 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
vansantr
Member
Rick Van Sant
|
#21 Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 21:46 |
|
| Vanessa, Thanks for your response and question. I think - hope that colleagues in development work would agree that real change is possible but money is not the answer..... mind you - money is an important catalyst, but it and of itself is not the answer. In a side conversation with another contributer, it occurred to me that in the world of development work, sustainability only happens when I help you realize your dreams, not mine. I might engage you to work on my dream, but when the compensation (whatever form it is in) ends, so will your work on my dream. But when you are working on your own dream, your work will continue whether I am there or not. Maybe it is about starting with the dreamers?
|
Ron Turner
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 29th, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Country: | USA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#22 Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 02:01 |
|
What is the best way to achieve institutional change? Institutional change requires an environment characterized by vision, trust, innovation and strategic leadership from institutional officials, faculty, staff, students, governing board members, governmental officials and the private sector. Within this environment universities can mobilize their own resources, their staff and their support structures to achieve clearly defined goals consistent with institutional priorities in partnership with those outside the academic arena.
The Glion Declaration stated: "Universities must reaffirm that integirity is the requirement, excellence is the standard, rationality the means, community the context, civility the attitude, openness the relationship and responsibility the obligation upon which their own existence and the future of knowledge itself depend."
What are effective strategies? The key strategy is the development, articulation and ownership of a shared vision within university councils, structures and systems however robust or limited they may be. Ownership of the vision is the key, but this ownership must admit and value engagement by those served by the institution. This shared ownership of the vision and adoption/modification of the vision with community engagement is essential. The sharing process will turn on avenues and chanels of communication both within the institution and in the community.
And how can partnerships help? Partnerships can help if the goals are realistic and are based on mutually agreed, priority needs that can be addressed through interaction and communication between the partners. The strengths of both partners must be targeted toward achievement of the common goal. These partnerships must be based on mutual trust and mutual benefit. There can be no senior partners in these relationships. The partners must stand on equal ground and promote open and frequent communication across the partnership and with key stakeholders with the capacity and potential to advance the partnership. A partnership is not a zero-sum game; the value of synergy among the partners and their stakeholders must be recognized and celebrated.
So where should partnerships begin? Partnerships begin with the awareness that both partners will benefit as a result of common effort. Awareness is the outgrowth of open communication, assessment of risk and rewards, analysis of transaction costs required to implement the partnership, and clear communication of goals and objectives agreeable to all partners.
What should be the goals and objectives for the partnerships that the Initiative seeks to support? This answer must come from the prospective partners after focused and indepth consultation.
What should they prioritize? The priorities must be defined and established by the partners according to values, standards, measures and outcomes upon which the partners agree.
|
yohan
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | Ethiopia |
| Posts: | 15 |
| Country: | Ethiopia |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#23 Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 09:46 |
|
Institutional change should begin by first identifying the reasons for change. In African context, there are several rationales to initiate reform under the motto “Revitalizing the Higher Education in Africa”. Priority areas need be identified through brainstorming among the staff, management students, and other stakeholders. Discussions have to take place at every department and across the institution. Unless there is no shared vision and shared concern, implementing change would be difficult. Institutional change would invoke continuous improvement of quality.
Regards,
Yohannes Woldet
|
Cliff Monahan
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Country: | USA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#24 Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 11:05 |
|
Institutional Change?
Perhaps a small but working example of change can best lead other teachers, then administrators, to adapt those changes to their courses and HEIs. Lead by example. Hard to imagine teachers and administrators embracing the unknown, thus an example of improved pedagogy will produce the results necessary to foster that change. It is the pedagogical change that is more important than the subject or discipline. I heard a great teacher tell the audience that her mantra is "Teach Less Better" meaning we don't need to cover every aspect of a subject if we teach the students how to learn, and be confident in their progress. Improved delivery leads to improved comprehension.
Prioritize?
Priority in funding should be given to projects that have the capacity to succeed on their own, in contrast to projects that need organic or fundamental change from within the Ministry of Education, or even the HEI itself, to succeed. Small but well organized partnerships with clearly defined goals may seem too modest in scope or scale, but their sustainability will be key for others to learn how to implement those changes into their courses and curriculum.
|
Mengistu H.
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 8th, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Country: | USA/Ethiopia |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#25 Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 18:24 |
|
There could be instutional change through various means. I believe this initiative can focus on capacity building of African universities there by facilitating inistitutional change. Three things that I belive this initiative can help are: enhance partnership for technology integration in African universities; enhance transformational leadership in African universities, and promot joint research.
In the end all these are about capacity building. Vialble change can be brought about and sustained if only the capacity of African universities is built. Short term projects don't do the job. The initiative should consider training (both technology and leadership) as a major intervention point.
Mengistu H.
|
kwesib
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 1st, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Country: | USA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#26 Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 23:18 |
|
vansantr wrote: We will not change anyone's mind! We will not create new - where there is nought. ... Sorry.... but to me, our role is not to lead, but to follow. This being the case for me, I would reccommend the first steps be a really thorough Sector Analysis of the current framework and initiatives already underway to see just where and how we can fit in.
We will not change anyone's mind, we can, however, help someone accomplish what is already in their mind.
I really appreciate this post. Could you say more, however, of what you mean by a "Sector Analysis.?"
|
Admin
Administrator
| Joined: | Thu Sep 18th, 2008 |
| Country: | |
| Posts: | 18 |
| Country: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#27 Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 03:11 |
|
MESSAGE FROM THE MODERATORS / MESSAGE DES MODERATEURS (EN FRANCAIS CI-BAS)
Dear Participants,
Again, thank you for your engaged, thoughtful responses of the last few days. Not surprisingly, there seem to be many different perspectives on how institutional change is driven and how partnerships can play a role.
A couple of remarks we would like to highlight:
1. The desire for change must come from within each institution – but partnerships can serve to expose partners to different ideas, structures, and ways of doing things. Change that is imposed upon people and institutions (and that is not particularly desired) does not tend to last.
2. Partnership activities and plans must be aligned with the partnering institutions’ overall strategic plans and mission. Without this alignment, partnerships could even, as one participant put it, “work against effective change since they impose additional burdens on already over-stretched staff who struggle to achieve the outcomes of externally devised programs of work.”
3. Communities of practice are effective for sharing best practices and learning new ways of doing things.
4. There is a need for training in how to lead and manage change. And all levels of the institutions must be engaged.
5. Careful thought must go into incentive structures that support alternative ways of doing things (financial, social recognition, etc.)
6. Support for institutional change might require that funding sources for the institutions involved also be part of the process of identifying needed change; this might includes ministries in the case of public institutions
Questions for discussion:
1. What are the best ways to engage leaders in capacity building for change under the umbrella of institutional partnerships?
2. How best to get the incentive systems right?
3. How best to engage stakeholders in the process of change?
______________________________________
EN FRANCAIS
Chers participants,
Encore une fois, nous vous remercions pour votre engagement et vos réponses réfléchies de ces derniers jours. Il n'est pas surprenant, il semble qu'il y ait de nombreux points de vue différents sur la façon dont le changement institutionnel est animé et de la façon dont les partenariats peuvent jouer un rôle.
Quelques remarques nous tenons à souligner:
1. Le désir de changement doit venir de l'intérieur de chaque institution - mais les partenariats peuvent servir à exposer des idées, des structures et des façons de faire les choses différentes. Le changement qui est imposée à des personnes et des institutions (et qui n'est pas particulièrement désiré) n'a pas tendance à durer.
2. Les activités et les plans du partenariat doivent être alignés avec les plans stratégiques et la mission de chaque institution partenaire. Sans cet alignement, les partenariats pourraient même, selon un participant, "travailler contre le changement nécessaire car elles imposent des charges supplémentaires sur un personnel déjà surchargé."
3. Les communautés de pratique sont importants pour le partage des meilleures pratiques et l'apprentissage de nouvelles façons de faire les choses.
4. Il existe un besoin de formation sur la façon de mener et de gérer le changement. Et tous les niveaux des institutions doivent être engagés.
5. Les structures d'incitation doivent être bien étudié et formé pour soutenir les changements (financières, la reconnaissance sociale, etc.)
6. Peut-être que les sources de financement pour les institutions concernées doivent faire partie du processus d'identification les changements nécessaires (dans le cas des institutions publiques, les ministères pourraient jouer un rôle).
Questions pour le débat:
1. Quels sont les meilleurs moyens d'engager les leaders des institutions dans le renforcement des capacités pour le changement dans le cadre de partenariats institutionnels ?
2. Quelle est la meilleure façon pour obtenir des systèmes d'incitation effectives ?
3. Comment mieux faire participer les parties prenantes dans le processus de changement ?
Last edited on Thu Oct 9th, 2008 03:12 by Admin
|
nabdallah
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | Cairo, Egypt |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Country: | Egypt |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#28 Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 04:45 |
|
Thank you all for your comments on the previous questions and I do agree with all the remarks submitted.
1. What are the best ways to engage leaders in capacity building for change under the umbrella of institutional partnerships?
As most African Universities, we have a limited capacity building and the leaders don’t have enough funds to support the required changes. But we should start with one or few programs first to prove that these changes are required and could be done for having better higher education program as we could not change all the programs but we could start with the promising ones first (required by the market) and start changing it for the best. We could also send leaders for partner institutes to contact with other leaders, students, and staff members and to learn more about their capacity building (comparing to ours).
2. How best to get the incentive systems right?
The incentives should be given according to the efforts accomplished, so I suggest having basic incentives for the participants and extra ones according to the efforts they do.
3. How best to engage stakeholders in the process of change?
Engage the stakeholders in different educational activities such as summer training for students, organizing and inviting them for workshops to discuss the pros and cons of the different educational programs and to answer questioners about their opinion on the best way to get a market ready students, involving them as consultants in the educational developing programs, etc.
|
Julia Preece
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 24th, 2008 |
| Country: | Lesotho |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Country: | Lesotho |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#29 Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 05:41 |
|
I am not sure I am saying anything especially innovative here, but here are some quick responses to your questions:
| [size=2]1. What are the best ways to engage leaders in capacity building for change under the umbrella of institutional partnerships?[/size] |
| [size=2]* by workshops, discussions, providing various examples of practice – especially ones that have worked in other African contexts; then encouraging action planning and targets with identification of resources needed – but emphasising (as already stated) that Africans are tired of having ideas imposed on them. Need for policy makers/ministries to work with HEI strategists – so more than just HEIs working on their own in the planning and target making stage.[/size] |
| [size=2] [/size][size=2] [/size][size=2]2. How best to get the incentive systems right?[/size] |
| [size=2]* Depends what the targets are. One key problem is dearth of home-grown researchers. So incentives might include for eg ‘seed funding’ for small scale projects, along with support funding to release academics from teaching responsibilities etc would help at one level. [/size] |
| [size=2]On a more institutional level, incentives must be matched with evidence of outcomes that have been quality assured. So administrative infrastructure must identify achievable and realistic targets in return for carefully budgeted for resources (human, technological and other)[/size] |
| [size=2] [/size][size=2] [/size][size=2]3. How best to engage stakeholders in the process of change?[/size] |
| [size=2]* I think this is the same as answer to question one. Workshops that engage a range of people with different agendas – get them to talk to each other and come up with solutions.[/size] |
|
Akuno
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 25th, 2008 |
| Country: | Durban, South Africa |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Country: | South Africa |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#30 Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 06:36 |
|
Engaging leaders:
I believe in selection of leaders to involve in the process - not politically appointed ones, but those with a vision whose mission is not clouded by political ambition, or whose allegiance is not comprised due to the need to 'play cards safely'. I presume it is best to think in terms of the institution and not personality. Capacity building could then be inserted into the performance contract of personnel at specific posts, and built into the Job Descriptions of posts that carry leadership roles.
Incentive System:
I believe these should be delinked from personalities, by institutionalising procedures and projects. There is also need to get input from all stakeholders right from the grassroots, so that knowledge gathered inform practice and policy.
Involvement of stakeholders:
This depends on the level at which the stakeholder will influnece and will be influenced by change. some will need sensitisation, others will need to be empowered to take their role seriously and yet others will need to be set free to drive the transformation agenda. At any given time, there are a variety of stakehodler roles. Each person's part is important in defining and propelling the whole.
|
Kwach
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 |
| Country: | Kenya |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Country: | Kenya |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#31 Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 10:58 |
|
1. What are the best ways to engage leaders in capacity building for change under the umbrella of institutional partnerships? Leaders can be involved in change management through workshops, seminars and exchange programmes in different countries.
2. How best to get the incentive systems right?
The incentive systems in our African universities should be tied to performance. In Kenya the state awardloans to students,fund public universities, and give funds for research to universities. These should only be awarded to universities which have achieved some set standards the way its done in UK or USA. Tying funding to improvement of universities activities will lead to universities embracing change and best practices.
3. How best to engage stakeholders in the process of change? Stakeholders can embrace change by accepting the principles of change, these are outlined in the standards or guidelines change in particular settings. So involving stakeholders in developing the standards and guidelines for change process will be appriated. Ownership of change is vital through conscensus.
|
yohan
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | Ethiopia |
| Posts: | 15 |
| Country: | Ethiopia |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#32 Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 11:42 |
|
Organizing tailor made training programs is one of the effective ways to engage leaders in capacity building. Training packages should be designed for various levels: presidents, vice presidents, deans, and department heads in order to equip them with managerial skills for institutional transformation. It is also useful to conduct capacity building needs assessment based on the institutions change agendas and corresponding implementation plans. Special consideration should be given to woman empowerment in management positions and senior posts.
Key training themes may include:- Change management in institutional reform
- Quality management for enhancing institutional effectiveness
- Communication and leadership
Leaders need to have the ability to mobilize the staff, students and other members of the community towards the achievement of their institutions’ missions and vision. They should improve the communication within their institution to foster dedication through participatory management and teamwork for implementing objectives. In fact, appointing the right people to senior management posts is very crucial.
The association of universities could reinforce the commitment of institutions’ leaders through their forums. Promoting a consortium approach among higher education institutions (including with the involvement of US-Africa initiative) is useful to share best practices in leadership.
Regards,
Yohannes Woldetensae
|
SEDOGO
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 |
| Country: | Burkina Faso |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Country: | BURKINA FASO |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#33 Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 13:00 |
|
Bonjour à toutes et à tous,
3. Comment mieux faire participer les parties prenantes dans le processus de changement ?
Au cours des prochaines années, les changements organisationnels seront continus et les stratégies de facilitation des changements s’imposeront i.e. les stratégies qui tiendront compte des attitudes relatives au changement, de l’équilibre entre les aspects techniques et humains et du processus d’adaptation des individus au changement.
LES ATTITUDES FACE AU CHANGEMENT
Lorsque l’on songe à mettre en place des changements organisationnels, il est essentiel de garder en mémoire la règle du 20-60-20.Elle indique qu’environ 20% des personnes qui travaillent dans une organisation accepteront d’emblée le changement(les positifs).Un autre groupe soit environ 60% des employés, ne se compromettra pas(les neutres) ; ces employés seront plutôt réservés face au changement. Quant aux 20% des employés qui restent, ils résisteront farouchement au changement(les négatifs) ; ils tenteront même délibérément de le faire échouer. Ces données illustrent bien la tâche à accomplir : convaincre le groupe des 80%(les neutres et les négatifs) d’accepter le changement, puisque seulement 20% des employés sont positifs au départ.
La stratégie doit donc évidemment être établie en conséquence.
PREMIER OBJECTIF : CONVAINCRE LES NEUTRES ET LES NEGATIFS
L’EQUILIBRE ENTRE LES ASPECTS TRECHNIQUES ET LES ASPECTS HUMAINS
Faciliter le changement signifie établir des stratégies qui intègrent le processus de changement technique (i.e. le passage de la situation actuelle à la situation désirée) et le processus d’adaptation des individus au changement. Tout programme de changement implique ces deux processus de changement.
Traditionnellement les gestionnaires du changement se sont surtout concentrés sur les aspects techniques. Ils mettaient alors l’emphase sur les structures, les processus, les systèmes et les technologies, pour déployer leur vision de l’organisation ainsi que leur stratégie. Bien que ces aspects soient très importants, il a été démontré que les chances de succès sont considérablement amoindries si l’on ne tient pas compte du processus d’adaptation des individus au changement.
C’est à ce dernier que nous consacrerons les prochains écrits.
Bien cordialement,
PAUL HENRI SEDOGO
|
SEDOGO
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 |
| Country: | Burkina Faso |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Country: | BURKINA FASO |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#34 Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 13:29 |
|
Bonjour à toute et à tous,
3. Comment mieux faire participer les parties prenantes dans le processus de changement ?
LES TROIS PHASES DU PROCESSUS D’ADAPTATION DES INDIVIDUS AU CHANGEMENT
Le processus d’adaptation des individus au changement se déroule en trois phases : rompre, Explorer et commencer. Au cours de ces trois phases, on peut observer des émotions et des comportements communs et dégager des stratégies en conséquence.
En conclusion, les circonstances particulières qui prévalent dans chaque organisation font en sorte que tout programme de changement doit être spécifique.Quoiqu'il n'y ait pas de recette ou de méthodologie miracle pour faciliter le changement, nous sommes d'avis qu'une démarche réussie requiert une grande habileté à comprendre les comportements humains dans tout processus de changement.
Best regards,
PAUL HENRI SEDOGO
Economiste des ressources humaines et du travail
|
vansantr
Member
Rick Van Sant
|
#35 Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 14:26 |
|
Thank you to all who have written to me directly. Thinking about the questions posed by the moderator, I do not think you can adequately answer the three questions as separate issues. The mere selection of them by the moderator suggests that they are already linked.
Before I could answer these questions, I thought about what are the incentives that the initiative brings. There are probably three: money, knowledge, and attention. It is my feeling that most people will react first to the money incentive, but perhaps the most powerful is the last one – attention. I believe that the primal need for acceptance and recognition is far more powerful than financial compensation.
So… what if the initiative were to develop a set of criteria for institutional participation (on both the US and Africa sides) that require attention to all three of the moderator’s questions? Let me explain…
One of the models that seems to surface in the literature regularly and has proven effective in my experience working in the United Arab Emirates with School Principals is the cohort system. What if the various initiatives included the requirement of participation of a leadership core from whoever is involved in the initiative? That these leadership cores form a cohort that has its own training, support and accountability agenda. Note: I agree with Professor Emily Akuno that optimally selection needs to be based on vision, not on political aspirations. This cohort meets face to face and virtually (when and if the technology is available) with external facilitation to learn, grow and support each other and to hold each other accountable in ways and terms that make sense given the context. This cannot be about big brother (the US or the Initiative) holding the reigns of accountability, it must come from the participants themselves.
At the same time, the field personnel; faculty, scientists, students, government staff etc. are building the essential coalitions – learning communities – that will create the critical mass to sustain a project (attention) when the (money) runs out, leaving behind the (knowledge) that could perpetuate sustainable change. Whatever the projects are – they must not be isolated events, they must be the result of a learning community approach that includes a wide range of stakeholders, not the least of which are students.
This critical mass of people, ideas, support, money, attention must be rooted in the dreams of the African stakeholders and in an attitude of genuine service by the US partners. Perhaps then and only then will this initiative pass into history as something more than just another project that came and went.
|
MarcCutright
Guest
$user_ctitle
| Joined: | |
| Country: | |
| Posts: | |
| Country: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#36 Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 14:54 |
|
| In my limited work in East Africa, I have come to believe in the importance of identifying and boiling down to essence those key, overarching goals of change, and to not become hung up in specific, a priori strategies. Expanding participation, Enhancing classroom engagement, etc. are those sorts of goals to which I refer. Although, in our case, the "American model" has some promise for application, and appears to be generally endorsed in many sectors, stubborn consistency with specific means of accomplishment is likely to mean a poor fit to local or national circumstances, and ignoring opportunities to build on local and different success. Goals and eventual outcomes can and probably should be fairly concrete and durable over a good period of time. But planning, strategies, and projects might be more short-term in nature, should be highly adaptable to change as it is realized, should be highly receptive to the input of new ideas and resources, and above all, should respect the experiences and successes of all partners.
|
lmjones
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Country: | USA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#37 Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 14:54 |
|
1. What are the best ways to engage leaders in capacity building for change under the umbrella of institutional partnerships?
It has been said already, but I think the best way is to find out in what topic the "leaders" and the would-be partners already have an interest -- and then partnerships should only continue in areas where both parties have a mutual interest. What I am getting at is the need for true partnerships- not paternalism. I have seen this work in business schools when an African partner already wanted to learn how to write business cases according to "top" standards (we can debate that later) and there was value in a joint project to the African partner because he was able to learn and to create a case for his own context. Others benefitted from the existence of a new case written from a new perspective. Everyone involved stayed interested and engaged - but the stimulus came from the African side first. Both parties were in a mutual learning cycle, even though it may have appeared at the outset that the African partner was learning from the U.S. partner.
2. How best to get the incentive systems right?
The situation above speaks to enlightened self-interest, although I personally think that altruism and intrinsic motivation are alive and well also...Still, each party must have the opportunity to verify that they are motivated and interested in the incentives that are in play. It seems the best way to ensure that is to ensure that both parties create the incentives. Assuming that one knows what the other wants is dangerous. And money may not be the first "want."
3. How best to engage stakeholders in the process of change?
Make sure they co-create the process rather than get told about the process too late...
|
Jonathan Hubchen, LSU AgCenter
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 24th, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Country: | United States |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#38 Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 18:58 |
|
Dear Colleagues,
Based on the experience of the LSU AgCenter in collaborating with host country institutions of higher learning, as well as a review of previous posts, I wish to present the following replies to the moderator’s original questions:
· What is the best way to achieve institutional change? What are effective strategies?
Institutional change is often brought about by an outside stimulus. Networks and partnerships are useful ways for an institution, such as an African university, to incorporate such outside stimulus in a way that it can control. In addition, institutional change should be facilitated by the professional development of that institution’s staff members. I also believe that leadership- the presence of a good leader who shares his/her vision with staff is also an important aspect for effecting institutional change.
· How can partnerships help?
As mentioned above, partners can provide each other stimuli toward institutional change. In the context of higher education, such stimuli can include a new perspective, experience or best practice. Partners can compare experiences as well as share resources and effort to resolve an issue of mutual interest. In successful university partnership, resources should be targeted toward sustainable results resulting in an institutional buy-in from each partner. A common, shared goal is also important, so is shared commitment to achieve the goals.
· Where should partnerships begin?
Universities within a partnership should define their respective reasons for joining the partnership and their roles within the partnership. Mutually beneficial goals should be formed through the resolution of each partner’s conflicting aims. Collaborative activities, as well as the benchmarks to measure those activities’ progress, should be defined. Once a potential partnership is planned, there are four essential ingredients to establish a sustainable partnership- a) mutual professional and personal respect and understanding of the different cultural environments of the institutions; b) full and open communication; c) s shared goal/vision; and d) mutual commitment to achieve the set goals(s).
A vital initial step is the establishment of procedures for communication an exchange of information. Mechanisms include electronic communication, and face to face meetings determined through mutual agreement. Collaboration should be balanced between partner capabilities, projects and coordinated capacity building. Collaborative activities should be defined in terms of outcome-based goals and objectives.
· What should be the goals and objectives for the partnerships that the Initiative seeks to support? What should they prioritize?
These should be based on needs and opportunities facing the partner institutions. Within the African context, they include basic need and job development. Within the context of higher education, priority should be give to the traditional roles of faculty: classroom instruction, research and outreach. The latter would ensure the relevance of the higher education system in Africa to the needs of its society and communities, increase its capacity to attract outside funding, and establish a client/service focus.
|
gperrier
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Country: | USA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#39 Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 20:39 |
|
My experience with HE institution in Africa strongly matches that of Rick Van Sant. To achieve a lasting improvement, donor supported interventions much act to assist African institutions to move in a direction they already had identified as a priority. In such cases, the institutions’ faculty and administrators already have the incentives to make the changes. This highlights the importance of developing the right partnerships. The African institution must already be trying to make changes and the US institution(s) must come with the right mindset and experience that they can prove useful as well as can be truly collaborative partners. An added condition is that the ministry overseeing higher education, must also have identified the changes as important.
For the improvements to be sustainable, donor support must be limited to start up funds and promoting a sharing of ideas. Any new programs or initiatives, however, must be supportable within the resources of the African institution. This is why external funding is not necessarily the answer; it is often the problem because it allows programs to expand in cost beyond what the Africa institution can maintain.
This suggest that the engagement of leaders in capacity building at African institutions cannot be a rapid process, but involved considerable dialogue among partners before moving forward. The US partners need to clearly understand the vision and objectives of the African institutions as well as the resource limitations that the African institutions work under while the African institutions need to clearly see the set of skills, technologies, and experiences that the US institutions can offer but also understand the limitations of their US partners. This dialogue could form the initial step in a program and take many months. Out of such a dialogue concrete capacity building programs would emerge. The answers to the questions posed by the moderators would come from this dialogue and they probably would be different for each partnership.
Rather than numerous major changes in the operation of the African institution, the programs should focus on a few concrete small steps that can have a large impact on the relevance of the African institutions within their own community as well as on the capacity of the African institution. Two changes that I feel have clearly emerged from this e-conference and that would have an immediate large impact on the capacity and relevance of the African HE institutions are developing an effective dialogue between the institution and community stakeholds and to set in place permanent programs that helps instructors improve their pedagogy. From the e-conference it is obvious that at least some African HE institutions also see these changes as priorities.
|
DUA
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 29th, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Country: | USA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#40 Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 22:33 |
|
Good Afternoon! Change is a dynamic event which occurs from within and without. In my discipline we have seen change in our curriculum for the past 10 to 13 years. Some of it was small an unnoticable, some was for better deliverance of content, it came to serve the community in which we exist and our graduates will serve through our own observations, and then there was some change forced upon us by governing bodies. It has been good and not so good from any one point in time. I do feel that one should be a change agent. Recognizing in advance what might be a pivotal point for change to occur and then to move towards that potential in an organized manner. If you will ~ do to oneself before it is brought down upon one from another place, whenever possible.
That said for this to be dynamic those working in the environment must realize the benefit to change and want to be apart of the change. There are so many initiatives in academia at this time where does one begin and how does the college/university know which one to go for. One of our Ethiopian members mentioned such an initiative, in the US there are a number of HEIs including my own participating in the "Acheiving the Dream" initiative, there are those of us undergoing reaccreditation and are in the stage of self evaluation and revelation as apart of the process, which will lead to change in our division, and at times this may affect other departments as well. Change therefore, is a learning process-self disclosure if not for those outside of us but at least to ourselves.
Faculty and staff must first welcome new ideas and changes, find the value in it and then inspire colleagues and students to participate in the process. Not every one will go some where but some need to buy in to the ideas and be cheerleaders for those who do and to be welcoming to those who may come to us. We must learn how to better use technologies available to facilitate interactions from near and far, since travel is costly for all participants. Likewise, we should work in tandem not to reinvent the wheel but to bolster our strengths. One should never feel too comfortable for therein lies complaisancy and we stagnate.
|
Current time is 16:10 | Page:   1 2 3   |
|
|
|
|
