F. Abou Eddahab-Burke
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
2 records found
1
Mitigating Social and Institutional Factors in the Implementation of Photovoltaic Projects in Ghana
A Qualitative Case Study Conducted at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology
The Ghanaian energy transition is progressing slowly. Despite considerable potential for renewable energy (RE), the share of RE in the national energy mix continues to fall short of the established goals. Existing literature mainly focuses on technical and financial factors, while social and institutional factors remain underexplored. This research addresses that knowledge gap by empirically exploring which stakeholders are involved and which social and institutional factors influence the implementation of PV initiatives in Ghana. Additionally, this research seeks ways to overcome the constraining effects of these social and institutional factors.
The research combines a literature review with a qualitative single case study at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), where the size, geographical position and ongoing initiatives in the field of the energy transition offer an information rich case. Data was collected through 23 semi structured interviews with internal experts, external experts and end users, and supplemented by document analysis and site visits. The interviews were inductively coded and thematically analysed. The resulting factors were categorised into the circle of control, the circle of influence and the circle of concern, with the internal project team as the reference actor. This case is not representative of all Ghanaian PV initiatives, but does show in detail how social and institutional factors operate at the project level.
The stakeholder analysis shows a network of internal and external actors. Within KNUST, the University Council, the Directorate of Works and Physical Development and the Energy Consultant fulfil the most central roles, respectively determining the strategic direction, overseeing spatial integration and coordinating project implementation. The Procurement Office, Finance Office, internal experts, Maintenance Department and solar companies support the execution. At the national level, the Ministry of Energy, the Energy Commission, the EPA and the ECG determine the policy and infrastructural conditions.
The most frequently mentioned institutional barriers are bureaucratic procedures, cost prioritisation, unimplemented net metering, dependence on key actors and complex collaborations. These are counterbalanced by institutional enablers such as available project experience, internal expertise, centralised project governance, internal financing and supportive regulators. The most frequently mentioned social barriers are limited end user awareness, perceived limitations of PV, limited interest in sustainability, limited alignment with end user priorities and construction based nuisance. The main social enablers are perceived benefits of reliability, effective communication within the project team, institutional trust and perceived environmental benefits of PV.
The central analytical finding is that not all barriers should be treated in the same way. Factors in the circle of control are within the direct responsibility of the project team, factors in the circle of influence require indirect influencing through communication and collaboration, and factors in the circle of concern should be treated as external preconditions.
...
The research combines a literature review with a qualitative single case study at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), where the size, geographical position and ongoing initiatives in the field of the energy transition offer an information rich case. Data was collected through 23 semi structured interviews with internal experts, external experts and end users, and supplemented by document analysis and site visits. The interviews were inductively coded and thematically analysed. The resulting factors were categorised into the circle of control, the circle of influence and the circle of concern, with the internal project team as the reference actor. This case is not representative of all Ghanaian PV initiatives, but does show in detail how social and institutional factors operate at the project level.
The stakeholder analysis shows a network of internal and external actors. Within KNUST, the University Council, the Directorate of Works and Physical Development and the Energy Consultant fulfil the most central roles, respectively determining the strategic direction, overseeing spatial integration and coordinating project implementation. The Procurement Office, Finance Office, internal experts, Maintenance Department and solar companies support the execution. At the national level, the Ministry of Energy, the Energy Commission, the EPA and the ECG determine the policy and infrastructural conditions.
The most frequently mentioned institutional barriers are bureaucratic procedures, cost prioritisation, unimplemented net metering, dependence on key actors and complex collaborations. These are counterbalanced by institutional enablers such as available project experience, internal expertise, centralised project governance, internal financing and supportive regulators. The most frequently mentioned social barriers are limited end user awareness, perceived limitations of PV, limited interest in sustainability, limited alignment with end user priorities and construction based nuisance. The main social enablers are perceived benefits of reliability, effective communication within the project team, institutional trust and perceived environmental benefits of PV.
The central analytical finding is that not all barriers should be treated in the same way. Factors in the circle of control are within the direct responsibility of the project team, factors in the circle of influence require indirect influencing through communication and collaboration, and factors in the circle of concern should be treated as external preconditions.
...
The Ghanaian energy transition is progressing slowly. Despite considerable potential for renewable energy (RE), the share of RE in the national energy mix continues to fall short of the established goals. Existing literature mainly focuses on technical and financial factors, while social and institutional factors remain underexplored. This research addresses that knowledge gap by empirically exploring which stakeholders are involved and which social and institutional factors influence the implementation of PV initiatives in Ghana. Additionally, this research seeks ways to overcome the constraining effects of these social and institutional factors.
The research combines a literature review with a qualitative single case study at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), where the size, geographical position and ongoing initiatives in the field of the energy transition offer an information rich case. Data was collected through 23 semi structured interviews with internal experts, external experts and end users, and supplemented by document analysis and site visits. The interviews were inductively coded and thematically analysed. The resulting factors were categorised into the circle of control, the circle of influence and the circle of concern, with the internal project team as the reference actor. This case is not representative of all Ghanaian PV initiatives, but does show in detail how social and institutional factors operate at the project level.
The stakeholder analysis shows a network of internal and external actors. Within KNUST, the University Council, the Directorate of Works and Physical Development and the Energy Consultant fulfil the most central roles, respectively determining the strategic direction, overseeing spatial integration and coordinating project implementation. The Procurement Office, Finance Office, internal experts, Maintenance Department and solar companies support the execution. At the national level, the Ministry of Energy, the Energy Commission, the EPA and the ECG determine the policy and infrastructural conditions.
The most frequently mentioned institutional barriers are bureaucratic procedures, cost prioritisation, unimplemented net metering, dependence on key actors and complex collaborations. These are counterbalanced by institutional enablers such as available project experience, internal expertise, centralised project governance, internal financing and supportive regulators. The most frequently mentioned social barriers are limited end user awareness, perceived limitations of PV, limited interest in sustainability, limited alignment with end user priorities and construction based nuisance. The main social enablers are perceived benefits of reliability, effective communication within the project team, institutional trust and perceived environmental benefits of PV.
The central analytical finding is that not all barriers should be treated in the same way. Factors in the circle of control are within the direct responsibility of the project team, factors in the circle of influence require indirect influencing through communication and collaboration, and factors in the circle of concern should be treated as external preconditions.
The research combines a literature review with a qualitative single case study at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), where the size, geographical position and ongoing initiatives in the field of the energy transition offer an information rich case. Data was collected through 23 semi structured interviews with internal experts, external experts and end users, and supplemented by document analysis and site visits. The interviews were inductively coded and thematically analysed. The resulting factors were categorised into the circle of control, the circle of influence and the circle of concern, with the internal project team as the reference actor. This case is not representative of all Ghanaian PV initiatives, but does show in detail how social and institutional factors operate at the project level.
The stakeholder analysis shows a network of internal and external actors. Within KNUST, the University Council, the Directorate of Works and Physical Development and the Energy Consultant fulfil the most central roles, respectively determining the strategic direction, overseeing spatial integration and coordinating project implementation. The Procurement Office, Finance Office, internal experts, Maintenance Department and solar companies support the execution. At the national level, the Ministry of Energy, the Energy Commission, the EPA and the ECG determine the policy and infrastructural conditions.
The most frequently mentioned institutional barriers are bureaucratic procedures, cost prioritisation, unimplemented net metering, dependence on key actors and complex collaborations. These are counterbalanced by institutional enablers such as available project experience, internal expertise, centralised project governance, internal financing and supportive regulators. The most frequently mentioned social barriers are limited end user awareness, perceived limitations of PV, limited interest in sustainability, limited alignment with end user priorities and construction based nuisance. The main social enablers are perceived benefits of reliability, effective communication within the project team, institutional trust and perceived environmental benefits of PV.
The central analytical finding is that not all barriers should be treated in the same way. Factors in the circle of control are within the direct responsibility of the project team, factors in the circle of influence require indirect influencing through communication and collaboration, and factors in the circle of concern should be treated as external preconditions.
Accounting for student use of generative artificial intelligence in STEM education
Designing ethical and sustainability-driven course guidelines
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly embedded in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education, offering opportunities to support learning through personalised assistance, improved efficiency, and enhanced accessibility. At the same time, its widespread adoption raises ethical, sustainability, and pedagogical challenges, including academic integrity, algorithmic bias, and the potential erosion of higher-order thinking skills. Although these challenges are widely recognised, lecturers lack practical guidance for redesigning courses to accommodate students' GenAI use. This research addresses this gap by developing ethical and sustainability-oriented design guidelines for course design. Using a Design Science Research methodology, the study combined a comprehensive literature review with two rounds of semi-structured expert interviews and an example course redesign. The research resulted in ten design guidelines that support educational institutions in changing courses to account for GenAI use by students. Central themes include rethinking foundational knowledge and skills, supporting higher-order thinking skills (HOTS), enhancing AI literacy, adopting authentic and process-oriented assessment, and ensuring fair and human-centred learning environments. The findings further demonstrate that successful implementation depends not only on course-level redesign but also on institutional governance, clear AI policy, and collaboration. This study contributes to AI in Education (AIED) by providing an artefact that supports course managers in adapting STEM courses to student GenAI use while preserving constructive alignment. By integrating ethical and sustainability considerations, the proposed guidelines offer a practical foundation for responsible GenAI adoption.
...
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly embedded in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education, offering opportunities to support learning through personalised assistance, improved efficiency, and enhanced accessibility. At the same time, its widespread adoption raises ethical, sustainability, and pedagogical challenges, including academic integrity, algorithmic bias, and the potential erosion of higher-order thinking skills. Although these challenges are widely recognised, lecturers lack practical guidance for redesigning courses to accommodate students' GenAI use. This research addresses this gap by developing ethical and sustainability-oriented design guidelines for course design. Using a Design Science Research methodology, the study combined a comprehensive literature review with two rounds of semi-structured expert interviews and an example course redesign. The research resulted in ten design guidelines that support educational institutions in changing courses to account for GenAI use by students. Central themes include rethinking foundational knowledge and skills, supporting higher-order thinking skills (HOTS), enhancing AI literacy, adopting authentic and process-oriented assessment, and ensuring fair and human-centred learning environments. The findings further demonstrate that successful implementation depends not only on course-level redesign but also on institutional governance, clear AI policy, and collaboration. This study contributes to AI in Education (AIED) by providing an artefact that supports course managers in adapting STEM courses to student GenAI use while preserving constructive alignment. By integrating ethical and sustainability considerations, the proposed guidelines offer a practical foundation for responsible GenAI adoption.