Scielo RSS http://www.scielo.org.za/rss.php?pid=2520-986820190001&lang=en vol. num. 75 lang. en http://www.scielo.org.za/img/en/fbpelogp.gif http://www.scielo.org.za http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2520-98682019000100001&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2520-98682019000100002&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en In this self-critical account, I engage the concepts of critique and judgement and why they are crucial for protecting and maintaining the integrity of academia and scholarship. I argue that a naive or ignorant academic is a somewhat paradoxical position to assume given that academia is necessarily a critical space that demands astuteness and constant vigilance. I contend that blissful ignorance is a fragile justification for the neglect of due diligence as it relates to the selection of locales for knowledge dissemination. I engage the tenets of self-study and critical autoethnography to reflect on my practice as an academic and the consequences of my own poor judgement, not as an act of arrogant disclosure, but with a view to embracing this "elephant in the national academic room" and also bringing to the fore, other "frail" current knowledge vetting processes. The article draws on a Žižekian notion of perverse analysis with the view to evoke a primal confrontation of a particularly sensitive issue. I draw attention to the gravity of the act of predatory publishing and its almost irrevocable consequences. I also reflect on my grief, trauma, guilt, and shame of this self-inflicted academic reputational mutilation, and the arduous task ahead of rebuilding my academic integrity. I hope that this paper might serve to intensify our alertness to the potential new perils that present in the neoliberal research productivity-driven higher education space where online publishing and open access have become common place, and where "opportunities" to transgress and expose oneself to risk present themselves on a daily basis, often with well-disguised "authenticity." Finally, I reflect on my public exposé of personal flaw and its restorative effect of a necessary humility in the academic space. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2520-98682019000100003&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en I reply to an article in this issue of Journal of Education by Suriamurthee Moonsamy Maistry entitled, "(Re)Counting the High Cost of Predatory Publishing and the Effect of a Neoliberal Performativity Culture." In his article, Maistry confessed his "wrong-doing" in having published articles in predatory journals. He argued that he alone is to blame for his "trangressions" because academia is necessarily a critical space that demands astuteness and constant vigilance, which he failed to uphold. Through showing remorse, he hopes to restore his academic reputation, which he believes has been eroded. In my response, I address four matters: the struggle to be an ethical researcher in the neoliberal university, the contested nature of predatory publishing, peer review as a practice fraught with difficulties, and the invocation of an immanent ethics in becoming ethical. Instead of focusing only on issues of moral decline (Beall, 2012) and moral failings (Maistry, 2019), I suggest that in a digital age we should use the opportunities that open-access publishing provides for democratising academic publishing and making it as affordable to as many people as possible. This requires, as Willinsky and Alperin (2011) argued, treating the ethical domain as a realm of positive action where one goes out of one's way to help others instead of focusing on issues such as exam cheating and research fudging-in this instance, "predatory" publishing. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2520-98682019000100004&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en In this article, I reflect on le Grange's (2019) response to my article (Maistry, 2019) on predatory publishing. I engage with his critique on various levels. While I agree with the notion of embracing positive action, I analyse the usefulness of the dichotomisation of ethics and morality in understanding how this phenomenon should play itself out in academia. I contemplate the "container" versus "contents" debate, and its implications for the South African scholarship context. I also draw attention to the workings of two neoliberal markets at play in the academic publishing space: the neoliberal market for publishing services, and the market for published scholarship and offer some tentative implications for academics who have to inhabit this space. Finally, I argue that for debate to reach a high level of robustness, it has to start somewhere. For a phenomenon like predatory publishing, it might mean accommodating multiple perspectives, be they moralising, engaging an immanent ethics, even defensiveness. In fact, immanent critique urges the need to resist the temptation to "moralise" right or wrong approaches to debating this phenomenon. I reflect on how le Grange has extended the debate to include predation for publishing, an issue I argue is complexly connected to the historicity of containers (journals) serving as conduits for the propagation of racist ideology. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2520-98682019000100005&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Jika iMfundo, with its particular focus on curriculum coverage, is an intervention for systemic education change. In this paper we focus on the extent to which Heads of Departments (HoDs) are able to play an adaptive leadership role in supporting the teachers in their departments. We report on data generated from interviews with HODs in fifteen KwaZulu-Natal schools that had been part of the Jika iMfundo intervention from 2015 to 2017. While Jika iMfundo's aim is to shift HODs' leadership practices from being based on technical compliance to the achievement of a more developmental and supportive role, our findings show that the majority of HODs were not able to do this because of their heavy workloads and overwhelming administrative responsibilities. We argue that the theory of change based on the Programme for Improving Learning Outcomes (PILO) has unrealistic expectations of HODs as key levers of change for curriculum coverage and, furthermore, that this theory does not take into account the realities and variations of resourcing in different school contexts. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2520-98682019000100006&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en RPL is defined broadly as the principles and processes through which prior experiences, knowledge, skills, and attitudes acquired outside the formal learning programme are recognised and assessed for purposes of certification, alternative access and admission, and further learning and development (South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) 2013). In this paper, I highlight the importance of an enabling environment in the development and implementation of RPL in library and information science (LIS) in South Africa. The SAQA RPL policy (2002) makes it explicit that "an enabling environment" (p. 18) demonstrating commitment to RPL is essential. It is evident from the document that unless proper policies, structures, and resources are allocated to a credible assessment process, it can easily become an area of contestation and conflict. In my study, I adopted a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods which involved the use of questionnaires and document analysis to collect data. I found that there are islands of good practice in terms of compliance with the legislative framework in implementing RPL in South African LIS schools. I recommend, among other things, that the Department of Higher Education (DHE) together with the Council on Higher Education (CHE) and SAQA conduct regular monitoring and evaluation processes of RPL implementation in LIS schools to encourage compliance with prevailing legislative frameworks. Further, periodic RPL accreditation processes could also be used to great effect to ensure that LIS schools comply, failing which, their accreditation to offer RPL services could be reviewed. This will help create an enabling environment, which is a prerequisite for an effective and credible recognition of the RPL process. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2520-98682019000100007&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en RPL is defined broadly as the principles and processes through which prior experiences, knowledge, skills, and attitudes acquired outside the formal learning programme are recognised and assessed for purposes of certification, alternative access and admission, and further learning and development (South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) 2013). In this paper, I highlight the importance of an enabling environment in the development and implementation of RPL in library and information science (LIS) in South Africa. The SAQA RPL policy (2002) makes it explicit that "an enabling environment" (p. 18) demonstrating commitment to RPL is essential. It is evident from the document that unless proper policies, structures, and resources are allocated to a credible assessment process, it can easily become an area of contestation and conflict. In my study, I adopted a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods which involved the use of questionnaires and document analysis to collect data. I found that there are islands of good practice in terms of compliance with the legislative framework in implementing RPL in South African LIS schools. I recommend, among other things, that the Department of Higher Education (DHE) together with the Council on Higher Education (CHE) and SAQA conduct regular monitoring and evaluation processes of RPL implementation in LIS schools to encourage compliance with prevailing legislative frameworks. Further, periodic RPL accreditation processes could also be used to great effect to ensure that LIS schools comply, failing which, their accreditation to offer RPL services could be reviewed. This will help create an enabling environment, which is a prerequisite for an effective and credible recognition of the RPL process.