HI Sushree, i have seen that you are at an "Academy of tribal languages and cultures' and have to admit to feel puzzled, 'tribal' and 'tribalism' are not much employed terms in ethnolinguistic/anthropological discourse any longer because of the negative associations with 'tribal' being somehow 'backward'. "Ethnic' is much more common to my knowledge. But could i please ask you to explain your question a bit more? What do you mean by 'university development'? 

HI Sushree, I agree with Stephanie. The term 'tribal' could have negative connotations, not that the literal meaning of the term is negative, but because it has been used in the literature and political rhetoric to refer to social groups that exist before or outside the state. It is also assumed that tribes are bounded, homogeneous, insular, and stable social groups. Others also argue that the term is rooted in colonialism. To circumvent these negative connotations, it is often suggested to use the terms ethnic group or nations.

You will need to clarify what you mean by universal development. However, if I define development as a social change process, we need to ask a question as to why some projects and ministries of tribal development have been created across the world. It seems to me that this is so because of the conjecture that tribes (ethnic groups) are considered as social groups that are traditional and/or backward, who are in need of development or change to fit in the modern state. Thus to me the question should be why tribal development.

I would stick to the rule of common sense (well, I guess that's common sense) to address each community or group studied by the name they choose. In the Latin American context, that is almost never "tribe" but rather "nationality", "nation", "people". I think in other regions, like India or Africa, the usage of concepts is different.

Probably we should continue to use the word tribal with respect to the McLuhan theory of communication. As such a tribal society would be an oral society, which has a sense of collective identity which is beyond nationalism or individualism. Thus tribal means no more an historical moment of human development rather than a stage of psychological development which is similar if not identical with childhood, before the moment of symbolical assigning stable meanings to visual signs. Therefore, it may nowadays be recovered in the electronic influenced generation of those internet users who pledge allegiance to an environment, to a medium, rather than to a nation. Their loyalty is explainable by taking into consideration the possibility to negotiate and even change the meanings assigned to visual symbols in the forums of the online community, which acts in the manner of protecting its members, without whom it loses its own plausibility, its own realizability.

As Philipp A. implies, the concept of "tribe" seems different in Africa - where language is probably the strongest binding force, plus (sometimes) allegiance to a particular Chief:  (compare Mircea-ioan's second sentence).

In southern and central Africa, the term "Bantu" describes an ethnic grouping - whose members speak a wide variety of related languages: i.e.. this "ethnic group" comprises many constituent tribes.

As (perhaps?) hinted by Stephanie and by Kiros, tribal rivalry in parts of Africa is an extremely serious problem - often leading to bloodshed. That is why scholars (and governments of African countries) usually try hard to avoid talking about different tribes within their countries - particularly when a specific tribe happens to be wielding most of the power there.

Thus - Sushree - in your thesis your discussion and treatment will depend very much on which part of the world you are looking at. I hope my comments (if they are accurate !) will be helpful if you want to include Africa in your study. Good luck with your investigation !