1. Introduction

The beginning of the twenty-first initiated exceptional demands for and vast diversification in university education. The demands and diversification has altogether increased awareness of the importance of higher education to socio-cultural and economic development. The younger generation need to be equipped with new competences, skills, abilities and knowledge to remain relevant with the demands of the twenty-first century.

Every organization, be it business, hospital, military, church or educational institutions, diversification is inevitable. Reasons being that organizations operate in dynamic environments and the need to expand is inevitable. An organization that succeeds is the one that is constantly adopting the direction and operations of diversifying technologically, socially, politically, economically and educationally in the way it operates.

The education industry especially university education, which is at the apex of education pyramid is not left out from varied lines of activities. The quality and type of university education received is a principal factor in the development of any nation (Ololube, Kpolovie, Egbezor & Ekpenyong, 2009). National policy on Education (FRN, 2013) recognizes this when it states that university education shall:

● Intensify and diversify its programs for the development of high level human resources within the context of the needs of the society;

● Make professional course contents to reflect our national requirements;

● Making all students, as part of a general program of all rounded improvement in University education to offer general study courses such as history of ideas, philosophy of knowledge and nationalism (p. 38)

In addition, UNESCO (1998) affirmed its core missions and values of higher education, which is aimed to:

● Assist to educate highly qualified graduates and responsible citizens able to meet the needs of all sectors of human activity, by offering relevant qualifications, professional training, combined with high-level knowledge and skills for the future needs of society;

● Assist in providing great opportunities for higher learning and for learning throughout life, through flexible entry and exit within the system, as well as opportunities for individual to develop and social mobility and for the consolidation of human rights, sustainable development, democracy and peace;

● Assist in advancing, creating and disseminating knowledge critical for national, regional and international development through research;

● Assist in the understanding, interpreting, preserving, enhancing, promoting and disseminating national and regional, international and historic cultures, in the context of cultural pluralism and diversity;

● Assist in the protection and enhance civic values by training the younger generation in the values that shape the foundation of democratization of citizenship and providing significant and diverse perspectives to support in the debate of planned decision to strengthen humanity;

● Contribute to the growth, development and improvement of education at all levels, which must also include the training of teachers.

University education has proved its traditional capability and capacity to advance human development, however, universities are confronted with frightening challenges globally. Nonetheless, Okeke (2007) grouped the objectives of university education into general and short term objectives. The general objectives, according to Okeke is to give public service, teach, and conduct research in all branches of learning.

The attainment of the above objectives/goals to a large extent, is a function of the university management principal officers: Deans, Head of Departments, Directors, Bursar, Liberian, Registrar, and Vice Chancellor. These crop of administrators are accountable for the management of the university community, curriculum and instruction, student and staff personnel, physical facilities and equipment, finance and business administration of the university system (See figure 1).

Figure 1. University Management, Officers and Objectives

Diversification in higher education vary significantly. According to Teichler (2002), the extent of diversity in higher education looks at the major dimensions of diversification and the different role they play concerning the types of institutions, nature of programs, levels of programs and type of degrees awarded, and the variations in reputation and prestige within identical institutions and their programs. However, Hall et al. (2011) evaluated the ethno-cultural diversification of higher education from the perspective of paying tax. While Choudaha (2013) looks that diversification in terms of international student mobility and its complex phenomenon with multiple variables interacting at the national, institutional and individual level, with the believe that an increased understanding of undergraduate and graduate students mobility trends can facilitate in not only shaping successful national and international education policies but also informed institutional plans and strategies. That said, the focus of this paper is centered on management of diversification, achievement and challenges in relation to university education in Nigeria. To achieve this, this paper discusses diversification of ownership and development in university education, management of university education, achievement and challenges of university education in Nigeria.

2. Conceptual Framework

2.1. Diversification of Ownership and Development in University Education in Nigeria

The ownership and development of university education in Nigeria, just like in most part of the world is dynamic. It has been changing from a dual ownership of federal and indigenous/state government to sole federal ownership and back to federal, state government and to individual/mission. Thus, the ownership of university education in Nigeria was tripartite and its development is often considered in phases.

First phase (First Generation Universities): This started when students of Yaba High College was moved to University College Ibadan in 1948, which was termed then a campus of university of London. In 1960, University of Nigeria located in Nsukka was established as the first indigenous university, followed by the establishment of three Ashby Universities as they were called in 1962: University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University) in Ile-Ife, University of Lagos in Yaba and Ahmadu Bell University in Zaria. In the same year University College Ibadan was made a full fledge university and was named University of Ibadan. The Mid-West Institute of Technology that was established in 1970 became University of Benin in 1972, thereby bringing the total number of Nigerian universities then to six.

Second Phase witnessed the establishment of more universities in Nigeria, which were popularly called Murtala Mohammed Universities. In 1975, the Federal Military Government led by General Murtala Mohammed established seven universities. They are university of Calabar, Ilorin, Kano, Maiduguri, Port Harcourt, Sokoto and Jos. In addition, the federal government took over all the regional owned universities: University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University), University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Ahmadu Bellow university, Zaria, and University of Benin, thereby ending the participation of states government in University ownership and control for the rest of the military regime before the advent of second republic in 1979. According to Ojo (1997), this move became necessary because of astronomic increase in income generation from oil boom. The second phase universities were established to meet the human resources need of the reconstruction challenges of the aftermath of the Nigerian civil war as well as the increase in population, urbanization and industrialization (Nwagwu & Agarin, 2008).

Third phase ushered the Universities of Technologies: These universities were established between 1981-1983, because of the needs for scientific and technological development in Nigeria, hence, they are called technological universities. They are federal university of technology Akure, Owerri, Mina, Bauchi, Yola, Makurdi and Abeokuta. Some of these universities were merged in 1984 by the then head of state Major General Mohamadu Buhari. The Federal University of Technology Yola became an outpost of University of Maiduguri, University of Jos absorbed Federal University of Technology Makurdi as the outpost of the former, while the Federal University of Technology Abeokuta became a campus of the University of Lagos (Orisa, 2003). To achieve geographical spread in university education and development in Nigeria, the demands then was that the federal government should be able to establish federal universities in every state in Nigeria (Nwagwu & Agarin, 2008).

Fourth phase (State Universities): witnessed a boom in the establishment of states universities in Nigeria. This move was made in order to meet the yearnings of qualified students from each state who could not readily get admission to any of the federal universities. At the moment, virtually every state in Nigeria has at least one university. Some states presently have more than one state university.

Fifth phase (Specialized Universities): this is the phase when some universities were transformed from technological universities to specialized universities by the then military administration of General Ibrahim Babangida in 1992. They are Federal University of Agriculture, Makurdi; Abubakar Tafawa Belewea University, Bauchi, Federal University of technology, Yola; and Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokula. Federal University of Agriculture, Umudike, Abia State.

Sixth Phase (Private Universities): The sixth generation universities consists of mainly private and mission universities. Private participation in the ownership and management of university was not an easy one. In the 80^s, individuals and organizations itched and yearned to have university. In 1983 for instance, technical university, Imeri Enwe, Imo State. Pope John Paul University, Aba, Imo State (now Abia State), Ezema University, Owerri, Imo State; Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Onitsha, Anambra State etc were advertised and established, but was aborted with Decree 19 of 1984, called the “Private Universities Abolition and Prohibited Decree”, which was promulgated by the Federal Military Government, under the leadership of Major General Mahammadu Buhari. With the restoration of democratic governance in the polity, many indigent Nigerians, foreign bodies and missions have opened private university in Nigeria, and more are yearning to do so. As at the time of this paper, there are 61 private universities, 40 federal universities and 41 state universities in Nigeria (National University Commission [NUC], 2015). See figure 2.

Figure 2. Universities in Nigeria

2.2. Management of University Education

The success of any organization depends on its management. Management is getting things done through people. Management is concerned with the coordination of human, material and time resources of an organization through the process of planning, organizing, directing and controlling in order to achieve organizational goals or objectives (Ololube, 2013). UNESCO in Ogunu (2000) defined management as a social process which is designed to ensure the cooperation, participation, intervention and involvement of others in the effective achievement of a given or predetermined objectives.

In university community, activities of management and administration are carried out by career administrators or registry staff and the academics. One can identify five different categories of managers in the universities. The first are those in policy making group. They are members of the council and of the senate and the university’s principal officers (Vice Chancellor, Deputy Vice Chancellor, Registrar, Bursar and University Librarian) who constitute the Vice Chancellor’s cabinet. The second categories are the career managers who are “pure” or professional managers. These are the staff of the central administration or the registry whose duty is to keep the day-to-day administration of the university going. The third group are the “professional in management”. They are specialists with some particular skills who find themselves in some management positions in the universities. These are the accountants in the bursary, the engineers in the maintenance Departments, medical Doctors and Nurses in the Health centers etc. these people, apart from being placed in charge of management of certain important facilities in the university, they belong to other professional bodies whose ethics they must obey.

The fourth group are the “academic managers”, these are academics who wear two hats: they teach and research and are also involved in the day-to-day management of the university. This category of people are Deans of Faculties, Directors of Institutes, Head of Department etc. The fifth group are “academic in management”. These are members of the teaching staff who serve for some periods on decision-making bodies such as council and senate committees and other committee of the university.

A major stakeholder in the management of Nigerian universities is the National Universities Commission (NUC), which was established in 1962 as an advisory agency in the Cabinet Office. In 1974, it became a legal body and serves as a coordinating agency that grants approval for all academic programs run in Nigerian universities; the establishment of all higher educational institutions offering degree programs in Nigerian universities; ensures quality assurance of all academic programs offered in Nigerian universities; and acts as a channel for all external support to Nigerian universities.

3. Achievements of University Education in Nigeria

Prior to when University of Ibadan was established in 1948, the production of Nigerian high level human resources development for the economy was minimally available. High level human resources were employed from Britain and other European countries and USA to take care Nigerian economy because there were no universities. Nte (2005) observes that some early graduate obtained their degrees from Fourah Bay University College in Sierra Leone or from Achimota University College, Ghana. Today, Nigeria has over 140 universities that contribute to the training of high level human capital through various courses and programs, which include among others, Medicine, Engineering, Law, Education, Pharmacy, Psychology, Accountancy, Banking and Finance, Mass Communication, and Journalism. The graduates from these disciplines are turned out to be Medical Doctors, Engineers, Lawyers, Educationists, Pharmacists, Psychologists, Accountants, Bankers, Journalists, etc.

Nigerian university education also provides qualified and dedicated personnel for community service. This is done by appointing graduates from university as Commissioners, Ministers, Heads of Parastatals or Board Members or Commission for enquiry. Universities organize extra-moral and extension services in their various departments, agricultural extension services and rural health services. These institutions help to foster and promote national unity, through teaching courses and programs that promote unity, inter-state visits, music, arts and culture, and encouragement of students to participate in the one year national youths corps. In the same vein, promote international understanding and cooperation. This is carried out by departments like department of foreign languages, organizes exchange of visits where students not only learn the language but also get to know about other people’s cultures, arts and traditions.

Nigerian universities provide research data to government, agencies and industries. Ogbonnaya (2003) observes that the federal government through the National universities commission (NUC), funds the conduct of research through research grants. The results of the research studies are made available to government and industries to improve the living standards of its citizens. However, it is important to note that noteworthy discovery reports and research publications are hardly cross-referenced (Ololube, 2006; Ololube, Kpolovie, Egbezor & Ekpenyong, 2009).

4. Challenges Preventing Nigerian Universities from Diversifying

The perennial challenges facing Nigerian universities irrespective of their classifications into federal, state or private and phases are leadership and administrative problems, under-funding, corruption, inadequate infrastructure, political dispensation, technological problem, quality of leaders, etc.

Leadership and Administrative problems: Leaders and administrators are expected to be forensic in all their leadership and administrative skills. Universities are established to meet national and regional needs, therefore they are goal oriented, as a result, leaders and administrators are to identify the various means that can lead to the attainment of these goals, arrange them in terms of their effectiveness and efficiency and choose the most effective means of reaching the goals (Ololube, 2013). The effect of bureaucratization of the university system is enormous. Goals are hardly achieved in efficient and effective ways. Major functions in the system are performed by bureaucratic processes, through the administrative mechanisms of government, consequently making the implementation of plans and decisions debilitated in many instances (Ololube et al., 2009). The goals and plans of the university system are always necessitated to filter through the bureaucratic structure for implementation. According to Enyi (2004) and Gbenu (2012), bureaucracy is overwhelmed with many problems, which are likely to slow down policies implementation.

Under-Funding: The under-funding of education in Nigeria has affected every aspect of university life. The current government budgetary provisions for education do not show any serious attempt to move Nigerian universities forward. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the Gross National Product (GNP) form important economic indicator for measuring economic development in any country. The persistent distress in Nigeria economy has resulted to the adoption of harsh economic policies that have adversely affected university management (Ololube, 2013). Unfortunately, university management and managers in Nigeria are faced with this unending problems. The instability in the economy results to fluctuating budgetary allocation. The situation Nigerian universities find themselves have resulted in negative effect on a number of areas like the quality, supply and demand for faculty (lecturers), the funding of approved programs, goal attainment, conditions of service of employees, the provision of adequate infrastructure, encouraged brain drain and standards of research, teaching and learning (Agabi & Ogah, 2010; Williams & Anekwe, 2010). The funds made available for the running of universities are exceptionally too little for effective management (Ololube, 2007). The prevailing condition of the university sector remains an obsession of worry. The greatest worry of them all is the systemic corruption in the system makes the matter worse (Onumajuru, 2004). The limited funds available are not left alone to be used to run the universities, rather they are embezzled by university leadership and government officials directly linked to the funds.

Corruption: The high level of corruption in Nigeria universities has direct link to the wastage of the limited resources that are made available into personal puckers and sometimes used for projects not budgeted for to enhance management chances of stealing (Gbenu, 2012). According to Dike (2004), corruption is a behavior pattern that digress from the normal rules of behavior that govern the action of some persons in position of public trust into private motives of acquiring wealth and money. Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI) placed Nigeria as the 36th most corrupt country in the world (Transparency International, 2015). Corruption is a key threat facing humanity and has eating deep into the university system in Nigeria. According to the United Nations (2012), corruption destroys lives and communities, and weaken institutional structures. It produces popular rage that threatens and further destabilize education and aggravate aggressive argument (AAA) in educational institutions.

Inadequate infrastructures: Another perennial challenge of university management is the state of infrastructural decay (e.g., laboratories, libraries, lecture halls, hostels, instructional aids, intra-campus road, functional health services, staff quarters and offices, electricity supply, adequate portable water supply). According to Okunamiri, Okoli and Emenalo (2008), the lack of engineering equipment to sufficiently exposed the Nigerian university engineering undergraduates to the practical knowledge they require for effective performance as finished products of the university to them compete favorably with others in the labor market is a matter for concern. Virtually every Nigerian university has infrastructural deficit, and has challenged them in various ways. For instance, the Ignatius Ajuru University of Education is dead in amenities and this is alarming, student hostel facilities are grossly inadequate and in their advance stages of dilapidation. Students who could not have bed-space and could not afford to pay for accommodation outside the campus sleep in the lecture halls. Those who are able to have a bed-space squat at least five students, thereby making the ratio of bed-space per student 1:5. Toilet facilities are downright outrageous. The dearth of lecture hall is so high that faculty adopt the principle of first come first serve irrespective of the courses allotted to a lecture hall. Under these situations learning, teaching and research are undermined, standards and qualities of education are lowered (Wali, 2007; 2010).

Political dispensation: Following the political arrangement in Nigeria, legislation is used as a tool of government to directly influence policy formulation, management and planning processes in Nigerian universities. In general, legislators are compelled to serve the interest of political groups. As a result, there are always the likelihood of conflicts between legislation and the balanced thoughts proposed by university management, and the academic staff union of universities (ASUU). The use of power, influence and authority by the government of the day, especially in the allocation of resources affects the functioning of universities. The existing political arrangement has influenced the control over policy formulation, management and planning processes in universities in Nigeria. According to Ololube (2006), political circumstances are having their toll on university programs. Development and diversification of plans started by one administration is brutally interrupted by the next and the differences between federal and state government education policies are quite challenging (Ololube & Kpolovie, 2013).

Technological Problems: Another serious problem in the management and administration of university education in Nigeria is the lack of attention on emerging technological innovations (TI) and information system (IS) instruments and services. The success, development and growth of universities depends upon their ability to identify and respond to technological changes in other to elevate and diversify. Since the inception of the twenty-first century, a number of scientific and technological innovation and changes have taken place that involves the introduction of modern advancements in research, teaching and learning process including approaches (Agabi, Agbor & Ololube, 2015). According to Ololube, Kpolovie, Amaele, Amanchukwu and Briggs (2013), technological innovations can make management and/or administration more efficient and productive. Evidence (Ololube, 2013) reported that a large number of Nigerian universities leaders and administrators do not know how to effectively use information technology (IT) tools in their day-to-day management activities. The unceasing scarcities brought about by financial shortages and government technological policies is the major reasons why most universities fail in their drive to achieve stated goals, and the acute IT deficiency makes diversification impossible in Nigerian universities.

Inaccurate Data: To be able and willing to diversify, universities need accurate information and data. One of the most pressing challenges that university administrators face is in the area of inaccurate statistical data (Agabi & Ogah, 2010). The quality of management strategies are in most cases inhibited by information deficiencies and inaccurate data, and Nigerian university systems has relatively failed to effectively management its resources because of lack of accurate data, which is as a result of the use of inexperienced and mediocre in the preparation of data for use in the planning and forecasting processes, which researchers (Alabi & Okemakinde, 2010) agree to have influence on diversification. In the view of Onyeike and Owuama (2012), most data collected are unreliable due and wrongly collected. At times data are on purpose falsified to reproduce a particular education predisposition. In addition, organizational culture, religion and ethnicity, play significant role in the diversification processes. These problems comprise of employees' behavior patterns, norms, attitudes, traditions, believes and values, including their demography. All of these factors have great influence the way universities are run managed in Nigeria (Ololube, 2013).

Quality of Leaders: To Goldberg and Cole (2002), leadership is a determinant of an organization's quality. University leaders who appreciate the importance of team work would develop a supportive culture of working with their faculties (lecturers) (Wong, 2001). The quality of university leaders and those who manage and implement Nigerian universities plans are selected based on favoritism and tribalism, and some of these leaders are incompetent in matters of school business administration. All these have made university management difficult (Ololube et al., 2009). Most universities Vice Chancellors in Nigerian do not have complete competence in leading/managing and directing the human and material resources of their institutions. Quality leadership (visionary, creative, flexible, passionate, inspiring, imaginative, courageous, innovative) is the most significant resource that leads to superior and efficient management, well-organized planning, and effective performance. To be able to diversify, what is needed by a leader is the capability to effectively utilize human and material resources by connecting knowledge, skills and ability to achieve university goals.

The authors of this article recognize that in the twenty-first century world, the need for high-quality leadership is much pointed out in diverse contexts. However, the characteristics of talented and successful leaders are vital in modern society. In this context, leaders in the university systems are no exceptions. Thus, leaders are expected to be competent to be able to strategize diversification efforts. Figure 3 gives an idea about leadership as coming from the heart and management as a product of the head.

Figure 3. Qualities of good leaders and managers. Source: Ololube et al. (2009)

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

In the paper, researchers evaluated management of diversification in education, achievements and challenges in relation to university education in Nigeria. In the genealogy of university education in Nigeria, it is no exaggeration to say that university education developed and took shape in response to many distinct and diverse needs and demands from the body or institution that established them. The development and proliferation of university education provided opportunities for Nigerians to benefit from university education especially those from educational disadvantaged states.

However, there are some shortcomings that affect university management. These among others include leadership/administrative problems, under-funding, corruption, inadequate infrastructure, political dispensation, technological problems, and quality of leaders. It is the opinion of this paper to suggest and recommend that government should endeavor to adequately fund university education. Universities in Nigeria should diversify her sources of revenue-base in order to augment government efforts, there should be upward review of staff conditions of service to avoid brain drain, the university autonomy and academic freedom should be fully granted, and university management should intensify their efforts to curb the menace associated with the limited presence of IT and IS in the research, teaching and learning processes. Corruption which stands as the major obstacle to the possible diversification of university education should be curtailed. Appointment of university leadership should be based on technical expertise, meritocracy ought to be the watch word of recruitment and selection processes into leadership position.

This study revealed in importance the understanding of management of diversification in education, achievement and the problems associated with the inability of Nigerian universities to diversify and the effects they have on effective management like guiding leaders in designing and restructuring the quality and management style, giving direction for further exploration that will shape and explore initiatives and provide university leadership with a basis of understanding the impacts and the leadership and management practices used in effecting university management.

This study made use of literature; however, they are subject to distortion over time. Researchers are independent of their normative and summative evaluation of a research problem, as such, if any component of this theoretical debate should bear the characteristic of the researchers position, they should be ignored and considered part of the researchers own omission. Following the methodological weaknesses associated with qualitative research, a quantitative survey is highly encouraged using the premise of this study and other deficiency in assessing management diversification in relation to achievement and problems in university management in Nigeria.