










































 

EDUCATIO : Journal Of Education 
Volume 9 , Number 2, November 2025 

 ISSN : 2579-8383 (Print) ISSN : 2579-8405 (Online)  

zzzzzz z 

  

Ombudsman Mechanism And Conflict Resolution In 

Southwestern Nigerian University 

 
Olugbenga Timothy Ajadi 

Department of Educational Management, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria 
ajagbesope@yahoo.co.uk     

 

Accepted: 

10 August 2025 

reviewed:  

5 September, 2025 

Published:  

20 November 2025 

 

Abstract: Disputes are inevitable in educational institutions because it comprised of people of 

diverse characteristics and background.  Therefore, this study examined the implementation 

mechanism of ombudsman and conflict resolution in the southwestern Nigerian university. The 

population for the study comprised all the staff and students from the six federal universities in 

southwestern Nigeria. A sample of 300 staff and 300 students were selected from the three selected 

universities using simple random and disproportional sampling techniques.  Three instruments 

were adopted for the study: Academic Staff Complaints Satisfactory Questionnaire (ASCSQ), Non 

Academic Staff Complaints Satisfactory Questionnaire (NASCSQ) and Students Complaints 

Satisfaction Questionnaire (STCSQ).  Descriptive statistics was used to answer the two research 

questions raised for the study.  The results reveals that the way the sampled universities handle 

complaints could be said to be in orderly manner and that students have good perception about 

how the complaints is being handled. The study recommends that Nigerian universities should put 

in place an Ombudsman office that will handle disputes among students and staff independently 

and provide a preventive mechanism that will not allow the emergence of complaints from staff. 

 

Keyword:  Ombudsman, Dispute, Complaint, Non-Partisan and Conflict Resolution 

 

Introduction 

 Disputes are inevitable in educational institutions because institutions comprises human 

beings. This is more apparent in the universities due to its structure that allows several units or 

groups to share functional boundaries in achieving set objectives. Universities comprises students, 

academic and non-academic staff who must work harmoniously for-the development of an 

institutional structure.  These university personnel share functional boundaries of exchange of 

knowledge within the system. However, universities in Nigeria are characterized with internal and 

external disputes that militate against effective service delivery.  Internal dispute are disputes 

between academic and/ or non-academic staff and University management or between students 

and University management.  On the other hand, external disputes involves academic or non-

academic staff and/or students and the government and/ or with the host community. 

Historically, individuals, social and peer groups and communities have disputed over 

available resources in form of land, human and materials resources available in the society for 

human survival. Communities have even fought one another and bitterly sought the elimination 

and/or subjugation of rivals, in order to control these resources.  At the same time, human 

societies and groups have found their own ways and means of resolving conflicts without 

mailto:ajagbesope@yahoo.co.uk


  
 

Olugbenga Timothy Ajadi 
Ombudsman Mechanism And Conflict Resolution In Southwestern Nigerian University 

 
 

  

Volume 9, Number 2, November 2025 | 356  

zzzzzz 

  

degeneration. 

Among the conflict resolution methods available, according to Rajani (2009) was 

Ombudsman Institution which has been closely associated with democracy, democratic 

development, governance and public administration in contemporary world. It is viewed as an easy 

mechanism of conflict resolution available for common people against arbitrary use of power by 

superior officer and government functionaries. Hussaini (2010) submitted that with adoption of 

Ombudsman Institution, there is hope that the right and welfare of the subordinate or junior 

worker in any human establishment will be protected. 

According to Longley (2023), an Ombudsman is a neutral and non-partisan or committee 

of experienced officers appointed by the constituted authority to impartially investigate complaints 

by individual citizen against administrative injustice by public officers.The committee deals with 

specific complaints from the public against administrative injustice and arbitrary use of power. The 

committee has power to investigate, report upon and make recommendations about individual 

cases handled. The committee is not a court or tribunal, and has no power to make orders or to 

reverse administrative action but empowers to seek solution to problems by a process of 

investigation and conciliation.  Investopedia (2023) informed that an ombudsman's decision may 

or may not be legally binding. Even if not binding, the decision typically carries considerable 

weight. 

In view of the aforementioned, universities therefore, cannot afford to disregard the feelings 

of their workers. It is therefore imperative for the universities to set up stable, effective and 

trustworthy non-partisan committees to serve as mediating organ in order to avoid total collapse 

of harmonious relationship among the various categories of workers and students in the 

universities. 

 

Methods 

The descriptive research design was adopted for this study with population of all the staff 

and   students from the six federal universities in southwestern Nigeria (University of Lagos, 

Federal University, Abeokuta, University of Ibadan, Obafemi Awolowo University, Federal 

University of Technology, Akure and Federal University, Oye-Ekiti).  The multi-stage sampling 

procedure was adopted for this study.  Simple random technique was used to select three of the 

six universities in southwestern Nigeria while disproportional sampling technique was used to 

select 100 students and 100 staff from each of the selected universities across levels and cadres.  

The techniques are to give equal chance for the universities in southwestern Nigeria of been 

selected and allow equal representation or participants irrespective of the staff and students 

population in each of the selected universities.  Three research instruments were adopted for this 

study.  These are:  Academic Staff Complaints Satisfactory Questionnaire (ASCSQ), None 

Academic Staff Complaints Satisfactory Questionnaire (NASCSQ), and Students Complaints 

Satisfactory Questionnaire (STCSQ).  The ASCSQ, NASSQ and STCSQ were divided into two 

sections each.  Section A is designed to collect data on personal information while Section B 

contains items on the indicators of the variables under study.  For validity of the instruments, 

copies were sent to experts in personnel administration and conflict resolution for their review.  

The criticisms and corrections were used to improve on the final draft. To ensure that the 

instruments were reliable, test-retest of the instrument was carried out on 20 each of academic, 

non-academic and students of Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye which was not part of the 



  
 

Olugbenga Timothy Ajadi 
Ombudsman Mechanism And Conflict Resolution In Southwestern Nigerian University 

 
 

  

Volume 9, Number 2, November 2025 | 357  

zzzzzz 

  

subject for this study. The reliability value of 0.87, 0.84 and 0.81 was obtained for ASCSQ, 

NASCSQ and STCSQ respectively.  The researcher personally administered the instruments with 

three research assistants who were adequately trained by the researcher for the exercise.  Simple 

percentage was used to answer the two research questions raised for the study 

 

Result And Discussion 

Research Question 1: What is the perception of academic staff/students about complaints 

handling in their institutions? 

N=300 

Description SA    A D SD Mean STD 

There is wide spread Manner of 
Handling complaints in your 
institution 

151 
50.3% 

88 
29.3% 

61 
20.3% 

0 
0.0% 

3.30 .95 

My Institution is aware of Public 
Complaints Commission 
Directive (PCCD) requirements 

146 
48.7% 

85 
28.3% 

69 
23.0% 

0 
0.0% 

3.26 .95 

My institution is aware of the 
benefit of proper handling of 
complaints 

139 
46.3% 

101 
33.7% 

60 
20.0% 

0 
0.0% 

3.26 .97 

This institution upholds general 
complaints to any extent 

135 
45.0% 

101 
33.7% 

64 
21.3% 

0 
0.0% 

3.24 1.50 

Members of this academic 
community including myself 
knows where complaints are to be 
lodged in this institution 

116 
38.7% 

116 
38.7% 

68 
22.7% 

0 
0.0% 

3.16 1.01 

The institution has enough 
facilities to redress complaints 

146 
48.7% 

68 
22.7% 

75 
25.0% 

11 
3.7% 

3.16 1.00 

There are complaints 
Management policies in this 
institution 

110 
36.7% 

127 
42.3% 

63 
21.0% 

0 
0.0% 

3.16 .96 

This institution is Complaint 
friendly  

119 
39.7% 

105 
35.0% 

76 
25.3% 

0 
0.0% 

3.14 .85 

Methodical Handling of 
Complaints is evident in the way 
this institution handles complaints 

119 
39.7% 

97 
32.3% 

76 
25.3% 

8 
2.7% 

3.14 .92 

 
Table 1 presents the results of the perception of academic staff about the complaint handling 

in their institution, the result reveals that 79.6% of the respondents agreed that there is wide spread 

of Manner of Handling complaints while 20.4% disagreed (mean=3.30, SD=0.92). Again, 77.0% 

of the respondents agreed that their institution is aware of PCCD requirements while 23.0% 

disagreed (mean=3.26, SD=0.95). More so, 80.0% of the academic respondent agreed that their 

institution is aware of Benefit of Proper handling of Complaints while 20.0% disagreed 

(mean=3.26, SD=0.79). Furthermore 78.7% of the respondents agreed that their institution 

upholding of complaints to any extent while 21.3% disagreed (mean=3.24, SD=1.50). Again, 

71.4% of the respondents agreed that there is availability of appropriate remedy in the institution 

(mean=3.16, SD=1.00). Also 79.0% of the respondents agreed that there is complaints 

Management policies and procedure that are in place in their institution while 21.0% disagreed 



  
 

Olugbenga Timothy Ajadi 
Ombudsman Mechanism And Conflict Resolution In Southwestern Nigerian University 

 
 

  

Volume 9, Number 2, November 2025 | 358  

zzzzzz 

  

(mean=3.16, SD=0.96). In addition, 74.7% agreed that their institution has Complaints friendly 

Culture of the institution while 25.3% disagreed (mean=3.14, SD=0.92). 

 
Table 2: Perception of the Non-Academic Respondents about Complaints Handling in 

their Institutions 

N=300 

Description SA A D SD Mean STD 
There is wide spread Manner of 
Handling complaints in your 
institution 

107 
35.7% 

104 
34.7% 

84 
28.0% 

5 
1.7% 

 
3.31 

0.4 

My Institution is aware of Public 
Complaints Commission Directive 
(PCCD) requirements 

146 
48.7% 

93 
31.0% 

61 
20.3% 

0 
0.0% 

3.28 0.41 

My institution is aware of the 
benefit of proper handling of 
complaints 

147 
48.0% 

88 
29.3% 

62 
20.7% 

3 
1.0% 

3.26 0.23 

This institution upholds general 
complaints to any extent 

143 
47.7% 

91 
30.3% 

64 
21.3% 

2 
0.7% 

3.25 0.51 

Members of this academic 
community including myself 
knows where complaints are to be 
lodged in this institution 

141 
47.0% 

88 
29.3% 

69 
23.0% 

2 
0.7% 

3.23 0.56 

The institution has enough 
facilities to redress complaints 

135 
45.0% 

97 
32.3% 

66 
22.0% 

2 
0.7 

3.22 0.12 

There are complaints 
Management policies in this 
institution 

135 
45.% 

88 
29.3% 

73 
24.3% 

4 
1.3% 

3.18 0.3 

This institution is Complaint 
friendly  

114 
38% 

108 
36.0% 

67 
22.3% 

11 
33.7% 

3.08 .35 

Methodical Handling of 
Complaints is evident in the way 
this institution handles complaints 

108 
36.0% 

109 
36.3% 

71 
23.7% 

12 
4.0% 

3.04 0.12 

 

Table 2 shows the distribution of non-academic staff responses on their perception on the 

way the complaint is being handle in their institution. The results reveal that 70.4% of the 

respondents agreed that there is wide spread of Manner of Handling complaints in their institution 

while 29.6% disagreed (mean=3.31, SD=0.4). Again, 79.8% of the respondents agreed that there 

institution is aware of PCCD requirements while 20.2% disagreed (mean=3.28, SD=0.41). Also, 

77.7% of the non-academic staff agreed that their institution is aware of Benefit of Proper handling 

of Complaints while 22.3% disagreed (mean=3.26, SD=0.23). More so, 78.0% of the non-teaching 

staff also agreed that their institution upholding of complaints to some extent while 22.0% 

disagreed (mean=3.25, SD=0.51). Furthermore, 84.0% of the respondents agreed that knowledge 

of Complaints lodgment center by everyone (mean=3.23, SD=0.12). 77.0% of the respondents 

agreed that there is availability of appropriate remedy in their institution while 33.0% disagreed 

(mean=3.22, SD=0.12). In the same vein, 87.3% of the respondents agreed that there is complains 

Management policies and procedure are in place in their institution while 12.7% disagreed 

(mean=3.18, SD=0.3).  



  
 

Olugbenga Timothy Ajadi 
Ombudsman Mechanism And Conflict Resolution In Southwestern Nigerian University 

 
 

  

Volume 9, Number 2, November 2025 | 359  

zzzzzz 

  

From the results on Table 2 and 3, it could be observed that sampled respondents in the 

southwest universities agreed to a large extent. Hence inference could be made that the way the 

sample universities handle complaints could be said to be in orderly manner. This is in tandem 

with the position of Relph (2017) who observed that at internal committee level, conflict issues 

are well presented against when it is presented to committee set up by the supervisory agency.  

This might be because members of the committee are not strange to the aggrieved members, 

hence, reason for expressing their mind fearlessly. 

 
Table 3: Perception of the Students about Complaints Handling in their Institutions 

N=300 

Description SA A D SD Mean STD 

There is wide spread Manner of 
Handling complaints in your 
institution 

334 
55.7% 

158 
26.3% 

108 
18.0% 

0 
0.0% 

 
3.38 

0.56 

My Institution is aware of Public 
Complaints Commission Directive 
requirements 

298 
49.7% 

151 
25.2% 

151 
25.2% 

0 
0.0% 

 
3.25 

0.4 

My institution is aware of the benefit 
of proper handling of complaints 

290 
48.3% 

158 
26.3% 

152 
25.3% 

0 
0.0% 

 
3.25 

0.56 

This institution upholds general 
complaints to any extent 

290 
48.3% 

158 
26.3% 

152 
25.3% 

0 
0.0% 

 
3.23 

0.21 

Members of this academic 
community including myself knows 
where complaints are to be lodged in 
this institution 

263 143 15 44 

 
3.18 

1.3 

The institution has enough facilities 
to redress complaints 

255 
42.5% 

237 
39.5% 

108 
18.0% 

0 
0.0% 

3.11 1.2 

There are complaints Management 
policies in this institution 

178 
29.7% 

279 
46.5% 

143 
23.8% 

0 
0.0% 

3.06 1.2 

This institution is Complaint friendly  214 
35.7% 

236 
39.3% 

150 
25.0% 

0 
0.0% 

3.04 0.34 

Methodical Handling of Complaints 
is evident in the way this institution 
handles complaints 

254 
42.3% 

201 
33.5% 

145 
24.2% 

0 
0.0% 

3.01 0.21 

  
Table 3 reveals the rating of the factors that determines the perception of students about 

complaints handling in Nigerian universities. The mean item scores showed that the students 

agreed that the entire nine factors pointed towards a poor perception of the students towards 

complaints handling in the Nigerian universities. Spread of manner of handling complaints was 

rated highest (Mean = 3.38, SD=0.56). This is followed by benefit of proper handling (Mean = 

3.26, SD=0.4), lodgment center (MIS=3.25, SD=0.56); methodology (Mean = 3.23, SD=0.21); 

extent of upholding complaints (Mean = 3.18, SD=1.2); culture (Mean = 3.11, SD=1.3); awareness 

of complaints directives (Mean = 3.06); appropriate remedy (Mean = 3.04, SD=0.34); and lastly, 

availability of policies and procedure (Mean = 3.16, SD=0.21). Thus, it could be said that students 

have good perception about how the complaints is being handle.  This is in line with the findings 

of Grobna (2008) who concluded that Ombudsman is unbiased and fair in handling complaint 



  
 

Olugbenga Timothy Ajadi 
Ombudsman Mechanism And Conflict Resolution In Southwestern Nigerian University 

 
 

  

Volume 9, Number 2, November 2025 | 360  

zzzzzz 

  

brought before it.  This might be because the members of Ombudsman are non-partisan.  Their 

appointment is on merit, integrity and experience 

Research Question 2: What is the perception of staff and students about the composition 

of the complaints handling unit of the University? 

 
Table 4: Perception of the Academic Staff about Dispute Handlers in their Institutions 

N=300 

Description SA A D SD Mean STD 

Adequacy of delegation of dispute 
resolution 

151 
50.3% 

88 
29.3% 

61 
20.3% 

0 
0.0% 

3.30 0.02 

Consideration of complainants in 
resolution process 

133 
44.3% 

109 
36.3% 

58 
19.3% 

0 
0.0% 

3.25 0.34 

Management Acceptance and utilization 
of handlers’ resolution 

113 
37.3% 

125 
41.7% 

62 
20.7% 

0 
0.0% 

3.17 0.56 

Task orientation of complaints handlers 120 
40.0% 

107 
35.7% 

73 
24.3% 

0 
0.0% 

3.16 0.4 

Human and Task orientation of 
complaints handler 

146 
48.7% 

62 
20.7% 

71 
23.7% 

21 
7.0% 

3.11 0.61 

Human orientation of complaints 
handlers 

112 
37.3% 

107 
35.6% 

71 
23.7% 

10 
3.3% 

3.07 0.3 

 
Table 4 reveals the rating of the factors that determines the perception of the academic staff 

about dispute handlers in their institutions. The mean item scores explained the perception of the 

academic staff towards complaints handlers in the Nigerian universities using the entire six factors. 

Adequate delegation was rated highest with 79.5% of the respondents agreed that there is adequacy 

of delegation of dispute resolution (Mean = 3.30, SD=0.02). This is followed by resolution process 

(Mean= 3.25, SD=0.34), acceptance and utilization (Mean = 3.17, SD=0.56); task orientation 

(Mean = 3.16, SD=0.4); human and task orientation (Mean = 3.11, SD=0.61); and lastly, human 

orientation (Mean = 3.07, SD=0.3). From the result, it could observe that academic staff in the 

sampled Universities perceived that universities management fairly handle the dispute whenever it 

errupted.  This is in line with the ethical principles that establish the foundation of Ombuds work 

which include: independence, neutrality, impartiality and confidentiality as identified by Mastiro 

(2015).  The confidence repose in the Ombudsman might equally be responsible for their fairness. 

Table 5: Perception of the Non-Academic Staff about Dispute Handlers in their 

Institutions 

N=300 

Description SA A D SD Mean Std 

Human orientation of complaints 
handlers 

144 
48.0% 

95 
31.7% 

61 
20.3% 

0 
0.0% 

3.28 1.00 

Management Acceptance and utilization 
of handlers’ resolution 132 

44.0% 
105 
35.0% 

63 
21.0% 

0 
0.0% 

3.17 .98 

Consideration of complainants in 
resolution process 

146 
48.7% 

67 
22.3% 

77 
25.7% 

10 
3.3% 

3.16 0.85 

Adequacy of delegation of dispute 
resolution 

119 
39.7% 

108 
36.0% 

64 
21.3% 

9 
3.3% 

3.12 1.00 



  
 

Olugbenga Timothy Ajadi 
Ombudsman Mechanism And Conflict Resolution In Southwestern Nigerian University 

 
 

  

Volume 9, Number 2, November 2025 | 361  

zzzzzz 

  

Human and Task orientation of 
complaints handler 

121 
40.3% 

98 
32.7% 

73 
24.3% 

8 
2.7% 

3.11 0.50 

Task orientation of complaints handlers 108 
36.6% 

109 
36.3% 

71 
23.7% 

12 
4.0% 

3.04 0.17 

 
Table 5 reveals the rating of the factors that determines the perception of the non-academic 

staff about dispute handlers in their institutions. The mean item scores explained the perception 

of the non-academic staff towards complaints handlers in the Nigerian universities using the entire 

six factors. Human orientation was rated highest (Mean = 3.28, SD=1.00). This is followed by 

acceptance and utilization (Mean = 3.17, SD=0.98); resolution process (Mean = 3.16, SD=0.85); 

adequate delegation (Mean = 3.12, SD=1.00); human and task orientation (Mean = 3.11, SD=1.00) 

and lastly, task orientation (Mean = 3.04, SD=0.17). The general, implication of the result from 

the Table 5 is that dispute handlers are objective in their ways of settling the dispute.  This result 

is in line with Kolb (2015) who provided four sets of ethical principles establishes the foundation 

of ombuds work.  The dispute handlers need to be objective to be able to say the truth and provide 

amicable suggestions to settle the dispute. 

 
Table 6: Perception of the Students about Dispute Handlers in their Institutions 

N=300 

Description SA A D SD Mean STD 

Adequacy of delegation of dispute 
resolution 

305 
50.8% 

144 
24.0% 

151 
25.2% 

0 
0.0% 

3.26 0.23 
  

Consideration of complainants in 
resolution process 248 

41.3% 
244 
40.7% 

108 
18.0% 

0 
0.0% 

 
3.23 

 
0.46 

Human and Task orientation of 
complaints handler 

290 
48.4% 

158 
26.3% 

152 
25.3% 

0 
0.0% 

 
3.23 

 
0.12 

Management Acceptance and utilization 
of handlers’ resolution 

210  
35.0% 

281 
46.8% 

109 
18.2% 

0 
0.0% 

 
3.22 

 
0.35    

Human orientation of complaints 
handlers 

240 
40.0% 

208 
34.7% 

152 
25.3% 

0 
0.0% 

3.15 0.65 

Task orientation of complaints handlers 263 
43.8% 

143 
23.8% 

143 
23.8% 

51 
8.5% 

3.03 0.21 

 
` Table 6 reveals the rating of the factors that determines the perception of the students 

about dispute handlers in their institutions. The mean item scores explained the perception of the 

students towards complaints handlers in the Nigerian universities using the entire six indictors. 

Adequate delegation was rated highest (Mean = 3.26, SD=0.23). This is followed by resolution 

process (Mean = 3.23, SD=0.46), human orientation (Mean = 3.23, SD= 0.12); acceptance and 

utilization (Mean = 3.22, SD=0.65); human and task orientation (Mean = 3.15, SD=0.65); and 

lastly task orientation (Mean = 3.03, SD=0.21). 

 

Conclusion 

The study concluded that there is wide spread manner of handling complaints by universities 

and awareness of benefit of proper handling of complaints, knowledge of complaint lodgment 



  
 

Olugbenga Timothy Ajadi 
Ombudsman Mechanism And Conflict Resolution In Southwestern Nigerian University 

 
 

  

Volume 9, Number 2, November 2025 | 362  

zzzzzz 

  

centre and availability of appropriate remedy are all factors responsible for the simplicity of 

resolutions of dispute in the universities.  The current dispute resolution in Nigerian universities 

requires an establishment of an office (Ombudsman) for dispute resolution that is recognised and 

accepted by all stakeholders in the universities.  This is because conflict potentials in the 

universities are varied. Hence, the need for all the groups within the system to recognize these 

potentials and deliberately make concerted efforts to curtail the negative consequences of conflicts. 

This curtailment could be achieved through meaningful interactions and effective communication; 

resourcefulness and resource management; and cooperation between the universities and the state.  

These measures would culminate in drastic reduction in negative conflict potentials and 

consequent high goal attainment potential. 

 

References 

Alan, L (2001).  Challenges for the Ombudsman in a changing socio-economic environment. 

Retrieved from: http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000144310.pdf on the 15th January, 

2023 

Fadele, A. O. (2020).  Managing private universities in developing countries, In N. A. Chinyere,  

T. K. O. George, K. A. Badau, F. K. Zaharah (eds), Critical issues in education. Ibadan: His 

Lineage 

Banjo, A. O. (2001). Managing Ombudsman in developing countries.  Global Journal of  

 Educational Research, 3(1), 31-45 

Begshaw, H. L. (1998).  Conflict management and mediation: key leadership skills for the 

millennium, Review of Educational Research, 30(6), 64-82 

Benjamin, A. C. (2007). The big challenge: Equity in large organisation. Journal of Personnel  

 Management, 8(2), 39-51. 

Buhang, H. & Gleditsch, K. (2005).  “Origin of conflict clusters: Contagion or bad  

neighborhoods?”- Paper prepared for the Third  European Consortium for Political 

Research General Conference, Budapest, 8-10, September, 2005. 

Caiden,  J. P. & Stahl, M. J ((1983). Modeling the policies of several labor arbitrators. The  

 Academy of Management Journal 26(1): 140-147 

Fagartin, T. A. (2007). A model of corporate performance as a function of arbitrator and  

 leadership influences. Journal of Law, 13(1), 126-141. 

Gadling, H. (2013).  The ombudsman: What’s in a name? Negotiation Journal, 33(1), 37-48.  

Grobna, M. L. (2008).  The making of Ombudsman. International Studies in Educational 

Administration, 36(2), 35–51 

Gronhan A. P. (2016).  The ideal problem solver: A guide for improvement.  New York: Freeman 

Hannah, C. (1998). The eleventh reason why committee system doesn’t work effectively, 

Management Review, 82, 31-56. 

Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A. & Roth, P. L. (2007). Principles of problem solving in human  

organisation. US-China Education Review, 1(5), 613 – 633. 

Hussaini, B. F. (2010).  Awareness and utilization of Ombudsman resources by school 

 management.  Africa Education Review, 12(2), 84 – 102 

Investopedia (2023).  What is Ombudsman?   Retrieved from  

 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/ombudsman.asp on the 17th June, 2023 

Kolb, E. J. & Hill, R. E. (2009). Conceptual and normative aspects of Ombudsman management.  



  
 

Olugbenga Timothy Ajadi 
Ombudsman Mechanism And Conflict Resolution In Southwestern Nigerian University 

 
 

  

Volume 9, Number 2, November 2025 | 363  

zzzzzz 

  

 The Academy of Management Journal, 20(2), 119-128. 

Kolb, D. M. (2015).  Corporate Ombudsman and organization conflict resolution.  Journal of  

 Conflict Resolution, 17(2): 33 – 45. 

Longley, R (2023).  What is an Ombudsman? Retrieved from 

 https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-an-ombudsman-6832802 on the 21st June, 2023 

Mankin, E. C. (1996). An aspect of management philosophy in the United States and Latin  

 America. American Journal of Scientific Research, Issue, 6, 15 – 24.   

Meymand, N. (1986). The Ombudsman: An institution for the resolution of conflict. 

 Bridgewater Review, 3(2), 16 – 19. 

McNamara, A. I. (2007). The human problems of an industrialized civilization, New York:  

 Macmillian Books. 

Office of the Ombudsman, Ohio University (2010): The meaning of ombudsman. Retrieved  

 from http://www.ohio.edu/ombuds/history.html on the 17th February, 2022 

Rajani, K. P. (2009). Role of the office of the ombudsman in resolving extra-judicial killings, 

 Journal of Criminal Justice and Security, 32, 77-92 

Reif, L. C. (2004). The Ombudsman, good governance and the International Human Rights 

System, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 

Rowe, S. L. (2010). Ombudsman leadership satisfaction and productivity: A comparative  

analysis. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research and Review, 11(4), 401-414 

Salter, J. (2012). Interpreting modern conflict philosophy. New York: Macmillan 

Stieber, J. E. & Johnson, T. W. (2000). The path-goal theory of leadership: A partial test and 

suggested refinement. European Journal of Social Science, 18(2): 242-252. 

Walters, P. O. (2001).  Conditions of Ombudsman.  New York: Rinehart and Winston 


