 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
jhmuyonga
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 |
| Country: | Uganda |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Country: | Uganda |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#41 Posted: Fri Oct 10th, 2008 14:26 |
|
There is a need to rethink management structure in African Universities, with a view of increasing flexibility. For example how many steps should be undertaken to for a curriculum review, or to introduce a new course?
There is also need to introduce units responsible for commercialisation of research and for relations building within Universities.
Multidisciplinarity also needs to be enhanced. This may be through cross unit research programs and by encouranging students taking of courses in disciplines outside their main area of study.
To ensure that University Faculty members remain up todate, refresher courses need to be emphasised. Programs aimed at strengthening Faculty's soft skills are also required.
|
Kent Mitchell
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Country: | United States |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#42 Posted: Fri Oct 10th, 2008 16:48 |
|
Regarding ways to affect institutional change. . . in my view, the first point is to identify precisely enough the change that is sought. Secondly, from that definition, begin to think backwards down through all the factors or causes that you can; and give this process enough time in order that more factors can arise as "you" or your group lives with and/or researches the problem. In saying "think backward" I mean: identify all the obstacles you can and consider how best to lessen their power as you also steer activities toward the change that is sought. The third point is to give predictable, explicit structure (for all to see) to the process toward the change that you are seeking. And, finally, always keep in mind that these kinds of changes can take years. I am suggesting that an institutional change must be arranged to occur in and through a large, explicit, and time-consuming process engaging many in the new direction. Kent Mitchell
|
Valerie Gonlin
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Country: | United States |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#43 Posted: Fri Oct 10th, 2008 17:58 |
|
how to engage leaders: Engage leaders by, first, asking them (via survey or interviews) what they hope to ultimately accomplish, such as launch business graduates who will start companies that create well-paying jobs, or establish a research facility that will find cures for local diseases. Then, assess their current resources (bright students with good fundamental skills, etc.) Also assess their obstacles (lack of funds, change-resistant culture, etc.) After gauging their objectives, resources, and obstacles, work to gain buy-in -- agreement on the ultimate goal -- from other stakeholders.
Then, link the leaders' schools with complementary institutions/organizations. For example, the leaders can spend time at the partnering institution to learn best practices, then return to the home country to implement them. The partnering institution then has a more solid relationship with the institution whose leaders it hosted, which lays the foundation for future collaboration. Or, the two institutions can implement an on-going exchange program between them so that an increasing number of peple on both sides gain knowledge, skills and cultural competency and so that there is synergy toward reaching the goal.
|
Anne-Claire Hervy
Super Moderator
|
#44 Posted: Fri Oct 10th, 2008 22:19 |
|
MESSAGE FROM THE MODERATORS / MESSAGE DES MODERATEURS (EN FRANCAIS CI-BAS)
Dear Participants,
We really appreciate your continued active participation in the E-consultation. Your attention to issues of institutional change and how it is to be brought about are especially important as we attempt to clarify operational directions for future partnership activities. We have attempted in a gross sense to summarize recent observations regarding institutional leadership and change, incentive systems and the role of stakeholders in the process.
1. Regarding leadership development and institutional change, several important points were raised.
a. Partnership activities should include opportunities for leaders of HEI’s to observe and otherwise be exposed to alternative models, ideas, opportunities. This might be promoted through structures seminars, exchange programs, leadership development programs, etc.
b. Institutional vision for the future and mission need to be articulated by institutional leaders, but need input from all, including faculty, staff and stakeholders. Institutional leaders need to help build a consensus about institutional direction and mission.
c. Partnership program activities need to build on existing strategic planning efforts and agendas for change.
d. Institutional leaders need to be part of peer groups that advocate for, support, and encourage positive leadership for change.
2. Stakeholders need to be engaged in the change process as well as the on-going activities of the Higher Education Institutions. ]They need to be brought into the planning process to help define the direction of needed change as well as the process of developing standards of performance for the institution.
3. Staff training across the board is one of the best ways to support institutional change, be it related to organization goals and mission, or be it to support individual activities of faculty and administrators, including research and teaching content and process.
As we continue this consultation, we ask that you give particular attention to the following follow up question:
To what extent should issues of institutional management and leadership be emphasized in the planning grant applications? ]What would be the relative emphasis of this broad institutional agenda as opposed to the needs of specific disciplinary sectors, such as agriculture, health, business, or science and math in program design and in program operation?
EN FRANCAIS
Chers participants,
Nous vous remercions de votre participation active et continue dans cette consultation. Votre attention sur les questions de changement institutionnel sont d'autant plus importante que nous tentons de clarifier les orientations opérationnelles pour les futures activités de partenariat.
Nous avons tenté de résumer les observations récentes en ce qui concerne le leadership et de changement institutionnel, les systèmes d'incitation et le rôle des parties prenantes dans le processus.
1. En ce qui concerne le développement du leadership et le changement institutionnel, plusieurs points importants ont été soulevés.
a. Les activités de partenariat devrait inclure des opportunités pour les dirigeants des EES à observer et à être exposées à d'autres modèles, d'idées, de possibilités. Cela pourrait être encouragée par des séminaires, des programs d'échange, des programmes de développement de leadership, etc.
b. Les vision de l'avenir et la mission des institutions doivent être articulés par les dirigeants des institutions, mais nécessitent la contribution de tous, y compris le corps professoral, le personnel et les partis prenants. Les dirigeants des institutions doivent contribuer à construire un consensus sur la direction institutionnelle et de la mission.
c. Les program d’activités des partenariats doivent s'appuyer sur les plans stratégiques déjà en place.
d. Les dirigeants des institutions doivent faire partie de groupes de collègues qui préconisent, soutiennent, et encouragent le leadership pour le changement.
2. Les parties intéressées doivent être engagés dans le processus de changement ainsi que les activités des établissements d'enseignement supérieur. Ils ont besoin d'être traduit dans le processus de planification pour aider à définir la direction du changement nécessaire, ainsi que le processus d'élaboration de normes de performance pour l'institution.
3. La formation du personnel est l'un des meilleurs moyens de soutenir le changement institutionnel, que ce soit liés à l'organisation objectifs et de la mission, ou que ce soit pour financer des activités de professeurs et d'administrateurs, y compris la recherche et l'enseignement.
Alors que nous continuons cette consultation, nous vous demandons de porter une attention particulière à la question suivante:
Dans quelle mesure la gestion institutionnelle et le leadership devraient être l’objet de principal dans la planification des demandes de subvention? Quel serait l'importance relative de ce vaste ordre du jour des institutions, par opposition aux besoins particuliers de certains secteurs disciplinaires, tels que l'agriculture, la santé, des affaires, ou de la science et de mathématiques dans la conception et au fonctionnement program?
Last edited on Fri Oct 10th, 2008 22:22 by Anne-Claire Hervy
|
yohan
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | Ethiopia |
| Posts: | 15 |
| Country: | Ethiopia |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#45 Posted: Sat Oct 11th, 2008 12:17 |
|
I think institutional management and leadership should be one of the four focus areas beside pedagogy, quality assurance, and research. The following four capacity building programs should be given priorities in each specific field whether it is Agriculture, Engineering, or Health.
1. Management and Leadership Development Programs (Presidents, Deans,
Department Heads)
2. Pedagogical Skill Improvement Programs (Outcomes-Based-Approach)
3. Quality Assurance Capacity Building Programs (Quality Monitoring, Quality Management, and Quality Enhancement)
4. Research Capacity Development Programs (Applied Research and Problem Solving)
Indeed, these focus areas are in line with the priorities of African Union plan of action for the second decade of education.
Regards,
Yohannes Woldetensae
|
RoseQ
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 |
| Country: | South Africa |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Country: | South Africa |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#46 Posted: Sat Oct 11th, 2008 12:39 |
|
Hi
Can the moderators please clarify what they mean by the following statement: To what extent should issues of institutional management and leadership be emphasized in the planning grant applications? ]What would be the relative emphasis of this broad institutional agenda as opposed to the needs of specific disciplinary sectors, such as agriculture, health, business, or science and math in program design and in program operation?
If the intention is to create a list of factors against which a proposal will be measured; thus the more of these items addressed in your project application the "better" your rating, this item would be of concern for me personally. In many cases it may be outside the area of influence of specific groups of researchers to significantly impact the leadership structure in which they operate and I would not want to see a good project rated lower as a result of this.
However- if the intention is for these to form a series of intiatives or projects under which individual interventions should be able to categorise themselves (or indicate areas of potential impact) then this would be a very valuable area for funding to be spent.
WHile I understand the list of disciplines is not intended to be exhaustive, I would suggest education and technology receive specific mention.
|
Jason Scorza
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Country: | USA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#47 Posted: Sun Oct 12th, 2008 03:08 |
|
For institutional change to be worthwhile it must be sustainable. Sustainable institutional change occurs through sustained leadership by cohorts of individuals with strong institutional commitment, understanding of the institutional needs, and skills (e.g., financial, managerial, technical, social) equal to these needs. Sustained leadership is difficult in institutions constantly beset by crises. A critical mass of leadership capacity must be developed at multiple levels, with attention to redundancy of expertise and succession planning, in order to ensure the sustainability of institutional change.
This, in turn, requires investment in leadership at multiple levels within institutions, through practice such as leadership exchanges, administrative internships, and job shadowing within and between institutions. One program run by the American Council on Education could serve as a model for such investment in leadership. The program facilitates leadership exchanges between institutions within the US, and to a lesser extent between South African institutions and US institutions. These exchanges not only help to develop the general leadership skills of participants but also offer opportunities to develop a variety of financial, managerial, and technical skills related to HE leadership. They also provide participants with a certain distance from the everyday demands of their home institutions, as well as access to new knowledge, networks, and practices that may be called upon when returning to their home institutions.
Although I have emphasized leadership development in the preceding comments, I do not intend to suggest that partnerships should be limited to leadership exchanges. On the contrary, partnerships can and should be developed according to the specific interests and needs of the participating institutions. I agree with those who have identified teacher education, health education, technology, and agriculture as likely to be areas of particular interest.
However, I would like to see each partnership include a leadership development/exchange component, either within a particular priority area or across multiple levels and areas. In addition to the intrinsic value of leadership development, my hope is that leadership exchanges between institutional partners would in time lead to the development of multiple levels of cooperation between institutions -- helping the partnerships themselves to be more sustainable and enabling them to survive beyond the duration of the initial project.
|
Latib
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Country: | USA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#48 Posted: Sun Oct 12th, 2008 07:43 |
|
I am not sure that there is a “best way” to achieve institutional change. Every change initiative has to be contextually relevant, and therefore, unique perhaps in its conception and implementation. Regardless, any and every change initiative must begin with commitment from the leadership engines of institutions. This suggests that commitment must reside in every intersection of the organization. Every change strategy-the first to be implemented- therefore must begin with harnessing the collective wisdom of all stakeholders. Once commitment to change [objective(s)] has been achieved, the real work begins with implementation, which in my view is the most critical element of any change effort. Brilliant execution of strategies is critical for achieving the goals and priorities of all change efforts.
Partnerships can help only if there is common ground, and an understanding of the “felt pain”. This, by definition identifies priorities, ones that surface from conversations about defining the future and achieving that future. In all international partnership agreements that I have negotiated, common ground and mutual respect are fundamental to success.
Really, at the risk of sounding terribly simplistic, there are no recipes for any of the questions posed. It is critical that a thoughtful process be initiated so that there is no imposition from one partner or the other. Achieving institutional change via a collective dialogue is the only methodology I know that can bring about large scale revisions of every aspect of an institution’s personality and agenda.
Last edited on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 07:46 by Latib
|
Mengistu H.
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 8th, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Country: | USA/Ethiopia |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#49 Posted: Sun Oct 12th, 2008 10:33 |
|
I think both leadership and institutional management are the crux of the matter. They do have a broader impact across all issues. if they are not addressed properly, individual projects across subject lines are not going to have a sound impact. Infact focusing on the capacity building of the institutional management and leadership of HE can be broad enough topic for the intiative. I believe leadership and management are the basis and the U.S. HE has a lot to offer that can be of tangible benefit to African HIs. Leadership, management, and technology integration are the key.
Cheers,
Mengistu
|
Dorian
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | Kenya |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Country: | Kenya |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#50 Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 08:12 |
|
Dear Colleagues
The question of how to achieve institutional transformation of change requires that we conceptualize it in terms of our academic and societal commitments which should be reflected in our pedagogies, curricula and best practices. As has been summarized by you the outdated-ness of the latter three domains is a serious challenge for Africa and indeed the world. In light of the collapse of the global economic system, should we not all take responsibility for the development of a global consciousness that respects the environment, reigns in greed, promotes humanitarianism- and indeed build these into the content of our curricula? Such a curricula model would suit all countries and it will also include customization to local conditions.
The African Council of Distance Education has 23 HE institutions members at the moment but aims to double this by 2010, and our mission is the promotion of Open and Distance Learning (ODL) in Africa. We believe that ODL is the only mode of delivery of HE in resource constraint Africa; and if we could get the application of ICT's right, Africa would be able to deliver the massification of HE to millions of students in any place at any time and at the pace of the student, on the principle of economies of scale. Residential HE institutions will never in this century be able to provide access to all those students who need and want it and ODL is the solution, the `fifth wave' of education and training delivery that needs fifth wave technology. This is where partnerships are crucial. Africa's needs are too numerous for one organisation to receive all the funding for a project that affects hundreds of institutions. Two way partnerships between Africa and the developed world must be build on the premise of multi partnerships within Africa and development agencies may want to make this a basic requirement and criterion for the allocation of funding- as some do in fact do but I am not always sure that it is strictly applied and monitored.
Happy dialogue
Doreen
|
Kossi Makpayo
Member
|
#51 Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 17:20 |
|
Hello All!
My discussion here is based on my higher education experience as student and/or as an instructor in Togo, Mali, Senegal (french education system) and now USA.
Let me first say that in order to increase the probability of sucess of any change, it would be good if the process includes teachers, local political leaders and students. Second any proposal for change should include INCENTIVE to all parties, that is give reasons why change is needed.
Teachers accross the countries above mentioned and in my opinion, have higher degree of liberty to make independent decisions, especially on what should be taught. I recall an experience around 1999-2001, when UNDP (PNUD) had a program that had nationals of developing countries teaching in developed countries come and teach for a month or two in their countries of origin universities. I think that had been one of my best experiences at the University of Mali. Many students as I recall liked the experience as well. But I personally had a feeling that there were some "flictions" with some local professors (which is very understandable!). I mean most of them have given me all the got and many times out of sacrifice! In fact some of them still inspire me today. I mean that the should be given opportunities to offer more through direct assistance (all kind of assistance) to learn more, travel and see what is done in other countries and universities. In brief, they should be given incentive to change. That in turn will stop the brain-drain by helping good students see that there is a future for a Universty Professor that is not necessary aligned with the party in power. Hence that culture of excellence that each education establishment should yearn for will be established.
Fortunately and/or Unfortunately many higher education institutions are public. Professors look for the goverment for fundings just as students do for their scholarships and various aid. Hence sometimes, government offocials tend to intervene in the way the university is run. This comes in different forms. Student Government bodies being or presumed manipulated by some political parties of all sides. Professors being well refused deserved promotions just because of political reasons... Hence any initiative should aim at approaching or including the government in some ways. The good news is that more and more most believe in excellence in the higher education.
Students. I had to sacrifice one more year of studies at a University directly because of students of strikes (they may be indirect causes...). There were too many of them, sometimes for three full months in a row! Most of the time is the government that did not honored his engagement of paying the scholarships on time, or a reform that students did not like and unfortunately yes sometimes politically motivated!
Also I think Students should be given a chance to anonymously say what they think about how Professors perform in the strict academy sense at least one a year! The initiative should think of directly support student that perform well.
There is a problem that is mostly related to the french higher education system: each students with a high school degree has direct access to the university (which happen to be the first and last choice). But the infrastructure is not following so most of the universities are over-crowded. This less and less resource situations lead to success rate like 20% in the 1st year of university. Change will come if you change our ways of teaching (more use of modern tools) and help with the resources keep up with the admission rate or change the admission policy (I know many may not like this last one but we have to make choices)
Here are my final thought on this. There is a Masters program in Economics that run accross universities in West Africa: PTCI. I graduated from that program and in my opinion, and eventhough I think the program can be improved upon, that is as close that we have come the following: change is need in higher education in Africa, change works when appropriately effectuated and when the is the possibility of monitoring, and penalties, and rewards. Professors, students and political leaders need and want the change.
Kossi Makpayo
Suffolk University
Boston, MA
|
gcreppy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 18th, 2008 |
| Country: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Country: | USA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#52 Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 18:27 |
|
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my views on this important initiative with colleagues both in Africa and the US. Some of the issues discussed in my presentation, may be at variance with the main topic of discussion and I hope you forgive me for that but it has been a hectic few weeks which has made it almost impossible for me to participate and keep up with the flow of the conversation in this forum. But, as the saying goes, better late than never.
One of the greatest challenges to development efforts in Africa is the shortage of skilled and professional personnel. This shortage of human capital can be attributed to three main factors. First, many of the programs offered by institutions of higher learning are not designed to satisfy the skills required by the labor market. Second, studies have shown that a significant proportion of graduates from colleges and universities emigrate to developed countries to look for better paying jobs. Studies have shown that, for a number of sub-Saharan African countries, more than 30% of the highly skilled professionals are lost to the OECD countries (Carrington & Detragiache, 1998; Haque & Aziz, 1998). Nearly 88% of adults who emigrate from Africa to the United States have a high school education or higher (Speer. cited by Zeleza, 1998). Although the immigration of Africans to developed countries is relatively small compared to immigrants from other regions, studies have shown that a high proportion of immigrants of African descent consist of highly skilled professionals, making emigration from Africa disproportionately skill intensive. (World Bank, 2006). Third, even those professionals who do not leave the region frequently engage in less-skilled occupations because of weak national economies.
The skills lost through brain drain are not easily replaced given the limited capacity of higher education and training capacity to train a new generation of professionals to fill the vacuum created by the massive flight of human capital.
In the past, developed countries have provided various forms of technical assistance to help African countries overcome the skills deficiency. These programs, albeit helpful, have often served to create a psychological dependence on foreign talent.
Given the pressures from globalization and demographic trends in developed countries, it is fair to assume that Africa will continue to experience a loss of skilled and professional personnel to the developed world for years to come. It is therefore imperative for African countries to come up with strategies to enhance their capacity for training, retaining skilled manpower, and reversing some of the brain drain, which has resulted in the retardation of economic progress.
Any solution to the problem of brain drain in Africa should seriously consider both demand-side and supply-side factors of the problem. In a global world economy, labor mobility is likely to flow from countries with low demand to regions with the most use for those skills. Africa is loosing its skilled manpower because it cannot remunerate, preserve and effectively utilize highly skilled workers. The effective use of talent, however, depends on the availability of employment opportunities, the productivity of labor and returns to education associated with economic growth. This implies a positive feedback effect which goes from capacity building and skills development to higher growth; which in turn is likely to lead to the increase in the demand for more skilled workers. Another major development in sub-Saharan Africa which has increased the demand for skilled workers is the shift towards market-oriented economic policies and democratic governance, globalization, and the increased importance of information technology in the last two decades. These factors have collectively exerted pressure on African governments to create the necessary environment to attract foreign capital and to promote economic growth. In response to this pressure, some African countries are pursuing reforms to develop a professional civil service structure, based on a system that gives opportunities and advantages to people on the basis of their qualification and ability rather than political affiliation or family ties. The impact of these reforms is twofold: an increase the demand for skilled and professional employees and an elevation of the standards for entry into public service, and further training on the job.
The willingness of African governments to undertake these reforms is a good start but this effort has been severely constrained by 2 main factors: inadequate personnel and institutions with the expertise to train workers build capacity and provide quality education. This limitation provides the scope for African governments and institutions of higher learning to form partnerships with peer institutions in the US to help train local talent and build the capacity necessary to promote a sustainable economic growth.
Major universities have traditionally participated in these programs and have made major contributions to the training of medical doctors, engineers, college professors, business leaders, scientists, to mention a few. An area of collaboration that is likely to be of significant benefit to African economies but has not yet been adequately explored, is the expertise provided by community colleges.
Historically, community colleges have had a dual mandate: to enhance the workforce readiness of students and to promote economic development in the form of the occupational preparedness of students. In the last three decades, community colleges have expanded their economic development role to include contract training; small business incubation and assistance; and local economic planning. The new role for the community colleges puts them in a strategic position to meet the human resource needs of the business community and the economies of the local areas they serve. Coincidentally, the stage of development in most African countries is at a point where the expertise of community colleges can cost-effectively play a crucial role in training and replacing the skill deficiencies that have constrained economic progress in the region. Northern Virginia Community College, as one of the leading community colleges in the country, has achieved a great deal of success in implementing the new mandate for community colleges and can share its expertise with sister institutions in Africa within the framework of the Africa-US Higher Education Initiative.
Edward G. E. Creppy, MBA, Ph.D
Northern Virginia Community College
Loudoun Campus, Virginia
|
LWoollacott
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 10th, 2008 |
| Country: | South Africa |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Country: | South Africa |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#53 Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 19:45 |
|
What is the best way to achieve institutional change? What are effective strategies?
We require both top down and bottom up approaches. I believe strongly that change debated and initiated primarily at policy level and not deeply in touch with the issues faced in the class rooms of an institution is in danger of being ivory tower exercises. Even worse, change uninformed by classroom realities and exercising the power associated with the level of policy makers, runs the risk of undermining particularly the efforts of the dedicated and informed teachers who are trying to make a difference. On the other hand, the complexity and the coal-face realities of the classroom can overwhelm even the dedicated and informed teacher: policy level planners are necessary to keep them in touch with big picture realities.
I have only a few of the postings – but all the ones I have read address change as a top-down process. I plead for a bottom-up effort in parallel. My plea comes from years of experience teaching, researching, and trying to understand what changes and strategies are needed at the coal face of education in an African setting – post apartheid South Africa, teaching academic development integrated with engineering content in a first year, main-stream engineering course, where the demographics are 75% African and 10% Caucasian. One of the biggest problems has been getting to grips with what the educational problems are and how best to address them so that students are as well prepared as possible for their subsequent years of study in a program that seeks to maintain global standards of engineering education. I feel the distance between my realities and the cogitations of the policy makers. I do not believe you can dictate or regulate effective change at the coal face without a really deep understanding of what is going on their. And you do not get a proper appreciation of those realities through discussions in policy committees! You get it through the hard grind of research at the coal face, partnership with the workers at the coal face and by resourcing those workers.
My answer to the questions then is to have two tracks – one located at the coal face and one at policy level. In the early stages, I believe the emphasis should be on finding answers to fundamental questions such as what are the educational problems at the coal face and what pedagogies are effective in addressing these. After that the policy people have something more solid to work on in terms of figuring out ways of supporting and resourcing effective coal face activities. After that higher level work can be done to develop more broad based policy aimed at sustaining and further developing those support and resource structures. I believe if you work the other way around – little will change where change is most desperately needed.
How can partnerships help?
I believe functional networks of African coal face teachers and educational researchers will be enormously beneficial – sharing experience, brainstorming, collaborating in both research and teaching, and even team teaching. Partnerships with teachers and researchers in America can be very helpful in terms of, for example, relevant expertise, independent input, and, where appropriate, help with resources. I think that partnerships with American researchers with experience with minority students and experience with IT may also be very helpful.
|
gcreppy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 18th, 2008 |
| Country: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Country: | USA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#54 Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 20:16 |
|
It is important for issues of institutional management and leadership to be included in the planning grant application for a number of reasons. First, as policy making entities, the management of an institution must have a clear understanding of the objectives of this grant in order for it to design policies that would facilitate the implementation of the goals of the initiative. Second, the fear of student agitation in some African countries, results in the appointment of political cronies as leaders of institutions of higher learning. In the countries where this is the case, new initiatives are always viewed and implemented through a political prism. It is therefore important for the administration of the institution to articulate its views on what exactly it is capable of doing and the extent to which it is able or willing to craft policies that would facilitate the implementation of this grant. Suppose, for example, that a group of students or faculty need to be selected for additional training in a sister institution in the US. A pertinent question, for example, would be the institutional criteria for making this selection. In countries where institutions do not have a clear, transparent and merit-based criteria for making these selections, the beneficiaries of programs such as this, are usually not the best qualified which results in a total waste of resources to the detriment of the country.
Having said this, however, I do also believe that the needs of specific disciplinary sectors should be identified jointly by the US and African partners of the program. Furthermore, the partners must come up with specific proposals on program design and operation at the planning stage of the grant. These proposals must be results oriented and have measurable outcomes, which must be assessed through periodic monitoring and evaluation exercises. As an African with several years of work at the World Bank, I have had a first hand experience of the misuse of resources simply because of the lack of a strategy and the specific short term objectives needed to achieve the long term objectives. So my suggestion is to emphasizing a broad agenda for program implementation but not at the expense of providing design and operational specifics in disciplinary sectors.
Edward G.E. Creppy, MBA; Ph.D
Northern Virginia Community College
Loudoun Campus, Virginia
|
akafst
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Country: | USA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#55 Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 07:08 |
|
If the primary goals include institutional change, intimately involved stakeholders, lasting partnerships and sustainability then I believe that the "delivery" of the assistance/support projects and inititatives from outside often doom them to failure. Without the involvement, imagination and inititation from within each institution there can be no real partnerships only repetitive "show" projects that do not address the need for real change and integration.
New partnerships and relationships can provide the spark that will encourage partners to work for change but the local parties have to be both self-generated and self-motivated. Even in the US I cannot really understand the dynamics, politics and personalities at another US-based HEI. What chance do I have of having sufficient insight into an African HEI to successfully navigate the complexities of all the parties and politics needed to create real change. The African partners have to take the first steps, believe in the need for change, be dedicated to stay in place and train their eventual replacements. From the US side, the supportive partnerships and resources of our institutions can then be used to the best advantage using the vision and commitment from the African HEIs. We in the US would have to simultaneously change how our institutions develop projects, programs and research that are more unilateral than bilateral or, more rarely, multilateral. Tenure in the new global "institutional" economy should result from the development of true exchange of ideas, shared outcomes and commitment - not line items on a resume or an RFP.
Scott
US
|
Kent Mitchell
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Country: | United States |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#56 Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 14:59 |
|
In work I have been engaged in, I have reflected on what I call hierarchical alienation: a conflation of factors - from indigenous traditions to international privatization and all the human creases in between - which work to dissociate administrators and teachers from each other, from students, from families, and from neighborhoods. Some of the inadvertent incentivizing I have seen growing up from the conflation of alienating factors makes most retreat into silence, withdrawal, and mistrust. Though everyone has to participate in breaking these cycles, those at the top, most confident of their positions and power, have the largest responsibility. It is they who must be educated to set a tone that allows major changes to flow upward because the people below beginning the really informed flow of experiments are allowed to know that their jobs are safe even as they articulate and experiment with changes. I believe, therefore, that change from the top and bottom are complementary, are woven,; and yet the first signals in under-resourced settings and where unemployment is high need to come from leaders. In turn, this point suggests that management and leadership should be an explicit, focused-on aspect of planning grant applications. I think that the management level requires education as well because 1) hierarchical alienation is a difficult topic to comprehend; and, 2) global privatizing as an international ethos, while positive in some ways, also has had the gradual dehumanizing effect of reiterating, reinforcing, and rewarding all tops as tops - as a good in itself. A top is never a good in itself. Profit that does not reseed means little. A top must connect in what it is and does. Otherwise, I believe that it needs to be upset.
Kent Mitchell
|
Current time is 16:08 | Page:   1 2 3 |
|
|
|
|
