OGHENEKOWHO ADEKOLA and IYUNADE Institutional Diversification

8/6/2019 OGHENEKOWHO ADEKOLA and IYUNADE Institutional Diversification

1/13

Journal of Education in Developing Areas (JED A) Vol. 19, No. 1.

Institutional Diversification and the Challenges of Contemporary Changes in

Higher Education for Development in Nigeria

By

Jonathan E. Oghenekohwo, PhD

Department of Educational FoundationsNiger Delta University, Wilberforce Island, Bayelsa State-Nigeria.

Ganiyu Adekola, PhD

Department of Adult & Non-formal EducationUniversity of Port Harcourt, Rivers State-Nigeria.

&

Olufunmilayo T. Iyunade, PhD

Olabisi Onabanjo University,Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State-Nigeria

Abstract

This paper examines the contention in the rationalization of Africans pressure

by donor agencies insistence on basic education at the expense of developmentand diversification of higher education institutions towards addressing thedevelopment issues of the continent. As globalization phenomenon gathersmomentum, there seems to be a risk of decline in higher education and the veryurgent need to encourage a strong, dynamic renewal to be considered aspartnership, rather than a dependent on a new, albeit an existing social orderthat places higher education in challenging opportunities which must beexplored for Africa development. This paper therefore addresses five major butcontemporary issues that face higher education development in the context ofglobalization and African development challenges. These issues include:

demand for access and a shift from elite to mass higher education;appropriation of financial resource through adequate funding and the growingneed for accountability and transparency measures; maintenance of qualityand relevance, reassessment of academic degrees and diplomas; andinternationalization in higher education teaching, training, research anddevelopment. These issues provide relevance or otherwise, to what otherchallenges facing the harvesting of global scientific knowledge for thedevelopment of African higher education as recommended for in the drivetowards tracking the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).


2/13

March , 2011JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

w w w . j e d a - u n i p o r t . c o m Page 1

Introduction

Over a decade ago, at a public lecture, at the University of the Witwatersrand,

Johanesburg, South Africa, Ogunrinde (1997) observed that the core mission of

universities remains the train the intellect in the service of humanity. This aptlyunderscores Article 26 of the United Nations (UN) Declaration of Human rights

which states, inter-alia; education shall be directed to the full development of the

human personality. However, Africa seems to be alien to this UN position in

respect to higher education. The perceived distance of Africa from this is

underscored by broad based issues affecting higher educational development

classified by Ogunrinde (1997) as;

1Academic standards- (curriculum content and design, teaching and researchmethods, examination, and quality control/assurance in degrees and diploma

as awarded);

2 Governance- (government policies and social demand, autonomy and academicfreedom, university mission, internal governance, decision-making, policy on

higher education investment criteria etc); and

3 Funding- (resource constraints, emoluments, welfare of staff and students,teaching and research equipment, library, ICT and generally perceivedinstitutional support services.

Instead of addressing these issues collectively on global scale, there seems to be a

growing and seemingly sustained paradigm shift from a genuine commitment to

fast track the road-map towards assessing the progress made so far and also,

designing appropriate and workable framework for stabilizing the issues of demand

for access and higher education.One is aware that as a result of high illiteracy rate with sub-Saharan Africa, with

the spending of an average of 5.1% of annual budgets on education (Hinchiffe,

2002; UNESCO, 2000), access remains constrained, as less than half of secondary

school age attend school and so, significant regional disparities in access are

evident (Saint, Harnett and Strassner, 2004). Besides, higher education enrolls a

very modest 4% of the relevant age cohort, a level which compares poorly with

economic competitors such as South Africa (17%), India (7%), Indonesia (11%) andBrazil (12%). This trend lends credence to Saint, Harnett and Strassner (2004)


3/13



view that in contrast to the experience in the developed countries, many developing

countries, including Nigeria have neither articulated and integrated development

strategies linking knowledge to economic growth and development nor built up

their capacity to do so through higher education development. On this basis, therearises a contention in the rationalization of Africans continued pressure by

donors insistence on basic education at primary and secondary school levels at

the expense of diversifying higher education towards addressing the development

challenges in Africa.

Perhaps, the donors insistence could be justified by the submission of Hinchliffe

(2002) that, estimates show that education expenditure in Africa is equal to only2.4% of Gross Domestic Product and 14.3% of government expenditure. Besides,

the share of these funds going to primary education has dropped to 35% and

secondary educations portion has remained relatively unchanged at 29%, but

tertiary educations share has nearly doubled to 35%. On this account, donor

partners insist that attention be focused on basic education with emphasis on the

Education for All (EFA) agenda and now more recently, the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs) which also place emphasis on basic education for thereduction in the level of world illiteracy by half come 2015.

Thus, rather than providing support for higher education and its diversification,

donor partners now direct their funding, investment and support at the basic

primary and post-primary education levels through the World Bank, UNESCO,

UNICEF using national agencies. However, the contention in this paper is that,

donor partners cannot insist on basic education in developing countries, rather,higher education should form the cannon of the development instrument. This is

justified in a framework of assessment by Kerr (1993) who notes that;

For the first time, a really international world of learning, highlycompetitive, is emerging. If you want to get into that orbit, you have to doso on merit. You cannot rely on politics or anything else. You have to give agood deal of autonomy to institutions for them to be dynamic and to move fast in international competition. You have to develop entrepreneurialleadership to go along with institution autonomy (p. 16)

The above view by Kerr does not seem to be adaptable to the products of

basic education, rather, higher education institutions. Thus, higher education


4/13



needs to be responsive in its diversification expectations, especially with focus on

the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This is why responsive higher

institutions in that wise must be adaptive in its orientation to globalization with

mission intentionally driven by and taking into consideration changingcircumstances, ability to identify appropriate ways to adapt and take responsive

actions. Consequently, the four indicators used for determining the extent of such

responsiveness namely access, teaching/learning, financial (funding) and

governance must be tracked for the purpose of diversification.

It is within the context of these variables that institutional diversification

becomes vital to divest focus from donors insistence on basic education to highereducation development as core investment sector needed for the accelerated

transformation that embraces all the factors in the Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs). This issue is then viewed within the context of globalization, and

institutional diversification of higher education development in Nigeria and Africa

as whole.

Globalization, Institutional Diversification for Higher Educational

Development and the Question of Relevance

The rhetorics about globalization are many and this paper does not intend to delve

into these controversies on what globalization depicts, rather, the interest is on

what it implies. For instance, Marga (1998) observed that one may show reserve or

criticism with regard to the ideology of globalism, interpreting any change in

society just by considering market expansion, as an effect of pure marketisation,

but one would be seriously mistaken to disregard or ignore globalization. It is also

noticed that universities just like other institutions in the society operate on large

areas and globalization has most directly challenged them to change. When a

critical look is therefore taken on trend three areas are of major relevance namely:

1. a change of vision- a relativist complacency,2. changing the content of education with learning content been subordinate to

learning how to learn with the replacement of reproductive education with the

problem-solving paradigm and

3. an orientation of education towards innovation and creativity.


5/13



These areas of changes have focus which is a matter of re-organizing academic

curricula with a view to developing what are considered to be the four basic skills

of todays specialist, namely the capacity to think in abstractions; the capacity to

approach a problem systematically; the capacity to test solutions; and the capacityto communicate in modern languages and to learn by means of up-to-date

electronic techniques (Field & Fegan, 2005). These changes as well as their

expectations are today required of higher education especially universities by the

phenomenon of globalization. One cannot therefore undermine the need for higher

education (universities) to willingly learn from best practices as the only measure

of success. Universities that hide behind isolationist outlooks and ideologies stand

no chance of diversification in the academic, research and development market.Hence, globalization, internationalism and regionalization is still at work in terms

of curriculum structure, models of financing, managerial patterns, forms of

governance, partnership among others which are being taken over from the

experience of universities internationally for attention.

However, Field et al (2005) contended that, it is noteworthy that while

globalization demands learning from better experience, it does not demanduniformity, rather diversification, and that is the interest. Development in higher

education need be competitive. Competitive performance in higher education at

global scale cannot be achieved without explicitly defining the mission and the

functions of universities and also without efficiently mobilizing resources aimed at

accomplishing them. Thus, Field et al (2005) noted that if by mission, one

understands a specific task, then eschewing abstract visions, unrealistic

statements and avoiding falling into narrow functionalism, and considering theexperience of the most representative universities of today, the mission of higher

education today is then seen in the context of training and education of specialist

at a competitive level with a view to enriching knowledge and performance in

human activities. This perhaps, underscores the very need for higher institutional

diversification rather than insistence on basic education that has no immediate

impact on the expected development challenges.

Therefore, this paper debunks the views of many academics who vehemently

criticize the marketisation of universities, disregarding the fact that universities


6/13



have always tacitly produced for a market. Besides, marketisation and

globalization of universities call for individualization of learning and of the

innovative capacity so that the results of this capacity can be competitive. This is

on account that success in globalize market is obtained with products thatincorporate more intelligence, not routine products, or elementary basic products

offer at basic level. Hence, globalization requires the adoption of a new attitude

through diversification, an attitude favourable to open markets, autonomous

institutions and conceptual innovation. It requires that we should adopt a new

vision of the functions and functioning of higher education, of the inclusion of

the universities in society, and of the idea of the knowledge.

It is in the light of this globalization experience that development is

contextualized. And in its simplest form, Allen (2000) has identified three main

descriptions in which development fit. These are:

(i) as a vision, description or measure of the state of being of a desirablesociety;

(ii) as an historical process of social change in which societies are transformedover long periods; and

(iii) as consisting of deliberate efforts aimed at improvement on the part ofvarious agencies, including governments, all kinds of organizations and

social movements.

It is therefore a process of economic, social, political and cultural change

engineered in a given society by the efforts of all stakeholders, both internal and

external including institutions, government, non-governmental organizations,(NGOs), technical and financial development partners with a view to improving the

conditions of life of the population in a sustainable way. Inclusive in the above

description is the involvement of higher education (institutions) and to achieve

sustainable development, key development challenges need to be addressed

through higher education programme diversification.

Key Development Challenges in Africa in the Context of Higher Education

Institutional Diversification

Despite Africas perceived considerable progress over the last decade, the continent


7/13



continues to face major development challenges, including a higher incidence of

poverty, illiteracy, poor health conditions, conflicts in some regions, and the

relentless surge of HIV/AIDs at a time when a number of regions in the developing

world are benefiting greatly from economic opportunities resulting fromglobalization. The situation is so serious that it is now generally acknowledged that

the Africa continent, more than any other region of the world, faces the danger of

regressing and being irreversibly left behind as a consequence of the rapid changes

being brought about by the forces of globalization. A few facts will convincingly

illustrate this argument. The African Development Bank (ADB) has estimated that:

between 40 and 45 percent of the African continents over 793 million people live

in poverty, with about 30 percent classified as extremely poor, that is, living onless than $1 per day. Even more appealing is that, among all developing regions,

Africa has the largest proportion of people living in absolute poverty, and that

proportion has remained virtually unchanged for a decade (Kabbaji, 2003:34).

The UNDP Human Development Report (2005) confirmed ADBS assessment of

poverty in Africa by revealing that in 1990, the average American was 38 times

richer than the average Tanzanian. As at 2007, the average American was 61 times

richer. The situation becomes even more unacceptable when it is borne in mindthat while a sub-Saharan African lives on less than $1 a day, a cow in Europe or

Japan receives $2 or nearly $4 a day respectively. But poverty in Africa does not

express itself in economic terms only. It also has a social dimension as:

Africa is not only the greatest loser in a globalizing world, it is alsostructurally and institutionally positioned to continue being the greatestloser unless. African leaders and their citizens think again of the realitiesof our world, and how to break away from the systemic injustice and

procedural unfairness that characterizes our engagement with the outsideworld (Mkapa, 2005:4).

Given the disadvantaged position that Africa holds in todays globalised

world, Mkapa urges Africans and their development partners to be sufficiently

agitated to design new initiatives through higher education institutional

diversification and work for a better future for Africa and its future generations. No

matter which new strategy should be adopted, there seems to be a consensus on

the necessity for most African countries to double current economic growth ratesand make major investments in upgrading social services through higher


8/13



education, if they are to come close to meeting the MDGs. To achieve this, they will

have to implement prudent macro-economic policies, and deepen governance

reforms aimed at making governments at all levels more transparent and

accountable to the people. They will also need to allocate additional resources tothe social sectors while improving the efficiency of their delivery through higher

educational development.

In a discourse on the specific challenges that face higher education

development in its diversification drive, Omolewa (2001) noted that, generally,

higher educations challenges in Nigeria among other African countries are related

to:

its effective deployment to liberate the poor, empower the weak and givehope to the hopeless, encouraging all of these to acquire self-confidenceand pride in themselves and the capabilities, produce a regenerated and profoundly revived people who would learn to live in harmony with oneanother such education, must be consistently geared towards the pursuit of excellence and high quality without regard to differences inequity, human rights and justice (p. 81).

In view of the above generic challenges, Ndabawa (2003) identified higher

education diversification challenges to include among other issues: quality and

standard, for which Okebukola (2000:90) was worried that improvement in

higher education quality has been doubtful (p. 90). In terms of relevance of

curricula to community aspirations, Ndabawa (2003) cited Akinpelu (1983) as

saying that, the sheer lack of renewal of the curricula creates a seeming mismatch

between what the society expect and what higher institutions offer. Also related is

the concern of academics with employability of graduates where a focus on the

synergy or lack of it between institutions and work is a growing challenging factor.

Ndabawa (2003) also noted staffing and staff development initiatives, reform of

academic functions-(teaching, research and publication,) funding and

infrastructure development, generation of partnership with community, adapting

to the era of Information Communication Technology (ICT), widening of access

through open and distance learning, collaboration or partnership with local and

international development partners as well as the democratization of higher

education institutional administration are the major challenges of higher


9/13



education in Nigeria. These challenges are real, cogent and demanding in

institutional diversification and the need for sustained collaboration and

partnership in resource allocation and utilization provides a link to closing the

gap.

On a similar note, UNESCO (1998) provided five major issues which

represent the core of the diversification challenges and contemporary changes in

world higher education system. Among other things; UNESCO notes with concern;

i. the continued demand for access which had doubled and even tripped insome countries (including Nigeria) necessitating a shift from elite to mass

higher education;ii. the continued reduction of financial resources and growing accountability

measures imposed by governments;

iii. the maintenance of quality and relevance and the measures required fortheir assessment. This will grow since student numbers could reach 120

million by the year 2050;

iv. the on-going problem of graduates employment which is forcingreassessment of academic degrees and diplomas; and

v. the growing reality of internationalization in higher education teaching,training and research which deals with the mobility of both people and

knowledge (globalization) (p. 6).

These challenges also mirror the 2015 8-point expectations of the

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which are to address poverty, illiteracy,

infant and maternal mortality, gender equity, sustainable environment andpartnership in development.

Tracking the Challenges for Higher Educational Development in Africa:

Recommendations or Options

Taking a cue from the Nigeria experience, higher education has six goals, although

it may vary in other African countries, yet the focus may also be interlinked. The

Nigeria National Policy on Education NPE (2004), provides that higher education isexpected to:


10/13



i. contribute to national development through high level relevant manpowertraining;

ii. develop and inculcate proper values for the survival of the individual andsociety;

iii. develop the intellectual capability of individuals to understand andappreciate their local and external environment;

iv. acquire both physical and intellectual skills which will enable individualsto be self-reliant and useful members of the society;

v. forge and cement national unity; andvi. promote national and international understanding and interaction

(Ojedele & Ilusanya; 2006: 49-50).

The above expectations may not be significantly distant from what obtains in

other African countries in terms of their policies on higher education. Thus,

tracking the challenges of higher education will rely on diversification of

institutional mission and vision within the context of new dimensions which will

take into consideration;

1strict adherence to the provision of the university autonomy-using theyardstick of global best practices;

2 diversifying funding by attracting private sector funding (without fundingagencies dictating or directing the programmes of fund allocation), and

considering more appropriate pricing of higher education facilities and

services;

3 update and restructure curricula to meet the demands of national andglobalised competition for development;

4 setting up effective monitoring (through quality assurance) of universitiesto ensure strict adherence to standard; and

5 Decentralizing the competitive structure of higher education forperformance enhanced reward system.

These will influence internal efficiency which depicts a measure of how

successful the system is in processing inputs which also derives relevance fromquality assurance. In tracking the development challenges of higher institutions for


11/13



Africas development, Ekhaguere (2000) then noted that the factor of quality in

quality assurance must exist and be related to:

6 fitness of purpose:measured by the extent to which higher educationinstitutions align with, or fit national priorities, goals, objectives and

aspirations;

7 value for money: measured by achieving more with less in an efficientmanner;

8 perfection:perceived as the attainment of a near flawless products; and9 excellence:viewed as the attainment of exceptionally high standards (p.2)

Developing and sustaining these elements of quality in African higher

education depend on certain parameters which are accepted as best practices in

the internationalization of quality in higher education diversification. Therefore, in

the view of Osasona (2006), all aspects of higher education programmes must be

clearly related to the purpose of the institution and national objectives. And

considering the expectations of higher education institutions as already noted, the

suggested parameters for measuring quality have been classified into physicalfacilities, equipment, funding and staffing.

Much as diversification is needed, the factor of appropriate funding by

national and international development partners must form the core of higher

education development in Africa.

Conclusion The growing challenges of global competition in higher education need be

reinvented to have a human face (UNDP, 1999), which must be made to serve all

people, both in the developed and developing world. Besides, Bhola (2006)

established that educational systems which also include higher education must be

expanded (diversified) to guarantee access and social justice. Besides, the content

and structures of higher educational system must be made to serve the modern

economy, as well as traditional economies. The new higher education system asenvisioned, must also serve those living in subsistence economies by successfully


12/13



disseminating modern knowledge and intermediate technologies among developing

communities (Bhola, 2002).

Finally, the continuing development problems and donor insistence on basiceducation, has deflected attention from higher learning which, as globalization or

internationalization phenomenon gathers momentum, risks its further decline.

There is now a strong dynamic paradigm shift towards renewal to be considered as

a partner, rather than a dependent, in a new social and globalized development

order.

ReferencesAllen, T. (2000). Meanings and views of development. In T. Allen and A. Thomas

(eds). Poverty and development in the 21st century. Open University. OxfordUniversity press.

Altbach (2001). Academic freedom: International warning signs.www.bc.educ/bcOrg/aup/soe/cihenewsletter/news24/text/text001

Bhola H.S. (2002b). Reclaiming Old heritage for proclaiming future history: theknowledge-for-development debate in African context. Africa Today, 49 (3); 3-

21.

Bhola, H.S. (2006). Access to education: A global perspective. In A. Odunaran andH.S. Bhola (eds). Widening access to education as social justice-Essays inHonour of Micheal Omolewa.The Netherlands. Springer.

Ekhaguere, G.O.S. (2000). Quality evaluation guide. Association of AfricanUniversities.

Ekhaguere, G.O.S. (2006). Developing a culture of quality in African Universities.

In A.I. Olayinka and V.O. Adetimirin (eds). Proceedings of a Symposium toMark the African University Day 2005. Ibadan, The Postgraduate School.

Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004). National policy on education(4th edn) Lagos,NERDC Press.

Havery, L. and Green D. (1993). Defining quality, Assessment and evaluation inhigher education, 18:9-34.

Kabbaj, O. (2003). The Challenge of African development. Oxford. Oxford UniversityPress.

Mkapa, B. (2005). President of the United Republic of Tanzania Speech at theCommission of Africa Union.


13/13



Ndabawa, S.A. (2003). The Challenges of higher education in Nigeria today InKolo and G. Ashituabe (eds) Minna. A publication of the conferences and staffseminars committee.Occasional Publication Lecture Series No. 01. I.A.

Ogunrinade, A.F. (1997): University education for the 21st Century: Old problemsand new challenges. A public lecture at the University of the Witwatersrand,Johannesburg, South Africa, 14th May.

Ojedele, P. and Ilusanya, G. (2006). Planning and policy of higher education inNigeria. In J.B. Babalola; A.O. Ayeni, S.O.; Adedeji; A.A. Suleiman and M.O.Arikewuyo (eds): Educational Management Thoughts and Practice. Ibadan.Codat Publications (pp. 48-77)

Omolewa, M.A. (2001): The Challenge of education in Nigeria. Ibadan University of

Ibadan Press.

Osasona, O. (2006). Parameters for measuring quality In A.I. Olayinka and V.O.Adetimirin (eds). Proceedings of a Symposium to mark the African UniversityDay 2005. Ibadan, the Postgraduate School. Retrieved 5/06/2006

Saint, W., Hartnett, T.A; and Strassner, E. (2004): Higher education in Nigeria. Astatus report. World Education News and Reviews1-5.

United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (1999). Human Development Report1999: Globalization with a Human Face2 Human Development Report Office,

New York, UNDP.

Documents

OGHENEKOWHO ADEKOLA and IYUNADE Institutional Diversification