Governance, Processes, and Variations in TVET Qualification Development across Anglophone Sub-Saharan Africa: A Scoping Review

Research Question How do TVET qualification development processes compare across Anglophone Sub-Saharan African systems, and what governance, institutional, and methodological factors account for the observed differences? No specific hypotheses are proposed. The review is exploratory and aims to map and describe governance models, development processes, and sources of variation. Abstract / Background Qualification development is the mechanism through which TVET systems translate policy aspirations into the credentials that signal learner competence to employers. Yet the processes through which qualifications are conceived, designed, and validated across Sub-Saharan Africa have attracted far less scholarly attention than the frameworks that house them. Most comparative reviews of African TVET reform concentrate on NQF architecture and system-level outcomes, drawing almost exclusively on peer-reviewed literature and overlooking the procedural evidence held within the document repositories of national qualification authorities. This scoping review maps governance models, development processes, and sources of variation in TVET qualification development across eight Anglophone Sub-Saharan African countries (South Africa, Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Namibia). The central research question asks how qualification development processes compare across these systems and what governance, institutional, and methodological factors account for the differences observed. Review Type Scoping review (PRISMA-ScR guidelines; Tricco et al., 2018) Eligibility Criteria Sources are eligible when they meet all four of the following criteria: (a) Issued or published between 2000 and March 2026 (the search completion date) (b) Address qualification development governance, processes, standards, or frameworks in a Sub-Saharan African country or in the region as a whole (c) Produced by a national qualification authority, regional body, international organisation, or peer-reviewed scholarly outlet (d) Available in full text in the public domain Substantive engagement with qualification development is operationalised as: provision of procedural description (process stages, actor roles, development timelines), governance analysis (authority distribution, regulatory architecture), or qualification standards documentation (competency units, qualification levels, occupational standards frameworks). Exclusion criteria: Sources are excluded when they address only general TVET participation or enrolment data without engagement with development processes; are restricted to basic or higher education not involving TVET; provide only bibliometric analysis; or are duplicates. Sources of Evidence Peer-reviewed literature (database searches): Scopus Web of Science (SSCI/ESCI) ERIC Search period: 15 January 2026 to 31 March 2026 Grey literature (targeted repository searches): Eight national qualification authorities (QCTO, SAQA, BQA, DSD, COTVET, KNQA, TVETA, Ethiopian TVET Institute, WDA, VETA, NACTE, NTA, NQA) Four regional bodies (AU/ACQF, SADC, EAC, ECOWAS) Four international organisations (UNESCO-UNEVOC, ILO, World Bank, African Development Bank) Search period: April 2026 Languages: English primary; French supplementary terms applied to ECOWAS and regional body repositories. Methodology Study design: This is a prospective scoping review with a descriptive and comparative orientation. No primary data collection, randomisation, or experimental conditions are involved. Source selection: Peer-reviewed records: Two-stage screening (title/abstract, then full-text). Dual independent screening of a 20% random sample (n = 67) with inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.82). Remaining records screened by first author. Grey literature: Purposive identification through repository navigation, citation-following, and cross-referencing. Assessed for eligibility using same substantive criteria as peer-reviewed sources. Quality appraisal: Grey literature appraised using AACODS framework (Authority, Accuracy, Coverage, Objectivity, Date, Significance). Overall Rating determined by decision rule: Strong when rated Strong on at least four of six dimensions, including Authority and Significance; otherwise Adequate (with date qualifier if Date dimension is Weak). Data charting: Bespoke framework capturing: country or body; source type; key governance actors; governance model elements; development process elements; actor roles; reported challenges or variations. Synthesis: Descriptive and comparative synthesis mapping governance models and development process characteristics across sources. Conceptual framework: Institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) operationalised with specific identification criteria for coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures. Strategic-relational governance (Jessop, 2002) shapes identification of actor roles and authority distributions. Protocol Amendments Original registration (date of original registration): Described a systematic review design. Amendment (02 April 2026): Prior to full data extraction, the authors determined that the available evidence base was predominantly grey literature and methodologically heterogeneous. The design was therefore revised to a scoping review to align with the study purpose and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. No data extraction occurred prior to this amendment. Version history and protocol updates are publicly accessible on this OSF project. Supplementary Materials Deposited The following materials are available in this OSF project: Search log (database) – Full record of Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC searches with dates and results Grey literature search log – Repository navigation paths, URLs, search dates, and documents identified Charting template – Bespoke data extraction framework used for all sources PRISMA-ScR checklist – Completed checklist mapping all 21 items to manuscript sections Excluded sources CSV – Complete list of 28 excluded grey literature sources with reasons for exclusion Traceability matrix – Links each analytical claim to specific source extracts Archived PDFs – All 27 grey literature source documents in version-controlled format Conflicts of Interest None declared. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.