Competency and constraints of higher education and research institutions for rural transformation in the <i>Amhara</i> region, Ethiopia

doi:10.4236/as.2012.35092

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Vol.3, No.5, 759-767 (2012) Agricultural Sciences

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/as.2012.35092

Competency and constraints of higher education and

research institutions for rural transformation in the

Amhara region, Ethiopia

Get achew Alemayehu1*, Sisay Yehuala2, Yonas Worku3, Zerihun Nigussie4,

Girmachew Seraw4

1Department of Plant Science, College of Agriculture and Environmental Science, Bahir-Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia;

*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

2Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension, Faculty of Agriculture, Gondar University, Gondar, Ethiopia

3North Gondar Research Centre, Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute, Gondar, Ethiopia

4Department of Rural Development, College of Agriculture and Environmental Science, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

Received 13 March 2012; revised 17 April 2012; accepted 6 May 2012

ABSTRACT

Ethiopia is an agrarian country and agriculture

is the backbone of its economy. Consequently,

the government of Ethiopia has devised Agricul-

tural Development Led Industrialization (ADLI)

as the country’s overall economic development

policy. For the last 15 years, public investment

towards the expansion of higher education, re-

search and extension in agriculture has been so

enormous. In reality, however, these higher edu-

cation and research institutions were not suffi-

ciently responsive to rural transformation. Thus,

to evaluate the role of higher education and re-

search institutions in stimulating rural transfor-

mation and to identify main training constraints

accountable for their poor performances in in-

stitutional learning and rural transformation is

of paramount importance. To this effect focus

group discussions and key informant inter-

views were conduc ted. Stratified and purposive

sampling technique was dominantly employed

during the survey studies. The result of the

study has shown that higher education and re-

search institutions were less responsive to ad-

dress the actual problems of small-scale farmers

and they were limited by a number of constraints/

challenges to address the actual problems of

farmers. The major constraints were, to list

some, limited involvement in research and ex-

tension works by the university staff, students

limited practical attachments of the training pro-

grammes with farming communities, limited in-

frastructures and facilities and limited availability

of contextualized learning resources. In address-

ing the aforesaid constrai nts/challe nges, the uni-

versity staff should proportionally allocate time

in the research and extension activities on top of

practical teaching supported by local research

results and experience; involving students on

practical attachments both in their academic

and vacation time; giving emphasis on basic

training preparation like fulfilling libraries, la-

boratories, demonstration fields and transpor-

tation facilities; and lastly to revise the existing

curriculum in to the direction of solving the real

problems of the Amhara region then the country

Ethiopia.

Keywords: Rural Transformation; Higher Education;

Training Constraints; Competency

1. INTRODUCTION

Ethiopia is an agrarian country and agriculture is the

backbone of its economy. Agriculture is thus believed to

be the major source of the country’s economic growth

and its development is expected to adequately drive the

process of industrialization. Because of this fact, the

government of Ethiopia has devised Agricultural Devel-

opment Led Industrialization (ADLI) as the country’s

overall economic development policy and the country

has been investing appreciably towards agricultural grow-

th. Particularly for the last 15 years, public investment

towards the expansion of higher education, research and

extension in agriculture and natural resource manage-

ment has been so enormous. These higher education and

research institutions are expected in turn to play a great

role in stimulating rural transformation. In reality, how-

ever, they are not sufficiently responsive to rural trans-

formation especially addressing problems and priorities

G. Alemayehu et al. / Agricultural Sciences 3 (2012) 759-767

760

of resource poor small-scale farmers.

Higher education and research institutions, notably

Bahir Dar and Gondar Universities and ARARI which

are of the interest of this particular project, are short of

the essential human and institutional capacities to con-

ceptually and methodolog ically address rural transforma-

tion through knowledge generation, training and com-

munication of research findings that reach deep into rural

communities. By and large these institutions undertake

disciplinary trainings and/or distant researches, whereas

agriculture in Amhara region as well as in the country is

mostly run by small-scale farmers who manage various

agricultural practices altogether in less than a hectare of

land under diverse conditions. This calls for responsive

training and research that addresses diversified farmers’

priority constraints.

Higher education institutions in Ethiopia, along with

other institutions in the society, are intimately involved

in the transformation of the society and have to make

hard political and economic choices. They too are char-

acterized by similar struggles as exist in the broader so-

ciety as social forces vie for pre-eminence. As educators

within higher education we do not work in isolated na-

tional contexts [1].

A systemic awareness of the interconnections between

the macro environment, the meso organizational structural

context and the micro cognitive and affective learning

interaction is significant. A lifelong learning framework

forces our gaze both inwards towards individual and or-

ganizational learning and outwards towards relationships

in the broader society [2]. The quality of organizational

learning internally will have major implications for the

institution’s ability to function in new ways externally.

Not only does there need to be recognition of the multi-

ple layers at which the characteristics come into play,

but the ability of organizations to function internally as

learning organizations has major implications for their

competence to function as flexible, collaborative net-

wor ks, externally. We need to also come to the realiza tion

that individual programmes, grounded in a given devel-

opment context or learning framework, cannot exist in an

“alien” environment and need the support of an enabling

system.

Enabling structures and supporting mechanisms are

essential. HEI programmes geared to developing devel-

opment professionals need to be flexible in terms of their

entry requirements, financing, delivery mechanisms and

their curricula. To establish this requires cooperation

both across and within the institution, also with the na-

tional or regional higher education au thorities [3].

HEIs ar e increasing ly seen as part of a matr ix of inter-

linked agencies that are concerned with social and eco-

nomic development within their local, regional or na-

tional contexts. The need for networking both within the

institutions and across institutions of civil society, the

economy and government is being emphasized as the

recognition of strong local integration is seen as com-

plementing abilities to work effectively at global levels.

The balancing of the interests of HEIs, employers and

learners is an ongoing task, necessitating continuing dia-

logue, review, addressing anticipated future needs and

changes as well as current contexts.

The objectives of the study were therefore:

1) To evaluate the role of higher education and re-

search institutions in stimulating rural transformation;

2) To identify main training constraints accountable

for poor performances of higher education and research

institutions in institutio nal learning and rural transforma-

tion.

2. RESEARCH METHODS

Desk study was carried out to get background and

status of higher education and research institutions of

Amhara region/Ethiopia in line with their responsiveness

to rural transformation. Furthermore, survey studies were

conducted to collect primary information from focus

group discussions and key informant interviews. Main

stakeholders were primarily identified and segregated

int o fo ur and eight groups for focus group discussions and

key informant interviews, respectively (Ta ble 1 ). Check-

lists and semi-structured questionnaires were developed

for respective groups of discussants and respondents.

Stratified and purposive sampling technique was do-

minantly employed during the survey studies. Bahir Dar

and Gondar Universities were purposively selected a-

mong higher education institutions available in Amhara

Region and only agriculture related faculties and de-

partments were used for the study. Head s and vi ce heads

of the selected departments, faculties and universities

were almost totally taken as respondents. Instructors

and senior students of the selected departments were

randomly given the questionnaires to respond. Almost

all research directors, programme leaders and research-

ers of ARARI at head quarter office and Gondar Agri-

cultural Research Centre were purposively used for the

study.

Hierarchal purposive sampling was applied to select

heads and agricultural experts at regional, zone and dis-

trict offices of agricultural extension and related sectors

including irrigation, land administration and use, food

security and disaster risk reduction, and cooperative

promotion. All heads and technical departments’ heads of

these sector offices were tried to use for the study. Unless

their number per department was more than 5, question-

naires were given to almost all agricultural experts of the

sector offices mentioned above. In case of exceeding

their number greater than 5 i a department, the experts n

G. Alemayehu et al. / Agricultural Sciences 3 (2012) 759-767

761

Table 1. Groups of stakeholders used for focus group discussions and key informant interviews.

No. Focus groups Main stakeholders Informant groups Samples

1. University heads 18

2. Instructors 36

1 Higher education institutions  Bahir Dar University

 Gondar University

3. Students 88

4. Research heads 11

2 Research institutions

 ARARI head quarter

 Gondar Research Centre 5. Researchers 25

6. Employers (heads) 51

3 Employing organizations

 Extension and related offices

 District and village cabinets

 NGOs

 Privates 7. Employee (alumni) 127

4 Farmers

 Farmers

 Farmers associations 8. Farmers 62

Total 418

of that specific department was selected randomly.

The project was implemented in Amhara region spe-

cifically in north Gondar zone. For that reason, Amhara

regional and north Gondar zone offices of these sectors

in Bahir Dar and Gondar respectively were selected

purposively. Chilga, Dabat and Debark “Woredas” were

selected for district level survey studies, while the three

selected watersheds of the project namely Wujiraba,

Godinge and Mezega are found in these “Woreda”, re-

spectively. All develop ment agents (DAs) working in the

three selected watersheds were used for the study, whereas

farmers in the selected watersheds and in similar gender

and age groups were selected randomly.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Current Competency Status for Rural

Transformation

Stakeholders in the focus group discussions of the

study strongly expressed that higher education and re-

search institutions are less responsive to address the ac-

tual problems of small-scale farmers. In key informant

interviews, however, there was variation among different

stakeholders in responding to a perception question

whether higher education and research institutions are

responsive to address the actual problems of small-scale

farmers or not. Except university heads, employers and

farmers, the majority of respondents including instructors,

students, researchers and research heads replied positive

for the current responsiveness of higher education and

research institutions to transform small scale farmers

who run complex activities under diverse conditions ru-

ral transformation (Figur e 1).

Students were also asked to express their feeling

whether the current training program is adequately pre-

paring them for their future career or not, and most of

them (61.45%) responded affirmatively (Figure 2). Simi-

lar perception question was also forwarded to the alu mni

(employees) of different organizations if the univer-

sity/college fully prepared them for their current assign-

ments and 62.4% of them responded positively (Figure

2).

Contrary to instructors, students and research staff,

50% of university heads responded negatively that higher

education and research institutions are not responsive to

rural transformation (Figure 1). Likewise, most eem-

ployers (70%) of different governmental and non-gov-

ernmental organizations responded negatively for the

capacity of their newly recruited agricultural experts to

facilitate rural transformation and address farmers’ prob-

lems effectively (Figure 3). Farmers also verified that

higher education and research institutions are the least

frequently communicated organizations by farmers (Ta-

ble 2).

The competency of a training or research programme

can be also measured by the extent of consulting farmers

for their indigenous knowledge. Hence, farmers’ opinion

was assessed for the extent of consultation to their in-

digenous knowledge by staffs of different organizations,

and the results clearly revealed that staffs of higher edu-

cation and research institutions almost never consulted

farmers (Table 3). Most respondent farmers (80.6%) in

the Wujiraba, Godinge and Mezega watersheds also ex-

pressed that they don’t get all necessary extension ser-

vices at the spot (Figure 4).

3.2. Constraints/Challenges for Their Low

Rural Transformation Competency

University Staff Assessment

It was expected that higher education and research in-

stitutions in the region are not able to address the actual

G. Alemayehu et al. / Agricultural Sciences 3 (2012) 759-767

762

Figure 1. Responses of university and research staffs on their responsiveness to addressing small-

scale farmers problem.

Table 2. Responses of farmers on sources of agricultural information and frequency of contact to farmers.

Responses of farmers (frequency)

Organization Never 1 Sometimes 2 Always 3 Mean Rank

Ministry of agriculture extension offices 4 28 30 2.42 2

Environmental protection offices 23 32 5 1.70 4

University 50 9

1.15 7

Technical colleges 58 1 1.02 9

NGOs 23 27 12

1.82 3

Research centers 35 23 1 1.42 5

Regional research organizations 56 3 1.05 8

National and international research organizations 48 10 2 1.23 6

Other farmers 7 12 40 2.56 1

Total frequency 304 145 90

Percentage 56.4% 26.9% 16.7%

Figure 2. Responses of students and alumni (%) on the ad-

equateness of universities/colleges and their current training

programmes to prepare them for their future career or current

assignments.

problems of farmers for rural transformation due to some

limitations. According to the result of the study, about

41.32% and 29.86% of the university head respondents

agreed and strongly agreed respectively with the sug-

gested constraints/challenges that are limiting the per-

formance of their institutions (Figure 5). This result was

also in harmony with the responses of lecturers, about

46.33% and 26.2% of them agreed and strongly agreed

respectively with listed constrain ts as limiting factors for

addressing farmers’ problems and priorities (Figure 6).

Among the constraints/challenges listed to the re-

spondents, as indicated by the response average in the

analysis, the heads group perceived that “Limited practical

G. Alemayehu et al. / Agricultural Sciences 3 (2012) 759-767 763

Figure 3. Responses of employers on the

capacity of newly recruited agricultural

experts to facilitate rural transformation

and address farmers’ problems effectively.

Figure 4. Responses of farmers on whether

or not they get all necessary extension ser-

vices at the spot.

attachments of the training programs with farming com-

munities” is the prior constraint of the institution which

was also supported by instructors group that was rated

second among the different constraints/challenges. On

the other hand “limited infrastructure and facilities like

classrooms, libraries, laboratories, demonstration fields,

transportation facilities etc.” ar e the most important chal-

lenges which were rated first by instructors with a mean

response value o f 4.46 that is close to the value of agree-

ment and a strong agreement (Ta bl e 5 ). This constraint

was also rated second by the group of university heads

with a mean response value of 4.06 (Table 4).

From the different constraints/challenges listed in the

questionnaire, “limited availability of contextualized learn-

ing resources” and “limited opportunities to give practi-

cal based-trainings” were perceived by university heads

as the second most important constraints. Respondents of

university heads ranked “limited consultation of stake-

holders in tertiary level agricultural curriculum review

and development” with a mean response value of 4.00 as

the third main constraints of their institutions. During the

study it was generally observed from the perception of

university staffs that higher learning institutions are lim-

ited by a number of constraints/challenges to address the

actual problems of farmers and to be effective develop-

ment partner playing a great role in stimulating the rural

transformation.

From the survey result, perception of some instructors

indicated that among the constraints listed to them with a

response average value of less 3.5 and greater than 3.0

means a neutral idea to the con straints which means they

did not neither agree nor disagree to the suggested con-

straints of the institutions (Table 5). Accordingly, “the

disciplinary nature of the training approach that fails to

address the actual problems of farmers” and “high staff

turnover” were not perceived by instructors as main con-

straints of higher education institutions. The latter was

not also considered by the head groups as critical con-

straint (Table 4). On the former one, however, university

heads were indifferent from instructors and they rated it

as the fif th ma in c ons tra int w ith a re spon se av erag e v alu e

of 3.89.

On top of teaching, instructors of universities are ex-

pected to be involved actively in research and extension

activities. Their limited involvement in research and ex-

tension works is generally considered as the main con-

straint of universities limiting their training quality. The

results of the present assessment confirmed this fact that

the involvement of university instructors in research and

extension service is very limited (Table 6). Out of 36

Table 3. Responses of farmers on the extent of being consulted by staffs of different organizations for their indigenous knowledge.

Responses of farmers (frequency)

Organization Never 1 Sometimes 2 Always 3 Mean Rank

Training and teaching staff of higher education 53 8 1 1.16 6

Researchers 40 19 2

1.38 5

Extension workers 7 31 24 2.27 1

NGOs officers 22 28 12 1.84 2

Environmental officers 27 32 3 1.61 3

Cooperative promotion experts 34 19 9 1.60 4

Total frequency 183 137 51

Percentage 49.33% 36.93% 13.75%

G. Alemayehu et al. / Agricultural Sciences 3 (2012) 759-767

764

Figure 5. Response of university heads on the different constraints/challenges of higher education institutions.

Table 4. Constraints/Challenges of higher education institutions for their training programmes as rated by university heads.

Constraints/Challenges SD (1)D (2)N (3)A (4) SA (5) Mean Rank

Disciplinary training programs of the universities 1 1 2 9 5 3.89 5

Disciplinary training approach is limited in addressing the actual problems of farmers 1 1 2 9 5 3.89 5

Limited availability of contextualized learning resources 2 1 9 6 4.06 2

Limited opportunities to give practical based-trainings 1 0 2 9 6 4.06 2

Limited consultation of stakeholders in tertiary level agricultural curriculum review

and development 0 3 1 7 7 4.00 3

Lack of inter-disciplinary linkage 0 1 2 12 3 3.94 4

Lack of institutional linkage 0 2 2 11 3 3.83 6

Limited experience of instructors 1 3 3 8 3 3.50 8

Limited knowledge of the local realities 1 1 4 6 6 3.83 6

Limited experiences insights and priorities of farmers and rural communities

diffusion into the training programs of higher education 1 1 6 2 8 3.83 6

Limited practical attachments of the training programs with farming communities 1 2 8 7 4.17 1

Limited research and community services 1 2 1 7 7 3.94 4

High staff turnover 5 6 4 3 3.28 10

Lack of motivation of staff 1 3 4 7 3 3.44 9

Limited budget 2 1 4 6 5 3.61 7

Limited infrastructure and facilities 2 2 5 9 4.06 2

Total frequency 12 27 44 119 86

Total number of respondents = 18

SD = Stro ngly Disagre e; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agre e; SA = Strongly Agree.

sampled instructors nine (25%) of them did not partici-

pate in any research activities, while the other 10 (28%)

of them spent only up to 10% of their time for reach

works (Table 6). Similarly, the majority of the respon-

dent instructors (66.6%) did not participate in any exten-

sion activities (Table 6). Th e present resu lts showed th at

G. Alemayehu et al. / Agricultural Sciences 3 (2012) 759-767 765

Figure 6. Response of instructors on different constraints/challenges of higher education institutions.

Table 5. Constraints/Challenges of higher learning institutions for their training programmes as rated by university instructors.

Constraints/Challenges SD (1)D (2)N (3)A (4) SA (5) Mean Rank

Disciplinary training programs of the universities 2 2 8 19 4 3.60 11

Disciplinary training approach is limited in addressing the actual problems of farmers 3 4 7 14 6 3.47 14

Limited availability of contextualized learning resources 3 4 21 7 3.91 8

Limited opportunities to give practical based-trainings 2 4 13 15 4.21 4

Limited consultation of stakeholders in tertiary level agricultural curriculum review

and development 1 6 23 5

3.91 8

Lack of inter-disciplinary linkage 3 4 18 10 4.00 7

Lack of institutional linkage 2 3 14 16 4.26 3

Limited experience of instructors 2 2 11 13 7 3.60 11

Limited knowledge of the local realities 2 4 4 21 3 3.56 12

Limited experiences insights and priorities of farmers and rural communities diffusion

into the training programs of higher education 1 3 3 19 8 3.88 9

Limited practical attachments of the training programs with farming communities 2 20 13 4.31 2

Limited research and community services 1 2 23 9 4.14 5

High staff turnover 2 7 16 8 2 3.03 15

Lack of motivation of staff 1 8 5 13 8 3.54 13

Limited budget 2 5 4 14 10

3.71 9

Limited top management support to instructors 1 6 9 11 8 3.54 13

Lack reward systems to motivate academic staff 3 4 17 11 4.03 6

Limited infrastructure and facilities 1 3 9 22 4.46 1

Total frequency 17 56 99 290 164

Total number of respondents = 36

SD = Stro ngly Disagre e; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agre e; SA = Strongly Agree.

G. Alemayehu et al. / Agricultural Sciences 3 (2012) 759-767

766

Table 6. Working time share (%) of university instructors for various activities.

Responses of instructors for their time spending percentage

Activity 0% 1% - 10% 11% - 25%26% - 50% 51% - 75% >75%

Administration 1 35

Research 9 10 12 5

Extension service 24 9 2 1

Training 1 2 1 11 8 13

Field work 16 16 1 2 1

Field work supervision 22 12 2

university instructors are more involved on theoretical

teaching which is not supported with local research re-

sults and experiences.

4. CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATION

Though most instructors, students, alumni and re-

search staffs responded positively to the responsiveness

of higher education and research institutions to rural

transformation as well as to the adequacy of the current

training programmes for the preparation of their career,

their primary customers mainly employers and farmers

confirmed that higher education and research institutio ns

of Amhara region/Ethiopia are less responsive to rural

transformation particularly in addressing constraints and

priorities of poor resource small-scale farmers. The posi-

tive response of instructors, students, alumni and re-

search staffs might be associated with lack of confidence

to challenge their problems. Besides, providing negative

response to one’s own problems is also uncommon to

some people. Thus, it was recommended that university

heads, lecturers, students, research heads and researchers

should conduct different workshops and meetings to re-

vise and evaluate the responsiveness of higher education

and research institutions towards achieving the intended

objective. All these stake holders with different ideas

should confidentially come together towards a fruitful

exercise for defining solution and reach on consensus.

On the other hand, looking in to the assessment of

university staff, it was generally observed that higher

education and research institutions were limited by a

number of constraints/challenges to address the actual

problems of farmers as well as to be effective develop-

ment partner to play a great role in stimulating the rural

transformation. The major constraints were, to list some,

limited involvement in research and extension works by

the university staff, students limited practical attach-

ments of the training programmes with farming commu-

nities, limited infrastructures and facilities and limited

availability of contextualized learning resources. In ad-

dressing the aforesaid constraints/challenges, the univer-

sity staff should proportionally allocate time in the re-

search and extension activities on top of practical teach-

ing supported by local research results and experience;

involving students on practical attachments both in their

academic and vacation time; giving emphasis also on the

management of training including basic training prepara-

tion supported by libraries, laboratories, demonstration

fields and transp ortation facilities; and lastly to revise th e

existing curriculu m in to the direction of solving the real

problems of the region th en the country.

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The original research results of this paper are derived by the

TRANSACT (Strengthening Rural Transformation Competences of

Higher Education and Research Institutions in the Amhara Region,

Ethiopia) project. This project is funded by the Austrian Development

Agency, the operational unit of the Austrian Development Cooperation

(ADC), under the frame of APPEAR (Austrian Partnership Programme

in Higher Education & Research for Development). Hence, the authors

sincerely acknowledge APPEAR-TRANSACT project for its support.

REFERENCES

[1] Walters, S. (1999) Lifelong learning within higher educa-

tion in South Africa: Emancipatory potential? Interna-

tional Review of Education, 45, 575-587.

doi:10.1023/A:1003847629351

[2] Volbrecht, T. and Walters, S. (2000) Re-imagining a pic-

ture: Higher education in lifelong learning. Adult Educa-

tion and Development, 55, 271-291.

[3] Bron, A. (2001) Adult education and lifelong learning.

Conference on Citizenship, Adult Education and Lifelong

Learning, 41, Copenhagen, 4-6 April 2001, 357-361.

G. Alemayehu et al. / Agricultural Sciences 3 (2012) 759-767 767

ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGIES

1) Amhara: One of the regions in Ethiopia located in

the north western of the country;

2) Gondar: One of the zones in Amhara region located

in the north west of it;

3) Bahir Dar: Capital city of Amhara region located in

the north western of it;

4) Woreda: District;

5) Chilga, Dabat and Debark: Districts geographically

located in north Gondar;

6) Wujiraba, Godinge and Mezega: Name of the three

selected watersheds of the project geographically located

in the above mentioned three Woredas respectively;

7) ARARI: Amhara Region Agricultural Research In-

stitute;

8) ADLI: Agricultural Development Led Industrializa-

tion;

9) DA: Development Agent (Extension worker work-

ing with a farmer at a grass root level);

10) NGO: Non Governme nt al Organization;

11) HEI: Higher Education Institution.