Journal of Education, 2017
Issue 67, http://joe.ukzn.ac.za

Dangers of generic pedagogical panaceas:

implementing service-learning differently in

diverse disciplines 

Amanda Hlengwa and Sioux McKenna
(Received 9 May 2016; 7 June 2017)

Abstract

Descriptions of service-learning in the literature tend to position it as a powerful pedagogic
tool as well as an exemplar of ‘best practice’ applicable across all disciplines and
institutional contexts. Furthermore service-learning is couched as a moral imperative. In the
South African context, this moral imperative is translated into policy pronouncements
driving institutions of higher education to demonstrate responsiveness to the transformation
needs of broader society. In this article, two departments, Philosophy and Environmental
Science, at one university are used as case studies to interrogate what enables the uptake of
service-learning as a pedagogic tool. Drawing on the work of Fairclough, this paper
identifies the dominant discourses at play and considers how they constrain or enable the
uptake of service-learning. We advocate for the infusion of service-learning in curricula, but
argue that institutional culture, disciplinary values and the structure of knowledge impact on
its uptake and should not be dismissed in the implementation process. 

Introduction

The transformation agenda of South African higher education is informed by
policies such as the 1997 White Paper which calls for a re-examination of
institutional values:

South Africa’s transition from apartheid and minority rule to democracy requires that all
existing practices, institutions and values are viewed anew and rethought in terms of their
fitness for the era. Higher education plays a central role in the social, cultural and economic
development of modern societies. In South Africa today, the challenge is to redress past
inequalities and to transform the higher education system to serve a new social order, to
meeting pressing national needs, and to respond to new realities and opportunities
(Department of Education (DoE), 1997, p.7). 



130        Journal of Education, No. 67, 2017

The White Paper indicates that universities have to show social responsibility
by engaging in community service programmes (Lazarus, 2001). Policy
pronouncements such as these contain a strong moral imperative by overtly
articulating the role of higher education in driving a transformation agenda in
society. The White Paper of 1997 further stated that promoting social
responsibility and awareness in students through community service
programmes is a goal of higher education, the National Plan for Higher
Education (2001) reinforced this by indicating that enhancing responsiveness
through community service was a priority, and then the White Paper of 2013
argued that there is a need to explore the ways in which community service
can foster constructive social engagement.

Despite regular calls for community engagement to be central to the work of
our universities, it is not always evident what is meant by the term. While
teaching and research can be seen to enjoy relatively stable
conceptualisations, community engagement is plagued by ‘epistemological
ambiguity’ (Hall, 2010). It is not clear who should be responsible for it, who
should benefit from it, or what its purpose is; the methods, approaches and
scope of community engagement are ill-defined and often contested.

Community engagement activities can be taken to include infusion into
teaching and learning (for example, as service-learning) as well as initiatives
provided by academic staff in their professional capacity and by students
using disciplinary expertise (Council on Higher Education (CHE), 2006). It
thus comprises a messy spectrum of activities which often draw from fairly
disparate ideological positions that range from notions of charity and good
deeds through to being spaces for engaged research and authentic learning.

A number of universities have drawn on the concept of ‘public good’ (Walker
2012, Williams 2016) to consider how their core activities can enable
advantages beyond the private benefits accrued by individual students
through their graduation. Community engagement is often cited as one means
of correcting the balance between the university’s contributions to public and
to private goods (see, for example, Subotsky, 2001) and, thus to the forging of
a new ‘social contract’ (Braskamp & Wergin, 1997) in which universities
become jointly responsible for social change, along with bodies in the
community with which they partner. A consideration of public good benefits
provides a platform for more focused attention on community-engaged
activities such as service-learning in higher education curricula. 



Hlengwa and McKenna: Dangers of generic pedagogical panaceas. . .       131

This paper looks at the ways in which service-learning has been
conceptualised with a moral charge and then looks at two case studies,
Philosophy and Environmental Science, to question the extent to which this
moral charge is enough to translate into uptake across the institutional and
disciplinary landscape. The paper focuses on two disciplines within a specific
university context to consider constraints on the uptake of service-learning as
a pedagogic tool. The argument is not against the implementation of service-
learning, but rather it is a call for a more nuanced approach that takes
disciplinary norms and institutional cultures into account, and indeed
challenges them where appropriate.

Emergence of service learning

Service-learning emerged in the 1960s (see Hollander, 1999) as a vehicle that
would promote engagement and rejuvenate democracy in the academy
(Bringle & Hatcher, 2002), through the ‘integration of community service into
academic study’ (Hollander, 1999, p.vii). Because service-learning was
positioned as a means of connecting educational processes with real-world
issues, the concept was picked up in South Africa in the 1990s, in light of the
desperate need for change in the country following the shift to democracy.
These are some of the factors that culminate in service-learning emerging as a
morally charged concept. 

Bringle and Hatcher, who are frequently cited in the South African context,
note that:

Service-learning is a credit bearing education experience in which students participate in an
organised service activity that meets identified community needs and reflect on the service
activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader
appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility (1995, p.112).

Service-learning, like its broader counterpart, community engagement, is a
concept mired by contestation, evident in the varied definitions describing
this pedagogic tool as designed to promote “academic enhancement, personal
growth, and civic engagement” (Ash & Clayton, 2004, p.138). The intention
of service-learning modules is to involve students in organised community
service that addresses local needs while developing academic skills, and
providing students with opportunities to further develop their sense of social
responsiveness and commitment to the community (Hlengwa, 2010). The idea



132        Journal of Education, No. 67, 2017

 Peter is the pseudonym of the senior academic interviewed.
1

 Charlotte is the pseudonym of the Masters student interviewed, who has since graduated with2

a Doctorate in Philosophy.

of service-learning has often been introduced as an exemplar of ‘best practice’
of engagement between the university and broader community (CHE 2008). 

Service-learning is framed as having the potential to contribute to higher
education through engagement with societal issues and thereby showing a
more visible measure of social responsiveness (Singh, 2014). Service-learning
can be seen as a means by which to produce graduates steeped in disciplinary
knowledge who are conscious of how that knowledge can be used to alleviate
societal pressures. 

Methodology

This paper draws from a PhD study (Hlengwa, 2013). Presented as two case
studies, this article explores the response to calls for community engagement
within two departments: Philosophy and Environmental Science. This allows
an in-depth investigation of how programmes within their context of a
particular university attempt to implement a national level push towards
community engagement as a moral imperative. 

Rhodes University is one of five ‘research-intensive’ universities in the South
African system (Cloete, 2010) which affirms discourses within the University
constructing it as a ‘scholarly university’ (Boughey, 2009). There are also
strong financial imperatives whereby research is strongly validated in the
institution because the state funding formula drives the privileging of research
in all universities in South Africa (McKenna & Boughey, 2014).

Data for the cases take the form of curriculum documentation, including
departmental handbooks and course guides, and interviews. In Philosophy,
interviews were conducted with a senior academic in the department, Peter,1

and Charlotte,  a Masters student. Both were involved with ‘The Logic2

Course’ offered as a community outreach project to school learners. The
primary researcher initially approached the Head of Department to ask where
service-learning was happening in the department. He explained that the only
example was the Logics course and indicated the two people most involved in



Hlengwa and McKenna: Dangers of generic pedagogical panaceas. . .       133

 Mona is the pseudonym of the senior academic interviewed.3

the running of the course. Both agreed to participate and signed informed
consent forms indicating their voluntary participation and detailing their
rights. 

In Environmental Science, the whole department of four people, all of whom
were involved in various service-learning initiatives, participated in a
discussion about service-learning and the concerns of the research. This was
followed by an in-depth interview with one staff member, Mona.3

The aspects of the data being reported here were analysed through Critical
Discourse Analysis whereby sets of statements ‘which give expression to the
meanings and values of an institution’ (Kress, 1989, p.7) were identified.
Discourses here are understood as a means by which ideological positions are
expressed, but more than this, they are understood to function as mechanisms
with power over how the world is experienced (Fairclough, Jessop & Sayer,
2002). Discourses are thus not merely seen to be reflections of ideas, but as
also having power to enable or constrain events from occurring. Furthermore,
discourses are understood to be but part of the explanation for the events and
experiences in the world. The position taken by the authors of this article, in
line with Fairclough (2005), is that all there is to know about a phenomenon
cannot be made up only of discourses. In contrast to some postmodern
approaches to discourse analysis then, in this article discourses are understood
to be but one set of powerful mechanisms which sit alongside a number of
other structures each having enabling and constraining powers (Fairclough,
2005). This study is thus partial in its attempts to account for how service-
learning emerged in these two case study departments. What follows are the
findings of the study presented as a set of dominant discourses that can help
us to account for the varied emergence of service-learning as a pedagogic tool
in Philosophy and in Environmental Science in this particular research
intensive university. We can thereby to begin to consider the various
constraints and enablements on the implementation of this pedagogical
approach across a range of contexts.



134        Journal of Education, No. 67, 2017

The Grahamstown Area Distress Relief Association (GADRA) runs a number of projects4

intended to support citizens of the town. The project of interest to this study is the ‘Matric
School’. This provides an opportunity for school learners needing to rewrite Grade 12
subjects, which they have either failed or for which they require better marks for the purpose
of entering tertiary studies. The GADRA Logic course offered by Philosophy Master’s
students is included as an extracurricular activity in the Matric School. 

The case of philosopy

In line with the small size of Rhodes University, the Philosophy Department
has a small staff complement as well as moderate student numbers. It
comprised six full time academic staff and an administrator and under four
hundred students from first year through to doctoral level. 

Despite significant pressures on academic departments to formally include
service-learning in the curriculum, the Philosophy curriculum did not offer
courses that use service-learning as pedagogic tool. As will be seen, an
argument was made that this was because the nature of the discipline
constrained possibilities for such courses. The closest community engaged
interaction in the department was at Master’s level where students
participated on a volunteer basis in the teaching of a course in philosophical
logic, ‘The Logic Course’, at the Grahamstown Area Distress Relief
Association (GADRA)  ‘Matric School’. 4

This course focuses on teaching informal logic structures at a level accessible
to high school learners exposing them to philosophy at a basic level through
application rather than an overly theoretical approach. This entailed learners
being introduced to the uses of argument and to the nature of fallacies. The
Masters students guided the learners into identifying different types of
arguments as a way of providing a form of grounding logic. These students
worked with the school learners over a nine-month period towards achieving
the goals of the course. It is important to note that the Logic Course is neither
a formal part of the school learners’ curriculum, nor does the service that the
students provide by teaching on it provide credits towards their Master’s
degree. However, the GADRA Logic course meets some of the service-
learning criteria identified by Bringle and Hatcher because the students’
participation offers them opportunities “to gain further understanding of
course content and simultaneously broaden an appreciation of the discipline
while enhancing a sense of civic responsibility” (1995, p.112).



Hlengwa and McKenna: Dangers of generic pedagogical panaceas. . .       135

Valuing the abstract

The approach to teaching Philosophy in this particular department, according
to various course guides, is to induct students into the discipline by exposing
them to the breadth of the discipline. Interview data indicates that Charlotte
and Peter were in agreement that the approach used leads students through
argumentation by asking the really ‘big’ questions such as ‘What is
knowledge’? and ‘Is scientific enquiry a way to gain knowledge’? The ‘big’
questions may well be inspired by contemporary issues in communities and
therefore driven by a genuine regard for the need to analyse and arrive at
plausible explanations of the observable and experienced, but the form of the
inquiry is expected to remain theoretically abstracted. Central to the
discursive construction of the discipline in the interviews was the idea that it
focuses on theorising as means of providing insights of everyday living, but
that it does so in formally abstracted ways, thus making it an unlikely
discipline to consider service-learning activities; a point echoed in the
literature (Zlotkowski in Lisman & Harvey, 2000, p.vi). Academics draw on
‘procedures’ that result in carefully structured arguments following the rules
of logic but the activity is essentially theoretical rather than practical. 

Philosophy as a discipline was generally taken by the interviewees, and in line
with much of the literature, to be concerned with general and fundamental
problems focused on existence, knowledge, values, and reason (Valentine in
Lisman & Harvey, 2000, p.145). The academic pursuits of colleagues in this
department, in the realms of both teaching and research, are framed by such
abstracted approaches. Philosophy in this particular department had very
strong boundaries between its concerns and what is seen to be outside of its
domain. Knowledge production was thus understood as being ‘inward
looking’ to the norms and values of the Philosophy disciplinary community.
Peter’s candid reflection illustrates why it would thus seem that the way that
knowledge is valued in the discipline makes it less likely to be open to
curriculated community based activities: 
 

I do think philosophy does see itself largely as a discipline that is not
practical, all right? . . .Now the idea of practical is an interesting
philosophical concept, we did a lot of analysis about what practical
means because, honestly, I don’t know what it means. I think when you
say that philosophy is not a practical discipline you mean; “I don’t
care about the world, my focus is on these deep theoretical issues”,



136        Journal of Education, No. 67, 2017

allegedly deep theoretical issues. And if I go practical. . . I’m going to
water down my discipline.

There was also a particularly strong discourse of academic freedom as an
important value in the data. In the Philosophy Department at Rhodes
University curricula discussions are not centralised and individual academics
have a great deal of autonomy in determining what to teach and how to assess.
As Peter noted: “It is very individualistic the way we choose ‘things’”. There
was a valuing of the individual academic’s right to select what gets taught and
how it gets taught. This, in turn, means the academics have significant ability
to influence the development of the disciplinary identities assumed by their
students. In discussing discourses found in research intensive institutions in
South Africa, Boughey & McKenna (2014) identified a discourse of
‘academic argumentation’ where a critical disposition is seen to include the
demand to be trusted to develop and implement a curriculum without
interference. It is possible that this discourse would work against the system-
level implementation of service-learning, despite a ‘moral charge’ in the
national documentation.

The identities forged by academics in this department were closely tied to
those of the disciplinary community where the focus for most philosophers is
on contemplating the existence of a real world rather than being engaged in
practical pursuits in a real world (Lisman & Harvey, 2000, p.ix). Furthermore,
the academics’ identity seemed aligned to the ‘argumentative academic’
identity identified as common in research intensive universities. However,
these identities are potentially in conflict with demands that institutions of
higher education, particularly in South Africa, should be socially responsive
to the challenges facing society. Peter draws attention to this tension by
critically questioning the stance taken by philosophers:

We are an institution that is embedded in society. What is our role?
What have we done as a community [of philosophers]? I think South
Africa presents us with a very interesting format for thinking about this
because the problems are so obvious – it hits you in the face every day.
Are you just going to be looking inward and ignoring it and drawing
your salary whatever, and writing for your peers, or are you going to
think about things?

The GADRA Logic Course would seem to be an opportunity for Philosophy
academics to be more involved in community. However, the level of



Hlengwa and McKenna: Dangers of generic pedagogical panaceas. . .       137

disciplinary knowledge is not even at a first-year level of Philosophical
theory, as expected given that the GADRA Logic Course is a school level
introductory course. This made it unlikely, according to the interview data,
that the course would be broadly appealing as an activity for most academics
in the department. 

Philosophers, like members of any other discipline, are beholden to ideas,
values and practices that are conceived, argued for and maintained by the
disciplinary community which, in turn, then shape the curriculum offered in
the department (Henkel, 2005). This seems to imply that the introduction of
new ideas about Philosophy, how it should be taught and how it relates to the
world ‘outside’ the discipline (such as the idea that service-learning should be
infused into the curriculum) would potentially have consequences with regard
to the way the department is viewed by colleagues elsewhere. However, the
existence of a volume of essays “Beyond the Tower – Concepts and Models
for service-learning in Philosophy” (Lisman & Harvey, 2000) and various
other texts (for example, Ramona & Hawthorne, 2011; Oxley & Ramona,
2015) provide evidence that others in the disciplinary community have indeed
found it possible to use service-learning to teach Philosophy.

Primary audience discourse

What became apparent from the data is that the nature of the discipline of
Philosophy itself, and the curriculum this engenders, promotes an approach to
teaching and learning with a tenuous link to practical involvement in social
concerns. In this regard, the primary audience discourse has the potential to
constrain the likelihood of service learning being used as a pedagogic tool in
Philosophy. The primary audience for Philosophers identified in the data is
the disciplinary community. As Peter explains:

What we do in the first instance is speak to our colleagues. We have a
community, we speak to each other, and I think that there are some who
are not for that, right? Our primary audience should be our peers, but
that does not mean that we should not have an impact, that we should
not be concerned about issues?

It would seem that the semantic density of Philosophical concepts and
theories (that is, the degree of condensation of meaning, Maton, 2014) is so
strong that they require considerable adaptation before they could be



138        Journal of Education, No. 67, 2017

It is interesting to note that since 2014, Peter has been instrumental in developing a5

credit-bearing course called LiNtetho zoBomi (zoBom) conceptualised as providing students
with access to existential conversations. This course which draws strongly on the discipline
of Philosophy but explicitly uses service-learning as a pedagogic tool. However, it has found
its home outside of the Philosophy department in another academic centre.

accessible to audiences beyond the boundaries of the discipline and the
academy, and this is not viewed as a valuable endeavour. By making
semantically dense concepts accessible, there would be the potential to ‘water
down’ the discipline. The focus on the disciplinary community as the primary
audience is important as it impacts on the emergence of service-learning.

I could tell you some of the things that I would say, that the community
[of Philosophy] would say as a whole, one of the things that the
community would say as a whole is: ‘Who cares?’ We are not here to
impact on an issue. We are interested in issues, right? Whether it has
an impact or not, that is neither here nor there. Perhaps a little less
honest response would be – it is a true response but a less honest one-
is that there will be a trickle-down effect. We do not really know.

This discourse constructs philosophers, and the activity of philosophising, as
detached from worldly concerns because they are engaged in semantically
dense conversations with each other. Philosophers seem to embrace this
reputation of research as having limited practical application, and, according
Paphitis and Kelland, philosophers working the South African context “have
done little to dispel this reputation” (2015, p.420). Paphitis and Kelland reject
this dominant view of Philosophy and argue for an ideological paradigm shift
that opens up the possibility of infusing service-learning.5

Having the disciplinary community of Philosophers as the primary, or even
singular, audience for the work of Philosophy reinforces a focus on research
as the core business of the academy. This issue was raised in various ways in
the data:

I will tell you how I see myself, right? I see myself, as primarily, my first
love is research, right? That is my first love.

Although areas of research interest for philosophers are varied, the data
suggested that these Philosophers concentrate on what is commonly
understood as ‘pure’ or ‘basic’ research. The value of this type of research
that “lies in the furtherance of human knowledge for its own sake” (Graham,



Hlengwa and McKenna: Dangers of generic pedagogical panaceas. . .       139

2005, p.82) is different to that of applied research that has utility and a
‘further end’ framing. A claim can be made that the research driven discourse
in this Philosophy department adds to the factors that constrain the emergence
of service-learning, especially since the emphasis and interest of the
disciplinary community is on understanding the world within their
disciplinary community rather than changing it.

Discourse of teaching as common sense

The discourses discussed thus far account for the systemic discipline based
factors constraining the use of service learning as pedagogic tool in
Philosophy. In contrast to this is a discourse whereby teaching is not
particularly valued as a complex social practice. Peter offers insights into the
emphasis placed on pedagogy in his discipline, from which emerges a
discourse of teaching as common sense:

I do not think Philosophers on the whole – I do not know what happens
in other disciplines, I imagine similar things - do not really reflect that
much on their teaching. Teaching is something that just happens
naturally. It is a thing that happens when you go into a lecture - you
impart information. But the focus is on research, not everyone, but for
the most part.

As a pedagogic tool, service-learning would in part require academics to
reflect specifically on pedagogic practice. As long as pedagogy is understood
to be a common-sense practice undertaken alongside more valued research
activity, then it seems unlikely that there would be an opportunity to re-
imagine teaching of Philosophy to include service-learning modules.
Having discussed some of the dominant discourses which seem to constrain
the easy implementation of service-learning in the case of Philosophy, we
now move to consider the discourses that emerged in the case of
Environmental Science.

The case of environmental science

Environmental Science was a relatively young department in the institution,
originating out of a cross-departmental programme located in the Science
Faculty. The four permanent academic staff members had committed



140        Journal of Education, No. 67, 2017

themselves to answering the growing demand for suitably qualified
environmental professionals able to tackle environmental management and
sustainable development. 

While the department did not use the term service-learning, there is a course
offered by the department that meets the definition. The course,
Environmental Monitoring and Monitoring Systems (ENV 301), is offered in
the third year and has seven outcomes that culminate in a practical year-long
research project. The outcomes capture the academics’ aspirations of what
students would experience of the ways in which project management
principles can be applied in the field. Central is the ability to work outside of
the university with members of the community in interrogating a particular
real-world issue.

The students are divided into project teams required to answer questions
about specific environmental conditions and trends that affect humans and the
broader environment, and which manifest locally. The projects also values
students’ developing an understanding of the significance of society’s
response. As Mona explains:
 

So, they might go out and do some measurements on the vegetation and
they will interview some people and see how they are using the
commonage and that kind of thing. So, it will be, we try and make those
third-year projects span the three focus areas of social, economic and
ecological. 

The theory introduced in the course centres around the design and
implementation of environmental monitoring systems appropriate at different
spatial and temporal scales and which integrate the biological, social and
economic components of environmental systems. These are then investigated
and reflected upon by means of the research project.

The research projects require the students to view Environmental Sciences
from a range of perspectives thus making it important to not only interact and
work in teams with each other, but also to work with other teams drawing on
knowledge and expertise beyond the borders of the academy. The
expectations of the course align readily with service-learning criteria. 



Hlengwa and McKenna: Dangers of generic pedagogical panaceas. . .       141

Discourse in environmental science

Valuing research

Rhodes University’s status as a research-intensive institution is aligned with
this department’s culture of constructing research activities as being the most
prestigious of their activities. The valuing of research is of course not limited
to this institution, or even to research intensive universities, and is arguably
driven by notions of status and, as mentioned earlier, by the ‘flat’ nature of
the national funding formula.

The ‘Valuing Research’ discourse signifies a conscious and purposefully deep
engagement with research processes. The staff in this department draw on this
discourse in justifying time spent on developing funding proposals for
research projects. Staff members often collaborate in order to produce
contract research. Mona alludes to this in discussing the premium placed on
research:

Well, we publish a lot. We’re a very productive department. We bring in
masses of money. For us, because our fields apply, because the world is
worried about what’s happening, there is masses of opportunity for
money. You have to work hard to get it, but you can. So that brings us
recognition. We’re a tiny department, there’s four of us but we bring
millions of Rands into this university that helps fund our students, and
helps build linkages with other organizations around the world and so
on.

Staff members in the department drew on this discourse in developing the
ENV 301 course, which has research as its focus. A key aim of the course is
to inducat students into the knowledge production processes in the field of
Environmental Sciences, from problem identification, to data collection, to
data analysis and dissemination of findings.

Intergrative discourse

The interview with Mona was replete with evidence of an Integrative
Discourse. Here integrating oneself into the academic community in ways that
entail being able to work across fixed boundaries of traditional disciplines, is
valued. This is evident in the emphasis Environmental Science places on a



142        Journal of Education, No. 67, 2017

what is understood to be a successful education in the field – the
undergraduate curriculum is, according to the data, firmly focused on the
production of graduate students with a particular orientation towards and
relationship with the environment. One of the key concerns in the Department
is thus the production of the next generation of a particular kind of ‘Knower’
(Maton, 2014). While there is a strong knowledge base to Environmental
Science, it draws from multiple disciplines and it is the development of the
attributes of the Knower that is central in the curriculum. The quintessential
Environmental Scientist, according to Mona, has a sound foundation in a
specialist discipline, but, most importantly, takes on a particular
‘understanding of the world around them’. This understanding entails
acknowledging different worldviews from which different value systems
emerge. This acknowledgment is critical to successful interaction in
interdisciplinary research groups understood to be central for the addressing
of complex socio-ecological issues.

Linked to the integrative discourse, where Environmental Scientists are
expected to be able to integrate themselves into various inter-disciplinary
communities to address environmental concerns, was the ‘In Society’
discourse. This discourse promoted the ideal of situating the University closer
to broader society, thus answering the call for universities to be a partner in a
new social contract. This was linked to a wider social justice agenda of
addressing social inequities. The ‘In Society’ discourse clearly understood the
University, and the Environmental Sciences department in particular, as
having a role to play in addressing inequities not as an adjunct concern but as
central to the identity of the department.

Mona and her colleagues explicitly focus on responding to the world beyond
the university walls. This involves responding to environmental and
sustainable development challenges and thus requires that curricula are
developed that allow students to respond to these challenges. The ever-
changing nature of the challenges means that course content needs constantly
to be reviewed.

So [we draw] examples from the latest publications, [and] other
materials that come across our desk. You know, like now this year, when
I teach climate change I am going to have to do the conclusions from
the [latest conference]. So, you have got to be constantly updating
things.



Hlengwa and McKenna: Dangers of generic pedagogical panaceas. . .       143

Indaba is a Zulu word for ‘news’, used in South African English context to constitute a6

meeting or a forum where different views on a topic are shared.

The process of updating and keeping the material current is the responsibility
of individual lecturers, which echoes the discourse of academic freedom
found in the Philosophy case. However, in this Department the curriculum
development process that is followed entails that the changes are not only
made at the level of the individual lecturer’s syllabus but rather involve a
sharing of practice amongst colleagues. Mona and her colleagues participate
in regular curriculum review processes where the changes at individual course
level are reviewed in order to see how they integrate and enhance the
programme as a whole.

But we do meet [at least] twice a year for our kind of long Departmental
Indabas.  We look at the course evaluations and get feedback from that,6

and we discuss it. [We ask] ‘Is this too difficult at second year level?’
Are they grasping this? But yes, it is important that they get it at this
early stage. So, we do talk about it and reflect on our courses and see if
any changes need to be made. And then, every year, we update our
courses all the time, because in our field there is no textbook, and the
field’s changing so rapidly.

Valuing pedagogy

Valuing Pedagogy was another discourse evident in the Environmental
Sciences case study data. This discourse privileges a focused attention on
pedagogical practice. For example, conference presentations could include
knowledge from the field or from the classroom.

I’ve just come back from Florida, and I was invited to present at a
conference which was held by what’s called the Tropical Conservation
and Development Programme. . . and there was a whole session on
education on the last day, and it was absolutely fascinating. I got up and
I said, “This has been amazing.” You know, it really reinforced for me
that we’re doing the right thing back here.

The Valuing Pedagogy discourse is located within the broader order of
Integrative Discourses because it is indicative of a broader commitment to the
way attention to teaching is linked to the broader ideals of Environmental



144        Journal of Education, No. 67, 2017

Bernstein (2000) distinguishes between singular disciplines which are inward looking in7

their knowledge production (such as Philosophy) and regions which draw on multiple
disciplines and look out to the world of work (such as Environmental Sciences).

Science. It can be argued that the explicit focus on pedagogy and the culture
of overtly considering curriculum issues in departmental conversations makes
it more possible to include service-learning approaches which would require
careful understanding of how teaching and learning occur.

Conclusion

This paper offers insights into factors that influence curriculum decision-
making in a Philosophy department and an Environmental Sciences
department at a research-intensive institution. These specific curriculum cases
are used to question the generic imposition of service-learning as both
morally and pedagogically best practice. While this paper advocates service-
learning as a beneficial pedagogic tool of any socially concerned curriculum,
we argue that the development of any service-learning initiative needs to take
seriously the knowledge structure of the target discipline as well as the
inherent disciplinary values and institutional culture.

The argument presented concedes that singular,  inward-looking disciplinary7

communities are faced with the task of balancing the disciplinary values with
the call to consider the use of pedagogic tools such as service-learning as a
mean of heeding the strong moral imperative faced by the academy. The
knowledge structure of a discipline like Philosophy has been shown to impact
on the incorporation of service-learning as a pedagogic tool. On the other
hand, the structure of knowledge in Environmental Sciences, with its strong
valuing of integration and the development of a Knower who can respond to
concerns in the world, is likely to have an easier time of implementing
service-learning. It becomes apparent that service learning is not generic and
may differ significantly across disciplines to the extent that it challenges the
simplistic definitions promoted in generic guides.

Universities increasingly have to contend with pressures from outside the
academy that impact on core disciplinary values and functions. Publically
funded institutions like Rhodes University are, to some level, autonomous yet
at the same time they are held accountable to the public purse by various
mechanisms. University leaders and individual academics then have the



Hlengwa and McKenna: Dangers of generic pedagogical panaceas. . .       145

responsibility to maintain a balance between these external demands and the
integrity of the academic enterprise.

Until we understand what the discipline values then we cannot impose a
pedagogical approach as generic good practice. This has significance for
those in academic development who are responsible for working with
academics around issues of curriculum development. Such considerations of
the impact of disciplinary structures and values also provide an important
critique of decontexualised ‘best practice’ discourses prevalent in many
national documents, including the framing of a number of national quality
initiatives. With an understanding of the ways in which the values and
structures of the disciplinary knowledge impact on what is pedagogically
possible, the notion of ‘best practice’ comes under scrutiny and we are forced
to work in more careful ways to implement curriculum initiatives.

References

Ash, S.L. & Clayton, P.H. (2004). The articulated learning: An approach to
guided reflection and assessment. Innovative Higher Education, 29(2),
137–154. 

Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. Oxford:
Rowan & Littlefield. 

Boughey, C. (2009). A meta-analysis of teaching and learning at five
research-intensive South African universities. Commissioned Report.
Pretoria: Council on Higher Education.

Mckenna, S. & Boughey, C. (2014). Argumentative and trustworthy scholars:
The construction of academic staff at research-intensive universities. 
Teaching in Higher Education, 19(7), 825–834.

Braskamp, L. & Wergin, J.F. (1997). Universities and the New Social
Contract. In W.G. Tierney (Ed.) The responsive university:
Restructuring for high performance. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press. 

Bringle, R. & Hatcher, J. (1995). A service learning curriculum for faculty.
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2, 112–122.



146        Journal of Education, No. 67, 2017

Bringle, R.G. & Hatcher, J.A. (2002). Campus-community partnerships: The
terms of engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 503–516. 

Cloete, N. (2010). “Institutional clusters in higher education in South Africa.”
Presentation at the Higher Education Summit of the Minister of Higher
Education and Training, Cape Peninsula University of Technology,
Cape Town, April 22–23.

Council on Higher Education (CHE). (2006). Service-learning in the
curriculum. A resource for higher education institutions. Pretoria: CHE. 

Council on Higher Education (CHE). (2008). Service-learning in the
disciplines. Lessons from the field. Pretoria: CHE. 

Department of Education (DoE). (1997). White Paper 3: A programme for the
transformation of Higher Education. Pretoria: DoE. 

Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET). (2013). White Paper:
Post-School Education and Training. Building an expanded, effective
and integrated post-school system. Pretoria: DHET.

Fairclough, N., Jessop, B., & Sayer, A. (2002). Critical Realism and semiosis.
Journal of Critical Realism (Incorporating Alethia), 5(1), 2–10.

Fairclough, N. (2005). “Peripheral vision: Discourse analysis in organization
studies: The case for critical realism”. Organization Studies, 26(6),
915–939. DOI:10.1177/0170840605054610. 

Graham, G. (2005). The institution of intellectual values: Realism and
idealism in higher education. United Kingdom: Imprint Academic. 

Hall, M. (2010). Community engagement in South African Higher Education.
Kagisano. Issue 6. 

Henkel, M. (2005). Academic identity and autonomy revisited. In M. Henkel
& I. Bleiklie (Eds), Governing knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer.

Hlengwa, A. (2010). Infusing service-learning in curricula: a theoretical
exploration of infusion possibilities. Journal of Education, 48,155–168.



Hlengwa and McKenna: Dangers of generic pedagogical panaceas. . .       147

Hlengwa, A. (2013). An exploration of conditions enabling and constraining
the infusion of service-learning into the curriculum at a South African
research led university. Unpublished Ph.D thesis. Grahamstown, South
Africa: Rhodes University.

Hollander, E.L. (1999). Foreword. In R.G. Bringle, R. Games & E.A.Malloy, 
(Eds.), Colleges and universities as citizens (v–iii). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon. 

Kress, G. (1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. 

Lazarus, J. (2001). A new contract between higher education and society:
Responsiveness through a scholarship of engagement. Paper presented
at the Third Consultative Conference of the Council on Higher
Education, 29 & 30 November 2001.

Lisman, C. & Harvey, I. (Eds) (2000). Beyond the tower: Concepts and
models of service-learning in philosophy. Washington: Stylus
Publishing.

Maton, K. (2014). Knowledge and knowers. Towards a realist sociology of
education. London: Routledge

McKenna, S. & Boughey, C. (2014). Argumentative and trustworthy scholars:
The construction of academic staff at research-intensive universities.
Teaching in Higher Education, 19(7), 825–834. 

National Plan for Higher Education. (2001). Pretoria: NCHE.

Oxley, J. & Ramona, I. (Eds). (2015). Philosophy without walls: 
Experiential learning in Philosophy. Routledge. 

Paphitis, S. & Kelland, L. (2015). Challenging the dominant ideological
paradigm: Can community engagement contribute to the central
epistemic aims of philosophy? South African Journal of Philosophy,
34(4), 419–432, DOI: 10.1080/02580136.2015.1105481 

Ramona, I. & Hawthorne, S. (2011). Beyond service-learning: Civic
engagement in ethics classes. Teaching Philosophy, 34(4), 219–240.



148        Journal of Education, No. 67, 2017

Singh, M. (2014). Higher Education and the public good: Precarious
potential? ACTA ACAEMICA, 46(1), (page nos).

Subotzky, G. (2001). Complementing the marketization of higher education:
New modes of knowledge production in community-higher education
partnerships. In A Kraak (Ed.),Changing modes. New knowledge
production and its implications for higher education in South Africa.
Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council. 

Walker, M. (2012). Universities, professional capabilities and contributions to
the public good in South Africa, Compare: A Journal of Comparative
and International Education, 42(6), 819–838 

Williams, J. (2016). A critical exploration of changing definitions of public
good in relation to higher education, Studies in Higher Education, 41(4),
619–630.

Amanda Hlengwa
Centre for Higher Education Research, Teaching and Learning (CHERTL) 
Rhodes University

a.hlengwa@ru.ac.za

Sioux McKenna
Director of Postgraduate Studies &
Higher Education Studies PhD Coordinator
Rhodes Univesity

s.mckenna@ru.ac.za

mailto:a.Hlengwa@ru.ac.za
mailto:s.mckenna@ru.ac.za