanced persons through participation in academic and non-academic activities” (UFS 2016b:2).  The residences are arranged in three clusters. The northeast cluster, the south- central cluster, and the west cluster make up the majority of housing on the campus (UFS 2016a, 2016b).  Access to a residence is regulated and limited to only those students that have been assigned to that residence.  Residences are segregated by gender, with the exception of ConLaurês and Outeniqua, which are junior residences. It has been suggested that, in addition to the official gender segregation, there was, and to some extent still is, a racial bias when students are allocated to a residence (Githaiga, Gobodo-Madikizela & Wahl 2017; van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016). For example, the Kyalami residence is populated by predominantly black male students and Soetdoring by predominately white female students.  As shown in Section 4.5.2.1 (page 144), each residence is an organised and allocated space called a gazellie that is a common room exclusively for residents and for activities organised by the residence head, prime, and committee. The head 242 is a university staff member placed in a supervisory and mentorship role in the residence, the prime is an elected student that is part of the residence, and the Residence Committee consists of elected students holding various portfolios. The gazellies are intended to encourage participation in academic and non-academic activities on the campus (UFS 2016a, 2016b). The gazellies are used as introductory spaces to the residence and provide the opportunity for social processes and relations between the residents. Access for non-residents to these spaces is strictly controlled.  The gazellie spaces in the residences in the west cluster, which are predominantly full-term residences, are not integrated into the residence building. These gazellies stand independent from the building and are accessed separately.  The gazellies do not feed into the formal pedestrian movement routes, including the Bannie Britz network of walkways. The gazellies in the northeast and south-central cluster are located inside the residence buildings and any non-resident would need to access the residence first before entering the space. The gazellie in the west cluster is separate from the residence building and located adjacent to the parking lot. Reflections on living as a spatial type The UFS department of Housing and Residence Affairs aims to promote great traditions that encourage participation in academic and non-academic activities (UFS 2016b) and that positively contribute to the colourful social life on campus. However, the criteria that differently locate individuals based on gender, residence cluster, and whether the student lives on or off campus, detract from a collective and shared understanding of the social and spatial character of the Bloemfontein campus (Mumford 1938). The consequent socio- spatial differentiation – which does not “provide for the diverse and complex interplay of past and future, subjective and objective life, the city and the country, the universal and the particular, life and death” (Hill 1985:411) – is both perpetuated and revealed by the manner in which the living space is organised. The aforementioned forms of differentiation, evident in the data gathered around the organisation of living space, negatively impact on the ability of differently located individuals to engage in shared social activity with other individuals on the campus that are not of the 243 same gender, race, residence cluster, or location. The focus group data (see, for example, quotes by Speakers 1, 2, and 6 from focus group F2 and by Speaker 12 from focus group F4) suggest that although the official intention is to foster social interaction and integration on the Bloemfontein campus, the differentiation based on the criteria of gender, residence cluster, and whether the student lives on or off campus, limit the diversity of social activity in the gazellies. This limitation of social activity, it can be argued, reinforces socio-cultural differences and shows how hegemonic structures are maintained and legitimised on the Bloemfontein campus (van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016). In this way social interaction and integration are hindered by the continuation of outdated traditions and customs that are not relevant in a rapidly changing society. My gazellie for me, it’s a nice place but... and it is diverse just because of what type of residence it is, but it’s the same people every single day (F4 Speaker 12). For me I think campus is very... or student life is very residence based. So after four if you live in a residence that’s the space you would go to. If you’re an off-campus student and … belong to a day residence that’s where you’d go to, but for the other students as far as I’m concerned they’re not very active after classes if they don’t form part of a residence so they just leave campus (F2 Speaker 1). Although I’m an off-campus student I form part of a day residence. Well basically the structure is supposed to be the same as a normal campus residence expect we don’t have sleeping space. So we have what we call a gazellie, which is like a social area, an academic room, a kitchen, bathrooms and the committee room as well … but it’s not open 24/7… [but] if we have events it will also be open, so for me that’s my social space on campus (F2 Speaker 2). [T]here’s also this kind of mentality especially within Housing and Residence Affairs … that certain requirements are expected from students such as you need to study hard, females don’t drink and you dress well, males are gentlemen and so forth (F2 Speaker 6). 5.2.1.3 Architecture Architecture as a spatial lens in the context of this study shows how inhabited, built, and imagined spaces symbolically show the progression of thought in a society (Hillier 1996; Hillier & Hanson 1984; Psarra 2009, 2010). This lens “focuses on how architecture is conceptualised through theories and formal relations” (Psarra 2010:18) and is “not confined to the study of evolution of forms” (Psarra 2009:244). Architecture, it is suggested, reflects historic and spatial context-related factors and shows how the organisational indicators that define the architecture can reveal knowledge and understanding of the space, time, and material memory in a specific place. These organisational indicators, made visible in the 244 architecture, are grounded in the spatial character of a place and show how the conception and realisation of built form as a material entity constructs and is in turn constructed by the lived everyday experience in that space. The development of architecture as a spatial type is intended to show a schematic understanding of the relationship between architecture and the organisation of space; it is not intended to provide a complete inventory of the built environment on the Bloemfontein campus. Furthermore, architecture as a spatial type aims to ground the importance of the organisation of space for initiatives for redress and reform within the reality of the container for social activity that is the everyday life of individuals on the Bloemfontein campus. Figure 5.5 (page 246) is a graphic representation that shows the mapping of architecture on the Bloemfontein campus. The focus of this representation, which refers to arguments presented in Section 4.3 of Chapter Four, is on those buildings that house academic activities and those that house support services for academic activities on the Bloemfontein campus. For example, the SASOL Library and the computer labs; the academic and administrative buildings that define the boundaries of the Red Square, including the Main Building and the Johannes Brill postgraduate building; the buildings that define the boundaries of the Academic Quad, including the Agriculture and Physics buildings; and the buildings designed to primarily accommodate lecture halls and events, such as the Callie Human and the Examinations buildings. Figures 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8 (pages 247 to 249) are graphic representations that visually document key spatial characteristics of the architecture and built form that narrate the story of the Bloemfontein campus’s development over time (as presented in Section 4.3 on page 127). The visual documentation of architecture focuses on the exterior of the buildings to place emphasis on the built form, which is most visible and often the first point of engagement with space for individuals in their everyday experience on the Bloemfontein campus. The interiors of buildings present another layer of understanding around the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus that falls beyond the scope of the present study. 245 Figure 5.5: Mapping architecture on the Bloemfontein Campus 246 Figure 5.6: A visual overview of architecture on the Bloemfontein Campus (1) 247 Figure 5.7: A visual overview of architecture on the Bloemfontein Campus (2) 248 Figure 5.8: A visual overview of architecture on the Bloemfontein Campus (3) 249 The following observations were made from the mapping and documentation of architecture as a spatial type:  The buildings with historical architectural significance are located around the Red Square and the configurations of entrance, edge, and threshold in this space attempt to emulate Jefferson’s ideals of an academic village as “an intellectually free society” (Vickery 1998:11) in which urbane living and learning are the norm (see Figures 5.7 and 5.8 on pages 248 and 249).  The employment of architectural elements such as canopies, overhangs, and ‘stoeps’ (verandas or porches) that contribute to the definition of spatial form and order (Ching 2007) are clearly visible, particularly in those buildings that are located in the core area of the campus. Examples include the Department of Geography and Office of the Dean, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Sciences (see Figures 5.6 and 5.7 on pages 247 and 248).  The architectural image and value of its buildings, and the spatial development of the built environment, is a source of pride for the inhabitants of the campus (see quote from Speaker 14 in focus group F2 below). It’s a very beautiful campus … if you drive around that circle and you just look to your right it’s beautiful to see (F2 Speaker 14).  The names of buildings on the campus predominately reflect male Afrikaner heroes, and “apparently innocent or neutral but still Afrikaans names of trees” (van der Westhuizen, Labuschagne & Kekana 2016:84) and flowers (see quote from Speaker 21 in focus group F1, below). The over-representation of one socio-cultural group does not adequately align itself to the official policy for transformation in higher education that is aimed at equal and democratic representations, particularly of previously marginalised groups such as women and black Africans (DoE 1997). They might see campus differently because again, another thing with this campus whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, it speaks more to white students [Afrikaners] more than it does to black students. So they have a much more bigger sense of ownership around spaces like the amphitheatre, you [inaudible]. You know, they have a bit more ownership about it and perhaps we could also talk about the culture. We could talk about the namings. We could talk about the architecture. We can talk about a lot of things that speaks to them as opposed to a lot of what the majority of students would like (F1 Speaker 21). 250  Specific buildings are important for social activity on the Bloemfontein campus. These buildings are: a. The Bridge, a key feature in the spatial strategy for transition presented in Section 4.4 (page 131), is intended to offer “well-defined outdoor and spacious indoor areas” (Joubert 2009:238). It accommodates the majority of retail activity on the campus and sits off-centre of the hierarchical east-west axis of the city. b. The Main Building, which in historic and contemporary terms is significant on the campus in its symbolic representation of the ideals of the campus and the university. c. The SASOL Library – the first building in the Free State to receive an Award of Merit from the South African Architectural Association (SAIA) – is the academic heart of the campus. It is a place where knowledge is preserved, generated, and advanced. Its east and west entrances align with the city’s hierarchical east-west axis. d. The computer labs, sitting adjacent to (north of) the SASOL Library, are bustling with social activity, since the majority of students do not have access to a personal computer and therefore make use of this facility. The covered forecourt adjacent to the entrance, where access is regulated, is home to a sculpture by Noriah Mabasa – ‘Unity is Power’. In its reinforcement of a sense of commons, this space encourages social processes and relations between individuals based on gathering, pause, waiting, and in some instances, the consumption of food. e. The Reitz residence was the location of the infamous Reitz video, which highlighted race and racism as central to the transformation debate on the campus (DoE 2008; van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016). This low-scale building complex has been repurposed to house the Transformation Desk (an arm of the IRSJ) and students participating in the Black Business Forum Skills Development Programme. Reflections on architecture as a spatial type The over-representation of a single group, predominately the male Afrikaner, that is evident in the names of buildings and the commemorative statues on the Bloemfontein campus can generate a sense of alienation for those individuals that are not part of this socio-cultural 251 group (van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016; van der Westhuizen et al. 2016). Consequently, the architecture on the campus generates a sense of ‘othering’ that negatively impacts on the experience of the Bloemfontein campus as an inclusive, democratic social space (see quotes by Speaker 30 and Speaker 31 from focus group F1). It is suggested that the othering of individuals whose identity, culture, and language is under-represented in the symbols and signs on the campus sits at the core of the concerns raised around access and alienation in the 2015 and 2016 student movements (Habib 2016; Jacobs 2016; van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016). The issues around access to and alienation from the space of higher education during the 2015 and 2016 student movements on the Bloemfontein campus (see Figures 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 on pages 22 to 25) were physically and visually brought to the fore by the efforts of black students to “dismantle the [CR Swart] statue” (van der Westhuizen et al. 2016:55–56) and to ‘re-label’ various buildings and objects in space (for example, trees) with graffiti (as shown in Figures 1.1c and 1.1e on page 22 and Figure 1.3d on page 24 in Chapter One). The 2015 and 2016 student activists attempted to convey a key message that there is a need to have women – in particular black women – and African heroes who fought against colonialism and apartheid represented in the space on the Bloemfontein campus. Re-naming buildings and introducing symbols and signs that celebrate the achievements of black women and African heroes (van der Merwe 2017; van der Westhuizen et al. 2016) in a space that largely supports white hegemonic culture and practices (van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016) can be seen as introducing diversity so as to move the institutional practice and space on the campus closer to achieving the goal of social cohesion that sits at the heart of transformation in higher education. It is worth noting that at the time of finalising this research endeavour, the Institutional Forum (IF) and the Transformation Desk at the IRSJ were in the process of consulting and engaging with students to address concerns around architecture types, symbols, and signs on the campus; the aim is to facilitate inclusion and allow for equitable representation in the space on the Bloemfontein campus. When I come through the doors, that gate doesn't mean... Whatever gate number four, or whatever that is, is on a black gate or it's on a white gate. It just feels like the opportunities we've got, these really entrenched patterns of use, are not being used effectively to deal with the race issue. So I mean, when you come through the campus doors, you're not seen as a [inaudible]. Like the apartheid museum in Jo’burg [Johannesburg] where you've got a black pass or a white pass. Because literally, if I go through that gate, guess what? I'm pretty much black. I'm going to my township (F1 Speaker 30). 252 But you know, that was intentional, because apparently the taxi rank used to be on campus. It was here! It used to be right there. Next to the administration building. Mabasa [...] Right there, that space. And now they're actually fencing it right up. So you see, that in itself was... under the disguise of development and all that stuff (F1 Speaker 31). Space is used as a tool to keep certain things in place. … You're coming in here and you're not leaving a more conscious person. You're becoming more conscious in another way. You become radicalised in a different way (F1 Speaker 32). The research data (such as the above feedback from focus group F1 by Speakers 30, 31, and 32) reveal the regulatory nature of architecture and the built environment on the Bloemfontein campus – how these differentiate between social groups based predominately on race and class and how this locates individuals in a hierarchical social order that can limit the effectiveness of initiatives for transformation in higher education. It can thus be argued that the architecture on the Bloemfontein campus reinforces differentiation between different and differently located individuals, as shown in the spatial type of movement in Section 5.2.1.1 of this chapter. An example of the impact of the regulatory nature of the built environment is the Xerox Shimla Park stadium, the site for violent confrontations between spectators and protesting students and outsourced workers in 2016. The perception of the Xerox Shimla Park as an Afrikaans space for Afrikaners and Afrikaans sport (rugby), it can be argued, contributed to the incident that negatively impacted on the implementation of policy for transformation that seeks to create and support epistemological change and social cohesion to address the separatist legacy of apartheid on the Bloemfontein campus (van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016; van der Westhuizen et al. 2016). The regulatory nature of architecture and the built environment on the Bloemfontein campus can, however, also positively contribute to the safety of individuals that are vulnerable and who often feel marginalised. This positive role is described below by Speaker 4 from focus group F2. Okay, just a little but I feel like the campus life only is much more... it’s accommodating for me than outside. I feel at peace, I feel safe around campus to do whatever I want. And one thing I’m a gay person, I’m gay. I cannot do what I do on campus outside, so yes I disagree. This space is very much accommodating … on campus and this is interesting, is it a commentary on the city at large that the city has doesn’t accommodate for that means this becomes a safe place to, for your subcultures to find... not be threatened (F2 Speaker 4). 253 The regulation and monitoring positively positions the Bloemfontein campus in the broader city of Bloemfontein as a ‘safe space’ for those who would otherwise be marginalised in the broader society (Lake 2017). 5.2.1.4 Food and consumption Oldenburg (1999:xii) argues that social public life is found in “great good places” that are at the heart of “various building functions”. Great good places are described by Oldenburg as those spaces found in any community that encourage social processes and relations between individuals through the acts of walking and talking – for example, streets that are lined with hair salons, cafés, and so forth. Walking and talking allow individuals to get to “know one another; they find and create their common interests and realise the collective abilities essential to community and democracy” (Oldenburg 1999:xiv). The development of food and consumption as a spatial type is intended to show a schematic understanding of the relationship between food and consumption and the organisation of space; it is not intended to provide a complete inventory of food and consumption on the Bloemfontein campus. The development of food and consumption as a spatial type aims to ground the importance and significance of the organisation of space for initiatives for redress and reform in the reality of social activity in the everyday life of individuals on the Bloemfontein campus. Figure 5.9 (page 257) is a graphic representation that shows where the concentration of buying, selling, and consumption of food takes place on the Bloemfontein campus. The mapping in Figure 5.9 and the graphic representation that visually documents key spatial characteristics for food and consumption on the Bloemfontein campus in Figure 5.10 (page 258), focus on: cafés, coffee shops, a bar, hair salons, and other hangouts that can be found at the Bridge; the Roosmaryn residence (a junior female residence); and the Medical Faculty building. The following observations were made from the mapping and documentation of food and consumption as a spatial type:  Great good places on the Bloemfontein campus are predominately based on the consumption, buying, and selling of food (see Figures 5.10a, 5.10b, 5.10c, and 5.10e on page 258). 254  The vendors who sell food – mostly pre-prepared or pre-packaged for immediate consumption – are predominately located at the Bridge. The two exceptions are the Food Zone, a retail café that also sells items not related to food (for example, cleaning products); and Pimento, a coffee shop that is located between the Bridge and the SASOL Library, which caters exclusively for staff, senior students, and guests (in a senior capacity) to the university.  Roosmaryn residence (see Figure 5.10g on page 258) and the Medical Faculty building each house a cafeteria. Due to regulation at the Medical cafeteria, visual documentation of this space was not possible, however.  Although the sale and consumption of alcohol is prohibited on the Bloemfontein campus, Traumerei restaurant and the Food Zone (see Figure 5.10a on page 258) sell liquor. It is suggested that the official policy that regulates the Bloemfontein campus as a ‘dry campus’ is somewhat flexible. It can be argued that the ‘dryness’ of the campus constrains social activity and limits the diversity of great good places (see quotes below by Speakers 10, 11, 12, 13, 25, and 26 from focus group F4). We have a decent cafeteria [Roosmaryn]. It would be nice to have something like that closer too, because I don’t want to walk all the way to that side (F4 Speaker 10). You walk into that place [the Medical Faculty cafeteria] and not be a medical student... (F4 Speaker 11). Yes, the looks you get. You get stared at... (F4 Speaker 12). Yes, you get judged (F4 Speaker 13). People go sit by Traumerei and get sloshed and then go to class wasted, walk around with beer goggles the whole day … People are so unaware, like you can, do people actually know that you can buy liquor at 7 Eleven [the Food Zone]. You can buy alcohol there (F4 Speaker 25). No, you can’t drink on campus but you can buy. You can’t have alcohol on campus I think, but Food Zone they’re selling alcohol. There’s like a whole wine section. If you buy and walk and you get caught with that, then you like no but I bought it on campus (F4 Speaker 26).  There is an absence of healthy food options, as the majority of vendors are either corporate or private entities that specialise in the selling of ‘fast food’.  The concentration of great good places at the Bridge has led to overcrowding in the space, particularly during peak times (see quotes from Speakers 34 and 35, focus group F1). 255  The Roosmaryn and Medical Faculty cafeterias are approximately 10 to 15 minutes’ walk, respectively, from the Bridge (see Figure 5.9 on page 257). Reflections on food and consumption as a spatial type The concentration of great good places at the Bridge limits unregulated social activity on the Bloemfontein campus to this space and does not adequately encourage a variety of social processes and relations that could be had between individuals in different spaces on the Bloemfontein campus (see quote below by Speaker 34 from focus group F1). And there’s no variety. It’s expensive. I only go in groups. I don’t individually go there. Only when I’m rolling with a couple of friends, then we’ll go and buy food at the Bridge. And then we’ll soon quickly leave the Bridge because the Bridge is an annoying place to be. The fact that it’s so small, it gets really loud and, you know, you can’t really hear yourself think. And the most annoying thing is people standing greet each other (F1 Speaker 34). The limitation of great good places shown in the above discussions from focus groups F4 and F1 suggests that the social activity occurring around great good places is unevenly spread across the campus and is somewhat limited by the ‘dryness’ of the campus. The quotes above also suggest that the locations of two additional venues for the buying and consumption of food, namely the cafeterias in Roosmaryn residence (in the furthest of the northeast cluster of residences) and the Medical Faculty, are seen as inconvenient to access. Furthermore, the exclusionary practice at Pimento that differently locates different individuals based on their status as a staff member or a student (students are not allowed in Pimento) negatively impacts on the diversity and extent of social activity to be found in great good places on the Bloemfontein campus in general and at the Bridge in particular. 256 Figure 5.9: Mapping food and consumption on the Bloemfontein Campus 257 Figure 5.10: A visual overview of food and consumption on the Bloemfontein Campus 258 5.2.1.5 Recreation Sport as a form of recreation is “a very prominent social institution in almost every society because it combines the characteristics found in any institution with a unique appeal only duplicated by, perhaps, religion” (Frey & Eitzen 1991:503). The significance and the sense of place in the context of the city of Bloemfontein (presented in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 in Chapter Four) suggest that recreation is an important aspect of social activity in the everyday reality of individuals on the Bloemfontein campus. Recreation is predominantly based on formal and informal sporting activities, thus the development of recreation as a spatial type is intended to show a schematic understanding of the relationship between sports-based recreation and the organisation of space. This spatial type is not, however, intended to provide a complete inventory of all the sports-based recreational activities on the Bloemfontein campus. Figure 5.11 (page 261) is a graphic representation that shows the locations of sports and recreation activities on the Bloemfontein campus. This figure is grounded in the analysis of the spatial strategy implemented on campus during the transition from apartheid to democracy (discussed in Section 4.4 on page 131). Buildings and spaces designated for recreation and sporting activities, including the Jolkol and Callie Human hall, are shown on Figure 5.11 by the red location pins 2, 4, 5, 5, 7, 8, and 9. Also shown are the locations of formal and informal spaces for sports activities, with the former indicated by green location pins 1, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, and the latter by blue location pin 14. Figure 5.12 (page 262) is a graphic representation that visually documents key spatial characteristics for recreation and sporting activities on the Bloemfontein campus. The focus of the documentation is the settings for recreation and sporting activities. The following observations were made from the mapping and documentation of recreation as a spatial type:  Figure 5.11 (page 261) shows how the majority of formal sports activity locations are in the western part of the campus, namely six tennis courts, a cricket pitch, the Xerox Shimla Park rugby stadium, and the Jolkol – all with dedicated infrastructure to accommodate sports and sporting events. Formal sporting areas – basketball, netball, badminton, and squash courts – can also be found west of Kovsie Health 259 and Pellies Park (an open-air grassed sports field which supports primarily athletics, soccer, and rugby).  The formal sports precinct is fenced, and access to this precinct is regulated (see Figures 5.12e and 5.12f on page 262).  Informal soccer and rugby activities can be found immediately east of Kovsie Health (see Figure 5.12b on page 262) and immediately west of Villa Bravado residence. It is worth noting that the makeshift soccer pitch west of Villa Bravado residence has, since the completion of data collection in this research endeavour, been fenced off. Access to this space is limited to those individuals that are members of the Villa Bravado residence.  Signage that provides directions for runners and walkers can be seen on the Bloemfontein campus. It is suggested that running and walking are important sporting activities on campus. It is worth noting that Wayde van Niekerk, the 2014 Olympic gold medallist in the 400-metre sprint, was a student on the Bloemfontein campus.  A private facility, the Lindsay Saker swimming pool, is located in the southeast part of the campus (see Figure 5.12d on page 262). The privatised swimming pool complex is leased to the Bloemfontein Lindsay Saker motor dealership in a sponsorship agreement with the UFS. 33  Kovsie Kerk is a church building located in the northwest part of the campus. It is also a recreation venue that is often utilised to host music concerts, and it doubles up as a lecture hall. Other venues that host recreational activities on the campus are the Callie Human hall, the Centenary Complex, and the Odeion music hall. 33 Kovsie Kerk features on social media sites like Foursquare and What’s On as a social space and concert hall. 260 Figure 5.11: Mapping recreation on the Bloemfontein Campus 261 Figure 5.12: A visual overview of recreation on the Bloemfontein Campus 262 Reflections on recreation as a spatial type Recreation, which is mostly focused on sporting activities, is an important social activity on the Bloemfontein campus. The regulation and limiting of access to sporting facilities on the Bloemfontein campus negatively impact on the diversity and extent of social activity generated by sporting activities on the Bloemfontein campus (as shown below by quotes from Speakers 9 and 10 in focus group F2). So when yesterday we saw down here students playing football near the Odeion. It’s near the Odeion (F2 Speaker 9). I think it’s easier to use informal spaces like those because the formal spaces they will tell you it’s only the university team that can use them and then you have to book them. Yes, what happened last year we tried to sort of engage as, you know, post grads to sort of play football there and we’d be thrown out. We’d be told we have to book the playing fields and, you know, request for permission and so we couldn’t use and there were like four or five fields. We couldn’t just come as a group of 10/15 people and use one of the fields when it’s empty because you have to ask for it, you know, and things like that. It was very confusing but I was very disappointed that some places as simple as those can’t even be open to students as well, you know (F2 Speaker 10). Van der Westhuizen et al. (2016) suggest that the aforementioned sense of the control and regulation of spaces for social activity centred on recreation contributed to defining moment of the 2016 student social movement on the Bloemfontein campus, namely the altercation which occurred at the Xerox Shimla Park. This incident happened on a sports field and was allegedly the result of limited responses by university management to the victimisation of predominantly black African student activists and to the campaign to stop outsourcing of cleaning and garden services on campus. This resistance in the form of an act of disruption and aggression raised questions around how spaces for recreation on university campuses are still perceived to embody a form of domination that has leaked through from South Africa’s malignant past (Msimang 2016; Nauright 1997; van der Westhuizen et al. 2016). The choice to enact resistance on a rugby field34 grounds the claim that spaces for recreation and sport need to be considered in initiatives for redress and reform aimed at holistic transformation in higher education. 34 Norman Middleton, President of SACOS (the South African Council on Sport) at that time, stated the following in the Daily News of 2 September 1976 in response to the international ban on South African rugby: It has to be realised that to genuine Afrikaners – the NP substantially Afrikaner from top to bottom – rugby of all sports has a mystical significance and importance. I don’t think that the Government could care less about such sports as cricket and soccer. They don’t really mean much to the true Afrikaner. Therefore, the expulsion of the country from international competition in these sports doesn’t mean too much. But RUGBY IS DIFFERENT. RUGBY IS THE AFRIKANER’S SECOND RELIGION (Middleton, cited in Nauright 1997:148; emphasis in original). 263 5.3 CONCLUSION: SPATIALITY AND TRANSFORMATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION In exploring the everyday experiences of individuals on the Bloemfontein campus, this chapter illustrates a number of aspects around the importance and significance of space at a higher education institution for transformation in higher education. It demonstrates how the space at a higher education institution, in a specific historical and spatial context, is differently imagined. Two broad competing understandings of the impact of space are evident – those underlying the regulations that govern social activity on the Bloemfontein campus, and those seen in the empirical evidence gathered from those whose social activity is regulated on the Bloemfontein campus. While the chapter demonstrates how the organisation of space and its impact on social activity can be understood through five key elements, the discussion of these elements as spatial types crystallises three broad and significant aspects of the experience of transformation on the Bloemfontein campus. The first significant aspect related to transformation is that the understandings of initiatives for redress and reform at a higher education institution are differentiated. The empirical evidence shows how differentiated understandings of initiatives for transformation in higher education are located in and bound by the regulation and monitoring of social activity that is deployed in the space on the Bloemfontein campus. Feedback from participants (see, for example, the quotes from F1 Speaker 1 and F3 Speaker 4) suggests a failure to adequately translate the transformation agenda into spatial organisation that supports social cohesion on the Bloemfontein campus; yet, official policy affirms that social interaction and integration are central to transformation. Furthermore, a reading of the data from the focus groups suggests that the regulation and monitoring of social activity is limiting for diversity of social activity on the Bloemfontein campus (see quotes below from focus group F1 by Speaker 1, F3 by Speaker 4, and F4 by Speaker 26). It became this very dry campus where all of a sudden there’s no space to socialise. I left Johannesburg for here. When I came back, I found it more difficult to be here.... I don’t know what it means to socialise on this campus. So it’s a very complex space and honestly speaking, I don’t know what it means to socialise on this campus (F1 Speaker 1). If there were spaces that could facilitate talking, then that would be really great. But it's just not happening and I think also this university's policies, they don't really like students to congregate because they think something's going to happen. So if there's a very large congregation of people... then... too much monitoring (F3 Speaker 4). 264 We are an alcohol-free, it’s easy for him to say [the Rector Prof. Jonathan Jansen], just ban it as a thing, we are an alcohol-free, hubbly-free, marijuana-free university. It’s not actually like that, he just wants the public to think that, it’s like the universities own, it’s also part of his own personal beliefs, like they don’t believe in drinking liquor and they don’t understand why people smoke hubbly and they don’t want to do this (F4 Speaker 26). Although the regulation and monitoring of social activity does have pragmatic and strategic benefits and fulfils certain safety and security objectives (UFS n.d.), the resultant restriction of social interaction has adverse implications for social cohesion aspirations on the Bloemfontein campus. The second significant aspect related to transformation that emerged from the discussion in this chapter is the differential inclusion and exclusion enforced within space on the campus. One example of this is the privatisation of the swimming pool complex and regulation of access to it (referred to in Section 4.5 on page 134 and shown below in the quotes focus group F1 by Speaker 34 in focus group F1 and Speaker 11 in focus group F4). The data from the focus groups suggest that official permission must be obtained by any student or staff member who wishes to access the swimming pool complex, which was previously a popular place for social activity that positively contributed to social interaction and integration. I was a member in my second year. But it’s also stupid. There’s no point really in being a member anyways because most of the time it’s getting used by the swim team and then they won’t even let you in there. And in the off times, they don’t want to let you use it. And it gets extremely hot here so, it would be nice to actually be able to use the pool (F4 Speaker 11). With tears in my eyes, I say the swimming pool was that place [social space]. Any age, any race, any colour. Everyone was there, the blacks on the shallow side. People all sitting on the grass lawn, snacking or whatever they were doing. That was a really nice [social] space (F1 Speaker 34). The data suggest that regulation and monitoring of space on the Bloemfontein campus includes in and excludes from social spaces different and differently located individuals, thereby fostering a sense of alienation in those individuals that do not have access to regulated social and physical spaces. The structural regulation and control of spaces that were previously open and accessible can be experienced by excluded individuals as the institution not giving “full recognition to the existence of autonomous others” (Massey 2006:50) Massey (2006) argues that inclusion in and exclusion from (social) space does not allow for the recognition of the autonomous other in a “contemporaneous coexistence” and 265 involves “power-filled relations and interdependencies” (pp. 50–51). Thus, in the socio- spatial context of South Africa generally and of the Bloemfontein campus specifically, differentiation based on inclusion in and exclusion from social space – shown generally in the identified spatial types and specifically in the movement and recreation spatial types – negatively impacts on meaningful redress and reform in the social agenda of transformation in higher education. The third significant aspect of transformation emerging from the discussion in this chapter is that space on the Bloemfontein campus differently locates different individuals. Differentiation between individuals predominantly occurs in three ways: (1) Social positioning and order. This relates to, for example, the exclusion from spaces such as Pimento based on whether the individual is an academic staff member or not. Such exclusion does not foster a culture of inclusive social interaction and integration between different and differently located individuals on the campus. (2) Gender. This is a key consideration of the department of Housing and Residence Affairs when allocating students to a residence. The empirical evidence gathered in this study points to race as an additional consideration in the allocation of residences. While official university policy from Housing and Residence Affairs (UFS 2016b) indicates that race is not a criterion considered in residence allocation on the Bloemfontein campus, it has been found that there is tendency to cluster students along racial lines in residences (van der Merwe & van Reenen 2016; van der Westhuizen et al. 2016). (3) Socio-economic circumstances. This is illustrated in the differentiated everyday experiences of access to the campus by those students who have motor vehicles and those that utilise public transport. The research evidence shows that different experiences related to accessing a higher education institution as a geographical space impact on individuals’ understanding of transformation in higher education generally in South Africa and on the Bloemfontein campus in particular. As a result of the aforementioned forms of differentiation, transformation in higher education means different things for differently located individuals. In the development of institutional practices on the Bloemfontein campus, competing views of differently located individuals influence their experience and understanding of transformation in higher education. Considering the centrality of higher education in the development of society, it can be argued that, in the context of South Africa’s legacy of legislated exclusions, the 266 differentiation of experience between different individuals around access to space at higher education institutions is problematic and can negatively impact on the transformation project. The grounded empirical understanding of transformation in higher education proposed here suggests a different approach to this concept than the status quo of prevailing contemporary discourse. The proposition that there are no unitary understandings of transformation in higher education, but rather multiple located understandings, questions the normative debates around transformation in order to destabilise the notion that a singular policy can bring about reform and redress in multiple and diverse contexts. Unlike the prevailing status quo in higher education, the contextualisation of institutional practice made visible in the social activity deployed in space at a higher education institution aims to bring to fruition a negotiated position on transformation. This position recognises the specific context-related historical and spatial factors that impact on the understanding of the organisation of space at a higher institution and how this in turn has an effect on the experience and understanding of transformation in higher education. Nevertheless, the negotiation of a shared and collective project towards transformation in higher education is simultaneously sought. That is to say, a shared understanding of transformation is seen as possible, but with the expressed proviso that a particular rendition thereof is seen as temporary until it is located in the historic and spatial realities that produce space and in turn are produced by space within a specific society and context. This discussion demonstrates the significance and importance of space at a higher education institution for transformation in higher education. The case utilised in the adopted case study methodology, the Bloemfontein campus, shows how the conceptualisation and space as a social product encompasses multiple and diverse theoretical principles that can contribute to holistic and meaningful transformation in higher education. The investigation into the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus provides insights that allow for an expression of transformation that is intimately linked to and navigates between differentiated understandings of this concept in higher education. Thus, not only are understandings of transformation in higher education located, differentiated, contested, and bounded by historical and spatial factors in a specific context, but they are also shaped by the manner in which space at a higher education institution is organised. Furthermore, the utilisation of spatial types based on the analytical guidelines of the conceptual framework presented in Chapter Two (see Section 2.4.2.1 on page 79) grounds the investigative focus. 267 The aim of such grounding is to gain a better understanding of social activity deployed in space at a higher education institution and to show how this heightens awareness of the implications of the reality of everyday social cohesion that sits at the heart of transformation. The concluding chapter of this thesis reflects upon some of the main processes in and implications of the study as a whole. It also considers some of the questions that remain unanswered and that could be profitably addressed in the future. 268 CHAPTER SIX – SPACE AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: TOWARDS A HOLISTIC UNDERSTANDING OF TRANSFORMATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION 6.1 INTRODUCTION The broad aim of this research has been to make the case for space as central and fundamental to more holistic transformation in higher education in post-1994 South Africa. The relationship between the organisation of space at a higher education institution and the higher education experience has been the substantive focus of this thesis. The thesis investigated the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus of the University of the Free State in order to present and argue the merits of a spatially informed engagement with transformation in higher education. It is argued that the space in which higher education institutions and individuals’ experiences at these institutions are located is a neglected dimension that needs to be addressed in policy and practice aimed at transformation. This argument is made in light of the contestation and conflict around space – its function, functioning, and meanings – highlighted in the 2015 and 2016 student movements, including #RhodesMustFall (#RMF), #FeesMustFall (#FMF), and #AfrikaansMustFall (#AMF). These movements brought into focus the importance of seriously considering questions around space at higher education institutions in any initiatives for redress and reform related to transformation in higher education. The research investigation was grounded in and referred to questions around access and alienation in the everyday reality of individuals in higher education, particularly those belonging to previously marginalised groups. These questions were also central to the 2015 and 2016 student movements and related incidents which played out on the Bloemfontein campus – the site of fieldwork and research. These incidents included: (1) the invasion of the Xerox Shimla Park rugby field by a group of protesting students and outsourced workers and the ensuing racially charged, violent confrontation between this group and the spectators attending the rugby match; (2) the destruction of the CR Swart statue; and (3) the failed attempt to destroy a statue of President Steyn. Such incidents unearthed the problematics around space and objects in space in post-1994 higher education. Furthermore, the “contrasting recollections and perspectives” (van der Westhuizen, Labuschagne & Kekana 2016:5) presented in the 2016 “People, Not Stones” report (a report to the Council of the UFS by an independent panel appointed to investigate the Xerox Shimla Park incident and related events) shows how different and differently located 269 individuals at a higher education institution have differentiated experiences; thus, they also understand initiatives for transformation in higher education differently. Consequently, this study delved into the implications of space – in which the everyday reality of higher education is located – for the implementation and understanding of transformation in higher education. Furthermore, linkages were developed to establish the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education to demonstrate how vital it is to prioritise space as an important and significant consideration in official policy and institutional practice. This chapter draws together observations from previous chapters into a theoretical proposition around the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education. Firstly, there is a focus on the primary theoretical argument of the thesis. Secondly, the discussion addresses how space at a higher education institution shapes differentiated understandings of the higher education experience and its mandated transformation in post-1994 South Africa. Finally, the chapter presents the implications of the thesis argument for future theorisation around the importance of space at higher education institutions and the central role it should play in initiatives for redress and reform aimed at transformation in higher education. The study was conducted over a period of four years and is grounded in literature around space, spatial theorisation, policy, and transformation in higher education. The qualitative approach taken in the collection and analysis of data involved semi-structured interviews, socio-spatial mapping, and a desktop review of multiple data sources related to the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus. The desktop review included historical and policy documents, and strategic development records and accounts of the UFS in general and the Bloemfontein campus in particular. The collection of data from multiple and ever-evolving sources of evidence allowed for a creative and reflexive investigative approach that gave rise to an in-depth research narrative from which theoretical propositions and frameworks were developed and tested. 6.2 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS The literature review presented in Chapter Two was conducted concurrently with the semi- structured interviews, socio-spatial mapping, and desktop review of data sources related to the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus. The literature review, in 270 combination with the data analysis, revealed that the debate and discourse around transformation in higher education is mostly focused on the ideological content of ‘what’ higher education is and ‘for whom’ it is designed. Consequently, the existing debate and discourse around transformation has not paid sufficient attention to the development of clarity regarding the material contribution – the impact on everyday lived reality in higher education – made by initiatives for redress and reform. It was argued that the focus on the ‘what’ and ‘for whom’ of higher education in debate and discourse around transformation neglects to adequately show how space – that is constructed by the social and in turn constructs the social – impacts upon the experience and understanding of transformation in the everyday reality of individuals in higher education. Chapter Two concluded by proposing a conceptual framework through which the impact of space on social activity that is deployed in it could be investigated. The conceptual framework drew on Lefebvre’s argument for a unitary theory of space – (social) space is a (social) product – to locate the understanding of space in this thesis in an “epistemological shift from conceiving ‘things in space’ to that of actual ‘production of space’” (Merrifield 2006:106). The conceptual framework explored the notion of space at a higher education institution as a social product in order to provide insights into the everyday experiences of different and differently located individuals at a higher education institution. These everyday lived experiences related to social activity deployed in space revealed “some degree of shared understanding and some degree of differentiated understanding” (Kemp 2016:199) and allowed for the development of linkages to establish the relationship between space at a higher education institution and transformation in higher education. Chapter Two demonstrated how the development of the aforementioned linkages draws attention to the implications of historic and spatial factors for the organisation of space at a higher education institution in a particular context. The specificities of historical and spatial factors in the city of Bloemfontein – the place where the two most significant ruling political parties35 in the last century of South Africa’s history were founded – informed a review of how broader socio-spatial frameworks in the city of Bloemfontein impacted on the development of the Bloemfontein campus as a higher education institution. It was 35 The National Party (NP) came into power in 1924 in a coalition government with the Labour Party. The NP lost power to the African National Congress (ANC) in 1994 in the first democratic elections to be held in South Africa. The ANC, founded in Bloemfontein in 1912 by John L. Dube, lead the charge against the oppressive NP rule with the primary goal of giving all people of South Africa, irrespective of racial grouping, the right to vote and to freely participate in society. 271 suggested that the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus actively supported the segregationist socio-spatial policies legislated by apartheid pre-1994 (Auret 2016; Davies 1981). The claim is that if space was an active and dynamic component for socio- spatial segregation in higher education during apartheid, then the mandated post-1994 transformation requires the consideration of space as central and fundamental to the development of effective initiatives for redress and reform within official policy and institutional practice aimed at transformation. A further focus area in Chapter Two was the socio-spatial implications of the Bloemfontein campus as a social institution in the particular context of the city of Bloemfontein. It was suggested that the socio-spatial dimensions of space at a higher education institution in a particular context locates the individual and thus shapes their experience and understanding of higher education and its transformation. It was argued that space on the Bloemfontein campus is socially constructed and in turn constructs the social in its location of the individual, which draws attention to the nature of the social activity deployed in it. Space locates individuals and enables or constrains the social processes between them; consequently, space differentiates between different individuals differently and has an impact on their experience and understanding of transformation in higher education. The argument flowing from this is that if there is no recognition of the impact of space on differentiated experiences and understandings of higher education, the project of transformation is weakened. The investigation of space and the social activity deployed in it at a higher education institution can be directly or indirectly linked to the organisation of space, and the findings of this investigation can be used as a resource to overcome practical obstacles hindering transformation in higher education. To this end, a case study methodology was followed with the Bloemfontein campus of the UFS as a test case. Chapter Three expanded upon a social constructivist framework that assumes that modes of relations between individuals are necessary for subjective knowledge (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2011). The social constructivist paradigm, grounded in and referring to social activity between individuals in space at a higher education institution, provides meaningful insights into their everyday reality in higher education. Furthermore, this framework allowed for reflexivity on the part of the researcher in the reiterative and exploratory case study methodology. The case study methodology was helpful in that it enabled the study to consider and reconsider arguments in the literature on spatial theorisation and 272 transformation, formulate research questions, and reflect on subjective and objective experiences that emerged in the data. Furthermore, the case study methodology facilitated a more accurate understanding of space as a social product on the Bloemfontein campus, as the data gathered could tap into the everyday reality of individuals on the campus. The everyday reality of individuals in space on the Bloemfontein campus could then be compared and contrasted with the theoretical and philosophical propositions in the literature. Linkages were developed between the social and physical characteristics of spaces on the campus and the everyday reality showed in the social activity that is deployed in those spaces. These linkages demonstrate how subjective experiences of the everyday reality of spatial organisation on the Bloemfontein campus impact on social activity. It is the impact of space and the factors that have implications for its organisation that impact on the experience and understanding of initiatives for redress and reform aimed at holistic transformation of higher education. The adopted case study methodology makes it possible to construct the setting of the research study from the exposition of the everyday reality of individuals in a particular context – the Bloemfontein campus. In this way, theoretical generalisations made from the thick description of empirical evidence can be transferred to social environments in other contexts. Chapter Four presented how social spaces on and off the Bloemfontein campus reveal how historic and spatial indicators organise the subtleties and particularities of space on the Bloemfontein campus. The documentation of these social spaces addressed questions around the impact of the organisational indicators of space on social activity deployed in it. The rationale for this was that understanding the impact of organisational indicators of space can practically contribute to initiatives for redress and reform aimed at increased social interaction and integration. The documentation of social spaces on and off campus allowed for data collection and analysis that illustrates how the theorisation of space is central fundamental to a holistic journey towards transformation in higher education. Five sites were selected for further investigation of how organisational indicators of space on the Bloemfontein campus impact on the social activity deployed in that space. Chapter Four suggests that information derived from the analysis of social activity deployed in the space of a higher education institution can be used to link the philosophical objectives of transformation with the everyday lived experience of individuals in higher education. This linking of the theoretical with the experiential creates the space for a positive shift in the debate and discourse around transformation that meaningfully and holistically revises and 273 expands transformation and the understanding of this concept. The in-depth investigation of the five sites revealed how the space in which the everyday reality is deployed impacts on social interactions between individuals and showed how space at a higher education institution is important and significant for the social cohesion that is central to transformation of higher education. The empirical evidence collected from the five sites also provides a basis from which to utilise theory to show how a specific reading of space as a type can be employed as a lens to focus initiatives for redress and reform aimed at transformation on the reality of the everyday shown in social activity at higher education institutions. Chapter Five presents five identified spatial types derived from information collected from the impact of organisational indicators upon space on the Bloemfontein campus. These spatial types were employed as lenses to focus attention on human praxis and relational autonomy by illustrating the connection between how social activity is deployed in space and the organisation of space on the Bloemfontein campus. It is suggested in this chapter that human praxis and relational autonomy on the Bloemfontein campus are grounded in and refer to the socially embedded nature of the individual in “the context of social relationships … shaped by a complex of intersecting social determinants, such as race, class, gender and ethnicity” (Mackenzie & Stoljar 2000:4). On the Bloemfontein campus the prevailing social determinants that impact on social activity – the basis for relationships between individuals – are race, class, and gender. The implications of these social determinants for social relationships on the Bloemfontein campus are further investigated at multiple sites through multiple lenses in order to integrate theoretical propositions and experiential empiricism around the importance and significance of space for the higher education experience. The claim is that space at a higher education institution is intimately linked to the everyday reality of an individual, and analysis thereof provides insights that can accommodate differentiated understandings of transformation in higher education by different and differently located individuals. The utilisation of the spatial types presented in Chapter Five plots out three broad implications of the organisation of space at a higher education institution. (1) Differentiated understandings of transformation grounded in and referring to the regulation and monitoring of space on the Bloemfontein campus. The regulation and monitoring of space have implications for social activity deployed in it and impacts on social cohesion between individuals on the Bloemfontein campus. 274 (2) The inclusion in and exclusion from space on the Bloemfontein campus as a result of social determinants such as race, class, and gender. (3) The differentiated location of different individuals in space on the Bloemfontein campus. The implications of space at a higher education for human praxis and relational autonomy demonstrated in the identified spatial types show how space is important and significant in initiatives for redress and reform aimed at transformation in higher education in South Africa. 6.3 SPACE AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: IMPLICATIONS, OVERALL CONTRIBUTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS This thesis has presented the implications of space at a higher education institution as important and significant for the higher education experience and differentiated understandings of the concept of transformation in post-1994 South Africa. This study demonstrated that the script for transformation is understood differently by different and differently located individuals based on their everyday lived experience in space at a higher education institution. Therefore, in order to successfully transform higher education, the organisation of space at a higher education institution must also be transformed. Furthermore, based on the empirical evidence presented, the implications of space for the everyday reality of individuals at a higher education institution are shown to be important and significant in the re-evaluation of the understanding of transformation in higher education. The first significant implication of the research findings is that higher education and the everyday reality at its institutions are historically and spatially located. Consequently, transformation in higher education should be considered in relation to the historical and spatial factors in a particular context that have an impact on the organisation of (social) space as a (social) product at a higher education institution. The conceptual framework presented in this research provides a socio-spatial lens through which to view transformation and bridges the gap between initiatives for redress and reform in higher education and the everyday reality of students, academics, and other stakeholders at a higher education institution. The aim is to locate official policy for transformation and the associated institutional practice at higher education institutions in a specific context. 275 The second significant implication of the research findings is that they demonstrate how space at a higher education institution, organised by the historical and spatial specifics in a particular context, is related to and accommodates factors such as race, class, gender, and ethnicity that mediate and locate the individual. The observations made based on the empirical evidence in this study warrant reconsideration of transformation and the understanding of this concept in relation to different and differently located socio-economic, cultural, and political communities. The experience and understanding of transformation in higher education is not absolute – it is grounded in and refers to the individual and their location and positioning in society. Thus, in a post-1994 South Africa, the meaning of transformation in higher education for an individual at a higher education institution changes in light of evolving socio-spatial contexts and the intersections of social determinants that are embedded inside these contexts. Differentiated understandings of transformation formed in the material lived experience of different and differently located individuals within higher education do not, however, negate the existence of shared ideals around transformation. Shared general ideals of ‘what’ and ‘for whom’ transformed education is cannot, however, be equated with singular or narrow interpretations; the evidence in this study suggests the need for a more nuanced consideration and accommodation of varied understandings of transformation in higher education. Therefore, it is important for official policy and institutional practice to simultaneously recognise shared ideals and diverse understandings related to the concept of transformation held by different and differently located individuals in order to effectively achieve reform and redress in higher education. The evidence presented in this study suggests that, in general, the concept of transformation in higher education in South Africa drawn from initiatives and policies for redress and reform is premised on the abstract ideals and theories of a democratic society. The experience and understanding of transformation as directly lived in space at higher education institutions is far more fluid, multidimensional, and nuanced than abstract ideals and theories. Consequently, policy for transformation should be grounded in the everyday material reality of individuals in higher education and should reflect different and differentiated aspects of human practice. Initiatives for redress and reform guided by dimensions and principles of transformation as set out by the Department of Education (DoE 1997) should reflect more accurately what different and differently located individuals 276 understand transformation in South African higher education to mean. This thesis shows how different understandings of transformation are closely associated with the socio-spatial differentiation in the everyday lived experience in higher education. For the ‘ordinary’ individual in higher education to accept and adhere to a particular understanding of transformation they would have to be provided with specific reasons that compel them to support and act in accordance with the particular presentation of this concept. Compelling reasons would be those related to the individual’s specific needs and aspirations regarding positioning in society. This thesis contends that, should reform and redress promoted by official policy fail to accommodate or reflect the needs of different and differently located individuals, the project for transformation in higher education is bound to be compromised in spite of the validity and desirability of its philosophical grounding. The observations in this thesis suggest that official policy needs to move beyond the limitations of abstract ideals and theories for a democratic society and engage with the everyday reality of the individual in higher education. The thesis shows that, given the developmental role of higher education and its institutions in society, factors that impact on the everyday reality of individuals in that society should be considered for a holistic understanding of transformation. The conceptual framework presented in Chapter Two showed how broad-based organisational indictors that have implications for space at a higher education institution impact on social activity deployed in space. This impact supports the case for space as central and fundamental to transformation in the everyday reality of higher education. Furthermore, Chapters Four and Five showed how space at a higher education institution locates different individuals differently and therefore impacts on the experience and understanding of transformation in higher education. Chapter Five demonstrates how differentiated experiences and understandings of the everyday reality of transformation in higher education of different and differently located individuals at a higher education institution have implications for initiatives for redress and reform. The claim is that these differentiated experiences and understandings of transformation in the everyday reality of a higher education institution within a socio-spatial context rife with inequality, exclusion, and marginalisation demonstrate the centrality that should be afforded to space in the formation of policy and initiatives for redress and reform. Thus, it can be argued that it is strategically justified to seriously consider alternative lenses, such as space, through which to view and investigate transformation for the purpose of achieving a holistic script for reform and redress in higher education in the development of a truly democratic society. 277 The study that focuses on space at higher education institutions, grounded in the conceptual framework presented in Chapter Two, to advocate for the consideration of organisational factors when producing knowledge for transformation in higher education. In South Africa, the process of transformation in higher education relates to democratisation of the country post-1994 and is guided by official policy that advances moral, social, and economic demands in a democratic country to respond to global opportunities and local challenges. In Chapter Two, the thesis developed a theoretical conceptualisation of how organisational indicators for space at a higher education in a specific context can impact on initiatives for redress and reform aimed at transformation in higher education to show how the organisation of space at a higher education institution located in a specific context could be utilised as a lens within an analytical framework. In Chapter Four, the investigation of social spaces on and off the Bloemfontein campus focused on the implications of organisational indicators for the social activity deployed in space. The information derived from this investigation grounded the development of spatial types (see Chapter Five) in the reality of everyday social processes and relations on the Bloemfontein campus and in its context, the city of Bloemfontein. The developed spatial types were utilised as lenses to test the conceptual framework and to show how space at a higher education institution impacts on initiatives for redress and reform aimed at transformation. The case study supported the conclusion that historical and spatial factors in a specific context impact on the organisation of space and differentiate socially between individuals. The evidence showed that socio-spatial differentiation between individuals in a specific context has implications for different individuals in the reality of the everyday at a higher education institution. Consequently, the implications of space should be important and significant considerations in initiatives for redress and reform aimed at transformation in higher education. The analysis of organisational indicators for space at a higher education institution reveal a disconnect between official policy that advances initiatives for redress and reform and the social processes and relationships between individuals in higher education. Furthermore, the identification of spatial types at a higher education institution showed that different and differently located individuals at a higher education institution experience and understand transformation in higher education differently. Consequently, socio-spatial differentiation has implications for the formulation and implementation of initiatives for redress and reform aimed at transformation in higher education. Differentiated 278 understandings of transformation, shaped by historical and spatial specificities, ground the claim for the importance and significance of space at a higher education institution in the script for reform and redress in higher education in a democratic South Africa. The rationale for testing the conceptual framework through a spatial lens was thus to contribute to the future production of knowledge for transformation in higher education. Given the aforementioned, there are a number of ways in which this study could have been extended and which could prompt further research. Conceptually, the study focuses on the notion of space as a social construct in higher education, with reference to Lefebvre and others. This focus on the production of space explored through a single case study narrative limits the engagement with broader planning and urban design strategies in South Africa, such as the Integrated Urban Development Framework (CoGTA 2016) aimed at spatial integration, inclusion and access, growth, and governance in a democratic society. The engagement with broad planning and urban strategies could have raised several questions for further research. (1) What constitutes a transformed (social) space and how could one measure levels of transformation in the realities of the everyday at a higher education institution? (2) How could indigenous knowledge systems, through the exploration of African indigenous culture, transform (social) space at a higher education institution? (3) How does the contextualisation of key events – such as Reitz and the Shimla Park incident – within the broader process of institutional change at the UFS impact on the interaction between the UFS as a higher education institution and its context, the city of Bloemfontein. Methodologically, the choice of a single case study narrative that focuses on social space grounds the analysis of and engagement with the Bloemfontein campus in the specificities of historical and spatial indicators. The simultaneous consideration of historical and spatial indicators that impact on the production of space on the Bloemfontein campus limits the development of a detailed approach from which to give the reader the benefit of an exhaustive synthetic understanding of the history of the UFS. 6.4 CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS In conclusion, some personal reflections are presented to show the subjective process of learning that took place during this study. The learning gained during this study was an enrichment and expansion of my previous experience as a senior lecturer teaching and 279 facilitating first-year students at departments of Architecture at three higher education institutions. As an enthused and engaged first-year lecturer, how students understood the concept of transformation in higher education developed as a core interest for me. Teaching and facilitating these students early in their academic careers as they explored the responsibility that comes with a singular, usually optimistically formed life choice and the unprecedented level of autonomy that accompanies it compelled me to question and interrogate the ideals and theories put forth by the institutions these bright and promising young adults attend. In the first year of study, the complexity of the shift from high school to university presents the fecund opportunity for individuals to explore diverse aspects of themselves in relation to others and society. The curiosity and earnestness with which this exploration is undertaken are attitudes which also became part of my own approach to this study. Prior to the 2015 student movements, in particular #RhodesMustFall (#RMF), I had already begun to contemplate the importance and significance of space in higher education. The #RMF movement in particular concretised the manner in which theories and discourse around space and objects in space could be introduced into what was at that stage unchartered territory for me, namely higher education as a field of enquiry. A reflexive study anchored by a social constructivist paradigm was thus used as a means of exploring this field in relation to space. Under the guidance of two supervisors, the personal and academic process of constructing knowledge in the research process unfolded and could be articulated in the findings. As an academic staff member on the Bloemfontein campus, I had an intimate personal knowledge and subjective understanding of the case under study, which added an additional risk of research bias. However, the reiteratively triangulated collection and analysis of multiple data sources lent validity to the results and findings of the study. Furthermore, although my positioning on the site of qualitative research can be seen as creating a subjective bias, the proximity to the site under study enabled reflexive and reiterative data collection. This allowed for better understanding of the site under study and provided insights that contributed to the development of theoretical propositions. Experience as a lecturer and staff member at different higher education institutions confirmed some of disconnects between the debate and discourse around transformation in 280 higher education and the material reality of this concept as experienced in a first-year class, a department, a faculty, and the broader institution. This served as impetus for the study’s focus on the everyday lived material experience of individuals at a higher education institution. This focus was central to a process of learning and growth that was critically reflective and engaged with me as the researcher and the higher education institution as the setting in which the socially embedded nature of human practice is deployed within the broader higher education environment. The critical and engaged nature of this study is not only shown in the observations and conclusions which were made regarding the importance and significance of space in higher education, but also in the increased complexity and nuance now present in my own thinking around the concept of transformation. 281 REFERENCE LIST Adler, P.A., Adler, P. & Fontana, A. 1987. Everyday life sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, pp. 217–235. Ahmed, A. 1989. The Asquith tradition, the Ashby reform, and the development of higher education in Nigeria. Minerva, 27(1), pp. 1–20. Ajayi, A.J., Goma, L.K. & Johnson, A.G. 1996. The African Experience with Higher Education. Accra: The Association of African Universities. Alegi, P.C. 2002. Playing to the gallery? Sport, cultural performance, and social identity in South Africa 1920s–1945. The International Journal of African Historical Studies, 35(1), pp. 17–38. Alexander, H.G. Ed.1956. The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence. New York: Philosophical Library. Amin, A. 2008. Collective culture and urban public space. City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 12(1), pp. 5–24. Amonoo-Neizer, E.H. 1998. Universities in Africa – The need for adaptation, transformation, reformation and revitalisation. Higher Education Policy, 11(4), pp. 301–309. Andrienko, G., Andrienko, N., Bak, P., Keim, D.A., Kisilevich, S., & Wrobel, S. 2011. A conceptual framework and taxonomy of techniques for analyzing movement. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 22(3), pp. 213–232. Aranda, L. No date. The Narrative in Space: Literature and Geolocation. Available online at: http://medialabmx.org/leonardo/textos/The narrative in space.pdf Argan, G.C. 1996. On the typology of architecture. In Nesbitt, K. (Ed.). Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965–1995. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, pp. 242–246. Aronowitz, S. 2012. Lefebvre’s The Production of Space; a Unitary Approach to the City. Available online at: http://www.pilarortiz.cl/files/portiz-spacetime12.pdf Asante, M.K. 1991. The afrocentric idea in education. The Journal for Negro Education, 60(2), pp. 170–180. 282 Ashby, E. 1964. African Universities and Western Tradition. London: Oxford University Press. Ashby, E. 1974. Adapting Universities to a Technological Society. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers. Asquith Commission. 1945. Report of the Commission on Higher Education in the Colonies. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office. Available online at: www.bcn.cl/obtienearchivo?id=documentos/10221.1/29331/2/213787.pdf Atieno, O.P. 2009. An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 13, pp. 13–18. Atkinson, R. & Blandy, S. 2005. Introduction: international perspectives on the new enclavism and the rise of gated communities. Housing Studies, 20(2), pp. 177–186. Atkinson, R. & Flint, J. 2004. Fortress UK? Gated communities, the spatial revolt of the elites and time-space trajectories of segregation. Housing Studies, 19(6), pp. 875–892. Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267303042000293982. Auga, U. 2015. Decolonising public space: a challenge of Bonhoeffer’s and Spivak’s concepts of resistance, “religion” and “gender”. Feminist Theology, 24(1), pp. 49–68. Auret, H. 2016. Bloemfontein (1848 – 2015), mapping eight moments in time: measuring and appreciating that which is nearest. New Contree, 76, pp. 193–212. Auret, H. & Roodt, A. 2016. Bloemfontein [Unpublished book chapter], pp. 1–101. Austen, R. 1987. African Economic History. London: James Currey. Badat, S. 2010. The Challenges of Transformation in Higher Education and Training Institutions in South Africa. (Report for the Development Bank of Southern Africa). Available online at: https://www.dbsa.org/EN/About- Us/Publications/Documents/The%20challenges%20of%20transformation%20in%20hig her%20education%20and%20training%20institutions%20in%20South%20Africa%20by %20Saleem%20Badat.pdf Baloyi, M.C. 2015. Mergers in South African Higher Education: Realization of Policy Intentions? Pretoria: University of South Africa. 283 Baloyi, B. & Isaacs, G. 2015. South Africa’s 'fees must fall' protests are about more than tutition costs. CNN – African Voices. 28 October. Available online at: edition.cnn.com/2015/10/27/africa/fees-must-fall-student-protest-south-africa-explainer/ Barac, M. 2011. Place resists: grounding African urban order in the age of global change. Social Dynamics, 37(1), pp. 24–42. Becker, H. 1968. Social observation and social case studies. In Sills, D.L. & Merton, R.K. (Eds). International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan, pp. 232-238. Belzile, J. & Oberg, G. 2012. Where to begin? Grappling with how to use participant interaction in focus group design. Qualitative Research, 12(4), pp. 459–472. Bennardo, G. 2009. Linguistic relativity and spatial language. In UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). Oxford: EOLSS Publishers, pp. 137–153. Bennet, A. & Checkel, J. 2012. Process tracing: from philosophical roots to best practice. Simons Papers in Security and Development, No. 21/2012. Vancouver: School for International Studies, Simon Fraser University. Bennett, J. 2017. Exchange of papers between Leibniz and Clarke. Available online at: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/leibniz1715_1.pdf Berg, B.L. 2001. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Berg, N. 2010. How to use Jo’burg's minibus taxis. The Guardian. 28 June. Available online at: https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2010/jun/11/johannesburg-minibus-taxi-user- guide Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. London: Penguin Books. Berlin, I. 1953. Two Concepts of Liberty. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bernauer, J.A., Lichtman, M., Jacobs, C. & Robinson, S. 2013. Blending the old and the new: qualitative data analysis as critical thinking and using NVivo with a generic approach. The Qualitative Report, 18(31), pp. 1-10. 284 Bitzer, L. 1992. The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 25(1), pp. 1–14. Bond, P. 2014. Elite Transition: From Apartheid to Neoliberalism in South Africa. London: Pluto Press. Bosch, A., Rossouw, J., Claassens, T. & du Plessis, B. 2010. A second look at measuring inequality in South: A modified Gini coefficient. (School of Development Studies Working Paper No. 58). Available online at: http://sds.ukzn.ac.za/files/WP 58 web.pdf Bottomley, J. 1987. Political resurgence in the Orange River Colony, the Brandfort Congress of 1904. (Paper presented at the Wits History Workshop: “The Making of Class”, Johannesburg, 9–14 February). Available online at: http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10539/7718/HWS- 31.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Bourdieu, P. 1985. The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14(6), pp. 723–744. Bourdieu, P. 1989. Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), pp. 14–25. Bourdieu, P. 1990. In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. 1996. Physical Space, Social Space and Habitus. (Rapport 10:1996 – Presented at the Vilhelm Aubert Memorial Lecture, University of Oslo). Available online at: https://archives.library.illinois.edu/erec/University%20Archives/2401001/Production_we bsite/pages/StewardingExcellence/Physical%20Space,%20Social%20Space%20and% 20Habitus.pdf BrainBlock Clothing. 2015. Twitter image, 27 May 2015. Available online at: https://twitter.com/BrainBlockWear/status/603467632545636352 Brennan, J., King, R. & Lebeau, Y. 2004. The Role of Universities in the Transformation of Societies. (International research project – synthesis report. November 2004). London: Association of Commonwealth Universities. Buchanan, M. 2002. Nexus: Small Worlds and the Ground-breaking Science of Networks. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 285 Bundy, C. 2006. Global patterns, local options? Changes in higher education internationally and some implications for South Africa. KAGISANO: Ten years of Higher Education under Democracy, (4), pp. 1–20. Bunting, I. 2002. The higher education landscape under apartheid. In Cloete, N., Maassen, P., Fehnel, R., Moja, T., Gibbon, T., & Perold, H. (Eds). Transformation in Higher Education: Global Pressures and Local Realities in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta & Company, pp. 58–87. Butler, J., Rotberg, R. & Adams, J. 1978. The Black Homelands of South Africa: The Political and Economic Development of Bophuthatswana and KwaZulu. Berkeley: University of California Press. Castells, M. 1993. The university system: engine of development in the new world economy. In Ransom, A., Khoo, S.M. & Selvaratnam, V. (Eds). Improving Higher Education in Developing Countries. Washington DC: The World Bank, pp. 65–80. Available online at: http://docuents.worldbank.org/curated/pt/481381468740987787/pdf/multi-page.pdf Castells, M. 2009. The Role of Universities in Development, the Economy and Society. (Transcript of lecture given at the University of the Western Cape, August 2009). Available online at: https://www.chet.org.za/papers/role-universities-development- economy-and-society Charmaz, K. 2000. Grounded Theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, pp. 509–535. Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London, Thousand Oaks, & New Delhi: SAGE Publications. CHE [Council on Higher Education]. 2007. Review of Higher Education in South Africa: Selected Themes. Pretoria: CHE. CHE [Council on Higher Education]. 2009. Report of the Council on Higher Education’s Consultative Conference, 4 November. Available online at: http://www.che.ac.za/sites/default/files/publications/CHE_Consultative_Conference_20 09_Report.pdf 286 CHE [Council on Higher Education]. 2016. South African Higher Education Reviewed: Two Decades of Democracy. Pretoria: CHE. Cheng, W. & Shabazz, R. 2015. Introduction: race, space, and scale in the twenty-first century. OCCASION Special Issue: Race, Space, Scale, 8, pp. 1–7. Available online at: http://arcade.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/article_pdfs/Occasion_v08_Introduction_fin al.pdf Ching, D.F. 2007. Architecture: Form, Space, and Order. 3rd ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Christopher, A. 1994. The Atlas of Changing South Africa. London & New York: Routledge. Cloete, N. 2006. Policy Expectations. In Cloete, N., Maassen, P., Fehnel, R., Moja, T., Gibbon, T. & Perold, H. (Eds). Transformation in Higher Education: Global Pressures and Local Realities. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 53–66. Cloete, N. 2016. For sustainable funding and fees, the undergraduate system in South Africa must be restructured. South African Journal of Science, 112(3/4), pp. 5–9. Cloete, N., Maassen, P., Fehnel, R., Moja, T., Gibbon, T. & Perold, H. (Eds). 2006. Acknowledgements –Transformation in Higher Education: Global Pressures and Local Realities. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. v–vii. Cloete, N., Bailey, T., Pillay, P., Bunting, I. & Maassen, P. 2011. Universities and Economic Development in Africa. Cape Town: African Minds. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. 2011. Research Methods in Education. 7th ed. Oxon & New York: Routledge. Coleman, N. 2005. Utopias and Architecture. London & New York: Routledge. Creswell, J. & Miller, D. 2000. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), pp. 124–130. Cross, M. & Ndofirepi, A. (Eds). 2017. Knowledge and Change in African Universities. Rotterdam, Boston & Taipei: Sense Publishers. 287 Crow, M.M. & Dabars, W.B. 2015. Public universities must operate at a higher level. The Boston Globe. 12 April. Available online at: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/04/11/public-universities-have- operate-higher-level/ASDyJAOMFX9EU8pI7F23mM/story.html Davies, R. 1981. The spatial formation of the South African city. GeoJournal Supplementary, (2), pp. 59–72. Davis, D., Seabe, B., Nkopo, A. & Tselane, T. 2016. Free, decolonised education now – part1. eNCA Radio. [Podcast, 18 October]. Available online at: www.enca.com/radio/podcasts/free-decolonised-education-now-part1 de Certeau, M. 1988. The Practice of Everyday Life. London: First Paperback Printing. Decrop, A. 1999. Triangulation in qualitative tourism research. Tourism Management, 20, pp. 157–161. Della Porta, D. & Diani, M. 2006. Social Movements. 2nd ed. Oxford & Victoria: Blackwell Publishing. Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. 2000. Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds). The Handbook of Qualitative Research. London, Thousand Oaks & Delhi: SAGE Publications, pp. 1–30. Derrida, J. 2004. “Différance.” In Rivkin, J. & Ryan, M. (Eds). Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden, Oxford & Victoria: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 278–300. De Waal, M. 2013. Conversations: Crain Soudien on SA’s identity politics. Daily Maverick. 31 January. Available online at: http://www.dailymaverick/article/2013-01-31- conversations-crain-soudein-on-sas-identity-politics#WLrP13rxVaU DIRAP [Directorate for Institutional Research and Academic Planning]. 2016. Towards the Next Phase of Transformation at the University of the Free State: The Academic and Human Projects as Drivers of Transformation. [Unpublished Institutional Audit Report. July 2016]. DIRAP, Bloemfontein. Dirk, W.P. & Gelderblom, D. 2017. Higher education policy change and the hysteresis effect: Bourdieusian analysis of transformation at the site of a post-apartheid university. Higher Education, 74(2), pp. 341–355. 288 Disemelo, K. 2015. South African student protests are about much more than just #feesmustfall. The Conversation. October 27. Available online at: http://theconversation.com/south-african-student-protests-are-about-much-more-than- just-feesmustfall-49776 Dixon, J. 2001. Contact and boundaries: locating the social psychology on intergroup relations. Theory and Psychology, 11(5), pp. 587–608. Dixon, J., Tredoux, C. & Clack, B. 2005. On the micro-ecology of racial division: a neglected dimension of segregation. South African Journal of Psychology, 35(3), pp. 395–411. Dodge, S., Weibel, R. & Lautenschutz, A.K. 2008. Towards a taxonomy of movement patterns. Information Visualization, 7, pp. 240–252. DoE [Department of Education]. 1997. Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education. Pretoria: DoE. DoE [Department of Education]. 2008. Report of the Ministerial Committee on Transformation and Social Cohesion and the Elimination of Discrimination in Public Higher Education Institutions. Pretoria: DoE. Dubow, S. 1989. Racial Segregation and the Origins of Apartheid in South Africa. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Duff, J. 1966. The ecology of higher education. Minerva, 5(1), pp. 39–46. Duncan, J. 2016. Protest Nation: The Right to Protest in South Africa. Pietermaritzburg: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press. Dupont, V. 2004. Socio-spatial differentiation and residential segregation in Delhi: a question of scale? Geoforum, 5, pp. 157–175. Duschl, R. & Gitomer, D. 1991. Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: implications for educational practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), pp. 839–858. Eckstein, H. 1992. Regarding Politics: Essays on Political Theory. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. 289 EFF [Economic Freedom Fighters]. 2014. EFF Constitution as adopted by the First National People’s Assembly in Mangaung, Bloemfontein, 16 December 2014. Available online at: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/35f96d_3829645aeddf4faf8a6765964a5da15e.pdf Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), pp. 532–550. Elliot, A. 2014. Structuration theories: Giddens and Bourdieu. In Elliot, A. (Ed.). Routledge Handbook of Social and Cultural Theory. Oxon & New York: Routledge. eNCA, 2016. UFS Investigates Violence. eNCA South Africa. 23 February. Available online at: https://www.enca.com/south-africa/ufs-respond-rugby-field-violence-open- investigation. eNCA. 2017. Report into Shimla Park violence cites ‘barbaric’ racist attacks. eNCA South Africa. 12 January. Available online at: www.enca.com/south-africa/report-into-shimla- park-attack-investigates-reasons-for-violence Fanon, F. 1961. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press. Featherstone, M. 1992. The heroic life and everyday lives. Theory, Culture & Society, 9, pp. 159–182. Femia, J. 1981. Gramsci’s Political Thought: Hegemony, Consciousness, and the Revolutionary Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flyvberg, B. 2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), pp. 219–245. Flyvbjerg, B. 2011. Case Study. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, pp. 301–316. Fodor, J. 1998. Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 290 Foley, W. 1998. Anthropological Linguistics: An Introduction. Massachusetts & Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Foster, D. 2005. Racialisation and the micro-ecology of contact. South African Journal of Psychology, 35(5), pp. 494–504. Foster, H. Ed.1988. Preface. In Vision and Visuality. Seattle: Bay Press, pp. ix–xiv. Fourie, FC. 2006. Foreword: The UFS turns 100 – or is it 50 or 150? In University of the Free State (Ed.). From Grey to Gold: The first 100 years of the University of the Free State. Bloemfontein: University of the Free State, pp. xviii–xix. Fremerey, M. 2009. UNISTAFF: generating innovative competence in higher education. In Engel, C. & Pletsch-Betancourt, M. (Eds). Emerging Transformation in Higher Education: Concepts - Projects - Networking. Witzenhausen: ISOS/DAAD, pp. 15–24. Frey, J. & Eitzen, D.S. 1991. Sport and Society. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, pp. 503– 522. Friedman, J. 1992. The past in the future: history and the politics of identity. American Anthropologist, 94(2), pp. 837–859. Free State Art Fusion. 2015. Facebook profile picture. 26 May 2015. Available online at: https://scontent.fjnb1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0- 9/11219584_486961414784847_8605290820849597791_n.jpg?oh=0e35e03cf3bc2859 8f870d3ec00442c9&oe=5AC59C4F Garraway, J. 2009. Higher Education and the world of work. In Bitzer, E. (Ed.). Higher Education in South Africa: A Scholarly Look Behind the Scenes. Stellenbosch: SUN MeDIA, pp. 229–252. Gerring, J. 2006. Single-Outcome Studies. International Sociology, 2(5), pp. 707–734. Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. Gieseking, J.J. 2017. Geographical imagination. In Richardson, D. (Ed.). International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment, and Technology. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 291 Giliomee, H. 2003. The Afrikaners: Biography of a People (Reconsiderations in Southern African History). Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. Githaiga, J.N., Gobodo-Madikizela, P. & Wahl, W. 2017. “They dug up wounds”: University of the Free State students’ experience of transformation and integration in campus residences. Race Ethnicity and Education, pp.1–18. Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine. Google Earth. No date. Earth Pro on desktop. Available online at: https://www.google.com/earth/desktop/ Goonewardena, K. 2008. Marxism and everyday life: on Henri Lefebvre, Guy Debord, and some others. In Goonewardena, K., Kipfer, R.M. & Schmid, C. (Eds). Space, Difference, Everyday Life. Reading Henri Lefebvre. New York & Oxon: Routledge, pp. 117–133. Goudeli, K. 2014. Leibniz’s conception of space: the space of life and the holographic universe. Philosophy Study, 4(2), pp. 124–131. Available online at: www.davidpublisher.org/Public/uploads/Contribute/5608e65cbb1a7.pdf Grgas, S. 2012. Notes on the spatial turn. [sic] – a journal of literature, culture and literary translation, 2(4), pp. 2–8. Griffiths, S. 2013. GIS and research into historical “spaces of practice”: overcoming the epistemological barriers. In von Lunen, A. & Travis, C. (Eds). History and GIS: Epistemologies, Considerations and Reflections. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 153–172. Grix, J. 2002. Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research. Politics, 22(3), pp. 175–186. Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. 1981. Effective Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Gumport, P. 2000. Academic restructuring: organisational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39, pp. 67–91. Habermas, J. 1971. Knowledge and Human Interests. Translated by J. Shapiro. London: Heinemann. 292 Habib, A. 2016. Reimagining the South African University and Critically Analysing the Struggle for its Realisation. (Lecture delivered at University College, London, 25 January). Available online at: https://www.wits.ac.za/news/latest-news/in-their-own- words/2016/2016-01/reimagining-the-south-african-university-and-critically-analysing- the-struggle-for-its-realisation.html Hackney, S. 1986. The university and its community: past and present. Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 488, pp. 135–147. Hancock, D. & Algozzine, B. 2006. Doing Case Study Research. New York & London: Teachers College Press. Harrison, P. 2006. On the edge of reason: Planning and urban futures in Africa. Urban Studies, 43(2), pp. 319–335. Hart, K. 1973. Informal income opportunities and urban employment in Ghana. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 11(1), pp. 61–89. Harvey, D. 1996. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Massachusetts: Blackwell. Harvey, D. 2000. Spaces of Hope. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Harvey, D. 2001. Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Harvey, D. 2004. Space as a Key Word. (Paper for Marx and Philosophy Conference, 29 May 2004, Institute of Education, London). Available online at: http://www.frontdeskapparatus.com/files/harvey2004.pdf Harvey, D. 2005. Spaces of Neoliberalization: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. Hettner Lecture 2004. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, pp. 93–119. Harvey, D. 2008. The right to the city. New Left Review, 53, pp. 23–40. Harvey, D. 2009. Social Justice and the City Revised. Athens & London: The University of Georgia Press. 293 Heintz, J. & Valodia, I. 2008. Informality in Africa: A Review. (WIEGO Working Paper No. 3, September). Cambridge: Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing (WIEGO). Heleta, S. 2016. Decolonisation of higher education: dismantling epistemic violence and eurocentrism in South Africa. Transformation in Higher Education, 1(1), pp. 1–8. Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/the.v1i1.9. Hentschel, C. & Press, K. 2009. Of merchants and mercenaries and their way through the city. Thoughts on the African Urbanism Colloquium, Cape Town, April 2009. Available online at: https://www.alnap.org/system/files/content/resource/files/main/merchantsmercenaries- final.pdf Hernes, T. 2004. The Spatial Construction of Organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamin B.V. Hill, D. 1985. Lewis Mumford’s ideas on the city. Journal of the American Planning Association, 51(4), pp. 407–421. Hillier, B. 1996. Space is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hillier, B. & Hanson, J. 1984. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hossain, F.M. & Ali, M. 2014. Relation between individual and society. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2, pp. 130–137. Hughes, A. 2011. Exploding the ivory tower myth. University of Cambridge Research News. 17 May. Available online at: www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/exploding-the-ivory-tower- myth Hyett, N., Kenny, A. & Dickson-Swift, V. 2014. Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 9(1). Available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3402/qhw.v9.23606 294 IDASA [Institute for Democratic Alternatives in South Africa]. 2010. The State of Local Government and Service Delivery in South Africa: Issues, Challenges and Solutions. (Report submitted to the Portfolio Committee on Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs. For public hearings: co-ordinated service delivery. 22 January). Cape Town: IDASA. Ims, R. 1995. Movement patterns related to spatial structures. In Hansson, L., Fahrig, L. & Merriam, G. (Eds). Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes. London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 85–109. IrawaPost, KovsieFM & KovsieTV. No date. Tragic events at Shimla Park. The Journalist. Available online at: www.thejournalist.org.za/spotlight/tragic-events-at-shimla-park Isama, A. 2016. #Shackville: students demand University of Cape Town to address housing crisis. OkayAfrica. 16 February. Available online at: http://www.okayafrica.com/shackville-university-of-cape-town-housing-crisis/ Jacobs, S. 2016. Student protests and post-apartheid South Africa’s negative moment. Africa is a Country. 18 May. Available online at: http://africasacountry.com/2016/05/student-protests-and-postapartheid-south-africas- negative-moment Jalaladdini, S. & Oktay, D. 2012. Urban public spaces and vitality: a socio-spatial analysis in the streets of Cypriot towns. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35, pp. 664–674. Jameson, F. 1991. Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press. Jansen, J. 2003. Mergers in South African higher education: theorising change in transitional contexts. Politikon, 30(1), pp. 27–50. Jansen, J. 2009a. Knowledge in the Blood. Cape Town: UCT Press. Jansen, J. 2009b. The curriculum as an institution. In Bitzer, E. (Ed.). Higher Education in South Africa: A Scholarly Look Behind the Scenes. Stellenbosch: SUN MeDIA, pp. 123–154. 295 Jansen, J. 2016. Leading for Change: Race, Intimacy and Leadership on Divided University Campuses. Oxon & New York: Routledge. Jansen, J. 2017. Introduction – Part II. Decolonising the university curriculum given a dysfunctional school system? Journal of Education (University of KwaZulu-Natal), 68, pp. 4–13. Jones, P. 2006. Equality, recognition and difference. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 9(1), pp. 23–46. Joubert, O. 2009. 10 years + 100 buildings. Architecture in a democratic South Africa. Cape Town: Bell-Roberts Publishing. Kamanzi, B. 2016. #FeesMustFall: decolonising education. Aljazeera. 3 November. Available online at: www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/10/feesmustfall- decolonising-eduaction-161031093938509.html Keith, M. & Pile, S. 1993. Introduction Part 1: the politics of place. In Keith, M. & Pile, S. (Eds). Place and the Politics of Identity. London: Routledge, pp. 1–21. Kelly, M. 1995. Essay review: Kristen Ross. Fast cars, clean bodies: decolonisation and the reordering of French culture. French Cultural Studies, 6(18), pp. 413–418. Kemp, S. 2016. The analysis school and feminism. Intersection, explanation, and a challenge. In Raffel, S. & Sandywell, B. (Eds). The Reflexive Initiative: On the Grounds and Prospects of Analytic Theorizing. Oxon & New York: Routledge, pp. 184–201. Kerr, C. 1967. The Urban-Grant University: A Model for the Future. (Lecture given at the centennial meeting of the City College chapter of Phi Beta Kappa. New York, 18 October). Available online at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED025198.pdf Kerr, C. 2001. The Uses of the University. 5th ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kgatla, S. 2013. Forced removals and migration: a theology of resistance and liberation in South Africa. Missionalia, 4(2), pp. 120–132. Kgosidintsi, E. 2015. Decolonising the African landscape. The Con. 16 September. Available online at: http://www.theconmag.co.za/2015/09/16/decolonising-the-african- landscape/ 296 King, A. 2000. Thinking with Bourdieu against Bourdieu: a “practical” critique of the habitus. Sociological Theory, 18(3), pp. 417–433. King, A. 2004. Spaces of Global Cultures: Architecture, Urbanism, Identity. London: Routledge. Kipfer, S. 2008. How Lefebvre urbanised Gramsci: hegemony, everyday life, and difference. In Goonewardena, K., Kipfer, R.M. & Schmid, C. (Eds). Space, Difference, Everyday Life. Reading Henri Lefebvre. New York & Oxon: Routledge, pp. 193–212. Kipfer, S. 2009. Preface to the new edition. In Lefebvre, H. (Ed.). Dialectical Materialism. Minneapolis & London: University of Minnesota Press. Kipfer, S., Goonewardena, K., Schmid, C. & Milgrom, R. 2008. On the production of Henri Lefebvre. In Goonewardena, K., Kipfer, R.M. & Schmid, C. (Eds). Space, Difference, Everyday Life. Reading Henri Lefebvre. New York & Oxon: Routledge, pp. 1–24. Kleiber, P. 2004. Focus groups: more than a method of qualitative inquiry. In DeMarrais, K. & Lapan, S.D. (Eds). Foundations of Research: Methods of Inquiry in Education and the Social Sciences. Mahwah, New Jersey & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 87–102. Kroll, L. 1984. Anarchitecture. In Hatch, C.R. (Ed.). The Scope of Social Architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp. 167–169. Lake, N.C. 2017. Corrective rape and black lesbian sexualities in contemporary South African cultural texts. PhD Thesis. University of the Free State. Lange, L. 2014. Rethinking transformation and its knowledge(s): The case of South African higher education. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 2(1), pp.1–24. Lathouri, M. 2011. The city as a project: types, typical objects and typologies. Architectural Design, 81(1), pp. 24–31. Lefebvre, H. 1991a. Critique of Everyday Life: Volume 1. Translated by J. Moore. London & New York: Verso. Lefebvre, H. 1991b. The Production of Space. Oxford & Cambridge: Blackwell. 297 Lefebvre, H. 2002. Critique of Everyday Life: Foundations for a Sociology of the Everyday Life: Volume 2. Translated by J. Moore. London & New York: Verso. Lefebvre, H. 2003. Unity of the Doctrine. In Elden, S., Lebas, E. & Kofman, E. (Eds). Henri Lefebvre: Key Writings. London & New York: Continuum. pp. 14–21. Lemanski, C. 2004. A new apartheid? The spatial implications of fear of crime in Cape Town, South Africa. Environment & Urbanisation, 16, pp. 101–111. Letsekha, T. 2013. Revisiting the debate on the Africanisation of higher education: an appeal for a conceptual shift. The Independent Journal of Teaching and Learning, 8(1), pp. 5–18. Levy, J. 2008. Case studies: types, designs, and logics of inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25, pp. 1–18. Lietz, C., Langer, C. & Furman, R. 2006. Establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research in social work. Qualitative Social Work, 5(4), pp. 441–458. Ligget, H. 1995. City sights/sites of memories and dreams. In Ligget, H. & Perry, D.C. (Eds). Spatial Practices: Critical Exploration in Social/Spatial Theory. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 243–273. Loos, A., Safran, Y., Wang, W., Budny, M. & Arts Council of Great Britain. 1985. The Architecture of Adolf Loos: An Arts Council Exhibition. London: Arts Council of Great Britain. Lowe, R. & Yasuhara, Y. 2013. The orgins of higher learning: time for a new historiography? In Feingold, M. (Ed.). History of Universities Volume XXVII/1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–19. Lowenberg, A. 1989. An economic theory of apartheid. Economic Inquiry, XXVII, pp. 57–74. Luescher, T., Loader, L. & Mugume, T. 2017. #FeesMustFall: an internet-age student movement in South Africa and the case of the University of the Free State. Politikon, 44(2), pp. 231–245. 298 Luescher, T.M. & Symes, A. 2003. The Transformation of Higher Education in South Africa: How Much Have We Achieved? Perceptions of Policy Developments 1997–2003 and Outlook for the Next Five Years. (Research Report Prepared for the Council On Higher Education 5th CHE Consultative Conference, 12 November, Pretoria). Pretoria: CHE. Lynch, K. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge & Massachusetts: MIT Press. Mabokela, R.O. 2000. “We cannot find qualified blacks”: faculty diversification programmes at South African universities. Comparative Education, 36(1), pp. 95–112. Macfarlane, D. 2013. Storm over controversial varsity ‘commissariat’. Mail and Guardian. 25 January. Available online at: https://mg.co.za/article/2013-01-25-storm-over- controversial-varsity-commissariat Madanipour, A. 2003. Public and Private Spaces of the City. London & New York: Routledge. Mamdani, M. 1997. Makgoba: victim of the ‘racialised power’ entrenched at Wits. Social Dynamics, 23(2), pp. 1–5. Manala, M. 2010. ‘A better life for all’: a reality or a pipe-dream? A black theology intervention in conditions of poor service delivery in the democratic South Africa. Scriptura, 105, pp. 519–531. Manor-Rosner, Y., Rofé, Y. & Abu-Rabia-Queder, S. 2013. The Unrecognized Bedouin Villages – Internal Spatial Order as a Basis for Development. (Paper for the International Conference on Vernacular Architecture CIAV 2013, 16–20 October,Vila Nova Cerveira, Portugal). Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256547224_The_Unrecognized_Bedouin_Vill ages_-_Internal_Spatial_Order_as_a_Basis_for_Development Markova, I., Linell, P., Grossen, M. & Orvig, A.S. 2007. Dialogue in Focus Groups: Exploring Socially Shared Knowledge. London: Equinox. Marquis, V. 2017. Thomas Hirschhorn’s monuments and the politics of public space. In Ben-Asher Gitler, I. (Ed.). Monuments and Site-Specific Sculptures in Urban and Rural Space. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 68–102. 299 Maryanski, A. & Turner, J. 1993. The Social Cage: Human Nature and the Evolution of Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Mason, J. 1996. Qualitative Researching. London: SAGE Publications. Massey, D. 1993. Politics and Space/Time. In Keith, M. & Pile, S. (Eds). Place and the Politics of Identity. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 139–159. Massey, D. 2006. The geographical mind. In Balderston, D. (Ed.). Secondary Geography Handbook. Sheffield: Geographical Association, pp. 45–51. Massey, D.S. & Denton, N.A. 1998. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Maton, K. 2005. A question of autonomy: Bourdieu’s field approach and higher education policy. Journal of Education Policy, 20(6), pp. 687–704. May, J. 1998. Poverty and Inequality in South Africa. (Presentation by J. May, Centre for Social and Development Studies, University of Natal). Available online at: http://www.academia.edu/3464150/Poverty_and_inequality_in_South_Africa Maylem, P. 1995. Explaining the apartheid city: 20 years of South African historiography. Journal of Southern African Studies, 21(1), pp. 19–38. Mazrui, A. 1996. Citizen and Subject. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Mazrui, A.A. 2003. Towards re-Africanizing African universities: who killed intellectualism in the post-colonial era? Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, 2(3/4), pp. 135–163. Mazrui, A.A. & Ade Ajayi, J.F. 1993. Trends in philosophy and science in Africa. In Mazrui, A.A. & Wondji, C. (Eds). General History of Africa VIII. Africa since 1935. Paris: UNESCO, pp. 633–677. Mchunu, S. 2016. Gordhan urges architects to help shape SA. IOL Business Report. 11 July. Available online at: https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/economy/gordhan-urges- architects-to-help-shape-sa-2043818 300 Meredith, D. & SalasOlmedo, M. 2012. Understanding the potential role of spatial typologies in responding to the RURAGRI Call. Available online at: https://www.ruragri- era.net/results?lwlt_192cmd=download&lwlt_192id=216 Merriam, S. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Merriam, S. 2009. Qualitative Research. A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Merrifield, A. 2006. Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction. New York: Routledge. Mignolo, W.D. 2000. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Mignolo, W.D. 2007. DELINKING: the rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of de-coloniality. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), pp. 449–514. Miller, J. & Glassner, B. 2010. The “inside” and “outside”: finding realities in interviews. In Silverman, D. (Ed.). Qualitative Research. London, Thousand Oaks & Delhi: SAGE Publications, pp. 131–148. Mirzoeff, N. 1998. What is visual culture? In Mirzoeff, N. (Ed.). The Visual Culture Reader. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 3–13. Mitchell, D. 2003. The right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York: Guilford Press. ’Molotsi, P.H. 1983. General JBM Hertzog, 1866–1942: architect of apartheid. The Journal of Ethnic Studies, 11(1), p. 23. Morse, J.M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K. & Spiers, J. 2002. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), pp. 1–19. Moustakas, C.E. 1995. Being-In, Being-For, Being-With. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 301 Msimang, S. 2016. The strongest victims in the world. Daily Maverick. 25 February. Available online at: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2016-02-25-the- strongest-victims-in-the-world/#.WiAV9FWWbIU Mudimbe, V.Y. 1988. The Invention of Africa. Gnosis, Philosophy, and the Order of Knowledge. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Mumford, L. 1938. The Culture of Cities. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. Nasar, J.L. 1990. The evaluative image of the city. Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(1), pp. 41–53. Nauright, J. 1997. Sport, Cultures, and identities in South Africa. Cape Town & Johannesburg: David Philip. Navarro, Z. 2006. In search of a cultural interpretation of power. IDS Bulletin, 37(6), pp. 11– 22. NCHE [National Council for Higher Education]. 1996. A Framework for Transformation. (NCHE Report). Available online at: http://www.che.ac.za/media_and_publications/other-stakeholder-s-publications/nche- report-framework-transformation-1996 Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. 2013. Decolonising the university in Africa. The Thinker, 51, pp. 46– 51. Ndofirepi, E.S. 2015. Rethinking social spaces in higher education: exploring undergraduate student experience in a selected South African university. PhD Thesis. University of the Witwatersrand. Neiman, B. 2005. Tschumi Parc La Villette. Available online at: http://www.arch.ttu.edu/people/faculty/Neiman_B/jazz05/2005_02_28_tschumi_La_Ville tte_intro.pdf Nkoane, M.M. 2006. The Africanisation of the university in Africa. Alternation, 13(1), pp. 49– 69. 302 O’Connell, B. 2003. Key note address given at the 5th CHE Consultative Conference, 12 November, Pretoria. Available online at: http://www.che.ac.za/media_and_publications/che-events-presentations/keynote- address-5th-che-consultative-conference O’Malley, P. Chapter 5: The Homelands from 1960 to 1990. The O’Malley Archive. Available online at: https://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv02167/04lv02264/05lv023 35/06lv02357/07lv02372/08lv02377.htm Oanda, I.O. & Jowi, J. 2013. University expansion and the challenges to social development in Kenya: dilemmas and pitfalls. JHEA/RESA, 10(1), pp. 49–71. Okri, B. 2012. Full speech: Ben Okri honours Biko. IOL Cape Times. 13 September. Available online at: www.iol.co.za/capetimes/full-speech-ben-okri-honours-biko- 1382746 Oldenburg, R. 1999. The Great Good Place: Cafés, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. 3rd ed. New York: Marlowe & Company. Oldfield, S., Parnell, S. & Mabin, A. 2004. Engagement and reconstruction in critical research: negotiating urban practice, policy and theory in South Africa. Social & Cultural Geography, 5(2), pp. 285–299. Olsen, W. 2004. Triangulation in social research: qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed. In Holborn, M. & Haralambos, M. (Eds). Developments in Sociology. Ormskirk: Causeway Press. Oluwafemi, B. 2017. Standing for art and truth: a chat with Sethembile Msezane. TEDBlog. 18 September. Available online at: https://blog.ted.com/standing-for-art-and-truth-a- chat-with-sethembile-msezane/ Opper, A. 2014. Uitval (2013). (Video file). Available online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11lfplrkM1c. 303 Orum, A.M., Feagin, J.R. & Sjoberg, G. 1991. Introduction: the nature of the case study. In Feagin, J.R., Orum, A.M. & Sjoberg, G. (Eds). A Case for the Case Study. Chapel Hill & London: The University of North Carolina Press, pp. 1–26. Osborne, P. 1992. Modernity is a qualitative, not a chronological, category: notes on the dialectics of differential historical time. In Barker, F., Hulme, P. & Iversen, M. (Eds). Postmodernism and the Re-reading of Modernity. New York: Manchester University Press, pp. 23–45. Otieno Jowi, J., Obamba, M., Sehoole, C., Barifaijo, M., Oanda, O. & Alabi, G. No date. Governance of higher education, research and innovation in Ghana, Kenya and Uganda. Available online at: http://www.oecd.org/sti/Governance of higher education research and innovation in Ghana Kenya and Uganda.pdf Maoyuan, P. 2016. Selected Academic Papers of Pan Maoyuan on Higher Education. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill. PACOFS. No date. PACOFS Home – Gallery. Available online at: http://www.pacofs.co.za/pages/web/12/gallery# Pandor, N. 2008. Address by the Minister of Education, Naledi Pandor MP, at the closing of the HERS-SA conference, 27–28 March, University of Cape Town, Cape Town. Available online at: www.uct.ac.za/usr/press/2008/Naledi_Pandor_address.doc Paphitis, S.A. & Kelland, L. 2016. The university as a site for transformation: developing civic-minded graduates at South African institutions through an epistemic shift in institutional culture. Education as Change, 20(2), pp. 184–203. Pattman, R. 2015. Ways of thinking about young people in participatory interview research. In Wyn, J. & Cahill, H. (Eds). Handbook of Children and Youth Studies. Singapore: Springer, pp. 79–92. Patton, M. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. 304 Perold, R., Donaldson, R. & Devisch, O. 2016. Grounded architectural practice: exploring spatial capacity building in informal settlement upgrading. In Donaldson, R., Visser, G., Kemp, J. & de Waal, J. (Eds). Proceedings of the Centenary Conference of the Society of South African Geographers, 25–28 September, Stellenbosch. Stellenbosch: SUN MeDIA, pp. 78–84. Pieterse, E. 2011. Grasping the unknowable: coming to grips with African urbanisms. Social Dynamics, 37(1), pp. 5–23. Pile, S. 1997. Introduction: opposition, political identities and spaces of resistance. In Keith, M. & Pile, S. (Eds). Geographies of Resistance. New York & Oxon: Routledge, pp. 1– 32. Platzky, L. & Walker, C. 1984. Surplus People: Forced Removals in South Africa. Johannesburg: Ravan Press. Poho, K. 2016. OPINION: Free quality decolonised education. Wits Vuvuzela. 1 October. Available online at: http://witsvuvuzela.com/2016/10/01/free-quality-decolonised- education/ Poplak, R. 2016. TRAINSPOTTER: Adam Habib – the rock, the hard place, and the cruel beauty of an uncaring universe. Daily Maverick. 4 October. Available online at: http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-10-04-trainspotter-adam-habib-the-rock- the-hard-place-and-the-cruel-beauty-of-an-uncaring-universe/ Posel, D. 1991. The Making of Apartheid 1948–1964: Conflict and Compromise. Oxford: Clarendon Press. PMG [Parliamentary Monitoring Group]. 2015. Debate on Vote 15: Higher Education and Training (NA Chamber). Appropriation Bill. Proceedings of Extended Public Committee – National Assembly Chamber. Available online at: https://pmg.org.za/hansard/22572/ Prigge, W. 2008. Reading the urban revolution. In Goonewardena, K., Kipfer, R.M. & Schmid, C. (Eds). Space, Difference, Everyday Life. Reading Henri Lefebvre. New York & Oxon: Routledge, pp. 46–61. Psarra, S. 2009. Architecture and Narrative: The Formation of Space and Cultural Meaning. New York: Routledge. 305 Psarra, S. 2010. The ghost of ‘conceived space’. Journal of Space Syntax, 1(1), pp. 17–29. Reddy, T. 2004. Higher Education and Social Transformation: South Africa Case Study. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education. Riesman, C.K. 2001. Analysis of personal narratives. In Gubrium, J. & Holstein, J. (Eds). The Handbook of Interview Research. Los Angles: SAGE Publications, pp. 695–710. Robinson, J. 1993. The politics of urban form: differential citizenship and township formation in Port Elizabeth 1925–1945. Kronos, 20, pp. 44–65. Robinson, J. 2006. Ordinary Cities. Between Modernity and Development. London & New York: Routledge. Rofé, Y. 2004. Mapping people’s feelings in a neighbourhood: technique, analysis and applications. Planum. The Journal of Urbanism, 2(9), pp.1–26. Available online at: http://www.planum.net/mapping-people-s-feelings-in-a-neighborhood-technique- analysis-and-applications Rosovsky, H. 2002. No ivory tower: university and society in the twenty-first century. In Hirsch, W. & Weber, L. (Eds). As the Walls of Academia are Tumbling Down. London: Economica, pp. 13–30. Ross, K. 1996. Fast Cars, Clean Bodies: Decolonization and the Reordering of French Culture. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Rowley, J. 2002. Using case studies in research. Management Research News, 25(1), pp. 16–27. RSA [Republic of South Africa]. 1996. The Bill of Rights. The South African Constitution, Chapter 2, Section 7-39. Pretoria: Government Printer, pp. 5–21. Available online at: http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution/chp02.html SAHO [South African History Online]. 2011. Great Trek 1835-1846. South African History Online. 21 March. Available online at: http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/great-trek- 1835-1846 306 SAHO [South African History Online]. 2016. A history of apartheid in South Africa. South African History Online. 6 May. Available online at: www.sahistory.org.za/article/history- apartheid-south-africa SAHRC [South African Human Rights Commission]. 2016. Transformation at Public Universities in South Africa. (SAHRC Report). Available online at: https://www.sahrc.org.za/home/21/files/SAHRC%20Report%20- %20Transformation%20in%20Public%20Universities%20in%20South%20Africa.pdf Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Vintage. Said, E. 1991. Orientalism reconsidered. In Sullivan, E. & Ismael, J. (Eds). The Contemporary Study of the Arab World. Alberta: The University of Alberta Press, pp. 35–50. Sawyerr, A. 2004. Challenges facing African universities: selected issues. African Studies Review, 47(1), pp. 1–59. Schlemmer, L. 1978. Economy and society in South Africa. In Schlemmer, L. & Webster, E. (Eds). Change, Reform and Economic Growth in South Africa. Johannesburg: Ravan Press, pp. 111–135. Schmid, C. 2008. Henri Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space: towards a three- dimensional dialectic. In Goonewardena, K., Kipfer, R.M. & Schmid, C. (Eds). Space, Difference, Everyday Life. Reading Henri Lefebvre. New York & Oxon: Routledge, pp. 27–45. Schoeman, K. 1980. Bloemfontein: Die Ontstaan van ‘n Stad, 1846–1946. Cape Town: Human and Rousseau. Schonteich, M. & Louw, A. 2001. Crime in South Africa: a country and cities profile. Africa Portal. Available online at: https://www.africaportal.org/publications/crime-in-south- africa-a-country-and-cities-profile/ Seawright, J. & Gerring, J. 2008. Case selection techniques in case study research: a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), pp. 294–308. 307 Selasi, T. 2013. African Literature Doesn’t Exist. Available online at: http://www.literaturfestival.com/archiv/eroeffnungsreden/die-festivalprogramme-der- letzten-jahre/AfricanLiteratureDoesntExist.pdf Shapin, S. 2012. The ivory tower: the history of a figure of speech and its cultural uses. British Society for the History of Science, 45(1), pp. 1–27. Shields, R. 2004. Henri Lefebvre. In Hubbard, P., Kitchin, R. & Valentine, G. (Eds). Key Thinkers on Space and Place. London, Thousand Oaks, Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 208–214. Shields, C. 2007. Can Case Studies Achieve the “Gold Standard”? Or When Methodology Meets Politics. (Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 9–13 April, Chicago, USA). Shields, R. 1999. Lefebvre, Love and Struggle: Spatial Dialectics. London & New York: Routledge. Shin, Y.J. 2009. Understanding spatial differentiation of social interaction: suggesting a conceptual framework for spatial mediation. Communication Theory, 19, pp. 423–444. Silverman, D. 2001. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction. 2nd ed. London, Thousand Oaks & Delhi: SAGE Publications. Simatupang, A. 2009. The new role of universities: societal and intellectual entrepreneurs. In Engel, C. & Pletsch-Betancourt, M. (Eds). Emerging Transformation in Higher Education: Concepts - Projects - Networking. Witzenhausen: ISOS/DAAD, pp. 71–80. Singh, M. 2001. Re-inserting the “public-good” into higher education transformation. KAGISANO: Higher Education Discussion Series, (1), pp. 8–18. Singh, V.S., Pandey, D.N. & Chaudhry, P. 2010. Urban forests and open green spaces: lessons for Japur, Rajasthan, India. (RSPCB Occasional Paper No. 1/2010). Jaipur: Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB). Sjoberg, G., Williams, N., Vaughan, T.R. & Sjoberg, A.F. 1991. The case study approach in social research: basic methodological issues. In Feagin, J.R., Orum, A.M. & Sjoberg, G. (Eds). A Case for the Case Study. Chapel Hill & London: The University of North Carolina Press, pp. 27–79. 308 Smith, D.M. 2005. Introduction. In Smith, D.M. (Ed.). The Apartheid City and Beyond: Urbanization and Social Change in South Africa. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 1–10. Smith, L.M. 1978. An evolving logic of participant observation, educational ethnography, and other case studies. Review of Research in Education, 6, pp. 316–377. Soja, E. 1980. The socio-spatial dialectic. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 70(2), pp. 207–225. Soja, E. 1996. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Cambridge: Blackwell. Soudien, C. 2006. The city, citizenship and education. Journal of Education, 40, pp. 103– 117. Soudien, C. 2010a. Grasping the nettle? South African higher education and its transformative imperatives. South African Journal of Higher Education, 24(5), pp. 881– 896. Soudien, C. 2010b. Transformation in Higher Education: A Briefing Paper. Available online at: http://www.dhet.gov.za/summit/Docs/2010Docs/Transformation%20in%20higher%20ed ucation-%20A%20briefing%20paper%20by%20Crain%20Soudien.pdf Soudien, C. 2011. The arrhythmic pulse of transformation in South African higher education. Alternation: International Journal for the Study of Southern African Literature and Languages, 18(2), pp. 15–34. Soudien, C. & Baxen, J. 1997. Transformation and outcomes-based education in South Africa: opportunities and challenges. Journal of Negro Education, 66(4), pp. 449–459. Stake, R. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Stanek, L. 2008. Space as a concrete abstraction. In Goonewardena, K., Kipfer, R.M. & Schmid, C. (Eds). Space, Difference, Everyday Life. Reading Henri Lefebvre. New York & Oxon: Routledge, pp. 62–79. 309 Stats SA [Statistics South Africa]. 2017. Crime is going down but we are not feeling any safer. Statistics South Africa. Data Stories: Crime. 28 September. Available online at: http://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=10515 Steinitz, C. 1968. Meaning and the congruence of urban form and activity. Journal for the American Planning Association, 34(4), pp. 233–248. Task Force on Higher Education and Society. 2000. Higher Education in Developing Countries. Perils and Promise. Washington: The World Bank. Taylor, C. 2004. Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham: Duke University Press. Teferra, D. & Altbach, P.G. 2004. African higher education: challenges for the 21st century. Higher Education, 47(1), pp. 21–50. Tellis, W.M. 1997. Application of a case study methodology. The Qualitative Report, 3(3), pp. 1–19. Available online at: http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol3/iss3/1/ THE [Times Higher Education]. 1996. To Wit: A Culture Clash. Times Higher Education. 9 February. Available online at: http://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/to-wit-a- culture-clash/92445.article?storyCode=92445§ioncode=26 Théron, H. 2008. Soudien chairs committee on transformation and discrimination. University of Cape Town Daily News. 15 April. https://www.news.uct.ac.za/article/- 2008-04-15-soudien-chairs-committee-on-transformation-and-discrimination The Thoughts Lounge. No date. Twitter home page. Available online at: https://mobile.twitter.com/TheThoughts051/photo Thomas, D. 2006. A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), pp. 237–246. Tian, Y., Jim, C. & Wang, H. 2014. Assessing the landscape and the ecological quality of urban green spaces in compact cities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 121, pp. 97– 108. Tight, M. 2008. Higher education research as tribe, territory and/or community: a co-citation analysis. Higher Education, 55(5), pp. 593–605. 310 Toyana, L. 2015. Lihlumelo Toyana Photography. Available online at: https://www.facebook.com/pg/Lihlumelo-Toyana-Photography- 678915758898107/photos/?ref=page_internal Tredoux, C., Dixon, J., Underwood, S., Nunez, D. & Finchilescu, G. 2005. Preserving spatial and temporal dimensions in observational data of segregation. South African Journal of Psychology, 35(3), pp. 412–432. Tschumi, B. 1987. Disjunctions. Perspecta, 23, pp. 108–119. Tuan, Y.F. 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Tulku, T. 1977. Time, Space, and Knowledge: A New Vision of Reality, Berkeley, CA: Dharma Publishing. UFS [University of the Free State]. 2006. From Grey to Gold: The First 100 Years of the University of the Free State. Bloemfontein: UFS. UFS [University of the Free State]. 2012. University of the Free State Strategic Plan 2012 – 2016. Bloemfontein: UFS. Available online at: https://www.ufs.ac.za/docs/default- source/all-documents/strategic-plan-931.pdf?sfvrsn=4 UFS [University of the Free State]. 2015. Expanded Footprints. University Estates | 2012 – 2015. Available online at: https://www.ufs.ac.za/docs/librariesprovider43/default- document-library/expanded-footprints-publication.pdf?sfvrsn=7e28d521_0 UFS [University of the Free State]. 2016a. Gateway GPS 2016. Pocket Guide. Available online at: https://www.ufs.ac.za/docs/librariesprovider31/prospective-students- documents/2016-gateway-programme-695-eng.pdf?sfvrsn=0 UFS [University of the Free State]. 2016b. Housing and Residence Affairs Home / Overview of Residences. Available online at: http://www.ufs.ac.za/residences/housing-and- residence-affairs/residence-life/overview-of-residences UFS [University of the Free State]. No date. Kovsie Sport. [Website home page]. Available online at: https://www.ufs.ac.za/kovsiesport/kovsiesport 311 UN [United Nations]. 2010. Strengthening the Role of the United Nations in Enhancing Periodic and Genuine Elections and the Promotion of Democratization. (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 2009. Sixty-fourth Session: Agenda Item 69 [b]). Available online at: www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/64/155 UN [United Nations]. 2014. The State of African Cities 2014: Re-imagining Sustainable Urban Transitions. Nairobi: UN-Habitat, U.N.H.S.P. University of Oxford International Strategy Office. 2015. International Trends in Higher Education 2015. Oxford: University of Oxford International Strategy Office. Available online at: https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/International%20Trends%20in%20Higher%20Ed ucation%202015.pdf Urbanworks. 2011. Taxi Geographies. Available online at: http://urbanworks.co.za/?page_id=760 USAf [Universities South Africa]. 2015. Annexure 5: Reflections on Higher Education Transformation. (Discussion paper prepared for the second national Higher Education Transformation Summit, 15–17 October, Durban, South Africa). Available online at: http://www.justice.gov.za/commissions/FeesHET/docs/2015-Report- SecondNationalHETSummit.pdf van der Leek, 2014. Beyond the Wilderness. South African Country Life. 26 February. Available online at: https://www.countrylife.co.za/history-2/thomas-baines-beyond- wilderness-welwitschia van der Merwe, J. 2017. Summary of recommendations from reports on transformation at the UFS. (Notes from presentation made at the Senior Management Workshop: “Transformation @ University of the Free State”, Bloemfontein, 23–25 January). van der Merwe, J. & van Reenen, D. 2016. Transformation and Legitimation in Post- apartheid Universities. Reading Discourse from ‘Reitz’. Bloemfontein: SUN MeDIA. van der Riet, M. 2008. Participatory research and the philosophy of social science. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(4), pp. 546–565. 312 van der Westhuizen, J., Labuschagne, P. & Kekana, M. 2016. People, Not Stones. (Report to the Council of the University of the Free State from the independent panel appointed to investigate the Xerox Shimla Park incident and related events at UFS in February 2016). Available online at: https://www.ufs.ac.za/docs/default-source/all-documents/ufs- shimla-park-report_27-february-2017.pdf van Reenen, D. 2013. Key Structures in Philosophical Discourse: A Universal Semantics of Kernel Phrases. M.A. Philosophy Dissertation. University of the Free State. van Reenen, D. 2016. Maintaining plausible deniability: detecting mechanisms of subtle discrimination in a South African higher education institution. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 13(1), pp. 18–31. Vickery, R. 1998. The Meaning of the Lawn: Thomas Jefferson’s Design for the University of Virginia. Weimar: VDG (Verlag und Datenbank für Geisteswissenschaften). Vidler, A. 2001. Aftermath; a city transformed: designing ‘defensible space’. The New York Times. 23 September. Available online at: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/23/weekinreview/aftermath-a-city-transformed- designing-defensible-space.html Vis, B.N. 2014. Mapping socio-spatial relations in the urban built environment through time: describing the socio-spatial significance of inhabiting urban form. In Rau, S. & Schonherr, E. (Eds). Mapping Spatial relations, Their Perceptions and Dynamics: The City Today and in the Past. Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht & London: Springer, pp. 45–96. Waghid, Y. 2009. Universities and public goods. In Bitzer, E. (Ed.). Higher Education in South Africa: A Scholarly Look Behind the Scenes. Stellenbosch: SUN MeDIA, pp. 71– 84. Warf, B. & Arias, S. 2009. Introduction: reinsertion of space in the humanities and social sciences. In Warf, B. & Arias, S. (Eds). The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Oxon & New York: Routledge, pp. 1–10. Watkins, C. 2005. Representations of space, spatial practice and spaces of representation: an application of Lefebvre’s spatial triad. Culture and Organisation, 11(3), pp. 209–220. 313 Welton, M., 2016. Irreducible orientations: Habermas’s knowledge and human interests. CounterPunch. 10 June. Available online at: https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/10/irreducible-orientations-habermass- knowledge-and-human-interests/ Wenger, E. 2000. Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), pp. 225–246. Wiens, J.A., Stenseth, N.C., Van Horne, B. & Ims, R.A. 1993. Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos, 66(3), pp. 369–380. Herrero, D. 2014. Plight versus right: trauma and the process of recovering and moving beyond the past in Zoë Wicomb’s ‘Playing in the Light’. In Nadal, M. & Calvo, M. (Eds). Trauma in Contemporary Literature: Narrative and Representation. New York & London: Routledge, pp. 100–115. Wiredu, K. 2002. Conceptual decolonisation as an imperative in contemporary African philosophy: some personal reflections. Rue Descartes, 2, pp. 53–64. Yazan, B. 2015. Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam and Stake. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), pp. 134–152. Yin, R. 1993. Application of Case Study Research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications. Yin, R. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Yin, R. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Yin, R. 2012. Applications of Case Study Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Zainal, Z. 2007. Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 9, pp. 1–6. Zeleza, P.T. 2002. The politics of historical and social science research in Africa. Journal of Southern African Studies, 28(1), pp. 9–23. Zeleza, P.T. 2005. Rewriting the African diaspora: beyond the black Atlantic. African Affairs, 104(414), pp. 35–68. 314 Zeleza, P.T. 2006a. Beyond Afropessimism: Historical accounting of African universities. Pambazuka News. 30 August. Available online at: http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/35832 Zeleza, P.T. 2006b. The inventions of African identities and languages : the discursive and developmental implications. In Arasanyin, O.F. & Pemberton, M.A. (Eds). Selected Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on African Linguistics: Shifting the Center of Africanism in Language Politics and Economic Globalization, 31 March – 3 April 2005, Georgia Southern University. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 14–26. Zeleza, P.T. & Kalipeni, E. 1999. Rethinking space, politics, and society in Africa. In Kalipeni, E. & Zeleza, P.T. (Eds). Sacred Spaces and Public Quarrels. African Cultural and Economic Landscapes. Asmara: Africa World Press Inc, pp. 1–16. 315 APPENDIX A: FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE CLASSIFICATION Which year of study are you in? How long have been at the UFS Main campus? Do you live on campus? Where? Do you live off campus? Where? Do you live in a campus Residence? Where? Do you live in a private abode? Where? SOCIALISATION Do you meet your friends outside the classroom on campus? Where do you meet your friends outside of classroom? Where do you meet your classmates for academic discussions outside of the classroom? Where do you spend time reading | studying | contemplating 316 SPATIALITY Where is your favourite space on campus Why is this your favourite space on campus How would you describe your favourite space on campus Which is your least favourite space on campus Why do you not like this space on campus? How would you describe this space on campus CONCEPTION What kind of space would you like to see on campus? Why would you like to have this space? Where would you like to have this space? REPRESENTATION How do you see Bloemfontein? Why do see Bloemfontein this way? How do you see the campus in relation to Bloemfontein? Why do you see it this way? Is Bloemfontein represented on campus? How is Bloemfontein represented on campus? 317 ASSOCIATION Which space in Bloemfontein do you best associate with? Which space on the campus do you best associate with? Which space can you not associate with in Bloemfontein? Why? Which space can you not associate with on campus? Why? Where do you socialise in Bloemfontein? Why? Where do you socialise on campus? Why? Where would you like to socialise in Bloemfontein? Why? Where would you like to socialise on campus? Why? 318 APPENDIX B: ETHICAL CLEARANCE LETTER Faculty of Education 15-Jun-2016 Dear Ms Nyakato Tumubweinee Ethics Clearance: Spatial Practice at the University of the Free State: A Case for Physical Space as an actor within Transformation in Higher Education Principal Investigator: Ms Nyakato Tumubweinee Department: School of Education Studies (Bloemfontein Campus) APPLICATION APPROVED With reference to you application for ethical clearance with the Faculty of Education, I am pleased to inform you on behalf of the Ethics Board of the faculty that you have been granted ethical clearance for your research. Your ethical clearance number, to be used in all correspondence is: UFS- HSD2016/0639 This ethical clearance number is valid for research conducted for one year from issuance. Should you require more time to complete this research, please apply for an extension. We request that any changes that may take place during the course of your research project be submitted to the ethics office to ensure we are kept up to date with your progress and any ethical implications that may arise. Thank you for submitting this proposal for ethical clearance and we wish you every success with your research. 319 Yours faithfully Dr. Juliet Ramohai Chairperson: Ethics Committee Education Ethics Committee Office of the Dean: Education T: +27 (0)51 401 9683| F: +27 (0)86 546 1113 | E: RamohaiJ@ufs.ac.za Winkie Direko Building | P.O. Box/Posbus 339 | Bloemfontein 9300 | South Africa www.ufs.ac.za 320