Interrogating Institutional Logics

Social Institutional Logic

Historically, the first sets of universities that were established were social institutions. This inclination has been maintained over the years despite the transformations in the assumption about what universities stand for. In Nigeria, where the case universities are situated, the perception of universities as social institutions informed the establishment of universities in the country. Consequently, the first 50 years (1948-1999) since the founding of university education in Nigeria were dominated by government owned universities. Since 1999, three privately owned university were licensed to operate in the country. Yet, the thinking that universities are social institutions remains and influences the ways in which Nigerian universities are designed to operate and set their objectives. For instance, given that University III is owned by the FGN, it is seen as a purely social institution. Its establishment by the FGN was to provide social support in the form of university education to Nigerian citizens. As such, the university does not charge tuition fees.

Reflecting on the consequences of the view of a university as a social institution on the university’s finances, the Dean of Social Sciences opined, “Private universities are lucky. If we have our ways here we would charge tuition fees to enable us get more money.” An academic staff who concluded her postdoctoral fellowship in South Africa

104

also complained saying, “…you need to see how easily you could get research funds in [the university where she had her postdoctoral fellowship]. You can’t compare it with what you have here.” Running as a social institution negatively impacts the university’s ability to generate the funds it requires to support research activities. It also affects how the university designs its research programs given that all of the available research fund is provided by the government through the TET Fund. Research funds sources such as the Senate Research Funds and other university based funds are not active and no fund is provided for research by private organizations and individuals.

Surprisingly, University I and University II, though privately owned, also exhibit some characteristics of social institutions. For instance, in University I, the head librarian being a member of the university’s management team, indicates that the university has programs through which “…we ensure that those who can’t afford the fees we charge are helped.” An academic staff who teaches in the Faculty of Law in University I also indicated that “…we provide some palliatives to students…if you are a student, if you bring in another student (sic) you will be given some percentage off your fees.” She went further to note that “…we have a hall for rent in the university, any staff or student that help get a customer to use it get ten percentage of the money made from it by the university.” These claims were confirmed by an administrative staff who said, “The university has a lot of programs to help the poor and less-privileged. There is a program for those who lost their bread-winners, the very poor who can’t afford private university education and those who can provide proofs that the person paying their fees lost his/her job.” Another administrative staff in University I, however, confessed that providing social services “…have ways they distort our financial plans for other things. You know here the bulk of the money we budget for are got from school fees.”

The Deans of Academic Planning in University I and University II are of the opinion that shortage in funds takes its toll on things that have to do with research as it is easy for the universities to cut back on budget for research and study materials than on other necessities, projects and plans. These include power generation, building construction and annual membership subscription to university associations, etc. The case universities do not see IR innovation as a technology that could be used to promote the programs they embark upon given the ways they used social institutional logics to

105

interpret IR innovation realities. They do not see the use of IR for free distribution of scientific knowledge to the public as part of their mandates as social institutions. Instead, IR innovation is narrowly conceptualized as something that only benefits universities through visibility and popularity in the global academic landscape.

4.5.2 Commercial Institution

In contemporary times, through consultancy, patents and copyrights, and involvement in business activities, universities have made large sums of money that have then used to support their programs. In fact, contemporary universities are beginning to operate in ways similar to commercial institutions. In Nigeria, this scenario is more pronounced in privately owned universities whose major sources of funds are derived from monies paid by students as tuition fees and from fees paid for other services they render. In the case of University I and University II, tuition fees are the primary source of funds to pay for salaries, basic amenities such as power supply, water services, and educational and academic resources required in laboratories, libraries and computer centers, among others. In University I, one of the librarians indicates that the university charges moderate library fees, which amounts to one thousand percent of what University III charges its students as library fees. The idea behind this is that University I and University II offset about seventy-five percent of their annual budget for libraries through the library fees. University III, being a government owned, derive the money it needs to off-set its annual library budget from government subvention.

University I and University II also apply the same means to derive the monies needed to provide other required services in the universities. An administrative staff in University II indicated that students’ computer registration fees are used to pay companies that provide Internet services to the university. Similarly, University I also uses computer registration fees to off-set bills accrued for Internet services. The amount charged for tuition fees and service fees in University I and University II is driven by the need to, at a minimum, break-even. An administrative staff in University II reveals that “[t]his is the only way we can survive.” Government policies, price regulation policies and students’ and staff’s union activities limit University III’s ability to apply similar means to break-even for the costs associated with services rendered to students. The head of ICT unit in the university indicates that “…some of our lecturers even criticize

106

any attempt to increase the amount paid for IT services by students. They make provocative comments in classes.”

All three case universities do not break-even irrespective of whether or not their specific conditions favour the charging of tuition and service fees. While University I and University II complain about the number of students that could afford the tuition fees they charge, University III complains about the government’s insensitivity to inflation and the effect of the government’s no-increase-in-fees policy on the university’s finances. Apart from the resulting funding issues that negatively affect IR innovation, the philosophies underlying the commercial institutional logic also impacted the case universities’ view of IR innovation. Given that the advocates of IR innovation emphasize that it should be available free of all charges, it falls short of the philosophies of commercial institutional logics that the case universities use to interpret its realities. Invariably, IR is innovated with free open source software. Training and implementation are also expected to be done freely by designated consultants. The free nature of IR innovation therefore requires that IR resources are made available to users free of charge. These conditions made IR innovation unattractive to key stakeholders in the case universities. Unfortunately, those that value the philosophies of IR innovation are not among the key stakeholders whose voices are heard loudly when it comes to IS innovation.