Funding of academic research in Nigerian universities by Government (5 per cent recurrent grants) is a policy dictated by the National Universities Commission (NUC) as the central body for allocating research funds.This research fund, little as it is, is irregular and inadequate and to make it worse isdifficult to access. These aforementioned factors have contributed to the decline in research activity as a means of attaining sustainable development in Nigeria. Thus, this article proposes a dual support system of funding academic research as follows: a devolution of the power of the NUC as the central body for administering research funds and the encouragement of another separate body such as the Education Tax Fund (ETF) to promote a healthy competitive research process and collaborative research among university research groups and individuals. These separate bodies (NUC and ETF) should be similar to the dual support system of operation, policies and procedures in the UK, where there is the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Research Councils. These bodies collaborate to build and maintain a sustainable research base in the UK.The dual support system as it is operated in the UK is very efficient in backing research in universities, because the research is supported at a marginal cost and provides a research council component of provision irrespective of geographical location.

This study depicted a micropolitical analysis of school principals’ decision making as regards the influence of formal and informal groups on school administrative processes from the point of view of principals. It was based on descriptive survey study of all 24 public secondary schools within Ile-Ife community, Osun State, Nigeria, out of which a sample of 10 schools was purposively selected. The instrument for data collection was an open-ended questionnaire titled “The micropolitics of school principals’ decision making in Nigeria: Principals’ perspective”. The results showed that decisions’ themes focused on improving quality of teachers and physical facilities in schools. The formal groups responsible for these decisions were principals, teachers, government officials, and parents. The informal groups were watchmen or night guards, non-governmental organizations, mass media agencies, students, and landlords. The study concluded that a complex micropolitical interaction existed in the decision-making processes of school principals due to formal and informal groups’ participation, a consequent of School-Based Management Committee (SBMC) system.

No abstract

No abstract