Dialogue in Pursuit of Development - Are you looking for one of ...

268
effective role in the wider transformation of the country by helping to fill
the human resource needs, created by the government’s policy of decentralization,
through a review, a reorientation and a renewal of its curricula in
short and long-term education and training.
The dialogue between the Government and the university was facilitated
by Rockefeller Foundation in 1998 and 1999. Coincidentally, when Makerere
University experienced fundamental changes, the Rockefeller Foundation’s
Africa Regional Office was also reorganized. The Foundation had been made
up of mutually exclusive programme departments, operating independently
through grants that were uncoordinated in the field. The staff were now
challenged to work together in a team integrating their various grant making
departments, and then with a common vision, select priority countries
where coherent programmes could be supported. Uganda was selected as a
priority country and Makerere University was identified as an appropriate
institution to support.
In March 2000, the University Vice Chancellor and the Permanent Secretary
of the Ministry of Finance established “The University Capacity Building
Committee” consisting of seven Makerere members drawn from the
Deans and Directors and seven members from the Ministries of Finance,
Education and Local Government as well as from the Economic Policy Research
Centre. The committee informally became known as the Committee
of Fourteen or, the C-14 in short. To enable the C-14 to operate, Rockefeller
Foundation was requested to appoint two facilitators. The facilitators led
the sessions through questions that were written on cards. Responses from
all fourteen members were likewise collected on cards with one idea per
card. Members then clustered the cards, giving rise to the next round of
questions. For example a question in the early stages might have been: “What
are the two main problems facing decentralized district administrators?” This
question would generate two or three cards per participant and the typical
cards might have included: “Shortage of trained human resources. Shortage
of personnel. Too few women professionals. Not enough doctors. Shortage
of engineers. No one trained in planning. Too few accountants.” A follow up
question might have been “How can the problem of professional human
resource shortages be addressed?” In this manner every idea counted. Strong
personalities and loud or articulate persons were put on an equal footing
with reserved and more thoughtful members of the committee. Once the
problems and broad solutions were identified in the plenary, the facilitators
would break the group down into three or four smaller working groups
where more detailed questions were asked. Sufficient time was given for
small group discussion and then each group reported their recommendations.
At this juncture, comments were collected and the group went back
to do revisions. Thus, defence of the ideas of the group was avoided and the
smaller group could accept and incorporate ideas generated in the larger
plenary or they could reword their recommendations, as they saw fit. Other