Abstract
This thesis describes my doctoral study that explored the development of the Fiji higher education (HE) sector following the 2006 coup, from 2007 to 2017, and the challenges faced by the sector during this time. The Fijian Vanua Research Framework provided an ethical and methodological framework for the study. This framework provides a guide for working within the Fiji context in a way that is respectful and reciprocal. It emphasises the need to conduct research in a way that honours Fijians, Fijian cultural knowledge, and the Fiji context, and to ensure that the research benefits the vanua (land). Since I am a Fijian researcher whose research was potentially sensitive, the Fijian Vanua Research Framework guided my research process to ensure the research was conducted appropriately and respectfully both in and for Fiji.
My study sits within an interpretivist paradigm. As an interpretivist researcher, the Fijian Vanua Research Framework guided my exploration of people’s interpretations of Fiji’s higher education sector and of Fiji HE policy as it is experienced ‘on the ground’. Data were collected through a thematic analysis of 17 policy documents, including laws, State-level policies and HEI-level policies. I also held face-to-face interviews with 20 key leaders in Fiji’s HE sector who were working at the State-level (e.g. in government ministries) or in HE institutions (HEIs). I analysed the interview data thematically, and used document (content) analysis to identify how Fiji’s legal, State-level and HEI-level policy documents aligned with or differed from stakeholders’ perspectives.
My policy analysis revealed that Fiji HE had received little specific attention at government level until 2007. Prior to this time, the governance of and mandate for Fiji’s HE sector was largely set by the University of the South Pacific. Before 2007, Fiji policy had focused mainly on primary, secondary and technical and vocational education, and references to HE were vague, or revealed differing, inconsistent terminology and goals. State-level policy documents developed following the 2006 coup showed a level of connectedness and coherence in terms of their stated objectives for Fiji as a nation, and to a lesser extent, HE in relation to Fiji. However, most participants expressed concerns about a lack of HE expertise within the HE sector, particularly at leadership level within State-level organisations. They noted that a lack of HE expertise has led to a heavy reliance on international consultants, who do not always work in ways that are appropriate for Fiji. All stakeholders highlighted funding issues as a key challenge within Fiji’s HE sector and identified two main problems relating to this: unclear information from State-level leaders to HEIs regarding how funding decisions are made, and a disconnect in the relationship between State-level HE organisations (e.g. government ministries) and HEIs. In addition, stakeholders noted that a reliance on foreign aid can lead to a sense of conflicted loyalty, as HEIs seek to address both government and donor mandates. Despite these challenges, HE stakeholders noted that a high level of goodwill towards and passion for HE in Fiji drives the work of HEI staff.
This thesis contributes to HE literature, and specifically, literature on Fiji HE. To my knowledge, this is the first study following the 2006 coup to explore HE stakeholders’ perspectives of HE policy and practice in Fiji, alongside Fiji HE policy. Also, prior to this study, very little empirical research has been conducted in Fiji that foregrounds HE stakeholders’ perspectives of the Fiji HE sector. This thesis also makes a contribution to the methodological literature, as it is the first to apply the Fijian Vanua Research Framework to HE research as an ethical framework for exploring a potentially sensitive topic with integrity and care. Finally, this thesis has implications for policy and practice in Fiji HE, and in other small-island states. It highlights a need for effective communication and collaboration, and transparency at all levels within HE, in order to ensure that State and HEI priorities align, and that HE is strengthened in contextually appropriate ways at all levels.