Community Service Learning: Pedagogy at the Interface of Poverty, Inequality and Privilege

Abstract

Using empirical data from three different community service learning (CSL) courses offered at a South African university, in this paper we discuss the promises and pitfalls of this pedagogy for meaningful change within communities. The paper makes visible the challenging contradictions of CSL as a practice seeking to promote social change and CSL as a form of charity or paternalism. Drawing on in-depth qualitative data collected from interviews with lecturers, focus groups with students involved in CSL and interviews and focus groups with community members who participated in CSL, we examine the interface between poverty, inequality and privilege that occurs when universities and poor communities endeavour to partner. We argue that CSL ought to promote social change through fostering a sense of agency, empowerment, sustainability and capabilities formation amongst students and within communities. However, when CSL course design (and resultant implementation) does not sufficiently take account of the complex relations of power and privilege, particularly in the context of extreme poverty in communities, CSL practice risks undermining the social transformation that it seeks to foster. We draw on the work of Davis and Wells [2016. “Transformation without Paternalism.” Journal of Human Development and Capabilities. doi:10.1080/19452829.2016.1145198] to propose procedural principles for democratic CSL design and implementation.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjhd20
Journal of Human Development and Capabilities
A Multi-Disciplinary Journal for People-Centered Development
ISSN: 1945-2829 (Print) 1945-2837 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjhd20
Community Service Learning: Pedagogy at the
Interface of Poverty, Inequality and Privilege
Ntimi Mtawa & Merridy Wilson-Strydom
To cite this article: Ntimi Mtawa & Merridy Wilson-Strydom (2018): Community Service Learning:
Pedagogy at the Interface of Poverty, Inequality and Privilege, Journal of Human Development and
Capabilities
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2018.1448370
Published online: 08 Mar 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Community Service Learning: Pedagogy at
the Interface of Poverty, Inequality and
Privilege
NTIMI MTAWA & MERRIDY WILSON-STRYDOM
University of the Free State, Centre for Research on Higher Education and Development (CRHED), Bloemfontein,
Republic of South Africa
ABSTRACT Using empirical data from three different community service learning (CSL)
courses offered at a South African university, in this paper we discuss the promises and
pitfalls of this pedagogy for meaningful change within communities. The paper makes
visible the challenging contradictions of CSL as a practice seeking to promote social
change and CSL as a form of charity or paternalism. Drawing on in-depth qualitative
data collected from interviews with lecturers, focus groups with students involved in CSL
and interviews and focus groups with community members who participated in CSL, we
examine the interface between poverty, inequality and privilege that occurs when
universities and poor communities endeavour to partner. We argue that CSL ought to
promote social change through fostering a sense of agency, empowerment, sustainability
and capabilities formation amongst students and within communities. However, when
CSL course design (and resultant implementation) does not sufficiently take account of
the complex relations of power and privilege, particularly in the context of extreme
poverty in communities, CSL practice risks undermining the social transformation that it
seeks to foster. We draw on the work of Davis and Wells [2016. “Transformation without
Paternalism.”Journal of Human Development and Capabilities. doi:10.1080/
19452829.2016.1145198] to propose procedural principles for democratic CSL design
and implementation.
KEYWORDS Community service learning, Social justice, Paternalism, South Africa,
Inequality, Poverty
Introduction
Universities are increasingly called on to become more responsive to the communities in
which they function in line with a broader agenda to reclaim higher education as a
public good (Boni and Walker 2013). At the pedagogical level, community service learning
(CSL) is a common mechanism though which universities endeavour to partner with com-
munities. Over the past few decades, the field of CSL has witnessed two major trends. One,
is the rapid uptake of CSL within higher education across the world (Berry and Chisholm
1999; Butin 2006). Two, is the increasing recognition of its educational and social value
© 2018 Human Development and Capability Association
Correspondence Address: Ntimi Mtawa, University of the Free State, Centre for Research on Higher Education and
Development (CRHED), PO Box 339, Bloemfontein 9300, Republic of South Africa. Email: mntimi@gmail.com
Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2018.1448370

(Einfeld and Collins 2008; Peterson 2009; Butin 2010). Despite this growth in uptake and
recognition of its potential, CSL is defined and interpreted in many ways by various authors
and also in universities’policies and other documentation. Jacoby (1996, 5) provides a defi-
nition that effectively synthesizes much of the literature:
[Community] service-learning is a form of experiential education in which students
engage in activities that address human and community needs together with structured
opportunities intentionally designed to promote student learning and development.
Reflection and reciprocity are key concepts of service-learning.
This definition suggests that needs addressed in CSL are defined by the community; reci-
procity is emphasized and everyone is benefiting in the process. Despite the potentials of
CSL, there is now a growing body of literature that critically unpacks CSL’s emphasis
on student-centred pedagogical innovation over community transformation (Peterson
2009; Preece 2016).
Against this background, in this paper we present the findings of a study that critically
examined the transformative potential and pitfalls of CSL practices for communities, in
the context of one university in South Africa, a middle income, but highly unequal
country in which large numbers of people live in poverty (du Toit 2005; Oxfam 2014;
Stats SA 2017). Drawing theoretically on the human development and capabilities approach
we show that the intersections of poverty, inequality and privilege that occur when a uni-
versity partners with poor and marginalized communities through CSL potentially—
albeit unintentionally—limits communities’capabilities to exercise agency and bring
about meaningful change that they have reason to value.
Community Service Learning: Social Change or Charity?
Much of the literature heralds CSL for being a powerful pedagogical strategy and as a
vehicle through which universities attempt to contribute to broader social change (Butin
2010; Cipolle 2010). The value of CSL for students’learning and development has
largely occupied the CSL literature. For example, in an attempt to summarize the literature
focusing on the effects of CSL on students between the period 1993 and 2000, Eyler et al.
(2001) found five key areas through which CSL impacts students. These effects included
personal development, social outcomes, learning outcomes, career development, and an
enhanced relationship with the institution. More recent literature highlights relatively
similar benefits of CSL for students and emphasizes the need for universities to use CSL
in cultivating qualities required by graduates in a contemporary world (McMillan 2013;
Costandius, Bitzer, and Waghid 2015).
Further, drawing on various social justice frameworks, CSL has been positioned as (i) an
empowering pedagogy as it enables students to engage in actions and advocacy aimed at
creating a more socially just society; (ii) multicultural pedagogy as it provides opportunities
to practice respect for diversity; (iii) social justice pedagogy as it enhances awareness of
social justice issues and commitment to social change; and (iv) civic pedagogy through cul-
tivating citizenship capacities such as diversity literacy, critical thinking and social respon-
sibility (Cipolle 2004,2010; Einfeld and Collins 2008; Chupp and Joseph 2010).
As far as the value of CSL for the communities with whom universities partner, the lit-
erature argues that CSL can provide meaningful contributions to the transformation of com-
munities, although relatively little research has been undertaken to back up these claims
(Tryon and Stoecker 2008). The outcomes at the community level that have been identified
in research include satisfaction with students’participation, a sense that CSL provides
2N. Mtawa & M. Wilson-Strydom

useful services in communities, and the perception that CSL enhances community–univer-
sity relations (Cruz and Giles 2000; Eyler et al. 2001). However, these studies do not say
much at all about the specific value or benefit of CSL for participating community
members. As a result, more recently, there has been a growing body of literature that
pushes for CSL to be foregrounded within a deeper notion of social justice and transform-
ation with more evidence needed to support its claimed benefits to communities (Mitchell
2008; Moely, Furco, and Reed 2008; Peterson 2009).
The argument that CSL should foster social change has emerged mainly due to the realiz-
ation that the traditional approaches tended to emphasize service without paying attention to
systems and structures of inequality (i.e., charity-focused) which reinforces social hierar-
chies, and so tends towards being patronising and paternalistic (Mitchell 2008; Cipolle
2010). Traditional approaches to CSL tended to involve a once-off, short-term, “band-
aid”approach (Kahne and Westheimer 1996). CSL for social change on the other hand
entails explicitly seeking to confront power imbalances, taking the perspective of and advo-
cating for marginalized groups, and harnessing resources for social change with universities
as one change agent within the CSL partnership (Cuban and Anderson 2007). Central to this
framing, is CSL course design and implementation practice that is built around equitable
partnership, reciprocity and strives toward collectively and actively engaging all partici-
pants in solving social problems at a systemic level (Jacoby associates, 2003).
Even though CSL is increasingly being framed from a social change standpoint, its prac-
tices and intended outcomes may perpetuate paternalistic tendencies in communities with
community members commonly being positioned as largely passive recipients of CSL pro-
grammes initiated by others—as we demonstrate empirically below. This challenge is suc-
cinctly summed up by Robinson (2000, 607) who argues that:
Though tremendous good work is being done in the name of service-learning, the
depoliticised rendering of direct services to needy populations makes service-learning
a glorified welfare system.
Similarly, we argue that CSL practitioners often find themselves in a dilemma because of
the context and circumstances in which CSL is designed and operates. By definition,
CSL is a pedagogic approach and is always located within the structures, policies and
norms of the educational institution in question. In the context of CSL offered by univer-
sities, this location raises an even greater challenge than CSL at school level because uni-
versities and those who inhabit them usually occupy higher status and wealthier social
positions than those in the communities involved in CSL. At issue are CSL programmes
which attempt to make a meaningful contribution to partner communities in the midst of
these power differentials and positions of privilege on the university side, particularly
when working in community contexts characterized by abject poverty and extremes of
inequality, as is the case in South Africa.
There is a small body of literature tackling these challenges from which we can learn. For
example, Lewis (2004) conducted a study that involved four CSL courses in partnership
with the Near North Neighbourhood of Newark in the US. The goal of establishing this
partnership was to attempt to move CSL toward a social justice model. A number of
obstacles in meeting the goals of social justice were identified by Lewis. These included
difficulty in building trust in communities and lack of active participation of community
members as they felt they were being coerced into the project. From the students’
reports about their CSL experiences, Lewis (2004, 100) found that some students wondered
“if it is patronizing of CSL to believe that only lower, working class communities need help
in bettering their environment.”Students were also concerned about stereotyping of
Community service learning 3

neighbourhood residents and questioned whether the project structure had actually disem-
powered residents. Another study, also in the US context, found that CSL increased stu-
dents’awareness of social inequality but did not necessarily cause them to feel any sense
of responsibility and/or agency for promoting social justice and equality (Einfeld and
Collins 2008). Similarly, empirical studies carried out by Preece (2016) in South Africa,
Halverson-Wente and Halverson-Wente (2014) in Cambodia, Baker-Boosamra, Guevara,
and Balfour (2006) in El Salvador, Kiely (2005) in Nicaragua, and Camacho (2004)in
Tijuana, Mexico have shown how power and privilege in the context of poverty can lead
to CSL programmes carrying overtones of paternalism and patronage. Baker-Boosamra,
Guevara, and Balfour (2006, 485) conclude that:
When objectives for the community are defined, often they are developed for the com-
munity by the university. Objectives developed in this paternalistic manner inherently
lack mutuality—the sense of common vision stemming from intensive conversations
about goals for service and learning that are critical to true partnership.
CSL that is geared towards social transformation ought then to be rooted in the principles of
active participation, agency, sustainability and aligned with what participants’value, and
rather than seeing the recipients of CSL initiatives as passive and power-less partici-
pants who need to be em-powered (often according to a course or university agenda),
we need to examine how people are already exercising power, and look carefully at
how power operates. (Osman and Attwood 2007, 19)
This statement is closely related to Sen’s(1999, 53) view that “people have to be seen […]
as being actively involved-given the opportunity in shaping their own destiny, and not just
as passive recipients of the fruits of cunning development programs.”Drawing on Sen’s
ideas, we have found the human development and capabilities approach to be generative
in thinking differently about CSL. In the next section we briefly outline how we have
applied the human development and capabilities approach to CSL before moving on to con-
sider the empirical data.
Theoretical Framework
Consistent with the argument set out above, that the implementation of CSL should con-
sider issues of power and privilege, this study draws on the human development and capa-
bility approach frameworks (ul Haq 1995; Sen 1999; Nussbaum 2011) in order to unpack
and interrogate the extent to which CSL design and practice foster or constrain human
development at the community level. The capabilities approach provides a useful frame
for understanding CSL because of the claim that human development entails expanding
people’s choices and/or opportunities and autonomy in order to be able to do and be
what they value (Sen 1999; Alkire and Deneulin 2009). We take up Nussbaum’s(2000,
51) stance that by
…telling people what is good for them, we show little respect for people’s freedoms as
agents …People are the best judges of what is good for them, and if we prevent people
from acting on their own choices, we treat them like children.
Similarly, Davis and Wells (2016, 2) stating from the assumption that human development is
by definition a project of transformation (towards something better), caution that
4N. Mtawa & M. Wilson-Strydom

The general risk in neglecting the ethics of transformation [human development] is
paternalism: directly substituting one’s own values for those one is trying to help.
That is inconsistent with the centrality of self-authorship to the human development
approach. Nevertheless, paternalism is an ever-present danger in work on development
and one which can creep in all too easily in the company of good intentions.
In this paper we draw on values identified as constitutive of human development, such as
empowerment, participation and sustainability (Boni and Gasper 2012), together with the
capability approach constructs of agency and capabilities to interrogate the transformation
potential of CSL. Empowerment and participation in CSL entail the processes through
which individuals and groups are enabled or constrained in acting as agents of change,
having freedoms to actively partake in decision making, choosing and acting towards
desired goals and community members helping themselves to achieve what they value
(see Alkire and Deneulin 2009; Davis and Wells 2016). The human development value
of sustainability implies that outcomes and/or opportunities created through CSL ought
to endure and/or be maintained over time (Boni and Gasper 2012). A commitment to
agency would push CSL towards enabling community members to engage in CSL activities
that are congruent with their values and so develop their ability to act and bring about
change that they have reason to value. Working within the capabilities approach framework
thus demands that we consider not only the ends of CSL, but also the processes through
which CSL is implemented as an integral component of human development.
The Study
To better understand the complexities and dynamics of CSL, a detailed study of three CSL
courses offered at one South African university (a historically white but now majority black
university), and the communities with which the university partners in CSL initiatives was
done. Given the complexity of the past and present context of poverty and inequality in
South Africa, it is helpful to briefly describe some key characteristics of the context in
which this study took place. Christie (2008) argues that South Africa is one of the most
unequal societies, with accompanying high levels of poverty. Patterns of inequalities and
poverty are commonly attributed to the continued legacy of apartheid (Seekings 2011),
as well as socio-economic challenges of the more recent past. Poverty and inequality in
South Africa are characterized by high levels of unemployment, extreme poverty, persistent
gender inequalities, education disparities as well as the adverse impact of HIV/AIDS
(Christie 2008). According to Stats (2017), in incidence of poverty in South Africa rose
in 2015 with more than one out of every two South Africans being classes as poor in
2015. In terms of numbers, it is indicated that the poverty rate increased from 53.2% in
2011 to 55.5% in 2015 (Stats 2017, 65). In the province in which the case university is
located, the Stats (2017) report indicated that 54.9% of the population were classified as
poor in 2015.
Regarding higher education, Badat (2010) argues that social, political and economic dis-
crimination and inequalities of class, race and gender continue to shape South African
higher education. These trends perpetuate group inequalities by influencing who gets
employed, the kind of jobs they obtain, as well as earnings (Bhorat and Leibbrandt
2001; Branson et al. 2012; Walker and Fongwa 2017). It is against this context of
marked inequalities and high levels of poverty that this case study took place.
The three CSL courses covered different disciplines, levels of study, and involved part-
nerships with a variety of community groupings as shown in Table 1. It should be noted that
CSL is commonly used in Social Science Faculties in South Africa as a pedagogical
Community service learning 5

Table 1. Summary of key elements of three CSL courses.
Discipline
Level and duration of
the course Description Approach to design
Nursing First-year
undergraduate
(year course)
Students spend time in a poor rural community to do a
household survey focused on community-nursing and how
to do a family study. After the survey, the students worked
with their assigned family on either a toy-making or a
gardening project (using a tyre to create a herb garden for
the family). Only these two project options were available.
Starting point was the curriculum of the course related to
conducting family studies in community nursing. The aim of
the survey it to provide a means for the students to better
understand the family they are working with.
The lecturer, based on her experience in the field,
conceptualized the two projects—either toy-making or
gardening project.
Community members were not consulted on the project focus
and besides answering the survey questions, were not further
involved in the survey design and analysis process.
Social
Sciences
capstone
Third-year
undergraduate
(year course)
Final-year Bachelor of Social Sciences students worked in
groups and were placed in nine underserved primary
schools. Themes dealt with at the school included drug
abuse, bullying, study skills (motivation), and child
development. A range of participatory activities were
undertaken with learners at the schools, and included
workshops, role play, creation of posters and group
discussions.
The participating schools were not involved in the planning of
the course, and were simply approached by the lecturer to be
a site for the CSL course. The lecturer/university indicated
what students could offer and then the school decided
whether or not to agree to participate.
Social work Third-year
undergraduate
(year course)
Third-year social work students conduct a situation analysis
(in the form of a questionnaire) with the community
(organization) to whom they are assigned. Based on this a
project is identified with the community members. During
the data collection for this study, students worked with a
number of different community partners on a variety of
projects, including: a vegetable gardening project at an old
age home, projects focused on bullying at two different
primary schools, drug abuse at a high school, a church-
based project focused on women working on the street, and
a project seeking to address health and safety of children at a
primary school.
This CSL course is based on a social work theoretical
framework of asset-based community development. Part of
the principles of asset-based community development that
students must adhere to, and reflect on, include that the
community must see a need for the project and what is done
by the students must respond to issues raised by the
community. In some cases, community members actively
participate, but in others, the student groups continue to be
seen as outsiders who come in to solve a problem. The design
of the course tries to overcome this challenge, but the lecturer
recognizes that community participation is not always as
anticipated.
6N. Mtawa & M. Wilson-Strydom

approach and a means for university staff and students to partner with communities to con-
tribute to development (HEQC/JET 2008).
Our analysis of these three courses is not intended as a general analysis of CSL practice at
the university, but rather provides a window through which we can critically reflect on the
potential risks of CSL.
The authors were not involved in the conceptualization and delivery of these courses and
so assumed the role of outsider researchers seeking to understand the complexities of CSL
practice.
Data and Methodology
In this paper we draw on three main data sources:
(1) Two sets of interviews with each of the lecturers responsible for designing and
implementing the CSL courses.
(2) Three focus groups with students (aged 19–25 years) who had been involved in CSL
for 1 year (13 Bachelor of Social Sciences students, 16 Social Work students and 12
Nursing students). The majority of students that participated across all three CSL
courses were black (83%). In terms of gender, the majority of nursing and social
work participants were female, which is expected since these courses have larger
enrolments of female students compared to male students; while in the social
sciences course the gender representation was balanced.
(3) Individual interviews were conducted with five community members and a focus
group was held with a further six community members all of whom had participated
in CSL. The CSL courses studied all operated in predominantly black communities.
Thus, all the community members involved in the interviews and focus group were
black. The community participants included both male and female representatives
aged between 30 and 60 plus years, and covered representatives from the partner
community-based organizations as well as people living in the communities and
who had participated in the CSL programmes.
The majority of the focus groups and interviews were conducted from April to October
2015, and informal follow-up interviews were conducted with lecturers in the first half of
2017. Participants gave written informed consent prior to data collection. Thematic content
analysis was used to analyse the transcripts (Saldana 2009). Pseudonyms have been used to
ensure confidentiality and anonymity.
Findings
The findings are structured into three main sections. In the first we consider challenges
identified regarding CSL design drawing on the perspectives of the lecturers who run the
courses and students who participate. Although not to the same extent, all three courses
show particular design weaknesses which have implications for practice. Thereafter we
discuss what the implications of these design weaknesses are in practice. In particular,
we focus on two key risks for CSL: (1) paternalism emerging from the interface of
poverty, inequality and privilege; and (2) unequal payoffs.
CSL Design
As was set out in earlier sections of the paper, despite the stated social change goals of
many CSL courses, in practice, research from various contexts is pointing to the
Community service learning 7

complexity of designing and doing CSL in practice. Central to a social change
approach to CSL is meaningful and authentic participation of the CSL partners.
While all the lecturers involved in this study argue that community participation is
essential in CSL and can talk about the ways in which they and their students seek
to encourage community participation, more focused discussions about course design
and conceptualization show that this participation does not occur at these initial
stages. Although there are specific nuances, for all three courses, conceptualization
and design was driven by the lecturer, the curriculum and/or textbook as shown in
the three quotations below.
Honestly speaking the schools were not involved in designing the module. It was not
like the faculty engaged the community, it was decided by the university …. So, in
general, it was always us saying this is how we are going to work with you. This is
what we can do for you. (Lecturer)
It [CSL course design] is not one specific process. The whole idea of going to the com-
munity to do a household survey comes from the curriculum, but the tool that we are
using was developed and adapted from my [lecturer] experience in the field. But in the
design we also look at what the government and other stakeholders have done or are
doing in the community. (Lecturer)
If I speak in terms of [discipline], we have a theoretical framework where we talk about
asset-based community development and we have certain principles that CSL must
adhere to and those principles require you to focus on the projects that the community
want, the project that will really empower the community as you are going to focus on
what they regard as challenges. We consider a number of theoretical frameworks that
are outlined, for instance in this textbook, which is South African based …so these
principles guide us on how communities should participate but certain things need
to happen before they are going to participate and that is why we talk about people-
centeredness. (Lecturer)
The first two quotes quite explicitly note that conceptualization and design did not involve
the community partners or students in any way. The third quotation is more nuanced, but
when further unpacked, similar challenges emerge. The course design is still rooted in
the curriculum (disciplinary theoretical frameworks), although this curriculum itself is
centred on community participation. As such, people-centeredness and challenges ident-
ified by the community are foregrounded in the description provided by the lecturer and
students start their engagement with the community by conducting a situation analysis in
the community. However, the situation analysis activity takes the form of a pre-designed
community questionnaire. Grace, a student who could identify with community members
based on her own background, was uncomfortable with the manner in which the questions
used in the situation analysis were framed.
I felt the questionnaire was awkward, I am going to speak from traditional African
households, there are certain questions you do not ask because it will be crossing
boundaries. We don’t ask whether you went to bed hungry or not, pride will never
[allow one to] say yes. So some of the questionnaires did ask, are there any nights
when you went to bed hungry. But I feel that the people we were visiting gained some-
thing from it.
8N. Mtawa & M. Wilson-Strydom

As is further shown in the coming sections, this initial lack of participation of community
members or representatives and students at the conceptualization or design stage of a CSL
course has serious implications for CSL outcomes, even though lecturers and students
attempt to foster participation during implementation.
Andisiwe, a first-year nursing student raised a criticism similar to that noted by Grace,
but in the context of a different CSL course.
I didn’t see the point of going there and just talking to people who don’t want to talk to
me and asking them about their personal things like what did you eat at night and all
the kind of things. It’s like undermining them to say they are eating pap
1
all day.
Thinking that you are better than them, but at the end of the day they got to understand
the point of the exercise.
These kind of questions, asked by students of community members, arguably erode human
dignity and respect, which are central in striving for justice (Nussbaum 2011), and they
reinforce social hierarchy as community members become the object of the service pro-
vided by students as Andisiwe’s critique begins to acknowledge (Camacho 2004). More
explicit participation of community partners and students in the design and conceptualiz-
ation stages might have pre-empted this. However, we should also not overlook the fact
that when designing a university course, lecturers have a series of institutional policies
and procedures to follow and this does not always allow space for meaningful participation.
In this way, the increasing instrumental focus of the neo-liberal university places limits on
what is possible in CSL design stages. This is perhaps one of the major trends that continues
to derail the social purposes of higher education institutions and maintain their status quo in
relation to external partners (Brackmann 2015; Hickey 2015). As noted by lecturers,
To be honest, in the beginning the partners were not involved at all. In 2014 for
instance, we took 300 students to one school. We initially decided to have an MoU
celebration with partners but it never happened because of financial difficulties.
(Lecturer)
Communities were not enabled to state what they want. Only in 2015 we got some
voices from communities, but the [course] guide and design was already there.
(Lecturer)
Thus, our data suggest that the three CSL courses studied adopted, to varying degrees,
instrumental approaches in the manner in which they were designed and did not allow suf-
ficient space for either community or student participation. As will be shown below, this has
major implications for CSL’s sustainability and empowerment potential and tends to
reinforce the status quo rather than fostering social change. Further, in many instances, stu-
dents are themselves placed in marginalized and disempowered positions in the context of
CSL programme design and implementation, with course outcomes and activities being set
up ahead of time to meet university credit requirements so allowing little space for student
or community participation in conceptualization.
Paternalism: Poverty, Inequality and Privilege
The danger of CSL perpetuating paternalism in communities was a prominent theme ident-
ified from both students and community members’perspectives. From students’voices, it
emerged that design, practices and experiences of CSL led students to position community
Community service learning 9

members as disempowered individuals in need of assistance. Although to some extent, stu-
dents recognize their power and privilege this also sometimes results in students feeling
responsible for pre-determining and deciding for community members what to do in
CSL practice. Also, conditions of poverty and the numerous related challenges existing
in the communities where students were placed led students to fall back into othering
notions to describe community members. Although CSL ought to be a partnership built
around values of mutuality and equal respect between and among partners, the language
used by students in describing the way they interact with community members points to
their paternalistic views of the communities. For example, when talking about CSL, stu-
dents commonly used words or phrases such as “helping”“them”with “their problems,”
and “these poor people.”The quotations presented below provide examples of how privi-
lege and paternalism can become embedded in students’ways of thinking about their
relationship with community members. For example, Jenifer and Juanita, a first-year
nursing students, and Josh, a final-year social sciences student respectively stated:
I feel like we sold people dreams because we got there and we introduced ourselves
and what we would have come to do but they don’t even understand what you are
doing and you keep asking them what they need most and they say jobs and we
keep on writing it down and they probably think you are going to do something
about it because we are most nearer to infrastructure and to people with influence
and things. And when you just don’t do anything in the end because really it is out
of your control, then they have a certain stereotype towards you.
But what I valued is the peoples’attitude that they had, positive attitude although we
went there with that thing that we are going to help the community that has problems.
The moment we got there started interacting with them their attitude really impressed
me.
One thing that I liked about these poor people in the community is that they have
nothing to complain about. They might go to bed with nothing to eat but they are
still looking forward to tomorrow. As aspiring health professionals, we tend to have
this attitude that we know everything, different diagnosis and different treatments to
diagnosis but these people know how to prevent [illness] with herbs and yet we under-
mine them.
The above excerpts show how students tend not to see community members as agentic indi-
viduals who can participate in enhancing opportunities (capabilities) through CSL. Instead
students tend to regard the poor as disfranchised, needy and generally lacking agency.
Lindiwe, a final-year social science student used the notion of “help”to offer a more
complex view of how within communities some community members need help while
other don’t.
I felt sometimes you perceive people as if they need help, you think that in your
mind that if you approach someone and you ask: Are you willing to be helped defi-
nitely they will say yes but with us it was not the case. It opened my eyes to see
that some people are willing to be helped and some are not because they seem to be
too comfortable in their situations that no help whatever. So I realised that some
people don’t think that they need help and they are comfortable with their situ-
ations. I think that they feel that the circumstances they go through are just what
it should be at that specific stage.
10 N. Mtawa & M. Wilson-Strydom

On the one hand, Lindiwe describes those who “need help”and who are “willing to be
helped”and so are positioned as passive recipients of what is offered in and through
CSL rather than as agents of their own lives. On the other hand, those who choose not
to participate or accept the help offered are positioned as individuals whose agency is con-
strained and who have limited opportunities and/or choices in their lives. In capabilities
language, Lindiwe argues that those who “are comfortable with their situations”have
adapted preferences (Nussbaum 2000). Lindiwe’s excerpt provides a good example of
Davis and Wells (2016,2)definition of paternalism as “directly substituting one’sown
values for those one is trying to help.”
Most of the community members involved in interviews and focus groups described the
high levels of poverty and resource inequality in their communities. Community members
commonly noted that CSL enables students to see what poverty looks like and to come to
understand the circumstances in communities. This exposure to the realities of poverty and
inequality is important in raising students’consciousness of injustices in the world, and this
was explicitly recognized by community members, Maria and Jamali who explained that:
Sometimes they [students] get shocked especially when they do home visits, they get
shocked because of the circumstance, and there is a lot of poverty in our community. It
really shocks them and then they say this is the reality, people are living in these cir-
cumstances. Yeah it is sometimes shocking to them. Because we need to take them out,
let them see what we are dealing with on daily basis.
They [students] have never been exposed to people who are in these situations because
they are living at the university and places where they come from are not in bad con-
ditions so these people that are here come from very bad conditions and they have been
through very hard times and so on. So it is a very big experience for the students to be
exposed to people, people that really come from homeless or hardship situations, some
of them are sick, some of them are hopeless, it is a long story.
However, we found that instead of questioning why communities are living in such
poverty and then seeking to explore potential solutions in partnership with the community,
the majority of students tended to sympathize with community members and to feel that
“encouragement and advice”were sufficient, as opposed to working toward more difficult
longer term structural change. It appears that the extent of social problems faced by people
living in conditions of poverty may compel relatively privileged students to see CSL as
charity rather than as a space to work with communities to confront issues of structural
inequalities. Camacho (2004, 33) argues that “philanthropy occurs in the absence of reflex-
ivity, without conscientiousness toward the differential relations of power embedded in the
interaction, and as a hegemonic relationship in which the ‘receiving’group has been
‘selected’as ‘needy’by a more powerful group.”Solomon, Jennifer and Frank’s voices
below provide some examples.
When we were doing CSL the community members expected us to go there and when
we arrived they run to us because they expect us to change their circumstances but they
must also be willing. Everyone is saying we must do this and that but it is also them, they
must pitch, they must show that willingness, they must have that self-help attitude.
I remember with my family they also thought I was going to give them employment. I
feel like the least we could do is just to encourage them by trying to be the best at what
we do. So I just feel like encouragement and advice are enough.
Community service learning 11

Yes, and then you get there and on the implementation day and community members
ask you for food and because I am a student I can’t buy you food because I can barely
afford to buy myself food, and what I can do for you is to make a garden for you and
you are just like is that what you are bothering me in my house for all of these weeks
just to make me a garden out of a tyre?
Thus, our data shows that superficially experiencing poverty and other difficult circum-
stances in communities does not enable students to move toward striving for justice or
social change. An awareness of the dire state in which some of the community members
find themselves, without any reference to agentic responses or community actions, tends
to perpetuate and reinforce the unequal relationship between the students and the commu-
nities in which they are placed. Under these conditions, there is a very real risk that CSL
may become a demeaning practice whereby relatively powerful individuals (students) are
seen to be the ones who have the right to know and make judgments about the circum-
stances of community members, without having to take responsibility or make a commit-
ment towards social change.
Unequal Payoff and Unsustainable Solutions
The second risk of CSL that emerged from this study was that of unequal payoff and a lack
of sustainability. The analysis of both community members’and students’data revealed that
students appear to focus mainly on achieving the instrumental or academic credit outcomes
of CSL. Traditionally, instrumental values have dominated CSL literature and practices, in
line with the global trend towards instrumental understandings of higher education (Boni
and Walker 2013). Andrew, one of interviewed community members referred to this as
different attitudes that students bring to the community during CSL. For Andrew, these atti-
tudes are driven by the idea that students are powerful and privileged because they come
from the university (see above). For the majority of students (but not all), CSL is a
source of academic credits, community members are often perceived as living deficit
lives, and there is little consideration of the underlying systemic factors that contribute to
poverty and inequality. Reflecting on their experiences of interacting with students
during CSL, Andrew and Maria commented that:
Their [students] approach actually differs. You have those who come with the intention
that they are only here to benefit like to pass their assignment but others do not show
that they are here to benefit for themselves because of the way they communicate, their
body language, so you can see they are really looking forward to benefit from us and us
benefiting from them. So others will come with good attitude while others it is like
why are we here so let us get what we want and go. It also depends on personality
of the students but also that pride that we come from the university. And sometimes
parents [in the community] may not provide enough information like if students ask
how your child is doing in terms of school work they would just say he or she
doing okay because of [the student’s] attitude. So they [community members] are
not going to be open to you and tell the stories about the child because of the attitude
and the way you behave towards their standards.
For me personally I think the university students benefit more and this is my own per-
sonal view and I am going to tell you why I said that. Most of the time they do service-
learning and stuff like that and at the end of the day is for them to benefit out of it
because they have to get degrees and everything and once they finish coming here
12 N. Mtawa & M. Wilson-Strydom

they are just gone. So for me I think it should be an ongoing. Yes, they do send another
group the following year but the challenge is you have to give them new information
again and mind you the other group was here and we gave them the same information
so for me they are benefiting more because they get something out of it.
This unequal payoff also has implications for sustainability, and for generating and main-
taining CSL impact in communities. This understanding is in line with the concept of sus-
tainability in the human development sense (see Alkire and Deneulin 2009). Contrary to
promoting such sustainability, the data suggest that prioritising academic outcomes
hinders the long-term outcomes that ought to be achieved in and through CSL, as noted
by community members Stefan and Jamali:
For me personally I think it is not sustainable because the students will come here for
that period they are assigned to be here after three or four months they are done, so it is
like they just come and steal information but in a long run we do not get anything back.
For instance, the medical [nursing] students, sometimes we have children suffering
from different type of diseases and for the students they just come here and get infor-
mation, ask a few questions and leave and get their degree and everything but what do
we remain with? Sometimes I feel that they just focus on getting information but what
does an organization or household get from them after they get their degrees. At least if
they can tell us this is what is going to happen and these are the benefits that we will get
then that is nice.
Unemployment is a very big problem in this community and there were people from
the university who used to come and train people about small businesses like entrepre-
neurs but they stopped. So educating people so that they can go out and make a living
for themselves and help people to remove poverty and unemployment and giving
people the purpose. I think that is where the university can help a lot giving skills
because some people here registered their business but [the business] died because
they couldn’t manage it. So if there could be skills like management skills how to
manage the business and what procedures to follow and have access to information
such as where to go to get funding for small businesses and connect them with the
people who can help them to sustain their business and their small enterprises.
Although in his remarks Jamali did not make specific reference to academic results as the
main goal of CSL, the challenge he raises is also related to sustainability. In this instance,
sustainability is fostered by designing CSL programmes that align with community needs,
priorities, and values rather than only the learning needs of students. The student focus
group data also pointed to unequal payoff and limited sustainability. Students, Thabiso,
Leah and Juliet provide examples of unequal payoff and unsustainable solutions of CSL.
It is not enough having one or two session or one hour telling people about issues they
are facing and change them. We did manage to implement the things we planned but
we are not there to see or evaluate whether there is impact. The important thing is sus-
tainability and building long lasting relationship, you don’t just go there and disappear
after short period of time. But currently that is what is happening because we go there
we do what we are supposed to do next thing we are gone.
I also think because of limited time that we had to do CSL the community that we work
with they don’t take us serious anymore for instance the school that we did our project
Community service learning 13

at they told us some other students were here before so what is that you are bringing
that is going to bring change and be sustainable. So it discourages us in a way that it is
pointless to do CSL.
I think because we just went there because it was a project we were getting marks for,
so we just had to do it and then left. We did not go there and mentor people and show
them what is supposed to happen, so it’s not going to be sustainable because we didn’t
leave the knowledge with them. We just went there, did our project and came back. We
left them with the lasagne gardens, the doll making but we didn’t share enough knowl-
edge. That’s how I feel.
Discussion and Conclusions
The empirical data discussed above has highlighted the complex intersections of poverty,
inequality and privilege in the context of three CSL courses offered at a South African uni-
versity. Although often lauded as a pedagogic strategy for putting into practice more
responsive and public good focused higher education, we have shown that CSL also has
the potential to undermine these goals. When considered with a human development and
capabilities approach lens, the importance of understanding CSL as both an end and a
means is emphasized. As the analysis presented above shows, the process of CSL
matters significantly, and in most instances, CSL processes—particularly at the design
stages—allow little space for community agency, meaningful participation and reciprocity.
Several authors have argued that the manner in which CSL partners understand and
respond to CSL can potentially perpetuate and reinforce the status quo or the very injustices
and inequalities the approach sets out to dismantle (Peterson 2009; Butin 2010; Preece
2016). In a similar vein, this study has shown that CSL may potentially result in paternalism
and unequal payoff for the various partners involved. These challenges, to some extent
inherent in the unequal positioning of universities and communities, can be exacerbated
by poor design of CSL. When conceptualising CSL courses the focus leans towards
what the university aims to achieve through CSL as opposed to bringing meaningful trans-
formative change in communities.
These challenges notwithstanding, in an increasingly unequal world plagued by extreme
poverty and deprivation in many contexts, and where universities will continue to occupy
positions of relative power and privilege, we must ask what needs to change for CSL to
become a tool for meaningful partnership between communities and universities in the
interests of building a more just society. As Sen (2009, vii) argues, we ought to identify
the “remediable injustices”in the CSL context so that we can work towards a more just dis-
pensation, even though we cannot completely break down the differential positions of uni-
versities and communities in terms of inequality and privilege. In doing this, there is a need
for universities and communities to approach CSL as a potentially powerful practice for
social change explicitly based on the human development principles of agency, empower-
ment, participation and sustainability, rather than instrumental gain such as academic credit.
There is a need to reconceptualize what the intended outcomes of CSL ought to be, but even
more important is the need to reconceptualize the practice of CSL at all levels, which will
ultimately lead to a reframing of valued outcomes.
We believe that the procedural principles identified by Davis and Wells (2016) for human
development interventions more broadly to move beyond paternalism are equally relevant
for the specific case of CSL. First is the principle of free prior informed consent. This
requires that the community members involved are adequately and truthfully informed,
in advance, of the aims of the CSL programme together with its potential benefits and
14 N. Mtawa & M. Wilson-Strydom

costs to them. Where there is uncertainty about benefits and/or costs, this must also be
declared upfront. Community members ought then to be free to agree or not agree to par-
ticipate in the CSL programme. Returning to Frank’s excerpt presented above, the fact that
the main benefit for a community member of participating in CSL was the construction of a
herb garden in a tyre, an outcome that he did not value, ought not to come as a surprise at the
end of the project if free prior informed consent has been properly sought.
The second procedural principle Davis and Wells propose is that of democratic develop-
ment, which we might call democratic CSL. What might democratic CSL look like? The
starting point would be processes of public deliberation through which genuine choices
about what the CSL programme sets out to achieve, and the processes to be followed
can be made by all participants. This “collective deliberation over the ends of development
[CSL], often very local, substitutes for their technocratic determination [pre-determined
curriculum and credit requirements]”(Davis and Wells 2016, 12). Thus, democratic CSL
is necessarily deeply participatory, and does not provide space for universities and students
to impose their values on communities who partner with them. In sum,
A genuinely human development [approach to CSL] requires more than good inten-
tions. It also requires respecting, protecting, supporting and restoring the personal
autonomy of the individuals concerned. (Davis and Wells 2016, 11, emphasis in
original)
As such, we ought to push for more genuinely participatory processes in designing and
implementing CSL because such approaches have the potential to make a significant con-
tribution to elevating the voices of CSL partners. Although it is beyond the scope of this
paper to consider in detail, participatory action research (PAR) processes would arguably
provide a useful starting point for more democratic CSL (see for example, Fine et al.
2003; Kidd and Kral 2005). That said, we also recognize that democratic and authentically
participatory CSL will be difficult for universities which typically run on standardized
bureaucratic processes in an increasingly instrumental global context. But, if universities
are genuinely committed to the public good and to human development of the communities
in which they are located, they ought to be willing to try.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the anonymous peer reviewers for their detailed and con-
structive comments which, we believe, have significantly contributed to the final quality of
this paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This research was made possible due to the funding provided by the South African National
Research Foundation Research Chairs Initiative [Grant number U86540].
Note
1. Pap is a traditional stable porridge made from maize meal.
Community service learning 15

References
Alkire, S., and S. Deneulin. 2009.“The Human Development and Capability Approach.”In An Introduction to the
Human Development and Capability Approach, Freedom and Agency, edited by Deneulin Severine and Lila
Shahani, 22–48. London: earthscan.
Badat, S. 2010. The Challenges of Transformation in Higher Education and Training Institutions in South Africa.
Paper Commissioned by the Development Bank of Southern Africa.
Baker-Boosamra, M., J. A. Guevara, and G. D. Balfour. 2006.“From Service to Solidarity: Evaluation and
Recommendations for International Serving Learning.”Journal of Public Affairs Education 12 (4): 479–500.
Berry, H. A., and L. A. Chisholm. 1999.Service-learning in Higher Education Around the World: An Initial Look.
New York: International Partnership for Service-Learning.
Bhorat, H., and M. Leibbrandt. 2001.“Correlates of Vulnerability in the South African Labour Market.”In
Fighting Poverty: Labour Markets and Inequality in South Africa, edited by Haroon Bhorat, Murray
Leibbrandt, Muzi Maziya, Servaas Van der Berg, and Ingrid Woolard, 74–106. Lansdowne: UCT Press.
Boni, A., and D. Gasper. 2012.“Rethinking the Quality of Universities: How Can Human Development Thinking
Contribute?”Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 13 (3): 451–470. doi:10.1080/19452829.2012.
679647.
Boni, A., and M. Walker, eds. 2013.Human Development and Capabilities. Re-imagining the University of the
Twenty-first Century. London: Routledge.
Brackmann, S. M. 2015.“Community Engagement in a Neoliberal Paradigm.”Journal of Higher Education
Outreach and Engagement 19 (4): 115.
Branson, N., J. Garlick, D. Lam, and M. Leibbrandt. 2012. Education and Inequality: The South African Case.
SALDRU Working Paper Series No. 75. Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit.
Butin, D. W. 2006.“The Limits of Service-learning in Higher Education.”Review of Higher Education 29 (4):
473–498. doi:10.1353/rhe.2006.0025.
Butin, D. W. 2010.Service-learning in Theory and Practice: The Future of Community Engagement in Higher
Education. New York: Palgrave McMillan.
Camacho, M. M. 2004.“Power and Privilege: Community Service Learning in Tijuana.”Michigan Journal of
Service-learning 10: 31–42.
Christie, P. 2008.Opening the Doors of Learning. Changing Schools in South Africa. Johannesburg: Heinemann
Publishers.
Chupp, M. G., and M. L. Joseph. 2010.“Getting the Most Out of Service Learning: Maximizing Student,
University and Community Impact.”Journal of Community Practice 18 (2–3): 190–212. doi:10.1080/
10705422.2010.487045.
Cipolle, S. 2004.“Service-Learning as a Counter Hegemonic Practice.”Evidence Pro and Con. Multicultural
Education 11 (3): 12–23.
Cipolle, S. B. 2010.Service-learning and Social Justice. Engaging Students in Social Change. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Costandius, E., E. Bitzer, and Y. Waghid. 2015.Engaging Higher Education Curricula: A Critical Citizenship
Education Perspective. Stellenbosch: SUN MeDIA.
Cruz, N., and D. E. Giles. 2000.“Where’s the Community in Service-Learning Research?”Michigan Journal of
Community Service Learning, Special Issue: 28–34.
Cuban, S., and J. B. Anderson. 2007.“Where’s the Justice in Service-learning? Institutionalizing Service-learning
from a Social Justice Perspective at a Jesuit University.”Equity & Excellence in Education 40 (2): 144–155.
Davis, J. B., and T. R. Wells. 2016.“Transformation without Paternalism.”Journal of Human Development and
Capabilities.doi:10.1080/19452829.2016.1145198.
du Toit, A. 2005. Chronic and Structural Poverty in South Africa: Challenges for Action and Research. CSSR
Working Paper No. 121. Cape Town. Centre for Social Science Research.
Einfeld, A., and D. Collins. 2008.“The Relationships Between Service-learning, Social Justice, Multicultural
Competence, and Civic Engagement.”Journal of College Student Development 49 (2): 95–109. doi:10.
1353/csd.2008.0017.
Eyler, J., D. W. Giles, C. M. Stenson, and C. J. Gray. 2001.“At a Glance: What We Know about the Effects of
Service-learning on College Students, Faculty, Institutions and Communities, 1993–2000: Third Edition.”
Higher Education 1: 8–31.
Fine, M., M. E. Torre, K. Boudin, I. Bowen, J. Clark, D. Hylton, M. Martinez, et al. 2003.“Participatory Action
Research: Within and Beyond Bars.”In Qualitative Research in Psychology: Expanding Perspective in
Methodology and Design, edited by P. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, and L. Yardley, 173–198. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Halverson-Wente, L., and Halverson-Wente, M., 2014.“Partnership Versus Patronage: A Case Study in
International Service-learning from a Community College Perspective.”In Crossing Boundaries: Tension
16 N. Mtawa & M. Wilson-Strydom

and Transformation in International Service-learning, edited by Patrick Green and Johnson Mathew, 84–109.
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Hickey, A. 2015.“The Economies of Engagement: The Nature of University Engagement in the Corporate
University.”Social Alternative 34 (2): 20–26.
Higher Education Quality Committee/JET Education Services, South Africa. 2008.Service-learning in the
Disciplines: Lessons from the Field. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education.
Jacoby, B. 1996.Service-learning in Higher Education: Concepts and Practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jacoby, B., and Associates. 2003.Building Partnerships for Service-learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kahne, J., and J. Westheimer. 1996.“In The Service of What?”The Politics of Service Learning 77 (9).
Kidd, S., and M. J. Kral. 2005.“Practising Participatory Action Research.”Journal of Counselling Psychology 52
(2): 187–197.
Kiely, R. 2005.“Transformative International Service-learning.”Academic Exchange Quarterly 9: 275–281.
Lewis, T. L. 2004.“Service Learning forSocial Change? Lessons from a Liberal Arts College.”Teaching Sociology 32: 94.
McMillan, J. 2013.“‘Service Learning’or ‘Learning Service’?”In Service Learning in South Africa, edited by
Ruksana Osman, and Nadine Petersen, 33–58. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, T. D. 2008.“Tradition vs. Critical Service Learning: Engaging the Literature to Differentiate Two
Models.”Michigan Journal of Community Service Leaning 14 (2): 50–65.
Moely, B. E., A. Furco, and J. Reed. 2008.“Charity and Social Change: The Impact of Individual Preference on
Service-learning Outcomes.”Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 15: 37–48.
Nussbaum, M. 2000.Women and Human Development. The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Nussbaum, M. 2011.Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Osman, R., and G. Attwood. 2007.“Power and Participation in and Through Service Learning.”Education as
Change 11 (3): 15–21.
Oxfam. 2014.Even it Up. Time to End Extreme Equality. Oxfam. http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/
files/file_attachments/cr-even-it-up-extremeinequality-291014-en.pdf
Peterson, T. H. 2009.“Engaged Scholarship: Reflection and Research on the Pedagogy of Social Change.”
Teaching in Higher Education 14 (5): 541–552.
Preece, J. 2016.“Negotiating Service Learning Through Community Engagement: Adaptive Leadership,
Knowledge, Dialogue and Power.”Education as Change.doi:10.17159/1947-9417/2016/562.
Robinson, T. 2000.“Service Learning as Justice Advocacy: Can Political Scientists Do Politics?”Political Science
and Politics 33 (3): 605–612.
Saldana, J. 2009.The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researches. Los Angeles: Sage.
Seekings, J. 2011.“Poverty and Inequality in South Africa, 1994-2007.”In After Apartheid: Reinventing South
Africa? edited by R. Shapiro and K. Tableau, 21–52. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Sen, A. 1999.Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Sen, A. 2009.The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
StatsSA. 2017.Poverty Trends in South African. An Examination of Absolute Poverty Between 2006 and 2015.
Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.
Tryon, E., and R. Stoecker. 2008.“The Unheard Voices: Community Organisation and Service-Learning.”Journal
of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 12 (3): 47.
ul Haq, M. 1995.Reflections on Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Walker, M., and S. Fongwa. 2017.Universities, Employability and Human Development. Palgrave: MacMillan.
About the Authors
Ntimi Mtawa is a Doctoral Fellow at the Centre for Research on Higher Education and
Development (CHRED) at the University of the Free State, South Africa. His work is
focused on higher education and society with particular emphasis on university-community
engagement and service-learning. His work explores how universities can and/or are con-
tributing to advancement of social justice, citizenship and public good professional.
Merridy Wilson-Strydom is Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Research on Higher
Education and Development (CRHED) at the University of the Free State, South Africa.
Her work is focused on higher education and social justice, with a particular emphasis
on access and equity at the undergraduate level, explored using mixed methodologies,
including fine-grained student life narratives and participatory visual research.
Community service learning 17