Ahead of the 2026 CGHE conference, three scholars reflect on SLCE and the purpose of the university

Six representatives from GradSN, representing five countries, will present at the 2026 Centre for Global Higher Education (CGHE) conference in Oxford (online attendance available) in April on ‘Navigating the equity crisis in global higher education.’ A key focus of the conference is equity and sustainability, with the idea that ‘there is much to learn from [the response of different contexts to] the shared challenge of protecting the public good dimensions of higher education amidst constrained state finances.’ For us, this focus ushered in various questions: What does it mean for universities to fulfil their ‘public good’ mission? And what role can SLCE play in creating more equitable and sustainable higher education futures? In this blog post, three GradSN members reflect on these questions in relation to their own country contexts: Ecuador and South Africa. 

Universities are fascinating institutions. They may exist as public spheres, arenas beyond state control and private interest that can form spaces for democratic and civic engagement (Habermas, 1991). If universities exist as public spheres, education is not merely about private interests (the development of marketable skills) which lead to benefits (degree and job) but a promotion of the collective good of those beyond university walls (an educated and engaged citizenry that promotes social value) (Brackmann, 2015). Knowledge itself is often described as a public good because it is non-rivalrous: sharing knowledge generates even more knowledge. 

What does it mean for universities to fulfil their ‘public good’ mission? 

In both Ecuador and South Africa, this idea of ‘public good’ comes through in policy. ⁠In Ecuador, higher education for the ‘public good’ transcends rhetorical aspiration, anchoring firmly in constitutional and legal mandates that position universities as societal stewards rather than isolated elite institutions. The Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador (2008) declares education a fundamental right and state duty, specifying that higher education ‘responds to the public interest and shall not serve individual or corporate interests’ (Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, 2008, Art. 356). Complementing this, the Organic Law of Higher Education (LOES, 2010) explicitly designates higher education as a ‘public and social good’ guided by principles of autonomy with social responsibility, equal opportunity, quality, pertinence, and integration of knowledge production with societal needs (LOES, 2010, Art. 5). Scholars interpret this framework as a call for universities to advance collective well-being through teaching, research, and community engagement, fostering democratic values, social inclusion, and equity (e.g., Torres & Mercado, 2018).

In South Africa, the Department of Education’s White Paper 3 (1997) connects community engagement to the transformation of apartheid universities elite enclaves to institutions for the public good. According to the policy document: 

While parts of the South African higher education system can claim academic achievement of international renown, too many parts of the system observe teaching and research policies which favour academic insularity and closed-system disciplinary programmes. Although much is being done, there is still insufficient attention to the pressing local, regional and national needs of the South African society and to the problems and challenges of the broader African context.

To combat this challenge, White Paper 3 calls for ‘responsiveness to societal interests and needs’ (DoE, 1997). This framing seems to indicate that the purpose of universities is not merely to educate students for the labour market – they should also cultivate students who can contribute to the social and economic development of their communities. 

White Paper 3 is essentially a response to a fractured post-apartheid higher education system. In the South African context, therefore, higher education for the public good is inseparable from histories of inequality, exclusion, and colonialism. Universities are not neutral institutions; they are embedded in communities shaped by structural injustice and uneven access to resources. Higher education serving the public good means universities taking responsibility for these legacies by actively contributing to social justice, democratic participation, and human development beyond their campuses. This involves widening access not only to institutions, but to knowledge itself, and recognising communities as co-producers of knowledge rather than passive beneficiaries. In this sense, the public good is realised when universities use their intellectual, social, and material resources to respond to locally defined needs while remaining accountable to the societies they serve. Similarly, Ecuador's 2008 Constitution and LOES (2010) emerged from the 2000s "Revolución Ciudadana," addressing deep inequalities, Indigenous exclusion, and neoliberal privatization amid economic crises and social mobilizations (e.g., 2005 Indigenous uprisings). Framing higher education as a "public and social good" (Constitution Art. 356; LOES Art. 5), they reject corporate interests, mandating intercultural equity, pertinence, and societal engagement to repair structural divides in a plurinational state. Universities thus bear responsibility for democratizing knowledge, responding to locally defined needs amid ongoing rural-urban and ethnic disparities. 

At the same time, however, White Paper 3 argues that the university is the primary site to ‘provide the labour market, in a knowledge-driven and knowledge-dependent society, with the ever-changing high level competencies and expertise necessary for the growth and prosperity of a modern economy (DoE, 1997). Even as this policy document gestures towards a broader purpose of higher education, it reiterates market logic. In contexts of constrained state funding, universities, particularly those in developing nations, justify their relevance based on their contribution to a knowledge economy – they become training grounds for high-demand skills and producers of knowledge reframed as a marketable commodity. Across both contexts, universities are formally mandated to serve the public good, yet are increasingly governed by market-oriented metrics of productivity, efficiency, and impact.

What role, then, can SLCE play in creating more equitable and sustainable higher education futures? 

SLCE emerges as a pedagogical strategy to operationalise higher education's public good mission, particularly in fostering equitable and sustainable systems amid diverse socio-cultural landscapes. By linking academic curricula to community-identified needs, SLCE bridges abstract knowledge with real-world application, enhancing equity through mutual benefit and cultural competency. In Ecuador, this is evident in initiatives promoting intercultural dialogue with Indigenous Kichwa-speaking communities (Mejía & Freire, 2022). 

SLCE further bolsters sustainability by embedding competencies like ecological awareness and ethical reasoning, aligning with UN Sustainable Development Goals and preparing graduates for long-term environmental and social challenges (Brundiers et al., 2021). In Ecuador, such practices reinforce LOES mandates for pertinence and social responsibility, positioning universities as collaborative engines for public good (LOES, 2010).

SLCE may also support more equitable and sustainable university systems by fostering reciprocal partnerships that value community knowledge and lived experience. When thoughtfully designed, SLCE creates spaces where students, academics, and community partners learn with and from one another, challenging hierarchies between the university and society. This can deepen epistemic access, support student development, and align teaching and research with broader social goals. By making universities more permeable institutions, SLCE can loosen the boundaries that traditionally separate the academy from surrounding communities. As Stuart (2021) suggests, this permeability opens pathways along which people, ideas, and knowledges can move in multiple directions. When engagement emphasises co-created knowledge, it challenges the divide between ‘insiders’ (students and academics) and ‘outsiders’ (communities), disrupting long-standing hierarchies of expertise. In a society marked by deep historical and ongoing inequalities, this work is closely tied to questions of equity and justice. This is especially significant for contexts like South Africa grappling with the legacies of apartheid physical and epistemic division. 

Yet, across both contexts, SLCE faces significant challenges that limit its capacity to support more equitable and sustainable higher education systems. Without institutional commitment and critical reflection, it risks becoming tokenistic, extractive, or compliance-driven. Power asymmetries, uneven resourcing, and short-term project cycles can undermine trust and sustainability. For SLCE to contribute meaningfully to transformation, it must be embedded within institutional cultures, supported by policy and resources, and grounded in principles of equity, reflexivity, and mutual accountability.

Implementation remains constrained by institutional silos, weak policy support, and limited incentives for staff to integrate SLCE meaningfully into curricula (Gelmon et al., 2018). Faculty frequently require specialised training in community-based pedagogies, but such training is rarely prioritised or adequately resourced (Stoecker, 2016).

In addition, genuine partnership-building and knowledge co-production demands time, care, and emotional labour. Building relationships of trust, responding to community-defined priorities, and producing outputs that are meaningful beyond academia are slow and relational processes. Yet the dominant logic of the university. particularly evident in South Africa, but by no means unique to it. continues to privilege peer-reviewed journal articles as the primary measure of research productivity. As Claassens and Sihlali (2022, p. 192) note, this model often ‘penalises activist researchers who prioritise investing time in complex relationships and achieving the priorities and outputs identified by their social justice partners, alongside writing articles.’ 

As we prepare for the 2026 CGHE conference, these tensions sit at the heart of our reflections. SLCE offers powerful possibilities for reclaiming the public good mission of the university, particularly in contexts marked by inequality, colonial legacies, and constrained resources. At the same time, its transformative potential is shaped and often limited by institutional structures that pull universities toward market logics. By bringing global perspectives into conversation at CGHE, we hope to contribute to a more grounded discussion about equity, sustainability, and the future of higher education. Rather than treating the public good as a rhetorical ideal, SLCE invites us to ask harder questions about what universities value, who they are accountable to, and what kinds of knowledge and relationships they sustain. 

If you are interested in this conversation, please join us at the CGHE conference in April! Further details are here. 

Reference list

Asamblea Nacional Constituyente. (2008). Constitución de la República del Ecuador. Quito: Registro Oficial.

Brackmann, S. M. (2015). Community engagement in a neoliberal paradigm. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 19(4), 115-146. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1086112.pdf

Brundiers, K., et al. (2021). Sustainability competences in higher education. Sustainability Science, 16(1), 1-15.

Claassens, A., & Sihlali, N. (2022). Dilemmas and Issues Confronting Socially Engaged Research within Universities. In A. Bezuidenhout, S. Mnwana, & K. Von Holdt (Eds.), Critical Engagement with Public Sociology: A Perspective from the Global South (pp. 192-214). Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2sjj0k7.17

DoE. (1997). Education White Paper 3: A Programme for Higher Education Transformation. (No. 18207). Pretoria: Government Printers

Gelmon, S. B., et al. (2018). Assessing service-learning and civic engagement. Stylus Publishing.

Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT Press.

LOES. (2010). Ley Orgánica de Educación Superior. Registro Oficial Suplemento 417.

Mejía, L., & Freire, P. (2022). Intercultural service-learning in Ecuador. International Journal of Service 

Stoecker, R. (2016). Liberating service learning. Stylus Publishing.

Stuart, M. (2021). The Permeable University: Moving beyond Civic Engagement to Transformation. In C. Brink (Ed.), The Responsive University and the Crisis in South Africa. (pp. 120-144). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004465619_007

Torres, C. A., & Mercado, M. (2018). Educación superior y bien común en Ecuador. Revista Educación Superior y Sociedad (ES), 30, 112-135.

Nigel Machiha is a Research Consultant and PhD candidate in Higher Education at the University of Johannesburg. His research examines how historically white universities in South Africa engage surrounding communities through service learning within broader transformation agendas. Drawing on decolonisation debates and questions of epistemic access, his work explores equity, institutional culture, and student experience in post-apartheid higher education. With over six years of experience as a Teaching Assistant, Research Assistant, and Research Consultant, Nigel has contributed to community-based research, policy analysis, and academic mentorship. He aims to pursue an academic career focused on advancing socially just and inclusive higher education across Southern Africa.

Diana Coello Baquero is the Community Engagement Coordinator at Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ). Born and raised in Quito, Ecuador, she is a proud Latina with a strong passion for education. Diana earned her Bachelor of Arts in Education from USFQ in 2018. After graduating, she worked as a sixth-grade Spanish teacher at a private school. Following that, she served as a Community Service-Learning Program Assistant at USFQ for three years, where she gained valuable hands-on experience in higher education and service-learning pedagogies. Diana completed her Master of Education in Higher Education at Merrimack College in 2023. She was a member-at-large of the IARSLCE Graduate Student Network from 2023 to 2025 and was a graduate fellow for the Carnegie Elective Classification for Community Engagement for the 2024 Cycle, as well as a reviewer for the 2026 Cycle. Additionally, Diana is part of the Publicly Engaged Action and Research Lab (PEARL) and is an adjunct professor at USFQ. She actively participates in research projects focused on Service Learning and Community Engagement.

Claire McCann is Chair of GradSN. She is currently pursuing a DPhil (PhD) in Education at the University of Oxford, focused on the lived experiences of those involved in community-university partnerships in the student town of Makhanda, South Africa. She holds a MSt in Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, and MPhil in Economics. She currently works for the education-focused NGO, Omprakash, which connects change makers with social impact organisations around the world, and previously worked at the Rhodes University Community Engagement Division, responsible for facilitating an engaged research group and a community engagement short course for high schools. Her research interests include community/public engagement, African higher education, feminist and engaged research methods, and community histories.