Accountability, relevance and excellence

it can generate extra funding but also contribute directly to socioeconomic development, demonstrate accountability for the public and private funding it receives, enhance the relevance of teaching and research, boost its institutional prestige and exchange information with external communities (Lyytinen, 2011).

is unsurprising, then, that MUK describes itself as a reservoir of the country’s intellectual elite with an obligation to champion social, political and economic change in society (MUK, 2010). Thus, as R2, pointed out, universities should,

Utilise the wealth of knowledge they have because knowledge that has not been put to application is of no use. Why should they continue to do research and come out with good technologies that remain unused or unexploited? So the only way through which knowledge is of value is when it is applied to solve the problems of human beings. … They should be engaged in having the knowledge reach the final user. (Personal communication, April 19, 2012.)

Besides the above-mentioned expectations, there are growing calls upon universities and other HEIs to improve the quality of their academic services—particularly teaching and learning—to engage with external communities and to be more accountable. For instance, although universities are not solely responsible for the high levels of graduate unemployment in Uganda, they have been singled out as not doing enough to train employable people (Businge & Nanyondo, 2011; Bwogi, 2006; Kiyaga, 2012). They are being called upon to play an active role in alleviating graduate unemployment, especially by conducting tracer studies, involving relevant stakeholders in curriculum design and review processes and aligning their academic programmes with labour market needs (Babyetsiza, 2009a, 2009b;

NCHE, 2010).

Similar accusations have been made against other African universities. Modise and Mosweunyane (2012), for example, observe that the University of Botswana “has been accused in some quarters of producing a crop of functionally unemployable graduates who possess certificates without relevant education” (p. 58). The issue of employability, however,

“goes beyond that of simple graduate unemployment and employment prospects” (Gibb et al., 2009, p. 7); universities are being challenged to “demonstrate to employers and other stakeholders that their graduates bring to the field a set of skills and knowledge that are demonstrably useful for addressing contemporary issues” (Modise & Mosweunyane, 2012, p. 58). In essence, “There is an articulation by employers of the need for graduates to be equipped with a range of ‘enterprising skills’ with foci upon creativity, capacity for innovation, networking relationship management and risk taking” (Gibb et al., 2009, p. 7).

In short, HEIs are being urged to strike a balance between theory and practical training in their programmes (NCHE, 2010) and to produce graduates who possess not only hard but also soft skills, to prepare students for a life of greater uncertainty and complexity to enhance their potentialities for lifelong learning, employability, job creation and relevance to the labour market (Gibb & Hannon, 2006). To respond to these pressures, universities must emphasise the scholarship of relevance and integration—that is, they must focus on (a) working in partnership with external stakeholders and (b) the need for interdisciplinary research and teaching (Gibb & Hannon, 2006). Therefore, for universities and colleges to survive and thrive, Keith (1998) observes,

[They] will have to be responsive; responsive in the eyes of those [they serve]:

students, parents, governments, businesses, non-profit organizations. … To be responsive, institutions of higher education will need to be service oriented … [need] new internal relationships … [need] new external relationships, including social partnerships with the communities and regions they serve, partnerships with government policy makers, and joint ventures with other institutions. (p. 163.) Therefore, although it is evident that there are calls upon MUK to be more responsive, such demands cannot be easily met within the traditional institutional systems and practices; they require changes in the academic and organisational policies, structures and practices of the university. Accordingly, recent developments, such as the adoption of field attachment as a university-wide activity, and the involvement of external stakeholders in curricula reviews, are not unexpected; they are part of the mechanisms employed by the university to boost the quality and relevance of its academic programmes and to enhance the employability of its graduates. According to Krimsky (1988), universities, like other complex institutions, adjust their goals and practices to changes in the broader political and economic environment within which they function. However, this is not to suggest that the recent developments regarding the TM have been forced upon the university by its external environment; instead, the developments reflect how the university has interpreted and responded to the institutional expectations. Thus, the drive towards deeper engagement with external communities and greater involvement in activities that promote socioeconomic development is largely part of the proactive measures adopted by the university to (a) respond to external demands (Bisaso, 211) and (b) transform itself into a leading institution for academic excellence and innovations. For instance, in its strategic plan (2008/09–2018/19), the university asserts that its decision to shift its focus from outreach to partnerships and networking was spurred by the realisation that “Much as knowledge, technology, and skills reside in universities like Makerere, the community, public and private sectors also command knowledge bases from which Makerere can learn and leverage her entrepreneurial and innovative capability” (MUK, 2008a, p. 13).

Summary

The above discussion demonstrates that the TM and TM activities at MUK can be understood in terms of four interrelated issues, namely: funding, accountability, relevance and excellence. Accordingly, TM activities at the university reflect and are driven by the following:

1. External normative pressures, such as policy recommendations and media commentaries that call upon the university to (a) be more accountable to its stakeholders, including students, (b) adopt instructional methods that can deliver quality outcomes that are relevant to the needs of those who live beyond the walls of

the university (Keith, 1998) and (c) contribute more to socioeconomic development 2. Proactive forces within the university aimed at enhancing the academic excellence, and

social relevance and institutional autonomy of the university.