Mission Innovation at the Periphery: Lessons from Kenya
Author(s):
Joan Hirt (presenting / submitting) Ane Johnson (presenting)
Conference:
ECER 2011
Format:
Paper

Session Information

22 SES 10 C, Policy, Management and Governance in Higher Education

Paper Session

Time:
2011-09-15
15:00-16:30
Room:
KL 29/235,1 FL., 28
Chair:
Mari Karm

Contribution

European higher education has traditionally been grounded in the notion that it serves a public good; colleges and universities are agents of national and regional development (Juceviciene, 2007). However, in recent decades, the Bologna imperatives and economic conditions have led institutions to transform themselves to act more as market agents than agents of development  (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004). The move to a market model has been associated with shifts from public to private financing for institutions (Heller and Rogers, 2006; Johnstone,  2004), program reallocations (Gumport, 2005), and quality assurance initiatives (Rhoades and Sporn, 2002). Public discourse surrounding these reforms is typically framed as good vs. bad, public vs. private, or equalizing vs. stratifying (Lynch, 2006). Although there is evidence to suggest that the public good and market-oriented models may co-exist in the educational sphere (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2005), the framework consistently engages Western conceptions of development.

These Western conceptions of development increasingly have been imposed on developing nations. Global agents in development include international financial institutions (IFIs) (e.g., the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund) and multilateral agencies (e.g., the United Nations, the World Trade Organization) whose policies and interventions are highly influential in developing countries. For example, neoliberal polices of IFIs have altered the historic approach to higher education in Africa (free to all) through the introduction of alternative financing, such as user fees (Tikly, 2001), and have heavily influenced governmental approaches to public sector activities leading to decreased funding for higher education (Okolie, 2003). The interventions of these organizations have led to the increased marketization of universities around the world. Yet the ways in which the market model has played out at public universities in developing countries, those typically considered at the periphery, has been consistently neglected in the literature.

In response to Mamdani’s (2007) call for more widespread debate on marketization at public research institutions in Africa, we conducted a study of how faculty and staff at state-financed institutions in Kenya perceive the intersection of marketization and development. We analyzed the data to explore the impact of marketization on the traditional missions of teaching, research, and service. Upon analysis, an analytical framework emerged, that of academic capitalism, the notion that higher education has evolved, in response to economic, policy and constituent pressures, to serve the private good (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004). However, our findings demonstrate that academic capitalism is being reshaped and contextualized by the needs of the universities employing the market model. We have discovered a new way to interpret the public and private roles of higher education, one that might translate readily from Kenya to tertiary institutions in Europe, the U.S., and other Western nations. Our ECER paper will describe those findings and expand upon the lessons about institutional mission that universities at the periphery can teach to their Western counterparts.

Method

This qualitative case study generated data through fieldwork undertaken at two universities in 2008. We employed three primary data collection techniques: open-ended interviews, documents, and supplementary materials. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with individual faculty and staff members at Kenya National University (KNU) and University of Kenya (UK) (these are pseudonyms developed to protect the identities of our participants). The interviews were conducted using a semi-structured protocol that sought both factual information from participants, as well as their perspectives on development and marketization at the national and regional levels. Additionally, we collected material culture, such as policy statements, institutional reports, and media accounts of KNU and UK programs and activities, to complement data elicited from interviews. Finally, we systematically collected field notes, reflexively interrogating our assumptions, biases, and analytic insights in the field. These data collection techniques enabled us to continually ground our findings in the literature, theory, and practice of the field of higher education management. Detailed data analysis was conducted using coding, across sources of evidence. This analytical technique allowed us to identify categories, to establish and corroborate themes, to ascertain significance, and to develop participant narratives regarding marketization, institutional mission, and the public good.

Expected Outcomes

The findings emerged from the three traditional missions of higher education: teaching, research, and service. In terms of teaching, instructional capitalism was evident, but associated with positive gains for both institutions and individuals (university stakeholders). Findings regarding the research mission also contradicted Western notions that increased focus on research under the market model is detrimental to teaching and service. In fact, most faculty and administrators perceive a lack of linkages to industry to be a failing in their country. Marketization with respect to research has been reshaped to fit more pressing national needs. The service mission has been reconceptualized so that the service function has been married with the training of students, primarily as entrepreneurs. Student entrepreneurship focuses on local community needs, therefore creating an atmosphere of accountability on the part of the university to local and national communities, even though these same activities produce revenue for the institution. We conclude that the dichotomous view (good v. bad) of academic capitalism in the West prevents scholars from recognizing that academic capitalism can benefit public universities. We identify the specific ways in which Western institutions might learn from their Kenyan counterparts.

References

Gumport, P. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39(1). 67-91. Heller, D., & Rogers, K. (2006). Shifting the burden: Public and private financing of higher education in the United States and implications for Europe. Tertiary Education and Management, 12(2). 91-117. Johnstone, D. (2004). The economics and politics of cost sharing in higher education: Comparative perspectives. Economics of Education Review, 23. 403-410. Juceviciene, P. (2007). The role of the university in the development of the learning society. In D. Bridges, P. Juceviciene, R. Jucevicius, T. McLaughlin, & J. Stankeviciute (Eds.). Higher education and national development: Universities and societies in transition (pp. 55-71). London: Routledge. Lynch, K. (2006). Neo-liberalism and marketization: The implications for higher education. European Educational Research Journal, 5(1). 1-17. Mamdami, M. (2007). Scholars in the marketplace: The dilemmas of neo-liberal reform at Makerere University, 1989-2005. Dakar, Senegal: Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa. Okolie, A. (2003). Producing knowledge for sustainable development in Africa: Implications for higher education. Higher Education 46(2). 235-260. Rhoades, G., & Sporn, B. 2002. Quality assurance in Europe and the U.S.: Professional and political economic framing of higher education policy. Higher Education, 43(3). 355-390. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, states, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2005). Markets in higher education: Students in the seventies, patents in the eighties, copyrights in the nineties. In R. Berdahl, P. Altbach, and P. Gumport (Eds). American higher education in the twenty-first century (pp. 486-516). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Tikly, L. (2001). Globalisation and education in the postcolonial world: Towards a conceptual framework. Comparative Education 37(2). 151-171.

Author Information

Joan Hirt (presenting / submitting)
Virginia Tech University
Educational Leadership & Policy Studies
Blacksburg
Ane Johnson (presenting)
Rowan University
Educational Leadership
Philadelphia

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.