39

Research in a South African faculty of education: 
A transformative approach

PETRA ENGELBRECHT
Canterbury Christ Church University

National and international developments in higher education and the resultant pressure on universities 
to demonstrate excellence, including excellence in research, had a far-reaching effect on faculties of 
education who had traditionally focused more on excellence in teaching than on research. In South 
Africa, as part of transformation policies after 1994, the South African government made a deliberate 
effort to restructure the higher education landscape, resulting in a number of enforced mergers between 
universities and teacher education colleges. These complex contextual issues had a profound effect on 
research development in education faculties. This paper focuses on a transformative approach to research 
development initiatives in a South African faculty of education over a period of three to four years.

Keywords: Research capacity development, research in education, peer-reviewed publications, 
transformative approaches to development, research output, transformative leadership, 
excellence in research

Introduction
Current social and economic transitions, particularly those associated with the concept of “globalisation” 
and the shift to a “knowledge-based economy” have had a profound effect on higher education institutions, 
including on the ideals of quality assurance and excellence (Bitzer, 2010). The resultant escalation of policy 
concern with respect to accountability in higher education and the adoption of selective performance-
related funding procedures have had a dramatic effect on research development (Light & Cox, 2001; 
Oancea, Engelbrecht & Hoffman, 2009).

These international developments also had an impact on higher education in South Africa in its 
transition from apartheid to an equal and democratic society, the most important challenge being redressing 
past inequalities and transforming the education system to serve a new social dispensation and respond 
to new realities and opportunities (DoE, 1997). Key policy initiatives over the past decade such as 
the Education White Paper 3 (DoE, 1997) the Higher Education Act, 1997 (Act 101 of 1997) and the 
National Plan for Higher Education (NPHE) (DoE, 2000)  emphasise the key role of research in affirming 
the production, acquisition and application of knowledge towards national growth, competitiveness and 
innovation (Buijnath, Christiansen & Ogude, 2007). In an analysis of the state of research commissioned 
by the African National Congress (ANC) in 1992, it was found that the science and technology system 
inherited from decades of apartheid was internationally isolated, fragmented, uncoordinated and not in the 
interest of all South Africans (Oancea et al., 2009; Mouton, 2006). It was therefore important for the post-
apartheid government to revive a culture of research in universities as a basic minimum requirement for 
claiming to be sites of knowledge generation and for them to be comparable with more research-intensive 
institutions in other parts of the world (Zeleza, Zeleza & Olukoshi, 2004). New initiatives to increase 
research output in universities were introduced and funding for universities by the National Department of 
Education was allocated for teaching inputs and outputs, and research production (measured by the number 
of master’s and doctoral graduates and the number of research publications) (Inglesi & Pouris, 2008).

Simultaneously, however, faculties of education in South Africa faced additional challenges. As part 
of the government’s initiative to improve the quality of teacher education, the majority of teacher training 
colleges were closed down in 2001, and the remaining colleges merged with faculties of education at 
universities, thereby reducing the number of teacher education facilities as well as the teacher education 
capacity of the country. Faculties of education, like other professional faculties (e.g. health sciences and 



40 Perspectives in Education, Volume 30(3), September 2012

engineering), deal with a field of study rather than a discipline and, although faculties of education in 
South Africa vary considerably in size, composition and function, a result of the incorporation of teacher 
education colleges into universities has been the establishment of two relatively distinctive groups in 
most education faculties. In the first group, the orientation is to teacher education, and the background of 
the majority of this group is distinguished professional service in schools and teacher education colleges, 
with relatively little experience of educational research. The background of the second, much smaller 
group is likely to be in a foundation discipline, often without any practical experience as a school teacher. 
Members of this group view themselves as academics and researchers, and tend to justify their existence 
in terms of their scholarly achievements (OECD, 2000). The result has been that education faculties have 
had severe difficulties in increasing research output, and university managements have tended to refer 
rather disapprovingly to these faculties as traditional teaching faculties. Pressure to merge these groups in 
order to create a positive research culture with an emphasis on excellence now forms an integral part of 
the challenge to develop sustainable research cultures.

Literature on the development of research cultures and capacity development tends to focus, in 
general, on the development of research design and methodological skills, with the result that the social and 
organisational contexts within which individuals and groups of researchers function have been neglected 
(Dison, 2004; Engelbrecht, 2005). Dison (2004) as well as Balfour and Lenta (2009) point out that the 
complex and wide-ranging nature of research capacity means that the development of this capacity should 
be a long-term, multidimensional and multilayered process. This article thus focuses on the description 
and evaluation of the development of a multidimensional approach to research development within a 
transformative view of social justice in a faculty of education.

Development of research in a specific faculty of education
In this section the theoretical approach and the cultural-historical context within which this Faculty 
is placed will be briefly discussed, followed by a discussion of a transformative approach to research 
capacity development and the translation of vision for change into language and action.

Theoretical approach
This article is placed within a transformative view of social justice against the backdrop of the unique 
South African cultural and historical background. According to Christensen (1996), this view of social 
justice avoids the contradictions that may be created by multiple views of social justice, including the 
economic and political (distributive) or individualistic views of social justice. Individualistic views tend 
not to acknowledge the social context within which individuals function in society, and can therefore 
further disadvantage certain communities. Communitarian and distributive views often lack specificity in 
their prescriptions of community-based forms of governance and the recognition of power relationships 
that shape injustice. A transformative view of social justice, however, confronts individual as well as 
historical and structural forces. It can contribute to the development of a society in which working, living 
and learning together can lead to a more reasonable, unbiased and acceptable nation (Mahlomaholo & 
Francis, 2011). This research development programme is thus founded on a view of social justice that 
focuses on the distribution of resources, access and social cohesion, and embraces participatory strategies 
(Artiles, Harris-Muri & Rosenberg, 2006; Christensen, 1996).

A necessary connection in this article is made between a transformative view of social justice with 
its emphasis on the transformation of the identity of a group as well as its individual members (in this 
instance, a group of researchers) and leadership. Transformational leadership is defined, in this instance, 
as behaviour that originates in the deeply held personal values and beliefs of a specific leader who operates 
out of a personal value system that is based on integrity and justice in advancing human rights (Theodaris, 
2007; Humphreys & Einstein, 2003).



41ENGELBRECHT — Research in a South African faculty of education

Cultural-historical context
Understanding the cultural-historical context is a key step in the process of reframing faculty environments 
(Artiles, 2009; Williams, Berger & McClendon, 2005). This is even more important in the case of this 
specific faculty when its complex history is taken into account. This faculty of education, on one of 
three campuses of a semi-rural university in the North-West Province of South Africa, was established 
in 2001 when a large teacher education college was incorporated into a small research-oriented faculty 
of education at the local university. This university then merged in 2004 with a neighbouring university 
to form a new university with three distinct campuses. This institution experienced similar challenges 
arising out of merger activities to universities in other parts of the world (e.g. in the United Kingdom 
and Australia), and these are reflected elsewhere in its merger history (Geertsema & Van Niekerk, 2009; 
Harman & Meek, 2002). In line with the global emphasis on the research function of a university, the 
vision and mission of the new combined university now focus strongly on the establishment of a more 
balanced teaching-research culture within the institution, in contrast to the strong teaching focus of the 
individual pre-merger universities of the past. In addition, in 2006 the campus management decided to 
restructure the Faculty of Education in order to align its structural and organisational processes to those 
of the newly merged institution. This process also involved planning the physical removal of the majority 
of staff to other buildings and was concluded at the end of 2006. The dean at that time also unexpectedly 
resigned in July 2006.

As it is highly specialised, the Faculty is segmented into subject groups in three schools and a research 
section, and consists of 120 academic staff and over 80 support staff on campus. These discrete groups, in 
combination with the multiple strategic goals of the Faculty (excellence in teaching and research, adequate 
student support, diversification of student and staff profiles) have led to highly differentiated and, in some 
instances, conflicting interests.

The majority of the academic staff, in line with the general division in a faculty where a teacher 
education institution has been incorporated, made the transition from school teaching into academic life. 
Most of them still viewed themselves as teachers, with a strong sense of commitment to their students, 
and teaching as their main purpose in the academic setting (Griffiths, Thompson & Hryniewicz, 2010). As 
a result, research projects and the completion of doctoral degrees were not regarded as their top priorities.

Research in the Faculty was externally evaluated by peers in 2006, in accordance with the regulations 
of the University (ACU, 2006). The evaluation followed the format of an extensive self-evaluation, followed 
by an external review by peers (Geertsema & Van Niekerk, 2009). Although the effect of the mergers was 
taken into account, the evaluation report was still overwhelmingly negative. It was pointed out that, with 
limited exceptions, researchers in the Faculty did not enjoy national or international standing, and that the 
number of accredited publications had considerably declined between 2002 and 2005. The demographics 
at the time of the evaluation did not reflect the demographics of the country in any way and the Faculty 
was still dominated by white, male and middle-aged researchers. The report recommended that leadership 
provision, quality productivity and support for younger and less experienced researchers that would better 
reflect the demographics of the country should receive urgent attention (ACU, 2006; Mouton, 2006).

At the beginning of 2007, I was appointed as the new dean, the first woman to be appointed as 
dean and only the second to be appointed as full professor in this Faculty. As an established researcher 
with experience in research management, I was explicitly tasked by the University management with the 
development of research in the Faculty. It soon became clear to me that strategic choices had to be made in 
respect of the theoretical framework within which I wanted to place my own leadership style, the amount 
of planning required and the active involvement of interested parties (Van der Westhuizen, 2007). At the 
heart of the development of research in the Faculty was my view that transformative and participatory 
leadership within a transformative view of social justice would be particularly appropriate to the dynamic 
environment in which this Faculty was functioning. I view a participatory approach to research capacity 
development as a dynamic enabling process that occurs in a cultural-historical context; it is always 
“situational”, strives to be pro-active rather than re-active, and includes my underlying personal view that 
fairness, justice and other human rights values are an integral part of the approach (Engelbrecht, 2011; 



42 Perspectives in Education, Volume 30(3), September 2012

Ramsden, 1998). In the case of this Faculty, with its complex history of mergers and restructuring together 
with a more autocratic leadership approach, emphasising transparency, consensus-building, shared power 
and the identification of common commitments and aspiration had to form an integral part of the change 
process. This approach also involves creatively mediating opposing forces that include tensions such as 
tradition versus change in organisational behaviour, management versus leadership, and coping with often 
inflexible external forces. The strategic implementation of this approach therefore focused on challenging 
the traditional research process and who should be involved in research, inspiring shared vision, enabling 
others to act, modelling the way, and celebrating achievement (Ramsden, 1998). As dean and as researcher, 
I took a leading role in the development of a research capacity-building programme in the Faculty and 
carried on with my own research, despite a heavy workload. I also continuously emphasised that research 
and academic leadership should be viewed as multi-level and participatory in its operation, and that it 
exists at multiple levels: within the institution, campus, faculty, schools and subject groups. I therefore 
endeavoured to model a participatory approach to planning and implementation.

One of the first steps I took in order to plan and develop transformative change was to analyse, in 
collaboration with colleagues, the dynamic interaction between multiple layers of external factors that 
influenced the Faculty (as discussed earlier), as well as the organisational culture and behaviour within 
the faculty, wider campus and institution by using a systemic approach. The following dimensions (based 
on Williams et al., 2005) were identified as important factors for future strategic planning for research 
within the Faculty: the dual administrative and collegial nature of higher education that distinguishes it 
from other types of organisations; the complex political nature not only of the Faculty itself but also of 
the institution that may influence organisational dynamics, and the symbolic dimension in which long-
standing traditions in the Faculty could be called into question.

As a second step, an internationally renowned leader in educational research was contracted to 
analyse the focus of research in the Faculty and to consult with academics in order to provide input on 
the development of a stronger research culture. In his report the most common barriers to greater research 
activity were identified as lack of time, due to heavy teaching loads, and the traditional divide between 
teaching and research. A major recommendation was that the Faculty should focus its research effort 
on a limited number of priority areas in order to increase the body of knowledge and to make leading 
contributions in the chosen fields (Hegarty, 2007). A more focused approach would also bring the Faculty 
in line with the institution’s overall research approach that advocates the formation of a small number of 
focus areas in which research and postgraduate education are integrated, and which are based on existing 
strengths aligned with national priorities (Geertsema & Van Niekerk, 2009).

Translating vision for change into language and action: a participatory  
approach
Against the above background, a multidimensional and integrated approach to research capacity 
development was initiated. The components included a transformative and participatory leadership style 
and a strong focus on a transformative view of social justice (access, resources and social cohesion), as 
discussed earlier. Organisational factors, clearly defined overall objectives, refined shorter term outcomes 
and collective ownership formed the basis of the strategy. These components were in continuous dynamic 
interaction with one another as well as with multiple contextual influences, and will now be discussed in 
more detail.

Transformative change cannot happen unless the necessary financial, human and symbolic resources 
are made available to drive the process (Williams et al., 2005). The result was that the Faculty had to 
seriously reconsider the allocation of available resources on an organisational level in order to make the 
proposed changes. The challenge was therefore to know when and how to redistribute ever-diminishing 
resources and how to access additional resources in order to ensure a fair distribution. Despite the fact that 
senior administrators of the University supported the notion that change was necessary, convincing the 
Budget Committee of the University to provide increased funding for research proved to be a difficult task. 



43ENGELBRECHT — Research in a South African faculty of education

To some extent, increasing the research budget was successful and the development and implementation 
of the programme could proceed.

The overall long-term objective of the programme was the establishment of a productive, 
internationally connected, focused and self-producing community of scholars that would be more 
representative of the demographics of the country, and who would produce research of a quality 
comparative with peers anywhere in the world (e.g. Puryear, 2005). An integrated development approach 
was decided upon, focusing not only on the acquisition of knowledge in so-called basic research skills, but 
also on the development of the personal and professional research skills of researchers within a supporting 
transformative research climate, while also integrating these activities into the wider research community 
(Engelbrecht & Monteith, 2007). This implied that shorter term outcomes should not only focus on 
individual development strategies, but also include a research strategy which emphasises outcomes that 
are in the collective interest of all the research groups and the Faculty as a whole over a period of time 
(Rowley, 1999).

Within the Faculty, access to the programme was open and transparent. The following groups of 
researchers were collectively identified for specific individual support after a participatory consultation 
process: a group of academics who had not yet obtained a doctoral degree and who traditionally had no 
access to research resources; those who had recently (in the past four to five years) obtained a doctoral 
degree; so-called semi-established researchers (those who had published a few articles but who were not 
known outside their own circle of colleagues), and the already established researchers in the Faculty. 
Based on the individual and collective needs of all involved, the individualised and collective programmes 
shared the same overall goal: the development of clearly defined, focused research to which everyone 
in the Faculty would have access and that would enable participants to develop a long-term research 
identity (Jansen, 2006). In addition to these support programmes, a retired researcher, three full-time 
research professors, as well as three internationally renowned extraordinary professors were contracted 
and appointed in order to establish larger research groups in the Faculty, to increase the research image of 
the Faculty and to mentor less experienced researchers. A series of research training workshops based on 
needs analyses conducted in the Faculty were also planned and presented by international experts over a 
period of three years.

The development of a more focused approach to research development in the Faculty was also 
regarded as an opportunity to develop not only dynamic research groups within the Faculty but also social 
cohesion within this research community. The development of foci with the help of the external facilitators 
was therefore formulated as a priority, with an emphasis on the fact that the foci should be participatory 
and permissive rather than restrictive, that the foci would be allowed to emerge from the strengths of the 
various groups, and that they should have long-term validity within the South African education context 
(Hegarty, 2007; Rowley, 1999).

Outcomes were regarded as the specific building blocks necessary to achieve the overall objective of 
the programme over a period of six to seven years. Specific initial quantitative outcomes, to be evaluated 
over a period of three years, were formulated and based on the criteria set by the institution for research 
output (Geertsema & Van Niekerk, 2009). These included the development of a more focused research 
approach; an increase in the number of academic staff holding doctoral degrees; an increase in the number 
of publications in high-impact journals, preferably internationally accredited ones (Vaughn, 2008); 
significant growth in research funds obtained from outside the university; the development of the number 
of nationally and internationally known researchers in the Faculty, and the finalisation of international 
cooperation agreements with other universities in order to extend networks and achieve a wider research 
profile for the Faculty.

In order to encourage a shared vision and ownership in the Faculty, the draft research development 
programme was presented to colleagues after consultation, and discussed at a Faculty Forum meeting in 
2007, and then again widely distributed for comments. Comments were, for example, solicited from senior 
management of the University, including the institutional research office, as well as international research 
partners and members of the Faculty. In addition, informal discussions were held with the various groups 



44 Perspectives in Education, Volume 30(3), September 2012

identified in the programme, and open and frank discussions encouraged about the challenges being faced 
with research development. The feedback received from the various discussions was then incorporated into 
the programme. Many colleagues also accepted my open invitation to discuss their views on research with 
me individually, which contributed to my increasing awareness of the potential for research in the Faculty.

Research design and methodology
A mixed-method approach was used in the evaluation of progress, thereby enabling us to collect both 
quantitative and qualitative data that was needed to address the complex and potentially interrelated issues 
and concerns of this programme. The results also provided further insight into, and understanding of the 
factors that influenced the programme’s effectiveness and the relationships between the general attainment 
of outcomes, participants’ perceptions and the professional development of all involved (Mertens, 2005).

As mentioned earlier, research output with specific reference to journal articles, the number of 
academics with doctoral degrees, and research projects that received outside funding were measured 
in compliance with University regulations, over an initial period of three years. In order to enhance 
the quantitative data and allow for more probing and in-depth exploration of the particular views of 
participants in the programme, semi-structured individual interviews were also held with a wide range 
of researchers, both experienced and less experienced, over a period of six months in 2009/2010 (Babbie 
& Mouton, 2001; Leech & Ongwuegbuzie, 2007). The interview schedule focused on their own personal 
views of the process, as well as possible reasons for the increase or decrease in their research output. In 
addition, a group of experienced and less experienced researchers (using simple random sampling) were 
asked to reflect on their own research experiences by answering the following open-ended question in 
writing: To what extent do you think you have been able to develop as scholar who is well known in your 
field over the past three years? (Jansen, 2006). Where further clarification was needed, these descriptions 
were followed up with individual interviews. Qualitative data were analysed using a constant comparison 
analysis (Leech & Ongwuegbuzie, 2007; Merriam, 2009). Membership checks were used as a strategy 
to ensure the validity of the qualitative data, and the reliability of the quantitative data was checked by 
comparing it with institutional data on research outputs. The evaluation of progress also took into account 
the complex environment in which the Faculty as a whole still found itself within the turbulent external 
higher education environment as it specifically relates to teacher training in South Africa.

Ethical principles for the evaluation of the programme included voluntary participation and guarding 
the privacy and confidentiality of all participants.

Results
A steady increase in the number of publications in well-known journals was apparent:

Table 1: Number of publications in well-known journals

Year Number of publications (n)

2006 23

2007 27

2008 30

2009 42



45ENGELBRECHT — Research in a South African faculty of education

The fact that a wider group of researchers had published in high-impact journals was encouraging. An 
analysis of the qualitative data indicated that the following factors played a role in the increase in quality 
publications: workshops that specifically addressed writing a scientific article and the fear of failure, and 
on a more individual level, the encouragement of more senior researchers to involve more inexperienced 
colleagues in co-authoring articles. The establishment of a stronger overall culture of research support 
also played a role.

The number of academics with a doctoral degree also increased (the number of academic staff 
remained constant for the period 2007-2009):

Table 2: Number of academics with doctoral degrees

Year Number of degrees (n)

2006 29

2007 37

2008 47

2009 54

According to the qualitative data, the following factors played a role in the increase: the now clearly 
defined policy of leave of absence to complete the research and sufficient financial support to do so; the 
structured development of effective supervision skills in the Faculty since 2007, and the increased role of 
mentoring played by senior researchers. In addition, opportunities to develop a personalised approach to 
postdoctoral work also motivated academics to complete their initial research in order to take up some of 
these opportunities, which included research opportunities abroad.

Funding for larger research projects from outside the University, especially funding on an 
international level, increased if the following comparison is taken into account:

Table 3: Funding for larger research projects

Year Amount

2007 R428,338.00

2009 R4,535,901.00

Better communication and support strategies in the Faculty for both occasional and regular funding 
opportunities played a role in this instance. However, if the funding is compared to those of more research-
intensive faculties of education elsewhere, it is clear that a great deal of work still needs to be done in  
this area.

What also became clear during the evaluation of research output is that typical measurable outcomes 
that are required by the institution, for instance, should include a more in-depth analysis and additional 
criteria. These could include, for example, the number of keynote papers presented by invitation to 
national and international conferences; the number of international researchers as visitors to the Faculty; 
postgraduate student activities and performances, and the number of researchers who serve on the editorial 
boards of prestigious journals.



46 Perspectives in Education, Volume 30(3), September 2012

The analysis of the open-ended reflections of the researchers on their scholarship development and 
the interviews also proved to be illuminating. The following barriers to, and indicators of success in 
research development were identified in the qualitative data analyses.

The quest for a balance between research and teaching
The majority of the participants pointed out that finding a balance between teaching and research proved 
a challenge. Teacher education programmes are highly teaching-intensive and, as has been reported 
elsewhere (Griffiths et al., 2010), lack of time for research is a universal challenge in education faculties. 
It became clear that, despite the input of senior Faculty management, funding for replacement staff, staff 
exchanges and the mentoring of researchers regarding time management, finding a balance between time 
for teaching and research remains problematic. As one emerging researcher put it: “My heavy teaching 
load means that I cannot see myself as a developing scholar but rather see myself as more of a survivor in 
trying to develop my own research …”.

Encouraging the group of more inexperienced researchers to explore and understand their own 
conceptions of the relationship of research to other activities, including teaching, proved to be valuable. 
A strong research group, for example, consisting of members, some of whom had not traditionally been 
involved in research, emerged with a focus on the development of self-directed and problem-based learning 
in the Faculty. Their research activities are closely aligned with their classroom practices.

Low self-confidence
Lack of confidence was cited by some of the emerging researchers as an initial barrier, but it was also 
clearly defined as being part of the process of change. The positive role that senior researchers (including 
the research professors who were more representative of the demographics of the country) played in 
addressing this issue was clearly articulated. For example: “I have been privileged to work with well-
known researchers … I have made a ‘pay [it] forward promise’ to myself to always try my utmost best to 
provide academics-in-the-making with exactly the same opportunities that I have so abundantly received 
….” and “Knowing that the senior researchers really care about what is happening to me as a new researcher 
really helped me in becoming more self-confident…”.

Development of an overall research focus in the Faculty
In accordance with the recommendation by Hegarty (2007), efforts to develop a more focused research 
approach that was in line with the institution’s approach included Faculty discussions facilitated by 
external experts. This has enabled the Faculty to increasingly focus its research effort on a limited number 
of priority areas of national importance. In the data analysis it became clear that the emerging researchers, 
in particular, have taken ownership of this process, adapting their own emerging foci to the overall focus 
of the Faculty. However, despite these positive developments and that diverse views were accommodated 
in the more focused approach, a minority of senior researchers found this new direction disconcerting. For 
example: “I have had some success with my own individual research efforts so far, why should I now have 
to change my focus in order to satisfy research management in the Faculty and the university …” and “I 
find this emphasis on focused research rather patronizing …”.

It became clear that, in the movement towards a more focused approach to research, the longstanding 
tradition of the Faculty that senior researchers were permitted to have a strongly individual approach 
to whatever they wanted to research has been called into question. Aligning the expectations of senior 
researchers to bring about deeper change therefore proved to be more difficult than anticipated.

Building and developing research networks
Understanding the systemic dimension enabled us to plan the development of new alliances with 
external parties, engage in intentional institution-based efforts to align research priorities and develop 
collegial relationships. It also prompted the development of marketing and dissemination strategies 



47ENGELBRECHT — Research in a South African faculty of education

(e.g., presentations at high-level conferences) to increase awareness of research in the Faculty. Three 
international cooperation agreements with faculties of education at three universities were finalised in 
the period 2007-2009. These agreements include the exchange of researchers and students. In addition, 
two prestigious research seminars held over a period of three years and led  by internationally renowned 
researchers on relevant topics in educational research (e.g., issues regarding diversity in educational 
research) also exposed the Faculty to international views and opinions, and in this way also promoted 
research development and potential in the Faculty.

All the participants viewed these developments as invigorating and exciting. Some of these 
opportunities included the transparent identification of, and financial support for attendance at important 
international conferences, and the identification of role models and peers. They also helped to emphasise 
the importance of published work and the need for support to develop academic writing and publishing 
skills, as this quotation confirms: “The financial support to visit and work with two of the leading 
international researchers in my field has enabled me to develop the skills and self-confidence to present 
at an international conference and to submit an article to the leading journal in this field. The article was 
accepted …”.

Summary and conclusion
As mentioned earlier, the research capacity development programme in this Faculty was, due to my own 
deeply held personal beliefs, based on a transformative approach to social justice and leadership, in which 
historical as well as structural forces were channelled in an effort to develop a positive research culture. 
The distribution of resources, access and social cohesion formed the basis of the development programme 
in the Faculty, with participatory strategies and clearly defined quantitative and qualitative outcomes 
guiding the process.

The development of supportive leadership styles by research professors and the then research manager 
in the Faculty played key role. Over time, however, it became obvious that I, as dean, however committed 
to leading research in the Faculty, had too many other responsibilities to be involved in the micro-
management of research in the Faculty. As a result, an internationally known and established researcher 
was appointed in 2009 (following the retirement of the previous research director) to lead research 
management and organisational factors, including the day-to-day financial management, human resource 
management and profile and reputation enhancement of research in the Faculty. Key organisational issues 
pertaining to the establishment of a continuing research income stream and the stability of relationships 
with research councils and other research funding organisations could now be developed, along with a 
functioning research information system. Consequently, since 2009, the Faculty has benefited from a 
better research infrastructure that has a stronger focus on participatory, postgraduate student activities, an 
increase in the number of both research support staff and postdoctoral fellows in the Faculty.

As mentioned earlier, this Faculty has a history of an approach to leadership where Faculty 
ownership of developments, for example, was not explicitly addressed. My efforts as dean to develop a 
more transformative and participatory approach had some successes, notably in the improvement of the 
general understanding and acceptance that research participation is integral to the activities of the Faculty, 
and that the distribution of resources and access to research opportunities should be transparent. However, 
it is important to record that previous power relationships and structures continue to influence the complex 
collegial structure within the Faculty. Although the majority of Faculty members have enthusiastically 
taken part in the collaborative contribution to the increase in achievements, some participants still tend to 
view the programme as owned by senior Faculty management, especially where the issues are experienced 
as threatening by a small minority (e.g., the development of larger research groups and changing the 
demographic profile of the Faculty). It is thus important for senior research leadership in the Faculty to 
understand that remnants of previous interests and power issues may still play a major role in shaping 
the tangible and intangible aspects of the programme. Developing the content of the programme should 
therefore also continue to be participative and transparent, and research planning should become a central 



48 Perspectives in Education, Volume 30(3), September 2012

and shared activity in strategic planning activities on all levels in order to establish sustainable social 
cohesion in this research community.

According to Puryear (2005), a strong research community should be self-sustaining and self-
regenerating. It is also clear that the best environment for such development is a faculty that is strong, 
agile and committed to the participatory development of scholarship within a transformative milieu that 
embraces social cohesion and access. Developing research capacity in faculties of education requires a 
deliberate, intensive and sustained effort and, as has been illustrated, efforts that foster a transformative 
approach can contribute much towards the development of supportive research communities. Such 
an approach could give both established as well as new generations of scholars the support they need 
to enable all faculties of education in South Africa to take their rightful place as outstanding sites of 
knowledge generation.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank every colleague in the Faculty of Education Sciences, Potchefstroom, as 
well as colleagues in the Institutional Research Support Office and Campus Management Team, North-
West University for their positive support in the development of the discussed programme. As a result, her 
journey in the Faculty (2007-2010) has been an incredibly rich and rewarding learning experience.

References
Artiles AJ 2009. Reframing disproportionality research: Outline of a cultural-historical paradigm. Multiple 

Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 11(2):24-37.
Artiles AK, Harris-Muri N & Rosenberg D 2006. Inclusion as social justice: Critical notes on the discourse 

assumptions and the way ahead. Theory into Practise, 45(3):260-268.
Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) 2006. Report of the External Review Panel on Quality 

promotion of research and postgraduate education at Northwest University. London: ACU.
Babbie E & Mouton J 2001. The practice of social research. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Balfour RJ & Lenta M 2009. Research capacity development: A case study in one faculty at the University 

of KwaZulu-Natal (2003-2006). South African Journal of Higher Education, 3(1):8-20.
Bitzer EM 2010. A university department as a community of practice: A quality promotion perspective. 

South African Journal of Higher Education, 24(1):15-31.
Buijnath N, Christiansen IM & Ogude N 2007. Institutional self-representation at South African higher 

education institutions. South African Journal of Higher Education, 21(3):400-411.
Christensen C 1996. Disabled, handicapped or disordered: “What’s in a name”? In C Christensen &  

F Rizvi (eds), Disability and the dilemmas of education and justice. London: Open University Press, 
63-77.

Department of Education (DoE) 1997. Education White Paper 3: A programme for the transformation of 
higher education. Pretoria: Government Printer.

Department of Education (DoE) 2000. National Plan for Higher Education. Pretoria: Ministry of Education.
Dison A 2004. ‘Finding her own academic self ’: Research capacity development and identity formation. 

Perspectives in Education, 22(4):83-98.
Engelbrecht P 2005. Research capacity development at Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Paper 

presented at INORMS conference, Brisbane, Australia.
Engelbrecht P 2011. Equity in inclusive school communities: An attainable goal? Canterbury, UK. 

Unpublished manuscript.
Engelbrecht P & Monteith JL De K 2007. Faculty of Education Sciences: Research Development 

Programme. Unpublished draft discussion document. Potchefstroom: North-West University.
Geertsema JC & Van Niekerk F 2009. Strategies for university improvement: The research profile change 

at a South African non-research-intensive university. South African Journal of Higher Education, 
23(5):912-934.



49ENGELBRECHT — Research in a South African faculty of education

Griffiths V, Thompson S & Hryniewicz L 2010. Developing a research profile: Mentoring and support for 
teacher educators. Professional Development in Education, 36(1-2):245-262.

Harman K & Meek L 2002. Introduction of special issue: Merger revisited international perspectives on 
mergers in higher education. Higher Education, 44:1-4.

Hegarty S 2007. Research for a dynamic teacher education: A report to North-west University Faculty of 
Education. Unpublished report. Potchefstroom: North-West University.

Humphreys JH & Einstein WO 2003. Nothing new under the sun: Transformational leadership from a 
historical perspective. Management Decision, 41(1):85-95.

Inglesi R & Pouris A 2008. Where are our universities going? A review twenty years later. South African 
Journal of Science, 104:345-348.

Jansen JD 2006. On becoming a scholar. South African Psychiatry Review, 9:203-205.
Leech NL & Ongwuegbuzie AJ 2007. An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis 

triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 4:557-584.
Light G & Cox R 2001. Learning and teaching in higher education. London: SAGE Publications.
Mahlomaholo AMG & Francis D 2011. Editorial: Learn together and work together for a more reasonable, 

unbiased, acceptable and morally righteous nation. South African Journal of Education, 31:295-297.
Merriam SB 2009. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mertens D 2005. Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with 

quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mouton J 2006. Science for transformation: Research agendas and priorities in South Africa. In L Box & R 

Engelhard (eds), Science and technology policy for development, dialogues at the interface. London: 
Anthem Press, 155-172.

Oancea A, Engelbrecht P & Hoffman J 2009. Research policy and governance in the United Kingdom 
– critical perspective and implications for South African higher education research. South African 
Journal of Higher Education, 23(6):1101-1114.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) 2000. Knowledge management in the 
learning society. Paris: OECD Publications.

Puryear JM 2005. Building education research capacity in developing countries: Some fundamental 
issues. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(1):93-99.

Ramsden P 1998. Learning to lead in higher education. London: Routledge.
Rowley JM 1999. Developing research capacity: The second step. International Journal of Educational 

Management, 13(4):208-212.
Theodaris G 2007. Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Towards a theory of social justice. 

Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2):221-258.
Van der Westhuizen PC 2007. Schools as organisations. Third edition. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
Vaughn CL 2008. Alternatives to the publication subsidy for research funding. South African Journal of 

Science, 104:91-96.
Williams DA, Berger JB & McClendon SA 2005. Towards a model of inclusive excellence and change in 

postsecondary institutions. Washington, DC: Association American Colleges and Universities.
Zeelen J 2003. Improving the research culture at historically black universities: The situation at the 

University of the North. Perspectives in Education, 21(2):137-147.
Zeleza PT, Zeleza T & Olukoshi AO (eds) 2004. African universities in the 21st century: Knowledge and 

society. Dakar, Senegal: CODESRIA.