Magister Educationis - MEd / The debate around the roles of universities is not new. One of the debated issues relates to who defines the role and priorities of universities. A number of authors (Ashby, 1964; Yesufu, 1973; Court, 1980; Sherman, 1990; Saint, 1992; Ajayi, Goma & Johnson, 1996; Lulat, 2003; Van Wyk & Higgs, 2007) have taken into account the colonial legacy when approaching the topic of higher education establishment in post-colonial Africa. What may seem clear is that universities have roles to play. Those roles are often stated in higher education legislation, policy and plans, by universities themselves or even by their stakeholders. Although studies on higher education in Mozambique (Chilundo et al., 2000; Mário et al., 2003; Brito, 2003; Langa, 2006; Beverwijk, Goedegebuure & Huisman, 2008; Cloete et al., 2011) have attempted to address post-colonial higher education in Mozambique, none addresses, in depth, the purpose of establishment or the debates around the role of universities. That is the gap this study has identified and intends to address by investigating the way in which the roles of the Eduardo Mondlane University (UEM) were defined. Taking into account the relationship between state, university, society and market, the roles of the university are understood as both what universities are expected to do and what the university perceives it should do. The university’s roles are located at both macro-level and institutional level. At the macro-level, university’s roles are clearly outlined by state legislation and policy on higher education (Cloete & Maassen, 2006: 10-12). At the institutional level, however, the university’s roles are defined by the university itself and relevant stakeholders (Clark, 1983: 140-145). Apart from having located university’s roles at these two levels, a conceptual analytical framework was drawn from the work of Clark (1983) and Cloete and Maassen (2006) to analyse role formation using three model types: state control, market steering and academic oligarchy. The data collection, consisting of document collection and interviews, was undertaken from December 2010 to May 2011. Documents, archival records, universities’ policies and government policies on higher education in Mozambique were collected. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with UEM and Ministry of Education staff.

This dissertation set out to identify effective qualitative and quantitative management tools used by financial officers (CFOs) in carrying out their management functions of planning, decision making, organizing, staffing, communicating, motivating, leading and controlling at a public research university. In addition, impediments to the use of these tools were identified which may assist in breaking down barriers to the implementation of these tools within higher education. The research endeavor also provided additional significance through the CFOs identifying benefits from the use of quantitative and qualitative management tools. Finally, the study undertook the task of identifying quantitative and qualitative management tools the important to public research university CFOs in carrying out their management functions in the future. In this study, the Delphi method was used to gain consensus from a panel of fifteen public research university CFOs who were experts on qualitative and quantitative management tools. The experts were self-identified through their response to a questionnaire on their use of the management tools and represented 12 different states. Due to the nature of the research, a computer-based Delphi method was used to facilitate a four round, electronically based Delphi study. The questionnaires were based upon a review of the literature and tested by a pilot group of higher education CFOs. Through a series of four electronic questionnaires, the Delphi panel identified twenty-three qualitative and quantitative management tools which they believe are moderately effective for use by public research university CFOs in carrying out their functions of planning, decision making, organizing, staffing, communicating, motivating, leading and controlling. Additionally, the panel of experts identified sixteen barriers/impediments to the use of qualitative and quantitative tools in carrying out the above functions. The panel also identified eighteen benefits that the tools provide to public research university CFOs in carrying out their management functions. Finally, the Delphi panel identified three qualitative and quantitative management tools that will be highly important, and twenty qualitative and quantitative management tools that the panel of experts considered to be important, for public research university CFOs in carrying out their management functions in the future. This dissertation study is significant because the results are expected to provide public research university CFOs qualitative and quantitative management tools that they may use to assist them in carrying out their management functions. The barriers/impediments and benefits noted also provide CFOs with knowledge to assess whether the tools can be used at their institutions, knowing the specific climate and culture which exists. The qualitative and quantitative management tools which were identified as being important in the future can serve as a guide to develop training programs to enhance the knowledge of public research university CFOs.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 127-141).

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Illinois State University, 1986. / Title from title page screen, viewed July 15, 2005. Dissertation Committee: William E. Piland, Robert L. Baker (co-chairs), Kenneth H. Strand, Robert A. Pringle, Normand W. Madore. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 161-170) and abstract. Also available in print.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Tennessee Technological University, 2009. / Title from title page screen (viewed on Mar. 18, 2010). Bibliography: leaves 58-61.

This paper presents a theoretical analysis of the relative use of general state subsidies (tax finance) and tuition (user charge finance) in the state financing of higher education. State universities across U.S. states are very different among themselves especially in terms of user charges, public finances, and qualities. In this study, we consider only the State Regime in which the state government decides the user charge, head tax, and expenditure, taking the minimum ability of students as given and the state university simply is treated as a part of government. The households who have a child decide to enroll their children at the university, taking head tax, tuition, and quality of university as given. The two first-order conditions of the state government’s optimization show the redistribution condition and provision condition. For a given marginal household, we show that under certain conditions, we have an interior solution of both head tax and expenditure. In the household equilibrium, the marginal household is determined at the point where their perceived quality of university is equal to the actual quality of university. We solve the overall equilibrium, in which the given ability of a marginal household for the state government is the same as the ability of the marginal household from the households’ equilibrium. Since it is impossible to derive explicit derivation of comparative statics, we compute the effects of income, wage differential between college graduates and high school graduates, distribution of student ability on head tax, expenditure, tuition, tuition/subsidy ratio, and quality of university.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Ohio University, November, 2008. / Release of full electronic text on OhioLINK has been delayed until November 30, 2009. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 151-166)

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Ohio University, November, 2008. / Title from PDF t.p. Release of full electronic text on OhioLINK has been delayed until November 30, 2009. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 151-166)

Thesis (Ed. D.)--UCLA, 2008. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 119-125).

No description available.