The University of Cape Town has established written frameworks, policies, and procedures to identify and engage external stakeholders — including community groups, NGOs, government bodies, and industry partners — as part of its institutional commitment to social responsiveness. This framework is a key pillar of UCT’s mission under its Vision 2030 and ensures that research, teaching, and community engagement remain responsive to societal needs at local, national, and regional levels.
Evidence
UCT defines “social responsiveness” as “all forms of engagement with external non-academic constituencies,” encompassing engaged scholarship, civic engagement, and professional service. The university uses this as an umbrella framework to guide all academic and operational units in identifying, consulting, and collaborating with relevant external stakeholders (UCT Social Responsiveness Report 2022–2023, p. 30–31).
This institutional commitment is operationalised through:
- Faculty-level social responsiveness plans, which require departments to report annually to Senate and Council on stakeholder engagement and outreach activities (e.g., Faculty of Health Sciences Social Responsiveness Reports, 2022–2023).
- Structured stakeholder engagement processes, such as policy co-design workshops and community consultations (e.g., the African Centre for Cities’ Nourished Child project, which collaborated with provincial and local governments and community facilitators to co-develop child nutrition strategies; pp. 38–39).
- Collaborative learning and capacity-building programmes with external partners — for instance, the Community Vaccine Literacy Training Workshop hosted by CIDRI-Africa in Khayelitsha, in collaboration with City Health, WITS RHI, and Médecins Sans Frontières (p. 36–37).
- Partnerships with local NGOs and community-based organisations such as ChildSafe, the Christoph Meyer Maths and Science Centre, and the Masi Ambassadors in Masiphumelele, demonstrating UCT’s structured engagement with community stakeholders to address education, health, and social equity challenges (pp. 32–33; 38–39).
These activities are underpinned by the University Social Responsiveness Committee (USRC), chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Transformation, Student Affairs and Social Responsiveness, which oversees policies and reports to Council. The USRC explicitly encourages faculties to identify and build collaborative partnerships with external stakeholders (p. 19).
Conclusion
Through its institutional framework for social responsiveness, faculty reporting mechanisms, and oversight by the USRC, UCT demonstrates clear, systematic procedures for identifying and engaging local stakeholders. These structures ensure that engagement is purposeful, ethical, and aligned with UCT’s broader mission to contribute to sustainable social transformation in South Africa and beyond.