INTRODUCTION
The previous installment examined the history of universities and tertiary institutions worldwide, focusing on Germany, Africa and, of course, Nigeria. This week’s piece discusses the various educational theories in the context of universities and the society. Enjoy.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS LINKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATION TO SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT
HUMAN CAPITAL THEORY
Human Capital Theory treats education, training and health as investments in individuals that raise productivity and yield economic returns; analogous to investing in machines or physical capital. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/human-capital-theory> > Accessed on 8th September, 2025. The concept was popularized in the 1960s by economists such as Theodore W. Schultz and Gary Becker, and it underpins much economic analysis of education policy, labour markets, and public investment decisions (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032715/what-human-capital-and-how-it-used.asp > Accessed on 8th September, 2025).
Since human capital is the engine of growth, universities then are central economic actors: they produce the skilled labour force, certify competencies and supply the tacit knowledge that firms use. This viewpoint justifies public and private investment in tertiary education, scholarship programs and vocational streams tied to labour market needs. It also explains why governments measure returns to education (wage premiums, productivity gains) and why universities are increasingly evaluated on employability and graduate outcomes.
Human Capital Theory can however be reductive. It tends to treat education as a private good (individual returns) rather than a public good (citizenship, democratic capacity). It may downplay social, cultural and distributional aspects (who gets access to education) and does not fully account for structural constraints (e.g., labour market segmentation or discriminatory hiring). Because it privileges measurable returns, it can encourage narrow vocationalization at the expense of broader civic or critical functions of universities.
MODERNIZATION THEORY
This theory links societal development to social and cultural change: industrialization, urbanization, mass education and bureaucratic institutions produce modern political and social systems (including democracy). See https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/modernization-theory?> Accessed on 8th September, 2025. Early models (e.g., Rostow’s stages of growth) posited relatively linear transitions from “traditional” to “modern” societies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostow%27s_stages_of_growth > Accessed on 8th September, 2025).
Under modernizationism, universities are engines of modernity: they train bureaucrats, scientists and professionals; diffuse new norms (rationality, meritocracy); and anchor public infrastructure for national development. Expansion of higher education is thus seen as both a consequence and driver of modernization, boosting technical capacity, administrative competence and civic culture.
Modernization Theory has been critiqued for teleology and Eurocentrism (assuming every society follows a single Western trajectory). It can overlook power asymmetries, external constraints, and the role of historical contingency. In practice, simply increasing university enrolment does not guarantee progressive political change or even broad economic growth. Outcomes depend on institutional quality, labour market absorption and equitable access.
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
Social Learning Theory, developed most prominently by Albert Bandura (https://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html?> Accessed on 8th September, 2025), rests on the idea that people do not learn solely through direct instruction or reinforcement, but also by observing the behaviours of others and modelling them. Central to this framework are concepts such as imitation, role modelling, self-efficacy, and reciprocal determinism — the continuous interaction between personal factors, behaviour, and the surrounding environment. Learning, in this sense, is always contextual and socially mediated; it takes place within environments where norms, values, and practices are continuously displayed, reinforced, or challenged (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267750204_Bandura’s_Social_Learning_Theory_Social_ Cognitive_Leari ing_Theory> Accessed on 8th September, 2025).
Universities are particularly powerful environments for this kind of social learning. While their formal role is to deliver structured knowledge through lectures, textbooks, and examinations, a significant portion of what students learn occurs indirectly, through observation and participation in academic and professional cultures. Students acquire tacit skills, professional norms, and ethical habits not simply from classroom instruction but from the examples set by faculty, supervisors, peers, and the wider institutional culture. The mentoring relationship between professor and student, the apprenticeship model (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325205611_A_Model_of_Supervision_Derived_from_Apprenticeship_ Training> Accessed on 8th September, 2025) of supervision in research or clinical placements, and the informal communities of practice that develop in research groups, laboratories, or student societies all serve as fertile grounds for modelling and imitation. Even the visibility of public intellectuals and successful alumni plays a role, offering aspirational figures whose trajectories implicitly teach what is possible within a given discipline or profession.
The culture of the university itself further shapes learning outcomes. Practices around academic integrity, collegiality, debate, and critical inquiry are not just rules or codes of conduct; they are behaviours continuously modelled and observed. The institutional environment signals what is valued, what is rewarded, and what is considered unacceptable, thereby reinforcing professional and ethical standards.
For university administrators and educators, the programmatic implications of Social Learning Theory are profound. It suggests that teaching should not be conceived narrowly as transmission of knowledge, but as the creation of social contexts in which desirable behaviours and practices are modelled, observed, and internalised. This is why experiential and observational learning opportunities — such as simulations, laboratory work, clinical rotations, internships, peer-learning programs, and scaffolded mentoring — are indispensable components of modern higher education. Equally, it underscores the idea that institutional signaling is as powerful as the curriculum itself: what a university models through its governance, culture, and every day practices often matters as much as what it formally teaches.
DEPENDENCY THEORY
Dependency Theory (https://www.britannica.com/topic/dependency-theory> Accessed on 8th September, 2025), which emerged in the 1960s and 1970s through the works of scholars such as Andre Gunder Frank (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274283993_A_Discourse_on_Andre_Gunder_Frank’s_ Contribution_tohe_Theory_and_Study_of_Development_and_Underdevelopment_its_Implication_on_Nigeria’s_development_situation> Accessed on 8th September, 2025) and Fernando Henrique Cardoso with Enzo Faletto, offers a critical lens for understanding patterns of underdevelopment in the global South. At its core, the theory argues that poverty and economic stagnation in many countries are not simply the result of internal shortcomings, but are structurally produced by the way these economies are integrated into the global system. Within this framework, resources, labour, and value consistently flow from the “periphery” to the “core” — that is, from less-developed to more-developed nations — thereby reinforcing dependency and limiting autonomous development. This unequal exchange is further compounded by colonial legacies and by global markets that continue to privilege the interests of industrialised nations over those of emerging economies.
Applied to higher education, Dependency Theory illuminates how universities can inadvertently reproduce dependency rather than foster genuine autonomy. For instance, many institutions import curricula, teaching models, and research frameworks designed in the global North, often without adequate adaptation to local realities. Research agendas are frequently influenced, if not dictated, by donor priorities or international funding agencies, which means that intellectual labour may serve external rather than national needs. Accreditation and evaluation systems also tend to valorize Western benchmarks of quality, sometimes at the expense of context-specific measures of success. Furthermore, the phenomenon of “brain drain,” where highly trained graduates migrate to wealthier countries in search of better opportunities, deprives developing regions of the very human capital they have invested in creating.
These dynamics raise urgent questions about intellectual sovereignty and the role of universities in national development. Dependency Theory thus motivates a range of responses oriented toward decolonization and autonomy. Universities are encouraged to build indigenous research agendas that prioritize local challenges and opportunities, to strengthen scholarship in local languages, and to invest in technologies that are context-relevant rather than imported wholesale. Equally, there is value in creating robust regional research networks that allow knowledge exchange across the global South, thereby reducing reliance on metropolitan centres of knowledge production.
Ultimately, Dependency Theory challenges universities in developing countries to move beyond the role of feeding foreign labour markets or servicing donor-driven priorities. Instead, it urges them to play a more proactive role in shaping national industrial strategies, technological innovation, and cultural identity. In this way, universities become not just sites of knowledge transfer but also engines of self-determined development and resistance to the structural inequalities embedded in the global economy.
KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY THEORY
The concept of the knowledge economy reframes the drivers of economic growth around knowledge, innovation and human capital, rather than relying solely on traditional physical inputs such as land, labour, and raw materials. In this framework, institutions that generate, diffuse, and commercialize knowledge — universities, research centres, and high-tech firms — assume a central role in shaping productivity and competitiveness (https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/695211468153873436/the-knowledge-economy-the-kam-methodology-and-world-bank-operations?utm_source=chatgpt.com> Accessed on 8th September, 2025). The policy discourse around the knowledge economy has been heavily shaped by global institutions such as the The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5152799_The_Knowledge Based_Economy_Conceptual_Framework_or_Buzzword> Accessed on 8th September, 2025, the World Bank (https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/695211468153873436/the-knowledge-economy-the-kam-methodology-and-world-bank-operations> Accessed on 8th September, 2025) , and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000114252> Accessed on 8th September, 2025), which have developed both conceptual frameworks and measurement tools for understanding innovation systems and knowledge-driven growth.
Within this paradigm, universities perform a wide range of overlapping economic functions. At the most fundamental level, they engage in both basic and applied research, producing new knowledge and technologies that advance science and industry. They also serve as sites of talent production, equipping graduates, researchers, and postdoctoral fellows with skills that fuel the labour market. Beyond this, universities act as engines of technology transfer, turning academic discoveries into practical innovations through patents, licensing agreements, and start-ups. They also provide policy advice and consulting, often shaping industrial strategies and informing public decision-making.
Governments and universities operationalize the knowledge economy through a variety of policy levers and institutional instruments. These include research and development (R&D) funding, research fellowships, and infrastructure investments that sustain academic inquiry. They also extend to structured university–industry partnerships, incubators, technology transfer offices, and science parks designed to accelerate commercialization. Intellectual property regimes, such as Bayh-Dole type reforms, have further enabled universities to retain rights over publicly funded research and translate it into marketable products. Alongside these measures, the use of metrics and indicators such as patents, publications, citations, and innovation indices has become an essential tool for benchmarking performance and guiding policy interventions.
Yet, the knowledge economy is not without its risks and critiques. The emphasis on commercialization and measurable outputs can sometimes push universities to prioritize short-term applied research over fundamental scholarship, which may undermine their broader educational and societal missions. There is also the danger of mission drift, as universities increasingly orient themselves toward market logics at the expense of cultural, ethical, and civic roles. Moreover, if access to the benefits of innovation is uneven. For instance, concentrated in wealthy nations or among elite groups the knowledge economy risks deepening inequality rather than mitigating it. (To be continued)
THOUGHT TOR THE WEEK
“The function of education is to te
ach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character – that
is the goal of true education”. (Martin Luther King, Jr.).