Search

This paper outlines the contribution made by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) towards enhancing the integration of sustainable development concerns in Africa through its initiative, the Mainstreaming Environment and Sustainability in Africa (MESA) Universities Partnership, during the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (UNDESD). The paper underscores Africa’s wealth and diversity of natural resources while illuminating sustainable development challenges facing the region in order to highlight the need for African universities to respond appropriately. It furthermore outlines the role of education in sustainable development and attempts to contextualise higher education in Africa by exploring universities’ (historical and current) role with regard to ESD. The paper goes onto describe the MESA partnership and list the programme’s key milestones by outlining ESD innovations in African universities, as well as by examining ESD in terms of its global impact and influence on policy to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper explores international comparisons of the extent of commonality or diversity in the main national external quality assurance frameworks for higher education. It has been suggested, from an European survey, that there are common features in national quality assurance frameworks (van Vught and Westerheijden (Quality Management and Quality Assurance in European Higher Education: Methods and Mechanisms) 1993; Luxembourg, Commission of the European Communities, Education Training Youth). The paper extends the survey, tapping other comparative reports. These comparisons show that a `general model' of external quality assurance does not universally apply, but that most elements of it do apply in most countries. We conclude that the `general model' provides a starting point from which to map deviations. In each country, there may be specific additions of elements or omissions from the model, but more usually there are modifications or extensions of elements. These variations are determined by practicalities, the size of the higher education sector, the rigidity/flexibility of the legal expression of quality assurance (or the absence of enshrinement in law), and the stage of development from state control of the sector. Some additions to the `general model' are suggested. The paper also considers efforts to produce an international scheme for external quality assurance of higher education, and the applicability of the `general model' to the transfer of quality assurance frameworks from country to country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American University of Beirut’s Interfaculty Graduate Environmental Sciences Program was launched in 1997 as a means of addressing salient issues on the environment and development in Lebanon and the Arab World using an interdisciplinary approach. The programme adopts a student-centred learning approach and aims to develop critical and systems thinking skills to produce socially and environmentally conscious leaders and agents of change in the Arab World. In this paper, we provide an evaluation of the programme’s ESD dimensions using the criteria of interdisciplinarity, local relevance and competence-based learning. This is followed by a critical analysis of the programme’s potential for use as a model in the Arab World. We find that, while the model may be useful in providing inspiration and a good practice case, its transfer “as is” to institutions of higher education in the Arab World or even in Lebanon is unlikely, and perhaps undesirable, in view of the inherently diverse nature of Arab universities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Methodological diversity has enriched higher education research. One area about which little is known is the dynamics of multi-investigator multi-institutional projects. This paper examines what happens inside a large-scale, team-based research project with an emphasis on decision points related to methodology and reporting results. Systematically reflecting on the tensions that emerged during one effort can give license to other investigators to openly discuss and manage more productively the decisions and struggles in their research and avoid pitfalls that could compromise the research endeavor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]