As shown in sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2, attempts have been made to address diversity issues by means of various strategies. However, it has been argued that since the theoretical foundations of these approaches are largely rooted within the racial, ethnic, and cultural majority–minority and ability-disability paradigms, they are not sufficiently comprehensive to adequately address multifaceted within-country diversity issues relating to indigenous social groups which have displayed sustained antagonistic relationships attributed to ethnic, linguistic, and religious differences in African countries (Museus &Harris 2010: 30; Burgess 2007: 206; Abdi & Cleghorn 2005: 19).
Students of a country are often incorrectly considered in terms of homogeneous groups whilst their socio-cultural differences are overlooked. Differences are considered insignificant with respect to their influence on educational success. Cross (2004: 407) contends that a significant difference is observed between students from the same
19
country and student cohorts from various countries. In a multicultural country where students from diverse ethnic, linguistic and religious backgrounds receive higher education, students’ experiences could be more complex and require strategies that transcend the multicultural approach.
Since the current multicultural approach emphasises the facilitation of learning opportunities for non-dominant students that equal those of the majority student population, it does not fully address the multifaceted diversity issues of students. The versatile diversity issues from a within-country perspective could be viewed in terms of geo-social and socio-historical factors. The geo-social factor relates to a situation where students receive their pre-university education within their cultural context, most probably in their mother tongues, and live in a geographically demarcated region which by and large houses a culturally homogeneous community. In such a situation, students would lack adequate cross-cultural education opportunities which would help them to cope with diversity issues and succeed in a diverse higher education environment (Fries-Britt et al. 2010: 183; Taylor, Peplau & Sears 2006: 102). The socio-historical factor would relate to a situation in which students might be stereotypical in their views of others which could be attributed to conflicting historical relationships. This would cause ethnic, linguistic and religious based tension among students which could negatively affect teaching and learning processes. The complexity of diversity issues would transcend the simplistic view that they would be solved if equal learning opportunities are given to the non-dominant group. All groups may equally miss educational opportunities that the social engagement could offer if constructive interaction amongst diverse groups does not take place.
When inter-group student interaction and collaborative learning activities are obstructed, educational institutions are expected to intervene through institutional management strategies (Fries-Britt et al. 2010: 184). In this regard Harper and Quaye (2009: 2) argue that “educators and administrators must be strategic and intentional about fostering conditions that compel students to make the most of college, both inside and outside the classroom”.
20
In most of the reviewed studies on diversity (see section 1.2.4.4), attention was not paid to the role of management strategies at institutions to promote inter-group understanding and mutual trust through service provisions and teaching and learning management processes. This study aims at explaining the relationship between diversity management processes and the cross-border learning development of students across ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity variables obtained from data from three Ethiopian universities.
Ethiopia is a country of diverse cultures and ethnic groups and is considered a multicultural country. Ambissa (2010: 23) contends that “diversity along ethnic, linguistic, religious and many other markers is the reality of Ethiopian societies”. There are more than eighty six ethnic communities which are referred to as nations, nationalities and peoples in the Constitution of the country (Tronvoll 2000: 7; FDRE 1995: 75). These ethnic nationalities have recorded both peaceful co-existence and inter-group conflict scenarios ever since the early times to the present. Identity based repression and conflicts have been part of their collective history (Balsvik 2007: 37-38; Tjeldvoll, Welle-Strand & Bento 2005: 62). In the Ethiopian political context, power has been in the hands of the “Semitic speaking population” particularly the Amhara and the Tigrean ethnic groups (Marcus 1994: 219). The present government is designated as a Tigrean government (Balsvik 2007: 116).
In the Ethiopian context, the concepts “nation”, “nationality” and “ethnic group” often synonymously signify the tribal or national origin of a person (FDRE Population Census Commission, Central Statistical Agency (CSA 2010: 11). They designate a society which claims itself as a culturally and ethnically distinct people. People are delimited within a geo-social area by the provision of the present Constitution Article 46.2 which states that regional “states shall be delimited on the basis of the settlement patterns, language, identity and consent of the people concerned” (FDRE 1995: 102). Though not explicitly stated, the concept ‘identity’ is likely to refer to identity indicators such as, ethnicity, language and religion (see Abera 2009: 103; Afework 2009: 15). This might imply that Ethiopian people base their objectives along ethnic and/or religious lines (Abebe &
21
Pausewang 1994: 32). This might be the cause for the present government structuring itself into an ethnic based federal state (FMOE 2010: 10).
The above socio-cultural realities also manifest themselves at Ethiopian higher education institutions where students with diverse cultural backgrounds of the country come together for tertiary education. The Ethiopian Higher Education Proclamation (FDRE 2003: 4976-5044), in an attempt to respond to the social diversity issue, stipulates that one of the aims of higher education is to expand higher education services that are free from any form of discrimination on grounds of race, religion, sex, politics and other grounds, and that institutions are expected to develop and disseminate the culture of respect, tolerance and living together. Thus, each higher institution is expected to align its diversity related institutional policies, rules and regulations and management strategies with these national educational objectives of developing peaceful co-existence (A detailed discussion is provided in sections 2.2.3.3.1; 2.2.3.3.2 and 2.2.3.3.3).