South Africa has made a remarkable transformation from an openly racist to a tolerant and democratic nation. The transformation process removed the legal barriers between subgroups that formerly postulated separate development for the various racial groups and restricted the contact between individuals to a major extent. In present day society, one can observe the transformation process in that South African citizens from different backgrounds have to develop new patterns of communication and interaction. This process was mirrored in the student culture of Stellenbosch.

The first objective of this study was to research how individual students experienced their social and academic environment. Since student relations do not always conform to the University norm of mutual respect for human diversity, the University felt the need to facilitate an intervention for valuing human diversity. The second objective of this study was to evaluate the process of the intervention, focusing on the programme context, the programme activities and the program theory. In addition, the impressions of workshop participants were studied.

In order to conceptualise the research objectives, the theoretical principles of valuing diversity were discussed in the form of a purposive literature review on the social psychology and sociology of stereotyping and related processes, which were examined as barriers to valuing diversity.

The Value Diversity Intervention was implemented in August 2001. The intervention aimed to heighten students` awareness of the diversity of the student body and to improve the interaction among the various student subgroups. The intervention was designed as a workshop and included 50 students from various backgrounds who were living in the University residences.

Two evaluation types were utilised in this study, i.e. the evaluation of perceived needs and the evaluation of the intervention process. The research questions were clarified and the specific methods for gathering and analysing the data were specified. In addition, the aspect of validity and the quality of the obtained data were reviewed.

The evaluation of perceived needs showed that individual students perceived the student population to be divided into minority (‘coloured’, ‘black’) and majority (‘white’) groups. Even though group membership did not affect specific instances of intergroup relations (e.g. individual friendships), it had implications for the social atmosphere on campus, which was characterised by a lack of intergroup contact and a domination by the majority group. Accordingly, minority group members interpreted the social atmosphere more negatively than majority group members. Hence, minority group members perceived a need to improve intergroup interaction.

This analysis indicates that a value diversity intervention may be beneficial. This corresponded to the view of the Department of Student Affairs, which arranged the Value Diversity Intervention.

The evaluation of the intervention highlighted both negative and positive aspects. Firstly, the intervention design did not include the promotion of the intervention itself, which might have been essential making students interested in the diversity topic and in motivating students to participate. Secondly, the intervention did not address the specific diversity challenges as experienced by students of the University of Stellenbosch. Students expressed concerns regarding the applicability of the provided information in their daily life. Thirdly, the workshop focused mainly on stereotypes. Yet, the possible effects of stereotypes were not sufficiently discussed. In addition, a large number of stereotypes were listed, but these were often biased due to the lack of participants from diverse groups. Further, no workshop technique which questioned the presented lists of biased stereotypes was applied or generated. Besides these technical considerations, it should be noted that stereotypes in general perpetuate the division between subgroups. Thus, the workshop focused to a large extent on past and present aspects, which divide the student population, instead of focusing on uniting issues.

The described negative aspects might have been balanced by one of the four observed workshops. This specific workshop was characterised by a small amount of participants and a positive presentation of one of the main facilitators. This resulted in a productive discussion, where the participants used the possibility to reflect on the current situation out of their perspective and reflected upon the contributions of the facilitator. Students might have been motivated to take positive impulses of this workshop in their daily life.

Based upon this research, recommendations can be determined. Firstly, the promotion of the intervention should emphasize the desirability of diversity values and highlight the personal potential benefits to participants. Secondly, it might be useful to acknowledge differences between students, but to place a greater emphasis on similarities, i.e. on aspects that connect students. Thirdly, the curriculum of the intervention should be modified to cater especially for student needs. Fourthly, the selected workshop components should achieve an equal balance between lecture parts and interactive elements. Participants should have the possibility to take an active part in the intervention if they are interested in doing so. The final recommendation entails that future interventions should be based on a comprehensive, sustained strategy with long-term goals. These strategies should be integrated in the already existing infrastructure of an institution.

This intervention has to be understood as a contribution to the transformation process that South Africa is currently undergoing. Based on the recent discussion at the University of Stellenbosch about the adoption of a comprehensive diversity strategy, it is hoped that this singular intervention will be linked to further contributions in this transformation process.

Back to top