case study: ghana and university of ghanachet.org.za/files/uploads/reports/case study - ghana...

Universities and Economic Development in Africa

CASE STUDY: Ghana and University of Ghana Tracy Bailey, Nico Cloete and Pundy Pillay

Contents

List of tables and figures ......................................................................................................... v

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. vii

Project group ....................................................................................................................... viii

Acronyms and abbreviations ................................................................................................. ix

Glossary of terms .................................................................................................................... x

Higher Education and Economic Development Publications .............................................. xiii

PART 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction to the Higher Education and Economic Development project ........... 1

1.1.1 Overview of HERANA ................................................................................... 1

1.1.2 Project focus and process ............................................................................ 2

1.1.3 The analytical framework for the study ...................................................... 3

1.1.4 What the project is not doing ...................................................................... 5

1.2 Data collection for the Ghana case study .............................................................. 6

1.3 The focus and structure of this report ................................................................... 6

PART 2: THE GHANA CASE STUDY: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT .................................... 8

2.1 The Ghana economy and approach to economic development ............................. 8

2.1.1 Economic development, competitiveness and innovation ......................... 8

2.1.2 Economic development policy and planning ............................................. 13

2.2 The Ghana higher education system ................................................................... 15

2.2.1 The size and shape of the higher education system ................................. 15

2.2.2 Higher education expenditure and financing ............................................ 16

2.2.3 Higher education governance and policy .................................................. 22

UNIVERSITIES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA | GHANA CASE STUDY

iii

2.3 The University of Ghana ..................................................................................... 23

2.3.1 Key moments in the development of the institution ................................ 23

2.3.2 Governance and strategic objectives ........................................................ 25

2.3.3 Institutional finances ................................................................................. 25

PART 3: THE ROLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN GHANA ................................................... 28

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 28

3.2 The national perspective .................................................................................... 29

3.2.1 Key national stakeholders in relation to the pact ..................................... 29

3.2.2 The role of higher education in national policies ...................................... 29

3.2.3 Governance and policy coordination ......................................................... 32

3.3 The University of Ghana perspective .................................................................. 33

3.3.1 Institutional narrative(s) on the role of the university .............................. 33

3.3.2 Initiatives around research and innovation ............................................... 37

3.3.3 Initiatives around teaching and learning ................................................... 39

PART 4: THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA ACADEMIC CORE .................................................. 41

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 41

4.2 SET enrolments and graduations ........................................................................ 43

4.3 Postgraduate enrolments and graduations ......................................................... 47

4.4 Student‐staff ratios ............................................................................................. 51

4.5 Academic staff qualifications .............................................................................. 53

4.6 Research funding ................................................................................................ 54

4.7 Research outputs ................................................................................................ 56

PART 5: THE ENGAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT‐RELATED ACTIVITIES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA .................................................................................... 59

5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 59


iv

5.2 Engagement and linkages with external stakeholders ........................................ 60

5.2.1 University‐government‐industry linkages ................................................. 60

5.2.2 Foreign donors ........................................................................................... 62

5.2.3 Incentives, rewards and co‐ordination ...................................................... 63

5.2.4 Summary .................................................................................................... 63

5.3 The connectedness of development activities to the academic core ................... 64

5.3.1 A brief overview of the projects/centres ................................................... 66

5.3.2 Articulation ................................................................................................ 76

5.3.3 Contribution to strengthening the academic core .................................... 83

5.3.4 Analysis of the connectedness of development projects/centres ............ 86

PART 6: KEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................... 89

6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 89

6.2 Some macro‐observations about higher education and economic development in Ghana ....................................................................................... 90

6.3 Evidence of a pact around the role of higher education in Ghana? ..................... 91

6.3.1 Notions of the role of knowledge and universities in development ......... 93

6.4 The academic core of the University of Ghana .................................................... 96

6.5 Coordination and connectedness ...................................................................... 100

6.5.1 Knowledge policy coordination and implementation ............................. 102

6.5.2 Connectedness to external stakeholders and the academic core ........... 104

6.6 Concluding comments ...................................................................................... 106

List of resources ................................................................................................................. 108

Appendix 1: List of interviewees ....................................................................................... 111

Appendix 2: Cluster analysis methodology and data ........................................................ 112

Appendix 3: Academic core rating descriptions ................................................................ 116


v

List of tables and figures

Tables

Table 2.1: GDP per capita vs. Human Development Index in sub‐Saharan Africa (2007) ......... 9

Table 2.2: Selected higher education and economic development indicators ....................... 10

Table 2.3: Percentage of the population below the poverty line ........................................... 11

Table 2.4: Global competitiveness and global innovation ...................................................... 13

Table 2.5: Budgetary allocation for recurrent expenditure (2002‐2007) (Ghanaian cedi) ..... 17

Table 2.6: Trends in educational expenditure by level (Ghanaian cedi) ................................. 18

Table 2.7: Expenditure on tertiary education as percentage of GDP ..................................... 19

Table 2.8: University of Ghana government income (2000‐2007) .......................................... 26

Table 4.1: Ghana: Total enrolments by field of study (thousands) ......................................... 44

Table 4.2: Comparison of total science and technology enrolments (thousands) ................. 45

Table 4.3: Ghana: Total SET graduates .................................................................................... 46

Table 4.4: Comparison of total science and technology graduates ........................................ 47

Table 4.5: Comparison of total postgraduate enrolments in all fields of study...................... 48

Table 4.6: Ghana: Master and doctoral enrolments and graduates ....................................... 49

Table 4.7: Comparison of masters and doctoral enrolments .................................................. 50

Table 4.8: Comparison of doctoral graduates ......................................................................... 50

Table 4.9: Ghana: FTE students and academic staff ................................................................ 51

Table 4.10: Comparison of permanent academics with masters and doctoral degrees (2007) ....................................................................................................................................... 54

Table 4.11: Ghana: Research outputs ..................................................................................... 56

Table 5.1: Overview of the development‐related projects ..................................................... 75

Table 5.2: Articulation with institutional objectives and national priorities .......................... 77

Table 5.3: Initiation/agenda‐setting, funding sources and implementation agencies ........... 79

Table 5.4: Financial sustainability of the projects/centres ..................................................... 80

Table 5.5: Articulation rating (maximum score = 13) .............................................................. 82

Table 5.6: Contribution to strengthening the academic core ................................................. 84

Table 5.7: Strengthening academic core rating (maximum score = 5) ................................... 85

Table 5.8: Summary of ratings ................................................................................................. 86

Table 6.1: Role for knowledge and universities in development in Ghana ............................ 92


vi

Table 6.2: Comparing national and institutional notions of the role of higher education in Ghana ................................................................................................................................... 96

Table 6.3: University of Ghana: Rating of the academic core ................................................. 98

Table 6.4: National coordination of knowledge policies ....................................................... 102

Table 6.5: Implementation of knowledge policies and activities .......................................... 103

Table A2.1: Cluster analysis data table .................................................................................. 113

Figures

Figure 2.1: Ghana: Enrolments in universities and polytechnics ............................................ 15

Figure 2.2: Income by source as a percentage of total income, University of Ghana (2000–2006)............................................................................................................................. 26

Figure 4.1: Ghana: Enrolments by field of study ..................................................................... 44

Figure 4.2: Comparison of science and technology majors as % of total enrolment ............. 45

Figure 4.3: Ghana: Graduation rates by field of study ............................................................ 46

Figure 4.4: Comparison of science and technology graduation rates ..................................... 47

Figure 4.5: Comparison of % postgraduates in enrolment total ............................................. 48

Figure 4.6: Comparison of doctoral enrolments as % of masters and doctoral enrolments .............................................................................................................................. 49

Figure 4.7: Comparison of total doctoral graduates ............................................................... 50

Figure 4.8: Comparison of 2007 FTE student‐staff ratios ........................................................ 52

Figure 4.9: Comparison of totals of permanent and FTE academic staff (2007) .................... 53

Figure 4.10: Comparison of ratios of FTE to permanent academic staff (2007) ..................... 53

Figure 4.11: Comparison of highest formal qualifications of permanent academics (2007) .... 54

Figure 4.12: Comparison of research income in market rate USD and PPP$ (millions) ......... 55

Figure 4.13: Comparison of total research income per permanent academic in market rate USD and PPP$ (thousands) .............................................................................................. 56

Figure 4.14: Comparison of research publication units per permanent academic ................. 57

Figure 4.15: Comparison of doctoral graduates in given year as % of permanent academics employed ............................................................................................................... 58

Figure 5.1: Plotting the development‐related projects ........................................................... 87

Figure 6.1: The four notions of the role of knowledge and universities in development ...... 94

Figure 6.2: Plotting the development‐related projects/centres at the University of Ghana .. 105

Figure A2.1: Plot of means for each cluster .......................................................................... 115


vii

Acknowledgements

This study would not have been possible without the support and participation of the following organisations and individuals:

Funding The Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Kresge Foundation.

University of Ghana contacts

Prof. Esi Sutherland‐Addy (Institute of African Studies) and Ms Naana Agyeman (School of Public Health) for their assistance in providing background information on the university and scheduling interviews.

Mr Alfred Quartey (University of Ghana) for providing the academic core data for the university.

Interview respondents at the University of Ghana Prof. Kwesi Yankah (Pro Vice‐Chancellor), Prof. Esi‐Sutherland‐Addy (Institute of African Studies), Prof. Benjamin Ahunu (Provost: College of Agriculture & Consumer Science), Prof. Sam Offei (Associate Director, West Africa Centre for Crop Improvement), Mr Joseph Budu (Registrar: College of Agriculture & Consumer Science), Prof. Yaa Ntiamoah (Director: School of Research & Graduate Studies), Prof. Eric Danquah (Director: West Africa Centre for Crop Improvement), Dr Vernon Gracen (Associate Director: West Africa Centre for Crop Improvement), Prof. Kodjo Senah (Head: Department of Sociology), Prof. Isabella Quakyi (Principal Investigator: Gates Institute Partnership Projects for Population, Family and Reproductive Health), Prof. Alexander Nyarko (Director: West African Centre for International Parasite Control), Prof. Clement Ahiadeke (Deputy Director: Institute of Statistical Social & Economic Research), Dr Owuraku Sakyi‐Dawson (Faculty of Agriculture), Dr Esi Colecraft (Department of Nutrition & Food Science) National stakeholders: Ministry of Education, National Council for Tertiary Education, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, National Development Planning Commission


viii

Project group

Academic advisers Higher Education Studies: Prof. Peter Maassen (University of Oslo) and Dr Nico Cloete (Director: CHET, and University of the Western Cape)

Development Economics: Dr Pundy Pillay (CHET Consultant)

Sociology of Knowledge: Prof. Johan Muller (University of Cape Town) and Prof. Johann Mouton (University of Stellenbosch)

Researchers Dr Nico Cloete (Director: CHET) Dr Pundy Pillay (CHET Consultant) Prof. Peter Maassen (University of Oslo) Ms Tracy Bailey (CHET Consultant) Dr Gerald Ouma (Kenya and University of the Western Cape) Mr Romulo Pinheiro (University of Oslo) Mr Patricio Langa (Mozambique and University of Cape Town) Mr Samuel Fongwa (Cameroon and University of the Western Cape) Mr Biko Gwendo (Kenya and University of the Western Cape)

Contributors to reports Dr Ian Bunting (CHET Consultant) and Dr Charles Sheppard (Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University) for analysis of the academic core data Mr Nelius Boshoff (University of Stellenbosch) for data on research output

Project assistance Ms Tracy Bailey (Project Manager) Ms Angela Mias (CHET Administrator) Ms Monique Ritter (Research Assistant) Ms Carin Favis (Transcriber)

External Commentator Prof. Manuel Castells (University of Southern California and Open University, Barcelona)

Network Higher Education Research and Advocacy Network in Africa (HERANA)


ix

Acronyms and abbreviations

CHET Centre for Higher Education Transformation

FTE Full‐time equivalent

GCI Global Competitiveness Index

GDP Gross domestic product

GER Gross enrolment ratio

GH¢ Ghanaian Cedi

GII Global Innovation Index

GPRS Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy

HDI Human Development Index

HERANA Higher Education Research and Advocacy Network in Africa

ICT Information and communication technology

ISSER Institute for Statistical Social and Economic Research

MEST Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology

MFEP Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning

MoE Ministry of Education

NABPTEX National Board for Professional and Technician Examinations

NCTE National Council for Tertiary Education

NDPC National Development Planning Commission

NGO Non‐governmental organisation

NMIMR Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research

PPP Purchasing power parity

R&D Research and development

RoG Republic of Ghana

S&T Science and technology

SET Science, engineering and technology

USD United States Dollar

WACCI West African Centre for Crop Improvement

WACIPAC West African Centre for Parasite Control

WEF World Economic Forum


x

Glossary of terms

Academic core

The academic core refers to a university’s academic degree programmes and research activities.

Gini co‐efficient

The Gini co‐efficient is a standard economic measure of income inequality, based on the Lorenz Curve. It ranges from zero (which indicates perfect equality, with every household earning exactly the same), to one (which implies absolute inequality, with a single household earning a country's entire income).

Global Competitiveness Index (GCI)

The World Economic Forum (WEF) defines competitiveness as the set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country. The GCI uses this definition to establish a quantitative tool to help policy‐makers benchmark and measure the competitiveness of a given country. The GCI is based on 12 pillars of competitiveness further divided into three pillar groups, which are:

Basic requirements (institutions, infrastructure, macro‐economic stability, health and primary education),

Efficiency enhancers (higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labour market efficiency, financial market sophistication, technological readiness, market size), and

Innovation and sophistication factors (business sophistication, innovation).

Global Innovation Index (GII)

The GII assesses in detail the extent to which different economies benefit from the latest innovation advances, based on three main principles:

There is a distinction between enablers (inputs) and outputs while measuring innovation in an economy. Enablers are aspects that help an economy to stimulate innovation and outputs are the results of innovative activities within the economy.

There are five enabler pillars that are included in the GII: institutions, human capacity, general and information and communications technology


xi

infrastructure, market sophistication, and business sophistication. The enabler pillars define aspects of the conducive environment required to stimulate innovation within an economy.

The two output pillars which provide evidence of the results of innovation within the economy are scientific outputs and well‐being.

Gross domestic product (GDP)

The GDP is the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, which equals total consumers, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports. Changes in the GDP on an annual basis provide a measure of economic growth.

Gross enrolment ratio (GER)

The GER indicates the total enrolment in a specific level of education, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the official school‐age population, corresponding to the same level of education in a given school year. The GER is calculated by dividing the number of pupils (or students) enrolled in a given level of education, regardless of age, by the population of the age group which officially corresponds to the given level of education, and multiplying the result by 100. The GER is widely used to show the general level of participation in a given level of education. It indicates the capacity of the education system for enrolling students of a particular age group. It is used as a substitute indicator to Net Enrolment Ratio (NER, outlined below) when data on enrolment by single years of age are not available. The GER can also be a complementary indicator to the NER by indicating the extent of over‐aged and under‐aged enrolment.

Human Development Index (HDI)

The HDI is a summary composite index that measures a country's average achievements in three basic aspects of human development. These include the following:

Health (measured by life expectancy at birth; Knowledge (measured by a combination of the adult literacy rate and the

combined primary, secondary, and tertiary GER); and A decent standard of living (measured by GDP (income) per capita).

The HDI was created to emphasise that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth.


xii

Pact

A ‘pact’ is defined by Gornitzka et al. (2007: 184) as “a fairly long‐term cultural commitment to and from the University, as an institution with its own foundational rules of appropriate practices, causal and normative beliefs, and resources, yet validated by the political and social system in which the University is embedded. A pact, then, is different from a contract based on continuous strategic calculation of expected value by public authorities, organised external groups, university employees, and students – all regularly monitoring and assessing the University on the basis of its usefulness for their self‐interest, and acting accordingly.”

Purchasing power parity (PPP)

The PPP is a rate of exchange that accounts for price differences across countries, allowing international comparisons of real output and incomes. At the PPP$ rate used in this report, PPP$ has the same purchasing power in the domestic economy as USD 1 has in the US.


xiii

Higher Education and Economic Development Publications

The eight case study reports in this series contain the detailed data and analysis for each country and university in the sample. Together, they form the empirical basis for the analysis and discussion of findings contained in the CHET book, Universities and Economic Development in Africa, which was published in August 2011. While every effort has been made to check the data and edit the text in the time available, it should be noted that these case study reports have not been subjected to the publishing rigours of formally published publications. They are therefore made available ‘as is’.

Higher education and economic development: A literature review Pundy Pillay (2010)

This report reviews the international literature on the relationship between higher education and economic development. The review focuses on previous research and theory on the link between higher education and economic growth, the knowledge economy, innovation, and local and regional development. The review would be of interest to academics and students who work in the field of higher education studies. Click here to download a copy of this report.

Linking higher education and economic development: Implications for Africa from three successful systems Pundy Pillay (2010)

This book synthesises the findings of case studies of three systems – Finland, South Korea and North Carolina in the US – that have successfully linked higher education to their economic development initiatives. This publication would be of particular interest to policy‐makers and funders. Click here to download a copy of this report.

Universities and economic development in Africa Nico Cloete, Tracy Bailey, Pundy Pillay, Ian Bunting and Peter Maassen (2011)

This report presents the key findings from each of the eight African case study reports and synthesises these within the analytical framework of the larger study. This publication would be of interest to national policy‐makers, international agencies, funders and university leadership. Click here to download a copy of this report.


1

1.1 Introduction to the Higher Education and Economic Development project

1.1.1 Overview of HERANA The Higher Education and Economic Development project forms part of the work of the Higher Education Research and Advocacy Network in Africa (HERANA). HERANA was established in 2007 and is coordinated by the Centre for Higher Education Transformation (CHET) in Cape Town, South Africa. Key partners include the University of the Western Cape (South Africa), Makerere University (Uganda) and the University of Oslo (Norway). The research component of HERANA investigates the complex relationship between higher education and development in Africa, with a specific focus on economic and democratic development. A second research area explores the use of research in policy‐making. Alongside the research component is an advocacy strategy that aims to:

Disseminate the findings of the research projects; Coordinate existing sources of information on higher education in Africa, Develop a media strategy; and Put in place a policy dialogue (through seminars and information technology)

facilitating interactions between researchers, institutional leaders and decision‐makers. The capacity‐building component of HERANA is the Higher Education Masters in Africa Programme, run jointly between the key partners. The main objective of the project is to contribute to the strengthening of higher education in Africa through building capacity and expertise in African higher education. The students contribute to higher education and development research through the research components of the programme.

Part 1

Introduction

AT A GLANCE

Overview of HERANA Project focus and process Analytical framework Data collection Focus and structure of the report


2

The research and advocacy components of HERANA are funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Kresge Foundation. The Higher Education Masters in Africa Programme is funded by NORAD.

1.1.2 Project focus and process As a point of departure, the overall aim of the project was to investigate the complex relationships between higher education (specifically universities) and economic development in selected African countries with a focus on the context in which universities operate (political and socio‐economic), the internal structure and dynamics of the universities themselves, and the interaction between the national and institutional contexts. In addition, the project aimed to identify those factors (practices, strategies) and conditions (context) – at both national and institutional levels – that facilitate or inhibit universities’ ability to make a sustained contribution to economic development. The project began with a review of the international literature on the relationship between higher education and economic development (Pillay 2010a). This was followed by case studies of three systems which have successfully linked their economic development and higher education policy and planning – Finland, South Korea and the North Carolina state in the US (Pillay 2010b). The next phase of the project involved the collection of data at both the national and institutional levels in the eight African countries and universities included in the study:

Botswana – University of Botswana Ghana – University of Ghana Kenya – University of Nairobi Mauritius – University of Mauritius Mozambique – Eduardo Mondlane University South Africa – Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University Tanzania – University of Dar es Salaam Uganda – Makerere University

The countries included in the study were selected for three main reasons: on the basis of previous collaboration; being located in sub‐Saharan Africa; and, on the basis of World Economic Forum (WEF) ratings regarding participation in the knowledge economy in the African context. In each of the collaborating countries the national university was selected, except in South Africa where the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University was regarded as a more ‘comparable’ institution.


3

Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with a wide range of individuals in each country, including selected ministries, commissions/councils for higher education and other stakeholders at the national level; and, institutional leadership, heads of development‐related projects and centres, and academic and administrative staff. The analysis also draws on various policy and strategy documents (national and institutional levels), as well as quantitative data including national development indicators and statistics relating to the higher education systems and universities in the sample. Throughout the project process, dissemination and advocacy activities have taken place. These have included seminars in many of the African countries in the sample and in Norway, as well as dissemination via the HERANA web site1.

1.1.3 The analytical framework for the study In the knowledge economy, universities are considered to be key institutions for the production of high‐level skills and knowledge innovation, based on the traditional core business of universities – the production, application and dissemination of knowledge. In many countries, higher education has become one of the central areas in the government’s knowledge policies. This means that more policy/political actors than the Ministry of Education, as well as socio‐economic stakeholders (employers’ organisations, funders and research councils), have become interested in higher education and involved in higher education policy. This raises the issue of system‐ and institutional‐level coordination of knowledge policies with adequate structures and processes within the political system, most notably the capacity to coordinate different political activities of the governing of knowledge production, reproduction and coordination. As mentioned earlier, to get a better understanding of the relationship between higher education and development, the research group undertook three case studies (Finland, South Korea and North Carolina state) where there is a well‐established integration of higher education in national development strategies. Of particular interest to our study was to answer the question: What is it about these three systems that enables them to successfully link higher education to economic development? Put another way: What are the core conditions that are present in each of the three systems that enable their higher education sectors to successfully and sustainably contribute to development? Common to all three systems was a strong, agreed upon framework for economic development aimed at realising an advanced, competitive knowledge economy, and the important role for higher education in this regard. Despite

1 HERANA web site: http://www.chet.org.za/programmes/herana/.


4

major contextual differences, the three systems exhibited the following conditions for harnessing higher education for economic development:

Their higher education systems had been built on a foundation of equitable and quality schooling. There was also an emphasis on achieving high quality higher education.

They had achieved very high higher education participation rates. Their higher education systems were differentiated (institutional and

public/private) as part of achieving their human capital, research and innovation objectives for economic development.

Their governments ensured a close link between economic and (higher) education planning.

There were effective partnerships and networks between the state, higher education institutions and the private sector to ensure effective education and training, and to stimulate appropriate research and innovation.

There was strong state involvement in a number of other respects including, for example, adequate state funding for higher education; using funding to steer the higher education sector to respond to labour market requirements; and incentivising research and innovation in the higher education sector. Drawing on the review of literature (Pillay 2010a), the implications from the case studies of three successful systems (Pillay 2010b), and preliminary observations from the eight African case studies, we formulated the following analytical propositions:

The analytical point of departure for our model is, therefore, that the conditions under which each university in Africa, as elsewhere, is contributing to economic development are influenced by the following three interrelated factors:

The nature of the pact between the universities, political authorities and society at large;

The nature, size and continuity of the university’s academic core; and,

A condition for universities’ contributions to development is the existence of a broad pact between government, universities and core socio‐economic actors about the nature of the universities’ role in development.

As a core knowledge institution, the university can only participate in the global knowledge economy and make a sustainable contribution to development if its academic core is quantitatively and qualitatively strong.

For linking universities effectively to development a country needs various forms and methods of knowledge policy coordination. In addition, the connections between the larger policy context, universities and development are crucial.


5

The level of coordination, the effectiveness of implementation, and connectedness in the larger policy context of universities. These, in turn, are influenced by local circumstances, for example, the nature of the economy of a country, and its political and governance traditions and culture; institutional characteristics, including the ‘loosely‐coupled’ nature of higher education institutions; and, the external relations of universities, especially with national authorities, foreign agencies and industry. These analytical propositions give rise to the following sets of research questions:

To what extent is there agreement (a pact) between key stakeholders about the role of higher education, and to what extent does this include a specific role for higher education in economic development? Is there a role for knowledge production and for universities in the national development plan?

What policies, funding, structures and incentives are in place at the national and institutional levels which give expression to the role of higher education in economic development? To what extent is there coordination of these activities between the different national authorities, and between the national authorities, institutional stakeholders and external agencies?

What is the strength of the academic cores of the national (‘flagship’) universities?

Are development activities in the universities connected to external groupings and do these activities strengthen or weaken the academic core? This report presents the data that address these questions in the Ghanaian context generally, and with specific reference to the University of Ghana (UG). The analytical framework of the study is elaborated further in Part 6 which discusses the key findings for this case study.

1.1.4 What the project is not doing As can been seen from the analytical framework of the project, this study has a considerable scope. However, the project is not attempting to do the following:

Measure or evaluate the extent to which universities are contributing to development, or the impact that their activities have on development in their respective countries;

Include an assessment of the impact or effectiveness of specific institutional policies, units or development projects;

Review the number or nature of donor projects, or an examination of the overall contribution of particular external donors to university development; or

Assume or assert that the primary role for higher education is development, but rather seeks to investigate the factors that either facilitate or inhibit the possible contributions that universities can make to development.


6

1.2 Data collection for the Ghana case study A wide range of data sources have been consulted for the purposes of developing this case study. In order to prepare for the research team’s visit to Ghana, CHET obtained a letter of cooperation from the vice‐chancellor of UG, who also approved the selection of Prof. Esi Sutherland‐Addy (Institute of African Studies) as our Institutional Contact and Facilitator. The next step was to request background information on the Ghana higher education system and the university from Prof. Sutherland‐Addy. In addition to the background information, Prof. Sutherland‐Addy was asked to assist in the scheduling of interviews for the research team and, together with the relevant institutional leadership, to identify five to ten projects that related to either economic development or poverty reduction. The research team visited Ghana in February 2009 to conduct interviews with national and institutional stakeholders. The full list of interviewees is provided in Appendix 1. In addition to the site visit and interviews, a range of national and institutional documents has been consulted. These are listed in the list of sources. In developing the case study report, additional information was gleaned from the internet as well as further correspondence with interviewees to verify information and fill in gaps. Finally, during July and August of 2010, the first draft of this report was emailed to the vice‐chancellor, the project leaders and other key institutional stakeholders at UG with a request to provide written feedback on the accuracy of the information and interpretation of data contained in the report. In addition to the written feedback received from a number of individuals, formal feedback was obtained from two university representatives during a seminar in Franschhoek, Cape Town, in August 2010.

1.3 The focus and structure of this report This report pulls together a wide range of data on the national development context and the higher education system in Ghana, as well as at UG, in order to address the key research questions. The structure of the remainder of the report is as follows: In Part 2, we provide background and contextual information about Ghana – its economic development and global competitiveness ratings, its approach to economic development policy and planning, as well as the size and shape, governance, policy and financing of the higher education system. A brief profile of UG is also provided including key moments in the development of the institution, its governance structure and strategic objectives, and the institutional finances.


7

In Part 3 of the report, we turn to the role(s) of higher education in Ghana – in general, and in relation to economic development – through an investigation of the ways in which both national and institutional stakeholders talk about and conceptualise the role of higher education, the policies which give expression to these notions, as well as the structures and mechanisms for coordination which relate to higher education. In Part 4 we examine the nature of the academic core at UG. In Part 5, we investigate UG’s engagement with its key external stakeholders and the incentives for development‐related activities. We also undertake an analysis of the selected development projects at the university, with a specific focus on the connectedness between these activities and the academic core. In particular, we explore the articulation of development activities with national priorities and institutional objectives, as well as with external stakeholders, and the extent to which these activities either strengthen or weaken the academic core of the institution. In Part 6, we provide a summary of the key findings of the report and relate these to the analytical framework and key questions of the study presented in Part 1. This includes a discussion of the nature and extent of the pact around the role of higher education in Ghana; the nature and strength of the academic core of UG; the coordination and implementation of knowledge policies at the national level; and the connectedness of development‐related activities in the university to external stakeholders and to the academic core.


8

2.1 The Ghana economy and approach to economic development

2.1.1 Economic development, competitiveness and innovation Ghana’s population in 2005 was 22.5 million. The data presented in this section show that Ghana is relatively under‐developed on a range of relevant socio‐economic data. Table 2.1 compares GDP (or income) per capita and the HDI for the HERANA sample of countries and the three international case studies in 2007. The difference between the GDP per capita ranking and its HDI ranking reflects divergence between economic and broader social development, and is often a consequence of inequality in access to income, education, health, etc. For example, South Africa’s HDI ranking is 51 places lower than its GDP per capita ranking and Botswana’s is 65 – these figures are amongst the highest for the countries ranked in this report. Table 2.1 shows that Ghana’s HDI ranking is at 152, out of 177 countries for which the Index has been developed. Its HDI ranking slipped from 135 in 2005.

Part 2

The Ghana case study: Background and context

AT A GLANCE

The Ghana economy and approach to development Higher education in Ghana A profile of UG


9

Table 2.1: GDP per capita vs. Human Development Index in sub‐Saharan Africa (2007)

Country GDP per capita (PPP, USD)*

GDP ranking HDI ranking** GDP ranking minus HDI ranking

Botswana 13 604 60 125 ‐65

Ghana 1 334 153 152 1

Kenya 1 542 149 147 2

Mauritius 11 296 68 81 ‐13

Mozambique 802 169 172 ‐3

South Africa 9 757 78 129 ‐51

Uganda 1 059 163 157 6

Tanzania 1 208 157 151 6

Finland 34 526 23 12 11

South Korea 24 801 35 26 9

United States 45 592 9 13 ‐4

Source: UNDP (2009) Notes: *PPP shows a rate of exchange that accounts for price differences across countries, allowing international comparisons of output and incomes. At the PPP$ rate shown in Table 2.1 for the eight HERANA countries, PPP$ 1 has the same purchasing power in the domestic economy as USD 1 has in the US. **177 countries were ranked. The HDI is a composite index measuring deprivations in the three basic dimensions – a long and healthy life (as measured by life expectancy), access to knowledge (adult literacy, and combined primary, secondary and tertiary education enrolment), and a decent standard of living (GDP or income per capita).

Table 2.2 provides data on quality of the education system, gross tertiary education enrolment rates and global competitiveness, as well as the stage of development of each country’s economy. It shows this data both for the HERANA countries as well as the three international case studies. The latter group has high tertiary education participation rates and are all ‘innovation‐driven’ economies. Amongst the HERANA countries, there is a strong correlation between tertiary education participation and global competitiveness, on the one hand, and the stage of economic development on the other. The countries fall into two groups. One group (Botswana, Mauritius and South Africa) has relatively high GDP per capita (Table 2.1) and tertiary education participation and is classified as ‘efficiency‐driven’. The other group, comprising the five other sample countries, has relatively low GDP per capita and tertiary education participation, and is classified as ‘factor‐driven’. The countries in this latter group are also ranked relatively low in terms of global competitiveness.


10

Table 2.2: Selected higher education and economic development indicators

Country Stage of

development (2009‐2010)1

Quality of education

system ranking (2009‐2010)2

Gross tertiary education

enrolment rate (2008)

Overall global competitiveness

ranking (2010‐2011)2

Ghana

Stage 1: Factor‐driven

71 6.25 114

Kenya 32 4.16 106

Mozambique 81 1.53 131

Tanzania 99 1.55 113

Uganda 72 3.7 118

Botswana Transition from

1 to 2 48 7.64 76

Mauritius Stage 2: Efficiency‐driven

50 25.9 55

South Africa 130 15.44 54

Finland Stage 3:

Innovation‐driven

6 94.4 7

South Korea 57 98.1 22

United States

26 82.9 4

Sources: WEF (2010) Notes: 1 Income thresholds (GDP per capita in USD) for establishing stages of development (WEF 2010: 10): Stage 1 Factor‐driven: <2 000; Transition from stage 1 to stage 2: 2 000‐3 000; Stage 2 Efficiency‐driven: 3 000‐9 000; Transition from stage 2 to stage 3: 9 000‐17 000; Stage 3 Innovation‐driven: >17 000. 2 Ranked out of 139 countries. 3 2005 figure. 4 2006 figure. The 2010 figure by the Botswana Tertiary Education Council is over 20% while in South Africa the figure remained around 16%. 5 2007 figure. 6 2009 figure.

Table 2.3 shows that poverty levels in Ghana are high on all three measures illustrated in the table. However, according to the government, Ghana has already achieved the 2015 Millennium Development Goal target of halving the 1992 level of those living in extreme poverty by 2007, eight years ahead of time. According to the Ghana Living Standards Survey (GLSS 5), extreme poverty declined from 36.5% in 1991/92 to 26.5% in 1998/99 and 18.2% in 2005/2006 (NDPC 2008). Overall, poverty also declined from 51.7% to 39.5% and to 28.5% over the same period. Small‐scale programmes in agriculture, industry and mining, rural energy, micro‐credit as well as employment generation programmes have variously led to improvements in incomes and to the food security situation in Ghana (ibid.: 17).


11

Table 2.3: Percentage of the population below the poverty line

Country USD 1 a day (1990–2005)

USD 2 a day (1990‐2005)

National Poverty Line (1990‐2004)

Botswana 55.5

South Africa 34.1

Ghana 44.8 78.5 39.5

Kenya 22.8 58.3 52.0

Uganda 37.7

Tanzania 57.8 89.9 35.7

Mozambique 36.2 74.1 69.4

Source: UNDP (2009)

All the socio‐economic indicators depicted here suggest that education is an important instrument for raising the country’s development status. At the macro‐level, per capita GDP has seen a steady increase in Ghana since 2004 as a result of rapid growth in nominal GDP and a relatively stable exchange rate of the Cedi against major trading currencies. This has enabled the country to make steady progress towards the 2015 target for GDP per capita of USD 1 000. In 2007 the country exceeded its target for GDP per capita by over 13% to reach USD 661 as against the Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS) II target of USD 584. The increasing growth in GDP per capita in recent years has been aided in substantial part by growth in real GDP in most years higher than the GPRS II projected growth rates. The real GDP growth rate exceeded 6% in 2006 and 2007 (NDPC 2008: 9). In terms of structural transformation of the economy, the agricultural sector’s contribution to GDP has seen a gradual decline with corresponding increases in the percentage share of services and industry in GDP. While agriculture experienced a decline in its share of GDP from 36.6% in 2004 to 33.8% in 2007, the services sector share improved from 29.9% to 32.2% during the same period, with industry’s share improving from 24.7% in 2004 to 25.5% (ibid.: 10). In terms of the WEF’s (2009) Global Competitiveness Index (GCI, 2009‐10), Ghana is ranked at 114 out of 133 countries. According to the WEF, Ghana is a Stage 1 (factor‐driven) economy. Of the 12 pillars of competitiveness that the WEF uses in the derivation of the GCI, two are particularly relevant for the purposes of this study: a) the ‘efficiency‐enhancing’ 5th pillar, higher education and training; and one of the ‘innovation and sophistication’ factors, namely innovation. On higher education and training, Ghana fares poorly, being ranked at 100 out of 133 countries. For innovation it is ranked even lower at 115. Competitiveness factors on which it does well are institutions (68) and financial market sophistication (59).


12

The Global Competitiveness Report for 2009‐10 reports on Ghana as follows (WEF 2009: 40):

Ghana is ranked 114th this year, down 12 ranks since last year. Ghana continues to display excellent public institutions and governance indicators, for which it has often been commended by international leaders in recent years, having notably seen a peaceful transition of political power through presidential elections. The weakening of Ghana’s performance is attributable to a deterioration of the country’s macroeconomic stability since last year. Overall, Ghana’s institutions are ranked 68th, with reasonable public trust of politicians (ranked 62nd), relative judicial independence (69th), and corruption levels lower than in most other countries of the region (71st for ethics and corruption). Some aspects of the country’s infrastructure are also good by regional standards, particularly roads and ports, which are ranked 76th and 69th, respectively. Financial markets are also relatively sophisticated (ranked 59th). On the other hand, education levels continue to lag behind international standards at all levels, goods and labour markets continue to be characterised by inefficiencies, and the country is not harnessing new technologies for productivity enhancements (ICT adoption rates are very low. Finally, the country is characterised by high and increasing macroeconomic instability, having gone from 121st on this pillar to a very low 129th this year. The government is running high and increasing fiscal deficits, debt levels are high, inflation is well into double digits, and high interest rate spreads point to inefficiencies in the financial system.

The Global Innovation Index (GII) assesses in detail the extent to which different economies benefit from the latest innovation advances, based on the following three main principles (INSEAD 2010):

There is a distinction between enablers (inputs) and outputs while measuring innovation in an economy. Enablers are aspects that help an economy to stimulate innovation and outputs are the results of innovative activities within the economy.

There are five enabler pillars that are included in the GII: Institutions, Human Capacity, General and ICT Infrastructure, Market Sophistication and Business Sophistication. The Enabler pillars define aspects of the “conducive environment required to stimulate innovation within an economy”.

There are two output pillars which provide evidence of the results of innovation within the economy: Scientific Outputs and Well‐Being.


13

The scientific outputs include knowledge creation (e.g. patents, publications), knowledge application (e.g. industry value‐added; production process sophistication; employment in knowledge‐intensive services). Amongst the innovation inputs or enablers, ‘human capacity’ is measured by investment in education; and the quality of educational institutions. Table 2.4 compares the GCI and GII for the eight HERANA countries.

Table 2.4: Global competitiveness and global innovation

Country Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) Ranking*

Global Innovation Index (GII) Ranking**

Botswana 66 (4.08) 86 (2.80)

Ghana 114 (3.45) 105 (2.66)

Kenya 98 (3.67) 83 (2.84)

Mauritius 57 (4.22) 73 (2.93)

Mozambique 129 (3.22) 100 (2.69)

South Africa 45 (4.34) 51 (3.24)

Uganda 108 (3.53) 108 (2.65)

Tanzania 100 (3.59) 98 (2.69)

Sources: *WEF (2009); **INSEAD (2010) Notes: 1. GCI

a) The GCI ranks 132 countries, with the top three countries being Switzerland (with a GCI score of 5.60), US, and Singapore.

b) The GCI is derived from three sub‐indices and 12 pillars of competitiveness. The three sub‐indices are “basic requirements” (with four pillars – institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic stability, and health and primary education); “efficiency enhancers” (with six pillars – higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labour market efficiency, financial market sophistication, technological readiness, and market size); and “innovation and sophistication factors” (with two pillars – business sophistication and innovation). The basic requirements sub‐index is considered key for factor‐driven economies, the efficiency enhancers are key for efficiency‐driven economies, and the innovation and sophistication factors are key for innovation‐driven economies.

2. GII a) The GII combines innovation inputs (such as institutions, human capacity, information

and communication technology and uptake of infrastructure, market and business sophistication) with innovation outputs (such as science and creative outputs).

b) The top four countries in the GII are Iceland (with a score of 4.86), Sweden, Hong Kong and China.

2.1.2 Economic development policy and planning The main policy and planning document has been the Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS), of which there have been two versions: GPRS I in 2003 and GPRS II in 2006.


14

Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS II) (2006‐2009) With the attainment of relative macro‐economic stability and modest economic growth under GPRS I, the overarching goal of Ghana’s socio‐economic development agenda was to attain middle‐income status (with a per capita income of at least USD 1 000) by the year 2015, within a decentralised democratic environment. This was to be complemented by the adoption of an overall social protection policy, aimed at empowering the vulnerable and excluded, especially women, to contribute to and share in the benefits of growth of the economy, thus ensuring sustained poverty reduction. However, two broad sets of constraints to achieving accelerated wealth creation and poverty reduction were recognised. First was the vulnerability of the economy because of the persistent reliance on export earnings from a few primary commodities. Second was the social structure which comprised a high proportion of children and youth with the attendant high dependency ratio, and low level of literacy and skills, especially among women and the rural population. Accordingly, emphasis was placed on changing the structure of the economy by developing the private sector, diversifying the export base, and increasing agricultural productivity and rural incomes. While GPRS I focused on poverty reduction programmes and projects, the emphasis of GPRS II was on the implementation of growth‐inducing policies and programmes which have the potential to support wealth creation and sustainable poverty reduction. GPRS II was therefore anchored on pursuing the following priorities (NDPC 2005):

Continued macro‐economic stability Accelerated private sector‐led growth Vigorous human resource development, and Good governance and civic responsibility

Ghana Vision 2020 The long‐term vision for Ghana is to become a middle‐income country by the year 2020. The National Development Policy Framework – Volume 1 Long Term Development Objectives, articulates the long‐term vision, a 25‐year perspective (from 1996 to 2020), for Ghana’s socio‐economic development (RoG 1995). This document summarises achievements in the first five‐year period to 2000 and, amongst others, describes the prevailing social and economic conditions, progress in the economy, science and technology, economic infrastructure, the environment, spatial organisation (urban and rural development), and public administration. It also articulates the five basic themes of development for the long term: human development, economic growth, rural development, urban development, and an enabling environment.


15

2.2 The Ghana higher education system

2.2.1 The size and shape of the higher education system The tertiary education sector in Ghana comprises six public universities, ten polytechnics, and three professional institutions, all operating under the oversight role of the National Council for Tertiary Education (NCTE). There are other professional institutions operating under various ministries and departments. One of the specialised institutions, the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration operates under the Office of the President and is affiliated to NCTE. A total of 41 private tertiary education institutions have been accredited by the National Accreditation Board. Arrangements are also being made to transfer the oversight of Teacher Training Colleges to the NCTE. Enrolment in tertiary education is expanding rapidly (Figure 2.1). Enrolments in public universities and polytechnics in the 2007/2008 academic year were 93 973 and 34 448 respectively. In addition, about 20 000 students were enrolled in private universities.

Figure 2.1: Ghana: Enrolments in universities and polytechnics

Source: Effah et al. (2009)

Between the 2001/2002 and 2007/2008 academic years, enrolment in public universities and polytechnics increased by 103% and 69%, respectively. While

Public universities

Polytechnics

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000

80 000

90 000

100 0001999/2000

2000/2001

2001/2002

2002/2003

2003/2004

2004/2005

2005/2006

2006/2007


16

the universities exceeded their approved annual growth rate of 10%, the polytechnics could not meet their target of 15%. Despite the expansion in tertiary education, it has been estimated that only about 10% of the age cohort from junior secondary schools gain admission to tertiary education institutions (Effah et al. 2009). With effect from January 2009, teacher training colleges were to be integrated into the tertiary system as colleges of education, under the broad general oversight of NCTE. The process of upgrading teacher training colleges from ‘second cycle’ to diploma‐awarding institutions began in 2004. There will be a period of transition before they are fully integrated into the tertiary sector. Enrolment in the teacher training colleges during the 2008/09 academic year was 26 957. With this integration, coupled with the growth in private tertiary education, the GER, as of April 2009, was 11%, showing a significant increase from the 3‐4% of previous years (ibid.).

2.2.2 Higher education expenditure and financing Funding public tertiary education institutions The Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MFEP) has the responsibility for determining the quantum of public funds for public sector organisations. Thus, at the beginning of every fiscal year, the MFEP informs the Ministry of Education (MoE) about the budgetary ceilings for personnel emoluments, administration, services and investment. The MoE, in turn, determines the budgetary ceilings for its departments and agencies. The NCTE has oversight responsibility for budget coordination in tertiary education. At the beginning of every fiscal year, the institutions present budgets based on various line‐items categorised under personnel emoluments, administration, services and investment, using the medium‐term expenditure framework approach. The NCTE discusses the budget submitted with the respective institutions and makes recommendations which are put together as the tertiary sector budget. The NCTE defends this budget at the MoE first, then at the MFEP, and finally at the Parliamentary Select Committee on Education. Funds allocated to the sub‐sector depend on the needs of the individual institutions, reflected in their respective budgets and negotiations undertaken by NCTE with the MoE. Apart from the administration vote which is disbursed directly to the institutions, the approved budget is released to NCTE for disbursement to the institutions. Personnel emoluments are released on a monthly basis upon the submission of expenditure returns and audited payroll by the institutions to NCTE which collates them and forwards them to the Controller and Accountant General for processing.


17

It should be stressed that the budgetary ceiling for the tertiary education sector is determined according to the quantum of funds received from the MFEP and not on the basis of the cost of tertiary education calculated using the norm‐based budget model. The levels of funding agreed between the NCTE and MFEP become part of the Public Appropriation which must be approved by Parliament. As Table 2.5 shows, the budgetary allocation for recurrent expenditure increased significantly between 2003 and 2007. For instance, from 2003 to 2007 the budgetary allocation to the tertiary education institutions for recurrent expenditure increased by 219%. This increase could be attributed to persistent demands for improvement in salaries and conditions of service by the staff of public tertiary institutions and the resultant increases in personnel emolument which constitutes about 70% of recurrent expenditure.

Table 2.5: Budgetary allocation for recurrent expenditure (2002‐2007) (Ghanaian cedi)

Year/Items 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Personnel emoluments GH¢

32 684 211 42 838 019 51 040 166 79 730 583 95 163 880

Administration GH¢ 1 326 562 3 201 161 7 052 000 11 600 000 15 251 000

Service GH¢ 1 032 985 2 369 900 1 552 243 1 580 000 1 798 900

Investment GH ¢ 312 435 286 400 300 000 200 000 440 000

Total GH¢ 35 356 193 48 695 480 60 054 409 93 110 583 112 653 780


Total public expenditure on tertiary education Public expenditure on tertiary education refers to all sources of expenditure incurred by public sector organisations in support of tertiary education. It includes donor funding and funds allocated for the expansion of infrastructure in tertiary education institutions. Between 2004 and 2005, expenditure on tertiary education declined from 21% to 19.60% of the total expenditure on education. However, this proportion then increased to more than 23% in 2007.


18

Table 2.6: Trends in educational expenditure by level (Ghanaian cedi)

Sector 2004 2005 2006 2007

Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount %

Primary and pre‐school 206 267 860 35.60 245 145 841 33.30 299 772 000 31.46 488 730 888 38.60

Junior high school 92 704 656 16.00 131 038 919 17.80 159 921 600 16.78 206 990 933 16.35

Secondary and TVET 121674861 21.00 161958 215 22.00 158 982 700 16.69 161 612 611 12.76

Special and non‐formal education 11 588 082 2.00 16 931 995 2.30 10 572 500 3.48 9 603 337 0.76

Teacher education 21 437 952 3.70 28 710744 3.90 33 119 000 3.52 33 132 980 2.62

Tertiary education 121 674 900 21.00 144 290 045 19.60 214 564 500 22.52 292 931 474 23.14

Management and HIV/Aids 4 055 829 0.70 8097 911 1.10 75 912 700 7.97 73 124 013 5.78

Total 579 404 140 100.00 736 173 700 100.00 952 845 000 100.00 1 233 126 236 100.00

Source: Effah et al. 2009 Note: TVET = technical and vocational education and training


19

Public expenditure on tertiary education was also the second highest item of education expenditure in 2006 and 2007 following expenditure on primary and pre‐school education. In 2004 public expenditure on tertiary education was 1.64% of GDP, increasing to 2.1% in 2007. Thus, from 2004 to 2007, public expenditure on tertiary education as a percentage of GDP increased by 22%. However, this has raised concerns about the opportunity cost of tertiary education vis‐a‐vis the other sub‐sectors of education such as pre‐school, primary, and technical and vocational education and training. The details of public expenditure on education and tertiary education in relation to GDP are provided in Table 2.7.

Table 2.7: Expenditure on tertiary education as percentage of GDP

Year 2004 2005 2006 2007

GDP 7 762 000 000 9 701 800 000 11 490 320 000 13 974 584 000

Actual education expenditure

579 404 140 736 173 700 952 845 000 1 233 126 236

Tertiary education expenditure

127 674 900 144 290 045 214 564 500 292 931 474

Education expenditure as % of GDP

7.46 7.59 8.29 8.82

Tertiary education expenditure as % of GDP

1.64 1.49 1.87 2.10


Internally‐generated funds An important feature of Ghanaian tertiary education financing is the ability of institutions to generate private funds to supplement resources provided by government. In terms of official policy, tertiary education in Ghana is tuition‐free. However, students are gradually being made to assume responsibility for the payment of lodging and incidental expenses. In addition, students are also being made to contribute towards the use of academic facilities through payment of what have been termed ‘academic facilities user fees’. Income generated internally by the tertiary education sector, as a percentage of the total revenue, increased from 27% in 2003 to nearly 35% in 2007. Government has also approved a 10% enrolment quota for foreign full‐fee paying students (5% of total enrolment), and Ghanaian students paying substantially high but still subsidised fees (also 5% of total enrolment). Together with other funds derived from admission fees, consultancies and rent income, institutions are able to generate substantial ‘own revenue’.


20

Research funding There are two main sources of funding for research in tertiary education: the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GET Fund) and the annual subvention provided by government. The government, through its budgetary appropriations, pays book and research allowances to academics of tertiary education institutions to enable them to procure some publications and other inputs required to carry out their teaching and research functions. The GET Fund was established by the Ghana Education Trust Fund Act 2000, Act 581 and is funded through Value‐Added Tax (VAT). VAT was increased from 10% to 12.5% in 2000, and the GET Fund is financed with the additional 2.5 percentage points. In other words, 20% of VAT goes to the GET Fund (Effah et al. 2009). The Fund has, since 2003, been making available funds for research and staff development to tertiary education institutions through the NCTE. In line with its mandate, NCTE has developed a formula for the allocation of GET funds for research and staff development. Sixty percent of the funds allocated for research and staff development is made on the basis of student enrolment and 40% on what has been termed as an equalising factor. Financing of capital investments Public funding for capital investments in tertiary education institutions is derived from two sources: government’s annual appropriations for capital investments in public tertiary education institutions, and the GET Fund. The government’s annual budgetary allocation for capital investment has fallen rapidly. Between 2002 and 2006 the percentage of the total budgetary allocation earmarked for investment activities decreased from 2.05% to 0.25%. Thus, the annual budgetary appropriation for capital investments is increasingly becoming a relatively unimportant source of funding for tertiary institutions. The GET Fund is now the main source of capital funding. Student Loan Trust Fund A student loan scheme was established by the Provisional National Defense Council Law of 1992 and took retrospective effect from 1998. The law made the operation and maintenance of the scheme the responsibility of the Social Security and National Insurance Trust. Loans were provided to assist students to defray the cost associated with maintenance, books, boarding and lodging. However, challenges such as threats to the sustainability of both the operation of the scheme and workers social security funds due to non‐recovery of the loans, led to the establishment of a new market‐oriented Student Loan Trust


21

Fund in 2005. This scheme is anchored on the principles of sustainability and scalability. The purpose of the new Student Loan Trust Fund is to provide enhanced support for tertiary education by providing loan facilities to support the maintenance of students. The trust is financed as follows:

10% of all inflows into the GET Fund; Tax deductible voluntary contributions; Funds mobilised from Ghana’s international development partners; Loans from the Social Security and National Insurance Trust; and, Corporate contributions which are tax deductible to the equivalent of 0.5% of

the company’s annual profit before tax. However, since its establishment, the GET Fund has become the sole source of funding for the Student Loan Trust Fund. A major innovation of the new loan scheme is the payment of differential amounts based on the programme chosen by the student. For instance, each university student choosing a programme in science received a loan amount of GH¢ 420, whilst those choosing programmes in the humanities received GH¢ 308 per annum. The Student Loan Trust Fund also provides different loan amounts to students in polytechnics and universities offering similar academic programmes. And, in both universities and polytechnics, science and engineering students receive higher loan amounts than students reading business and humanities. The Fund currently disburses loans to students in 53 tertiary institutions comprising 23 public universities and university‐type institutions, 10 public polytechnics and 20 private universities and colleges. Students in private tertiary education institutions are eligible for loans provided their institutions and programmes have been accredited by the National Accreditation Board. In conclusion, in spite of the challenges facing the tertiary education sector in Ghana, particularly with regard to funding, there are some lessons that can be shared. One important feature of the tertiary education system in Ghana is the autonomy of the NCTE to advise on the allocation of public funds to tertiary education institutions. This has diminished or eliminated political interference in the allocation of funds to tertiary education and ensured the autonomy and the freedom of the tertiary education institutions to conduct their academic work. Perhaps the most important innovation in education in Ghana is the establishment of the GET Fund to provide funds for the development of physical and academic infrastructure at all levels of education. The Fund has, since its establishment, provided funds for major infrastructural developments and financed research and faculty development. Moreover, the GET Fund also supports research at tertiary education institutions as well as the Student Loan


22

Trust Fund. Although the Student Loan Trust Fund suffers from a shortage of funds, it remains an innovation and a source of funds to many who would otherwise not have been able to pursue tertiary education.

2.2.3 Higher education governance and policy Three regulatory bodies, the NCTE, the National Board for Professional and Technician Examinations (NABPTEX), and the National Accreditation Board were established as part of the reforms in the early 1990s. The National Accreditation Board has responsibility for the accreditation of both public and private institutions with regard to the contents and standards of their programmes. NABPTEX is responsible for formulating and administering examinations, evaluation, assessment and certification for professional bodies, non‐university tertiary institutions and private tertiary education institutions within Ghana. The law establishing NCTE, Act 454 of 1993, empowers the Council to advise the minister responsible for education on the development of institutions of tertiary education. The Act also assigns the following functions to the Council (Effah et al. 2009):

To enquire into the financial needs of the institutions of tertiary education, and advise the Minister accordingly;

To make recommendations to the Minister on the annual national education budgets;

To advise on block allocations of funds towards running costs; and grants for capital expenditure of each institution of tertiary education, indicating as well how the allocations are to be disbursed;

To recommend national standards and norms on staff, costs, accommodation and time utilisation, for approval of the Minister and to monitor the implementation of any approved national standards and norms by the institutions;

To advise governing councils on appropriate measures for generating additional funds for their tertiary education institutions;

To advise the Minister generally on rates of remuneration and other conditions of service of staff of the institutions;

To publish information on tertiary education in Ghana; and To perform any other functions provided in the Act and such other functions

relating to tertiary education as are incidental to the functions specified in the Act. The structure and functioning of the three regulatory bodies pose some challenges (ibid.). One relates to the tendency for some members nominated by particular constituencies to act as though they are delegates of their constituencies, leading to polarisation and the taking of strong positions on issues affecting their constituencies. There is also the issue of the extent of autonomy to be given or ministerial control to be exercised over a regulatory


23

body that would not constitute undue interference. In Ghana, the predecessor of NCTE, the National Council for Higher Education was abolished twice, in 1966 and 1982, following changes in government. The view was that the National Council for Higher Education had been reduced to a mere conduit for routing requests from the universities, and implementing policies of the universities rather than those of government. Questions about the status of the advice given by the regulatory bodies and conflicts between councils of the tertiary institutions and the regulatory bodies also arise. It is evident, therefore, that regulatory bodies should operate in such a way that they are able to win the confidence of government, the institutions and the general public they serve.

2.3 The University of Ghana

2.3.1 Key moments in the development of the institution2 The University of Ghana was founded in 1948 as the University College of the Gold Coast on the recommendation of the Asquith Commission on Higher Education in the then British colonies. The Asquith Commission, which was set up in 1943 to investigate higher education, recommended, among other things, the setting up of university colleges in association with the University of London. This was followed up by a number of separate commissions in different regions. The West Africa Commission, under the Chairmanship of the Rt. Hon. Walter Elliot, published a majority report which recommended the establishment of two university colleges in the Gold Coast (Ghana) and Nigeria, and a minority report which held that only one university college for the whole of British West Africa was feasible. The British Government at first accepted the minority report of the Elliot Commission and decided that a university college for the whole of British West Africa should be established at Ibadan in Nigeria. However, led by scholar and politician, the late Dr JB Danquah, people urged the government to assure the British government that the Gold Coast could support a university college of its own. The British government accordingly reviewed its decision and agreed to the establishment of the University College of the Gold Coast. The University College of the Gold Coast was founded by Ordinance on August 11, 1948 for the purpose of providing for and promoting university education, learning and research. From its inception, the university college was admitted to the Scheme of Special Relationship extended by the University of London to certain English and overseas University Colleges. Under this scheme, it was allowed to teach for the external degree examinations set by London University.

2 Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this section was provided by Prof. Esi

Sutherland‐Addy as part of the background information to the institution (Sutherland‐Addy

2009).


24

It also allowed the college to modify the London syllabuses to suit local conditions and to take part in the setting and marking of examinations. But London University gave final approval to courses and examinations since they were issuing the degrees. For thirteen years, therefore, the university college looked up to two separate institutions in Great Britain: to the Inter‐Universities Council for guidance on its broad policy, and to the University of London for approval and control of details of degree regulations. The university college benefitted greatly from this arrangement which certainly helped to maintain its high academic standards. In the 1960‐61 academic year, the College Council made a request to the government of Ghana for legislation to constitute the university college into a university with the power to award its own degrees. The government appointed an International Commission to examine the feasibility and on the recommendations of that commission, the University of Ghana was set up by an Act of Parliament on October 1, 1961 (Act 79). The then President of the Republic of Ghana, Dr Kwame Nkrumah, became the first chancellor of the university, with Nana Kobina Nketsia as the (interim) vice‐chancellor. Today, the university has three campuses – Legon Campus, Korle Bu Campus and the Accra City Campus. It has two colleges – Health Sciences, and Agriculture and Consumer Sciences – and six faculties of Arts, Law, Science, Social Studies, Business School, and Engineering Sciences. There are also a number of centres, institutes and other units including the following:

Regional Training Centre for Archivists Language Centre Centre for Tropical Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Legon Centre for International Affairs The International Centre for African Music and Dance Centre for Migration Studies West Africa Centre for Crop Improvement Centre for Gender Studies and Advocacy Volta Basin Research Project Legon Seismological Observatory Legon Botanical Gardens Agricultural Research Centres Consultancy and Extension Services Remote Sensing Applications Unit Ecology Laboratory Centre Centre for Social Policy Studies The African Virtual University Institute of Adult Education Institute of African Studies Institute of Statistical Social and Economic Research Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research, and Regional Institute for Population Studies


25

The university celebrated its 60th anniversary in 2008.

2.3.2 Governance and strategic objectives The university is led by a vice‐chancellor, a pro‐vice‐chancellor and registrar, directors of finance, academic affairs, and planning and management information services, as well as provosts of colleges, deans of schools and faculties and directors of centres. The university’s mission is to develop world‐class human resources and capabilities to meet national development needs and global challenges through quality teaching, learning, research and knowledge dissemination. The ten thrusts of the university’s Corporate Strategic Plan (2001‐2010) include the following:

1. Mobilise financial resources 2. Create a performance‐driven structure and professionalise human resources 3. Develop a consumer orientation 4. Strengthen the ICT system 5. Review governance and statutes 6. Enhance infrastructure 7. Capitalise on strengths and core competencies 8. Privatise non‐core / performing units 9. Strengthen financial management, and 10. Actively market the university

2.3.3 Institutional finances Table 2.8 shows that the government allocation to UG increased dramatically from USD 3 530 318 in 2000 to USD 29 044 893 in 2007. As can be seen from Figure 2.2, over the period 2000‐2006, around two thirds of the university’s income came from the state. The proportion of income from the sale of goods and services has increased over the period.


26

Table 2.8: University of Ghana government income (2000‐2007)

Year Government Allocations in Local Currency (GH¢)

Government Allocations in USD

Conversion of local currency to USD

2000 2 467 692 3 530 318 0.699 GH¢ = 1 USD

2001 3 445 780 4 819 947 0.715 GH¢ = 1 USD

2002 7 269 386 8 836 011 0.823 GH¢ = 1 USD

2003 8 956 199 10 275 584 0.872 GH¢ = 1 USD

2004 13 820 050 15 528 146 0.890 GH¢ = 1 USD

2005 20 530 617 22 811 797 0.900 GH¢ = 1 USD

2006 31 580 188 34 457 379 0.917 GH¢ = 1 USD

2007 34 737 692 29 044 893 1.196 GH¢ = 1 USD

Figure 2.2: Income by source as a percentage of total income, University of Ghana (2000–2006)

An institutional leader highlighted that the unstable financial support from government makes it very difficult for the university to plan beyond the short term:

As far as the government itself is concerned, help that we have been receiving from government has weakened considerably in several respects – not just in quantum but also the flow of funds has weakened and has become very unsteady. It used to be the case that we were receiving government subvention for planning in the next three years. It came down to two years, then down to annually. Currently the flow of funding is such

65%

62% 62%

58%56% 56%

62%

27%

32%

23%

28%26%

29%

19%

4%1% 2% 1% 2% 2%

3%

0% 0%

8%9%

14%

9%

12%

5% 6% 5%4% 3% 4% 3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

State allocations

Tuition fees

Investment income

Sales of goods and services

Other income (inc. student housing)


27

that it makes it difficult to plan far ahead of time. There are times, with the paying of salaries, the money comes on a monthly basis – our finance officers and directors having to go to the Ministry virtually every month. So it is not just the quantum but also the systematic flow of funding which makes it very difficult to plan far ahead of time. (Institutional leader)


28

3.1 Introduction As was highlighted in section 1.1.3, the existence of a ‘pact’ between national and institutional stakeholders, as well as external stakeholders such as industry and foreign donors, on the role of higher education is a key factor in the extent to which universities are able to make a sustained contribution to development. A pact was defined as a fairly long‐term cultural, socio‐economic and political understanding and commitment between universities, political authorities and society at large of the identity or vision of universities, what is expected of universities, and what the rules and values of the universities are. For the purposes of this study, our interest is in exploring the general nature of the pact, and then the extent to which there is a role for higher education in economic development in the pact. We begin our analysis of the nature and extent of a pact in Ghana by considering the notions(s) of the role of higher education from the perspective of the national authorities and the institutional stakeholders at the University of Ghana. This includes an investigation of the ways in which both national and institutional stakeholders talk about development and the role of higher education, whether and how these notions are articulated in relevant policy documents, and the extent to which specific structures have been established to give expression to the intent of the policies. It also includes a look into the extent to which matters pertaining to higher education are coordinated across national authorities, and between national authorities, higher education institutions (with a specific focus on the University of Ghana) and key external stakeholders.

Part 3

The role of higher education in Ghana

AT A GLANCE

Key national higher education stakeholders Role of higher education in national policies Policy coordination in the higher education sector Institutional narratives on the role of the university Policies, structures and appointments Research funding Research agenda Linkages with the labour market


29

3.2 The national perspective

3.2.1 Key national stakeholders in relation to the pact The key stakeholders in relation to the pact on higher education and development are the following:

Ministry of Education National Council for Tertiary Education Universities and polytechnics Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, and National Development Planning Commission

3.2.2 The role of higher education in national policies National development plans The two key economic development‐related planning documents were outlined in section 2.1.2, namely, the Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS II) (2006‐2009) and the Ghana Vision 2020. To what extent do these plans refer to a role for higher education in development? According to the GPRS II, the main goal of human resource development is to ensure the development of a knowledgeable, well‐trained and disciplined labour force with the capacity to drive and sustain private sector‐led growth. With respect to education, the priority policy interventions that would deepen and sustain the progress made in the sector under GPRS I and accelerate growth included the following (NDPC 2008):

Increase access to and participation in education and training at all levels; Bridge gender gaps in access to education in all districts; Improve the quality of teaching and learning; Improve efficiency in the delivery of education services; and Promote science and technology education.

With respect to human development, the Ghana Vision 2020 document states the following (RoG 1995: vii):

The basic goals of human development are to reduce poverty, increase average incomes and reduce disparities in incomes and opportunities. These goals will be achieved by reducing the rate of population growth, reducing infant and child mortality and general morbidity, improving food security and nutrition and further increasing access to health services, safe water and


30

sanitation, and adequate housing. They also involve the achievement of universal basic education and adult literacy, especially for females and increased access to secondary and tertiary education. The technical proficiency of the labour force will be given further improvement through increased technical and vocational training.

In summary, despite these brief references to human resource development and education, there is very little in the documents about the role of higher education in development, or how the higher education system should respond to the needs of the knowledge economy. The most important recent policy and planning documents relating to education are the Ministry of Education’s Education Strategic Plan 2003‐2015 and the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology’s National Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy. The main thrusts of these two documents are highlighted below, once again with a view to identifying the extent to which the role of higher education is mentioned. Education Strategic Plan (2003‐2015) The mission of the Ministry of Education is “to provide relevant education to all Ghanaians at all levels to enable them to acquire skills that will assist them to develop their potential, to be productive, to facilitate poverty reduction and to promote socio‐economic growth and national development” (MoE 2007: 2). According to the Education Strategic Plan, the goals for the education sector are defined as follows (MoE 2003: 7):

To ensure that all citizens irrespective of age, gender, tribe, religion, and political affiliation, are functionally literate and self‐reliant;

To provide basic education for all; Create opportunities for open education for all; Education and training for skills development with emphasis on science,

technology and creativity; and Higher education for the development of middle and top‐level manpower

requirements. In providing these services the government would be guided by the following values: quality education, efficient management of resources, accountability and transparency, and equity (ibid.). In terms of a strategic framework, the Education Strategic Plan adopted an ‘issues‐based’ approach to sector development. The Plan identified four principal issues, or areas of focus, including equitable access to education; quality of education; educational management; and science, technology and


31

technical and vocational education and training (ibid.: 13). These areas of focus related to the policy goals that were identified for the purposes of the medium‐term expenditure framework preparation. They are also consistent with the findings of a number of significant reports and papers that were published during 2002, such as the GPRS (2002‐2004); the Education Sector Policy Review Report; and, the Education Sector Review, amongst others (ibid.). The Education Strategic Plan presents a synopsis of government intentions and conditions that address the following policy goals for education (ibid.: 14‐16):

Increase access to and participation in education and training; Improve the quality of teaching and learning for enhanced pupil/student

achievement; Improve and extend technical/vocational education and training; Promote and inculcate the values of good health and environmental sanitation

in schools and institutions of higher learning and in their personal lives; Strengthen and improve educational planning and management; Promote and extend the provision of mathematics, science and technology

education and training; Improve the quality and relevance of academic and research programmes; Promote and extend pre‐school education; Identify and promote education programmes that will assist in the prevention

and management of HIV/Aids; and Provide girls with equal opportunities to access the full cycle of education.

For the purposes of this study, it is important to note that except for reference to the issue of access, there is very little mention of higher education in this document. National Science, Technology and Innovation Policy According to the National Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, Ghana’s ambition to become a middle‐income country requires a vision of development which fully applies and integrates science, technology and innovation into national development strategies to harness fully the nation’s total science and technology (S&T) capacity to achieve national objectives for poverty reduction, competitiveness of enterprises, sustainable environmental management and industrial growth. Specific objectives, among others, include the following (MEST 2010: 6):

To facilitate mastering of scientific and technological capabilities; To provide the framework for inter‐institutional efforts in developing science,

technology and innovation and programmes in all sectors of the economy to provide the basic needs of society; and

To create the conditions for the improvement of scientific and technological infrastructure for research and development, and innovation.


32

The principal thrust of the policy is to ensure that S&T drives all sectors of the economy. In order to achieve these objectives, sectoral policies, programmes and strategies would be implemented on the basis of the overall policy. Sectoral policies in agriculture, health, education, environment, energy, trade, industry, natural resources, human settlements, and communications shall be driven by sector‐specific science and technology programmes and activities (ibid.). The policy document goes on to highlight some specific activities and programmes of individual sectors (ibid.: 6‐7). The policy highlights that to ensure the availability of funds at all times to meet the demands of innovation, the government will undertake the following (ibid.: 37):

Take stock of all existing funding lines established to support development in science and technology and industry with the aim of streamlining them to achieve economies in their operations; acknowledging that inadequate funding had handicapped progress in the past.

Strengthen and modify the National Science and Technology Foundation to incorporate support for innovation in its sphere of operations;

Accelerate the allocation of a minimum of 1% of the GDP to support the S&T sector; and

Institute an attractive tax incentive mechanism for contributors to the instituted funds or directly to R&D activities, but in such a way as not to erode the national tax base. In conclusion, there is very little in this policy about the role of higher education in science, technology and innovation. Furthermore, the respective roles of the ministry of education, ministry of science and technology, and other relevant line ministries are not spelt out.

3.2.3 Governance and policy coordination As stated earlier, the major institutions relating to coordinating policy for the purposes of enhancing the relationship between higher education and development are the ministries of education, and finance and planning, the NCTE and the NDPC. The policy and planning documents, and especially the GPRS II, are impressive in terms of setting out the government’s development objectives and defining the associated implementation plans. However, there is little in the documents about the institutional mechanisms necessary for coordination across government ministries, especially with regard to cross‐cutting policy objectives such as human resource development or rural development.


33

3.3 The University of Ghana perspective

3.3.1 Institutional narrative(s) on the role of the university The university’s mission statement emphasises the role of the institution in developing “world‐class human resources and capabilities to meet national development needs and global challenges.” This focus on the role of the university in producing human resources was echoed by a few institutional stakeholders – traditionally in terms of producing skills for the newly‐independent government and civil service, now more broadly in terms of national development:

Essentially the university was built in response to national demands, demands for higher education, a demand for getting Ghanaians to more or less run the State. [...] And, indeed, over the years this university has responded to the call. And the current President is from here; I don’t know whether the Vice President also came here. But this university, like the others in this country, has produced the core or the critical manpower for national development – politicians, administrators, teachers, doctors and what have you. So the traditional mission of the university to produce high quality manpower, we haven’t departed from that; the university’s on course. (Institutional leader)

[...] a lot of the poverty issues are related to lack of education, so that’s the basis that we should start from. Therefore, as a university, everything we do contributes to people’s well being and improving the quality of life for people, because education gives you a basis from which you can use the knowledge to generate wealth. I am not saying you have to go to university to become rich. What I am saying is that you do need a basic level of education to be able to get yourself out of poverty and generate wealth. (Institutional leader)

I would say that as a public university we have the mandate to ensure the well‐being of the average Ghanaian and the average African. Let me say that our mission [...] first is to develop human resources to meet national development needs and global challenges. That is our mission as a university – and we try to live our mission and in living our mission we meet the nation’s aspirations: train, develop human resources to meet national development needs and global challenges. And underpinning of this mission is quality teaching, research,


34

knowledge dissemination and, on the part of the students, of course, learning. (Senior academic)

For example, in our College, we contribute to poverty reduction by the way we train our students and by the way we train would‐be farmers. We have a programme at one of our research centres called the Leventis Farmers Training Programme, which is sponsored by the Leventis Foundation. Each year we take in a batch of would‐be farmers. [...] We are training people and we are giving them scientific ways of improving their farming methods. It started in 1989. Now we are training about 50 per year. And they also affect other farmers. (Senior academic)

The background section of the current Corporate Strategic Plan (2001‐2010) states that the strategic planning process took account of “the rapidly changing environment” in which the university is operating and that this environment “is characterised by questions relating to the role and relevance of tertiary education institutions in the country” (UG 2001: 2). The main role for the university is framed in terms of the provision of human resources for the economy (ibid.):

The manpower needs of government as well as those of industry have undergone significant change in response to rapid developments in their operating environments. These developments have been driven by changes in markets, technology, competitive forces, geographical reach and government policies with the result that they are placing increasing emphasis on the capacity of their human resources as an important source of competitive advantage. As the nation gets serious about having to compete in a global economy, forced to do so by evidence that declining standards of living will result if it fails to do so, the main task of higher education in Ghana is being redefined. In addition to the education of youth and the preparation of new entrants into the work force, the main role of higher education is increasingly the education, training, and retraining of the existing work force, typically adults who are constrained in terms of location, time and money.

Over and above this emphasis on training and lifelong learning, the background section also calls for all three of the core functions of the university – teaching, research and extension services – to “make a more relevant and tangible contribution to the improvement of the standards of living of the nation as a


35

whole” (ibid.). The plan emphasises strengthening the academic core in order to achieve the vision of contributing to national development (ibid.: 4):

In order to ensure that the University adequately contributes to the growth of the economy and to national development, it is paramount that it considers the unique attributes of academic productivity. [...] For its strategy to be effective, it has to address academic priorities – teaching, research & extension services – first.

According to one respondent, the university’s strategic planning does take into account national priorities – although this is confined to the ratio of science and humanities enrolments and the gender ratio:

The university strategic planning process started in earnest in the 1990s. The first plan was from 1993‐2000. The second one was started in 2001, which we are currently operating. The main areas where we ensure that the national vision and the university vision are converged have to do with the area of the science–humanities ratio – the 60‐40 ratio that is stipulated in the national vision. That has been the university’s target. Secondly the 50‐50 gender ratio has been adopted as a target. The problem with achieving the science‐humanities ratio is also a national problem, and the fact that various universities have different academic biases – a predominantly science university, a predominantly maths university. This university has maintained a science‐humanities ratio of only about 22% science. In the area of gender we have moved gradually from about 28% women to about 42% currently. We are gradually moving towards the 50‐50 target. (Institutional leader)

Another key role for the university that was mentioned by a number of respondents was the use of university academics as experts by various government ministries or agencies (such as the National Development Planning Commission):

The university has become known for making certain interventions at the national level – even if it seems not to have been deliberately planned. The country counts on the University of Ghana to intervene on the budget, for example. Our statement on the budget is looked up to every year, from the Institute of Statistical Social and Economic Research. We have a new year school where we bring in people from the Institute of Adult Education, from all over the country, and they come and express an opinion on predominant matters. They come from


36

the trade unions and all over, and this is also something that people look up to in a certain sense. And then one of the Ministers of Agriculture used to have an annual meeting at the College of Agriculture to get their inputs and so on. And we are always being stolen and being put on boards and ministries! (Senior academic)

The truth is that a lot of these policies, the people who are working on them – you have one or two people from the university with the relevant expertise influencing the policy. For example, my background is in wildlife and environment and I can’t think of any wildlife policy in the country that I haven’t had input into. So, people in the health sector, in agriculture and so on are influencing or contributing to the development of the policy, as resource persons. (Institutional leader)

According to one respondent, there are no real incentives from government for the university to link their core activities to economic development, although there is quite considerable use of academics as experts in policy‐making processes:

Bringing other sectors into direct interaction with the tertiary system is not strong. It is strong on the level of policy analysis, or taking university people to do policy analysis, getting involved as individuals in generating policy documents. But in terms of getting universities to respond to these things directly via incentives – it doesn’t work that way. (Senior academic)

One institutional stakeholder referred to national policy documents as listing the universities and other research institutions as partners or resource groups:

If you take some of the documents you will see that they will list either the policy stakeholders or interest groups or partners or resource groups, whichever form. The university is described in all those terms – as resource people, or they would specifically say ‘data source’, for example. (Institutional leader)

An institutional leader described the university’s contribution to development in terms of various outreach projects (e.g. the university radio station educating the public around health and agricultural issues; the Institute for Statistical Social and Economic Research (ISSER) running a course in social and economic planning during the vacation) as well as agricultural extension undertaken by the College of Agriculture in various outlying districts. One respondent said that for a long time the university operated like an ivory tower, disconnected from the needs of society, but that is slowly changing:


37

What we tend to do, or up until now what we have tended to do, with a few exceptions, we have some excellent examples from nutrition and food science where they are working directly with nursing mothers and children and all that and therefore the results are applied directly. But the norm has been you do the research and publish your work and sometimes in international journals that are not available to the country. But I think all that is changing because universities are becoming more and more sensitised to the idea of making ourselves relevant to the nation. And the only way you make yourself relevant in terms of research is letting the government know what you have to offer and how it can be used. So we do need to do more. Two or three years ago we organised a major meeting “Harnessing Science and Technology for National Development” where we looked at some of these issues and how we can make our research results available. So there are some moves in that direction but I think we need to do more. I think we need, for example, one of the things I am planning is to bring industry to sit with us and to ask them: what do you need from us, so that we can address industrial problems. (Institutional leader)

To the extent that a role for the university in economic development forms part of the narratives of the institutional leadership and other senior academic staff, the question arises: what evidence is there that the institution is walking their talk? As such, we now turn our attention to an investigation of the policies, structures, programmes and funding that have been put in place relating to the institution’s role in economic development. It is important to note that it was beyond the scope of this study to assess or evaluate the effectiveness or impact of these initiatives. Instead, they are included here as part of our analysis of the vision that institutional stakeholders have for the university in relation to economic development.

3.3.2 Initiatives around research and innovation Institutional policies, structures and appointments At the time of undertaking the fieldwork for this study, there was no institutional research policy or strategic plan in operation. There were also no


38

specific policies, structures or appointments linking university research to economic development.3 Research funding A number of respondents spoke about the very limited funding for research from the university, the government or the private sector and that, as a result, individual researchers and units depend primarily on external sources for their research funds. Inadequate funding for research is also acknowledged in the current strategic plan (UG 2001: 14). The Research and Conferences Fund makes available some funds for research. It is managed by the School of Research and Graduate Studies. Research agenda According to one respondent, one aspect of the School of Research and Graduate Studies’ mandate is to “coordinate and facilitate research policy in the university”, part of which is “encouraging faculty to take up research that directly addresses national issues and problems”:

I guess what I am saying is that the research we are doing can have direct application if we define the research questions bearing in mind what the nation needs. Of course if we say that we are doing it for purely academic interests then it becomes difficult sometimes to see the link. But the focus now is: do the research but direct it to very relevant issues that can address national interests. [...] There isn’t a national research policy in Ghana but there are various policies for different sectors in which they have identified priority issues, and all these are priority issues. So basically what we are saying is we are an academic institution. We want to make our expertise available to government. We want to do research that directly answers government – or the needs of the people. (Institutional leader)

However, there was no evidence of an institutional research agenda or focus areas. This was confirmed by another study conducted at the university in 2009 (Tobbin 2009: 23):

3 Since the data collection visit to the University of Ghana, a new office has been established,

namely the Office for Research, Innovation and Development which will be headed by a second

pro‐vice‐chancellor.


39

The study also noted that most of the research units are not focused on areas of research. They tend to work according to “where the money is”; the research they conduct is only determined by research funders’ request. Funders of various research projects specify their requirements and determine the quality of the research. This is ultimately because of the absence of strategic direction for research in the university and the faculties.

Some units develop their own research agenda. For example, ISSER draws up its own multi‐year research programme which will have a specific focus for each year (in one year it was on micro‐foundations of reforms, in another it was on poverty issues). The Institute then sets about raising funds to implement its research programme.

3.3.3 Initiatives around teaching and learning There were no specific institutional policies, structures or appointments linking teaching and learning to economic development in particular. In terms of linkages with the labour market, one respondent spoke about the lack of directive from government regarding specific skills needed for the labour market:

With regard to manpower planning: some time ago our Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning included a manpower unit where they tried to estimate manpower requirements in various areas. The work that they did influenced numbers in the universities and even the scholarships that were granted. That unit was moved away into the national development planning commission. For some time now – I know the last time the university was doing its own strategic plan, although some individuals knew certain things, at the national level it looked as if there was no direction as such to say that as a nation, for the next twenty years, we will need so many agriculturalists, we will need so many economists and so on. Of course some people associate that in our environment it’s almost as if our economy – the role of central planning, that kind of environment. But definitely some kind of indicative direction is important so that the institutional plans can fit in. So what has been happening at the university level is we try to guess, to estimate in our own minds what we think the nation will be needing in coming years. But there are no specific documents that one can draw on. There are some areas, like health, which are a bit straightforward because almost all


40

health personnel are employed by government. But in fields like agriculture it is not that easy. (Institutional leader)

One institutional leader spoke about the’ need to review the curricula periodically and to engage relevant external stakeholders in this process, including employer organisations, relevant government ministries, beneficiaries (such as farmers) and non‐governmental organisations. On the whole, there was little evidence of formal linkages or interaction with the private sector or industry around teaching programmes and curriculum development. The current strategic plan has “Relevant and industry‐linked courses/programs supported by a tutorial and mentoring system” as one of its overarching ‘required strengths’ for the university (UG 2001: 14).


41

4.1 Introduction As outlined in the analytical framework (Section 1.1.3), the nature, size and continuity of the academic core is a key factor in the extent to which universities can make a significant and sustained contribution to development. The academic core of universities refers to teaching via academic degree programmes and to research activities (often, but not exclusively of the basic type). In societies where there is a strong pact between higher education and society, the universities have been able (and allowed) to develop a strong core of academic activities that forms the basis for all their activities. The stronger its academic core the easier it will be for a university to defend its institutional identity and integrity against external or internal threats. In addition, a strong, institutionalised academic core will allow the university to invest a large part of its resources in the maintenance and further strengthening of the core, which can be regarded as the main foundation under its specific institutional identity. According to Burton Clark (1998), when an enterprising university evolves a stronger steering core, and develops an outreach structure, its heartland is still in the traditional academic departments, formed around disciplines, and some interdisciplinary fields. The heartland is where traditional academic values and activities such as teaching, research and training of the next generation of academics occurs. For the purposes of this project, we have used the following to operationalise the concept of the academic core and to identify important preconditions for the development of a strong academic core in African universities:

Part 4

The University of Ghana academic core

AT A GLANCE

A profile of the UG academic core: Enrolments in science, engineering and technology Postgraduate enrolments and graduation rates Academic staff‐to‐student ratio Academic staff qualifications Research funding Research output


42

Increased enrolments in science, engineering and technology (SET): In African governments and foreign development agencies alike, there is a strong emphasis on SET as important drivers of development (Juma 2005). Included in SET are the agricultural sciences, architecture and urban and regional planning, computer and information science, health sciences and veterinary sciences, life sciences and physical sciences.

Increased postgraduate enrolments: The knowledge economy and universities are demanding increased numbers of people with postgraduate qualifications.

A favourable academic staff to student ratio: The academic workload should allow for the possibility of research and PhD supervision.

A high proportion of academic staff with doctoral degrees: Research (CHET 2010) shows that there is high correlation between staff with doctorates, on the one hand, and research output and the training of PhD students, on the other.

Adequate research funding per academic: Research requires government and institutional funding and ‘third‐stream’ funding from external sources such as industry and foreign donors.

High graduation rates in SET fields: Not only is it important to increase SET enrolments, it is crucial that universities achieve high success rates in order to respond to the skills shortages in the African labour market in these fields.

Increased knowledge production in the form of doctoral graduates: There is a need for an increase in doctoral graduates for two reasons. Firstly, doctoral graduates form the backbone of academia and are therefore critical for the future reproduction of the academic core. Secondly, there is an increasing demand for people with doctoral degrees outside of academia (e.g. in research organisations and other organisations such as financial institutions).

Knowledge production in the form of research publications recognised in ISI journals: Academics need to be producing peer‐reviewed research publications in order for the university to participate in the global knowledge community and to contribute to new knowledge and innovation. The preconditions outlined above are translated into the following academic core indicators: Indicator 1: Programmes – Strong SET enrolments and graduations Indicator 2: Postgraduates – Increased enrolments and graduations Indicator 3: Teaching loads – Improving academic staff/student ratios Indicator 4: Qualified staff – High percentage academic staff with PhDs Indicator 5: Funding – Availability of research funds, and Indicator 6: Research output – High or improving output In order to develop a benchmark against which the academic core of UG could be assessed, an analysis was undertaken of South Africa’s 22 contact universities and the seven African universities included in the current study, based on seven input indicators and two output indicators. (See Appendix 2 for a description of the cluster analysis methodology, the detailed data for the institutions included in the analysis, and a graph showing the results of the


43

analysis.) A cluster analysis of the results produced the following four clusters of institutions:

Cluster 1 consists of the five South African universities which have a strong focus on both undergraduate and postgraduate studies, which are well‐resourced in teaching and in research, and which have strong research outputs.

Cluster 2 consists of two South African and five African universities which have a primary focus on undergraduate studies, which have adequate undergraduate teaching resources, and which have good undergraduate but moderate research output rates.

Cluster 3 consists of eight South African and two African universities which have high proportions of SET students, which have a main focus on undergraduate studies, but which do not have available the same levels of undergraduate teaching resources as Cluster 2. Their undergraduate output rates are satisfactory, but their research output rates fall below the targets set for South African universities.

Cluster 4 consists of seven South African universities which have low proportions of postgraduate students. Their resource levels are low compared to the other three clusters, their output rates at undergraduate level are unsatisfactory, and their research performance is poor. UG appears in Cluster 3 together with Nairobi, North West, KwaZulu‐Natal, Free State, Nelson Mandela, UWC, Venda, Zululand and Fort Hare. In the analyses which follow, UG (which had an enrolment of 21 000 in 2007) is linked to (a) the other African university in Cluster 2 (Nairobi which had an enrolment of 39 000 in 2007) and (b) Free State (which had an enrolment of 25 000 in 2007). UG is also compared to a Cluster 1 university which is closest to it in terms of enrolment size. This is Cape Town which had an enrolment of 21 000 in 2007.

4.2 SET enrolments and graduations Figure 4.1 shows that a large proportion of UG’s student growth between 2001 and 2007 was in humanities plus education. Total enrolments in all fields increased by 12 200 (or 85%) in 2007 compared to 2001. Only 1 300 of these increased enrolments were in SET majors. Humanities plus education majors increased by 11 700 (or 135%) between 2001 and 2007. UG's proportion of SET majors fell from 22% in 2001 to only 17% in 2007.


44

Figure 4.1: Ghana: Enrolments by field of study

Table 4.1: Ghana: Total enrolments by field of study (thousands)

Field of study 2001 2003 2005 2007 Average annual

growth rate: 2000‐2007

Science and technology 3.2 3.6 4.7 4.5 5.8%

Business and management 2.2 2.6 3.1 1.4 ‐7.3%

Social sciences, humanities and education

8.9 13.5 19.1 20.6 15.0%

Totals 14.3 19.7 26.9 26.5 10.8%

As can be seen in Figure 4.2, compared to the other three universities, UG had a low proportion of SET students in 2007. Its proportion of 17% falls well below the South African universities' target of 30% of enrolments in SET.

22% 18% 18% 17%

16%13% 12%

5%

62%69% 71%

78%

2001 2003 2005 2007

Science & technology Business & management Humanities


45

Figure 4.2: Comparison of science and technology majors as % of total enrolment

Table 4.2: Comparison of total science and technology enrolments (thousands)

2001 2003 2005 2007

Ghana 3.2 3.6 4.7 4.5

Nairobi 7.6 7.9 9.4 12.3

Free State 4.5 5.9 7.0 7.2

Cluster 1: Cape Town 7.4 8.1 8.9 9.0

The data in Figures 4.3 and 4.4 measure output performance in terms of a university’s ratio between graduates in any given year and student enrolments in that same year. These ratios serve as proxies for cohort output rates, which indicate what proportion of any cohort entering a university can be expected to eventually complete their degrees or diplomas. The bench mark of 25% is a proxy for a cohort success rate of 75% of entering students obtaining their degrees or diplomas. Figure 4.3 shows that UG's average graduate rate for SET declined over the period 2001 to 2007, and was well below the benchmark rate of 25%. UG's average graduation rate of 20% for all programmes for the period 2001‐2007 is equivalent to a cohort success rate of 60%, which indicates that its graduate output rate is not as efficient as it should be.

22%

18% 18% 17%

33%

33% 29%31%

32%

27%29% 29%

40%

39%

41%

42%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

2001 2003 2005 2007

Ghana Nairobi Free State Cluster 1: Cape Town

Cluster 1: Cape Town

Nairobi

Free State

Ghana


46

Figure 4.3: Ghana: Graduation rates by field of study

Table 4.3: Ghana: Total SET graduates

2001 2003 2005 2007

Ghana 611 608 740 579

Figure 4.4 shows that UG's performance in producing SET graduates was the poorest in the selected group. UG's average graduation rate of 18% for SET for the period 2001‐2007 is equivalent to a cohort success rate of 50%, which is clearly not satisfactory. The average cohort success rates for 2001‐2007 for SET for the other universities were: Nairobi and Free State 55%, and Cape Town 62%.

19%17%

16%13%

22%

16%

17%

24%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

24%

26%

28%

30%

2001 2003 2005 2007

Science & technology Average for all programmes

Target

Average for all programmes

Science &Technology


47

Figure 4.4: Comparison of science and technology graduation rates

Table 4.4: Comparison of total science and technology graduates

2001 2003 2005 2007

Ghana 611 608 740 579

Nairobi 1 314 1 383 1 239 2 804

Free State 1 031 1 054 1 346 1 353

Cluster 1: Cape Town 1 392 1 576 1 869 2 049

4.3 Postgraduate enrolments and graduations Figure 4.5 shows that the proportion of postgraduate students in UG's total enrolment fell from 12% in 2001 to only 6% in 2007. The reason was that UG's postgraduate enrolment grew at an average annual rate of 0.4% between 2001 and 2007, while undergraduates increased at 12%. The figure also indicates that a consequence of these growth rates was that there was, by 2007, considerable difference between UG's proportion of postgraduate students and those of the other universities in the cluster.

19%

17%

16%

13%

17%

13%

23%23%

18%19%

19%

20%

21%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

24%

2001 2003 2005 2007



Nairobi

Free State

Ghana


48

Figure 4.5: Comparison of % postgraduates in enrolment total

Table 4.5: Comparison of total postgraduate enrolments in all fields of study

2001 2003 2005 2007

Ghana 1 641 1 395 1 433 1 682

Nairobi 4 455 3 783 5 845 6 367

Free State 6 475 9 390 7 861 7 174

Cluster 1: Cape Town 1 557 1 538 1 578 1 444

Table 4.6 gives, for UG only, details of masters and doctoral enrolments and graduates over the period 2001 to 2007. The table shows that masters enrolments increased by only 236 (or 18%) and masters graduates by 35 (or 6%) in 2007 compared to 2001. UG's graduation rate for masters graduates was good throughout the period and, in particular, was well above the targets set for South African universities. Doctoral enrolments grew by only 33, and doctoral graduates by only 2 in 2007 compared to 2001.

12%

7%

5%

6%

20%16%

18%16%

46% 43%

32%29%

30% 28%

29% 28%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2001 2003 2005 2007


Nairobi


Free State

Ghana


49

Table 4.6: Ghana: Master and doctoral enrolments and graduates

2001 2003 2005 2007 Average annual growth: 2000‐2007

Masters

Enrolments 1 344 1 272 1 337 1 580 2.7%

Graduates 541 358 537 576 1.1%

Doctoral

Doctoral enrolments 69 79 94 102 6.7%

Doctoral graduates 9 14 12 11 3.4%

Total masters + doctoral

Enrolments 1 413 1 351 1 431 1 682 2.9%

Graduates 550 372 549 587 1.1%

Since doctoral students, especially in SET, are essential parts of research programmes, Figure 4.6 can be used as a first measure of a university's involvement in research. A university which has strong research programmes should have reasonably high proportions of doctoral candidates in its grouping of masters plus doctoral students. Figure 4.6 shows that, for the period 2001‐2007, UG enrolled on average 16 masters students for each doctoral student enrolled, which is a high ratio, indicating that the flow of masters through to doctorates was low. The comparable ratios for the other universities in the selected group are: Nairobi 32 masters enrolments per doctoral enrolment, and Free State five and Cape Town four. These last two universities have well balanced masters to doctorate student ratios.

Figure 4.6: Comparison of doctoral enrolments as % of masters and doctoral enrolments

5%

6%7%

6%

2%3%

1%

18%

16%17%

20%20% 21%

23%

26%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2001 2003 2005 2007



Nairobi

Free State

Ghana


50

Table 4.7: Comparison of masters and doctoral enrolments

2001 2003 2005 2007

Masters Doctoral Masters Doctoral Masters Doctoral Masters Doctoral

Ghana 1 344 69 1 272 79 1 337 94 1 580 102

Nairobi 3 937 190 3 376 81 5 332 170 6 145 62

Free State 2 057 449 2 702 529 2 573 544 2 402 618


2 788 706 2 976 783 3 160 970 2 906 1 002

Figure 4.7 compares the total numbers of doctoral graduates produced by each of the four universities between 2001 and 2007. Free State produced 29% and Cape Town 55% of the total doctoral graduate output of these four universities between 2001 and 2007.

Figure 4.7: Comparison of total doctoral graduates

Table 4.8: Comparison of doctoral graduates

2001 2003 2005 2007

Ghana 9 14 12 11

Nairobi 26 32 7 32

Free State 50 82 65 77

Cluster 1: Cape Town 86 103 182 142

914 12 11

2632

7

32

50

82

6577

86

103

182

142

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2001 2003 2005 2007



51

4.4 Student‐staff ratios Data on the formal teaching hours carried by academic staff at the four universities are not available. Use has therefore been made of proxies, which compare student to academic staff growth rates, and ratios of full‐time equivalent (FTE) students to FTE academic staff. Table 4.9 shows how UG's totals of FTE students and FTE academic staff changed over the period 2001 to 2007. UG was not able to match growth in FTE students and FTE academic staff in any of the broad fields of study. FTE student to FTE academic staff ratios nevertheless remained favourable in all these fields, except business and management. The ratio for SET remained below 10:1, even though growth in FTE academic staff was about one third of the growth rate in FTE students in SET.

Table 4.9: Ghana: FTE students and academic staff

2001 2003 2005 2007

Average annual growth:

2000‐2007

Science and technology

FTE students 2 037 2 316 3 359 3 531 9.6%

FTE academic staff 280 386 380 401 6.2%

FTE student to FTE academic ratio 7.3 6.0 8.8 8.8

Business and management

FTE students 1 529 1 945 2 543 2 091 5.4%



Humanities plus education

FTE students 6 524 10 559 16 352 16 384 16.6%



TOTALS

FTE students 10 090 14 820 22 254 22 006 13.9%



Figure 4.8 compares FTE student to FTE academic staff ratios for 2007. The average ratio for Ghana was 26, whilst the ratio for the other three universities was 20 or less. A ratio of 20 or less is regarded as satisfactory in terms of South African norms. The teaching load of the academic staff of Ghana was thus high


52

compared to the other three universities. It is worth noting that while the SET ratios of all four are good, the Cluster 1 university had the highest ratio of SET FTE students to FTE academic staff. In all four the ratio for business/management was well above that for humanities plus education.

Figure 4.8: Comparison of 2007 FTE student‐staff ratios

Figure 4.9 compares the four universities' 2007 totals of permanent academic staff and FTE academic staff. Figure 4.10 can function as a proxy of the load carried by permanent academic staff members, who are expected to be the main supervisors of research students and producers of research publications. Figures 4.9 and 4.10 show that the permanent academic staff of Free State had the highest level of support from temporary and part‐time academic staff. It had, in 2007, 708 permanent academics and the equivalent of a further 361 part‐time and temporary academic staff. UG had 792 permanent academics and the equivalent of a further 46 temporary and part‐time academic staff members.

9

47

42

26

9

42

31

18

9

50

29

18

11

33

1816

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

SET Bus All Hum Average



53

Figure 4.9: Comparison of totals of permanent and FTE academic staff (2007)

Figure 4.10: Comparison of ratios of FTE to permanent academic staff (2007)

4.5 Academic staff qualifications Figure 4.11 compares the 2007 proportions for the group of permanent academic staff who have either a masters or a doctorate as their highest formal qualification. UG's figure of 47% of permanent staff with doctorates is close to what could be expected of a university with a strong focus on research.

792

1292

708

889838

1363

10691122

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600


Permanent academics FTE academics

1.1 1.1

1.5

1.3

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6


FTE to permanent academic staff


54

Nairobi's ratio of 71% of permanent academics with doctorates would be regarded as exceptionally high in the South African university system.

Figure 4.11: Comparison of highest formal qualifications of permanent academics (2007)

Table 4.10: Comparison of permanent academics with masters and doctoral degrees (2007)


Doctorate highest 405 915 344 518

Masters highest 364 363 252 265

Lower than masters 96 14 112 106

4.6 Research funding4 The information in Figures 4.12 and 4.13 attempts to set out the total funding which each university had available for research in 2007. It should therefore reflect research income rather than expenditure on research. In their annual income statements, South African universities report on their research funding in terms of recurrent research income and research contracts

4 It must be noted that all universities in the sample appear to use different means to estimate

their research income. For the purposes of comparison where no figures have been supplied a

percentage of university income has been used. These figures however are not reliable and more

work needs to be done in further studies to accurately track university research income.

47%

71%

49%

58%

42%

28%

36%

30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Doctorate highest Masters highest


55

for designated purposes. Cape Town's 2007 income statements gave its recurrent research income as 0 and its designated research contract income as R 181 million. Free State's 2007 income statements gave its recurrent research income as 0 and its research contract income as R 17 million. UG and Nairobi did not provide specific information on research funding. In the analyses which follow, assumptions are made that their research income equals 3% of their total income. The calculations of market rate dollars are based on average exchange rates quoted by the central banking authorities of each country. The calculation of Purchasing Power Parity dollars (PPP$) is based on estimates contained in the 2008 publication on World Development Indicators (World Bank 2008). Because these estimates are based on 2005 exchange rates, the following method was used for the 2007 calculations:

The indicator set gives for each country a ratio between the PPP conversion factor and the market exchange rate. For example, the South African ratio is given as 0.61, based on a market exchange rate of R 6.4 per USD in 2005.

The 2007 calculations assume that the 2005 ratio will apply again. So the 2007 PPP conversion factor is taken to be 2005 ratio times 2007 market exchange rate. For example, the conversion factor for South Africa is calculated as 2005 ratio times 2007 exchange rate = 0.61 X 7.0 = 4.27. These calculations are based the research income totals referred to above. The amounts in local currency were converted to market rate USD and PPP$ using the methodology referred to above.

Figure 4.12: Comparison of research income in market rate USD and PPP$ (millions)

1.12.7 2.4

25.9

2.7

6.94.0

42.4

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0


Market rate $ PPP $


56

Figure 4.13 is based on the actual and assumed research income totals in Figure 4.12 and the permanent academic staff totals in Figure 4.9.

Figure 4.13: Comparison of total research income per permanent academic in market rate USD and PPP$ (thousands)

4.7 Research outputs

For the purposes of this study, research outputs are measured in terms of research publications5, and doctoral graduates. Table 4.11 lists UG’s totals of research publications and doctoral graduates for the period 2001–2007.

Table 4.11: Ghana: Research outputs

Research publications Doctoral graduates

2001 66 9

2003 57 14

2005 68 12

2007 101 11

5 The research publication data presented here are based on the peer reviewed research

publications data in the Web of Science citation database within the ISI Web of Knowledge,

produced by Thomson Reuters. The database captures papers from all countries that are

published in journals that meet certain criteria of quality as determined by Thomson Reuters.

1.4 2.1 3.4

29.1

3.45.3 5.6

47.7

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


Market rate $ PPP $


57

Figure 4.14 deals only with research publication units. The target is based on the assumption that a permanent academic should publish at least one research article every two years. The data in the graph show that Cape Town and Free State met this target. The ratios of UG and Nairobi suggest that each permanent academic will publish one research article every eight to 10 years.

Figure 4.14: Comparison of research publication units per permanent academic

Figure 4.15 sets out ratios between doctoral graduates and permanent academic staff, with the target again being derived from the research output targets used in the South African higher education system. In this case, the target takes account of the productivity of academic staff in terms of the total of doctoral graduates produced in a given year divided by the total of permanent academic staff employed in that year. The target ratio of 10% is based on these calculations: At least 50% of the permanent staff of a university should be supervising at least one doctoral student, and these students should take on average five years to complete their degrees. So a university with (say) 100 permanent academics should enrol at least 50 doctoral students, and 20% of these should graduate each year. The ratio between permanent staff and doctoral graduates should therefore be at least 10/100 = 10%. The data in the graph show that Cape Town exceeded this target in both 2001 and 2007, Free State exceeded the target in 2007 and was close to it in 2001. The other two universities in the group fell well short of the target of 10%.

0.10 0.09

0.50

0.92

0.13 0.11

0.67

1.14

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20


2001 2007


58

Figure 4.15: Comparison of doctoral graduates in given year as % of permanent academics employed

1.4%2.1%

8.3%

11.3%

1.4%2.5%

10.9%

16.0%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%


2001 2007

Target ratio


59

5.1 Introduction In order to ensure that the core activities of teaching and research are to some extent aligned with national development priorities and can thereby contribute to development in society, universities increasingly emphasise the need to engage with relevant external stakeholders. Furthermore, much of what might be termed the development‐related activities of the university usually fall within the so‐called ‘third mission’, which is variously referred to as ‘engagement’, ‘service’ or ‘community outreach’. This could include academics serving on committees in the public or private sector, providing support to small businesses, responding to requests for short courses, or undertaking contract research for outside clients. More often than not, the economic development‐related projects and activities of the institution fall under its engagement function. In the first part of this section, we explore UG’s engagement with its key external stakeholders, namely government, industry and foreign donors. In the second part of the section, we turn our attention to an analysis of the extent of the connectedness of the economic development‐related centres and projects included in this study.

Part 5

The engagement and development‐related activities of the University of Ghana

AT A GLANCE

University engagement and linkages with government and industry Incentives for academics to engage in development‐related activities Coordination of development activities Connectedness of economic development‐related projects and centres

to the academic core


60

5.2 Engagement and linkages with external stakeholders

5.2.1 University‐government‐industry linkages While there are some linkages between the university and government and industry, these seem to be more at the level of individual academics and units and not at an institutional level. And, instead of any formal, structured engagement between university and government, interactions appear to be very informal and ad hoc.

We need to know what is required in terms of national development needs. Like you talk about the communities – there is a huge risk that you sit here and you really don’t know what is going on out there. So trying to get a dialogue between university researchers and government policy‐makers and implementing agencies is extremely important. Yesterday I was in a group – we were sending some ambassador off – and somebody walked up to me and said to me: Prof, how can we get your people to participate in our forum? They have a forum going on health and they said they don’t have anybody from here. And I said why, because we have a whole public health school? So I think trying to get them to know what we have to offer, and opening that sort of dialogue, is an area that we need to work on. As I said, the other thing is making ourselves relevant. So, making them see what we have to offer. For example, the proposals we were talking about, there was somebody in the group working on HIV/AIDS who had done some trial research and who had some very important results, that he then needed to do it on a bigger scale, and I said to him: does the Ministry of Health know what you’ve done? Of course they didn’t. So we need to take what we have and we need to show them what we can do. (Institutional leader)

Everybody is talking about the involvement of experts, the involvement of ordinary people and so on. But the mechanisms and the ground rules for that have not been very clear. So I think what academics do if they are lucky and are invited to the table, then they are able to do something. That’s a gift! You are very lucky if you are invited by government to participate in drawing up a development plan. Most of the time it’s more like you cast your bread on the waters and you hope that somebody is listening. (Senior academic)


61

Now what I find difficult now is that gradually the state and the university are not meeting so as to be able to address what the society needs. So we seem to be cocooned here and we don’t seem to know what is going on in town. Sometimes we try to sell ourselves to town but then the politicians don’t. I’ll give my own example: [...] there are very many health problems in our society. But of course people in the Ministry of Health think it is essentially a Ministry of Health matter, so the doctors and all that should deal with the problem. But I argue that, no, health is more than just administering medicines and giving injections. Occasionally they will invite you to come and give a talk [...] But the point I’m stressing here is that although the nation invests so much money to running the universities, from my own perspective the nation does not derive much benefit because the nation and the university are not communicating so as to find out the needs of each. (Institutional leader)

I can talk for myself that in the area of health I talk to doctors, I talk to policy‐makers in the Ministry. But they don’t seem to be interested in anything intellectual‐wise or theoretical. No, no. They want something practical – you know, we want something quick fix. You want toilets here – here are the toilets, that’s all. You want water – here, here is it. No intellectualising about toilets or water. It’s not too appealing to them. (Institutional leader)

There is also very little interaction with industry although one respondent suggested that this might be starting to change:

The university sometimes dialogues with industry. In fact, our present chairman of the University Council is the president of the Association of Ghanaian industries. So this dialoguing has been fairly recent. (Institutional leader)

An institutional leader reported that a major problem is that research produced in the university is not widely or appropriately disseminated:

We have thousands of theses and dissertations and technical reports written. All these [indicating towards the bookshelves], these are theses, there are very many of them. But they are not shared with those outside. My writings go out only when I’m asked by, I’m given a consultancy by, say, International Organisation for Migration, or WHO [World Health Organisation], to do something – then they get the report. Now if you write your thesis here you are not bound to give a copy to


62

WHO, if it has to do with health. So the sharing is not there – unless WHO says: well, we are interested in child mortality problems of Ghana and therefore, please, University of Ghana, can you help us find out or identify some of the theses written on infant child mortality. That is it; otherwise nothing. So we have, more or less, locked up knowledge here, which lies on shelves and nobody’s using them except if people feel the need then they come. (Institutional leader)

5.2.2 Foreign donors A few respondents spoke about the tensions between responding to the agendas of foreign donors in order to secure research or project funding and addressing local needs. For example, one project talked about the difficulties of raising funds for new health problem areas that were not on foreign donor agendas. Another highlighted the tension between donor and country priorities, as well as traditional forms of academic assessment:

You know, these international agencies, when they come for research they always spell out the areas that they are interested in. We receive protocols and so on to look at. Sometimes there is an advantage there. Sometimes you do research for the sake of doing it – you are in academia and you must survive, and you may do certain things just to satisfy the requirements. But as to how much benefit such a thing will give your own country, is another thing. Sometimes, some of the things we do here – you see, as a university you want to be recognised wherever you go, be accorded respect, and so you must publish. And then your papers will be sent out for assessment by a professor who doesn’t know your conditions. So when such adverts come in, you try and tag on and get something and do it. But you are not helping the country. Meanwhile somebody is doing basic research to help his country. Such a person cannot publish in a journal. It is of local importance so they will throw it away saying: we did this twenty years ago, now you are doing it. But that is where we are! We are trying to solve those problems. I’m not saying that we should not do quality research of international standards. But I am saying that there should be a reflection on those who are doing basic research or relevant research to help alleviate the poor from there. (Senior academic)


63

5.2.3 Incentives, rewards and co‐ordination There was no evidence of any incentives or rewards for teaching or research activities that are specifically linked to economic development. There appears to be little coordination of internal and external interests in terms of interactions with foreign donors funding research. According to a report on the governance of research at UG, the most common practice at the university is for a contract to be signed directly between the external source of funds and the individual researcher (Tobbin 2009: 17):

The informal research structure is the most commonly used structure in the UG. Here the funds for the research are sourced from outside the university and contractual agreement for conducting the research is between the researcher and the funding institution; the university has no hand in it at all. In this case, the researcher receives and manages the research funds. He or she may form a research team or work single‐handedly on the research. The reporting requirements as well as monitoring and evaluation are determined by the funding organisation.

The same report went on to highlight that while there are informal linkages between individual academics and units and particular ministries, there are no formal structures linking the university to government (ibid.: 18):

The study revealed that various units of the university and including the research units collaborate with their respective sector ministries whenever the need arises. For instance the various medical laboratories collaborate with the Ministry of Health and the agricultural research farms and laboratories work closely with the Ministry of Food and Agriculture on some projects. These notwithstanding, there are no clear structural links between the university’s research mechanism and the government body charged with higher education (i.e. the Ministry of Education). The study did not identify any structural links between the university research mechanism and other government Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDA) nor other entities outside of the university.

5.2.4 Summary In summary, while there was evidence of linkages with government and other external stakeholders (see, for example, section 5.3 below), there are no formal structures linking the university to its key stakeholders. In addition, there do not appear to be any specific incentives or arrangements to encourage university


64

staff to get involved in engagement or development‐related work – whether with government or industry.

5.3 The connectedness of development activities to the academic core

A key issue for the relationship between higher education and economic development is to establish a productive relationship between knowledge and connectedness. On the one hand, if there is an overemphasis on the basic knowledge activities of teaching and research – in other words, an excessive inward orientation towards strengthening the academic core – this results in the university becoming an ‘ivory tower’. Or, if the academic core is weak, an overemphasis on knowledge results in the ‘ancillary’ role of the university (i.e. no direct role in development). On the other hand, if there is an overemphasis in the university on connecting to development activities, then it weakens the academic core and the university has little new or relevant knowledge to offer in the exchange relationship. The challenge for universities, then, is to deal with this inherent tension between ‘buffering’ (protecting) the core technologies of the institution, and ‘bridging’ (linking) those with external actors (Scott 2001: 199‐211). In reality, the boundaries between internal and external are not that clear cut. A number of theorists, such as Gibbons et al. (1994) and Scott (2001), have argued that during globalisation and its associated ‘new’ forms of knowledge production, the boundaries are becoming increasingly blurred and permeable. The higher education studies literature describes this problem in terms of the conceptual notion of ‘coupling’ (Scott 2001; Weick 1976); that is, the extent to which the core and the external (or ‘periphery’) are linked with, or connected to, one another. In ‘tight coupling’, the boundary is weak and the university is in a direct, ‘instrumental’ relationship with external actors such as government or industry. In ‘loose‐coupling’, the boundary is stronger, such as in the traditional notion of the university as a self‐governing institution, which assumes an indirect contribution to development. The more complex relationship is with the ‘engine of development’ notion where there are multiple, simultaneous forms of knowledge production and exchange. For the purposes of this study, we are using the term ‘connectedness’ to refer to the relationship (and tension) between the inward focus on strengthening and maintaining the academic core, and the outward focus on linking with external stakeholders and development. We operationalised ‘connectedness’ along two dimensions. The first dimension is ‘articulation’ which has a number of aspects. Firstly, it refers to the extent to which the aims and activities of development‐related activities articulate with national development priorities and the university’s strategic objectives. Secondly, it refers to the linkages the project has with two of the groups of stakeholders in the triangle – the


65

government (usually through specific government departments / agencies) and external stakeholders (e.g. industry, small businesses, NGOs or community groups such as fishers or small‐scale farmers). In particular, our focus is on the extent to which there are linkages with an ‘implementation agency’, (i.e. an external body which takes up the knowledge and/or its products generated or applied through research or training). Thirdly, articulation takes into account linkages generated through sources of funding in two respects: whether the project/centre obtains funding from one or more of the three stakeholder groups (government, an external funder or the university itself); and, the extent to which the project/centre develops a relationship with its funders over time. This latter aspect is determined through the nature of the financial sustainability of the project. The second dimension focuses on the extent to which development activities serve to strengthen the academic core of the university. This was operationalised in terms of the extent to which the work undertaken in projects/centres feeds into teaching or curriculum development; is linked to the formal training of students; enables academics to publish in academic publications (journals, books etc); is linked to international academic networks; and generates new knowledge (versus applying existing knowledge). These various aspects relating to articulation and strengthening the academic core were converted into indicators which could then be applied to an analysis of the development‐related projects and centres included in the study. On the basis of the indicator ratings, the projects/centres were plotted on a graph depicting the intersection between articulation and strengthening the academic core. In this section, we present the analysis of the connectedness of selected development‐related activities at UG. These projects, which have an economic development or poverty reduction focus, were identified by the institutional leadership for inclusion in the study. It should be noted that this method of analysis is a work‐in‐progress and, in the context of this study, has two possible limitations. The first is that the method of analysis has been developed since completion of the data collection which means that there are some areas of the project data which were not explored in great detail during the interviews. We have, as far as possible, attempted to obtain this additional data from project leaders in the drafting of this report. A second limitation is that the analysis which follows is based on a small number of projects rather than a large representative sample. In addition, the projects selected have an in‐built bias since they were selected by institutional leadership on the basis of their economic development or poverty reduction focus. Despite these limitations, however, we believe that the analysis that follows is an illuminating first step towards the development of a tool which can enable institutions and donors to think critically and strategically about the


66

implications of different models of funding and engagement or development‐related activities.

5.3.1 A brief overview of the projects/centres Gates Institute Partnership Project for Population, Family and Reproductive Health

Location School of Public Health in partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health at Johns Hopkins University

Project leader Prof. Isabella Quakyi

Timeframe 2003; ongoing

Type Research and capacity building programme

Website http://www.jhsph.edu/gatesinstitute/partnerships/ghana/ (Johns Hopkins web site)

With funding of about USD 60 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute for Population and Reproductive Health at Johns Hopkins University looked for institutions in the developing world (e.g. India, Pakistan, China, Africa) that could be invited to compete for partnership funding. About 30 universities were then invited to compete for the funding and the University of Ghana was one of two Ghanaian institutions to be successful (the other being Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology). The aims of the partnership were to establish a new Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health within the School of Public Health at UG, and to strengthen graduate training and research in reproductive health. Through the partnership, additional funding was sourced to build a new building for the School of Public Health. One of the key aspects of the new department’s work is to contribute to the running of the school‐wide one‐year Masters in Public Health programme. The programme attracts students from many countries including the United States and Canada, from the sub‐region (students from the Red Cross, the World Health Organisation and the Council of Churches), and even as far south as South Africa. It is hoped that with the new building the programme can expand its intake to 30 or 40 students per year. The students are usually employed in a public health capacity and are sent to undertake the Masters in Public Health in order to receive advanced training and upskilling. The school as a whole has 25 field sites in districts around the country which the various departments are linked to (including the Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health). Each field site is linked to the local District Health Management Team (DHMT) and two students are placed within each DHMT for one week in the second semester. Before the beginning of the second semester, each district sends through its list of research or problem‐solving interests. Students are then asked to visit the districts and see which districts have research interests that match their own. The students will then work with


67

the DHMT in the district they have chosen and collect data, write it up and then feedback the findings to the DHMT. The district director is then responsible for holding a seminar to disseminate the findings to the DHMT and other health providers. The school appoints either the regional or district directors as field supervisors for the students. Five‐year (Phase 1) funding was secured from the Bill and Melinda Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health at Johns Hopkins University. A proposal for Phase 2 funding has been submitted. The Ministry of Health provides funding for transport and accommodation. Additional funds have been sourced from DANIDA and other NGOs for the building of student accommodation at the field sites.

Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research (NMIMR)

Location College of Health Sciences

Unit head Prof. Alexander Nyarko (Director)

Timeframe 1979; ongoing

Type Research institute and postgraduate training programmes

Website http://www.noguchimedres.org/

The institute was established in 1979 by the university council as a semi‐autonomous institute for research and postgraduate training in the biomedical sciences and also to provide diagnostic support for the activities of the Ministry of Health. The mission of the institute is to become a centre of excellence for biomedical research into diseases of public health importance especially in Ghana whilst contributing to human resource development for scientific research and health service. The Institute was charged with a broad mandate:

To conduct research into health problems of public health importance in Ghana;

To provide training opportunities in medical research for postgraduate students; and

To provide specialised laboratory diagnostic and monitoring services in support of public health programmes. Original research undertaken by the institute targets infectious diseases and nutrition such as malaria, other parasitic diseases, diseases related to poor nutrition and new methodologies. The institute’s writ expanded recently to include non‐infectious diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, sickle cell, cancer, etc. NMIMR collaborates in various capacities with other universities, national programmes, non‐governmental groups, and international initiatives. The Institute hosts the West African Centre for Parasite Control (WACIPAC) and the Lymphatic Filariasis Support Centre for Africa. It is mainly through such


68

collaborations that the Institute has been able to implement and support solutions to national, regional, and global health challenges. Various Departments and researchers have participated in clinical trials, and the new Clinical Trials Facility opened in 2004. The institute operates reference laboratories and has a Biosafety Level 3 facility; it is seeking support for a major expansion of its research facilities in the form of multi‐purpose and specialised laboratories. The construction of the new building will free space in the current structure for teaching and office space. The institute consists of the following Departments: Animal Experimentation, Bacteriology, Clinical Pathology, Electron Microscopy and Histopathology, Epidemiology, Nutrition, Immunology, Parasitology and Virology. It is home to the Institutional Review Board, an independent body set up to review, evaluate and decide on the ethical merits of research protocols ensuring and guaranteeing the rights, dignity, safety and protection of all individuals and communities who participate in research activities. The Institutional Review Board reviews both internal and external research protocols received from NMIMR, School of Nursing, School of Public Health, School of Allied Health, UG Medical Schools, private organisations, individual researchers and protocols outside the University of Ghana. The Institute does undertake some consultancy work when approached by outside companies or government agencies. For example, a group from the United States brought samples to the Institute to test for efficacy of anti‐malaria activity, and the World Health Organisation collaborated with the institute to train technical people for diagnosis of polio and yellow fever for the sub‐region. The research agenda of the institute is driven by both national needs and foreign donor agendas. In general, staff look out for calls for proposals that to some extent address their own research interests and articulate national health or development priorities and respond to such calls with proposals that attempt to draw the two agendas together. Originally, the Japanese government donated the building and equipment. For about 20 years the institute had a number of five‐year technical cooperation agreements with Japan. When the Japanese funding came to an end, the Institute began looking for competitive grants. In that regard, the institute has received funding from the United States National Institute of Health, the Department for International Development, the World Health Organisation, the Wellcome Trust, the International Food Policy and Research Institute, DANIDA and the European Union, among others. Government provides support by way of salaries and operational costs (e.g. transport and administration).


69

West Africa Centre for Crop Improvement (WACCI)

Location College of Agriculture and Consumer SciencesUnit head Prof. Eric Danquah (Director)Timeframe 2008‐2017Type PhD research and training programmeWebsite http://www.wacci.edu.gh/

The Rockefeller Foundation, which had been funding the African Centre for Crop Improvement at the University of KwaZulu‐Natal since its inception, wanted to establish a similar centre for the West African region. The foundation employed a consultant to screen eight universities in West Africa to decide where the WACCI should be located and they decided on the University of Ghana. In 2006, the Rockefeller Foundation put together an assessment mission to work on the establishment of the WACCI. Following the report of the assessment mission, Prof. Eric Danquah and Prof. Sam Offei submitted a proposal to the Rockefeller Foundation. Following approval, the centre was established in 2007 with funding from the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)6. The goal of the centre is to improve food security in Africa. The approach is to train African plant breeders in Africa to develop superior varieties of crops, using both conventional and molecular techniques to deal with abiotic and biotic stresses. The objectives of WACCI are to:

Significantly improve the quality of PhD‐level training in plant breeding offered to students from universities in West and Central Africa;

Create opportunities to develop improved local varieties of the staples grown by smallholders in the sub‐regions, using the advances in plant breeding science and molecular biology, and informed by farmers’ stated preferences;

Provide the necessary skills to direct and manage local plant breeding programmes to meet local needs, and to respond to indigenous demands;

Develop breeding techniques appropriate to address some of the unique breeding/crop improvement objectives for the sub‐regions; and

Create a de facto network of functioning plant breeders and their local co‐supervisors from the sub‐regions. The AGRA grant will support eight students who will enrol each year over a five‐year period. Focus countries for the programme include Burkino Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Kenya and Nigeria. In addition, WACCI has secured another grant from the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) to train four PhD students. WACCI will, in the next ten years, train a total of 44 PhDs in plant breeding for the West Central Africa sub‐region. The PhD programme at WACCI consists of two years of academic study at UG and three years of field research at the student’s research station/university in his/her

6 Generation Challenge Programme web site: http://www.generationcp.org/index.php.


70

home country. The course work and research will focus on the following indigenous West Central African food crops: cereals (maize, rice, sorghum and millet), roots and tubers (cassava and sweet potato), legumes (cowpea and groundnut) and vegetables (tomato and pepper). The PhD programme is run by academics at UG and Cornell University with input from other international experts. AGRA has also agreed to assist the PhD graduates to access research grants so that they can continue to work on their research area in their home institutions. In other words, an aim of the PhD programme is to set the candidates up to initiate and continue to work on specific plant‐breeding programmes in their home countries. In addition to training the PhDs in the science of plant breeding including molecular technologies, participatory rural appraisal is also included in the programme whereby the PhD students interact with farmers to find out what the major constraints are in relation to their specific crops and locations, and what they need and desire for crop improvement. The rationale for this is to train the breeders in how to work with local farmers in order to increase the chances of adoption. WACCI is currently exploring opportunities for additional funding to provide opportunities to some of the students for short term (three to six months) attachments in advanced institutions.

West African Centre for International Parasite Control (WACIPAC)

Location Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research, College of Health SciencesUnit head Prof. Alexander Nyarko (Director of the Noguchi Institute)

Dr D A Boakye (Project Manager)Timeframe January 2004 – December 2008Type Research and capacity building projectWebsite http://98.130.228.222/waci/

According to the WACIPAC web site, in recognition of the huge burden that parasitic diseases place on the socio‐economic development and health of the developing world, the former prime minister of Japan, the late Dr Ryutaro Hashimoto, proposed to the G8 meeting of 1998 an international cooperation to control parasitic diseases at the global level. In pursuance of this proposition, the government of Japan committed itself to establish and support three Centres for International Parasite Control in Asia and Africa for the Global Parasite Control Initiative. The WACIPAC based at UG was one of these, the other two being based in Thailand and Kenya. The aims of the WACIPAC were as follows:

1. To promote and build capacity in West Africa through training, technology transfer and create medium/forum for exchange of experiences.

2. To achieve effective cooperation for effective implementation of parasitic diseases control that will involve development agencies and NGOs in member countries.


71

3. To effectively implement sustainable parasitic diseases control integrated with those of major endemic diseases in communities.

4. To actively research to provide the scientific basis to underpin integrated diseases control using the school‐based approach. The centre has undertaken the following activities:

International workshops/seminars and training courses for policy‐makers and decision‐makers in the health and education sectors of the member countries, representatives of international development agencies and NGOs, as well as health and education programme managers.

In‐country training for Ministry of Health and Ministry of Education personnel. Development of health education materials for parasitic diseases control for

member countries, including posters, games, flipcharts, television and radio spots, documentaries, and audio/visual materials, all of which are aimed at creating public awareness and affecting behaviour change.

Set up a model project in a district for field training of participants at its training courses and for conducting research.

Country visit(s) to member countries to effect knowledge and technology transfer where necessary.

Collaboration with other agencies. Specialised training courses, for example, short‐term training in GIS and

parasitic diseases control using the parasitology, anthropometrical (nutritional), demography and KAP data collected at the WACIPAC model site. The targeted participants are data managers of disease control programmes in member countries, NGOs etc. The institutional framework of WACIPAC consists of a joint coordinating committee which oversees the implementation of the project. It is made up of an advisory and a steering committee. The centre was funded by the Japanese International Cooperation Agency.


72

Enhancing Child Nutrition Through Animal Source Food Management (ENAM)

Location A collaborative project between the Faculty of Agriculture and the Department of Nutrition & Food Science

Project leaders Dr Owuraku Sakyi‐Dawson (Host Country Principal Investigator, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ghana) Prof. Grace Marquis (Principal Investigator, School of Dietetics and Human Nutrition, McGill University, Canada) Dr Esi Colecraft (Project Manager, Dept of Nutrition and Food Science, University of Ghana)

Timeframe 2004‐2008

Type Action research project

Website http://glcrsp.ucdavis.edu/projects/#ENAM (Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program web site)

The seed of the idea for what would become the ENAM project was planted in a discussion between Dr Sakyi‐Dawson and a colleague from Iowa State University about the challenges in Ghana around nutrition and agriculture and how these could be addressed. About eight months later, the Iowa colleague reported that she was thinking about developing a proposal for the Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Programme of USAID that would focus on nutrition and extension work in the Ghanaian context. At that point, Dr Esi Colecraft of the Department of Nutrition and Food Science was also invited to participate in the writing of a planning grant proposal. In this process, the team used a participatory appraisal approach to find out from mothers and other stakeholders about the constraints facing mothers in including animal source protein in their children’s diets. The planning grant proposal was a response to a call for proposals by the Global Livestock Programme which focused on identifying the constraints to including animal source foods in children’s diets (an observation based on prior research in selected African countries) and interventions to address this issue. The ENAM project is intended to improve poor feeding practices and inadequate diet quality that contribute to childhood malnutrition in targeted communities in Ghana. The project monitors the multiple pathways that might increase availability, accessibility and utilisation of animal source foods in the targeted communities by supporting a small micro‐credit programme for mothers of children between two and five years of age in conjunction with training on nutrition and business development. It is expected that increasing the amount of money controlled by women, as well as increasing their understanding of child nutritional needs, will result in the women’s channelling of additional income towards the purchase of animal source foods, and also increase the feeding of these products to their young children, thereby enhancing their growth, health and cognitive development. The project is a collaborative one involving researchers from UG, Iowa State University and McGill University. Other collaborating institutions include Freedom From Hunger (Ghana), Heifer International (Ghana), Makerere University (Uganda), and Volunteer Efforts for Development Concerns (Uganda).


73

The project is funded by USAID through the Global Livestock Programme. The Iowa State University is the grant‐holder and the UG project team is a sub‐grant holder.

Institute of Statistical Social and Economic Research (ISSER)

Location Faculty of Social StudiesUnit head Dr E Aryeetey (Director)

7

Timeframe 1969; ongoingType Research institute and postgraduate training programme Website http://www.isser.org/

ISSER was established by UG in 1962 as the Institute of Statistics, to provide a programme of teaching and research in statistics, with particular reference to the methodology, collection and analysis of official statistics. It was also to advise interested bodies on statistical design, analysis and computer programming. A United Nations Statistical Training Centre, also established in 1962 to run middle‐level Statistical Training Programmes for Public Servants in Africa, was brought under the auspices of the Institute in 1966. It was later realised that expanding the scope of the Institute to include fundamental and applied research in the social sciences, to establish the basic data needed for effective development and modernisation, would be beneficial to the nation as a whole. It is in line with this vision that the Institute was converted, in 1969, into ISSER. The United Nations continued its support of statistical training until 1972 when ISSER fully took over. Adequate funding from government, other national and international organisations, facilitated the expansion of the scope of the Institute to embrace socio‐economic research. This enabled several multidisciplinary research projects to be executed, which were primarily focused on the socio‐economic development of Ghana. Today, ISSER is a semi‐autonomous institute located in the Faculty of Social Studies. It is the research wing of the Faculty. ISSER's mission is to carry out activities that would promote the socio‐economic development of Ghana in particular and Africa in general. ISSER's objectives are to:

1. Build capacity for social science research in Ghana; 2. Carry out high quality policy‐relevant and development‐oriented research and

disseminate the results to facilitate the socio‐economic development of Ghana and Africa;

3. Participate in the process of formulating, monitoring and evaluating policies and programmes;

4. Encourage regional research cooperation aimed at promoting regional integration; and

7 Since the site visit in 2009, Dr Aryeetey has become the vice‐chancellor of the University of

Ghana and Prof. Clement Ahiadeke is now acting director of ISSER.


74

5. Attract researchers from other units of the university and elsewhere for collaborative and/or independent research.

The staff compliment is interdisciplinary including economists, sociologists, demographers and geographers. According to the web site, ISSER's research outputs are generally expected to be driven by the observed development problems and needs of Ghana and Africa. Research undertaken by ISSER is usually in response to the direct demands of government and other stakeholders for information and strategies for improving the well‐being of people. At the same time, research by ISSER seeks to maintain a focus on the academic purpose of the Institute by adding to existing knowledge about society and development. In addition to conducting research, ISSER also hosts the Faculty of Social Studies Graduate Programme in Development Studies. This programme aims to equip students with the knowledge and skills needed to respond effectively to Ghana's development problems and needs within the framework of the National Development Policy. The programme awards both Masters and PhD degrees in Development Studies. (The PhD programme is run in collaboration with the University of Bonn in Germany.) Since 1962, ISSER has administered the Diploma and Certificate Courses in Statistics. The Institute also regularly runs short‐term courses, especially for middle‐level personnel in Ghana. Upon request, ISSER staff members teach in other departments of the university. The university pays staff salaries and the Institute’s running costs. Staff members source external funding for projects.

*** The key features of these development‐related projects/groups are summarised in Table 5.1 over page. The projects have been categorised according to type and five of the six involve longer‐term research and postgraduate or advanced training programmes. The economic development focus of the projects/centres generally includes generating new knowledge about and providing advanced training in development‐related fields (particularly health, agriculture and socio‐economic issues). All of the projects/centres are funded by external (mostly foreign) donors and it is perhaps not surprising that the donors, together with project/centre staff, play a role in project initiation and agenda‐setting.


75

Table 5.1: Overview of the development‐related projects

Project/centre Classification Funder(s) Beneficiaries External linkages Initiation/

agenda‐setting

Economic

development focus

Gates Institute

Partnership Project

Research and capacity

building programme

Foreign donors,

government agency,

NGOs

Public health workers

in Ghana and

internationally

National and

international academic

units, research

institutes, hospitals

Foreign donor Advanced training and

upskilling of public

health personnel

Noguchi Memorial

Institute

Research institute and

postgraduate training

programmes

Foreign donors,

government

People of Ghana,

government health

agencies, local NGOs

National and

international

universities,

programmes, NGOs

and initiatives

Foreign donors,

institute staff

Research, training and

diagnostic services for

the public health

sector

West Africa Centre for

Crop Improvement

PhD research and

training programme

Foreign donors Plant breeders,

farmers and PhD

students in plant

breeding in West and

Central Africa

International

universities

Foreign donor, PhD

students

Advanced training and

research into plant

breeding and crop

improvement

West African Centre

for International

Parasite Control

Research and capacity

building project

Foreign donor School‐age children

and other at‐risk

groups in the West

African sub‐region

Local and international

NGOs, government

agencies, other

research institutes

Foreign donors Training courses and

materials, as well as

research, to improve

parasite control

Enhancing Child

Nutrition project

Action research project Foreign donor Mothers and their

children (between two

and five years of age)

in targeted

communities in Ghana

International

university, local and

international NGOs

Foreign donor,

university staff

Improving child

nutrition

ISSER Research institute and

postgraduate training

programme

University, external

donors

University students,

external stakeholders

who commission or

consume research

Research institutes and

universities on the

continent and

internationally

External stakeholders

who commission

research, institute staff

Socio‐economic

development‐related

research and advanced

training


76

5.3.2 Articulation Table 5.2 below summarises interviewee’s responses to the question about the extent to which the project or centre aims and objectives were in response to / articulated with the university’s strategic objectives (as contained in the institution’s strategic plan), as well as the country’s national development priorities. Methodologically, we do recognise that project leaders might have drawn these links more strongly in retrospect than originally was the case in order to give the impression of greater articulation. A deeper exploration of the circumstances of the initiation and agenda‐setting of the project would have enabled us to see these linkages more clearly ourselves. Nevertheless, the reported linkages are sufficient for a first‐level analysis. As can be seen from Table 5.2, all six of the projects reported articulation of project aims to national development priorities. By contrast, four of the six projects reported no linkages to the institutional strategic objectives. Table 5.3 indicates the extent to which each project or centre had linkages with an external agency that has or will directly or indirectly ‘implement’ (or utilise) the outputs. Table 5.4 summarises the comments made by project leaders about the financial sustainability of the projects. Finally, Table 5.5 summarises the total articulation ratings for the six projects/centres.


77

Table 5.2: Articulation with institutional objectives and national priorities

Project/centre Funder(s) Initiation/ agenda‐setting

Institutional strategic objectives National priorities

Gates Institute Partnership Project

Foreign donors, government agency, NGOs

Foreign donor None reported Capacity building of students and health care professionals seen as contributing to poverty alleviation through improvement of the basic health of the population in the long‐term.

Noguchi Memorial Institute

Foreign donors, government

Foreign donors, institute staff

None reported Research has fed into national policies such as national treatment policy for malaria. Also diagnoses kits and results for HIV and avian influenza have informed the government’s national preparedness plan.

West Africa Centre for Crop Improvement

Foreign donors Foreign donor, PhD students

The mission of the university is to develop world‐class human resources and capabilities to meet national developmental needs and global challenges through quality teaching, learning, research and knowledge dissemination. WACCI’s mission reflects this: to develop plant breeders with capacity and experience to lead the conversion of genetic and molecular discoveries into innovative solutions that would result in improved varieties to benefit agriculture in West Africa.

WACCI is a contribution to the Ministry of Agriculture’s response to the Millennium Development Goal of reducing extreme poverty and hunger by the year 2015.

West African Centre for International Parasite Control

Foreign donor Foreign donors Training of manpower; community improvement; influencing national policies.

The work of the Centre reflects national priorities through activities such as improvement in the health of school children and communities, inter‐sectoral collaboration between the Ministries of Health and Education, and decentralisation through community involvement in decision‐making activities.


78

Table 5.2: Articulation with institutional objectives and national priorities (continued)

Project/centre Funder(s) Initiation/ agenda‐setting

Institutional strategic objectives National priorities

Enhancing Child Nutrition project

Foreign donor Foreign donor, university staff

None reported The government of Ghana has identified child nutrition as a priority, and the Ministry of Finance has identified micro‐finance as a priority area.

ISSER University, external donors

External stakeholders who commission research, institute staff

None reported ISSER responds proactively to economic developments in government, for example, Ghana's Medium‐Term Development Plans, preparation of government's responses to poverty reduction, and analysis of participatory approaches to the formulation of renewable natural resource strategy for Ghana.


79

Table 5.3: Initiation/agenda‐setting, funding sources and implementation agencies

Project/centre Initiation/agenda‐setting Funder(s) Implementation agencies


Foreign donor Foreign donors, government agency, NGOs

Most MPH students are already employed in a public health capacity. Also, programme links up with District Health Management Teams in each of the field sites where students do part of their training.


Foreign donors, institute staff Foreign donors, government Over the years the Institute has collaborated with a range of implementation agencies in carrying out its research or service work, including government agencies, NGOs, public health programmes and other initiatives.


Foreign donor, PhD students Foreign donors Since the focus of the Centre’s activities is on training PhD students in plant breeding, there is indirect interaction with implementation agencies.


Foreign donors Foreign donor Training aspect of the Centre’s work links up with individuals from a range of potential implementation agencies including government agencies and NGOs.


Foreign donor, university staff Foreign donor The project has engaged three of the 129 rural banks in Ghana in the take‐up of the micro‐finance products that have been developed. It has also developed linkages with NGOs for continuing key aspects of the project’s development programme.

ISSER External stakeholders who commission research, institute staff

University, external donors Institute provides technical assistance and advice to a range of government agencies and other organisations, locally and internationally. Those which commission work directly can be seen as implementation agencies.


80

Table 5.4: Financial sustainability of the projects/centres

Project/centre Classification Timeframe Funder(s) Financial sustainability


Research and capacity building programme

2003; ongoing Foreign donors, government agency, NGOs

The school is applying for Phase 2 funding from the Johns Hopkins Institute which will provide another five years’ funding. The partnership has helped in the process of moving the school from a unit system to a fully‐fledged faculty. This in turn has helped all the departments to leverage external funding to sustain their activities (e.g. a number of departments have sourced funding from donors to run Masters and/or PhD programmes).


Research institute and postgraduate training programmes

1979; ongoing Foreign donors, government

For about 20 years the Institute had a number of five‐year technical cooperation agreements with Japan. When the Japanese funding came to an end, the Institute began looking for competitive grants. In that regard, the institute has received funding from a wide range of foreign donor agencies. University pays salaries of permanent staff as well as operating costs for the institute.


PhD research and training programme

2008‐2017 Foreign donors Centre received funding from the GCP in 2008 to train four PhD students. Additional project funds from AGRA to develop a model maize breeding programme which will provide a base for giving practical instruction to the students prior to the research programmes in the home institutions. Also received a grant from the VW Foundation to organise a summer training programme in molecular markers in crop improvement in June 2010. Funding for the first ten years is guaranteed. Centre staff are already networking with other potential partners to secure funding beyond the first ten years.


Research and capacity building project

January 2004‐December 2008

Foreign donor With the funding for the centre’s activities coming to an end, negotiations are underway for WACIPAC to be integrated into the West African Health Organisation. In the interim, WACIPAC is being sustained through implementation of workshops in collaboration with Partnership for Child Development. The model site is still being used for training activities.


81

Table 5.4: Financial sustainability of the projects/centres (continued)

Project/centre Classification Timeframe Funder(s) Financial sustainability


Action research project

2004‐2008 Foreign donor Although the project funding cycle came to an end, the project did set up various other forms of sustainability of project activities, including continued access to credit by the project participants, and continued training and nutrition education, assisted by various implementation agencies.

ISSER Research institute and postgraduate training programme

1969; ongoing University, external donors

The university pays staff salaries and running costs. Staff members have to source external funding for all other project costs. This includes bidding for tenders or competitive grants, as well as responding to direct requests for projects to be undertaken.


82

Table 5.5: Articulation rating (maximum score = 13)

Project/centre Gates Institute

Partnership Project





ISSER

Institutional objectives 0 0 2 2 0 0

National priorities 1 2 2 2 2 2

No. of funding sources 1 2 1 1 1 2

Funding sustainability 2 3 2 2 3 3

Implementation agency 2 2 1 1 2 2

Total articulation rating 6 9 8 8 8 9

Key: Institutional objectives / National priorities: 2 = Direct (link to specific strategic objective or national priority) 1 = Indirect (broad/general reference) 0 = None (no reported link) No. of funding sources: 1 for each of the following: University; Government; Foreign donor; Income generation Funding sustainability: 1 = Once‐off, short‐term (a project that is one year or less in duration and which receives only one round of funding) 2 = Long‐term but capped (a project that is more than one year in duration and which receives one or more rounds of funding, but the funding is capped) 3 = Ongoing (a project which receives ongoing funding, e.g. from the university or from income generation) Link to implementation agency: 2 = Direct 1 = Indirect 0 = None


83

5.3.3 Contribution to strengthening the academic core Table 5.6 below summarises the information pertaining to each of the projects with regard to their connection to the academic core activities of the university. ‘Core strengthening’ activities include the generation of new knowledge; the involvement of students in the project as part of their formal training; project knowledge and experience feeding into teaching and curriculum development; project knowledge and experience is published in academic publications; and the project is linked to international academic networks. In order to rate the extent to which the projects contribute to strengthening the academic core, each of the five factors highlighted above were assigned a value of 1 when present. The results are captured in Table 5.7. On the whole, all of the projects/centres score quite high in terms of strengthening the academic core, which is to be expected given that all involve research and five out of the six also involve postgraduate or advanced training programmes.


84

Table 5.6: Contribution to strengthening the academic core

Project/centre Classification New/existing knowledge

Link to academic core Link to international academic networks Student involvement Teaching/curriculum Publishing


Research and capacity building programme

Apply existing and generate new

Masters in Public Health run through the partnership.

All research knowledge and experience feeds into teaching and curriculum.

Yes Yes


Research institute and postgraduate training programmes


Masters and PhD students from Biomedical Sciences and Medical School link their research to Institute projects.

Institute staff teach both undergraduate and postgraduate courses and supervise students.

Yes Yes


PhD research and training programme


Formal PhD programme New centre but aim to link PhD research to curriculum development.

Not yet Yes


Research and capacity building project


Students collect project data which is used as part of their thesis work (formal).

Yes, project data used for teaching purposes and to inform curriculum development.

Yes Yes


Action research project

Generate new Postgraduate students involved in the project as part of their formal training.

A new third‐year course – Nutrition and Extension Livelihood – has been developed out of the project, as well as a short course.

Yes Yes

ISSER Research institute and postgraduate training programme


Students collect and utilise survey data linked to Institute projects as part of their (formal) thesis or course work.

Yes, the institute administers Masters and PhDs in Development Studies, Diploma and Certificate courses in Statistics and staff teach in other departments.

Yes Yes


85

Table 5.7: Strengthening academic core rating (maximum score = 5)

Project/centre

Teaching / curriculum

development

Formal training of students

Generate new knowledge

Academic publications

Link to international academic networks

Total rating

Gates Institute Partnership Project 1 1 1 1 1 5

Noguchi Memorial Institute 1 1 1 1 1 5

West Africa Centre for Crop Improvement 0 1 1 0 1 3


1 1 1 1 1 5

Enhancing Child Nutrition project 1 1 1 1 1 5

ISSER 1 1 1 1 1 5

Key: 1 = Yes 0 = No


86

5.3.4 Analysis of the connectedness of development projects/centres In order to analyse the development projects identified for the study, we operationalised the notion of ‘connectedness’ along two axes – the first, articulation, refers to the extent to which there is some coherence between the development projects/centres and the objectives and priorities of government and the institution, as well as linkages between the project and key external stakeholders, and especially implementation agencies. The second axis considers the extent to which the development projects/centres serve to strengthen or weaken the academic core of the institution. The total ratings for each project in terms of its articulation and contribution to strengthening the academic core of the university are summarised in Table 5.8 below. Using these ratings, each of the projects is then plotted on the articulation and academic core axes in Figure 5.1.

Table 5.8: Summary of ratings

Project/centre Articulation Academic core

Gates Institute Partnership Project 6 5

Noguchi Memorial Institute 9 5

West Africa Centre for Crop Improvement 8 3

West African Centre for International Parasite Control 8 5

Enhancing Child Nutrition project 8 5

ISSER 9 5


87

Figure 5.1: Plotting the development‐related projects

Key: GIP: Gates Institute Partnership Project for Population, Family and Reproductive Health NMIMR: Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research WACCI: West Africa Centre for Crop Improvement WACIPAC: West African Centre for International Parasite Control ENAM: Enhancing Child Nutrition Through Animal Source Food Management ISSER: Institute of Statistical Social and Economic Research

Following the analytical proposition, our assumption would be that for development‐related projects to make the most sustained contribution to development they would best fall within the top right‐hand quadrant in the graph; in other words, their activities articulate with national priorities and institutional strategic objectives; they have close linkages with key external stakeholders, especially any implementation agencies; and, they contribute towards strengthening the academic core of the institution, rather than weakening it.

GIP 5, 6

NMIMR 5, 9

WACCI 3, 8 WACIPAC 5, 8

ENAM 5, 8

ISSER 5, 9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Direct articulation

Indirectarticulation

Weakening academic core

Strengthening academic core


88

Compared to the other seven universities in the HERANA sample, the University of Ghana projects included here score very strongly in terms of strengthening the academic core through their project activities. As can be seen from Figure 5.1 above, five of the six projects score a ‘5’ – the maximum score for that axis. That the projects contribute to strengthening the academic core of the institution is not surprising, given that all have a strong research focus, and five of the six have a strong postgraduate / advanced training focus as well. This is in contrast to many of the development projects in other institutions which involve short‐term consultancies or business support service type activities. The projects score relatively well on the articulation / connectedness axis as well. With regard to articulation, the projects’ aims and objectives articulated most strongly with national priorities. This is interesting to note given that all of the projects/centres are foreign donor‐funded. A number of the projects/centres also had direct linkages with implementation agencies and were relatively sustainable over a long‐term period.


89

6.1 Introduction A vast amount of data has been gathered and presented in the preceding sections of this report. But what does this tell us about the possible contribution that higher education in Ghana can make to the country’s economic development? In order to answer this broader question, we return to the key concepts and questions which were summarised in section 1.1.3. Here, our point of departure was that higher education’s role in and contribution to economic development can best be understood by investigating the following three interrelated factors:

The nature of the pact between the universities, political authorities and society at large;

The nature, size and continuity of the university’s academic core; and The level of coordination, the effectiveness of implementation, and

connectedness in the larger policy context of universities. Furthermore, these factors need to be considered in relation to various contextual features including local circumstances, institutional characteristics and external relations. By way of concluding this report, we review and analyse the data presented in order to answer the following questions:

1. How does Ghana fare on the preconditions for an effective and productive relationship between higher education and economic development identified in the international case studies (see Pillay 2010b)?

2. To what extent is there a pact between key stakeholders (national and

institutional) in Ghana about the role of higher education in general, and in relation to economic development in particular?

Part 6

Key findings

AT A GLANCE

Macro‐observations about higher education and economic development in Ghana

The nature of the pact around the role of higher education in Ghana The strength of UG’s academic core The connectedness of the university’s development‐related activities to the

academic core


90

3. Does UG, as a specific case, have capacity to make a contribution to economic development in terms of: a. The nature and strength of the academic core, and b. The connectedness of its development‐related activities to the academic

core?

6.2 Some macro‐observations about higher education and economic development in Ghana Pundy Pillay’s investigation of three systems (Finland, South Korea, North Carolina) suggested a number of ‘preconditions’ for an effective and productive relationship between higher education and economic development (Pillay 2010b). These were summarised in section 1.1.2. How does Ghana fare in meeting these preconditions?

1. High quality schooling. In the sub‐Saharan African context, participation rates

are relatively high at both the primary and secondary levels. In Ghana, the GER in primary education was 98% in 2006 and the net enrolment ratio was 72%. However, this still leaves the country far short of achieving universal primary education. The secondary schooling participation rates are encouraging and substantially higher than the sub‐Saharan African averages. In 2006, the GER in secondary schooling was 49% and the net enrolment ratio was 45% (UNESCO 2009). The corresponding averages for sub‐Saharan Africa were 32% and 25%. The Ghanaian figures are close to developing country averages (60% and 53% respectively). Moreover, there is some evidence that the schooling system is relatively efficient and of reasonably good quality. For example, the survival rate to the last grade of primary schooling was 76% in 2006 (the average for sub‐Saharan Africa was 67%, and that for developing countries 81%) (ibid.). Furthermore, the Global Innovation Index ranks Ghana relatively high on some education indicators such as ‘quality of educational institutions’ (ranked 68 compared to its overall GII ranking of 108) and ‘quality of the educational system’ (it is ranked at 73). All of this suggests that while access and equity remain pressing challenges in the schooling system, Ghana does have a small and growing base of good quality schooling on which to build a better quality higher education system.

2. Effective economic and education planning. An important institutional

mechanism has been created for planning, namely the National Development Planning Commission. However, there is little evidence of linking economic and education planning. At best there is some degree of commitment to a cross‐cutting issue such as human resources development, which includes education, as well as a recognition of the importance of education for economic growth.


91

3. The role of the state. The state plays an important role with respect to funding, as well as encouraging private sector provision of higher education. However, the state’s policy documents do not clearly articulate the role of higher education in economic development, or its role in contributing to the knowledge economy.

4. Partnerships. In general, there is no evidence of partnerships between the

state, the universities and the private sector. 5. Institutional differentiation. There is evidence of significant differentiation

amongst universities (e.g. University of Ghana vs. Kwame Nkrumah University of Technology) and across the system (universities vs. polytechnics).

6. Quality. As stated earlier, there is some evidence that the quality of schooling is

relatively good although the WEF’s Global Competitiveness Index suggests otherwise.

7. Funding. State funding of tertiary education is relatively high. The state has also

encouraged diversified funding of both students (through the student loan fund) and institutions (through encouraging internally‐generated funds).

8. Innovation. Up to this point, Ghana has not invested sufficiently either in its

universities or its private sector, nor has it provided appropriate incentives for partnerships to develop between these groups.

6.3 Evidence of a pact around the role of higher education in Ghana? For the purposes of this study, we use the definition of a pact provided by Gornitzka et al. (2007: 184):

A ‘pact’ is a fairly long‐term cultural commitment to and from the University, as an institution with its own foundational rules of appropriate practices, causal and normative beliefs, and resources, yet validated by the political and social system in which the University is embedded. A pact, then, is different from a contract based on continuous strategic calculation of expected value by public authorities, organised external groups, university employees, and students – all regularly monitoring and assessing the University on the basis of its usefulness for their self‐interest, and acting accordingly.

The key actors of the pact are national, institutional and external stakeholders. It is assumed that the stronger the pact between universities, university


92

leadership, national authorities and society at large, the better the universities will be able to make a significant, sustained contribution to development. Our interest is in exploring the extent to which there is a pact around the role for higher education in economic development in Ghana. Key to the development of such a pact is agreement or consensus that there should be a role and then about what that role should entail. In order to investigate this aspect, we have sought to address the following questions:

Is there a role for knowledge production and for universities in the national development plan?

How do the relevant national authorities and institutional stakeholders talk about and conceptualise the role of universities? The role of knowledge and universities in national and institutional policies and plans were operationalised into a series of indicators. These indicators were then rated on a 3‐2‐1 scale by three of the researchers. The indicators and the ratings (indicated by shading) are presented in Table 6.1 below. At the national level, the orientation seems to be more on a traditional approach to producing human resources for the economy and poverty alleviation. The knowledge economy and research and innovation are only mentioned occasionally. This absence is reflected in national policy, resource reallocation and a lack of incentives. At the institutional level, the narrative at the university is surprisingly traditional – ‘teaching, research and extension services’. While this is presented as an orientation towards development (“to make a more relevant and tangible contribution to the improvement of the standards of living of the nation”), as can be seen from the ratings, there is no knowledge economy discourse, nor is this development orientation reflected in policies, structures or incentives. The concern expressed about academic priorities (core) is still cast in the undifferentiated teaching‐research‐service discourse.

Table 6.1: Role for knowledge and universities in development in Ghana

National Rating = 3/6

The concept of a knowledge economy features in the national development plan

3 Strong

Appears in a number of policies

2 Weak

Only mentioned in one policy

1 Absent

Not mentioned at all

A role for higher education in development in national policies and plans

3 Prevalent

Clearly mentioned in development policies

2 Weak

1 Absent


93

Institutional (UG) Rating = 2/6

Concept of a knowledge economy features in institutional policies and plans

3

Features strongly in strategic plan and/or research policy/strategy

2

Vague reference in strategic plan or research policy

1

Not mentioned at all

Institutional policies with regard to the university’s role in economic development

3

Institutional policy

2

Embedded in strategic plan, research policy etc

1

No formal policies

FINDINGS:

6.3.1 Notions of the role of knowledge and universities in development How do national and institutional stakeholders conceptualise the role of higher education and the university in development? And, to what extent is there consensus or disjuncture between the national and institutional levels? Our conceptual framework for addressing these questions comprises four notions of the relationship between higher education (especially universities) and national development. These four notions8, which are elaborated upon below, emerge in the interaction between the following two sets of scenarios:

These two sets of scenarios, and the concomitant four notions of the role of universities, are depicted in Figure 6.1 below:

8 These four notions are based on ideas developed by Maassen and Cloete (2006) and Maassen

and Olsen (2007).

At both national and institutional levels there was only sporadic mention of the knowledge economy, and no agreement (pact) about a development model and the role of higher education in development.

There is not a broad agreement that knowledge, and by implication higher education, is key to development.

Whether or not a role is foreseen for new knowledge in the national development strategy, and

Whether or not universities, as knowledge institutions, have a role in the national development strategy.


94

Figure 6.1: The four notions of the role of knowledge and universities in development

The four notions are elaborated as follows:

The university as ancillary: In this notion, there is a strong focus on political/ideological starting‐points for development. Consequently, it is assumed that there is no need for a strong (scientific) knowledge basis for development strategies and policies. Neither is it necessary for the university to play a direct role in development since the emphasis is on investments in basic healthcare, agricultural production and primary education. The role of universities is to produce educated civil servants and professionals (with teaching based on transmitting established knowledge rather than on research), as well as different forms of community service.

The university as self‐governing institution: Knowledge produced at the university is considered important for national development – especially for the improvement of healthcare and the strengthening of agricultural production. However, this notion assumes that the most relevant knowledge is produced when academics from the North and the South cooperate in externally‐funded projects, rather than being steered by the state. This notion portrays the university as playing an important role in developing the national identity and

AncillarySelf‐

governing

Instrument Engine

University not part of development strategy

No/marginal role for new knowledge in development

strategy

Central role for new knowledge in development

strategy

University part of development strategy


95

in producing high‐level bureaucrats and scientific knowledge – but not directly related to national development; the university is committed to serving society as a whole rather than specific stakeholders. This notion assumes that the university is most effective when it is left to itself, and can determine its own priorities according to universal criteria, independent of the particularities of a specific geographical, national, cultural or religious context. It also assumes there is no need to invest additional public funds to increase the relevance of the university.

The university as instrument for development agendas: In this notion, the university has an important role to play in national development – not through the production of new scientific knowledge, but through expertise exchange and capacity building. The focus of the university’s development efforts should be on contributing to reducing poverty and disease, to improving agricultural production, and to support small business development – primarily through consultancy activities (especially for government agencies and development aid) and through direct involvement in local communities.

The university as engine of development: This notion assumes that knowledge plays a central role in national development – in relation to improving healthcare and agricultural production, but also in relation to innovations in the private sector, especially in areas such as information and communication technology, biotechnology and engineering. Within this notion the university is seen as (one of) the core institutions in the national development model. The underlying assumption is that the university is the only institution in society that can provide an adequate foundation for the complexities of the emerging knowledge economy when it comes to producing the relevant skills and competencies of the employees in all major sectors, as well as to the production of use‐oriented knowledge. Table 6.2 below summarises the notions of the role of higher education held by national and institutional stakeholders, and indicates whether the notion is strong, prevalent, present or absent altogether. It appears that during the period of study (2009/early 2010), there was still a residue of the traditional ancillary notion, namely that higher education must produce person power. In addition, although it is agreed that the university is an institution that is important in national development, in producing high‐level bureaucrats, and in producing scientific knowledge, there is no need for a direct role in national development. While there is certainly a growing awareness of the production of new knowledge and high‐end skills as a driver for development notion, it is not yet being operationalised in a range of government and institutional policies.


96

Table 6.2: Comparing national and institutional notions of the role of higher education in Ghana

Notions National stakeholders Institutional stakeholders

Ancillary Ambiguous about the role of higher in development

Still present, despite new awareness of the need for a development orientation

Self‐governing Strong expectation to produce human capital

Very much present in the teaching‐research‐service orientation

Instrument for development agendas

Government wants to make more use of university expertise

Consultancy mainly for donors and government

Engine for development Not much awareness Surprisingly absent in university discourse and policies

Key:

Strong Prevalent Present

FINDINGS:

In terms of notions of the role of the university in development, at the national level there was considerable ambiguity about the role of the university while at the university level there is a strong leaning towards self‐governance.

At neither national nor institutional level is there agreement about the role of the university in development. It is quite surprising that amongst university leadership there is such low support for a knowledge economy approach.

6.4 The academic core of the University of Ghana The university’s unique contribution to development is via knowledge – either transmitting knowledge to individuals who will go out into the world and contribute to society in a variety of ways (teaching), or producing and disseminating knowledge that can be applied to the problems of society and economy (research, engagement). Part of our conceptual framework for understanding what impacts on a university’s ability to make a sustainable contribution to development therefore focuses on the nature and strength of its knowledge activities. According to Burton Clark (1998), when an enterprising university evolves a stronger steering core and develops an outreach structure, its heartland is still in the traditional academic departments, formed around disciplines and some interdisciplinary fields. The heartland is where traditional academic values and activities such as teaching, research and training of the next generation of academics occur. Instead of ‘heartland’, we use the concept ‘academic core’.


97

According to our analytical assumption, it is this core that needs to be strengthened if flagship universities – such as those included in this study – as key knowledge institutions, are to contribute to development. While most universities also engage in knowledge activities in the area of community service or outreach, our contention is that the backbone or the foundation of the university’s business is its academic core – that is, its teaching via academic degree programmes, its research output, and the production of doctorates (those individuals who, in the future, will be responsible for carrying out the core knowledge activities). Furthermore, in societies where there is a strong pact between higher education and society, the universities have been able (and allowed) to develop a strong core of academic activities that forms the basis for all their activities. Our interest in the academic core of UG has the following two dimensions:

1. What is the strength of the academic core of the institution? 2. Has the academic core been strengthening or weakening in recent years?

In Part 4 of this report, we presented a detailed profile and analysis of the nature and strength of the UG academic core. The analysis was undertaken on the basis of seven key indicators (see Table 6.3). The rating of the UG indicators was undertaken on the basis of a cluster analysis which included South Africa’s 22 contact universities and the seven other African universities included in the study.


98

Table 6.3: University of Ghana: Rating of the academic core

Indicator Strong (3) Medium (2) Weak (1)

1 Science, engineering and technology enrolments and graduations

SET students = 17% in 2007. Only 60% of SET intakes expected to graduate.

2 Postgraduate/ undergraduate enrolments ratio Masters/PhD enrolment ratio

Proportion of postgraduates fell from 12% in 2001 to 6% in 2007. Ratio of masters to doctoral enrolments high at 16:1.

3 Teaching load: Academic staff/student ratio

Overall ratio 26:1 in 2007, and particularly favourable in SET.

4 Proportion of academic staff with doctorates

47% of permanent academics have doctorates, but a high proportion of 42% have only masters.

5 Research income per permanent academic staff member

Detailed information not given, assumed to be inadequate.

6 Doctoral graduates Graduates in 2007 constituted 0.17% of permanent academics

7 Research publications

Outputs in 2007 is 0.13 of publications per permanent academic

The following observations can be made about the academic core data for the UG:

1. SET enrolments – UG’s SET enrolments grew from 3 200 in 2001 to 4 500 in 2007, at an average annual rate of 5.8%. Because the average annual growth rate for all programmes was 10.8% over this period, UG’s proportion of SET students dropped from 22% in 2001 to only 17% in 2007. Its SET graduation rate, despite the slow growth in enrolments, fell over the period. Only about 60% of students entering SET programmes in UG can be expected to complete their qualifications.


99

2. Postgraduate enrolments – UG’s proportion of postgraduate students in its total enrolment fell from 12% in 2001 to 6% in 2007. This resulted from a rapid increase in undergraduate enrolments, during a period in which postgraduate enrolments increased at an average annual rate of less than 1%. Masters enrolment grew from 1 344 in 2001 to 1 580 in 2007, an average annual increase of 2.7%. The masters graduates total increased at only half the rate of the enrolment total, but the masters graduation rate remained satisfactory. Doctoral enrolments increased from 69 in 2001 to 102 in 2007, but still had a share of only 6% of the masters plus doctors total. This implies that the flow of masters graduates into doctoral studies may not be high enough to sustain strong research activities. Doctoral graduation rates remained low over the period.

3. Teaching load – Between 2001 and 2007, UG’s FTE academic staff total grew at

about one third of the annual growth rate in FTE students. Its average FTE student to FTE academic staff ratio, as a consequence, rose from 16:1 in 2001 to 26:1 in 2007. Its SET ratio and its humanities plus education ratios remained favourable by South African standards. Its business/management ratio, as is the case with many other universities, was an unacceptably high 47:1 in 2007. A conclusion which can be drawn is the UG’s permanent academics in the fields of SET and humanities must, in 2007, have had teaching loads at levels which would make it difficult for academics to engage in research activities, including the supervision of research students.

4. Qualifications of staff – In 2007, 47% of UG’s permanent academic staff had

doctorates as their highest formal qualifications. This is a proportion which is well above the average for South African universities. It is worth noting that, in 2007, 330 permanent academics (42% of the total) had masters degrees as their highest formal qualification. They could be brought into doctoral programmes and could, in this way, support the university’s research activities.

5. Research funding – UG did not provide clear information on research funding.

On the assumptions made in the analyses, its research funding might not be sufficient to sustain strong research activities.

6. Doctoral graduates – Doctoral graduates increased from 9 in 2001 to 11 in

2007, which is an amazing 46%, but from a very low base. A very positive development is that the doctoral enrolments also doubled over the same period. However, the very low ratio of 0.17% of doctoral graduates to permanent academic staff means that that the university cannot reproduce itself.

7. Research publications – In terms of research publications, UG’s output is low.

Its 2007 ratio of publication units per permanent academic was, at 0.13, well below the ratio of 0.50 which has been set as a target for South Africa’s research universities.


100

In terms of input variables, Ghana has teaching loads which should enable its academic staff to support research activities. It also has a satisfactory proportion of academic staff with doctorates, and a pool of staff with masters degrees who should be encouraged to join research programmes as doctoral students. In terms of output variables such as the production of research publications and of doctoral graduates, Ghana’s performance was poor. The key factors that seem to be weakening the academic core are (a) the low and declining proportion of SET students; (b) the rapid increase in humanities plus education enrolments; (c) the low proportions of masters and doctoral students; (d) the low output of doctoral graduates; (e) a shortage of research funding; and (f) the poor output of research publications. A positive development is that Ghana is experiencing a growth in masters enrolments and is sustaining masters graduation rates. Staff and others who have obtained masters degrees could prove to be important for improving research output.

FINDINGS:

The knowledge production output variables of the academic core do not seem strong enough to enable the universityto make a sustained contribution to development.

The university is not significantly changing from a predominantly undergraduate teaching institution.

On the input side, UG scores medium on staff teaching load, staff qualifications and postgraduate enrolments.

The univerity scores weak on all three output variables: SET graduation rate, doctoral graduates, and research output.

The most serious challenges to strengthening the academic core seem to be to increase research funding, doctoral graduation rates and research outputs.

6.5 Coordination and connectedness Knowledge policies have become increasingly important in the context of the knowledge economy. Broadly speaking, knowledge policies refer to political mechanisms (such as policies and incentives) that are aimed at improving the (knowledge) capacity of a country to participate in the global knowledge economy. Such policies thus relate to the higher education and science and technology sectors, and to high‐level skills training, research and innovation. The coordination of knowledge policies can take place at the level of both policy formulation and policy implementation. In this project ‘coordination’ is used to refer to more structured forms of interaction, mainly between government and institutions; in other words, the knowledge policies and implementation activities of different government


101

departments, particularly departments of education, science and technology, and research councils. Of specific interest to this study is the coordination of knowledge policies across ministries involved with higher education, science, technology and innovation, as well as those responsible for economic development or planning. Implementation can be regarded as a component of the coordination of government policies and is a complex combination of agreement (relevant parties support the policy) and capacity to design and apply the implementation mechanisms or instruments. At the national level we looked at the role of the ministry responsible for higher education, steering and funding. At the institutional level, indicators dealt with aspects such as units or structures to implement strategic plans, incentives and rewards, special teaching and research programmes that link to economic development and funding support for research. Another key issue for the relationship between higher education and economic development is to establish a productive relationship between knowledge and connectedness. On the one hand, if there is an overemphasis on the basic knowledge activities of teaching and research – in other words, an excessive inward orientation towards strengthening the academic core – this results in the university becoming an ‘ivory tower’. Or, if the academic core is weak, an overemphasis on knowledge results in the ‘ancillary’ role of the university (i.e. no direct role in development). On the other hand, if there is an overemphasis in the university on connecting to development activities, then it weakens the academic core and the university has little new or relevant knowledge to offer in the exchange relationship. The challenge for universities, then, is to deal with this inherent tension between ‘buffering’ (protecting) the core technologies of the institution, and ‘bridging’ (linking) those with external actors (Scott 2001: 199‐211). For the purposes of this study, we are using the term ‘connectedness’ to refer to the relationship (and tension) between the inward focus on strengthening and maintaining the academic core, and the outward focus on linking with external stakeholders and development. In this section, we address the following three questions relating to coordination and connectedness:

1. Does government coordinate policies and steering mechanisms that enable the university to contribute to development?

2. Does the university connect to external groupings in ways that promote development?

3. Do development activities in the university strengthen or weaken the academic core?


102

6.5.1 Knowledge policy coordination and implementation At the national level, there are very few formal linkages and coordination between different departments and different policies. Significant progress has been made in terms of developing the appropriate institutional mechanisms (e.g. the NCTE in the education sector, and the NDPC in the MFEP). However, little effort has been put into coordinating the implementation of cross‐cutting issues such as higher education and development. While there are many informal linkages between individual academics and units and particular ministries, there are no formal structures linking the university to government.

Table 6.4: National coordination of knowledge policies


Economic development and higher education planning are linked

3 Systematic

Formal structures

Headed by senior minister

2 Sporadic

Clusters / forums

1 Weak

Occasional meetings

Link between universities and national authorities

3Specific coordination structures or agencies

2Some formal structures but no meaningful coordination

1 No structures, and political rather than professional networks

Coordination and consensus building of government agencies involved in higher education

3Higher education mainstreamed across government departments

2Intermittent interaction with ineffective forums

1 Higher education issues limited mainly to one ministry or directorate

FINDINGS:

Not only is there a problem that research produced in the university is not widely or appropriately disseminated, there is also little evidence of any incentives or rewards for teaching or research activities that are specifically linked to economic development.

At the national level, there seem to be many informal interactions, but few institutionalised processes.

While there are considerable personal networks between government officials and particular university leaders, it is not clear that this contributes towards strengthening the institution or the sector.


103

Table 6.5: Implementation of knowledge policies and activities


Role of the ministry responsible for higher education

3Organised ministry with capacity to make predictable allocations

2Spots of capacity with some steering instruments

1 Weak capacity with unpredictable allocations

Implementation to ‘steer’ higher education towards development

3 StrongInstruments such as funding / special projects that incentivise institutions/ individuals

2 WeakOccasional grants for special projects

1 Absent No particular incentive funding

Balance / ratio of sources of income for institutions

3Government, fees and third stream

2Mainly government plus student fees

1 Mainly government with external funders

Funding consistency 3A stable, transparent public funding mechanism based on criteria agreed upon by all actors involved

2Funding allocations somewhat predictable but do not allow for long‐term planning nor reward enterprising behaviour

1 No clear funding or incentives from government

Institutional (UG) Rating = 8/18

Specific units, funding or appointments linked economic development

3

Specific units, funding or appointments

2Economic development initiatives aspect of a unit or appointment

1 Mainly ad hoc, staff‐initiated operations

Incentives and rewards for development‐related activities

3Incentives / counts towards promotion

2Some signals but largely rhetoric

1 No mention

Teaching programmes linked to the labour market

3Targets for enrolments in fields considered to be of high economic relevance

2Some programmes in response to specific industry requests

1 No new programmes linked to labour market

Special programmes linking students to economic development

3Entrepreneurship, work‐based learning and/or incubators for students mainstreamed

2Ad hoc programmes

1 No special programmes

Research activities are becoming more economy‐oriented

3Research policy/strategy has an economic development focus

2Some research agendas have an economic development focus

1 Ad hoc project funding

Levels of government and institutional funding for research

3High

2Medium

1 Low


104

FINDINGS:

At the national level, one of the weaknesses is implementation, but with a stronger emerging role for the National Council for Tertiary Education.

While the university does have development‐related structures and special programmes linking it to development initiatives, the problem is that in too many cases these initiatives are driven by individuals rather than being institutionalised. In addition, these special implementation efforts need to be more connected.

The university, within tight budget constraints, is trying to increase research related to development activities, but research related to development is not significantly rewarded through incentives beyond the traditional academic promotion system.

6.5.2 Connectedness to external stakeholders and the academic core There is very little coordination of government and donor agendas by the university. The most common practice is for contracts to be signed directly between the external source of funds and the individual researcher. It was also mentioned that it was very difficult to raise funds to deal with health issues that are of national concern when these were not on foreign donor agendas. Also mentioned was the tension between donor and country priorities, as well as traditional forms of academic assessment. Linkages between the university and government and industry seem to be more at the level of individual academics and units and not at an institutional level. And, instead of any formal, structured engagement between university and government, interactions appear to be very informal and ad hoc. With regard to the connectedness of development‐related activities to the academic core, the articulation and academic ratings applied to the six projects/centres (section 5.3) are presented again in Figure 6.2 below.


105

Figure 6.2: Plotting the development‐related projects/centres at the University of Ghana

Key: GIP: Gates Institute Partnership Project for Population, Family and Reproductive Health NMIMR: Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research WACCI: West Africa Centre for Crop Improvement WACIPAC: West African Centre for International Parasite Control ENAM: Enhancing Child Nutrition Through Animal Source Food Management ISSER: Institute of Statistical Social and Economic Research

Following the analytical proposition, our assumption would be that for development‐related projects to make the most sustained contribution to development they would best fall within the top right‐hand quadrant in the graph; in other words, their activities articulate with national priorities and institutional strategic objectives; they have close linkages with key external stakeholders, especially any implementation agencies; and, they contribute towards strengthening the academic core of the institution, rather than weakening it. Compared to the other seven universities in the HERANA sample, the University of Ghana projects included here score very strongly in terms of strengthening

GIP 5, 6

NMIMR 5, 9

WACCI 3, 8 WACIPAC 5, 8

ENAM 5, 8

ISSER 5, 9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Direct articulation

Indirectarticulation

Weakening academic core

Strengthening academic core


106

the academic core through their project activities. As can be seen from Figure 6.2 above, five of the six projects score a ‘5’ – the maximum score for that axis. That the projects contribute to strengthening the academic core of the institution is not surprising, given that all have a strong research focus, and five of the six have a strong postgraduate / advanced training focus as well. This is in contrast to many of the development projects in other institutions which involve short‐term consultancies or business support service type activities. The projects score relatively well on the articulation / connectedness axis as well. With regard to articulation, the projects’ aims and objectives articulated most strongly with national priorities. This is interesting to note given that all of the projects/centres are foreign donor‐funded. A number of the projects/centres also had direct linkages with implementation agencies and were relatively sustainable over a long‐term period.

FINDINGS:

Projects/centres that are considered by university leadership to be strongly connected to development tend to score well on the articulation indicators – in other words, they reflect national priorities (and to a lesser extent institutional objectives), have more than one funding source and, in some cases, plans for financial sustainability, and may have a connection to an implementation agency.

Most of these projects/centres also manage to keep a strong connection to the academic core of the university, whilst others are virtually disconnected from these core knowledge activities. Of the HERANA sample, UG scores the strongest on development projects that connect to the academic core and articulate with national priorities.

There are ‘exemplary’ development projects/centres at UG. The problem is scale: there are simply not enough, and some seem overly dependent on exceptional individuals.

6.6 Concluding comments Ghana has been a moderate‐ to high‐growth country with the lowest discrepancy between GDP and HDI of the eight countries in our sample. However, while it has had a significant impact on reducing absolute poverty, this has not resulted in broader economic development. The higher education landscape is differentiating, and participation rates growing, particularly in the African context. In both government and the institution the orientation seems to be more on a traditional approach to producing human resources for the economy and poverty alleviation. The knowledge economy and research and innovation are only mentioned


107

occasionally. A positive is the new National Science, Technology and Innovation Policy which states that Ghana’s ambition is to become a middle‐income country. This will require a vision of development which fully applies and integrates science, technology and innovation into national development strategies to harness fully the nation’s total S&T capacity to achieve national objectives for poverty reduction, competitiveness of enterprises, sustainable environmental management and industrial growth. However, this intention is not present across policies, or in resource reallocation. Furthermore, a change of incentives, and the linkages and coordination which are developing, are not yet formalised. Within the university, the narrative about the role of the university is surprisingly traditional, focussing on teaching, research and extension services. There is neither a strong knowledge economy discourse, nor is this development orientation reflected in policies, structures or incentives. In conclusion, in neither government nor the university does it seem that there is yet a strong agreement on the role of the university in development.


108

List of resources

CHET (2010) Cross‐National Higher Education Performance Indicators. DRAFT. Cape Town: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

Clark B (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organisational pathways of

transformation. Pergamon: IAU Press Cloete N, Maassen P, Pillay P, Bailey T, Pinheiro R and Muller J (2010) Higher Education

and Economic Development: Analytical Framework. Cape Town: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

Effah P, Newman E and Pillay P (2009) Tertiary Education Financing in Ghana.

Unpublished mimeo. New York: Partnership for Higher Education in Africa Government of Ghana (1991) Government White Paper on the Reforms of the Tertiary Education System. Accra: GoG Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartsman S, Scott P and Trow M (1994) The

New Production of Knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. California: Sage Publications

Gornitzka Å, Maassen P, Olsen JP and Stensaker B (2007) ‘Europe of knowledge’:

Search for a new pact. In: P Maassen and JP Olsen (eds), University Dynamics and European Integration. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 181‐214

INSEAD (2010) Global Innovation Index Report 2009–2010. INSEAD Business School

Juma CC (2005) Going for Growth: Science, technology and innovation in Africa. Report. Harvard: The Smith Institute

MEST (2010) National Science, Technology and Innovation Policy. Accra: Ministry of

Environment, Science and Technology MoE (2003) Education Strategic Plan 2003 to 2015. Volume 1: Policies, targets and

strategies. Accra: Ministry of Education NDPC (2005) Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS II) (2006‐2009). Accra:

National Development Planning Commission NDPC (2006) Implementation of the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy 2003‐2005:

2005 Annual Progress Report. Accra: National Development Planning Commission


109

NDPC (2008) Implementation of the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy: 2007 Progress Report. Accra: National Development Planning Commission

OECD (2008) Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society. Paris: Organisation for

Economic Cooperation and Development Pillay P (2010a) Higher Education and Economic Development: A literature review. Cape

Town: Centre for Higher Education Transformation Pillay P (2010b) Linking Higher Education and Economic Development: Implications for

Africa from three successful systems. Cape Town: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

RoG (1995) Ghana Vision 2020 – Presidential Report on Co‐ordinated Programme of

Economic and Social Development Policies. Accra: Office of the Presidency Scott WR (2001) Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Education International Sutherland‐Addy E (2009) Background information on the University of Ghana.

Document prepared for research team prior to the site visit. Tobbin M (2009) The state of university research governance in West and Central

Africa: University of Ghana Report. Accra: International Development Research Centre. Available at: http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user‐S/12663982451University_of_Ghana__URG_Final_Report_Sept2009.pdf [accessed 29 June 2010]

UG (2001) Corporate Strategic Plan (2001‐2010). Accra: University of Ghana, Legon

Campus UNDP (1990) Human Development Report 1990. New York: United Nations

Development Programme UNDP (2007) Human Development Report 2007/2008. Fighting Climate Change:

Human solidarity in a divided world. New York: United Nations Development Programme

UNDP (2009) Human Development Report 2009. Overcoming barriers: Human mobility

and development. New York: United Nations Development Programme UNESCO (2009) EFA Global Monitoring Report 2008. Paris: United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organisation WEF (2009) The Global Competitiveness Report 2009‐2010. Geneva: World Economic

Forum


110

WEF (2010) The Global Competitiveness Report 2010‐2011. Geneva: World Economic Forum

Weick K (1976) Educational organisations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 21:1‐19 World Bank (2006) World Bank Development Report 2006: Equity and Development.

Washington DC: The World Bank World Bank (2007) The Knowledge Economy. Washington DC: The World Bank World Bank (2008) 2008 World Development Indicators. Washington DC: The World

Bank


111

Appendix 1: List of interviewees

University of Ghana

Prof. Kwesi Yankah (Pro Vice Chancellor) Prof. Esi‐Sutherland‐Addy (Institute of African Studies) Prof. Benjamin Ahunu (Provost: College of Agriculture & Consumer Science) Prof. Sam Offei (Associate Director, West Africa Centre for Crop Improvement) Mr Joseph Budu (Registrar: College of Agriculture & Consumer Science) Prof. Yaa Ntiamoah (Director: School of Research & Graduate Studies) Prof. Eric Danquah (Director: West Africa Centre for Crop Improvement) Dr Vernon Gracen (Associate Director: West Africa Centre for Crop

Improvement) Prof. Kodjo Senah (Head: Department of Sociology) Prof. Isabella Quakyi (Principal Investigator: Gates Institute Partnership Projects

for Population, Family and Reproductive Health) Prof. Alexander Nyarko (Director: West African Centre for International Parasite

Control) Prof. Clement Ahiadeke (Deputy Director: Institute of Statistical Social &

Economic Research) Dr Owuraku Sakyi‐Dawson (Faculty of Agriculture) Dr Esi Colecraft (Department of Nutrition & Food Science)

Ghana national stakeholders

Ministry of Education National Council for Tertiary Education Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning National Development Planning Commission


112

Appendix 2: Cluster analysis methodology and data

A K‐means clustering analysis was applied for the identification of four statistically significant and distinct clusters. Averages for 2005 to 2007 were used for input variables as well as non‐financial output variables. Financial data for 2007 were used. Original values for all variables were statistically scaled to make the data comparable and to ensure equal weighting for all variables. The following input variables were used for the clustering analysis:

% headcount enrolments in science, engineering and technology (% SET) % masters and doctoral headcount enrolments (% M & D students) Inverse of the student: academic/research staff FTE ratio (inverse of stud: staff

FTE ratio) % of permanent academic/ research staff with a doctoral degree (% staff with

PhD) % private income Total income per FTE student (purchasing power parity dollar thousands)

(income per FTE) Academic staff costs per FTE academic (purchasing power parity dollar

thousands) (staff cost per FTE). The following output variables were used for the clustering analysis:

Graduation rate (number of graduates in a given year/ enrolments in a given year x 100)

Research outputs (doctoral graduates + research publications). The data values are shown in Table A2.1 over page. Figure A2.1 lists the universities in the four clusters and plots the means for each cluster.


113

Table A2.1: Cluster analysis data table

INPUT INDICATORS OUTPUT INDICATORS

Total 2007 head counts (thousands)

Averages for 2005‐2007 2007 only

2007 income 2007 expenditure Averages for 2005‐2007

% SET % M & D students

Student: staff FTE ratio

% Staff with PhD

% Private Income

Income per FTE(purchasing power parity

dollar thousands)

Academic staff costs per FTE academic (purchasing power

parity dollar thousands)

Graduation rate

Weighted research output per permanent academic

LARGE CONTACT

Tshwane University of Technology

51 38% 3% 31 12% 16% 10.5 81.0 19% 0.27

University of Pretoria 49 38% 15% 18 38% 40% 24.8 92.8 24% 1.36North West University 45 20% 8% 30 43% 37% 12.6 106.2 24% 1.17University of Johannesburg 42 31% 5% 16 18% 27% 15.9 46.0 23% 0.94University of Nairobi 39 30% 16% 16 71% 34% 9.9 58.7 16% 0.45University of KwaZulu Natal 38 32% 14% 18 30% 37% 21.2 96.1 21% 1.07Makerere University 34 31% 7% 18 31% 15% 5.9 48.7 26% 0.51

MEDIUM CONTACT

Cape Peninsula University of Technology

29 48% 2% 26 11% 27% 15.3 98.1 22% 0.20

University of the Free State 25 29% 12% 17 49% 30% 18.2 73.6 21% 1.27University of the Witwatersrand

25 48% 23% 11 45% 51% 39.7 96.7 21% 1.52

Walter Sisulu University 24 26% 1% 30 9% 5% 8.7 108.6 12% 0.05Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

24 30% 7% 29 34% 25% 18.4 120.1 23% 0.82

Stellenbosch University 23 41% 22% 16 61% 51% 36.4 90.9 25% 2.03Durban University of Technology

23 48% 2% 28 7% 11% 12.4 108.9 20% 0.14

University of Cape Town 21 42% 18% 13 58% 42% 40.0 99.3 26% 2.13University of Dar es Salaam 18 39% 10% 15 50% 16% 8.6 44.1 24% 0.40University of Ghana 26 18% 6% 29 47% 15% 6.3 68.5 20% 0.53

SMALL CONTACT

University of Limpopo 16 44% 11% 16 16% 19% 21.3 77.5 21% 0.31Vaal University of Technology

16 48% 1% 31 12% 13% 11.4 81.5 15% 0.12

Eduardo Mondlane University

16 50% 3% 12 19% 14% 5.6 24.9 8% 0.03

University of Botswana 16 25% 23% 17 20% 10% 14.8 85.6 22% 0.27University of the Western 15 31% 10% 19 43% 41% 22.3 84.0 20% 0.91


114

INPUT INDICATORS OUTPUT INDICATORS

Total 2007 head counts (thousands)

Averages for 2005‐2007 2007 only

2007 income 2007 expenditure Averages for 2005‐2007

% SET % M & D students

Student: staff FTE ratio

% Staff with PhD

% Private Income

Income per FTE(purchasing power parity

dollar thousands)

Academic staff costs per FTE academic (purchasing power

parity dollar thousands)

Graduation rate

Weighted research output per permanent academic

Cape University of Venda 12 31% 3% 34 35% 14% 10.0 100.3 16% 0.24Cape University of Technology

10 45% 3% 28 29% 14% 13.0 79.2 22% 0.32

Mangosothu University of Technology

10 59% 0% 44 5% 13% 10.6 140.9 17% 0.03

University of Zululand 9 16% 5% 32 38% 30% 15.9 95.9 21% 0.70University of Fort Hare 9 18% 6% 21 19% 37% 15.6 94.2 20% 0.45University of Mauritius 8 42% 15% 16 45% 6% 3.7 20.9 27% 0.94Rhodes University 6 22% 14% 17 50% 29% 26.9 107.7 32% 1.65

Notes: 1. The calculation of purchasing power parity dollars (PPP$) is based on estimates contained in the World Bank’s (2008) World Development Indicators report.

Because these estimates are based on 2005 exchange rates, the following method was used for the 2007 calculations: The indicator set gives for each country a ratio between the PPP conversion factor and the market exchange rate. For example, the South African ratio is

given as 0.61, based on a market exchange rate of R6.4 per USD in 2005. The 2007 calculations assume that the 2005 ratio will apply again. So the 2007 PPP conversion factor is taken to be 2005 ratio times 2007 market exchange

rate. For example, the conversion factor for South Africa is calculated as 2005 ratio times 2007 exchange rate = 0.61 x 7.0 = 4.27. 2. The financial data for the following three universities were based on the following assumptions:

University of Nairobi: academic staff costs assumed to = 35% of total expenditure Eduardo Mondlane University: academic staff costs assumed to = 35% of total expenditure University of Dar es Salaam: (a) academic staff costs assumed to = 35% of total expenditure; (b) private income = donor income.


115

Figure A2.1: Plot of means for each cluster

% SET% M & D students

Inverse of stud: staff FTE ratio

% Staff with PhD

% Private Income

Income per FTE

Staff cost per FTE

Graduation Rate

Weighted Research Outputs

Cluster 1 0.27 1.54 1.04 1.00 1.33 1.78 0.50 1.03 1.72

Cluster 2 0.19 ‐0.10 0.78 ‐0.23 ‐0.72 ‐0.58 ‐1.25 0.10 ‐0.53

Cluster 3 ‐0.86 0.04 ‐0.37 0.46 0.47 ‐0.14 0.22 ‐0.14 0.11

Cluster 4 0.84 ‐1.07 ‐1.00 ‐1.14 ‐0.89 ‐0.49 0.58 ‐0.63 ‐0.86

‐1.50

‐1.00

‐0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00Cluster 1

University of Pretoria, Witwatersrand University,

Stellenbosch University, University of Cape Town, Rhodes University

Cluster 2 University of Johannesburg,

Makerere University, University of Dar es Salaam, University of Limpopo, Eduardo Mondlane

University, University of Botswana, University of Mauritius

Cluster 3 North West University, University of Nairobi, University of KwaZulu ‐Natal, University of the Free State, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, University of Ghana, University of the Western Cape, University of Venda, University of Zululand, University of Fort Hare

Cluster 4 Tshwane University of Technology,

Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Walter Sisulu

University, Durban University of Technology, Vaal University of

Technology, Central University of Technology, Mangosothu University of Technology

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Cluster 4


116

Appendix 3: Academic core rating descriptions

Indicators Strong (3) Medium (2) Weak (1)

1 Strong science and technology

SET enrolments growing, and SET share of enrolment shape increasing. Graduation rates of cohorts of SET students minimum of 70%.

SET share of enrolment shape steady. Graduation rate of cohorts of SET students 60% to 70%.

SET enrolments static, and SET share of enrolment shape declining. Graduation rate of cohorts of SET students below 60%.

2 Increased postgraduate enrolments and outputs

Postgraduates at least 25% of total enrolment. Masters and doctoral enrolments and graduates increasing. Ratio of masters to doctoral enrolments no more than 5:1. Ratio of graduates in year to enrolments in same year: masters 25%, doctorates 20%.

Postgraduates as proportion of total enrolments above 10% and increasing. Ratio of masters to doctoral enrolments no more than 10:1. Ratios of graduates to enrolments: masters 20%, doctorates 15%.

Postgraduate enrolments and graduates grow at average annual rate below that of undergraduates. Postgraduates 10% or less of total enrolment. Ratio of masters to doctoral enrolments above 10:1.

3 Teaching loads of academic staff

FTE academic staff ratio close to growth in FTE students. FTE student to academic staff ratios maximum of 15:1 for SET, and maximum average of 20:1 for: all programmes.

FTE students grow at faster rate than FTE academic staff. FTE student to academic staff ratios close 20:1 for SET, close to 30:1 for all programmes.

FTE students grow at faster rate than FTE academic staff ratio. FTE student to academic staff ratios more than 20:1 for SET, and 30:1 for all programmes.

4 Qualifications of academic staff

At least 50% of permanent academic staff have doctorates.

Between 30% and 50% of permanent academic staff have doctorates.

Less than 30% of permanent academic staff have doctorates.

5 Availability of research funding

Annual research funding of at least USD10 000 per permanent academic.

Annual research funding of between USD 2 000 and USD 10 000 per permanent academic.

Annual research funding of less than USD 2 000 per permanent academic.

6 Doctoral graduates Doctoral graduates in given year = 10% or higher of permanent academic staff.

Doctoral graduates in given year between 5% and 9.9% of permanent academic staff.

Doctoral graduates in given year less than 5% of permanent academic staff.

7 Research publications

Ratio of 0.50 or higher of publication units per permanent academic.

Ratio of publication units per permanent academic between 0.25 and 0.49.

Ratio of publication units per permanent academic less than 0.25.

case study: ghana and university of ghanachet.org.za/files/uploads/reports/case study - ghana...

Documents