The most discussed topic in this regard was the notion of ‘accommodation’, which was labelled in different ways by the respondents, such as localisation, customisation, fine- tuning; modification, adaptation, adjustment, contextualisation and ‘Omanisation’. All felt it was an indispensable step due to cultural and contextual differences or the ‘specificity’ or ‘peculiarity’ of Omani society. However, one participant relayed a completely opposite way of thinking.
Adaptation is Essential
To begin with, all the officials in Group A justified the approach of accommodation and argued it was actually the tradition followed by the government in Oman.
P02 first contended that “localisation” was vital for the success of any borrowed ‘solution’; that is, it should go through “some kind of development, adjustment and
update” to give the system, model or concept a “local touch”. He reported that such practice existed even in Western countries, for example the Germans benefited from the American experience, but they added “their own German touch”. P06 also discussed at length the strategy of “customisation”, “adjusting” or “fine-tuning along the way” and stressed the fact that “when we take these things, these curriculums and degree courses, we do customise them”. She maintained that for instance now people “can hardly recognise” the CAS, which had a deal with a consortium of NZ universities to launch the colleges’ programmes. She commended with zeal the customisation process the CAS have since gone through and regarded it a “dynamic development”. In addition, P13, believed that accommodation in the form of modifying, altering or introducing new courses to fit the Omani context and culture was a necessary procedure since he anticipated that certain components of the original model might be inappropriate due to differences in culture or the country’s development needs.
Acting in more of an advisory capacity, P05, from Group B, warned that “borrowing international models and implementing them in Oman sans accommodation and Omanisation is wrong”, suggesting it was an indispensable prerequisite for the potential success of the application of any imported models. Moreover, P04, from Group C, advised, “I should take the whole system, but I should modify it”. In other words, “take the package as it is but apply modifications to it to fit the Omani environment. This is fine. There’s no harm in this”. He cautioned, “the flaw is when they [imported Western experiences] are implemented literally. If you do so, they will not work. So, if you want to get benefits out of them, you must make modifications and improvements to suit the Omani environment”. However, “if you take something as it is, it will fail miserably … the programmes that we take from Europe cannot be applied in the European way in Oman; it’s impossible … because there is a specificity to Oman. So, you adjust these programmes to fit your specificity”.
Reporting actual practice, P16, from Group C, discussed the case of CAS, pointing out that the NZ model was not transferred in its entirety. An adaptation process was undertaken because “the difference in the environment is very important” P16 reported. He maintained that in any programme, system or curriculum, there would be fundamentals but also “peculiarities of the society” that came with the original model. Subsequently, some parts in the NZ model were removed, some added and others
updated to fit the Omani context, P16 narrated. However, P01, from Group D, stated that the affiliated HEIs in Oman were allowed to apply only “simple modification to suit the Omani environment”. He clarified, “all colleges can make a maximum 25% of adjustment or modification to study plans, not more than that … because eventually the certificate is issued from the parent university, signed by the college dean and the university chancellor”.
P12, from Group D, elucidated that at their respective institution implementation of an imported model went through two cycles: experience followed by contextualisation. While the first cycle of experience involved using Western methods as they were, the second cycle involved an adaptation process by “contextualising all the systems into the Omani systems … it was adapting those systems into the Omani context after learning and understanding those Western systems” he clarified. He further described the second cycle of adaptation, “So, you take irrelevant stuff from the Western curriculum and put in Omani [stuff], and that also has a system for how to do that. It’s not randomly done. We have to go through different quality measures and systems and procedures in order to be able to … because you are talking about the academic standards. The content has to be of the same standard”. However, the respondent highlighted the fact that contextualisation remained at the level of the content of the curriculum, not the quality systems, as it was the same system regardless of geographical location. “For example, you have [an] assessment board system in the UK. You copy exactly that. You have an external examiners system, you have to bring the external examiners system together in here. You have classroom observation, you have to do it in here. You have teaching peer reviews, all that. It is configured in one system, so you don’t contextualise that”.
The Opposite Opinion: Adaptation Corrupts the Imported Model
P14, from Group D, disagreed with all the other respondents as he believed that Western methods and systems should be implemented without being changed, modified or adapted. He firmly and knowingly stated, “perhaps I have a very different opinion” that “you bring it all, put it all. Don’t change anything because this modification that we make is the cause of the problem”. He argued, “application should be the same because when they transform it, it gets corrupted and does not bear any fruit”. He questioned the capabilities of those responsible of the adaptation process, “who sometimes makes the modification? The unqualified person. He makes the modification from a security
background, a political background, an economic background. Here starts the problem … the old council of HE had member owners of private universities and colleges. They don’t go together, as if I am a merchant and minister of commerce”, he claimed. P14’s bold opinion may suggest a possible conflict of interest in HE, as the people who played a role in the sector’s management and decision-making were the same people who owned private HEIs, thus his lack of faith in the accommodation process.