Tuhafeni Helao
Putatively so, there might still be those in a state of denial that knowledge, be it inborn wisdom or scientifically-created knowledge, is not a composite of efforts generated by those who possess the aptitudes and expertise in various areas of social and natural life. Be that as it may, the body of collection of diverse knowledge is what made up contemporary society. Essentially, you wouldn’t find these people or experts in one country, region or continent. They are distributed across the globe. Therefore, to acquire such wisdom or body of knowledge, you have to source it from elsewhere, or learn from the experiences of others. In the context of higher education institutions, universities have to source such knowledge, skills and expertise from far afield around the world. Modern society may only exist and remain relevant to what is today depicted in politics as a ‘new world order’ if universities and all other relevant institutions source, acquire, create, produce and promote knowledge, skills and practices relevant to shaping the societal direction, informed by a new way of thinking and the 21st century orientation. Realistically, universities must have focused academic leadership with innovative logic to act beyond the confines of the domestic environment. This helps them to develop the local human capital necessary to accelerate and transform society and align it with contemporary realities. In this context, contemporary realities call upon universities to build comparable local knowledge capacity congruent with the country’s developmental agenda and replicate such knowledge from one generation to another, but compatible with modern exigencies.
The history of knowledge development has it that no society has developed completely in a silo. Societal transformation requires tapping from the existing scientific body of knowledge, and learning from the best and most relevant practices and experiences of other nations. For this reason, universities need a conglomeration of academics from all walks of life to share, impart and offer knowledge and skills in various areas, especially those in which the locals lack skills and expertise. Therefore, universities should desist from recruiting “job-hunters and opportunity-seekers”, academics particularly when they are expatriated. This brings in the contentions of purposive hiring vs traditional hiring. In this context, “purposive hiring” entails systematic, purposeful and focused recruitment to build knowledge and empower local academics and students, while “traditional hiring” characterises a traditional hiring process to provide jobs to whoever qualifies for such a job. It is against this backdrop that a university can’t afford to employ an expatriate academic or expert for a certain period, be it one or more years, without transferring such knowledge and skills to locals. If the university fails this contentious litmus test, it may amount to delinking universities’ goals from the country’s developmental agenda and national development plans. It would also raise a debatable interrogation about the ability of academic leadership on pertinent issues of knowledge and skills development in the country. Contextually, the purpose of the university to source external expertise is to ensure that locals benefit through purposive training, coaching and guidance to assume such responsibility at an appropriate time. It is, therefore, the obligation of the university’s academic leadership to ensure that once an expatriate is hired, a competent understudy is equally appointed to study and learn the trade while under the guidance and coaching of the foreign expert. Many a time, this is not happening.
Under no condition is this article implying that universities should only employ local academics. It has already been averred that universities need a conglomeration of academics to remain relevant. Similarly, the article doesn’t ignore the fact that expatriate academics, particularly scientists and experts, are critical to any university’s growth, as a blend of academics earns universities recognition around the globe and fast-tracks knowledge and skills cultivation. It promotes research and innovation, in addition to teaching and learning. However, this blend of academics should only be encouraged if they are contributing to local skills and expertise enhancement. In the same breath, the author is aware that some sections of society may label this article as bordering on “xenophobic thinking”. This is far from the purpose of this writing. The logic in penning this opinion piece is to encourage debate and systematic thinking against the “snail-pace” approach to knowledge and skills development in Namibia, that in this article’s view, universities and academic leadership can take centre-stage and lead in addressing this contemporary reality, the absence of which impacts negatively on nation-building. Moreover, the creation of knowledge and skills realises the much- dreamed-of 4th Industrial Revolution (4IR), which is anticipated to uplift people’s living standards and bring them into the mainstream economy to improve livelihoods. This demonstrates that universities and academic leadership are key to the country’s future, therefore, presumed to provide indubitable leadership to guide and direct the country’s developmental agenda.
In fact, after 32 years of independence, the majority, particularly rural villagers, are yet to reap the benefits of higher education. Therefore, it is a catch-22 state to imagine how far the country and society will navigate before people get returns from the best knowledge, skills and innovation gained through understudying. For how long will the people, especially rural villagers, continue to wait to reap the benefits of universities’ efforts and reforms? How long will it take to impart and prepare the local academics, and ready them to share and diversify such knowledge and skills? Arguably, universities’ academic leadership is lagging and found wanting in enforcing, promoting and embracing these ample opportunities, 32 years on, resulting in those who were supposed to train and impart knowledge and skills overstaying, and in most cases, their contracts renewed unendingly. In camouflaging this “ongoing but missed opportunities”, some may label it as “scarce skills which can’t be easily replaced” to justify protracting employment contracts. Again, this article neither implies that expatriates should be pushed out, nor does it infer that they are not required. They are unavoidably needed, but the point is that 32 years of the country’s independence might be reasonably adequate for knowledge transfer to locals, capacity-building and the creation of necessary tools and infrastructure to pull people out of poverty.
Comparably, the sole purpose of employing foreign experts at universities is to: a) transfer knowledge and skills; b) build capacity by ensuring that local universities build foundational pillars to stand on and become self-sustainable, c) train, equip and empower understudies, and d) coach locals on contemporary research, innovations and teaching issues informed by local circumstances, contingencies and environment. In the Namibian context, selected areas of engineering, medicine and a few natural sciences still need to tap and benchmark from the experience and expertise of renowned universities, academics and experts, but not indefinitely.
University academic leadership should remain at the forefront to promote knowledge cultivation. Thus, their innovative thinking and logical planning are key to modern society’s survival. Academic leadership should ensure local capacity-building to amplify the national development agenda. Equipping local academics with contemporary knowledge and skills will bring in the dimension of local content, experience, thinking and innovation, thus achieving needs-based benefits. University academic leadership should, therefore, repurpose, refocus and reorientate their strategies towards developing human capital. Human capital development in this sense may not only entail graduating thousands, but relevantly equipping and empowering them to solve local social issues and make their communities habitable. To ensure that universities and the entire society benefit from imported expertise, academic leadership should work in unison with relevant authorities like the Ministry of Higher Education, the Ministry of Home Affairs and Immigration, the Affirmative and Equity Commission, etc, and vice versa, to fulfil their unique mandates without fail. Finally, constant connection to local realities is inescapable. In summary, a study should be encouraged to determine the extent to which imparted knowledge, skills and innovations influenced rural communities’ reality and livelihoods, 32 years on.