DEFINING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ENGAGEMENT AND CAPACITY BUILDING AMONG INSTITUTIONS OF

LEARNING

Paper Presented To The ACHEA Conference 2018Embracing THE Future: Creative Approaches To Higher Education

Halima-Sa’adia Kassim, Ph.D.

Senior Planning OfficerUniversity Office of Planning, Vice-Chancellery

The University of the West Indies14 July 2018

Presentation outline

■ Overview

■ Definitions

■ International and regional frameworks/policies/strategies

■ Selected findings from surveys: TEI and RI

■ Conclusion

2

IntroductionOverview – context, rationale, study outcome

3

Overview (1)

Efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, performance, outputs and outcomes - tenets of neo-liberal and managerialism model – have impacted the sector

strategic plans, performance indicators, and partnerships/collaboration with other TEIs and/or the private sector

TEIs faced with ‘wicked’, ‘stubborn’ challenges and pressures

TEIs associate with a number of partners/collaborators

The UWI as the regional university is also an associate regional institution of CARICOM

4

Overview (2)

Problematic:

•Dearth of comprehensive robust regional data and analysis on the short-to-medium term future of institutions, their characteristics and institutional capabilities and capacities, and capacity building needs and stakeholder engagement processes and features

•Hampers institutions from responding effectively to those with ‘wicked’ and ‘stubborn’ challenges or maximising opportunities

Draw on the selected findings of:

•Small pilot survey of TEIs

•Full survey with the RIs

Seeks to:

• Identify the issues related to collaboration and capacity building, institutional efficiency and effectiveness

•Enable institutions to better respond to their mandate and to support national and regional development priorities

5

Considering The Need For Engagement And

SynergiesDefinitions

International and regional frameworks/policies/strategies

6

Definitions (1)

■ Institutions engage in several relationships

■ Engagement takes many forms and for many different purposes and have different

dimensions.

■ Different types of engagement (O’Flynn 2008)

Cooperation: informal relationship without a common mission in which information is shared on an as-needed basis, authority remains with each organisation, there is little (or no) risk and resources and rewards are kept separate

Coordination: more formal, compatible missions that require some common planning and more formal communication channels.… involves creating new structures, developing a common mission, engaging in comprehensive and shared planning,..

Collaboration: pooling and jointly acquiring resources, sharing rewards, but also increased risk

7

Definitions (2)

■ Collaborative governance is defined as the:

– …. processes and structures of public policy decision making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished (Emerson et al 2008)

■ Embraces state and non-state actors, spans inter-governmental and inter-institutional boundaries and relations, and involves the partners in decision-making processes, policymaking and implementation, and management of public programmes

■ Collaborative governance operates within a host of political, legal, socioeconomic, environmental and other influences that affect its functioning.

■ Influenced over time by collaborative dynamics (principled engagement, shared motivation, and capacity for joint action that work together in an interactive and iterative way to produce collaborative actions

8

International and regional strategies/agreed goals

International

•Sustainable development goals• Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and

revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

Regional•CARICOM Strategic Plan, 2015-2019

•CARICOM HRD2030 Strategy

9

Overview Of The Findings Of The TEI Survey

Overview/Background, Pilot survey processes and experiences, Selected

pilot survey findings

10

Overview for the TEI survey■ Informed by the outcome of:

• ‘Consultations between the CARICOM Tertiary Education Sector and International

Development Partners (IDPs)’ held in November 2016 at the UWI, St Augustine,

which recommended the conduct survey of TLIs to determine (i) strengths,

weaknesses and areas of particular interest, (ii) the institutions that have

capacity to lead programmes/projects

■ Seeks to:

Define the organisational

structure of TEIs

Examine how TEIs involve

stakeholders in the activities to support their mission and

leadership and governance exchange

Assess the capabilities and

capacities, available

resources, knowledge and skills within the

institution

Contribute to

system

development by

highlighting

structural and

other deficits in

specific

categories or

areas

Provide

recommendations

that could inform

decision-making

and interventions

to support

development in

those areas

11

Process for developing the survey

■ Internet search was undertaken using key phrases to identify similar instruments

– ‘survey- higher education capacity assessment’, ‘survey- higher education

capacity building’, ‘survey- tertiary education capacity assessment’, and ‘survey-

tertiary education capacity development’

■ Google search yielded several examples of similar assessments undertaken in

European Union and OECD countries and by higher education bodies (e.g.

International Association of Universities) or ranking agencies (e.g. U-Multirank).

■ Instruments examined and items adopted and adopted for the purposes of the TEI

survey

■ Instrument comprised a mix of open and close-ended items and spans several

dimensions

■ Population list developed

12

FINDINGS FROM THE PILOT SURVEY

POSITIVE NEGATIVE

Confirmed the instructions, language and technical jargon

was generally clear for native English-speakers

Some difficulty with language and technical jargon for non-

English speakers

Confirmed that the response choices and scales were

appropriate to the items

Respondents demonstrated a high preference for Likert

scale response or multiple-choice items

Responses demonstrated a low preference for data-driven

items (e.g. student/staff data)

Too many options in the multiple-choice items

Some responses can be sourced from other items (e.g. How

many campuses are located throughout the region and In

what countries or countries is the institution located?)

Survey too lengthy and time-consuming

Requires data/information at-hand to respond

13

Pilot study was undertaken to pre-test the survey instrument to determine:

if the proposed instrument was appropriate, relevant and easy to complete

to consider the wording and the ordering of the questions, and the range of answers provided for multiple-choice and rating questions

the research process, i.e. the different ways of distributing and collecting the questionnaires, was considered

assess the feasibility of a (full-scale) study/survey and convincing other stakeholders that the main study is worth supporting

14

Based on the feedback and experiences, it is suggested that the survey:

■ discard all unnecessary, difficult or ambiguous questions be discarded;

■ be revised and shortened (and piloted again) or be dimension-driven and where, the

various survey dimensions could be administered at intervals;

■ the survey should be administered by a professional higher education network which

can reduce the bias associated with a TEI administering the survey; and

■ develop an indicator/jargon booklet to accompany the instrument.

15

Selected findings

TEIs reported having a Strategic Plan focussing on:

■ teaching and learning

■ student development/engagement/student academic success

■ internationalisation

■ organisational and operational efficiency

■ building partnerships and collaborations

■ diversifying the institution’s financial resources

■ improving infrastructure and operations

■ community or civic engagement

■ improving institutional branding

■ research and innovation

■ public engagement/service

Most Identified Areas In National Development Plans Related To TEIs Mission

■ collaboration with neighbouring countries

■ curricular reform/structure

■ demographic changes and higher demand of higher education

■ evaluation and quality assurance

■ internationalisation

■ student life

■ support from international donors to academic programmes or academic cooperation

■ university-academic partnerships

16

• Pilot studies - "underdiscussed, underused and underreported" (Teijlingen and Hundley 2001, n.p.)

• Important to identify processes and outcomes of the study and actual improvements made to the

study design and the research process

• Findings should be viewed with caution …. possibility of making inaccurate predictions or assumptions

based on pilot data (Teijlingen and Hundley 2001, n.p.)

Importance of developments to the sector

Internationalisation

University-civil society

corporation

University-public sector cooperation

Use of ICTs in teaching, research,

management

17

CHALLENGES FOR SECTOR IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS

Academic human

resources

Student recruitment Teaching and learning generally

Graduate employability Student success Widening access, equity and

participation

Institutional funding Data privacy and security Research funding

Knowledge transfer Governance and autonomy Internationalisation

Links with the labour

market

Teaching and learning Tuition fees

Quality assurance Competition from other TLIs University-business cooperation

Robust data Research relevance and

impact

18

Is there a need for a tertiary education council? And why?

■ Seen as a positive

■ Why?

– advisory powers throughout the entire higher education sector;

– ability to monitor trends and developments in higher education;

– ability to allocate public funds to TEIs;

– contribution to strategic planning and policy development;

– ability to enforce separation of functions, ensuring that governments focus on

setting broad policy frameworks while institutions deliver on such policies; and

– ability to initiate the amending of higher education legislation

19

Quick thoughts –Importance of robust data in tertiary education cannot be underscored enough!

executive decision making

strategic/operational planning

institutional research surveys and studies

accreditation and quality assurance

benchmarking (internal and external)

■ Recommendation for regional

tertiary education information

management/business intelligence

system

■ Possibly administered through the

professional networks (ideally)

20

Overview Of Survey Of Regional Institutions

Overview/Background, Survey processes, Selected findings

21

Overview of the Regional Institutions’ Survey

Proposal by The University of the West Indies at the De-Briefing of the Fourth High Level Forum on Donor Coordination (March 2016) to consider the development of a “Capacity Building and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy Plan”

Rationale: Under-utilisation of existing expertise by and among regional partners… to achieve acceptable outcomes/or achieve added value for activities based on their advantage

Presentation made to Virtual (Pillar) Meeting (October 2016)

Proposal accepted

Working Group – Capacity Building and Stakeholder Engagement - established

Comprised: CCS, UWI, CXC, CARICAD, CDF, CCJ

Survey designed, reviewed, piloted, modified

Survey fully administered

22

Aims and objectives of the survey

AIMSCollect data on the capacity building needs and stakeholder engagement of

regional institutions to facilitate mutually beneficial relationships and/or contribute

to the overarching regional goals

Provide relevant baseline data for the next iteration of the CARICOM Strategic Plan

OBJECTIVES

Identify and assess the capabilities and capacities in regional institutions and identify innovative ways to address those needs

Identify the practices, drivers and obstacles to stakeholder engagement

Assess the current and future state of stakeholder engagement among regional institutions

23

Survey administration

Survey period: 5 weeks (April-May 2018)

Survey method: Online/Survey Monkey

Response rate:

65.3%

(17/26 institutions

responded)

24

PREVALENT

AREAS

Primary sectoral interest of responding institutions25

Financial services

Regulatory – economic

Telecommunications

Crime and security

Disaster management

Education and curriculum

Law and justice

Aviation and maritime

Science, academia and research

Agriculture and Fisheries

Environment/Energy/Climate change

Health

UNIQUE

AREAS

Types of organisations partnering with your institution

26

Other

NGOs/CBOs/FBOs

Third States

Private sector

International development agencies

Universities/academics/research institutes

Governmental institutions (i.e. Ministries, Legislatures, Statutory Authorities, etc.)

Other regional intuitions

27

Importance of

stakeholder engagement

with other RIs

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Currently Next five years

Very Important Important

28

Quality of cooperation

with the following type

of partnersG

ove

rnm

en

tal in

sti

tuti

on

s (

i.e

.

Min

istr

ies, Le

gis

latu

res, S

tatu

tory

Au

tho

riti

es, e

tc.)

Inte

rna

tio

na

l d

eve

lop

me

nt

age

ncie

s

NG

Os/C

BO

s/F

BO

s

Oth

er

regio

na

l in

tuit

ion

s

Pri

va

te s

ecto

r

Th

ird

Sta

tes

Un

ive

rsit

ies/a

ca

de

mic

s/re

se

arc

h

insti

tute

s

Very Good Good Moderate Poor Unsure/Do not know Not applicable

29

Capacity and skills of the human resources at the RIs

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Advocacy

Operational planning

Policy development

Project development

Project evaluation

Project implementation

Project monitoring

Qualitative analytical skills

Quantitative analytical skills

Report writing

Research knowledge and management/research ethics

Risk management

Standards (development, setting or monitoring/verfiication)

Strategic planning

Survey design

Training/Technical assistance

Very High/High Medium Low/Very Low Unsure/Do not know

30

Areas identified for capacity building by RIs

31

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Report writing

Standards (development, setting or monitoring/verfiication)

Training/Technical assistance

Project development

Project implementation

Quantitative analytical skills

Survey design

Strategic planning

Operational planning

Advocacy

Policy development

Research knowledge and management/research ethics

Qualitative analytical skills

Project evaluation

Project monitoring

Risk management

YES NO

Importance to RI of the benefits of stakeholder engagement

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Avo

idin

g c

on

flic

t b

efo

re it

em

erg

es

De

ve

lop

ing c

ap

acit

y / s

ha

rin

g

kn

ow

led

ge

Co

lla

bo

rati

ng t

o d

eve

lop

pro

gra

mm

es a

nd

po

licie

s

Co

st

sa

vin

gs

Fa

cilit

ati

ng t

he

exc

ha

nge

of

ide

as a

nd

be

st

pra

cti

ce

s

Fa

cilit

ati

ng t

he

sh

ari

ng o

f

hu

ma

n a

nd

te

ch

nic

al

reso

urc

es

Fa

cilit

ati

ng s

ocia

l ch

an

ge

Fin

din

g a

so

luti

on

to

a

co

mp

lex/

pre

ssin

g p

rob

lem

Ide

nti

fyin

g o

r m

itig

ati

ng r

isks

or

cri

se

s

Infl

ue

ncin

g t

he

cre

ati

on

of

be

tte

r p

ub

lic p

olicy

Pro

mo

tin

g t

he

sh

ari

ng o

f d

ata

,

info

rma

tio

n,

rep

ort

s a

nd

art

icle

s

Re

so

lvin

g/re

du

cin

g c

on

flic

t

Se

ekin

g e

xte

rna

l fu

nd

ing f

or

join

t p

roje

cts

Sh

ari

ng e

xpe

rtis

e

Sa

vin

g t

ime

Very Important/Important

Moderately/Slightly Important

32

Obstacles RIs face when participating in stakeholder engagement

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Competing/shifting priorities

Differences in organisational culture

Information asymmetries and/or lack of transparency

Lack of funding to support stakeholder engagement

Lack of time

Low capacity to engage in consultation

No clarity on the expected use of inputs from stakeholders in

the decision-making process

Stakeholder consultation “fatigue” (difficulty to maintain

motivation)

Very challenging/Challenging Moderately challenging Slightly challenging/Not at all challenging

33

Potential risks for a RI when

engaging stakeholders

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Compromise of institutional goals or

principles

Creates conflict of interest

Increases competition between stakeholders

Increases tension within the institution

Loss of control

Loss of credibility

Not meeting expectations

Slows down the progress in project/activity

Waste of time and money

Very High/High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk/No Risk

34

Activities by RIs to build its capacity in the last five years

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Established a dedicated internal training institute

Host brown-bag seminars

Encourage research exchange programme

Introduced long-term training

Develop and implement a comprehensive training plan

Develop coaching and mentoring programmes

Other

Introduced short-term training

Contact other regional institutions for assistance

Partner with other regional institutions

Distribute information among staff (regular/ad hoc)

Participate in conference on focussed issues

35

Activities that can assist RIs to build capacity36

Other

Information distributed among staff (regular/ad hoc)

Dedicated internal training institute

Long-term training

Conferences/meetings

Knowledge/research/project network

Short-term training

Comprehensive training needs assessment and training plan

Research exchange programme

Coaching and mentoring programmes

Online courses

Access to technical advisor(s) or/and subject matter expert(s)

Conclusion

37

Conclusion■ Findings confirm the importance of working together in an inter or multi-partnership

structure to achieve institutional mission, stated outcomes and address and solve

developmental challenges

■ Provides opportunities for TEIs to demonstrate their relevance

■ Sector engagement can be facilitated either through existing mechanisms (e.g. a

strengthened Association of Caribbean Tertiary Institutions, ACTI or ACHEA) or a new

mechanism (e.g. regional council)

■ Opportunities also exist to develop/strengthen relationships between and TEIs through

joint projects, consortia, etc.

■ Engagement already exists between the RIs and the UWI via representation at regional

meetings, research clusters, and through the provision of knowledge expertise

■ Engagement, regardless of form, require harmonising of needs for social and economic

transformation and imbuing stakeholders with a sense of ‘principled engagement’, ‘shared

motivations’ and a ‘capacity for joint action’.

38

Thank you for your time and attention

39