From the many issues discussed and case studies presented at the conference, some common themes about partnerships emerged while there were diverse views on other issues.
No single design for partnerships was promoted. As Betty Overton said, there is no "one-size-fits all" model. Many speakers emphasized that, like the title of the conference on "mutual capacity building," partnerships should be based on mutual benefit for the participating institutions, even though the benefits may be quite varied.
Some speakers believed that partnerships should be built on the strengths of each institution rather than on the needs of the South African partner, an idea linked closely to the concept of mutual benefit. Lou Anna Simon, Provost at MSU, described this as an "assets model" of partnership which explicitly identifies the resource base at each institution that will form the foundation for successful collaboration.
Several speakers, including Teboho Moja, Colin Bundy, and Jonathan Jansen, criticized a "foreign aid" model of partnerships in which knowledge was given by the Northern institution and received by the Southern institution. Moja and Bundy argued that partnerships of this type, where there is inherent inequality, had predominated in the early 1990s and that this model now needed to be critically reviewed.
Jansen said that experience had taught him that, given the vastly different resources and histories of higher education institutions in the North and the South as well as the powerful socialization at both types of institutions, reciprocity must be negotiated. According to Jansen, successful reciprocity is based less on the good will of the institution in the North than on the insistence and vigilance of the institution in the South. South African universities or technikons must offer more than local accommodation and an entre to an exotic culture if the partnership is to be equitable, Jansen said.
"The present models of partnerships that have been operated within the framework of the internationalization of education clearly need to be revised. A fair amount of internationalization has occurred, but now we need to move to the next phase that takes into account elements of mutuality and empowerment. I think this could be a first step toward making a paradigm shift in partnerships."
-Teboho Moja, Special Advisor to the South African Minister of Education
On the other hand, Ellen Eggenhuizen from the Hogeschool van Utretch in the Netherlands and George Lenyai, Vice Chancellor of Technikon Northern Gauteng, maintained that a donor/beneficiary relationship is valid and can be effective when it is conducted for the purpose of building capacity and is based upon priorities and plans established by the South African institution. While Jansen argued that South African institutions sometimes underestimate their strengths, Lenyai said that some institutions are more disadvantaged than others and have very few staff with advanced training for building a more mutual partnership.
Several speakers identified elements they believed to be crucial in the process of establishing partnerships. Although many of these elements may appear to be self-evident, it is important to make them explicit, Betty Overton said. David Court said that the Rockefeller Foundation's long-term collaboration with three major universities in East Africa demonstrated that partners must share a common vision about the purpose of higher education. South African stakeholders have put an enormous amount of work into creating a consensus about the role of higher education in the new South Africa, as evidenced by the White Paper and Higher Education Act. Court contended that South Africans must be vigilant to keep articulating this consensus and reinventing it as necessary. Potential foreign partners, especially those seeking long-term linkages in South Africa, should understand the consensus that has emerged and should consent to it.
Whether the partnership is designed to be long- or short-term, partners should state explicitly the purposes of their linkage. Several participants commented that the South African institutions usually communicate what purposes and results they hope will be achieved through the linkage, but foreign institutions do not always make their goals and motives explicit. Ann Austin of MSU recommended that any written partnership agreement should include a negotiated statement of the purposes and goals of the linkage with provisions for periodic review and renegotiation, if needed.
"We want to join you as partners - with extraordinary assets brought by both partners and with a mutually defined and beneficial agenda - in conducting research to train the next generation of postgraduate students, yours and ours, to address the pressing global issues that affect all of us."
- Lou Anna Simon, Provost, Michigan State University
Patrick Fine observed that all partnerships are built on personal relationships. Other participants, too, said that establishing and building these collegial relationships requires time and commitment, but they are essential to successful collaboration.
While faculty members often initiate and have the strongest interest in international collaboration, said Madeleine Green, Vice President of the American Council on Education, a commitment by senior administrators of U.S. institutions also is importance to the success of a linkage. Many conference participants were impressed with the significant, consistent commitment by high-level administrators from both institutions to the linkage between the University of the Western Cape and the University of Missouri that was described by Ronald Turner, Executive Vice President of the University of Missouri System and Cecil Abrahams, Vice Chancellor of UWC (see Appendix A).
Overton identified elements of an agreement that she believes are key to the success of a partnership and that funders usually seek, as well. In addition to some of the issues mentioned above, Overton cited the following elements: (1) evidence that both institutions have "done their homework" to learn about each other's institutions; (2) commitment to the linkage by leaders of the two institutions before funding is sought; (3) identification of the resource base that each partner brings, including, but not limited to, money; (4) specification of the process for decision-making and for addressing problems that may arise; (5) recognition of the mutuality of benefits for all partners; (6) a statement of the outcome desired at the end of the partnership; (7) a means of documenting the history of the relationship; and (8) a means of acknowledging and celebrating the small and large successes of the partnership.
Han Aarts from Maastricht University in the Netherlands argued that few generalizations can be made about partnerships or about the great diversity of higher education institutions in South Africa. For example, some institutions have a large number of staff who are underqualified; others have many staff with advanced training but few who are black. Some institutions are swamped with requests for partnerships; others are eager for partnerships but find almost no foreign institutions interested in building relationships with them. The bottom line is that partnerships be built on mutual respect and openness, Aarts said.
There also is considerable variety in the types and purposes of partnerships. Some collaboration can be accomplished by short-term projects; others require long-term commitment. Cooperation may occur at the individual, faculty, or institutional level. There also are several hundred private colleges in South Africa, and the first-ever private institution has been granted university status by the Department of Education (Midrand University). This introduces more diversity in the structure of higher education and in possibilities for partnerships.
Many conference speakers challenged those who are building partnerships to move beyond the too common pattern of one-to-one linkages between a single South African institution and a partner from the North. Instead, partnerships should include a diverse mix of institutions. First, partnerships and consortia which include more than one South African higher education institution can be more efficient in the use of resources and have a broader impact on the South African higher education system. Such consortia may be regional or may include institutions of a particular type, such as technikons or institutions providing distance education. The Adamastor Trust and esATI are examples of regional consortia that were discussed at the conference.
Second, partnerships which include a higher education institution in both another African country as well as South Africa can help to overcome South Africa's isolation from the rest of the continent and can result in mutual benefits. There are many common problems and challenges of development and information technology in Africa, for example, that partnerships might address. Jonathan Jansen from UDW and other participants challenged institutions in South Africa and the North to create tripartite partnerships that include another institution in Africa. He described the partnership that UDW's College of Education built with the University of Sussex and the National Teachers Training College in Lesotho.
Third, partnerships involving an historically black U.S. college or university (HBCU) and another U.S. institution could create a valuable three-way partnership with South African institutions. Such a diverse linkage can bring different perspectives to a wide range of issues such as multi-cultural education or student services. Several participants commented that cooperation between HBCUs and predominantly white universities in the U.S. is just as complex and important as cooperation between HDIs and HAIs in South Africa. Partnerships including racially diverse institutions from both countries could provide both challenges and rich rewards to everyone involved.
"An historically black South African university or technikon could greatly benefit by having one or more historically black American universities as a part of their partnership. Like historically black institutions in South Africa, historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) in the U.S. are still a major producer of black college graduates, blacks with advanced and professional degrees, and black leadership for this nation. HBCUs have met many challenges being faced in South Africa now."
- William DeLauder, President, Delaware State University
Several conference participants requested that mechanisms be created to disseminate information about the priority needs of South African institutions so that potential foreign partnerships can make better-informed choices about possible partners. Several participants also expressed concern about the inordinate amount of time South African staffs are giving to introduce visitors from foreign colleges and universities to their institutions and to South Africa.
Several possibilities for information distribution were suggested. Patrick Fine reported that a web site soon will be created for the Tertiary Education Linkage Project (TELP) that will include useful information about the 15 participating HDIs. (This web site can now be found at: TELP Web Site.) A database could be created to communicate particular research priorities or short-term personnel needs of South African institutions. Also, a listserv or electronic bulletin board was suggested on partnerships with South African higher education institutions or on the transformation of South African higher education more broadly.
Such actively managed electronic systems could build on the information already assembled about South African tertiary education transformation, institutions, and consortia contained in the "Resources on South African Higher Education" website at MSU and the extensive documentation about transformation in South African higher education on the website of the Centre for Higher Education Transformation (CHET). A suggestion was made at one of the research and graduate education break-out sessions that the Higher Education Forum of the U.S.-South Africa Binational Commission could play a role in information exchange, perhaps by designating a consortium of South African and U.S. institutions to coordinate such a project.
Brian Figaji and Holger Wagner, who is on the staff of esATI on loan from Northern Michigan University, suggested that potential partners can make more extensive use of electronic communication to learn about each other and to negotiate linkages. Representatives of several institutions reported that video-conferencing has helped them make decisions about and build enthusiasm for institutional linkages.
Figaji urged that future discussions about partnerships give more attention to technikons. David Wiley suggested that partnerships involving distance education should be explored further.
During the four days of the conference, participants shared many ideas for innovations involving both the process and content of partnerships. This included the strong emphasis on consortial linkages and on putting the principle of mutual benefit into practice. There was strong interest in the possibilities of "sandwich" programs that would use resources in both foreign countries and in South Africa for graduate education in place of sending South African students to lengthy programs overseas.
There are many new opportunities for partnerships that exploit technology for electronic communication. Programs that disseminate knowledge developed at South African institutions to the North and elsewhere in the South might receive special priority, Richard Fehnel suggested, given the preponderance of electronic information flowing from the North to the South. At the seminar on educational technology, Mark Kornbluh, Executive Director of H-Net, suggested many ways that technology can be used to enhance learning and research and to facilitate scholarly communication and institutional partnerships. Several South African participants stressed that the high costs and quick obsolescence of computer technology are major impediments to their institutions' taking advantage of these opportunities. In addition, there is a critical shortage of personnel to install and maintain electronic systems and provide users with technical support.
Representatives of several South African universities and technikons are seeking to elevate the importance of research, community service, and outreach and to link these functions with teaching. Several expressed interest in partnerships to explore models of integrating these functions. The U.S. land-grant institution is one such model.
As Colin Bundy commented at the outset of the conference, this is a propitious time to be developing partnerships with South Africa. The national government and individual higher education institutions are developing plans to create a single, more equitable system, replacing the apartheid system characterized by inequity based on race and gender, inefficiency, and inadequate training of scholars for South Africa's participation in an increasingly competitive world. With new clarity of vision, South African institutions are seeking partnerships with foreign institutions to address common problems or build their capacity.
Colleges and universities in the United States and elsewhere in the North also face major changes. The global system that was organized for decades around the struggle between the East and the West has changed to a more complex, multipolar system. Higher education institutions are struggling to keep up with the increasing pace of economic and technological change, to prepare their students for these new realities, and to adjust to more stringent budgets.
In the midst of these simultaneous transitions, partnerships across nations offer exciting opportunities. And the stakes are high. As Lou Anna Simon of MSU told the conference, "Together we must work in a global context on the issues that are so important to our shared society in order for us to genuinely make a difference in our spheres of influence and be sure that together we make a bigger difference than we could alone."
[an error occurred while processing this directive]