The World Bank calls for the capacity development of developing countries due to their inherent socio-economic and political challenges (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2007). This has further resulted in calls to develop the capacity of higher education institutions (HEIs) in developing countries as this is a way to contribute to the economy and society by increasing human capital (Färnman et al., 2016; Pinheiro et al., 2016). Capacity development, via the educator, is the starting point of social change as educators have the propensity to concomitantly impact students, the HEI and society at large (Aragón & Macedo, 2010). Capacity development at HEIs has hitherto primarily been observed through cross-border offerings between HEIs in the North and the South (OECD, 2007; Sánchez-Chaparro et al., 2021). There is, however, a strong belief that the capacity development paradigm must be altered away from the dominant and unequal frameworks of North-South interaction (Pearson, 2011; Standing & Taylor, 2016). Therefore, it is not always necessary to import capacity from the North (Färnman et al., 2016) as developing countries can “tap into possible synergies” with other developing countries (Chaturvedi, 2016:3)

This study examined the viability of a South-South teaching collaboration between a partner HEI in South Africa and two recipient HEIs: one in South Africa and the other in Namibia. South Africa, as the partner HEI, was selected as the context of this study as it is a dichotomy; despite the presence of first-world convenience, significant levels of poverty prevail. Some South African universities are well-developed and encompass several distinguished research institutions, while others lack the facilities and Information Technology infrastructure required for relevant teaching. Data collection comprised questionnaires and interviews with recipient educators involved in the capacity development relationship to understand further their experiences and perceptions of the viability of a South-South teaching collaboration. 

This study makes a twofold contribution. First, it responds to calls to examine South-South collaborations in building capacity in developing countries (Pearson, 2011). It does so by examining the capacity development relationship between educators at a well-developed HEI in South Africa and recipient educators at two less-developed HEIs in the region. This study gives voice to the Southern perspective, which is often not heard in the debate on North-South or South-South collaborations (Pearson, 2011; Adriansen & Madsen, 2019). Finally, the study contributes to the limited literature on teaching collaboration in capacity development relationships as prior studies have primarily focused on research collaborations (Brum & Knobel, 2018).

While this study examines the HEIs in Africa, this study will be of interest to an international readership. HEIs in South Africa and Namibia are uniquely positioned: some enjoy international recognition for their academic programmes, yet others face a variety of challenges typical of a developing context. Consequently, the findings of this study may resonate with HEIs located in other developing markets as more than 84% of the world’s population resides in the developing world (Bloom, 2020). As developing countries typically have a large number of universities, this study is of relevance for a large contingent of the world’s universities. 

The study followed a constructivist qualitative research paradigm to explore a South-South teaching collaboration to develop the capacity of educators. Given the limited prior empirical investigation of this study’s research objective, an inductive case study approach was followed to explore the views of recipient educators at two HEIs. Educators are recipients of the capacity development intervention and were considered to have first-hand experience of the viability of a South-South teaching collaboration through their active involvement in the capacity development relationship. Recipients were, therefore, intrinsically bound to the case. The two HEIs (cases) were purposively selected, given their similarities, including in both cases  the recipient educators were involved in teaching collaboration with the same partner HEI.  the HEIs are located in a developing country in Africa.  the HEIs are public.  the recipient educators teach in an undergraduate academic programme. A qualitative questionnaire was first used to gather information. This was followed by semi-structured interviews with fewer educators to obtain a deeper understanding of the viability of a South-South teaching collaboration. The questionnaire was distributed to 27 participants, 13 from Namibia and 14 from South Africa. In total, 25 respondents completed the questionnaire, 12 from Namibia and all participants from South Africa, giving a response rate of 93%. The data from the demographic data of the questionnaires was used to identify participants to include in the interviews. Using this technique, the researcher purposively selected a mix of educators. In deciding on the selection of the participants, an equal split of participants from both Namibia and South Africa was considered satisfactory, as well as a wide range of characteristics (gender, academic qualifications and first language) to obtain a variety of perspectives. Interviews were conducted with 10 educators, as saturation of data became evident. The interviews were recorded using the Microsoft Teams recording tool and were professionally transcribed, providing accurate accounts of the participants’ perspectives and experiences. All qualitative data sets were analysed in ATLAS.ti. The analysis of the questionnaire’s open-ended responses and the interview data involved thematic analysis of the responses following Braun and Clarke’s recommendations (2006). In line with ethical clearance, consent was obtained from participants during both stages, and participants were given the option to withdraw at any stage during the study.

This study found that South-South collaborations were positively viewed by recipient educators as parties have a shared understanding of the situation on the ground. Recipient educators conveyed that South-South collaborations share “a common platform” as educators appear to “complain about similar things” (Interviewee 9). A Southern partner is suitably positioned to recognise student challenges, especially those associated with students from disadvantaged communities (Interviewees 2, 3). The partner institution “understands the calibre of students that we have” as “it’s different compared to a university” in the North (Interviewee 3, also Interviewee 10). Furthermore, Southern partners have insight into the type of political environment and frustrations experienced by recipient educators (Interviewee 3). Given this outlook, Southern partners understand the local realities and the local higher education environment better than their developed counterparts (Interviewees 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10), thereby leading to the creation of tighter synergies in the South-South collaboration. As with all research, the current study is subject to limitations. This includes inherent subjectivity and potential response bias associated with interview data. Furthermore, the relatively small sample data (for both the questionnaires and the interviews) limits the generalisability of the results. However, this study was purposefully designed with a small number of participants to generate a rich and detailed understanding of South-South collaborations. Finally, this study, argues that with a collaboration between two universities in the same country, partners display enhanced insight into the political environment of the prevailing demographic context and are well-positioned to address such complex contexts. Moreover, collaborations in the same region, enable an understanding of regional realities and the regional higher education environment, thereby creating synergies in the teaching collaboration. In both contexts, the partner HEI must be a well-developed internationally recognised institution.

Adriansen, H. K., & Madsen, L. M. (2019). Capacity-building projects in African higher education. Learning and Teaching, 12(2), 1–23. Aragón, A. O., & Macedo, J. C. G. (2010). A systemic theories of change approach for purposeful capacity development. Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Bulletin, 41(3), 87–99. Bloom, D. E. (2020). Population 2020. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2020/03/pdf/changing-demographics-and-economic-growth-bloom.pdf. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Brum, J. A., & Knobel, M. (2018). The international dimension of the Brazilian higher education system through the prism of South-South cooperation. International Journal of African Higher Education, 4(2), 92–103. Färnman, R., Diwan, V., Zwarenstein, M. & Atkins, S. (2016). Successes and challenges of north-south partnerships - key lessons from the African/Asian regional capacity development projects. Global Health Action, 9(1), 1–10. Chaturvedi, S. (2016). The development compact: a theoretical construct for south–south cooperation. Research and Information System for Developing Countries, Discussion Paper No 203. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007). Executive summary. In Vincent-Lancrin, S. (Ed.), Cross-border tertiary education: a way towards capacity development, The World Bank and OECD Publishing: Paris, France, pp. 11–20. Pearson, J. (2011). Training and beyond: Seeking better practices for capacity development. OECD Development Co-Operation Working Papers, No 1, OECD Publishing. Pinheiro, R., Normann, R., & Johnsen, H. C. G. (2016). External engagement and the academic heartland: The case of a regionally-embedded university. Science and Public Policy, 43(6), 787–797. Sánchez-Chaparro, T., Remaud, B., Gómez-Frías, V., Duykaerts, C., & Jolly, A. M. (2021). Benefits and challenges of cross-border quality assurance in higher education. A case study in engineering education in Europe. Quality in Higher Education, 1–18. Standing, H., & Taylor, P. (2016). Engaged excellence. Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Bulletin, 47(6), 169–178.