University-Industry Partnership in Ethiopia

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

Abbreviations and Acronyms

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
1.2 Statement of the Problem
1.3Theoretical Framework
1.4 Objectives ofthe Study
1.5 Significance ofthe Study
1.6 Delimitations ofthe Study
1.7 Limitations of the Study
1.8 Definitions ofKey Terms
1.9 Organization of the Study

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Knowledge-Based Economy and its Impact on Development
2.2 University-Industry Partnership: Evolution and Nature
2.2.1 University-Industry Partnerships: Historical Perspectives
2.2.2 Forms and Models of University-Industry Partnerships
2.2.2.1 Forms of University-Industry Partnerships
2.2.2.2 Models ofUniversity-Industry Partnerships
2.2.3 Views on the Impact ofUniversity-Industry Partnership on Basic Research and Curriculum Design at Universities
2.3 Policies for University- Industry Partnerships
2.4 Management and Organizational Setup of University-Industry Partnerships
2.5 Benefits of University-Industry Partnerships
2.6 Challenges to University-Industry Partnerships
2.7 The Experience of some Countries in University-Industry Partnerships: Uessons Ueamed
2.8 Engineering Education and University-Industry Partnerships in Ethiopia
2.8.1 The Country Context
2.8.2 Engineering Education and University-Industry Partnership in Ethiopia

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 The Research Design
3.2 The Research Method
3.3 Data Sources
3.4 Study Samples and Sampling Techniques
3.5 Instruments of Data Collection and Standardization
3.5.1 Instruments ofData Collection
3.5.2 Standardization ofData Gathering Instruments
3.5.2.1 Validation (Content Validity) ofData Gathering Instruments
3.5.2.2 Pilot Test
3.6 Procedures ofData Collection
3.7 Methods ofData Analysis
3.8 Ethical Considerations

CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
4.1Characteristics of the Respondents
4.1.1 Sex, Age, Educational Qualification and Work Experience of the Survey Participants
4.1.2 Background Information on the Sample Universities, Industries and the Participants of the Qualitative Data
4.1.2.1 Universities and Interview Participants
4.1.2.2 Industries and Interview Participants-
4.2 The Extent and Areas of Collaboration between Universities and Industries
4.3. Extent of Implementation of Supportive Policies in Enhancing University-Industry Partnership
4.4 Organizational Capacity ofUniversity-Industry Partnerships
4.5 Challenges Affected Implementation ofUniversity-Industry Partnerships
4.5.1 Challenges Affected Implementation ofUniversity-Industry Partnership: General..
4.5.2 Challenges ofUniversity-Industry Partnerships: Specific to Internship Program Implementation

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS, DESCUSSION,
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary of Major Findings
5.1.1 Extent and Areas of Collaboration between Universities and Industries
5.1.2 Extent of Implementation of Supportive Polices in Enhancing University-Industry Partnership
5.1.3 Extent of Organizational Capacity ofUniversity-Industry Partnerships
5.1.4 Challenges Affected Implementation ofUniversity-Industry Partnerships
5.1.4.1 General Challenges Affected Implementation ofUniversity-Industry Partnerships
5.1.4.2 Internship Program Implementation Related Challenges
5.2 Discussion
5.2.1 Extent and Areas of Collaboration between Universities and Industries
5.2.2 Extent of Implementation of Supportive Polices in Enhancing University-Industry Partnerships
5.2.3 Extent of Organizational Capacity of University-Industry Partnerships
5.2.4 Challenges Affected Implementation ofUniversity-Industry Partnerships
5.2.4.1 Challenges Affected Implementation ofUniversity-Industry Partnership: General
5.2.4.2 Internship Program Implementation Related Challenges
5.3 Conclusions
5.4 Recommendations
5.4.1 Suggestions to Improve the Practice ofUniversity-Industry Partnerships
5.4.2 Suggestions to Improve the Implementation of the Internship Programs

References

Appendices

ABSTRACT

The main purpose of this study was to explore university-industry partnership practices in Ethiopia and examine challenges since the practice began in the country. The study utilized sequential exploratory mixed approach, drawing data from students, instructors, schools ’ deans/ directors of universities, industry officials and experts, and experts from federal ministries, selected using non-proportional stratified and purposive sampling techniques. Data were collected using questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and document analysis. Findings indicated that the practice of university-industry partnership in Ethiopia is still weak, and many barriers remain that undermined its growth and potential benefits for both sectors. Limited awareness of universities and industries regarding university-industry partnership’s benefits, absence of clear and specific policies and appropriate organizational structures, and lack of resources (manpower, finance & facilities) were among critical challenges that undermined successful university-industry partnerships in Ethiopia. Additional challenges that negatively influenced university-industry partnership ’s success include inadequate incentives for researchers and industry as they engage in partnership initiatives, absence of adequate monitoring and evaluation, and inadequate industry participation in the design of engineering education curriculum at universities. All these suggest that, in Ethiopia, the roles played by the universities, industries, and the government in enhancing university-industry partnership were insignificant, thereby weakening the contributions such partnership would have provided to the country ’s economy while at the same time creating efficient working systems in universities and industries.The study’s recommendation include providing workshops that enhance public and key stakeholders awareness regarding university-industry partnership’s benefits, increasing resources that fulfil the missions of the partnerships and designing clear and specific policies and appropriate organizational structures regarding university-industry partnerships.

Furthermore, improving the incentive systems for researchers and industries, creating effective evaluation and monitoring strategies, and engaging industries in the design of engineering education curriculum are among key recommendations to enhance UIP in Ethiopia.

Key-words: university, industry, partnership, university-industry partnership

Acknowledgement

I wish to express my sincere appreciation and deepest gratitude to my advisors: Ato Ayalew Shibeshi (Asso.Prof) and Dr Abebayehu Aemero (Asso.Prof). For sure this dissertation would have not taken such a form, had it not been for their valuable assistance and critical comments. I felt very much lucky for I got unreserved guidance and knowledgeable advice, insightful comments and suggestions, as well as devotion of time and effort from these two respected professors throughout my study. Prof Ayalew’s provision of technical advice and high moral, ‘Berta!’ and Prof Abebayehu’s encouragement for future hopes and his quotation based technical advice could not be forgotten. Really, they taught me the wisdom of helping others which I took as my future assignment to exercise on my students.

My heartfelt thanks and great appreciation are also extended to my friends: Dr Jeilu Oumer, Dr Wosen Yimam, Dr Getnet Tizazu and Dr Ziyn Engidasew. The moral supports they provided me and their critical comments on my research document could not be forgotten. I have greatly benefited from their professional advice and expertise. My heartfelt thanks also go to my friends, Ato Atlabachew Getaye and Ato Teshome Daba who made my dissertation more sensible and attractive through thorough and critical language editing.

I also would like to extend my gratitude to the management of College of Education and Behavioral Studies, and the Department of Educational Planning and Management of Addis Ababa University, as well as to the Top Management, School of Educational Science and Technology Teachers Education, and to the Department of Department of Educational Planning and Management of Adama Science and Technology University for the financial, material and moral supports they provided me throughout my study.

It is with great pleasure that I acknowledge my indebtedness to my wife, W/ro Semira Harun, for her constant help and sympathetic encouragement towards the completion of my study. My unreserved thanks also go to my sons: Nebil Abdu, Anil Abdu, Nahil Abdu and Na’if Abdu for their endurance when I deprived them of their affection to pass their free time with me being too busy with my study. My special thanks also go to Anil Abdu, who is a 14 year old and an eighth grade student but with high computer knowledge in his early age. He undertook the burden of typing the draft as well as the final script of my dissertation.

List of figure

Figure 1: University-Industry Partnership Model

Figure 2: University-Industry-Govemment Partnerships (Triple Helix Model I)

Figure 3: University-Industry-Govemment Partnerships (Triple Helix Model II)

Figure 4: University-Industry-Govemment Partnerships (Triple Helix Model III)

Figure 5: The Proposed National Level Organizational Structure of University-Industry Partnership

Figure 6: The Proposed University Level Organizational Structure of University-Industry Partnerships

List of table

Table 1: National Association of Ethiopian Industries

Table 2: Age, Sex and Educational Qualification ofRespondents of Survey Participants

Table 3: Extent of Collaboration between Universities and Industries

Table 4: Areas of Collaboration between Universities and Industries

Table 5: Implementation of National Level Policies in Enhancing University-Industry Partnership

Table 6: Implementation of Institutional Level Policies in Enhancing University-Industry Partnership

Table 7: Role ofUniversity-Industry Partnership Office in Enhancing University-Industry Partnership

Table 8: Facilitating Roles Played by the Government in Strengthening University-Industry Partnership

Table 9: University’s Resource Support to Strength University-Industry Partnership

Table 10: University’s Technical Support to Strength University-Industry Partnership

Table 11: Facilitation Roles Played by Universities in Strengthening University-Industry Partnership

Table 12: Industries’ Resource and Technical Support to Strength University-Industry Partnership

Table 13: Awareness Related Challenges Affecting Implementation of University-Industry Partnership

Table 14: Challenges Related to the Facilitation Roles Expected of the Government

Table 15: Resistance from Industries in Implementing Internship Program

Table 16: Financial Related Problems Affecting Internship Programs

Table 17: Mismatch between Students’ Industrial Practice and their Fields of Studies

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

This chapter deals with the information on the context and origin of the research problem, and the rationale for conducting the study. Included in this section are the background of the study, statement of the problem as well as the objectives, significance, delimitation, and limitation of the study, and definitions of key terms. The chapter ends by presenting the organization of the study.

1.1 Background of the Study

In the context of globalization, increased recognition has been given to innovation and technological changes as sources of global competitiveness and economic development (Esham, 2008; Martin, 2011). To this effect, policy makers regard higher education institutions (HEIs) as catalysts for national development because the innovation and technological changes required for economic growth stem from these institutions (Chakrabarti, 2002; Schwartzman, 2002).

HEIs play crucial role in society as producers and transmitters of knowledge. Their roles include three different missions: teaching, research, and an enterprise development (CEC, 2009; NCURA, 2006; UNESCO, 2005). Universities contribute to economic growth by producing skilled personnel, especially in science and engineering; they produce, store and disseminate research, which form the basis for industries; and as their third role, they contribute directly to economic development through technology transfer by facilitating partnerships among themselves, industries, and the government (Porter, 2007; Walsh, Baba, Goto,& Yasaki, 2008). Moreover, higher education in general and higher science and engineering education in particular are the engines of development (Ayalew, Dawit, Tesfaye, & Yalew, 2009; Ozsoy, 2008). Furthermore, researchers have indicated that there is a positive correlation between education in mathematics, science, and engineering at university level and improved economic performance (Bloom, Canning,& Chan, 2006).The contribution of higher education for national growth, however, is contingent upon its quality.

One avenue by which HEIs improve the quality of education that contributes to socioeconomic development of a nation is by creating partnership with industries. University- industry partnership(UIP) is an arrangement whereby university and industry collaborate with commitment and trust based on the shared interest from the partnership which, in turn, enables the diffusion of ideas and skills, and utilization of manpower with the aim of creating mutual benefits overtime (Koech, 1995; Plewa & Quester, 2008).

Among their major roles, universities support industries by producing qualified graduates, providing consultancy services and producing up-to-date technologies that bolster the industries’ competitiveness in the global market, while industries help universities financially for the up-to-date technologies and consultancy services they receive from universities. Industries can also create internship opportunities for engineering students so that they can gain practical skills in industries (Shouwen, 2008; UNESCO, 2005).Industries also provide financial support to universities as the need for additional resources is particularly imperative in public universities due to shortage of government funding for higher education to keep up with an ever increasing student population (UNESCO, 2005). Further, the changing nature of today’s dynamic technology requires universities remain innovative and competitive on continuous-basis. Without the support of private entities such as industries, universities lose their competitive advantage as generators of knowledge and innovation in the global market. Thus, ensuring such benefits and making a two way support calls for UIPs (Esham, 2008).

UIPs could exist in different forms, namely, research affairs which comprise contract research, and joint research and development projects (Esham, 2008; Low, 1983, as cited in Koech, 1995; Tomatzky, Waugaman & Gray, 2002); student related affairs that include internships and research works of graduating students in industries (Altbach, Reisburg & Fumbley, 2009; Low, 1983, as cited in Koech, 1995; UNESCO, 2005); consultancy services (UNESCO, 2005); technology transfer which comprises consortia, patents, intellectual property rights, etc., (Esham, 2008; Hall, 2004; Kondo, 2006; Low,1983, as cited in Koech, 1995); and facility sharing and human resource training and development, and utilization (Esham, 2008; Koech, 1995; Kondo, 2006; Michaela, 1997).

The existence of such forms of UIPs helps to promote mutual beneficial relations between the two parties. To realize these benefits, most of the developed and developing nations of the world have started to include the issue of UIPs in their policies with the aim of strengthening and facilitating its management and organizational capacity as well as its implementation. As a result, UIP has begun to play crucial role in promoting countries’ development in general and that of universities and industries in particular. The following experiences in Europe (Belgium & Germany), U.S.A., Asia (China, Singapore& Japan), and Africa (Ghana & Nigeria) illustrate some of the remarkable contributions of UIPs.

Esham (2008) depicts that the K.U. Leuven University of Belgium has established research and development centre in collaboration with industries on contract research, consultancy services, patents, spin-offs and research parks. The centre has been identified as of the best practice in European Union benchmarking exercise, and it has been given considerable autonomy to manage its finance and has its organizational structure. In 2008, there were 46 such research divisions with about 220 faculty members, and about 600 researchers and support staff. On top of these, individual researchers besides being entitled to salary supplements based on the net proceeds from their contract research and consultancy services receive 30 % - 40% of the net income from the royalty payments and intellectual property shares (Debackere & Vaugelers, 2005, as cited in Esham, 2008).

In Germany, in addition to adequate internship opportunities provided to students, some industries create employment and scholarship opportunities for outstanding students, and provide some financial support for the services students render during internship (Altbach et al., 2009). In U.S.A., one of the remarkable practices of technology transfer from universities to industries is that, while patent granted increased from 1,550 in 1995 to 3,450 in 2003, the net royalties rose from $1 billion in 2000 to $1.6 billion in 2005, and the number of start-up companies created increased from 454 in 2000 to 555 in 2007 (AUTM, 2008, as cited in Altbach et al., 2009).

In China, besides other benefits, the Tsinghua University was highly successful in generating its internal income and getting research funds through the efforts made in technology transfer and provision of consultancy services for industries. For instance, in 1998, 43% of the research fund of the university came from enterprises for the university’s contribution through contract research and consultancy services for industrial development (Esham, 2008). Moreover, China’s industrial sector was the second largest source of science and technology funding for universities, providing nearly 38 % of total funding to universities in 2004 (Martin, 2011).

On top of these, students’ industrial attachment was also highly emphasized and encouraged in China. For instance, in the Shangai University, over ten enterprises invest about 200,000 RMB in the form of rewards to motivate excellent students and teachers every year during students’ practical attachment to industries (UNESCO, 2005).

As the entrepreneurial university model, the National University of Singapore (NUS) made remarkable efforts in knowledge commercialization including technology licensing and industrial sponsored research, consulting, publishing, and revitalizing the university wide entrepreneurship (Wong,et al., 2007, as cited in Esham, 2008). Through UIPs, 136 research collaboration agreements were signed in 2002 with external parties amounting to the total project value of US$ 42.5 million, or about 15% of the NUS annual research budget (Nezu et.al, 2007).

In Japan, since the private sector invests heavily in research and development, working with industries is a very attractive option for universities to be better funded and better equipped with educational facilities (UNESCO, 2005). In the country, the patents granted were 2,313 in 2003 and 4,225 in 2007 with licensing revenue raised by 40% during the same year, and the number of established start-up companies also increased to 1773 in 2008 (Altbach,eta/., 2009).

In some African countries such as Ghana and Nigeria, efforts in providing consultancy services and establishment of research and development centres were being made. In Ghana, University of Legon of Science and Technology, and University of Cape Coast established consultancy centres in their respective universities and served the industries and earned some income (Michaela, 1997). In Nigeria, Akure Federal University of Technology established a research and development centre in 2003 and earned about 11 million naira up to 2006 (Okojie, 2007). Okojie further added that the government made support through tax exemption.

However, Göktepe and Keskin (2008) and Zakari (2005, as cited in Mulu, 2009) indicate that in some African countries the implementation of UIP is still weak and has not contributed that much to the socio-economic development of nations, in part, because of political driven policy coordination and some countries’ preference to replicate the traditional staged models of UIP originally used in some industrialized countries.

Despite some positive gains, a number of factors have negatively affected UIPs’ success. Such factors include negative societal perception on local inventions and market resistance (PIFB, 2002; UNESCO, 2005);absence of legal and policy aspects, and political instability in some countries (Odhiambo, 2007);shortage of human resources (UNESCO, 2005); inefficient and ineffective working systems and mechanisms, and lack of funds for the partnership (Odhiambo, 2007; UNESCO,2005); institutional differences between the two parties(Powers, et al., 1988; UNESCO,2005); lack of mutual trust between the two parties (Bradbach & Eccles,1989,& Zaheer,et al., 1998,as cited in Bruneel & Salter,2009); and conflicts on other partnership related issues (Rosenberg & Nelson, 2002, & Welsh,et al., 2008,as cited in Bruneel & Salter, 2009).

In Ethiopia, even though there have been many years of tradition of elite education linked to the Orthodox Church, the establishment of secular higher education institutions in the country was dated back to 1950’s. Haile Selasie I University which was renamed as Addis Ababa University in 1974, was the first university established in 1961 (UNESCO, 1984; World Bank, 2003). In the country, engineering education started in 1953 with the establishment of Addis Ababa Engineering College (the present Addis Ababa University- Institute of Technology).

In the 2010/11 academic year, there were twenty one universities and four university colleges of the government, and 48 private university colleges providing training at the undergraduate level in the country,of which 16 public universities and two private university colleges were providing postgraduate level training in addition to the undergraduate one.Of all the HEIs in the country, training in engineering fields at the undergraduate level was being provided in 19 public universities and two public university colleges, and in five private university colleges, parallel to other fields of study (MoE, 2010/11). On top of these, ten additional public universities have been under establishment since 2009/10 and are expected to fully start serving as of 2013/14. However, about five of these new universities have started serving as of 2012/13. In the existing HEIs that started serving before 2010/11 the trends of students enrolment from the years 2008/9-2010/11 show that the student population in the undergraduate and post graduate programs is increasing at an average annual growth rate of 21.8% and 30%, respectively (MoE, 2010/11).

A number of efforts were made to enhance the contribution of engineering education to the country’s development taking in to account UIP as a strategy. For example, an attempt was made to create close work relations between Addis Ababa University (AAU) and some selected industries in Addis Ababa City Administration in 2000, although the effort failed without bringing any significant change (Daniel, 2008). Daniel further stated that, another effort as a pilot project between AAU and some selected industries in Addis Ababa in collaboration with the Ethiopian Manufacturing Industries Association (or the present National Association of Ethiopian Industries (NAEIs)) and the country’s Engineering Capacity Building Office was also made in 2006 with the aim of re-establishing sustainable partnerships, modernizing and facilitating the transfer of technology from university to industry, and upgrading the existing students’ internship systems; however, the accomplishment of the project was not clear.

The issue of strengthening the provision of engineering education by giving due attention to students’ practical attachment to industries was emphasized in the country’s Education and Training Policy. Article 3.6.1 of the education and training policy of the country states that “the participation of students in technical and higher education programs, in gaining the necessary field experience before graduation will be facilitated” (FDRE, 1994). In the same way, Article 8.7 of the higher education proclamation No. 650/2009 of the country states that “HEIs can establish cooperative relations with industries and other institutions in pursuit of their missions” (FDRE, 2009).

Furthermore, the 1993 Science and Technology Policy (STP) and the 2012 Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP) of Ethiopia recognize the important role that universities can have in fostering science and technology in adapting advanced technologies to solve local problems in supporting economic development more broadly (FDRE, 2012; FDRE, 1993; Mouton & Boshoff, 2010). Further, realizing the need for technology transfer and the advantage of intellectual property, Ethiopia became the member of the convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1998, and the government also established the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office on April 8, 2003 by Proclamation No. 320/2003, considering it as one of the essential mechanisms used to intensify UIP and commercialization of viable innovations (Mouton & Boshoff, 2010).

The necessity of UIP has been given due attention in the country’s Education Sector Development Program (ESDP-IV) of 2010/11-2014/15. In this regard, it was stated that Major new emphases are guided by the present overarching development vision of Ethiopia to become a middle-income country by the year 2025. One major new emphasis will be the concern with improving the quality and the employability of university graduates. The sustainable development of research capacity for knowledge creation and technology transfer in priority sectors is another oneThis demands a transformation of the economy through, among other things, conscious application of science, technology and innovation as the major instruments to create wealth. It demands on the other hand that human resources development be strengthened by training competent and innovative people with special attention to engineering, technology and natural sciences In order to support both quantitative targets for expansion and qualitative change in higher education, including the support of enhanced autonomy and newfunctions (e.g. researchpolicy, technology transfer); the governance, industry- university partnership, management and capacity ofHEIs will receive special attention (MoE, 2010:11, 61 & 66).

In addition to this, the country’s five years ’Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) of 2009/10-2014/15 also focused on improving the capacities of HEIs to help them support industries through research and technology transfer systems and thereby contribute to the economic development of the country, where this in turn calls for strong UIP (FDRE, 2009/10-2014/15).

To this effect, the implementation of UIPs has got due emphasis in the country. However, until the completion of this study there was lack of clear policy direction to engage universities in a knowledge-based economy as it relates to the practice of UIP in the country. Therefore, this study was aimed at assessing the practice ofUIP in the country.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

As the economic and social benefits that stem from the exploitation of new scientific and technological knowledge accrue, the future well-being of both developed and developing countries is increasingly seen as dependent up on knowledge and innovation (Leo’n, 2005). This increasing role of knowledge in development calls for strong and sound UIP not only to create but also to utilize knowledge for socio-economic development (Ad’eoti, 2010).

Experiences in different countries depict that UIP played a paramount role in enhancing their socio-economic development. In Ethiopia, however, regardless of the efforts made to improve the provision and utilization of higher engineering education, the progress obtained in the area of UIP (technology transfer, students’ practical attachment to industries, etc.,) seemed insignificant.

As a result, in Ethiopia, university graduates fail to adequately compete in the job market (Zakari, 2005, in Mulu, 2009). On top of this, industries in the country lack access to up-to-date technology that makes them fully competitive in the global market. Industrial development in Ethiopia is still in its infancy and has a narrow base (MoE, 2010; MoFED, 2010). As the report of MoFED (2008), in the Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty-Ill (PASDEP-III) of Ethiopia indicated, while the target set for the share of industry in GDP from 2005/6 to 2009/10 was 13.6% to 16.5%, only 12.9% was achieved, indicating that industrial contribution to the GDP growth is far below expected.

Further compounding the challenges, such limited industrial growth suffered from many performance hurdles. For example, many industries hire graduates that were not well qualified for the job, and lacked technical and managerial skills that the industries needed (Ayalew et al., 2009; IKED, 2008; MoFED, 2010). In addition, industries did not have adequate access to efficient and effective credit services (FDRE, 2009/10-2014/15; Goktepe & Keskin, 2008). It is possible to argue that whereas the first problem called for work collaboration with universities, the second indicated the support needed from the government.

The way in which engineering programs provided instruction in Ethiopia was another obstacle for UIP. In the country, the engineering education emphasized more theoretical instruction rather than the lifelong learning, the development of marketable skills, and company based training (MoE, 2005; Wanna, 1998). The demand for such marketable skills has never been as important given the new policy focus of the government in which all public universities are required to meet a 70:30 professional and program mix. That is, 70% of students being admitted to universities will be assigned to engineering and natural science streams, while 30% to the social science and humanities streams, and of those being admitted to engineering and natural science streams, 40 % are being enrolled in engineering streams (MoE, 2008).

Despite the challenges, there is dearth of research that examines the practice and status of UIP in Ethiopia, which specifically focus on technology transfer and internship aspects of engineering education. For example, attempts made by IKED (2008) in this regard were limited to assessing the establishment of university- industry- government linkage and on the analysis of the general challenges and opportunities towards an innovative system that leads to growth and competitiveness, and on how to adapt the technology products of the local scientific community or the indigenous knowledge.

The study conducted by Mulu (2009) on the “Link between Academic Research and Economic Development in Ethiopia: The Case of Addis Ababa University”, was focused more on the evaluation of the limitations of science and technology policy (STP) of 1993 and its background document of 2006for the revision of this policy; the intellectual property policy of 2003; and the higher education proclamation of 2003 of Ethiopia. However, despite its contribution, this study was carried out in 2008, and left out critical developments that call for further studies after changes in the 2012 science, technology and innovation policy (STIP) which also included the intellectual property policy in a new form, and in the higher education proclamation of 2009. With regard to research funding, UIPs were also not the focus of Mulu’s (2009) study. Instead, his study focused on inadequacy of research funding at national rather than university level.

Furthermore, Negi (2009), taking the case of Addis Ababa City Administration in his article “Industry and Higher Education: Meeting the Needs for Mutual Benefits”, focused on the ability and skills of business graduates and employers; expectations; and the confidence of graduates in creating and getting jobs. His study also did not deal with the issue of engineering education and UIP.

In general, the studies conducted so far did not specifically deal with the assessment of the implementation of the existing policies, the organizational capacity, and challenges of UIPs. Empirical evidence that shows the real direction to be followed by all parties (universities and industries as well as the government) is lacking. In other words, the practices, contributions and sustainability of UIPs in Ethiopia were not yet clear. Hence, the need to produce competent graduates from universities and ma king industries in the country to be globally competitive was under question. This in turn constrained the countries’ development strategies such as the Agricultural-Development-Led-Industrialization (ADLI) policy, the Industrial Development Strategy of 2009/10, the Five Years Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) of 2009/10-2014/15, etc.

Even though the practice of UIPs in the country was not yet clear, some universities in the country have been working jointly with some industries in the areas of training, provision of consultancy services, technology transfer and students’ internship activities (IKED, 2008). The researcher in his preliminary assessment also observed that the sample universities of this study had established UIPs offices with the aim of strengthening the practices of UIPs. However, the practice of UIP and its sustainability needed further investigation. In light of the above perspectives, this study examined the existing practices of UIPs in Ethiopia attempting to answer the following three basic questions.

1. To what extent do the existing policies support the implementation ofUIP in Ethiopia?
2. What organizational capacity (funding, training, infrastructure, etc.) does exist to facilitate effective implementation of UIP in Ethiopia?
3. What challenges do exist that affect effective implementation of UIP in Ethiopia?

1.3 Theoretical Framework

In knowledge-based society, universities and industries play the roles of supporting each other. To play the roles expected of them, they need to work in partnership (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1997, 1999 & 2000 in Esham, 2008). For a UIP to serve effectively and achieve its intended goals, one strategy is designing appropriate model of collaboration between the partners. Basically, understanding any system requires understanding the foundation of the system. Since innovation moves outside of a single organization, lateral relations across boundaries, rather than hierarchical bureaucratic structures, have come to be more important (Esham, 2008). In view of this, the new developmental model of the triple helix that has taken account of border crossing and the co-evolution between technological and institutional transformation that captures multiple reciprocal relationships at different points in the knowledge capitalization has been proposed as the best model for developing countries (Etzkowitz & Leydesdroff, 2000 in Esham, 2008 & in Mongkhonvanit, 2008). Using this new developmental model of the triple helix, Esham (2008) and Mongkhonvanit (2008) adapted similar models of UIP for Sri Lanka and Thailand, respectively, as per their countries’ conditions.

This model emphasizes the increased interaction among various institutional actors in industrial economies’ innovation systems, especially among universities, industries, and the government where there are tri-lateral networks among these spheres/institutions while each sphere takes on the roles of the others as they become hybrid organizations. It places universities in forefront, and assumes that the three helices are interdependent (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000 in Esham, 2008; & in Mongkhonvanit, 2008). Adding to this, Dzisah & Etzkowitz (2008) state that the new developmental triple helix model where the government plays a facilitating role between universities and industries is proposed as relevant to the engineering economic growth and innovation particularly to transform developing countries like those of Africa to a knowledge-based society. Dzisah and Etzkowitz have further added that, it provides a flexible framework for transition of African universities to more direct role in development. In this regard, Ethiopia is no exception.

This study utilized the new developmental triple helix model as the major framework for understanding and analysing the practice of UIP in Ethiopia, and the logic for the organization and the framework that shows the roles of universities, industries and the government, and the UIP Office is presented as hereunder (See Figure 1 below).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Source: Esham (2008:5) and Mongkhonvanit (2008:270) as adapted from Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000).

As displayed in fig 1 above, the government plays the role of designing policies to strengthen UIPs, allocating research and development grants to universities as well as making tax concessions to motivate industries that take part in UIPs. On the other hand, universities take the forefront in human resource development through the provision of graduates and training industries’ employees, and providing up-to-date technologies for industries while industries, as one wing of the partnerships, help universities through funding for the up-to- date technologies and consultancy services they get from universities; create conducive environment for students’ industrial attachment, and contribute to universities’ curriculum development. Moreover, the two partners help each other through facility sharing and expert exchange. The UIP office plays the role of coordination, need assessment and agreement setting in the partnership process with the aim of producing competent graduates, fulfilling better educational facilities in universities and helping industries to be competitive in the dynamically changing world.

1.4 Objectives of the Study

The general objective of this study was to assess the practices of UIP in Ethiopia and to provide plausible recommendations that could help to strengthen and develop sustainable partnership. As to the specific objectives, the study intended to achieve the following:

1. To assess the extent to which the existing policies support the implementation of UIP in
Ethiopia.
2. To assess the level of organizational capacity (funding, training, infrastructure, etc.) that exists to facilitate effective implementation of UIPs in Ethiopia.
3. To identify the challenges that affect effective implementation of UIPs in Ethiopia.
4. To propose a model that may contribute to enhance UIP in Ethiopia.
5. To put forward some practical and policy implications that can contribute to effective implementation of UIP in Ethiopia.

1.5 Significance of the Study

In Ethiopia, the emphasis given to UIPs is a fairly recent phenomenon, so our understanding of the practice of UIP appears poor. Therefore, this study is expected to contribute to the field of knowledge by filling the void in the literature in the area of UIP. It could provide more information and stimulate further interest among scholars for more research, given its recent emergence and importance. It is also believed that by exploring and expounding on the experience of those involved in these collaborative activities, some of these expectations and goals would be achieved.

In the reform of higher education in Ethiopia, the government has recently given due emphasis to expand HEIs and to raise the number of students entering these institutions in general and engineering fields in particular. Therefore, this study is expected to guide the MoE, Mol and MoST as well as universities and industries in addressing the concerns and aspirations of UIP in the country. In the same vein, the study is expected to guide the MoE, Mol and MoST in the organization and management of the partnerships. For the study assessed the gaps in implementing UIP and forwarded the recommendations to curb the identified problems, it is also believed that it will contribute to the production, management and utilization of research results and for the provision of engineering education in universities, and the productivity and management related issues in industries.

This study examined different policies and proclamations in relation to the implementation of UIP in the country to fill the voids in the area. Therefore, it is expected to guide policy makers to design or revise UIP related policies and proclamations. The result of this study is also expected to create awareness among the concerned bodies. This could be done by the researcher through dissemination of research results and provision of training to concerned officials and experts at different levels of the management system in MoE, Mol and MoST as well as for universities’ management bodies at different levels and instructors. Moreover, the industries’ officials and experts could also make use of the information from the study as an input for decision making and get awareness on the advantage of UIPs and its management system. This can help to design and establish adequate teaching learning system for engineering students.

1.6 Delimitations of the Study

The results of this study could have been more robust if it has included all universities and industries in the country. However, due to time and financial constraints, it was delimited to five public universities and fifteen large scale public or private industries in or around Adama, Addis Ababa, Arba Minch, Bahir Dar and Jimma City Administrations.

The universities included in the sample were Adama Science and Technology, Addis Ababa, Arba Minch, Bahir Dar and Jimma universities. These universities were selected for they had long years of experience in providing engineering education as compared to most of the universities in the country (CSA, 2010). Moreover, focusing on large and experienced universities could help to observe the exact effect of UIP. On top of this, all of these universities had UIP Offices. These sample universities were assumed to represent the country’s 21 universities that began operation prior to 2010/11 academic year. The new universities were not included in the target population because most of them were under construction during the study period. The ones that had started functioning had no experiences of more than two years in sending graduating class students to industries for internship purposes.

Even though there were a number of engineering fields of study in the selected universities, the study focused only on civil, electrical and mechanical engineering fields. These fields were among the engineering fields that were frequently incorporated into the government’s priority areas in the industrial sector development which comprises of steel and metal processing, construction, leather and leather products, and agro-processing (Grips Development Forum, 2010; MoFED, 2006).

The study was also delimited to large scale private or public manufacturing and construction industries in Ethiopia. This was done in line with the three levels of industries in Ethiopia: large scale, medium scale and small enterprises, CSA (2010), universities provide training to produce a high level skilled manpower which is needed for large scale industries. Moreover, this study did not endeavor to evaluate the outcomes or performance of university-industry partnerships, but rather to provide a generalized picture of current practice based on the self-assessment of universities.

It should also be noted that the practice of UIP was not only limited to the interaction between universities providing engineering education and industries. Experiences showed that universities and industries did collaborate in different educational fields other than engineering education. However, this study was delimited to the partnership between public universities providing training in engineering fields at the undergraduate education programs, and large scale public or private industries, giving more emphasis to university side dynamics, particularly, to higher engineering education.

In doing so, the study tried to assess policy related issues with particular focus on the existence of policies relevant to UIP both at national and institutional levels, their clarity, and extent of their implementation in enhancing UIP. It also assessed the extent of organizational capacity that existed by giving particular emphasis to the organization of UIP offices at universities and the supports and commitments made by the government, universities and industries in enhancing the implementation of UIP. Besides, the study also gave particular attention to awareness, resources, and the government’s facilitation roles related challenges faced in implementing UIP in the country.

1.7 Limitations of the Study

Full representation is always unrealistic in any research, the selection of five universities out of the 21 universities established before 2010 in the country indicated the limitations with regard to sample representation. Besides, in this study, the participation of females in general was below the expectation. This affected the consideration given to gender sensitivity as among the cross-cutting issues in research activities.

Uack of adequate empirical evidence on the practice of UIP in Ethiopia affected the finding of the study. To narrow such gaps, the researcher employed a sequential exploratory mixed approach and collected the qualitative data first to have adequate information about the general picture, pattern, and nature of the phenomenon. The absence of some recorded evidences in universities on partnership related issues limited the quality of the findings of the study; nevertheless, efforts were made to fill the gap by cross checking the responses of interviews and the reports of the FGDs obtained from universities and industries. Finally, by filling the gaps emerged using the strategies which have been discussed so far, the study tried to identify areas of attention with regard to UIP practice and came up with some recommendations that could help to curb the problems in the area and thereby improve the practices of UIP in Ethiopia.

1.8 Definitions of Key Terms

The following terms are defined according to their use in this study.

Higher Education: as per article 2.8 of the higher education proclamation No. 650/2009 of Ethiopia, it pertains to “the education in the Science and Arts offered to undergraduates and graduate students who attend degree programs through any of the regular, continuing or distance programs that conduct research, and render community service” (FDRE, 2009). In the context of this study, it refers to the education being provided at the undergraduate level of the regular programs in universities.

University: as per article 11.1 of the higher education proclamation No. 650/2009 of Ethiopia, it is “an institution which has a minimum enrolment capacity of 2,000 students in regular undergraduate and graduate programs in at least three academic units larger than departments, or that has minimum enrolment capacity of 2,000 students in regular undergraduate programs in at least four academic units larger than departments” (FDRE, 2009). In this study, the terms higher education institution and university will be used interchangeably.

Industry: It refers to public or private organization whether small, medium or large scale that covers all commercial companies or enterprises where goods and services are produced to serve the society. In the context of this study, it is used interchangeably with the term factory or firm or enterprise, and it refers to large scale public and private organizations where goods are produced and services are provided.

Large Scale Industries: In Ethiopia, there is lack of uniform definition on the classification of industries in to levels. The Ministry of Industry (Mol) uses capital investment to define the levels of industries and classifies as: micro enterprises with capital not exceeding Birr 20,000; small enterprises with capital of above Birr 20,000 and not exceeding Birr 500,000; and medium and large scale ones with capital more than Birr 500,000 (Mol, 2010/11). On the other hand, the Central Statistical Agency (CSA) categorizes enterprises with less than ten employees as small scale and enterprises with 10 employees or more are grossly considered as medium and large enterprises (CSA, 2010). This creates great diversion with the definition given in countries like U.S.A. However, for the purpose of this study, it is assumed to take large scale industries with more than 100 employees.

Partnership: The term partnership refers to collaboration, interaction or joint work of two or more organizations. Most of the time, it is used interchangeably with the term linkage. University-Industry Partnership: is the joint work of universities and industries in areas of technology transfer, provision of consultancy services, conducting contract and joint research works, and students’ practical attachments in industries to advance their shared interests.

Forms and models of University-Industry Partnership: In the context of this study, form refers to the different types or areas of the partnerships, whereas model refers to the different approaches the partners (universities, industries & the government) interact together in implementing the partnership.

Engineering: is a business, government, academic or individual efforts in which knowledge of mathematical and/or natural sciences is employed in research, development, design, manufacturing or technical operations with the objective of creating and/or delivering system products, processes, and/or services of a technical nature and content intended for use (National Academy of Engineering [NAE],1985). In the context of this study, it refers to disciplines of technical fields such as electrical, mechanical and civil engineering.

Engineering Education: is a field of study that deals with the production of engineering graduates in technical areas such as Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, etc., and other related fields.

Internship: In the context of this study, internship is the opportunity to integrate career related experiences into engineering education of the undergraduate program where students participate in the planned and supervised work in an industry. It refers to the process through which engineering students are exposed to practical attachments in industries to improve their skills.

Technology Transfer: The term technology transfer usually means the process of taking invention which is new technical skill, that is concepts, descriptions, components, processes or products from one geographic area, one discipline, or one sector of economy where it is already established and exercised to another where it is unknown with the aim of nation’s development in general and that of the institution in particular (Melkers 1995 in Esham, 2008; Stapletom 1990; Educational Encyclopaedia, 1981). In the context of this study, it refers to the activities that are carried out in the partnership/s geared towards the transfer of know-how and research results, and the successful utilization of technological resources (knowledge, expertise, facilities and actual technological developments) from universities to industries. Incubator: According to this study, an incubator is a space which the university provides for a new business venture to lodge, and supports it with necessary tools, and resources it needs to introduce creative works of the universities (new & update technologies) in the form of commercialization.

Science Park: In the context of this study, Science Park refers to a property-based initiative established by an industry with the aim of getting support of new and up to date technologies and business skills from universities’ staff. It is used interchangeably with terms such as research park, technology park, business park or innovation centre

1.9 Organization of the Study

This research document is structured into five chapters. Chapter one consists of background of the study, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, significance of the study, delimitations of the study, limitations of the study, operational definition of basic terms, and organization of the study. Chapter two comprises the review of the related literature. Chapter three presents research method, sources of data, samples and sampling techniques, data gathering tools and standardization, data collection procedures, and methods of data analysis. Chapter four, deals with data presentation, analysis and interpretation. Chapter five embraces summary of major findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents the theoretical framework and the empirical evidences on UIPs with the purpose of identifying what has been done and what needs to be done in the area. The literature mainly focuses on the partnership between universities providing training in engineering education and industries. In doing so, it treats knowledge-based economy and its impact on development, the evolution and nature of UIPs, policies for UIPs, and management and organizational setup of UIPs. It also presents the benefits and challenges of UIP, the experiences of some countries in UIPs, and finally, it discusses engineering education and UIPs in Ethiopia.

2.1 Knowledge-Based Economy and Its Impact on Development

In today’s world of knowledge, learning, and innovation have become strategically important factors to foster competitiveness and economic growth of countries. Knowledge acquired through learning and innovation and its spill over to production are the determinants of competitiveness and economic growth (Grossman & Helpman, 1994, & Römer, 1994 in Göktepe, 2004).

The term “knowledge-based economy” is associated with the recognition of the role of knowledge in economic growth, and represents the idea that the economy is being driven by innovation and technological changes which originate from HEIs (Brinkley, 2006; OECD, 1996; Winters, Doddo, & Harrison, 2007). In the context of this study, it pertains to the idea that the production of knowledge by the academia, its distribution or transfer from academia to industries and its use by the industries for the purpose of economic growth in order to help industries cope with the dynamically changing globalization on regular basis.

The importance of knowledge for economic development has been emphasized in a number of literatures. In the context of technological advancement, the importance of knowledge as a competitive weapon has increased dramatically, and that ‘knowledge capital’ is becoming increasingly important to economic production (Dierdonck, Debackere, & Engelen, 1990). Moreover, the developments of high value-added products and services very much rely on knowledge and innovation (Mongkhonvanit, 2008).

As indicated above, knowledge is a key to bring about economic development. However, one can still argue about the kind of knowledge needed to enhance economic development. In this regard, Schwartzman (2002) stated that the kind of knowledge modem societies actually require from their citizens could be distinguished between two sets of skills that are imparted in HEIs: those that are primarily "technical" in nature (careers such as engineering, computer science, and the like), and others that are more "general" (involving the ability to think independently, work in teams, be creative, and solve problems). Moreover, the kind of knowledge needed in this respect should ensure quality.

The quality of knowledge generated within HEIs, and its accessibility to the wider economy is becoming increasingly critical. The quality, quantity and diversity of universities, other education institutes, and research and development activities determine to a large extent the starting position of a country in the knowledge economy (Winden & Berg, 2004 in Winters et al., 2007). Moreover, if a country is to be successful in developing the whole set of requisites needed to participate in the modem knowledge-based society, then an extended and quality-based higher education is a crucial component of this whole (Schwartzman,2002).

In the present knowledge-based competition, higher education plays a crucial role in helping to boost innovation, productivity, competitiveness, and thereby mitigating poverty and accelerating economic growth (Ozsoy, 2008; Bloom et al., 2006).The role of higher education as a major driver of economic development is well established. It has the knowledge and research capacity necessary to help achieve the above goals, and its role increases as rapid changes in technology, globalization, and demography emerge and impact a given nation (Chakrabarti, 2002; Schwartzman, 2002).

Particularly, education in science and engineering has contributed much to the economic development of a nation. HEIs can contribute to economic growth by producing skilled personnel, especially in science and engineering; they can also produce, store and disseminate research results, which form the basis for industries; and more particularly, as their third role they can directly contribute to economic growth through technology transfer by facilitating partnerships among institutions, government and industries (Porter, 2007; Walsh et al., 2008). Moreover, higher education in general and higher science and engineering education in particular is the engine of development (Ayalew et al, 2009; Ozsoy, 2008). Furthermore, there is a positive correlation between university level education in mathematics, science, and engineering and improved economic performance (Bloom et al., 2006).

To this effect, since a competitive economy can only be based on a well-educated population as well as a dynamic research and development sector, the two components of knowledge: human capital and the technology which are the products of higher education, have become central to economic development of a nation (Macerinskiene & Vaiksnoraite,2006). In other words, in knowledge based-economy, higher education can help trainees to be more aware of new technologies and be in a better position to use them. This in turn creates technologically advanced societies which can play their roles in economic development.

Realizing the decisive roles HEIs can play in knowledge-based economy, firms have started to look for linkages with universities to promote interactive learning and relationships and provide complementary assets. These relationships help the firms reduce the costs and risks associated with innovation, gain access to new research findings, obtain key technological components, and share assets/knowledge in manufacturing, marketing and distribution (Mongkhonvanit, 2008).

Research represents a key component of ‘knowledge-based economy’ approach and the role of universities is particularly important as actors in research, education and training as well as in innovation and economic development at the national and regional levels. Knowledge economy identifies the entrepreneurial role of universities in knowledge generation, application and dissemination, and thus, it is recognized that the links and synergies between universities and the local society (e.g. Industry, Chambers of Commerce, and Local Government) should be enhanced (European Commission [EC], 2005 in Winters et al., 2007; Macerinskiene & Vaiksnoraite, 2006).

All these can be realized when the understanding of the dimensions of the knowledge- based economy is taken critically. This is because, the utilization of knowledge can have a significant impact on the modernization of existing industries through technology adaption, the creation and diversification of existing industries into new economic sectors. Moreover, creating knowledge sharing culture, developing policy to facilitate knowledge transfer, and building partnerships for acquiring knowledge are among the key practices of knowledge management (OECD, 1996 in Mongkhonvanit, 2008).

It follows that in the knowledge based- economy the economic competitiveness of a country does not necessarily depend on vast natural resources, a large population and physical capital, although having these assets and resources is certainly beneficial. It is the quality of human capital and the ability of a nation to generate innovations and effectively exploit new ideas and inventions on the global market that are critical for a country’s economic growth. In putting these into effect, universities are expected to play strategic roles. Supporting this, Yam (1996) in Mongkhonvanit (2008) suggested that universities need to respond to the challenges of the knowledge era by strengthening their roles in the areas of knowledge dissemination, creation, and application for undergraduate and postgraduate studies, and research works. On top of these, universities have to expose students to a broader range of skills in order to prepare them for work places that need a multi-disciplinary and a systematic approach in problem-solving.

Therefore, universities are now part of the whole value generating chain of the economy, and it is time to strengthen their roles as engines of innovation and entrepreneurship. Among others, the two indicators of their success are their capability to nurture graduates who can create their own jobs without merely relying on fill-job vacancies created by different organizations, and the roles they play in making industries competitive by providing up-to-date technologies. These all call for universities to create and strengthen partnerships with industries to speed up the move to a knowledge economy.

However, changes in the economic and policy environments in general, and in the essence of the innovation system have placed new demands and stresses on a university in executing its key roles. These changes impacting on the university system are characterized by three trends: the strength of government funding and economic policy to academic research; the development of more long term partnerships between industries and the universities; and the increase of direct participation of universities in commercializing research (Etkowitz &Webster, 1998, as cited in Mongkhonvanit, 2008).

Experiences depicted that in developing countries there is shortage of government funding for higher education to keep up with student population (UNESCO, 2005). The case of Ethiopia is no exception. Then the ability of universities to commercialize research products, and the contribution and sustainability of UIP comes to be under question. Moreover, with the situation where there is no clear information on the status of UIP in the country, treating the role of knowledge based-economy and its impact on development with respect to the Ethiopian situation calls for assessing the practices of UIP as its priority activity.

2.2 Universitie-Industry Partnership: Evolution and Nature

This section presents the historical perspectives, and forms and models of university-industry partnerships.

2.2.1 University-Industry Partnerships: Historical Perspectives

The history of UIP could be connected with the emergence of universities and industries. Even though there have existed informal partnerships between universities and industries in different countries of the world through conducting researches, training students and up-grading employees’ skills through training, its emergence in an institutionalized form is a recent phenomenon (Koech,1995). The difference between the informal partnerships that existed in the earlier times or that are observed at present, and the formal partnership which is in the institutionalized form is only a change in the basis, purposes, and extent of their partnership overtime (Crespo, 1990; Mathews &Norgard, 1984).

Bertrams (2007) depicted that the development of UIPs could be viewed from two dichotomies: the traditional and modem approaches. In the case of the traditional approach, university scientists carryout research works and consultancy services for industries at individual level while in the latter case the partnerships originate at all institutional levels with the participation of individuals, groups, staff, and students in an organized and planned form on multi-disciplinary and on-going basis with diverse national and international industrial partners. Supporting this, Barluenga (2010:8) has the following to say:

The relations being made based on individual efforts focusing on specific fields which are also spontaneous and sporadic and that are made mainly with local industries could be seen as traditional approaches. However, the growing privatization of higher education, privatization of public enterprises, the declining of public resources for higher education, the need to complement staff salaries, the need to obtain research grants from the industry, the establishment of modern sectors of enterprises mainly in technical fields, improvement of the quality of research and scientific work within the industry itself, and internationalization of research and cooperation have called for modern type of relation between universities and industries which is said to be the current approach.

From the above reports it could be summarized that UIP exists in two types: informal and formal. The informal partnership is carried out at individual level where university professionals create work collaboration with industries individually, while the formal partnership refers to its establishment at institutional level. Moreover, in the formal type relation, when UIP at institutional level plays the role of improving the quality of products in industries and solving the financial problems of HEIs, then such a partnership is said to be as of a modem approach. However, what should be noted here is that, when a university and an industry work in collaboration formally, we could also see some informal relations within the same university and industry where, the current experience in Ethiopia can witness such a fact.

Historically, as its modem paradigm, UIP was initiated in Germany with the aim of developing their country’s economy, while in the case of USA it was started because of the Russian advancement in space science and its successful launching of the ‘Sputnik’ in 1957 and also due to economic competitiveness of Japan and other western industrialized countries (Collins and Tillman IV, 1988; Matthews & Norgard, 1984). In the case of Japan, high emphasis was given to UIP due to the failure of the country’s industries to compete with those of the United States and due to the new threats posed by the rapidly industrializing countries like Korea and China (Collins and Tillman IV, 1988). This modem paradigm incorporated three evolutionary stages consecutively: negative attitude of university professionals to industrial purposes, the launching of industry-sponsored research groups to formalize the previous unorganized forms of relationships, and the development of in-house research laboratories staffed with university trained professionals (Bertrams, 2007).

As a result of these developments, particularly in the last three decades, UIP has attracted attention as source of inspiration for regeneration of industrial innovation (UNESCO, 2005). It has become very prominent on the agenda of higher education policy-making, at both national and institutional levels. Within the context of knowledge intensive economies, governments are increasingly becoming aware of the importance of HEIs as strategic actors in both national and regional economic development, given their potential to upgrade skills and knowledge of the labour force and contribute towards producing and processing innovation through technology transfer (UNESCO, 2005). In this regard, governments of many countries tend to allocate funds more selectively, considering more definite purposes and specific outcomes. As part of this trend, more and more countries are providing incentive schemes such as matching funds, seed money or tax exemptions for the development of UIPs, both in teaching and research. Tax exemption in Nigeria, Okojie (2007); tax deductions in Japan and China, and allocation of high share of research fund by the government in Japan, Nezu et al. (2007) are cited as few examples.

Given the potential of such partnerships to generate new forms of funding, which in some cases can be considerable, HEIs initiated to document their experiences and innovative practices in the management of interfaces, finances, personnel, and intellectual property rights when implementing partnership programs with industries. Whatever abundant and convincing the sociological evidences might be, it remains necessary to point out that the double process of organizational and structural academic changes in enhancing UIP have not emerged in the last decades (Bertrams, 2007).

From the above discussion it could be said that, though UIPs have existed in an informal way long before, its emergence in a formalized and institutionalized way is a recent phenomenon. Its evolution could be explained consecutively in terms of the emergence of the research-oriented university, the cooperative research, the managerial shift of university, and the establishment of policies to strengthen the UIPs. In view of this, one can say that these stages of development are still observable. Similarly, the traditional approach is still being exercised in most countries of the world.

[...]