ABSTRACT

STRENGTHS AND GAPS OF A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR

DIFFERENTIATING PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM OF
ETHIOPIA. A CRITICAL REVIEW

BY

Abeje Gudeta Godano

Ass. Prof; Jigijga University and PhD scholar in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies;
Haramaya University; Ethiopia

Reviewer contact address: Email: [email protected]

The main objective of this document review is to critically examine the strong and weak sides of
the document titled as Differentiating the Higher Education System of Ethiopia Discussion Paper
for Public Universities. Conceptual Framework. For the success of this aim, the reviewer used
detailed critical reading strategy to examine and list out the strong and weak sides of this
framework document. As the result; by doing so; the reviewer came up with some findings that
were believed to be positive and limitations of the differentiation framework document. Hence
based on the review finding; the key concerns were the idea of differentiation relevance and
timeliness, presence of clearly stated objective, proper conceptualization of the term
differentiation, well introduced History of EHS and the role of differentiation is clearly stated as
good points of the differentiation framework. Besides to this, Reviewer proved some of the
limitations of the differentiation frame work document as it lacks executive summary, acronyms,
Abbreviations, there exist dichotomy between introduction and background, there is clear lack of
citation of sources, tendency of generalization of ideas, lacks properly used methodology,
underestimates critical problem of social and political issues, gaps in relation to analysising
experiences of countries, and gaps related with the involvement of private Higher education
institutions. Finally, in addition to above mentioned findings, the reviewer also included in the
review report my own conclusion and personal reflections based on the understanding obtained
from the review.
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BFA Bachelor of fine arts

CPD Continuing Professional Development
FGD Focused group Discussion
HE Higher education
HEI Higher education Intuitions
HESC Higher education Strategic Center
EHS Higher education System
HLI Higher Learning Institutions
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IoE Institute of education
MoE Ministry of Education
MoSHE Ministry of Science and Higher education
PSE Post Secondary education
SDG Sustainable development goal
TVET Technical and Vocational Education
UAS University of Applied Science
UK United Kingdom
UN United nation
USA United State of America
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................II
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................III
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................1
2. Background................................................................................................................................2
3. Objectives of the review............................................................................................................3
3.1 General objective.....................................................................................................................3
3.2 Specific objectives...................................................................................................................3
4. Discussion and presentation of the major findings of the review..............................................3
5.1 Strong points of the differentiation document....................................................................4
The following are some of the strong points that are identified in this review report...................4
5.2 Limitations of the differentiation framework document....................................................7
5. Conclusion...............................................................................................................................12
6. Reflection.................................................................................................................................13
7. References................................................................................................................................16
 1. INTRODUCTION

This framework document review task aimed at critical examination of discussion paper on
Differentiating the Public Higher Education System of Ethiopia; produced by HERQA & MoSHE
(2019).Throughout this document review report; the reviewer produced this report in a manner
that address and includes introduction, background, general and specific objectives of the review.
Besides, this review report consists of the discussion of strong and weak sides of the
differentiation policy framework. Moreover, this review report also encompasses; the conclusion
made based on the review findings. In addition to this, the reviewer further forwarded personal
reflection based on the reviewers understanding and findings of the review. Finally; in all these
efforts; to make the discussion and presentation of the review report standardized; the reviewer
attempted to support the discussions made in line with the existing literature as well. Hence,
throughout reading this review report, I hope; the reader will enjoy the details of the issues
addressed in the document.
 2

2. BACKGROUND
Ethiopia is moving very rapidly from elite towards a mass public higher education system. In
implementation of this; where innovation is highly centralized which makes local
responsiveness of universities difficult (Kate Ashcroft, 2010). In Ethiopia, like other
developing countries; working on the expansion of higher education is aimed to satisfy
the socio, economic and political demand of its citizen. In the expansion; there are
considerable challenges that are related with teaching quality, funding, professionalized
leadership, staff shortages, institutional structure and mission (Kate Ashcroft, 2010).
Because of this, hence, most of higher education institutions are criticized for their lack of
good governance, quality of teaching, assessment, competitiveness, innovation and
research. For Ethiopia to change the life of its citizens; the role of higher education is
paramount significant and the move towards expansion and development of Higher
education institution is directly associated with this motives.

In contemporary public higher education of Ethiopia; the former Ministry of Science and
Higher Education (MoSHE); though it is merged recently with MoE; intended to
overcome such strategic challenges locally, nationally and globally. As the result,
differentiation of public higher education institution has been planed as core process and
change initiative that is undergoing in public higher education institution since the last
three year. Though, the aim of this review is not examining the types of universities
created, thus, following this framework of differentiation, Ethiopian Higher education
Institution has be classified in to three main categorization like Research Universities,
Universities of Applied Science and Comprehensive Universities. Hence, the purpose of
this review paper is to critically examine the weakness and strong sides of the
differentiation framework document produced by HERQ and MoSHE (2019) entitled as
Differentiating the Higher Education System of Ethiopia. Discussion Paper for Public
Universities. Finally, the review provided personal reflection on the framework intended
for differentiating the Public Higher education system of Ethiopia.
 3

3. OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW

This review report conducted on differentiating the Public Higher Education System of
Ethiopia has two objectives. These were both the general and specific objectives. They are
stated under as follows;

3.1 General objective

The main objective of this review task was to critically examine the discussion paper called
Differentiating the Higher Education System of Ethiopia which is prepared for Public
Universities that is developed by HERQ and MoSHE (2019).

3.2 Specific objectives

The following were the specific objectives of this review task. Thus, it is to

 distinguish strong sides of the differentiation framework document

 identify the weak sides of the differentiation framework document
 give reflection on the limitation on the intended differentiation framework document

4. DISCUSSION AND PRESENTATION OF THE MAJOR FINDINGS OF

THE REVIEW

In this part of the review; the reviewer discussed and presented the major review findings that
were related with the differentiation framework document. Accordingly, the upcoming contents
are devoted to the discussion of good points and weak sides of the document as per the review
conducted.
 4

5.1 Strong points of the differentiation document

The following are some of the strong points that are identified in this review report.

Timeliness and relevance of differentiation is elaborated

Since knowledge economy is taking strong shape in Ethiopia and entire globe; producing
competent and productive young graduates at different levels of higher education is
unquestionable. Thus, the adoption of the differentiation policy is relevant and timely issue.
As many research findings have shown positive correlation between differentiation and
productivity of higher education elsewhere; it is reasonable to classify and diversify
Ethiopian Public University in to different categorization. Because I believe all universities
in Ethiopia are not equal in their capacity of teaching, researching and community service
activities. From our practical observation; almost all Ethiopian Public higher education
institutions localize themselves than globalizing in connection with staff composition,
governance, leadership and deployment of teaching staff. From this; as it is mentioned; it is
believable that; differentiation will encourage universities for better and strong competition.
Hence, the issue of differentiation is relevant, timely and urgent from the view point of
global and national context.

The objectives of differentiation is well stated

The reviewer also tried to check the objective of the document. The general objective of the study
is well presented and detailed but highly extended and elaborates ever point of the intended
differentiation concept. It is as presented below;

The general objective of the study is to differentiate the Ethiopian Higher

Education system both vertically and horizontally so that universities in the
country are able to identify their strengths and focus their attention of teaching
and research on specific, relevant and significant disciplines at different levels
of qualification and provide client-oriented quality education, with their own
specific missions and profiles.
 5

Specific objectives stated are all seems well stated but over ambitious. At least theoretically; all
Universities have their own mission and vision statements though they do have their own
limitations while executing their mission and vision. Related with institutional autonomy; MoE
(1994); educational institutions will be autonomous in their internal administration, designing and
implementing of education and training programs with an overall coordination and democratic
leadership by boards or committees consisting of members from the community (society),
development and research institutions, teachers and students. Hence, some of the specific
objectives are the reappearance of the Education and Training Policy. Besides to the policy
document; Frans van Vught (2007) in his study of Diversity and Differentiation in Higher
Education Systems stated that the more autonomy higher education institutions acquire; the more
they will intend to engage in this competition for reputation/excellence.
 6

Proper conceptualization of differentiation is done

The other positive development in the document is the concept of differentiation is well defined
by supporting with wide literature review. Besides importance and benefits of higher education
differentiation has been mentioned and over stated in the framework document in many
dimensions as it improves competition, internationalization, efficiency, effectiveness,
employment and quality of education , helps focusing on a specific areas, increase diversities of
universities and programs, helps the coming of new specialization and academic programs,
improves proper utilization of Public fund, improves transparency, improves good governance, it
improves nation building through quality research and teaching, it increase heterogeneity in
client and program, specialization, strategy of universities and helps to respond to the wider
labor market orientation.
Story of Ethiopian Higher education system well presented
In the differentiation framework document; Ethiopian university story is well addressed since the
inauguration of the first University. This indicated great attention was given to sector after 1995
in terms of expansion staring from primary to territory education. Related with the benefits of HE
in Ethiopia; centers of excellence were established focusing on health, medicine, agriculture,
liberal arts and engineering. The document recognized almost all benefits of the expansion of
higher education institutions in the country from inception to present.
Importance’s of differentiation is explained
In the differentiation framework document, why differentiation is need is clearly discussed in the
document for the nation, and institution values of differentiation is extremely explained and state.
The writers stated as it has several values in improving productivity, competiveness, and
sustainability in the system of higher education in order to respond to the diverse needs locally,
nationally and globally.
 7

5.2 Limitations of the differentiation framework document

The frame work document of differentiation has the following limitations. They are discussed as
presented below.
Lacks executive summary, acronyms and abbreviations

The first limitation of the document goes to presentation of the preliminary pages. The reviewer
tried to look in to the preliminary pages of the document. Though the topic, institutional
affiliation and table of contents are well structured as it appeared in the main text of the document
with good language, formatting and edition quality; there are some important points which the
document producers not realized and considered. Since the document is public document; other
stakeholders and partners are expected to review and read document produced at the eve of social,
economic and political reform initiated in the country. Hence, it lacks executive summary,
acronyms and abbreviation used in the text and were not well defined in a manner that stranger to
the Ethiopian Higher education system can understand it easily. For instance, the authors never
defined meaning of UAS, HEI, MoE, HESC, TVET, HLIs, HE, FGD, ICT, UN, UK, USA,SDG,
PSE, TIE, CPD, BFA and MoSHE as acronyms and abbreviation because properly defined; it may
add some value to the quality of the document.

Lacks clarity about background and introduction

The second issue as limitation of this document review is; the authors discussed background as
introduction because it looks not an introduction. Background and introduction are two quit
different conceptualizations though they share some common things. The point discussed as
introduction talks on the global and local conditions of higher education system which is more
tends to background than introduction. As my experience is concerned; the introduction part of
any paper has to give information about what is intended and included in the document as
structural issue. For me; reviewing literature to write introduction is not suggested but
background.
 8

It has gap related with citation of materials

The third limitation is ideas were not properly cited or acknowledged. For instance; in Africa in
general and Ethiopia in particular, the expansion in enrolment is one of the highest in the world.
The higher education gross enrollment rate in Ethiopia is 12.3% (MoSHE); Ethiopian higher
education system is characterized by replication of the old ones in terms of their curriculum,
teaching method, materials, content, department, and colleges (homogeneity or isomorphism
issues).The higher homogeneity leads to decreased levels of diversity and creativity among
universities. In higher education system of Ethiopia; lack of heterogeneity, poor consideration of

national, international development and changes are problems. For these ideas; sources were not
properly acknowledged because simply it says MoSHE. Which MoSHE? Unknown source?
Thus, in the document there is no evidence that confirms all these arguments.

It has generalization problem

In addition to the citation limitation; MoSHE (2019) document generalized that; all Ethiopian
higher education institutions are homogeneous and characterized by less responsiveness to the
diverse needs of the labor market, less client-oriented, ineffective, lack of innovativeness and a
tendency of conservatism, lack of specific mission, imitating the mission and vision of senior
universities as perfect and right way of doing, lack of dynamism nationally and internationally,
conservative professionalism, resistant to emergency of new academic discipline. They do not
open up new fields of study that address the changing needs of society, industry, and the
economy. How real this issues is in the Ethiopian higher education system? What empirical
evidence they have? Which study confirmed this? Very questionable? Offer course; I share some
of the points that are raised as limitation of the higher education system of Ethiopia. How all
higher education institutions in the country are considered as similar in all their characters? It
seems over exaggeration of the problem. I knew significant number of Universities that have their
own mission, vision, and focus of specialization that makes them very unique from others. For
instance, Addis Ababa Science and Technology University, Adam Science and Technology
University, Haramaya University even highly focusing on Agricultural education, Bahir Dar
University focusing on Maritime Engineering and Addis Ababa University has a number of
 9

institutes and colleges with their researching and teaching focus. Therefore, this issue needs
further re-examination and investigation at least to balance the existing reality at the ground.

Lacks clear methodology employed

The document has serious problem related with the method of the study. So where is the
Methodology? If this document is produced by the application of scientific procedures and
approach as they said it a study; it has to include at least the methodology employed to collect
data, identify partners, number of intuitions/organization involved and professional associations,
private and international agencies involved in the due process of conducting this study. Only
public higher education institutions and concerned ministries of education (MOSHE, MoE,
HERQA and HESC) are their exclusive partners for conducting the study. The methodology is not
completely shown and used in the study document. This is because every concerned higher
education institutions, whether private/state/public owned higher education institutions has to take
part in the development of this document. Genuinely speaking; those who studied this
differentiation study; they under estimated the methodological aspect of the study to conduct this
important national study. Simply they raised the issue of data collection tools, data collection,
analysis, and reporting as mandates given for higher education institutions in their respective
organizations.

Critical social and political challenges were underestimated

In addition, though the benefit of Higher Education System expansion is addressed properly; the
document never recognized what social and political challenges the expansion of universities
resulted in the country. The challenge is not articulate in a very clear manner like social crisis,
and ethnic based clashes that create serious problems on the countries solidarity and unity because
Universities and their leaders were not free from the social burden around which they operate.
MoE (2018), after the adoption of the constitution in 1995; endorsed federal system which
recognizes unity in diversity. Nations, Nationalities and Peoples were exercising their political,
cultural and linguistic rights. However, while universities have exercised to promote diversity,
none of this universities emphasized on unity for nation building.
 10

Gap in relation to analyzing the experience of countries

As this review task is concerned; the experience of other countries and the existing research
findings on the issue of differentiation is well presented in a way it helps the differentiation
intended in Ethiopia. In the discussed of experience; fourteen (14) different countries experience
was presented. But it is analyzed as thirteen (13) countries which is mistaken. Out of this; four
(4) of them are from African countries (Ghana, Egypt, Tanzania, and South Africa). From the
complied experience, almost all countries applied vertical and horizontal differentiation models
were employed to improve the higher education system in their respective countries. MoE (2018)
task visit was conduct by a team of expertise and professionals who developed the broader
education development road map of Ethiopia.

Accordingly; they suggested the Vietnam and Malaysian experience for higher education sector
of Ethiopia as model to differentiation. In the differentiation document, Vietnam and Malaysian
case is not properly acknowledge and presented with the experience of other counties. To greater
degree, the Ethiopian differentiation adopted is more tends to the Canada, France, US, China and
Germany model. I think this may be appropriate in countries and societies where there is better
democratization, decentralization power, transparency, autonomous, resource, strong research and
innovation culture. So, the success of the model may be questionable. In the document; the
implementation implication of differentiation is identified with the assumption that the higher
education sector in the country lacks distinction across the different higher learning institutions in
terms of mission, course delivery, management, etc. But, the differentiation implication assumed
is not supported in the curriculum, assessment and staffing of higher education. The model to be
adopted is both vertical and horizontal differentiation, the curriculum (harmonized curriculum
which is now at operation), content, mission, programs and other profile should have unique
characteristic. The document lacks in showing all the necessary implication of the differentiation
initiated.
 11

Gaps in relation to the involvement and inclusiveness

Finally, as per the document, the models of differentiation to be adopted as integrated, vertical,
horizontal, regulatory, cost effective, and egalitarian (research Universities, Comprehensive
Universities, and Universities of Applied Science, College of Liberal Arts, and Colleges of Fine
Art). According to egalitarian assumption; it satisfies the needs of all citizens at the same time
equally. It is also to mean all higher education providers in the country both public and private
work in a systemic framework of partnership and alignment. But the designing of the document
was conducted out of the involvement and participation of private higher education institutions.
The framework is about Public higher education institutions exclusively while somewhere in the
document; it is presented as both private and public universities. If so; why the private university
colleges not participated in the whole process of the study.
 12

5. CONCLUSION

This document review is conducted on differentiating the public higher education system of
Ethiopia. The purpose is to identify strong sides and weak of the framework document. In this
review, the findings indicate; the connection between the intended differentiation and Ethiopian
Education Development Road Map. Based on the findings, the reviewer concluded that the issue
of differentiation is timely and relevant for both public and private higher education system. At
this point; not only for current situation; the emergence of discussions on rankings, classification,
diversification and differentiation based on mission and vision are concepts that appear to remain
relevant in future contexts of higher education policy making. Further; for better understanding of
these concepts; more systematic and empirical investigations will be crucial in order to allow
designing effective policies and successful institutional management strategies in higher education.
This is because it is possible to say no question about the importance of differentiation for Ethiopian
higher education system. The review findings show all public universities are considered as
isomorphic in their characteristics which is a little bit exaggerated. This is because there exists
peculiarities in some of higher education institutions. From the view point of mission; all higher
education institutions are given mission/mandate like teaching, researching and community
service from the center. For many reasons; universities are advised to avoid isomorphism; each
university could have their own right to development their mission statements. The conclusion
shows that; the differentiation document has problem of a study methodology and even not
presented at all. The harmonized curriculum which is already in use has to be reconsidered that
previously encourages coercive isomorphism in higher education. In the document ; the reviewer
realized that the differentiation document give high credit to market driven, competitive,
commercialization and commoditization of the higher education service in order to improve
teaching, research and community service to reduce the public funding and support to higher
education system.
 13

6. REFLECTION

Education Development Road Map (MoE, 2018) clearly suggested adoption of differentiation in
to higher education system. The assumption for differentiated system is to promote institutional
quality, competitiveness, accountability and sustainability. But the adoption of differentiation
alone is not enough for sustainable higher education transformation. In higher education system
structural reform; the role of private higher education institutions is not to be underestimated. I
suggest individual private colleges and universities in the state which are degree-granting have to be
involved in program of differentiation. Besides to the structural issues; the concept of differentiation
has to be clearly defined and it has a kind of definitional problem because it is considered as one
concept with diversification. But author Frans VanVought(2007);defined differentiation and
diversity differently. Diversity is a term indicating a variety of entities within system while
differentiation is a process in which new entities in a system emerge. In another way; diversity refers
to the variety of the entities at a specific point in time while differentiation denotes a dynamic process.

In Ethiopia higher education; though the presence of homogeneity/isomorphism in mission,

curriculum, faculties, colleges, institutes, field of studies and programs is unquestionable; what
contributed to this is the question we have to raise. Though it needs researching;
isomorphism/homogeneity as common feature of higher education in Ethiopia is most probably
because of curriculum harmonization of government in a very coercive manner. As MoSHE
(2018);all public higher education institutions implement and run similar academic
characteristics. The finding from the document indicates; the cause of isomorphism as the
universities failure. From the perspectives of the reviewer’; it is the failure of harmonized
curriculum in the country. As to reviewers understanding; for differentiation, it is not simple
assignment to the state, policy makers and implementers to avoid the development of isomorphic
characteristics. This is because differentiation needs strong commitment in order to materialize
the policy. Many scholars argue on the practice of differentiation and diversification policy in
higher education system. They argue that institutional isomorphism/homogeneity is difficult to
avoid. For instance, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) discussed the institutional dimension of why
isomorphism in organizations? From this perspective of institutional isomorphism; in order to
survive; organizations have to adapt to the existing situation and pressures of other organizations
 14

in their environment. These adaptation processes tend to lead to isomorphism since organizations
react more or less similarly to uniform environmental conditions. Hence, isomorphism is a
constraining process that forces organizations to be similar to other organizations that face the
same set of environmental conditions. To minimize isomorphism in higher education system,
other scholars suggested the way ford. For instance, Bartelse and Van Vought (2007) stated that;
in order to create higher levels of heterogeneity in higher education; there is need to develop
typologies of higher education institutions. In these typologies (classifications); the diversity of
institutional missions and profiles should be made transparent offering the different stakeholders a
better understanding of the specific ambitions and performances of the various types of higher
education institutions.

To make differentiation effective; the document has to show the impact of the differentiation
policy on the quality enhancement of institutions. But in this regard, the document never said
anything. Besides differentiation study framework document did not examined the relationship
between differentiation, quality assurance and higher education curriculum. As the review of
literature on the relationship between higher education differentiation and quality enhancement;
there is a debate. Njuguna N. George S. and George A (2008); in higher education systems; it is
evident that there is a natural tension between differentiation and quality. This is because the more
differentiated the system of higher education; the more likely that quality will be affected
negatively unless detailed planning has gone into the process of differentiation. So; how MoE and
HERQA evaluate its differentiation policy for the issue of quality enhancement and curriculum is
a question?. As practitioner in the higher education; a key in the planning process is the
development of the necessary human resources and physical infrastructure. A second element that
could create tension between differentiation and quality is that of quality assurance through
regulatory mechanisms is also a matter. Further, Njuguna N. George S. and George A (2008);
more differentiated a system is; the more competences it will demand from its quality
assurance/regulatory agencies. But given that most quality assurance/regulatory agencies we have
still struggling to find their footing; if they exist at all, a case can be made for matching the rate of
differentiation with the rate at which the quality assurance/regulatory agencies acquire the
requisite competences. To cope up with the new strategy; to respond to this argumentation, MoE
and HEQRA, policy makers and implementers (Universities) have to carefully examine and re
examine their capacity in terms of physical and human resource to the materialization of higher
 15

education differentiation because the argument directly fit for the present Ethiopian higher
education system quality enhancement practice.

Since 2018; Ethiopia is under deep socio, economic and political reform. As this political reform
is concerned; it is illustrated by an attempt to adopt the Neo - Liberal ideology and policy as one
of reform area of the state. Like its impact on economy and political arena; its impact on
education in general and higher education system in particular is one to mention a few. Coffey
(2001) explained the institutional differentiation, diversity, effectiveness and educational choice
are very important characteristics that are inflicted by the Neo - Liberal ideology by creating
competitive policy environment in the higher education system. From experience of other
countries; the implementation of Neo-Liberal policy in the higher education system in the form of
institutional differentiation has radically changed higher education sector. This is proved by many
research findings in Australia and New Zealand (Marginson, 2004), North and South America (Torres
& Schugurensky, 2002) universities. In a case of Ethiopia, the adoption of the Neo- Liberal
ideology and policy is important opportunity to take advantage of differentiation of higher
education institutions by contextualizing in to the specific conditions within which the country
has led to a corresponding particular series of neo liberal materializations. From the reviewers
view point; if differentiation is Neo- Liberal education policy practice; commercialization,
commoditization, bartering, privatization, competitiveness and entrepreneurship is must in higher
education system. Hence, for proper differentiation; it is must for the state and universities to
redefine teaching, research and community service because they are core tasks that are be
commercialized, commoditization and sold in higher education institutions.
 16

7. REFERENCES

Coffey, A. 2001. Education and Social Change (Maiden head, Open University Press).

DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review48, pp. 147-60.

Frans van Vught 2007. Diversity and Differentiation in Higher Education Systems. Key-note
speech at the conference. ‘Higher Education in the 21st Century – Diversity of Missions’. Dublin

Kate Ashcroft2010.Ethiopia: Dilemmas of higher education Massification. University World

News. Africa
Marginson, Simon. 2004. Competition and Markets in Higher Education: a'glonacal'analysis.
Policy Futures in Education. 2. 175–244. 10.2304/pfie.2004.2.2.2

MoE 1994. Education and Training Policy. Federal Democratic Republic Government of
Ethiopia.Addis Ababa

MoE 2018. Ethiopian Education Development Road map. An integrated Executive Summary.
Draft for Discussion. Education Strategy Center (ESC). Addis Ababa

Njuguna N. George S. and George A.2008.Differentiation and Articulationin Tertiary Education

Systems. A Study of Twelve African Countries. World Bank working paper.
N o. 1 4 5

Torres, C.A., Schugurensky, D. 2002. The political economy of higher education in the era of neoliberal
globalization: Latin America in comparative perspective. Higher Education 43, 429–455
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015292413037
 17

About author

Abeje Gudeta Godano is man born in Benishangulgumz National and Regional State, Metekele
Administrative zone, Bullen Woreda; in local place called Eganebo and Ekontie. He attended his
Primary first cycle school at Eganebo and Ekontie recently named as Dobe primary school.
Besides, he attained his Primary Secondary cycle in Bullen Primary and Junior school. After he
completed his Primary and Junior school; he joined the then Bullen General and Comprehensive
Secondary School most recently Bullen Senior, Secondary and Preparatory School. Moreover,
when he completed his secondary school education, he joined Mekelle University and Studied
History and Heritage Management in BED. After securing his first degree, he served as
secondary school teacher in Bullen Senior, Secondary and Preparatory School for five months.
After, he served as secondary school teacher for limited months, he was employed by JJU as
graduate Assistant I. For his MA program; he joined AAU; one of the oldest and prestigious
University in the country in Educational Policy and Planning. After he got his MA in Policy and
Planning; he served as lecturer for eight years in JJU. In JJU, he service in different
management positions and committees. After eight years of service, he was promoted to Ass.
Professor of Education Policy and Planning. During his stay in JJU; he thought different courses
at both under and post graduate program levels. Finally and most recently, he is a PhD Scholar
in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Haramaya University which is branded as a
research university since 2019 differentiation policy in Ethiopia.

Academic works/Publications

Abeje Gudeta (2012). Opportunities and Challenges of Using Shinashigna for Instruction. LAP
Lambert Academic Publishing, https://www.amazon.com.au,Book

Abeje Gudeta (2017). A Study on Integrated Functional Adult Education Program in Pastoral
Communities of Jarar Zone: Challenges and Opportunities DOI:
10.24940/ijird/2017/v6/i7/may17077 

Abeje Gudeta, Dr, Yigzaw Haile…etal (2017). Practice, Contributions and Challenges of
Alternative Basic Education in Pastoral Communities of Ethiopian Somali Regional State.
International Journals of Social Science Studies.

Abeje Gudeta (2017). The Implementation of Shinashigna Language as Medium of Instruction in

Some Selected Primary Schools of Metekele Zone: Challenges and Opportunities, International
journal of innovative research and development, doi: 10.24940/ijird/2017/v6/18/aug17013