Educational Research and Review Vol. 4 (4), pp. 156-163, April, 2009 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR ISSN 1990-3839 © 2009 Academic Journals
Full Length Research Paper
Causes, consequences and control of students’ crises in public and private universities in Nigeria T. O. Adeyemi Department of Educational Foundations and Management, University of Ado- Ekiti, P. M. B 5363, Ado- Ekiti, Nigeria. E-mail:
[email protected]. Accepted 2 March, 2009
This paper investigated the causes, consequences and control of students’ crises in public and private universities in Nigeria. Students’ crises involve making protest by students’ in pressing their demand on various issues with university authorities. In this regard, the study population comprised all the 81 universities in the country from which a sample of 9 universities (6 public and 3 private) was taken. Out of the 8400 members of staff and 5600 final year students in the public universities, 1460 respondents (850 members of staff and 610 students) were chosen. Out of the 2650 members of staff and 1400 final year students in the private universities, 635 respondents (420 members of staff and 215 students) were chosen. The method of selection was by stratified random sampling. The instrument used was a questionnaire while the data collected were analyzed using percentages, t-test and Pearson Product Moment correlation. The findings show that the level of students’ crisis in public universities was high. One major cause of the crisis was the failure of university authorities to meet students’ demands. Student’s crises were found to be less in private universities than in public universities. One important reason given for this was the absence of students’ unionism in private universities. The consequences of students’ crisis were found to include loss of lives and properties and the disruption of university programmes. Based on the findings, it was then recommended that university authorities should imbibe the use of the dialogue strategy in controlling students’ crises. Key word: Causes, consequences, control, students, crises, universities. INTRODUCTION The term, ‘students’ crises’ has been defined in various ways. Ojo (1995) defined students’ crises’ as the rampage made by students in pressing their demand on certain issues with university authorities. Ibukun (1997) regarded students’ crises as the demonstration made by students leading to destruction of lives and properties as a result of protest over their demands. Other researchers have described students’ crises as the protests made by students involving confrontation with authorities over certain issues with the authorities (Asunmo, 1999; Akinyemi, 2002). It was thus an unstable situation of misbehaviour, boycott of classes, disturbance, wanton destruction and the extreme danger that could be perpetrated by students (Falua, 2004). Against this background, it could be observed that university education in Nigeria dated back to 1948 when the University College Ibadan was established as a college of the University of London (Adesina, 1981). Between 1960
and 1980, 12 more universities were established. Although many of these universities were established on political grounds (Ladipo, 1997), the policy of the federal government in citing one university per state was not strictly followed. Hence, state governments felt the desire to establish their own universities to cater for the needs of their people for higher education. Thus, the establishment of state universities started in 1980 and by year 2006, 26 state universities had been established in the country. The problem usually encountered in the control of these universities was that of inadequate funding which was the result of insufficient allocation of funds to the universities (Onifade, 2003). This could perhaps lead to insufficient facilities in the universities. The need for private universities was emphasized by the 1999 Consitution. Thus, by 2005, the number of private universities in the country had increased to 31. Thus, by year 2006, there were 81 universities in the country made up of 50
Adeyemi
public and 31 private universities (Akpa, 2005). It is pertinent however to observe that the increase in the number of universities in the country has its own consequences. This was manifested in the series of students’ crises which are unstable situation of misbehaviour, disturbance, wanton destruction and extreme danger that could be perpetrated by students (Falua, 2004). Some of the most striking ones include the 1971 crises at the University of Ibadan, 1978 crisis at the University of Lagos which extended to other universities, 1992 crises at the University of Ibadan, 1999 students’ crises at the University of Ado-Ekiti and 2001 crises at Federal University of Technology, Akure (Akinyemi, 2002). The purpose of this study therefore was to invest-tigate the level of students’ crises in Nigerian universities, examine the causes, consequences and control measures put in place in resolving the crises and proffer useful recommendations. Statement of the problem The frequent occurrence of students’ crises in Nigerian universities has been a matter of concern to educationists (Ojo, 1995; Ogonor, 1996). It seems that not much has been done to reduce the crises. Despite the strategies used in curbing the crises, common observation shows that students’ crises seems to be on an increase in the universities. The problem of this study was that of finding a lasting solution to the frequent occurrence of students’ crises in Nigerian universities. In addressing this problem, the following research questions were raised: Research questions 1. What is the level of occurrence of students’ crisis in public and private universities in Nigeria? 2. What are the causes of students’ crisis in public and private universities in the country? 3. What are the consequences of students’ crisis in public and private universities in the country? 4. What control measures could be used to resolve students’ crisis in the universities? Research hypotheses Ho.1: There is no significant difference in the occurrence of students’ crises between public and private universities country. Ho.2: There is no significant relationship between the occurrence of students’ crises and the consequences of such crises in Nigerian universities. METHOD This study adopted the descriptive research design. The population
157
comprised all the 81 universities in Nigeria made up of 24 federal, 26 state and 31 private universities (Okebukola, 2005). Out of this population, a sample of 9 universities (3 public federal, 3 public state and 3 private) was taken. Out of the 8400 members of staff and 5600 final year students in the public universities, 1460 respondents (850 members of staff and 610 students) were chosen. Out of the 2650 members of staff and 1400 final year students in the private universities, 635 respondents (420 members of staff and 215 students) were chosen. The method of selection was by stratified random sampling. The instrument used to collect data was a questionnaire. It elicitted information on the situation of facilities and equipment in the universities, funding, number of times of occurrences of students’ crises, causes, consequences, strategies currently used and control measures that could be used in resolving the crisis. It also sought information on whether or not the crises are more predominant in public than private universities and whether or not a relationship existed between the occurrences and consequences of the crises. The content validity of the instrument was determined by experts in test and measurement. The reliability was determined through the test-retest method. In doing this, the instruments were administered to 30 respondents in 2 universities outside the study area. After a period of two weeks, the instruments were re-administered. The data collected were analyzed using the Pearson Product Moment reliability. A correlation coefficient of 0.82 was obtained indicaing that the instrument was reliable. Returns were received from 1402 respondents in the public universities (96%). Out of these, 20 questionnaires were not duly completed and were discarded leaving a balance of 1382. In the private universities, returns were received from 625 respondents (98%). Out of these, 15 questionnaires were not duly completed and were discarded leaving a balance of 610. .The data collected were analyzed using percentages, t-test and Pearson Product Moment Correlation while the hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance.
RESULTS Question 1: What is the level of occurrence of students’ crisis in public and private universities in Nigeria? In answering this question, data on the number of occurrences of students’ crises in the universities were collected from the responses to the questionnaire. Cases where more than two crises occurred in five years were regarded as high, where only two crises occurred were regarded as moderate and where only one crisis occurred was regarded as low. The data were analyzed using percentages. Table 1 shows the findings for public universities. As indicated in Table 1, the level of occurrence of students’ crises was high in public universities. The responses showed that many of the universities witnessed students’ crises more than two times in five years. In private universities, the opposite is the case. Table 2 shows the findings. In Table 2, the findings show that the level of occurrence of students’ crises in private universities was low. The bulk of the respondents disagreed on the occurrence of students’ crises arising from inadequate services, inadequate classrooms and lecture theatres, cultism, inadequate accommodation and poor services.
158
Educ. Res. Rev.
Table 1. Occurrence of students’ crises in public universities from 2002 -2006.
N
1382
High 1 time in 5 years 842
60.9
Moderate 2 times and above in 5 years 390
28.2
Low None in 5 years 150
10.9
1382
850
61.5
422
30.5
110
8.0
1382
837
60.6
459
33.2
86
6.2
1382
864
62.5
425
30.8
93
6.7
1382
916
66.3
387
28.0
79
5.7
1382
824
59.6
471
34.1
87
6.3
1382
918
66.4
390
28.2
74
5.4
1382
873
63.2
401
29.0
108
7.8
1382
808
58.5
447
32.3
127
9.2
1382
922
66.7
387
28.0
73
5.3
1382
875
63.3
410
29.7
97
7.0
1382
894
64.7
412
29.8
76
5.5
1382
868
62.8
417
30.2
97
7.0
Items Crises resulting from hike in fees Crises arising from high handedness. Crises arising from poor services Crises arising from inadequate facilities and equipment Crises arising from inadequate accommodation Crises arising from inadequate classrooms and lecture theaters Crises arising from sudden change in school’s policies Crises arising from disagreement on strict application of rules and regulations. Crises arising from cultism activities Crises on obsolete books in libraries Crises arising from poor transport system Crises arising from mode of dressing Average Total
%
%
%
Table 2. Number of times students’ crises occurred in private universities from 2002 -2006.
Items
N
Crises resulting from hike in fees Crises arising from high handedness. Crises arising from poor services Crises arising from inadequate facilities and equipment Crises arising from inadequate accommodation Crises arising from inadequate classrooms and lecture theaters Crises arising from sudden change in school’s policies Crises arising from disagreement on strict application of rules and regulations. Crises arising from cultism activeties
610 610
High 2 times and above in 5 years -
610 610
%
Moderate 1 time in 5 years
%
Low None in 5 years
%
-
142 215
23.3 35.2
468 395
76.7 64.8
-
-
164 220
26.9 36.1
446 390
73.1 63.9
610
-
-
216
35.4
394
64.6
610
-
-
183
30.0
427
70.0
610
-
-
188
30.8
422
69.2
610
-
-
202
33.1
408
66.9
610
-
-
191
31.3
419
68.7
Adeyemi
159
Table 2. Contd.
Crises on obsolete books in libraries Crises arising from poor transport system Crises arising from mode of dressing Average Total
610 610
-
-
230 172
37.7 28.2
380 438
62.3 71.8
610 610
-
-
156 190
25.6 31.1
454 420
74.4 68.9
Table 3. Causes of students’ crises in public universities.
Items Lack of accommodation Poor campus transportation Failure to guarantee security to lives and properties Dissatisfaction over academic programmes Dissatisfaction over National Issues Cultism Poor leadership High handedness Use of handsets Failure of authority to listen to students’ complaints Average Total
public and private universities in the country? Answering this question, data on the causes of students’ crises in public and private universities were collected through the responses to the questionnaire. The data were analyzed using percentages. The findings in public universities are presented in Table 3. In Table 3, the commonest cause of students’ crises in public universities was cultism as claimed by 1162 respondents (83.4%). Other causes given by the respondents include the failure of authority to listen to students’ complaints (78.4%), poor transportation (76.1%), failure to guarantee security of lives and properties (71.9%) and the lack of good accommodation (70.9%). In private universities, the situation is different as shown in Table 4. In Table 4, the findings show that cultism was disallowed in private universities. Although 74.4% of the respondents claimed that the non-use of handsets could lead to crises, other causes such as the failure to guarantee security of lives and properties and the failure of authority to listen to students’ complaints had low responses of 36.1 and 27.4%, respectively. Question 3: What are the consequences of students’ crisis in public and private universities in the country? Answering this question, data on the consequences of
N 1382 1382 1382
Agree 980 1052 993
% 70,9 76.1 71.9
Disagree 402 330 389
% 29.1 23.9 28.1
1382
942
68.2
440
31.8
1382 1382 1382 1382 1382 1382
902 1152 840 922 520 1084
65.3 83.4 60.8 66.7 37.6 78.4
480 230 542 460 862 298
34.7 16.6 39.2 33.3 62.4 21.6
1382
939
67.9
443
32.1
student’s crises in the universities were collected through the responses to the questionnaire. The data were analyzed using percentages. The findings are presented in Table 5. In Table 5, the disruption of academic programmes was a major consequence of students’ crises in public universities as indicated by 1071 respondents (77.5%). Other consequences given by the respondents include loss of live (76.9%), wanton destruction of properties (75.4%), closure of the institution (82.2%), suspension of erring students (84.1%), and dismissal of ring leaders (84.1%). In private universities, the findings are shown in Table 6. In Table 6, it was observed that although all the respondents (100%) agreed that students’ crises could result in the disrupting of academic programmes, suspension and dismissal of erring students, 74 (12.1%) disagreed that it could lead to the closure of the university. Question 4: What control measures could be used to resolve students’ crisis in the universities? Answering this question, data on the control measures that could be used in resolving students’ crises in the universities were collected from responses to the questionnaire. The data were analyzed using percentages. The findings for public universities are shown in Table 7. In Table 7, the dialogue strategy had the largest num-
160
Educ. Res. Rev.
Table 4. Causes of students’ crises in private universities.
Items Lack of accommodation Poor campus transportation Failure to guarantee security to lives and properties Dissatisfaction over academic programmes Dissatisfaction over National Issues Cultism Poor leadership High handedness Use of handsets Failure of authority to listen to students’ complaints Average Total
N 610 610 610
Agree 118 220
% 19.3 36.1
Disagree 610 492 390
% 100 80.7 63.9
610
94
15.4
516
84.6
610 610 610 610 610 610
102 454 138 167
16.7 74.4 22.6 27.4
610 610 508 156 472 443
100 100 83.3 25.6 77.4 72.6
610
129
21.1
481
78.9
Table 5. Consequences of students’ crises in public universities.
Items Disruption of academic programmes Destruction to lives Wanton destruction of properties Closure of institution Suspension of erring students Dismissal of students’ ring leaders Average Total
N 1382 1382 1382 1382 1382 1382 1382
Agree 1071 1063 1042 1136 1180 1162 1109
% 77.5 76.9 75.4 82.2 85.4 84.1 80.2
Disagree 311 319 340 246 202 220 273
% 22.5 23.1 24.6 17.8 14.6 15.9 19.8
% 100 83.9 88.5 87.9 100 95.2 92.6
Disagree 98 70 74 29 45
% 16.1 11.5 12.1 4.8 7.4
Table 6. Consequences of students’ crises in private universities.
Items Disruption of academic programmes Destruction to lives Wanton destruction of properties Closure of institution Suspension of erring students Dismissal of students’ ring leaders Average Total
N 610 610 610 610 610 610 610
ber of respondents (85.8%). This was followed by the emergency strategy (78.6%). All the respondents (100%) disagreed on the use of the negligence strategy. Table 8 shows the findings in private universities. In Table 8, all the respondents (100%) mentioned the dialogue strategy as a good control measure of students’ crises. They also claimed that signing of agreement with students and their parents on the prohibition of students’ unionism is a control measure. Other control measures include inviting the parents teachers’ association (93.1%), involving students in decision making (83.1%). All the respondents (100%) disagreed on the use of the negligence strategy.
Agree 610 512 540 536 610 581 565
Hypothesis 1 Ho 1: There is no significant difference in the occurrence of students’ crises between public and private universities in the country Testing this hypothesis, data on the occurrences of students’ crises in public and private universities were collected from responses to the questionnaire. The data were tested using the t-test. The results are presented in Table 9. In Table 9, the t-calculated (9.2) was greater than the ttable (1.96); p < 0 .05. Hence, the non-hypothesis was re-
Adeyemi
161
Table 7. Control measures for resolving student’ crises in public universities.
Items Using emergency strategy such as inviting law enforcement agents Imposition of authority Inviting parents teachers association to mediate Signing agreement with parents and students on the prohibition of students’ unionism Involving students in decision making Provision of necessary facilities and equipment Use of dialogue with students Use of negligence strategy Use of effective communication Use of effective leadership behaviour Average Total
N 1382
Agree 1086
% 78.6
Disagree 296
% 21.4
1382 1382 1382
322 734 808
23.3 53.1 58.5
1060 648 574
76.7 46.9 41.5
1382 1382 1382 1382 1382 1382 1382
840 1080 1186 1071 1157 918
60.8 78.1 85.8 77.5 83.7 66.4
542 302 196 1382 311 225 464
39.2 21.9 14.2 100 22.5 16.3 33.6
Table 8. Control measures for resolving student’ crises in private universities.
Items Using emergency strategy such as inviting law enforcement agents Imposition of authority Inviting the parents teachers association to mediate Signing agreement with parents and students on the prohibition of students’ unionism Involving students in decision making Provision of necessary facilities and equipment Use of dialogue with students Using of negligence strategy Use of effective communication Use of effective leadership behaviour Average Total
N 610
Agree 610
% 100
Disagree -
% -
610 610 610
610 568 610
100 93.1 100
42 -
6.9 -
610 610 610 610 610 610 610
507 610 610 466 610 520
83.1 100 100 76.4 100 85.2
103 610 144 90
16,9 100 23.6 14.8
Table 9. Occurrences of students’ crises in public and private universities in Nigeria.
Variables Public Universities Private Universities
N 1382 610
Mean 134.3 72.1
SD 47.41 23.1
df 1990
t-calculated 9.2
t-table 1.96
p < 0 .05.
jected indicating that there was a significant difference in the occurrence of student’s crises between public and private universities. Hypothesis 2 Ho 2: There is no significant relationship between the occurrence of students’ crises and the consequences of such crises in Nigerian universities.
Testing this hypothesis, data on the occurrences of students’ crises in public and private universities were collected through the questionnaire. Data on the consequences of the crises were also collected. The data were tested using Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation. Table 10 shows the findings. Table 10 shows that r-calculated (0.721) was greater than r-table (0.195; p < 0 .05). Hence, the non-hypothesis was rejected. This shows a significant relationship bet-
162
Educ. Res. Rev.
Table 10. Occurrences of students’ crises in public and private universities in Nigeria.
Variables Occurrence of students’ crises Consequences of students’ crises
N 1992 1992
df 1990
r-calculated .721
r-table .195
p < 0 .05.
ween the occurrences of students’ crises in the universities and the consequence of the crises. DISCUSSION The finding of this study showed a high level of occurrence of students’ crises in public universities. This shows that public universities are usually susceptible or vulnerable to student crises. The finding agreed with those of other researchers (Ojo, 1995). Although there is no society where crises do not occur, the finding suggests that private universities probably have a means of resolving students’ crises. The finding identifies cultism as one of the major causes of students’ crises in public universities. This could be manifested in the different types of cultist organizations in the universities, the activities of which negate smooth academic programme. This finding agreed with those of earlier researchers (Townsley, 1997). Apart from cultism, other causes of crises seem to be institution- based as they could be attributed to the inability of the institutions to provide necessary facilities needed by students. The reason for this perhaps might be the fact that student expect the authority of public universities to provide essential facilities for the students because the universities are being financed from public funds. The findings indicating the failure of authorities to listen to students’ complaints as a cause of crises agreed with those of earlier researchers (Bens, 1999). The fact that students’ crises could lead to the closure of public universities thereby disrupting academic programmes tends to have adverse consequences on students’ learning. This could be witnessed in the fact that student who could have spent four years for a degree programme would now be spending additional years as a result of crises. This finding was consistent with Asummo’s (1999) findings that students’ crises could have adverse consequences on the effective teaching and learning in the universities. One important reason given for the low level of students’ crises in private universities was the absence of students’ unionism which contravenes the fundamental human rights of the students and the education law. The fact that students and their parents have to sign an agreement with the authorities of private universities on the prohibition of unionism suggests that students’ unionism is discouraged in such institutions. As such, students in private universities could not form themselves
into associations that could mount pressure on authorities. The finding of this study highlighted the need for effective communication in controlling students’ crises in the universities. This suggests that effective communication might hitherto not have been put in place for the control of students’ crises in public universities thereby leading to adverse consequences on the relationship between the authorities of the universities and the students. The finding was consistent with those of Marcia and Rock’s (1997) findings on the use of effective communication in crisis management. This could be seen in the fact that information that was not well communicated by the authorities of the universities could easily be misinterpreted by the students thereby leading into crises. The finding showing significant relationship between the occurrences of students’ crises and the consequences suggests that the more frequent the occurrences of students’ crises, the more adverse the consequences. This finding agreed with those of other researchers (Capozzoli, 1995). The finding showing the dialogue strategy as a good measure for controlling students’ crises also agreed with findings in other studies (Sessa, 1996; Akinyemi, 2002). Conclusion Considering the findings, it was concluded that students’ crises have not been effectively controlled in Nigerian public universities. Evidences from the findings led the researcher to conclude that students’ unionism is a strong factor in facilitating crises in the universities. Hence, students’ crises were more prevalent in public universities. Recommendations Based on the findings, it was recommended that university authorities should imbibe the use of dialogue with students in order to avert crises. Students should also be involved in decision making. Efforts should be made to bridge the communication gap between students and university authorities. The signing of agreement by students and their parents with authorities on the prohibition of students’ unionism in private universities should be extended to public universities. Authorities of private universities should more liberal in the handling of students’ crises.
Adeyemi
REFERENCES Adesina S (1981) What is educational Planning? “In Introduction to Educational Planning S. Adesina (Ed), Ile-Ife: University of Ife Press Limited. pp. 34-72. Akinyemi B (2002), “Management of students’ crisis in Higher Institutions in Ekiti State” Unpublished MEd Thesis, University of Ado –Ekiti. pp. 61-68. Alpo G (2005), “Public and private sector contributions to access and equity in Nigerian education” Paper presented at the 29th Conference of Nigerian Association for Educational Administration and Planning, University of Calabar 11-13 October, 3- 9. Asunmo O (1999): Management of Students’ crisis in Nigeria higher Institutions, a case study of St. Andrews’ College of Education Oyo, Unpublished MEd Thesis, University of Ibadan. pp. 54-62. Bens I (1999). Keeping your teams out of trouble. J. Qual. Participation 22(4): 45-47. Capozzoli TK (1995). “Conflict resolution: A key ingredient in successful teams Supervision. 56 (12): 3-5. Falua BT (2004) “management of students crisis in secondary schools in Ado-Ekiti Local Government Area of Ekiti State” Unpublished MEd Thesis, University of Ado Ekiti. pp. 63-72. Ladipo M (1997) Crisis management: the experience of Nigerian universities’ Paper presented at the Conference of the Association of Nigerian universities professional administrations. pp. 1-2.
163
Marcia L, Rock M (1997) “Effective crisis management planning: Creating a collaborative framework” University of Alabama 248-264 http://www.educationandtreatment of children.net/index.html Ogonor B (1996) “A study of the management of Intergroup conflict in Nigerian universities’ Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Benin, Benin-city. pp. 71-92. Ojo JD (1995) Students’ unrest in Nigerian universities: A legal and historical approach, Lagos: Spectrum Books Ltd. pp. 34-36. Okebukola EF (2005) “Essential features of the Nigerian university system” Paper presented at the Workshop for new governing councils of federal universities,Abuja, 1st June;.1-5. Onifade A (2003) “The funding Problem’ Vanguard 19 (5167) Thursday, January 16; 27-29. Sessa VI (1996). Using perspective taking to manage conflict and affect in teams. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 32 (1): 101-115. Townsley CA (1997). Resolving conflict in work teams. [On-line]. http://www.workteams.unt.edu:80/re-ports/Townsley.htlm.
