Global trends have made diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) a pivotal goal for higher education institutions (HEIs) worldwide. These trends are borne largely from the increased awareness and acknowledgement that certain groups, notably women, black Africans, and scholars from the Global South, have been historically marginalised in the global academe (Allen et al. 2000; Bennett & Ling 2021; Govinder, Zondo & Makgoba 2013; Hedding & Breetzke 2021). This under-representation is evident in a myriad of ways including editorial board composition (Breetzke, Hedding & Pijper 2022; Cummings & Hoebink 2016), grant recipients (Erosheva et al. 2020; Hoppe et al. 2019), as well as publication and citation biases (Beaudry & Larivière 2016; Kim 2022; Maliniak, Powers & Walter 2013), among numerous others. An examination of academic staff profiles provides further insight into the under-representation of these and other groups in higher education. Analyses of academic staff profiles have been undertaken across a range of countries with the majority of academic staff across a range of disciplines found to be white (Allen et al. 2000; Mngomezulu & Ndlovu 2013) and male (Breetzke & Hedding 2018; Galvin et al. 2024), with few exceptions. The under-representation of individuals in higher education based on race is a particularly significant issue in South Africa because of the historical legacy of apartheid which systematically excluded black Africans and other marginalised racial groups from quality education and economic opportunities. Black South African academics also tend to experience an emotionally exhausting landscape characterised by poor support (Bothma & Rossouw 2019; Ramohai 2014), employment insecurity (Solomon & Du Plessis 2024), exploitation (Steynberg, Grundling & Venter 2024) and significant gender-based challenges (Rabe & Rugunanan 2012). Academics have also reported feeling overwhelmed and stressed because of unstable employment conditions (Solomon & Du Plessis 2023) with black African women, in particular, facing the dual pressure of racialised and gendered expectations of representational labour, while also facing moral pressure of having to perform additional maternal duties (Magoqwana, Maqabuka & Tshoaedi 2019). At the post-doctoral level, Hlatshwayo (2024) found that many post-doctoral researchers lack a coherent pathway to permanent employment in South Africa, leading to job-hopping and a marginal professional status. According to Kerr (2021), these collective challenges result in a large number of talented academics leaving higher education.

Research that has emerged from South Africa has shown how the racial profile of academic staff in the country is, however, changing since democracy in 1994, albeit slowly (Govinder et al. 2013). Specifically, Breetzke and Hedding (2016) found that various factors influenced the changing racial profile of the academic staff body at South African universities including the world university ranking; the percentage of black African student body; and whether the university is deemed to be ‘historically disadvantaged’, among others. Later, Breetzke and Hedding (2018) examined the changing demography of academic staff bodies from 2005 to 2015 and found an increased number of black African academics across all academic rankings during the study period and a concomitant downward trajectory of white academics across all rankings. Both Indian and coloured academics most closely represented their national population representation during the study period. The researchers concluded that the demography of academic staff at HEIs in South Africa would accelerate within the next 20 years if the current trends they identified continue.

But is a diverse and nationally representative staffing body necessary? A diverse academic staff has been found to provide role models for students from under-represented groups (Fairlie, Hoffmann & Oreopoulos 2014), improve student retention (Ehrenberg & Zhang 2005), as well as student confidence, and success (Llamas, Nguyen & Tran 2021). The notion here is that a more diverse staff body can help challenge stereotypes about intellectual capability and belonging in academia. Faculty from diverse backgrounds have also been found to introduce more inclusive curricula and pedagogies (Umbach 2006), and can serve as informal mentors to marginalised students, providing them with guidance and advocacy that supports persistence (Gasman, Kim & Nguyen 2011). Much less research has, however, been conducted evaluating the impact of a nationally representative academic staff body – defined as one that mirrors national demographics – on student academic performance, retention and pedagogy. In fact, we were unable to find a single study that has directly examined this linkage. This gap is especially important in contexts like South Africa, where representativity is tied not only to diversity goals but also to historical redress and systemic transformation. From the outside, it appears as though the pursuit of a representative academic staff body in South Africa is driven more by ideology than evidence.

In this article, we contribute to this debate by examining the racial profile of academic staff at all South African HEIs from 2005 to 2020. We extend the work of Breetzke and Hedding (2018) by adding five more years’ worth of data to see if changes in the racial profile of academic staff they identified in their study are accelerating or stagnating. In a point of departure from previous work, we then critically engage with our results by asking whether a fully racially representative academic staff body in South Africa is indicative of a ‘transformed’ higher education system? Or would this simply mask deeper transformational challenges that are harder to address but easier to ignore. Finally, it is important to note that transformation is a highly contested and multi-dimensional concept, particularly in the South African higher education context. We also believe that it extends beyond demographic change alone and should ideally encompass structural and institutional reform, and epistemic transformation, among numerous others. The absence of a shared and operational definition has resulted in transformation often being measured primarily through numerical indicators – as done in this research – despite the ongoing debate about their adequacy, we motivate that this is only one indicator of it.

The data used to examine changes in the racial composition of academic staff at South African HEIs were obtained from the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) of the South African Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET). Academic staff are defined as professionals holding positions from junior lecturer to professor, engaged in teaching and research. The DHET provided anonymised records detailing the age, gender, rank and racial distribution of academic staff across all 25 South African universities from 2005 to 2020. The start date of 2005 was selected for the analysis because it represents the first year after the merger and establishment of many of the current universities in South Africa. A 5-year increment was selected to provide a consistent and meaningful time-step to the data. The time series ended in 2020 because audited data for 2025 were not yet available on the HEMIS platform at the time of the analysis. Importantly, two new institutions – Sol Plaatje University and the University of Mpumalanga – were established in 2014, with their staff data incorporated from 2015 onwards. In terms of the analysis, staff data were analysed according to changes in race, gender and rank of all institutions but also for the historical context of institutions (i.e. historically black African; historically white; and ‘new and merged’). Thus, we first graphed the change in the race of academic staff across HEIs throughout the country in 5-yearly increments: 2005 through to 2020. Next, we graphed the change in gender and rank of academic staff by racial grouping: black African, white, coloured and Indian.¹ Again, this was done in 5-yearly increments. It is important to note that all foreign academic staff were not included in the analysis as the data from the DHET do not provide an indication of the racial group of academic staff categorised as foreign. While this may have some impact on the descriptive results, roughly 3% of academic staff in South Africa were classified as foreign in the data, so the overall impact on the results is negligible. Finally, we did not normalise the data, as the analysis focused on absolute counts and proportions within racial categories over time, rather than comparing variables measured on different scales; thus, normalisation was not necessary.

The racial breakdown of academic staff at HEIs in South Africa is shown in Figure 1. For the first time in the history of the country there are now more black African scholars (45%) than any other racial group represented in academia. In fact, there has been a rather dramatic (and significant) change in the racial profile of academic staff over the past 5 years (i.e. 2015–2020) as the percentage of black African scholars has increased by almost 10% points (from 36% to 45%) while the percentage of white scholars decreased by almost 10% points (from 49% to 40%). This change represents a major shift in the demography of staff and signals a gradual move towards greater racial representativity in South African HEIs, reflecting ongoing efforts to redress historical imbalances rooted in apartheid-era exclusion. However, it also highlights persistent disparities, as white academics still remain over-represented – relative to the country’s demographics – while black African representation, though growing, still lags behind their share of the national population. Finally, the percentage of coloured academics has increased marginally from 2005 to 2020 and the percentage of Indian academics has remained constant at 5%.

Figure 2 shows the race-gender breakdown of academic staff at HEIs in South Africa. There are a few notable findings. Firstly, the most commonly represented group among South African academics in terms of gender and race are black African male academics (26%), followed by white female academics (21%), black African female academics (19%), and white male academics (18%). This dispels the common refrain that HEIs in the country are dominated by white male academics; in fact, more than a quarter of academic staff are black African male. Secondly, the greatest drop in terms of gender and race from 2005 to 2020 is white male academics, who have decreased from 36% to just under 19% overall (basically halved). Black African female academics have more than doubled over the same time period from 9% to 19% while black African male academics have also increased by more than 10% from 15% in 2005 to 26% in 2020. White female academics have decreased by just over five percentage points – from 27% to 21% – over the same time period (2005–2020). There has been no noticeable change in the percentage of Indian and coloured academics by gender from 2005 to 2020, with both racial groups hovering around 3% – 4% regardless of gender.

In terms of rank, there is an upward trajectory of black African academics across all rankings from 2005 to 2020 (see Figure 3); in fact, there is an over 10% jump in the percentage of black African academics at the junior ranks over the study period, and a more modest 2% jump at the more senior ranks. Black African lecturers now represent over a quarter of all academic scholars in South Africa. Conversely, there is a downward trajectory of white academics across all rankings, with the percentage of white lecturers decreasing from 22% in 2005 to 12% in 2020 and the percentage of white senior lecturers decreasing from 19% in 2005 to 12% in 2020. Interestingly, the majority of academic staff in the junior rankings are black African, while the majority of academic staff in the senior rankings are still white; however, that dominance is decreasing. The biggest difference between the racial groups by rank is at the professorial level, where there are almost three times more white professors than black African professors. However, black Africans are trending upwards in this regard, although at a slower pace than at the more junior academic ranks. Again, there has been very little change in the percentage of Indian and coloured academics by rank from 2005 to 2020, although the percentage of coloured academics appears to have increased marginally across all rankings since 2005.

The transformational picture we paint above is distorted somewhat when we disaggregate the HEIs in the country by historical antecedent (i.e. historically black African; historically white; and ‘new and merged’). These three categorisations reflect the apartheid history of South Africa’s higher education landscape, wherein HEIs were segregated along racial lines. Historically black African universities like the University of Fort Hare and the University of Zululand were established for black African, coloured and Indian students under apartheid, and continue to face resource challenges. Historically, white universities such as the University of Cape Town and Stellenbosch University were reserved for white students and still benefit from historical advantages in infrastructure and funding. Post-apartheid, new universities like Sol Plaatje University were established, while mergers like the creation of the University of Johannesburg aimed to redress past inequalities, although integration challenges persist. Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the racial breakdown of academic staff at HEIs in South Africa by institution type. When the data is disaggregated by institution, a number of interesting trends emerge. Firstly, a total of 56% of academics employed at historically white universities are white, although that has decreased from 80% in 2005. Only 27% of academics employed at historically white universities are black African, followed by 10% coloured, and 8% Indian. Secondly, almost three-quarters of academics employed at historically black African universities are black African, and this has increased from 59% in 2005. Interestingly, white academics are also over-represented (13%) at historically black African universities. This suggests a lack of transformation in academic departments occurring not only at historically white universities but also at historically black African universities. New and merged universities have the most equitable racial distribution of academics, with 48% of academics employed at new and merged universities being black African, followed by 37% white, although this trend is increasing for black African academics and decreasing for white academics.

The results of this research have shown that the racial profile of academic staff at HEIs in South Africa is changing, and in some instances, relatively fast. For the first time in the history of the country, there are now more black African academics (45%) than white academics (40%), while the percentage of coloured and Indian academics has remained relatively stable over the study period. Nkomo (2015) notes that the racial profile of academics at HEIs will be nationally representative by 2055, but we argue that if existing racial trends continue, the transformation of academic staff bodies in the country could well occur well before this date. Inevitably, the ‘devil is in the detail’ with there still being substantial variability in the representativeness of various racial groups when disaggregating the data by gender, rank and institution type. In particular, there is a gross under-representation of black African academics at the professorial level (currently at 23%) as well as at historically white universities (currently at 27%). In fact, the vast majority of black African academics are still employed at historically black African universities (73%). It is important, however, to put these results into historical context. White academics made up upwards of 50% or more of the academic staff at most historically black African universities during apartheid, while the percentage of non-white academics (black African, coloured, Indian and Asian) at historically white universities during this time was close to zero (Gmerek 2018). Now, more than a quarter of academics at historically white universities are non-white, while the percentage of white academics at historically black African universities is currently at an all-time low of 13%, down from 27% in 2005. Moreover, the percentage of non-white academics at historically white universities is currently at an all-time high of 45%. These results highlight the tension between demographic transformation as a measurable outcome per se and substantive transformation as a structural and institutional process. This distinction provides the analytical lens through which the findings are interpreted below. Overall, the picture is one of transformational change, at least from a racial perspective. But we pose the question here: should the racial profile of the academic staff body across HEIs in South Africa mirror national demographics? Would this constitute transformational ‘success’ in terms of higher education in the country?

The answers to these questions are complex and deeply tied to the historical, social and political context of the country. Rightly or wrongly, demographic representation in South African higher education is widely seen as a key measure of transformation and redress. This is largely because of the enforced systemic racial exclusion in higher education under apartheid, which forced the majority non-white population to study at universities that were deliberately underfunded, poorly resourced, and designed to limit their academic and professional advancement, thereby entrenching social and economic inequalities. Often forgotten is the concomitant confinement of non-white academics to these institutions too. Proponents for a nationally representative academic staff body argue that this fosters inclusivity, enriches perspectives and corrects historical inequities (see Badat 2009; Le Grange 2016; eds. Makgoba & Mubangizi 2010) – while opponents caution that rigid demographic quotas may overlook qualifications, institutional needs and/or the time required to develop a robust pipeline of academics from under-represented groups (see Council on Higher Education [CHE] 2008; Dover, Kaiser & Major 2020; Mansbridge 2003). Importantly, the South African situation is not new. Several countries have attempted to align the racial, ethnic and/or gender composition of their academic staff with national demographics, often as part of a broader equity or transformation agenda. For example, in Canada, various policies have been implemented to advance equity for indigenous peoples, women, visible minorities, and persons with disabilities with some institutions such as the University of British Columbia (UBC) setting strict institutional targets to increase representation of these groups in faculty while in the United Kingdom (UK), universities applying for research funding from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) must demonstrate progress on a range of diversity metrics including staffing. In stark contrast, however, the United States (US) has recently seen significant pushback against so-called DEI initiatives, including in publicly funded higher education. Federal actions, including Executive Order 14 173 signed in 2025, have rolled back longstanding anti-discrimination requirements for federal contractors, while the Department of Education have launched investigations into universities over their use of race- and identity-based programming. This divergence underscores the contested nature of demographic ‘transformation’ in academia, with some countries moving to accelerate equity while others reassert a more narrowly merit-based framework.

In the South African context, Van Schalkwyk et al. (2022) argue that the country lacks a clear articulation of what exactly transformation is and/or would look like were it to be achieved. The researchers bemoan the lack of indicators and targets to track progress over time which, they believe, hinders the progression of the discourse to equally important dimensions of performance such as efficiency, success and productivity. Indeed, if demographic parity is an important goal for equity, then surely it should be pursued alongside other investments in mentorship, research capacity and institutional reform to ensure sustainable transformation without compromising academic excellence. This balancing act depends, however, on a country’s vision for higher education as either an engine of social justice or a meritocratic space. We believe that the higher education sector in South Africa has still not clarified its vision for the higher education sector resulting in fragmented transformation efforts and policy uncertainty. In terms of the latter, a range of policies have been implemented since democracy to improve the ‘proportion of blacks and women on academic and executive staff of institutions’ (Cloete & Bunting 2000:75). These include the former Department of Education’s White Paper on Higher Education (1997) and more recently, the DHET (2014) White Paper, wherein the current Minister of Higher Education and Training, Dr Blade Nzimande, outlined a new Staffing South Africa’s Universities Framework (SSAUF) to address the ‘crisis’ of the higher education sector in terms of the racial composition of its academic staff (Nzimande 2015). None of these policies has, however, achieved meaningful transformation in terms of access, equity and participation for previously disadvantaged groups. Rather, the result has been, among others, the massification of higher education throughout the country with an alarming (and unsustainable) increase in the number of tertiary education students (Pillay 2020).

There are now over a million students enrolled in public HEIs in South Africa (CHE 2022) with the National Development Plan 2030 aiming to increase the number of students in higher education to 1.6 million by 2030. In fact, the number of graduate students from public HEIs in the country has more than doubled over the past 20 years (DHET 2021). Importantly, this dramatic increase in student numbers has not been matched by growth in qualified academic staff and has been found to contribute to increased workloads, burnout and less capacity for research (Abe & Mugobo 2021; Dlamini & Dlamini 2024; O’Neil & Gopal 2021). We argue here that the higher education pendulum in the country has swung too much in favour of social justice and left meritocracy behind. Importantly, these concepts need not be mutually exclusive but require clear criteria, transparent processes and investment in developing a diverse pipeline of highly qualified scholars. A continued preference for one over the other, however, will necessarily result in an overwhelmed tertiary education sector collapsing in on itself. Already, HEIs in South Africa are in financial peril. Most HEIs in South Africa do not earn enough in tuition fees to pay their staff, and were it not for grants and other receipts, these institutions would be insolvent (South African Market Insights 2023). As their current income from tuition is not nearly enough to cover employees’ compensation, maintenance and repairs of buildings and grounds are neglected. Moreover, the long-term prospect for the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) – a South African government initiative designed to provide financial assistance to eligible students from poor and working-class families – is bleak. The most recent Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) (DHET 2023) projects a R5-billion reduction in NSFAS allocations from 2024/25 to 2026/27 and a decrease in higher education spending, as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), from 2% to 1.78%. Consequently, per capita funding for both students and public universities will decline. Concurrently, private HEIs in the country have experienced significant growth, with enrolments increasing by 126% over the past decade (South African Private Higher Education [SAPHE] 2024), as they absorb students who are unable to secure placements in public universities. This spells an uncertain future for higher education in South Africa. The current policy focus should be on making higher education in the country financially sustainable and not solely on transforming the academic staff body. The conceptual contribution of this study, we believe, lies in its distinction between demographic transformation and substantive transformation. We argue that while the former is measurable and politically salient, the latter encompasses institutional capacity and epistemic change, which are all dimensions that are obscured when transformation is reduced to representativity alone.

When US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart was asked to describe his threshold for obscenity, he famously stated that he could not define it but that ‘he’ll know it when he sees it’. Perhaps this logic should be applied to higher education in South Africa. Defining transformation using metrics is a fool’s errand. Rather, we believe that efforts towards a ‘transformed’ academic landscape in the country should involve restructuring academic programmes, shaping and developing new pedagogical approaches, revising relevant policies as/when required and transforming campus life for students. Focussing purely on metrics risks reducing transformation to a numbers game, while overlooking the deeper structural, cultural and epistemological changes needed to create a truly inclusive and equitable higher education system. Breetzke and Hedding (2016) argue that the pace of ‘academic’ transformation in the country needs to be interpreted within the framework of academic governance. Sound structures should be in place that are cognisant of the historical and systemic inequalities that still permeate throughout much higher education in the country but should not be beholden to them. Importantly, we do not propose an alternative transformation model, nor do we dismiss the importance of equity-driven staffing reform. Instead, we offer here an empirically grounded critique of metric-driven transformation, demonstrating how reliance on representativity alone risks masking structural constraints within the higher education system. A nationally representative academic staff body is a desirable milestone, not the endpoint, and while it may be considered a necessary condition for transformation, it is not a sufficient one.