The Accommodation of Diversities in the Ethiopian Public Universities: - Arsi University in Focus

By

Bashir Idao

January 2024

Arsi-Asella
 1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Human diversity is a salient and challenging issue in most countries in general and universities in
particular. The term “diversity” has become one of the most frequently used words in social
sciences. However, there is no single way to define diversity. Finding an agreed upon definition
of diversity is rather challenging. In some studies, diversity refers to “differences between
individuals on any attribute that may lead to the perception that another person is different from
the self” (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004) or as a variation that exists within and
across groups on the basis of race, ethnicity, language, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and
social status (Banks et al, 2005). In general terms, diversity can be broadly conceived of as all
the ways that people are different. This includes both visible and invisible differences that exist
between people both at the individual and group level. However, the use of the term in this study
is limited to ethnic and religious differences among students.
Diversity is not a new phenomenon; discussions on issues of diversity in higher education began
in the 1950s following the Civil Rights Movement in the United States of America. At that time,
the discussions were mainly focused on equal rights to access higher education. Later, some
scholars advocated various benefits of diversity in higher education based on social theories and
assumptions. They tried to show the importance of having a diverse student population through
affirmative action, “not only as a means of increasing access to higher education for greater
number of students, but also as a means of fostering students’ academic and social growth”
(Gurin, Day, Gurin, Hurtado, 2002). Starting from the late 1990s, abundant research has shown
the theoretical, practical, and empirical foundations for linking diversity with the educational and
civic mission of higher education (Gurin et al., 2002; Hurtado, 2007).
Diversity is important at different levels of personal development, but it is thought to be
significantly important during the university years because many students come to university in
late adolescence and early adulthood, which is a critical stage of development in which
individuals define themselves in relation to others and exercise various social roles before
making permanent commitments to different issues including professions, close relationships,
and social and political groups (Gurin, 1999; Gurin et al, 2002). This makes higher education
institutions (HEIs) an ideal context to enrich individuals’ personal and social developments.
Therefore, “Institutions of higher education have an obligation, first and foremost, to create the
best possible educational environment for the young adults whose lives are likely to be
significantly changed during their years on campus” (Gurin, 1999, p. 36).
Many universities recognize the value of diversity and view diversity as an essential resource for
optimizing learning and teaching (Maruyama, Moreno, Gudeman, & Marin, 2000). Diversity can
support a broad range of learning outcomes including active thinking skills and intellectual
engagement, and democracy outcomes such as perspective-taking, citizenship engagement and
cultural understanding (Gurin et al., 2002). The research literature on diversity in higher
education also identifies several benefits of diversity which can be grouped into three major
categories based on beneficiaries. These categories include individual benefits, institutional
benefits, and societal benefits (Gurin et al., 2002; Milem 2003; Terenzini, Cabrera, Colbeck,
Bjorklund, & Parente, 2001). Milem (2003) describes these major benefits of diversity as
follows:
Individual benefits refer to the ways in which the educational experiences and outcomes of
individual students are enhanced by diversity on campus. Institutional benefits refer to the ways
in which diversity enhances the ability of colleges and universities to achieve their missions -
particularly as diversity relates to the mission of teaching, research, and service.

Societal benefits are defined as the ways in which diversity at colleges and universities affects
lives, policies, and issues beyond the walls of the university (p. 129).

To these three, Milem (2003) added a fourth category - economic and private-sector benefits.
This refers to “the ways in which diversity enhances the economy and the functioning of
organizations and businesses in the private sector” (p.129). Looking at the benefits of diversity
that are discussed in several studies, what Milem stated as economic and private-sector benefits
can be included in societal benefits mainly for two reasons. First, unlike the other three benefits,
which are general, economic benefits are specific benefits and can be included in societal
benefits. Second, private-sector organizations and business firms are institutions ‘beyond the
walls of the university’. Hence, they can be included and discussed under societal benefits by
broadening what we mean by societal.
Although diversity has various benefits (see details in Chapter 3), it is not only an opportunity.
“Diversity is one of the largest, most urgent challenges facing higher education today. Diversity
can be source of challenges that leads to less cohesiveness, less effective communication,
increased anxiety, and greater discomfort, tension and conflict among diverse groups (Cox,
2001). Research also indicates that when diversity is not properly addressed or is totally ignored,
it can have negative effects, such as “increased egocentrism, and negative relationships
characterized by hostility, rejection, divisiveness, scapegoating, bullying, stereotyping, prejudice,
and racism” (Johnson & Johnson, 2000, p. 15). Its negative impacts often adversely affect
campus community members as well as the broader society outside the university. This shows
that even though the diversity in higher education is often regarded as a value based on the
potential opportunities it provides, in reality, “diversity is not always a value” (Macedo, 2000).
As discussed above, literatures show the various opportunities and challenges of diversity in
higher education. This indicates that diversity is a potential resource, but not a sufficient
condition to result in desired benefits (Gurin, 1999; Gurin et al., 2002; Milem, 2003; Zirkel &
Cantor, 2004). It seems that the way diversity addressed in different contexts determines its
impact (Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005). Therefore, managing diversity becomes one of the
crucial tasks of HEIs.
To benefit from diversity as well as to avoid or minimize the negative impacts of diversity, HEIs
need to create and sustain a positive campus climate for diversity. The phrase ‘campus climate
for diversity’ has been used in several studies, and it generally refers to the campus climate in
relation to issues of diversity. In this study, campus climate for diversity particularly refers to
campus community members’ (students, teachers, staff, and managers) attitudes, perceptions,
and experiences with regard to issues of diversity1. According to Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-
Pedersen, & Allen (1998; 1999), there are three main contexts of campus climate for diversity.
These are the government/policy context, the sociohistorical context, and the institutional
context. The institutional context comprises four dimensions. These are (1) historical legacy of
inclusion or exclusion, (2) compositional diversity, (3) psychological climate, and (4) behavioral
climate. Historical legacy of inclusion or exclusion includes the history of the institution with
regard to underrepresented groups, particularly issues related to desegregation of higher
education and the institution’s mission and policies related to student admissions. Compositional
or structural diversity is the proportional or numerical representation of diverse groups on
campus. The psychological climate includes perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs about diversity.
The behavioral dimension includes the nature of intergroup interactions, and involvement or
experience in diversity-related programs and activities in the campus.
1.2. Rationale and Purpose of the Study
There is an enormous body of research addressing different elements of campus climate for
diversity. The majority of earlier studies in this area have focused primarily on campus climate
for racial/ethnic diversity in universities and colleges in the Western countries, notably in the
United States of America. This is not because non-Western countries are religiously or ethnically
homogenous countries; diversity is a common phenomenon to all continents. For example, most
countries in Africa have more ethnically diverse populations than countries on other continents
(Van der Beken, 2012). Studies conducted in Africa indicate that, like most universities in the
rest of the world, there are different diversity challenges in universities in Africa (Adamu &
Zellelew, 2007; Africa, 2006; Cross, 2004; De Klerk & Radloff, 2010; Izama, 2013; Jinadu,
2006; Mdepa & Tshiwula, 2012; Van Vuuren, Van der Westhuizen, &Van der Walt, 2012).
Despite the fact that they are faced with different challenges which need to be systematically
addressed, issues of diversity in universities in Africa have not been given enough attention.
There is a clear lack of research on issues of diversity in African universities. Thus, in their
attempt to deal with diversity-related problems and to take advantage of benefit of diversity,
African universities seem dependent on research findings outside the continent. However, the tri-
national (India, South Africa, and United States of America) project on issues of diversity in
higher education indicates that “there can be no single universalizing model or conception of
diversity that can work effectively in all contexts” (Cross, 2004, p. 390). Diversity is a
phenomenon that is culturally, socially and historically formed and reformed (Metcalfe &
Woodhams, 2008), and thus we should study different elements of the campus climate for
diversity within specific sociocultural, political and geographic regions in order to effectively
address issues of diversity in a given context.
Ethiopia, which is the general context of this study, is one of the highly diverse Sub-Saharan
African countries. Ethnic and religious-related issues have been the historic and prevalent
questions of the Ethiopian society. Its modern history is also characterized by ethnic tension and
conflict (Keller, 2002). There are still several diversity-related problems among the Ethiopian
society. HEIs have the responsibility of addressing the practical problems of the society as they
are “the primary institution charged with the study of social problems” (Anthony, Milem, &
Chang, 2012, p. 371). In a society where ethnic and religious differences are prevalent and
inevitable, the issue of diversity also becomes one of the central educational and civic missions
of higher education (Hurtado, 2007). So far, presumably universities in Ethiopia have not
properly addressed the challenges of diversity in their own context, let alone playing a vital role
in addressing the diversity-related problems of the larger society. They seem to have ignored
issues of diversity despite the fact they faced with several ethnic and religious diversity
challenges. Diversity is not something that will go away through time or ignorance (Levine,
1991). So, as the main place where knowledge is constructed and creative minds reside,
universities should be up to the challenges of diversity to derive maximum benefits.
In order to understand and address issues of diversity, Hurtado et al. (1998; 1999) suggests that it
is necessary to examine the different dimensions and elements of the campus climate for
diversity. Although a few studies have examined ethnic and religious issues in different
universities in Ethiopia (Adamu & Zellelew, 2007; Asmamaw, 2012; Habitegiorgis, 2010;
Mekonnen & Endawoke, 2007; Semela, 2012; Zellelew, 2010), none have investigated various
elements of the campus climate for diversity in a given university as suggested by Hurtado et al.
(1998; 1999). They are not also sufficient to thoroughly understand and systematically address
different issues of ethnic and religious diversity.
The Higher Education Proclamation (HEP) of Ethiopia states that multiculturalism is one of the
guiding values that universities promote and uphold in pursuance of their mission (Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia [FDRE], 2009). Universities also aspire to create a campus
climate in which everyone feels welcome, and that contributes to enhance students’ personal,
social and academic development. The first step toward creating such an environment is to
understand the campus climate for diversity in each university. Therefore, the main purpose of
this study is to provide a better understanding of the campus climate for diversity in Arsi
University (ArU) by examining different elements of the campus climate with regard to ethnic
and religious diversity. Ethnicity, religion, and language are the major aspects of diversity which
characterize the Ethiopian society. However, in the context of higher education, ethnicity and
religion are found to be the pronounced aspects of diversity. To achieve the purpose, the study is
guided by the following research questions:
1) What are the perceptions of the campus community regarding diversity issues?

2) How is structural diversity evident on campus?

3) How does the university manage diversity?

1.3. Context of the Study
Arsi University (ArU) is one of the public universities in Ethiopia. It is located in the city of
Asella, the capital of the Arsi zone. ArU has four colleges and three faculties. In 2021, it has a
population of about 300 academic staffs, and about 10,000 students pursuing their undergraduate
studies in regular, extension (evening), summer, and distance education programs. The total
number of regular undergraduate students is about 15,000 (Arsi University). The teaching-
learning process in the extension (weekend) program is conducted in schedules that do not affect
the regular programs. The summer program mainly targets people who are working in different
government organizations. The program is conducted during the summer when regular students
are not on campus. The distance education program targets individuals who are not able to attend
one of the above face-to-face programs (regular, extension or summer).
1.4. Significance of the Study
This study is significant in a number of ways. It has both theoretical and practical contributions.
As mentioned in the rationale of the study, the majority of past studies on diversity issues in
higher education have focused primarily on universities and colleges in Western countries where
increased ethnic diversity often results from migration and (recently) internationalization of
higher education. This study brings new insights and extends the existing body of knowledge in
diversity in higher education by focusing on “indigenous ethnic diversity”. Moreover, religious
diversity is a current relevant social issue for several universities as well as the larger society
across the world. Thus, by focusing on religious issues in higher education, this study contributes
to a growing body of literature on religious diversity on campus and beyond.
This study also has the potential of enhancing policies and practices at institutional and national
levels by providing empirical knowledge and in-depth information regarding issues of ethnic and
religious diversity on campus. At institution level, for example, it provides information about the
current campus climate for diversity which can be used as an input in designing policy, strategic
and action plan, implementing different initiatives with regard to promoting diversity and
creating a positive campus climate. At national level, it provides information about the potential
impacts of different government systems, policies and strategies on the campus climate for
diversity. For example, understanding the structural diversity from the campus community’s
points of view is important to improve the student placement strategy.
The issue of campus climate for diversity across universities is also critical from a national
perspective. This study adds substantially to our understanding of diversity issues in universities
in Ethiopia, and it has the potential of inspiring different universities and serving as a
springboard in assessing their campus climate for diversity. It also makes several noteworthy
contributions to enhance academic, social and political discussions on diversity issues, and
provide more insights to researchers on various diversity issues that need particular attention and
extensive study.
1.5. Delimitations of the Study
A research that examines the campus climate for diversity can focus on student, teacher, staff or
a combination of these. This study is, however, focused only on the student diversity. The study
is also delimited to regular undergraduate students because they are the most diverse student
population in the University. Moreover, they live on campus and this provides an opportunity to
better understand the issue understudy. From the four dimensions of the institutional context, this
study is delimited to examining elements of the campus climate which are categorized in the
three dimensions (structural diversity, psychological climate, and behavioral climate). It does not
examine elements of the campus climate which are related to the historical institutional legacy of
inclusion or exclusion mainly for ArU does not select and admit its prospective undergraduate
regular students. Because of this, the University’s legislation also does not address issues related
to the admissions of regular undergraduate students.
1.6. Structure of the Dissertation
The dissertation will comprise 3 chapters. Chapter 1 deals with introductory background, the 2nd
chapter deals with literature review on an overview of diversity in Ethiopia and its higher
education. It also includes theoretical and empirical foundations of campus climate for diversity.
Chapter 3 is a detailed account of the research methodology.
2. Diversity in Ethiopia and its Higher Education

This chapter provides information about the general research context in relation to issues of
diversity. The current campus climate for diversity is highly related with the diversity issues
outside the university. It is also directly and indirectly influenced by the diversity issues in the
country both now and in the past. This chapter also provides an overview of diversity in
Ethiopian higher education. In relation to this, it describes the development of higher education
in Ethiopia, and factors contributing to increase student diversity in public universities.
2.1. A Historical Overview of Diversity in Ethiopia
Diversity is one of the most ubiquitous features of all societies (Van Vuuren, Van der
Westhuizen, & Van der Walt, 2012). African countries are no exception. To better understand
the diversity in Ethiopia, this section presents, first, external influences on diversity in Africa;
then, aspects of diversity in Ethiopia, and overview of diversity in the course of the history of
modern Ethiopia.
2.1.1. Diversity during the FDRE (1991-Present)
EPRDF is a coalition of ethnic political parties and the ruling political organization of the FDRE
dominated and led by TPLF (Mehretu, 2012; Van der Beken, 2012; Woldeyohannes, 2012). By
understanding Ethiopia as an ethnically diverse country with a political history of ethno-
linguistic domination (Zewde, 2004), the EPRDF-led government introduced an ethnic-based
federal system that believed to accommodate and promote diversity. Consequently, ethnicity
became the ideological basis of the EPRDF government’s political organization and
administration (Parker & Woldegiorgis, 2003; Smis, 2008). As a result of the federal system,
Ethiopia has become a federal polity with nine ethnic-based regional states and two chartered
cities that constitute the federation. According to the state policy, unity or Ethiopian national
identity is based on the recognition of and respect for diversity (Van der Beken, 2008; 2012), and
ethnic federalism is “understood primarily as a mechanism of conflict resolution” (Vaughan,
2003, p. 36). However, because of politicizing ethnicity, differences of ethnicity, language and
culture has become more significant than citizenship.
2.2. Overview of Diversity in Ethiopian Higher Education
Before discussing diversity in Ethiopian higher education, it is necessary first to see how higher
education is understood and developed in the Ethiopian context. Therefore, this section presents
and discusses development of higher education in Ethiopia and diversity in Ethiopian HEIs.
2.2.1. Development of higher education in Ethiopia
The definition given to higher education varies from country to country. In many countries,
higher education is understood as all types of postsecondary education. In Ethiopia, higher
education is defined as education offered to undergraduates and graduate students studying on
degree programs (FDRE, 2009). Although taking the authorization of granting degrees as a
definite criterion for including or excluding institutions from the higher education system is
debatable (Guri-Rosenblit, Sebkova, & Teichler, 2007), in Ethiopia, HEI includes institutions
that provide undergraduate and graduate level degree programs.
Some scholars divide Ethiopian higher education into traditional and modern (Western-type).
The traditional higher education system is believed to have existed many centuries before the
introduction of modern higher education (Asgedom, 2005). The basis for this argument is the
analogy made between the higher level of church education and the Western-type higher
education structure13. However, several studies show that higher education in Ethiopia is a
relatively new phenomenon that started in the mid-20th century. The first (modern) HEI in
Ethiopia was founded in 1950 as University College of Addis Ababa (UCAA). Until this time,
some Ethiopians were sent abroad on government scholarships for higher education study. In the
following two decades, “half a dozen specialized technical colleges were established to address
the training needs in agriculture, engineering, public health, and teacher education” (World
Bank, 2003, p. 1). In 1961, the UCAA was renamed Haileselassie IUniversity (HSIU) and the
emperor became the first chancellor of the University. Following the overthrow of the imperial
regime, HSIU was renamed Addis Ababa University in 1974. Addis Ababa University was the
only university in the country until 1985, the year Alemaya College of Agriculture became
Alemaya (now called Haramaya) University14.
The slow development of higher education in Ethiopia is similar to that in other African
countries. The literature shows that there are many reasons, ranging from institutional to global,
for the sluggish development of higher education in Ethiopia and in Africa in general, but the
pressure of external forces, mainly development partners, has been identified as the major one
(Adamu, 2012). For many decades, in developing countries, the World Bank along with the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), either directly through educational programs or indirectly
through ‘Structural Adjustment Programs’ (SAPs), have been promoting policies of human
capital development and economic efficiency across the education systems (Moutsios, 2009).
The World Bank, which is the most important multilateral organization in shaping the policies of
Africa’s higher education (Teferra, 2008) had a longstanding misconception about the
contribution of higher education to Africa’s development. Particularly in the 1990s, it advocated
basic education rather than higher education because of the belief that higher education had little
role in promoting poverty reduction (Bloom, Canning, & Chan, 2005), and the social rate of
return to the resource invested in the former is higher than in the latter (World Bank, 1995).
Expanding higher education in developing countries like Ethiopia was considered as a luxury by
development partners (Teferra, 2007). This advocacy resulted in a shift of public funding from
higher to the lower level of education (Carnoy, 1999) and crippled the development of higher
education in Africa. Ethiopia is no exception.
Later, the World Bank and other development partners have come to understand that higher
education is a significant contributor to all countries’ socioeconomic development. The
Ethiopian government also adopted social and economic development strategies that perceived
higher education as a sector with principal importance for the economic and social development
of the country. These shifts (the attitudinal change of developmentpartners toward the
significance of higher education in developing countries and the change in Ethiopian government
development strategy) contributed greatly to the expansion and development of higher education
in Ethiopia which began in the late 1990s.
In the years 1999-2005, eight new universities were established by merging and/or upgrading
existing colleges and institutes. Though the increase in number of universities resulted in an
increase in student intake capacity, it was not able to respond to the rapidly growing educational
needs of the society and to speed up economic growth, democracy and good governance in the
country (Yizengaw, 2003). Thus, in 2003, the government began the greatest expansion in the
history of Ethiopian higher education. Within a short period of time, 11 new universities were
established. These new universities are located in six regional states and one city administration.
In 2009, Ambo College of Agriculture, one of the oldest colleges in the country, became Ambo
University. The expansion has continued and in 2011, nine new universities were opened in five
regional states and one city administration. Overall, 21 universities were opened in less than a
decade, and after more than six decades, there are now 45 public universities in Ethiopia.

2.2.2. Diversity in Ethiopian higher education

Because of lack of data, it is difficult to know the ethnic and religious composition of university
students in Ethiopia. However, referring to different language and historical literatures, Balsvik
(1985) attempted to show the ethnic composition of students at HSIU.
[I]n the 1950s and 1960s more than half the university students were Amhara. The Tigre was
also over represented in the university compared to their proportion of the total population. […]
The Oromo were underrepresented in the university, accounting about 10 percent of the students.
A large number of other ethnic groups comprise almost 30 percent of the total population; with
the exception ofthe Gurage and the Harari, they were underrepresented or were not present at all
at the university.
The finding of another longitudinal study of 1,066 first-year students who entered HSIU in 1966
also shows the numerical dominance of Amhara, Tigre, and Orthodox Christians.
As far as ethnic background was concerned, 45 percent were Amharas, 26 percent Tigre, 10
percent Oromo, 4 percent Gurage, and 15 percent from other ethnic groups. Approximately 66
percent said that Amharic was their first language. Regarding religion, 83 percent were Orthodox
Christians, 10 percent Protestants or Roman Catholics, and 7 percent Muslim (Giel & Van Luyk,
1970 cited in Wagaw, 1990, p. 154).
Although it is not methodologically sufficient to generalize, a survey of 500 students carried out
in 1968 at HSIU also shows the significant numerical dominance of students from Orthodox
Christian background. According to this survey, the representation of students from different
religious groups at HSIU was as follows - more than 70% Orthodox, 10% Protestant, 6%
Muslim, 5% Catholic, and 7% atheist (Pausewang, 1970 cited in Balsvik, 1985). The large
number of students from Amhara and Tigre ethnic groups may be related to the domination of
these ethnic groups, particularly the Amhara, in the history of modern Ethiopia including the
Haileselassie regime. Orthodox Christianity has been the major religion of these ethnic groups.
Therefore, based on the above data, it is possible to argue that there were more Orthodox
Christian students than other religion followers. This can also be associated with the high
Orthodox population in the country.
As far as my literature and document review is concerned, there is no statistical data which
shows the numerical representation of students from different ethnic and religious background in
public universities during the Derg and EPRDF regimes. However, the current 31 public
universities seem to have a much more diverse student population than other settings such as
schools, residences, and workplaces. Because of the diverse student population they have from
every corner of the country, public universities are often considered “mini-Ethiopia” (Adamu,
2007; Adamu & Zellelew, 2007). There are two factors contributing to increase in student
diversity in public universities. These are theexpansion of higher education in the country and
the admissions and placement to higher education.
2.3. Expansion of higher education
The gross enrolment ratio for primary and secondary education went up from 51% and 10.3% in
1999/2000 to 96.4% and 46.5% in 2010/2011 respectively (Ministry of Education [MoE], 2000;
2011a). Compared to this significant change in access to primary and secondary education over
the past years, the intake capacity of public universities was much less and not able to cope with
the educational demand of the society. In order to alleviate this particular problem, the
government has taken two significant measures - developing the infrastructure and human
resources of existing universities to enhance their intake capacity, and create more new public
universities. As mentioned above, the number of public universities increased from 10 in the
early 2000s to 22 in 2010 and currently 45. As a result of this massive and rapid expansion, the
regular undergraduate student enrolment in public universities increased from 22,564 in
1999/2000 to 209,133 in 2010/2011 (MoE, 2000; 2011a). This tremendous increase in the
number of students has significantly contributed to an increase in diverse student population
because it provides more students from diverse backgrounds with an opportunity to join one of
the public universities in the country.
2.3.1. Admission to and placement in higher education
Public universities in Ethiopia are not entitled to select and admit their prospective regular
undergraduate students. Student admissions and placement are carried out at a central level by
the MoE based on the guideline for student placement at public universities (MoE, 2002). The
main criterion to get admission to university studies is to take the Ethiopian Higher Education
Entrance Examination (EHEEE) and pass in four subjects at C level. The MoE, however, does
not strictly follow this criterion. The pass mark varies from year to year based on the number of
students taking EHEEE and the intake capacity of public universities. Therefore, the required
grade point average varies from year to year. Besides, there is a supplementary admission
criterion that provides anopportunity for students from specified ethnic16 and social groups17 to
gain admission to public universities with a lower mark than the pass mark set for a particular
year. The placement criteria do not take into consideration students’ ethnic and religious
background. Thus, the admission to and placement in higher education is the major factor that
contributes to increase the structural diversity on campus.

2.4. Campus Climate for Diversity: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations

2.4.1. Understanding the Campus Climate for Diversity
HEIs have the responsibility to advance social progress and prepare citizens for life and
leadership in a diverse society (Gurin et al., 2002; Gurin et al., 2004; Whitt, Edison, Pascarella,
Terenzini, & Nora, 2001). This brings diversity issues into the central educational and civic
mission of higher education (Hurtado, 2007). As mentioned in the introduction, diversity poses
different opportunities and challenges that HEIs must address. In order to overcome challenges
and maximize the benefits of diversity, it is necessary first to understand the campus climate for
diversity. However, until the late1990s “there has been no common framework for understanding
the campus racial climate in a way that helps develop policies and practices that can be used to
enhance the campus climate” (Hurtado et al. 1998, p. 279).
It was to alleviate this problem that based on years of empirical research, Hurtado et al. (1998;
1999) developed a framework for understanding the campus climate for diversity. Central to this
framework is the notion that creating and maintaining positive learning and living environment
requires understanding different contexts and elements that potentially affect the campus climate
for diversity. The main strength of this framework is first, it is empirical, drawn from research
outcomes on the impact of campus climate on student learning. Second, it “treats campus climate
as a multidimensional phenomenon that is shaped by the interaction of internal and external
forces” (Milem et al., 2005, p. 14). Moreover, it is easy to adopt and use to understand the
campus climate in various geographic and diversity contexts. This framework has been widely
used by researchers who investigate diversity issues in higher education as well as by universities
that assess their own campus climate.
The framework for understanding the campus climate for diversity has three main contexts that
are integrated in nature: a government/policy context, a sociohistorical context, and an
institutional context. The government/policy context and the sociohistorical context constitute
elements that are external to and beyond the control of individual institutions. The
government/policy context includes various factors such as governmental policies, strategies,
programs, and initiatives. In countries like Ethiopia, where government often directly and
indirectly influences the institutional activities, understanding the impact of this dimension on
the campus climate for diversity becomes even more important in developing better policies and
strategies. The sociohistorical context includes various issues or events in the larger society that
potentially influence the way campus community members view diversity-related issues. These
two external forces in the wider society influence the institutional context and different elements
it comprises.

I argue that there are also situations in which these two external forces interact with and
influence each other. For example, as discussed in section 2.2, government’s political system can
potentially influence the interaction and intergroup relations between different ethnic and
religious groups which in turn influence the campus climate for diversity. Because of this it is
sometimes difficult to easily identify whether it is the government policy, strategy, program, and
initiative or the sociohistorical forces that influence the campus climate for diversity. The
institutional context comprises factors that are internal to and within the control of individual
institutions. As mentioned in the introduction, the institutional context for diversity includes four
dimensions (historical legacy of inclusion or exclusion, compositional or structural diversity,
psychological climate, and behavioral dimension) which comprise different dynamic elements of
the campus climate for diversity. These four dimensions are interconnected and influence each
other.

2.4.2. Historical legacy of inclusion or exclusion

The historical legacy of inclusion or exclusion includes the history of the HEI with regard to
underrepresented groups, particularly issues related to desegregation of higher education, and the
institution’s mission and policies regarding student admissions. A meta-analytic research on
evaluating the value of campus climate assessment shows that the historical legacy of inclusion
or exclusion is largely unaddressed in campus climate research, and this is because “it involves
more in-depth study of norms that may be embedded in campus culture, traditions, policies, and
historical mission” (Hurtado, Griffin, Arellano, & Cuellar, 2008, p. 206). In some studies, issues
related to the historical legacy of inclusion or exclusion are discussed as an introduction or part
of the structural diversity.
The framework for understanding the campus climate for diversity is developed based on several
research conducted mainly in the context of higher education in the United States where there
was inclusion and exclusion policy and practice in admissions. The framework assumes that the
historical legacy of inclusion or exclusion continues to affect the campus climate for diversity.
Therefore, in such a context, it is necessary to examine the impact of the historical legacy of
inclusion or exclusion on the current campus climate. In the context of higher education in
Ethiopia, it is not possible to look at the historical legacy of HEIs with regard to inclusion or
exclusion in admissions. This is because in the history of Ethiopian higher education, it was only
during the imperial regime that a HEI had the right to make decisions regarding student
admissions (Wagaw, 1990). Since then, public universities do not select their prospective
undergraduate regular students.
2.4.3. Compositional diversity
Compositional or structural diversity is the composition or numerical representation of diverse
groups on campus. It includes the admissions, placement, and retention of students from different
backgrounds. It is the main factor that potentially diminishes or increases diversity. This
indicates that structural diversity is an essential dimension of the campus climate which any
institution needs to take into consideration. It is argued that“Diversity nourishes the institutional
climate in higher education much like water brings life to barren land” (Aguirre & Martinez,
2002). Structural diversity is often considered “the first step that must be taken in developing an
environment that fosters a positive climate and intergroup relations” (Hurtado et al., 2008).
In the context of Ethiopian higher education, the admissions and placement to higher education
provide favorable conditions that potentially enhance the structural diversity in all public
universities. However, enhancing structural diversity seems not to a deliberate action to
maximize benefits associated with diversity.
2.4.4. Psychological climate
The psychological climate of the institutional context includes perceptions of discrimination,
individuals’ views of group relations, attitudes toward people from different backgrounds,
tension and conflict on campus, and thoughts about institutional commitment and responses to
diversity (Hurtado et al., 1998; 1999). According to Gurin (1999), institutional commitment to
diversity is demonstrated by institutions’ activities and responses regarding the three types of
diversity - structural diversity, classroom diversity, and informal interactional diversity18.
Individuals’ perceptions of diversity and attitudes toward others influence their intergroup
interaction. These indicate that perceptions and attitudes are closely related to other elements of
the campus climate for diversity which are found in the structural diversity and behavioral
climate. Therefore, institutional attempts to create positive campus climate and intergroup
relations need to consider campus community’s diversity experiences as well as perceptions of
and attitudes toward diversity issues.
2.4.5. Behavioral climate
The behavioral climate often includes opportunities for and actual diversity-related experiences
on campus (Hurtado et al., 1998; 1999). It involves interactions between individuals from
different backgrounds, the nature of intergroup relations, and exposure to diverse perspectives in
curricular and cocurricular diversity such as diversity courses, pedagogical approaches, seminars,
workshops and trainings. There is an extensive body of research on this dimension of the
institutional context.
To these four, Milem et al (2005) added a fifth dimension of the campus climate in the
institutional context which they call organizational/structural dimension. This dimension of the
campus climate includes diversity of curriculum, tenure policies, decision-making policies, and
budget allocations, and is reflected in “the curriculum; in campus decision- making practices
related to budget allocations, reward structures, hiring practices, admissions practices, and tenure
decisions; and in other important structures and processes that guide the day-to-day “business” of
our campuses” (p. 18). The elements included in this dimension are not new as such. They may
not be explicitly discussed but they are in one way or another included in the psychological
climate and behavioral climate. For example, the diversity of curriculum is addressed in the
behavioral climate which includes issues related to curricular and cocurricular diversity. Various
institutional policies are also included in the psychological climate which includes institutional
commitment. The institutional commitment is reflected in the policies, strategies, programs and
activities of the institution. This can be studied by reviewing and analyzing the institution’s
strategic plan and policy documents as well as obtaining campus community’s thoughts about
institutional commitment and responses to diversity. Therefore, there is no need to add
organizational/structural dimension to the existing four dimensions of the institutional context.
2.5. Enhancing a Positive Campus Climate for Diversity
It is argued that by enhancing a positive campus climate for diversity it is possible to minimize
negative outcomes or challenges and maximize opportunities or benefits that potentially emerge
from campus diversity. As indicated in the introductory chapter, benefits of diversity can be
grouped into three major categories based on beneficiaries – individual benefits, institutional
benefits, and societal benefits. Research evidence regarding the individual benefits of diversity
shows that diversity considerably enhancesstudents’ development in the cognitive, affective, and
interpersonal domains (Milem, 2003). Individual benefits of diversity include greater openness to
diversity (Flowers & Pascarella, 1999; Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, & Terenzini, 1996),
increased cultural knowledge and understanding of diversity (Antonio, 2001; Astin, 1993;
MacPhee, Kreutzer, & Fritz, 1994), increased intellectual engagement and personal development
(Gurin, 1999; Gurin et al., 2002; Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, 2004; Milem & Hakuta, 2000; Umbach
& Kuh, 2006), developed complex and critical thinking (Gurin, 1999; Gurin et al., 2002;
Hurtado, 2001; MacPhee et al., 1994; Pascarella et al., 1996), developed perspective-taking skills
(Gottfredson, Panter, Daye, Allen, Wightman, & Deo, 2008; Gurin et al., 2004), developed
problem-solving skills (Hurtado, 2001; Terenzini et al., 2001), reduced levels of stereotyping and
ethnocentrism (Engberg, 2004; Milem, 2003), understanding self and other (Pascarella et al.,
1996), growth in intellectual self-concept (Chang, 1999; Gurin, 1999) and academic skills
(Gottfredson et al., 2008; Gurin, 1999; Milem, 2003; Milem & Hakuta, 2000), and better
prepared for living and working in a diverse society (Gurin, 1999; Gurin et al., 2002).
The institutional benefits of diversity are not as yet well studied. Nevertheless, emerging studies
have shown that universities can benefit from the diversity they have. Diversity increases
universities’ creativity and innovation and improve their problem-solving ability (Milem &
Hakuta, 2000). It also contributes to the richness of the institutional environment for teaching
and research. Diversity in higher education has also “the potential to transform the institutional
culture and pedagogical practices” (Aguirre & Martinez, 2002, p. 55) that drives universities
toward excellence in teaching and learning. This, in turn, makes them competitive and able to
attract students from different backgrounds.
Studies also indicate different societal benefits of diversity. Diversity is a powerful means of
developing the intellectual energy that leads to greater knowledge (Chang, 1999) and mutual
respect which is essential to civic society and effective functioning of democracy (Astin 1993;
Chang, 1999). Campus diversity experiences help students to develop a capacity to understand
the feelings of people from different backgrounds (Gurin, 1999) and influence the function of
university graduates as citizens (Milem & Hakuta, 2000). It also motivates them for better
participation in a diverse and complexdemocracy and society (Gurin et al., 2002). Research
indicate that “students who experienced diversity in classroom setting and in informal interaction
showed the most engagement in various forms of citizenship, and the most engagement with
people from different races/cultures” (Gurin, 1999, p. 46).

2.5.1. Structural diversity

Campuses that have more diverse student population “tend to create more richly varied
educational experiences that enhance students’ learning and better prepare them for participation
in a democratic society”. Studies show that universities that accommodate diverse student
population potentially offer a social and intellectual atmosphere which is different from those
which students know very well. This provides them with opportunities to learn more, and think
in deeper and more complex ways (Gurin, 1999).
Increasing the representation of students from diverse backgrounds potentially leads to a wider
range of thoughts, ideas, and opinions. It also has the potential of creating an enriched academic
environment (Shaw, 2005). Research indicates that structural diversity increases the possibility
of exposing students to a wider range of viewpoints on a particular issue (Milem et al., 2005). It
also increases the likelihood of socializing with diverse groups and discussing various diversity-
related issues. This, in turn, contributes to developing mutual understanding and positive
intergroup relations by challenging students to refine their way of thinking and reducing
prejudices toward outgroup members. The presence of a diverse student population also provides
opportunities for interaction among diverse students, which in turn creates opportunities for
students to develop the skills and competencies necessary to live and work in a diverse society.
Although research indicates the significant contribution of structural diversity to enhance the
campus climate and benefits of diversity, it is necessary to note that the mere presence of diverse
student population on campus does not guarantee to benefit from diversity as the outcome of
increased diverse student population is not necessarilypositive. Scholars seem to agree that
structural diversity is a necessary but not sufficient condition to improve the campus climate for
diversity and maximize learning opportunities (Antonio, 2001; Gurin et al., 2002; Hurtado, 2007;
Milem, 2003; Pike & Kuh, 2006; Umbach & Kuh, 2006; Zirkel & Cantor, 2004). Moreover,
structural diversity by itself seems to have no direct positive effect on students’ personal and
academic development. Its profound positive effects are indirectly through providing an
environment in which there are lots of opportunities for increased level of learning and
interactions among diverse group of students.
2.5.2. Classroom diversity
Classroom diversity is referred to as structured and purposefully programed diversity-related
initiatives that help students to engage in diversity. However, exposing students to knowledge
and awareness about diversity is not limited to curricular activities such as pedagogical
approaches and diversity courses that take place in a classroom. There are various diversity-
related initiatives that universities purposefully make available to increase students’ knowledge
and awareness about issues of diversity. Some of these activities include intergroup dialogues
(IGDs), and diversity workshops, trainings and seminars that often take place outside a
classroom. In order to avoid this limitation of the term classroom diversity, Denson (2009) refers
these diversity-related initiatives as curricular/cocurricular diversity. I also prefer to use
curricular/cocurricular diversity hereafter.
Curricular diversity involves courses designed with the intention of providing content knowledge
about various diversity issues such as living in a diverse cultural context, valuing communalities,
and accepting and respecting differences. Diversity-related courses such as multicultural
education and citizenship education enable students to acquire the knowledge, values, and skills
required to interact positively with people from diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious
backgrounds (Banks, 2007). Diversity-related courses such as citizenship education are
important to teach multicultural societies about tolerance and recognition of cultural difference
(Gutmann, 2004). Courses that provide information about history and historical injustices may
also “arouse feelings of collectiveguilt or moral indignation that can motivate more positive
orientations and reductions in bias toward other groups” (Gaertner, Stewart, Esses, ten Vergert,
& Hodson, 2004, p. 257).
Research shows that diversity-related courses have positive effects on students’ cognitive
development (Bowman, 2009), and they are effective in reducing biases, and developing skills to
work with diverse others (Banks, 2001). By taking diversity courses, which can be further
enriched through classroom discussion, students learn more about diverse others and develop a
greater ability to understand diverse viewpoints (Gurin et al., 2002). Unlike other programs and
activities such as IGDs and diversity training, diversity-related courses do not necessarily
provide a quick approach for improving intergroup relations. However, they may have the
greatest long-term impact on solving problems in intergroup relations (Bigg & Colesante, 2004).
Although diversity-related courses have several benefits, their strongest effects are “on complex
thinking skills (attributional complexity), retention, cultural awareness, interest in social issues,
the importance of creating social awareness, and support for institutional diversity initiatives”
(Hurtado, 2005). Because of their significance, nowadays, diversity-related courses have become
required courses for undergraduate and graduate teacher education programs in several countries.
For example, in the United States of America, diversity and multicultural education courses have
become mandatory within many teacher education programs. This is partly because out of the 50
states “39 states require teacher education programs to prepare teachers to meet the needs of
culturally, linguistically, ethnically, economically diverse (CLEED) classrooms” (Larke &
Larke, 2009).
Curricular diversity also involves pedagogical approaches that promote diversity. Students learn
more from diverse peers when classroom discussions and intergroup interactions are facilitated
in supportive environments. Thus, pedagogical techniques and learning activities that teachers
use should consider diversity and provide opportunities for intergroup interactions (Hurtado,
2003). The outcome of diversity somehow depends on whether learning situations are structured
individualistically, competitively, or cooperatively. As Johnson & Johnson (2000) note, “each
type of interdependence teaches a set of values and creates patterns of interaction that will result
in diversity being valuedor rejected” (p. 16). There are research findings that advocate the
combination of cooperative and competitive learning strategy. Ediger (1996) argues that neither
strategy in and of itself is good, because life in school and society consist of both. Thus, in order
for students to benefit more, a properly balanced learning strategy that combines cooperation and
competition is necessary (Attle & Baker, 2007; Ediger, 1996). However, several research
findings indicate that cooperative learning contributes to higher academic achievement than
individualistic or competitive learning does (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991; Johnson,
Johnson, & Holubec, 2002; Slavin, 1991; 1995). Although the primary objective of cooperative
learning is to enhance students’ academic achievement (Slavin & Cooper, 1999), evidences
confirm its effectiveness in improving positive interactions and intergroup relations among
diverse students (Johnson et al., 1991; Slavin, 1995).
Cooperative learning is defined as “the instructional use of small groups so that students work
together to maximize their own and each other’s learning” (Johnson et al., 1991, p. 3). It is
important to note that all small group activities do not constitute cooperative learning (Slavin &
Cooper, 1999). For a pedagogical strategy to be cooperative, the following five basic elements
must be included: positive interdependence, face-to-face promotive interaction, individual
accountability, social skills, and group processing (Johnson et al., 2002). The idea is that
cooperative learning requires student cooperation and interdependence in order to accomplish a
common goal and achieve learning objectives. Cooperative learning helps to develop more
positive intergroup relationships than do competitive and individualistic learning (Johnson &
Johnson, 2000). It also increases intergroup contact and reduces prejudice which helps to
improve positive intergroup relations on campus.
In addition to campus-wide events and diversity training, workshops and seminars, research
indicates that IGD, which can also be offered as curricular (a course or part of a course) or co-
curricular activity, promotes positive campus climate for diversity. IGD is a facilitated face-to-
face discussion between students from diverse backgrounds to share their experience and gain
diversity-related knowledge. It provides a structured and supportive environment in which
students discuss different issues that are considered politically or socially sensitive, and deal with
issues and questions that may otherwise remain taboo or divisive (Tatum, 1997 cited in Nagda &
Maxwell, 2011). Despite the differences on issues for discussions and approaches, IGD provides
opportunities for discussants to share their perspectives, lived experiences, and listen to others’
thoughts and experiences, which are all useful to develop sense of connectedness and
friendliness (Nagda & Derr, 2004). Moreover, longitudinal studies indicate that participating in
IGD has significant effect on students’ perspective-taking skills (Hurtado, 2005; 2007).
3. Methodology
This part presents a detailed account of the research procedures. It mainly includes specific
information regarding the assumptions of qualitative research method, the design of the study,
case selection, data collection and analysis procedures, trustworthiness of the study, and ethical
issues.
3.1. Qualitative Research
There are two major methodological approaches in research – qualitative and quantitative. These
two represent different paradigms which consist of assumptions that are distinct in nature. The
choice of one of these paradigms depends on the purpose of the research at hand. The main
purpose of this study is to provide a better understanding of the campus climate for ethnic and
religious diversity in ArU from participants’ point of view. A qualitative approach is deemed
appropriate for achieving this purpose for it seeks to understand issues or phenomena such as
people, events, institutions, and activities from the participants’ point of view in context-specific
settings (Flick, 2002; 2004; Patton, 2002). Moreover, as mentioned in the introductory part, the
campus climate for diversity in universities in Ethiopia is not well understood due to a lack of
research on issues of diversity in higher education in the country. In such a context, using
qualitative research becomes very useful because it helps to better understand a phenomenon or a
situation about which little is yet known.
Qualitative research is an umbrella term for research methodologies that describe and explain
peoples’ attitudes, perceptions, interactions, experiences, and social contexts. It is broadly
defined as “any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical
procedures or other means of quantification”. However, this does not mean numerical data have
no place at all in qualitative research. They are usually used to substantiate non-numerical data.
From the various research designs or approaches that fit within the general framework of
qualitative research, a qualitative case study was deemed appropriate for answering the research
questions of this study. Case study is defined as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context” (Yin, 2009, p. 18). It is
desirable when the researcher seeks to provide an in-depth understanding of the case (Creswell,
2007), and when the research questions require an extensive and in-depth description of the
phenomenon (Yin, 2009).
3.2. Case Selection
Every case study research requires at least one case to be studied. Merriam (2008) defines a case
as “a thing, a single entity, [or] a unit around which there are boundaries” (p. 27). Based on this
definition, the campus climate for ethnic and religious diversity in universities in Ethiopia is the
case of this study. However, within the scope of this study, it is not feasible to examine the
campus climate for diversity in all public universities. Therefore, I had to choose only one case.
The campus climate for diversity in each public university can potentially be a case as each of
them can provide opportunities to understand the phenomenon. However, I needed to select a
case maximizing what could be learned and understood because a profound understanding of a
phenomenon depends on choosing the better case (Yin, 2009).
There are different types of case study and identifying the type of case study that the study
focuses on helps in choosing which case to study. Based on the intent of a study, case study can
be categorized into three - intrinsic case study, instrumental case study and collective case study
(Stake, 2003). In intrinsic case study, the study is not undertaken primarily because the case
represents other cases but because ‘in all its particularity and ordinariness’, the case itself is of
interest. In instrumental case study, the main purpose is to provide insight into an issue. The
study is undertaken to provide a general understanding of a phenomenon using a particular case,
not because of the uniqueness or typicality of the case. Like instrumental case study, collective
case study is also mainly conducted to provide insight into an issue (Stake, 2003). What makes it
different is that it includes a number of cases. Based on the above elaboration, the present study
used an instrumental case study because it focused on examining one case that helps to better
understand the phenomenon. The selection of the case was not based on its uniqueness.
From the 45 public universities in Ethiopia, the campus climate for diversity in ArU is
purposefully selected as a case. The selection was made because of my greater familiarity with
issues of diversity in ArU than in any other universities in the country19. My familiarity with the
issues and the context helped me, as a researcher, to get detailed information and to better
understand what the participants were saying in their own terms. Moreover, my membership as a
teacher and my close relationship with the campus community was an advantage to communicate
with participants without seeking gatekeepers and to have easy access to official documents.
Although this kind of pragmatic consideration of case selection may not provide a strong
methodological justification, it is a legitimate factor pertaining to selecting a better case to
understand the issue under study (Seawright & Gerring, 2008).
3.3. Data Collection
The data will be collected between January and April 2025. Qualitative case study research
requires providing detailed descriptions of the case using multiple sources of evidence, which
requires different sources of data. In this study, the necessary data were collected from students,
managers, academic and administrative staff, representatives of thestudents’ union (SU) and the
Apostle of Peace Club (APC), and documents. The data will be collected using interviews, focus
groups and document reviews.
3.3.1. Sources of data
Students
The purpose of the study was to provide a better understanding of the campus climate for ethnic
and religious diversity in ArU, and student diversity was the focus of this study. Therefore,
students were taken as the major sources of data. A total of 55 students from different ethnic
(Afar, Amhara, Gambella20, Gedio, Gurage, Gumuz, Oromo, Sidama, Somali, Tigre, Wolayita,
and Mixed ethnicity) and religious (Catholic, Muslim, Orthodox, and Protestant) backgrounds
participated in the study. This helped to understand the issue under study from different ethnic
and religious groups’ points of view. Students were second years and above because it was
thought that they may have had more diversity experience on campus than would first-year
students21. They were selected using purposeful and snowball sampling techniques. All students
kindly accepted their nomination and agreed to participate in the research. However, some
students did not show up for the interview and they did not explain their absence.
Academic and administrative staff
ArU’s legislation broadly categorizes university employees as “academic staff” and
“administrative support staff”. Academic staff (hereafter teachers) includes members of the
University employed as teaching and/or research staff. Administrative support staff (hereafter
staff) includes all employees of the University except teachers. To obtain detailed data about the
issue under study, eight teachers from five different ethnic backgrounds with at least five years
of full-time work experience at ArU and three staff providing student services were purposefully
selected.
Documents
The other data source to be used in this study is official documents that include documents from
the University such as the legislation, rules and regulations, strategic plan, database and minutes,
and also documents from other institutions such as the population census, the regulation on
implementing student placement, and the guideline to regulate worship, dress code, and food
etiquette on campus. The only personal document used in this study is the graffiti collected from
toilet walls by students for a course assignment. Graffiti is a means to express strong feelings,
internal experiences, attitudes, and emotions safely by writing on public property (Şad & Kutlu,
2009). The interest in using graffiti as data source came from evidence from earlier research as
well as my personal experience. A study that focused on conflict management in ArU also
indicates that graffiti is such a rich data source to understand students’ feeling and attitude
toward ethnicity, religion, and politics (Zellelew, 2010). When I was a student in ArU a decade
ago, I read several graffiti that students used to express their feelings and attitudes toward
various social and political issues by writing on different places such as toilets and classrooms
walls.
3.4. Data collection methods
Interview
Interview is one of the most important and widely used data collection instruments in qualitative
research (Bryman, 2008). It provides direct access to individuals’ perceptions and experiences.
In this study, interview was used as the main data collection method. From the three types of
interviews (unstructured, semi-structured, and structured), semi-structured interview was used to
allow focusing on main issues that the study sought toaddress, incorporating issues likely to arise
during interview, and probing interviewees to elaborate on their original responses.
An interview guide will be used to guide the interviews in a focused, yet flexible and
conversational manner. The interview guide will comprise the list of questions and major topics
that need to be covered during interviews. Open-ended questions were used throughout the
interviews because this allows interviewees to answer in their own words and provide detailed
information including attitudes, feelings, experiences and understanding of the issue under
discussion.
Interviews will be conducted with students, teachers, managers, staff, and representatives of
different groups. Among the 27 students participating in the interview, three of them will be of
mixed ethnicity. Interviews with students will be conducted in their languages to express their
ideas proficiently. English will be used to conduct interviews with three students who will not
have sufficient Amharic proficiency. The interviews with teachers, managers, staff, and
representatives will be conducted in Amharic. Interviews will be conducted face-to-face and will
take place in settings that will be quiet and private so that there will be no noise that might affect
the quality of the tape recording, and interviewees will not have to worry about being overheard.
During the interviews, students and teachers will be asked about their ethnic and religious
backgrounds for such information is useful for contextualizing their responses.
Focus group
Focus group is “a way of collecting qualitative data, which - essentially - involves engaging a
small number of people in an informal facilitated group discussion (or discussions), focused
around a particular topic or set of issues” (Wilkinson, 2004, p. 177). It provides valuable insights
on how group participants view an issue with which they are confronted (Bryman, 2008;
Wibeck, Dahlgren, & Öberg, 2007). It is an essential datacollection instrument for a study
seeking to understand perceptions, ideas, thoughts, and experiences of different groups of
peoples on a particular or focused issue (Krueger & Casey, 2000; Morgan, 1998).
In this study, the focus groups will be conducted with students to elicit group perceptions and
experiences on ethnic and religious-related issues on campus. In focus groups, participants need
to have certain characteristic in common which is important to the topic of discussion or
investigation (Krueger & Casey, 2000). The criterion for selecting focus group participants
should be homogeneity, not diversity. Heterogeneous groups are usually undesirable.
Participants’ homogeneity in a focus group is particularly important when the topic of discussion
is potentially sensitive. Participants’ homogeneity in background, not attitude, contributes to
make the group members more cohesive and open with each other.
However, homogeneity of a group should be beyond demographic similarity or sharing certain
characteristics relevant to the research questions, so that each participant feels safe in sharing
information with other participants. Accordingly, in this study, participants in each focus group
had the same ethnic/religious background, and they knew each other before attending the focus
groups. This increases participants’ comfort during group discussions. To achieve this,
purposeful homogeneous and snowball sampling techniques were used (Patton, 2002). The first
purposely selected students will nominate another student from the same ethnic or religious
background with whom he/she will be comfortable discussing the issue being studied. This
selection process will continue until a reasonable number of participants will be obtained.
A total of eight focus groups (four based on religion and four based on ethnicity) will be
conducted. The selection of ethnic groups is mainly based on the current ethnic majority-
minority dichotomy, and information obtained from interviews and earlier studies about groups
often involved in ethnic conflict. Based on these criteria, the Amhara, Gambella, Oromo, and
Tigre ethnic groups were selected. The focus groups with Amhara, Oromo, and Tigre ethnic
groups will be conducted in Amharic, and the focusgroup with Gambella students was conducted
in English. The four religious groups to be participated in the focus groups will be Catholic,
Muslim, Orthodox, and Protestant. These are the common religious faiths within the student
population.
There is no consensus among researchers on the ideal size of a focus group. The suggestions
include 6-8 people (Krueger & Casey, 2000; Morgan, 1998), 6-10 people (Hancock, 1998), 6-12
people (Johnson & Christensen, 2004; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990), and 8-10 people (Mack,
Woodsong, Macqueen, Guest, & Namey, 2005). The main argument behind defining the number
of participants is that the size of a focus group should not be too small to obtain diverse and
detail information and should not be too large so that each participant could have an opportunity
to share his/her view in detail. In this study, each focus group will consist of 6-8 participants.
About half of the focus group participants also participated in the interview. In order to cover the
necessary topics and to keep the discussion on track while allowing participants to talk freely and
spontaneously, a focus group guide will be used. The focus group guide will comprise open-
ended questions and major topics to be covered during discussions.
Document review
Document review is a systematic way of collecting data by reviewing existing documents. It is
used to collect data from official and personal documents. In order to focus on selected topics
and collect relevant data, document review guide is used. The guide comprises major topics to be
covered and required specific information. The required information is formulated in the form of
open-ended questions. Document reviews will be conducted both before and after conducting
interviews and focus groups. Data will be collected until data saturation whereby the collection
of more data through the selected methods appears to have no new or relevant information to the
study (Krueger & Casey, 2000; Mack et al., 2005; Sarantakos, 2005).
3.4. Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis includes the process of “working with data, organizing it, breaking it
into manageable units, synthesizing it, searching for patterns, discovering what is important and
what is to be learned, and deciding what you will tell others” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982, p. 145).
Qualitative data analysis methods include but are not limited to discourse analysis, content
analysis, thematic analysis, narrative analysis, interpretative phenomenological analysis, and
grounded theory analysis. Despite the focus and strategic differences, there are features common
to all qualitative data analysis methods. Choosing one of these methods depends on the purpose
and focus of the analysis. As described above, case study research requires extensive and in-
depth description of the phenomenon to better understand the case under study. Thus the data
analysis method to be employed should enable achieving this purpose. Accordingly, this study
will use thematic analysis which provides a rich and detailed description of the data set (Braun &
Clarke, 2006). It is the most widely used data analysis method in qualitative research (Braun &
Clarke, 2006; Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2012).
In this study, preliminary data analysis will begin while collecting data and this facilitated
shaping the ongoing data collection by including emerging issues and refining interview and
focus group questions. Interview will be the main data collection tool, and thus in the analysis,
the interview data will be given more weight than will be the focus group and the document
review. The data analysis process includes transcribing, translating, coding, categorizing
(identifying themes), and reporting. As a procedure, first, I will listen to the tape recordings of
the interviews and focus groups, and transcribe selectively. Selective transcription is used to
avoid including extraneous information which will not contribute to the purpose of the study for
a useful transcription is the one that is made based on the purpose of the study (Kvale, 1996).
The relevant data from the transcribed document will be translated into English and used for the
final analysis.
After reading and rereading through the transcript, the data will be coded by asking what each
text is about and why it is important. The coding will be done by assigning different words and
short phrases related to the research questions. Then related codes will be grouped together.
Coding and grouping related codes help to reduce the enormous amount of data by dividing it
into meaningful and manageable pieces of data. After coding all the data and grouping and
regrouping related codes, themes will be developed from related coded data segments. According
to Braun & Clarke (2006), “A theme captures something important about the data in relation to
the research question, and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the
data set”. Qualitative researchers tend to use inductive analysis approach in which themes and
categories emerge out of the data (Kaplan & Maxwell, 2005; Patton, 2002). This study also
generally uses an inductive analysis approach. However, it seems difficult to have a pure
inductive analysis. For example, the interview and focus group topics and questions will be
prepared on the basis of the research questions and literature reviews, and this partly influence
the recurrence of issues and the major themes that emerge from the data. Srivastava &
Hopwood’s (2009) argument support this claim. They argue that, patterns, themes, and
categories do not emerge in their own. They are driven by what the inquirer wants to know and
how the inquirer interprets the data based on subscribed theoretical frameworks, subjective
perspectives, ontological and epistemological positions, and intuitive field understandings.
After developing themes, the transcriptions will be read again to reorganize and refine general
themes that accommodate different issues contained in various data segments. This data analysis
process also help to develop sub-themes which will help to analyze different issues in detail, and
to identify quotations that best describe different issues while analyzing and interpreting.
Although recurrence is a major criterion in selecting themes, there are also cases where themes
will be developed from issues that “capture something important in relation to the overall
research questions” (Braun & Clarke, 2006). During categorizing different issues into various
themes and during analysis and interpretation, I consistently use it as why it is so. This helps me
to develop strong data analysis and interpretation. At this point of the analysis process, the
documents review and code will be incorporated into the identified themes to substantiate
information to be obtained from participants through interviews and focus groups. Finally, more
detail analysis will begin after compiling data into a coherent and usable form.
3.5. Trustworthiness
Positivist concepts of validity and reliability widely used in quantitative research cannot be
addressed in the same way in qualitative research (Shenton, 2004). It is often considered
inadequate and inapplicable to the qualitative research paradigm (Golafshani, 2003). Thus,
qualitative researchers often focus on trustworthiness. By establishing trustworthiness, a
researcher aims to persuade readers that “the research findings of an inquiry are worth paying
attention”. Establishing the trustworthiness of findings from qualitative research requires
addressing four factors that are somehow interconnected. These factors are credibility,
transferability, dependability, and conformability (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008).
Credibility refers to whether the findings are based on and supported by the data collected. It can
be established by employing different techniques including peer briefing, prolonged engagement
in the field, member checking, triangulation, and negative case analysis (Shenton, 2004). To
address credibility, this study will employ triangulation which is a common strategy that is
widely used for improving validity in qualitative research. The term triangulation refers to “the
observation of the research issues from (at least) two different points” (Flick, 2004, p. 178). It is
a strategy of substantiation which helps the researcher to be more confident of the study findings
and conclusion (Bowen, 2005).
Data triangulation refers to the combination of data drown from different sources or at different
times or in different places. Investigator triangulation refers to the use of more than one
researcher (observers or interviewers) to generate and/or interpret data. This strategy helps to
reveal and minimize biases coming from the individual researcher. Theory triangulation is the
combination of different theoretical perspectives to explain or interpret a single set of data. It
prevents researchers from sticking to their preliminary assumption and from ignoring alternative
explanations. Methodological triangulation refers to the use of more than one method to study a
single problem or phenomenon. In order to ensure credibility, the data collected from different
sources and using different methods will be triangulated. Hence, based on the above
explanations, the study will use data triangulation. The other technique used to ensure credibility
is providing thick descriptions of the phenomenon under study including participants’ own words
when it is found necessary and appropriate.
Transferability refers to the applicability of the research finding to another context. It is up to the
reader rather than the researcher, to determine whether the findings are transferable or applicable
to another setting (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). However, the researcher should provide the necessary
information that enables readers to determine whether the findings are transferable. Thus, to
address issues of transferability, this study provided thick descriptions of the phenomenon under
study including background information. Dependability refers to the stability or consistency of
the findings over time whereas confirmability refers to objectivity or the extent to which the
findings are shaped by the data and not researcher bias or interest (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In
qualitative research, researchers are an important part of the research process, and they cannot
separate themselves from the phenomenon they are studying (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000;
Mehra, 2002; Patton, 2002). Moreover, qualitative researchers, as human beings, have certain
opinions and beliefs about the topic, and it is a challenge for them to remain neutral or objective
(Mehra, 2002). Although it is not possible to be totally unbiased and do research with an ‘open
mind’, I will attempt to reduce the effect of my bias on the study. This will be done by
suspending my own taken for granted beliefs and opinions about the topic at every step of the
research process. I will also use another technique that will partially contribute to establish
conformability. This will be achieved by inviting a PhD student in another university who has
qualitative research skills to evaluate the research process as a whole.
3.6. Ethical considerations
Research participants often trust what researchers tell them before data collection, and they
provide information which they may not share with others or in public. Therefore, it is the
responsibility of the researcher to deal with ethical issues. For any researcher, the responsibility
and obligation to be ethical is both professional and moral, and this should be considered even
when research participants are less concerned about their privacy (Neuman, 2003). In general,
when it is found necessary, ensuring privacy, anonymity and confidentiality must be researchers’
top priority.
To comply with ethical issues, first, data collection permission will be acquired from ArU’s
Office of the Vice President for Research and Community Service. Then an informed consent
form will be used which is an “important feature of ethical considerations in any research
involving human subjects” (Bowen, 2005, p. 214). The primary objective of obtaining informed
consent was to ensure that individuals understand what it means to participate in the study and
decide in a conscious and deliberate way whether they want to participate (Mack et al., 2005).
This helped to protect the rights of individuals participating in the study and to conduct the
research openly. As a procedure, a written information sheet was provided to potential
participants before they participated in the interviews or focus groups. The information provided
to potential participants included the purpose, methods, and significance of the study; what their
participation in the research entailed; when the recorded data would be destroyed; confidentiality
and anonymity; and the voluntary nature of their participation and their right to withdraw
whenever and for whatever reason they wished (see Appendix 4). Potential participants were
given sufficient time to consider whether they wanted to participate in the research. Most of them
agreed to participate in the research, but they were not willing to sign the written consent form
(see Appendix 4). Participants did not see the importance of putting their name and signature on
the consent form as long as they orally agreed to participate in the research. The request for
written consent which requires the participant’s name and signature was a new and undesirable
thing for most participants. Despite the information provided about issues of privacy and the
purpose of the study, it made participants suspicious about the use of the information as well as
confidentiality. A few participants were hesitantly willing to comply with the request to sign the
consent form. However, requiring participants’ names and signatures in such a situation would
have influenced the information they provided because they might respond differently if they
thought that their privacy might be compromised. Therefore, in order to obtain authentic and
better information, instead of written consent, oral consent was obtained from all participants. To
maintain confidentiality and anonymity in direct quotations, participants were addressed using
study codes which are abbreviations followed by numbers (Managers = MA1, MA2…; Staff =
STA1, STA2…; Students = ST1, ST2…; and Teachers = TE1, TE2…). However, sometimes it
was not possible not to disclose identifiable information about some participants because of the
position they held. This issue was discussed and agreed with those participants.
One of the ethical principles in research is an obligation on the part of the researcher to respect
participants’ social and cultural values. Diversity-related studies require researchers to be
sensitive and appropriate in their use of terms to describe people and their cultural identity.
Therefore some terms that had been used some time ago and existing in different literatures but
nowadays considered to be offending, insulting or taboo and politically incorrect were
deliberately substituted. There have been also several shifts in terminologies since the current
government came to power. The shift in terminologies is a deliberate attempt to rename or to
revert to the original name and discard those names given by other ethnic groups because they
have negative connotations from the name holder’s ethnic perspective. Thus throughout this
study some terms were chosen based on historical arguments, political interpretations, and above
allbased on what the people themselves want to be called and what was the most appropriate
term when this study is conducted.
References

Aalen, L. (2011). The politics of ethnicity in Ethiopia: Actors, powers and mobilization under
ethnic federalism. Leiden: BRILL.
Abbink, J. (1997). Ethnicity and constitutionalism in contemporary Ethiopia. Journal of
African Law, 41(2), 159-174.
Adamu, Y. A. (2007). Pre-service teachers‟ awareness about cultural diversity in educational
settings and their readiness to teach culturally diverse students: The case of Bahir Dar
University. Ethiopian Journal of Education, 27(2), 91-115.
Adamu, Y. A., & Zelelew, B. T. (2007). Higher education institutions as pavilions of
diversity - Opportunities and challenges: The case of Bahir Dar University. Ethiopian
Journal of Higher Education, 4(1), 49-68.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bahir Dar University (BDU). (2011). The five-year strategic plan (2011-2016) of Bahir Dar
University. Bahir Dar: Author.
Balsvik, R. R. (2007). The quest for expression: State and the university in Ethiopia under
three regimes, 1952-2005. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press.
Benson, C., Heugh, K., Bogale, B., & Gebreyohannes, M. A. (2012). Multilingual education
in Ethiopian primary schools. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & K. Heugh (Eds.), Multilingual
education and sustainable diversity work: From periphery to center (pp. 32-61). New
York & London: Routledge.
Central Statistical Agency. (2008). Summary and statistical report of the 2007 population
and hosing census. Addis Ababa: Author.

94 A. Y. Adamu

Journal of Education and Research, August 2013, Vol. 3, No. 2

Engberg, M. E. (2004). Improving intergroup relations in higher education: A critical
examination of the influence of educational interventions on racial bias. Review of
Educational Research, 7(4), 473-524.
Engedayehu, W. (1993). Ethiopia: Democracy and the politics of ethnicity. Africa Today,
40(2), 29-52.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. H., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The
common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias.
European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1-26.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. H. (2012). Common ingroup identity model. In The
encyclopedia of peace psychology (pp.163-167). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gudina, M. (2007). The problematic of democratizing a multi-cultural society: The Ethiopian
experience. Paper presented at Immigration, Minorities and Multiculturalism in
Democracies Conference, 25-27 October, 2007, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Hayes, B. H., McAllister, I., & Dowds, L. (2007). Integrated education, intergroup relation
and political identities in Northern Ireland. Social Problems, 54(4), 454-482.
Hurtado, S. (2005). The next generation of diversity and intergroup relations research.
Journal of Social Issues, 61(3), 595-610.
International Crisis Group. (2009, September). Ethiopia: Ethnic federalism and its
discontents (Crisis Group Africa Report No.153-4). Nairobi and Brussels: Author.
Lewis, I. M. (1985). Social anthropology in perspective (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mengisteab, K. (1997). New approaches to state building in Africa: The case of Ethiopia‟s
ethnic-based federalism. African Studies Review, 40(3), 111-132.
Metcalfe, B. D., & Woodhams, C. (2008). Critical perspectives in diversity and equality
management. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 23(6), 377-381.
Morgan, D. L. (1998). The focus group guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Negash, T. (2006). Education in Ethiopia: From crisis to brink of collapse. Nordic Africa
Institute discussion paper 33. Uppsala: Nordic Africa Institute.
Neuliep, J. W., Chaudoir, M., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). A cross-cultural comparison of
ethnocentrism among Japanese and United States college students. Communication
Research Reports, 18(2), 137-146.
Norris, B. (2001). Transformation, diversity and organizational change within institutions of
higher education. South African Journal of Education, 21(4), 219-222.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(2), 173-185.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice?
Meta- analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6),
922-934.
Schofield, J. W., Hausmann, L. R., Ye, F., & Woods, R. L. (2010). Intergroup friendships on
campus: Predicting close and casual friendships between White and African American
first-year college students. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(5), 585-602.
Semela, T. (2012). Intergroup relations among the Ethiopian youth: Effects of ethnicity,
language, and religious background. Journal of Developing Societies, 28(3), 323-354.
Shook, N. J., & Fazio, R. H. (2008). Roommate relationships: A comparison of interracial
and same-race living situations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relation, 11(4), 425-437.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tronvoll, K. (2000). Ethiopia: A new start? London: Minority Rights Group.
Tropp, L. R. (2008). The role of trust in intergroup contact: Its significance and implications
for improving relations between groups. In U. Wagner, L. R. Tropp, G. Finchilescu, & C.
Tredoux (Eds.), Improving intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F.
Pettigrew (pp. 91-106). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Van der Beken, C. (2012). Unity in diversity: Federalism as mechanism to accommodate
ethnic diversity: The case of Ethiopia. Zurich and Berlin: Lit Verlag.
Wagaw, T. (1999). Conflict of ethnic identity and the language of education policy in
contemporary Ethiopia. Northeast African Studies, 6(3), 75-88.
Way, N., Gingold, R., Rotenerg, M., & Kuriakose, G. (2005). Close friendships among urban,
ethnic-minority adolescents. In New directions for child and adolescent development
(Vol. 107, pp. 41-59). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Young, J. (1997). Peasant revolution in Ethiopia: The Tigray People’s Liberation Front,
1975-1991. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres