Perceived roles of research strategy, decision-making and leadership

According to the respondents, in principle, the university has a sound research strategy and mission. Here are some of the reasons they mentioned why: firs, the university developed its research thematic areas based on the socio-economic and political contexts of the country, objectives of the growth and transformation plans (Growth and Transformation Plan I and II) of the government, and some other cross-cutting issues. Hence, as a public institution, "it is an effective way of setting its research directions" (lecturer of Sociology, personal communication, July 14, 2020). Second, despite budgetary constraints, the university encourages all faculty members to engage in research. For example, it has a research category that, specifically, targets young and women faculty members. Senior faculty members also are encouraged to engage in consultancy and external research collaborations. As an incentive, a principal investigator (PI) in a research project is free from some additional duties (e.g., advising loads). Third, to enhance the quality of PhD dissertations, the university financially supports staff members who study for a PhD in domestic universities. Therefore, a respondent argued that its research strategy makes MU one of the best universities in Ethiopia (assistant professor of Geography and Environmental Study, personal communication, July 15, 2020). The dean of CSSL, also claimed that since the university takes research excellence “as a matter of survival”, its strategy concentrates on endeavours that would help improve research engagement and quality of publications.

60

However, as a Research Capacity Needs Assessment of Mekelle University¹⁴ indicates, although

university research grants provide important research opportunities and experience, especially for fledgling researchers, […] [among other issues] the modest funding and short timeframe for project completion limits the scope, learning, impact and potential for publishing in international journals (Doyle & Pulford, 2016, p. 5).

The report also documents that there is a problem in institutional support services for research practices. “Administrative support to research projects is limited and there is little awareness of the value of having robust research administration in place” (Doyle & Pulford, 2016, p. 7).

Moreover, notwithstanding the respondents do not doubt the university’s strategic emphasis for research, however, they echoed discontent regarding the research thematic areas and the general

‘top-down’ decision-making process. The study participants witnessed that since most of the research-related activities are centralised, individual researchers or academic units do not have the autonomy to set research priorities according to their disciplinary focus areas. Although respondents in leadership positions disagreed, their counterparts (i.e. respondents who are not in leadership positions) claimed that the university’s research priorities and grants are influenced by the types of disciplines and research the top management endorses.

A respondent from the Physics department, for example, said that because the leadership favours applied researches, MU’s research strategy marginalises basic research which physicists, often, concentrate on. He further commented:

As a physics professor, I believe, the research thematic areas of MU overlook studies in basic sciences. They concentrate on issues that are supposed to have immediate use. Thus, basic research projects are marginalised by the university and the government. If I should be specific, for the majority of the leaders are from the agriculture department, the thematic areas focus on agriculture and related issues. Therefore, because their studies are taken to be out of these research focus areas, it is hard for my colleagues to get research grants from the university. And, they work better with the regional [Tigray region] science and technology minister than with MU (personal communication, July 17, 2020).

The dean of CSSL, however, defended that the university supposedly understates basic research, not due to leadership biases to certain disciplines. It is because the government encourages public universities to focus on applied research. Accordingly, the university endeavoured to improve applied research (personal communication, July 15, 2020).

As a logical sequel, regarding the general research-related decision-making processes, on the one hand, the leadership and the university legislation claim active involvement of all pertinent stakeholders (mainly teachers and students). To the contrary, the (interviewed) faculty members (with no leadership positions) believed that the management actions are unilateral. Hence, they claimed, it inhibits the inclusion of all necessary views from faculty members. Along the lines, Abdela and Pillay (2014) write that academics at universities have no role or limited opportunities to engage in university and government consultations regarding development and other reform agendas. Designing thematic areas is indeed pivotal to focus on the development plans of the country. However, when decisions are made only by a few people, the vast majority of faculty member may not engage in creative researches as they will focus on what they believe the authorities would like them to do. It also entails a hierarchical underlying assumption that

14 A study conducted by a group led by Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (LSTM).

61

the university and the higher education system in Ethiopia at large follow when it comes to the nature of human relationship (see Schein, 2004) in the research activities.

Excluding those in leadership positions, the respondents generally asserted that the university leadership is weak in organising, facilitating, monitoring and motivating faculties to engage in research activities. For example, a respondent from the department of Information Science commented:

I do not think the leaders are willing to listen to the interests of the university community.

They do not work in unison with the rest of us. They often mind their business and do organisational duties haphazardly. The leadership lacks the quality and interest to guide employees towards achieving the organisational goals. It should have been effective in mentoring and facilitating faculty members to internalise the missions of the university (personal communication, July 15, 2020).

Another respondent, similarly, noted: “the leadership is ineffective in nurturing the faculty members with the university values and pushing us to actively engage in university-wide research activities” (lecturer of Public Health, personal communication, July 15, 2020).

The participants indeed believed that the leaders have research knowledge and the expertise on what it takes to enhance research productivity. However, the respondents argued, they are ineffective in materialising their expertise and initiating OC that accommodates the research engagement of all faculty members. One possible reason for this would be that, according to a respondent,

The leaders concentrate on administrative tasks than on academic and research-related objectives. Hence, they do not have the time, focus and energy to coordinate, lead and mentor faculty members to actively engage in research (lecturer, Journalism and Communication and head of quality assurance office, CSSL, personal communication, July 14, 2020).

There is also a perception that the leadership is weak in publicising inspirational research accomplishments through research symposiums, seminars and other similar programs. The practice in this regard, however, vary across academic units. The respondents, for example, venerated CHS for its success in propagating the visibility of best practices.

It was also commented on the leadership’s management qualities to lead institutional change and continuity. A respondent, a researcher in higher education and history professor, argued that, due to lack of higher education management knowledge and skills, the leadership lacks the expertise to synthesise change and continuity (of the academic identity). According to him, the university system “relies on individuals’ will instead of a well-designed management philosophy” (personal communication, July 13, 2020). Moreover, it is reported that changes could be introduced with little thorough thinking and consultation of pertinent stakeholders (particularly the faculty). Accordingly, the respondent averred that although “it is good that the leaders are in favour of changes, they might not be well-versed with the rationale for change, however.” Thus, they often fail to contextualise changes and maintain the core academic identities (personal communication, July 13, 2020). Among other issues, this implies that the leadership is less effective in studying the situation and synchronising the existing research culture with the changing organisational, local and international contexts.

However, for the faculty in leadership roles, being in a continuous change, in itself, is an exercise to adapt to the changing national and global context. Most importantly, they rationalised that most of the ‘presumed’ leadership flaws are, mainly, due to the government control on the university system. The university has no autonomy to act by its own choices (Dea

62

& Zeleke, 2017). Leaders do not have the freedom and flexibility to decide on many issues. A respondent, who has been an adviser to the university president, supported this view.

The university leaders might not have autonomy and the necessary decision power, for example, to allocate budgets based on the university’s preferences. For the university system is controlled by the government, it is tricky to judge the leadership role in facilitating activities. However, in many other issues, one cannot deny that they have crucial roles that could determine the success of the faculty and the university (department of Foreign Languages, personal communication, July 16, 2020).

Owing to the centralised institutional framework for research and the higher education system in Ethiopia at large, universities cannot, for example, move funds between budget funds except approved by the government (Yallew, 2020). Not only that, the government interferes in other internal affairs of universities. Therefore, because of weak self-governance autonomy, universities and their academic units might not, as such, decide on their specific research strengths. The role of leaders is limited to monitoring the proper implementation of agendas and efficient utilisation of budgets allocated by the government (dean CSSL, personal communication, July 15, 2020; dean CNCS, personal communication, July 16, 2020). For these reasons, according to the dean of CSSL, the assertions about the weaknesses of the university leadership overestimated the authority of leaders. He argued that the university has an organisational structure and guidelines for its different duties. Hence, the leaders’ role concentrates on facilitating the bureaucracy. This view might be right. However, first, it is vital to know that there is a symbiotic relationship between a system and the personnel that leads it.

Leaders can influence the system as much as they can be influenced by it. Second, it is impossible to stop faculty members from expecting a high level of effectiveness from their leaders. As Tierney (1985) argues, instead, it is necessary to examine what faculty members expect from their leaders. Third, creating a system suitable for high research performance is the mandate of the leaders. As Schein (2004) underlines, leaders are creators of culture. Thus, if they fail to create a successful group, that means they are failed.

In sum, the respondents’ assertions illustrate the leadership’s control of the decision-making and knowledge creation process. As such, it directly answers the diagnostic question from Tierney’s OC model framed to analyse the strategy dimension: who are the main actors and how decisions are arrived at? Moreover, the centralised decision-making norm reveals the underlying assumption of the university towards the nature of human activity (see Schein, 2004). It signifies that the university does not assume faculties grow and develop in diverse ways. For example, it does not give faculty members considerable authority to decide on issues they need to research. Hence, the systems of communication and decision-making process are not founded on autonomy, effective participation and freedom of the faculty and academic units – which are among the pivotal cultural ethos supporting research achievement of faculties and HEIs (Edgar & Geare, 2013). The research culture in the university, thus, lacks intellectual diversity and liveliness. This, in turn, believed to have a great bearing on the process of human development and empowerment of faculties in research endeavours. Hence, despite the Ethiopian government and the university reiterate that university teachers’ intellectual freedom is intact, practically the underlying assumption held by these stakeholders does not prove that they believe faculties are ultimately capable of taking responsibilities and do the right thing.

Thus, faculty members address people in higher management as ‘them’ which signifies a clear hierarchical structure. The ‘us’ versus ‘them’ classification indicates the lack of collegial relationships and interactive communication.