Case Selection and Research Design

3.4.2 Specific Objectives

(i) To examine the role of higher education in the society

(ii) To identify interconnectedness between and/or among higher education, democracy and development

(iii) To compare the role of government and private sector in financing education since independence in Tanzania and Kenya

(iv) To explain the role of government in promoting and protecting human rights where right to education is one

(v) To compare legal and institutional framework guiding higher education financing policies in Tanzania and Kenya

(vi) To explain and compare the factors for democratizing access to higher education by majority poor in Tanzania and Kenya

(vii) To identify the challenges faced by students, government and society as a whole

3.5 Research Approach

3.5.1 Case Selection and Research Design

This study employed a parallel comparative study of Tanzania and Kenya in order to understanding the extent of the impact of private financing policies in higher education in relation to the current emphasis of democratic principles of human rights. According to Skocpol and Somers (1980: 178) parallel comparativists seek above all to demonstrate that a theory similarly holds good from case to case. They went further to say that “for them differences among the cases are primarily contextual particularities against which to highlight the generality of the processes with which their theories are basically concerned.” This means that a theory is applied to cases with different characteristics (settings) and yet the outcomes

116

are similar. In addition, Detterbeck (2012: 47) says, the cases help to spell out the implications of the theory for specific settings. Using this approach is advantageous in two respects. One, when it is done well, the reader gains fuller understanding of how the theory works ‘on the ground’ to explain actual developments (Skocpol and Somers, 1980: 191). This is because deep knowledge of the contexts (cases) is provided. Two, presentation and clarification of a theory is of overriding importance in order to point out the implications of theory for specific settings (Skocpol and Somers, 1980: 191). The selection of cases and consequently research design is very important to comparative method. Klotz (2008: 43) emphasizes a correlation between case selection and research method. He further says a few cases of a particular phenomenon make a study ‘qualitative’ but a lot of cases turns it to a

‘quantitative’ analysis. In other words, the justification for a research design starts with identification of the number of cases and/or comparable cases. The fewer the number of cases in qualitative research the more comparable they become. For example, Landman (2003: 25-26) explains how difficult it is to compare many cases using qualitative method. He points two reasons out;- (a) qualitative analysis generally requires richer level of information, such as deep history of all the countries, which is often difficult to collect and synthesize; and (b) it is more difficult to draw strong inferences from these data since they cannot be subjected to statistical analysis. Before selecting cases one has to look at the level of comparison.

According to Landman (2003, 2008) there are three main levels of comparative research in political science. These include: many countries comparisons, few countries comparisons and single-country comparison. All three categories are subsumed under the broader umbrella of

‘comparative politics’. Many countries range from 20 to infinite while few countries range from 2 to 20. Since the focus of this study is two countries then it is confined in the ‘few countries’ category. A comparative study of this nature is called ‘logical methods’ by Gee (1950); ‘comparative method’ in (1983) and ‘case-oriented’ in 1987 and 1994 by Ragin.

Landman (2003, 2008) argues that studies of this nature are more intensive and less extensive since they encompass more of the nuances specific to each country. Often country is the unit of analysis then the focus tends to be on the similarities and differences among countries rather than the relationships between variables. Ragin (1987: 16-17) explains that case-oriented strategy focus on comparing cases where cases are examined as wholes (combination of characteristics). Case-oriented strategy is typically qualitative with high accords to the use of small number of cases. It employs a holistic approach to interpretive contexts. At all time,

117

comperativists use this strategy to understand (with the aid of a theory) and interpret specific outcomes in a small number of cases (p.32, 54-55). Similarly, the focus of parallel demonstration of theory is “the historical integrity of each case as a whole”- that particular nations, empires, civilizations or religions constitute relatively irreducible wholes (Norgaard, 2000: 34). Parallel comparative therefore seeks in-depth understanding of the cases. Mohr (1996: 126) explains one advantage of parallel comparative is its richness of detail provided by cases. Equally, Skocpol and Somers (1980: 177) argue that it is characteristic of all works of parallel comparative history to elaborate theoretical models before truning to historical case illustrations. For example, it allows for a demonstration of the virtues and applicability of the theory. In this study, a right based approach to financing higher education was used to demonstrate the responsibility of governments in financing higher education in a way to protect and promote human rights (including right to education). Therefore, implementation of private fincning of higher education in order to reduce the role of government in financing higher education has definite impact on the poor’s access to higher education.

The choice of cases for comparison poses another challenge to comparativist. The challenge has been referred to by various commentators as ‘selection bias¹⁵⁸’. Collier (1995: 462) says selection bias in comparative politics occurs in absence of random choice of countries for comparison. The comparativist is left with no criteria so that his/her bias is being abated. The consequence of this is for one researcher to use criteria to select cases which might not be the same criteria used by another researcher and thus whatever might be chosen by one researcher as cases displaying a range of differences might not be the same as those chosen by another researcher. It becomes serious when the choice of countries relies on values of the political outcome (Geddes, 1990; King, et al. 1994) and to some extent the use of certain historical sources (Lustick, 1996). However, there has been consensus by scholars on what has to be considered during selection of cases. And this should be guided by the research project at hand. Rustow (1968) explains that some time ago in favor of moving beyond an area studies approach, and many scholars agree that cases should be selected in response to the analytical requirements of selection of particular research projects rather than on the basis of geographical proximity that at best is often a poor substitute for the analytic differences of cases.

158 Anderson, et al. (1980: 40) explains the impact of selection bias as it makes it hard to generalize the results of a case-control study to a target population. The point put forth by Anderson, et al. focuses at generalization of results as the objective of any scientific research. They expose how selection bias can hamper such generalization.

118

Moreover, two main solutions among others have been considered by the present study during selection of cases. First, the choice of cases ought to reflect substantive knowledge of parallel cases (Laitin, 1995: 456). In order to acquire substantive knowledge the study employed qualitative inquiry and historiography so as to be able to identify a range of countries where outcomes and explanations would acquire. The second solution intended to solve the selection bias problem arising from the use of qualitative inquiry and historiography. Lustick (1996:

605) provides that the work of historians cannot be legitimately treated as unproblematic background narrative from which theoretically neutral data be elicited for the framing of problems and testing theories. The only technique to overcome this problem is to use multiple sources to arrive to a ‘mean’ account of the events and identifying the tendencies within each source to acknowledge possible sources of bias (Landman, 2008: 40). Landman’s argument acknowledges the impossibility of a research to be completely objective as commentators like Vanderstoep and Johnston (2009: 171) argue that subjectivity is with the researcher as well as the research itself. For example, the choice for a research topic is always subjective. What is normally done is to minimize subjectivity (bias) to achieving generalizeable results. Similarly, Patton (2002: 50) argues vehemently that the ideals of absolute objectivity and value-free science are impossible to attain in practice and are of questionable desirability in the first place since they ignore the intrinsically social nature and human purposes of research.

Suggestively, social nature and human purposes of research are more subjective than objective. He went further to say any inquiry (be it qualitative or quantitative) seek honest, meaningful, credible, and empirically supported findings i.e. a research strategy requires that investigator adopt a stance of neutrality with regard to the phenomenon under study.

Therefore, the study chose Tanzania and Kenya as country case studies based on three specific differences (to be explained after the level of analysis). The study went further to specify the level of analysis. In order to specify the level of analysis one has to look at theoretical propositions. Hay (1995, 2002) argues that the level of analysis is looked at based on the logic of ‘structure-agency’ and the problem of politics. From her, two levels are identified. These are macro-level and micro-level. Macro-level focuses on group of individuals, structures of power, social classes, economic processes, and interaction of states.

On the other hand, micro-level focuses on activity of individuals such as activists, protest movements, respondents in mass survey, etc. According to Landman (2003) macro-level

119

analysts believe that the world of politics is shaped by the unstoppable processes of

‘agentless-structures’ while micro-level analysts believe that the world of politics is shaped by the actions of ‘structureless agents’. One can argue here that, micro-level analysis focus on activities done by individuals and yet bring political changes. These activities are not conducted through formal structures like political parties or the state. For instance, revolutions and coup de tat.

On the other side, macro-level analysis focuses on activities of group of individual in various forms of interest articulation and aggregations. Similarly, Luebbert (1991) claims that the type of regime that emerged in inter-war Europe had in no way connected ‘leadership and meaningful choice’ (p.306), but were determined structurally by mass material interests, social classes and political parties. These activities are conducted through formal structures like political parties and the parliament. Examples of such activities are like demand for democratic government, demand for equal treatment of people in the society, demand for equitable distribution of resources, and the like. However, both levels focus on individuals inside or outside the groups. The main difference between the two levels is that individual activities in micro-level do not follow the formal structures while the activities in macro-level do follow formal structures. In support of this, Popkin (1979) argues that revolutionary movements are best understood by focusing on the preferences and actions of individual peasants. And thus revolutionary movements occurred as a result of individual peasants’

dissatisfaction on new taxation system.

The unit of analysis of this study is in two levels. They include: the country level and the individual level. It is the country level when the study focuses on governments as sole determinants of access to higher education through policy formulation and implementation.

The construction of legal and institutional infrastructure for implementation of the loans scheme, for instance, is exclusively carried out by government. Moreover, governments provide funds for loans disbursement. At the individual level the study focuses on students and/or their parents as respondents to policy implementation. They are the ones who are affected either positively or negatively by the implementation of private financing in higher education. At country level the study selects Tanzania and Kenya. This is due to the following three main differences. These are: political ideology, ethnicity and legal framework governing

120

financing of higher education. Political ideology under this study refers to a belief which supports economic system. And thus, it shapes government decisions and policies towards financing higher education. At independence, Tanzania adopted ‘ujamaa’ – socialist ideology while Kenya chose ‘capitalist ideology’ – disguised in African socialism (in the sessional Paper No. 10 of 1965).

Several criticisms were levelled against the Afican socialism adopted by the Kenyan government through sessional Paper No. 10. For example, Aluned Mohiddin said the paper was neither African nor socialistic but a masterpiece of classical capitalism (Baker, 340).

Others went further to delineate particular features of capitalism in the ‘African socialism’ of Kenya. Chipembere (1976) listed seven features of capitalism included in the Kenya African socialism. These include: (a) African socialism must be flexible and adaptable to modern conditions; (b) It calls for state controls of ownership but rejects state ownership of the resources; (c) it welcomes foreign investment; (d) accumulation of savings and inflow of private capital should not be discouraged, nor large-scale production prohibited; (e) entrerprises owned by the state as well as jointly owned by state and the private investors are methods of diffusing wealth, since whatever owned by the state belongs to all; (f) co-operatives will be encouraged but with increased discipline and training; (h) rapid economic growth and social progress for all citizens. A thourough examination of these feautes show that Kenya followed capitalism and not socialism. A contrast is taken from Tanzania where

‘Ujamaa’ was adopted. With Ujamaa, Arusha Declaration was drawn in 1967. Arusha Declaration included a policy of self-reliance which not only legimitized government controls of major means of production but also one party system. In effect, all private banks were nationalized within twenty-four hours of the publication of the Arusha Declaration (Nyerere, 1977:1). It provides clear features socialist society. However, Ujamaa still exists in the Tanzania Constitution of 1977 (which is currently in use) despite the adoption of liberalization policies since 1980s.

Therefore, based on these fundamental differences which laid a foundation of the economy in Kenya and Tanzania, one may argue that the two governments differ in their ways of decision/policy making and implementation. For example, the government of Kenya introduced University Students Loans Scheme (USLS) since 1974. This is contributed but not

121

limited to the fact that Kenya has allowed private investment since independence (hence private financing is something obvious). This is contrary to Tanzania where the socialist foundations made it very difficult to introduce loans scheme even after liberalization policies in 1980s. The loans scheme was introduced in 1990s (after about sixteen years of implementing loans scheme in Kenya). Ethnicity is another point of diference. Ethnicity in Kenya has ever had negative impact on access to higher education. Access to education in Kenya is unequal. Alwy and Schech (2004: 266) explain the factors contributing inequalities in accessing education in Kenya to include; enrolment ratios, number of schools and number of qualified teachers. Examples of inequality to accessing higher education along ethnic lines have been explained elsewhere in this study. In addition, Oino and Kioli (2014:727) demonstrate that “students from North and North Eastern region who qualifies to public universities are 1% combine compared to other regines like Nairobi and Central Kenya”. The last point of differentiation is the legal framework governing provision and financing of higher education. Kenya has a very rigorous legal framework towards provision and financing of higher education. The Constitution of Kenya (2010) which has been in use since April 2013 after the general elections; provides for right to education under Article 43(f). Again, Higher Education Loans Board Act, 1995 was enacted to effectively implement private financing policy of higher education. It aimed to provide loans to students from low income families who would otherwise be denied access to commercialized higher education. In contrast, Higher Education Student’s Loans Scheme Act was enacted in 2004.

After selection of countries the researcher went on to select universities where students (individual level) are found. A set of criteria was applied too. These are nature of provider of service (education)¹⁵⁹, longevity of service operation (at least 25 years of operation)¹⁶⁰, number of annual enrolment, universities with accreditation, or full registration from country’s accreditation board (Commission for higher education). After the application of those criteria the following list of universities qualified. Out of 33 universities and university colleges in Tanzania University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM) and the Open University of Tanzania (OUT) were qualified sample of public universities; and Saint Augustine University

159 Basing on provision of university education by private or public the researcher was able to evaluate unit costs of studying in either public or private. she scrutinized tuition fee, other charges, and other education expenses which are not included in university education costs and there are loans for such. Unit costs are a determinant factor to accessing university education. Moreover, studying in private universities is more expensive than studying in public universities.

160 The rationale behind the twenty-five (25) year time frame is to examine properly access to higher education before and after the introduction of private financing.

122

of Tanzania (SAUT) qualified sample of private universities. On the other hand, out of 51 universities and university colleges in Kenya, Kenyatta University (KU) was qualified sample of public universities; and Catholic University of Eastern Africa (CUEA) and Daystar University were qualified sample of private universities.

It is important to point out that the choice of two public universities in Tanzania and two private universities in Kenya was based on two principles. One, private financing and loans scheme started earlier in Kenya (i.e. 1995) than in Tanzania (i.e. 2005). Since the study aimed to evaluating the extent of impact of private financing in Tanzania and Kenya then the more time to implementation the more the impact exhibit. Besides, the true feature of private financing is private universities (there are no subsidies and only a small number of students access government loans, especially in Kenya). The difference between a student in public university and private university in terms of government financial facility is very cognizant.

Two, the ability of these universities to reach a wider-community. For example, Daystar was the first university in Kenya to establish a campus in Mombasa in 1989. CUEA operates in eight (8) countries such as Tanzania, Kenya, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Malawi, Uganda, and Zambia. However, the study exclusively dealt with CUEA Kenya. In Tanzania, UDSM and OUT are the two major universities that have for a long time admitted students from all over the country. To its advantage, OUT has a branch in all regions of Tanzania making it easier for all communities to participate. Again, it is the first most university to affiliate to virtue education through African Virtue University (AVU).