Higher Education Commission Pakistanhec.gov.pk/english/universities/projects/TESP/Documents/FR... · Higher Education Commission (HEC) H-9, Islamabad Khalid Mahmood, PhD June 29,

Higher Education Commission Pakistan Khalid Mahmood, PhD

Study Report - Overall assessment of the higher education sector

i

Final report

Study #1

Overall assessment of the higher education sector

Higher Education Commission (HEC)

H-9, Islamabad

Khalid Mahmood, PhD

June 29, 2016

(Version1.1)


ii

Acronyms/abbreviations

AJK Azad Jammu and Kashmir

BIC Business Incubation Center

C PEC China Pakistan Economic Corridor

DAI Degree Awarding Institutions

DG Director General

DQE Directorate of Quality Enhancement

FGD focus group discussion

GB Gilgit-Baltistan

GDP gross domestic product

GER gross enrollment ratio

GOP Government of Pakistan

HEC Higher Education Commission

HEIs higher education institutions

IPEMC Inter Provincial Education Minister's Conference

KP Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

M&E monitoring and evaluation

MTDF midterm development frame work

NEP National Education Policy

NER net enrollment ratio

NQF National Qualifications Framework of Pakistan

OECD The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

ORIC Offices of Research, Innovation and Commercialization

PCEPT Professional Competency Enhancement Program for Teachers

PERN Pakistan Education and Research Network

QA Quality Assurance

QEC Quality Enhancement Cell

QS Quacquarelli Symonds

R&D Research and Development

SBIR Small Business Innovation Research

STR Student Teacher Ratio

SWOC Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Challenges


iii

TESP Tertiary Education Support Project

TORs terms of reference

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization


iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background/Introduction

The Government of Pakistan (GOP) has set a clear vision for the future of the country’s system

of higher education as a tool for human resources development to further economic growth in a

rapidly changing world. Vision 2025 aims to modernize the existing programme contents of higher

education towards more professionally-oriented skills to better meet labour market needs and to

build the country’s capacity. In order to meet the requirements of the Vision 2025, major

improvements are required in the country’s rapidly expanding higher education system.

Since its establishment in 2002, the Higher Education Commission (HEC) has undertaken a

systematic process of implementing five-year plans for higher education reform. These plans are

outlined in the HEC Medium Term Development Frameworks (MTDFs). In its MTDF-II, which

ended in 2015, HEC had made significant efforts to address the three key challenges of (a) quality

assurance (b) increased access and (c) relevance of the higher education sector to national

needs. This study presents the actual levels achieved in comparison to the targets which were

set out in MTDF-II.

As envisaged both in the National Vision 2025 and the 11th Five-Year Plan of Planning

Commission of Pakistan, in order to bring Pakistan’s economy’s transition to take off stage, HEC

has to give top priority to further expanding and strengthening the higher education. However, in

view of making the right strategic move towards this goal, it is imperative to have a candid analysis

of the higher education sector. This study, in comparison to targets set in MTDF-II, presents: (i)

stock of the current situation of higher education sector in Pakistan, (ii) current status, recent

trends in HEIs performance, weaknesses and strengths and (iii) the potential to become a driving

force in boosting knowledge economy relevant to the growing and changing needs of the country.

The purpose of this study was not to assess the implementation process of MTDF-II. Rather, it

sought to inform the achievements of the MTDF-II vis-à-vis physical targets set in the framework.

Methodology

Along with administrative data and information gathered from the officials of HEC and its MIS

department, Planning Commission of Pakistan, HEIs management and faculty; primary data were

also collected through survey questionnaires for faculty and students, and through interviews,

consultations and FGDs with HEC staff and universities’ students, staff and faculty. In this way,

the study used a mixed method design (qualitative and quantitative) to collect data from students,

faculty and management through a survey and partly through participatory approach in order to

explore the existing situation of the sector.

Key Findings

A recent literature review of the impact of tertiary education on low-and lower-middle income

countries found that tertiary education may provide greater impact on economic growth than the


v

lower tiers of education. It also suggests that tertiary education provides a range of broader

measurable benefits. These relate to the quality of health, gender equality and democracy, among

others. Focusing more directly on economic growth, there is a global increasing demand for a

workforce with “new-economy skills”, including high level analytical and interpersonal skills and

routine cognitive skills. These are required by growing industries and can best be supplied by

higher education. Pakistan can greatly benefit from the new-economy skills, especially, since it

intends to reap the benefits of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (C PEC) in the coming years.

More generally, university graduates are more likely to find stable employment in the formal

sectors and to earn higher incomes than non-graduates who are more likely to be unemployed

and poor.

The HEC, with its prime focus on quality of higher education and its equitable access, has been

strenuously struggling to promote higher education in the country. Offices of Research, Innovation

and Commercialization (ORICs) as well as Business Incubation Centres (BICs)in universities

have been set up in universities to encourage and commercialize relevant research.

Improvements in the quality of academic standards and research were at the top of the agenda

of HEC MDTF-II. Considerable efforts have been made to improve quality in the last five years.

Six Pakistani universities are now ranked among the top 800 World Universities (QS World

Universities Rankings 2015-2016). Since 2014, Pakistani universities have maintained their Asian

ranking with ten universities ranked in the top 300 universities in Asia (QS University Rankings

2015-2016). The percentage of faculty with PhD degrees is now almost 28 percent (27.53 percent,

n= 9935). Quality Enhancement Cells (QECs) are ‘taking ownership’ of quality at the universities

and report on a regular basis to the Quality Assurance (QA) Division at the HEC. Recent data

indicate that men and to a lesser extent women faculty members of Higher Education Institutions

(HEIs) perceive that on some indicators, including meeting educational needs of the students of

various programmes, the quality of education had ‘somewhat improved’ in recent years. On other

indicators, such as clear policies that support collaborative work, they report no /slight

improvement. The students, both men and women, agree that programme support and quality in

the HEIs had improved.

According to the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2015-16, under ‘higher

education’ Pakistan is ranked at 124th out of 140 countries. This position has not improved since

2013. On the contrary, in the United Nation Human Development Index (HDI), Pakistan went

down from 147 last year to 148 this year.

The higher education sector expanded rapidly after the early 2001-2002 and has been increasing

exponentially ever since. Between 2010 and 2015, Pakistan has experienced a 78 percent

increase in the number of universities/ Degree Awarding Institutions (DAI), both public and private.

And during the same period, there has been a 174 percent increase in student enrollment,

including a large proportion of women. Students surveyed, both women and men, stated that they

were satisfied (mean scores=3.6 on scale of 5) with the ‘programme organization’ in their

institutions as well as with the availability of ‘learning resources’ to support their learning. Faculty

members considered that ‘fair’ amount of resources are available in their institutions (mean

score=3.2 on scale of 5) for both, men and women respondents.

HEC introduced and standardized a large number of curricula to respond to the skill-based needs

of developing Pakistan. It also supported research pertaining to the socio-economic needs of the


vi

region in the vicinity of the university through supporting and expanding on the establishment of

BICs. HEC also introduced Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants to support relevant

research at the university which are to be partnered with the industry. However, only 25 percent

of the surveyed faculty members reported that they had ‘substantial’ grants for conducting

research.

For fiscal year 2015, the total budget allocation for higher education stood at PKR 73 billion, an

increase of more than 70 percent over 2011 in nominal terms. However, this nominal increase

reduces to only half that amount when inflation is factored in. Of the total federal spending on

higher education from 2011 to 2015, 65 percent corresponds to the recurrent budgets. During the

same period, development budgets were limited to 35 percent.

Key Recommendations

Pakistan Vision 2025 envisages an increase in higher education enrolment from the current (7

percent) to the full 12 percent of the youth population aged between 17-23 years. A very

substantial increase in financial input will be required to achieve this ambitious objective which,

while lessening the gap between Pakistan’s and other Asian countries’ levels of enrolment, aims

to increase and actualize Pakistan’s potential for development. The vision states ambitious

agenda for higher education: a) increase in public expenditure on higher education from 0.2% of

GDP to 1.4% of GDP, b) expansion in higher education enrolment from 1.5 million to 5 million, c)

increase in the number of PhDs in the country from 7000 to 15000, d) double the number of

degree awarding institutions from 156 to 300 by 2025, e) establishment of a university campus in

each district, and f) strengthening of online programmes to provide greater access to higher

education.

HEC’s incredible role in governing and regulating higher education institutions of Pakistan is a

reality. Launching of start-up grants for young PhDs, travel grants for participation in international

conferences and national research support program are few outstanding examples set forth by

HEC. Despite of quarter to 200 universities/HEIs are working under the guidelines of HEC, efforts

to identify and formulate priority research areas are left at the disposal of universities. In order to

accomplish goals set in Pakistan Vision 2025, HEC needs to disseminate priority guidelines for

the universities, with a clear framework regarding allocation of budget in discipline or subject wise

research.


vii

Table of Contents Acronyms/abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................. ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................. ix

List of Figures................................................................................................................................................................. x

1.0 INTRODUCTION/CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 THE HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION (HEC) ................................................................................................... 2

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 OVERVIEW OF MTDF-II ................................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 NATIONAL ASPIRATIONS AND HIGHER EDUCATION .............................................................................................. 5

1.4.1 PAKISTAN VISION 2025 ................................................................................................................................... 5

1.4.2 ELEVENTH FIVE YEAR PLAN (2013-18) ............................................................................................................. 6

1.4.3 CHINA-PAKISTAN ECONOMIC CORRIDOR (C PEC).............................................................................................. 7

1.5 EDUCATION SYSTEM PREVAILING IN THE COUNTRY ............................................................................................... 7

1.5.1 EDUCATION QUALIFICATIONS IN PAKISTAN .......................................................................................................... 7

1.5.2 ACADEMIC SUPERVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR IN PAKISTAN ................................................................ 9

1.5.3 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR IN PAKISTAN ........................................................ 9

1.5.4 FEDERAL VS PROVINCIAL HECS ....................................................................................................................... 9

2.0 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 SAMPLE ....................................................................................................................................................... 11

2.2 INSTRUMENTS ............................................................................................................................................... 11

2.2.1 STUDENTS INSTRUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 11

2.2.2 FACULTY INSTRUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 11

2.2.3 RELIABILITY TEST OF THE INSTRUMENTS .......................................................................................................... 11

2.3 PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................................................... 12

2.3.1 SWOC ANALYSIS OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR ...................................................................................... 13

2.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................................................ 13

3.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................. 14

3.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE..................................................................................................................................... 14

3.1.1 ACHIEVEMENTS BY HEIS IN COMPARISON TO THE TARGETS SET IN HEC-MTDF-II (FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, QUALITY

ASSURANCE, AND EXCELLENCE IN LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE) ................................................................... 14

3.1.2 QUALITY OF PROGRAMMES, AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES TO DELIVER THESE PROGRAMMES AND STUDENTS

SATISFACTION ............................................................................................................................................... 18

3.1.3 UNIVERSITY CLIMATE, AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY OF RESOURCES AT UNIVERSITIES AND FACULTY JOB

SATISFACTION ............................................................................................................................................... 23

3.1.4 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FACULTY RESPONSES WITH RESPECT TO UNIVERSITY CLIMATE, AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY

OF RESOURCES AT UNIVERSITIES AND FACULTY JOB SATISFACTION ..................................................................... 28

3.1.5 DISCIPLINE WISE NEED ASSESSMENT OF PHD FACULTY IN PAKISTANI UNIVERSITIES .............................................. 31

3.2 ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION ..................................................................................................................... 31

3.2.1 ACHIEVEMENTS BY HEIS IN COMPARISON TO THE TARGETS SET IN HEC-MTDF-II ............................................... 31

3.2.2 ENROLLMENT TREND IN PAKISTAN ................................................................................................................... 33

3.2.3 OUTPUTS OF UNIVERSITIES/DAIS IN PAKISTAN ................................................................................................. 34

3.3 RELEVANCE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR TO NATIONAL NEEDS ................................................................ 36


3.3.2 RESEARCH CULTURE IN UNIVERSITIES/HEIS ..................................................................................................... 37

3.3.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF BUSINESS INCUBATION CENTERS (BICS) ............................................................................ 40


viii

3.3.4 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT FUND FOR THE HEC SCHOLARS RETURNING FROM ABROAD .................................... 40

3.4 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................................ 40


3.4.2 FINANCIAL ALLOCATION TO UNIVERSITIES/DAIS IN PAKISTAN ............................................................................. 41

3.4.3 ANALYSIS OF MTDF II (2 0 1 1 – 15) SPENDING PATTERN ................................................................................ 41

3.4.4 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF MTDF 2010-2015 AND PROJECTIONS TO 2016-2020 .................................................. 44

3.5 STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES/ CONSTRAINTS (SWOC) ANALYSIS OF THE HE

SECTOR 44

3.5.1 CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINS OF HIGHER EDUCATION .................................................................................... 45

3.5.2 CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINS OF UNIVERSITIES ............................................................................................. 45

4.0 RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................................................................ 46

4.1 INCREASED EQUITABLE ACCESS ...................................................................................................................... 46

4.2 IMPROVED QUALITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION ...................................................................................................... 46

4.3 CAPTURING NATIONAL ASPIRATIONS ................................................................................................................ 47

4.4 A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR UNIVERSITY GRANTS ......................................................................................... 48

4.5 STRENGTHEN RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................... 49

4.6 DEVELOP AND STANDARDIZE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (MIS) IN ALL UNIVERSITIES .......... 49

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 50

APPENDIX 1. TORS ........................................................................................................................................ 51

Appendix 2. Physical targets of MDTF-II ....................................................................................................... 54

1. Faculty Development ........................................................................................................................................... 54

2. Quality Assurance ............................................................................................................................................... 54

3. Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship ....................................................................................................... 54

4. Improving Equitable Access ................................................................................................................................ 54

5. Excellence In Leadership, Governance And Management .................................................................................. 55

6. Financial Management and Sustainability ........................................................................................................... 55

Appendix 3. Organizational Chart of Provincial Higher Education Departments ........................................... 56

Provincial Higher Education Department Khyber Pakhtunkhwa .............................................................................. 56

Provincial Higher Education Department Punjab .................................................................................................... 56

Provincial Education Department, Balochistan ........................................................................................................ 57

Appendix 4. Number of respondents by university ........................................................................................ 58

Appendix 5. Reliability tests of faculty and student questionnaire ................................................................. 59

Appendix 6. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges/ Constraints (SWOC) Analysis of Higher Education Sector ......................................................................................................................................... 60

Appendix 7. ANOVAfor quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by programme ................ 63

Appendix 8. ANOVA for quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by programme ............... 64

Appendix 9. ANOVA for quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by type of university ....... 65

Appendix 10. Universities’ programmes support and quality as perceived by the students ............................ 66

Appendix 11. Universities’ programmes support and quality, and climate as perceived by the faculty ........... 69

Appendix 12. ANOVA for faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by territory ............................................................................. 73

Appendix 13. Creating an effective university research function and culture .................................................. 74

A. JUMP STARTING: IMPORTING THE NECESSARY RESOURCES ................................................................................ 74

B. CONCENTRATING: ISOLATING AND INSULATING EXISTING RESOURCES ................................................................. 75

C. RATIONALIZING: CONSOLIDATING EXISTING RESOURCES .................................................................................... 75

Appendix 14. The University as a Learning organization: How universities can create and mine their own data in order to monitor themselves and plan, develop, control or adapt their teaching, programmes and research functions. 77

ADAPTATION REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 78


ix

List of Tables Table 1.1. Programmes by levels and Credit Hours requirement ................................................................................... 8

Table 2.1. Framework of the study design. .................................................................................................................. 10

Table 2.2. Response rate from the universities on the questionnaires by gender ........................................................ 12

Table 2.3. Response rate from the universities on the questionnaires by region. ........................................................ 12

Table 2.4. Response rate from the universities on the questionnaires by university category. .................................... 12

Table 3.1. Faculty Development- PMDF-II Targets vs Achievements Response. ........................................................ 15

Table 3.2. PhD and non-PhD full time faculty by region during 2014-15. ..................................................................... 15

Table 3.3 Quality Assurance - PMDF-II Targets vs Achievements Response ............................................................. 16

Table 3.4. Excellence in Leadership and Governance - PMDF-II Targets vs Achievements Response ...................... 17

Table 3.5. Quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by programme ................................................... 19

Table 3.6. Comparison of programmes quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction ............................... 19

Table 3.7. Comparison of programmes quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by gender .............. 20

Table 3.8. Programmes quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by territory ..................................... 21

Table 3.9. Comparison of programmes quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by territory ............. 22

Table 3.10. Programmes quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by type of university .................... 22

Table 3.11. Comparison of programmes quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by type of university ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 23

Table 3.12. Proportion of teaching workload by gender ............................................................................................... 24

Table 3.13. University management climate by gender ............................................................................................... 26

Table 3.14. University academic climate by gender ..................................................................................................... 27

Table 3.15. Faculty members job satisfaction (academic) by gender........................................................................... 27

Table 3.16. Faculty members job satisfaction (compensation) by gender .................................................................... 28

Table 3.17. Comparative analysis of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by gender ................................................................................... 29

Table 3.18. Descriptive of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by type of university ........................................................................................ 29

Table 3.19. Comparative analysis of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by type of university ................................................................... 30

Table 3.20. Descriptive of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by territory ...................................................................................................... 30

Table 3.21. Comparative analysis of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by territory .................................................................................. 31

Table 3.22. Distribution of public and private sector universities/DAI by region ........................................................... 33

Table 3.23. Enrollment at universities/DAI + constituent colleges by area and sector during 2012-13 to 2014-2015 .. 34

Table 3.24. Enrollment by Level of Degree during year 2013-14 and 2014-15 ............................................................ 34

Table 3.25. Number of PhD produced (provisional) by Pakistani universities by discipline by the end of 2014 ........... 35

Table 3.26. Recurring and developmental spending by year ....................................................................................... 41

Table 3.27. Per Student Federal Grants ...................................................................................................................... 42

Table 3.28. Federal recurring grants for universities, national programs and HEC Secretariat .................................... 43

Table 3.29. Comparative analysis Actual allocation of MTDF 2010-2015 and projections to 2016-2020 ..................... 44


x

List of Figures Fig 3.1: Number of universities in global ranking (701+ Score) .................................................................................... 18

Figure 3.2 Faculty members’ services to the department/institution............................................................................. 24

Figure 3.3 Faculty involvement in developmental activities .......................................................................................... 25

Figure 3.4 Faculty members’ level of awareness about HEC policies .......................................................................... 25

Figure 3.5 Whether the university have its research policy .......................................................................................... 26

Fig 3.6: Trend of increase in number of Public and Private sector universities and DAI .............................................. 32

Fig 3.7: Enrollment at University (Campus + Constituent Colleges) 2001 to 2015. ...................................................... 33

Fig 3.8: Number of PhD s Produced by Pakistani Universities 1947 to 2013 ............................................................... 35

Fig 3.9: Funds provided by the HEC to the public sector universities for non-development and development expenditure 2001-2015 ................................................................................................................................................ 41

Fig 3.10: Spending on Higher Education as GDP % by year ............................................................................ 42


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION/CONTEXT This introduction provides background on higher education reforms in Pakistan and the

rationale for the current study.

In Pakistan, higher education (tertiary education) is generally recognized as education

beyond 12 years of schooling. Pakistan’s Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER)(tertiary education) is

currently reaching 9 percent, enrollments in higher education and is steadily increasing. At

present, the Government of Pakistan (GOP) is planning to raise the GER(tertiary education) to 15

percent by 2020. This is still comparatively lower than the GER in many other South Asian

countries. Similarly, the number and qualification of the academic staff that are the

backbone of teaching-learning and research, have also been improved. Over the last 10

years, the number of faculty has increased by 26 percent. Still, Pakistan’s higher education

sector performs less than most on the basic requirements. Compared to others in the

Efficiency Enhancers and Innovation/Sophistication factors in higher education and

training, its rank is 129th out of 133 (GOP, 2103, p. 76). It is envisaged that GER(tertiary

education) needs to be increased to 40 percent

and that quality needs to be improved to an

even greater extent in the coming years.

Furthermore, all the higher education

institutions (HEIs) in the country cannot be

realistically expected to become engaged in

research. A substantial number of them

nevertheless must become engaged in

effective research activities since not only it is

their legal mandate to do so but it is widely

recognized that research from the academia

has the potential to be one of the main

producers of the new knowledge and a strong

driver of development1.

It is well known that the socio-economic

development of any society mainly depends on

the extent and the quality of the knowledge

produced, disseminated and made available

for use to its members. It has become clear

from the recent analysis by experts that what

truly separates developed from the less-developed countries is not just a gap in resources

or output but a gap in knowledge. In fact the pace at which developing countries grow is

largely a function of the pace at which they close that gap (Stiglitz & Greenwald, 2014). In

an apparent acknowledgment of this fact, Pakistan Vision 2025 aims for a substantial

expansion in availability at all levels of education as well as for the improvement of the

quality of education. In this regard, increased public expenditure on education is projected

to reach 4.0 percent2 of the GDP by 2018.

Given the relationship between social and economic development and higher education,

the continued and further development of higher education in Pakistan must be seen as an

1 See Appendix 13 for suggestions as to how this may be realized. 2 It is for all level of education including higher education.

Implementation status of National Education

Policy 2009 is to be completed before June

2015 and Ministry of Federal Education and

Professional Training is in process of

implementing “New Education Policy 2016”

this year after completing the consultation

and review process. The government is set

to upgrade and review the last education

policy which was made in 2006 by the end

of this year and implement it from January

2016. The new policy will be uniformly

implemented in all provinces including Azad

Jammu Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. The

National Education Policy was placed under

the 3rd Inter Provincial Education Minister's

Conference (IPEMC) which approved

formation of NEP 2009 Review Committee

to suggest changes in the policy in view of

18th Amendment scenario and global

modern trends in the education sector.

Source: Ministry of Federal Education &

Professional Training


2

urgent challenge. In order to bring Pakistan’s economic transition to the take-off stage, as

envisaged both in Pakistan Vision 2025 and the 11th five-year development plan of the

country, HEC has to give top priority to further expanding and strengthening the country’s

higher education sector.

1.1 THE HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION (HEC)

The Higher Education Commission (HEC) is an autonomous apex body responsible for

allocating public funds from the federal government to universities and DAIs and accrediting

their degree programs, in Pakistan. Colleges are funded and regulated by provincial

governments, but follow the curriculum of the HEC funded universities/DAIs with which they

are affiliated.

Since its establishment in 2002, the HEC has undertaken a systematic process of

implementing five-year plans for higher education reforms. These plans are outlined in the

HEC Medium Term Development Frameworks (MTDFs). Because so far Pakistan's record

on the education front has not been impressive due to a number of factors and because

the future requires greater dynamism and coherence in national policies at both the macro

and micro levels, the HEC, wishing to make the right strategic move towards attaining

strategic goals in the higher education sector, sought to imperatively obtain a candid

analysis of the higher education sector of Pakistan. To provide this analysis, a study has

been undertaken, the results of which are presented in the current report.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The major purpose of the study as indicated in the ToRs (see Appendix 1), is to:

i. take stock of the current situation of the higher education sector in Pakistan,

ii. evaluate the current status, recent trends in HEIs performance, weaknesses

and strengths; and

iii. assess the potential of the universities to become a driving force in boosting the

knowledge economy in relation to the growing and changing needs of the

country.

The study critically evaluated the current higher education sector, its present trends and

provided an assessment of the past performance with a view to guiding the future course

of action. The performance of the sector has been compared with the targets and the

achievements of the last MTDF of the HEC.

1.3 OVERVIEW OF MTDF-II

The MTDF-II was a five-year plan (2011-2015), issued in early 2011 by the HEC. It

identified the major issues faced by the higher education subsector – recognized as one of

the engines of economic development, and offered a long-term vision and an ambitious

strategy, which the HEC has begun to implement. While the MTDF is clearly targeting

universities/ DAIs, in line with the HEC mandate, colleges also were mentioned

occasionally in the document.

The following have been identified as the key issues in the HEC MTDF-II:


3

1. Lack of both national and local “ownership” of higher education;

2. Poor university-industry interaction;

3. Poor university-community relations;

4. Low quality and consequent low employability of college and “private” graduates;

5. Lack of well qualified research faculty;

6. Lack of capacity for ensuring continuous faculty and staff development;

7. Low enrollment in the higher education sector;

8. Poor governance of the university system and poor governance within universities;

9. Inadequate support of needy meritorious students through student loans or other grants;

10. Low fund generation and low user charge recovery by universities

HEC is supporting initiatives aimed at enhancing collaboration between academia and

industry, with a particular focus on the development of locally relevant education and

research and development programmes in the academic institutions. To achieve these

strategic aims and objectives (institutions focusing on building economies, leadership and

communities), the MTDF-II was organized around six pillars of institutional development:

a) faculty development, b) quality assurance, c) research, innovation and

entrepreneurship, d) improving equitable access, e) excellence in leadership and

governance, f) financial management and sustainability. A separate section of the plan

was set out, for each of these pillars which covers:

The Aim in full: that is to say, the high-level strategic outcome towards which HEC

is working throughout and beyond the life of this plan.

An Introduction, providing a commentary outlining the strategic context and

challenges faced.

The strategic Objectives that HEC seeks to achieve within the plan period.

The Major Programs that HEC intends to implement as a means to achieving the

stated objectives.

Key Performance Indicators by which HEC plans to demonstrate, in measurable

terms, progress towards attaining the set aim and objectives.

This structure is in line with the various kinds of logical frameworks in use throughout the

world. It allows both the further definition of precise activities and projects to implement a

MTDF, as well as the development of a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework to

follow up the progress made in achieving the targets. In addition, the MTDF provided a

mission statement for the HEC. This mission is to “facilitate HEI to serve as Engines of

Growth for the Socio-Economic Development of Pakistan”. MTDF-II also stated the HEC

vision as follows:

Institutions of Higher Learning must play a leadership role in this transition

through the production of skilled, innovative and enterprising knowledge

workers. They must support research, especially on issues of direct relevance

to the socio-economic development of the country and build the economy by

pioneering the commercialization of innovative ideas, products and processes

resulting from the research work. Community building and development is yet

another mantle today’s Institutions of higher learning wear; working to apply

their knowledge and research to the issues of the local and regional industrial


4

and social community, which also, in turn, guides them in prioritizing their work.

In the MTDF, the HEC sees itself setting the rules and criteria, and

evaluating the HEIs, while also promoting them.

Often treated as one component of access and/ or quality objectives, it is not by accident

that “Faculty Development” is presented in the MTDF-II as the first pillar. Faculty

development programmes are especially important in adapting faculty members to their

changing roles in initiating and setting the directions for curricular changes, improving

qualifications, and meeting other professional needs. This pillar is a logical response to

improving faculty staff across the board and largely contributes to fixing the existing low

quality of higher education. Programmes to train the new as well as existing faculty, to re-

hire the retired faculty, and to recruit from abroad – are all seen as sensible measures.

The Tenure Track Process Statutes has been expanded and all new appointments at the

Assistant Professor Level for faculty members holding terminal qualifications are suggested

on the tenure track system. All graduating PhD scholars, along with those holding terminal

qualifications, from local and foreign scholarship programs are planned to provide the

opportunity of joining the tenure track system – as stated in MTDF-II.

The second pillar of MTDF-II, “Quality Assurance”, deals with one of the major and most

successful tasks embarked on by the HEC. Indeed, ‘quality’ has remained at the top of the

HEC agenda for transforming the higher education system in Pakistan. To bring about the

uniformity and standardization of curricula and to ensure its quality and relevance, revision

of curricula is conducted on a three year cycle, in collaboration with universities and

industry. In line with the HEC Ordinance, according to which the HEC mandate is to “cause

evaluation of the performance of institutions”, MTDF-II also insists on further refinement of

criteria (and compliance with them). It also underscores the importance of informing the

public, thus, responding to the concern regarding transparency of the market.

The third pillar of the MTDF-II, “Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship”, encourages

activities that can bring the academia and industry closer. Enabling and nurturing truly

excellent research, remains the cornerstone of HEC policy. Research, however, does not

occur in a vacuum, and there are numerous factors that need to exist for research activities

to take root. Efforts have been made to build a bridge between the university and industry

through incubators, business, agriculture and technology parks and the introduction of

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants. HEC pursues the achievement of the

three pronged strategic focus of a) universities building communities, b) universities

building economies, and c) universities building leadership. These require academic

programmes and research and innovation in all areas of knowledge. To reach these goals,

the MDTF encourages the establishment of Offices of Research, Innovation and

Commercialisation (ORIC) within a university, with the responsibility for building research

capacity in the university, managing research contracts, protecting intellectual property and

commercializing university research products.

“Improving Equitable Access” is the fourth pillar of MDTF-II. It is justified given the level

of enrollments at the time of MDTF-II development. Strangely enough, it comes in the form

of a programme. This is somewhat problematic given the absence of a solid accompanying

population and enrollment projection model. In reference to the objectives set out in the

National Education Policy 2009, the increment steps suggested a raise in the enrolment in

higher education sector from 5.1 percent to 10 percent by 2015 (see MTDF II, the

complementary measures to increase equitable access). In fact, increasing equitable

access, that is, increasing the gross enrollment rate of both men and women students,


5

seems overly-ambitious given both the existing capacity and financial constraints. These

complementary measures include both, the supply-side measures — physical elements,

distance education — and demand-side ones, including alleviating financial barriers to

students from low-income families.

“Excellence in Leadership and Governance” is the fifth pillar of the MTDF-II. It includes

20 objectives relevant for HEIs management. The list begins with the development of a

pool of university administrators. This is seen as a prerequisite for improving the current

unsatisfactory situation. The main emphasis of the objectives, however, is on training and

accountability as fundamental ingredients for making the HEIs more efficient and

responsible. It is noteworthy that no measure is being considered to improve the

relationship between institutions and the authorities under which they operate (HEC/

Provinces) and that there is no specific action aimed at more autonomy, keeping in view

the 18th amendment in the Constitution of Pakistan3.

The sixth pillar, “Financial Management and Sustainability” is of capital importance, as

financial resources and their effective management are a necessary—if insufficient—

condition to attain the goals and objectives pursued in the MTDF-II. Although the MTDF-II

strategy calls for very substantial increases in the resources allocated to the sector, a part

of which is to be drawn from non-governmental external sources, the MTDF is silent on

both the cost of the measures it recommends and on the means to finance these costs.

In short, the MTDF-II contains the necessary ingredients of a strategic framework to

strengthen higher education in Pakistan. Unfortunately, and perhaps understandably,

costing figures and cost benefit analyses are not provided. And given the probable budget

shortfalls, it would perhaps be a desirable feature of an implementation strategy to plan

with implementation priorities.

The physical targets set for each pillar under the framework are given in Appendix-2.

1.4 NATIONAL ASPIRATIONS AND HIGHER EDUCATION

The following are the key documents and

sources which inform planning for higher

education in Pakistan:

1.4.1 PAKISTAN VISION 2025

Pakistan Vision 2025 indicates the necessity

of establishing new universities, in particular,

world class technology and engineering

institutes. It further considers that it is

necessary to improve the quality of existing

3 The 18th Constitutional Amendment was unanimously passed by the Parliament and notified in the Gazette of

Pakistan on 20th April, 2010. This amendment introduced changes to about 36 percent of the 1973 Constitution

of Pakistan: 102 out of 280 Articles of the Constitution were amended, inserted, added, substituted or deleted.

Education, which was on the concurrent list (a list of joint responsibilities of both federal and provincial

governments) of the constitution, before the amendment, has been abolished under the 18th amendment. Now

it has been devolved to provinces, and the respective provincial government is solely responsible for Education

sector within the province. After the amendment, the functions of the Federal Ministry of Education (along with

those of fifteen other ministries) have also been devolved to the provinces.

To achieve the objective of developing a

knowledge economy, we target a sizeable

increase in public expenditure on higher

education currently from 0.2% of GDP to

1.4% of GDP and significant expansion in

higher education enrolment currently from

1.5 million to 5 million

Source: Planning Commission of Pakistan-

Pakistan 2025


6

engineering and technology universities and to create capacities for carrying out quality

research. Targets to achieve the objective of developing a knowledge-economy, under

Vison 2025, are:

increase in public expenditure on higher education from 0.2 percent of GDP to 1.4

percent of GDP,

expansion in higher education enrolment from 1.5 million to 5 million,

increase in the number of PhD’s in the country from 7000 to 15000,

double the number of degree awarding institutions from 156 to 300 by 2025,

establishment of a university campus in each district, and

strengthening of online programmes to provide greater access to higher education.

1.4.2 ELEVENTH FIVE YEAR PLAN (2013-18)

The objectives set in the11th Five Year Plan pertaining to higher education are:

provide equal access and opportunities for all

improve quality of education

reduce regional and gender disparity in human development and social indicators

provide a large pool of highly skilled human resources for reducing skill gaps in key

sectors and for employment abroad

set up measurable targets and performance indicators for monitoring of

improvement in governance and delivery of good quality education services, and

promote cultural harmony, mutual understanding, tolerance, social integration and

brotherhood.

In order to achieve these objectives, the following strategies have been suggested in the

plan:

Providing research-based education having institutional linkages with industry,

while ensuring relevance of curricula and educational practices aimed at meeting

market needs, and

Creating a set of skills and aptitudes enabling employability and productivity

simultaneously with character building

The plan also indicates that there will be increases in public expenditure4 on education to

four percent of the GDP by 2015, and five percent by 2018 with simultaneous enhancement

in planning, management and delivery capacity of the education administrators. So far the

target of spending 4 percent of GDP by 2015 has been missed out.

4 This increase is not only specific to higher education only, it is for all levels of education, i.e.

elementary, secondary, college and university levels.


7

1.4.3 CHINA-PAKISTAN ECONOMIC CORRIDOR (C PEC)

C PEC is a 3000 Kilometers long corridor consisting of highways, railways and pipelines

that will connect China’s Xinjiang province to the rest of the world through Pakistan’s

Gwadar port. The project has been divided into different phases. The first phase of the

project is the completion of Gwadar International Airport and the development of Gwadar

Sea Port. The Chinese companies will complete the first phase by the year 2017. Other

small projects in the Economic Corridor include the expansion of Karakoram Highway, this

is the road that connects China with Pakistan. A fiber-optic line will also be installed to

ensure better communication between the two countries.

“There is no way the (Pakistan) government could achieve these targets unless all sections

of the society play their defined roles and the contribution of academicians and researchers

is of paramount importance5.” To ensure the transfer of technology the universities must

enhance their linkage with industry, and provide hands-on experience to students and

researchers by exposing them to currently on-going projects. “The growth and expansion

of higher education require a serious look, suggesting long term planning by the

universities, especially vis-à-vis C PEC 6.”

1.5 EDUCATION SYSTEM PREVAILING IN THE COUNTRY

The 18th Constitutional Amendment has devolved education to the provinces and Article

25A of the Constitution of Pakistan obligates the state to provide free and compulsory

education for children aged between five to sixteen years. Resultantly, several challenges

have surfaced such as absence of necessary laws, lack of coordination with the provinces,

absence of reporting instruments and improvement in governance of education. NEP 1979,

defined 3 levels: elementary (8 years schooling-grade 1 to 8), secondary (12 years

schooling-grade 9-12) and tertiary education (starts after 12 years of schooling) in the

country. However, for classification of schools and administrative reasons, the secondary

education has been split into 2 levels i.e. a) secondary grades 9-10 and, b) higher

secondary grades 11-12.

1.5.1 EDUCATION QUALIFICATIONS IN PAKISTAN

HEC has developed and published a draft National Qualifications Framework of Pakistan

(NQF) 2015 for education qualifications7. The framework describes the levels of

achievements, and features of higher education qualification. It covers academic

qualification, from level five to level eight. The NQF has eight levels that are based on the

generic nomenclature used for qualifications in the country. Table 1.1 provides levels and

programmes titles offered in the Pakistan, as given in NQF 2015.

5 Ahsan Iqbal, Minister for Planning Development and Reform, GoP, Speech on 18 June 2015. 6 Dr. Fazal Ahmad Khalid, vice chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Lahore 7 HEC has given a caution while using the NQF. “A qualification must be assigned to one of the eight levels,

the framework does not describe qualifications of the same level as being equal and qualifications at the same level are not interchangeable, however, they are at comparable in terms of knowledge, skills or competence required to be demonstrably completed”.


8

Table 1.1. Programmes by levels and Credit Hours requirement

Level title Years of

schooling Award Type Award Example Semesters/ Credit Hours

Higher Education

Levels

21

20

19

Doctoral PhD

18 Credit Hours course work and dissertation evaluated by at least two PhD experts from technologically /academically advance countries in addition to one local expert and doctoral committee members

18 17

Masters MA/M.Phil./MS/MBA, M.Sc. (Eng.), M.E, M. Tec

Minimum 30 Credit Hours with or without thesis

16 15

Bachelor (Hons)

BS, B.E, B.Arch., BSc (Eng.), BSc (Agri), MA/MSc (16 year), LLB, B.Com (Hons), MBBA, DVM, EDs Pharm D

8-10 semester/124-140 Credit Hours

14 13

Associate Degree Ordinary Bachelor

BA/BSc (Pass), ADE, Associate Degrees etc

4-6 semester/50+ Credit Hours

Higher Secondary Education

12 11

Higher Secondary School Certificate (HSSC)

F.A, F.Sc. ICS, I.Com, DBA, D.Com, DAE etc. and also A Levels

Higher secondary Education

10 9

Secondary School Certificate (SSC)

Matric, O Levels

Basic / Elementary Education

Middle (3 Years)

Primary (1-5 Years) Pre-Primary (1-2 Years)

(Source: adapted from HEC National Qualifications Framework of Pakistan 2015, p.6)

As mentioned earlier, higher education in Pakistan, is generally recognized as education

beyond 12 years of schooling, which generally corresponds to the age bracket of 17 to 23

years.

Universities are broadly categorized as general and professional universities in Pakistan.

Professional universities are usually providing academic program in one discipline like

engineering, agriculture, education and medical. While general universities offer a variety

of programmes ranging from liberal arts to information technology. University of the Punjab

is the oldest (established in 1882) and largest university comprising of 5 campuses, 13

faculties, 10 constituents colleges, 73 Departments, Centers, Institutes and 602 affiliated

colleges (University of the Punjab, 2014). This highlights the variety and diversity of the

programs offered by general universities. Different categories of universities have been

devised by HEC for ranking purpose: Agriculture/ veterinary, Health sciences, Engineering,

Business/ IT, Art/Design and Genera.

Apart from institutes and departments of the universities/DAIs, a large number of affiliated

colleges and institutes are also catering the need of higher education throughout the

country. The degrees are awarded to the graduating students of these affiliated colleges

and institutes by the affiliating university. Universities are responsible for conducting

examination and maintaining standers of curriculum, teaching and other services of these

affiliating colleges/institutions. A phenomenon of sub campuses has erupted in the system.

Now many universities have established sub campuses in different locations of the country.

These sub campuses offer fewer or same academic programs as of parent University but

of equal standard and recognition. Sub campuses also follow the same fee structure and

rules as of the main campus.

http://b.com/

http://i.com/

http://d.com/


9

1.5.2 ACADEMIC SUPERVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR IN PAKISTAN

The HEC Pakistan is an independent, autonomous, and constitutionally established

institution of primary funding, overseeing, regulating, and accrediting the higher

education efforts in the country through the above-mentioned institutions. It has three sub-

offices, one each in Karachi, Lahore, and Peshawar.

HEC serves many purposes such as, faculty development, HEC infrastructure

advancement, curriculum review, indigenous and foreign scholarships, conference travel

supports, improvement of university and industry research cooperation and flourishing of

latest technology parks. HEC is segregated into departments to run its business

professionally, these include;

Human Resource Development Division,

Academic Division,

Learning and Innovation Division,

Service Division,

Finance Division and

Quality Assurance Division.

These divisions, academically oversee the academic quality of the programmes offered by

and in some cases, managerial aspects of the universities across the country, as per

manmade given to HEC in its ordinance.

1.5.3 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR IN PAKISTAN

After, the 18th Constitutional Amendment, every province is responsible for managing

education at all levels including tertiary/higher education in the province. Two provinces i.e.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab have separate administrative departments with tile:

Higher Education Department. Whereas in other two provinces i.e. Boluchistan and Sindh

higher education is dealt with by the same administrative departments which are dealing

with school education. Province-wise complete administrative hierarchy of higher education

is given as Appendix 3. Two provinces i.e. Punjab and Sindh have gone a step forward and

have established Provincial Higher Education Commission through their respective

legislation body i.e. Provincial Assembly.

1.5.4 FEDERAL VS PROVINCIAL HECS

As mentioned above, during the last few years the provincial governments of Sindh and

Punjab established their respective provincial higher education commissions, i.e., Sindh

HEC and Punjab HEC. Such provincial bodies are yet to be formed, if any, by the

governments of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan.

As the situation unfolded, the need was felt to define the roles of all the three HECs. In this

regard, The Federal Government constituted a committee, headed by Minister for Planning

and Reforms. The committee has held three meetings so far and has yet to finalize its

recommendations. The provinces argue that under the 18th Amendment to the constitution,

education has been made a provincial subject and it is the right of provinces to set up their

own bodies. Nonetheless, HEC officials argue that the Supreme Court, in its 2011

judgment, made it clear that “the status of HEC shall remain intact unless it is changed

through new legislation.”


10

2.0 METHODOLOGY It was proposed in ToRs, ‘mostly administrative data and information gathered from officials

of HEC, Planning Commission, HEIs management and faculty,’ would be used for the

study. In keeping with these constraints the study is mostly based on secondary sources

of data. However, primary data, where required, were also collected.

In keeping with the ToRs and the inception meetings with HEC officials, the study used a

mixed method design (qualitative and quantitative) to collect data from students, faculty

and management through a survey and partly through participatory approach in order to

explore the existing situation of the sector. Table 2.1 briefly presents the methodology, the

data sources, the research instruments and respondents8.

Table 2.1. Framework of the study design.

8 It is a modified plan in the light of the project limitations regarding provision of resources required for data

collection and finalization of the study findings. The consultant was informed about it when he asked for required resources that were already conveyed to the project through the study’s inception report.

Key Aspect Methodology and Sources of Data Data Collection instruments/

methods

Respondents

1. Take stock of the current situation of the higher education sector in Pakistan

1.1 Based on the targets set in HEC MTDF-II for the provision of resources, a snapshot of the current situation in the HEIs was taken. For this purpose, data were mainly extracted from the related reports/documentation.

Desk review TESP and other related HEC staff

1.2 Survey instruments were developed to elicit perception of the HEIs students, faculty and staff, about (a) the available resources, and (b) vis-à-vis outputs of HEIs. The instruments were administered electronically in the selected universities by using Google Form.

Desk review

Survey instruments

TESP and other related HEC staff

Faculty, staff, management of selected HEI

2. Evaluate what the current status, recent trends in HEIs performance, weaknesses and strengths are

2.1 Using the HEC MTDF II targets as a base, a performance analysis of HEIs were conducted. The data were mainly taken from the already available reports/ HEC Statistical Information Unit.

2.2 SWOC analysis was carried out for the selected HEIs to identify their weaknesses and strengths.

Desk review

Format for obtaining data from HEC

Consultative workshops

DG Statistical Information Unit of HEC

Faculty, staff, management of selected HEI

3. Assess the potential to become a driving force in boosting knowledge economy relevant to the growing and changing needs of the country

3.1 In light of Vision 2025, 11th five year plan, and C PEC, requirements/ responsibilities of HEIs were identified to meet human resource requirements for boosting knowledge economy of Pakistan.

Desk review

Planning Commission of Pakistan

3.2 In the light of a comparative analysis of collected data, gaps with respect to resources available to the universities and their functions were listed.

Consultative workshop

TESP and other related HEC staff including team working on MTDF III


11

2.1 SAMPLE

A total of 10 universities (see Appendix 4) were included in the sample of the study to

collect primary data through an electronic survey. Gender balance and geographical

coverage were ensured in the selection of the sample. It was planned to obtain data from

100 students and 20 faculty members from each of the sampled university. In this way total

1000 students and 200 faculty members were included in the study for survey.

2.2 INSTRUMENTS

Two instruments, one for faculty and management, the other for students, were developed

to collect primary data from the selected universities.

2.2.1 STUDENTS INSTRUMENT

Apart from demographic information, the instrument contains 50 questions that cover the

following aspects pertaining to students in HEIs: a) programme clarity and flexibility; b)

learning and teaching; c) assessment; d) student support; e) programme organization; f)

learning resources; and g) general satisfaction. The instrument enquires about these

aspects on a five point Likert-type rating scale.

2.2.2 FACULTY INSTRUMENT

The instrument for faculty contains more than 100 questions, both closed and open- ended.

They elicit faculty views on the following aspects: a) faculty workload, b) awareness of

existing policies, c) university climate, d) faculty job satisfaction, e) qualitative

achievements by the university, f) resources available at the university, and g)

recommendations for improvement. The instrument enquires about these aspects on a

four point Likert-type rating scale for close ended questions.

2.2.3 RELIABILITY TEST OF THE INSTRUMENTS

Cronbach’s alpha (α) was used to assess the reliability/ internal consistency of each of

questions developed for various factors (subscales) addressed in the students and faculty

instruments. For the overall scale, values of α for the students and faculty members

instruments are .957 and .837 respectively. For Likert-type rating scale, these values are

sufficient to declare the questionnaires as reliable/ internally consistent. The α values for

each factor used in both the instruments are given in Appendix 5. The values mentioned

in the appendix are above .5 except for the factor (teaching workload) in faculty members’

questionnaire. It discloses that the questions used for all the subscales (factors) are also

reliable/ internally consistent except for the factor (teaching workload) in faculty members’

questionnaire.


12

2.3 PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION The questionnaire data were collected electronically via internet using the Google Form

and other qualitative and quantitative data were collected through personal interviews

during visits to the HEC and universities, and consultations with the university faculty.

The overall response rates of faculty and student survey questionnaires were 70.0 percent

(140 out of 200) and 98.9 percent (989 out of 1000), respectively. The response rates by

university and by gender are given in Appendix 4. Table 2.2 presents overall response rates

from faculty and students by gender.

Table 2.2. Response rate from the universities on the questionnaires by gender Type Gender Planned Number Actual Number Percent

Faculty Women 100 48 48.0

Men 100 92 92.0

Total 200 140 70.0

Students Women 500 549 109.8

Men 500 440 88.0

Total 1000 989 98.9

The overall response rate for both genders in students and faculty members was good

except for women faculty members. The response rates by region9 and university category

are given in Tables 2.3 and 2.4

Table 2.3. Response rate from the universities on the questionnaires by region.

Province/ Territory

Faculty Students

Number of respondents

Percent Number of respondents

Percent

Azad Jammu and Kashmir 3 2.1 - -

Balochistan - - 11 1.1

Gilgit-Baltistan 33 23.6 172 17.4

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 13 9.3 119 12.0

Punjab 30 21.4 202 20.5

Sindh 61 43.6 485 49.0

Overall 140 70.0 989 98.9

Although a constant follow-up was made, there was no response from AJK and Balochistan

on the student questionnaire and faculty questionnaire respectively. The response rate is

adequate from those universities, where Vice Chancellor actively pursued the data

collection process. This situation resulted in over or under response rate in some of the

provinces/ territories.

Table 2.4. Response rate from the universities on the questionnaires by university category.

University Category

Faculty members Students

Number of respondents

Percent Number of respondents

Percent

Education 13 9.3 51 5.1

Engineering 40 28.6 307 31.0

General 60 42.9 358 36.3

Medical 27 19.3 273 27.5

Total 140 989 100

9 The response rate is neither proportionate to the provincial population nor to the number of universities in the province. It presents number of students and faculty from the selected universities who voluntarily participated in the study.


13

There is only one specialized university in the field of education i.e. the University of

Education, Lahore; that is why its proportion in overall response is less than other

categories of the universities.

2.3.1 SWOC ANALYSIS OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR

Keeping in view the HEC mission statement, ‘The Higher Education Commission will

facilitate Institutions of Higher Learning to serve as Engines of Growth for the Socio-

Economic Development of Pakistan’, SWOC analysis of the higher education sector in

Pakistan was carried out through discussions and consultations with the university faculty

and management. The complete SWOC chart is placed as Appendix 6.

2.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Keeping in view the given timelines, financial resources and logistics available to the

study, the study stumbled upon the following limitations:

Intensive use of secondary sources: the major reliance of the data for the study

was secondary sources of data.

Restricted mobility of the researcher to visit all the sampled universities to

verify data collected from secondary sources and supervise the primary data

collection process. This limitation also resulted in sampling errors in some

cases.

Non-availability of resources to conduct regional consultative meetings/

workshops at a central location.


14

3.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS In recent years higher education in Pakistan has been transformed into a highly dynamic

sector that is rapidly evolving and developing the potential capacity to serve as an engine

of growth for the socio-economic development of the country. While good progress has

been made, numerous challenges also continue to be faced, including poor quality of

research carried out by the faculty and students due to inadequate research resources

and functional research structures within the universities.

This section presents results of the study with respect to the three key aspects of MTDF-

II: (a) quality of higher education, (b) increased access, and (c) relevance of the higher

education sector to national needs. The findings have been organized to present the

current status (achievements) of these aspects with regard to physical targets set in the

MTDF-II for each of its pillar under the aspect; and then gaps to meet the future needs on

these aspects, keeping in view the national aspirations.

3.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE

Quality’ refers to the attainment of standards of resourcing and provision in the higher

education sector, and the achievements or outputs of an institution or system. Quality is

a multidimensional concept, and it is not possible to arrive at one set of global quality

standards against which local institutions can be assessed. Quality embraces all the major

functions of higher education: teaching and academic programs, research and

scholarship, staffing, students, infrastructure and the academic environment. The concept

of accountability is closely allied with quality; it is difficult for a system of higher education

to fulfill its mission unless it demands the highest quality of itself. Continuous and

permanent assessment is necessary to reach this objective. Simultaneously, it is to be

ensured that great care is exercised when making quality assessments, as it involves

matters of judgment, academic values and cultural understanding. Today, it is the quality

of education that is still a challenge to meet in Pakistan, for all levels of education. Quality

is the means through which an institution can guarantee with confidence and certainty

that the standards of its educational provision are being maintained and enhanced. This

section reports on the achievements against the targets set for the first, second and fifth

pillars of the MDTF II to address quality in higher education.

3.1.1 ACHIEVEMENTS BY HEIS IN COMPARISON TO THE TARGETS SET IN HEC-MTDF-II (FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND EXCELLENCE IN LEADERSHIP AND

GOVERNANCE)

Three pillars; 1) Faculty Development, 2) Quality assurance, and 3) Excellence in

Leadership and Governance are the 1st , 2nd and 5th pillars mentioned in MDTF II, cover

quality component in higher education. The detail of the achievements under each of

these 3 pillars is as given below:


15

PILLAR 1: FACULTY DEVELOPMENT

The aim set for first pillar in the PMDF-II was ‘to improve the quality of teaching and

research in institutions through programs to improve faculty pedagogical skills and

qualifications of faculty members’. Table 3.1 presents the achievements in this regard.

Table 3.1. Faculty Development- PMDF-II Targets vs Achievements Response.

Indicator Target Achievement

Number Number Percent

New foreign post-graduate scholarship 3500 2784 79.54

New indigenous post-graduate scholarships 3750 2500 66.67

Faculty on tenure track system 3000 2500 83.33

Increase the percentage of faculty with Terminal Degree

34449 8957 26.00

(Source: adapted from HEC chairperson presentation on December 31, 2015)

Major specific objective of investment in the universities is improvement of human

resources and building their capacities. The low rate of achievements under this pillar is

owing to various reasons, some of these have been identified by Planning Commission of

Pakistan, are as follows:

“Delayed selection of scholars has caused; time and cost overruns, 53% of scholars

approved in PC-I have been enrolled till end of 2013.

Universities are unable to complete the approved scope of enrollment for PhDs due to lack

of capacity & interest.

Out of 869 scholars enrolled in PhD, 31% scholars have completed studies & reported

back.

4% PhD students have dropped their studies.

Cost escalation of 30-35% as unit cost of the scholar was observed due to rupee fluctuation

against US dollar, thus scope and cost could not be kept intact.

Weak follow-up of HEC with universities regarding scholars where maximum enrollment is

in UK with highest unit cost were noted.” (Government of Pakistan, 2015)

Availability of PhD faculty: Table 3.2. shows the number of full-time faculty members, classified by their PhD degrees in the public and private sector universities/DAIs during 2014-15.

Table 3.2. PhD and non-PhD full time faculty by region during 2014-15.

Province/Area Full Time Faculty

PhD Non-PhD Total % of PhD

Azad Jammu & Kashmir 183 531 714 25.63

Balochistan 216 1055 1271 16.99

Federal 2378 4611 6989 34.02

Gilgit-Baltistan 38 125 163 23.31

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 1615 3404 5019 32.18

Punjab 3833 9697 13530 28.33

Sindh 1672 6733 8405 19.89

Total 9935 26156 36091 27.53

(Source: Higher Education Commission MIS data received on 30 June 2016)


16

Faculty development is being steered by the HEC where the ultimatum goal is to increase

the number of PhD faculty. All promotions of higher education faculty to professorial ranks

are subject to the requirement of holding a PhD degree along with a number of research

publications. The percentage of faculty with PhD degrees is now more than 27 percent

(27.53 percent, N= 9935). The achievements of the HEC in terms of faculty development

have not been impressive so far, as the increase of PhD has an upward trend and

exponential trend if we compare the numbers of last one decade.

PILLAR 2: QUALITY ASSURANCE

In MTDF-II, the key aim of the second pillar was ‘to establish and implement stringent

quality criteria developed against international standards to assess the performance at

both the program and institutional level’. Table 3.3 reports progress with respect to the set

targets under this pillar.

Table 3.3 Quality Assurance - PMDF-II Targets vs Achievements Response



Establishment of quality enhancement cells 75 116 154.67

HEIs assessed against IPEs 100 37 37.00

Enrollment of students through DDEs 500,000 210,000 42.00

Establishment of accreditation councils 5 3 60.00

Number of Curricula Revised thru NCRCs 36


Quality Enhancement Cells (QECs) are ‘taking ownership’ of quality at the universities

and report on a regular basis to the Quality Assurance (QA) Division at the HEC. It was

observed that the QEC10 offices in most of the universities were generally functioning with

dedication and commitment on part of their staff, although the size of space of the office,

staff, funds, equipment, etc. available varied from the minimum prescribed to highly

satisfactory level. Generally, the QEC were

maintaining their offices with the standard staff as

proposed by the HEC, but in some universities, due to

much larger number of departments and

programmes, the students, faculty, etc. did not have

the required number of staff and facilities to deliver its

mandate.

The budgets for the QECs were observed to have

been ensured and reflected generally in the budgets

of all the universities. But the operational budget of

QECs, in most cases, was minimal and did not

support much of its management and operational activities, which reduced its awareness

and training programs for students and teachers, and did not allow their own participation

and contributions at other relevant forums, which affected their Scorecards. The requisition

10 The data reported with QECs have been extracted from TPV of QECs function, commissioned by HEC

Under Quality assurance aspect,

HEC has achieved most of the

physical targets set in MTDF-II.

However, on the two key targets

i.e. increase the percentage of

faculty with terminal degree and

institutional fund raising by the

university, achievement rate

remained very low i.e. 26% and

30%.


17

of more funds for the QECs must be seriously looked into to enable QECs to create a

culture among students and faculty for their

acceptance and ownership.

PILLAR 5: EXCELLENCE IN LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE

The key objective set for this pillar in the MTDF

was, ‘to support excellence in the higher

education sector’s leadership as well as

excellence in the governance and management of

Institutions of higher learning’. Table 3.4 provides

information about the achievement rate with respect to the key targets set in the MTDF.

Table 3.4. Excellence in Leadership and Governance - PMDF-II Targets vs Achievements Response



University administrators trained 1000 1534 153.40 Annual reports prepared by universities 50 56 112.00 Establishment of career counselling centers in universities

50 70 140.00

Number of public sector universities with ERP/HEMIS Software for business automation deployed

50 15 30.00


Institutional governance and ethics are critical. Universities are microcosms of the society

in which they exist. As such they necessarily reflect values and practices in the rest of

society. The successful functioning of a higher education institution depends critically

upon adherence to basic norms of academic values and behaviour. Conversely, any

institution that violates its own rules is unlikely to have collective self-respect.

IMPROVEMENT IN QUALITY OF ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND RESEARCH

QS Ranking: Improvements in the quality of academic standards and research was at

the top of the agenda of HEC MDTF-II. Considerable efforts have been made to improve

quality in the last five years. Six Pakistani universities have now gained rank among the

top 800 World Universities11. (QS12 World Universities Rankings 2015-2016). Since 2014

Pakistani universities have maintained their Asian ranking with ten universities ranked in

the top 300 universities in Asia (QS University Rankings).

The ranking of universities in Pakistan against regional countries is given in Figure 3.1.

11 There are five university ranking systems: a) QS; b) Times Higher Education (THE); c) Academic Ranking

of World Universities (ARWU); d) the CWTS Leiden Ranking and the Webometrics Ranking, and d) the UI GreenMetric. Out of these, The QS and THE rankings are more broadly based. 12 Four categories including system strength, access, flagship institutions, and economic context were used

for this scoring.

HEC has won “3G (Global Good

Governance) Excellence in Higher

Education Award 2016”. The

Award announced by Global

Donors Forums (GDF). The award

has been bestowed upon HEC in

recognition of its initiatives and

services for development of higher

education sector in Pakistan.


18

Fig 3.1: Number of universities in global ranking (701+ Score)

Although Pakistani universities have improved occupying more space in the QS top

ranking in comparison to 2014, it is still not in a very

good position. Pakistan higher education system

has been ranked at bottom with 9.2 score as

compared to China 83.5, India 60.9, Turkey 26.1

scores in QS 2016 ranking. This position is quite off

target and somewhat depressing for a wide

academic circle. To catch up with the high ranking countries in quality of university

education, still much remains to be achieved.

3.1.2 QUALITY OF PROGRAMMES, AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES TO DELIVER THESE

PROGRAMMES AND STUDENTS SATISFACTION

Good quality and relevant higher education is able to equip students with the knowledge,

skills and core transferable competences they need to succeed after graduation, within a

high quality learning environment which recognizes and supports good teaching. This

section presents the student perceptions about the quality of programmes being,

generally offered in the universities, availability of resources to deliver these programmes

and their level of satisfaction about these programmes. The data are presented with

respect to various independent variables:

COMPARISON BY PROGRAMME

The data collected from the students of Undergrad (4 year), MA/ MSc (2year), MPhil, MS

and PhD programmes, from the selected universities suggest that students of all

programmes, except for the ‘MS programme’, had ‘no opinion’ about the ‘programme

clarity and flexibility’. The case is worse for MS programme, where the students expressed

‘disagreement’ on the quality of this aspect of the programme. Almost the same situation

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

QS 2014 QS 2016

Under ‘higher education’ Pakistan is ranked at 124th out of 140 countries. This position has not improved since 2013. (World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2015-16)


19

emerged for the aspect ‘quality of learning and teaching’ of these programmes, except for

MPhil programme, for which students were satisfied with the quality of learning and

teaching in their programme. Students of MPhil and PhD programmes had ‘no opinion’

about the ‘quality of assessment and feedback; however for the rest of the programmes,

students expressed dissatisfaction on this aspect of the programmes that they were

attending. The situation was the same for ‘student support and student-teacher

relationship’ aspect. Table 3.5 does not present any different situation on other aspects

of the programmes.

Table 3.5. Quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by programme Programme

Total

Undergrad (4 year)

MA/MSc (2year)

MPhil MS PhD

Programme Aspects N 748 172 16 37 16 989

Programme Clarity and Flexibility

Mean13 2.54 2.52 2.81 2.3 2.63 2.53

SD 1.08 0.95 1.26 0.84 1.35 1.06

Quality of Learning and Teaching

Mean 2.59 2.69 3.25 2.47 2.84 2.62

SD 1.06 0.91 1.23 0.81 1.41 1.04

Quality of Assessment and Feedback

Mean 2.3 2.43 2.98 2.04 2.76 2.33

SD 1.17 1.16 1.21 0.8 1.37 1.16

Satisfaction with Student Support and Student-Teacher Relationship

Mean 2.44 2.49 3.22 2.06 2.79 2.45

SD 1.21 1.02 1.19 0.96 1.48 1.18

Satisfaction with the Program Organization

Mean 2.28 2.09 2.31 1.77 2.52 2.23

SD 1.25 1.07 1.1 0.87 1.63 1.22

Availability and Effectiveness of Learning Resources

Mean 2.57 2.49 3.01 2.41 2.63 2.56

SD 1.28 1.11 1.14 1.09 1.61 1.25

General Satisfaction with the Programme

Mean 2.46 2.55 3.21 2.06 2.84 2.48

SD 1.29 1.1 1.56 1 1.79 1.27

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) between the types of programmes was

conducted to compare the programme quality and resources available to deliver it vis-à-vis

student satisfaction. There was a significant difference among the universities at the p<.05

level for the four (out of seven) aspects: a) quality of learning and teaching, b) quality of

assessment and feedback, c) satisfaction with the student support and student-teacher

relationship, and d) general satisfaction with the programme (the complete ANOVA results

are given in Appendix 7). Post Hoc test was applied to examine the programmes for which

more student satisfaction was evident with respect to these four aspects. Table 3.6 reveals

that students of the conventional (old) programmes i.e. MA/ MSc 2-year, MPhil and PhD

programmes, are more satisfied than those of the relatively newer programmes i.e. BS 4-

year and MS programmes. One of the reasons in this regard could be that either the

departments faculties are relatively not fully prepared for offering the new programmes’

requirements due to various reasons, or the faculties members’ level of readiness to deliver

these programmes is not up to the desired level.

Table 3.6. Comparison of programmes quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction

13 It was a 5-point rating scale with 5 strongly agree and 1 strongly disagree. So mean values between ‘5 and

4.5’ refer to ‘strongly agree’, ‘ less than 4.5 and upto 3.5’ refer to ‘agree’, ‘less than 3.5 and upto 2.5’ refer to ‘no opinion’, ‘less than 2.5 and upto 1.5’ refer to disagree, and ‘less than 1.5 upto 1’ refer to ‘strongly disagree’.


20

Dependent Variable

Type of Programme Mean Difference) (I-J

Std. Error Sig. (I) (J)

Quality of Learning and teaching

MPhil

MA/MSc (2year) .55819* .27139 .040

MS .77326* .31084 .013

Undergrad (4 year) .65622* .26243 .013


MPhil MS .93863* .34723 .007

Undergrad (4 year) .67697* .29316 .021

PhD MS .71988* .34723 .038


MA/MSc (2year) MS .43783* .21291 .040

MPhil

MA/MSc (2year) .72039* .30723 .019

MS 1.15822* .35189 .001

Undergrad (4 year) .77814* .29709 .009


MA/MSc (2year) MS .49053* .22942 .033

MPhil

MA/MSc (2year) .65692* .33106 .047

MS 1.14744* .37918 .003

Undergrad (4 year) .74258* .32013 .021

PhD MS .78137* .37918 .040

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

COMPARISON BY GENDER

Table 3.7 discloses the difference among the perceptions of men and women students

about the quality of programmes, availability of resources, and the overall satisfaction with

the programmes that they were attending. Although all students generally expressed

dissatisfaction for all aspects, the criticism was quite strong from the women’s side. This

difference regarding all the aspects is statistically significant, as t-value for all the aspects

is less than .05.

Table 3.7. Comparison of programmes quality, availability of resources and student

satisfaction by gender

Programme Aspects Gender N Mean SD t df sig

Program Clarity and Flexibility Women 548 2.2 0.9 -5.215 985 .000

Men 439 2.5 1.0

Quality of Learning and Teaching Women 544 2.3 0.9 -3.309 980 .001

Men 438 2.6 1.0


Women 550 2.0 1.0 -4.428 886.195 .000

Men 441 2.3 1.1


Women 544 2.1 1.0 -4.075 979 .000

Men 437 2.4 1.1


Women 550 2.0 1.0 -3.959 903.844 .000

Men 441 2.3 1.1


Women 543 2.1 0.9 -3.408 863.894 .001

Men 435 2.3 1.1


Women 550 2.3 1.2 -2.990 989 .003

Men 441 2.5 1.2

It used to be that men were overrepresented in higher education, but that trend has been

changing for several years now. Like in many parts of the world, in Pakistan women

students also began switching places with their men counterparts as the most dominant

gender in terms of higher education participation. This might be one of the reasons that

women students are more conscious about their quality of education.


21

COMPARISON BY TERRITORY

Although the overall state of quality of programmes is below the preferred status in all the

provinces, in comparison to the other provinces and territories, the opinions of Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa students are comparatively positive from other provinces on various aspects

as depicted in Table 3.8. It is might be due to the reason that the Government of Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa is “sensitive and actively engaged to improve quality of education by focusing

on capacity building of teaching faculty, objectivity in making use of available human

resources, avenues for local and foreign scholarships and improving quality of knowledge”

(the secretary higher education, speech on April 04, 2015)14.

Table 3.8. Programmes quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by territory

Programme Aspects

N

Province

Balochistan Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa Punjab Sindh GB Total

11 118 202 484 172 987

Program Clarity and Flexibility

Mean 2.72 2.61 2.29 2.34 2.36 2.37

SD 1.37 1.03 0.83 1 0.85 0.95


Mean 2.17 2.66 2.35 2.38 2.57 2.44

SD 1.4 0.98 0.82 0.98 0.92 0.95


Mean 2.56 2.43 2.12 2.12 2.25 2.18

SD 1.52 1.16 0.92 1.07 1.02 1.05


Mean 1.93 2.56 2.14 2.19 2.41 2.26

SD 0.92 1.09 0.86 1.15 0.97 1.06


Mean 1.59 2.31 2.11 2.1 1.98 2.1

SD 0.86 1.22 1.01 1.14 0.99 1.1


Mean 1.81 2.33 2.1 2.15 2.17 2.16

SD 1.28 1.05 0.85 1.08 0.86 1


Mean 2.13 2.74 2.34 2.31 2.35 2.38

SD 1.33 1.22 1.1 1.27 1.13 1.21

One-way AONVA test was applied to analyze the differences among group means and

their associated procedures. The ANOVA results (Appendix 8) show that there is a

statistically significant difference between the means score of the provinces on five (out of

seven) aspects: a) program clarity and flexibility, b) quality of learning and teaching, c)

quality of assessment and feedback, d) satisfaction with student support and student-

teacher relationship, and e) general satisfaction with the programme. Post Hoc test was

applied to examine which of the programme’s students were more satisfied with respect to

these four aspects. Table 3.9 again confirms that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was ahead of the

other provinces and territory, and the differences among the mean scores of the various

provinces are statistically significant.

14 A report of a nation daily ‘the News’ published on April 05, 2015


22


satisfaction by territory

Dependent Variable

Province/Territory Mean Difference) (I-J Std. Error Sig. (I) (J)


Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Punjab .32209* .10995 .003

Sindh .26943* .09743 .006

GB .25280* .11343 .026

Quality of Learning and teaching

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Punjab .30678* .10937 .005

Sindh .27799* .09701 .004

GB Punjab .22019* .09793 .025

Sindh .19140* .08390 .023


Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Punjab .30876* .12124 .011

Sindh .30979* .10740 .004


Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Punjab .42506* .12288 .001

Sindh .37465* .10883 .001

GB Punjab .27022* .10979 .014

Sindh .21981* .09380 .019


Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Punjab .39913* .13937 .004

Sindh .42919* .12347 .001

GB .38867* .14394 .007

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

COMPARISON BY TYPE OF UNIVERSITY

The data were also analyzed with respect to the different types of universities –

Professional (Education, Engineering and Medical) and General. Table 3.10 gives detail of

this analysis.

Table 3.10. Programmes quality, availability of resources and student satisfaction by type of university

Programme Aspects

N

Type of University

Medical Engineering Education General

272 305 51 359


Mean 2.32 2.4 2.02 2.43

SD 1.08 0.86 0.74 0.94


Mean 2.29 2.45 2.19 2.58

SD 1 0.89 0.72 0.96


Mean 2.06 2.19 1.91 2.31

SD 1.02 1.07 0.83 1.08


Mean 2.11 2.25 1.86 2.43

SD 1.1 1.09 0.62 1.03


Mean 2.06 2.18 1.85 2.11

SD 1.13 1.13 0.78 1.09


Mean 2.08 2.21 2.03 2.2

SD 1.06 1.04 0.76 0.94


Mean 2.22 2.42 2.22 2.48

SD 1.23 1.26 1 1.18

The table reveals that mean score of engineering universities on two aspects i.e. ‘program

organization’ and ‘availability and effectiveness of learning resources’, is higher than the

other universities, and for the rest of all aspects, general universities are ahead as

compared to the other types of universities. One of the reasons for this could be that

nowadays, the majority of the larger general universities now usually have all the three

(education, engineering and medical) faculties as well.


23

A one-way ANOVA between types of universities was conducted to compare the

programmes provisions in these universities on programme quality and resources available

to deliver it vis-à-vis student satisfaction. There was a significant difference among the

universities at the p<.05 level for the five aspects: Program clarity and flexibility’, ‘quality of

learning and teaching’, ‘quality of assessment and feedback’, ‘satisfaction with student

support and student-teacher relationship’ and the ‘overall satisfaction with the programme’

(see Appendix 9).


satisfaction by type of university

Dependent Variable

Type of University Mean Difference) (I-J

Std. Error Sig. (I) (J)

Program clarity and flexibility

Medical Education .30197* .14484 .037

Engineering Education .38410* .14360 .008

General Education .41072* .14205 .004

Quality of learning and teaching

Engineering Medical .16346* .07885 .038

General

Medical .28585* .07578 .000

Engineering .12238 .07359 .097

Education .38407* .14091 .007

Quality of assessment and feedback

Engineering Education .28206 .15862 .076

General Medical .24645* .08419 .003

Education .39817* .15695 .011

Satisfaction with student support and student-teacher relationship


General

Medical .31716* .08476 .000

Engineering .17122* .08248 .038

Education .56507* .15772 .000

General satisfaction with the programme




Table 3.11 confirms that in the opinion of students, the general universities were

significantly performing better than all other types of universities on two aspects i.e.

‘Quality of learning and teaching’ and ‘Satisfaction with student support and student-

teacher relationship’.

3.1.3 UNIVERSITY CLIMATE, AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY OF RESOURCES AT UNIVERSITIES

AND FACULTY JOB SATISFACTION

This section presents insights from the faculty responses to the ‘Faculty Questionnaire’. The following analysis is organized with reference to the specific sections of the questionnaire.

FACULTY WORKLOAD

Few issues in recent years have aroused as much interest outside of the academy as the

question of faculty workload. Universities in Pakistan with shrinking resources, calls for

more teaching, and demands for greater accountability responded in various ways:

including attempted to mandate the number of hour faculty must spend in the classroom.


24

In response to a question, ‘What proportion of your teaching load is comprised of the

following types of courses in a typical academic year? (All – 4, Most – 3, Some – 2, None

– 1)’, the Faculty indicated that their teaching load consisted of courses that meet general

education requirements, masters’ and PhD classes; few taught undergraduate classes.

Since the majority of the respondents were among the regular faculty members, it means

that the undergraduate classes are most taught by the visiting/ adhoc faculty. Table 3.12

gives complete detail of the responses.

.

Table 3.12. Proportion of teaching workload by gender Assignment Women Men Overall

Courses that meet general education requirements 2.65 2.50 2.55

Undergraduate classes 1.96 2.11 2.06

Masters’ classes 2.69 2.48 2.55

PhD Classes 2.98 2.95 2.96

Data on response to the question, ‘How frequently do you participate in the following

activities? Frequently – 3, Occasionally – 2 and Never – 1)’, show that the faculty

occasionally participates in almost all the activities listed in Figure 3.2, but their participation

is at the lowest level in the capstone experiences such as exams, portfolios, theses or

performances, and conducting research on teaching and learning. There is no mentionable

difference between the men’s and women’s participation in the services for their

department/ institution. Figure 3.2 shows a complete picture of the existing situation in the

universities in this regard.

Figure 3.2 Faculty members’ services to the department/institution

0.5 1.5 2.5

Conduct research on teaching and learning

Evaluate the effectiveness of new teaching andlearning practices for your faculty/…

Help determine the performance standard forstudents graduating from your faculty/…

Evaluate faculty in their use of new teaching andlearning practices

Assist faculty peers in their use of new teaching andlearning practices

Evaluate students on capstone experiences such asexams, portfolios, theses, or performances.

Test students entering your faculty/institute/department

Make recommendations to administrative officesabout new teaching and learning practices

Assess students for course placement purposes

Overall Men Women


25

In response to question, ‘What is the level of faculty involvement in your faculty/ institute/

department on the following? (Very strong involvement – 5, Strong involvement – 4,

Moderate involvement – 3, Little involvement – 2 and No involvement – 1), the faculty

members responses are more positive in aspects which relate to their core work but not

very encouraging in management policies and administration. For e.g. in curriculum

development and academic planning they are involved more than the aspects like faculty

promotion and resource allocation. This situation leads to the conclusion that promotion

and evaluation are not being done in a participatory manner.

Figure 3.3 Faculty involvement in developmental activities

AWARENESS ABOUT POLICIES

HEC Policies: Responding to the question, ‘In terms of your awareness of HEC policy

changes affecting the university in the last five years’, the majority (74 percent) of the faculty

members were partially aware of the policy changes at HEC level during the last five years;

only a small proportion (16 percent) of the faculty members were completely aware of these

changes. Women faculty members’ proportion was greater than their counterparts on this

aspect. Figure 3.4 gives complete detail on this aspect.

Figure 3.4 Faculty members’ level of awareness about HEC policies

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Academic planning for undergraduate education

Resource allocation

Student recruitment policies and decisions

Curriculum development

Faculty development activities

Faculty promotion and evaluation

Student academic support services

Student assessment policies and procedures

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Completely aware of HEC policies

In part aware of of HEC policies

Not aware of what these policies are

Overall Men Women


26

Availability of university Research Policy: Research in universities, plays an extremely

important role in innovation by ensuring the provision of new knowledge. Conducting

research requires financial resources and research infrastructure. Boosting universities

links with industry and their contribution to innovation needs some policy guidelines

because there is increasing pressure for investments in research to be held accountable

for their contribution to innovation and growth.

In response to the question, ‘Does the university have a research policy?’ Figure 3.5 does

not portray any encouraging situation. The universities either do not have any research

policy or the faculty is not aware of even its presence; only 22.9 percent of the overall

respondents reported that their universities had research policy, and this proportion is even

less (only 20.7 percent) in case of the men respondents.

Figure 3.5 Whether the university has its research policy

UNIVERSITY CLIMATE In the perception of the faculty, universities do not encourage students to have a public

voice and share their ideas openly and nor do the universities treat women faculty fairly.

Overall, the faculty members somewhat disagreed that a culture of inclusiveness and

fairness and openness persisted in the universities, as for all factors, the mean score is

between 1.5 to 2.5 on 4-point rating scale15 (cf. Table 3.13).

Table 3.13. University management climate by gender

Factor Mean Score

Women Men Overall

The university management regularly speaks about the value of diversity. 2.10 2.10 2.10

The university has strategic diversity goals and plans. 2.06 2.20 2.15

The university encourages students to have a public voice and share their ideas openly.

1.63 1.98 1.86

The university promotes the appreciation of cultural differences 2.00 2.08 2.05

The university promotes the understanding of gender differences 1.94 2.12 2.06

The university has standard reporting procedures for incidents of harassment or discrimination

2.00 2.03 2.02

Racial and ethnic diversity is strongly reflected in the university’s curriculum 2.50 2.39 2.43

The university treats women faculty fairly 2.06 1.89 1.95

Mostly decision-making is centralized in the university 1.96 2.10 2.05

15 Agree Strongly– 4, Agree Somewhat– 3, Disagree Somewhat– 2, Disagree Strongly– 1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Yes

No

I don't know

Overall Men Women


27

Governance of higher education involves the authority to make decisions about

fundamental policies and practices in several critical areas concerning universities In

response to question, ‘How centralized are each of the following activities at your

university?’ on a five point rating scale16; most faculty felt that the initiatives emerged as

‘ad-hoc faculty groups’ are constituted for making decisions. (cf. Table 3.14).

Table 3.14. University academic climate by gender

Factor Mean Score

Women Men Overall

Criteria for assessment of student learning 2.08 2.36 2.26

Goals for student learning 2.25 2.36 2.32

Development of teaching techniques 2.44 2.54 2.51

Decisions regarding course content 2.00 2.08 2.05

Use of student assessment data 2.54 2.46 2.49

Determination of coursework requirements 1.85 1.92 1.90

Development of final exams 2.23 2.05 2.11

Student evaluations of teaching 2.35 2.39 2.38

Faculty peer evaluations of teaching 2.50 2.58 2.55

FACULTY JOB SATISFACTION

Responding to the question how satisfied with regards the factor (mentioned in Table 3.15) the faculty members are; on a four point rating scale17; most of the faculty members were ‘somewhat satisfied’ with their job security and the quality of the students that they teach. They were dissatisfied with their salary/ benefits and workload. (cf. Table 3.15).

Table 3.15. Faculty members job satisfaction (academic) by gender

Factor Mean Score

Women Men Overall

Workload 2.17 2.52 2.40

Job security 3.21 2.90 3.01

Opportunity for advancement 2.10 2.29 2.23

Department support for promotion and tenure 2.21 2.37 2.31

Quality of students faculty (you) teach 2.46 2.50 2.49

Collegiality in your department 2.31 2.55 2.47

Relationships between faculty and administrators 2.25 2.41 2.36

Level of support provided for teaching and learning 2.38 2.27 2.31

Freedom to do outside consulting 2.17 2.36 2.29

Support for assessment activities 2.48 2.28 2.35

Salary/benefits 2.13 2.14 2.14

Most respondents somewhat agreed that the faculty received public recognition and rewards for innovative or effective use of student assessment. Faculty scholarship or innovative uses of student assessment are also considered in promotion, tenure, or salary reviews. Faculty disagreed that ‘collaborative work’ is too difficult to evaluate for the promotion of faculty (cf. Table 3.16).

16 University– 5 faculty/Institute – 4 Department – 3 ad-hoc faculty groups – 2 No coordination – 1 17 Very satisfied – 4 Somewhat satisfied – 3 Somewhat dissatisfied – 2 Very dissatisfied – 1


28

Table 3.16. Faculty members job satisfaction (compensation) by gender Factor Women Men Overall

Merit/salary increases are fair and adequate in my university 2.23 2.18 2.20

Teaching is more important than research for faculty promotion 2.21 2.36 2.31

The most highly rewarded faculty are those oriented primarily toward research 2.13 2.04 2.07

Faculty evaluation for higher rank and merit increases incorporates evidence of student performance

2.06 2.14 2.11

Faculty receive public recognition and rewards for innovative or effective use of student assessment

2.60 2.28 2.39

Collaborative work is too difficult to evaluate for the promotion of faculty 2.13 1.85 1.94

QUALITATIVE ACHIEVEMENTS BY THE UNIVERSITY

Recent data indicate that men and, to a lesser extent, women faculty members of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) perceive that on some indicators, including meeting educational needs of the students of various programmes, the quality of education had ‘somewhat improved’ in recent years. On other indicators, such as clear policies that support collaborative work, they report no/ slight improvement. The students, both men and women, agree that the programme support and quality in the HEIs had improved (see Appendix 10).

RESOURCES AVAILABLE AT THE UNIVERSITY

Faculty members considered that ‘fair’ amount of resources are available in their institutions (mean score=3.2 on scale of 5, for both men and women respondents; see Appendix 11).

3.1.4 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FACULTY RESPONSES WITH RESPECT TO UNIVERSITY

CLIMATE, AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY OF RESOURCES AT UNIVERSITIES AND FACULTY

JOB SATISFACTION

This section presents overall comparative analysis of the data gathered through faculty responses by gender, type of universities and territory.

COMPARISON BY GENDER

Table 3.17 indicates that statistically, there is no significant difference among the

perceptions of men and women faculty members about the factors investigated in the study,

as ‘significant’ value for all the aspects is greater than .05.


29

Table 3.17. Comparative analysis of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by gender

Key Factor Factor Gender N Mean SD t df sig

Faculty workload

Research and support activities

Female 48 2.1 0.6 -.429 138 .669

Male 92 2.1 0.6

Developmental activities

Female 48 3.5 1.0 1.111 138 .268

Male 92 3.3 1.2

University climate

Management Culture Female 48 2.0 0.9

-.437 138 .662 Male 92 2.1 0.8

Academic Culture Female 48 2.3 1.1

-.958 138 .340 Male 92 2.5 1.0

Job Satisfaction

Support and workload Female 48 2.1 0.8

-1.356 138 .177 Male 92 2.3 0.8

Reward and compensations

Female 48 2.2 0.7 1.121 138 .264

Male 92 2.0 0.8

Qualitative achievements by the university

Quality of student intake and university’s preparedness

Female 48 3.5 0.9 .060 138 .952

Male 92

3.5 0.9

Quality of faculty inputs

Female 48 1.9 0.8 .053 138 .958

Male 92 1.9 0.8

Availability of resources

Human, financial and knowledge resources

Female 48 3.2 1.0 -.076 138 .939

Male 92 3.2 0.9

COMPARISON BY TYPE OF UNIVERSITY

Table 3.18 indicates that the medical and engineering universities are better in

‘developmental activities’, whereas, the ‘quality of students’ intake and university’s

preparedness’ is excellent in medical and general universities, as the mean score values

these universities on these factors is more than 3.5 on 4-point rating scale. Research and

support activities, management culture, faculty quality inputs were rated pretty low in all

type of universities.

Table 3.18. Descriptive of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by type of university

Key Factor Factor

Medical Engineering Education General

N 27 40 13 60

Faculty workload


Mean 2.2 2.1 2.4 2

SD 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6


Mean 3.8 3.6 2.6 3.2

SD 0.8 1 1.4 1.2

University climate

Management Culture Mean 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.2

SD 0.4 0.9 1.1 0.9

Academic Culture Mean 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.6

SD 0.8 1.1 1.1 1

Job Satisfaction

Support and workload Mean 2.4 2 2.5 2.3

SD 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8


Mean 2 2.4 1.9 2

SD 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8



Mean 3.9 3.3 3.1 3.5

SD 1 0.9 1.1 0.8


Mean 1.7 1.9 1.8 2.1

SD 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9



Mean 2.6 3.3 3.3 3.4

SD 1 0.9 0.9 0.9


30

Post Hoc test results presented in table 3.19, reveal that medical universities are

significantly better with respect to ‘developmental activities’, and ‘quality of student intake

and university’s preparedness’ than general, education and engineering universities.

Table 3.19. Comparative analysis of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by type of university

Dependent Variable

Type of Programme Mean Difference) (I-J Std. Error Sig. (I) (J)

Developmental activities Medical

Education 1.25641* .36451 .001

General .64167* .25023 .011



Medical Engineering .51842* .21830 .019

Education .78316* .29588 .009






COMPARISON BY TERRITORY Data exhibited in Table 3.20 reveal that the universities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are

performing, to some extent, better in ‘Developmental activities’, ‘quality of student intake

and university’s preparedness’ and ‘human, financial and knowledge resources’ in

comparison to other provinces and territories, as the mean score for the province is more

than 3.5 on the 4-point rating scale. These results of the perceptions of faculty oppose the

general perception prevailing in the academia and HEC ranks18. According to HEC.

Ranking (2016), 4 universities of Punjab, 3 from ICT, 2 from Sindh are in the top 10

universities of Pakistan whereas from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The universities in Sindh are

good at developmental activities’ and ‘quality of student intake and university’s

preparedness’, as the mean score for Sindh is more than 3.5.

Table 3.20. Descriptive of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by territory

Key Factor Factor

Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa Punjab Sindh AJK GB

N 13 30 61 3 33

Faculty workload


Mean 1.88 2.25 2.14 1.67 2.12

SD 0.51 0.68 0.64 0.58 0.56

Developmental activities Mean 3.73 3.12 3.61 3.17 3.02

SD 1.20 1.20 0.94 1.26 1.24

University climate

Management Culture Mean 2.31 2.07 1.98 1.17 2.24

SD 0.72 0.92 0.77 0.29 0.97

Academic Culture Mean 2.50 2.52 2.17 3.33 2.62

SD 1.04 1.11 0.96 1.44 0.98

Job Satisfaction

Support and workload Mean 2.42 2.37 2.17 2.17 2.30

SD 0.76 0.89 0.80 0.76 0.62


Mean 2.31 2.08 2.14 1.50 1.89

SD 0.85 0.88 0.72 0.50 0.87



Mean 3.71 3.36 3.57 3.22 3.32

SD 0.95 0.98 0.97 0.19 0.66

Quality of faculty inputs Mean 2.15 1.95 1.80 1.33 2.17

SD 0.92 0.90 0.68 0.58 0.91



Mean 3.65 3.18 2.95 2.17 3.53

SD 0.88 0.90 0.94 0.29 0.96

18 The ranking is finalised on basis of quality assurance, teaching quality, research, finance and facilities

and social integration and community development


31

Nonetheless, results of the ANOVA test on this data suggest that the difference is

significant among the mean scores of the provinces/ territories (see Appendix 12) only for

the factor ‘Human, financial and knowledge resources’. Table 3.21 discloses that the

universities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and GB are significantly better equipped with human,

financial and knowledge resources as compared to the ones in Sindh and AJK.

Table 3.21. Comparative analysis of faculty responses with respect to university climate, availability and quality of resources at universities and faculty job satisfaction by territory

Dependent Variable

Type of Programme Mean Difference) (I-J Std. Error Sig. (I) (J)


Khyber Pakhtun

khwa

Sindh .70303* .28307 .014

AJK 1.48718* .59353 .013

GB Sindh .57948* .20024 .004

AJK 1.36364* .55879 .016


3.1.5 DISCIPLINE WISE NEED ASSESSMENT OF PHD FACULTY IN PAKISTANI UNIVERSITIES

Business

Education

Physical

Sciences

Biological &

Medical

Sciences

Social

Sciences

Engineering

&

Technology

N 1003 2250 1856 1872 2503

% 11.7% 11.8% 12.5% 21.1% 30.7%

3.2 ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION

In a socially, economically, religiously and culturally diverse state like Pakistan, higher

education institutions and universities, imparting education and conducting cutting edge

research, are the central mechanisms that can raise the declining social and economic

infrastructure of the country. Pakistan, despite rapid growth in the education sector during

the past decade, suffers from severe challenges in its educational development. These

challenges include lack of access to higher education for the majority of its youth. The

following section provides achievements of HEIs in Pakistan in comparison to the targets

set in the MTDF-II regarding its fourth pillar-- Improving Equitable Access.

3.2.1 ACHIEVEMENTS BY HEIS IN COMPARISON TO THE TARGETS SET IN HEC-MTDF-II

PILLAR 4: IMPROVING EQUITABLE ACCESS The achievements with regard to the key physical targets set in MTDF-II on equitable

access to HE aspect are as under:



Establishment of new universities 10 31 310.00

Establishment of financial aid offices in HEIs 60 70 116.67

Students enrolled in HEIs 1,579,805 1,298,600 82.20

Gender Ratio 50/50 53/47

(Sources: HEC chairperson presentation on December 31, 2015; and HEC MIS data received on 30 June 2016)


32

Only one university was exist at the time of creation of Pakistan in 1947 (i.e. the University of the Punjab), now there are many. The trend of increase in the number of public and private sector universities and degree awarding institutions (DAI)19 is illustrated below in Figure. 3.6

Fig 3.6: Trend of increase in number of Public and Private sector universities and DAI

Figure 3.6 shows the growth in the number of universities, as well as other DAIs, over a

period of some 68 years20. The first major increase in the number of public universities

occurred between 1971 and 1977. This increase was meant to make higher education

widely available. But it proved to be insufficient. Hence, this increase was subsequently

eclipsed by an even faster expansion in the public sector which, after 1995, because of the

sheer level of needs, was accompanied by a nearly equivalent increase in the number of

private sector institutions. This rapid expansion was especially pronounced after 2002

when the increase in both the public and the private sectors became exponential.

The first private Pakistani universities were the élite Lahore University of Management

Sciences in 1984, followed by the Aga Khan University Hospital in 1985. The higher

education sector expanded rapidly after the early 2001-2002 and has been increasing

exponentially ever since. Between 2010 and 2015, Pakistan has experienced a 78 percent

increase in the number of universities/ Degree Awarding Institutions (DAI), both public and

private. And during the same period, there has been a 174 percent increase in student

enrollment, including a large proportion of females.

19 A DAI (Degree awarding institution) is an institution with one or two faculties/schools only. It is not a university but yet can award degree in the discipline(s) 20 Data Sources: Higher Education Commission MIS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

19

47-4

8

19

50-5

1

19

53-5

4

19

56-5

7

19

59-6

0

19

62-6

3

19

65-6

6

19

68-6

9

19

71-7

2

19

74-7

5

19

77-7

8

19

80-8

1

19

83-8

4

19

86-8

7

19

89-9

0

19

92-9

3

19

95-9

6

19

98-9

9

20

01-0

2

20

04-0

5

20

07-0

8

20

10-1

1

20

13-1

4Nu

mb

er

of

Un

ivers

itie

s/D

AIs

Public Sector Private Sector


33

Now, the higher education institutions have coverage throughout the country. Region wise

number of universities and their sub campuses as per HEC-MIS and the province wise

number of Universities/ DAI in November 2015 is given in Table 3.22.

Table 3.22. Distribution of public and private sector universities/DAI by region

Region Public Private Total

Punjab 25 24 49

Sindh 19 30 49

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

19 10 29

Baluchistan 6 2 8

Federal21 25 8 33

AJK 4 2 6

GB 1 0 1

Total 99 76 175

3.2.2 ENROLLMENT TREND IN PAKISTAN

Enrollment (provisional) by gender and total enrollment at universities/DAIs (excluding

affiliated colleges)22 over the years is shown in Figure 3.7.

Fig 3.7: Enrollment at University (Campus + Constituent Colleges) 2001 to 2015.

The trend of increase in women enrollment (573.53 percent) is significantly higher than that

of men enrollment (409.77%) at HEIs during the last 15 years. The OECD report lists a

number of hypotheses for why women are outpacing men in higher education participation

21 The number is not only including universities situated in ICT but also those universities situated in other provinces/territories that are administrated by Federal Government 22 HEC MIS data received on 30 June 2016

276

332423

472 521

640741

803

948

10361117

1243 1298

174 204244

280 308 345399

447

520555

608 675713

102128

179 196 213295

342356

428482 509

568585

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2011-12 p

2012-13 p

2013-14 p

2014-15 p

Stu

de

nts

(0

00

)

Total Men Women


34

(it cautions, however, that almost all of these hypotheses are based on studies that contain

either methodological limitations or are contradicted by other studies.) The possible factors

include:

Women’s knew ability to combine studies and work with family life, in many places;

Decreasing discrimination against girls in families (again, in many places);

Women’s higher preparation for higher education, as evidenced by their test scores

in secondary education;

Women’s higher aspirations to obtain tertiary degrees; and

The feminisation of the teaching profession and a learning environment more

conducive to girls’ social and cognitive dispositions.

Enrollment (provisional) in public and private sector universities classified by region during

years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15., is given in Table 3.23.

Table 3.23. Enrollment at universities/DAI + constituent colleges by area and sector during

2012-13 to 2014-2015

Year 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15.

Sector Public Private Total Public Private Total Public Private Total

Distance Learning

474,510 - 474,510 490,596 - 490,596 472,395 - 472,395

Federal 101,433 14,634 116,067 105,204 17,994 123,198 111,823 21,068 132,891

AJK 7,778 2,077 9,855 10,709 3,273 13,982 13,329 2,727 16,056

Balochistan 17,297 1,447 18,744 14,320 549 14,869 23,537 118 23,655

G.B 2,506 2,506 3,161 3,161 3,557 3,557

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

64,322 26,894 91,216 83,868 27,714 111,582 81,159 29,835 110,994

Punjab 184,174 75,967 260,141 212,613 77,437 290,050 244,604 87,928 332,532

Sindh 88,794 55,754 144,548 113,382 82,220 195,602 119,615 86,905 206,520

Total 940,814 176,773 1,117,587 1,033,853 209,187 1,243,040 1,070,019 228,581 1,298,600

Table 3.24. Enrollment by Level of Degree during year 2013-14 and 2014-15

Year

Bachelor (upto 16 Years of

Education)

Bachelor (17 Years of Education)

Master (Years of

Education)

MS/M.Phil (17 Years of Education) PhD P.G.D

Grand Total

2013-14 844,461 57,025 209,617 111,440 12,784 7,713 1,243,040

2014-15 869,378 63,142 219,280 124,107 14,374 8,319 1,298,600

3.2.3 OUTPUTS OF UNIVERSITIES/DAIS IN PAKISTAN

The distribution of PhD graduates from Pakistani universities from 1947 to 31st December

2014 is given in Table 3.25 and graphically shown in Fig. 3.8.


35

Table 3.25. Number of PhD produced (provisional) by Pakistani universities by discipline by the end of 2014

Discipline Up to 2002 Up to 2014

Agriculture & Veterinary 348 1402

Arts & Humanities 671 1645

Biological & Medical Sciences 586 2470

Business Education 14 229

Physical Sciences 712 2537

Engineering & Technology 21 491

Social Sciences 897 2695

Honorary 49 59

Total 3298 11528

Fig 3.8: Number of PhD s Produced by Pakistani Universities 1947 to 2013

INCREASED QUANTITY VIS-À-VIS ITS QUALITY

The outcome sought by the MTDF is the increase in the number of students attending

Higher Education Institutions. However,

quantitative increase is not always accompanied,

as is often assumed by policy formulators, by the

maintenance of quality standards or, even less,

by desired increases in those quality standards.

Policy measures need to be accompanied by the

means capable of ensuring that these measures

can and will be implemented. Without proportional increases in university support functions

(financial resources, human resources and material resources), the results of such an

increase can only be the weakening of teaching and research programme outcomes. At

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

19

47

19

50

19

53

19

56

19

59

19

62

19

65

19

68

19

71

19

74

19

77

19

80

19

83

19

86

19

89

19

92

19

95

19

98

20

01

20

04

20

07

20

10

20

13

Num

ber

of

Ph.D

s P

roduced

Public Sector Private Sector Total

‘‘If you look at history, innovation does not

come just from giving people incentives; it

comes from creating environments where

their ideas can connect”

Steveen Johnson


36

present, with the current number of students, these resources, particularly the quality and

number of human resources, are already considered inadequate. They cannot be stretched

without lowering quality below the current level.

In short, increase in output, as required by the increase of numbers of students, requires

proportional increases in support functions as well as increased effectiveness and

efficiency in certain production functions (market and social needs analysis, programme

adaptation). The latter requires a functional research capacity in the universities or, at the

very least, a functional research capacity for the sector.

3.3 RELEVANCE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR TO NATIONAL NEEDS

The expansion of education has clearly been involved in the extraordinary modern

expansion of the professions and other formerly elite occupations. In addition, expanding

access to and linking tertiary education to the demands in the labor market are vital steps

to building a knowledge-based economy (OECD, 2014). As a result, higher education

systems have faced a challenge in accommodating the growth in student numbers in the

existing higher education system and, further, in the job market.

During the process of expanding global higher education, the world’s job market has

changed dramatically to become a knowledge economy. At the same time, the world has

been facing an economic recession, leaving fewer job vacancies to make the school-to-

work transition substantially more difficult for young people, as those with more work

experience are favored over the new entrants into the labor market (OECD, 2014).

The HEC introduced and standardized a large number of curricula to respond to the skill-

based needs of developing Pakistan. It also supported research pertaining to the socio-

economic needs of the region in the vicinity of the university through supporting and

expanding on the establishment of Business Incubation Centers (BICs). HEC also

introduced Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants to support relevant research

at the university which are partnered with the industry. However, only 25 percent of

surveyed faculty members reported that they had ‘substantial’ grants for conducting

research.

The following section provides achievements of HEIs in Pakistan in comparison to the

targets set in the MTDF-II regarding its third pillar-- Research, Innovation and

Entrepreneurship.


PILLAR 3: RESEARCH, INNOVATION & ENTREPRENEURSHIP

HEC aims to develop and sustain a dynamic and internationally competitive research sector

in Pakistan that makes a major contribution to economic prosperity, national wellbeing and

the expansion and dissemination of knowledge. Promotion of Research is one of the core

strategic aims of HEC. The achievements with regard to the key physical targets set in

MTDF-II ‘Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship’ are as under:


37



Impact factor journal publications 12,500 7,141 57.13

Establishment of ORICs 75 39 52.00

Establishment of technology incubators 60 47 78.33

Centers for Advanced Studies 4 4 100.00


HEC achieved its 100 percent target of establishing centres of excellence, however, the

success rate on the promotion of research related targets, remained around 50 percent

only. The key reasons for this lower achievements have been discussed in the following

sections.

Through the program and initiatives launched by HEC for strengthening research and the

process of knowledge creation, the quality and research output emanating from the

universities and institutes in the country have shown improvements in terms of percentage

increase in internationally cited research publications. Yet, this is no more than an end of

a beginning and we need not only to sustain and improve this trend but also contemplate

on questions of relevance and economic, social and academic impact of the research. In

pursuit of this end, HEC has started working to organize the research activities of

universities/HEIs ensuring availability ORIC. The ORICs has potential to provide strategic

and operational support to the University’s research activities/program, and if strengthened,

it could have central role in facilitating the University’s research outcomes.

3.3.2 RESEARCH CULTURE IN UNIVERSITIES/HEIS

It was generally reported by most of the faculty members that the research activities failed

to become a well rooted, defining value, and a goal which is actively, effectively and

sustainably pursued in their university. And it is also reported that the plans and efforts

deployed by the national, provincial and university level authorities to make research into

such a defining value have not been successful. Interviews and interactions with the faculty

members in multiple universities yield the following picture:

1. Generally and as a practical matter, universities do not consider research as a

requisite or necessary part of the workload of its faculty. Only teaching is a key

element for making decisions about the faculty workload.

2. Most of the research that is carried out is not undertaken in response to educational,

social, economic or disciplinary needs. Rather, research is mainly carried out because

it is a short term requisite activity, mandated by the authority, for the promotion of

individual faculty members. Research is, thus, an individual, short term, effort aimed

at satisfying this career need. It is typically carried out only by younger faculty, who

has not yet gained a permanent status. When they have attained this status, these

faculty members join the larger faculty group of complacent non-researchers for

whom research is no longer mandatory. And because there is no criterion to guide in

which area the for-promotion research must be done (see Appendix 13), the

researcher’s choice is typically opportunistic: repeat what was done for the Ph.D.

while introducing a slight variant or simply unashamedly copying what is currently

being done in their area of interest in other countries. Neither of these approaches

brings much that is of value to building a Pakistan-relevant knowledge base or to


38

satisfying the needs of Pakistan’s educational, social, economic and industrial needs

(see Appendix 13)

3. There exists little or no interaction and, much less, coordination between the

universities and their external stakeholder environments whether these be

educational, social, economic, or industrial. In the absence of such interaction and

coordination, the research produced by the university remains a function of personal

preference used mainly for internal promotion. It is of little use in addressing real

problems (see Appendix 13)

4. Although HEC has made it mandatory to establish Quality Assurance Directorate in

every university and although HEC monitors the number of theses produced and

research articles published, quality checks on the research productions are most

often perceived to be weak. They are typically guided by quantity rather than by

quality criteria. It is often reported also that some universities are not beyond

manipulating the data they report under Quality Assurance requirements if it is

perceived that this will help maintain or enhance their status.

5. HEC and universities claim that their programmes are research oriented. In reality,

however, this does not appear to be the actual case. An examination of research

supervision assignments in a number of universities suggests that supervisors are

required to oversee the research work of numerous students working on widely

differing topics, few of which fall into the supervisors’ area of specialization. Likewise,

the examinations of M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. theses in a cross section of public as

well as private Pakistani universities reveals methodological and statistical-analytical

deficiencies that can only suggest that the students are not adequately trained in

methods and statistics in their programmes and/ or that their supervisors themselves

are not sufficiently competent in these areas to ensure adequate supervision.

6. Critical thinking, the disciplined non-acceptance of knowledge proposed on the basis

of tradition, authority or custom – these are generally accepted as a necessary, if

insufficient, condition for alternative, creative thinking. Creative thinking, on the other

hand, is also generally thought to be a necessary condition for imagining alternate

states of being, of structures and of processes: a requisite condition for bringing about

adaptive change in society and in its diverse constituent institutions. There is much

talk and much lip service addressed to this highly desirable feature of learning in

Pakistan’s universities. Generally, however, it is recognized that Pakistani universities

are not training their students to become critical thinkers. The dominant culture is

typically perceived as one of authoritarianism, of preservation of the traditional identity

through the avoidance of change, of an unexplained fear of the unknown that could

be unhinged by thinking differently and of harsh personal consequences for deviation

from the cultural and organizational norms. Although it extends through social and

organizational norms, so far as to influence promotion decisions (at least, in the minds

of the promotion seekers who, while young and often foreign trained, hesitate to rock

the boat), there is a perception that younger faculty of emerging middle class origins

are progressively overcoming the restraining attitudes of change resistance and

welcoming critical thinking.

7. There appears to be a prevailing culture of non-collaboration among faculty members

in the universities. There is a generalized perception that there does not exist, in the

area of research in particular, either joint projects or team efforts. This perhaps should

not come as a surprise given that research conducted in universities is predominantly


39

an individualized-for-promotion activity (as described above) and that, appearing as

an innovative feature in what is essentially a culturally conservative environment, it is

an unnecessary change. In the absence of a core research activity capable of

justifying a common approach, it is difficult to imagine the establishment of an

interactive, collaborative approach. This is consistent with points presented above.

8. The processes for acquiring funding for research projects by university faculty are

lengthy and complex. Seed money is often not available within the university and, if it

is, it is often a discretionary item dependent on the VC’s views and preferences. In a

way, this is the chicken or the egg kind of problem. To be lavish with seed money and

risk losing it to non-meaningful exploratory projects, or to be restrictive and risk

missing out on critical thinking faculty with useful innovative projects, or worse,

pushing such people out of academia because they see no future there. An

established research culture with corresponding structures and procedures to guide

research project conception and realization, in short, a university research policy, so

that research funds become an investment rather than simply being perceived as an

expenditure, then there would not be the problem universities presently face

regarding research funding. Such a culture does not exist at present. The focus must,

therefore, be placed on developing such a culture. How this might be done is

discussed at greater length in Appendix 14.

9. Most of the universities in Pakistan are lacking in-library learning resources. And, as

observed, where these resources are not numerous, they tend to be guarded, lest

they are removed. Many scant library resources, books and periodicals, in particular,

have been observed to be under lock and key with access to them limited to only a

few hours a week. Although HEC has developed system to make online journals and

books accessible, many universities lack the infrastructure to access these facilities.

And, even in those that do have the necessary infrastructure, access is often limited

by the lack of electricity due to load shedding. In addition to reading materials, libraries

also often lack the relevant software that are prerequisite for doing research.

10. Some universities put much hope in the faculty members who have gone abroad for

PhD. training. This hope is often misplaced for two reasons:

Newly trained PhDs have only beginner level training in research. This is

particularly true in the complex and therefore soft fields like education—some

say it is the most complex--where one must be trained in several methods. Many

of these new PhDs, thought to be the best trained faculty, have only a one-time

experience in one method: that used in the doctoral research project. Whereas,

for example, airlines would never think to give an aircraft to a pilot with only one

real flight’s experience, universities tend to count on these junior faculty

members to ensure the proper operation of their research functions and to fulfill

their research obligations.

Upon returning, these junior professors, who are the likely critical thinkers and

teachers of critical thinking, are often considered to be outsiders in the

governance culture. Hence they tend to be treated as outsiders, people who

must be adjusted to or broken from the prevailing culture.


40

3.3.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF BUSINESS INCUBATION CENTERS (BICS)

Business Incubation is a business support process that accelerates the successful

development of start-up companies by providing new entrepreneurs with an array of

targeted resources and services. A business incubator’s main goal is to produce successful

firms that will leave the program financially viable and freestanding. It creates jobs helping

the new graduates to become job providers instead of being job seekers, commercializes

new technologies, and strengthens communities and economies.

HEC is supporting the establishment of Business Incubation Centers (BICs) in Public

Sector Universities to provide basic infrastructure and allied facilities for researchers/young

entrepreneurs who are interested in developing early-stage business ventures. So far 17

BICs have been established23. Promotion of Education in Pakistan Foundation (PEP) has

provided financial assistance to HEC for setting up BICs in 9 public universities of the

country. As BICs are new, no proper evaluation has yet been carried out.

3.3.4 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT FUND FOR THE HEC SCHOLARS

RETURNING FROM ABROAD

Since the inception of the HEC, millions of rupees have been spent on the human resource

development. As a result, thousands of PhD scholars have been trained outside Pakistan

and have returned to the country. Now it is time to ask them for a return on the investment

they represent. To accomplish this the Pakistan government has recently set aside funds

to help the industrial sector. It is a project entitled: Establishment of Technology

Development Fund for HEC. (Govt. of Pakistan 2015, p.188). Given the recent creation of

this Fund, no evaluation of its effectiveness presently exists.

3.4 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY

For fiscal year 2015 the total budget allocation for higher education stood at PKR 73 billion,

an increase of more than 70 percent over 2011 in nominal terms. However, this nominal

increase reduces to only half that amount when inflation is factored in. Of the total federal

spending on higher education from 2011 to 2015, 65 percent corresponds to the recurrent

budgets. During the same period development budgets were limited to 35 percent. The

following section provides achievements of HEIs in Pakistan in comparison to the targets

set in the MTDF-II regarding its sixth pillar-- Financial Management and Sustainability.


PILLAR 6: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY

The achievements with regard to key physical targets set in MTDF-II ‘Financial

Management and Sustainability’ are as under:

23 http://www.hec.gov.pk/InsideHEC/Divisions/RND/ebic/Pages/Default.aspx


41



Public Expenditure Survey 1 In progress

Capacity Building of staff on financial management

350 260 74.29

Business plans prepared by universities 50 40 80.00

3.4.2 FINANCIAL ALLOCATION TO UNIVERSITIES/DAIS IN PAKISTAN

Pakistan Vision 2025 aims at a substantial expansion in levels of education as well as

substantial improvements in the quality of education. As a consequence, it also aims for an

increase in the level of public expenditure on education to the extent of 4.0 percent of GDP

by 2018. If this goal is attained it will be a substantial increase in the current level of budget

provision. Funding levels provided by HEC to the public sector universities for non-

development and development purposes over the years is given in Fig. 3.9.

Fig 3.9: Funds provided by the HEC to the public sector universities for non-development and development expenditure 2001-2015

3.4.3 ANALYSIS OF MTDF II (2 0 1 1 – 15) SPENDING PATTERN

Recurrent spending made up 65 percent, while development made up 35 percent, of the

total higher education federal spending in 2011/15 as given in Table 3.26 below:

Table 3.26. Recurring and developmental spending by year

Indicators

Fiscal Year

FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 *

(partial Year)

Total HEC Higher Education Spending (Recurrent + Development)

Nominal Total HEC Higher Education Spending ( PKR Millions)

43,121 38,650 48,292 61,432 73,223

Annual Percentage Change (%) 31.7% -10.4% 24.9% 27.2% 19.2%

Real Total HEC Higher Education Spending ( PKR Millions)*

22,294 18,904 21,949 26,085 29,057

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

Rupees (

Mill

ion)

Non Development Development


42

Indicators

Fiscal Year

FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 *

(partial Year)


Higher Education Recurrent Spending (including PM Tuition Fee Reimbursement Scheme)

Nominal Recurrent Spending ( PKR Million)

29,057 28,887 36,278 42,619 47,550


Real Recurrent Spending ( PKR Million)*

15,023 14,129 16,489 18,096 18,869


Higher Education Development Spending (including PM Laptop Scheme)

Nominal Development Spending ( PKR Million)

14,064 9,763 12,014 18,813 25,673


Real Development Spending ( PKR Million)*

7,271 4,775 5,460 7,988 10,188


Except FY 12, Higher Education Spending as a share of GDP, during the MTDF II period

(FY 11 to FY15) remained steady for the past 05 years as illustrated in Fig3.10 below:

Fig 3.10: Spending on Higher Education as GDP % by year

During the years 2011 to 2015 there has been 51 percent increase in student enrolment

over the five years or an average 10 percent increase in enrollment per annum. The

increase in enrollment, coupled with only six percent annual increase in real Higher

Education Spending, has resulted in a decrease of 14 percent in real per student higher

education federal grants. (see Table 3.27 below):

Table 3.27. Per Student Federal Grants

Indicators Fiscal Year

FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15

Enrollment in Public Sector Universities

FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 3024-15

Spending on Higher Education asGDP %

0.24% 0.19% 0.21% 0.24% 0.26%

0.00%

0.05%

0.10%

0.15%

0.20%

0.25%

0.30%

GD

P %


43

Enrollment- Excluding Distance Learning AIOU & VU (#)

401,771 442,710 473,877 559,450 606,654

Enrollment- Distance Learning (DL) I.e., AIOU & VU (#)

548,585 623,392 708,400 805,000 885,000

Total HEC Higher Education Spending

Real Total Higher Education Spending (Recurrent + Development) PKR Millions

22,294 18,904 21,949 26,085 29,057

Real per student (Exc DL) higher education spending ( PKR)

55,490 42,702 46,318 46,626 47,898

Higher Education Recurrent Spending

Real Recurrent Spending ( PKR Million) 15,023 14,129 16,489 18,096 18,869

Real per student Recurrent Spending ( PKR)

37,391 31,915 34,795 32,347 31,104

Higher Education Development Spending

Real Development Spending ( PKR Million)

7,271 4,775 5,460 7,988 10,188

Real per student development Spending ( PKR)

18,098 10,786 11,522 14,279 16,794

The recurring budget made available to the HEC each year is allocated to cater recurring

grants to universities, as well as to other national programs of the higher education sector,

such as Inter-University Academic Activities, Digital Library PERN, Promotion of Research,

Prime Minister’s Tuition Fee Reimbursement for students of under-developed areas of

Pakistan, and the HEC Secretariat. The bulk of the funding goes to direct recurring grant

to universities (~87 percent), Promotion of Research and Inter University Academic

Activities (~ 9 percent), PM Tuition Fee scheme (~ 3 percent), while around only one

percent is spent on HEC administration expenses.

Table 3.28. Federal recurring grants for universities, national programs and HEC Secretariat

Indicators Fiscal Year

FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15

Total Higher Education Recurrent Spending ( PKR Million)

29,057 28,887 36,278 42,619 47,550

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

HEC Corporate Spending ( PKR Million) 370 435 460 520 520

as percentage of total 1.3% 1.5% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1%

University Grants ( PKR Million) 26,612 25,658 32,198 35,859 41,490


HEC National Programs for Universities ( PKR Million)

2,075 2,794 3,120 5,040 4,040


Prime Minister Tuition Fee Scheme ( PKR Million) - - 500 1,200 1,500



44

3.4.4 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF MTDF 2010-2015 AND PROJECTIONS TO 2016-2020

Table 3.29 presents the actual allocation to MTDF-II by year and projections at the rate of

12 percent and 5 percent for the years 2016 to 2020.

Table 3.29. Comparative analysis Actual allocation of MTDF 2010-2015 and projections to 2016-2020

Indicators Actual Allocation (Amount in PKR millions)

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Total Higher Education Spending (Recurrent + Development)

43,121 38,650 48,292 61,932 73,223 71,500

Nominal Total Higher Education Spending ( PKR Millions)

31.7% -10.4% 24.9% 28.2% 18.2% -2.4%

Real Total Higher Education Spending ( PKR Millions)*

22,294 18,904 21,949 26,297 9,057 6,517

Annual Percentage Change (%) 10.2% -15.2% 16.1% 19.8% 10.5% -8.7%

Projected growth rate FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20

Projections (Amount in PKR millions)

12% 80,080 89,690 100,452 112,507

5% 27,843 29,235 30,697 32,232

3.5 STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES/

CONSTRAINTS (SWOC) ANALYSIS OF THE HE SECTOR

The higher education sector in Pakistan presents both a challenge and an opportunity for

Pakistan. If properly organized it has the potential of equipping the nation with the high

technical and scientific knowledge necessary for its progress in the 21st Century.

With institutes of higher learning like the Virtual University (VU), the country’s first university

based completely on modern information and communication technologies offering

academic programs while “using free-to-air satellite television broadcasts and the Internet”

and the Information Technology University (ITU) which is nurturing “an environment of high-

tech research and entrepreneurship with its state-of-the-art facilities, world-class faculty,

in-house startups incubator and well-established government and industry linkages,”

Pakistan’s higher education landscape is certainly versatile.

The Pakistan Education and Research Network (PERN), an initiative of the HEC,

launched in 2002, is providing communication infrastructure to the 250 plus universities

and institutes of higher learning, including colleges and research organizations of the

country to meet their networking and internet requirements.

A complete SWOC analysis chart has been placed as Appendix 6. The major challenges/

constraints of the sector and universities are given below:


45

3.5.1 CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINS OF HIGHER EDUCATION A situation of uncertainty was created after the adoption of the 18th amendment

regarding the role of HEC, as each province is establishing its own HEC in the

province.

There typically exist shortfalls between the Government planned budget for HEC

and the effective budget released to HEC for the funding of the higher education

sector.

o There exist delays in the release of government funds to the HEC resulting

in systemic uncertainty in the sector.

Frequent changes in senior management of the HEC and prolonged vacancies of

senior management positions of the HE Institutions hinder HEC efficiency and

effectiveness.

Weak monitoring and evaluation systems in the HEC hinder its capacity to track

levels of progress and to affect required course correction.

3.5.2 CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINS OF UNIVERSITIES Missing link- the strengthening of middle management

Universities tend to have very weak middle management. It is this middle

management, however, that holds the functionaries that are the key to any policy

implementation or desirable change. Top leadership (VC) is often outsiders with

limited knowledge of the institutional strengths and weaknesses and of

organizational cultures. They have no hands-on control of crucial administrative

processes. To exaggerate only a little, VCs can have vision and can give orders

from an authoritarian position and expect obedience. However, they are unable

(although some try) to manage the implementation process themselves. And in the

absence of an institutionalized mechanism, which is dependent on knowledgeable

and stable middle level managers, they cannot bring about the implementation of

policies coming from HEC, or the changes that they, themselves, wish to implement.

The result of this is that actions from HEC or other levels higher than the university

can only be aimed at the input stage of university processes. Examination by HEC

-- that is, monitoring and evaluation--of throughput processes and of outcomes, are

typically not possible: with the university having no effective means of implementing

policies or changes, there is, most often, little to monitor or evaluate, and,

consequently, no corrective measures to formulate and apply. The net result is that

the effectiveness of inputs (policies, goals, desired changes, budgets, structures) is

not measured. The only thing that can be measured is the outcome of the usual

ongoing uninfluenced activities. And, when they are measured, the resulting data

indicate that the inputs have had little or no influence.

This means that planning in most universities has only a short term, typically one

year, outlook and that this planning consists of deciding how to do the same thing

next year that was done last year while perhaps taking into account variations in

certain contextual variables such as levels of available budget, variations in

numbers of faculty, of students and so on.


46

4.0 RECOMMENDATION In the light of the data analysis and findings, the following section covers recommendations

for increasing equitable access, improving quality of education and its relevance to the

national aspirations.

4.1 INCREASED EQUITABLE ACCESS

Substantial expansion of the higher education system is necessary in the next few years.

If it does not happen, huge portions of future cohorts of youth will be left aside, posing

serious implications for the country’s stability and economic development and may become

a source of social problems for the country. Following are the key recommendations in this

regard:

4.1.1 HEC should improve equitable access through establishing campuses and

universities in backward areas; in providing financial assistance to needy students;

and in introducing soft disciplines, such as social sciences, media and journalism,

and fine arts.

4.1.2 HEC should seek to cater more to the women population so as to attain further

gender parity. Although proportional increase in the women students is already

more than men students in the sector, still, the overall number of enrolled women

students (585,000) is less than the number of men students (713,000); see Fig 3.7.

4.1.3 The traditional “brick and mortar” solution is not a viable option for enhancing

equitable access to higher education for an additional million students. HEC should

encourage cost-effective and widespread dissemination of knowledge through the

use of educational technologies and distance education so that far-flung areas are

covered while simultaneously ensuring that the quality standards are not

compromised. It will be necessary to leverage technology and develop and deploy

quality distance education solutions for this purpose, such as expanding on ICTs

and education technologies to establish VU campuses in remote and far flung

areas, where no campuses exist but a reasonable population exists.

4.2 IMPROVED QUALITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

4.2.1 The Federal Cabinet Criteria, which categorizes universities under the W, X, Y, Z

classification, should further be elaborated for W category through the introduction

of ten Institutional Performance Evaluation Standards against which each Institution

will be assessed.

4.2.2 There should be much greater attention placed on the improvement in quality of

governance and leadership at the universities. The merit criteria should be central

for the appointment of all senior positions, including Vice-Chancellors. Political

influence should be minimized in the selection and appointments of candidates to

these key positions. All these sizeable changes relate particularly to quality issues.

4.2.3 HEC needs to ensure not only that the quality is maintained at a minimally

acceptable level it also needs to enhance quality to keep the higher education

system in Pakistan competitive and reactive to changes in the external environment.


47

In this context, higher education quality should be subjected to higher performance

pressures.

4.2.4 In order to develop the ability to evaluate the fit between the graduate profiles and

social and economic needs (market needs), universities need to develop effective

systems to produce and to analyze data on their own structures and processes,

including entrance level characteristics of students (one of the important

determinants of student success) and periodic programme assessment. The

production of adequate data resides in an effective and efficient internal

management information system (MIS), coupled with effective means to exploit

these data (data mining) and, with data inputs from external social and market

sources, to translate findings into attainable goals. In this regard, it is ironic that

universities in the world over, through their research functions, help other

institutions to produce information while they typically fail to produce useful

information on themselves to help them adapt to the changing environments.24

4.3 CAPTURING NATIONAL ASPIRATIONS

4.3.1 Vision 2025 and the 11th Five Year Plan, present a comprehensive approach for

addressing existing human and social development gaps: the emphasis is placed

on developing human and social capital so as to take full advantage of Pakistan’s

expanding youth bulge. Indeed, Pakistan has been projected to become the world’s

5th most populous country by 2030. The larger portion of this population increase

will naturally be the youth. Implementing the GOP’s development vision requires

the Higher Education Commission to take numerous steps to ensure:

access to higher education for an enlarged portion of the population;

opportunities for young Pakistanis to seek high-level training in top world class

universities;

academic environments that are conducive for student and faculty development;

research activities and facilities that are developed beyond the current

unsatisfactory level;

the creation of new types of institutions offering more choices in content areas

and new modes of educational delivery;

linking higher education to the demands in the labour market to build a

knowledge-based economy (OECD, 2014); and.

exploring ways to help ease the transition from higher education into the labour

market (OECD, 2015).

4.3.2 It appears critical that in expanding its higher education system, Pakistan must

focus on the needs and requirements of its labour market. An immediate example

for this need can be found in the imminent CPEC. To reap the benefits of this

project, higher education must produce the type of human resource that can meet

the project’s needs and requirements.

4.3.3 It is of prime importance to identify the areas where professionals will be required

in order to meet the C PEC needs. Simply put, the government should know, at the

24 See Appendix 14 for a more in depth treatment of this question and for suggestions.


48

very least that how many engineers, architects, IT experts, skilled workers and

unskilled workers and others will be needed in realizing this project. Without such

information, it will not be possible for the government or the universities to arrange

for the required human resource. Human resource need, once identified, must then

be translated into a plan by HEC to develop or increase training programme

capabilities at various universities and to plan for their effective implementation. In

this way only can the needs of the C PEC project be met. Therefore a

comprehensive needs analysis of human resource required for C PEC is required.

In the light of the results of the needs analysis, efforts should be targeted at;

expanding the higher education sector through establishment of new HEIs

and new campuses of existing universities, capacity enhancement of

existing universities and through facilitating the increased participation of

private sector while ensuring its proper supervision and evaluation;

aligning the expansion of HE sector with the national priorities through

introduction of new disciplines, cutting edge and market based

technologies; and

ensuring equity and removing regional, gender and financial-need

disparities through distance learning and financial assistance for needy

students.

4.4 A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR UNIVERSITY GRANTS From an institutional perspective, HEIs are under pressure to become more effective and

efficient across all of their missions – teaching, research and innovation and local

economic development. Yet, many face financial challenges that threaten their long-term

sustainability. At the institutional level, HEIs can adopt a range of approaches, which may

be encouraged by HEC schemes but are sometimes entirely rooted in institutions’ own

strategic objectives and policies. These approaches range from the internal allocation of

resources, to choices regarding staff appointment and hiring, or the selection of students,

where the institutional setting allows for such autonomy. Below is proposed framework to

make the HEIs more sustainable in terms of availability of financial resources.

Give targets to HEIs for grants release, as per following criteria:

o How many graduates

Got jobs

Got admission to next level of education

Stayed in U because no job was available

o How many international students enrolled (by programme/ level)

o How many research publications

By the faculty from the students’ work

How many independently published

Is there evaluation of quality of publications?

o What impact do these publications have on

Policy formulation

Development of/ expansion in the industry

Innovations in the industry

Creating new jobs

Creating new knowledge

o How many research grants won by


49

The institute/faculty/department

The individual faculty member (senior—regular—faculty

members/teams)

What is faculty students ratio in?

o Classroom teaching

o Supervision of masters’ thesis

o Supervision of MS/MPhil Thesis

o Supervision of PhD Thesis

How many projects’(financial support) won by the university?

o From provincial/federal government

o From national donors/development partners

o From international donors/development partners

o Other sources

How many awards won by the university from

o National bodies

o International bodies

How many courses (programmes) have been accredited by the relevant

o National bodies

o International bodies

How many faculty members invited in?

o Provincial consultations

o National consultations

o Boards, Councils…

4.5 STRENGTHEN RESEARCH To strengthen the important research function:

Make research activities a legitimate part of the faculty workload

Insist on not-only-for-promotion research relevant to the Pakistan context

Use a strategy appropriate to the existing level of research capacity to establish

working research units (see Appendix 13) through adopting the following

strategies:

A. jump starting: importing the necessary resources;

B. concentrating: Isolating and insulating existing resources; and

C. rationalizing: consolidating existing resources

4.6 DEVELOP AND STANDARDIZE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION

SYSTEMS (MIS) IN ALL UNIVERSITIES

Universities can create and mine their own data in order to monitor themselves and

plan, develop, control or adapt their teaching, programmes and research functions

(see Appendix 14).

I conclude, as HEC Chairperson proposed the way forward, ‘in order to fully achieve the

MTDF objectives, as well as develop the next phase of higher education reforms for the

country, MTDF III is to develop ambitious yet attainable goals for the next 5 years in all

the priority areas’.


50

REFERENCES Garvin David A. (1993). Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review. V.

71, no. 4 (July-August)

Govt. of Pakistan (2013). Pakistan Vision 2025-One Nation One Vision. Islamabad: Planning Commission of Pakistan.

Govt. of Pakistan (2015). Annual Plan 2015-16.Islamabad: Planning Commission

Government of Pakistan (2015). Knowledge Economy and Role of Higher Education Commission. A Policy Research Paper developed Dr. Fazli Hakim Khattak Director General). Islamabad, Planning Commission of Pakistan

Haché, Jean B. (2008). Perspectives on Education and Research. Conference, International Conference on Transforming Teacher Education – Improving Practicum and Internship, Lahore, Pakistan

Haché, Jean B. (2016). The Development of Research and Research Culture in Education. Keynote Address, ICRPE 2016 AIOU, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Higher Education Commission (2012 Higher Education Commission: Knowledge Exchange Strategic Plan (KESP) July 2012- July 2017, developed by Jo Chaffer with HEC. Islamabad

Higher Education Commission (2015). National Qualifications Framework of Pakistan 2015 (Draft). Islamabad

Higher Education Commission (n.a.). Higher Education Medium Term Development Framework II (2011-15). Islamabad

Higher Education Commission (n.a.). Institutional performance evaluation process- Manual for six standards. Islamabad: HEC Quality Assurance Agency

Higher Education Commission (n.a.). Medium Term Development Framework (2005-10). Islamabad

OECD. (2014). Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators. Retrieve from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2014_eag-2014-en on 17 March 2016.

OECD. (2015). Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators. Retrieve from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2015 eag-2015-9-en on 17 March 2016.

Stiglitz, J.E. and B.C.Greenwald. (2014). Creating a Learning Society: A New Approach to Growth, Development, and Social Progress. New York: Columbia University Press.

University of the Punjab (2014). Fact Book2014. Lahore: Quaid-i-Azam Campus

World Economic Forum (2015). Global Competitiveness Report 2015-16. Geneva

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2014_eag-2014-en

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2014_eag-2014-en

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2015%20eag-2015-9-en

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2015%20eag-2015-9-en


51

Appendix 1. TORS

Terms of Reference for Overall assessment of the sector (study # 1)

Overall assessment of the higher education sector (current situation, recent trends)

I. Introduction and Background

Pakistan’s GER is currently reaching 9 percent, enrollments in higher education are on the increase, and actually, the GOP is planning to raise the GER to 15 percent by 2020 which still is comparatively lower than other south Asian countries. Similarly, the number and qualification of the academic staff that are the backbone of the teaching and learning and research, have also increased to 26 percent of the faculty over the last 10 years. But needs to be increased to 40 percent and improved even more in the coming years. All HEIs in a country cannot be engaged in research, it is widely recognized that research from the academia has the potential to be one of the main producers of the new knowledge. Moreover, there are about 40 percent private students, who have their own dynamics and challenges. In order to have Pakistan’s economy transition to take off stage, as envisaged both in the Vision 25 and the 11th Plan, HEC has to give top priority to further expanding and strengthening the higher education. However, in view of making the right strategic move towards this goal, it is imperative to have a candid analysis of the higher education sector. This study aims to contribute to this objective.

II. Objectives

The main purposes of the consultancy are to: (i) take stock of the current situation of the higher education sector in Pakistan, (ii) evaluate what are the current status, recent trend in HEIs performance, weaknesses and strengths and (iii) assess the potential to become a driving force in boosting knowledge economy relevant to the growing and changing needs of the country.

III. Scope of the work - Specific tasks

The consultant will focus on the following areas and issues

The Higher Education Commission (HEC) has brought significant growth of higher education in focusing on improving access to quality higher education as a key element of its strategy. The documentary evidences clearly demonstrate Higher

Education Commission’s achievements through the implementation of MTDF HE I and II and significant transformation in the educational landscape of national universities. Seven universities of Pakistan have made it to the list of top 250 Asian Universities while three other universities are among the top 200 world universities in Agriculture and Forestry. More than 5,000 Pakistani scholars were facilitated to present their research work in leading international conferences abroad.

However there were many challenges and issues that need to be assessed to chalk out the way forward. It is important to sustainably focus on HEC’s mission i.e. “to facilitate institutions of higher education to serve as engine of growth for the socioeconomic development of Pakistan” and expand the educational reform agendas through a holistic, futuristic and practical approach.

The first five year medium term development framework of HEC, launched in 2005, identified access, quality and relevance as the key challenges facing the sector at that time. The focus was on the internal development of the Institutions of Higher Learning as world class centers of learning and research.

MTDF HE II goes a step further to link this development to the society and industry. Universities building leadership, communities and economies to serve as an engine of growth for the socio-economic development of Pakistan. For the next five years, HEC’s key focus was to sustain the gains in faculty development, quality improvement, and maximizing the opportunities for acquisition of quality higher education. Yet, HEC expanded the reform agenda to promoting innovation and enhancing integration of higher education sector to the society and community; faculty development.

Apart from expansion in the current reform agenda, the Higher Education Commission now envisages to ensure civic engagement through linkages.


52

This study will critically evaluate the current higher education sector, its current trends and will provide an assessment of the past performance with a view to guide on the future course of action. The performance of the sector is to be compared with the targets and the achievements of the last two Midterm Development frame Works

IV. Methodology

In order to carry out the above tasks, the consultant will mostly rely on administrative data and in information gathered from officials of HEC, Planning Commission, HEIs management and faculty. Additional information will need to be collected from other stakeholders, both from academic and non-academic higher education institutes and from representatives of private (and semi) private firms engaged or interested in the higher education sector as a whole.

V. Deliverables

1. The consultant will deliver the following products according to well defined timeline:

A detailed inception report, within one week after contract signing.

A draft report, within eight weeks of contract signing. The report will have two parts: (i) findings and results of the study -including assessment of the current situation and of recent GOP’s measures and plans, and (ii) recommendations based on the findings. The consultant will draw from best practices and relevant cases in other countries to support her/his conclusions and recommendations.

The final report, after incorporating the comments of HEC on draft report, in 90 working days of the contract signing.

VI. Institutional arrangements

HEC will provide support to the consultant by (i) constituting and notifying a “Technical cum Steering Committee” to oversee and monitor the assignment; (ii) in addition, one focal person from respective section of HEC were nominated for each study and (iii) by writing letters to the relevant universities, institutes, affiliated colleges, and federal and provincial authorities, as identified by the consultant, requesting them to facilitate and provide access to required information directly related to the subject of the study.

The consultant will report to HEC Steering Committee headed by Dr Mehmood-ulHassan Butt, Consultant to the Chairman HEC.

It were the sole responsibility of the consultant to obtain data and other relevant information from universities, institutes, affiliated colleges, and federal and provincial authorities, and/or any other quarters. The Consultant will also be responsible for timely delivery of the Deliverables, as mentioned above.

VII. Report Format

Abstract/Executive summary/Synopsis

The abstract needs to convey a complete synopsis of the paper, remaining within a word tight limit, with the maximum word count limited to within 250 words. The executive summary/abstract must be written after the completion of the report and must, in summary for, follow the pattern and outline of the report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The report must be based on the following general outline, the consultant may improve upon it if s/he so desires.

Introduction

In the introduction, the consultant must inform the audience of the report about the rationale and justification behind the report. This part of the report is not subject to a word count limit but it be as brief as possible and should not be too “wordy”. Preferably it should be written last to ensure that major points are not missed out.

Methodology


53

The consultant must explicate the methods used, in a threadbare manner, for collecting data along with completely accurate description of the tools and techniques used. S/he must provide an explanation of how the raw data were compiled, analyzed and utilized. It is important to note that the report needs to be verifiable by other end users as well.

Findings and Results

The consultant must not attempt to interpret results. That belongs strictly in the discussion section. The objective must be to narrate findings without trying to interpret or evaluate them, other than to provide a link to the discussion section.

Irrelevance must be avoided along with too much information, which will the findings underneath mounds of triviality.

If a table of the findings is made then the consultant need not make a graph highlighting the same data. Repetition in any form is to be avoided. If the consultant presents a table of results, then it should be referred to it in the text, WITHOUT REPEATING the figures.

Conceivably the best way to use the results section is to show the most relevant information in the graphs, figures and tables.

The text portion of the Results section must direct the reader to graphs/charts etc, also clarifying any ambiguities. The text should also act as a link to the discussion section, highlighting any correlations and findings.

Conclusions

The consultant must attempt to put his/her findings into the context of the previous research if any that was found during your literature review.

Writing a conclusion involves summing up the paper and giving a very brief description of the results, although too much detail about this is best avoided. The audience reading the conclusion has read the entire paper, so the conclusion merely acts as an aid to memory.

While writing the conclusion, the consultant must also highlight any deficiencies in the methodology, explaining how they may have affected your results. Impediments and roadblocks must also be explained.

Recommendations

Recommendations are often included with a report’s conclusion, although they serve different purposes.

While a conclusion offers you the opportunity to summarize or review your report’s main ideas, recommendations suggest actions to be taken in response to the findings of a report and serve as a prompt to action for the audience of the report.The report structure should be such so as to lead up to the recommendations and provide justification for them.

Just as a proposal grows from a client’s objectives, a report should actually go backwards from the consultant’s recommendations. Having his recommendations accepted then becomes part of the consultancy’s purpose.

Effective recommendations must include the following:

Describe a suggested course of action to be taken to address a particular problem;

They are written as action statements without justification;

Recommendations must be stated in clear, specific language;

They should be expressed in order of importance;

They are based on the case built up in the body of the report; are written in parallel structure.


54

Appendix 2. Physical targets of MDTF-II

Summary of the physical targets set following the implementation of the MTDF-II 1. Faculty Development

• 3,500 new foreign postgraduate scholarships awarded

• 3,750 new indigenous postgraduate scholarships awarded

• 1,250 new split Postgraduate scholarships awarded

• 700 new Post Doc scholarships awarded

• 3000 additional PhD holders recruited on tenure track system

• Staff development courses offered to 750 staff members

• 2,500 faculty members completing specialized English language teacher training programs

• 50 new Continuous Professional Development Centers established in universities

• 4000 new faculty members taking faculty development courses for enhancement of pedagogical skills

2. Quality Assurance

• 5 Pakistani universities internationally ranked by Times Higher Education among the top 500 universities of the world

• 75 universities with Quality Enhancement Cells

• 100 Institutions assessed against Institutional Performance Evaluation Standards

• 75 QECs performing satisfactorily as measured by the scorecard system

• Quality Assurance ensured in 170 affiliated colleges (imparting 4 yrs bachelor program)

• 50,000 private students enrolled through new Directorates of External Students’ Education

• 1,250 training courses delivered for improvement of examination system

• 50 universities having ISO 9000 or similar certification

• 5 new disciplines for which Accreditation Councils have been established by HEC

• 75 four-year undergraduate Courses whose curricula has been revised including 25 curricula revised on the (2 + 2) Model

• 125 academic programs offered jointly with premier foreign universities

• 90 Institutions carrying out Institutional Performance Evaluation

• 150 new programs that are fully accredited by Accreditation Councils

• 500 evaluators trained for internal and external quality assurance and accreditation of programs

3. Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

• 12,500 publications from researchers based in Pakistan in Impact Factor Journals in 2015

• 30 Offices of Research, Innovation and Commercialization performing satisfactorily at universities

• 70 universities having their services hosted and managed at the National Data Centers (NDC)

• 30 joint university-industry projects

• 60 Technology Incubators established

• 5 technology parks established

• 45 US/International patents issued to university faculty and students

• PKR 100 million total yearly income of university from commercialization of research

• 75 public universities with well-functioning offices of Research, Innovation and Commercialization.

• 194 MB Average bandwidth available per Institution

4. Improving Equitable Access

• 10 percent of students aged 17-23 having access to higher education

• 85,000 new students enrolled in science and technological programs of public HEIs


55

• 100,000 postgraduate Students enrolled at public HEIs

• 10 new universities/Degree Awarding Institutes established

• 5 new campuses established

• 35 new campuses of Virtual University established.

• 35 Private HEIs eligible for Public funding

• 60 new Financial Aid Offices established

• 5000 additional need based scholarships provided

• 10,000 students provided loans under the Student Loan Program

5. Excellence In Leadership, Governance And Management

• All University Vice Chancellors appointed following a Search Committee process

• 200 University Administrators undergoing training courses per year

• 1250 bandwidth provided to number of tertiary education / research institutions.

• 50 public universities with ERP/HEMIS Software for business automation deployed

• HEC team represented in all events at national championships

• HEC getting at least 3rd highest points total in National Championship

• HEC winning at least 5 Gold Medals in a year in Team Events

• Standardized Annual Reports published by 50 universities annually

• Career Counseling Centers established in 50 Universities

6. Financial Management and Sustainability

• 30 HEI’s implemented New Accounting Model (NAM) introduced under the

• PIFRA Project.

• Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) conducted & recommendations communicated for removing bottlenecks in tertiary education.

• 350 HEI’s employees trained to support capacity building for financial management, and accounting manuals.

• 20 universities having external independent audit certification.

• 100 Universities having functional Alumni Associations

• 50 Public Universities having having established Endowment Fund.

• Proposal finalized and forwarded to government to establish “National professional organization to support higher education advancement”

• Outreach activities initiated by 50 public sector universities to create public awareness of the need for raising private funds for higher education.


56

Appendix 3. Organizational Chart of Provincial Higher Education

Departments

Provincial Higher Education Department Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

(Sources: official web site of Higher Education Archives & Libraries, Govt of KP, http://hed.gkp.pk/?page_id=175)

Provincial Higher Education Department Punjab

(Sources: official web site of Higher Education Department, Govt of Punjab, http://hed.punjab.gov.pk/organogram)


57

Provincial Education Department, Balochistan

(Sources: official web site of Education Department, Govt of Balochistan, http://balochistan.edu.pk/organograms.htm)


58

Appendix 4. Number of respondents by university

Number faculty respondents by university and by gender

University Name Number of respondents

Women Men Total

1. Dow University Of Health Sciences 13 14 27

2. Karakoram international University 8 25 33

3. Lahore College for Women University 7 0 7

4. NED University Engineering & Technology, Karachi

13 17 30

5. University Engineering & Technology Lahore

2 8 10

6. University of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad

1 2 3

7. University of Education Lahore 3 10 13

8. University of Malakand 1 8 9

9. University of Peshawar 0 4 4

10. University of Sindh Jamshoro 0 4 4

Total 48 92 140

Number student respondents by university and by gender

University Name Number of respondents

Women Men Total

Dow University Of Health Sciences 208 65 273

Karakoram international University 78 94 172

NED University Engineering & Technology 125 87 212

University of Education Lahore 33 18 51

UET Lahore 31 75 106

University of Loralai 4 7 11

Lahore College for Women University 45 0 45

Peshawar University 12 11 23

University of Malakand 14 82 96

Total 550 439 989


59

Appendix 5. Reliability tests of faculty and student questionnaire

Reliability test of Faculty questionnaire

Key variable Sub-variable No. of Items Cronbach's Alpha Faculty workload Teaching 4 .240


9 .725

Developmental activities 8 .812

University climate Management Culture 9 .807

Academic Culture 9 .841

Job Satisfaction Support and workload 11 .786

Reward and compensations 6 .655



9 .858

Quality of faculty inputs 12 .811



14 .878

Overall 91 .837

Reliability test of student questionnaire

Variable No. of Items Cronbach's Alpha Program Clarity and Flexibility 11 .791

Quality of Learning and Teaching 13 .834

Quality of Assessment and Feedback 6 .764


9 .823

Satisfaction with the Program Organization 4 .682


7 .794

General Satisfaction with the Programme 7 .827

Overall 57 .953


60

Appendix 6. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges/

Constraints (SWOC) Analysis of Higher Education Sector

Strengths Weaknesses

1. HEC is playing leading role towards

building a knowledge based economy in

Pakistan by awarding thousands of doctoral

scholarships for education abroad and

within the country.

2. Mechanisms (QECs) exist at institutional

level to monitor /promote quality of

education within the DAIs.

3. A well-organized effort of continued

updating of curriculums of various bachelor/

master level programs of diversified

disciplines through innovative and

experimental projects, including

assessment.

4. A number of academic programs specialty

of various universities, especially

professional courses that are nationally and

internationally ranked and highly

competitive.

5. HEC Accreditation community awareness

campaign with regards to illegally operating

campuses/ non-accredited universities has

enabled the students to select the

genuinely accredited institutions for their

future.

6. HEC constantly pursuits/ follows-up

actions, higher education system has made

impressive strides toward developing

institutions of higher learning where

learning is preeminent.

7. For rapid increase in the access to higher

education, alternate tried and tested

models exist in the form Virtual University,

Allam Iqbal Open University, and sub-

campuses through public-private

partnerships. Furthermore medium size

campus with small class size help to

maintain better student –teachers ration

and quick flow of information as well as

individual interaction.

8. Increased number of professional/regularity

bodies (Pakistan veterinary Medical Council

(PVMC), National Computing Education

Accreditation Council (NCEAC), and

National Accreditation Council for Teacher

Education (NATCE)) is helping improve

quality of education in the sector.

1. It has been proven over and over again that for the

development of successful industrial base and invention in

technological advancement, a well laid out infrastructure of

skilled workforce is an absolute necessity, which is missing in

the HE sector.

2. Though prevailing emphasis on English language as one of

the official and academic language can be regarded strength

of Pakistan’s higher education system as a common tool for

imparting knowledge to foreign students; it has not done

enough to promote the language to the common man.

3. The current higher education infrastructure is lacking element

of quality & research culture. Underdeveloped research culture

and the one that exists are mostly irrelevant to local needs and

blamed for plagiarism. Hence unable to withstand the

competitive environment likely to prevail in globally.

4. Inadequate research culture emanating from the initial

"developmental" focus and low proportion of PhD holders

among academic staff.

5. Inadequate library facilities thus limiting academic

development and lack of land for future expansion of the

campus.

6. Inappropriate funding limiting scope of future growth on

competitive pattern and productivity to private sector

universities. Proliferation of providers of university level

education has dispersed already low level of qualified faculties.

7. Experienced staff leaving for greener pastures. Low

recruitment and retention levels of staff due to unattractive

terms and conditions of employment. Inability of senior

management in the universities to hire and retain the quality

faculty rather such decisions are mostly influenced by the

socio- political pressures or undermined by the sluggish

bureaucratic procedures.

8. High and unequal workloads faculty and staff resulting into

shifting of priorities and responsibilities at different levels.

Heavy dependence on part-time lecturers in some faculties

especially in private universities of lesser age. Growth of

private sector and availability of limited resource persons in

different disciplines has made the market highly competitive to

retain and maintain the qualified faculty and staff.

9. Inadequate institutional capacity to meet the rising demand for

higher education with increase in literacy level and growth

enrolment.

10. Absence of a systemic approach to quality assurance

constraining the development of management and

administrative structures with regard to capacity building.


61

Opportunities Constrains/Challenges

1. Location and size: Pakistan is the world's

seventh most populous country and is

therefore in a better position than smaller

countries that are limited in terms of their

scope of growth and expansion. Pakistan's

size also means that the country has a

large domestic market for education that it

has access to. Another advantage is its

vicinity that offers connectivity to West Asia,

Central Asia, South Asia and China that

lends itself to export higher education from

Pakistan and vice versa.

2. Meeting CPEC requirements: Keeping in

view the C PEC requirements, developing

and enhancing of capacity to accommodate

more students and research.

3. Export of Education: Pakistan should focus

on creating higher education a service-

oriented industry capable to be exported

abroad. Our historic and socio-cultural roots

in Central Asia are likely to facilitate our any

such move of exporting higher education

towards that area. Pakistan also stands a

fair chance to exploit the memberships of

forums like OIC, ECO, and SAARC etc.

4. Capitalize on Local Market Size: Pakistan's

local market is very large and is capable of

supporting local industries up to some

extent. Local universities are also in a

better position to cater to the needs of the

local market.

5. Collaboration and partnerships: Increased

chances of collaboration and partnerships

in support of university initiatives, and

programs.

6. Academia and industry linkage: Meaningful

and market needs oriented programs have

more chances to increase value of higher

education completion. Furthermore, ever

increasing need and realization of

academia and industry linkage is helping to

refine curriculum, introduce new programs,

and easy/ timely placement of students.

7. Improved peace and harmony: Diversity of

student from within and abroad is likely to

improve civilizational understanding,

cultural exchange and respect, and

improved prospects for international /

regional peace and harmony.

8. Prospects for Foreign Aids: Based on the

current regional instability, Pakistan can

apply for additional aid and with that

investment it gains access to expertise from

sources like the World Bank. Pakistan can

1. 18th Amendment: After 18th Amendments, provincial HECs have

been created in three provinces. Ambiguity persists in the roles

of these HECs in the presence of Federal HEC. One of the

province has also asked it complete share from the Financial

Award for higher education

2. Political Instability: Pakistan has seen a great share of political

instability in its life span that equally effected the development of

its HE system like many other areas. The regimes have

remained more concerned in yielding power, strengthening and

manipulating their terms thereby relegating education as lower

priority, which is evident from its share of GDP in last 60 years.

These sudden shift in political clout and shifting national priorities

effected the direction in which our education & particularly higher

education headed and left the legacy of poor infrastructure.

3. Poor education system: Education is the key to a knowledge

economy, which Pakistan wants to be. Pakistan must improve

education on all levels i.e. primary, secondary and tertiary. From

an IT stand point the most critical level is higher-level education,

which will in turn produce industry-leading professionals. A

strong education system will also overcome the root cause of a

skill deficient workforce.

4. Weak legal System: A weak legal system coupled with weak

enforcement has created an environment conducive to piracy.

The legal system is lacking especially in dealing with technology

related disputes. The legal system is backlogged to such an

extent that for any decision the plaintiff has to wait for years,

which acts as a deterrent to litigation. This weakness has acted

negatively in encouraging new research, writing of books,

registration of new patents etc. Therefore, culture of promoting

original work and discouraging plagiarism could not be nurtured

in our higher education.

5. Stakeholder Resistance: Of the many reforms proposed by the

task force, a central one was to change the governance and

management of universities, to make them more autonomous

and introduce transparency and accountability into their

administrative functioning. Here the main battles emerged with

the chancellors, vice chancellors, and some senior members of

the education bureaucracy. The chancellors foresaw an erosion

of their unchecked powers. Most of the vice chancellors were

concerned because the proposed reforms envisaged a

transparent process of selection, a system of accountability of

their performance, and checks on the blanket emergency powers

they enjoyed. The systematization of university governance

would similarly erode the power of the education bureaucracy.

Outwardly, all of them lamented the dire state of affairs in higher

education and supported reform, as the pressure for that was

coming from the highest authorities. However, behind the scenes

their resistance to change was dogged and, unfortunately,

effective. They clouded issues by quoting precedence, and

raising legalistic and/or procedural constraints. Their opposition

was informed by the mindset that the state and its various

organs must have hegemony and control, despite evidence that

in Pakistan the outmoded functioning of the state is the problem

that stifles the establishment of good governance and credible

and efficient institutions. Their position was that a better


62

Opportunities Constrains/Challenges

also avail this aid from the developed

countries, which would allow Pakistan

access to foreign markets and can ensure

foreign direct investment growth.

9. Strategic alliances and partnerships with

institutions of international repute for

offering university courses, and with

national institutions to make judicial use of

resources and raise barrier for new entrants

from abroad.

10. Use of available infrastructure of distance

education, flexible learning and adoption

of new information and communications

technologies to increase access.

implementation, by “good” people, of prevailing procedures and

systems would solve the problems.

6. Leadership Deficit: The most critical positions of higher

education management presently occupied are politically

motivated and lack the necessary qualities to provide credible

leadership. The rather whimsical methods of their appointment,

and the conditions of service; their lack of vision, confidence in

themselves; and low institutional or professional commitment-all

combine to make a pessimistic mix for reform.

7. Operational structure/bureaucracy seen in almost all campuses

retards the routine procedural works and lead to generate

mistrust. Heavy and mostly politically represented academic/

decision making bodies in universities which are proving counter-

productive in quick decision making and to meet the dynamism

of globalization of higher education. Sluggish responsiveness to

student and community needs.

8. Lack of pride of internal community i.e. Student life or

professorship, or teacher community.


63

Appendix 7. ANOVAfor quality, availability of resources and student

satisfaction by programme

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


Between Groups 6.615 4 1.654 1.830 .121

Within Groups 887.641 982 .904

Total 894.256 986


Between Groups 16.357 4 4.089 4.609 .001


Total 883.134 981


Between Groups 24.415 4 6.104 5.598 .000

Within Groups 1075.144 986 1.090

Total 1099.559 990 Satisfaction with Student Support and Student-Teacher Relationship

Between Groups 21.609 4 5.402 4.848 .001

Within Groups 1087.475 976 1.114

Total 1109.084 980


Between Groups 10.052 4 2.513 2.080 .081

Within Groups 1191.062 986 1.208

Total 1201.114 990 Availability and Effectiveness of Learning Resources

Between Groups 8.468 4 2.117 2.123 .076


Total 978.591 977


Between Groups 27.103 4 6.776 4.677 .001

Within Groups 1428.626 986 1.449

Total 1455.729 990


64

Appendix 8. ANOVA for quality, availability of resources and student

satisfaction by programme Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


Between Groups 9.933 4 2.483 2.757 .027


Total 894.256 986


Between Groups 12.667 4 3.167 3.554 .007


Total 883.134 981


Between Groups 12.259 4 3.065 2.779 .026

Within Groups 1087.299 986 1.103

Total 1099.559 990


Between Groups 21.149 4 5.287 4.743 .001

Within Groups 1087.935 976 1.115

Total 1109.084 980


Between Groups 10.562 4 2.640 2.187 .069

Within Groups 1190.553 986 1.207

Total 1201.114 990


Between Groups 5.327 4 1.332 1.331 .256

Within Groups 973.264 973 1.000

Total 978.591 977


Between Groups 18.864 4 4.716 3.236 .012

Within Groups 1436.865 986 1.457

Total 1455.729 990


65

Appendix 9. ANOVA for quality, availability of resources and student

satisfaction by type of university

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


Between Groups 8.552 3 2.851 3.164 .024


Total 894.256 986


Between Groups 15.919 3 5.306 5.984 .000


Total 883.134 981


Between Groups 13.482 3 4.494 4.084 .007

Within Groups 1086.077 986 1.100

Total 1099.559 989


Between Groups 24.197 3 8.066 7.264 .000

Within Groups 1084.887 977 1.110

Total 1109.084 980


Between Groups 5.418 3 1.806 1.491 .215

Within Groups 1195.696 986 1.211

Total 1201.114 989


Between Groups 3.923 3 1.308 1.307 .271

Within Groups 974.669 974 1.001

Total 978.591 977


Between Groups 12.672 3 4.224 2.889 .035

Within Groups 1443.057 986 1.462

Total 1455.729 989


66

Appendix 10. Universities’ programmes support and quality as

perceived by the students

Aspects Row N %

Agree Disagree No

Opinion Not

Applicable Strongly Agree

Strongly disagree

Total

1. Programme clarity and flexibility

1.1 Aims of programme are clear 57.6% 3.0% 2.7% 0.3% 33.8% 2.6% 100.0%

1.2 Relevant careers information has been provided

57.6% 11.0% 6.5% 0.0% 20.5% 4.5% 100.0%

1.3 Programme information on enrolment was clear and complete

54.9% 7.8% 6.8% 0.0% 27.2% 3.3% 100.0%

1.4 Received clear information about structure and alternative routes

54.7% 10.8% 8.0% 0.3% 22.9% 3.3% 100.0%

1.5 Given clear advice about my choice of optional free choice courses

44.8% 14.0% 10.4% 3.9% 20.9% 6.0% 100.0%

1.6 Reasonable balance of total workload between courses

47.4% 21.2% 9.8% 0.6% 14.4% 6.6% 100.0%

1.7 Timetable enabled me to take the courses I wished to study

45.3% 17.6% 9.3% 2.9% 19.1% 5.9% 100.0%

1.8 Level of difficulty of work has increased stage to stage

47.1% 7.7% 6.2% 1.1% 35.3% 2.7% 100.0%

1.9 Helped and encouraged to manage my own learning

55.5% 7.1% 6.9% 0.6% 25.9% 4.1% 100.0%

1.10 Helped and encouraged to manage my own development

51.9% 10.1% 10.4% 0.9% 23.0% 3.8% 100.0%

1.11 Student views about the program makes a difference

46.8% 8.7% 13.4% 1.5% 24.7% 5.0% 100.0%

2. Learning and Teaching

2.1 Programme is helping me to develop skills relevant to life-situations

57.9% 5.9% 6.8% 0.5% 25.6% 3.5% 100.0%

2.2 Teaching style in my programme encourages me to participate actively

51.1% 11.9% 8.7% 0.8% 22.6% 5.0% 100.0%

2.3 Programme is helping me to develop subject-specific skills

56.7% 8.0% 7.1% 0.8% 24.7% 2.9% 100.0%

2.4 Programme is helping me to develop my ability to work with others

55.2% 5.1% 5.1% 0.8% 31.4% 2.4% 100.0%

2.5 Programme is helping me to develop skills in working independently

52.9% 7.2% 8.0% 0.6% 27.5% 3.8% 100.0%

2.6 Project work has enhanced my learning experience

48.4% 5.7% 8.6% 2.1% 31.7% 3.5% 100.0%

2.7 Programme is competently taught

49.9% 12.3% 12.3% 1.2% 20.2% 4.1% 100.0%

2.8 Staff teaching online program very knowledgeable about their subject area

34.1% 10.2% 17.7% 16.7% 14.4% 6.8% 100.0%

2.9 Abled to contact my programme tutor easily

50.7% 8.9% 8.4% 2.9% 25.9% 3.3% 100.0%

2.10 Meetings with my research supervisor are planned and scheduled

37.4% 13.4% 14.3% 12.2% 16.1% 6.6% 100.0%

2.11 Can seek advice from my research supervisor as and when need arise

44.4% 7.8% 12.0% 11.4% 19.1% 5.3% 100.0%


67

Aspects Row N %

Agree Disagree No

Opinion Not


Strongly disagree

Total

2.12 Encouraged to participate in conferences and other such events

48.9% 8.7% 9.2% 4.4% 23.9% 5.0% 100.0%

2.13 Supervisor is overburdened due assigned number of supervisees

29.8% 15.5% 26.5% 12.2% 9.8% 6.3% 100.0%

3. Student Assessment

3.1 Programme assessments are scheduled in satisfactory way

53.4% 15.6% 6.5% 0.5% 18.3% 5.7% 100.0%

3.2 Program workload including assessment has been about right

56.8% 15.0% 9.8% 0.0% 13.5% 4.8% 100.0%

3.3 Feedback that i receive on my assignments is informative and useful

52.5% 12.9% 10.5% 0.6% 17.1% 6.3% 100.0%

3.4 I am satisfied with the speed of return of my assignments

47.8% 17.6% 9.8% 0.8% 16.5% 7.5% 100.0%

3.5 I understand what the assessments on my programme expect of me

56.7% 8.0% 11.1% 0.3% 20.2% 3.8% 100.0%

3.6 Assessments notice given me opportunities to manage time effectively

52.3% 10.2% 9.6% 0.9% 20.6% 6.3% 100.0%

4. Student Support

4.1 I feel that I belong to an academic department

58.9% 3.9% 6.5% 0.3% 27.1% 3.3% 100.0%

4.2 staff teaching are committed to the students

57.4% 6.9% 9.8% 0.3% 22.4% 3.2% 100.0%

4.3 programme is encouraging my personal development

57.6% 5.7% 6.9% 0.5% 26.0% 3.3% 100.0%

4.4 provision of guidance is adequate for my needs

55.9% 11.9% 11.6% 0.8% 15.9% 3.9% 100.0%

4.5 The Student Support given me the support I need

47.8% 13.5% 12.0% 2.6% 17.4% 6.6% 100.0%

4.6 satisfied with my placement in a work environment

55.6% 7.1% 9.6% 3.3% 19.1% 5.3% 100.0%

4.7 Effective personal support has been available

53.8% 12.5% 10.1% 1.1% 16.8% 5.7% 100.0%

4.8 Relationships between students and staff generally good

56.4% 6.3% 6.5% 0.3% 25.9% 4.7% 100.0%

4.9 Relationships between students and teachers are good

54.6% 3.9% 6.5% 0.6% 29.9% 4.5% 100.0%

5. Programme Organization

5.1 Programme Organization satisfied with the amount of choice within my programme

55.2% 14.7% 8.7% 1.1% 13.7% 6.6% 100.0%

5.2 Programme Organization satisfied with the way in which the components fit together

59.5% 14.1% 7.4% 0.2% 14.0% 4.8% 100.0%

5.3 Programme Organization workload on my programme is at the right level

55.8% 16.8% 8.7% 0.0% 12.5% 6.2% 100.0%

5.4 Programme Organization The programme is well-organized

50.4% 14.3% 9.2% 0.2% 19.4% 6.6% 100.0%

6. Learning Resources

6.1 Teaching rooms for my programme are good

51.6% 18.0% 6.0% 0.2% 14.1% 10.1% 100.0%

6.2 There is good availability of library materials

50.7% 13.8% 6.5% 0.2% 20.5% 8.4% 100.0%

6.3 Computing facilities are good 46.5% 19.2% 5.9% 0.0% 19.4% 9.0% 100.0%


68

Aspects Row N %

Agree Disagree No

Opinion Not


Strongly disagree

Total

6.4 Facilities within the institution for working on ones own are good

50.8% 14.7% 10.1% 0.2% 15.9% 8.3% 100.0%

6.5 In my programme the facilities for practical activities are good

47.2% 18.3% 8.0% 1.2% 15.8% 9.5% 100.0%

6.6 On-line learning and support has enhanced my studies

44.7% 9.3% 12.0% 8.6% 17.1% 8.3% 100.0%

6.7 The use of library resources has enhanced my studies

52.3% 8.0% 10.7% 1.4% 20.5% 7.2% 100.0%

7. General Satisfaction

7.1 I find my programme stimulating

68.4% 4.7% 9.8% 0.0% 14.4% 2.7% 100.0%

7.2 The programme has helped me to develop self-confidence

56.4% 5.0% 6.5% 0.0% 29.2% 3.0% 100.0%

7.3 I have had the opportunity and encouragement to develop skills

60.2% 5.9% 5.0% 0.2% 25.4% 3.5% 100.0%

7.4 I have been made to feel welcome at the University

54.6% 8.3% 8.3% 0.2% 23.6% 5.1% 100.0%

7.5 Overall I am satisfied with this programme

58.6% 5.6% 6.3% 0.5% 25.1% 3.9% 100.0%

7.6 I am pleased I chose this programme

51.7% 6.5% 8.7% 0.3% 29.2% 3.6% 100.0%

7.7 I would recommend this programme to my friends

46.6% 5.9% 10.8% 0.2% 30.5% 6.0% 100.0%


69

Appendix 11. Universities’ programmes support and quality, and

climate as perceived by the faculty

Proportion of your teaching load All Most Some None

N % N % N % N %

Courses that meet general education requirements

36 25.7 37 26.4 35 25.0 32 22.9

Undergraduate classes 24 17.1 9 6.4 58 41.4 49 35.0

Masters classes 34 24.3 33 23.6 49 35.0 24 17.1

PhD Classes 17 12.1 106 75.7 11 7.9 6 4.3

Frequency of participation in Frequently Occasionally Never

N % N % N %

Conducting research on teaching and learning 59 42.1 43 30.7 38 27.1

Evaluating effectiveness of new teaching and learning practices for faculty institute department 66 47.1 41 29.3 33 23.6

Helping determine the performance standard for students graduating from faculty institute department 57 40.7 55 39.3 28 20.0

Evaluating faculty in their use of new teaching learning practices 50 35.7 34 24.3 56 40.0

Assisting faculty peers in use of new teaching and learning practices 59 42.1 45 32.1 36 25.7

Evaluating students on capstone experiences 41 29.3 87 62.1 12 8.6

Testing students entering your faculty institute department 52 37.1 59 42.1 29 20.7

Making recommendations to administrative offices about new teaching and learning practices 66 47.1 39 27.9 35 25.0

Assessing students for course placement purposes 64 45.7 45 32.1 31 22.1

Frequency of participation in Frequently

Never Occasionally

Conducting research on teaching and learning 27.3% 30.0% 42.7%

Evaluating effectiveness of new teaching and learning practices for faculty institute department

28.2% 22.7% 49.1%

Helping determine the performance standard for students graduating from faculty institute department

43.6% 17.3% 39.1%

Evaluating faculty in their use of new teaching learning practices 23.6% 38.2% 38.2%

Assisting faculty peers in use of new teaching and learning practices 36.4% 24.5% 39.1%

Evaluating students on capstone experiences 64.5% 6.4% 29.1%

Testing students entering your faculty institute department 40.0% 19.1% 40.9%

Making recommendations to administrative offices about new teaching and learning practices

29.1% 23.6% 47.3%

Assessing students for course placement purposes 32.7% 22.7% 44.5%

Faculty involvement in your faculty/dpt/institute on

Little involvement

Moderate involvement

No involvement

Strong involvement

Very strong involvement

Academic planning for undergraduate education

5.5% 23.6% 3.6% 38.2% 29.1%

Resource allocation 19.1% 31.8% 14.5% 24.5% 10.0%

Student recruitment policies and decisions

21.8% 30.9% 18.2% 23.6% 5.5%

Curriculum development 10.0% 20.9% 2.7% 35.5% 30.9%

Faculty development activities 13.6% 30.9% 15.5% 25.5% 14.5%


70

Faculty promotion and evaluation 22.7% 30.0% 30.9% 10.9% 5.5%

Student academic support services 11.8% 32.7% 4.5% 26.4% 24.5%

Student assessment policies and procedures

11.8% 32.7% 3.6% 36.4% 15.5%

Do you agree?

Do you agree? Agree Somewhat

Agree Strongly

Disagree Somewhat

Disagree Strongly

Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %

The university management regularly speaks about the value of diversity

43.6% 20.0% 17.3% 19.1%

The university has strategic diversity goals and plans 38.2% 22.7% 25.5% 13.6%

The university encourages students to have a public voice and share their ideas openly

44.5% 28.2% 17.3% 10.0%

The university promotes the appreciation of cultural differences

40.9% 25.5% 20.0% 13.6%

The university promotes the understanding of gender differences

38.2% 27.3% 20.0% 14.5%

The university has standard reporting procedures for incidents of harassment or discrimination

37.3% 31.8% 14.5% 16.4%

Racial and ethnic diversity is strongly reflected in my university curriculum

36.4% 11.8% 23.6% 28.2%

The university treats women faculty fairly 24.5% 57.3% 10.9% 7.3%

In general decision-making is centralized in my university

30.0% 45.5% 14.5% 10.0%

How centralized is/are

How centralized is/are Department Faculty Institute No coordination

Voluntarily by ad-hoc faculty groups

Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %

Criteria for assessment of student learning 38.2% 17.3% 28.2% 10.9% 5.5%

Goals for student learning 37.3% 18.2% 27.3% 9.1% 8.2%

Development of teaching techniques 24.5% 25.5% 28.2% 14.5% 7.3%

Decisions regarding course content 43.6% 27.3% 13.6% 9.1% 6.4%

Use of student assessment data 27.3% 14.5% 36.4% 18.2% 3.6%

Determination of coursework requirements 50.9% 20.9% 17.3% 5.5% 5.5%

Development of final exams 38.2% 22.7% 28.2% 8.2% 2.7%

Student evaluations of teaching 28.2% 14.5% 44.5% 7.3% 5.5%

Faculty peer evaluations of teaching 29.1% 14.5% 33.6% 21.8% 0.9%

Your satisfaction with

Your satisfaction with Somewhat dissatisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Very dissatisfied

Very satisfied


Your workload 15.5% 46.4% 23.6% 14.5%

Your job security 9.1% 30.0% 12.7% 48.2%

Opportunity for advancement 30.0% 36.4% 20.9% 12.7%

Department support for promotion and tenure 28.2% 33.6% 25.5% 12.7%

Quality of students you teach 16.4% 50.0% 7.3% 26.4%

Collegiality in your department 18.2% 48.2% 8.2% 25.5%

Relationships between faculty and administrators 23.6% 43.6% 10.9% 21.8%

Level of support provided for teaching and learning 20.0% 53.6% 9.1% 17.3%

Freedom to do outside consulting 26.4% 40.0% 17.3% 16.4%

Support for assessment activities 15.5% 53.6% 15.5% 15.5%

Your salary/benefits 29.1% 48.2% 10.9% 11.8%

Level of agreement on the following statements Agree somewhat

Agree strongly

Disagree somewhat

Disagree strongly



71

Merit salary increases are fair and adequate in my university

35.5% 17.3% 28.2% 19.1%

Teaching is more important than research for faculty promotion

35.5% 15.5% 32.7% 16.4%

The most highly rewarded faculty are those oriented primarily toward research

42.7% 21.8% 20.9% 14.5%

Faculty evaluation for higher rank and merit increases incorporates evidence of student performance

46.4% 11.8% 24.5% 17.3%

Faculty receive public recognition and rewards for innovative or effective use of student assessment

35.5% 10.9% 28.2% 25.5%

Collaborative work is too difficult to evaluate for the promotion of faculty

51.8% 14.5% 27.3% 6.4%

About the same

Somewhat improved

Somewhat worse

Very much improved

Very much worse


How has Quality of Undergraduate students admitted to the programme changed

20.2% 39.4% 13.8% 24.8% 1.8%

How has Quality of Master's student admitted to the programme changed

22.9% 37.6% 15.6% 19.3% 4.6%

How has Quality of PhD students admitted to the programme changed

45.9% 26.6% 6.4% 11.0% 10.1%

How has the ability of the department institute to meet the educational needs of entering undergraduate students changed

16.5% 43.1% 8.3% 31.2% 0.9%

How has the ability of the department institute to meet the educational needs of entering masters students changed

22.9% 35.8% 9.2% 26.6% 5.5%

How has the ability of the department institute to meet the educational needs of entering PhD students changed

39.4% 22.9% 9.2% 15.6% 12.8%

How has the Knowledge about How to better prepare Under graduate students changed

14.7% 45.0% 4.6% 33.9% 1.8%

How has the Knowledge about How to better prepare Masters students changed

20.2% 45.9% 1.8% 26.6% 5.5%

How has the Knowledge about How to better prepare PhD students

34.9% 30.3% 5.5% 18.3% 11.0%

Agree or Disagree Agree somewhat

Agree strongly

Disagree somewhat

Disagree strongly


Administrators and faculty work collaboratively 47.3% 15.5% 21.8% 15.5%

The faculty institute department is trying to increase its research reputation at the expense of teaching

43.6% 13.6% 23.6% 19.1%

Women faculty are treated as equals with men faculty 26.4% 47.3% 16.4% 10.0%

Grade inflation no longer exists 50.9% 13.6% 24.5% 10.9%

Administrators tend to behave in an authoritarian way 37.3% 34.5% 20.9% 7.3%

Faculty who are members of racial or ethnic minority groups are treated as equal here

32.7% 50.9% 8.2% 8.2%

There has been pressure to increase faculty workload here 38.2% 39.1% 17.3% 5.5%

The faculty institute department is trying to increase its national ranking

43.6% 43.6% 6.4% 6.4%

The central administration of the university is often autocratic

47.3% 24.5% 21.8% 6.4%

There is a concerted faculty institute departmental effort to increase grant funded research

47.3% 20.0% 23.6% 9.1%

There are clear policies that support collaborative work here

35.5% 16.4% 23.6% 24.5%

The faculty department institute is striving for a national reputation for high quality teaching

43.6% 37.3% 8.2% 10.9%

How would you evaluate Excellent Fair Good Not available Poor


72


Number of faculty colleagues in the faculty institute department

9.1% 38.2% 37.3% 0.9% 14.5%

Funds to develop teaching learning initiatives 6.4% 25.5% 8.2% 17.3% 42.7%

Release time for course development or faculty development

7.3% 35.5% 14.5% 14.5% 28.2%

Internal funding for research 1.8% 18.2% 10.0% 29.1% 40.9%

Faculty development workshops and other activities 8.2% 27.3% 22.7% 9.1% 32.7%

Classrooms size location and cleanliness 21.8% 33.6% 19.1% 2.7% 22.7%

Technological aides for teaching 18.2% 39.1% 23.6% 2.7% 16.4%

Teaching and research laboratories 9.1% 28.2% 22.7% 7.3% 32.7%

Research library materials equipment and instruments

8.2% 31.8% 20.9% 10.0% 29.1%

Computer facilities 12.7% 36.4% 28.2% 5.5% 17.3%

General library holdings 10.9% 37.3% 29.1% 2.7% 20.0%

Secretarial support 6.4% 36.4% 19.1% 7.3% 30.9%

Funds and administrator support for collaborative work

5.5% 31.8% 10.9% 13.6% 38.2%

Financial and other support to implement changes in teaching

3.6% 26.4% 11.8% 20.9% 37.3%


73

Appendix 12. ANOVA for faculty responses with respect to university

climate, availability and quality of resources at

universities and faculty job satisfaction by territory

Factor Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


Between Groups 1.863 4 .466 1.216 .307


Total 53.563 139


Between Groups 11.306 4 2.826 2.318 .060

Within Groups 164.616 135 1.219

Total 175.921 139

Management Culture

Between Groups 4.616 4 1.154 1.617 .174


Total 100.963 139

Academic Culture

Between Groups 7.927 4 1.982 1.920 .111

Within Groups 139.366 135 1.032

Total 147.293 139

Support and workload

Between Groups 1.237 4 .309 .512 .727


Total 82.705 139


Between Groups 3.030 4 .758 1.172 .326


Total 90.286 139 Quality of student intake and university’s preparedness

Between Groups 2.667 4 .667 .829 .509


Total 111.254

139


Between Groups 4.536 4 1.134 1.730 .147


Total 93.043 139


Between Groups 13.249 4 3.312 3.857 .005


Total 129.171 139


74

Appendix 13. Creating an effective university research function and

culture

The difficulties relating to the establishment and institutionalization of functional and effective

research functions in the universities of Pakistan have been generally presented above (see section

3.2.3). Principal among these difficulties are:

i) the absence of research cultures that are well established into which young well trained but

inexperienced faculty members can be integrated,

ii) an unwarranted expectation that young trained faculty members can be counted upon,

because of their recent Ph.D. level training, to establish functional research programmes, and

iii) a focus on research and its ensuing publications solely as a means of ensuring one’s the

individual promotion of faculty members without regard for the needs that require research

based knowledge production.

The present appendix focuses on the possible avenues to the creation of permanent research

functions in Pakistani universities.

There does not appear to exist a solution that constitutes a fit to all situations. Therefore it is

important that feasibility studies, useful for establishing whether necessary and sufficient conditions

exist for the use of specific strategies, be carried out in individual universities settings to help in

decision making.25

Three well known strategies that could potentially enable the establishment of working research

functions in universities have been identified. They are:

A. jump starting: importing the necessary resources

B. concentrating: Isolating and insulating existing resources

C. rationalizing: consolidating existing resources

A. JUMP STARTING: IMPORTING THE NECESSARY RESOURCES

This strategy or approach relies on importing the research and research administration capacity that

is not available locally and working with it until a structure and culture of research is well established

and has been generalized to an extent such that the process is unlikely to be reversed. It typically

consists of the following steps:

1. Stop doing research by copying the type of research other countries are doing. It does not

address the needs of Pakistan. . Research ought not be done for the sake of doing research.

Instead establish the priority needs in the relevant sectors and fields that must be addressed

with research-produced knowledge in this country.

2. Initially start by building one, at least one, world class research unit in each important discipline

(In a country as large as this perhaps three or more) with a mandate to produce this knowledge.

3. Ensure that there exists a high level legitimacy and support for this unit.

4. To make sure that it will function as required,

a) Bypass existing organizations that could or would become possible barriers to its

operations

25 The following is adapted with permission from Haché, 2016


75

b) Endow this unit with adequate financial resources for a world class library and other

material requirements.

c) Appoint at least one Director of research with extensive experience in doing research in

the soft knowledge sectors and with experience in directing (managing) research

programmes. Pay him or her well and give him or her the rank and power to pursue the

goals set: hire people, assign tasks, supervise, and when necessary, dismiss people.

d) Mobilize key research personnel from within the university to work in this unit

e) Administer and manage well, particularly human resources: research activities need to

be recognized as a part of the normal workload of faculty members along with teaching.

5. Communicate broadly, disseminate research results, make others interested. Show that

research produced knowledge responds to needs, that it is useful.

6. When it is established, use as an exemplary multiplier it to train others: through training and

research associates from different universities

7. As soon as possible (this may take some years) create auxiliary research units in different

universities under the supervision of the main unit.

8. As they grow, these research units become autonomous and themselves become multiplier

units

9. And there will be a research culture….

10. It is initially a top down policy implementation which spreads to become a bottom up model of

implementation.

B. CONCENTRATING: ISOLATING AND INSULATING EXISTING RESOURCES

Research Institutes

This strategy or approach is a variant of the above with the exception that it may or may not require

imported senior experienced research and research administration personnel, that it is not

necessarily attached to a university setting and that its research personnel is solely involved in

research activities.

Implementing this strategy, widely established in France for example, involves creating independent

research institutes that are focused exclusively on research activities in specific fields of knowledge.

Personnel are either full time or part time appointees cross appointed from existing university

departments for example. Institutes are independently funded by public or-and private sources and

are independently administered with Boards of directors and CEOs. The extent of their teaching

activities is often limited to accepting post-doctorate fellows who act as collaborators in existing

teams and projects. Their information dissemination responsibilities are extensive.

Research institutes are a feasible strategy in situations where research expertise exists but where it

requires consolidation to be effective.

C. RATIONALIZING: CONSOLIDATING EXISTING RESOURCES

Research Chairs

One alternative to the above, applicable where there are sufficient trained faculty members within a

disciplinary area in a given university, is to establish a research chair programme. Research chairs

are centered on specific problem areas that needs to be researched and for which a research


76

programme has been planned. They group a number of researchers together, sometimes from two

or more different universities, who work under the authority of a senior researcher. This senior

researcher is the manager of the research team. Research chairs are well funded for a number of

years and are evaluated on a yearly basis. Funding is contingent upon positive evaluation. Research

chairs have the advantage of concentrating limited financial and human resources on relevant

problem areas.

The research chair approach can, as in the case above, become a locus of research training for

junior faculty and be instrumental in providing an exemplary multiplier effect.


77

Appendix 14. The University as a Learning organization26: How

universities can create and mine their own data in order to

monitor themselves and plan, develop, control or adapt

their teaching, programmes and research functions.

In the absence of valid self-knowledge about what a given university is and does, about where it is

in relation to where it wants to be, the least damaging position for its action is to keep doing what it

has been doing in the past. At least it knows how to do this and it know what it produces. At least it

thinks it does.

Why is it that universities, in comparison to many other large organizations, typically have little valid

and useful information about themselves that they can use to adapt to their rapidly changing

environments? Universities are designed to be the important producers and purveyors of knowledge.

It is their responsibility, by doing this, to educate the elites of the future.

Pakistani universities are, by law, mandated—legally given the responsibility—to seek out

knowledge, to produce knowledge, to transfer knowledge, useful knowledge. Universities are

institutions normally and usually reputed for their knowledge production competencies. This is the

research function of universities. Why is this function not usually utilized to produce information

about themselves?

Contrary to common perception, universities are not learning organizations.

What is a learning organization?

In what has become a classic article in the Harvard Business Review, Garvin (1993, p. 80) has

defined a “learning organization (is) an organization skilled at creating, acquiring and transferring

knowledge and at modifying its behaviour to reflect new knowledge and insight”27. Following this

now generally accepted definition, organizational learning requires 1) the production or the

acquisition of new knowledge or new ideas, and 2) it also requires that this new knowledge trigger

or cause organizational improvements to occur.

Whereas universities are obvious candidates as learning organizations, they are typically not

learning organizations because:

they do not typically produce knowledge about themselves, their environment or their clients

or about things that are useful to them;

they overly rely on faculty turnover or faculty expansion as a means of acquiring new

knowledge;

they do not typically develop other means of acquiring knowledge produced by others that

is useful to them in their different functions; and

even if they were to do so, they rarely have mechanisms through which to use this

information, particularly to affect teaching and learning, to improve instruction or to activate

and focus their research activities.

Production of information, of course, refers to research activities. And the production of information

about their own functioning in particular refers to institutional research.

The mechanisms through which to apply knowledge, whether produced or otherwise acquired, are

found in a system function best referred to as the adaptation function. Adaptation is one of four

essential functions of a successful organization. The others are goal attainment, system

maintenance, and the maintenance of equilibrium while adapting.

26 Adapted with permission from Haché, 2008. 27, Garvin David A. Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review. V. 71, no. 4 (July-August

1993): 78-91.


78

It is a well-known fact in the natural world that organisms which are unable to adapt stagnate or die.

In the world of organizations this is also true. Particularly in the case of industrial and commercial

organizations where the adapt-or-die cycles are rapid and brief. In universities this cycle is much

slower to the point of being invisible during the tenure of different administrations. Successful

industrial and commercial organizations invest massive amounts of resources in learning about

themselves, from both internal and external sources, and their environment and in adapting to

changing circumstances. One has but to look at the automobile sector or the power generating

sector or the information technology sectors to understand that survival is linked to adaptation and

that adaptation is related to information and to effective internal processes to put this information to

good and proper use. And one has but to look at the ongoing turmoil in the financial sector to see

what happens when undue emphasis is placed upon the goal attainment function—in this case profit

making—without due attention to adaptation to the financial and social conditions of its environment.

The irony, of course, is that industrial and commercial organizations, being keen to ensure that their

adaptation mechanisms are operating successfully, often enlist the help of universities to produce

and to apply the relevant knowledge to their own situations; this while universities do not do it for

themselves.

ADAPTATION REQUIREMENTS

The adaption function, of course, besides requiring research capabilities to produce adequate

information on the organizations’ external and internal environments, requires:

policies governing when and how to use this information,

planning capacities capable of determining how and where this information should be

applied,

management capacities particularly at middle management levels, capable of monitoring,

evaluating and controlling internal processes, in order to implement the adaptation changes

planned.

In recent years, many countries have adopted policies requiring universities to be accountable for

the large sums of monies they receive from government sources. They are increasingly submitted

to reporting procedures and to audits. And, so, they are under pressure to demonstrate that their

programmes, their research activities and their teaching and learning activities are preparing

students for the circumstances of tomorrow.

It is a generally held belief that the circumstances of tomorrow and the educational responses they

will require are most difficult to apprehend. Indeed, researchers and university managers cannot and

do not tell the future. Nor do educational planners.

But industrial and commercial organizations and their researchers and managers do not tell the

future either. Yet the best ones succeed. How do they do it? They do it by:

learning as much as they can about themselves and their environment

adopting flexible approaches,

using flexible organizational structures, and

by not putting all their eggs in one basket:

o they explore possibilities,

o they invest in the probable as opposed to the possible, and they

o insist on being ready when the goals they wish to attain become visible to them.

They are like martial art experts. They do not know where the next blow will come from, so they

adopt flexible postures and attitudes, learn to fall without damage to themselves and to rapidly get


79

up again, that is, to adopt means of recovery when things go wrong. They keep themselves in good

health. They study and adapt to their opponents strategies. And most importantly, they do not lose

sight of their purpose.

So why do universities, mandated as they are to produce knowledge through research, and to

acquire and transmit knowledge, who are in the business of preparing future generations for

tomorrow, fail to behave like successful industrial and commercial organizations, like martial arts

experts and good cricket teams who go over their shortcomings after each game? Why are they not

successful learning organizations? It is because, among other things:

most, in Pakistan, are recently created organizations concentrated on system goal

attainment and maintenance functions,

traditionally, they have relied on faculty turnover and faculty expansion for adaptation. Under

scrutiny, they have not typically been observed to possess other adaptation capabilities,

traditionally, universities were not concerned with education in the professions through

which they are required to have immediate linkages to their social and economic

environment.

Basic requirements for universities to become learning organizations

1. Appoint VCs and senior administrators who see the need for it as legitimate. In other words,

establish political will to effect change from the status quo.

2. Where they do not exist, establish adequate University Management Information Systems

that collect all relevant data on each of the universities’ support functions: student, faculty,

and other personnel, financial, material and building resources. Such MIS are well

established in many universities worldwide. Such MIS need to generate data capable of

being merged into provincial and national databases.

3. Establish a long term study of students’ entrance level characteristics. When correlated with

academic achievement and professional success this enables the establishment of effective

admission criteria that guarantee an adequate response to social and economic market

needs.

4. Establish an institutional research unit as a permanent structure at the next to highest

hierarchical level in each university. In practice, this is an on-demand data mining capacity

available to university administrators for the administrative tasks of coordinating, monitoring,

evaluation and planning.

5. Establish a programme evaluation policy that requires faculties and departments to establish

linkages with the relevant stakeholders in order to assess changing environmental and

market needs.

6. Establish an academic—teaching and learning—programme support unit to support

faculties and departments in evaluating and adapting their programmes and in enhancing

their program delivery capabilities.

A partial approach to establishing the conditions of transforming one Pakistani university into a

learning organization has been planned and in part implemented. (see Haché, 2008)

In brief, if universities are not learning organizations, it is not because they cannot be learning

organizations. It is because individual researchers center their research activities on projects which

are centered on professional or disciplinary goals or both. It is because, in certain areas like the

social sciences and education, researchers attempt to emulate their hard discipline counterparts and

center their activities on disciplinary-like projects despite their own domain being complex, soft and

requiring a multi- method approach.


80

But, mainly, it appears to be because University managers do not perceive the need to produce

knowledge that is useful for the University as an organization or as a system. University managers

tend to come from disciplinary backgrounds from which they view the University not as a system, an

organizational whole, but as being composed of parts—faculties, departments, centres—not

necessarily related to each other or interdependent but depending on disciplinary fields and

disciplinary organizations for their goals and organizational structures and processes.

Given their young age and its young faculty, and its lack of resistance prone traditions and

established structures, most Pakistani universities and other institutions of higher education in the

country have the choice of establishing themselves as a learning organization.