Curriculum transformation (CT) has become a central imperative in South African higher education, particularly in the aftermath of student-led movements demanding relevance, inclusivity and the decolonisation of knowledge (Ajani & Govender 2024; Heleta 2016; Verhoef & Du Preez 2020).

For Open Distance e-Learning (ODeL) universities, this imperative is even more complex because transformation must occur within digitally mediated, geographically dispersed and multi-stakeholder systems (Ajani & Govender 2024; Brunetti et al. 2020; Hicks 2018).

Literature has indicated that curriculum co-creation creates a more inclusive higher education (Hughes et al. 2019) where all stakeholders’ needs are catered for. Meeting such individual needs calls for the infusion of change drivers such as new teaching and learning modalities, for example, the use of technologies to create flexible delivery and imparting employability skills to graduates (Roberts 2015). Yet Kandiko Howson and Kingsbury’s (2023) study revealed that moving away from the traditional high-stakes exam-based assessment culture towards a digital engagement that caters for diversity and inclusion in institutions of higher learning is a slow process. In the same breath, according to Brunetti et al. (2020), digital transformation requires multi-stakeholder approach so that every stakeholder may own the change.

Although national and institutional policy frameworks emphasise the importance of broad-based participation in curriculum reform, there remains limited empirical insight into how such processes unfold in practice – especially from the perspective of those tasked with implementing transformation on the ground (CHE 2013; Jongbloed, Enders & Salerno 2008; Kandiko Howson & Kingsbury 2023).

This article addresses this gap by examining a large-scale, multi-stakeholder CT initiative at a South African ODeL university. The knowledge problem underpinning this study is twofold: firstly, little is known about how diverse stakeholders – Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), institutional management, CT champions, lecturers, and students – collaborate, negotiate and sometimes contest the transformation agenda; secondly, existing accounts seldom capture the tensions, resistance, workload pressures, epistemic struggles and digital demands encountered during implementation. As a result, the practical realities of embedding principles such as Afrikan epistemologies, pedagogical renewal, innovative assessment and online teaching remain under-theorised within the ODeL sector.

Drawing on a qualitative critical ethnographic case study, this article provides a firsthand account of the CT process, offering an insider perspective on both the collaborative successes and the systemic barriers that shaped the initiative. The argument advanced here is that while multi-stakeholder engagement strengthens CT, its effectiveness is constrained by misaligned expectations, uneven digital competence, inconsistent institutional support and declining momentum following the end of DHET funding. By foregrounding these dynamics, the article highlights the need for sustainable funding, ongoing capacity-building and relational practices that sustain transformation beyond policy directives or short-term projects.

Emanating from the introduction presented, the study sought to answer the research question:

How does a collaborative, multistakeholder approach influence CT efforts in a South African ODeL university?

The following sub-questions were formulated:

The rest of this article proceeds as follows. Firstly, a theoretical framework and literature provide a focus for the study. Secondly, the sampling and data collection methods are outlined. Thirdly, the findings and a discussion of stakeholder collaboration and the challenges encountered in pursuing the CT agenda. The article concludes with a summary of this study and some recommendations.

This study examines stakeholder collaboration and challenges during institutional CT. It is underpinned by stakeholder theory, as conceptualised by Leisyte and Westerheijden (2014). While traditionally a theory of organisational management and business ethics, stakeholder theory has increasingly been applied to higher education governance, particularly in the context of curriculum reform and quality assurance (Leisyte & Westerheijden 2014). This makes it particularly useful for analysing how multiple actors influence, negotiate and co-construct curriculum processes.

Leisyte and Westerheijden’s (2014) work extends Clark’s (1983) Triangle of Coordination, which theorises the interaction among three forces – the state (government control), the market (economic and labour demands) and the academic oligarchy (faculty governance) – in shaping higher education systems. They argue that effective CT cannot be understood solely through institutional or academic lenses; rather, it requires acknowledging the multiplicity of stakeholders, including students, faculty, industry representatives, government bodies, accreditation agencies and the broader community. These actors interact dynamically, negotiating interests, shaping decision-making and ensuring that curricula remain relevant and responsive to societal and labour market needs.

Within this framework, CT is conceptualised as a participatory, multi-actor process. Stakeholders’ engagement is not merely procedural but central to achieving quality and sustainable change (Dill 2007; Gumport 2000). Collaboration among diverse actors fosters curriculum relevance, aligns educational outcomes with societal and economic demands (Carbonell et al. 2014; Jongbloed et al. 2008) and supports institutional innovation (Kezar 2005).

By applying Leisyte and Westerheijden’s stakeholder perspective, this study foregrounds three key principles that guide the analysis and discussion of empirical data:

This theoretical lens not only frames the research problem but also provides a practical guide for data treatment. Specifically, it allows the study to examine how stakeholders collaborate, negotiate and confront challenges during CT and to interpret these processes in terms of governance dynamics, participatory engagement and quality outcomes.

The findings reported here are divided into two. Firstly, as a participant observer, I provide data on what I observed using the observation checklist. Secondly, I provide verbatim quotes derived from the interviews and the focus group discussions.

The findings reveal that CT was a collaborative effort involving a wide range of stakeholders. These included the DHET, which provided the grant that funded the CT initiatives; the institutional CT team, which responded proactively by establishing guiding principles for the transformation agenda; and the CT lead, who worked alongside college champions to conduct training through an online course. This course aimed to equip participants with the knowledge and tools to embed the new principles into existing modules. Lecturers played a crucial role in implementing these changes in the classroom, while students – whose activism and demands sparked the call for a more inclusive curriculum – were central to the transformation process. The institution’s approach aligns with existing literature emphasising that CT should include all actors with a vested interest in education (CHE 2013; Jongbloed et al. 2008). Workshops and training sessions were organised to ensure that each stakeholder understood their role, both individually and collectively, in achieving the shared goals (Alsubaie 2016; Law 2022). Notably, the inclusion of student voices marked a significant departure from traditional curricula, where they had often been marginalised. This pattern aligns directly with stakeholder theory, which posits that meaningful transformation occurs only when all actors with legitimate interests – especially those historically excluded – are recognised as essential partners in decision-making.

Importantly, the involvement of students extended beyond a reactive response to the Fees Must Fall movement – it was also a deliberate strategy to enhance student engagement and motivation (Bass 2012; Samson 2019). The partnership with students served not only to acknowledge their grievances but also to actively involve them in shaping the future of their education. As Student 2 noted: ‘As student representatives, we shared the MOOC training with other students to make them welcome the transformation agenda’. This level of engagement underscores the importance of student agency in curriculum reform and highlights how inclusive collaboration can serve as a catalyst for both structural and cultural change in higher education. From a decolonial theoretical lens, the elevation of student voice represents an epistemic shift that challenges hierarchical knowledge structures and repositions students as co-creators of knowledge rather than passive recipients.

Participant feedback highlighted that institutional stakeholders – beginning with senior management – strategically targeted key areas that catalysed significant changes in the curriculum. As an ODeL institution, the integration of technology into the teaching and learning process emerged as a critical component of CT. Training initiatives focused on the effective use of digital tools, opening new possibilities for higher education delivery (Hicks 2018). This was especially relevant given the institution’s transition to a fully online model. Participants noted that these changes not only modernised the curriculum but also enhanced student engagement and motivation (Daniela et al. 2019). The use of digital devices, even during summative assessments, reflected a broader pedagogical renewal in teaching, learning and evaluation methods. The transformation process – driven collectively by all stakeholders – was thus timely and impactful, leaving a lasting imprint on the institution’s educational practices.

Another major shift identified in the findings was the infusion of African epistemology into the revised curriculum. Participants emphasised that this move was not solely a response to student demands but was also championed by educators. The legacy of the 1976 student uprisings, which protested the imposition of Afrikaans and its erasure of Black identity (Falola 2022), still resonated deeply. Lecturer 2 captured this sentiment, stating ‘We are moving away from apartheid’. For many, incorporating African knowledge systems was viewed as a necessary corrective to historical injustices and a meaningful way to reassert and celebrate African cultural identity within academic spaces (Kamwendo 2016).

Although the study revealed numerous positive outcomes regarding stakeholder collaboration in CT, several challenges also emerged – echoing issues raised in the 2008 and 2015 Higher Education Summits. As with any major change initiative, participants reported barriers to effective implementation at multiple levels. A significant obstacle was the reduction of funding from the DHET. This funding cut disrupted the momentum of the transformation agenda, particularly affecting the CT lead and college champions. These individuals, who had previously received incentives, became demotivated and scaled back the number of workshops they conducted. This supports the argument that successful CT requires sustained investment and commitment over time (RSA 2015). Stakeholder theory helps explain this dynamic, as resource instability weakens the interdependencies required for collaborative transformation and disrupts relational trust among actors.

Resistance was also noted among lecturers, who were responsible for implementing the newly proposed CT principles. Some viewed the process as burdensome, citing inadequate time and support for the transition:

On the other side, college champions themselves reported experiencing work overload, often needing to neglect other responsibilities to prioritise CT workshops. They also encountered negative attitudes from lecturers during workshops, which in turn caused stress. As Champion 5 noted, ‘I think I need training or support in dealing with negative comments – they cause stress’. These sentiments align with Torres (2016), who argues that insufficient guidance in navigating complex transformation agendas can hinder progress. From a theoretical perspective, this resistance illustrates the power dynamics highlighted in critical transformation theory, where mandated change without adequate support generates tensions between institutional expectations and individual agency.

Another challenge arose from the institution’s transition to a fully online university, which proved particularly difficult for lecturers lacking digital competence. As Lecturer 3 shared, ‘I am not competent in using technology. Look at my age – I am almost 58 years old’.

This generational gap in technological proficiency contributed to varied experiences of the transformation process. Stakeholder theory suggests that digital literacy is a foundational condition for pedagogical transformation; thus, lecturers’ struggles reflect deeper structural issues rather than individual inadequacy.

This finding also attests to the fact that CT in ODeL contexts is a complex and multilayered process shaped by pedagogical innovation, technological disruption and deeply rooted socio-political histories. As Matlala (2023) argues, curriculum redesign in ODeL must extend beyond conventional content delivery towards technology-enhanced learning and reflective, participatory pedagogies. This aligns with the findings of Van Rensburg and Matahela (2025), who emphasise that educators play a critical role in mediating transformative learning processes in digitally mediated environments. However, educators and other stakeholders must increasingly navigate institutional pressures, shifting expectations and unfamiliar digital ecosystems.

Although the CT agenda engaged a broad range of stakeholders, the findings revealed that these stakeholders did not share a uniform level of understanding regarding the institution’s goals and priorities. A key finding from this study is that the process remains uneven and, at times, highly contested because stakeholders interpret ‘transformation’ differently. This is consistent with the Council on Higher Education’s (2025) national baseline study, which found wide variation in how South African universities conceptualise CT, often leading to fragmented or incoherent institutional responses. Such conceptual misalignment complicates collaborative curriculum work, especially in ODeL systems where stakeholder groups seldom occupy the same physical or epistemic spaces. This misalignment contributed to several challenges during the implementation process. For transformation efforts to succeed, it is essential that all involved parties develop a shared understanding of institutional needs and direction, thereby fostering a sense of ownership and commitment (Mohamed 2023). In this case, many lecturers lacked a clear grasp of the university’s long-term objectives – a gap that required more time and strategic communication to address. As Beerkens and Udam (2017) argue, shared understanding among stakeholders enhances both support for and legitimacy of institutional change efforts. Stakeholder theory reinforces that such misalignment is expected when actors hold divergent interpretations of institutional goals, and that transformation requires dialogic processes to build shared meaning and legitimacy.

The findings also underscored that change is an ongoing process, requiring flexibility, patience and adaptation. Reformers must be willing to revise their strategies as conditions evolve (Law 2022). For example, the CT champions repeatedly offered the same workshops, assuming that frequency would improve participation. However, this approach failed to yield increased engagement. These results suggest the need for alternative strategies to secure broader stakeholder buy-in – possibly through more interactive, tailored or context-sensitive engagement approaches.

Another key barrier was the overreliance on external funding. When such funding was reduced, the transformation agenda lost momentum. This highlights the need for sustainable internal funding mechanisms to ensure long-term success. As Leisyte and Westerheijden (2014) suggest, revitalising transformation efforts requires ongoing negotiation among stakeholders, while Iradel (2018) emphasises that such negotiations are central to continuous improvement. Establishing robust internal structures for dialogue and resource allocation may therefore enhance the resilience and effectiveness of future transformation initiatives. Viewed through the theoretical framework, sustainable transformation requires both structural alignment (stakeholder theory) and epistemic commitment (decoloniality), highlighting the interdependence of material resources and ideological shifts.

Taken together, the findings validate the theoretical framework guiding this study by demonstrating how stakeholder interdependencies, decolonial imperatives and ODeL pedagogical logics intersect to shape the possibilities and constraints of CT. The overall implications of the observations point to a highly context-sensitive transformation process, where commitment and stress levels are shaped by leadership practices, incentive structures, institutional support and stakeholder agency. Sustainable CT, particularly in an ODeL context, requires strategic alignment between motivation, communication, capacity building and inclusive practices that actively involve all stakeholders – especially students and lecturers who are central to curriculum delivery and experience.

This study examined an underexplored dimension of CT in an ODeL institution by providing a firsthand account of stakeholder collaboration, the challenges encountered and the pathways identified during the process. The findings showed that the transformation agenda – driven collaboratively by DHET, university management, CT champions, lecturers and students – benefited significantly from the DHET-funded initiatives, particularly the online course on integrating CT principles into curriculum design and pedagogical practice. Evidence from participants demonstrated that the application of these principles led to meaningful pedagogical renewal, with technology opening new possibilities for enhancing teaching, learning and student engagement. The study also revealed that inclusive communication practices strengthened relationships between students and the university, moving beyond the ‘Fees Must Fall’ tensions towards more participatory knowledge co-creation.

However, the data also highlighted substantial barriers: limited and inconsistent funding, resistance to change among staff, inadequate managerial support and severe time constraints for CT champions tasked with implementation. These challenges directly shaped the following recommendations: