Introduction
The quest for a parity of access, participation and success by all in higher education is threatened by the uneven distribution of resources. The Zimbabwean society is largely binarised and fragmented into categories of the privileged and the marginalised and/or underprivileged. Among the marginalised are those socially and structurally situated in rural areas: with rurality in underdeveloped Africa associated with impoverishment, reification and essentialisation. Rural schools in Zimbabwe are under-resourced in terms of critically skilled personnel, infrastructure and technology. In this chapter, we theorise and problematise rurality as an obstacle to many an entrant’s parity of participation in Zimbabwe’s higher education.
The major thrust of this chapter is to explore the plight of students who hail from rural areas considering their disadvantaged position in terms of their predisposed social location and situatedness. We interrogate the impact of different institutions of learning as determined by, and predicated on, their geographical location. We thus consider the challenges encountered by individuals from a disadvantaged rural background when they enter university education where a lot of assumptions are made regarding their state of preparedness and readiness for the challenges associated, for example with a technology-driven education system. We, however, attempt to proffer an explanation of rurality that is distinctive and different from that which would be used in other contexts and countries (Soudien et al. 2019).
While the notion of justice has always been a contested area and thus regarded as illusive and inconclusive, we anchor our discussion on Rawls’ theory where justice is referred to as fairness (Rawls 1971). It is, as he argues, based on a hypothetical situation where the parties concerned, in their settling for principles of justice to govern their community, are largely disinterested and thus more likely to settle for a fair position as this is done under a veil of ignorance: this ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or contingency of social circumstances (Rawls 1971). Justice would thus imply that individuals in a society enjoy equal access to resources such as wealth and opportunities and thus enjoy a parity of participation (Keddie 2012) in the sphere of education. We argue, therefore, that efforts be made to reduce cultural (recognitive), political (representative), and socioeconomic (redistributive) injustices. Cultural injustices occur when hierarchical patterns of cultural values generate misrecognition for particular social groups; political injustices arise when some groups are not accorded equal voice in decision-making; while socioeconomic injustices result when the structures of society generate maldistribution or class inequality for particular social groups (Fraser 2007, 2009). We present social justice as the interrogation of the manifestations of power and the dynamics of oppression such as the distribution of resources that individuals have access to on the basis of their privileged or non-privileged status (Writer 2008), given the plight of rural students as predicated on their geographical situatedness.
In a bid to disrupt social injustices and unconscionable segregatory and discriminatory tendencies and practices which could be structurally sanctioned, we also reflect on possible ameliorative measures to ensure safe landing into higher education by students from culturally, materially and technologically disadvantaged settings. We also cautiously explore the matter mindful of the temptation to overglorify disadvantage and thus play into the deficit construction of the marginalised. We thus consider mitigatory measures where rural feeder institutions are adequately funded and properly resourced to match the technological and skills and demands characterising higher education. We also explore the emancipatory vision of education where the marginalised and the educators serving them should join forces in pursuit of the practice of freedom despite their situatedness considering that rurality may not necessarily amount to a deficit. For their part, institutions of higher learning could put up bridging programmes to equip the deprived with requisite skills and competencies demanded in their subsequent degree studies. The responsiveness of many an institution of higher learning to the plight of such cases is critical if students from disadvantaged backgrounds are to be allowed not only equal access, but equality of participation and success in higher education.
We begin the chapter by conceptualising and customising rurality in the Zimbabwean context. We proceed to theorise and problematise rurality as it relates to the plight of prospective college students who are in high school. While reflecting on the perceived challenges associated with rurality and preparedness for higher education, we also explore possible survival strategies the socially disadvantaged can exploit despite their situatedness. We thus discuss possible solutions to the puzzle as lying with individuals and communities concerned, as well as institutions – both high schools and universities – and educators and those from the remote areas of the country.
Rurality: A Conceptualisation
The concept and hence definition of rural has been a subject of contestations in local and international debates for decades with different definitions attributed to it and each centring on a unique specialised aspect; hence an all-encompassing definition of rural is neither anticipated nor sufficient. In affirmation, The European Commission, in its awareness of this challenge inherent in a consensual meaning of rurality made the following underlining statement in an official document (1997):
… the popularity of terms such as rurality and rural areas, resides in their apparent clearness. They are immediately understood because they suggest a physical, social and cultural concept opposed to the concept of “urban”. However, to give an objective and unambiguous definition of rurality seems quite impossible. (European Commission (1997)
While there is no single agreed definition of the term rurality, as a research construct, it is derived from rural which means outside the city or living in the country or rural area. As Cloke and Johnston have observed, “‘Urban’ and ‘rural’ as a separation in binary perception have created conventional, administrative, imaginative and intellectual boundaries” (Cloke and Johnston 2005, p. 10) with respect to an integrated discernment of geographic space. As a concept, it is at once a demographic, geographic and cultural one (Roberts and Green 2013). It is also spatial, geographical and contextual (Green and Reid 2014). At a more conceptual level, the idea of rural has its roots in modernity given that “this binary view of rural as urban’s ‘other’ also has a strong place in the social sciences, where rurality’s invisibility is anchored within the roots of modernity with its urban development and modernization”. (Cuervo 2016).
However, and more objectively, urbanity and rurality are ideal models, abstractions or simplifications of the real world (Kûle 2008, p. 10). The basis of this hypothesis is that there are essential differences between people residing in cities or towns and those who live in the rural areas. It can be noted, therefore, that research on rurality is not an end itself but rather serves to shed light on non-rurality specific phenomena such as exclusion, change or universalisation and hegemonisation of dominant cultures (Leibowitz 2017). Thus rurality implies a category and set of experiences (Moreland et al. 2003, p. 56) where the concerned are socially, economically and geographically marginalised. Rurality therefore refers to the condition of being rural, a condition which connotes deprivation, and social disadvantage. Although distinguishing between rural and remote rural is difficult (Randall et al. 2015), rurality can also be construed in terms of remoteness from major centres of population (Hayes and Bentham 1982). It tends to be conceptualised as physical space associated with various forms of exclusion, deficit and need. In the sphere of education, many stereotypes such as unsophisticated, low-level intellectual capacity and rearward nature of rural learners and their lack of knowledge regarding technological gadgets are used to express what rurality and rural education entail (Myende and Chikoko 2014). There are a number of variables and/or indices that are used to distinguish between ruralness and urbanness and these include, among others, population density, distance from urban centre, household amenities, provision and accessibility of services (Cloke 1977).
Rurality in the Zimbabwean Context
The idea of rurality in the Zimbabwean context is steeped in the colonial history of the country. The Land Tenure Act of 1979, which saw the creation of the Tribal Trust Lands and ‘reserves’ with the black majority being removed from the prime land and allocated space on relatively unproductive land where they were crowded: all this being done to create space for the colonisers. Some blacks were allocated small scale commercial farms in areas other than the prime agricultural regions, where conditions are comparatively less favourable for high productivity: which do not make up part of Zimbabwe’s prime land, thus remaining effectively as good as rural areas. The rural base expanded at independence with the land resettlement programme where blacks were placed in some planned settlements purportedly to allow for improved provision of essential social services such as health education, transport, water, and shopping centres, among others. The situation moved from bad to worse with the chaotic land reform programme of the year 2000 where some productive commercial farms were turned into communal land as people moved in their numbers to reclaim their heritage from their erstwhile colonial masters. We concur with Soudien et al. (2019) who argue that rurality, like poverty and inequality, is not pre-given, but is a result of complex forces at play. Thus, rurality in the Zimbabwean context largely implies poverty, underdevelopment, and a dearth of critical resources. We observe, a result of deliberate policies predicated on disenfranchising the blacks in the colonial past and perpetuated through the adoption of policies which are not informed by a correct diagnosis of the problem and appreciation of the concrete historical, economic, sociological and psychosociological processes involved (Erwin 2019). In this context, rurality therefore is presented and contrasted with urbanness in terms of provision of essential social services such as education, health, shops, housing, in terms of access and quality of the same. Thus the deficit model seems to punctuate the conceptualisation of rurality to an extent where the term is associated with challenges and dearth of services which allow for a high standard of living.
It is upon this premise and general understanding of the term rurality that we seek to interrogate the state of preparedness of rural high school students for entry into university: whether they are set to enjoy a parity of participation or are literally structurally excluded, peripherised and relegated to comparative unimportance on the basis of their geography and socioeconomic situatedness. We shall explore the subject mindful of the need to guard against exaggerating the defici...